[Tr1ggsy]

Hi,

Please let me make 2 statements, 1) I'm not a flat earther 2) I'm not here to Troll, just curious to find out if anyone has answers to a few questions.

1) In FE theory what is on the bottom of the disk?
2) Hypothetically if I dug straight down using the sun's location at specific times of the day to ensure its straight, lasers etc what would happen? Would I fall out of the bottom eventually?
3) if models that use a dome are true couldn't someone leave Truman style?
4) if FE is true, scrap looking at a 6 mile canal why can't I stand on the shore of England and see Ireland (specifically Stand on the beach at Blackpool and look at Dublin 135 miles approximately) or Lisbon looking towards New York with a large telescope and see them?

[totallackey]

Hi,

Please let me make 2 statements, 1) I'm not a flat earther 2) I'm not here to Troll, just curious to find out if anyone has answers to a few questions.

1) In FE theory what is on the bottom of the disk?
2) Hypothetically if I dug straight down using the sun's location at specific times of the day to ensure its straight, lasers etc what would happen? Would I fall out of the bottom eventually?
3) if models that use a dome are true couldn't someone leave Truman style?
4) if FE is true, scrap looking at a 6 mile canal why can't I stand on the shore of England and see Ireland (specifically Stand on the beach at Blackpool and look at Dublin 135 miles approximately) or Lisbon looking towards New York with a large telescope and see them?

In regard to #4, the absolute limit on range of vision, regardless of shape of the Earth, is approximately 350 kilometers.

This does not take into account the dust, debris, and other atmoplanic obstructions one could expectfor ground level sightings.

[Zonk]

Hi,

Please let me make 2 statements, 1) I'm not a flat earther 2) I'm not here to Troll, just curious to find out if anyone has answers to a few questions.

1) In FE theory what is on the bottom of the disk?
2) Hypothetically if I dug straight down using the sun's location at specific times of the day to ensure its straight, lasers etc what would happen? Would I fall out of the bottom eventually?
3) if models that use a dome are true couldn't someone leave Truman style?
4) if FE is true, scrap looking at a 6 mile canal why can't I stand on the shore of England and see Ireland (specifically Stand on the beach at Blackpool and look at Dublin 135 miles approximately) or Lisbon looking towards New York with a large telescope and see them?

In regard to #4, the absolute limit on range of vision, regardless of shape of the Earth, is approximately 350 kilometers.

This does not take into account the dust, debris, and other atmoplanic obstructions one could expectfor ground level sightings.

1:  Telescopes increase that range greatly
2:  Lights at night can be seen from a considerably further distance
3:  Surely, at some place on earth at some point in time, the atmospheric conditions will be ideal. 

NYC puts out a hell of a lot of light.  Imagine the fame and fortune that awaits one who patiently seeks the lighted NYC skyline from far away across the ocean and hits on the perfect night to strike gold. 

Hell, it doesn't have to be NYC from Europe.  How about Miami from Bimini in the Bahamas?  That's only 50 miles away.  Miami at night is lit up like a Christmas tree.  I've been to Bimini.  At night, looking west, you can just make out a dull glow coming from below the horizon.  For less than $1,000, you could go to Bimini, set up a telescope, and record the nighttime Miami skyline in great detail, and the (flat) world will be yours. 

I wonder why no one has ever done that yet? 

[Tr1ggsy]

A couple of other questions just came to mind:

5) how do FE models work with regards to what I will call "naturally spinning objects". These are toilet flushes, cyclones and tornadoes and trees. I am aware trees do not spin or pirouette but if you look closely at most large trees they all tend to have a twist in them. These twists, spins or whatever you want to call them in relation to what they are differ depending on what hemisphere you are in (I'm a not a flat earther so I will call it hemisphere due to ignorance in not knowing the FE terminology)
6) long range projectiles. I am ex-military and I know a few guys who completed their sniper course, these guys could hit targets way in excess of a mile and had to take into account the rotation of the earth. I know some FE models say this doesn't happen so how can the shooters adjustments due to many factors including the rotation of the earth be dismissed?

350km is a lot further than Blackpool to Ireland but even the Isle of Man isn't visible from land which is much closer still. If you can see planets (wether you believe these are planets in the traditional sense or part of a dome projection) vast distances using a telescope then dust particles etc shouldn't make too much of a difference if you choose a clear day, by clear I mean clear all the way from point a to point B and beyond.

Like I said originally I'm not trolling I just really like to find out other people's views on things and pride myself on being very open to new ideas etc. I know what I believe and I've yet to find anything that proves to me the earth is flat. I have seen planes fly south and tracked them on tracking websites etc that usually get thrown about. I know engineers who have worked on structures needing to take into account the earth rotation and curvature so I see this as enough evidence for me without building my own rocket and firing off into space

[iamcpc]

1) In FE theory what is on the bottom of the disk?

There are literally a dozen or more flat earth models with many different answers so i'll just give you some:

1. No one knows.
2. Space
3. Firmament (whatever that is)
4. Whatever material the dome is made of
5. Heaven
6. The earth is infinite you can't dig through the bottom.
7. The earth has a molten core that you can't dig through

2) Hypothetically if I dug straight down using the sun's location at specific times of the day to ensure its straight, lasers etc what would happen? Would I fall out of the bottom eventually?

1. No one knows.
2. You would dig through the bottom of the earth and you would hit Space
3. You would dig through the bottom of the earth and you would hit the Firmament (whatever that is)
4. You would dig through the bottom of the earth and you would hit whatever material the dome is made of
5. You would dig through the bottom of the earth and you would hit Heaven
6. The earth is infinite you can't dig through the bottom.
7. The earth has a molten core that you can't dig through

3) if models that use a dome are true couldn't someone leave Truman style?

1. yes
2. No because there is a firmament
3. no because humans can't survive in space
4. no because the earth is infinite
5. no because you can't walk into heaven

4) if FE is true, scrap looking at a 6 mile canal why can't I stand on the shore of England and see Ireland (specifically Stand on the beach at Blackpool and look at Dublin 135 miles approximately) or Lisbon looking towards New York with a large telescope and see them?

There is a limit to how far light can travel in the atmosphere.

[Zonk]

There is a limit to how far light can travel in the atmosphere.

a:  There really isn't. Not at the distances we are talking about anyway.

b:  When I was a military pilot flying at night at 39,000 feet, I could see city lights from hundreds of miles away. Lights that no one on the ground below me could see.  Over Omaha, I could clearly see Kansas City, Wichita, KS, Oklahoma City, and even a large glowing haze from below the horizon that was Dallas-Ft. Worth. 

c:  Any response to my post above?  One does not need to be in a military jet at 39,000 feet.  Go to Bimini and look west at night.  You can see the lights from Miami lighting up the sky at and above the horizon.  Clearly that light can travel 50 miles, because you can see it.  What you can't see, even with the most powerful telescope, are the individual buildings generating that light.  All you will see is a closeup of what you see with the naked eye: an indistinct orange glow at the horizon.

edit:  You don't even have to go to such an exotic location as the Bahamas.  Go to the shore of Lake Ontario in western NY and look to the Northwest towards Toronto.  Or look across Lake Michigan from southern Michigan towards Chicago.  You will get the same effect.

[Tom Bishop]

Q. For iampc: Why is heaven below the earth?

[newhorizons]

So given all the variety of these different flat Earth models (it might be this, it might be that or it could be the other), it seems the only consistent aspect of FET then it that it is full of speculation (to put it politely) and totally devoid of any substance. As someone (AATW I think it was) put it in another thread,  where is the evidence for all this speculation?

[iamcpc]

Q. For iampc: Why is heaven below the earth?

well there are a lot of images showing visualizations of this and no two are the same


Source:
https://blog.logos.com/2017/03/visualize-bible-whole-new-way/



This makes it appear that the foundations of the heavens is below the earth. I don't know how that differs from "the heavens" or if "the heavens" represents actual heaven or something like the sky or space.


Source:
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/flat-earth-theory-fact-or-fiction.htm



This one suggest that an abyss is below the earth. Is that space? Is that some part of heaven? I'm not sure.



Source:
https://sharedveracity.net/2018/11/17/the-flat-footed-failure-of-flat-earth-christianity/



This one has "The great deep" under the earth. Again i'm not sure exactly what this is.



When I try to look at the scripture it's really open for personal intepretation

Philippians 2 Talks about how everyone will kneel for Jesus: In heaven, On earth, and under the earth. This implies that there is not an abyss under the earth but instead people or souls under the earth. Some people believe this is more of a metaphor. These verses don't specifically name the area under the earth but instead imply there are people there.

Even then is this area under the earth physical or spiritual like heaven is. The biblical flat earth models, more than any others, are based on faith and personal interpretation. If you ever go to a bible study group and, among 10 people, there are 6 different opinions about a specific verse each person can have their own personal takeaway.





"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth"


This is mentioned again in Revelation 5:3:

"But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it."


There are several verses which imply that the earth is set on some sort of foundation too.

[newhorizons]

For 2000 years ago all this is entirely plausible and based on how people of that time could well have interpreted the world and the heavens.  It is fascinating but I'm sure (I hope) that people know better now that such models or visions are no longer considered a representation of reality.

[iamcpc]

So given all the variety of these different flat Earth models (it might be this, it might be that or it could be the other), it seems the only consistent aspect of FET then it that it is full of speculation (to put it politely) and totally devoid of any substance. As someone (AATW I think it was) put it in another thread,  where is the evidence for all this speculation?

The evidence is all over these forums. Certain FE models have certain evidence and can explain most things very well while struggling to explain other things. This is why i'm of the impression that, if the Earth truly is flat, the model that it would be is not anyone that I've seen before. The FE model that makes the most sense to me is not very popular here.

[totallackey]

Hi,

Please let me make 2 statements, 1) I'm not a flat earther 2) I'm not here to Troll, just curious to find out if anyone has answers to a few questions.

1) In FE theory what is on the bottom of the disk?
2) Hypothetically if I dug straight down using the sun's location at specific times of the day to ensure its straight, lasers etc what would happen? Would I fall out of the bottom eventually?
3) if models that use a dome are true couldn't someone leave Truman style?
4) if FE is true, scrap looking at a 6 mile canal why can't I stand on the shore of England and see Ireland (specifically Stand on the beach at Blackpool and look at Dublin 135 miles approximately) or Lisbon looking towards New York with a large telescope and see them?

In regard to #4, the absolute limit on range of vision, regardless of shape of the Earth, is approximately 350 kilometers.

This does not take into account the dust, debris, and other atmoplanic obstructions one could expect for ground level sightings.

1:  Telescopes increase that range greatly

I agree.

I also point out instances of things being viewed at much greater distances than mathematically possible on a sphere the size of the earth.

2:  Lights at night can be seen from a considerably further distance

Like lighthouses.

3:  Surely, at some place on earth at some point in time, the atmospheric conditions will be ideal.

For the entire distance between observer and object?

I doubt it, but perhaps you have such an unlikely instance to offer.

NYC puts out a hell of a lot of light.  Imagine the fame and fortune that awaits one who patiently seeks the lighted NYC skyline from far away across the ocean and hits on the perfect night to strike gold.

As stated earlier, that would require a nearly 3000 mile line of unabated sight.

Hell, it doesn't have to be NYC from Europe.  How about Miami from Bimini in the Bahamas?  That's only 50 miles away.  Miami at night is lit up like a Christmas tree.  I've been to Bimini.  At night, looking west, you can just make out a dull glow coming from below the horizon.  For less than $1,000, you could go to Bimini, set up a telescope, and record the nighttime Miami skyline in great detail, and the (flat) world will be yours.

Chicago has been videotaped from St. Joseph, Michigan, at a distance of over 60 miles. I believe the man's name was Jason Nowicki. I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles. 

I wonder why no one has ever done that yet?

You will need to ask them.

[totallackey]

A couple of other questions just came to mind:

5) how do FE models work with regards to what I will call "naturally spinning objects". These are toilet flushes, cyclones and tornadoes and trees. I am aware trees do not spin or pirouette but if you look closely at most large trees they all tend to have a twist in them. These twists, spins or whatever you want to call them in relation to what they are differ depending on what hemisphere you are in (I'm a not a flat earther so I will call it hemisphere due to ignorance in not knowing the FE terminology)

No, they don't.

6) long range projectiles. I am ex-military and I know a few guys who completed their sniper course, these guys could hit targets way in excess of a mile and had to take into account the rotation of the earth. I know some FE models say this doesn't happen so how can the shooters adjustments due to many factors including the rotation of the earth be dismissed?

No, they didn't.

350km is a lot further than Blackpool to Ireland but even the Isle of Man isn't visible from land which is much closer still. If you can see planets (wether you believe these are planets in the traditional sense or part of a dome projection) vast distances using a telescope then dust particles etc shouldn't make too much of a difference if you choose a clear day, by clear I mean clear all the way from point a to point B and beyond.

Please explore the subject of visual acuity in more detail.

Like I said originally I'm not trolling I just really like to find out other people's views on things and pride myself on being very open to new ideas etc. I know what I believe and I've yet to find anything that proves to me the earth is flat. I have seen planes fly south and tracked them on tracking websites etc that usually get thrown about. I know engineers who have worked on structures needing to take into account the earth rotation and curvature so I see this as enough evidence for me without building my own rocket and firing off into space

Many people like to bandy about the claim that engineers build things, taking into account the supposed curvature of the earth; when in fact, none of it is supported by the actual math. It is just a statement.

[Zonk]

Chicago has been videotaped from St. Joseph, Michigan, at a distance of over 60 miles. I believe the man's name was Jason Nowicki. I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles. 
Quote from: Zonk on July 30, 2019, 01:53:47 PM

Mirage

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

As for seeing Chicago from Michigan City, of course you can see a few of the tallest towers, the tops of them anyway.  Similarly, you can see the front range of the Rockies well before you can see Denver.  Doesn't mean the earth is flat.  In fact, it's strong evidence of curvature.

[totallackey]

Chicago has been videotaped from St. Joseph, Michigan, at a distance of over 60 miles. I believe the man's name was Jason Nowicki. I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles. 
Quote from: Zonk on July 30, 2019, 01:53:47 PM

Mirage

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

As for seeing Chicago from Michigan City, of course you can see a few of the tallest towers, the tops of them anyway.  Similarly, you can see the front range of the Rockies well before you can see Denver.  Doesn't mean the earth is flat.  In fact, it's strong evidence of curvature.

Ah yes, the good ole mirage explanation.

The fall back position when conditions such as you propose (clarity when possible) allow for the sightings.

Actually, the sightings are strong evidence of flatness, as is Kansas.

[ChrisTP]

Chicago has been videotaped from St. Joseph, Michigan, at a distance of over 60 miles. I believe the man's name was Jason Nowicki. I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles. 
Quote from: Zonk on July 30, 2019, 01:53:47 PM

Mirage

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

As for seeing Chicago from Michigan City, of course you can see a few of the tallest towers, the tops of them anyway.  Similarly, you can see the front range of the Rockies well before you can see Denver.  Doesn't mean the earth is flat.  In fact, it's strong evidence of curvature.

Ah yes, the good ole mirage explanation.

The fall back position when conditions such as you propose (clarity when possible) allow for the sightings.

Actually, the sightings are strong evidence of flatness, as is Kansas.

Flat earth also requires some oddly bendly light to explain direction of  the sunlight and the positions of the stars in the sky on the northern and southern hemisphere.

flat earther or not you know full well mirages exist so you can't simply dismiss explanations based on this then expect anyone to take it seriously when the claim is made for flat earth too, this is hugely double standards.

Flat earther: how do you explain how I saw city X from X miles away if the earth is curved?
Other guy: bendy light.

Other guy: how do you explain the position of the sun in the south during summer on a flat earth?
Flat earther: bendy light.

Yea... that you can see a city from a bit further away isn't proof of a flat earth just like the claim that ships sinking bottom first isn't proof of a round earth according to flat earthers. Mirages happen and the dispute is what is a mirage, what isn't and why. Saying it's not a mirage 'cause urf flt!' is a waste of your time. Explain to us how seeing a city from a bit further away than normal isn't a mirage and how you worked it out.

While you're at it can you also explain why the Antarctica has a 24 hour sun during summer on a flat earth or why ships sink bottom first into the distance without any kind of mirage or bendy light of any kind? If not, then you cannot dismiss it for round earth explanations either IMO. Both flat earth and spheroid earth explanations require it.

[totallackey]

Chicago has been videotaped from St. Joseph, Michigan, at a distance of over 60 miles. I believe the man's name was Jason Nowicki. I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles. 
Quote from: Zonk on July 30, 2019, 01:53:47 PM

Mirage

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

As for seeing Chicago from Michigan City, of course you can see a few of the tallest towers, the tops of them anyway.  Similarly, you can see the front range of the Rockies well before you can see Denver.  Doesn't mean the earth is flat.  In fact, it's strong evidence of curvature.

Ah yes, the good ole mirage explanation.

The fall back position when conditions such as you propose (clarity when possible) allow for the sightings.

Actually, the sightings are strong evidence of flatness, as is Kansas.

Flat earth also requires some oddly bendly light to explain direction of  the sunlight and the positions of the stars in the sky on the northern and southern hemisphere.

Actually, this another statement made by RE adherents that is demonstrably false.

People who cannot mentally accept the premise of FE purporting the ability to describe in great detail how things would appear in just such an environment.

flat earther or not you know full well mirages exist so you can't simply dismiss explanations based on this then expect anyone to take it seriously when the claim is made for flat earth too, this is hugely double standards.

It is not a double standard.

I do know mirages exist.

The reason they are called mirages is simple.

It is an appearance of an image of something that does not exist at the location perceived.

Here, the image of Chicago appeared exactly where it is located, so no...not a mirage.

Flat earther: how do you explain how I saw city X from X miles away if the earth is curved?
Other guy: bendy light.

Other guy: how do you explain the position of the sun in the south during summer on a flat earth?
Flat earther: bendy light.

Yea... that you can see a city from a bit further away isn't proof of a flat earth just like the claim that ships sinking bottom first isn't proof of a round earth according to flat earthers. Mirages happen and the dispute is what is a mirage, what isn't and why. Saying it's not a mirage 'cause urf flt!' is a waste of your time. Explain to us how seeing a city from a bit further away than normal isn't a mirage and how you worked it out.

While you're at it can you also explain why the Antarctica has a 24 hour sun during summer on a flat earth or why ships sink bottom first into the distance without any kind of mirage or bendy light of any kind? If not, then you cannot dismiss it for round earth explanations either IMO. Both flat earth and spheroid earth explanations require it.

I would explain why Antarctica has a 24 hour sun, except you have yet to explain that it does in fact have a 24 hour sun, or that such a place even exists on the flat earth plain.

[AATW]

Actually, the sightings are strong evidence of flatness, as is Kansas.

But you can only see the top of those buildings in that picture of Chicago. If the earth is flat, where's the rest?

There are atmospheric conditions which make predicting exactly how much of objects one can see from a certain distance complicated.
In a model of a spherical earth with no atmosphere we can calculate what we should see from certain distances. But we don't live on a perfectly spherical earth and we do have an atmosphere which can cause complicated optical effects. But on a flat earth looking over water so long as you're above the height of the waves, this is what you should see



Less than the wave height should be obscured. In the Bishop experiment he claims to be able to see the distant beach "all the way down to the shoreline". Now that WOULD be evidence of flatness although no evidence of that result has been produced aside from Tom just saying that's what he saw - evidence he does not accept from someone like an astronaut who talks about what they saw from space.

If the earth is flat why can't you see the rest of the buildings? What are they hidden behind if it's not the curve of the earth?

[totallackey]

Actually, the sightings are strong evidence of flatness, as is Kansas.

But you can only see the top of those buildings in that picture of Chicago. If the earth is flat, where's the rest?

There are atmospheric conditions which make predicting exactly how much of objects one can see from a certain distance complicated.
In a model of a spherical earth with no atmosphere we can calculate what we should see from certain distances. But we don't live on a perfectly spherical earth and we do have an atmosphere which can cause complicated optical effects. But on a flat earth looking over water so long as you're above the height of the waves, this is what you should see



Less than the wave height should be obscured. In the Bishop experiment he claims to be able to see the distant beach "all the way down to the shoreline". Now that WOULD be evidence of flatness although no evidence of that result has been produced aside from Tom just saying that's what he saw - evidence he does not accept from someone like an astronaut who talks about what they saw from space.

If the earth is flat why can't you see the rest of the buildings? What are they hidden behind if it's not the curve of the earth?

I think you need to take another look at the picture from Jason Nowicki.

Much more than just the tops are present...in fact, buildings (tops or otherwise) are visible when they should they not be at all visible.

I am absolutely not familiar with the Bishop experiment so I will not address it.

I am familiar with my own experiences and what I see.

I am also familiar with a thread presented by (I believe) user Bobby Shafto, a RE adherent, having difficulty with experiments performed at what I recall was Monterrey involving a laser (certainly incapable of being described as bendy).

[AATW]

I think you need to take another look at the picture from Jason Nowicki.

OK, here are a few:

Much more than just the tops are present...in fact, buildings (tops or otherwise) are visible when they should they not be at all visible.

Well, it's not just the very top and different photos show different amounts of the buildings, either taken from different locations or, more likely, different atmospheric conditions.
But here's the point. In none of those photos can you see the whole buildings. Why not? What is the rest occluded by if it isn't the curve of the earth?

I am familiar with my own experiences and what I see.

If you have any evidence of your own to present then that's good, I'd be interested to see it.

EDIT: Just to add, the problem I have with your line of reasoning - and you see this a lot from FE people on YouTube - is the argument goes:
"Aha! You shouldn't be able to see any of <mountain/building/etc>, but LOOK! You can see it!"

And, sure enough, they produce a picture of it. And said picture is claimed to be proof that the globe model is bunk. The issue is always the same though. Let's say it's a 1000 foot building which, given the curve calculator, should be completely hidden by the curve of the earth. But you can see the top 200 feet of it. Well yes, there are sometimes atmospheric effects which allow you to see further than a simplified model suggests you should. But...why can you only see 200 feet? Where's the other 800? And why is it that you can only see the 200 feet sometimes. Why is it that sometimes the entire building is hidden, other times you can see 100 feet, sometimes you can see 200. To me this is evidence of atmospheric effects, not flatness. Were the earth flat you should be able to see the whole building. Or, at least, if we're going to allow for the same atmospheric effects you should be able to see it sometimes. Why can you never see all of it? What is the rest hidden behind if it's not the curve of the earth?