Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - bcRoundEarth

Pages: [1]
1
Ah yes, the atmoplane/atmosphere is perfectly clear in both models. That’s why mountains in the distance that are visible one day in RET are somehow now visible. It’s all because of “the fallacy.” Well done.
Then answer my question in this thread please.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7904.0

You made a thread on a different topic to ask someone to answer a question in another thread? Does that make sense to you?

Also, no. It has been covered as nauseam in this community, so do your own research.

My questions were definitely related so I was surprised when you choose to answer one and choose to ignore the other one. I mean...if the answer to my question here was so mind-numbingly simple to a flat earth, then my other question should have been as mind-numbingly simple for you to respond to as well. 

But you didn't...so I find that curious.

2
Ah yes, the atmoplane/atmosphere is perfectly clear in both models. That’s why mountains in the distance that are visible one day in RET are somehow now visible. It’s all because of “the fallacy.” Well done.
Then answer my question in this thread please.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7904.0

3
A common fallacy of Flat Earthers is to say "if the earth is round why does it look flat to me?"  The problem with this fallacy is that they assume that standing on a flat earth would look like what we experience every day. 

But the truth is, if we lived on a flat earth, our horizons would look completely different.  On a flat earth, our horizons would always have some mountain range, hills, or city off in the distance.  For instance, if you were standing anywhere in Kansas (probably the flatest state in the Union), the Rocky Mountains would be visible in the West and the Appalachian Mountains visible in the east. 

To the south we would see Oklohoma City.  It would be small but it would still be visible. 

If we stood at the edge of the ocean, we could see across the ocean to the opposing coastline.  And if we travelled across the ocean, both coastlines would never leave our view. 

That's what our horizons on flat earth would really look like.

4
So in flat earth theory, when something is really far away it just becomes so tiny you can't see it?  Yeah, that's pretty flimsy because on a flat earth, the entirety of the object should be within view the entire time you approach it.  It would start as a small dot and then just get bigger and bigger and bigger.  The bottom of the object would be visible the entire time.

And this is an experiment that all flat earthers can experience for themselves.  Just drive toward any really tall mountain or get in a boat to ride away from the coast for about 30 miles.  The tall structure will rise from the horizon as you approach it.  And this is only possible if the earth is round.

5
Several years ago, I took a cruise from Miami to the Bahamas.  On the return trip, when our boat was about 30 miles away from Miami, the tops of the high rises became visible.  As we got closer, the city would rise up on the horizon until it was fully in view.

I'd like to Flat Earthers to explain how this could happen if the earth was indeed flat. 

If the Earth was truly flat, Miami would have been visible to us as soon as we set sail from Miami.  If there's nothing but a flat ocean surface in between us, then a city that is 181 miles away should be perfectly visible to us across a flat ocean.  And as we approach that city, it should be entirely visible to us as we approached.  The city would not be rising on the horizon as it does on a round earth.

Pages: [1]