[Kangaroony]

What IS certain and a complete dealbreaker for the mainstream paradigm (globe earth, moving earth) is NASA being caught in lies hundreds of times.

Personally, I've never seen any convincing evidence that NASA has been caught lying about its
findings "hundreds" of times.  As there are purportedly so many lies, could you list half a dozen
that you think proves the claim?

And being able to see WAY TO FAR for a globe earth to be our reality.

I'm not sure I understand this;  can you please clarify it?

Also, water seeks its own level. Water doesn't ever bulge anywhere, on a macro OR micro scale. It is always flat and level.

Not so, as is easily observed in a test tube of water.  Nowhere in these two tubes is the
surface of the water "flat".

Spinning balls tend to SHAKE OFF water, not hold it fast.

That's simply because the centrifugal forces on the molecules of water are greater then the
gravitational attraction from the ball, which is minuscule—to effectively non-existent.

And how can "gravity" keep a death grip on millions of tons of water on the bottom of the globe, yet it will let a helium balloon "go", no problem.

The force of gravity that attracts water molecules to the CoG of the Earth, is exactly what
prevents you from flying off into space.  And if you don't understand why a helium-filled balloon
rises, then maybe you should be reading some stuff on a few basic physics site. 
Hint:  a litre of air has a mass of around 1 gram, whilst a litre of helium has a mass of 0.1785g.

Why does gravity SOMETIMES hold things fast like a death grip, and other times cause things
to orbit it? It seems to me, you can't have it both ways.

Gravity does not hold you in a "death grip".  Can you not jump up off the ground?  Have you never
noticed birds easily resisting gravity?  Elevators in buildings resist gravity hundreds of time every day.
And satellites maintain their orbits by balancing two factors: their velocity (the speed it takes to travel
in a straight line) and the gravitational pull that Earth has on them.

Those are some of the most convincing arguments for FE I can think of right now -- but there are others.

Sorry, but no.  None of those things are arguments supporting the flat earth theory.  Rather they're
arguments attempting to discredit round earth theory.  And they're not even good, science-based
arguments of yours; they're simply guesses based on the misinterpretation of what we see around us.

[Action80]

Out of interest, why are you convinced about FE when there is no agreed upon map?

Out of interest, why are you convinced about RE when there is no agreed upon map?

[AATW]

Out of interest, why are you convinced about FE when there is no agreed upon map?

Out of interest, why are you convinced about RE when there is no agreed upon map?

Do you mean there are lots of different projections?
If so then there are indeed different maps which depict the whole earth in different ways.
And that's because the earth isn't flat. So any map of the earth has to project reality - the surface of a (rough) sphere - onto a flat plane. In doing so some accuracy is lost because geometry. So different projections do this in different ways, each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

But were the earth flat there would be no problem. The earth is flat, maps are flat, the only issue is therefore scale. It should be possible to make a map which accurately represents the whole earth, sizes and shapes of land masses should be accurate as should the distances between them and between places in the land masses. No such map exists. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to consider why that might be...

[Action80]

Out of interest, why are you convinced about FE when there is no agreed upon map?

Out of interest, why are you convinced about RE when there is no agreed upon map?

Do you mean there are lots of different projections?

No.

I mean exactly what I wrote.

Do you have an answer or not?

If so then there are indeed different maps which depict the whole earth in different ways.
And that's because the earth isn't flat. So any map of the earth has to project reality - the surface of a (rough) sphere - onto a flat plane. In doing so some accuracy is lost because geometry. So different projections do this in different ways, each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

But were the earth flat there would be no problem. The earth is flat, maps are flat, the only issue is therefore scale. It should be possible to make a map which accurately represents the whole earth, sizes and shapes of land masses should be accurate as should the distances between them and between places in the land masses. No such map exists. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to consider why that might be...

Nice way to state the simplest argument.

You get bullshit when you try to paint reality (i.e., flat earth) in unreal terms (i.e., spherical)

[AATW]

I mean exactly what I wrote.

Do you have an answer or not?

I don't think I understand the question. In what way is there no agreed map of the earth?
By "map" here, I don't mean a flat piece of paper. I mean it in the more general sense that the earth has been mapped - we know the size and shapes of land masses and the distances between places.
In what way do you think any of that is in dispute? We have a whole global transport system and technologies like GPS which rely on this being the case.

[WTF_Seriously]

You get bullshit when you try to paint reality (i.e., flat earth) in unreal terms (i.e., spherical)

Actually, you get bullshit when you try to paint flat earth into real tearms.  This is why there is no agreed upon FE map.  IF the earth were flat, creating a map of said earth would be an incredibly simple task with modern technology.  It actually would have been an incredibly simple task with less than modern technology.

[ichoosereality]

I don't think I understand the question. In what way is there no agreed map of the earth?
By "map" here, I don't mean a flat piece of paper. I mean it in the more general sense that the earth has been mapped - we know the size and shapes of land masses and the distances between places.
In what way do you think any of that is in dispute? We have a whole global transport system and technologies like GPS which rely on this being the case.

I'm pretty sure I know what you meant, but just to make it clear:  GPS itself (the satellite system) does not rely on any exiting maps.  It does rely on the know circular orbits of the transmitting satellites which will only happen with a globe earth.  Given the satellite ID and transmission time received from 4 satellites the receiver computes  the globe based latitude, longitude and altitude of the receiver (irrespective of any map), which when plugged into a map (all conveniently done in the various map apps on one's phone these days) will show your position (within 30 ft or so).  The map in your phone is based on the globe model and GPS verifies it to be correct.  e.g. if I am standing on the edge of San Francisco bay and ask my phone "were am I" it correctly shows me at the edge of the bay.

[Tumeni]

... why are you convinced about RE when there is no agreed upon map?

There is an agreed-upon map.

If there were not, international travellers would be getting lost, every day. The fact that they all get to their destinations, whether by international flight, ocean voyage, by train or by motor vehicle, is the proof the map is agreed.

[Tom Bishop]

You don't need a map to go from one coordinate to the next and to navigate between two points. In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.

[Iceman]

What about the south.

[Tom Bishop]

There is no easily seen Southern Star. To find North-South in the South celestial navigation uses various constellations that have stars in them that tend to be aligned North-South. There are also other methods to determine latitude by the stars without needing a Southern Star.

[RonJ]

You don't need a map to go from one coordinate to the next and to navigate between two points. In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.

Wrong.
 When you are navigating a ship between two ports on the Pacific Ocean, for example, you always want to have an accurate map showing all the relevant land masses and sea mounts or other locations where there may be obstacles to navigation.  At any moment along the way you may be required to change course because of weather, or other factors.  It is always critical that a good voyage plan has been made before leaving the dock, but that plan is subject to change when factors change along the way.  Maps are updated on a regular basis as well.  The fact of the matter is that it would be illegal for a ship or an aircraft to depart without relevant maps showing the areas where they expect to go.  An accurate map is obviously a critical safety factor.   

[Tom Bishop]

No, "navigation" doesn't imply that you are in a ship on the ocean.

[RonJ]

No, "navigation" doesn't imply that you are in a ship on the ocean.

Obviously, you could be on a sailboat, a life raft, or on an airplane.  A nice road map would even be handy if you were driving a car.  ‘Navigation’ implies operating and/or planning a trip on your relevant conveyance, between two, or more, points on the earth.  It’s obvious that to do that job safely and efficiently that you have an accurate map that can be used to determine distances and bearings between any two points on the map. 

[ichoosereality]

...In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.

That may well have been how latitude and longitude emerged, but today you find your position via gps, not looking at constellations.  The distances between at least some places in the southern hemisphere on a flat earth would have to be much further apart than we experience in travel.  How can that be?

And since you brought up the north star.  As you travel south it does not get dimmer but only lower.  As you get to the equator it is near the horizon but still the same brightness.  Then a bit further south and it is quite suddenly no longer visible (drops below the horizon).  FE theory claims its just further away, right?  Why the non-linearity in brightness going bright, bright, ..... bright, gone.  Why can't you see it from the southern hemisphere with a telescope?

oh wait, I forgot, its "bendy light" right?  that aspect of light that can not be precisely stated nor demonstrated in the lab but dominates our observations of the cosmos.  right.  ok, forget that just answer the travel distance question.

[Tom Bishop]

Signal based navigation which gives your coordinates is also based on the stars. Whatever the signal is coming from gets its coordinates from land based stations, which themselves have a known coordinate which was based on a survey of the sky at some point. The LORAN broadcasting towers had to know their own coordinates to be able to provide ships their coordinates via radio wave, which was ultimately derived in the traditional manner from celestial bodies.

The only way to know your latitude is if it was somehow based on the stars or celestial bodies down the line. It doesn't just come from nothing.

Also, the stars get dimmer near the horizon as the atmosphere builds up. The assertion that they don't get dim is incorrect.

https://books.google.com/books?id=pDOsAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA261&ots=Vyjd4uh4kf&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q&f=false

"If we could see a star in the horizon, as easily as in the zenith, a half of the whole number, or 3,000, would be visible on any clear night. But stars near the horizon are seen through so great a thickness of atmosphere as greatly to obscure their light. and only the brightest ones can there be seen. As a result of this obscuration, it is not likely that more than 2,000 stars can ever be taken in at a single view by any ordinary eye."

[AATW]

Also, the stars get dimmer near the horizon as the atmosphere builds up. The assertion that they don't get dim is incorrect.

Right. As the atmosphere builds up and only near the horizon, not because of distance.
On a FE your distance from Polaris should change significantly as you go further south, there should be a constant dimming.
Your explanation for the sun maintaining a consistent angular size and magnitude doesn't work for dim stars (It doesn't work at all by the way, it wouldn't work for a crescent moon and your examples on the Wiki page show images with a lot of glare which invalidates any conclusions you can draw from them).

Coming back to maps, you have conceded that we have the technology to accurately tell you your coordinates. How do you think that technology works if it doesn't have an accurate underlying map of the earth and thus knows where those co-ordinates are and how far they are from other co-ordinates?

[Tom Bishop]

Incorrect. The Sun gets gradually weaker and outputs less intensity as it descends. The sun is not giving out as much energy at 45 degrees than when it is directly overhead. Your assertion that the Sun maintains its output or intensity is fundamentally incorrect.

On Sunlight Intensity:

https://firstrays.com/supplemental-light/

"Natural sunlight intensity starts at zero just before dawn, reaches a peak at noon and then fades back to zero at dusk. As we have shown, that “intensity curve” can be estimated by a triangle."



By the measure of sunlight intensity we find that you are incorrect. It is approximated by a triangle - gradual.

Your explanation for the sun maintaining a consistent angular size and magnitude doesn't work for dim stars

An incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the sizes of the stars we see are true to their size according to perspective, and that a further star would be smaller than a closer star. The diameter of the stars is explained to be an illusion by conventional science, and are not their actual size based on perspective. That's not even how it works in your model. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

The angular size of galaxies are also an illusion

[AATW]

Incorrect. The Sun gets gradually weaker and outputs less intensity as it descends. The sun is not giving out as much energy at 45 degrees than when it is directly overhead.

Of course it is. It's just spread out over a larger area. But OK, I think I'm going to basically concede this point.
So I guess the question is do the observations fit better with a FE model (the sun's distance continuously varies throughout the day) or a RE one (the distance is constant but the earth rotates which makes the angle different)? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader in terms of luminosity although I'd note you may wish to look at the inverse square law.

I'd also suggest that the constant angular size fits better with the RE model than a FE one. Your explanation is to invent a mechanism rather than accept the simplest explanation - that the consistent angular size is because of a consistent distance. You are usually a fan of Occam's razor.

You are assuming that the sizes of the stars we see are true to their size according to perspective, and that a further star would be smaller than a closer star.

Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no. The planets do vary in angular size with distance though as they orbit.

I note you have once again dodged the question about how the technology which you concede can tell us accurately our co-ordinates can work unless it has accurate maps which tell it where those co-ordinates are and how far apart they are from other co-ordinates.

[RonJ]

Signal based navigation which gives your coordinates is also based on the stars. Whatever the signal is coming from gets its coordinates from land based stations, which themselves have a known coordinate which was based on a survey of the sky at some point. The LORAN broadcasting towers had to know their own coordinates to be able to provide ships their coordinates via radio wave, which was ultimately derived in the traditional manner from celestial bodies.

The only way to know your latitude is if it was somehow based on the stars or celestial bodies down the line. It doesn't just come from nothing.

Loran is based upon known locations on earth, that is true, but Loran hasn’t been in common use for many years.  Ship owners have uninstalled the Loran receivers years ago.  GPS is obviously a space-based navigation system and has no fixed location. Receivers on ships, or even in your cell phone, use the signal data transmitted by several GPS satellites to resolve the current position.  The GPS satellites use built in atomic clocks to provide the precise timing necessary.  This system depends on a spherical earth and the positions wouldn’t be accurate if it were not.  The same goes for the navigation procedures used ancient navigators using a sextant and the sightings of the Sun, Moon, planets, or stars. These days you wouldn’t need stars to establish your position because particular spots on the earth have agreed upon coordinates.  Ships are still required to carry sextants, navigation tables, and accurate maps based upon a spherical earth in case of a massive GPS failure.  It’s the law.