[cel]

Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...

Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world. 

I suggest that any globe or flat earther has to show evidence that all pilots have protocols to constantly adjust their direction as they fly 1/3 to 1/2 distance around the world, otherwise, they will not follow the curvature of the earth, or they will run out of fuel in going straight line or level direction. Of course, the flat earther can show proof that the pilots are not at all required to adjust their directions constantly as there isn't a need because earth is flat. Well, show us proofs then..

This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...

If lift pulls up the plane hard enough that it keeps flying. But lift depends, among other things, on the density of air around the plane: the higher the planes fly, the weaker lift is. So, all in all, the plane flies in a layer of air at the same pressure, which in turn follows approximately the surface of the Earth.

A plane needs to be moving at different speeds to maintain enough lift at certain altitudes. So to maintain the same amount of lift it has at a lower altitudes it needs to move faster at higher altitudes.

When a plane is put into level flight at a constant speed it will tend to self adjust as it moves through the air.

Hmmm, this reasoning and explanation seems to be just right for both globe and flat earth... and you argued that the plane self-adjust itself for its cruising constant speed... i think you should technically show how this happens... tnx

[Rounder]

Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...

Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world. 

This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...

Care to explain what you find wrong about the logic?  I propose that a curious person take the steps required to satisfy their own curiosity, using a method whereby YOU can go out and get YOUR OWN proof rather than asking you to believe MY proof.  I propose the very thing Zetetics claim to hold most dear: personal observation.  I propose a scenario with different outcomes on flat and round earth.

I really don't know what more I could do.  An honest seeker of the truth would either accept the challenge, or explain what is wrong with it.

[Love]

If I ever had to go to court for something serious; not some internet debate crap; but, a serious issue that required a court in order to sort things out and I had to hire a lawyer; not some internet keyboard warrior; and if that lawyer ever used the word, 'debunk' :  I would fire him or her in an instant.   Debunking is bullshit.  It is advocacy for amateurs and it means and shows nothing.  It lends no weight to the credibility of any argument.

Also, the standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is not a scientific nor mathematical standard.  It is a legal standard and is subject to individual interpretation as to what a 'reasonable doubt' might be.  Courts and juries don't always get it right.  I am sure innocent men have been hanged because the court was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.  People are often wrong.   It's the nature of the beast.  Even the smartest and strongest among us are prone to emotional/mental problems as well as just plain stupidity.

Mathematics proves theorems and there is no doubt.  Scientists either show an experiment indicates the proposition in question is indicated, or not, or that the test is non indicative, hence, moot; again, there is no doubt.

Debunking!  Bah!  Any idiot can debunk just about anything.

 If someone has a salesman's charm, or perhaps they are a beautiful woman with feminine guile, they could make us believe a lot of stuff that we might not otherwise believe.   (A smart man will let a woman make a fool out of him.  Because of this philosophy I am a happy married man for over 32 yrs!)  Never underestimate charm.  It is the difference between being a good actor as opposed to being a movie star.

It takes a lawyer, and a good one, to go to court and present a cogent case.

I say question all authority; even the authority of one's own perception.  Clearly the universe and existence is ineffable.  People are so puny.

[Love]

Indoctrination?  You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?

 I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.   I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.   

If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it.  But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated.  The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk:  J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.

Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii.  And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake.  Infer what you will.  But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck.  Telling lies seems to be what people do best.

[andruszkow]

There is proof for both Globe and Flat Earth So there is no 100% PROOF

There's 0 proofs of flat earth. Every debate on this board has refuted Flat earth proofs dozens of times.

I repeat, there's 0 proofs of flat earth. If you have any, you're an actual hero, and TFES could use one.

[rabinoz]

Indoctrination?  You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?

 I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.   I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.   

If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it.  But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated.  The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk:  J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.

Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii.  And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake.  Infer what you will.  But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck.  Telling lies seems to be what people do best.

• Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
  
  
• The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s²), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s²) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s²). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s³ -  big deal! 

And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.

  Come off it! 

And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." That does seem to be very variable!

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!

I suggest you try again!

[Woody]

Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...

Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world. 

I suggest that any globe or flat earther has to show evidence that all pilots have protocols to constantly adjust their direction as they fly 1/3 to 1/2 distance around the world, otherwise, they will not follow the curvature of the earth, or they will run out of fuel in going straight line or level direction. Of course, the flat earther can show proof that the pilots are not at all required to adjust their directions constantly as there isn't a need because earth is flat. Well, show us proofs then..

This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...

If lift pulls up the plane hard enough that it keeps flying. But lift depends, among other things, on the density of air around the plane: the higher the planes fly, the weaker lift is. So, all in all, the plane flies in a layer of air at the same pressure, which in turn follows approximately the surface of the Earth.

A plane needs to be moving at different speeds to maintain enough lift at certain altitudes. So to maintain the same amount of lift it has at a lower altitudes it needs to move faster at higher altitudes.

When a plane is put into level flight at a constant speed it will tend to self adjust as it moves through the air.

Hmmm, this reasoning and explanation seems to be just right for both globe and flat earth... and you argued that the plane self-adjust itself for its cruising constant speed... i think you should technically show how this happens... tnx

It would be the same on FE or RE. 

An experiment I can think of that is simple to do is moving you hand held at an angle through water and air.  There is lots of room for error, but it will demonstrate the difference in force.  Just do your best to hold your hand at the same angle and move it at the same speed. What you will notice if you are accurate enough is there will be a noticeable difference in the amount of force trying to either lift or push down your arm.  There should be more force while running your hand through the water. While your hand is in the water change the speed you move it.  The faster you move the more force you will feel trying to move your hand up or down. I guess the next time you go swimming or if you take a bath would be a good time.

The same thing happens with planes.  In the lower more dense atmosphere more lift is generated traveling at a certain speed than would be generated at higher altitudes.

As for basically self adjusting that is just what would happen.  Pilots or automatic pilots when they get to cruising altitude maintain level flight by measuring atmospheric pressure.  When the control surfaces and thrust are set for level flight it is for that air speed and altitude/air pressure.  So the plane will for the most part want to stay balanced and require very little to no corrections to its control surfaces and thrust. It will naturally want to stay at that air pressure which in the majority of cases results in the same altitude. Those corrections would not be noticeable.

One cause for a flight to experience turbulence is a plane flying through a change in air pressure.  The air pressure changes and the plane either wants to go up or down as a result.  This would likely be felt as just short up or down movements of the plane as the forces balance and not much of a change in the distance above the surface of the Earth.

[cel]

If I ever had to go to court for something serious; not some internet debate crap; but, a serious issue that required a court in order to sort things out and I had to hire a lawyer; not some internet keyboard warrior; and if that lawyer ever used the word, 'debunk' :  I would fire him or her in an instant.   Debunking is bullshit.  It is advocacy for amateurs and it means and shows nothing.  It lends no weight to the credibility of any argument.

Also, the standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is not a scientific nor mathematical standard.  It is a legal standard and is subject to individual interpretation as to what a 'reasonable doubt' might be.  Courts and juries don't always get it right.  I am sure innocent men have been hanged because the court was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.  People are often wrong.   It's the nature of the beast.  Even the smartest and strongest among us are prone to emotional/mental problems as well as just plain stupidity.

Mathematics proves theorems and there is no doubt.  Scientists either show an experiment indicates the proposition in question is indicated, or not, or that the test is non indicative, hence, moot; again, there is no doubt.

Debunking!  Bah!  Any idiot can debunk just about anything.

 If someone has a salesman's charm, or perhaps they are a beautiful woman with feminine guile, they could make us believe a lot of stuff that we might not otherwise believe.   (A smart man will let a woman make a fool out of him.  Because of this philosophy I am a happy married man for over 32 yrs!)  Never underestimate charm.  It is the difference between being a good actor as opposed to being a movie star.

It takes a lawyer, and a good one, to go to court and present a cogent case.

I say question all authority; even the authority of one's own perception.  Clearly the universe and existence is ineffable.  People are so puny.

Well said. You have a valid point in my use of the word "debunked". I'd just borrowed it from the GE's and FE's term in their unending debate. Anyway, I intend to rephrase the question in a more positive way. Thanks for your comments... Maybe, this would be better: "Has anyone got proof(s) that isf/are TRUE ONLY for Globe OR Flat earth?" Meaning, it should be an irrefutable and indubitable proof that is true only for either the GE or FE... this is critical for truth seekers because it could be the lead towards the absolute truth of what the earth really is...

[cel]

Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world, which relies on exactly zero outside information (thus rendering you immune to false information from a round earth shill): On a full moon night like tonight, take a good hard look at the moon's features at moonrise or soon after.  REALLY look, don't just glance at it.  Draw yourself a picture of the 'seas' and craters.  Take a photo or two, or ten; whatever it takes to accurately remember how it looks at moonrise.  Do this again at or near moonset, again taking great pains to really observe in exacting detail the face of the moon visible to you.  Do this more than one night.  Do this the next full moon, and the next.  Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you, until you both can draw the moon's features from memory, and your drawings match each other and the observations.  What you will find is that every single time you do this, you are still looking at the exact same face of the moon, the exact same seas and craters, as you saw every single time you looked.  How is that?  On a flat earth, this might be explained FOR ONE LOCATION if the moon is rotating at exactly the rght speed to present the same face to your location as it passes by overhead.
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world.  While you two are seperated by huge distance, get on the phone and observe the moon together, at the same time; this will be near moonrise for one of you and near moonset for the other.  You will STILL see the exact same face, down to the smallest identifiable crater at the edges of the observable disc.  This is impossible on a flat earth with a 3000 mile away moon.  It is expected on a globe earth with a moon some 239,000 miles away.

The rotation of the moon on its axis and the revolution of the moon around the earth that is also rotating on axis relatively much faster than the moon have not been considered. Even if the moon is 239,000 miles away, the relative rotating motions of both would result in different images from same and different observers on earth 1/3 or 1/2 miles apart from day 1 to nth day, esp. 14th day (half of moon's rotation on its axis and around earth. As for the FE's reason or proof, they based theirs on different premise: their moon is not exactly of the same form/shape as that of the globe, same is true with the distance and size relative to that of the earth. So for this moon thing, the GE and FE can really be both right in proving their respective claims... both their proofs are refutable based on their respective premises.

[Nostra]

Yes, we have several as :
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole

Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...

[cel]

Yes, we have several as :
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole

Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...

For truth seekers, all these topics have also been discussed and argued by FEs, and many of their claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts appear to be also valid just like those of GEs. That's why we have endless debates all over the world now re FE and GE issues. If GEs could not think as open minded as the truth seekers of the absolute truth, not the relative truth, they(GEs) will not see and understand the truth seekers' point. I guess GEs should also consider and analyze FEs' arguments with an open mind...And you'll end up also asking questions why.... truth seekers are mostly top-notch GEs when it comes to astronomy, math and science, only that they have inquisitive minds that they end up to be truth seekers.... try reading all FEs' proofs and arguments, and you'll end up asking some questions that FEs seems to have also a point.. don't claim yet that GE is the absolute truth. It still isn't. Remember the moon landing? this is will make you ask questions, or question why?

[cel]

Indoctrination?  You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?

 I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.   I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.   

If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it.  But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated.  The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk:  J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.

Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii.  And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake.  Infer what you will.  But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck.  Telling lies seems to be what people do best.

• Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
  
  
• The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s²), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s²) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s²). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s³ -  big deal! 

And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.

  Come off it! 

And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." That does seem to be very variable!

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!

I suggest you try again!

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law. I think to settle this, one has to get a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope and use it to view Chicago, or any place much farther, at sea level from Michigan, or elsewhere suitable for such viewing. Of course, the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply. This can be a reckoning point of what really the shape or form of earth, flat or globe? Is anyone here willing to perform this experiment/task to settle once and for all GEs; and FEs' debates on this issue? Whatever the resulting fact on this matter would really be a stepping stone towards the absolute truth about what earth really is... 

[cel]

Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...

Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world. 

I suggest that any globe or flat earther has to show evidence that all pilots have protocols to constantly adjust their direction as they fly 1/3 to 1/2 distance around the world, otherwise, they will not follow the curvature of the earth, or they will run out of fuel in going straight line or level direction. Of course, the flat earther can show proof that the pilots are not at all required to adjust their directions constantly as there isn't a need because earth is flat. Well, show us proofs then..

This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...

If lift pulls up the plane hard enough that it keeps flying. But lift depends, among other things, on the density of air around the plane: the higher the planes fly, the weaker lift is. So, all in all, the plane flies in a layer of air at the same pressure, which in turn follows approximately the surface of the Earth.

A plane needs to be moving at different speeds to maintain enough lift at certain altitudes. So to maintain the same amount of lift it has at a lower altitudes it needs to move faster at higher altitudes.

When a plane is put into level flight at a constant speed it will tend to self adjust as it moves through the air.

Hmmm, this reasoning and explanation seems to be just right for both globe and flat earth... and you argued that the plane self-adjust itself for its cruising constant speed... i think you should technically show how this happens... tnx

It would be the same on FE or RE. 

An experiment I can think of that is simple to do is moving you hand held at an angle through water and air.  There is lots of room for error, but it will demonstrate the difference in force.  Just do your best to hold your hand at the same angle and move it at the same speed. What you will notice if you are accurate enough is there will be a noticeable difference in the amount of force trying to either lift or push down your arm.  There should be more force while running your hand through the water. While your hand is in the water change the speed you move it.  The faster you move the more force you will feel trying to move your hand up or down. I guess the next time you go swimming or if you take a bath would be a good time.

The same thing happens with planes.  In the lower more dense atmosphere more lift is generated traveling at a certain speed than would be generated at higher altitudes.

As for basically self adjusting that is just what would happen.  Pilots or automatic pilots when they get to cruising altitude maintain level flight by measuring atmospheric pressure.  When the control surfaces and thrust are set for level flight it is for that air speed and altitude/air pressure.  So the plane will for the most part want to stay balanced and require very little to no corrections to its control surfaces and thrust. It will naturally want to stay at that air pressure which in the majority of cases results in the same altitude. Those corrections would not be noticeable.

One cause for a flight to experience turbulence is a plane flying through a change in air pressure.  The air pressure changes and the plane either wants to go up or down as a result.  This would likely be felt as just short up or down movements of the plane as the forces balance and not much of a change in the distance above the surface of the Earth.

Well, you have a point woody! this adjustment can be both the same for both GE and FE. Maybe more on the GE since the earth has curvature, but the earth is quite much bigger than the plane that the curvature appears to be not that prominent and abrupt, relatively...

[Nostra]

Yes, we have several as :
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole

Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...

For truth seekers, all these topics have also been discussed and argued by FEs, and their claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts are appears to be also valid, but not all are well argued, just like those of GEs.

I haven't seen yet one FE "claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts that appear to be also valid". I would really like to see one.
And please, can you provide me only one "low level" subject like any I have mentionned above for which GE doesn't have any explanation?

And then, I'm sorry but I will just take one example. I have not read any information from FE related to the sun angular speed through the day. Could you explain me how the sun could be moving with a constant angular speed in a FE model?

[cel]

Yes, we have several as :
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole

Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...

For truth seekers, all these topics have also been discussed and argued by FEs, and their claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts are appears to be also valid, but not all are well argued, just like those of GEs.

I haven't seen yet one FE "claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts that appear to be also valid". I would really like to see one.
And please, can you provide me only one "low level" subject like any I have mentionned above for which GE doesn't have any explanation?

And then, I'm sorry but I will just take one example. I have not read any information from FE related to the sun angular speed through the day. Could you explain me how the sun could be moving with a constant angular speed in a FE model?

Oopps, after enumerating all those topics in your list, you've haven't yet seen or come across any of FEs' claims and supported arguments? I don't believe it. It just couldn't be true. You had, actually, only that you didn't give any enough thinking of why they came up with such argument or claims. Didn't it come to your mind that they've also proven or observed some of their claims right? If not one made sense to you, you must be a narrow-minded GE just like all those narrow-minded hard-core FEs. Anyway, review their hundreds of posts in youtube, and ask questions yourself. Indeed, there are valid points or proofs that they are also right in their claims/propositions, meaning, both GE and FE can really be correct/right in their respective observations and proofs. Try getting into their shoes sometimes. Have an inquisitive mind, don't just believe what is fed to you, if you cannot prove it yourself using science, math, etc. Just like the law on perspective and vanishing point, this applies to both GE and FE, and if you insist that GE reasoning is only the truth in this matter, then you really did not see what we truth seekers see... both GEs and FEs can be likened to the two onlookers, one is looking at the number "6" from his position, and the other one at the opposite side is looking at the number as a number "9". They are both correct, right? If you argue that one of them is wrong, and the other is right, you're not seeing the absolute truth which is from the vantage point of one at the center. Can you imagine how these two onlookers argue and fight one another just to prove and insist what each of them sees. Better change vantage point and see the forest, and be a truth seeker... the truth about earth is out there waiting to be seen...

[TotesNotReptilian]

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.

The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.

[TotesNotReptilian]

And if you want even more proof for a globe earth: The South Celestial Pole. I have yet to get an explanation for how the South Celestial Pole works on a flat earth, in either this website or the theflatearthsociety.org website.

I wouldn't call it 100% proof, any more than I would call anything 100% proof. There is always the possibility that we are floating around in some gelatinous goop, and there are a bunch of unicorns farting magic dust into our brains making us hallucinate everything we call reality.

[geckothegeek]

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.

The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.

And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.

[cel]

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.

The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.

And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.

It is strongly suggested that GEs study more of how the law of perspective and vanishing point work, for if you don't understand what it is, you're perpetuating your debates with the FEs. You both see the same result of eventually not seeing the buildings until they vanish from sight. Whether it's because of the earth's curvature as the GEs claimed or of the law of perspective and vanishing point as the FEs claimed, both their claims/reasons could have the same effect/result for the Chicago - Michigan case. So you'll really end up in useless debate if you don't understand this and insist in arguing that your reason (GE or FE) is the only one that works here. Both your reasons GEs and FEs have the same effect... wake up you people. To end this debate, it's best for someone to use a high powered camera or telescope with zooming capacity as powerful as that used in observatory and see if the buildings can still be seen at even much farther than Michigan.... well, good luck GEs and FEs.... don't fight or use foul words/comments, you don't have to... keep using reasons and supporting facts.... think, think, think....

[TotesNotReptilian]

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.

The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.

And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.

It is strongly suggested that GEs study more of how the law of perspective and vanishing point work, for if you don't understand what it is, you're perpetuating your debates with the FEs. You both see the same result of eventually not seeing the buildings until they vanish from sight. Whether it's because of the earth's curvature as the GEs claimed or of the law of perspective and vanishing point as the FEs claimed, both their claims/reasons could have the same effect/result for the Chicago - Michigan case. So you'll really end up in useless debate if you don't understand this and insist in arguing that your reason (GE or FE) is the only one that works here. Both your reasons GEs and FEs have the same effect... wake up you people. To end this debate, it's best for someone to use a high powered camera or telescope with zooming capacity as powerful as that used in observatory and see if the buildings can still be seen at even much farther than Michigan.... well, good luck GEs and FEs.... don't fight or use foul words/comments, you don't have to... keep using reasons and supporting facts.... think, think, think....

I repeat: what "law of perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to?