[Kasparov747]

Hello,
     My nephew recently has become a believer in a flat earth. Why? I dont know but thats his choice... The question I have is this. Lets say Sir Richard Branson is able to complete construction of and tests of the craft he wants to take average folks into space in the next 5 years. If this happens and a member of the FE society, and by that I mean a member who is well known "around" the globe takes a flight and sees the earth is round, when said person returns to earth and says yes the Earth is indeed round as a marble, would that end this debate for those who think its flat? And one other question I have is since all other planets are round why would it be that the Earth is flat? One FE member a few years back was asked by Elon Musk how did they know that Mars was round and not flat their response was... because we can actually observer Mars and see that Mars is round through a telescope etc.. Now I am not asking any of this trying to be an ass, but asking as an educated fellow who likes to ask questions and have a civil discussion/debate and possibly learn something, even though learning is a tougher task now at 47 as im pretty sure i killed a few brains cells over the years. Thanks for any opinions and remember... she's as round as a marble i bet the farm..

[Tom Bishop]

Branson's craft will only get to the edge of space and come back down again. At the edge of space you are looking down at a circle, and will therefore see some curvature.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

[NorseMythology]

Branson's craft will only get to the edge of space and come back down again. At the edge of space you are looking down at a circle, and will therefore see some curvature.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I am glad you bring this up, it rather annoyed me when talking to FErs that they disputed pictures that indicated a curve because both models would have curved edges, one in 2 dimensions the other in 3 dimensions.

[Kasparov747]

Hello Tom,
      Thank you for the reply. Let me ask the question in a different manner. Consider that Branson and Elon Musk jointly made a craft that went much further, enough that you were satisfied and while on said craft actually made several orbits around the Earth or whatever direction you like...  Would this be sufficient? I understand obviously this is an hypothetical question, however I enjoy civil and educated debates so to speak as I have always been curious of others thoughts especially on this topic. And thank you again for your reply and civil discussion...
       Kasparov

[Kasparov747]

Or ponder this thought... While you are on said craft it it is able to go far enough from Earth to your satisfaction and become stationary where you are able to observe the rotation of the Earth for as long as you deem necessary. Again I know these questions are hypothetical but I ask them because they come to mind. Thank you very much for your time...
        Kasparov

[douglips]

What about high altitude photos that show the terminator? If such an image were authenticated, or you saw it yourself, this would disprove the flat circle of light model of these pictures.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/02/08/starman-puts-earth-in-the-rearview-mirror/

[JohnAdams1145]

Branson's craft will only get to the edge of space and come back down again. At the edge of space you are looking down at a circle, and will therefore see some curvature.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I hope you realize that if you acknowledge that these pictures are real, they completely disprove the FE hypothesis since different launch locations will show different circles...

Not to mention the fact that your AE map will be proven as junk.

[Tom Bishop]

Branson's craft will only get to the edge of space and come back down again. At the edge of space you are looking down at a circle, and will therefore see some curvature.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I hope you realize that if you acknowledge that these pictures are real, they completely disprove the FE hypothesis since different launch locations will show different circles...

Not to mention the fact that your AE map will be proven as junk.

"Will show," "would show," how about showing rather than speculating?

[Tom Bishop]

https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/starman_departure.jpg

What about high altitude photos that show the terminator? If such an image were authenticated, or you saw it yourself, this would disprove the flat circle of light model of these pictures.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/02/08/starman-puts-earth-in-the-rearview-mirror/

Observing a globe earth would be evidence of a globe earth.

[JohnAdams1145]

Branson's craft will only get to the edge of space and come back down again. At the edge of space you are looking down at a circle, and will therefore see some curvature.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I hope you realize that if you acknowledge that these pictures are real, they completely disprove the FE hypothesis since different launch locations will show different circles...

Not to mention the fact that your AE map will be proven as junk.

"Will show," "would show," how about showing rather than speculating?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say "will show"; I meant to say "have already shown." People have already taken high altitude photographs, and the landmasses all look different. If the curved horizon is really the edge of the circle, it seems like they should all show the same landmasses.

[inquisitive]

https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/starman_departure.jpg

What about high altitude photos that show the terminator? If such an image were authenticated, or you saw it yourself, this would disprove the flat circle of light model of these pictures.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/02/08/starman-puts-earth-in-the-rearview-mirror/

Observing a globe earth would be evidence of a globe earth.

And we have measurements and observations plus the use of satellites for broadcast etc.

[Tom Bishop]

Branson's craft will only get to the edge of space and come back down again. At the edge of space you are looking down at a circle, and will therefore see some curvature.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I hope you realize that if you acknowledge that these pictures are real, they completely disprove the FE hypothesis since different launch locations will show different circles...

Not to mention the fact that your AE map will be proven as junk.

"Will show," "would show," how about showing rather than speculating?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say "will show"; I meant to say "have already shown." People have already taken high altitude photographs, and the landmasses all look different. If the curved horizon is really the edge of the circle, it seems like they should all show the same landmasses.

Cite your evidence. It is your responsibility to show whatever argument you are trying to make, rather than making some ambiguous references to evidence you assume exists.

Haven't you guys realized why your arguments go nowhere on this forum? You are only providing speculation and assumption.

[inquisitive]

Branson's craft will only get to the edge of space and come back down again. At the edge of space you are looking down at a circle, and will therefore see some curvature.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I hope you realize that if you acknowledge that these pictures are real, they completely disprove the FE hypothesis since different launch locations will show different circles...

Not to mention the fact that your AE map will be proven as junk.

"Will show," "would show," how about showing rather than speculating?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say "will show"; I meant to say "have already shown." People have already taken high altitude photographs, and the landmasses all look different. If the curved horizon is really the edge of the circle, it seems like they should all show the same landmasses.

Cite your evidence. It is your responsibility to show whatever argument you are trying to make, rather than making some ambiguous references to evidence you assume exists.

Haven't you guys realized why your arguments go nowhere on this forum? You are only providing speculation and assumption.

Says the person who cannot produce a map despite representing the millions of FE believers.

[juner]

Says the person who cannot produce a map despite representing the millions of FE believers.

You have multiple warnings already for off-topic and low-content posting. Have a few days off to review the rules.

[douglips]

https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/starman_departure.jpg

What about high altitude photos that show the terminator? If such an image were authenticated, or you saw it yourself, this would disprove the flat circle of light model of these pictures.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/02/08/starman-puts-earth-in-the-rearview-mirror/

Observing a globe earth would be evidence of a globe earth.

Yes - and I'm saying that high altitude photos that include the terminator would constitute such an observation (if authenticated to your satisfaction, of course.) Do you agree?

[JohnAdams1145]

Branson's craft will only get to the edge of space and come back down again. At the edge of space you are looking down at a circle, and will therefore see some curvature.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I hope you realize that if you acknowledge that these pictures are real, they completely disprove the FE hypothesis since different launch locations will show different circles...

Not to mention the fact that your AE map will be proven as junk.

"Will show," "would show," how about showing rather than speculating?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say "will show"; I meant to say "have already shown." People have already taken high altitude photographs, and the landmasses all look different. If the curved horizon is really the edge of the circle, it seems like they should all show the same landmasses.

Cite your evidence. It is your responsibility to show whatever argument you are trying to make, rather than making some ambiguous references to evidence you assume exists.

Haven't you guys realized why your arguments go nowhere on this forum? You are only providing speculation and assumption.

Asserting stuff doesn't make it true. We've posted pictures of the sun lit below by the clouds, and FE has simply speculated that it is the result of perspective/distortion even though it clearly makes no logical sense.

As for the evidence, http://lmgtfy.com/?t=i&q=high+altitude+photographs. Clearly the pictures taken are different circles depending on different launch locations. Your hypotheses result from a complete lack of a conventional physics education. As I've said before, I recommend you take and try to pass a physics class at a local community college -- you need to keep an open-enough mind to actually understand physics before you proceed to trash it.

[Tom Bishop]

Branson's craft will only get to the edge of space and come back down again. At the edge of space you are looking down at a circle, and will therefore see some curvature.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I hope you realize that if you acknowledge that these pictures are real, they completely disprove the FE hypothesis since different launch locations will show different circles...

Not to mention the fact that your AE map will be proven as junk.

"Will show," "would show," how about showing rather than speculating?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say "will show"; I meant to say "have already shown." People have already taken high altitude photographs, and the landmasses all look different. If the curved horizon is really the edge of the circle, it seems like they should all show the same landmasses.

Cite your evidence. It is your responsibility to show whatever argument you are trying to make, rather than making some ambiguous references to evidence you assume exists.

Haven't you guys realized why your arguments go nowhere on this forum? You are only providing speculation and assumption.

Asserting stuff doesn't make it true. We've posted pictures of the sun lit below by the clouds, and FE has simply speculated that it is the result of perspective/distortion even though it clearly makes no logical sense.

As for the evidence, http://lmgtfy.com/?t=i&q=high+altitude+photographs. Clearly the pictures taken are different circles depending on different launch locations. Your hypotheses result from a complete lack of a conventional physics education. As I've said before, I recommend you take and try to pass a physics class at a local community college -- you need to keep an open-enough mind to actually understand physics before you proceed to trash it.

Many of those photos are taken with a wide angle or fish eye lens. We are going to need a real analysis of this, not a google image link.

[JohnAdams1145]

Many of those photos are taken with a wide angle or fish eye lens. We are going to need a real analysis of this, not a google image link.

Then pick different pictures. Tell me which ones you think aren't taken with a fish eye lens. You can't just invoke this argument any time you want to discard a picture; you need to stick to a few that you believe weren't taken improperly. Surely the whole world isn't all stupid enough to use the wrong camera. Or why don't you do this yourself?

This also doesn't resolve the issue that they'll see different landmasses, fisheye lens or not (just ignore the fisheye part and see if you can see toward the edge of the world and whether the same landmasses are there; hint: the horizon isn't at the edge of the world).

This is another knee-jerk attempt at refuting something you don't understand.

[xenotolerance]

Here's one:

... the area lit by the sun is not a circle on any flat Earth model, so the wiki is here once more contradicting itself ... further, curvature appears even in high altitude photography taken at night, so the page's explanation fails twice.

e.g.

[Sydney]

Hello,
     My nephew recently has become a believer in a flat earth. Why? I dont know but thats his choice... The question I have is this. Lets say Sir Richard Branson is able to complete construction of and tests of the craft he wants to take average folks into space in the next 5 years. If this happens and a member of the FE society, and by that I mean a member who is well known "around" the globe takes a flight and sees the earth is round, when said person returns to earth and says yes the Earth is indeed round as a marble, would that end this debate for those who think its flat? And one other question I have is since all other planets are round why would it be that the Earth is flat? One FE member a few years back was asked by Elon Musk how did they know that Mars was round and not flat their response was... because we can actually observer Mars and see that Mars is round through a telescope etc.. Now I am not asking any of this trying to be an ass, but asking as an educated fellow who likes to ask questions and have a civil discussion/debate and possibly learn something, even though learning is a tougher task now at 47 as im pretty sure i killed a few brains cells over the years. Thanks for any opinions and remember... she's as round as a marble i bet the farm..

Branson's prototype "exploded" at 45,000 feet. I personally think that no one outside the inner circle (of the few who control space) will ever be allowed to get there to see an expanse as far as the naked eye can look in any direction. Time will tell, but one can be certain that "IF" this happens, it will be auspiciously played out for months on MSM and with a groomed group of passengers and pilots... more than likely the lot of them all wearing Freemason rings (i.e. Apollo astronauts).

Respect