It doesn't need debunking.
You can't debunk stupid.

You clearly aren't very well educated on these topics you're speaking on. You might want to actually do some research. Start with the fact the Earth's spin and rotation have never been observed or measured. Everything falls apart right there. Keep eating the lies you're fed and the religion of science you adhere to

measured

And your argument falls apart right here.

Nice try.

The rotation has, literally, been measured in time. You can keep refuting it if you want. It won't change the fact.

No, it hasn't. Keep believing it though

It has.

What are your thoughts on how weight has been observed to change with your location, or even a demonstration of the Eötvös Effect in aircraft? It makes perfect sense with what we know with gravity, as well as the Earth's rotation. Such as objects weighing less on the equator and more the further north/south you go.

Typical Flat-Earther response. You know your argument is weak, so all you can reply with is "Nuh uh." Where over here, in the realm of facts, there is ample evidence of the Earth's shape, measurements, everything. Whereas a lot of Flat-Earthers are the equivalent of a baby who just shit in his pants and then said, "No I didn't."

How has it been measured? Remember it's impossible to measure because of (((realitivity))). At least learn your model before trying to defend it.

Relativity*

How has it been measured? Remember it's impossible to measure because of (((realitivity))). At least learn your model before trying to defend it.

How has it been measured? There are a few experiments that show it is undectable if it exists. Remember it's impossible to measure because of (((realitivity))). At least learn your model before trying to defend it. Even Einstein said he could construct a geocentric and heliocentric universe and no one could disprove it (regardless of which he chose) through observations.

Nice edit to your comment to further allege it's credibility. If you look at my link posted earlier in this comment thread, you'll have your answer. Time is a measurement.

Time is man made. The only thing that exists is the now.

Do you agree that your thoughts about the universe are a belief and cannot be fact until you have proved it to yourself?

Time is man made. The only thing that exists is the now.

Do you agree that your thoughts about the universe are a belief and cannot be fact until you have proved it to yourself?

Time is man made. The only thing that exists is the now. Also, saying time does not even come close.

I assume that you meant time and the changed position of the luminaries? But still, that doesn't prove movement of what your standing on.

Do you agree that your thoughts about the universe are a belief and cannot be fact until you have proved it to yourself?

Do you believe in a black hole universe or a Big Bang universe? They contradict each other.

Time is man made. The only thing that exists is the now. Also, saying time does not even come close.

I assume that you meant time and the changed position of the luminaries? But still, that doesn't prove movement of what your standing on.

Do you agree that your thoughts about the universe are a belief and cannot be fact until you have proved it to yourself?

Do you believe in a black hole universe or a Big Bang universe? They contradict each other.

Time is man made. The only thing that exists is the now. Also, saying time does not even come close.

I assume that you meant time and the changed position of the luminaries? But still, that doesn't prove movement of what your standing on.

Do you agree that your thoughts about the universe are a belief and cannot be fact until you have proved it to yourself?

Do you believe in a black hole universe or a Big Bang universe? They contradict each other.

Time is man made. The only thing that exists is the now. Also, saying time does not even come close.

I assume that you meant time and the changed position of the luminaries? But still, that doesn't prove movement of what your standing on.

Do you agree that your thoughts about the universe are a belief and cannot be fact until you have proved it to yourself?

Do you believe in a black hole universe or a Big Bang universe? They contradict each other.

Time is man made. The only thing that exists is the now. Also, saying time does not even come close.

I assume that you meant time and the changed position of the luminaries? But still, that doesn't prove movement of what your standing on.

Do you agree that your thoughts about the universe are a belief and cannot be fact until you have proved it to yourself?

Do you also believe the official story for false flag events in the past? Where do you draw the line exactly?

Time is man made. The only thing that exists is the now. Also, saying time does not even come close.

I assume that you meant time and the changed position of the luminaries? But still, that doesn't prove movement of what your standing on.

Do you agree that your thoughts about the universe are a belief and cannot be fact until you have proved it to yourself?

Do you also believe the official story for false flag events in the past? Where do you draw the line exactly?

Time is man made. The only thing that exists is the now. Also, saying time does not even come close.

I assume that you meant time and the changed position of the luminaries? But still, that doesn't prove movement of what your standing on.

Do you agree that your thoughts about the universe are a belief and cannot be fact until you have proved it to yourself?

Do you also believe the official story for false flag events in the past? Where do you draw the line exactly?

I agree with you, time is man made. It was made to measure the length of a day, characterized by the rotation and tilt of the Earth. A sundial is a perfect example of this.

Luminaries? Are you referencing the sun and/or moon?

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your last two questions. I do have to say, however, that you're doing yourself an intellectual disservice if you believe facts are only fact if they can be proved unto yourself.

Do you also believe the official story for false flag events in the past? Where do you draw the line exactly?

I really don't understand the question and how it relates to the current discussion.

Unintentional spam.

Are your keys stuck, mate?

What's interesting is despite his "unintentional spam" they're all upvoted to +3 at the time of this post. Usually those get massacred with downvotes, or untouched. They're ALL +3.

I'm not clued into how these things work. OP can put those upvotes into the Win column? As it stands, I do not recall ever seeing an Anti-FE post get downvoted so hard.

How has it been measured? There are a few experiments that show it is undectable if it exists. Remember it's impossible to measure because of (((realitivity))). At least learn your model before trying to defend it. Even Einstein said he could construct a geocentric and heliocentric universe and no one could disprove it (regardless of which he chose) through observations.

How has it been measured? There are a few experiments that show it is undectable if it exists. Remember it's impossible to measure because of (((realitivity))). At least learn your model before trying to defend it. Even Einstein said he could construct a geocentric and heliocentric universe and no one could disprove it (regardless of which he chose) through observations.

How has it been measured? There are a few experiments that show it is undectable if it exists. Remember it's impossible to measure because of (((realitivity))). At least learn your model before trying to defend it. Even Einstein said he could construct a geocentric and heliocentric universe and no one could disprove it (regardless of which he chose) through observations.

How has it been measured? There are a few experiments that show it is undectable if it exists. Remember it's impossible to measure because of (((realitivity))). At least learn your model before trying to defend it. Even Einstein said he could construct a geocentric and heliocentric universe and no one could disprove it (regardless of which he chose) through observations.

How has it been measured? There are a few experiments that show it is undectable if it exists. Remember it's impossible to measure because of (((realitivity))). At least learn your model before trying to defend it. Even Einstein said he could construct a geocentric and heliocentric universe and no one could disprove it (regardless of which he chose) through observations.

How has it been measured? There are a few experiments that show it is undectable if it exists. Remember it's impossible to measure because of (((realitivity))). At least learn your model before trying to defend it. Even Einstein said he could construct a geocentric and heliocentric universe and no one could disprove it (regardless of which he chose) through observations.

The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.

He's not questioning whether the earth is in orbit of the sun, he's saying that both are valid perspectives from the standpoint of relativity. The fact is that the earth is moving, the sun is moving, the galaxy is moving - if you say the center of the galaxy is "at rest", than you'd consider the motion of our sun much more striking than the motion of the earth. It's useful to consider the sun as "at rest" when you're calculating the motions of bodies in our solar system, but you certainly wouldn't say the sun is the center of the universe.

I mean, there's an entire history of the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism which is out in the open for anyone to see, not sure what anyone would gain by lying about it.

Do you agree that without personal verification, these can only be categorized as a belief (regardless of their validity)? Referring to all models of the world/universe?

Sure, and I appreciate having a skeptical attitude and not trusting everything you hear. But there are infinitely many possible beliefs, and you need some way of discriminating between them. The tradition starting with the scientific method is to discriminate between beliefs based on their predictive ability.

I've got an app on my phone that shows me where all of the stars and planets are, using math, assuming a heliocentric model. Or here's a website explaining why Venus is in a certain part of the sky in January. I would challenge a geocentrist to as accurately predict where the planets will be on a given night, and then I'd have to consider it as well.

Is it amazing that most people can't answer that question truthfully, even anonymously. Humans are weird.

I am starting to get into astrology/astronomy to learn more about the luminaries. because I do find it interesting, even more now. In the middle of reading a book about astrology written by a head mason.

The main thing that cause me to be more skeptic towards the globe than the plane is the age old alleged proof that boats disappearing from your view are going over the curvature of the globe.

I'd like to start by relating this to the first point about humans being unable to reconcile their previous knowledge with new observations, or commonly known as cognitive dissonance.

For example, this claim could not be tested until recently with the increase in technology. So it was a belief, until now. With the increase in the spread of knowledge anyone can test this claim with a few hundred bucks and access to a large body of water, and they should.

Quite obviously, if boats did disappear over the curve (globe), they would not come back into view with magnification. The only thing magnification would produce is crisper water on the horizon, but no boat.

Conversely, if boats disappear in the distance due to angular resolution(plane) they will come back into view if the level of magnification allows it. Magnification increases angular resolution.

Do you disagree with any of the logic so far?

Hmmm, not gonna lie I never really bought into the boat explanation - because I've definitely never seen it. Also, one of the things that I highly respect out of certain flat earthers is the willingness to go out and do your own experiments, and believe your own eyes over everything else.

One thing I've thought about the boat thing is that the air is cooler near the water's surface, which would mean it's more dense. So a lensing effect could occur over water, just like you can see a mirage when look down a hot road. So if you can assume that the sun disappears due to atmospheric lensing, why is it so crazy to think that a ship might be visible further in the horizon due to atmospheric lensing? So that's where I disagree that magnification would necessarily lead to the boat disappearing below the horizon in the round earth model.

I'd like to start by relating this to the first point about humans being unable to reconcile their previous knowledge with new observations, or commonly known as cognitive dissonance.

Then cognitive dissonance is what leads to scientific discovery. Often times these minor inconsistencies which are difficult to reconcile are what lead to complete shifts in world view, but the new world view should have fewer discrepancies than the old one to be acceptable.

I think what makes it hard for me to accept FE is really that there would have to be so many people who know the truth in, for instance, the airline industry, and there haven't been any whistleblowers that I know of. As I mentioned in another comment, the flat earth projection is remarkably similar to the spherical earth projection close to the northern hemisphere, but wildly distorted in the souther hemisphere. This makes sense - imagine if you stretch out the opening of a balloon until the whole thing is flat. The opening (south pole) will be extremely stretched, but there will be relatively little distortion on the top of the balloon.

So I took a look at flights that are in the southern hemisphere, which are surprisingly hard to find since most land/people are in the northern hemisphere. But I found an example: Johannesberg, South Africa to Perth, Australia is a 9 hour direct flight, where as Johannesberg to Frankfurt, Germany is an 11 hour flight. And yet in the flat earth projection, Perth is at least twice as far from Johannesberg as Australia. So every pilot who's ever flown that route, every boat that's ever taken that route, they would all have to know the truth about the flat earth and be deliberately lying to the public at a tremendous cost to them. Similarly, there's a 14 hour direct flight from Chile to Australia, which goes over the south pole. Anyone on that plane should be able to look out the window and say hey, why are we passing over the north pole? And yet nobody has.

This mirage effect absolutely happens over water, completely agree. Although it's more of a reflection about the real horizon. I'll try to find a good example of this in one picture when I get home. Interesting you though temperature and I thought density was the cause. I think it's more than likely that it is a combination of the two.

So logically, if you believe that magnification does not bend light around a curve. Then that would mean for the earth to be a globe it would have to be much larger to a factor of ten (completely approximation for this example), simply because we can still see things that haven't gone over the curve at such great distances. So to me, if the earth was a globe the curve has to match our observations with magnification, making it much much larger. And if that is the case, we are still being lied to.

For the point about everyone must know and be actively lieing. I don't think most people will even consider the idea

They're not just lying, that lie is expensive. If there's a technology to make a plane go two, three times as fast when it's on the southern hemisphere, than it's expensive not to use that in the northern hemisphere. Someone should be able to start an airline that uses that technology in the northern hemisphere, and make a buttload of money. The distances work out in a spherical earth model (Perth and Frankfurt are the same distance from Johannesberg) - they don't work in the flat earth model.

This is assuming all your information is correct. It's highly unlikely that's the case. I think flights work better on the flat plane. There was the case where they had to emergency land in Antarctica due to a pregnancy, which does not work on a globe. The flights on a globe are also curved like a parabola, flattened out they would be straight and direct routes on a flat plane.

There are a ton of engineers and pilots that have come forward about this. Either you talk and lose your job or you stay quiet to keep the food on the table. Is the well being of ones family worth lieing. People lie for much less.

Why would you ever fly over antarctica if it circles the globe? There are no two points on the flat earth model where people live, and antarctica is anywhere between them. It would only make sense to fly over antarctica in a spherical model (or a flat earth projection where antarctica isn't spread out on the border).

If you take the spherical earth, the routes are perfectly straight, but only look curved because they are projected onto a 2 dimensional map. The route that you see when you click on the links to the flights I provided is the shortest route, despite being curved. Take a globe and a string, and tighten it between Johannesberg and Perth. The route will match the one shown in the flight I linked.

The flight from Bali to LA that had to emergency land, landed in Alaska. This doesn't make sense on a globe.

If so, a pretty god damn sophisticated one, the likes of which I've never seen

How do you explain the orbit of Mars if the planet isnt turning?

Also known as Wandering Stars throughout history.

So explain the orbit please

There are many videos that point a camera at the sky and use time tracking (several hours of footage), and then go to show the stars revolve around us.

Okay... thats what Im asking.

In a FE model explain the orbit of mars. It makes zero sense in a geocentric model.

I'll have to look into it more on that, the Planets in our solar system historically have been called the wandering stars. I'll get back to you

Indeed, it was trying to predict how these wanderers of the heavens moved that we discovered that the earth and all planets move in elliptical orbit around the sun.

Pussied out didn't ya ? XD

Funny how you always refute every single point against FE but provide 0 evidence of your own. If you want to prove to people that the earth is flat, show some fucking hard evidence.

Funny, another anti-flat earth post with no actual debunks or evidence.

There are no legitimate experiments that have ever been designed or executed that prove the existence of this supposed gravitational force. Gravity is a hoax, we only need the properties of density to explain weight and falling speeds.

The real conspiracy here is the flat earth and all those who keep it secret :)

Drop both from 1,000 feet and see if they land at the same time.

Exactly, that would be Density. The degree of compactness of a substance.

'tis true. Drop a bowling ball and some feathers in a vacuum, say, and they'll hit the ground at the same time. Nothing to do with the density of the objects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frZ9dN_ATew

How do you know they would land at the same time? I would love to find out how you could find a environmentally controlled area to drop them at 1,000 to 10,000 feet. But since that experiment would be impossible you can't prove it.

Why do heavier people go down faster on water slides then lighter people? Kind of a dumb question but might have a similarity.

Did you not watch the video? They were filmed inside a vacuum chamber, they both dropped at exactly the same speed, it doesn't matter how high up they are.

Yes, but why would I care how they drop in a vacuum chamber? That's not reality and just means that in Space (Vacuum) they would be equal. Not on Atmospherically Earth. Gravity wasn't created talking about Vacuum Chambers. Hell they didn't even have them when it was.

It proves that it is gravity that is making the object fall, and that their descent has nothing to do with their density. It's just a vacuum, it's not making them weightless or anything.

Gravity was invented by Sir Issac Newton who was a Free Mason. And Gravity is still a theory just like relativity. Gravity is used by folks like yourself to answer everything. How convenient.

I don't care what Newton was, he observed, and he came up with a theory to explain what he had observed. He called it gravity, the effect two bodies of mass have on each other, and we still use it because nobody else has come up with a better, observable alternative...yet.

"Folks like yourself" - sounds like an insult to me.

Gravity - it's why chocolate tastes like Tuesday, and why yellow smells of elderberries.

"He came up with a theory", a lot of people have come up with alternatives. If anything Newtons theory was the alternative.

Wasn't trying to insult you, sorry if you took it that way.

"He came up with a theory", a lot of people have come up with alternatives

Anybody can. Problem is, the alternative that was given, "gravity is weight/density", offer no relevant predictive power and seems to be based on conjecture.

What are your thoughts on how weight has been observed to change with your location? It makes sense with knowledge of gravity, as well as the Earth's rotation (Such as objects weighing the lightest at the equator and more the further north/south you go).

I'll look into it more, I wouldn't have a good response to that without researching more. I will say I watched a few moments of that and was waiting for him to go to different locations on the map and test the weights but he didn't.

Gravity was invented by Sir Issac Newton who was a Free Mason

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Exactly, that would be Density.

Lets think of an experiment that can test this?

What happens to objects in a vacuum? Do they change in weight?

If I put a brick on a scale in a vacuum chamber how does its weight change in the absence of other things to be "dense" against?

I'm with you, I just don't think "we" are doing ourselves any favors by trying to explain falling objects with density. Why do they fall? I agree that gravity is just a lazy reverse-engineered catch-all, but I don't think the buoyancy thing does a better job explaining it. Just my two cents.

There are no legitimate experiments that have ever been designed or executed that prove the existence of this supposed gravitational force.

There are plenty of experiments proving the existence of this supposed gravitational force, and that actually measure this force with more or less accuracy.

The most famous one is probably Cavendish experiment, which has been improved many times by Boys in 1894, then Heyl in 1942, and many other measurements in modern times. One of the most recent one is Gundlach-Merkowitz

You've made us more convinced of the flatness.

speaking for others in "team" format/call to action format

.

no actual substance to post

Hhm. You convinced me that your opinion means nothing.

I'm sure you would acknowledge that space is a Vacuum..So if space is a Vacuum, what barrier protects our atmosphere from getting sucked into the vacuum of space?

Gravity...That word and theory was created by Sir Issac Newton. He was a 32nd degree Free Mason. The Free Mason Logo is a square and compass, the level and plumb rule, the trowel, and has a Capital G in the middle.

Look at pictures of the Masonic and Hebrew Earth.

I have no reason to believe the Earth is flat but what is considered the scientific reason behind "Gravity"? Doesn't it have to be some kind of extremely strong attractive force below the Earth's surface? I already believe that the Model of the earth we are taught in grade school about the "levels" of the Earth's crust is heavily flawed.

They say gravity is dependent on mass. There's an equation for the gravitational attraction between two objects that's like [G (m1m2)]/r² I think. But nowhere can we observe any massive object exerting any force on any tiny object on earth.

We can observe the moon and sun exerting force on water via tides. You could test something similar yourself if you have a really precise scale, as well

But nowhere can we observe any massive object exerting any force on any tiny object on earth.

We orbit the sun, moron.

No shit? Try again but use some reading comprehension.

Even more basic, high school physics. Hold a 20kg mass over a high resolution scale (one that measure to fractions of a gram, any school science department should have one) and watch the values on the readout go down.

The horseshit that flat Earthers spout that you can't observe this happen is such ignorant nonsense.

But nowhere can we observe any massive object exerting any force on any tiny object on earth.

That's not true. We were measuring the gravitational attraction of mountains as far back as the 1800s.

Again with the "we."

Just because you have a collection of SpaceX action figures, LEGO NASA sets, and masturbate to Elon Musk interviews doesn't mean you were there for any of this stuff.

But you should look into Space Camp for adults. Seems fun.

Once again, no defense of your claims and you instantly revert to claiming I'm a shill. Classic. I'll take this response as an admission of fault on this point as well.

Gravity is real=You must masturbate to Elon Musk.

Do you really think that passes for constructive debate?

So where is YOUR evidence ? Or are you just gonna link some youtube videos. Oh and Elon Musk sent a fucking car into space btw

So where is YOUR evidence ? Or are you just gonna link some youtube videos. Oh and Elon Musk sent a fucking car into space btw

We can indeed observe a massive object on earth straying a smaller object. We use it as a standard experiment to test the force of gravity. However the force is so small it takes some rather precise equipment.

Do you have that equipment and if not refrain from using the word "we" as you have no way of doing this.

I did the experiment in college anyone can do it if they try. You just have no desire to know the truth.

Any secret society should be questioned and acknowledged. Dangerous? I don't know...Freemasons say they have knowledge not known to ordinary man.

2+2=4 is not a good example to compare to the "theory" of Gravity.

What if I told you that all the men that "supposedly" landed on the moon were Masons. Would you believe that?

Women cant be masons but there are women astronauts

http://www.msana.com/women.asp

You sure?

From the masons own website... You believe they admit women?

I don't really care if they do or don't...

Do you believe astroNOTS (*astronauts) tell the truth about our PLANE(t)?

Maybe we need to change the name of airPLANEs to airglobes.

I respect your opinion, I just don't agree...And I don't care if you believe my opinion.

Any time you think someone's skills are without question and should be blindly believed without verification should be a huge red flag.

The people who do believe what someone told them without verification would be technically taking a "leap of faith".

Exactly my point on the difference between belief and fact. We all thought that a spherical earth was fact growing up. Now we find out that we've just been getting shit information from a controlled source (public schools and MSM). It's important not to hang on to possibly wrong beliefs, if they are correct then the scrutiny will show that.

I agree!!

what barrier protects our atmosphere from getting sucked into the vacuum of space?

There is no barrier. Think less like a vacuum you clean a floor with and more gradual.

Gravity makes things want to move "down" even gasses. The air gets thinner and thinner the higher up you go

Typical vacuum cleaners produce enough suction to reduce air pressure by around 20%. Much higher-quality vacuums are possible. Ultra-high vacuum chambers, common in chemistry, physics, and engineering, operate below one trillionth of atmospheric pressure, and can reach around 100 particles/cm3. Outer space is an even higher-quality vacuum, with the equivalent of just a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter on average.

I was never thinking of a Vacuum Cleaner for carpets.

Okay so what is the "sucking" force of the vacuum of space and why should it overpower gravity to remove our atmosphere?

It doesn't but according to main stream science the vacuum of space is much much more than anything obtainable by humans for experiments. So according to that it should have more of a effect without a barrier between the atmosphere and the vacuum of space.

I keep forgetting that Gravity is the answer to everything. How convenient!!

It doesn't but according to main stream science the vacuum of space is much much more than anything obtainable by humans for experiments.

Depends on how far away from Earth you are. There is still atmo hundreds of miles up its just very very thin.

So according to that it should have more of a effect without a barrier between the atmosphere and the vacuum of space.

Logiclly that doesnt make sense. I asked you to explain why the force is stronger than gravity. You havent yet

I keep forgetting that Gravity is the answer to everything. How convenient!!

Please offer a suitable alternative. Then explain why its better.

Hard to explain why the force is stronger when I don't think that or Gravity is real. I was just stating what the textbooks say about space being a vacuum.

Okay so lets think about this logically.

What about the theory of gravity do you question or think is incorrect?

What force is "pulling" the atmo to space and why does it overpower whatever force is pulling things "down"?

"Theories" should always be questioned. Anyone can have a theory about something. I don't think there is a force. I was just asking a question. If mainstream science tells us space is a vacuum, what barrier separates our atmo and space? Experiments using Vacuum Chambers here on earth have a barrier between the chamber and the room their in.

"Theories" should always be questioned.

Right, so what questions do you have?

If mainstream science tells us space is a vacuum, what barrier separates our atmo and space?

There is no barrier it just gets thinner and thinner the higher you go until it gets thin enough that we consider a vacuum.

There is still "stuff" in space, just very very small amounts.

So dont think of it as a barrier so much as the vacuum cant "pull" the atmo more than the force that is attracting the matter "down"

I don't have any questions, I don't believe in Gravity. I believe in buoyancy and density.

So thin that most meteors burn up in the atm, right?

I don't believe in Gravity. I believe in buoyancy and density.

Im asking why you dont believe in gravity and why density is a more elegant solution.

Would it be fair to offer a few tests?

Lets think about an object in a vacuum, whats happens to a brick in a vacuum chamber? Does it change in weight? No it does not so we know its not density based.

So thin that most meteors burn up in the atm, right?

Between 40-60 miles they burn up totally. The ISS sits at about 250 miles.

Gravity is the answer to everything "official experts" can't explain and doesn't make sense on the spinning ball earth. How does the earth orbit the sun? Gravity Why do we stick to a spinning ball? Gravity Why doesn't water fly off a ball spinning 1,000 mph? Gravity Why does the moon orbit the earth? Gravity What causes the tides? Gravity Why do the wandering stars called "planets" move in relation to the fixed stars of constellations? Gravity

Did you ever notice the drawings, "composites of ribbons of data", or pictures of big balls called "planets" have the same names of Roman and Greek Deities such as Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Neptune and Saturn?

When people say "Gravity is the cause of it" they might as well say "God is the cause of it", the belief in Gravity does not have anything to do with science but everything to do with Religion.

That's why!

Nothing you wrote has any supporting evidence...

I mean its applicable to anything!

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

Even NASA admits images of earth are photo shopped.

I agree the first paragraph has zero supporting evidence to prove Gravity is real.

I've already answer this elsewhere

One of my biggest questions about space and it's legitimacy is as follows, and I will do my best to explain it but something doesn't make sense here.. it is also a very similar principal to a fundamental argument of Flat Earth Theory:

In the FE theory, many propose that if the earth is a spinning ball beneath us, one should be able to leave it's surface (by way of aircraft for example; plane/helicopter/hot air balloon), hover above the surface and wait for the destination to arrive, as opposed to flying TO the destination. They argue that if the Earth spins 'Eastward' at roughly 1000 mph, it would be humanly impossible to travel, let's say by air, Eastward because the Earth would be constantly moving away from you below.

Now hold that thought, and let's apply a similar thinking to Space Travel.. When the itineraries for space travel are observed, from what I can tell the path works as if the destination is a stationary object. This isn't so according to the heliocentric, solar-system model. The way science explains it, the solar system is in a constant state of motion through the universe. So, with that in mind, as soon as you leave earth's atmosphere and enter the vacuum of space, should the planets not now be moving in a way no longer connected to your (earth's) movement? So you can't simply head towards Pluto (for example) because by the time you reached where Pluto is, it SHOULD be long gone? I'm not saying this is damning evidence, what I am saying is I do not understand how this could work.

From Wikipedia

"The Solar System is traveling at an average speed of 828,000 km/h (230 km/s) or 514,000 mph (143 mi/s) within its trajectory around the galactic center, a speed at which an object could circumnavigate the Earth's equator in 2 minutes and 54 seconds "

I can't quite wrap my head around how Science can explain this being possible. Traveling in any capacity to another planet in our solar system seems at the very least implausible, but these numbers alone. I see on spacecrafts trajectory maps, they utilize gravitational forces from other planets to slingshot and continue moving, but what about all that time they are not "within" the gravitational pull from said planet, and if the argument is made that they are within it to an extent the entire time, when do planet's decide(for lack of a better term) when to hand-off the spacecraft to the next?

Maybe someone can explain this to me, and I hope I explained my question well enough to possibly be addressed.. this is a topic I really haven't seen much discussion over in the space community or the flat earth community, or anywhere really.

So is your assertion that even when you leave Earth's atmosphere you are still within a "solar-system level" atmosphere? So while you are "out in space" you are actually still moving ALONG WITH the planets as they travel at over 500,000MPH through the galaxy?

I gotta be honest, maybe it's the way this is being explained or something but I don't feel this even sort of answers my question.

With present technology it takes a monstrous expenditure to leave the Earth´s atmosphere and orbit. They don´t need those massive rockets to fly through space. They need those rocket´s to break Earth´s gravitational pull.

I understand that idea, but what about fighting to move laterally or in any direction aside from the direction the rest of the solar system is moving at 500,000mph. At what point when exiting earth's atmosphere do you suddenly start moving 500,000mph along with the solar system on it's journey through space? Wouldn't there be SOME kind of adverse effects from this? Or would space travelers/satellites not even register this for some (amazing) unknown reason? It just doesn't seem to make sense, and your post doesn't really help me understand. Not being rude, just honest.

Conservation of momentum is fucking you up, and to be honest, it's just hard to comprehend.

We're moving as (roughly) 30 km/s around the sun on Earth. At this speed, you could make it from New York to California in give or take two minutes. As in, if the Earth stopped revolving right now, you would slingshot in the direction of our orbit at that speed and be obliterated instantly. Doesn't feel like that though, does it?

So, like the Earth moving, the Sun we orbit is moving too. It's moving at 800k Km/h around the center of our galaxy. Pretty fast, but even at this speed it takes about 220 MILLION years to make a full orbit of the Milky Way galaxy. So, cosmically, not that fast.

Now, when you leave Earth on a rocket, you're still travelling at these speed REALATIVE to the center of the Galaxy AND the sun. Unless you use a lot of energy to speed that up/slow it down.

Think about it like this. You put a floating pebble in a fishbowl full of water, and then start spinning it the water. Then pick up the bowl and start spinning. The pebble will go in it's path in the water, but it will ALSO be travelling at the speed of your spin.

Now the next part is that people assume being in orbit/space means no gravity. That's not true. Anywhere in the solar system (at a minimum) you're still affected by the gravity of the sun. It's pulling you along in it's gravity well. The international space station is still affected by a great deal of Earths gravity, but it's just in constant free-fall, that's where the weightlessness comes from, not Zero-G. I mean, the Moon is held in place by the Earths gravity (And it's own, as well) and the ISS is much, much closer.

But so let's launch you off the planet, and have you slow down somewhere between Earth and Mars. And you just sit there. How fast are you going?

Well it just depends. If you stayed matched to Earths orbit, you're going 30 km/s around the sun, but you're still going 800,000 km/h around the center of the universe.

And you ask about adverse effects, but that seems to imply that everything else is stopped. If you're driving down a highway and everyone is doing 70 mph, no one moves relative to you. But if there's a car parked up ahead on the road, then yeah, there will be some adverse effects. Things in space are moving, but because it's space, you have to ask what it is relative to.

So I appreciate you taking the time to attempt to explain this, but it's kind of what I figured. It is theory explaining theory, despite this being scientifically-endorsed, it's hard to take at face value. And that could be due to it's difficult-to-comprehend nature, but in your metaphor of the cars on the freeway, if car 1 is the earth, and the other cars on the highway moving at identical speeds are the planets, throwing a pebble (space shuttle) out the window at exit velocity it would cease to move at that speed, and instantly fall behind, not even accounting for it dropping. Even if it was able to stay suspended in air, it would immediately fall behind. It can't just continue moving at the speed of the rest of the cars just because it they are all moving at that same speed. This sounds like conjecture at best.

The gravitational force of the sun is pulling the rest of the planets along with it on it's journey through space, but somehow moons orbit those planets without ever being peeled away from their respective planets. And somehow in that same setting, much like a balloon can float on earth despite all of it's movement, a space shuttle or satellite/probe can just freely float through space despite actually being moving 500,000+mph through space. Not just hard to comprehend, hard to believe.

if car 1 is the earth, and the other cars on the highway moving at roughly identical speeds are the planets, throwing a pebble (space shuttle) out the window at exit velocity it would cease to move at that speed, and instantly fall behind, not even accounting for it dropping.

Because of Air resistance....I mean that's silly to add air resistance to objects in space.

Even if it was able to stay suspended in air, it would immediately fall behind. It can't just continue moving at the speed of the rest of the cars just because they are all moving at that same speed.

If you took air resistance out of the equation, then yes, it would fall behind because the cars are accelerating. they are powered, the pebble is not. Planets already have the momentum and none of the air resistance. If you add that much momentum to the pebble and remove the air resistance, it would orbit too.

That's just not how it works on a practical, observable level.

And if common sense was the standard, we would have figured out computers and orbital mechanics thousands of years ago.

The gravitational force of the sun is pulling the rest of the planets along with it on it's journey through space, but somehow moons orbit those planets without ever being peeled away from their respective planets.

Distance and size. We are far from the sun, which holds us in place, but close to the moon, so we can hold it in place. Speed is obviously a large factor too.

And somehow in that same setting, much like a balloon can float on earth despite all of earth's movements and speeds

Because it's moving at the same speed. I already explained that. It's not "in spite of", they have the same velocity. That's like saying "I'm moving at the same speed of my car despite the pistons pumping." The pistons pumping is the reason for the speed, not in spite of it.

a space shuttle or satellite/probe can just freely float through space despite actually being moving 500,000+mph through space. Not just hard to comprehend, hard to believe.

It's not freely floating in space, though. It's in a rigorous orbit. And, things that are in orbit, generally, move at around 18k mph, not 500,000.

And to your edit...I don't understand. When we send out probes to other planets, we're sending them to where they WILL be, not where they are. It takes years of planning to make sure the planets are in good positions to make these trips. The planets orbits are absolutely taken into consideration when probes are sent out. I don't know what your contention is. It seems to be purely fabricated.

And, things that are in orbit, generally, move at around 18k mph, not 500,000.

Well this is a contradiction because the solar system moves at about 500,000mph through the galaxy. Thus the shuttle/probe also has to be moving at that speed or else, as we stated with the cars, the planets should dash right by (relatively speaking due to their size).

Well this is a contradiction because the solar system moves at about 500,000mph through the galaxy.

Relative to the Earth. When you're talking about an orbit, you're talking about the thing it is Orbiting. It it was moving at 500,000 MPH relative to the Earth, it would no longer be in orbit.

Thus the shuttle/probe also has to be moving at that speed or else, as we stated with the cars, the planets should dash right by (relatively speaking due to their size).

No, because everything is all already moving at that speed.

Next time you're on the highway in the passenger/back seat, take a coin out of your pocket and flip it in the air. It won't hit you in the face at 70 mph because it's already accelerated to that speed relative to the earth, same as you, same as the car.

edit: ex1, ex2, ex3 these do not seem to imply the planets move at all during this course. Misleading at the least? Misleading? Maybe if you're not really reading it. They're using the planets as benchmarks. "Crossing an orbit" doesn't mean "Interacting with a planet." There was really 1 planets it interacted with, Jupiter, to get a gravity boost.

I'm trying to give you simple and rational answers, but you giving me a chart where is says "Crosses X Orbit" and saying "SEE?! Too convenient!" seems like you're actively trying to not understand.

That's only 1 of the examples I gave you, in fact the others use the term Fly-by.. which is definitely more a term implying moving towards and then past a stationary object.

As is per usual, your superiority complex is showing. You are using theory to prove theory and yet you are beginning to imply I don't want to understand.. I understand what you are saying happens in theory. Just because I have follow-up questions and clarifying questions does not mean I don't want to understand. I apologize that it is not in my nature to take what you are saying at face value.

As for your car metaphor, again. Flipping the coin in the car is the same as watching a Balloon while in earth's atmosphere. How are you missing that my question is in relation to outside of earth's atmosphere.

So if you are saying the solar system is not moving at around 500,000 mph, as science says it is, how fast is it moving? Regardless of the speed, if an object is not in earth's atmosphere, but just outside, is it forced to move at the same speed as the solar system it is within? Are you implying there is a sort of unseen atmosphere (for lack of a better term) caused by the Sun and other planets gravitational pulls? If this is the case, then at what point does the object/shuttle/whatever begin moving at that same speed? upon leaving earth's atmosphere? Wouldn't there be adverse effects doing this? Increasing in speed at such a huge rate in a very very small time frame? I feel my question is clear, you are not answering it though.

That's only 1 of the examples I gave you,

Example 2 and 1 are basically the same, and example 3 is an image of ALL spacecraft we've sent out and has nothing to do with your argument since every single craft has a specific trajectory as a specific time. I ignored it so as not to point out that it's pretty stupid to post an image of every single space probe at once and then claim the planets are aligned everytime.

in fact the others use the term Fly-by.. which is definitely more a term implying moving towards and then past a stationary object.

Really? You mean that you personally can't fathom "Fly-by" to mean "Close enough enough to a planet to take photos" in this context? If that's the case, that's on you, personally, and you should reflect on what that means about how you think. It most certainly doesn't imply a static object. If you and I are running a race, and I "fly by" you, it doesn't mean you were standing still, it means I went past you quickly. Again, this seems like you actively trying to NOT understand, which is a problem.

As is per usual, your superiority complex is showing.

I've been nothing but polite to you. Now, you're being an ass.

You are using theory to prove theory and yet you are beginning to imply I don't want to understand

Do you know what a theory is? Evolutionary theory is used in medicine all the time. A theory is a body of facts used to explain something. So using a body of facts to explain a body of facts is perfectly reasonable, and you're implying it is bad. And I'm not implying you don't want to understand, you're doing things that imply you don't want to understand like you just did with the "fly by" statement and I'm pointing out THAT behavior.

Just because I have follow-up questions and clarifying questions does not mean I don't want to understand

You're taking an image that is trying to very generally explain something and saying "This means the planets don't move!" and it doesn't even say anything close to that. You have to go out of your way to make that interpretation. In fact, when you look at the dates and the descriptions, the image implies exactly the OPPOSITE of what you took away from it. That is an action that requires intent to not understand, and one I pointed out.

As for your car metaphor, again. Flipping the coin in the car is the same as watching a Balloon while in earth's atmosphere. How are you missing that my question is in relation to outside of earth's atmosphere.

I'm just pointing out, that right now, you are moving at that speed relative to the center of the galaxy. You would have to add a lot of energy to change that speed, whether to speed up or slow down, it would take energy.

So if you are saying the solar system is not moving at around 500,000 mph, as science says it is, how fast is it moving?

I didn't say that. I agreed with you that it was. I just used a different measurement. It's moving at 800,000 Km/h or 500,000 MPH. Where did I say it wasn't?

if an object is not in earth's atmosphere, but just outside, is it forced to move at the same speed as the solar system it is within?

Forced to? No, it already is moving at that speed even on the planet With regards to the center of the galaxy.

Are you implying there is a sort of unseen atmosphere (for lack of a better term) caused by the Sun and other planets gravitational pulls?

No, it's just conservation of momentum. If you're on a train going 100 MPH, and you run at 5 MPH, you're going 105 MPH relative to Earths surface. We're already on a planet, in a solar system, travelling at that speed. It would require energy to slow us down.

f this is the case, then at what point does the object/shuttle/whatever begin moving at that same speed? upon leaving earth's atmosphere? Wouldn't there be adverse effects doing this? Increasing in speed at such a huge rate in a very very small time frame? I feel my question is clear, you are not answering it though.

I'll be as clear as possible: You're already travelling at 500,000 MPH RIGHT NOW. Relative to the center of the galaxy, which is what we're measuring. When you leave Earths surface, unless you apply an extreme amount of energy to speed up/slow down, you will still be travelling at that speed relative to the center of the galaxy.

f you and I are running a race, and I "fly by" you, it doesn't mean you were standing still, it means I went past you quickly.

Fly-by(apparently also known as one word, flyby) and to "fly by" are two different things my friend, and the fact that you are actually mocking me at this point and yet can't understand such a simple fact is actually laughable.

While a google search of fly-by mentions space and planets/moons a search for the definition of the term gives this example.

": a prearranged usually low-altitude flight by one or more airplanes over a public gathering (such as an air show)"

And on the site that is found, there is also an example regarding space, and regardless to that, the implication is that it is passing by something stationary.

I'll be as clear as possible: You're already travelling at 500,000 MPH RIGHT NOW. Relative to the center of the galaxy, which is what we're measuring. When you leave Earths surface, unless you apply an extreme amount of energy to speed up/slow down, you will still be travelling at that speed relative to the center of the galaxy.

It is difficult to believe, for me personally, that I am traveling the speed of the Earth's rotation, the speed of Earth's Orbit, the speed of the Solar System's "orbit," the speed of the Galaxy's rotation, AND the speed of the Galaxy's movement through the universe, but because I am so small and insignificant I just can't feel any of that.

Your assertion is somehow, because I am doing all of these things at once, I can freely move between them because I am already doing them. If I were to leave Earth, I'm already moving at the speed of the Solar System so nothing happens. If I leave the Solar system, I am already moving at the speed of the Galaxy, and so on and so forth.. Do you actually believe these things are true? And I do not ask that question as a loaded one, with any response at the ready. To me, believing all of these things, is theory proving theory and there is just absolutely zero possibility to know these things to be true. This is my hang up with the Heliocentric model, and that is not to say I subscribe to a different belief in particular. I just can't base any stout belief on that much conjecture.

and to "fly by" somethiong are two different things my friend, and the fact that you are actually mocking me at this point and yet can't understand such a simple fact is actually laughable.

Are you kidding? and you go ON to focus on this term? You ignored more than half of my post, but the term "Fly by" is somehow super important. when you have to focus on the language and not what actually happened, you've stopped having honest discussion. If you want honest discussion I'd suggest you focus on the points and not spinning terminology.

t is difficult to believe, for me personally, that I am traveling the speed of the Earth's rotation, the speed of Earth's orbit, the speed of the Solar System's "orbit," the speed of the Galaxy's rotation, AND the speed of the Galaxy's movement through the universe, but because I am so small and insignificant I just can't feel any of that.

Since you're fine with googling, google "Argument from incredulity" and you can see why this whole paragraph doesn't matter.

Your assertion is somehow,

Not an assertion. Once again, this seems like you actively trying to disbelieve than acknowledge evidence. Everything I've said can be fact checked. Claiming it's an assertion is a way to dismiss it without looking anything anything up. I'm not asserting this because I believe it, it's demonstrable and evidenced, and you have every reason to fact check me and verify it yourself.

I can freely move between them because I am already doing them. If I were to leave Earth, I'm already moving at the speed of the Solar System so nothing happens.

Sort of. Not everything in the solar system moves at the same speed relative to eachother.

If I leave the Solar system, I am already moving at the speed of the Galaxy, and so on and so forth.

And not everything moves at the speed of the galaxy. It's just the momentum you have. We will, in a few billion years, collide with Andromeda. If you're in space and collide with something moving from Andromeda, it probably won't be pleasant.

Do you actually believe these things are true

The math and physics are there. There was a claim, and it's been entirely supported. At this point you'd have to provide evidence these things AREN'T true.

To me, believing all of these things, is theory proving theory and there is just absolutely zero possibility to know these things to be true.

That's an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know doesn't mean they haven't been demonstrated. And again, " A body of facts proving another body of facts" isn't a contradictory statement so I don't know what your problem is.

This is my hang up with the Heliocentric model,

The heliocentric model is the only thing ever produced to explain planetary retrograde. Look up Planetary Retrograde, and find me a model other than the heliocentric on that explains it with supporting physics.

We stopped having honest discussion when you began being insulting and mocking me.

That's a nice excuse to try to get out of Proving Planetary retrograde in another model other than the heliocentric with known and correct physics.

"I'm offended, therefor I'm right."

If your next comment isn't a description of how Retrograde works in any other model, don't bother.

I have never claimed to be right, nor have I claimed to offended. I just think that you started off wanting to be nice as long as I took everything you say at face value. I continue to ask clarifying questions and challenge you on things to some extent and you began getting offended that I would do such a thing.

You feel superior for whatever reason and me challenging that has caused you to begin mocking and being insulting. Thus I'm not really interested in discussing this with you further?

I continue to ask clarifying questions and challenge you on things to some extent and you began getting offended that I would do such a thing.

You took an image, completely mangled the information on it, and then used that as a reason to disbelieve. That's not "asking clarifying questions."

Are you going to give an account for Planetary Retrograde or not?

My inability to give you an account for planetary retrograde proves nothing other than my lack of knowledge on the subject, which I'm not ashamed of. You however have a severe superiority complex, which has sent this conversation spiraling downward towards irrelevance. Your tone and attitude have turned me off from caring about anything you say, no matter how informative it may or may not be.

I didn't mangle any information, I took images from space agencies and space-teaching websites, and asked your take on them. You mocked me, and then when I mocked you you got very bent out of shape about it. Do unto others they say.

You can feel free to move along, I have made it clear I'm no longer even remotely interested in gaining any type of insight from you because of your inability to maintain your composure.

My inability to give you an account for planetary retrograde proves nothing other than my lack of knowledge on the subject

And boom goes the dynamite. I'm quite sure you googled "Flat earth planetary retrograde", only saw how Retrograde debunks the flat earth, and went "Shit, well since I can never be wrong, I'll just say it doesn't prove anything."

And right there is why I'm mocking. You have no interest in what's true, you only want to support what you WANT to believe. You're pretending you're some underdog fighting against mainstream knowledge so you can have a victim complex and be "one of the few" with "special knowledge", something that the rest of us in reality call "Wrong".

You however have a severe superiority complex, which has sent this conversation spiraling downward towards irrelevance.

Yeah, having an accurate model of reality is irrelevant to you, that's the problem here. And my condescension only showed up when you showed you were blatantly misrepresenting or selectively nitpicking something like the term "fly by" as if it could only have a singular meaning, and using that verbiage disproves all of modern science. That's being intentionally deceptive and when people practice that, it shows me they have zero interest in true things.

Your tone and attitude have turned me off from caring about anything you say, no matter how informative it may or may not be.

And there you go, the cop out. You're going to pretend nothing was explained to you because of who did the explaining. That's intellectual dishonest of the highest magnitude and again, is an action of someone who doesn't care about truth.

I took images from space agencies and space-teaching websites, and asked your take on them. You mocked me, and then when I mocked you you got very bent out of shape about it. Do unto others they say.

You know, I also included explanations as to what those images were actually representing, and I didn't even mock you. I simply pointed out that you took the information from these images and misconstrued it to mean exactly the opposite of what it was explaining. That takes a lot of mental gymnastics to do, and it was worth pointing out that you did no critical examination of the information presented. If that's "mocking" to you, informing you that your thinking is flawed, then you have a low bar for what mockery is.

I have made it clear I'm no longer even remotely interested in gaining any type of insight from you because of your inability to maintain your composure.

And again, another excuse as to why you refuse to acknowledge you're incorrect. It's incredibly transparent, and blatant ad hominem. "You're mean so I don't care."

I was incredibly patient with you, and when you keep making the same wrong assertions which I already explained were wrong I got snarky because you made it apparent you don't have any interest in reality itself, but only your own version of reality. You can spin in your head "He was mean so I stopped listening" but in reality, you were never listening in the first place and you made that readily apparent.

I actually didn't google anything regarding planetary retrograde, again I am willing to admit I am not knowledgeable regarding that topic and haven't taken the time since you initially mentioned it to educate myself, mostly due to not caring to further this conversation with you.

I haven't once refused to acknowledge I'm incorrect and once again, I have said many times I'm simply refusing to care what you are trying to say because of your superiority complex and the manner in which you are speaking to me. It's really quite simple to understand, but somehow you don't get it?

haven't taken the time since you initially mentioned it to educate myself, mostly due to not caring to further this conversation with you.

"I don't want to expose myself to information that contradicts my beliefs."

I can see right through you.

I haven't even stated what my beliefs are, you make an awful lot of assumptions brother.

You can't see right through me, again your superiority complex is showing. You clearly think you are some higher intelligence, you must be floating above us all eh?

" A body of facts proving another body of facts"

Theory is not fact, it is just that, theory. If it were fact it wouldn't be called a theory. Much like the Theory of Gravity. "Gravity" and it's effects on things on a practical, observable level, can be explained by Density and Buoyancy.

Theory is not fact, it is just that, theory. These are not bodies of facts, they are bodies of assumptions and conjecture based on things that can't even be observed

That's simply not true. Are you saying Cells haven't been observed? Cell Theory is a thing. Germ Theory, the Theory of Gravity, etc.

scientific theory: a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation

That's a good definition for how the word theory is used in science.

Do you believe we've observed the Andromeda Galaxy spinning?

How does that have any bearing at all?

Whether you believe we have or not, you believe it to be true.

You can see the effects of something spinning without actually seeing the thing spin, wouldn't you agree? And as I already pointed out, galaxies take a long time to rotate. And again, what does this have to do with anything?

That is not belief in fact, it's belief in assumption.

So if I come upon a black rubber mark in a parking lot, you're telling me that I'm assuming this was caused by a tire spinning in place? I'd argue that the evidence suggests there was a tire spinning, and you'd have to give contradictory evidence to disprove it.

If it were fact it wouldn't be called a theory.

That's stupid and entirely ignorant of what science its, how it works, and its terminology. If you strongly feel that way, go ahead and put your money where your moth is and debunk cellular theory.

"Gravity" and it's effects on things on a practical, observable level, can be explained by Density and Buoyancy.

That's mind-numbingly wrong, and I'm already tired of teaching you basic science, so I'll just rehash someone else's easy-to-understand explanation.

Here's the thing about gravity:

It's nothing more than something to describe why things fall down. In order for ANYTHING to move, or have any acceleration, you need a force to act upon it. So when an object experiences ANY change in velocity, there WAS a force that was acts upon it. In the case for gravity that force is MEASURABLE at 9.8 m/s² or about 10 newtons.

Now, the disagreement between science and flat earthers is that what is this force dependent on. The rest of the world says "mass" while the flat earthers say buoyancy and density. Here's the problem with the latter explanation....

Density isn't a FORCE. It's a measure of how much "stuff" there is per unit of volume. Density can never be a force. If an object were to be pulled in the direction where an area is less dense (e.g object falling from air), the flat earthers must explain, WHY IS DENSITY ONLY ACTING DOWN. Why doesn't a bowling ball fall in some other direction, if there is less dense air 360 degrees around that ball? Why is density so selective? What's the mechanism behind that?

What I find really funny and ironic is that flat earthers would often complain "how come gravity is so selective while a bowling ball can fall, while a feather or bird floats in the air", while being foolishly ignorant, that there can be a significant amount of force being exerted on the atmosphere. YET, their explanation somehow makes density act ONLY IN ONE DIRECTION! When you ask THEM why density is so selective, they NEVER have an answer!

Other times flat earthers would say "well, its buoyancy...A basket ball floats in water, but a bowling ball sinks. Same with the atmosphere".

This never fails to really crack me up. This explanation is PROOF how flat earthers NEVER look into a scientific concept, without quote mining it first.

The equation for buoyancy is

Fb=p(fl)Vg

Where p(fl)=density of the fluid V=volume of the object g=force of gravity (9.8 m/s²⁾

Yep. YOU CAN'T HAVE BUOYANCY WITHOUT GRAVITY. If you say that the BUOYANT force is the CAUSE of the gravitational force, well then that literally explains NOTHING! Where's the "9.8 m/s^2" coming from?! OF COURSE there's gonna be a buoyant force in the atmosphere because there's a fluid to exert pressure on!

But here's the thing. The mechanism behind buoyancy is that you need to exert a PRESSURE on a fluid, and that fluid will exert an OPPOSITE force (Newton's 3rd law) that we would call buoyancy.

Now, WHERE IS THAT PRESSURE COMING FROM...?

Hint hint....(its from the 9.8m/s²⁾

GRAVITY!

Anyone who actually understands buoyancy in the most basic sense of the word, knows that you can't have buoyancy without gravity, because there was never a force to exert the pressure in the first place!

Depending on the shape or DENSITY of the object, the force of buoyancy can be great enough so that the object would float on the fluid. Flat earthers only focus ON THAT PART ("Depending on the shape or DENSITY of the object") BUT NEVER THE FIRST PART (You need to exert a PRESSURE on a fluid)

Saying that buoyancy is the cause for gravity has to be the DEFINITION of circular logic. If only flat earthers can understand that...

When describing velocity you always need to take into account what you’re measuring it relative to, since there is no absolute reference frame. So you’re correct that we’re moving 500,000mph relative to the galaxy(although I haven’t checked the actual number). The person you were replying to is also correct, except they were talking about velocity relative to the sun, although they didn’t explicitly mention it. When talking about orbital speeds and things confined to the solar system, people typically choose the sun as the reference point.

Now I really don’t understand your logic with the pictures. It should be pretty obvious why they don’t imply movement... it’s because they’re pictures. If you want a diagram that shows that movement watch a video. Also you’re already supposed to know that the planets are moving, the picture doesn’t need to imply it. And like I said in my other reply, these pictures aren’t meant to show you the actual trajectory, they’re just meant to show you where the spacecraft is going and when. They’re not misleading because they never claimed to be a 100% accurate model of the solar system. I see you complaining about the planets not moving in a still picture, but nothing about the planets and distances between them not being to scale.

I never complained about anything, I was only asking questions.

Fair enough. Do you feel like I answered your questions? Do you have any more?

The other person seemed to imply that because we are moving at the speed of the solar system, when we leave Earth's atmosphere and enter the "vacuum of space" we wouldn't feel a change in speed even though we are no longer bound by the speeds we should have been bound to on earth (spin/orbital speeds of earth).

This doesn't seem possible.

He’s correct that we’re already moving with the solar system. Is he the one who’s claiming we wouldn’t feel a change in speed leaving the earth’s atmosphere? Because I’m that case he’s wrong. You have to accelerate to leave the earth, and break free from your typical movement on the earth. Rockets typically go the route of increasing their velocity in the direction of the earth’s spin enough that they’re able to continuously fly above the surface and atmosphere, but its important to keep in mind that they still follow the earth’s orbit around the sun and the suns orbit around the center of the galaxy because they were always moving at those speeds, and only overcame the earth’s movement.

Imagine it as cars within cars. The car we see around us is the Earth. We are moving with it, and rotating with it, and its gravity, kinda like the walls of the car, keep us bound to it. We can (somewhat) freely move around in the car, but cannot easily get out, because of its walls (gravity).

But if we exert energy and break the window and jump out of the car...(leave Earth's atmosphere) we will find ourselves in an even bigger car, with several other cars, and since there is no air resistance in space, we won't have slowed down relative to our original Earth car either, and just move along with the Earth car, and the Moon car, and all the other planets cars in our big solar system car. The cars can move relative to each other and do, and you can move from one car to another, but ultimately we're all in our big solar system car, going at its speed without noticing.

Then in the next step, we exert even more energy and break out of the front shield of the solar system car. But...we're still in a car, that takes us along with its speed! The galaxy car! And in this galaxy car, there is, among millions of other cars, our solar system car, and in that tiny little solar system car are our original planet cars, and all those cars are moving within the enormous galaxy car which goes 500000 mph. And none of the cars inside even notice how fast they're going. Just like you don't when you're in a car on the highway. That's how it's possible.

Obviously this metaphor eventually breaks down because it's about frames of reference, and there is not ONE correct frame of reference that you can use, so there is not ONE car that contains all other cars. It always just depends what you look at as the outermost car.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law

I mean, yeah I know what Newton's first law is, but it is held up by theory. We don't see objects in motion continue in motion in practical terms because we live on/in a place that everything is ALWAYS being acted on by another force. Gravity.

Well the sun exerts gravity on all the planets so yes.

I highly recommend you buy a physics textbook or something and really look into and try to learn classical mechanics. All the questions you just asked can be explained with a pretty rudimentary understanding of how things move.

To start, the idea that if the earth is a spinning ball, it should be able to just hover and let the earth move under you. The reason this is incorrect is because of something called inertia. If something is moving with a certain velocity along a certain trajectory, it’ll maintain that velocity unless acted upon by an external force. So when you’re standing on the earth, the earth is spinning, but you’re spinning with it. If you were to lift off the ground in a helicopter, you would be applying a force to yourself via the helicopter, but this doesn’t cancel your horizontal rotational motion with the earth, since it’s in a completely different direction, upward.

It’s the same reason that if you’re in a car(that’s not acceleration) if you throw a ball upward, it’ll still fall right down into your hand instead of flying backwards, because it still has that horizontal velocity.

In order to lift off of the ground and watch the earth spin under you, you would have to cancel out that horizontal motion by increasing your speed in the opposite direction of the earths spin until your horizontal speed relative to the earth was the same as the earths rotational speed but in the opposite direction. Although this would be very difficult inside the atmosphere due to the really high velocity required and atmospheric resistance.

Now onto space travel. The paths do not work as if the destinations are stationary. The examples you gave are just handy visual tools so you can see where things are going. The planets are also not to scale, and they’re not actually that close to each other either. If you look at the actual trajectories of spacecraft, they’re a bit more complicated than the pictures you supplied. You’re right that we can’t just fly straight to where Pluto is now and expect to get there. Space agencies have to take into account the motion of the planets when trying to travel between them.

That figure about how fast the solar system is moving around the galaxy isn’t exactly relavant to space travel inside the solar system. Like we learned above, we’re all moving WITH the solar system, we have the same velocity and trajectory as it does, so why would that make space travel within the solar system seem implausible?

Now as for planets “deciding” to hand off spacecraft. Its clear you haven’t done much research on this, because if you did you’d know that every gravitational system has an escape velocity, this is the speed you need to reach relative to the system in order to be moving away from it quicker than the gravity can pull you in. This is how a spacecraft might escape earth’s gravitational pull(although it never really escapes its field, since gravity has an infinite reach), and eventually enter another planet’s pull.

Spacecraft can “slingshot” around planets because they can fly near enough to a planet to feel its gravitational pull and use that to change their trajectory, but they’re still moving fast enough(remember escape velocity) to escape the system.

A vacuum doesn't suck in air as such. Air moves in to a vacuum to equalise the pressure. At the upper limits of our atmosphere the air pressure is effectively nil hence there is no movement of air. No idea on the Newton stuff tho.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to disagree with the post? How so?

Man, sucks that you're being downvoted for a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry. I'll do my best to explain what I believe is the case:

As others have said, there is a gradient of atmospheric pressure that decreases the further you get from the earth's surface. At any given point, however, the gradient is quite minimal. The earth's atmosphere extends about 1000 KM from the surface, but half of the air is within 20 KM of earth. This is precisely because the vacuum of space is sucking the air out constantly. Or, you could think of it as the air pushing itself outwards into space.

What is pressure caused by? Chemistry says that pressure is caused by molecules bumping into each other, and against other surfaces. So if I have a balloon full of air, it's expanding because the molecules on the inside are pushing against the inner surface of the balloon. This is also why increasing heat increases pressure - the molecules are moving more, so they will press harder against the inner surface. Try putting hot air into a balloon - as it cools, the balloon will shrink.

In space, there is nothing to bump into, so the molecule would go right into space... right? That's where gravity comes in. Unless the molecule surpasses the escape velocity, gravity will pull it back to the surface. But hydrogen can easily escape our atmosphere if it gets bouncing fast enough (is hot enough, insofar as a single molecule can have heat, which isn't really the case), and so planets like Jupiter have a lot more hydrogen in their atmosphere, since there's more gravity, and less is able to escape.

As for Isaac Newton, yeah, he was a bit crazy, as a lot of geniuses tend to be. After his Principia Mathematica, which introduced calculus (also pretty much only written to take credit from Leibniz), he wrote several volumes on alchemy which today is known to be complete bunk. There's even a wiki article on his occult studies. How do we determine what he said is true and what's BS? Scientifically, we discriminate between theories based on their predictive power. Gravity makes sense, because with the theory of gravity (plus calculus), you can fairly accurately explain the movements of all of the planets, in a way that doesn't require any special rules for planets vs. any other kind of matter. Of course, even his calculations weren't precise (not until Einstein and relativity could we predict their location with no error), but neither were their measuring devices.

I think what flat earthers are missing is a predictive model. Can you predict exactly where the sun will come up and where it will set, at what time, given some coordinates and a date? Can you predict where a planet will be in the night sky on a given date? This last question is what led to the discovery of gravity, and the heliocentric model.

Earth is measurably and probably flat, or else every time flat earth comes up the earth curvature study and evidence would come up and then it would over. Yet somehow that never happens, it's always an indirect or roundabout proof, like this long paragraph about the theoretical musings of sci-if space stuff.

it's always an indirect or roundabout proof,

In globe eathers defense its mainly because all direct evidence isnt accepted by flat earthers. I mean we have images of Earth from space that show curvature, some from the 40's that people refuse.

Since all direct evidence is immediately refused all thats left is indirect like waters curvature or the mechanics of how the sun wouldnt work on a FE

Google pictures of Earth and Satellites. They are all considers Images and all from NASA. Labeling something a image would protect someone in court if it was fake, but labeling it a photo would not.

Have you noticed that NASA's images of Earth have changed throughout time. United States is always a different size. CGI at its finest.

Google pictures of Earth and Satellites. They are all considers Images and all from NASA.

This is not true. Other places might host those images but NASA explains each and every image they release.

Have you noticed that NASA's images of Earth have changed throughout time. United States is always a different size. CGI at its finest.

You think they would fudge that and not notice?

https://i.imgur.com/HB2GmqB.png

The above image should clarify whats going on for you

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRbc28PSrI

They told exactly how and why they use compsotes...

Do you have any questions?

Also look up the DSCOVR EPIC satellite, it produces full unedited untouched photos of Earth.

If anything the links you gave support a globe earth.

You just listed more indirect proof lol, pictures are not scientific evidence. You can literally measure the earth and it's curvature and it's not curved enough to be a sphere. Not to mention the same goes for flat earth pictures, you can find high altitude balloon sent up without fish eye lenses and it's not curved.

pictures are not scientific evidence.

Well.... They are... actually.

Ive never seen bacteria, only images of one. Do you think they are also fake? How about computers? Ive never seen an electron move through a logic gate on a CPU therefore computers are fake, right?

You can literally measure the earth and it's curvature and it's not curved enough to be a sphere.

Except that isnt true...

Not to mention the same goes for flat earth pictures, you can find high altitude balloon sent up without fish eye lenses and it's not curved.

Also not true... Im doubting how much you know about this subject...

There are plenty examples of high altitude images created without wide angle lenses that show curvature.

We even have ones from the V2 tests during the 40s

You can see bacteria in a microscope very easily, you cannot enter low earth orbit easily, and no human has left low earth orbit since the Apollo missions, which I am sure makes perfect sense to you. I have seen the V2 rocket pictures, I have spent a lot of time reviewing the subject matter from both perspectives, of course originally I approached it from the earth must be round so what are these crazy flat earthers talking about perspective, and as I researched and dug into it it became clear there is something to it. I have seen all the common round earth proofs and flat earth arguments. I think one of the most compelling is geodetic surveying which would be a strong argument, obviously you have the NASA material for space evidence. I approach the subject now from the flat earth angle because it is very interesting, did you know the Chinese considered the earth to be a flat plane prior to a Jesuit astronomer gaining favor in the Imperial court in the 1700s? They were really behind the ball huh? Did you know Auguste Piccard was the first person to enter the stratosphere and said the earth appeared flat with upturned edges? High altitude balloon footage for the record: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALh_kFq1FkM High altitude balloon with fish eye lens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRqrnh_ySNs High altitude balloon with wide angle lens but corrected digitally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97xqBhgKV2M 30km(18mi) high alitude balloon shot, completely flat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjFyYLA3fT4 V2 rocket picture, earth looking flat to me: https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/nnJLv8axPAJI3nScxyDExEeTQLk=/800x600/filters:no_upscale()/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/33/d1/33d15156-47cd-4307-9c23-e3c8498539f5/1stphotofromspacejpg__600x0_q85_upscale.jpg

You can see the sun go over the horizon. That's proof by itself.

No it is not, the old ship over the horizon argument is not valid when you can zoom in on things that go beyond the limit of the vanishing point of your perspective(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWsuFLdgBs0). And there is such things at atmospheric lensing and distortion that complicate the matter.

No, that does not explain how a ship will disappear from the bottom up over the horizon, then if you get to a higher altitude it will rise back up a little bit. That is not even remotely how vanishing points work, and trying to argue that is pathetic.

And there is such things at atmospheric lensing and distortion that complicate the matter.

There are, but that does not at all explain how a ship will disappear from the bottom up.

You just linked something that proves my point, vanishing points do obstruct objects from the bottom up. On a flat plane rising to a higher altitude will enable you to see further, what the fuck are you talking about? Oh yeah something you don't comprehend. example (or is the barn a sphere?):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxLZfRL543E Go lay down and see how far you can see, then stand up, you think the curvature of the earth is the reason why you can see farther standing up than down?

Yes, they vanish from the bottom up because of the curve of the earth. You just proved my point. Thanks.

In that video, you can quite clearly see his entire body and his feet the whole way (until it's obscured by the light, of course).

Lmao.

Lets just imagine for a second that both of us are floating in space and nothing else exists. Could you explain to me why if you moved away from me, why you would magically disappear from the bottom up? The answer is, you wouldn't. You would only disappear from the bottom up if there was something obstructing the view, which in the case of boats, is the earth.

Congratulations of disproving the flat earth.

Give me or link me a mathematical model for atmospheric lensing and distortion, and we can have a discussion about that. As it is we have a predictive model that tells us where the sun will be with high accuracy, assuming the earth is round. Can you do the same assuming the earth is flat?

It's a cycle, like all things in the sky they are consistent, you don't need a complex mathematical model, that's why the ancient cultures could predict eclipses, comets, etc. But because you asked here is a paper:(https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/8907/1/Dynamic-simulation-for-distortion-image-with-turbulence-atmospheric-transmission-effects/10.1117/12.2032832.short). As you can see it's not easy to mathematically model the real world like described in the abstract, math is a formal language, it attempts to describe reality, it is not reality. Here is a bunch of math on atmospheric refraction though, not sure why you couldn't google it yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction).

Double Space at the end of a sentence makes a Paragraph - BTW you can edit this without deleting your post...just use the edit tab.

Then your laziness will be reflected on the content of your post. I'm not saying that's right; just human nature.

My eyes are a bit tired and reading a Wall O' Text has never been optimal but you do you.

Uh oh, we've got another dickhead in r/conspiracy. Lose the 'tude

I just need a friendly more readable format. I'm the last person to be in the grammar police!

All of the things I learned in school were not all truths that resonate with me today.

Who exactly decided the "Time Record" starts over at "0" and then folds over to a NEW TIME? As it stands, everything we're taught to believe is based on what the Big Dogs want us to know and consume.

My History Books should tell me the Roman Fort of Antonia was pretty huge and it sat above the Jewish Temple for a reason. Now, who rewrote all of this stuff that has severe religious implications if we can solve it with Earth Sciences? Like Geology, Archaeology, Hydrology etc.

NOPE! We're gonna let some religious pious Rulers and Leaders tell a bunch of Government Shills what Wars will be fought to protect this LIE!

Timecube dude? I thought you were dead.

You must have me confused with another.

No one wants to read a wall of fucking text, its basic forum etiquette 101.

It's interesting to see the mental distress coming from the indoctrinated folks. The reason "educated people in real life" are concluding that the Earth is flat and outer space is a lie is because it's actually the truth. Gravity as it is taught does not even exist. If you set aside your pride and your childhood love of outer space, NASA, and everything else you can easily see they are lying about everything from the Moon landing to the ISS. If you actually observe the stars and the planets you will see they are all the same distance away and pulsating lights and not what we were brainwashed to think. Of course you may already know this and this could just be another shill post to actually push the globe vs flat dialectic, who knows?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJJ_z6pwUrE

Gravity as it is taught does not even exist.

What is it then? We can very easily debunk magnetism or density and acceleration doesnt jive with observations so what is gravity as you know it?

Gravity is just a made up explanation for something that we don't understand which is why things come down. The fact is there is an "up" and a "down" and we don't understand how or why that works. Gravity (masses attracting) is there to provide an explanation for things that would normally point a logical thinker toward God. It's the same reason TPTB hide the true nature of Earth and outer space. If humanity knew we were on a flat, enclosed realm that we could not get out of, most people would believe in a creator. So they present you with a fantasy designed to take advantage of human's tenancy to be prideful and deny God.

"Gravity is just a made up explanation for something that we don't understand"

You just described knowledge, not a conspiracy. If some one asks me to describe knowledge, I'm using this. We didn't know what grass really was, we just knew it was there. So we made up an explanation for something that we didn't truly understand.

Sure but if it's based on something that cannot be proven (mass attracts) without extrapolating it out to more things we also don't understand (the moon, planets, sun, etc) then it's just nonsense. Masses don't attract. Spinning wet balls send water flying all over the place. A vacuum can't exist next to a non vacuum. These things are just true yet because of Newton's (huge Occultist) made up "Gravity" we just deny reality. We are on a spinning wet ball flying through outer space that has an atmosphere directly adjacent to the vacuum of space. Once you start to actually question some of Newton's laws yourself it becomes pretty clear we can't even maneuver in a vacuum. Gravity is simply "the god of the gaps" for people who want to deny God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHeO22EjHkI&index=4&list=PLOQMeZpzlX6BU3G91_09hcFsNzNDXo3Ev

Gravity is just a made up explanation for something that we don't understand which is why things come down.

Give an alternative and why you think its better than gravity

Alternatives can be given to things going up and down (density and buoyancy - relative density) but there is no explanation for "why down." Why do denser things go down instead of left, right, or up? Why down? That's what gravity claims to answer. After discovering NASA is lying about absolutely everything my answer is now simply "God." God defines up and down. Lots of people search for some electromagnetic explanation or whatever. I think the idea that we can know all the answers is how we ended up in this false reality. This is why Gravity is "god of the gaps."

density and buoyancy - relative density

Not exactly. We can test this theory pretty easily.

Put an object in a vacuum chamber, for example. Why does the object still want to go down in the absence of things to be dense against?

If I put a ball in water it floats because its more dense than the water. If I put that same ball in a vacuum why does it still want to go "down"?

The ball is denser than nothing. This is actually why the feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate in a vacuum. There is no fluid for it to relativity interact with. The "why down" is what I explained above. All I know is it's not masses attracting.

The "why down" is what I explained above.

Its not an explanation though. I respect the religious argument and I refuse to argue against it since its your faith.

One thing I would argue is that if God exists and is our creator why is creating an infinite universe with gravity as the attractive not an acceptable answer?

Wouldnt it be the same argument if I said the answer to why gravity exists God? why or why not is that not the same as your answer and just as acceptable?

It would be fine if it matched testable reality. It doesn't though and it also contradicts much scripture. Lots of people with strong faith still believe in the current scientific theory of the universe and God at the same time. I couldn't do that. It took me falling down this rabbit hole and discovering all of this to realize that scripture was actually truth. When you see the KJV Bible describe an unmovable earth and then realize that gyroscopes cannot possibly show precession when you have been taught the opposite your entire life it really makes this stuff sink in. If the KJV Bible is literally the truth from God and so many Christians believe in heliocentric, big bang, and evolution it forces them to allegorize much of the Bible that contradicts their own understanding. This creates so much false doctrine and is the purpose behind this deception.

If you read any scientific textbook from 100 years ago it will have a ton of stuff wrong with it. This is true at any point in time and will be true in the future. If you follow science you are just caught in the ever changing winds of man's hubris. I used to put 100% of my faith in modern science but not anymore. It comes down to this:

Rom_3:4  God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

If the KJV Bible is literally the truth from God and so many Christians believe in heliocentric, big bang, and evolution it forces them to allegorize much of the Bible that contradicts their own understanding.

Kind of... I mean the KJV isnt in greek or aramaic so its still an interpretation of what was written.

Do you think the bible ever used an idiom? When John talks of the 4 corners of the Earth do you think this is evidence the Earth is actually a flat square?

If you read any scientific textbook from 100 years ago it will have a ton of stuff wrong with it.

I would argue that holy texts are not exempt from this.

Again beleive what religious angles you want but there is ample evidence out there that the world is a globe.

But please have faith in whatever, I wont argue that.

have a good day.

I read the Bible like I would read any other book. When Jesus uses a parable it's clearly that. If someone says like or as it's an allegory etc.

Both Isaiah and John use the term "the four corners of the earth" and I take that literally and yes I think we are in some kind of a circle that is within a square. I don't really claim any knowledge as to what it actually looks like but it has four corners. I assume the mainstream Flat Earth model to be a deception as well as it's led by a bunch of shills.

I argue that the Bible does not have the same problem as scientific textbooks. I have come to the Bible (KJV specifically for English speakers, that is a whole other topic) from being fully indoctrinated into the scientific world and found it to have nothing but truth. Using it as a filter to question science has helped reveal a bunch of deception.

Since you seem amicable to beliefs contrary to your own please allow me to share the Gospel as it is presented in the KJV Bible with a literal understanding.

To be saved by the grace of God all that needs to be done is to repent of one's current sinful state (we are all sinners, sin is defined by God and he can't tolerate it). and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ in your heart which is:

1Co 15:1  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;  1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.  1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;  1Co 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 

This Gospel means Jesus Christ was the final blood sacrifice that washes away all sin from an individuals soul. There is nothing to be done on our part. We cannot possibly do what is required to be in God's presence after our cursed sinful flesh dies so God himself took care of it when he manifested in the flesh and was sacrificed. We can only believe on his death, burial, and resurrection 3 days later according to the scripture for our sins.

All the world's religions want to hide this simple truth. They want you think think something must be done or that you have to be good. It's all lies. The only thing that saves is true repentance of one's sinful state and calling out to God telling him you understand what he did for you. That's it.

I wish you well in your search for the truth.

Go buy a $100 telescope and you will see the planets are not "pulsating lights".

go buy a $500 Nikon P900 and you will see that they are just like the video I posted shows. Those are not "out of focus stars and planets." I can see Jupiter's so called moons with my camera. The camera is simply not powerful enough to see as far as modern science claims those things are away. All of those lights are the same distance seated in the firmament.

So all of these are fake?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/

I'm not sure about all but plenty are fake. Just look the front page of this subreddit. It's full of controlled opposition and shills. Pretty much every popular subreddit is. The only reason I'm posting in this thread is I happened across it sorting by new which is the only way to find actual people.

Go buy a Nikon P900 and start making observations with it. It will be the best money you have ever spent.

Can you prove that curvature has been measured and found to the degree that the globe would require? Picture from "space" do not qualify as we can't verify, nor will ever see the earth as a globe from space. There is thousands of missing ft of curvature all over the plane, so when does it start to curve or does it selectively curve in your model?

Can you prove that curvature has been measured and found to the degree that the globe would require?

Yes. Pictures of large structures/landmasses viewed over a distance. The further away they are, they less of the bottom is visible. The reverse is true too, the higher up you are, the further out you can see. Simple curvature experiments have been done thousands of times using these measurements.

You can too! Just go to the top floor of a hotel on a beach and have a friend stand on the beach itself. Have a third friend drive a boat at a constant velocity directly away from the hotel. Everybody keep each other in sight using binoculars and mark down the exact moment you lose sight.

This is not measuring curvature. Nowhere did you explain how you would measure the exact curvature and have it match the equation. You have described fisheye lenses and a rudimentary understanding of angular resolution.

If you have a 2000 ft high building 100 miles away from you on a ball, how much would be hidden behind the curvature?

This is very much measuring curvature, all you need are the equations (not a mathematician, so I'm going to wing it a bit, bear with me. I'm pulling my calculations from this derivation ). Let's use metric, for simplicity sake. The distance to the horizon will be the square root of height² + 2 * Radius * height. So, to calculate the radius based on the time of when the boat (assume a height of one meter and assume the boat is going 10 kph) will disappear, you plug in the values and get t=10 * sqr(1 + 2R) where R=Radius of Earth and t=time until the boat disappears. Once you have that time, it's trivial to calculate the radius of the Earth, which is (t² / 100 - 1)/2.

Say the building is 100m high and the boat leaves the shore going at 20 kph (or 20,000 meters per hour). For the guy on the shore, after about 15 minutes the boat has gone around 5 km and disappears. The dude on the building can still see it though, and will continue to see the boat until it disappears an hour and a half later upon reaching a distance of 35 miles from shore.

Depends on the size of the ball, of course. Since we're talking about Earth, about 4700 feet would be covered by the horizon.

Can you provide evidence about the curve?

Evidence doesn't count.

I think you are missing some understanding.

Let me get this straight... you believe that fish eye lenses that artificially curve straight lines somehow prove that a factually flat line is curved? I'm sure you were unaware of these lenses as that's the only possible way you can come to your conclusion. Respectfully, do I need to explain this further?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmkbAql5_jU&

There are plenty of commercial flights that take you high enough to see the curve, and there are other flight paths that are impossible to exist on a flat earth.

Regardless of the height, you will be unable to see the curve. Even at 120k ft height it's flat... maybe you missed the weather balloon footage, with multiple cameras in real time?

we're talking about measuring it to be the exact curvature that your claiming it is, not taking a picture from far away with a fish eye lense. About 8 inches per mile squared works for a quarter or less of the distance around the ball the size of the globe.

Can you admit that your belief in the globe is nothing more than a belief? And for it to be a fact for you, you would first have to verify what you've been shown and told. Do you agree about the difference between belief and fact?

Did you watch that video? I've been on a flight that briefly went that high. The curve is clearly visible. Hell, it's visible on the ground if you have a good camera.

Can you admit that your belief in the globe is nothing more than a belief?

I wouldn't admit something that isn't true.

Could you, by and chance, explain to me how it is possible for me to purchase and take a flight from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia? On a round earth that is an 8,000 mile or so jaunt over the Indian Ocean. On a flat earth, that is easily a 15,000 mile flight that takes you over Africa and most of Asia. That flight is also outside of the physical limits of a commercial airliner.

Could you explain to me why the sun and the moon go over the horizon? On a flat earth they would remain in the sky visible at all times.

Could you explain to me what is holding us down to the surface of the earth?

Could you explain to me how there has somehow never been anyone who found the edge of the earth in all these years?

Could you explain to me why objects in the distance, as my earlier link showed, go over the horizon?

Could you explain to me how it is that we can see earth-launched satellites from the ground?

Do you agree about the difference between belief and fact?

Funny, because it is your belief that is entirely based in lies. If you would like to provide any evidence of the earth being flat that would be nice.

So, you still are avoiding the most important question. Do you know that your globe is nothing more than a belief system? No different than Scientology or Islam. There is no evidence and there never will be. If there was, then you wouldn't be here.....

It's hilarious seeing people over complicate this idea, trying to rationalize their belief. Can you see farther than you would be able to on a globe? Yes, by a factor of over 100. It's funny because logic cannot tell you what is true but it can tell you what is false (nonexistent curvature).

You didn't answer any of his questions, btw. Why not take a shot at them?

Do you know that your globe is nothing more than a belief system?

It's not. I have already given you evidence. You have no evidence that the earth is flat.

There is no evidence and there never will be.

Except there is. I have given you some, and you are actively choosing to ignore it.

The fact that it is literally people's jobs to try and sway people against the idea of flag earth.

But it's not. There are people who do it for fun like me, but I don't think anyone's job is specifically to spread it. There are, on the other hand, plenty of FE YT channels that do.

Why don't the same people also attack the hollow earth theorists?

Because that one is less common. Also extremely stupid.

It's hilarious seeing people over complicate this idea, trying to rationalize their belief.

I have given you evidence of the fact that the earth is round, and you are ignoring it. You are the one trying to rationalize your belief. You have no evidence that the earth is flat, and cannot answer basic questions about it.

Can you see farther than you would be able to on a globe? Yes, by a factor of over 100.

What? No. Once again, I already linked you pictures showing this. You are still ignoring them.

It's funny because logic cannot tell you what is true but it can tell you what is false (nonexistent curvature).

Once again, I already linked you stuff showing this. Why are you ignoring it? At this point you are just lying.

You've shown you inability to understand the concept. I'm done with you, but feel free to continue to try to understand. Once you understand the flat proofs, there is literally no rhetoric that can help the globes case.

If you can at least answer how you've been to space yourself? How did you do it? What about gravity?

Huh? I provided evidence. You ignored it. I asked you questions. You ignored them.

As I have provided evidence and you have provided none after being given plenty of chances, I think it's safe to say that you're wrong.

Once you understand the flat proofs, there is literally no rhetoric that can help the globes case.

I do understand the flat "proofs". I've spent quite a bit of time looking at them, actually.

The difference between me and you is that I actually took time to see if those proofs were valid, and they were not. You simply ate it up and actively ignore evidence to the contrary. You are living in an echo chamber of denial.

If you can at least answer how you've been to space yourself?

I have not, but you don't need to go to space to prove that the earth is round. We proved that it was round literally thousands of years ago when we couldn't even fly.

What about gravity?

Gravity has been measured on earth plenty of times going back hundreds of years. We were measuring the gravitational effect of mountains in the 1800s.

See? I have answers. You don't.

Hold the phone. Are you telling me mountains will cause gravity to pull sideways (towards the mountain as well as down). You are the first person to make this claim in 15 months, now please show me this repeatable study where we can see the sideways pull due to mountains.

It's called the Schiehallion experiment.

If you really feel like it, you can probably do it yourself.

The Cavendish experiment works too.

Can you guess what my issues are with those experiments?

Huh? That is measuring the effect of gravity. What more do you want? Gravity is not some kind of tangible substance. It's a force, and we observed the force acting on a pendulum.

You can look into pendulums relation to eclipses to prove this experiment is bogus in case you were wondering.

The effect of eclipses on pendulums is actually just more proof of gravity. I don't know why you mentioned that, because it goes directly against your argument.

So in your personal belief system, the pendulums being effected by the eclipse outweighs the effect of the rotation of the earth? But only during eclipses? Please try to explain that logically. I think we are really close to you understanding.

So in your personal belief system, the pendulums being effected by the eclipse outweighs the effect of the rotation of the earth? But only during eclipses?

Huh? Did you even read into the Allais effect at all? It's a slightly strange behavior of pendulums during eclipses. The effect of gravity on them doesn't go away or anything, they are just observed to sway slightly strangely when the sun and the moon are lined up. This has nothing to do with the experiments that I linked to you, especially considering those experiments were not conducted during eclipses.

Gravitational effects are the only things that can account for the Allias effect. The Allias effect actually confirms that gravity is real, not denies it as you claim. I don't know why you need to lie so much if you're right.

Specifically, please elaborate on how you have controlled and isolated the two variables in your testing.

I'm sure you can read into the experiments if you really need to. You unfortunately like to ignore evidence completely that contradicts your held beliefs, so I doubt you will. I have already supplied links that explain them, but you are actively choosing to ignore them.

I still do not understand why you keep claiming that it is a belief system. I have provided evidence. You have provided none, and you have none.

The simple truth is that you do not care about facts, reason, or truth for that matter. You only care about your personally held belief that the earth is flat, and have utterly failed to proved any evidence of this. The reason? You have no evidence.

You've provided no verifiable evidence.

In this space, can you see stars? Or just a black void?

You can see stars if your eyes are adjusted or it's not day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQYx_17JHTY

Maybe you can explain these contradictions and don peditt waiting for the response before agreeing.

It's really not that complicated. If the sun is out or there's a lot of ambient light, you can't see stars. If you look away from the sun and let your eyes adjust, you can probably see stars. Basically the same as it is on earth. No contradictions involved.

No stars.
Stars.

I mean, you can see the ISS from earth. It's actually one of the brightest objects in the night sky.

Okay, thanks. This was entertaining, maybe you can answer some more questions tomorrow.

So let's do a hypothetical math problem.

How much of a 100,000 ft tall building would be behind the curvature of a sphere with a diameter of 8k miles and distance of 200 miles? Assume that there is a force that pulls everything to the center evenly, creating a perfectly level surface otherwise.

Why is me answering a pointless math problem at all relevant? I think you should be answering the quest of why boats and tall buildings go over the horizon? If the earth was flat, you could see literally anything, anywhere if you had a good enough zoom.

drowning in space

huh?

insects on board the ISS

huh?

the speed that the ISS is said to be traveling at

Roughly 17,500 mph, but the orbit is not circular and goes up and down as it decays and gets reboosted. As I said (and you have yet to explain) you can see the ISS from earth pretty easily.

the recent evidence of the foreground layer being distorted.

huh?

Your initial statement here is another common misconception.

How would the shape of the world reduce the atmospheric perspective issue? Do you know that percipitation and humidity have an effect on the distance you can see?

It seems like your fresh off one of those debunk videos. And they are compelling, and entertaining, and make you feel smart! You have to use logic when receiving any information regardless of who it comes from. Don't get sucked into the rhetoric, that's your ego working against you. It's very naive to think you have everything figured out.

How would the shape of the world reduce the atmospheric perspective issue? Do you know that percipitation and humidity have an effect on the distance you can see?

Oh they do, but they do not magically make this disappear into the ground.

It seems like your fresh off one of those debunk videos. And they are compelling, and entertaining, and make you feel smart! You have to use logic when receiving any information regardless of who it comes from. Don't get sucked into the rhetoric, that's your ego working against you. It's very naive to think you have everything figured out.

Ok, you appear to have failed to answer my questions. I'll take that as a lack of answers, just like you utterly failed to explain the photo of the ISS and why you can see it from earth.

Can you show me another vehicle that can sustain those speeds while people are repairing the outside, and people are docking and leaving frequently?

Huh? What kind of a question is that? They can stay on the outside of it and move along with it because there's nothing slowing it down. What a ridiculous question.

Also, the Chinese space station, Mir, Skylab, or really any orbiting laboratory.

"Oh it doesn't, but they do not magically make things disappear into the ground."

It seems that you are still unfamiliar with angular resolution. This requires a bit of understanding but it's a very simple concept at it's core. It's depends on the size and distance of what you are looking at. It is how the human eye works, and doesn't care if the surface you are on is curved or flat.

Than can you explain it to me then?

Why does a distant object magically start fading away from the bottom, and only the bottom? Why is this effect seen even when using a camera with a lens if it's some weird effect with the human eye? Could you give me an example of something disappearing into the ground from the bottom up on a perfectly flat surface? The video you gave me literally just proved my point.

The way objects disappear from the bottom up can only be explained by the earth being round. Any attempt to make up bullshit about "vanishing points" is pathetic.

Common sense. Air is much denser on the ground. Thus obscures more and creates this effect.

And? How is the density difference across the height of a boat enough to cause the bottom to magically disappear?

No and. That's it.

?

!isbot D0ctahG

You're being sucked in by a sophisticated chatbot.

This whole flat earth operation is the testing phase for someone's industrial AI effort to create on-demand astroturf campaigns.

Now that is a conspiracy I can get behind.

I'm not joking. If you've worked developing chatbots before, you can see the sentence fragment templates this thing is using.

And it only replies to people who reply to it. ;)

Can you admit that your belief is nothing more than a belief?

Look at his account history. It's not even a belief, it's an assignment.

Yes, but this is how we show the real people how obvious it is. Like this dude would shoot his own mother before admitting that his idea of the world is another belief system.

That's true. Any honest conspiracy theorist could at least understand the interest in FE as a topic of study. They wouldn't pretend to have false confidence that they are sure of all these claims about curvature and rotation.

Even when i was refusing to consider FE and even thought it might be a psy-op I didn't feel the need to denounce people or pretend to know all the answers.

Exactly. Can a Christian learn about another religion? Or do they get attacked by trolls online for asking questions?

The easiest method you can use for direct measurement yourself is measuring shadows (easy-ish).

Wait until within a week or so of the fall/spring equinox, when the sun is directly overhead from the equator. (It's possible to test this on other days, but that involves much more math and work on your part, so this is the best method for the sake of accuracy for a layman. If you need convincing on whether the equinox or earth's tilt exists I can verify that for you)

So what you'll do is take a tall object, like a meter stick. At solar noon near/on an equinox day, where the sun is furthest overhead for your location, hold the stick straight up on the ground and measure the length of it's shadow. It's best to start measurements 10 mins before solar noon, and finish them 10 mins after for maximum accuracy. Whatever shadow length is the shortest is your measurement from solar noon, and the measurement you'll want to use.

Then you're gonna treat the stick and the shadow as legs of a right triangle. Solve for the hypotenuse, and use trigonometric ratios to solve for the angle between the shadow and the stick (the angle at the "top" of the triangle)

Next, what you'll want to do next is find the distance between the location of your measurements and the equator, and use geometry to solve for the Earth's Circumference from there. Now, here's where waiting until the equinox comes in. We know that the angle between the stick and it's shadow is 0° at the equator, because it's the equinox and by definition the sun is directly overhead straight-up from that point (if you don't believe this, verify yourself along the equator). So we're essentially using the difference in angles and distance to calculate the Circumference of the plane they're on.

Now, if we assume that earth is a flat plane and not a spherical one, the angle between the stick and the shadow should be identical at both locations, and you'll end up with an unsolvable equation, indicating the Earth is not round. However, when we actually do the math and take the measurements in reality, this isn't the case. Thus proving earth is round, and approximately proving it's Circumference simultaneously.

The math for this is as follows:

(Angle of shadow in Your Location)/(360 degrees) = (Distance between Your Location and equator)/(Circumference of Earth).

This works because we're treating the sun's light as parallel lines, and solving the angles as opposite interior/exterior angles formed by the lines. Feel free to check that the math works on a smaller circle with a pencil & paper, if you're distrustful of the methods.

Here is a diagram

Another, demonstrating how/why this experiment works in different locations when comparing from the equator

Just basic geometry, the very same that was used to calculate Earth's Circumference hundreds of years ago.

From knowing the Circumference, you can approximate the curvature (C≈24,900 miles. 360° per 24,900 miles. 3.6 degrees of curvature per 249 miles. 1 degree of curvature per ~69.2 miles). Keep in mind, however that if you solve it this way it will be an average, because the Earth technically isn't an exact sphere, it's an oblate spheroid, and earth's surface has various features that exist above/below the "expected" boundaries of curvature.

You are neglecting refraction and assuming some things that you cant know. The same problems with Eratosthenes experiment. Also, if we are doing that test then you wouldn't use the heliocentric sun in the flat earth model for obvious reasons. So it would prove both models and give us no usable data for this argument.

Magnification and it's relationship to curvature and angular resolution however, will give us usable observations we can test in reality easily and repeatably.

Do you think that magnification should bring boats back over the curvature on a globe?

Do you think that magnification will increase the angular resolution allowing you to see farther?

Can you please explain how refraction could possibly impact the results of this experiment? This is measuring shadows. Nothing more.

No assumptions are needed. Any assumptions that are made for the mathematics alone (ie assuming the shadow angle is 0° on the equinox at the equator) can be resolved by direct observation. Phenomenon such as analemma allow us to check for precision of the sun's location in the sky on a given day, so no assumption needed there. Even then, these experiments can be conducted simultaneously by different parties for instant verification, so we don't have to assume the sun will be in the same location on a given day.

I made no mention of a heliocentric sun, nor does the math require it. I said we treat the sun's light as parallel lines. Hence why this cannot work on a flat plane. It does not prove both models, because as I stated, on a flat plane the angles between the sticks and shadows are identical when dealing with parallel lines. No heliocentric model is required, nor is it even considered.

Magnification does not "bring boats back", as objects vanish bottom-to-top over the horizon. Ever seen Chicago from across Lake Michigan? Bottoms of buildings aren't visible. No amount of magnification brings them back. Ever driven through the Mojave Desert or Death Valley? Mountains appear top first.

Magnification in general does increase angular resolution. I say in general, because there are factors like atmospheric distortion.

Oh you should try it in real life and see for yourself! You can absolutely bring boats back into your view that have gone way over the "curvature."

Your math is using straight perfect lines, that is not the case in reality.

I have tried. Doesn't work. Tried looking up videos of that phenomena, and none exist. Do you have any photographic or video evidence of "bringing back" boats using zooming alone?

Ok, then don't use perfectly straight lines. Photons from the sun have a wavelength of ~3 nanometers to 3200 nanometers, at the speed of light. The index of refraction for air is 1.000277 at STP (for comparison, water is 1.33, glass is 1.5-1.75 and diamond is 2.417). So using the index refraction for air, and knowing sunlight is going from a vacuum to air, we use Snell's Law to determine that sunlight entering the atmosphere at an angle of 0° (the angle used for calculations in the experiment) will have an angle of transmission of.... 0°. So the refraction has a negligible effect upon the experiment, because refraction only impacts photons entering a medium at a non-zero angle, and calculations are done with the sun as close to perfectly overhead as possible. The math still holds up.

But since humans are imperfect in their calculations, I'll humour an inaccurate measurement because that's entirely possible. So let's say you find out the solar noon for your calculation, but it's only accurate to the minute, not the second. So that's 60 worth seconds of guessing that has to occur. The sun moves across the sky at approximately 0.25 degrees per minute. So at worst, your angle measurements would be off by 0.25° in either direction. So plugging that inaccuracy back into Snell's, we end up with an angle of entry of +/-0.25° and an angle of transmission of 0.0147°. The atmosphere is approximately 300 miles thick (the vast vast majority is within 20 miles and this is where the refraction would occur for a majority of photons, but I'm using extreme values to prove my point, so I'll start the refraction 10x higher than they're likely to occur). So running the experiment with to-the-minute accuracy, with our flat-earth model, our shadow would be (at worst) a few millimeters away from our stick. But they'd still be at either identical, or opposite angles, which would still indicate a flat plane.

And on a round-earth model, the shadow would deviate from it's expected value a few millimeters as well, which (if we measure our shadows rounding to the nearest whole centimeter) would make our Circumference estimate off by +/-15 km at worst, after combing all of our factors. for a body estimated at 40,075 km. Which is an inaccuracy of 0.03%. If we use to-the-hour measurements, and round to the nearest decimeter (aka attempting the experiment at the up to an hour later than you should, measuring with 10x less accuracy than is reasonable for such a thing, still including the variation from refraction) we'd still expect an inaccuracy of less than a percent.

So assuming lazy researchers in the worst possible refraction conditions doing horridly imprecise measurements, the math should still be fine.

Okay, "I have tried. Doesn't work. Tried looking up videos of that phenomena, and none exist. Do you have any photographic or video evidence of "bringing back" boats using zooming alone?"

This is where we are done. You can do it in person if you are on Earth. Maybe search it... There are tens of thousands.

I did search it, and I couldn't find any. Hence why I asked you for any sources that you knew of. Every video I found with the phenomena you explained was of boats, that were either edited or cut in such a way that tried to imply waves weren't caused the perception that they vanished over the horizon. I also couldn't find any for mountains, which should have the same phenomena you describe. All other videos (aka the vast vast majority) were of objects vanishing bottom-first over the horizon that were zoomed in on either cameras or cameras peering through telescopes.

Pity that you're done. I like discussing and arguing with people with such different beliefs. Especially someone intelligent like yourself, and I was really curious what your response would be regarding the math I did on the refraction. Oh well.

Have a good night, good talking to you ✌️

How much physical curvature would exist between two points on a globe earth 85 miles apart?

I'm happy to share but you may have to first prove that you can use magnification to bring boats completely back into view. And I absolutely get it. I was doing exactly what you are now, months ago.

On average, you'd expect about ~1.2° of curvature for 85 miles of distance according to the math.

How am I able to prove this to myself? I go to the beach for rocket launches, and use my binoculars to look at cruises, barges, and cargo ships while waiting. I've never seen boats re-appear from the bottom with magnification. And I couldn't find any videos proving that magnification brings boats back that have had their bottoms obscured. Hence, again, why I am asking you for any videos proving this. And, again, if magnification is able to bring boats back that vanish bottom-first, why is this not observable for mountains as well?

Since we cannot use the tiny degree you produced to come to any conclusions, I suggest you find how tall the hidden height is at 85 miles. This would be the height in between the horizon (top of the curve between you and the 85 miles target) and the base of the target. This will produce a useable testable figure that we can then compare to the observable reality.

We're getting there, I assure you.

Is there any particular reason you're ignoring most of my questions and not addressing my math from earlier? I've been complying with you 100% and I'd appreciate the same courtesy of we're going to have a

We absolutely can use the degree measures. It's still a workable number. There is literally no way to calculate the value you're asking for without using the geometry, trigonometry, and arc length derived from the degree measure that you claim cannot be used to come to any conclusions.

A curvature of 1.2° over 85 miles is equally as workable and testable as the value you've requested, so I'm not sure why you're insisting otherwise.

Not asking to be condescending, but generally curious: what's the highest level math or physics class you've taken?

Maybe I'm missing something. How would you test that curvature of a degree? It would not be noticeable.

Pythagoras did give us the equation to find the distance we are looking for. Once we know the hidden height, we can compare that to long range mountain ranges sky scrapers etc.

There's 360° in a circle. That's why in my math earlier I divided by 360. Using the shadow calculations from earlier, we gathered the Circumference is about 24,900 miles.

Then we use the ratio

(Circumference/360°)=(arclength/x°)

I knew Circumference from my shadow calculations earlier, and any value can be inserted for x° to find arc length. And vice versa to find x°. That's how I determined that there's 1° of curvature per 69.2 miles, and how I determined 85 miles is about 1.2° of curvature. This is all math that I worked out and explained above.

There's no hidden height. The math and values are all there, and knowing the Circumference alone tells us everything we need to know. Hence why it was imperative to solve for that first, why that's all you need to derive everything else, and why I'm confused that you're insisting we can't solve anything knowing the degree measure of the arclength.

It absolutely does help in this case, because you need to solidly know trigonometry and geometry to actually know calculus in the first place, and to understand why the experiment from earlier works the way it does. To find the value you're asking for, we need to find arclength or the degree measure AND you'd need another equation that requires calculus to find the straight distance between the start and the point 85 miles away to treat that value as the hypotenuse, then you need more trigonometry on top of that to find the "height" value you want. All of this before you use Pythagorean's.

And after all that work, we essentially knows the same amount of information as before. I thought that was apparent, but it wasn't to you hence why I asked about math. There's more than one way to skin a cat, but there's only 2 ways to solve this type of problem, and I described the hard way because we are working from scratch rather than using any assumptions.

I've been doing that for years, before I even had any concept or care of what earth looked like. What makes your observations more accurate than mine? Why would my observations be any different the next time? Why are you unable to produce any video evidence if there's thousands of easily findable videos as you claim? Why is this phenomena not observable with mountains?

You claim there is no hidden height and also claim that you are not making any assumptions... Hidden height is a byproduct of curvature on the globe.. have you changed your mind that easily?

You are assuming the distance/size of the sun and the shape of the earth. Essentially you are explaining your belief system, not observable facts.

Sorry I misunderstood what you meant. I didn't realize that by "hidden height" you meant height obscured by the curvature. I thought you meant hidden height as in that was the value that had to be found.

I made zero assumptions about the distance/size of the sun because none are needed, since it's size and distance are 100% irrelevant to the calculations. The shape and Circumference were determined mathematically, not with any assumptions. Any assumptions I made in my calculations, I explicitly explained how we can verify them independently. Thereby making them not assumptions

I'll list the observable facts I am basing my understanding upon. Please inform me which of these are not verifiable by direct observation:

-The sun moves across the sky in a predictable pattern.

-On the equinox at noon, the sun is directly overhead of the equator, meaning any shadows at this location will be at 0° relative to the incoming sunlight at solar noon.

-On the equinox at noon, the sun is not directly overhead locations not on the equator, meaning any shadows at these locations will be at a nonzero angle relative to the incoming sunlight at solar noon.

-places not on the equator are a nonzero distance from the equator.

-on a flat plane, parallel lines traveling perpendicular to the plane will intercept the plane at a perpendicular angle.

-on a flat plane, parallel lines traveling at any angle in particular will intercept the plane, creating 2 opposite exterior/interior angles.

Diagram

-on a round plane, parallel lines will intercept the plane perpendicularly at the plane's equator, angles at any other locations it intercepts will be different from the equatorial angle, the unknown angle can be determined trigonometrically, and these values can be used to calculate the plane's Circumference.

Diagram

Diagram 2

Diagram 3

-knowing the length of a right-triangle's side and the angle the side creates with the triangle means we can determine the triangle's other sides and angle measures and trigonometrically.

Which, if any, of these are assumptions?

From these things, we can irrefutably, mathematically conclude parallel lines intercepting objects at different locations on a flat plane will create right triangles with identical or opposite angles, and parallel lines intercepting objects on and at a different location from an equator on curved planes will create right triangles with non-identical and non-opposite angles.

There is no feasible way to disagree with that conclusion.

That is correct about the hidden height. Do you know how to calculate the hidden height leaving refraction out?

The assumption is that the light travels in a straight line and are parallel . Last time I checked the heliocentric model has a fair amount of refraction due to the atmosphere (refraction is most globers favorite answer for things when gravity is not applicable).

On both models the sun and moons paths in the sky make sense. This is the point I was trying to make with the erothasanes experiment and vsauce's earlier. This is why it cannot help us further the discussion.

The fact that you can see mountains from the great distances that you can already favor the flat earth. At 36 miles there is a 2000 ft of mountains behind the curvature. Yet we can see much more at much greater distances.

I am aware of how to calculate this, but it's obvious you are not. Your math is waaaaaay wrong for 36 miles of distance, as that's only about half a degree of curve. What method/math did you use???

It wouldn't be 2000 feet of hidden height behind the curvature. An arclength of 36 miles is a curvature of 0.506°on the plane.

The hidden height should only be about 762 feet when viewing from (my) eye level. It would be greater if you're shorter, and smaller if you're taller. Even if you're viewing from laying on the ground, the hidden height is only 858 feet, so I don't know where you got the number 2000 from. (Assuming a perfectly smooth curved plane)

This is the method I used (after calculating the radius from the Circumference myself). Notice how a higher elevation from the plane yields a further distance you can see?

I already explained to you what the refraction would be an initial angle of 0°, and I explained the difference in values if even we account for the refraction. I also explained how there would still be a vast difference in observed results for a flat and round plane. I never said those models didn't make sense. My point was that on a flat and round plane, the results of the experiment would be different. Even under the most unideal and extreme conditions of refraction and observation, there will still be different results for the test on a flat and round plane. A flat plane would produce opposite/identical angles for the shadows, and a round plane would not. That's including accounting for refraction, which I proved to you mathematically with examples on both types of planes. And I explained already to the exact value for the index of refraction for air, and incorporated it into my calculations.

This is why I asked about your math abilities. Index of refraction for a 0° angle and the calculation above should be essential level stuff.

We can see further distances from higher elevations. An increase in elevation explains why we can see mountains from distances. Again, literally any photographic or video evidence for any of your claims would make your case way more credible. (especially given how I'm the one actively doing mathematical proofs here, and the single calculation you did was wrong)

You're calculating the wrong thing, and that's why you thought I was wrong. We are talking about physical curvature. Not what is observed and based on your height.

...the physical curvature would be expected to be 828 feet. I said that already. Your math is wrong. I gave you the value for eye-level, and the value for curvature alone

If you're going to keep not reading my comments, I don't understand why you're even replying.

What the fuck. How in the world did you respond in less than 3 minutes?

Use a² + b² = c² to find the physical curvature.

I think your mistakes is coming from refraction, and obviously the physical curvature is independent from refraction.

I happened to be on Reddit, I got the notification.

Ok, so again, you're literally not reading my comments. Because I did exactly that, and I linked you an image of the equation and a diagram.

Why would I be accounting for refraction in my calculations??? You. Are. Literally. Not. Even. Reading. What. I. Am. Typing.

A few issues with your diagram. You do not have to tilt your head down to see the horizon, your diagram has that happening.

If you were to start at the middle where the circle bisects the sight line, you should find the correct height.

You're completely ignoring the math. The diagram is simple a representation of the mathematics. When you have a viewing height of 0 feet, that is exactly the same as

I will solve this slowly for you, step by step because you're not getting it for whatever reason.

Circumference=24,900 miles r=3962.96 miles

Math: c=2πr....24900=2πr....r=(24900)/(2π)

So the longest leg of our triangle is 3962.96 miles.

Good so far?

Your only fining the distance from the center of the core to the surface.

So doing this with algebra and solving for a mile, 2 miles, 3, and so on up to 200 you will find that the hidden height is accurately found with the equation miles² times .66 for ft, below the horizon but above the surface for your target. Your math produced much lower numbers and if it doesn't match the Pythagorean math then there are some obvious issues. I literally proofed the equation myself, because I was in your position a year ago.

Holy shit dude. I'm just going to continue with the math, because you straight up aren't getting this. That was the first step. This is how we create a triangle to solve for in the first place. We have to find 2 sides of the triangle to solve with the Pythagorean theorem. That method was how we solve for the longest leg.

Just check my math once I'm done. It's still the Pythagorean theorem. You're just not understanding. I am using earth the way "they" say it is. I already explained all of this to you before. Circumference of 24,900 miles, 360° in a circle, 1° of curvature per ~69 miles. Remember that?

Ok, so we have 3962.96 miles for our longest leg. The object we're determining the hidden height for is 36 miles away. So our shortest leg is 36 miles. For the hypotenuse, we know from the middle of our circle to the surface is the same as r (3962.96), but we want to find the height that is obscured by the curve. So we add the variable h on top the radius of that to represent hidden height, so we can solve for it independently. So we have (3962.96+h) as our hypotenuse.

Math: (3962.96² )+(36² )=hypotenuse²

Hypotenuse=√(3962.96² +36² )

Hypotenuse=3963.12

Ok... So we know the length of our triangle's hypotenuse is 3963.12 miles. But the hypotenuse was equal to the hidden height plus the radius (3962.96+h). So we need to subtract the radius.

Math: hypotenuse=3963.12

3962.96+h=3963.12

h=3963.12-3962.96

h=0.16

So we have 0.16 miles for the hidden height, that's obscured by curvature. 0.16 miles is 844.8 feet (so admittedly my math before was off by a few feet)

That's all. Make sense?

This is correct for 36 miles. And is also consistent with the equation I gave earlier. Seems like we are in agreement on this.

I'm curious, why do you argue about beliefs you don't share on the internet? That's what I was referring to about being where you are a year ago. It's exactly like a Christian arguing with a Muslim about which religion is correct.

That is correct for 36 miles.

Whelp, I've got it sorted now. You're definitely just fucking with me.

I thought you were just fucking with me. Haha probably just a misconception somewhere in the walls of text. But yea we both got the same figure.

Now can you show me a structure 36 miles away that is obscured that much?

Couldn't find one from 36 miles, but here's Chicago taken from 50 miles across lake Michigan on a 5 foot tripod. (and in case that wasn't clear, yes the height of the tripod does contribute to viewing distance)

So from a 5 foot tripod 50 miles away, mathematically you'd expect 1489 feet of buildings to be obscured, right? Well Chicago is at an elevation of 586 feet, so we'd actually only expect 903 feet to be obscured from sea level since it's already at a higher altitude. Feel free to verify this mathematically, using the exact same formula from earlier. There are 7 buildings in Chicago taller than 903 feet, and I spot 7 buildings in the image.

The height absolutely effects the viewing distance in both models.

Now for this to be true it should pass every test we throw at it.

Now think about this logic. We can see boats obscured more or less depending on the magnification at he same distance.

When it is 4 miles away, it will be disappeared from your naked eye. This observation works with the math. However if you decided to zoom in on the same boat and do the math, you would have two conflicting figures that are based entirely on the magnification.

Does that make sense?

Actually, it doesn't effect viewing distance in both models. At least not mathematically. Put 2 points on a flat plane of any length, set up the same right triangle as before on a flat plane, and test the math yourself. As long as the triangle (ie your distance, viewing height, and line of sight) exists, any of the values can approach infinity and you'd still have a line of sight (hypotenuse) to whatever point you want on the plane, because there's nothing to obscure a given point on the plane. If there's no triangle (height of 0 or viewing an object 0 feet away), then you just end up with your line of sight being parallel and equivalent to the viewing distance, which could technically still approach infinity. Again, feel free to verify this mathematically.

This isn't the case on a round plane, where the plane itself can obscure a line of sight, and its why no matter how high you are from a sphere you can never seen more than half of it.

That is the 5th time you've made that assertion. You insist that magnification alone brings boats back over the horizon. You claim there's thousands of videos proving this, but I couldn't find one (I did look it up, before you say I didn't), and you won't show me one.

And for the whatever-th time, you should expect to be able to observe the same phenomena with distant mountains and other features, not just boats.

So no, that doesn't make sense, because I have 0 evidence of boats (or anything) being obscured more/less based on magnification alone.

To be more clear, the same boat comes in and out of your view with the only variable changed is magnification. We can say that magnification is independent, and the boats visibility is dependent on the magnification. Magnification just affects he angular resolution.

Im not calling you a liar, but when this is the first video that comes up when I search it, I become a little skeptical. So, quite clearly you can see the boat is not behind the curve but it is outside of your viewing distance until you use magnification.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ouEiDGyfM50

I saw that video, and it does not prove the phenomena you describe. The boat is visibly not behind any curve in the first place, and it never even disappears from view. It's simply almost too far away for the camera (or the video player. I have no clue what his camera's resolution is but the video is uploaded at 720p) to resolve the pixels individually that make up the boat. You can barely see a couple pixels in like 3 or 4 frames at the end of the video when he zooms all the way out, proving the boat is still visible without zoom. Plus the boat's wake never even vanished in the first place.

It's disingenuous to claim the magnification is the only variable changed, when the boat is literally moving across a moving surface.

You are aware of how digital cameras work, right? And the difference between optical and digital zoom? As well as how focal length works? Look at this video, for example.. Notice how there's a woman in a red shirt, but when it's fully zoomed out there's not a red pixel in sight? That's because without the optical zoom altering the focal length, she's too far for the camera to resolve her from the background, so she gets mashed into a blue pixel. It's the same thing we see in your video. The boat in your video is (mostly) too far to resolve it's pixels individually without zoom. Not to mention in that video, there is literally a clearly larger boat behind the focused one. Not only is it smaller (what you'd expect) it's hull positioned lower then the boat we're supposed to focus on... According to what you're telling me, that 2nd boat should have risen up because the camera zoomed in, and it shouldn't have been lower in the first place. Only smaller. Why would it be lower on the horizon that the boat in front of it?

Even then, I'll ask yet again why are we using boats for this? Objects that bob up and down on an ocean that's in constant motion. This phenomena should be waaaaaay easier to prove using an unmoving object, like a mountain. Yet the only "examples" of this are of tiny objects on a reflective, moving surface.

I'm not saying we got different results, I'm saying the examples I found did not show boats actually disappearing in the first place. As evinced by the only piece of evidence you gave me not proving what you claim it does.

So your only issue with this is that you claim you can see the boat the entire time?

I just triple checked and you cannot see the boat at the start of the video. Are you claiming that you can?

It's hard to spot, because he starts the video, then he pans to the right and continues to zoom.

Here's an initial screenshot

First zoom

Second zoom

Like I said, it's barely 4 pixels wide at the resolution we're working with, but if you track those pixels as he zooms and check the video frame-by-frame, you can clearly see that's the boat+wake, plus you can make out the boat it passes at 51 seconds with this method too.

I have no earthy idea why in 2016 he would upload in 720p instead of 1080p, but it really gives the illusion that the boat vanishes entirely. Hence why I went on a tangent about focal length and resolution, and why my zooms are pixelated to hell. This is a matter of resolution primarily. If the image was shot in 4k, or even 1080p, the boat would be better resolved, and we could zoom into the image ourselves and see it. But the resolution is so low that it's a few pixels blended together as the average color for the camera's sensor.

If I shot a video at, say 260p, I could get the exact same effect as the video you showed me for a much closer object. YouTube even let's you manually set video quality. Set it down to 144p, and notice how rocks and waves vanish into a sea of pixelation, until the camera zooms in. It's the same thing as the boat.

Lol, I kinda figured my response with a bunch of math would scare him off. Oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm pretty convinced he's a troll

Thanks, I thought that was the case.

If the Earth is not round then how do you explain Eratosthenes experiment? That is an extremely duplicatable experiment that you just need a friend that isn't possible on a flat Earth.

Were ancient Greeks freemasons as well?

You should look up vsauce's flat earth debunking video. Even he understands that the experiment you mentioned will prove both models. Notice how he even assumed the wrong distance for the sun by a huge factor. But the results do work on a flat plane.

The issue is that people believe that this experiment proves a round earth. All it does is prove that science has been interpreting their experimental results for hundreds of years.

The same applies for boats disappearing from your view, except on a globe they would never come back into your view with magnification (they do).

Lol I have no idea what your entire crusade against the education system but I'm a doing my PhD in physics rn so I definitely don't need vsauce to tell me how an experiment that I first did in middle school needs to be done.

If anyone bothers looking at the vsauce video they use the same experiment to prove the Earth is round, determine the height of the sun. This guy is smoking some strong stuff or didn't watch the video he claims to be citing. There is no version of the flat Earth model that can account for erosthenes experiment.

What assumptions were made when you did this experiment as a child?

If we think about this logically, I'm sure we can find common ground.

Also, I'll gladly find you the clip of vsauce's admitting that globers have the completely wrong idea about this experiment.

The fact that there is not this kind of pushback for any other model besides flat earth is a huge sign that this is the truth. Yes, masons are pissed their 33rd degree secret has come out so they are all in to discredit this movement.

All the major "Flat Earthers" are also controlled from what I can tell. It's frustrating because the "flat earth movement" is largely a psy-op IMO - but it just so happens that the earth is flat. Strange times.

Spot on, my thoughts exactly.

Control the opposition.

This is so puzzling to me. So the earth is indeed flat but all the major flat earthers like Eric Dubay and Mark Sargeant are controlled opposition. Why did they come out to reveal the flat earth in detail? As far as I know, no one was really aware of the flat earth for a long while. I certainly don't remember any flat earth discussion on the internet before 2014. Why did they purposely let the truth out?

What I heard is that Math Powerland allegedly worked for NASA and painted the earth composites. He apparently came out with the FE thing in 2011 ish. Thereafter guys like Dubay and Mark Sargent were injected in to control the narrative.

They all accuse each other of shilling, so it's a massive cluster fuck.

You recommend any good videos/podcasts or other sources/discussions that deal with this specific aspect of the FE realm?

I got that info from one of Maths videos. I went to his channel to see why Joe Rogan put a copyright strike against his channel and heard it from there.

Thats awesome! Ive told so many people my dick is the biggest and I get huge pushback. Thanks for confirming that it is, love you man.

This is awesome! Ive been telling everyone my dick is the biggest and I get huge pushback. Thanks for confirming that it is! Thanks man.

Whatever you need, man.

Oh, I need this.

If's all about about being an orb and spinning then why can't we make a body large enough to have it's own gravity?

Is gravity scaleable?

The equation for the force of gravity is this.

Everything has a measurable gravitational attraction. We have measured the gravitational attraction of mountains as far back as the 1800s.

Thank you. I am not a flat earther but that is usually the comment I would get about spheroids.

I have been looking for more information on gravitational attraction.

Btw the masses are in kg, the radius in meters, and the force in newtons, if you didn't know that already.

Acoustic leviation.

Is that a question? or your answer on how to get something to spin.

Looks like the FE movement bought up a bunch of reddit accounts.

Flat earthers aren't interested in the truth. The flat earth conspiracy is the most ridiculous one ever made. It's more obviously made up than the book of Mormon. If people can't see that it's just some made up bullshit, then they're just dunces. Socially inept and narcissistic dunces I might add. I just really hope the people at the top of the conspiracy theory don't start selling overpriced scam products to these people or some other shit the drain their money in the fight against NASA's satanic science conspiracy.

Ooooh, I'm late to the party, but I've got a good one for this. I looked at a flat earth map, and thought that distances are actually distorted quite mildly in the northern hemisphere, but severely in the southern. So I looked up some flights. How is it that I can get a 9 hour flight from Johannesberg, South Africa to Perth, Australia, but it takes 11 hours to go from Johannesberg to Frankfurt, Germany? On the flat earth map, Perth is almost twice as far as Frankfurt.

Are all the airlines in on it? How expensive must it be for them to wast time flying in circles on their way to germany? And how are they making that money back by hiding the truth from people?

'tis true. Drop a bowling ball and some feathers in a vacuum, say, and they'll hit the ground at the same time. Nothing to do with the density of the objects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frZ9dN_ATew

It proves that it is gravity that is making the object fall, and that their descent has nothing to do with their density. It's just a vacuum, it's not making them weightless or anything.

I agree with you, time is man made. It was made to measure the length of a day, characterized by the rotation and tilt of the Earth. A sundial is a perfect example of this.

Luminaries? Are you referencing the sun and/or moon?

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your last two questions. I do have to say, however, that you're doing yourself an intellectual disservice if you believe facts are only fact if they can be proved unto yourself.

Do you also believe the official story for false flag events in the past? Where do you draw the line exactly?

I really don't understand the question and how it relates to the current discussion.

Okay... thats what Im asking.

In a FE model explain the orbit of mars. It makes zero sense in a geocentric model.

Again with the "we."

Just because you have a collection of SpaceX action figures, LEGO NASA sets, and masturbate to Elon Musk interviews doesn't mean you were there for any of this stuff.

But you should look into Space Camp for adults. Seems fun.

Once again, no defense of your claims and you instantly revert to claiming I'm a shill. Classic. I'll take this response as an admission of fault on this point as well.

Exactly. Can a Christian learn about another religion? Or do they get attacked by trolls online for asking questions?

Timecube dude? I thought you were dead.

Gravity is real=You must masturbate to Elon Musk.

Do you really think that passes for constructive debate?

I never complained about anything, I was only asking questions.

I have never claimed to be right, nor have I claimed to offended. I just think that you started off wanting to be nice as long as I took everything you say at face value. I continue to ask clarifying questions and challenge you on things to some extent and you began getting offended that I would do such a thing.

You feel superior for whatever reason and me challenging that has caused you to begin mocking and being insulting. Thus I'm not really interested in discussing this with you further?

How would the shape of the world reduce the atmospheric perspective issue? Do you know that percipitation and humidity have an effect on the distance you can see?

Oh they do, but they do not magically make this disappear into the ground.

It seems like your fresh off one of those debunk videos. And they are compelling, and entertaining, and make you feel smart! You have to use logic when receiving any information regardless of who it comes from. Don't get sucked into the rhetoric, that's your ego working against you. It's very naive to think you have everything figured out.

Ok, you appear to have failed to answer my questions. I'll take that as a lack of answers, just like you utterly failed to explain the photo of the ISS and why you can see it from earth.

Can you show me another vehicle that can sustain those speeds while people are repairing the outside, and people are docking and leaving frequently?

Huh? What kind of a question is that? They can stay on the outside of it and move along with it because there's nothing slowing it down. What a ridiculous question.

Also, the Chinese space station, Mir, Skylab, or really any orbiting laboratory.

My inability to give you an account for planetary retrograde proves nothing other than my lack of knowledge on the subject, which I'm not ashamed of. You however have a severe superiority complex, which has sent this conversation spiraling downward towards irrelevance. Your tone and attitude have turned me off from caring about anything you say, no matter how informative it may or may not be.

I didn't mangle any information, I took images from space agencies and space-teaching websites, and asked your take on them. You mocked me, and then when I mocked you you got very bent out of shape about it. Do unto others they say.

You can feel free to move along, I have made it clear I'm no longer even remotely interested in gaining any type of insight from you because of your inability to maintain your composure.

Oh, I need this.

This is assuming all your information is correct. It's highly unlikely that's the case. I think flights work better on the flat plane. There was the case where they had to emergency land in Antarctica due to a pregnancy, which does not work on a globe. The flights on a globe are also curved like a parabola, flattened out they would be straight and direct routes on a flat plane.

There are a ton of engineers and pilots that have come forward about this. Either you talk and lose your job or you stay quiet to keep the food on the table. Is the well being of ones family worth lieing. People lie for much less.

So where is YOUR evidence ? Or are you just gonna link some youtube videos. Oh and Elon Musk sent a fucking car into space btw

So where is YOUR evidence ? Or are you just gonna link some youtube videos. Oh and Elon Musk sent a fucking car into space btw