No no, that's not how this works. There are endless proofs of a globe. The burden of proof falls on you to convince us.

There’s a giant teapot orbiting the earth! Prove to me there isn’t!!! Muh teapot.

it was believed to be flat way way way longer than otherwise

and then the people who were opposing the mainstream view provided hard science and facts to prove that it was in fact a globe. Now that we believe the world is a globe the glove is on the other hand. Flat earther's need to prove its flat with hard science and facts (lol).

what hard science facts?

Orbital dynamics.

meaning?

That we can launch objects into orbit shows the Earth isn't flat.

care to provide a pic that isnt cgi?

Define Picture. Define CGI.

I tire of providing evidence only to be told that it is CGI so define your terms and I will give you the information you ask for .

you havent provided any evidence so what are you tiring from?

It's always fascinating to watch people with whom you already agree try to argue against something else.
I do believe the earth is a sphere, but /u/IMA_Catholic hasn't convinced me of my own, already-held belief!

but what hard science proof is there the earth is a sphere? it was believed flat for so much longer than otherwise, maybe the sphere earth "theory" is wrong?

So much contradictory evidence supporting globe earth, that no one needs to prove its flat. Because globe science disproves itself every other week with nasa geniuses opening their mouths and main stream "scientist" putting their foot in theirs.

If its so obvious and evident the earth is round, why so much back and fourth with contradictory statements and evidence?

Btw not a flat earther, just a governments full of shitter.

What are you referring to, as far as scientists putti their feet in their mouths? Can you give some examples of recent statements that contradict our understanding of the shape of the planet?

as far as scientists putti their feet in their mouths

Some flat Earthers expect smart people, because they are smart, to talking like they are world renowned orators. They don't seem to understand that just because you are really good at X Y Z it doesn't mean you always speak perfectly.

So much contradictory evidence supporting globe earth,

What are a few examples that we could talk about?

I would guess "my map is flat"

No, it really wasn't. We knew the earth was a globe in the days of ancient Greece.

Lol that's what you think

Then how does GPS work op-return? You can't use triangulation in your answer because GPS doesn't use triangulation and you can't say it is from ground based transmitters since the GPS signals are Doppler shifted.

So how does it work?

What is the single best piece of evidence or what was it that made you snap out of the mind control?

It doesn't work that way

So there is no solid piece of evidence you can point to or any kind of event that made you see the light?

"ASStroNUTZ" on wires. Start there. Have fun. But with your username I'm going to guess you're a ball shill.

Nope! I just get a message in the fee-fees!

What way, with evidence?

you want me to show you a single tree, to see the forest.

Well that's an interesting point of view (snigger), you realize this thread is specifically about asking for evidence though, right?

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

At this point I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me

they are everywhere! open your eyes. everywhere.

You are trying to send people down a rabbit hole and it's very obvious. No proofs, just mock and claim it's obvious...weak and pathetic

exactly. you have to go through the rabbit hole. or don't. I don't care. but you can't have it both ways.

I meant that you are Alice in Wonderland-ing people with cryptic nonsense and shafting people when they ask for help understanding youe thought process. It's a disingenuous way to go about browsing, whether you're actually as full of shit as you seem or not.

look at my submissions to reedit if you care enough. might give you some raging clues.

Ok, never mind then. Thanks for the gaslighting tho

Bye

Share what you found instead of loling at everyone else then

Took me 3 years

Took me 3 years

Took me 3 years

Took me 3 years

Took me 3 years

of doing my own research. You want me to change your mind over a comment. Do you see how ridiculous your request is?

Do your own research.

I didn't expect you to change my mind over a comment, but I didn't anticipate being shut out either.

pilots don't adjust for curvature. if you were flying over a ball, you would fly right into "space" if you didn't adjust altitude. I don't know if you fly a lot, but I used to, and as soon as we would get near the destination, before you could feel the landing gear door open, you could feel the pilot drop the plane ever so slightly. That feeling of YES!!! we are there! You should be getting that feeling the whole flight. the pilot should be dropping the nose constantly, but they don't and you don't feel it. Also, the gyro. when the plane starts, the gyro starts and is calibrated to the runway at LEVEL. I don't know how much you know about gyros but that's how the attitude adjustment works. using a gyro. if you were going over a ball, and you flew to Australia from UK, you would be technically upside-down. lets say you wouldn't feel it, and MUH GRAVITY, but the gyro doesn't care about gravity. it's rigid in space. so, your artificial horizon should be upside down! but it's not. even better. if you run a electric gyro at level, on your desk, and you you were on a spinning ball, after 12 hours, that gyro should no longer be level. but it will be. we are not moving hommie.

You said it yourself; gravity. There's no right-side-up or up-side-down in a space. Gravity is a constant generated by the mass of an object, creating a void that bends space time and pulls objects inwards towards the center of the mass. The plane would need to pull UP the whole flight to overcome gravity.

You said it yourself; gravity.

no. i said it sarcastically.

There's no right-side-up or up-side-down in a space. Gravity is a constant generated by the mass of an object, creating a void that bends space time and pulls objects inwards towards the center of the mass

yes, and Moses split the red sea and jesus walked on water! bending space-time is more retarded than the former.

The plane would need to pull UP the whole flight to overcome gravity.

YOU COMPLETELY FUCKING IGNORED MY GYRO PROBLEM! HELLOOOOO MCFLY ANYONE HOME? go away. You're wasting my time.

Apologies for excluding the gyroscope. The effect you're referencing (if I understand you correctly) is called precession.

Yes, gravity also bends time and space. It's a phenomenon called Gravitational Time Dilation and it perfectly explains the concept I describe.

It's not at all my intention to waste your time, I'm just better suited than most to assess the claims you're making in this particular post and wanted to address your points thoughtfully. The whole idea with this page is to come to a greater understanding. I recognized your claims, and have countered them with tested proofs. That's not wasting time; that's engaging in good faith discussion of your subject. Just because I disagree, doesn't mean I have it out for you in any way. Your reply seems to indicate you're posting here in bad faith.

stop sending me links to pseudoscience. that's like me telling you I don't believe in Zeno, and you send me a link to a passage from a Scientology book. You sound like those guys coming to my door asking me if I have a few minutes to learn about the word of god! except more annoying.

I'll stop sending you links, but when you make these claims on a public forum, you shouldn't act so surprised or upset when people come in to explain to you why you may be mistaken.

Also, equating tested science to door to door religious solicitors isn't doing you any favors.

Good luck to you.

That's pretty much what you people are. Except you start injecting bullshit into young minds before they could wipe their own ass let alone open the door. You are worse than them.

You haven't been able to explain why I'm wrong and you've only gotten upset at me for disagreeing with you. Incapable of attacking my argument, so instead you go after me. You are equally mistaken in your attack of my character.

You are too gone. Incapable of rational thought. Go parrot Neal the grass to a child.

How am I incapable of rational thought? I read your points and addressed them with sourced material. The very least you could do is offer the same courtesy instead of, again, attacking me instead of my argument.

Ad hominem is a tool of the weak and unimaginative mind.

Regardless of whether or not you are right, you haven't proven anything you're claiming, nor have you been able to refute a single claim I've made.

I explained to you how using a simple gyro you can prove to yourself that earth does NOT move. Forget michelson morley, sagnac, Airy's, forget all of that. A simple gyro, and you can't wrap your head around it. Then you start talking non-sense about "Gravitational Time Dilation" and fucking space time fabric. GTFO. im showing you practical experiment that you can do for yourself. then you send me scientific hocus pocus.

here, read this

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf

and this, or don't . I don't care.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Relativity%20Theory/Download/4692

Thank you for the links. I read the second link and will soon begin the first, likely finished by the morning.

I found the first link to have a fair amount of personal bias that bled through, but even still have started going through each of the cited articles to give the claim a fair shot.

I really wasn't trying to disparage your view, so much as the way you were going about it. I understand you've likely been beaten into indifference with refutations of flat earth, but that's not my goal here. I really wanted to understand, so I asked. I heard a claim, so I offered a rebuttal based on my current understanding.

I have a fair amount of your comments upvoted in my history. This wasn't a personal attack and I'm not going door to door corrupting the minds of babies as you've more than just alluded to.

Thank you again for providing the links. Happy to discuss whenever, though will have more to bring to the table upon getting through the first link.

One last question as I get back to reading: You said you explained how using a gyroscope, you showed that the Earth doesn't move. Going back, I see a claim but not an explanation. Can you give some background on how that conclusion is reached?

here is a demonstration of what I'm talking about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DVhoD-5Keg

Incapable of rational thought.

What actual real world technologies has flat Earth brought us? Hell you can't even explain how GPS works.

yes, and Moses split the red sea and jesus walked on water! bending space-time is more retarded than the former.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that I find fascinating. I'm a spherical earther, but your argument isn't completely unreasonable. Anyone could just make up anything.
"Well, it's because of magical forces that make everything right-side up. Oh, you've no reason to believe that? Well, we have a guy in a white lab-coat who says it's true."

Bingo.

Yeah, but they tell you how they did it. You can replicate it yourself, or change the parameters and publish your results.

The gyroscope thing, for example, is ridiculous to anyone who knows a little about the history of science. The most famous of all experiments with a gyroscope was Foucault's (also he of the pendulum). He used it, of all things, to PROVE the turning of the earth.

Anyone can be fooled by pseudoscience, as long as it's not in their field. It's easy to make your nan think you're a gamer, or an IT specialist think you're a gardener. Eventually though, it'll get found out by someone who digs that subject, so it has to keep its "science" hidden from all but the true believers. This gives us a symptomatic trait of such material: lots of supporters, very little science. No papers published, lots of circular citations and unexplained references. To the trained eye, it all tends to read like Madame Blavatsky.

The most famous of all experiments with a gyroscope was Foucault's (also he of the pendulum). He used it, of all things, to PROVE the turning of the earth.

First of all, proof of a turning earth is not proof of a globe earth. Why would flux end just because the earth is flat? Secondly, anytime you dangle a weight from s string and swing it back and forth it will not follow an exactly straight line. And this has nothing to do with the spinning of the earth, because it happens with even the tiniest pendulum.

If not gravity then what force gives us down?

A good answer to your gyroscope question:

"The problem is that your attitude indicator is not an ideal gyroscope. To allow it to self-erect and compensate for precession effects gyros have devices that attempt over a longer period to return the gyro to a level indication. As a result, by the time you fly around the world, your gyro would have reset itself to the local "this way's up" indication."

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/my-gyroscope-says-the-world-is-flat.90561/

No. Bullshit. What a pathetic excuse.

Except you can actually see videos on youtube of the compensating mechanism in actions. You could even buy a used one off ebay and test it for yourself.

If you can explain how time and space are time-space without spacetime bending, the world is all ears.

There is no space time

Time does not exist. Change exists. The mind creates the idea of time through the access of memory states. Past present and future all exist now in the mind.

I fly microlights. You're comment is so I'll informed it's hilarious.

For starters, the size of an airplane is infinitesimal to the size of the earth. Surely you recognize that if we were tiny beings on the ground it would look flat to us?

8 inches per mile squared. That's on the ground. So they say. At, 35k feet the drop should be a lot more.

Oh dear.

speed 546–575 mph lets say 550

550 * 550 * 8 /12 carry the one: 201,666 feet.

you would have to drop 201 thousand feed per hour. and you don't feel a thing

Muh Unicorn.. i mean gravity

oh dear is right.

NON EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY

😂 Parallel globe. OK.

Yeah, every surface on a globe has a parallel on the othe side. Amazing huh?

Cool story.

You doubt it, or just dismiss it?

You're a fucking retard. Fuck off spacetime wizard. You believe in fairy tales for adults. You are brain washed. Do you fucking understand? 8 inches per mile squared.

MUH PARALLEL

STFU

Removed. Rule 4.

Calculate an sr-71 at 2500mph and 50,000ft.

4,166,666 feet per hour.

69,444 feet per minute

1157 feet of DROP per SECOND

top kek!

Funny how 666 is so prevalent in the heliocentric/ sun worship model.

Actually, aircraft gyroscopes are constantly being adjusted to account for the changing local gravity vector, compensating for the Earth's curvature. You are plainly wrong here, and the rest of your argument kinda unravels after that.

Oh geez. Yawn.

Find me an argument that can be used in favour of flat earth, but cannot be used in favour of macaroni earth.

Gyroscopes.

Gyroscopes can be used to detect the Earths rotation. Cheap MEMs sensors will detect one full rotation every 24 hours

Even better are laser gyros. I say that because Bob / Globebusters used one to detect a 15 degree per hour rotation.

A flat earth could rotate just like a globe could.

That raises more questions.

Why cant we detect that motion? What generates the coriolis effect to cause storms to rotate in opposite directions? Why do star patterns rotate in opposing directions depending on hemisphere?

Sure the FE could spin but it would fuck up a lot of observations.

How do you explain the things he pointed out, using a flat earth model? Or are you saying you can't?

So you dont have a response to what I wrote?

A laser gyro will detect a 15 degree per hour rotation. How do you explain that?

Yeah yeah. Laser gyro. Then a water one.

Just how exactly did planes in ww11 work then ? Without the laser gyro. Ooops back into the corner you go.

??? What are you talking about please clarify your questions.

How did gyropscopes on planes work in WW11 ? No changing answers. Because you are about to get this all wrong.

When did WW ELEVEN happen?

Well I’ve had more fights than you. But for the sake of continuity let’s call it ww2 so we don’t get confused.

Why would the gyros have to take into account the curvature of the Earth in WW2?

Ok so I see I’m not talking to the brainy one of the family.

So airplanes (the noisy things in the sky). Need to know where they are in relation to the horizon. The reason for this is because in Fog and cloud it can be difficult to even know you are the right way up. Now flying a plane into the ground bad : ( (sad face). Keeping it in the sky good : ) (happy face).

Now to make the plane stay in the sky in bad weather you need a gyropscope. This gyropscope tells the plane driver (we call him a pilot) where the ground is no matter what way the plane is facing. This way if he moves off course he can rectify his plane.

Now. The plane move around the earth. And the gyropscope needs to know where the ground is so it can tell the plane driver (pilot) where the plane is in relation to the ground.

Here’s the tricky part. How does the gyropscope know if it’s in Australia or Europe ? And where the ground is ? Remember it moves around the globe so it’s always changing.

You may begin.

How does the gyropscope know if it’s in Australia or Europe

Because down is toward the center of the Earth.

When the plane starts up the gyros spin up and orientate toward down. They don't run 24/7.

And how does it point toward the centre of the earth ? Given that a gyropscope is not gravity dependant. That’s the whole point of a gyroscope. It holds its place in space not in relation to the earth.

And how does it point toward the centre of the earth

When they start up they orient toward the center of the Earth...

Ok great. Now that plane flies a quarter of the way around the earth. (Let’s not worry about the spin for now) how then does it orientate ?

Now that plane flies a quarter of the way around the earth

What WW2 plane had that sort of range?

Ok it flies 1500 miles. Still a significant curve. Let’s just go with that.

But let’s say it does. Answer both and I’ll show you how that plane will be half the way around the earth in a bit.

Let’s pretend for the second answer it does go a quarter the way around the world.

Here you go.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/286880/gyroscope-in-an-airplane-following-the-curve-of-the-earth

Yeah find something that doesn’t refer to someone as a nutjob and I’ll read. Anyway you’ve defeated the whole point. Use your brains and answer the question stop scrambling around for someone else’s ideas.

https://www.experimentalaircraft.info/articles/attitude-indicators.php

Seems a bit silly, since you're essentially asking someone who knows very little about WW2 aircraft gyroscopes (presumably) to engineer a solution to a complex technical problem. It turns out the are calibrated to the local gravity vector using streams of air that become stronger in directions opposite the gyroscope's precession, providing feedback to keep the gyro aligned with the gravity vector:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ba94375cb4c8932efb2b4cfc3951efae

Oh and nice long words just to make this bollocks sound even slightly right. Firstly lasers. Now gravity. Then it’s self fighting because of gps now. Have you looked at a plane gyroscope box ? No. It doesn’t have holes in it.

Show me a photo of an old ww2 aircraft gyroscope that doesn't have a mechanism to account for the curvature of the Earth.

Ok so they have mechanisms that account for the curvature or gravity ? Which one is it ?

Yes I’m dense. Let’s pretend I only use common sense and not under the counter physics.

They have mechanisms to account for the curvature of the Earth. This mechanism uses gravity.

No they don’t. They can’t. Otherwise they would be susceptible to g force. And that’s why they are used.

Yes, they can and they do. I don't think you're capable of understanding the underlying physics so I'd like to move onto something else. I have a simple question for you: why are the stars different in the northern and southern hemispheres?

What’s that got to do with fuck. When will you pricks learn it not about whether the earth is a globe of flat. I don’t know. Frankly I don’t care since I’m well aware of other facts.

The point is there are some interesting questions out there

And yes that is a big dent in the flat earth theory. As is 24 hour a day daylight in Antarctica. I can pick more holes in flat earth. Just a shame you fools argue about the stuff they seem to have a point in

See how that works. It’s called critical thinking. I don’t have to believe something to find interesting. But whilst wankers like you are here to stifle free thought and free speech. I’ll continue. Honestly fuck You.

I use critical thinking to disprove flat earth theory. I enjoy it - I've always liked to argue and can do so tirelessly.

I know. I have a day job though.

Me too, but I work remote.

You have been provided at least two links that show you how they work and now have enough info to find youtube videos that show you the mechanisms in action but you refuse to do this.

Why do you refuse to examine this?

Because I’m bored i you shills. Honestly not an original one amongst you.

Honestly mate. Get lost

Because I’m bored i you shills. Honestly not an original one amongst you.

I, and most of the rest reading this, will take that as you saying that facts don't matter. You asked for information, I provided it and now you are running away ignoring it.

This one has an interesting answer. It turns out one of your premises is wrong, gyroscopes don't maintain their orientation.

Don't get me wrong. If you were to set one in orbit and not touch it, it would maintain the direction it was pointed. But, they don't always maintain their orientation. The problem is torque.

If you apply a torque on a gyroscope, it will want to precess. If you have a gyroscope in a plane, there is a problem if the plane makes a steady banking maneuver. The case that holds the gyroscope in the plane will apply a toque to the gyroscope and cause it to rotate (precess).

To counter this, engineers use gravity. The gyroscope is usually powered by a jet of air from the outside the plane, so it can still work when there's no power. The tube that leads to the gyroscope has several small holes, partly covered by sliding covers. As the gyroscope tilts, these covers are free to move with gravity, so they will cover more or less of the holes, depending on where they are. This, in turn, applies a torque to the gyroscope, which is deigned to always be in perfect counter to the torque from the turn, negating the precession.

This probably isn't the only one way gyroscopes in planes work, and acrobatic or fighter planes certainly have a much different system, but it is highly dependent on local gravity.

Ok so that’s number four in the explanations.

So what you are saying is that gravity self rights the gyroscope ?

Torque is used to explain why gyroscopes don’t show the rotation of the earth. Now it works on banking planes ?

The whole point of a gyroscope is to keep its position in space it can’t rely on gravity

That's the intended goal, but gyroscopes suck at it. If you nudge them, they'll precess. Precession is the enemy here, and we need a way to deal with it. Any unbalanced force acting on it causes this too.

I'd recommend looking into how angular momentum works. Khan academy's physics lectures are very good, and a great baseline to get you started. It's really unintuitive, but it explains why gyroscopes have such strange and unintuitive properties.

Prove to us that in the face of all the available evidence that it's flat, then we're good to go.

So you can't. Thought as much.

I've looked at all the NASA moon landing photos, and they are so obviously not CGI, but that's OK, you believe what you want.

Polaris dips below the horizon if you travel to the southern hemisphere from the northern. A globe earth explains that perfectly but a flat earth doesn't.

That shouldn't be an accepted argument. Have you seen Beijing with your own eyes by going there? How do you know if it's real? I haven't seen you with my own eyes, how do I know you're real?

I haven't seen air with my own eyes, how do I know it's real?

Wrecked.

Have you ever seen an electron?

How do you know computers arent powered by magic?

How do you know computers arent powered by magic?

They might not be powered by magic but I do know for a fact that printers are powered by hate.

How do you know that the theory of electrons is the correct theory to explain electrical phenomenon?

I have a degree in computer science but I have never with my own eyes seen an electron.

All I can go by is the phenomena and how it affects data and PCB design.

From what I can tell all theories about electrons relating to computing work perfectly.

Funny... you changed the goal posts there...

The question was about the visibility of Polaris from the southern hemisphere, not the view of earth from space.

I live in the southern hemisphere, and I can confirm to you that Polaris is not visible from here. I can also show you photos of stars that are not visible from the northern hemisphere.

Here, for example, are two whole galaxies that are not visible from North America.

How is it possible that I can have a clear view of these galaxies during the night, but someone in North America can not?

The simple explanation is that the Earth is a globe and I live on the side of it that faces these galaxies, while North Americans live on the side that faces away from these galaxies.

How do flat earthers explain it?

Why can people on Australia and South Africa see them? Those points are extremely far according to flat Earth maps.

People in Australia and South Africa. Or do you think they dont exist ?

That's the point, you cannot see it, and the guys in Australia cannot see it either, despite being so far away from one another.

Why is that?

No.

Then you should be able to quantify how a given unit of distance reduces the intensity of light. IOW the star in question should get dimmer as you go south but it doesn't.

Why doesn't it?

How am I confused?

If you can see star X at distance Y but not at distance Z then the intensity of the light has to decrees between Y and Z. If it doesn't decrease what mechanism is responsible for us not being able to see X at Z?

You gave one explanation for this phenomenon and you believe that is the only explanation?

I'll give you one, and it is more elegant. Perspective and atmospheric refraction and reflection. This phenomenon limits visibility of objects at distances of only a mile away. Now multiply that distance by 1000 and the effect is even more pronounced.

So we have pictures of Earth from outer space. That isn't good enough, but your friend's pictures are?

But the pictures of Beijing are? How do you know they haven't been doctored? For all you know they were made the same way you think the NASA images were made.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

How do I know you're not lying? I've never seen you or these people, I've not seen Beijing, so obviously any pictures are not good enough. How do I know these video calls aren't just green screens?

You're applying the above logic to pictures of the Earth.

When you video call them, how do you know that they're really in Beijing, and not some soundstage in San Diego?

You can only trust what you yourself have witnessed. The safest conclusions are the ones you yourself arrived at from your own observations.

Do you think NASA is the only space agency to have taken pictures of the globe?

NASA doesn't have any pictures of the globe. They have composites and artist renditions.

How do you?

What? Know air is real? Know Beijing is real? Know Polaris goes below the horizon?

If I say yes does that suffice to change your mind?

But I won't lie and say I have crossed it. But I was close to the equator and have seen the difference in elevation of Polaris compared to my country.

It's only logical for it to decline further and vanish below the horizon. Which is confirmed by all people living in the southern hemisphere (except for high elevations close to the equator).

Why don't you respond to my observation first? You asked us to provide evidence for a round earth not to refute your's.

Why can't people see Polaris in the southern hemisphere?

Then why does the star descent if you move south at night but not get dimmer in luminescence?

1. Your response doesn't match real world observation. That's why I asked for clarification.

2. If I understood you correctly you say the horizon always stays the same? Do you mean that the viewable landscape is the same regardless of elevation of the observer? I don't really understand the "rises to meet eye level" part of your question (English isn't my first language). Could you clarify your question?

If you mean the viewable landscape at the horizon is the same regardless of elevation I can tell you that's wrong from personal experience.

On a globe with 25,000 miles in circumference you would see a noticeable disappearance of objects the further they are as they would be leaning away from you and dropping below the constantly curving horizon

This is what happens. I can tell you from my own obersavations from my living room window. When I look eastward I can see roughly the top 3/4's of the Frankfurt TV tower. I'm looking across a landscape without other elevation blocking the view. The view of the lower part is blocked by the curvature of the earth.

During searching for curvature pictures I came across a picture done with a point and shot without fish eye lens: PIC

This shows the curvature (compare to black line at the top) and that no fish eye lens was used (black line along the contrail). If this was a fish eye lens the contrail would be distorted too but its straight.

Now to my question: How is it that all around the northern hemisphere Polaris is at the same elevation and brightness if you reside at the same latitude? And then why does it vanish after crossing the equator into the southern hemisphere (except for high elevation close to the equator). How can a flat earth explain this observation?

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

So we can see it from billions of miles away, but a few more and suddenly the brightest star is entirely invisible? Despite other stars having the same luminosity?

BTW, I really love the way you ignore every post you can't argue with.

To be fair, I don't think they believe stars are actually as large, hot, or far away as they actually are. They think they're little lights strung up in the firmament.

You don't know how far away the stars are. And you dont know what the stars are.

Good luck 🍀

Does it though?

I never understood this line of reasoning. It'd make sense if the earth was infinitely large, flat, and we could see that far. But if you can't see infinitely far (evidence, I can't see Xhina from the west coast of America), then the horizon should appear to be below eye level, even on a flat earth.

I have AMA!

What do fish eye lenses have to do with Polaris dipping beneath the equator?

Wide angle lenses have... well a wide angle view.

They collect a shit ton more information than a regular lens. Look at the following image an example.

http://i974.photobucket.com/albums/ae230/jsilverj/japan.jpg

See how much additional information is captured with a wide angle vs a regular lens?

Here are a few more examples. Note how much more is visible.

http://www.karbosguide.com/books/photobook/img/790.JPG.png

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*M7T7RgxPdOucPQRaKxrurg.jpeg

As a side note there are plenty of images of space and curvature without wide angle its just they collect such a large amount of visible area there is no reason not to use them.

He asked about fish eye not wide angle...

Lots of flat Earthers call every lens that is just a bit wide / that doesn't match the human eye a fish eye lense.

Fish eye is wide angle...

Different words, same thing. Fish eye lenses are Ultra wide angle...

"...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"

It gets downplayed because it smacks of a disinfo campaign designed to cast a shadow of insanity on actual conspiracies and their proponents. Guilt by association.

Bingo. All they have to do is float it out there once with a huge disinfo campaign and then it will propagate itself because people will jump on any bandwagon.

Easy. The stars are different in the northern and southern hemispheres.

But if the Earth were flat, you'd be able to see the stars in the southern hemisphere from the northern using a high powered telescope - let's say from the top of Mount Fairweather on the west coast of Canada, looking towards Australia over the Pacific Ocean. And you can't - the stars dip below the horizon (instead of simply approaching it). Also, the brightness of the stars does not decrease as they do so.

the flat earth subject is intriguing...most of the "flat earth clues" I don't buy...however, the curvature math needs to be investigated further. Mainstream science dictates:

The earth has a radius of 3,965 miles (at the equator??)

Using the Pythagorean theorem, that calculates to an estimated curvature of 8 inches per mile squared.

If there is in fact 8 inches of "curve" per mile, this should be easily verified, but I have yet to find anything that proves this. This is the one Pro-flat earth argument that continues to elude me...

A multitude of videos and experiments show hundreds of miles measured from point-to-point with no detectable curvature.

Wow! Any way you could link those because I have never ever heard of such distances!

I don't think they exist. You'd be hard-pressed to find any measurement of a hundred miles that doesn't take the earth's curvature into account.

If there is in fact 8 inches of "curve", or 8 inches squared which is even more curve, per mile, this should be easily verified, but I have yet to find anything that proves this

Look up how they determine how to site radio towers and how they site light houses and you will have your answer. Also look up how they calculate ballistic trajectories.

You have to be a little careful with the "8 inches per mile squared", because it's not the whole story. It's an approximation of a better, but more complex equation.

It's not a bad approximation, especially for reasonably short distances (less than a few hundred miles or so). However, since they were trying to simplify it from the more complex equations, there are some assumptions baked into it that may not be obvious.

The quickest and easiest simplification they made was for observer height. The original equations take this into account, but the one you've posted doesn't. That's because the equation assumes the height to be zero.

This isn't a bad thing, but it means that the equation is only useful in narrow circumstances. Being even a few feet above the surface of the water (like standing on the edge of a lake or ocean shore instead of sticking your camera halfway in the water) can have a massive influence on your final results.

I'd recommend looking more in depth at where the equation was derived from, what it's exactly measuring (it's not curvature, but a straight line distance), and what assumptions are baked into it. Unfortunately, math has a habit if being far more subtle and nuanced that people want to give it credit for; it's easy for otherwise honest truth seekers to make simple mistakes that compound enough to push them to the wrong conclusions.

I agree. The math just sounds off and perhaps too simplified.

Lmao it’s the rate of curvature of a sphere given a size equal to the alleged earth. Moving up and down on the surface doesn’t change anything about the sphere itself and how much it curves.

It's quite an easy one actually, it all seems from a bad assumption. But a simple Google of "flat earth Pythagoras" will yield that, so I'm not sure how long you've been looking for an answer.

Bizarrely you're not the only person to stumble on this problem, it has plagued cartographers for centuries. The problem is that the math is about 5000 years out of date: for measuring planets you need non-Euclidean geometry, enter Mr Buckminster Fuller 🎷👻

You’re right. It’s ridiculed without any serious investigation done. The fact is both flat earth and globe earth have yawning problems. In all honesty the simulated earth is winning out for me hands down.

Gyroscopes are intriguing and have yet to be explained properly. The Bedford level experiment is another interesting argument as is Morley’s experiment. They get debunked of course but still.

The fact is both flat earth and globe earth have yawning problems.

Like?

Gyroscopes are intriguing and have yet to be explained properly.

What is there to be explained?

Morley’s experiment. They get debunked of course but still.

Mickelson-Morley, sigh, did not test if the earth was spinning but rather the existence of aether which was thought to be required for light to propegate through.

Take your condescending attitude and stick it right up your arse.

I’m well aware what, sigh, Morley experiment was about. Now do us all a favour and point your funny face somewhere it’s welcome.

If you supposedly know then why do you bring it up as some kind of evidence for FE?

Yeah, that had me scratching my head too.

It’s evidence the aether revolves around the earth ?? And that’s not strange to you how ? It’s the basis of a flat earth argument. That we are still and the stars revolve around us. As mind blowing as that is, it’s what the experiment proved.

No... they got a null result which was the first of many results that disproved the existence of an aether. But of course you already knew that right 🤔

I already knew what arguments are being used against it. And existence of an aether ? Ok let’s make it simple. He used starlight as a reference. Therefore it’s the stars that appear to be circling around us

Ok so aether doesn’t exist. Let’s give you that one. Can we agree that stars exist ? Or do I have to show you some pictures ?

Wtf are you getting at? If I spin around it seems like the world revolves around me from my POV, so what?

Probably best to read up on the experiment and research yourself. He didn’t spin around he used the speed of light to determine it. Far too clever for me to explain

Facepalm

Face punch.

Very christian of you

I'm not the one who thinks the earth is flat

Except the aether doesn't exist. How would that "experiment" prove it does?

I mean the bombarded the precision laser gyro with random high strength magnetic files (which they didn't document) then said aether.

That isn't how science works.

He used starlight. The stars go around the earth according to the experiment. Do you really need more explanation than that ? Now I’m not saying it does because I didn’t do the experiment and not did you. We are both relying on what someone else says.

Now given that fact do you not think it interesting proven scientific research seems to show stars move around the earth ? Whether you think it’s debunked or not, without either of being able to present evidence to the contrary, it’s interesting.

The stars go around the earth according to the experiment.

Please link to the experiment in question.

And you can’t use google ?

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html

Yes I a can. However by getting you to provide the link it stops you from saying my link was biased.

Although Michelson and Morley were expecting measuring different speeds of light in each direction, they found no discernible fringes indicating a different speed in any orientation or at any position of the Earth in its annual orbit around the Sun.

To be honest most links will be biased. As anyone can tell how brigaded and shilled this subject is it’s no wonder this is also fake debunked.

And I’m well aware of how things can be so easily covered up these days. Perhaps you know the phrases. Mirror mirror on the wall who’s the smartest of them all ?

As anyone can tell how brigaded and shilled this subject

Just because people understand science, physics, geometry, math, scientific evidence, what a theory means when used in science, and know how to do experiments doesn't make them shills.

Why can't any flat Earthers do experiments that show the Earth is flat?

Where are the flat Earth wireless Internet providers? They could make a killing since they would not need tall towers to reach lots of people.

Flat earthers do do experiments. The mountain experiment is one, the laser experiment across a lake is another, the Bedford level is another. That’s the point experiments done on earth seem to prove it’s flat, why do debunkers need to resort to bendy light when an experiment result doesn’t add up to what they want to see ?

And regarding your service providers. Have you not noticed how there are more and more towers by the roadside than ever before ? We have in the UK. What are radio towers still being erected for ? There’s 25000 satellites in space apparently.

Why are there still miles of cables connecting countries and not just satalites? Why are authorities scared these will be cut by terrorists and blank out areas ? Why does my gprs stop working properly when I’m out in the middle of no where ? Why do cell phones even need towers when bouncing off satellite should be easy ?

Why when I zoom in on google earth is there a point where the green suddenly turns into fields, and not a smooth zoom in ?

Why does the inventor of the space rocket have psalm 19:1 on his gravestone. Referring to the firmament. ?

What do satellites do in our every day lives ? That aren’t being delivered by masts everywhere ? It seems TV is the only thing. Yet how does the TV get reception all the time with satellites spinning around the place ?

Why were her men bombers able to be directed by radio masts in Europe over London when the curvature should have blocked the signals. ?

Why does the horizon rise to eye level when on a plane ? When in fact it should drop away.

Why when on a tall mountain you can look east and west and see for 160 miles or so. And yet see no curve at all ? Yet there should be over half a mile.

Every single "mountain experiment" fully matches what would be expected on a globe. Check out PeakFinder and see for yourself.

the laser experiment across a lake

The FECORE one where they got the math all wrong which also matches what is to be expected on a globe?

the Bedford level is another.

Explain please.

What are radio towers still being erected for ? There’s 25000 satellites in space apparently.

Latency to sats is a lot and having lots of towers allows one to reuse radio frequencies due to spot beams.

Why when I zoom in on google earth is there a point where the green suddenly turns into fields, and not a smooth zoom in ?

Because that is when it transitions from sat images to images from planes.

Why are there still miles of cables connecting countries and not just satalites?

Latency, security, and throughput.

Why does my gprs stop working properly when I’m out in the middle of no where ?

It doesn't. Provide evidence if you think it does.

Why does the inventor of the space rocket have psalm 19:1 on his gravestone

Because the word firmament has different meanings.

What do satellites do in our every day lives ?

Weather forecasting, GPS, GPS time systems (NTP), remote imaging, and lots and lots of other things.

Yet how does the TV get reception all the time with satellites spinning around the place ?

Geosynchronous orbit.

Why were her men bombers able to be directed by radio masts in Europe over London when the curvature should have blocked the signals. ?

Details please.

Why does the horizon rise to eye level when on a plane ?

It doesn't. See Wolfie on youtube.

Why when on a tall mountain you can look east and west and see for 160 miles or so. And yet see no curve at all ?

Source?

Why do cell phones even need towers when bouncing off satellite should be easy ?

Latency and frequency reuse.

Ok planes and eye level. I disagree it does. I’ve been on a plane and I took note. In fact it was when i flew over India and noticed the Himalayas in the distance appeared to be eye level it took my interest even before I heard of flat earth.

Mountain views 160mikes without seeing a curve ? Source. Me in the Himalayas and on Kilimanjaro.

Google earth. I’ll accept that explanation as that’s what it looks like, I wasn’t aware that was open knowledge that planes were used.

The Bedford level experiment is a six mile stretch of canal, a rowing boat with a flag was taken to the end of it and a person could view the flag from the end of the six mile stretch. This was two feet above the water. Yet it should have been under the viewers ability to see. By about six feet of memory serves me.

Cables ? Latency and security ? Seems a few extra satellites would be cheaper. But ok

German bombers used the Lorenz system. Radio beams that sent signals like a road way. When the bombers strayed off course the system would beep till they got on course. This was used for raids on London. The system would have to be effective for at least 70 miles. The original was only good for 30.

Satellites. Weather ? Yes ok so it seems. But I’m not convinced of gprs or remote imaging. Especially as the need for high flying spy planes has not diminished for anyone. It seems risky to fly them over enemy territory if they don’t need to. Same goes for awax. Why do they need it when satellites should easily be able to pick out everything ?

Psalm 19:1. Firmament can have different meanings. This by itself means nothing but it’s interesting none the less.

I’m not in agreement about the mountain experiment. I think there are some interesting results which need further explanation. It appears if you can see a mountain no matter how far you still can’t measure any dip or curve away from you.

I’ve been on a plane and I took note.

What did you use to determine this?

Mountain views 160mikes without seeing a curve ? Source. Me in the Himalayas and on Kilimanjaro.

You know that isn't enough detail to give you an answer so I will ignore it.

The Bedford level experiment is a six mile stretch of canal, a rowing boat with a flag was taken to the end of it and a person could view the flag from the end of the six mile stretch.

The recreate it and go down in the history books. You would make millions just from book sales and interview fees.

he system would have to be effective for at least 70 miles. The original was only good for 30.

You point? It isn't like the transmitter where at sea level.

. But I’m not convinced of gprs or remote imaging.

Then you haven't looked into how they work in the least nor have you done any experiments on GPS yourself.

It seems risky to fly them over enemy territory if they don’t need to

It is risky. Which is why maned missions for that reason are only done for high priority taskings.

Same goes for awax.

Assuming you mean AWACS? Because of frequency reuse and the need for accurate results which are harder to get from a satellite. It is also very difficult to get the power that an AWACS use in a satellite footprint.

Cables ? Latency and security ? Seems a few extra satellites would be cheaper.

How would more satellites make the speed of light faster?

Psalm 19:1. Firmament can have different meanings. This by itself means nothing but it’s interesting none the less

Then why use it as a question?

I’m not in agreement about the mountain experiment.

Then start a WISP with small towers. You should make a fortune.

The Bedford level experiment has been recreated. Why would I make millions ?

The towers for the German were tall ? You hadn’t heard of them before I told you. How tall were they and what was the curvature they had to contend with ? Can’t just say that without figures.

My eyes not enough detail ? Sorry but for me they are. And that is the point of this. We can use our own eyes. Why not use yours and actually look at what you are seeing. You ask for source saying you can’t see curve in 160 miles. Go look for yourself.

And that’s what flat earthers at least say. Look for yourself. They don’t need hearsay and debunkers. They just need eyes and a brain. And yet here you are saying eyes and brains are not enough. Surely you can see where this is all going wrong ?

Ps check with your pal he’s giving me a different debunk to the German towers. And that’s the issue isn’t it ? No ones story is straight

pal? what are you talking about?

You also ignored my responses.

No. Seems a few of you are digging up the same answers. As I say brigaded to death this subject. Ever wonder why ?

Seems a few of you are digging up the same answers

If 5 people reach the conclusion that 2+2=4 is that evidence of a brigade?

It isn't my fault that your flat Earth ideas don't reflect reality.

Well you took your while dodging any sensible questions, then two of you came to the same rubbish conclusion at the same time.

So tell me.

Mirror mirror on the wall who’s the smartest of them all.

Now that sentence needs correcting. So correct it. Not that I think you play fair but let’s see

two of you came to the same rubbish conclusion at the same time

You have yet to show what I am saying is wrong. Just calling it "rubbish" doesn't make it so. If you could use facts to disprove my statements you would have done so but you haven't which is evidence you don't have facts / evidence on your side.

You didn’t provide any evidence what so ever. You copied and pasted someone else’s opinion. And you didn’t answer the question.

The please repost the question and I will provide evidence.

Your not playing my game though.

Look let’s save ourselves some time. The flat earth has issues. The stars rotating at the Southern Hemisphere. The Antarctic having 24 an hour daylight (though I only have tv to show that but I’m guessing we’d know if it didn’t) David Attenborough said so, and if he would lie to us my world has ended.

I’m not convinced by plane routes though they picked up a few good points there. The sun does appear to shine at the bottom of clouds when setting which it couldn’t really do on a flat earth. And even if perspective and distance were reasons for the sun setting I still think it would be lighter at sunset.

So there you have it. These are real common sense reasons the earth isn’t flat. Yet I have to see algorithm and mathematical equations to perfectly simple questions. Why ? Surely there can be just as simple answers as I’ve just bought up.

I can tell you to go look at the clouds when the sun is setting. I can ask you to use your own eyes. And this is what flat earthers are rightly saying. Use your own eyes. Your own common sense, you don’t know anything about gyroscopes in ww11 planes. Nor do I. But the fact you try and furnish me with nonsense makes me wonder why.

Now do you want to play a game or not ? But no cheating if you do.

Yet I have to see algorithm and mathematical equations to perfectly simple questions. Why ?

Because that is why physics and geometry works. How else would you have it described to you?

you don’t know anything about gyroscopes in ww11 planes

Except I linked to multiple explanations and gave you enough information to find out the rest yourself.

No. You didn’t answer my question. You took to the tried and tested method of physics bamboozle. The next post would have been how it was high school physics and how it was easy for a fifth grader to understand. I’ve heard it all before

How do you expect me to answer your question if I can't use facts? Somethings are complicated and can't be simplified down to the level you apparently want them to be simplified.

You don't want to educate yourself that much is obvious. In the amount of time you have spent responding you could have learned how they work.

No i couldn’t. If you knew you’d have answered straight away instead of stalling and diverting until you got the answer from elsewhere.

And besides I’ve already had answers. About three different ones all showing data including manual adjustment. Your air thing with holes was new.

And besides if you played my game you’d learn something as well. But still we are avoiding it.

If you knew you’d have answered straight away

I did answer straight way - the problem is you don't accept facts that go against what you know to be true.

Your air thing with holes was new.

It has been in use for decades so it isn't exactly new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIGA_accelerometer

http://www.worldwar2facts.org/v2-rocket-facts.html

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/attitude.htm

SLADTSIYART

For gods sake those links show how a gyroscope balances other things. Read what you post. You’re just proving the point.

Then what is your question? Please clarify, in your next post, exactly what you wish for me to explain to you.

Why would I want you to explain anything ? it’s obvious you can’t understand what you are actually posting.

And I asked you simple questions which you couldn’t actually answer.

I do understand what I am posting. However it appears we are talking past each other regarding your question which is why I am trying to get you to restate it.

However you appear to be unwilling to do so which, since I thought we where having a nice discussion, is strange to me.

I don’t have an issue, just I’ve posted twice so I can only assume you aren’t reading the replies and just deciding on what to post to counter the argument. Which just pushes me to do the same. Ever gets very far.

What I was getting at is the world is not flat or round. The fact is I don’t know what it is.

What I was getting at is the world is not flat or round. The fact is I don’t know what it is.

It is round. Satellites show this, basaltic trajectories show this, rail guns show this, flight paths show this, as does navigation. The sighting of cell towers and other radio towers show this as well as do lighhouses.

There is literally zero evidence the Earth isn't a sphere.

This is the point though. Zero evidence there is not. There is evidence. But what we decide is an acceptable explanation differs.

You’d agree that a stationary gyroscope shows no movement of the earth ? That I hope we can agree on.

You’d agree that a stationary gyroscope shows no movement of the earth ?

That depends on the type of gyroscope. It takes a specific amount of movement to overcome the inherent friction in a system so unless you have a very low friction setup a typical spinning gyro will not register movement. However a laser gyro will detect movement while stationary at a rate of 15 degrees per hour.

You’d agree that a stationary gyropscope shows no rotation of the earth ? Surely you’d agree that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/91gvhy/flat_earth_conspiracy/e32tfju/

You’d agree that a stationary gyropscope would show an earth not rotating ?

Do you have an opinion on this matter. Like an adult grown up or are you always going to reach for your big boy friends to tell you what to think.

Does a stationary gyropscope show a non rotating earth ? It’s a simple question and requires a simple answer. If you can’t answer it. Like it looks like you can’t. It just begs the question how intelligent you are after all ?

That depends on the type of gyroscope. It takes a specific amount of movement to overcome the inherent friction in a system so unless you have a very low friction setup a typical spinning gyro will not register movement. However a laser gyro will detect movement while stationary at a rate of 15 degrees per hour.

I have answered you question already. This time I made it Italics.

No you haven’t.

Does a static gyroscope show that the earth is not spinning ? Yes or no ?

Anything other than yes or no shoes clearly you are a paid shill to do nothing more than buy maned these threads. To be honest I know you are already. But besides that. Let’s see if you can drag yourself to answer yes or no. As the question is quite clear

Does a static gyroscope show that the earth is not spinning ? Yes or no ?

Given you will not specify the type of gyroscope in detail I can't answer the question.

It is like me demanding you to answer X + Y = 4 without telling you any more information then demanding that you answer.

Anything other than yes or no shoes

Then I am not one of those that you called me because I have shoes which puts me in the yes shoes category doesn't it?

A gyroscope that doesn’t move, does that show that the earth is not rotating ? Yes or no ? A gyroscope that doesn’t move ? In other words one that is static, one that moves not,

Can I put it any other way ? No I don’t think so. Oh dear you are in a muddle.

You appear to not understand that there are more than one type / configuration of gyroscope. Is that a true statement?

answer the question. Stop trying daft question back tactics.

Yes, a stationary laser gyro will show the Earth's rotation.

I said a static gyropscope. Not a laser one that you claim moves I said a static one that the every day person can get their hands on. Dear oh dear wigglier than a snake with its arse in fire aren’t you ?

I said a static gyropscope. Not a laser one that you claim moves I said a static one that the every day person can get their hands on.

You say that because you know a standard 50 dollar gyroscope has too high a friction to detect the Earth's rotation. You rule out a laser gyro because it can.

Basically you setup a situation where the only answer benefits you. Instead of explaining why a laser gyro / ultra low friction gryo detect movement you do stuff like this.

Nope. I havent set up a situation. The situation occurs. Surely you admit there are gyroscopes that don’t move with the earths rotation.

Do you agree that a normal gyroscope doesn’t move with the rotation of the earth ?

Do you agree that a normal gyroscope doesn’t move with the rotation of the earth ?

Again you refuse to define what a "normal gyroscope" is. Stop trying to set a "trap" and define what you mean.

Why were her men bombers able to be directed by radio masts in Europe over London when the curvature should have blocked the signals. ?

Because they were using the frequency of radio waves that bounce off ions in the ionosphere. That's how radio signals can be picked up hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles away from the transmitter.

There’s no mention of them bouncing off the atmosphere and that knowledge wasn’t around at that time. So it’s unlikely a system would have been developed just in case they could. This was a directed beam so bouncing a directed beam also has consequences.

Um, no, it's been understood since radio, or 'wireless' as it used to be called, was first invented. It's how radio can be heard from so far away. Indeed, in the early 20th century some American radio stations could be heard on the other side of the world.

That’s am frequency. It still doesn’t explain how a directed beam can be accurately bounced or that there is any mention of it either

They didn't mention it because there's no point, it's how radio works! That, and it wasn't as accurate and tight beam as a laser.

Well someone just gave me a different reason. I’ve also seen a documentary on it and they didn’t seem to mention it.

Well, it's the basics of how radio works. It's how they used direction finding to pinpoint where u-boats were transmitting from in the Atlantic. Both the Germans and the British used it to guide their bombers to their targets.

It's how ham radio enthusiasts can communicate with each other all over the world.

It's radio.

I know. Except you haven’t even read about it have you ? You just dig for what you think you know. As it happens they struggled past 30 miles until they built more powerful transmitters and receivers.

Yes that, right I know nothing about radio and how it was used in this context.

Oh, no, hang on a minute, I actually meant the opposite. I know the difference between line-of-sight, surface modes and ionospheric modes. I know how the Germans used transmitted radio beams to guide their bombers over England, just as the RAF did to guide their bombers over Germany. Or how the British set up high frequency direction finding stations so that they could pick up and plot where transmissions were coming from u-boats out in the Atlantic.

But that's OK, you carry on insulting me...

I will. You can’t explain how the beam only went for 30 miles at first then ?

30 miles at first? The first radio transmitter only managed half a mile in 1895. but 6 years later the first transatlantic transmission was made.

globe earth have yawning problems

Would you be so kind to tell me what those problems are?

We are travelling at 1000 miles an hour at the equator.

We are spinning around the sun at 36,000 miles an hour

We are traveling through the solar system at 500,000 miles an hour.

We are hurtling through the galaxy at 1.1 m miles an hour.

And you can prove this how exactly ? Because someone told you ? Don’t try get smart.

As it is there is a massive issue with the spinning glob. Even your hero Niel de grass Tyson admits the earth is like a pizza spinning. It’s only issu me is that water doesn’t seem to know it spinning, nor does the air, and the centrifugal forces involved seem to have decided to take a break when it comes to earth spin.

Now your next statement is that it’s easily explained. And you will go on with some cock and bullshit without explaining it. So let’s do us all a favour and you just admit your as interested in my views as I am at yours. And we can go merrily on with our day.

Thank you.

Funny for someone who just said "Take your condescending attitude and stick it right up your....." you sure are condescending yourself.

How about you treat me with the same respect you demand of others?

As you wish. But I will need to know when World War 11 starts. As far as I know we have only had WW1 and WW2.

Sorry I got you confused with this post https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/91gvhy/flat_earth_conspiracy/e2y6xzg/

Again if you want me to answer your questions, which I can, you will treat me the way your demand others treat you.

You got wrecked. You fail as a DisInfo agent.

Because I made a mistake in regards to who I was replying to and admitted as such as soon as it came to my attention?

Then don’t add “sigh” in your replies. What do you expect ?

As for being abrupt. As soon as anyone posts on flat earth they are brigades and ridiculed. So don’t cry when I fight back. This is the most shilled subject bar only one other. And it’s disgraceful. If it’s so easy to debunk let people tie themselves in knots them.

Only a fool can see this isn’t normal.

I didn't add "sigh" did I?

FE denies objective reality and can not explain anything we see. Nothing. Not a thing.

Fine. Then go away and let them discuss the fantasy between themselves. I happen to be interested in what they say and want to engage in discussion with others that are interested

You are clearly not, by your own admission, so go bug your mom for cinema money or something, and get out of everyone’s hair

You are clearly not, by your own admission

Strange that you say someone asking questions and providing answers isn't interested in discussions. What I think you mean is that you don't want to be bothered by things like facts and evidence and wish to stay inside your bubble of reality denial.

Yeah I want to stay in my little bubble and hide away from facts.

The fact is you’re not interested in anything other than distrusting open discussion. So no I’m well aware of the facts. Go away

The fact is you’re not interested in anything other than disrupting open discussion.

Give examples of those serious charges you have accused me of.

I appreciate you, friend. Can we all get back to collecting evidence against the evil tycoons now??

Evil brigaders annoy me just as much lol. This deserves a voice whether real or not.

What’s the saying ? I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll die for your right to say it. And so it should be.

I'm real as they come! Love that shit, i think its Voltaire right?

"While I may not agree with what you say, i'll defend to the death your right to say it."

I’m not sure. But i agree with the sentiment. As long as everyone agrees with me lol : )

You have to be careful, you're looking at liner velocities, not acceleration. The fluids on earth (water, air, etc) will only react to accelerations, linear speed doesn't apply a force. That's why you can drink a cup of water perfectly fine in a car going straight at 100 mph, but a sharp turn at a quarter that speed could spill your drink everywhere.

For more tools, I recommend looking up how angular momentum and rotating bodies work. This will equip you with the mathematical tools you'll need to scrutinize the answers people will give you to those questions.

My congratulations on such an eloquent and well thought out answer.

There is a small problem with this. It doesn’t make sense. How does drinking a cup of water in a car equate to a spinning globe ? Surely water on a tennis ball is a better example. Yet we see something different.

What you are trying to say is that the atmosphere is connected to the spin one moment, then chooses not to be the next, it’s a bit like when gravity chooses to act on billions on tonnes of water and stick it to the earth. Yet a moon thousands and thousands of miles away pulls up water at different heights across the world, against the pull of the earth. (We can go through tide heights in adjacent areas but it’s rather boring).

And maybe like a bullet that leaves our atmosphere and takes in the coriollis effect yet a plane doesn’t ?

Now let’s just be plainly clear for the record. I’m not actually a flat earther. It’s just that there are fair and interesting arguments that, trust me, not this amount of people have clear answers to. Are you saying people asking questions are dumb ?

I was trying to point to a much subtler point. We'll take your tennis ball as an example. A typical flat earth argument would be to say: spin it at 1000 MPH, and tell me what happens. However, this isn't how we measure rotation. We measure rotation by RPMs. If you were to rotate that tennis ball one revolution per day, just as the earth does, you'll find that any water on it doesn't seem to care much about the spinning.

I'm happy so say that earth's gravity is constantly acting on everything, but it's not the only force we have to account for. I'm saying that planes do have to take the Coriolis "force" into account and don't fly perfectly north or south on their routes.

However, I'm also saying that math and physics can be subtle and nuanced, and we ignore these details at our own peril.

Yes but you can’t have it both ways. The earth bulges at the middle, we can agree this is the given narrative. So ok let’s forget the air, there are arguments for any against but for the sake of point let’s not worry.

The water however is a point, and yes you are right it does revolve one revolution per day, but if we use that argument and increase the earth to the size of the sun, that one revolution per day gets rather fast, at what point does something rotate so fast it breaks apart ? What if the earth was the size of the solar system ?

Now I’m not trying to be difficult or stubborn. Particularly as I actually genuinely am interested in what we see, and why things didn’t act quite like we expect them to. I’m not a kid that asks why why why to every thing.

But you can see where my issue is ? Every time I hear a debunk or an explanation it doesn’t seem to take in basic physics either. Take the tennis ball example. It suits your argument to scale it down as an example. Yet i can scale it up and we are back where we started, now you may be right. Maybe the earth is spinning at just the right speed that it doesn’t effect water, maybe gravity does over ride water and stick it nicely to the earth, I agree you maybe right. But physics doesn’t prove your right.

So you can understand why these questions are legitimate ? That’s the point I’m making. These are legitimate arguments or questions that deserve more than ridicule and brigading.

Is the earth flat ? No I don’t think it is. But I’ve seen some much more mind bending stuff than the shape of the earth. But I’m really not sure it’s a globe either if I’m honest.

The apparent outward force for an object on something that is spinning is 2* Mass * Linear Speed divided by the distance from the axis of rotation. You can use the force from gravity on earth (9.8 * Mass) and set them equal to each other to calculate the speed at which the earth would have to spin to counteract gravity (The distance from the axis of rotation depends on latitude, so it's usually easiest to just assume the object is at the equator).

If you're really hard core, you can try to calculate the apparent force from the earth going around the sun, or the sun around the galaxy to try to get a number. To help with the units, distances are best measured in meters (So you won't have to convert anything later). The force will be in newtons.

The earth would have to be spinning many times faster than it currently is to launch something from its surface. Gravity is just that much stronger than the forces you're looking at. Having said that, there is some effect. Things do weigh less at the equator than they do at the poles; there are any number of experiments confirming this.

As I said, math and physics can get subtle and we need to make sure we're paying attention to what is exactly being claimed before we try to debunk it. All too often I see flat earth proponents wailing away at some straw man, all the while completely missing the point of the person they're trying to debunk. Be careful not to follow them into those same intellectual dead ends.

Yeah and I say use your eyes and you don’t need to reach for such nonsensical answers. See how trying to prove a globe earth you resort to bamboozles and long words.

This is using your eyes. All of this is done in a high school level physics course. Any physics 101 text book will walk you through the derivations, and there are any number of experiments you can find and run yourself to confirm this.

This isn't arcane wizardry, its observation. If you're loosing your place with math and long words, then the study of the physical world may not be for you.

Oh high school level physics ? The usual ramblings of the shill with no real answer. The arcane wizardry is you lot thinking somehow you aren’t as transparent as fresh glass.

The same answers the same nonsense. The same put downs. At least be original.

As for high school physics ? You only need to use kindergarten eyes.

Which part is the "no real answer"? The part where I included the tools you need to make predictions, or the part where I walked you through how to use them?

You asked several questions, and I gave you the equations to get the answers. If basic algebra isn't something you're willing to do, then I don't know how to help you. Math is integral to any description of the physical world, so an unwillingness to utilize it will be doomed to failure.

There are any number of online resources that can walk you through the physics of this (your key word you're looking for her is angular momentum). However, if you really want to get what to get more in depth answers, you'll have to find a physics text book. Here is a physics text book that will go into detail about where the equations used actually come from, as well as some nice practice problems to help you utilize those equations.

Sorry but no. It’s about the forth reason I’ve had for ww11 planes. The other is adjustable ones. Gravity does not work on gyroscopes. You do understand that ? Instead of boring physics show me any picture of this air thing. I understand physics perfectly fine. Which is why this is an anomaly I can’t explain or yet to hear a common sense explanation to. All the time you lot have to delve into fake physics.

Gyroscopes don’t react to gravity unless they do ? That’s what you are basically saying. It’s another magical thing that does what ever the narrative wants it to do.

Here is a visualization of the mechanism I'm trying to describe. Again, you seem very dismissive without actually addressing my points. You don't try to point out which part of the physics is wrong, why the vectors don't add up correctly or any other kind of argument.

I'm saying gyroscopes react to torque. If we're clever, we can convert a constant gravitational pull into a torque to solve a real problem airplanes would otherwise experience.

Here is a thread the goes into detail about the problem you're ignoring, and a solution that's used.

What I'm "basically" saying and what I'm actually saying are two very subtly distinct things. As with most flat earth arguments, the inability to see the difference between that nuance (torque and gravity) is causing the apparent contradiction.

Ps you’re the sixth person to reply to me on this subject. More than any other subject I experience. Bar moon landings. More than anything. And this subject isn’t brigaded. ? I cleft simile answers minutes apart from two supposedly different people.

It’s nonsense

You say nonsense, but you're not pointing out where my misstep is. Which equation is wrong? Which part of my logic is wrong? Is it really that much to ask that you give me some kind of justification for your stance?

Yes it’s that much.

The Bedford level experiment is another interesting argument as is Morley’s experiment.

Fun Fact! A guy solved the Bedford level experiment and had to sue to get his prize money, flat earthers never seem to mention that...

THe guy placed floating discs on the surface of the water and low and behold the ones in the center of the stretch were higher than those on either end.

You can also detect rotation with gyroscopes...

Heres one example

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2010/03/the-bedford-challenge/

Im having difficulty finding the floating discs one...

A small geotechincal company.

Doesnt the link at the very least prove that Rowbotham was a fraud and had to be litigated against to award prize money? And that the Bedford was "solved" for all intents and purposes?

Hampden is well known regarding his interest in the FE. Surprised you havent heard of him if you were knowledgeable in this subject

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hampden

Uh okay. So you dont know who this guy is?

So then you are aware he sued because he won the bet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYRC1sJLaA&feature=youtu.be&t=7929

Globebusters.

Jesus Christ, another one of these threads?

This amused me greatly.

What evidence or proof do you have that it's not flat

Satellites - GPS specifically.

ballistic calculations used during WW2 and into the present day.

Basic geometry.

Satellites? have you ever seen one?

Yes I have. I have also received signals from GPS satellites that show they are moving very very quickly, directly received weather images from satellites, been present when amateur radio operators bounced signals off the moon as well as various amateur radio satellites.

Have also used sat phones and pagers.

Which part?

How do you explain GPS signals then? Or images received directly from satellites?

Does GPS use triangulation?

And why is the drone / balloon / flight always in the exact same spot?

I mean, you can see satellites in the sky with the naked eye, and you can observe for a very brief moment via a telescope or binoculars.

Unless..... big telescope and binocular is in on it

https://youtu.be/QVa2UmgdTM4

Seems to prove globe earth pretty well.

Yeah, that had me scratching my head too.

Gyroscopes can be used to detect the Earths rotation. Cheap MEMs sensors will detect one full rotation every 24 hours

A laser gyro will detect a 15 degree per hour rotation. How do you explain that?

It’s evidence the aether revolves around the earth ?? And that’s not strange to you how ? It’s the basis of a flat earth argument. That we are still and the stars revolve around us. As mind blowing as that is, it’s what the experiment proved.

Funny for someone who just said "Take your condescending attitude and stick it right up your....." you sure are condescending yourself.

How about you treat me with the same respect you demand of others?

A small geotechincal company.

Doesnt the link at the very least prove that Rowbotham was a fraud and had to be litigated against to award prize money? And that the Bedford was "solved" for all intents and purposes?

When did WW ELEVEN happen?

I appreciate you, friend. Can we all get back to collecting evidence against the evil tycoons now??

You have to be careful, you're looking at liner velocities, not acceleration. The fluids on earth (water, air, etc) will only react to accelerations, linear speed doesn't apply a force. That's why you can drink a cup of water perfectly fine in a car going straight at 100 mph, but a sharp turn at a quarter that speed could spill your drink everywhere.

For more tools, I recommend looking up how angular momentum and rotating bodies work. This will equip you with the mathematical tools you'll need to scrutinize the answers people will give you to those questions.

Every single "mountain experiment" fully matches what would be expected on a globe. Check out PeakFinder and see for yourself.

the laser experiment across a lake

The FECORE one where they got the math all wrong which also matches what is to be expected on a globe?

the Bedford level is another.

Explain please.

What are radio towers still being erected for ? There’s 25000 satellites in space apparently.

Latency to sats is a lot and having lots of towers allows one to reuse radio frequencies due to spot beams.

Why when I zoom in on google earth is there a point where the green suddenly turns into fields, and not a smooth zoom in ?

Because that is when it transitions from sat images to images from planes.

Why are there still miles of cables connecting countries and not just satalites?

Latency, security, and throughput.

Why does my gprs stop working properly when I’m out in the middle of no where ?

It doesn't. Provide evidence if you think it does.

Why does the inventor of the space rocket have psalm 19:1 on his gravestone

Because the word firmament has different meanings.

What do satellites do in our every day lives ?

Weather forecasting, GPS, GPS time systems (NTP), remote imaging, and lots and lots of other things.

Yet how does the TV get reception all the time with satellites spinning around the place ?

Geosynchronous orbit.

Why were her men bombers able to be directed by radio masts in Europe over London when the curvature should have blocked the signals. ?

Details please.

Why does the horizon rise to eye level when on a plane ?

It doesn't. See Wolfie on youtube.

Why when on a tall mountain you can look east and west and see for 160 miles or so. And yet see no curve at all ?

Source?

Why do cell phones even need towers when bouncing off satellite should be easy ?

Latency and frequency reuse.

Why were her men bombers able to be directed by radio masts in Europe over London when the curvature should have blocked the signals. ?

Because they were using the frequency of radio waves that bounce off ions in the ionosphere. That's how radio signals can be picked up hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles away from the transmitter.

To be fair, I don't think they believe stars are actually as large, hot, or far away as they actually are. They think they're little lights strung up in the firmament.

I’ve been on a plane and I took note.

What did you use to determine this?

Mountain views 160mikes without seeing a curve ? Source. Me in the Himalayas and on Kilimanjaro.

You know that isn't enough detail to give you an answer so I will ignore it.

The Bedford level experiment is a six mile stretch of canal, a rowing boat with a flag was taken to the end of it and a person could view the flag from the end of the six mile stretch.

The recreate it and go down in the history books. You would make millions just from book sales and interview fees.

he system would have to be effective for at least 70 miles. The original was only good for 30.

You point? It isn't like the transmitter where at sea level.

. But I’m not convinced of gprs or remote imaging.

Then you haven't looked into how they work in the least nor have you done any experiments on GPS yourself.

It seems risky to fly them over enemy territory if they don’t need to

It is risky. Which is why maned missions for that reason are only done for high priority taskings.

Same goes for awax.

Assuming you mean AWACS? Because of frequency reuse and the need for accurate results which are harder to get from a satellite. It is also very difficult to get the power that an AWACS use in a satellite footprint.

Cables ? Latency and security ? Seems a few extra satellites would be cheaper.

How would more satellites make the speed of light faster?

Psalm 19:1. Firmament can have different meanings. This by itself means nothing but it’s interesting none the less

Then why use it as a question?

I’m not in agreement about the mountain experiment.

Then start a WISP with small towers. You should make a fortune.

I'm real as they come! Love that shit, i think its Voltaire right?

"While I may not agree with what you say, i'll defend to the death your right to say it."

You don't know how far away the stars are. And you dont know what the stars are.

Oh high school level physics ? The usual ramblings of the shill with no real answer. The arcane wizardry is you lot thinking somehow you aren’t as transparent as fresh glass.

The same answers the same nonsense. The same put downs. At least be original.

As for high school physics ? You only need to use kindergarten eyes.

Face punch.

Because I’m bored i you shills. Honestly not an original one amongst you.

I, and most of the rest reading this, will take that as you saying that facts don't matter. You asked for information, I provided it and now you are running away ignoring it.

I don’t have an issue, just I’ve posted twice so I can only assume you aren’t reading the replies and just deciding on what to post to counter the argument. Which just pushes me to do the same. Ever gets very far.

What I was getting at is the world is not flat or round. The fact is I don’t know what it is.