Flat Earth Believers, I would like to hear your ideas.

a reply to: NNN87


I already posted in the other thread yesterday that I see ships sailing out and use a telescope ALL THE TIME. I have never personally witnessed anything that would go against a spheroid model. Neither has anyone else I have ever talked to. Including my grandfather who served in the RN during WW2.


So, given the overwhelming evidence and tests that anyone can do to prove a spheroid earth, the onus is on the detractors to provide their own irrefutable evidence

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: NNN87

let me ask you something.

What is it that you personally find the most bothersome thing of the spheroid earth?. And I want YOUR answer. why does it bother you so much. What made you doubt it in the first place.

I have been ignoring, and ridiculing the idea my self for as long as i can remember, i caved and decided to the damn thing to rest for my self, silly flat earth i thought, what are they crazy. You know what, didn't make me upset or angry, didn't do anything except ask me one question, where the hell is all of our wealth, resources and great talent being wasted on? If it's being wasted, i mean had a friend who is a programmer and works for NASA. I can't ask him anything his not allowed to say anything.

His a genius with computers, that's all he cares about, programing and computers, doesn't care what a sun set looks like or what lavender smells like, what are they making him do you know?

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: NNN87


I already posted in the other thread yesterday that I see ships sailing out and use a telescope ALL THE TIME. I have never personally witnessed anything that would go against a spheroid model. Neither has anyone else I have ever talked to. Including my grandfather who served in the RN during WW2.


So, given the overwhelming evidence and tests that anyone can do to prove a spheroid earth, the onus is on the detractors to provide their own irrefutable evidence

So you have eye's, good. If you are using a telescope after observing the horizon with your own eyes, after looking through the telescope right after, is the horizon further out?

a reply to: FlatBastard

Something i noticed, when at a high enough advantage point, and zooming in or out looking at the horizon, does the effect not look as if one is flying over the surface? Its so beautiful i think.

a reply to: NNN87


the horizon distance does not change, no

I feel like you are trying to goad or convince me that apparent changes in horizon (at same elevation) are some kind of evidence for a FE. they are not. Working with optics daily, I am well aware of the "perceived" difference due to focal lengths and magnification.

a reply to: MasterAtArms

There is really no difference in height between your screenshots, and furthermore, there should be 6.3 ft hidden height, you shouldn't even see the hull of the back and mid section of the boat. And this is with a generous 1ft eye level.

0.5 ft would be more accurate. That would give a hidden height of 7.9 ft.

Nothing is obscured, and you can even see the horizon is beyond the objects. At sea level you also have waves possibly cutting of just a little bit, but we sure don't see a drop of 6 to 8 ft.

How much do you think is obscured then?

a reply to: MasterAtArms

Home come the horizon line is higher up the structure as well ? hmmm?

I already said this and it is very simple, the viewing angle becomes smaller so the horizon gets closer, round or flat earth, this is common sense and is easily demonstrated on a small scale.

originally posted by: FlatBastard
a reply to: MasterAtArms

Home come the horizon line is higher up the structure as well ? hmmm?

I already said this and it is very simple, the viewing angle becomes smaller so the horizon gets closer, round or flat earth, this is common sense and is easily demonstrated on a small scale.

You think we should dedicate a whole thread on laws of perspective, i have no idea how they are not understanding basic things.

a reply to: NNN87


I have no idea how you are not comprehending simple facts either.

Short of you building your own launch vehicle, a fully transparent viewing cube in which to sit in, and going into orbit yourself you will never, ever believe. Nor are you willing to demonstrate what you think you are observing with your own video.


Let me ask you, what would it take?

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: NNN87


I have no idea how you are not comprehending simple facts either.

Short of you building your own launch vehicle, a fully transparent viewing cube in which to sit in, and going into orbit yourself you will never, ever believe. Nor are you willing to demonstrate what you think you are observing with your own video.


Let me ask you, what would it take?

It would take you one hour.

Lets do this one more time.

The very definition of eye sight limit, you can Google it, is only there because of curvature, so the definition states.That observation is based on eyesight alone, without using a binocular or telescope, that is how most researchers came to the conclusion that the earth must be a globe. But the very foundations of a curvature are flawed, simple binoculars will allow you to see a horizon beyond your eye sight limit, which by definition should not be happening. So all calculations for the curvature or shape of the land we live on, are wrong.

Done, anyone can test this and see for themself.

a reply to: NNN87


you completely avoided my question! well done!

Now, why don't you provide photos of how magnifying optics increase horizon distance at the same height? All you are doing is "stretching" the image, seeing more detail that your eyes along cant really resolve at that sort of distance. the horizon isn't moving, your focal length is. this is an extremely simple concept.


You can demonstrate this yourself with a digital camera that has optical zoom. put it on a tripod. point it at an object near the horizon. zoom in and watch the screen

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: NNN87


you completely avoided my question! well done!

Now, why don't you provide photos of how magnifying optics increase horizon distance at the same height? All you are doing is "stretching" the image, seeing more detail that your eyes along cant really resolve at that sort of distance. the horizon isn't moving, your focal length is. this is an extremely simple concept.


You can demonstrate this yourself with a digital camera that has optical zoom. put it on a tripod. point it at an object near the horizon. zoom in and watch the screen

The horizon doesn't move physically that's crazy, the horizon is an illusion. And one can see beyond that illusion with the help of binoculars or telescope.

You can see beyond the limits of what your eyes can see yes, but there are things one should not be seeing if there is a curvature.

www.livescience.com...

a reply to: MasterAtArms

There is a beach in Ontario, Toronto, Pickering area by the name of Brimley beach. I used to live there.

The Somerset stack can be seen across the lake, on the beach and more if you are standing on the escarpment 25 feet above the water level. The smoke stack is 600 feet high, and roughly 50 miles away.

dizzib.github.io...

For me, the things that do away with FE are how the stars in the southern hemisphere appear to rotate around a fixed point, how Australia has longer summer days than nights and how the sun sets.

On FE, stars would still appear to orbit polaris from anywhere (moving faster at the rim), the small sun would never be able to give Aus longer days than nights due to its distance from the center and the sun would not set but get smaller and further away.

a reply to: Vasteel


There is also a gravity problem with a FE model


Since gravitational attraction is always towards the centre of mass (or at the very least, the area of highest mass) people and objects on the surface of a FE would experience a diagonal, even sideways gravity attraction.

For example, if you lived on the "edge" of a FE, then the majority of mass is no longer under you, but towards the centre of the FE, which is sideways to your location. Conversely, if you lived dead centre, you would experience minimal downward gravity, and much more equal-all-around sideways gravity.



The very fact we don't experience this disproves, totally, a FE



Now of course, the FE believers will come along and will have to invent a massively complex theory, or just claim that gravity science is wrong to fit with their claims, adding yet another layer of implausibly complex theory to an already complex, and undetermined model that none of them can agree on.

a reply to: MasterAtArms

True about the gravity. The common explanation is that the disc is accelerating upwards as it is true that acceleration and gravity can feel identical.

However, the disc would be moving at many times the speed of light by now if that was the case which it clearly isn't.

The other explanation which is "density" still requires gravity to function which as you say would be a largely diagonal force for most people.

a reply to: Vasteel

Here, let me put some gas into this fire (a.k.a. let me explain)

There is this thing about gravity that not many know about - the Newtons "every mass attracts every other mass" is just a theory. Yes, you read it right - a theory, or rather the most commonly accepted theory, because there are many other theories that may be more or less plausible. The problem is that scientists don't really know how it works. Sure, they can calculate how much pull each gravitational object has but they have no idea why or how it works and the most of it is just pure speculation.

So, if we go back to the flat earth model and assume that the gravity works on other principles than newtons, that is - not on attraction of mass, then we can assume that the gravity on earth works simply by attracting stuff to itself. How? Nobody knows and that's the beauty of both earth models. So there is no need for this weird idea that it constantly accelerates at the same speed. It's much more simple - the attraction is just there and mankind has yet to discover how it works.

Furthermore, it is probably not so flat at all (google Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map) which may explain a lot of other FE points, like the Sun movement or visibility. Just my 2 cents, trying to be open-minded.

a reply to: 13ssA

the "Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map " is even more retarded than any previous slat earth delusion - which is saying something

it instantly fails one one point :

the distance from perth australia to sydney australia

and the errors cascade there after

but hey - its got imaginary friends at each corner - so GAWD :p

a reply to: 13ssA

regardless of its status of a theory, what we know and can demonstrate time and time again, even people at home, people in the vomit comet, people in space, is that gravity works just as predicted and therefore on a flat earth would still be largely diagonal in any particular location.


You were doing just as I said FE people do - having to invent extremely complex "your science is wrong" explanations for things which can be very, very simply resolved by the spheroid earth

a reply to: Vasteel

the sun would not set but get smaller and further away.

But the sun does not set, it does get smaller, and it does go further away, it seems to set because it is moving away from you towards the perspective horizon and it is cut off once it passes that horizon. It can all be explained by perspective and there is loads of time lapse footage on YT showing this.

In places where the atmosphere is humid the change in size is not as dramatic because the atmosphere works as a lens, however in places where the atmosphere is dryer, you can see it shrinking in size, dramatically.

Btw, most sunset pics and footage are zoomed in giving a false perception of the size in the sky.