Guy explains flat Earth theory convincingly and how round earth proof aren't absolute

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: icyboy771z

Anyone with a deeper understanding of the subject care to explain, and is there absolute proof that
the Earth is round?

Ever flown anywhere? Ever been on a mountain? I can say yes to both (though only ever flew Aberdeen to London and back a couple of days later) and when you do these things, you see the curvature of the planet, flat earth doesn't have curvature.

Another good example is the horizon when you're on a boat. Things that dissappear over the horizon are invisible because they've gone around the curvature (around 3 miles away from you), this is all I need to know to refute Flat Earth THEORY...

Until you zoom in with a telescope and the boat reappears lol. 3 miles huh? Hm I don't ever remember seeing buildings tilt away from me and I can see the NY skyline from my house 48 miles away, those building are standing straight up, not sitting being a supposed curve 3 miles away.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: icyboy771z

Are you serous?

Get yourself a weather ballon and attach a camera to it:
www.stratoflights.com...


Want see it it with you own eyes?

Book a flight in a MiG:
29mig.com...
www.rusadventures.com...

There are amateur videos of people attaching a camera to a weather balloon reaching attitudes of 120,000 feet (which shows a flat plane). Although I believe you have to go much higher to see a curvature.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: PoetryInMotion

Ok, lets put this another way.

The claim is that the earth is flat. It isn't. The sun is precisely as far away as orbital models predict it to be, as is the moon, and as are Mercury, Venus, Mars, and all the rest. So no matter which way you cut it, no matter what linguistic hoop you jump through to make it SOUND reasonable, it bloody well is not reasonable, or in fact, accurate to say that the planet upon which we stand, is anything other than an oblate spheroid, ergo, round, not flat.

Then how do you explain this? The camera was attached to a weather balloon at night (Yet when the balloon reached high enough the sun was very visible and close, and there was a hotspot seen, which won't be possible if the sun was millions of miles away).

a reply to: icyboy771z

Nope 50 thousand feet to see it.
Heck go to a beach at sunset lie or sit down and as the last rays of sunshine go over the horizon stand up and you will see the sun again...proves the curve of the earth or remain ignorant.

originally posted by: PoetryInMotion
Why is this in the LOL forum? Why does ATS staff always have to be so damn anal.

What claim was made, that is a lie?

Because flat Earth claims are laughable to this site and to the world?

a reply to: icyboy771z

Tell me, icyboy771z, why is it that there are no prominent rocket, astro-engineering or aerospace engineering scientists who believe the world is flat?

I've had a good Google about and haven't found one.

I suspect because, if any of them were as stupid and moronic to believe the world was flat, then they wouldn't be a scientist.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

do you differentiate between a circle and an oval - if so why? - if not why ?

If you would draw a circle that is as oblate as Earth is, you wouldn't even be able to differentiate it from a circle.

That is my point. Everything past "spheroid" is simply being pretentious.....imo.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: PoetryInMotion

ffs - feeding the troll is getting tiersome

the sise of ploaris does not change because the ratio between the actual distabce and the different vantage points is so small

this is fooking obvious basic science

stand 1km from the CN tower - and take a pic - then take 2 moore - 1 km +2cm then 1km -5cm - and see if you can see the difference in angular resolution of the main pod

now - lets here your explainations -

Yes this is true, so let me move the goalposts and apply this concept to the sun.

The distance to the sun is about 150 Million km.

The max difference in distance from the sun to a specific place on Earth, during rotation, is about 12.800 km(the diameter)

This is about 0.0085%.

Yet from our perspective the sun's angular size changes dramatically during the day. Is this caused by that 0.0085% difference in distance?

stand 1km from the CN tower - and take a pic - then take 2 moore - 1 km +2cm then 1km -5cm - and see if you can see the difference in angular resolution of the main pod

That would be differences in distance of 0.0020% and 0.0050%, which is in the same ball park as the 0.0085% difference in the sun's distance.

So according to your example we shouldn't see the sun's angular size change either, or at least nowhere near as dramatic as we see it.

Correct me if I made a mistake.

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

sigh - drawn with a majpr axis diameter of 12754km and measured to the accuracy of current GIS technology - you would

this is accuracy - not " sort of " and certainly not pretentious

but hey your trolling will not defect us from the topic

lets get back to polaris

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: PoetryInMotion
Why is this in the LOL forum? Why does ATS staff always have to be so damn anal.

What claim was made, that is a lie?

Because flat Earth claims are laughable to this site and to the world?

Again I ask, what specific claim was made in the OP, that is a lie?

And some of these claims are legit I am not saying that Earth is flat just yet, but like this threads points out, there are compelling pieces of evidence that point toward a flat earth.

I know there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for globe earth yet it doesn't explain everything.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

There is a 0.3% difference between the polar and equatorial diameter. You wouldn't even notice this in a circle.

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

The max difference in distance from the sun to a specific place on Earth, during rotation, is about 12.800 km(the diameter)

WRONG

care to try again - PS - attempt science this time

Yet from our perspective the sun's angular size changes dramatically during the day

mo actually it does not - the percieved size alters at sunrise // sunset [ when the horizon is rising // falling ] - but during the say [ sun declination > 15 degrees - the percieved size is constant ]

a reply to: ignorant_ape

WRONG care to try again - PS - attempt science this time

What is wrong about that. Try to use arguments.

mo actually it does not - the percieved size alters at sunrise // sunset [ when the horizon is rising // falling ] - but during the say [ sun declination > 15 degrees - the percieved size is constant ]

The angular size of the sun does not change during the day?

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

What is wrong about that. Try to use arguments.

it is WRONG - try to use science - the mathematics is not hard

The angular size of the sun does not change during the day?

attempt to read what i wrote - i used very precise terminology - and addded caveats

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
Another simple video showing the curvature of the earth.

Looks nice there I may visit.

Love for anyone to attempt to refuter this.

Atmospheric refraction causing the "drop"?

a reply to: ignorant_ape







The angular size of the sun sure seems to change. It grows to twice the size, or amount of pixels.

it is WRONG - try to use science - the mathematics is not hard

Still waiting for you to tell me what was wrong with that.

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

actually it does not - the percieved size alters at sunrise // sunset [ when the horizon is rising // falling ] - but during the say [ sun declination > 15 degrees - the percieved size is constant ]

try reading what i wrote

as for the change in distance to the sun [ for an observer at 0m ASL on the equator ]

heres a pic :



can you work out the change in distance for yourself yet ?

PS - the absence of solar parrallax ?? - has that sunk in yet - HINT ho back to the Eratosthenes experiment IF the syn is only 3000km away - parralax should be visible - it is not - so the premise fails - same for the moon

PPS - ready to re-address polaris yet - if not why not ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

try reading what i wrote

Try looking at the pics I posted. The angular size of the sun changes.

can you work out the change in distance for yourself yet ?

Yes, I visualised it wrong. So the change in distance during a half rotation(I based it on a full rotation)is actually less, it's half the diameter, you do realize this only strengthens my argument.

PS - the absence of solar parrallax ?? - has that sunk in yet - HINT ho back to the Eratosthenes experiment IF the syn is only 3000km away - parralax should be visible - it is not - so the premise fails - same for the moon

So why does the angular size of the sun change, like the pics show?

PPS - ready to re-address polaris yet - if not why not ?

I already said that your were right about that and we have moved on from that. You now have to explain why the sun's angular size changes when it shouldn't, according to your explanation about Polaris.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

The max difference in distance from the sun to a specific place on Earth, during rotation, is about 12.800 km(the diameter)

WRONG

BTW, the statement itself is completely correct, the max difference during rotation is the diameter.

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

You are really attempting to push this...but no the earth is not flat no matter what you say.
The flat earth thing is about just debate it is not supposed to be believed and as I said been done to death on ATS so not going to entertain it anymore.