The Earth is FLAT.

a reply to: STANDARD

So you don't have any thoughts of your own? Are you just a parrot for YouTube videos? It's interesting that people on YouTube are somehow super credible without any background or degrees in the areas of study that are involved and that there isn't a single piece of scientific data that supports a flat earth, yet these YouTube warriors have ALL the real answers! If they have so much evidence, why not publish in a peer reviewed journal?

You all come to comedy central and want to debate Flat Earth ? Remember what forum this is .... asrockk wins hands down.... LOL.

Hey, any one want to disprove flat earth, my favorite way to do so is to look at the longest recorded sniper shot. Debunks the flat earth and some of the side claims, such as no rotation of the earth.

a reply to: misterhistory

Yeah, they like to ignore the coriolis effect and instead focus on things they don't understand enough to know how wrong they are.

a reply to: asrockk

a reply to: kibric

shhhh....

a reply to: kibric

Because it doesn't emit its own light.

originally posted by: asrockk

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
a reply to: Phage

I don't know man. I think he's got you beat.

Those planes would just end up in space..

Yes they would end up in space. I've been on a plane before and at cruise it flies level, it doesn't dip the nose all the time.

Sorry but I cant even believe you can tie your own shoe laces.

Im glad you made this point. The magnetism is a circle, the further east a plane goes, the direction changes like a circle. So you go east and more east but it's not a straight line.

and

3) If the Earth wasn't flat, an airplane would always have to dip its nose to stop from going into outer space.

just boggle my mind.

I could go on and on,

please do

So to summarize, the fact that Polaris is always above the North pole, is actually proof that the earth is flat.

please stop

you're killing me

its above the north pole?

The north pole yet we are on a flat earth?

If we could agree that the earth is flat, then we can start try to figure out those questions.

but we cant because reality and our observation of that reality for 1000s of years now has shown we live a globe.

If you cant answer the question then maybe you don't know what you talking about, could that be a possibility?

I graduated highschool, thanks for your concern about my education just because you disagree with obvious facts. Funny how we've never seen the other side of the moon. All we see is a flat but circular disk.

Funny, you don't remember learning why we see that side moon only?

You have stated no facts, its not a fact that you have flown on a plane.

Facts are verifiable, for now its just your word that you have flown on a plane or finished high school or that the earth is flat.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

no disagreement with anything in the post - but when you wrote :

its above the north pole?

The north pole yet we are on a flat earth?

this raises another question to ask the flat earth delusion cultists :

model the earths magnetic feild [ on a flat earth plane ]

as always - the answer must be congruent with all observations

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

blinks - you utterly fail to answer on question - and your " answer " to the second = UTTER TWADDLE - please stop reading flat earth delusion sources - they are not science

so care to try again :

1 - what is the distance from the earth to the moon

2 - explain lunar and solar eclipses - using the flat earth delusion

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

blinks - you utterly fail to answer on question - and your " answer " to the second = UTTER TWADDLE - please stop reading flat earth delusion sources - they are not science

so care to try again :

1 - what is the distance from the earth to the moon

2 - explain lunar and solar eclipses - using the flat earth delusion

There is no way to explain solar eclipses if the earth was flat. Unles you believe the moon produces its own light ,And odly in a weird pattern

a reply to: dragonridr

i know that - you know that - but watching the FECs [ flat earth cultists ] dance around the issue - and come up with " explainations " that are falsified by other phenonemon = pure comedy gold

originally posted by: asrockk
Obviously people who fall off, don't get to come back to report about it. Probably in a better place now. Definitely the government knows where it is but wont tell us.

Why not?

What would be the point in lying about the shape of the Earth?

Also you haven't addressed many of the points brought up in this thread that show the Earth is round.

If the earth is flat, why do distant objects seem to be below the horizon line?


www.youtube.com...



Here's what wind turbines would look like in the distance if the earth were flat:



When in Spain, I could see North African mountains on the horizon, but where is the rest of North African coast?

a reply to: wildespace

please sit down before reading the next bit :

a common flat-tard conspiracy cult " explaination " = " perspective "

no i am not making this up

thjis is magic flat earth " perspective " - that operates differently in the vertical and horizontal plane - for reasons

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: wildespace

please sit down before reading the next bit :

a common flat-tard conspiracy cult " explaination " = " perspective "

no i am not making this up

thjis is magic flat earth " perspective " - that operates differently in the vertical and horizontal plane - for reasons

Yeah, I know. I just want them to address these questions and explain how exactly their version of perspective works.

a reply to: asrockk

lolol wait wait wait. I thought they had to trick us into believing the earth was round, using lenses and CGI. Now you are contradicting that explanation by saying that none of that matters because we'd see observe it as round anyway? Which is it, because the lenses vs CGI was ALREADY enough of a contradiction.

-Either they enter lower earth orbit and use lenses to trick us (which according to your explanation for gravity doesn't make sense either because than earth would be accelerating toward them! Woops!)

-So they fake it all and just use green screens but You can see the ISS from earth. I'm confused

a reply to: wildespace

When in Spain, I could see North African mountains on the horizon, but where is the rest of North African coast?

Another interesting question would be, "why can I even see this much of the mountains"? I agree that there is a phenomenon that is obscuring the lowest parts of the coast but there are other issues here.

The distance to the African coast is 160 km. Judging from the building visible in the pic and estimating the eye level from it, the eye height is about 50 m.

Eye level seems to be 8 storeys up, 8 x 4 m is 32 m plus another 10 m from ground to sea level is 42 m. Let's make this 50 m, I think it is actually lower, there is no way it is much higher anyway.


At an eye height of 50 m and a distance of 160 km, the hidden height would be 1119 m.

www.metabunk.org...

This has been corrected for refraction.


Here is an elevation map of North Africa.



commons.wikimedia.org...:Morocco_Topography.png

As you can see, at 160 km, the highest visible peaks are around 2000 m high. It must be that mountain range nearest to the coast, because the mountains further away would be totally hidden by curvature, even though they are higher. So the part of the mountains we can see here should be 880m, max.

You really think you are seeing the top 880 m of 2000m high mountains there? It could be, but that looks out of proportion to me.


After I typed the above I decided to look for the location just by scrolling along the Spanish coast on GE, and I found it.



Coordinates,

N 36 34949
W 32 32057


GE gives an eye height of 37 m here, and this looks even higher than in the pic, it was probably taken from a hotel balcony.

I'll just stick to the 50 m eye height.

From this location the distance to the African coast is almost exactly 160 km. Those mountains are not located directly at the coast however. On the elevation map we can see that highest, 2000 m tops are AT LEAST 30 km inland.


So, a distance of 190 km with a generous eye height of 50 m would give a hidden height of 1781 m, this means that the part of the mountains we can see in the pic would be only 220 m. We all know that is not what we really see here.

At some points those mountains are actually 200 km away and you shouldn't be able to see them at all from that location.


Where's the curvature? Sure the very lowest parts are being obscured but this is probably due to atmospheric phenomena, not the supposed Earth curvature which I just debunked.


What are your excuses? Refraction? Already accounted for. So the only excuse you guys have left is...... "Mirage!".....

Which is ridiculous, since this view is always visible and that would be one persistent and stable mirage........

Oh and,




Do you see those mountains like we see them in reality, as proven by the real picture, in the pic of Google Earth from that viewpoint?

We don't. Apparently GE is not an accurate representation of our reality and its views...........

a reply to: wildespace






In this vid and pic the yellow bases of the first row of turbines are not obscured. The eye level seems to be pretty close to the surface. I would say it's about 2m.

With an eye height of 2m, the horizon should be at 5.5 km. This means that according to the spheroid Earth's curve formula.......this pic must then have been taken within this 5.5 km distance.

Now you present this as evidence of the curvature of the Earth by pointing out that the turbines that are further away, in the second row, are being "cut off" from the bottom because they are being obscured by the curvature horizon.

Ok, so what is the distance between these rows?

The turbines are 749m-958m apart and installed in rows.

www.power-technology.com...





So the second row must then be within 6.5 km at which point you would get a hidden height of.........0.07 meters, aka 7cm.

These second row shafts, of 137 or 150 m high turbines(from bottom to blade tip) are almost being cut in half by the curvature you say?

When it should only be 7 cm?

Oops.

Again the supposed curvature fails.

At 7.5 km the hidden height would be 0.28 m. for the third row.

At 8.5 km it would be 0.62 m. for the fourth row.

It doesn't really matter what exact eye height and distance you take, with the max distances involved here, there simply isn't a large enough amount of drop across 1 km of surface to cut off almost half of the shaft of such a turbine, while leaving another turbine, 1 km closer, "untouched". Not even close.

However, the shot is probably taken from a further distance but according to Globe Earth math, the shot must have been taken within in 5.5 km of that first row of turbines, since they are not, or not noticably obscured by the horizon. If it was taken from much further away then at least the stretch between the camera and the first row of turbines, must be flat........

I like that Youtuber's comment in the vid description.

Exceptional clarity to view the windfarm as it drops over the horizon 22 miles away.

The horizon seems to be exactly at the base of the first row of turbines. If that is 22 miles away, then let me help you, at 22 miles, and a 2 m eyeheight, there should be a hidden height of 60m or about 200 ft.

We don't see any drop there. Nothing is obscured. If anyone wants to argue that I have the eye height wrong, and that it is much higher, then you will have the problem that the second row should not, or hardly be obscured either, it is only a km further away, and the third row is only 2 km further.

If you want to argue that he meant that the second row is at 22 miles, then the first row is still at 21 plus miles and the first row should still be obscured for a large part, but it isn't at all.


www.metabunk.org...


Conclusion, whatever it is that causes those views in the vid and the pic, is not a result of the supposed Earth curvature, there is no drop at all where there should be quite a lot, or there is way too much of it where it shouldn't be.(that much)

Take your pick.



The stuff you presented here as proof for a Globe Earth with a circumference of 24,901 miles, along with the supposed Globe Earth curvature math, actually disproves this belief.