It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

page: 10
18
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2020 @ 11:45 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

Using this as your starting point, draw the Sun at 20 times the distance in your first diagram, but keep the viewer on the left side (and the other viewer, if you wish) in the same position(s).

Now, draw a line from the viewers position to the Sun, as you did in the first diagram.

What happens? The angles from the viewers to the Sun become smaller, right?

What happens if you move the Sun another 20 times further away? The angles become even smaller than before, of course.

Do you understand what happens when the Sun goes further and further away on a flat surface, with your OWN diagrams?

Eventually, the angle is almost 0 degrees, and cannot be seen from that point.

It does not reach absolute 0 degrees, of course, since objects above a flat plane cannot reach absolute 0 degrees. They can reach 0.000001 degrees, and no object would be visible at that point.

You try pointing to being less than 0 degrees as if it matters to this issue, and I've explained to you it is NOT relevant. We are discussing if objects would be VISIBLE above a flat surface.

You're trying to argue that unless objects above a flat surface can reach an absolute 0 degree angle, which they cannot, then they would always be SEEN from the flat surface....No matter if the angle is 0.00001 degrees, they would ALWAYS be seen, right?

I can't wait to hear your answer on this, but you'll probably twist it around, or change the issue again....

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 12:01 AM

The angles gets small, but never will go to zero.

Flat earth is a lie. The sun actually goes below the earths horizon. Or to be technical, the earths horizon turns from the sun.

Anyway. The sun actually is blocked by the horizon.

In the flat earth model. The sun should slide to the west and keep getting smaller. I like how you ignore the sun not only gets physical blocked by the horizon, but never gets noticeably smaller.

The below illustrates what should happen in the flat earth model if it was true.

The sun would slide to the west and grow smaller and smaller with never being blocked by the horizon.

If the flight earth model was not a lie, the sun should never be blocked by the horizon as views from Mount Everest, and should always be visible from Mount Everest.
edit on 18-10-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 18-10-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed.

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 12:14 AM

You cannot explain how clouds are illuminated from underneath during sunset inland.

You cannot explain how the sun sets without getting noticeably smaller.

You ignore the sun actually goes below the earth’s horizon even when the sunset is viewed from the heights point above sea level. Or from a jet at cruising altitude.

If Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 did not crash into Jupiter, where did it go.

Comets in general.

How can you bring something into view when that something actually moves beyond the horizon, and becomes increasingly blocked by the horizon.

Again...

If something is hanging above the flat plane it is viewed from, it will never appear to go bellow that plane’s horizon if viewed from that planes surface.

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 12:20 AM

Same concept for the North Star. No amount of magnification would bring the North Star into view from southern Australia in the Southern Hemisphere because it is physically blocked from view by the curve of the earth. Flat earth this would not be so.

But your argument is crap, because the brightness of the North Star never changes in magnitude as one travels from the northern hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere.

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 12:21 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux

In the flat earth model. The sun should slide to the west and keep getting smaller. I like how you ignore the sun not only gets physical blocked by the horizon, but never gets noticeably smaller.

The sun would slide to the west and grow smaller and smaller with never being blocked by the horizon.

Get real, YOU are Ignoring the evidence of the Sun growing smaller, as I've shown you with the clip.

Here it is again - it's time you addressed it...

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 12:30 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux

In the flat earth model. The sun should slide to the west and keep getting smaller. I like how you ignore the sun not only gets physical blocked by the horizon, but never gets noticeably smaller.

The sun would slide to the west and grow smaller and smaller with never being blocked by the horizon.

Get real, YOU are Ignoring the evidence of the Sun growing smaller, as I've shown you with the clip.

Here it is again - it's time you addressed it...

Sorry. The sun does not get noticeably smaller as it goes beyond the earths horizon at sunset to be blocked from view by the curve of the earth which would be impossible in the flat earth model.

Same as the magnitude of brightness of the North Star does not change traveling from the northern hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere until it becomes physically blocked from view by the curve of the earth.

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 12:33 AM

If the earth is flat. How did I see the sun set below the horizon, as in being physically blocked by the curve of the earth, in a jet at cursing altitude flying from the west coast to East coast.

edit on 18-10-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 12:48 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux

In the flat earth model. The sun should slide to the west and keep getting smaller. I like how you ignore the sun not only gets physical blocked by the horizon, but never gets noticeably smaller.

The sun would slide to the west and grow smaller and smaller with never being blocked by the horizon.

Get real, YOU are Ignoring the evidence of the Sun growing smaller, as I've shown you with the clip.

Here it is again - it's time you addressed it...

If anything, the sun appears larger at sunset. Made evident by this solar eclipse near sunset as using the moon as a reference.

Any other blatant falsehoods you would like to use.,,

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 01:39 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux
You cannot explain how clouds are illuminated from underneath during sunset inland.

So now, it's only about "inland" sunsets?!? Good one.

Only inland sunsets, right.

Anything else? Only inland sunset, in Colorado, on Saturday mornings, during Fall?

Lakes are inland, btw. They are often large, and often, they are even more reflective than the oceans are.

originally posted by: neutronflux
You cannot explain how the sun sets without getting noticeably smaller.

I've shown you two times now. It's not my problem that you just keep on ignoring it. And put it on your goofball 'list'.

originally posted by: neutronflux
You ignore the sun actually goes below the earth’s horizon even when the sunset is viewed from the heights point above sea level. Or from a jet at cruising altitude.

I've never ignored it. Why would I? It's true. The Sun sets below the horizon, even from Mt. Everest, and even from an airplane.

At higher altitudes, the horizon is further away, in the distance. And the Sun sets over the horizon, in the distance, too.
Only now, the Sun appears smaller, as it sets over the distant horizon.

The Sun is not millions of miles away, it is quite close to Earth, and that's why it appears smaller in the distance, as all objects do at a distance. They appear smaller at a distance, and larger when closer to us. An airplane will look small at a higher altitude, than lower altitudes, obviously. Same as the Sun does.

originally posted by: neutronflux
If Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 did not crash into Jupiter, where did it go.

I asked you for proof that comets actually exist, and you've completely ignored it, as usual.

I assume that you've searched all over, and found out - hey, there really IS no proof that comets exist....

I'm happy to discuss any of your comets, if you can ever prove they exist, first of all. It's useless to discuss ANY comets, at this point. Do you have proof, or not? Show it, if you have any. If you don't, I'll assume you have none, and you're just blowing smoke, again.

edit on 18-10-2020 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 02:19 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux
Sorry. The sun does not get noticeably smaller as it goes beyond the earths horizon at sunset to be blocked from view by the curve of the earth which would be impossible in the flat earth model.

I never said that, so don't play the idiot. It's a waste of everyone's time - mainly, my time.

As usual, I have to repeat what I've already told you before, because you play the idiot, and pretend I said something I never said at all. Something you can fit into your argument, of course. That's why you DO know what I said, and change it around to suit your arguments.

What I'm saying is that the Sun appears small in the distance, ALREADY, and it STAYS small, as it sets below the horizon, or as it rises above the horizon. As it is, once again, a DISTANT horizon I'm referring to here, and you are fully aware of that, also.

The Sun would NEVER appear smaller, from ANY distance, it is was really 93 million miles away. Do you get it?

It would always appear the VERY SAME SIZE, simply because of how far away it would be from Earth. The lie about the Sun being 93 million miles away helped part of their fairy tale story, but it has also helped to destroy their fairy tale story. And that's the case here.

You can keep ignoring the fact that the Sun could NEVER appear to be different sizes, when seen from Earth, if it was 93 million miles away. But it is absolutely true. No way around it.

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 02:19 AM
Another scientific item proving round earth. In naval operations if your going to skydive beyond the visual range of your target you have to dive “ over the horizon” which is 12 nautical miles. Why are you unseen? You below the horizon.

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 03:52 AM
The horizon is a feature of a massive flat surface. Horizons are perfectly flat, straight lines across Earth, at all times, at all altitudes above Earth, used by all aircraft, as a perfectly straight line across Earth, etc.

The horizon is NEVER used, NEVER measured, NEVER regarded, as some sort of 'curvature' point. That's nonsense.

The horizon rises up when we rise above Earth, which shows it is a massive, flat surface. A curving surface would NOT rise up when we rise above Earth, it would stay the same, or be lower, because you claim the horizon is where curvature begins, the highest point we can see, before it curves DOWNWARD. So when we rose above Earth, the horizon was ALREADY at it's highest point, before it curves downward. It CANNOT rise higher in any way,

This is easily visualized, of course. Take a ball, and imagine yourself on top of it, a tiny person on Earth. The furthest point you can see on the ball is the horizon. It is the HIGHEST point on the ball, before it curves downward.

Imagine you are rising above the ball. Where would the horizon be seen, when you are above the ball? It would not rise up, it CANNOT rise up, when you rise above the ball. The horizon could only stay about the same as on the ball, or lower than it was on the ball.

To any of you, who have claimed to see the curvature of Earth from a plane at cruising altitude - how do you think you could ever see the horizon, at eye level, or within your line of sight, from an airplane window, anyway?
If you were flying at 40-50 thousand feet above Earth, and saw the horizon from a window, simply recall where you started from, on the ground. That was the HIGHEST point on your ball Earth, and the horizon was where it started to curve downward. When you are flying at 50,000 feet ABOVE Earth, do any of you seriously believe you'd be able to see a horizon from a window, out in the distance? You're 50,00 feet above a ball, and the highest point of your ball was seen when you were on the surface of that ball. The horizon was where it began to curve downward. Going above a ball, the horizon stays in place, or appears lower than when you saw it on Earth.

The only reason you could see the horizon from 50.000 feet, was because you were flying above the flat surface of Earth, and the horizon rises as you rise above the flat surface. That is an absolute fact.

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 04:06 AM
1550s, "relating to or near the horizon," from French horizontal, from Latin horizontem (see horizon). Meaning "flat" (i.e., "parallel to the horizon") is from 1630s. As a noun also from 1550s.

www.etymonline.com...

The word 'horizontal' came from the word 'horizon', the flat, straight line across Earth. Horizontal is not a curve, nor is horizon a curve. They are the complete OPPOSITE of a curve.

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 04:54 AM
As I've mentioned before, airplanes always measure for level flight, and fly level, at cruising altitude, which is most of the entire flight, where there is less air resistance, which saves fuel, allows for faster flights, etc.

How do planes measure level flight? Using the air pressure around the plane during flight. That is, the plane is like a giant spirit level, in the air, measuring the air pressure around the plane for level, over and over again, for hundreds, or thousands of miles.

A Boeing 757 is about 160 feet long. During flight, it measures the air pressure over it's 160 feet length, for level flight, where air pressure is constant around the plane. It's altitude is set at, say, 50,000 feet, and remains there for most of the flight. But it must constantly measure the air pressure around the plane, along the entire flight, to keep flying level. The altimeter confirms it is level when it reads the same altitude.

There is NOTHING that accounts for 'curvature' during flights. No instruments measure for 'curvature'. Pilots do not adjust flights for 'curvature', either.

A plane measures level flight in 160 foot long segments, over and over again, throughout the flight.

'Curvature' is claimed to be about 8 inches per mile squared. So if a plane flew above 'curvature', it would be impossible to ever MEASURE for it, even if they wanted to. The plane is like a 160 foot long 'spirit' level, measuring for level over and over again, in 160 foot long segments. Planes cannot measure past their length, they measure level over 160 feet at a time, over and over again, during flight.

One mile is 5280 feet. or 63,360 inches. A 757 is 160 feet long, or 1920 inches. And 'curvature is claimed to be 8 inches per mile squared. One inch of 'curvature' per 1/8 mile is 7920 inches. A plane would cover about 1/4 inch of curvature, along it's flight, therefore.

Since a plane measures level over and over again, it would have to measure 1/4 inch of curvature over and over again, at 50,000 feet, and measure it as level, yet not be level, because it must fly 1/4 inch downward along it's entire flight, without even measuring for it. This would be impossible, and it simply does NOT happen that way.

Planes fly level, measure for level in air, remain at level flight, and they match up with the flat Earth below, when they land. They absolutely prove the Earth is flat, beyond a doubt.

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 06:06 AM

Turbo. Do stay focused.

The sun actually sets below the horizon which would be impossible in the flat earth fantasy.

Three little pictures destroys you paragraphs of incoherent ramblings.

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 11:51 AM
For the benefit of newcomers to the topic, evetything turbonium will post in this one has already been posted, debunked and thoroughly ridiculed in the thread he gish gallops through in Ludicrous Online Lies.

Turbonium, I have seen two comets with my own eyes. Prove I haven't.

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 12:33 PM

You crack me up Turbo.

Not satisfied with peddling your nonsense in the LOL thread you have started repeating it here.

Everything you have posted here has been thoroughly debunked time and time again in that thread.

I will say this for you; you are very persistent......but at what point does that stop being admirable and becomes just shear stupidity?

posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 01:06 PM

originally posted by: turbonium1

Since a plane measures level over and over again, it would have to measure 1/4 inch of curvature over and over again, at 50,000 feet, and measure it as level, yet not be level, because it must fly 1/4 inch downward along it's entire flight, without even measuring for it. This would be impossible, and it simply does NOT happen that way.

Planes fly level, measure for level in air, remain at level flight, and they match up with the flat Earth below, when they land. They absolutely prove the Earth is flat, beyond a doubt.

A plane could not feel a 1/4 inch downward decent...lol 50 feet up or down is not a big deal either, so planes don't actually fly some prefect level flight, they do whatever needs to be done to maintain desired alt whether on a flat surface or a ball.

Being a pilot for 40+ years flying in the Air Force around the world for 28 of those years I agree for many of those years alt was determined by pressure. Above 18,000 it is set to 29.92 in most cases. The reason they set 29.92 is to make sure everyone is on the same pressure and planes are then so high the error from the real pressure is moot at that point. These planes do not fly at 50,000 feet first of all...typically 28,000 to 39,000 depending on how far they are flying, but I digress. It doesn't matter if you are flying across a flat surface or a round surface if the air is the same. If you are 35,000 above the ground based on pressure then you would follow the curvature of the earth staying in that pressure zone of 35,000 feet, so I have no clue to the logic you are trying to say.

You are not a pilot in any sense of the word, so I wouldn't use Aviation as you logic...lol

posted on Oct, 19 2020 @ 12:26 PM

I will say this for you; you are very persistent......but at what point does that stop being admirable and becomes just shear stupidity?

That was about 100 pages ago in the LOL forum

posted on Oct, 19 2020 @ 05:52 PM
I just read the last few pages and decided I don't have time for turbo right now.

Maybe sometime but I didn't have hardly any time today anyways.

I'll say this tho:

I came into this open minded and willing to accept whatever the evidence supported.
All the evidence supports one, and discounts the other.

I think our friend Turbo here has a bad case of "make all evidence fit my belief at any cost" as I've seen quite a few inconsistencies and a bit of dissonance.

I'll deal with this later, if I ever come back lol.
I bet yall wouldn't blame me if I just went and watched youtube and didn't care.

top topics

18