Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

An easy experiment for him is to map locations using a globe and a map and see which one is more accurate. I saw a a child in a science fair show planes paths on a map and a globe. She tracked live planes as they flew over the globe. she would show where they were ever 30 min and connected these spot and on a map it always looks like a huge curve, But on the globe it was a straight line between 2 points.

a reply to: dragonridr

He could try that, but given that his idea of a 'few hundred miles'

Even if it starts a few hundred miles off southern tip of South America, too!

is more like 650, somehow I doubt it's going to be accurate.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

i guess you missed this...

No, they knew it was flat, because they'd already explored and mapped out the entire Earth by then. That's why we still have a few maps of the flat Earth, which are mostly copies of the original maps, of course, as most were searched for, and destroyed by the ball-Earth slime, who were about to sell their ball-Earth maps as the 'real maps of Earth', which omitted the massive circular wall of ice, 200 feet high, which surrounds Earth

SO... were talking about 250ish BC...lol

a reply to: Akragon

Yea, that's about 2000/2500 years after the pyramids of Gizeh were built. Those silly goatherders.

In case you didn't understand, that's something we don't consider them having been able to.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

In case you didn't notice... the only ones that are confused in this thread are you and Capt. turbo

So lets not assume i or anyone else doesn't understand here..

a reply to: Akragon

I pretty much do whatever I want. Alwaýs did.

Another nice map from 1892

www.ebay.co.uk...< br />
It clearly identifies the Antarctic landmass that was known at the time thanks to the expeditions tbatchad been there.

It's yet another example of turbo denying something exists only for countless examples of it to be found in no time at all.

a reply to: dragonridr

Before you all get back to brow-beating and self-aggrandizing I want to go back to some supposed science you had mentioned earlier. You claimed that it is atmospheric refraction that allows people to see further distances past the horizon than should be allowed by the curve of the earth. Yet it cannot be atmospheric refraction for the following reason.

If atmospheric refraction is causing a photon curvature around the horizon, then this would indicate the atmosphere has a high refractive index (meaning it will make the angle of the light more acute). If it were refraction we would notice that the apparent size of the sun upon the horizon is bigger than at high noon. But it is not. It is exactly the same. If it were atmospheric refraction causing this effect, the sun would be remarkably bigger when it is just above the horizon due to its more intense angle of deflection.

This brings back to question the possibility of viewing city-scapes that should be hidden by the horizon:

An easy experiment for him is to map locations using a globe and a map and see which one is more accurate. I saw a a child in a science fair show planes paths on a map and a globe. She tracked live planes as they flew over the globe. she would show where they were ever 30 min and connected these spot and on a map it always looks like a huge curve, But on the globe it was a straight line between 2 points.

You're right, but this doesn't necessarily mean it is a 3D sphere. I suppose that if spacetime bends then surely we are not a 3D sphere that bends in the 4D. I think we are a flat plane in 3D that forms a 4D hypersphere due to the curvature of spacetime. This would accommodate the observation that earth is circumnavigable, and that you can see further upon a horizon than a 3D sphere earth should allow.

a reply to: cooperton

Do you know you can actually see the Sun a few minutes before it rises and a few minutes after it sets?
There is always refraction with distance the problem is measuring how much. But as for it letting you see someting you shouldnt in this case really doesnt apply to much in the video i posted they examined it and came real close to earths circumfrence, So im saying its 5 percent or less in this photo but notice how much of the city is missing. If the earth was flat should see the trees at the river front. Heck if the earth was flat from everest you could see California. The sky would also be the same no matter whre you were. So australia should be able to see the big dipper for example unless they are north of 29 degrees south. In which case it will be low to the horizon easiest thing in the world to do is go to astronomy sights and see what the sky looks like from locations. Since they are based on a globe they should match what we see in the sky from any location. Flat earth cant do this at all its impossible to explain night skys at locations on a flat earth.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Do you know you can actually see the Sun a few minutes before it rises and a few minutes after it sets?

Yeah I've studied this extensively. I think the extra time in each day is due to gravitational lensing and not refraction. The reason I believe this is because the sun maintains the same apparent diameter in the sky. If it were refraction, the sun would appear larger near the horizon, but it does not.

a reply to: cooperton

Atmospheric refraction has been known about since the 18th century. This is why sailors would never use a star below 20 degrees on the horizon. Interesting side note Newton said it was an effect we would never be able to correct he was wrong. With chromatic lenses you can indeed corect for it this is why when i was a kid i took apart my telescope and discovered it was two lenses and not just one. They call this a chromatic doublet one focuses red light the other blue and this configuration gets rid of that twinkling in stars. But back to topic the atmosphere can and does act like a lens causing light to bend. This is why sunsets are often red when we see them think of a prism as light enters it is separating light by slowing down light and with angle bending it.The shorter the wavelength the longer it takes to travel through the atmoshere. This means red light arrives first and we tend to see sunsets as being red.

a reply to: dragonridr

Good info but that doesn't explain why the sun doesn't have a larger apparent size. If it were refraction we would see a larger sun size exhibited near the horizon. But it is not. Thats why I believe its gravitational lensing, which would explain the consistent sun size throughout a day, and the extra time during a day.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: dragonridr

Good info but that doesn't explain why the sun doesn't have a larger apparent size. If it were refraction we would see a larger sun size exhibited near the horizon. But it is not. Thats why I believe its gravitational lensing, which would explain the consistent sun size throughout a day, and the extra time during a day.

Wrong it actually would have the opisit effect making the sun seem slightly smaller just the same as a plane gets smaller the further it is from you. However with the sun the distance change isnt enough to notice this effect. .T he moon or the sun on the other hand do not appear noticeably smaller, because their real distance does not change much when they move to the horizon.The reason is this distance is so minor when the sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million miles) But the brain would expect them to be smaller, much as the clouds, or a plane, and hence perceives them as larger than they 'should be'. In other words it is an optical illusion as our brain tries to guage its size.

Do me a favor watch this video he discusses why flat earthers believe what they do. I just want your opinion i know its long about an hour but he spends alot of time breaking down why flat earthers beliefs are not crazy but is a symptom of our time. Even how google helped promote it to the most suseptible.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

And you failed to grasp a fairly simple point, again:

Earth very big mass. Very big mass very big gravitational pull.

Rocket very small mass. Very small mass not that far away from very big mass.

Rockets and satellites orbit at a point where their angular momentum balances out the gravitational pull of Earth. Any slower, the fall back to Earth. Any faster, they escape it.

Please supply your calculations to demonstrate that a rocket 200 miles up is experiencing significantly less gravitational pull from Earth than it did on the ground.

"Significantly"? Nice try, but I didn't say that.

I simply followed YOUR claim, that 'gravity' weakens with distance. Don't try and switch it into something else, it won't work.

By YOUR own claim, then, 'gravity' would NOT be any stronger at higher altitudes, and rockets would NOT need to gain any more speed to 'break free' of it.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Even with apollo they did what is called a slingshot. What you do to reach escape velocity is use half an orbit to acelerate. On satellites your trying to put them in orbit so you have to trade hieght for volocity. The escape velocity for Earth's surface is about 36,700 feet per second.You could do a direct launch to say the moon but going straight up prolongs that flight.

With apollo They used something called a “gravitational slingshot” it is a gravity assist that will speed up an actual spacecraft.

'

Again, YOUR claim is that 'gravity' weakens with distance. So by that, rockets would NOT need to accelerate to 'break free' of it.

Do you not understand the major conflict here? You say 'gravity' weakens with distance, while claiming rockets need to accelerate to 'break free' of it, when they are high above Earth, where 'gravity' would be no stronger than it would be on the ground.

So claiming rockets must accelerate is simply an excuse, because the truth about rockets is that they burn away all their fuel in minutes, and crash back to Earth in the ocean, within their 'restricted' zones!

One lie leads to more and more lies, and finally, the lies conflict with one another, as they do here. The lie about rockets needing to speed up to 'break free' of 'gravity', was to excuse them because they all veered off at a near horizontal path over the ocean, out of all sight. But this lie also conflicts with their earlier lie about 'gravity', which they claimed weakens with distance, which worked before rockets came along.

They either had to change their claim about 'gravity' weakening with distance, or hope that they could get away a claim about rockets needing to gain speed before 'breaking free' of gravity, when it would be NO stronger than on the surface!

Of course, they knew most people wouldn't even think about it, like usual. Now, when I bring it up, you STILL don't understand the major conflict here. You simply ignore it.

Grande question: Do flat Earthers believe that the Earth rotates, yes or no?

originally posted by: argentus
Grande question: Do flat Earthers believe that the Earth rotates, yes or no?

No, the Earth does NOT rotate, in any way. The stars, Sun and Moon circle above the stationary Earth.

a reply to: turbonium1

Okay, I'll play, but only to an extent, considering the forum in which this thread resides.

S0, you think the world is Earth-centric, and everything -- for as far as we can see -- revolves around the Earth.

An aside: I have to wonder: is this just your hobby in which you troll any fool that comes forward, or are you truly serious in your belief?

a reply to: turbonium1

Ok first Newton figured this out. Since the gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance between the two objects, more separation distance will result in weaker gravitational forces. In fact all forces work this way so I'm surprised this causes a hang-up for you.

Now you seem to have some misconceptions about what escape velocity is. Escape velocity is the velocity at which an object can overpower gravity, without additional force (e.g. thrusters). So an object moving 11,186 m/s will continue on its trajectory despite earth gravity.

Now here's the part that will shock you a rocket does not have to meet escape velocity to leave earth. It can achieve escape at any speed, given sufficient propellant to provide new acceleration to the rocket to counter gravity's deceleration and thus maintain its speed. You could leave earth at a speed of 1 m/s as long as you have the fuel, be a long trip though, and use more fuel than you can carry.

Apollo actually had 3 stages even though they didn't leave earth gravity well. The first two were simply to get into orbit the third was to increase speed and wasn't until the third stage they came close with 11176 m/s notice they just missed it. However, they could have only used two rockets to get to the moon the issue was having enough food for the astronauts. You go to slow you could take months to get there.

So your misconception of how gravity works seem to cause you problems in understanding it. Anything can overcome gravity as long as it has enough counterforce and fuel.