The Earth is FLAT.

a reply to: wildespace

I recommend listening to ~90 seconds of Rogan with Eddie Bravo. The guy is off the scale in his beliefs and insistent in the face of anything opposing them. I say 90 seconds because he's so absurd as to be unlistenable. Flat Earth, Moon hoaxes and science is a lie etc etc.

I always found it difficult to accept that people really believed Flat Earth and Moon hoaxes. Deep down I suspected they were up to mischief or having a laugh. Seeing Bravo go at it was a revelation and enough to take people at face value.

if you watch it, you can always 'clean the palette' with a rinse of Lawrence Kraus on Rogan. He's up there with Tyson (imo) when it comes to expressing very difficult concepts in terms simpletons like me can understand.

a reply to: wildespace

Ok, let's first get the miscellaneous irrelevant stuff out of the way.

Just for the record, these are the Rif mountains, the highest point of which is almost 2.5 km tall: en.wikipedia.org...

Show me where this 2500 m high peak is. It is not on the elevation map of Marrokko, at least it is not among the mountains we can see in the pics. Even if there is one such peak, it does not matter because we can clearly identify the specific peaks we are looking at, in GE. They are not higher than 2000 m.

Why are you using straw man arguments?


You were able to identify some of the (ultimately irrelevant) mistakes in the post you responded to, so you have been looking at the situation on GE, you used the calculator, the problems have been explained thorroughly in the last few pages, and still you think you can actually debunk this post, and somehow don't see the irrelevance of your arguments here.

How can you still not see that the bigger picture doesn't work here, despite your corrections?

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Like your "how gravity really works" thread in which you think you explained gravity by making a drawing. Laughable stuff.

Can't even be called pseudo science.

I can see the mountains from that approximate position in Google Earth just fine:

It is true that the GE pic from that comment was taken from a wrong angle, and therefore didn't show the mountains. But, like you said, you took a GE pic from the "approximate" position.

Why don't you take it from the actual eyeheight position, which is not more than 30 m as established in GE. Like this,





As you can see, according to GE, the mountains should be cut in half, like the formula says. Compare to reality,

I'll agree that the visiblity of mountains in my photo might be greater than it usually is, but I'll attribute that to the fact that the mountains become visible on days when there is cool wind blowing from the North. Cooler wind has greater density than warmer air, and denser air creates stronger refraction.

I am going to show that this pic does not show the mountains being less obscured from the bottom up, compared to the other pic, at all, despite being taken from a higher elevation.

To the contrary actually.


So as a sidenote, even if the bottom part is being obscured from a lower elevated viewpoint, while not being obscured from a higher elevated viewpoint, it would not be supported by ball Earth logic alone.

As shown by other, untouched, posts in this thread, there is clear evidence that atmospheric effects actually cause a cut off from the bottom. It is the only way you can explain the Walney observations, since the curvature doesn't even come close to explaining those.

If this effect occurs when looking directly across the surface, going higher up in elevation would change your viewing angle and the effect would dissapear, or diminish, or appear at a greater distance.

No non existant curvature needed.

First of all, sorry for not getting back to this thread sooner. I usually hang around the Space Exploration forum, and rarely visit any other ATS forums.

You didn't see the activity on your MyATS? Let me guess, you never click on it.....whatever.

Just wanted to share this video, where rationalists/debunkers discuss the Flat Earth beliefs and believers:

Why, to fill the void of not touching the other posts? Why would you post a random video of random skeptics discussing random Flat Earth stuff when there was a very specific discussion going on.

Posting this vid is a straw man argument.

Looking to Joe Blow Rogan and Mick West for help? I won't even go into to Joke Rogan, but the fact that Mick West of Metabunk sits there defending a dying model is hilarious.

After all, he is the man who created the Metabunk curve calculator that keeps blowing the curvature out of the water.......

a reply to: wildespace

The mountains actually start at around 140 to 150 km distance. 150 km gives the hidden height of 1.34 km, and most of those mountains reach into 1.5 km and towards 2 km.

Ok, let's do 150 km then, from a 30 m eyeheight.

Hidden height with standard refraction

1.12 km

Without refraction,

1.34 km


Let's stick to a hidden height of 1.12 km,


This means that from a 30 m eyeheight, and a 150 km distance, we should only see the top 900 m of those 2000m peaks.

More than half should be obscured.

The first pic is a GE pic taken from a 2km eyeheight, and it shows the entire Moroccan coast, in this view nothing is obscured.

The second is the pic from a 30m eyeheight.

The third is the one from a Spanish mountain, the one you claim shows more of the bottom of the coast than the second one.

The yellow line is the sea level, I drew the red line across the lowest point of the most prominent dimple in those mountains. If you are going to argue that I am using wrong reference points, then show me what it should it be, according to you.


Let's compare the three.







As we can see, there is no significant difference between the visible coast and the proportions, in the first two pics. If anything is being cut off in the 30m pic, it is not much. It should be obscured by 1100m, more than half.

Oops! Not even close.

Then the third pic. According to you this shows more of the coast, but the distance between the level of the dimple and the sea level is actually smaller, so it looks like more is obscured actually, despite the higher eye level. Any argument you had regarding proof of curvature falls apart, and again, or still, the supposed curvature and its formula don't work. More proof that it is not the curvature that is obscuring things here.

Like I said, the fact that you thought you still had anything on this, after what was pointed out in the last few pages, just shows your cognitive dissonance.


And like predicted, you basically resort to explaining things with a "mirage", lifting the whole coast a km up in the air, opposed to an atmospheric effect that obscures just a little bit of the lowest parts of the coast while looking across the surface from a low elevation.

I'll agree that the visiblity of mountains in my photo

Not sure what you mean with "my photo". You mean the photo you posted, or did you take that pic yourself. In any case you say you saw it with your own eyes. So you were looking at a mirage that was lifting the coast a km up into the air, you say. Can you post anything to prove that the pic shows a mirage? Like other pics that show the coast cut in more than half, like it is supposed to be according to the curvature?

In any case the 1100 m hidden height is simply non existant in the second pic, compared to the first pic that shows the entire coast.

a reply to: Kandinsky

You are not adding anything to the discussion here, talking about videos and people that add nothing to the discussion here.

I always found it difficult to accept that people really believed Flat Earth

And at this point you still think it is all a big joke and trolling, even though the curvature of ball Earth with a circumference of 24.901 miles keeps being debunked, or rather, annihilated.

Remember, I don't need Earth to be flat, I need it to be whatever form that is the truth. You people however, absolutely need it to be a ball with a circumference of 24.901 miles. The thing is this keeps getting debunked by your own ball Earth math and none of you are able to come up with any decent counterargument.

a reply to: CalmeEarth

I'm pretty conventional when it comes to spherical Earths, moons and planets. You may, or may not, know that I stopped engaging in these circular debates some time ago. Each to their own. The investment in time and effort is better used by people who have an interest either way.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Ok, but this is not a circular debate here. Only if people who are intellectually dishonest enter the debate. Or people who are plagued by cognitive dissonance.

Actual progress is being made here and noone is able to counter it.

I stopped engaging in these circular debates some time ago. Each to their own. The investment in time and effort is better used by people who have an interest either way.

Then please don't make empty driveby comments with the apparent purpose of ridiculing a subject, especially if it doesn't even touch the very specific ongoing discussion.

a reply to: CalmeEarth

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether this is a circular debate. Eye of the beholder as they say. I'll post as and where I choose to. As you know, I'm not going to be drawn in and will move along for now.

a reply to: Kandinsky

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether this is a circular debate.

There is no debate at all here actually. This would require valid points from all sides. Right now there is only schooling.

I'll post as and where I choose to. As you know, I'm not going to be drawn in and will move along for now.

Wow, you think I am drawing you in? I am clearly asking you to hop along if you have nothing of substance to add and you yourself say time is better spent.

I find it very odd that someone extolling the existence of Flat Earth has the temerity to comment on substance...

a reply to: seagull

Hey extolling temerity to you to.

What, you looked up expensive words in a Dictionary or something?

a reply to: CalmeEarth

There is no debate at all here actually.

Correct, there is no debate.

Why: because it is a fact the earth is spherical. Period.

a reply to: Kandinsky

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether this is a circular debate

Because according to some, it's a...

(wait for it)



FLAT debate.


Couldn't resist.

a reply to: Liquesence

Well the facts are that the evidence that was presented here as evidence of this spherical curvature has been proven to not correspond with the spherical mathematics of a ball with a circumference of 24,901 miles.

originally posted by: CalmeEarth
a reply to: Kandinsky
Actual progress is being made here

Actual progress was made hundreds (or even thousands) of years ago, when people calculated that the Earth is round.

a reply to: wildespace

You mean like when Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the Earth 2200 years ago with a degree of accuracy that went unmatched until modern times based on observations of the differences in shadow length at noon on June 21st? Calculations that would not even have been possible were the Earth not an oblate sphere?

originally posted by: Ahadu
Lmfao c'mon man. Ok tell me how your special "flat earth" fits into this vast universe? Or should I say how the universe fits in your flat earth theory? Lol what I would give to see your drawing of the solar system lol just imagining it makes me laugh. Where were you during 4th grade science...oh and that thing u said about gravity, oceans and water in a glass....priceless

hey OP, sup? just here to say sorry to you about my really mean post on your forum 3 yrs ago.

did we need to rehatch this thread?

Theres already two on the go... lol

a reply to: CalmeEarth
I hope it is thats not anywhere near the circumfrence of earth. Your math seems to be sadly inacurate just so you know earths circumfrence is 40,075.016 km (24,901.460 mi). Decimal points matter especially in math.

a reply to: dragonridr

Some places use a point instead of a comma as a thousands separator.
www.smartick.com...

a reply to: Phage

I know problem is he didnt use decimal at all he lost 460 miles by the misuse of his decimal. No matter what he would not get a correct answer. it would have needed to look like this 24.901,460 again decimal points matter.