Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

A rocket that is flying directly above your position on the ocean, that is still seen from the launch area, would certainly be seen overhead, and seen BETTER, and CLEARER than from the launch area, too.

You keep on saying it would be too HIGH UP to see from directly BELOW it! Do you really believe what you're saying here.... because it's complete nonsense....

We see it from the launch area, right?

Let's say it is about 300 miles from the launch area...

When you are directly BELOW it, 300 miles from the launch area, and look up, you believe it would NOT be seen, or barely seen, yet it is seen 300 miles away from it?


I'd like you to explain how that would happen, if not within your own bizarre world...

a reply to: CrazyFox

First meme…

Let’s draw it out.



Now we have something to work with. The real question is if the flat earth delusion is true, the moon would never set. And New Zealand would see the backside of the Moon.

Second meme.

You mean like how the sun lights up things that actually can reflect light. Like the moon, Mars, Venus, and man made satellites in orbit like the starlink satellites. But doesn’t light up empty space which has nothing to reflect the light to the viewer.

Boy, that backfired on you. And just highlighted more impossible items for the flat earth delusion.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Let's say it is about 300 miles from the launch area...

How is that again in the Sputnik example?

originally posted by: turbonium1
They certainly WOULD be seen from there, how would we see them from the LAUNCH area, at that point, but not fbe able to see them while DIRECTLY BELOW them, from the ocean?

How would THAT happen? Not sure how you'd explain THAT one, but go ahead, I can't wait to hear it....

I didn't say you wouldn't see them, I said there wouldn't be much to see. It would be a speck in the distance.

We DO have a reference point in some clips, that show their altitude at the time, which are clouds.

And how high are those clouds?

I'd like to find out if they put in an 'instrument panel' when a rocket passes through clouds, and what altitude they claim it's at. If they're stupid enough to do it, that is....

Wow, if only there was some massive information resource you could interrogate for that...

All SpaceX launches show altitude, speed and downrange distance telemetry. Off you go.

Anyway, we know rockets DO fly at around 10-12000 feet - why would a rocket, supposedly flying up into 'orbit' or 'space', ever fly at 10-12000 feet, when planes fly 4 times higher than that during their flights? And planes have to reach it in a long ascent, while rockets could go straight up to such altitudes, that would be much better, faster, and easier to do, than a slow, long ascent would be. Not that it even matters, a rocket always veers off at about 10-12000 feet, for some strange reason.

Rockets reach 12k feet, and then carry on climbing for until they reach orbit. YYou;ve just been given a video of a rocket climbing higher than a plane at cruising altitude. How blind are you? Rockets do not 'verr off' at 10-12k ft, they perform a long gravity turn to reach orbit, at which point they are parallel to the ground. It's really not difficult.

If anyone really believes this makes sense, I'd like to hear about it. They are supposed to fly up into 'orbit', or 'space', and like any plane, fuel is most precious to save, and never, ever waste any, if at all possible.

No-one believes your version of how it works, because you;re right, it makes absolutely no sense. Just as well that isn't how it happens.

So when rockets launch, they fly straight up - this makes sense, obviously. But then, they all veer off almost horizontally, at about 10-12000 feet or so, and this makes absolutely NO sense, whatsoever. Assuming it DOES fly up into 'orbit' or whatever, it would be incredibly stupid, and utterly moronic.

That's right, only a moron would believe the version you write there. They do not veer off. Research 'gravity turn'.

And even MORE stupid, to keep flying at such an altitude, or even close to it, afterwards.

Just as well only a stupid person would think that's what they do.

That's exactly what rockets do, though.

Oops..

Wasting so much fuel, is hardly their reason for doing it, there is NOTHING to gain from it - assuming it's for real, that is.

Planes fly at least 20-25000 feet, just for a half hour flight. A rocket veers off at about half that altitude, and is supposedly flying up into 'orbit' or 'space'? Are you kidding? It's beyond stupid.

Yes, it is. That's why it doesn't happen like that.

Rockets are NEVER seen going much higher than that, either. This explains why they want to put in an 'instrument panel' on their videos of rockets, that's for sure! How convincing is that? It just looks more ridiculous!

Oh wait, I thought you were claiming that they daren't put an instrumetn panel on their videos, now apparently it's stujpid of them to do that? Always good to get your handwaving excuse in early.

You're absolutely right though: it's stupid, idiotic, ridiculous and moronic to believe that's how rocket launches work.

a reply to: turbonium1

Already answered. Never been claimed it wouldn't be seen, just that it would not be worth seeing. It wonly works if you believe some stupid, ridiculous, moronic idea that they are flying at 10000 feet. But hey, which idiot would believe that...

a reply to: cooperton

You can believe all you want. Doesn’t make it practical, nor true.


Doesn’t explain how the curvature of the earth blocks sunlight to create night. Doesn’t explain why the curvature of the earth blocks the view of different stars/constellations between the north and south Hemisphere.

And doesn’t explain…

TONGA VOLCANO ERUPTION SHOCK WAVES DETECTED IN CHICAGO

abc7chicago.com...

"The eruption was so powerful that the waves actually propagated all the way around the globe and then back again," meteorologist Gino Izzi said.

—— Now this…

1/16" is 1% of 6".... whereas .0003% of a 6" bolt would be a totally unmeasurable deviation.

Has nothing to do with a steel structure. If a beam for example is too short by an inch at any length. It’s too short. It cannot be used. In steam systems and nuclear power plants, a fraction of an inch of unaccounted pipe expansion during heat up can mean a pipe or vessel rupture.

Being an inch off can be catastrophic. The error is not “seen” as a function of length. Error is based off how much the measurement is off from the design length / spec. If the spec is 48,000 inches long +/- three thousandths of an inch. Being off an inch is a huge deal.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah from what I've found there is evidence that shows both a flat and a spherical earth.

Flat Attributes

-The surface of earth is overall flat. Shown by laser level and long distance photography (beware of photos in the ocean where tidal bulges skew the topography)
-High altitude weather balloon photography (beware of high-altitude fisheye-lens and CGI)

Spherical Attributes

-The coordinate system of earth is spherical
-The sun, moon and stars move as if the earth is spherical

The spherical attributes must be acknowledged, and so must the flat attributes. I believe this is due to the earth being intrinsically flat, but extrinsically a sphere. This would create a pacman effect, where the screen is flat but there is circumnavigability as you would expect on a sphere.

Earth's surface is flat, while above the Earth, is the firmament, which is shaped as a dome, which is a sphere cut into half, in essence. But it is concave, looking up at it from Earth. Much like when you are inside of a planetarium, in fact. You are on the flat surface, looking up at the concave dome or spheroid above you.

Of course, those liars have used this for their fairy tale story of a ball Earth, and still do. But it fails to hold up with a ball Earth, as all tricks never hold up to scrutiny, it's simply a matter of time.

So all stars, Sun, and moon are below, and nestled within the dome, or firmament above Earth, and move around Earth in circles, within a concave shape, above Earth.

It's much more than that, but I'm off to sleep now

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Earth's surface is flat,

Is not flat as proven by this video…

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Now turbo. Don’t change the subject and move goalposts.

Your original statement “ The bottom part of the ship doesn't 'vanish' at all!”





Your just a sore loser

If you move through the whole video, the zoomed ship moves far enough out the curvature of the earth eventually completely blocks the ship physically from view.

——-you mean like how the video starts zoomed out showing the seascape. Zoomed in to find the ship. Then stays on the ship until the ships streams out and increasingly becomes blocked physically from view by the curvature of the earth until it is completely blocked from view.



————
As proven by the opening post of this thread. And by my supplemental pictures…

My own cloud pictures from a sun set that is impossible on a flat earth.






How does a sun that is always above the flat earth delusion strongly illuminate the bottoms of clouds at sunset in my spherical earth reality?


Again.. the flat earth map taken out of context fails. This arrow from South America will not get you to Antarctica


This arrow will


Flat earth even fails at basic navigation.

The power of a lens is the degree to which a lens converges or diverges the light incident on it. Now, this convergence or divergence will depend on how much the lens is curved.

physicsa reply to: neutronflux

However, in the conclusion I am really struggling to explain in common language both why and how the curvature affects the focal length. Clearly as the lens becomes more curved the light is bent more and the focal length is shorter but I cannot confidently explain why this happens. I understand that the refraction is caused at the boundary between the glass and air due to the different densities of the materials but I cannot explain how the curvature impacts this.

Lens Power affects curvature

lens Maker
physics or algebra or both wth?
expertphotography.com...

Lens distortion is as much a part of photography as taxes are a part of everyday life. Annoying, but something that you have to accept if you want to take pictures. Every lens suffers from lens distortion. High-end lenses will have less distortion than cheap lenses. But because of the physics of light, no lens can produce a perfect, distortion-free image.

oops is that another
fisheye ?? fishy more like it

Most of these lenses have a rectilinear design: Light entering the lens travels in a nearly straight path to the film or sensor (though all lenses are slightly curved). This renders straight lines as they appear in real life, wherever they are in the scene. Wide-angle lenses have short focal lengths, which is the distance, when a lens is focused on the farthest point possible, between the optical center of the lens surface — that is, the point in the lens, often at its center, where there is no distortion of light passing through it — and the film or sensor that receives the image. Short focal lengths allow wide-angle lenses to capture a wide angle of view. The edge of the image is stretched far to the left, right, top or bottom of the center of the captured scene

flat field focus

So while your repeated pictures are totally worth seeing over and over they are pointless since they are not placed into proper context.
Waiting for your photo op in antartica or from higher than any human has ever been ever in current recorded history EVER.

a reply to: turbonium1

Here’s your list Turbo

It only takes one item from the list to prove the earth is spherical. And they are all true. And demonstrable proof the earth is spherical.

Tidal waves

Rivers that periodically flow backwards from tidal waves

Tidal bore: “ Bores occur in relatively few locations worldwide, usually in areas with a large tidal range (typically more than 6 meters (20 ft) between high and low water) and where incoming tides are funneled into a shallow, narrowing river or lake via a broad bay. “
www.beachapedia.org...

Sun shines from bottom to top of clouds at sun rise.

If the earth was flat, there should be a visible gap between the horizon and clouds when there is no rain / fog present. The clouds should never be blocked by the horizon when there is no rain / fog present.


Meteorite impact craters on earth.

Satellites tracked by radar.

Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun
If Zuma is still up there, these are the people who might spot it.

BY MARY BETH GRIGGS JANUARY 12, 2018

www.popsci.com...

Lake Pontchartrain Power Transmission Lines: Evidence of Earth’s Curvature

flatearth.ws...

Math associated with right triangles proves it’s impossible for objects like the sun and North Star to appear to set beyond the horizon

Earth’s movement and gravity backed by the theory of relativity, and shown in how it measurably impacts time/clocks. And ring laser gyroscopes.

Parabolic Motion of Projectiles

The blast from the Tsar nuclear bomb resulted in seismic waves and atmospheric pressure waves that circled the earth three times.

Distance to the sun measured by parallax

The way comets pivot around the sun.
Solar and lunar eclipses.
Comets pulled into the sun or Jupiter.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC
Earth's Curvature and Battleship Gunnery
Phases of Venus
Third party verification of Sputnik
Third party verification of moon missions
Third party / amateur verification of satellites in the hundreds. If not thousands
Star parallax
Earth based photos of the International Space Station.
Map projection
Great Circle paths
Long bridges and tunnels need to take in account the earth is curved.
Geodetic Survey.
Bouguer anomaly/survey

a reply to: CrazyFox

Now. Let’s not go spamming the thread by you continuously running when you are shown to be wrong.

First meme…

Let’s draw it out.



Now we have something to work with. The real question is if the flat earth delusion is true, the moon would never set. And New Zealand would see the backside of the Moon.

Second meme.

You mean like how the sun lights up things that actually can reflect light. Like the moon, Mars, Venus, and man made satellites in orbit like the starlink satellites. But doesn’t light up empty space which has nothing to reflect the light to the viewer.

Boy, that backfired on you. And just highlighted more impossible items for the flat earth delusion.


——— please quote what you believe is false from post, and provide evidence to support your opinion.

Yawn

Why are you unable to point out which information is true and which not?

Right below I answered why I was able to.
Seriously go find a flat lens and take a picture with i then come back to chat.
Or go and fly out to the height needed to show the entire earth from "space" (way above our atmospere)
De Nile is a river in Egypt and apparently a phase you are stuck in

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Um you keep talking about the flat earth model but do not address the infinite plane theory Still waiting. Hmm maybe the path of the moon insde the firmament causes it to appear upside down in NZ since it is a smaller rotation than the others oh darn it. a reply to: neutronflux
Oh and Dimensions 3rd currently soon to be 4th quickly followed into the 5th.
Some are already there some may not make it because they cannot handle it

originally posted by: CrazyFox
Yawn

Why are you unable to point out which information is true and which not?

Right below I answered why I was able to.
Seriously go find a flat lens and take a picture with i then come back to chat.
Or go and fly out to the height needed to show the entire earth from "space" (way above our atmospere)
De Nile is a river in Egypt and apparently a phase you are stuck in

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

What are you jabbering about.


You posted this….

originally posted by: CrazyFox

Umm valid question

Another one
a reply to: neutronflux

So I posted this….

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CrazyFox

First meme…

Let’s draw it out.



Now we have something to work with. The real question is if the flat earth delusion is true, the moon would never set. And New Zealand would see the backside of the Moon.

Second meme.

You mean like how the sun lights up things that actually can reflect light. Like the moon, Mars, Venus, and man made satellites in orbit like the starlink satellites. But doesn’t light up empty space which has nothing to reflect the light to the viewer.

Boy, that backfired on you. And just highlighted more impossible items for the flat earth delusion.



***** The takeaway being, “ The real question is if the flat earth delusion is true, the moon would never set. And New Zealand would see the backside of the Moon.”. Which has nothing to do with “ Seriously go find a flat lens and take a picture with i then come back to chat.”


Which all of it has nothing to do with the opening post of this thread…

originally posted by: muzzleflash
So I walk about 10 miles a day and really enjoy the sunrises and sunsets on the mountains, anyways as I walk along I see this:

Pics from 3 days over the last few months at sunrise.
Only edit was to compress to fit on ATS.

THE ONLY WAY THE SUN CAN SHINE ON THE BOTTOM OF CLOUDS IS IF ITS BELOW THEM!
THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE BELOW THEM IS IF THE EARTH IS ROUND!!

Which is supported by my own pictures.





The way the clouds are illuminated from the bottom, and the way the clouds are least laminate at the top of the photo to more illuminated at the bottom, would be impossible on a flat earth with the sun always being above the earth / clouds.

This is where you address what is actually posted. Not change the subject. But you change the subject.

a reply to: CrazyFox

Let me know when you've done yours. You can supply them along with those references for where NASA has somehow changed its mind on the shape of the EArth and the correct date for that 1975 Earth image. Meanwhile, have Earth filmed with a 'flat' lens:



That's how science is done. Someone does the work, they report exactly how they did it and what they found, and then you discuss it. I don't need to go to orbit to see if the Earth is a sphere, there are enough people doing it for me and reporting their findings that I can assess. I don't see any flat Earth muppets doing that. Resorting to "ah but you haven't been to space" is a just a lazy cop-out. You haven;t been either, so you have nothing. I've met severalpeople who ahve though, and I'll take their word in preference to yours because their accounts contain verifiable evidence.

Crappy memes prove nothing, especially when they are easily proven to be wrong. Evidence and referenced, verifiable information do. Have some references showing that polar flattening and pear shaped Earth are nothing to do with NASA, it's about scientific research:

1896 book "The story of our planet" (my copy)

www.nature.com...

www.jstor.org...

www.scientificamerican.com...

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

peanuts.fandom.com...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Even in regular lenses there will be a distortion. Notice that when the center of the image goes below the horizon the earth looks convex, but when the center of the image rises above the horizon it begins to look concave

youtu.be...

Go to 0:30 or 0:59 in the video above. Whenever the camera's center is higher than the horizon line the earth begins to look concave. Whereas when it's below the horizon it looks convex

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: CrazyFox

sigh... another moron... every one of you are the same

this is from 1960... CGi didn't exist....

Like how flat earther’s seem to forget what is posted in the thread….

originally posted by: neutronflux



Being an inch off can be catastrophic. The error is not “seen” as a function of length. Error is based off how much the measurement is off from the design length / spec. If the spec is 48,000 inches long +/- three thousandths of an inch. Being off an inch is a huge deal.

.0003% off is not catastrophic for bridge building. I guarantee it. .0003% of that 6" bolt you're referring to is .0018 inches... that's 45 micrometers... which is about the radius of the average cell in biology.

originally posted by: neutronflux

this is from 1960... CGi didn't exist....

Whats the context of that photo? They have to be wayyyy far out because that amount of curvature would theoretically be about 1/6th of the earth

a reply to: cooperton

.0003% off is not catastrophic for bridge building. I guarantee it. .0003% of that 6" bolt you're referring to is .0018 inches... that's 45 micrometers... which is about the radius of the average cell in biology.

It is if your metal supports, beams, slide plate for expansion are an inch too short when tolerance of structural steel is usually in thousandths of an inch.

a reply to: cooperton

Sigh..

The context. Do you have any credible proof this is not an actual photo of earth from space. It was in reply to spam batch of flat earth fakes info memes.

Try this batch
www.abovetopsecret.com...