500 BCE
Legit question wrote:
By the way, the whole globe concept began about 500 years ago, not 2000 years ago.
500 BCE
Legit question wrote:
By the way, the whole globe concept began about 500 years ago, not 2000 years ago.
Because there is night and day. Because there are the seasons. Because days get longer than 12 hours in the southern hemisphere in winter -- as long as 17 hours shining in both South America and Australia at the same time. Because of limited visibility, even at the top of high mountains. Because of satellite TV reception only when pointing an antenna high up in the sky. Because of observations of the moon, planets, and stars. Because simple mathematical global calculations can predict all these things we see.Flat-Earthers would have us replace what we are told by scientists, with what we are told by youtube scientists, most of whom seemed to have been the worst students of science.If the earth is a giant pancake, what kind of science explains how the flat earth orbits of the sun and the moon?While it is healthy for good science to skeptically ask questions, that doesn't mean the skeptic's answers are correct.
Legit question wrote:
What proof do you have? You been indoctrinated since birth with globes from: elementary school, TV, movies, Sesame Street, Disney and NASA. You can test just about anything for yourself, fire burns, water is wet, drop something it falls to the floor, etc. This can be observed and tested by yourself.
However, when it comes to the shape of the Earth, it is based on what you were told. Nobody tests this on their own. If you ask anyone on the street, how do they they know that they they live a ball, eventually they will lean on NASA or some other space agency in their country, "I've seen the pictures, I've seen the satellite shots, or a streaming video from the ISS, etc"
NASA was started in 1958
The first picture of the Earth from space in full sunlight was taken in 1972 by Apollo 17
The second picture of Earth wasn't taken until 2015 That was 43 yrs later!
My point is this, if the first picture was taken in 1972, how did you know before, that we lived on a globe? And the answer will inevitably be "Science. Science told us!" Science is not infallible, it is an institution like anything else. If they (science) figured out it was NOT a globe after preaching it for 500 years, would they tell you? If you're naive enough, to believe it, of course they would disclose it to us..." Yeah right.
By the way, the whole globe concept began about 500 years ago, not 2000 years ago.
stop replying wrote:
uhuh wrote:If there is a conspiracy what aims does it have? Its somehow covering up that the earth is flat. So what? What are the authorities" wanting to hide?!
What would be the point in arguing with a guy who is pretending he believes the Earth is flat to troll people? I mean, that's exactly what he wants you to do. It's the point of the troll. lol. Stop replying.
NASA needs that taxpayer money to keep the scam going. The gravy train can never stop.
And there is no trolling here, Kreskin. The Earth is flat. Try again.
Legit Answers Required wrote:
Legit question wrote:What is your argument? You have nothing.
If the sun is rotating above the earth at a fixed height. Why doesn't the sun appear to get bigger and smaller each day. You know, due to perspective. Why can't i always see the sun. You know, like i can see the light from a street light even though i may be some distance away from it not directly under it.
Why does the sun look like it disappears below the horizon at the end of every day? Shouldn't it just get gradually smaller as it gets gradually further away. Are you suggesting the sun can go underneath the flat earth? Wouldn't that turn off all the lights for everyone on earth? Why do we have timezones then?
ANSWER ME FLATTARD!
Already answered earlier in this thread. Why are you so angry? Direct your anger at NASA, not me.
The Sun cannot be 93 million miles away.  For example, under certain conditions you can even see the Sun appear to start at a near point and grow many times bigger as it passes over the camera and then reduces in size as the Sun moves away toward the vanishing point. This would be impossible if the Sun was 93 million miles away. One of the most common objections to the flat Earth is the claim that a sunset is impossible on a flat Earth, i.e., the Sun should appear to move further away not get sliced from the bottom up.
There are three different kinds of sunsets:
* Land Horizon (most common)
* Atmospheric Blocking (best at measuring the change of sun size)
* Cloud Horizon
Most people see the “Land Horizon†sunset on a daily basis and so have a mistaken conception of how the Sun works because the Sun is disappearing behind a mountain or land, not the curvature of the Earth.Â
With "Atmospheric Blocking†the sunset shows a clear change in the size of the Sun as the Sun moves away across the flat plane and shrinks to a near point. Several videos prove the same. If the Earth was a globe, there would NEVER be a change in the size of the Sun.Â
Also, keep in mind that the “Cloud Horizon†occurs very often (even over land) because perspective causes the clouds to “bunch up†at the horizon (more clouds over a given area) which causes the typical sunset like the “Land Horizon.â€
Sunsets on flat Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8Uj0FgDP38
Sun rays prove flat Earth:
Legit question wrote:
The Sun cannot be 93 million miles away.  For example, under certain conditions you can even see the Sun appear to start at a near point and grow many times bigger as it passes over the camera and then reduces in size as the Sun moves away toward the vanishing point. This would be impossible if the Sun was 93 million miles away. One of the most common objections to the flat Earth is the claim that a sunset is impossible on a flat Earth, i.e., the Sun should appear to move further away not get sliced from the bottom up.
There are three different kinds of sunsets:
* Land Horizon (most common)
* Atmospheric Blocking (best at measuring the change of sun size)
* Cloud Horizon
Most people see the “Land Horizon†sunset on a daily basis and so have a mistaken conception of how the Sun works because the Sun is disappearing behind a mountain or land, not the curvature of the Earth.Â
With "Atmospheric Blocking†the sunset shows a clear change in the size of the Sun as the Sun moves away across the flat plane and shrinks to a near point. Several videos prove the same. If the Earth was a globe, there would NEVER be a change in the size of the Sun.Â
Also, keep in mind that the “Cloud Horizon†occurs very often (even over land) because perspective causes the clouds to “bunch up†at the horizon (more clouds over a given area) which causes the typical sunset like the “Land Horizon.â€
Sunsets on flat Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8Uj0FgDP38Sun rays prove flat Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ppPXChyTo
Hilarious. But no.
So what you're saying is your flat earth model in no way simulates reality? Got it. Just wanted to make sure.
When it can't even get day/night right there's not much hope left for it.
Ground Control to Major Sun wrote:
The problem with debating flat-earth "youtube" scientists is that they pretend to play science, by selecting and describing selected observations, but tend to downplay, ignore, or reject measurable, observable, repeatedly testable scientific findings, while simultaneously, yet unknowingly, demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of the model they are trying to debunk. This makes the kind of argument you seek very frustrating, as the flat-earther is not aware that he does not know what he does not know, and is not capable of seeing why the flat-earth arguments fail.
Flat-earth arguments often depend on declaring some fabricated rule or law or axiom, taken for granted not based on science, to demonstrate some contradiction, .e.g "the horizon always rises to eye-level -- this is not possible on a globe earth". While the first part seems to be observably true, we will see to a large extent, this is also expected, using the globe earth model. Other fabrications include a Law of Density to replace Gravity (rather than confirming it), and a Law of Perspective to explain sunsets (which do not satisfactorily explain them).
Let's attack three flat-earth topics:
1) Conspiracy by NASA: The globe earth model is over 2000 years old, dating back to the ancient Greeks, before the birth of Jesus. The circumference of the sphere has been accurately estimated by at least two independent methods -- 1) measuring shadows of two sticks in two largely separated locations, 2) measuring the angle of the horizon as viewed from a high mountain top with a known height. Practically all civilizations have transitioned from a flat-earth model to the Greek spherical model, based on physical observations and accurate measurements. Since then the spherical model has only been refined slightly, due to more accurate observations and measurements, and never in the "flat" direction.
NASA was only formed in 1958. NASA's contribution to the "globe earth" model is virtually non-existent. NASA uses the globe earth model to make rocket flight possible. With the inclusion and proliferation of other governments, and private industry, NASA is a relatively minor organization with minor influence in the space industry. NASA's budget peaked in 1966, at 4.4% of the federal budget, and has been steadily declining ever-since, until 2012. In 2012 it was 0.5%.
While NASA agrees, and indeed relies on, the "globe earth" model, it has played virtually no role in the formation of the globe earth model.
2) Line of sight experiments
Atmospheric refraction is a known, observable, and measurable phenomenon. Anyone who has ever seen heat-haze off of hot asphalt on a summer day should be aware of the ability of heat to distort light -- even laser light. Measuring "flatness" over calm cool water on a clear hot summer day produces ideal conditions for bending light, making remote distant objects visible, when they would otherwise be too far to see.
To gain more credibility flat-earth scientists should repeat their experiments on clear winter days, without such thermal differences in the layers of the air. Or repeat them on land, in the hot desert to observe how much the visible distance will actually shrink.
3) The horizon always rises to eye-level -- this is (allegedly) impossible in a globe earth model
This one will be longer, as I will list the results of 10th grade mathematics to describe where the globe earth model predicts the horizon should be, compared to eye-level.
First, it should be noted that for relatively small surface areas, the differences between the flat earth and the globe earth are not significant. If the horizon rises when the eye level goes from 8 inches to 6 feet, we should observe a similar "rise in the horizon" with both models. The challenge is to understand how small is "relatively small", and how high we need to go to start seeing some curvature effect.
Now let's imagine we have a hula-hoop placed at eye-level with our eyes at the center of the hoop. Although we know the hoop is round, we cannot see any roundness from our vantage point. As we place it lower, to gain a vantage point from above, we can begin to see the roundness of the hoop.
To scale it to the real world, imagine a much larger hula-hoop, 1 mile in radius, and we descend this loop by 8 inches. How much curve would you expect to see?
Similarly, a 3 mile radius hula-hoop, descending it by 6 feet, how much curvature would you expect to see?
It's hard to say, without doing these experiments, and without real numbers. But it should be easy to understand, that the curvature becomes more visible, as the hoop descends with respect to eye-level. In trigonometric terms, this is connected to the "sin" of the viewing angle of the eyes, with respect a perfectly "horizontal" eye-level.
Let's try to put some numbers on this. Luckily, using basic trigonometry, we can estimate what the globe earth model predicts, for both the distance of the horizon, as well as the viewing angle below eye-level -- how far we need to tilt our head down to see the horizon, as the eye level gets higher.
The globe earth model says the radius of the earth is 3959 miles.
If eye-level is 8 inches, the visible horizon 1 mile away, and the viewing angle to the horizon is visible 0.0144 degrees downward, from eye-level.
If eye-level is 6 feet, the horizon is 3 miles away, and the viewing angle drops 0.043 degrees from eye-level.
If we are on a mountain at 10000 ft, the horizon is 122 miles away, and the viewing angle is 1.77 degrees below eye-level.
Some curvature should be detectable, but it will be very minor as the sin(1.77) is 0.03. Any curvature measurement must accurately tuned to detect this expected small change.
If we are on a plane at 30000 ft, the horizon is 212 miles away, and the viewing angle is 3.07 degrees below eye-level.
If we launch an amateur balloon with a Go-Pro camera to 100000 ft, the horizon is 388 miles away, and the viewing angle is 5.6 degrees.
From the space station, at a height of 250 miles, the horizon is 1429 miles away, and the viewing angle is now 19.8 degrees below horizontal.
Note, although the horizon is 1429 miles from the eye, the radius of the horizon ring on the surface of the earth is only 1344 miles.
From a MEO orbit at 1243 miles, the horizon is 3374 miles in radius, and the viewing angle now drops to a significant 40.4 degrees.
Note even at this great height of 1243 miles above the surface of the globe earth, we can only see a 2568 mile radius circle of the rounded surface of the earth, while the half of the earth facing us has a 6219 mile radius -- we can only see about 1/6 of the surface that is facing in our direction.
From GPS satellites at a height of 12540 miles, the horizon is 16017 miles away, and the viewing angle is now 76 degrees.
From GEO satellites, at a height of 22236 miles, the horizon is 25894 miles away, and the viewing angle is 81.3 degrees.
All of these figures are what the globe earth model predicts -- as high up as 100000 ft, our eye-level is still fairly horizontal -- even at 100000 ft., we only have to tilt our head down from horizontal by 5.6 degrees.
The point here is not to declare the globe model as correct, but to show that the globe model predicts the horizon to also rise, almost one for one, with the eye-level, until we get to heights much farther up than an amateur balloon has flown.
"This is not possible with the globe model" is demonstrably false, and represents a lack of understanding of the globe model.
Some experiments flat earthers can do. Go to a high mountain or to the top of a large building on a clear day. The horizon, and viewing angle, on a global model will be easily calculated. The flat earther can measure the actual visibility and viewing angle. On a flat model, with sufficient visibility, we should be able to see much farther than the global model predicts.
4) I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the sun can illuminate Australia, Africa, and South America at the same time. Someone sent Rob Skiba of a 24 hour day in Antarctica. He (wrongly) suggested this contradicts a claim that South America doesn't experience any 24 hour days (it wouldn't at only 46 degrees south latitude) and suggested that their might be a fake sun because of a NASA "star" patent. It's all much more simply explained by the mathematics of a spinning globe tilted on its axis as it goes around the sun each year.
Also note in one of your videos, Rob Skiba agreed with global earthers, that the flat earth map is accurate in direction and distance from the north pole, but distorted in the longitude direction. He didn't think he could produce an accurate flat map. Despite rating himself only an 8 on the scale of 1-10 of being a flat earther, at least he is honest enough to admit there are parts that trouble him, that he hasn't quite figured out yet.
Legit question wrote:What is your argument? You have nothing.
Why don't you plug 121,000 ft into number 3, see what you get.
You have no balls to defend. In the following video, an individual took a super-zoom Nikon P900, with a sun filter, and measured the change in diameter of the Sun over about 80 minutes. Clearly, the Sun is not 93 million miles away.
Good job, Rayo. Another new flat earth convert to LRC.
MEL Rnr wrote:
Legit question wrote:As mentioned several times, water always seeks its flatness. It is part of the natural physics of water. This fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
If, however, the Earth is a giant wobbly spinning ball, tilted on its vertical axis flying through the Milky Way then it follows that truly flat, consistently level water cannot happen. It would show that the oceans must maintain a certain convexity- which is not observed and never ever happens and more importantly be in direct violation to the physics of water.
Water does not flow uphill, that is impossible and violates physics. As for your "toward the horizon is not downhill'- we agree. The horizon is not curved, it is flat. You must be a closet flat earther, ha!
The oceans actually bulge and are not flat. The oceans bulge for a number of reasons, the other easiest to see is the tides. Lunar tides occur because of the Moon's gravitational pull as it orbits the Earth.
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you. I don't think you actually believe what you are saying. It's such absolute nonsense, that it has to be trolling.
Riiiight, so gravity from the moon pulls the oceans away from the earth causing a bulge, yet the same force can be overcome by a butterfly or smoke leaving a chimney. Just think about that for a minute.
Legit question wrote:
Good job, Rayo. Another new flat earth convert to LRC.
Cheers LQ, it's hard for this lot to let go of a lifetime of being lied to, I understand that after grappling with this for 2 years. You are doing good work here and at least planting a seed for many I am sure.
Legit question wrote:
You have no balls to defend. In the following video, an individual took a super-zoom Nikon P900, with a sun filter, and measured the change in diameter of the Sun over about 80 minutes. Clearly, the Sun is not 93 million miles away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55lAZjzY0ik
Remind me again how day and night work in your flat Earth model. Oh you can't? I see.
No Answers Here wrote:
Legit question wrote:You have no balls to defend. In the following video, an individual took a super-zoom Nikon P900, with a sun filter, and measured the change in diameter of the Sun over about 80 minutes. Clearly, the Sun is not 93 million miles away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55lAZjzY0ikRemind me again how day and night work in your flat Earth model. Oh you can't? I see.
What are you on about? Just watch the videos posted by LQ.
Stop repeating the same questions, ball sheep. Read the thread, watch the videos and do some research on your own. Stop believing the bullshit from NASA and from Oblate spheroid man and use some common sense.
Do you actually believe that it is possible to stand upside down in Australia while taking a shower, or driving a car sideways on the equator or landing in a plane upside down in Antarctica? Really? The mental gymnastics that you have to perform to justify a ball is beyond ridiculous.
Open your eyes.
Legit question wrote:
Stop repeating the same questions, ball sheep. Read the thread, watch the videos and do some research on your own. Stop believing the bullshit from NASA and from Oblate spheroid man and use some common sense.
Do you actually believe that it is possible to stand upside down in Australia while taking a shower, or driving a car sideways on the equator or landing in a plane upside down in Antarctica? Really? The mental gymnastics that you have to perform to justify a ball is beyond ridiculous.
Open your eyes.
What's that? You're saying you have no answers to accurately model day and night using a flat earth?
Okay. Gotcha.
Thanks for playing.
Legit question wrote:
You have no balls to defend. In the following video, an individual took a super-zoom Nikon P900, with a sun filter, and measured the change in diameter of the Sun over about 80 minutes. Clearly, the Sun is not 93 million miles away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55lAZjzY0ik
FAKE NEWS. CGI. PHOTOSHOP.
Oh, sorry. Is it only flat earth advocates who are allowed to use that defense to blindly dismiss evidence presented?
You see, if you use that approach then it's just as valid to counter your video 'evidence' in exactly the same fashion.
What's good for the goose...
What else ya got?
The sun sets(or whatever word you choose to use) down to the right in the Northern Hemisphere(again whatever word you choose to use. If the earth is flat, it should still do that but with the sun traveling in the northern part of the sky. But it doesn't there are plenty of time lapse videos in the Southern Hemisphere of the sun setting and it's doing so down to the left. Because you know, that's how it happens on our lovely rotating ball earth. I think I've read some hilarious BS explanation as to why it looks that way but it was a load of convoluted rubbish.
It's interesting you respond to a lengthy post about a globe model predicting the horizon rising as the eye-level rises, by completely changing the subject from the earth to the sun.
Again, when you say "This would be impossible..." your mistake is buried in some assumption there, in this case, that you have accurately observed and recorded the sun changing size. Note as the sun in the video grows larger, you no longer see a clear outline of the sun.
You need better filters on the camera equipment to filter out oversaturation, or glare.
The sun rays are explained by your friend perspective projections. We know train tracks are parallel when standing in the middle of them, but still they look like the sun's rays, converging to some vanishing point, which would be the same vanishing point, whether 3000 miles or 93,000,000 miles away.
In any case, if the sun rays were a valid proof (and it is not), it would prove a close sun, not a flat earth.
[quote]Legit question wrote:
The Sun cannot be 93 million miles away.
This would be impossible if the Sun was 93 million miles away.
Sunsets on flat Earth:
Sun rays prove flat Earth:
Atmospheric refraction has not gone away...
Legit question wrote:
You have no balls to defend. In the following video, an individual took a super-zoom Nikon P900, with a sun filter, and measured the change in diameter of the Sun over about 80 minutes. Clearly, the Sun is not 93 million miles away.
Why don't you? This can all be done with simple trigonometry and right triangles.To an observer at 121,000 ft, above a globe with a 3959 mile radius:The horizon appears 426.6 miles awayThe viewing angle is 6.15 degrees below the horizontal eye level
Rayo. wrote:
Why don't you plug 121,000 ft into number 3, see what you get.
RIP: Former UCLA runner and Olympic Marathon Trials qualifier Daniel De La Torre dead at 29
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Josh Kerr says if you offered him Olympic silver right now, he's turn it down
Scientist: We have no idea how supershoes work but they do...
Zharnel Hughes just wants Noah Lyles to shut up - "this guy can talk...man! Shut up."