I am in utter disbelief that this 'Flat-Earth' nonsense has gained some attention

originally posted by: NNN87

My main and concern is and issue at hand, one can observe objects that should be hidden due to curvature, and its calculations which is the foundation of all globe theories.

You aren't concerned with it at all.

I suggested like three times now, atmospheric refraction.

Are you purposely ignoring this??

Please explain how refraction isn't a viable explanation.

a reply to: NNN87

Yes....excellent...try my experiment...see what happens.. 😈

Hey! 😃 if youre so confident bet me 1,000,000 dollars and your soul to me and then wager on my below presented prepondering.

if my prepondering presented below doesnt happen. Ill give you a million dollars. Seems fair.

Butve warned. if my prediction is right you have to sell your soul to me and give me one Million dollars.

So here goes:
Hey heres a even cheaper experiment.

Do you live by a large sea or ocean?

Go to the beach. Watch boats sail to and fro from you.

Have you made an important observation yet like.. Ummmm.....Why does the boat mast appear first on the horizon and then the super structure, then the hull. And why is it inverse as it sails away?

How do you rationally explain that other than the earth being a sphere.

Come on. Bet me. 😈😈😈

I could really use your soul to do slave labor at my house. Im tired of wiping my own ass. You can do that for me for eternity since youll be my slave and ill own your soul. 😈😈

Come on!!! You seem confident.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Have you made an important obsevation yet like.. Ummmm.....Why does the boat mast appear first on the horizon and then the super structure, then the hull. And why is it inverse as it sails away?

What craziness is this? You'll be saying next that someone could follow the boat and watch it disappear over the horizon again.

You're out of your mind!

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: NNN87

My main and concern is and issue at hand, one can observe objects that should be hidden due to curvature, and its calculations which is the foundation of all globe theories.

You aren't concerned with it at all.

I suggested like three times now, atmospheric refraction.

Are you purposely ignoring this??

Please explain how refraction isn't a viable explanation.

There are too many variables, considering any of them could change depending on way to many factors to make it viable, considering that if one observes a boat disappear over the horizon with the limits of eye sight alone, then use binoculars or a camera with zoom and see the same boat in full when technically its over the curvature, to make the exact same observation multiple times on a daily basis, even multiple times a day, especially over a cool body of water like a great lake, it doesn't really matter even, atmospheric refraction could explain way to many things, globe or flat.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Why bother talking to you, same experiments explain flat and globe model, you guys really have to stop assuming that a flat surface has to be subjected to the same laws as a globe.

a reply to: NNN87

So which laws apply to a flat earth?

Some made up ones by internet FE'rs who think they're clever?

Where's your science to prove anything? Oh, that's right, there isn't any. All you have is your (flawed) opinion.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

a reply to: NNN87

So which laws apply to a flat earth?

Some made up ones by internet FE'rs who think they're clever?

Where's your science to prove anything? Oh, that's right, there isn't any. All you have is your (flawed) opinion.

Well no one has yet to prove the observations flawed, and simple natural laws that effect everyone of us equally, you don't need complicated equations. You are lighter then air thus you are on a ground that is just as dense or more than the molecules you are made up of, we can see why under a microscope, different things have different density its measurable without needing gravity, just density, things actually measurable, not assumptions as to how can people or anything could ever possibly live on a ball.

a reply to: NNN87

Still no evidence and just ANOTHER deflection.

Typical FE'r.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: NNN87

Still no evidence and just ANOTHER deflection.

Typical FE'r.

We gave you an observation that can be duplicated anywhere on earth, and people have such as i, that goes against curvature calculations, which are purely based on the same observation using eye sight limits, which can be seen beyond with the aid of binoculars or a camera with zoom, you don't even need those aids, islands and buildings are seen across distances at which those objects should be obscured by curvature.

I have yet to see the curvature, no matter how many times or others try, eye sight limit and calculations made by such limits, are the foundation of a spheroid earth. We can see beyond those limits, WTF.

a reply to: NNN87

So let's say screw science and just go with opinions?

Guess you should throw away that device you're using to view ATS. Science made it after all.

You should stop using electricity too. Yeah, science.

You FE'rs are just hilarious. You try and poke holes in things, yet you don't understand them. You also don't understand that the things that are based on a spheroid earth, give you a lot of things in your daily lives.

But screw science, right?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: NNN87

So let's say screw science and just go with opinions?

Guess you should throw away that device you're using to view ATS. Science made it after all.

You should stop using electricity too. Yeah, science.

You FE'rs are just hilarious. You try and poke holes in things, yet you don't understand them. You also don't understand that the things that are based on a spheroid earth, give you a lot of things in your daily lives.

But screw science, right?

I have no idea what those have to do with this thread.

a reply to: NNN87

Of course you don't.

Just keep on pushing the flat earth nonsense. It's good practice for me when I argue with someone about something meaningful.

originally posted by: NNN87
I have yet to see the curvature, no matter how many times or others try, eye sight limit and calculations made by such limits, are the foundation of a spheroid earth. We can see beyond those limits, WTF.

You ever get that set of things I asked about? Do you know the ground heights of the viewer and the viewed, and does the target have very obvious landmarks that can be used to verify the lowest part? No?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: NNN87
I have yet to see the curvature, no matter how many times or others try, eye sight limit and calculations made by such limits, are the foundation of a spheroid earth. We can see beyond those limits, WTF.

You ever get that set of things I asked about? Do you know the ground heights of the viewer and the viewed, and does the target have very obvious landmarks that can be used to verify the lowest part? No?

The Somerset facility? I told you, even at the beach of Brimley, you can see the stack , that's 40miles away at 10feet high above the water level(on the beach) the facility it self stands near water level, i don't know 5 or ten feet, still not enough to explain why anyone is able to see it beyond the calculated curvature.

I gave the info, roughly 50miles away for a 25 foot perspective, lets add the land so the towermis roughly at 610ft, it should still be hidden by 600ft of curvature, even atmospheric refraction can't make up for the difference.

originally posted by: NNN87
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Why bother talking to you, same experiments explain flat and globe model, you guys really have to stop assuming that a flat surface has to be subjected to the same laws as a globe.

Thats literally one of the dumbest statments ive ever read.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

have you read the entire thread ???

originally posted by: BASSPLYR

originally posted by: NNN87
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Why bother talking to you, same experiments explain flat and globe model, you guys really have to stop assuming that a flat surface has to be subjected to the same laws as a globe.

Thats literally one of the dumbest statments ive ever read.

In a flat earth thread and THATS the dumbest thing you've read?!

a reply to: ignorant_ape

You beat me to it

originally posted by: BASSPLYR

originally posted by: NNN87
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Why bother talking to you, same experiments explain flat and globe model, you guys really have to stop assuming that a flat surface has to be subjected to the same laws as a globe.

Thats literally one of the dumbest statments ive ever read.

The weirdest thing i have seen here is people comparing apples to oranges, a globe needs gravity a flat surface does not. A globe and gravity require a vacuum so and so forth, a flat surface does not.

What people see with their owns eyes can explain two possibilities, depending if you take into account perspective or not, the equations change from simple to ridiculous.

Do you know how they calculated the curvature? And what they used to do it?

I am in utter disbelief that this 'Flat-Earth' nonsense has gained some attention page: 1

And now it is a legitimate topic of discussion on ATS.