Guy explains flat Earth theory convincingly and how round earth proof aren't absolute

The Earth is actually a pretzel and we all live on the inside.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Show me why it cannot be due to atmospheric refraction, instead of empty words.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Nope 50 thousand feet to see it.

What do you base this on?

Heck go to a beach at sunset lie or sit down and as the last rays of sunshine go over the horizon stand up and you will see the sun again...proves the curve of the earth or remain ignorant.

Besides possible atmospheric refraction, do you acknowledge the fact that due to perspective and convergence of lines, there is a vanishing point that creates a horizon, even on a flat plane?

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

Nah thanks there is a reason it is in the lol forum. Enjoy your delusions if you actually think it is flat.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Typical for you guys, you talk about science but as soon as you don't know what to say anymore you resort to empty evasive drivel.

You requested that someone refuted the vid you posted, claiming proof of round earth. I did and now you suddenly don't want to talk no more, because.......Earth is round, simply ignoring that your arguments supposedly proving this, don't necessarily.

This is exactly the thing the OP was pointing out, but that gets called a lie.

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

i had you pegged as a troll from the begining - now you have demostrated it conclusivly

you pst pics of the sun on the horizon - and ignore atmospheric pheonemon - but " conveniently " brig up atmospheric refraction " in another argument - where you again use it incorrectly

you are cherry-picking and attempting to special plead your way through this thread

and i too am done with you

as a have previously stated - the oblate spheroid model is congruent with ALL observation - the flat earth delusion - falls flat when it attempts to reconcile just 2

and just to drive the mail in the cofin of your distance arguments - the orbital eccentricity of the earth [ 0.0167 ]creates a 2.5million km difference at appogee and perigee

pits the distance change for an obesrver on the equator into perspective dont it

and there is still no solar paralax detectable with the naked eye

the flat earth delusion DEMANDS a sun 3000km from the plane of its imaginary flat earth - but cannot explain the lack of parralax [ or any other contradictions ]

dlat earth falls flat - now piss off and troll someone else - you can CLAIM victory - but only idiots will applaud you

but hey you will be in good company

a reply to: ignorant_ape

you pst pics of the sun on the horizon - and ignore atmospheric pheonemon

You are saying that the obvious change in angular size, which you first claimed was non existant, is caused by an atmospheric phenomenon?

And the pics were not of just the sun on the horizon, they were time lapse pics showing the sun moving across a large part of sky. Changing in angular size.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

and just to drive the mail in the cofin of your distance arguments - the orbital eccentricity of the earth [ 0.0167 ]creates a 2.5million km difference at appogee and perigee

150 Million km was the average and it really makes no significant difference when it comes to my argument. We still shouldn't see the sun change in angular size during the day across any such distance.

I find it strange that you suddenly don't seem to understand the concept.

as a have previously stated - the oblate spheroid model is congruent with ALL observation

No it is not, you don't see the 0.3% difference with your eyes.

brig up atmospheric refraction " in another argument - where you again use it incorrectly

Show me what was incorrect then mr. Science.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

the flat earth delusion DEMANDS a sun 3000km from the plane of its imaginary flat earth - but cannot explain the lack of parralax [ or any other contradictions ]

What lack of parallax?

What did the astronomer say to the heavenly body?

Nice parallax.

originally posted by: PoetryInMotion
Show me what was incorrect then mr. Science.

*Looks up at the forum name*

Ahahahahaha, we don't have to show you squat.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

Well you sure don't.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: icyboy771z

Nope 50 thousand feet to see it.

50 thousand feet you can't see any curvature! There are footage of cameras attached to weather balloons at 120,000 feet and the horizon appears flat. Other footage shot with GoPro lens causes fish eye lens effect which would make the
horizon bend concavely.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

1 - lack of parralax - ie from poits 10000km apart zero parralax of the sun or moon can be resolved by the human eye

Again, what lack of parallax? The sun does not appear to be in a different position in the sky, when you travel 10000 km to the South for instance?

How can you claim such a thing and at the same time refer to Eratosthenes?

PS - the absence of solar parrallax ?? - has that sunk in yet - HINT ho back to the Eratosthenes experiment IF the syn is only 3000km away - parralax should be visible - it is not - so the premise fails - same for the moon

Wasn't the whole point of that experiment to show that the sun has a different position in the sky when observed from different places on Earth?

What you are saying is that to the naked eye, the sun is in the same postion in the sky, on the equator as it is on the poles, when viewed at the same moment in time.

Do you understand what parallax is?

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: icyboy771z

Tell me, icyboy771z, why is it that there are no prominent rocket, astro-engineering or aerospace engineering scientists who believe the world is flat?

I've had a good Google about and haven't found one.

I suspect because, if any of them were as stupid and moronic to believe the world was flat, then they wouldn't be a scientist.

Well here are a few that are at least saying that the Copernican model and Heliocentrism are dead in the water. Don't know if they are "prominent" enough for you.



Anyway, this is a well produced and interesting video no matter what your viewpoint is.

Cool thread, you know its funny, i have been at the edge of an escarpment watching out over the ocean, a mountain top, a plane and i have never seen a curvature. I used to paint so i understand the whole perspective phenomena creating a horizon.

What i don't understand is why people try to complicate the subject, flat earth is a completely different model then the globe, so all ideas of gravity, space and such are different. If it's flat, it is a no brainer, you don't need gravity and all its complications, just density and mass.

Most of you gotta stop being so rude, and try looking at things from a different point of view, don't have to take it to heart or your graves, but even for a second entertain your mind.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: berenike

According to flat earth guys, the edge is in Antarctica.

Yes, that implies that going round the Antarctic would take longer than going round the Equator. Another proof that flat Earth is wrong.

There was a lot of expeditions to the south in the early 1820, where some of the explorers (not sure if it was James cook, but ill get back to u on that) mention that it took them nearly 3 years and a number around 160, 000 km to circum navigate the ice wall in Antarctica. Like i said ill get back on the proper details.

As I've understood this model provided by Swanne the Earth is flat and round like a plate, surrounded by a huge ice wall round the edges?

I don't want to be thick, but why would anyone have to go to the Antarctic to find it?

We've had good, stout, seaworthy ships for hundreds of years. Surely someone could sail off in any direction and find, document and photograph an ice wall to satisfy any critic of the Flat Earth theory.

Or is the ice wall so far away that no modern ship could reach it? I've already ruled out aeroplanes due to them possibly running out of fuel.

I like the Flat Earth notion, it saves me having to get my head round new-fangled ideas such as gravity but... a person could still head East, keep going and end up where they started from, I believe. How does that work if the Earth is flat?

a reply to: berenike

If you did some simple research a name Sir James Ross Clark would pop up, and the ice sheet has a Name thanks to this man, "Ross Ice Shelf" general E.Byrd found it too except at that time we had the technology to get over the ''glacier'' wall.