Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: neutronflux

Just that it may not be.

No one knows for certain.

originally posted by: Schmoopee
a reply to: neutronflux

Just that it may not be.

No one knows for certain.

Hello. Yeap. Flat earth is a lie.

a reply to: neutronflux

That it may not be a lie.

The Earth may indeed be a level, bumpy "flat" plane. Or hollow. Or concave. Or round. Or expanding. Or ...

No one knows for certain.

originally posted by: Schmoopee
a reply to: neutronflux

That it may not be a lie.

The Earth may indeed be a level, bumpy "flat" plane. Or hollow. Or concave. Or round. Or expanding. Or ...

No one knows for certain.

Sorry. The most practical and efficient means of navigation is treating the earth like the sphere it is.

Then explain the below…

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: AncientHeru
a reply to: Phage

I want to see a live film of the entire planet from space.

And no, i don't have billions of dollars of technology at my disposal.

Adding to neutronflux's practical evidence (i.e., no need to see it from space), here is another example:

If the Earth were flat, then how do people in Perth, Australia see the same stars when they look directly south (such as the constellation Southern Cross, AKA Crux) at the same time as the people in Johannesburg, South Africa do when they look directly south.

According to the prevailing flat earth map, this would be impossible; "due south" for Perth is in a very different direction as "due south" for Johannesburg, as in the illustration below:

(By the way, this problem would be just as true if the stars weren't really many lightyears away, but rather on a dome, or the firmament, close to Earth as some flat Earth models say)

However, if Earth is a spheroid, this works very well. People looking south in Perth and Johannesburg at the same time to view the stars in the sky would both be looking the same direction. That is, they would be looking at the same groups of stars when they both look south at the same time:

a reply to: Schmoopee

Except the people who've measured it, seen it with their own eyes, photographed and filmed it, used the properties that a spherical Earth has to navigate, there is quite a list of people who know for sure. There is no list of people who can produce convincing, logically structured, coherent evidence for a flat one.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
It depends on the translations. The King James Version of Psalms 19:1 is:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.'

Of course, now we need to get into what firmament means in the King James version. In Genesis 1:8, the firmament was said to be heaven, but even "heaven" in that case is an ambiguous thing; the firmament in the rest of Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) appears to mean everything outside the earth -- i.e., what we would call space and the rest of the universe.

So, yeah -- WVB quoting a psalm about the firmament (the universe beyond earth) seems perfectly reasonable, and would not be an indication that Von Braun thought the firmament is a solid dome.

Indeed it WOULD indicate a solid dome, or barrier, because it divides the waters above Earth, from the waters below Earth, or on Earth, exactly as described in both Genesis 1:6 and 1:7!!

I've already told you that, so don't think you're going to save your argument by ignoring it, because it won't work....

a reply to: turbonium1

Turbo, where are the unicorns buddy? If the bible is 100% undisputable fact, show me a unicorn.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Turbonium claims that if we shoot a rocket into space, it would collide with the transparent dome covering the flat earth (like the fictional Manéo and the ring gate) -- a dome he says is the biblical "firmament" -- and that NASA and Werner Von Braun knew this and is being kept a secret from us.

... and this is despite the fact that he claims that all the things the rockets are heading to are underneath this firmament and should therefore have no problem getting to them.

Yes, but it obviously doesn't fit into their fairy tale, why would they ever prove themselves liars?

All the heavenly bodies - moon, Sun, and stars - are small, and cannot be 'landed on', for one thing. If a rocket was ever seen hitting the moon, it would destroy their whole fairy tale instantly, same as if a rocket is seen hitting the firmament!

Why would rockets supposedly flying up into 'space', veer off sideways, or near sideways, at about 10,000 feet altitude? Even PLANES fly at over 40,000 feet altitude, but not rockets, which are supposed to fly into 'space', and supposedly cannot waste a drop of their precious fuel, more than any planes would need to, as they can land if low on fuel, unlike your rockets that supposedly go up into 'space'!

Your side's excuse is that rockets must veer off at low altitudes, in order to 'gain speed', while 'orbiting' Earth's atmosphere, before it's able to 'break free of Earth's gravity', to go into yet ANOTHER 'orbit' of Earth, in 'space'!.

Except that your claim is that 'gravity' is strongest on, or near, the Earth's surface, and distance weakens it, or at best, is the same strength as on the surface of Earth. Which means, a rocket wouldn't need to 'gain speed' in flight, to 'break free of gravity', and that's why your side makes an excuse about rockets going in 'orbit', a non-existent area above Earth, in 'space', which nobody can even prove exists, in the first place!

But even if it DID exist, as you claim, rockets would never veer off at low altitudes, since planes fly 5 x higher, all the time, to save fuel, and travel faster, because air is much thinner at such altitudes.

If rockets really went into 'space', they'd fly straight up, to at LEAST 50,000 feet, and gain speed like planes do.

Planes don't fly at low altitudes in order to gain speed, they ascend to over 40,000 feet, asap, after take-off, because it saves fuel, and fly faster, as well!

Rockets veer off at low altitudes, because they burn all their fuel so quickly, after launch, if they were to fly up to plane altitudes, they'd burn all their fuel before flying out of sight, over the ocean, and it would give away their whole illusion!


How could rockets possibly gain more speed at 10,000 feet altitude, than at 50,000 feet altitude? It's sheer nonsense.

a reply to: turbonium1

Sorry. The most practical and efficient means of navigation is treating the earth like the sphere it is.

Then explain the below…

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: AncientHeru
a reply to: Phage

I want to see a live film of the entire planet from space.

And no, i don't have billions of dollars of technology at my disposal.

Adding to neutronflux's practical evidence (i.e., no need to see it from space), here is another example:

If the Earth were flat, then how do people in Perth, Australia see the same stars when they look directly south (such as the constellation Southern Cross, AKA Crux) at the same time as the people in Johannesburg, South Africa do when they look directly south.

According to the prevailing flat earth map, this would be impossible; "due south" for Perth is in a very different direction as "due south" for Johannesburg, as in the illustration below:

(By the way, this problem would be just as true if the stars weren't really many lightyears away, but rather on a dome, or the firmament, close to Earth as some flat Earth models say)

However, if Earth is a spheroid, this works very well. People looking south in Perth and Johannesburg at the same time to view the stars in the sky would both be looking the same direction. That is, they would be looking at the same groups of stars when they both look south at the same time:

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: turbonium1

Turbo, where are the unicorns buddy? If the bible is 100% undisputable fact, show me a unicorn.

Stop all your BS, please...

The very first edition of Noah Webster’s dictionary in 1828 lists “unicorn” with the following definition: “an animal with one horn, the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” Notice that this definition says absolutely nothing about a horse, or a horse-like animal, or Greek mythology, or a mythical or fictitious creature. This definition simply states that this is a name that is often applied to the rhinoceros.

creationtoday.org...


I'm sure you know rhinos have one horn, and exist on Earth, right?

Unicorns meant any animal, with one horn, just as bicornis meant any animal, with TWO horns!


You'll try any BS for your fairy tale.

Humans have twisted and corrupted passages in the Bible, over the centuries since then. Simply changing words like 'firmament' to 'expanse', or 'skies', is altering, or implying, it's actual meaning....

Except they couldn't make an 'expanse' work with two passages - Genesis 1:6 and 1:7. It describes separating the waters of Earth, from those above Earth, which means it is a solid object, or actual barrier, above Earth, holding waters.

a reply to: turbonium1

I know I am telling the truth when you run from it.

Again….

Sorry. The most practical and efficient means of navigation is treating the earth like the sphere it is.

Then explain the below…

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: AncientHeru
a reply to: Phage

I want to see a live film of the entire planet from space.

And no, i don't have billions of dollars of technology at my disposal.

Adding to neutronflux's practical evidence (i.e., no need to see it from space), here is another example:

If the Earth were flat, then how do people in Perth, Australia see the same stars when they look directly south (such as the constellation Southern Cross, AKA Crux) at the same time as the people in Johannesburg, South Africa do when they look directly south.

According to the prevailing flat earth map, this would be impossible; "due south" for Perth is in a very different direction as "due south" for Johannesburg, as in the illustration below:

(By the way, this problem would be just as true if the stars weren't really many lightyears away, but rather on a dome, or the firmament, close to Earth as some flat Earth models say)

However, if Earth is a spheroid, this works very well. People looking south in Perth and Johannesburg at the same time to view the stars in the sky would both be looking the same direction. That is, they would be looking at the same groups of stars when they both look south at the same time:

Sorry that flat earth is a proven lie.

I've already told you - south is the opposite direction of Earth's central point, in the middle, which your side calls 'the north pole'. Not a point you believe exists, called a 'south pole'.

It's simply a trick, a ruse.

A ball Earth would have two poles, on opposite points of the ball, 'north' and 'south' points, or poles?

South isn't measured, isn't flown over, or actual life that's inhabiting it, but you claim it exists, anyway!

If you have a 'north pole', existing on a ball Earth, you'd prove there's also a 'south pole', the same way, measuring it, flying over it, proving it exists!

a reply to: neutronflux

You

I've already told you - south is the opposite direction of Earth's central point,

Doesn’t explain why celestial navigation works.

Doesn’t explain “ If the Earth were flat, then how do people in Perth, Australia see the same stars when they look directly south (such as the constellation Southern Cross, AKA Crux) at the same time as the people in Johannesburg, South Africa do when they look directly south. ”

It's simply a trick, a ruse.

I was in the Navy, celestial navigation works.

Doesn’t explain why people in Australia and Africa have the same view of Stars in the same proportion and placement.

Again…

If the Earth were flat, then how do people in Perth, Australia see the same stars when they look directly south (such as the constellation Southern Cross, AKA Crux) at the same time as the people in Johannesburg, South Africa do when they look directly south.

For a flat earth there would have to be two “ constellation Southern Cross, AKA Crux”

On a flat earth, this would not work for Australian Africa.

Use the Southern Cross to find due south

earthsky.org...

I didn’t know – and you might not realize if, like me, you live in the Northern Hemisphere – that you can use the constellation of the Southern Cross (which appears on both the Australian and New Zealand flags) to find the south celestial pole and the direction due south. An EarthSky community member, Steve Brown, pointed this sky trick out to us some years ago, and he also provided many links and references to finding south with the Southern Cross, many of which you’ll find in this post. Thank you, Ste

You

A ball Earth would have two poles, on opposite points of the ball, 'north' and 'south' points, or poles?

And the earth does have two celestial poles by the way the stars appear to move in different directions between the north hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere.

The Moving Stars of the Northern Hemisphere

amazingsky.net...

But the direction they move is opposite. When looking 180° away from the Pole, the seasonal stars move from left to right in the Northern Hemisphere, but from right to left in the Southern Hemisphere.

You

South isn't measured, isn't flown over, or actual life that's inhabiting it, but you claim it exists, anyway!

Yeap. There is a north and south hemisphere.

And the curvature of the earth physically blocks the view of the northern star from view in the Southern Hemisphere.

You

If you have a 'north pole', existing on a ball Earth, you'd prove there's also a 'south pole', the same way, measuring it, flying over it, proving it exists!

Antarctica is on!

www.expeditions.com... =%25epid!%7C%25eaid!%7C0&utm_term=south%20pole%20tour&gclaw.ds&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2-KUsfbN8wIVBWxvBB0r-QraEAAYASAAEgJMu_D_BwE

We are excited to announce that we will be operating the following expeditions in Antarctica for the 2021-22 season, beginning in November: Journey to Antarctica: The White Continent; Antarctica, South Georgia & The Falklands; and Antarctica & Patagonia: Legendary Ice & Epic Fjords.

1. Fly the Drake & Cruise Antarctica

The most popular way to fly to Antarctica, these trips combine the comfort and expediency of flying with all the benefits of then exploring Antarctica by small expedition ship.

Flies to Antarctica in just 2 hours, avoiding Drake Passage
Well suited to anxious sailors or travellers short on time
Operates December - February only
Tried & tested operation over 13 years
Typically 8 days from $10,000 per person

www.swoop-antarctica.com... hgvfN8wIVum1vBB0ksgt9EAAYAiAAEgJBiPD_BwE

They never cross over the 'south pole', from one side, through to the other side, it's all BS. And if it WERE done, we'd have lots of videos to prove it. Since it's all BS, to begin with.

How can they pretend a massive continent exists on Earth, without a shred of proof for it? They claim it's off-limits to fly over it side to side, over the 'south pole', and spew out ridiculous excuses why it's off-limits for anyone to fly over it, or explore it all.

I'm sure that nobody had ever known about a massive continent existing on Earth a few hundred miles off the tip of South America....until the ;ate 1800's or so! Good one!

Anyway, we can easily prove Earth isn't a ball, using two viewpoints of a 'vanishing' ship, not 'curving down' at all!

Even before that, seeing an entire ship for 2 1/2 miles, suddenly vanish in the next 1/2 mile, proves that they're full of crap.

A ship that's entirely in view, or almost all in view, from a distance of 2 1/2 miles out, flies off a sharp edge of Earth's 'curvature', in the next half mile out! Truly magical, indeed!

a reply to: turbonium1

a reply to: turbonium1

1992–1993 – American Women's Antarctic Expedition- AWE. First team of women to ski to the South Pole: Ann Bancroft, Sunniva Sorby, Anne DalVera, Sue Giller- 67 days

en.m.wikipedia.org...

n 1992, Bancroft led the first east to west crossing of Greenland and later that year, led the American Women’s Expedition (AWE) to the South Pole. The team of four women skied the 660 miles (1060 km) in 67 days, becoming the first all-female group to have reached the South Pole on foot. Bancroft became the first woman to have skied to both poles. Thousands of school children followed the AWE using curricula developed by the Ann Bancroft Foundation.

Oh. I get you now. You don’t like women. And this Antarctica denial is about you trying to discredit the all women’s expedition to the South Pole because you don’t like women.

Now Turbo. Saying someone is lying without proof is slander. Are you saying the all women expedition never went to the South Pole? Do you have any proof?

a reply to: turbonium1

Wow Turbo. Your a proven liar and a women hater.

Anything to avoid the 1/2 mile ''curvature'' that pops up out of nowhere!

a reply to: turbonium1

Still trying to change the subject…

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Tying to change the subject again..

Are you making a saying the all women’s expedition never skied to the South Pole?

Duncan is a wounded veteran who became the first ever double amputee to race to the South Pole as part of Walking With The Wounded's expedition team in 2013. Since then he has also become the first double amputee to compete in the world's toughest marathon Marathon Des Sables in 2017. Duncan has raised invaluable support and funds for the charity.

walkingwiththewounded.org.uk...

And you deny that Duncan Slater was the first “ double amputee to race to the South Pole”

So you hate women and slander double amputees?

All for the flat earth lie…

a reply to: turbonium1

Your still looking utterly ridiculous.

The goal of many adventurers is to reach the North Pole and/or
the South Pole. We have had several deaf adventurers. Below are
the deaf individuals that have reached the Poles.

North Pole – Oliver Westbury, a British deaf man, in 2008

South Pole – Ian Berry, a British deaf man, in 2010

They did not travel to the Poles alone but were part of the
group. DeafDigest will not say if either Westbury or Berry
were the only deaf person or the first deaf person – just that
they successfully completed their trips. Were there other
deaf individuals that we do not know about?

Good question!

deafdigest.net...

Now your denying deaf adventures didn’t make it to the South Pole?

a reply to: turbonium1

Come on man. If you believe the earth is flat….

I want you to make it official.

Are you saying the all women’s expedition, double amputee Duncan Slater, and Ian Berry, a British deaf man as reported by the Deaf Digest never made to the South Pole. And you are claiming they are lying?