Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Just mix a drink and become a Flat Earth too!

...One of us...one of us......One of us...one of us......One of us...one of us...

After a few drinks, you won't see the horizon drop, or jump.

It may wiggle a bit though.

...One of us...one of us......One of us...one of us......One of us...one of us...

The vanishing point is behind your eyelids.

Let's start a GoFundMe, and send Turbo to space.

You're the one who believes in 'space', go ahead, be suicidal, if you wish.

Maybe some 'aliens' will abduct you....who knows?

a reply to: turbonium1

All the words you could have chosen to use and somehow you managed to forget:

"I don't understand that the horizon I can see is a circle around me"

and

"I don't know that curves go down as well as up".

When you stand on the middle of hte Pontchartrain causeway, you can't see the shoreline on either side. That's the curve.

Read. Learn.

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: turbonium1

Again.

The issue is the bases of the towers are physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth at an increasing rate which would be impossible on a flat earth.

All the other “issues” you have with the zoomed in imagine deals with capturing a 3D world on a 2D image like how a road looks more narrow as it goes off in the distance. But the true width of the road can be revealed by zooming in on the image. Where zooming in an the bases of the towers reveals the bases are still physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth.

a reply to: turbonium1

Yeah. A new page…

You still need to address this

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Let’s put it more bluntly.

The handicap and the blind can literally make it to the South Pole.

But the best minds of the flat earth society cannot provide any proof of their fictitious ice wall which should be literally the longest natural structure on earth, that should be off South America in the the direction of the drawn arrow on the useless flat earth map.



———
And address this
———

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:

Flat earth is the lie…

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

All the words you could have chosen to use and somehow you managed to forget:

"I don't understand that the horizon I can see is a circle around me"

and

"I don't know that curves go down as well as up".

When you stand on the middle of hte Pontchartrain causeway, you can't see the shoreline on either side. That's the curve.

Read. Learn.

www.metabunk.org...

The Earth itself is a flat circle, in shape.

We cannot see that circle from the ground, or at sea, however.

All we can see from the middle of the ocean, are horizons, all around us, all are perfectly flat, straight across Earth horizons, of course. We're in the middle of a vast plain area in the ocean, so horizons are all we ever WOULD see, from there!

Horizons are always perfectly flat, and straight across Earth, on the ground, at all altitudes above the ground.


What's odd, is when we always see flat, straight horizons, at any altitude, where would we expect to see an actual 'curve' of some type? At what altitude do we ever see a 'curved' horizon?

I've never seen any videos of a flat, straight horizon, become a 'curved' horizon, without being cut and pasted into another clip.

We would see a curve in EVERY horizon, if it really DID exist. It would certainly be seen at 20,000 feet above the Earth, where we see a horizon that is about 173 miles across Earth, which works out as 19,952 feet of 'curvature', over that distance. That is 3.77 MILES of 'curvature', and proves 'curvature' is complete BS.

a reply to: turbonium1

The earth is demonstrably spherical.

7 Ways Flat Earth Conspiracy Will Make You Look Silly

Celestial Navigation

newcreeations.org...


It wasn’t until clock-making technology increased enough in roughly the 1700’s that celestial navigation fully matured.

The British were the first to master shipboard clock technology. It gave them a significant advantage in both war and trade, and therefore contributed to the rapid growth of their empire. I’ve been to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, and have seen some of these early shipboard clocks first hand.

The only way the math required for accurate celestial navigation positions works out the way we calculate it is because the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat like some believe, celestial navigation would be based on plane trigonometry instead of spherical trigonometry. And if that were the case, I would be explaining to you that the earth must be flat. But it’s not. It’s a sphere.

Math does not lie.

Therefore, the fact that the spherical trigonometry based math required for celestial navigation produces accurate determinations of one’s position on the earth is definitive proof that the earth is spherical.

Celestial navigation truly makes proponents of the flat earth model look silly.

You

All we can see from the middle of the ocean, are horizons, all around us, all are perfectly flat,

Your wrong again…

And demonstrably so






You

What's odd, is when we always see flat, straight horizons,

No. On a flat earth, it should be impossible for anything to be blocked, or look below the horizon.



You

We would see a curve in EVERY horizon, if it really DID exist. It would certainly be seen at 20,000 feet above the Earth

One, the whole earth should be visible at 20,000 feet in your flat earth delusion.

Two. Not if the earth was such a large sphere with a gently enough curve where it cannot not be perceived by our uncalibrated vision.


But, yet. The sun does set beyond the earth’s horizon to become physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature to cast a shadow that becomes night. Which on a flat earth, there would be no sun sets.

a reply to: turbonium1

Why is it people that realize the earth is spherical Can and do address all your BS and falsehoods.

But you have to ignore certain posts, and act like certain evidence/arguments was never posted.

a reply to: turbonium1

And you cannot address the main issue. How in your flat earth delusion why objects are physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Again.

The issue is the bases of the towers are physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth at an increasing rate which would be impossible on a flat earth.

Blocked from view? What view?

There's only ONE view? No other viewpoints exist on that huge lake, just this one view?


No, I'm quite sure that there are MANY other viewpoints of it, specifically, a viewpoint that is perpendicular to your one and only viewpoint of it. That second viewpoint would be halfway up from your one and only viewpoint, and what do you think it would show us of that 'curve' you claim is there?

We don't even need to see that other viewpoint, we can imagine it being just below the horizon in that image, it's the same as seeing it from the other viewpoint, anyway!

Simply take all those poles, and put them in a line, just below the horizon, or atop it, if you wish.

The poles are running parallel to the horizon, from one side of it, to the other side of it.

There is no 'curve' along this horizon, is there? No, it's perfectly flat and straight across the Earth, or in the whole image of the horizon, anyway.

This shows us that there is no 'curve' at all, that you cannot take one viewpoint of something out in the distance, as some sort of 'proof', ignoring the other viewpoints of it, which show it is NOT 'curving down' at all, it is an illusion of perspective and vanishing point.

How would you like it if I showed you images of parallel objects that appear to 'converge' in the distance, and didn't show you any other viewpoints of it? Would you like me to pull the same sort of BS, that YOU'RE trying to pull on me, with your one viewpoint of those poles?


It's so ignorant, and childish, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing it.

This is just a waste of my time, like usual.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

And you cannot address the main issue. How in your flat earth delusion why objects are physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.

The only delusion is thinking there's only this one viewpoint of objects, when there are other viewpoints of it, which would show you that there's no 'curvature' at all.

OTHER VIEWPOINTS EXIST. OTHER VIEWPOINTS EXIST.

Repeat this mantra over and over again, maybe it'll finally click in!

a reply to: turbonium1

If you bothered to look at the link I posted, you would find a variety of views, all confirming that there is curvature. If you went to the centre of the Pontchartrain causeway you would have a view where you would not see the shore. Why? Curve.

You posted a photo of the causeway that you thought proved it flat, yet you then ignored other viewpoints that proced you wrong.

The most blinkered poster on the net, who cherry picks his way through only what suits his narrative is accusing people of not presenting alternative viewpoints. Hilarious.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

If you bothered to look at the link I posted, you would find a variety of views, all confirming that there is curvature. If you went to the centre of the Pontchartrain causeway you would have a view where you would not see the shore. Why? Curve.

You posted a photo of the causeway that you thought proved it flat, yet you then ignored other viewpoints that proced you wrong.

The most blinkered poster on the net, who cherry picks his way through only what suits his narrative is accusing people of not presenting alternative viewpoints. Hilarious.

Where is a perpendicular viewpoint of those poles, among all these images of it? Showing a horizon running parallel to the poles, just above the poles, specifically. But at least a view directly facing the poles, going across the lake.

a reply to: turbonium1

Yeap. It’s known as you rise above the earth, the view to the horizon increase.

And again. At 20,000, why isn’t the whole of your flat earth delusion visible.

And on the flat earth delusion, at 20,000 feet, the sun should always be visible, never set beyond the horizon. It’s impossible on a flat earth.

And yet. Even at 20,000 feet. The sun still sets beyond the curvature of the earth to create the shadow that is night.

Looks like your own words again bite you an your a$$.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Yeap. It’s known as you rise above the earth, the view to the horizon increase.

And again. At 20,000, why isn’t the whole of your flat earth delusion visible.

And on the flat earth delusion, at 20,000 feet, the sun should always be visible, never set beyond the horizon. It’s impossible on a flat earth.

First of all, it is the DISTANCE to the horizon which increases with altitude. The view shows us a longer horizon across Earth, with greater altitude, as well.

We cannot see the whole Earth at 20,000 feet, for the same reason we cannot see a ship beyond the horizon, or 3 miles away from our viewpoint. Perspective and vanishing point, same as always.

Same for not seeing the Sun, with other factors involved, depending on what you're claiming about it, anyway.

What do you assume the Sun's size is here? What altitude is assumed here? It's rather important to this issue...

a reply to: turbonium1

You

First of all, it is the DISTANCE to the horizon which increases with altitude.

Which is a property of a curved / spherical earth.

Flat earth, there should be no effective change to the “horizon” once you clear the hight of the three line or hills.

Why is there still a sun set from Mount Everest where the sun sets beyond the horizon and the curvature of the earth blocks the sun to create the shadow that is night.


As far as “prospective”, that can be isolated through something like line of sight communication.

Microwave transmission

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Obstacles, the curvature of the Earth, the geography of the area and reception issues arising from the use of nearby land (such as in manufacturing and forestry) are important issues to consider when planning radio links.

You

We cannot see the whole Earth at 20,000 feet, for the same reason we cannot see a ship beyond the horizon, or 3 miles away from our viewpoint. Perspective and vanishing point, same as always.

Again. Earth demonstrably curved.

Show the math how a flat earth physically blocks objects from view.






One, your BS doesn’t explain how objects are physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth where zooming doesn’t bring the blocked object into view.

Two. Doesn’t explain how a single point light source high above the earth like the sun or the North Star becomes physically blocked from view/has their light physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.

Three

Again. Things can be done to eliminate “prospective”

The Rainy Lake Experiment
Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 00:50 | Author: wabis | Topics: FlatEarth, Knowlegde, Science, Experiment

walter.bislins.ch...

Backs the flat earth experiment on

Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

BY ANDREW WHALEN ON 2/25/19 AT 5:04 PM EST



www.newsweek.com...

Campanella devises an experiment involving three posts of the same height and a high-powered laser. The idea is to set up three measuring posts over a nearly 4 mile length of equal elevation. Once the laser is activated at the first post, its height can be measured at the other two. If the laser is at eight feet on the first post, then five feet at the second, then it indicates the measuring posts are set upon the Earth's curvature.

In his first attempt, Campanella's laser light spread out too much over the distance, making an accurate measurement impossible. But at the very end of Behind the Curve, Campanella comes up with a similar experiment, this time involving a light instead of a laser. With two holes cut into styrofoam sheets at the same height, Campanella hopes to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth.

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

The two experiments prove the earth is spherical. They provide measurable results.

a reply to: turbonium1

The things you cannot address from you weekend BS fest.


You still need to address this

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Let’s put it more bluntly.

The handicap and the blind can literally make it to the South Pole.

But the best minds of the flat earth society cannot provide any proof of their fictitious ice wall which should be literally the longest natural structure on earth, that should be off South America in the the direction of the drawn arrow on the useless flat earth map.



———
And address this
———

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:

Flat earth is the lie


———

Why anything at see would be physically blocked from view by the earth’s horizon at 20,000 feet





———

From 20,000 feet. Or Mount Everest. How does the curvature of the earth block a single light source like the sun from view to create the shadow of the earth’s curvature to create night.

a reply to: turbonium1

Another feewble attempt at goalpost moving. Try doing something with what you;ve been given instead of inventing excuses to run away.

If you were far enough away to see the entire causeway from the side, you wouldn't be able to see the causeway. Why? Curvature.

a reply to: turbonium1

The Earth is a sphere. The horizon you see is a circle extending outwards from you as the centre point. The size of that circle increases as you get higher. As you get higher you'll eventually see the curve. The curve under your feet is too slight to see until you get high up.

Oh, and you have seen videos of a flat horizon become a curved horizon, you just refuse to accept them as real. Your problem isn;t the lack of evidence, it's an inability to accept or understand it.

originally posted by: neutronflux

Looks like these poles are slanting UPWARD almost the entire way, until they finally 'curve downward', and vanish, right?be

Do you believe the poles slant up most of the way across the lake, like you believe they 'curve downward' later on?

You surely must believe they slant up, if you believe they curve downward, you can't tell me you only believe one of them is true, and the other one is not true, that is called 'cherry picking', and if you do it with your OWN image, that's even worse!

The problem is your image. It's distorted, shows a single view that creates an illusion to support your fairy tale, while ignoring that the poles also appear to slant UPWARD, most of the way - and that's a bad thing, so just pretend it's not there, and maybe nobody will notice it!

You can go hide away now, I know you can't say the poles are NOT slanted, while they DO curve downward, within your own image - only a cherry picking hypocrite would ever say that.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

The Earth is a sphere. The horizon you see is a circle extending outwards from you as the center point. The size of that circle increases as you get higher. As you get higher you'll eventually see the curve. The curve under your feet is too slight to see until you get high up.

So at what altitude do you believe we see a 'curve'? 40,000 feet? Higher? Lower?

At 20000 feet, a horizon is perfectly flat, and straight across Earth. Not the slightest 'curve' is seen over it.

The horizon is about 173 miles away, and is visible for 173 miles across, in ideal conditions. What would be the 'curvature' over 173 miles? using your rate of 8 inches per mile squared, it calculates as 173x173x8 inches, or 239,432 inches, 19,952 feet, or 3.778 miles of 'curvature'!

The mid-point of the horizon would be 1.889 miles higher than at each end of that horizon. And 20000 feet is 3.787 miles
altitude of the plane, which means the ball Earth horizon at the highest point, would be almost 2 miles below the plane.

Of course, the horizon at 20,000 feet altitude, is ALSO about 20,000 feet altitude, since it's seen directly across at that altitude, out the window.


You don't have a horizon 2 miles lower than the plane, and it certainly doesn't curve almost 2 miles higher in the middle of it, either. No curve even exists, let alone one that goes 2 miles up in the middle of it!


All of these are based of YOUR OWN RATE of 'curvature'.

Everything here proves Earth is flat. Not ONE thing supports a ball Earth, in any way at all.


It's a complete fairy tale story, where nothing is real, it's all made up, and nobody can ever prove a thing about it as real.

All it is - tricks, illusions, made up effects, using false, inaccurate images, or airbrushed fakes claimed to be images, all the while, avoiding and ignoring all the real evidence of a flat Earth.


It's a painful, sorry display, that still hasn't died yet. But it certainly will die out, someday, I have no doubt about that.