Alpha, no offense, but many of his (cough) "proofs" are based on flat horizons and elevations that are minuscule when compared to the diameter of the Earth and it's subsequent curvature. What difference does it make what you observe when you're a few miles up and seeing a "flat" horizon? How do YOU explain plane trips around the world? Is this an elaborate conspiracy also? How do you circle the globe on an airplane if the Earth is truly flat? Wouldn't we have seen the "edge" of the world by now? Or wouldn't someone already have seen the "underside" of the Earth? I had already explained to you the fallacy of a disk hurtling through space, but you apparently even doubt the hurtling part. Maybe you think Earth is in some stationary celestial spot somewhere. Hell, I don't know. Maybe Truman was right?
Now you're thinking Tito, The Trueman Show and the Matrix could be closer to reality than we know.
Yea I do think we are stationary. And about the flat earth map, I'm not sure what you were trying to say. That is the commonly accepted speculated map. But I don't claim it to be a fact, just a possible representation.
About the horizon, and the experiment I posted before. Do you understand what I was trying to explain? If the horizon is level at a lower altitude, then on a ball as you rise up in altitude, the horizon has to drop below. It would be impossible for it to rise to your eye level.
You should research planes, on a ball, they would need to constantly dip the nose to adjust for the curvature. The argument from ballers is that the atmosphere is keeping it aligned with the curve, but then you get the same problem in reverse. They would need to have the rudders down just to fly in a straight line. Also the gyroscope in a plane never moves when flying straight for many miles, when it would have to be following the curve, or else fly out into nowhere.
And how does our pressurized atmosphere stay contained with no type of container? We know that in our reality, gas needs to be contained or it will float away. Oh and they tell you it's right beside a vacuum.
They live, We sleep
They live, We sleep
If the earth was flat then surely you would reach an end rather than end up at the same place again if you keep on going long enough. There would have to be an end point rather than the ability to go round and round and end up in the same place. When Palin did Pole to Pole he pretty much documented the full journey. There was no end point where he fell off the earth. You can prove he did it by copying the journey yourself which others have tried to do. If the globe he used to illustrate his journey was cut up and laid flat he could not complete the journey without going back.
Miles, don’t be dumb that would be circumnavigation which is impossible. When I go to China I like to take China air as it’s a quick trip, they fly over the North Pole, or that direction at least. The US deems that more risky and flys another direction which proves something I think.
This is you admitting defeat. You expect Tito to watch a two hour video and yet you fail to address any of the points I made that deconstruct the fallacy you have created. You have not even made an argument. You refused to start a thread, refused to define terms, ignored any accepted definition of empirical science after insisting on it, and then cited the example of the horizon which actually destroys your assertions.
Get a telescope and watch a ship disappear over the horizon. Not just fade out and become miniscule. Watch it sink like somebody descending over a hill. It is telling that you wish your world to be limited by the literal horizontal line at the furthest point your eyes can resolve. Stand on the shoulders of even 3rd century Greek astronomers and just like climbing a hill or watchtower because we are on a globe you will see further.
I do wonder if alphito is trolling us. If not, I would like him to teach my children this interesting story
Still waiting on your empirical proof (based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic on your ball earth.
Can I ask what your definition of the horizon is? The problem is there are different meanings of what the horizon is. I think there's about 10 different meanings. Is it the line that divides the sky and the earth, is it the geometrical horizon, the astronomical horizon, the true horizon, and each one of the them has a different assumption. Right, the true horizon is based on the spherical earth, the geometric horizon assumes a flat plain, the astronomical one assumes that the fundamental plain is through the center of the eye (personally that's how I define it).
Now think for moment, if you see a ship disappear over the horizon, then fix that point. As you rise up, it would be impossible for the horizon to rise with you. Geometry dictates this. That point should continue to drop.
The claim that water can conform to the exterior of a shape like it does on a spinning globe, doesn't stand up to the scientific method. You can't observe it, you can provide a demonstrable experiment for me to repeat and confirm.
The steps of the scientific method go something like this:
Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."
They live, We sleep
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks