Is the earth flat?

[Beanz]

Alpha you can't even agree on what the 'Official Narrative' is. Your are misquoting something from the 1800's that does not even refer to the earths curvature.

[TitoFan]

Alpha you can't even agree on what the 'Official Narrative' is. Your are misquoting something from the 1800's that does not even refer to the earths curvature.

Alpha doesn't give a shit about actual flights into space, real math and science dealing with scale, differences between night and day and how a rotating spherical shape is the only way to explain it, hundreds of thousands of flights around the world by countless people, etc. When it's brought up to him, he ignores it.

Alpha looks at water in a glass, sees it's flat, and figures the Earth is flat. Oh.... and calls it "science." You bring up real science... he keeps babbling about the damn glass.

Not content with denying real science, he denies every important historical event of significance.

To anyone who disagrees, he lobs insults, because that's what trolls do.

Pity the poor children who almost have to put up with that shit.

[TitoFan]

Alpha you can't even agree on what the 'Official Narrative' is. Your are misquoting something from the 1800's that does not even refer to the earths curvature.

I don't recall Alpha answering to this. A lot is made of the horizon, especially out at sea. But the fact of the matter is that large ships disappear from view anywhere between 10-15 miles from shore, given that you're standing at sea level. Considering we can see up to 20 or so miles on a clear day, what would explain ships disappearing from view? I've read all about bending light and optical illusions, but in reality there is no real explanation for why would a ship disappear from view after sailing a certain distance from shore. If you're gonna scoff at bending water on a globe, then at least offer a plausible and credible explanation for ships disappearing over the horizon. On a flat earth, we'd see the ship until visibility prevented us from seeing further.

[TitoFan]

Also offer reasonable alternatives to explain gravity, or whatever name the flat earthers want to give that force that keeps us grounded. At least the sphere has a center point, from which the entire surface is perpendicular. Thus, everything falls straight down. A flat earth keeps us grounded.... how? Where is this pull coming from? A bunch of parallel lines across the surface of the Earth? The sphere makes more sense as far as gravity pull is concerned.

Offer reasonable alternatives to explain night and day and how the division moves across the Earth. Flat Earthers explain it with a sun that circles above the Earth, lighting areas as it passes overhead. What forces keep the sun rotating in such a manner? Why are some areas dark if the sun is always above the surface of the Earth? Again, the sphere model explains night and day much better.

The Flat Earthers main beef is the water staying on a curved planet. A spinning ball. Saying that gravity holds the water against the surface just doesn't cut it. They use micro experiments to try and explain a macro phenomenon. I think that's flawed, but no one will ever convince Flat Earthers otherwise.

Here's the deal.

Round Earthers probably shouldn't ridicule Flat Earthers for their opinions. But the opposite holds true as well. Alpha saying he KNOWS the Earth is flat, while the rest of us can only THINK the Earth is round, is tantamount to ridicule and dismissal. This sets off the whole back-and-forth, enough of which we've had on plenty of other subjects. News flash: Not everyone that believes the Earth is round is a sheep, believing whatever they tell us. There is plenty of logical arguments for a round Earth.... just depends on the color of the glass through which you look at it.

Said this before and I'll say it again. Someone comes at you with a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and you believe they're being serious right away. So the argument begins right away. With Flat Earthers, it's so odd to the rest of us, that the initial reaction is one of... "You're joking, right?" When it becomes apparent they're not, that's when the insults start flying and everything goes downhill from there (and keeps on rolling until it disappears over the curvature of the Earth). We can hardly be blamed for the initial reactions.

[Alpha]

Alpha you can't even agree on what the 'Official Narrative' is. Your are misquoting something from the 1800's that does not even refer to the earths curvature.

I don't recall Alpha answering to this. A lot is made of the horizon, especially out at sea. But the fact of the matter is that large ships disappear from view anywhere between 10-15 miles from shore, given that you're standing at sea level. Considering we can see up to 20 or so miles on a clear day, what would explain ships disappearing from view? I've read all about bending light and optical illusions, but in reality there is no real explanation for why would a ship disappear from view after sailing a certain distance from shore. If you're gonna scoff at bending water on a globe, then at least offer a plausible and credible explanation for ships disappearing over the horizon. On a flat earth, we'd see the ship until visibility prevented us from seeing further.

I commented on Beanz' link. The first problem is the person staring down. Go have a look for yourself, when you stare out straight at the horizon, it rises to your eye level. It will always be slightly below because the ground it closer to us than the sky above. I also mentioned placing a camera on a flat street and having someone walk away from it. You will see they disappear from the feet up. It's called perspective.

Shall we just leave out the water part of it for now, as we both know how the natural physics of water work in this reality. Or do you have a practical example demonstrating how water can conform to the exterior of a shape?

Also take a look at 1 of the last vids I posted about seeing to far. I have actually done a few observations myself over an 11 mile stretch. I also posted an infrared vid awhile back that saw mountains over 123 miles. All this stuff should be hidden by miles of claimed curvature. I think there is also a Guinness book of records for longest photo or something, that is like 275 miles.



Take a look if you can at that vid I posted about how we see, and how things disappear from the bottom up.

Also offer reasonable alternatives to explain gravity, or whatever name the flat earthers want to give that force that keeps us grounded. At least the sphere has a center point, from which the entire surface is perpendicular. Thus, everything falls straight down. A flat earth keeps us grounded.... how? Where is this pull coming from? A bunch of parallel lines across the surface of the Earth? The sphere makes more sense as far as gravity pull is concerned.

Offer reasonable alternatives to explain night and day and how the division moves across the Earth. Flat Earthers explain it with a sun that circles above the Earth, lighting areas as it passes overhead. What forces keep the sun rotating in such a manner? Why are some areas dark if the sun is always above the surface of the Earth? Again, the sphere model explains night and day much better.

The Flat Earthers main beef is the water staying on a curved planet. A spinning ball. Saying that gravity holds the water against the surface just doesn't cut it. They use micro experiments to try and explain a macro phenomenon. I think that's flawed, but no one will ever convince Flat Earthers otherwise.

Here's the deal.

Round Earthers probably shouldn't ridicule Flat Earthers for their opinions. But the opposite holds true as well. Alpha saying he KNOWS the Earth is flat, while the rest of us can only THINK the Earth is round, is tantamount to ridicule and dismissal. This sets off the whole back-and-forth, enough of which we've had on plenty of other subjects. News flash: Not everyone that believes the Earth is round is a sheep, believing whatever they tell us. There is plenty of logical arguments for a round Earth.... just depends on the color of the glass through which you look at it.

Said this before and I'll say it again. Someone comes at you with a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and you believe they're being serious right away. So the argument begins right away. With Flat Earthers, it's so odd to the rest of us, that the initial reaction is one of... "You're joking, right?" When it becomes apparent they're not, that's when the insults start flying and everything goes downhill from there (and keeps on rolling until it disappears over the curvature of the Earth). We can hardly be blamed for the initial reactions.

Since you brought up gravity can you tell me what sort of gravity you are talking about? Newtonian or Einsteinian?

Mass attracting mass, or the movement of space and time?

It sounds like you are referring to Newtonian, so I'll ask where do we observe this in nature. Can you give me an example of an experiment that proves this gravity? And please don't bring up the Cavendish experiment. On a flat plane there is only 1 direction, and that is down. Things fall down based on density.

There are many FE models out there that explain how the sun and moon work. Take a look, do some research. And decide for yourself. I understand their models but like I have said many times, I don't advocate any, as looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable of the ground beneath our feet. It also creates a strawman argument.

I'm a globe denier, and by questioning the claims of the globe I have found it to be demonstrably level.

Water covers over 70% of the earths surface. We know how the natural physics of water work, if you claim it can do something else, then that needs to be proved, in this reality. Otherwise it's just a claim. Research gravity with an open mind. Find out how opposed it has been. It's a weak force, but strong enough to hold trillions of gallons of water onto a sphere? Einsteins relativity basically superseded Newtons, but look into it and see what other great minds refused to recognize it. And again, instead of proving that the ether didn't exist, he just disregarded it.

It's the same with the atmosphere. If the globe claim is that our pressurized atmosphere can remain, with no barrier, right beside a claimed vacuum, then again that claim needs to be proven, in this reality. Because we know that's not how gases and particles work on earth. Which is what we are talking about.

Look I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm only stating what I know to be true, by using the tangible substances in this reality. When you really start researching what we have been taught, you find that all of it is based on assumptions. Not actual science.

Also if you get the chance watch the movie The Principle, it shows that even the scientist aren't sure about if the sun is moving around us. But that's what it seems to suggest. But I already believe this to be true.

Look at this. Not really exact science is it.



But like I say, do your own research, even if you don't research FE, at least research the heliocentric model, so you can full understand the claims that are being made.

This like dark matter and dark energy are things they have needed to add to the story, as they found it wouldn't work without it. Again, stuff with no actual scientific experiments, just math, equations and assumptions. Just like they had to add the tilt of the earth, and gravity before that. You really think no one before Newton saw something fall down? Or no one before Columbus, decided to sail west for roughly 1700 years.

We can agree to disagree, if you research the heliocentric model and still wish to believe in the globe, that's fine with me. Unfortunately for myself, I know that it's not true based on denying the claims of the globe. I would love nothing more than to come back behind the curtain and watch the show with the majority (the world is a theater after all) but once you see, you can't unsee.

Again I don't try to convince others, I just state what I know to be true. Proven with actual science. There is no need for anyone to try and convince me, but at least try to convince yourself of the model you have been taught. There are no sides in this. In my opinion objective reality is not up for debate. All I ask is don't follow blindly, prove every claim of the globe to yourselves.

But stay away from those that will tell you what is what, learn it for yourself. There are a lot of deceivers out there. The information is out there, take it upon yourself to find out where we are and what we are on.

Your last post sounded like a sort of olive branch, so I'll take the higher road and refrain from the continued insults.

[TitoFan]

I commented on Beanz' link. The first problem is the person staring down. Go have a look for yourself, when you stare out straight at the horizon, it rises to your eye level. It will always be slightly below because the ground it closer to us than the sky above. I also mentioned placing a camera on a flat street and having someone walk away from it. You will see they disappear from the feet up. It's called perspective.

When you stare at the horizon, you may very well be looking down because as you said, the person’s eye level height above the ground needs to be factored in. However, when observing objects such as ships disappearing over the horizon, as your angle of sight has remained constant, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re watching a disappearing (from view) ship. Your angle of sight is the same for when you see the ship and when you don’t, thus it cancels out of the equation.

Shall we just leave out the water part of it for now, as we both know how the natural physics of water work in this reality. Or do you have a practical example demonstrating how water can conform to the exterior of a shape?

It’s tough to leave water “out of it”, because there are relatively few places where you can true “flat” terrain on which to carry out observations like you can with water. The fact of the matter is that if the Earth was truly flat, ships wouldn’t “disappear” after a 10-mile distance. If you go into the discussion with the preconceived notion that an ocean cannot conform to a spherical surface, I believe you’re violating your own desired scientific posture.

Also take a look at 1 of the last vids I posted about seeing to far. I have actually done a few observations myself over an 11 mile stretch. I also posted an infrared vid awhile back that saw mountains over 123 miles. All this stuff should be hidden by miles of claimed curvature. I think there is also a Guinness book of records for longest photo or something, that is like 275 miles.

Your personal observations at an 11-mile distance prove exactly what? At that distance the curvature is just over 80 feet. If you can still see something, such as a mountain, from an 11-mile distance, I should hope you’re looking at a mountain over 80 feet tall. The infrared video that allegedly sees mountains over 123 miles away I presume is something you posted and not your own. The word “allegedly” was put there for a purpose. Using your own logic, unless you have proof of 123-mile or 275-mile photographs, using irrefutable experiments carried out by you, I’m afraid I’d have to put those into question also.

Take a look if you can at that vid I posted about how we see, and how things disappear from the bottom up.

Stating that things disappear from the bottom up is hardly a condemnation on Earth’s curvature. That’s how it would seem logical for things to disappear into the horizon… from the bottom up. Maybe I misunderstood your claims here.

Since you brought up gravity can you tell me what sort of gravity you are talking about? Newtonian or Einsteinian?

Mass attracting mass, or the movement of space and time?

It sounds like you are referring to Newtonian, so I'll ask where do we observe this in nature. Can you give me an example of an experiment that proves this gravity? And please don't bring up the Cavendish experiment. On a flat plane there is only 1 direction, and that is down. Things fall down based on density.

When I refer to gravity I refer to Newtonian gravity. The type we were all taught in school which, I know, you scoff at as being led around like sheep. Let’s just say it’s the only type of gravity most of us understand. Example of an experiment that proves Newtonian gravity? No… I don’t know of any. Other than the typical experiments showing objects falling in a vacuum, where the mass is not a factor in the acceleration of the fall. Other than that I’m afraid it’s just plain ol’ observation. I’ll just take Newton’s word for it, I guess. I don’t do bending of space and time very well, so that’s another reason to stick to Newton. By the way, things moving in any direction are indicative of a force acting on them. Density is not a force.

There are many FE models out there that explain how the sun and moon work. Take a look, do some research. And decide for yourself. I understand their models but like I have said many times, I don't advocate any, as looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable of the ground beneath our feet. It also creates a strawman argument.

The sun and moon is where we totally part ways. You claim “there are many FE models out there that explain how the sun and moon work”, but you don’t go into any of them. You and I both know that claims of a gyrating sun above a flat Earth without any force to keep it on a circular path is automatically “inferior-sounding” to the conventionally accepted concept of a globe orbiting a sun of much greater mass. Add the moon to these FE models, and you’ve got something the Flat Earthers have struggled to explain. You can't just say, "oh... the Earth orbiting the Sun can't be because the Earth isn't round... but a Sun circling overhead with no proven force keeping it on its circular orbit makes much more sense."

It's the same with the atmosphere. If the globe claim is that our pressurized atmosphere can remain, with no barrier, right beside a claimed vacuum, then again that claim needs to be proven, in this reality. Because we know that's not how gases and particles work on earth. Which is what we are talking about.

Your take on atmospheric pressure is confounding to say the least. First of all, you’ve stated that “space is FAKE”. So what are we talking about here? To begin with, we’re discussing something you’ve already dismissed as fake, so the argument begins with that asterisk. Ignoring that, air pressure is a gradient. We don’t have a pressurized atmosphere and then all of a sudden….. OOPS….. we’re in the vacuum of space….. where’s the vessel wall?? It’s a gradient. As such, you have gradually decreasing air pressure until there’s no pressure at all. What holds the atmosphere to the Earth? Yes….. gravity. Atmosphere contains air…. air molecules create pressure.

Your last post sounded like a sort of olive branch, so I'll take the higher road and refrain from the continued insults.

What you saw in my last post was an attempt to swerve the conversation from the pointless, endless, destructive tack is was taking. Someone had to stop the proceedings, right?