Is the earth flat?

[TitoFan]

When you stare at the horizon, you do not look down, otherwise you would be staring at the ground. You stare out to the horizon, horizon meaning horizontal. Not down.

Please don't be patronizing. Otherwise we'll just go back to the insult-hurling you seem to enjoy. If I have to explain to you that there are certain degrees of "down" which can be broken down into infinitesimal portions of a degree, I'd rather really not continue this conversation.

Ships disappear because of perspective, when you see railway tracks disappearing to a vanishing point, or street lights getting smaller the further they go away from you, or a hallway, they are no getting smaller or disappearing over curvature, they are moving away from you.

You can't say in 1 post that the earth is so big we can't see any curvature, and then in another that we see ships go over the horizon, which you claim is curvature. If you are at the beach and see a ship go over your claimed horizon, if you fix that point where you claim it's going over the curvature, then rise to a higher altitude and view the horizon from there, the horizon will rise to your eye level ( I have also done this experiment 3 times at different locations, using a level at both heights). Now geometry dictates that this is not possible on a sphere. If the point you are claiming to is the curvature (horizon) where the ships are disappearing, then at a higher altitude, it is impossible for that point to rise up to the observers eye level.

A ship disappears over the horizon (or, if you prefer, just from view). If you were at the same spot, but then climbed up to a very tall building, you'd see that same ship you couldn't see from shore. Forget perspective. For every article that tries to explain that the Earth is flat and uses perspective to try and justify it, there's two others that use the same argument to debunk it. If the Earth was truly flat, you could use the most powerful telescopes available, and see the ship for hundreds and hundreds of miles. That won't happen, because of the curvature of the Earth. Speaking of visibility, I noticed you chose not to address my questioning your claim, or proof, of someone "seeing" mountains over 123 miles away as shown on an infrared video. I guess it's only YOU who can demand proof and question others assertions, but it doesn't work the other way around.

I never claimed density was a force. I said this fall down because that s the only direction and things fall because they are dense. Things that are more dense will fall faster because the air around them can't support them.

What does this even MEAN, Alpha?? Trying not to answer your condescension with my own, but it's quite tempting. For a self-avowed scholar, you certainly have a way with words. I'm not quite sure you're all that knowledgeable about forces, gravity, or acceleration, but we'll just leave it at that.

The sun follows a solstice. The Babylonians were fantastic astrologers, even to the point of being able to predict eclipses. They also believed the earth to be flat. I believe the sun and moon move around the earth. And as I have said, aside from our physical senses, the science now seems to realizing this as well. We don't really know what these are, apart from what the agencies and less than 500 people are telling us. I admit there are some issues with some of the models, but in saying that there are also issues with the heliocentric model. From what I have researched, it works better on a flat plane. Also like I have said previously, looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable of the ground beneath our feet. You and I will never go to space, and will probably never know anyone who has. We also can't get up there to move around 3 dimensionally to see how it all works. So it's all really observation, nothing we can experiment with.

Here's where it all falls apart for you. Once again, you DEMAND proof that water cannot possible adhere to a spinning globe..... but yet you spew forth a paragraph full of "black magic" and conjecture. Let's break it apart sentence by sentence.

"The sun follows a solstice." You look up the definition of "solstice" in the dictionary and there's nothing..... NOTHING.... that attaches it to a flat Earth theory.

"We really don't know what these are...." Oh wait a goddamn minute there. You mean to tell me you're gonna sit there and ridicule those who don't believe you, demanding proof of every single accepted scientific fact, only to turn around and tell us you "really don't know what these are"??!?? No bro..... you're not getting off the hook THAT easy.

"I admit there are some issues with some of the models...."

"From what I've researched, it works better on a flat plane."

"So it's really all observation, nothing we can experiment with."


I think I'm finally getting the gist of all this. In other words, WE are supposed to experiment and provide PROOF of OUR beliefs so that YOU'LL be satisfied..... but YOU can spew forth black magic, conjecture, and claim some things cannot be experimented with..... and THAT'S ok.

Got it.

I have stated space is fake as it's being sold to us. The claim is that it's a vacuum, unlike anything we can recreate on earth. So my question to you is how do you create pressure (like our pressurized atmosphere) without some sort of surface, membrane, barrier, container, whatever you want to call it? I understand that we are taught that the air pressure is a gradient, but it's still a higher pressure, even at it's lowest point than a vacuum. Now the laws of thermal dynamics state that hot will go the cold, and higher energy will go to low. This is a fact, and again is observable in everyday nature. Example, your cup of hot coffee, the hot goes to out into the cold. You will never see a cold cup of coffee turn hot. So firstly you need to answer how you can create pressure without a surface, and then explain how a higher pressure (even at it's lowest, is still more than a vacuum) does no disperse into the lower area. And again, with your claim of gravity, it' something we don't observe in nature. And you can't provide an experiment that proves it? Think about it, gravity is considered a weak force, think of a static balloon lifting up paper clips for example, but it's strong enough to hold trillions of gallons of water to the surface of earth, but not strong enough to pull say a sand fly to the surface as well.

I already explained this to you, but it doesn't matter, because you don't believe in gravity. If you don't believe in gravity, there is no point in my telling you about gravity holding the atmosphere to the Earth's surface, and that the pressure gradient as you go up in altitude makes perfect sense, until you get to the point where the pressure is negligible, and beyond that you've got increasing degrees of vacuum. Vacuum, by the way, is also a continuum. You don't go from positive air pressure to OOPS..... all of a sudden a perfect vacuum. For that, yes... you need a barrier.



Anyway, this has been rather pointless, to say the least. It degraded into insult-hurling, which I decided to stop, and can easily spiral back downward, which I won't be a part of. A word of advice. Lose the condescending, patronizing attitude and you'll avoid a lot of grief. Also, if you'd like to continue with the double standards (we have to submit proof..... you don't), then at least try to do so in a less transparent manner.

[TitoFan]

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.c...r-horizon.html


A blogger uses a ship at sea to prove the Earth's curvature. A Flat Earther smugly comments to the contrary and then gets summarily

Happens on a daily basis.

[walrus]

When you stare at the horizon, you do not look down, otherwise you would be staring at the ground. You stare out to the horizon, horizon meaning horizontal. Not down.

Please don't be patronizing. Otherwise we'll just go back to the insult-hurling you seem to enjoy. If I have to explain to you that there are certain degrees of "down" which can be broken down into infinitesimal portions of a degree, I'd rather really not continue this conversation.

Ships disappear because of perspective, when you see railway tracks disappearing to a vanishing point, or street lights getting smaller the further they go away from you, or a hallway, they are no getting smaller or disappearing over curvature, they are moving away from you.

You can't say in 1 post that the earth is so big we can't see any curvature, and then in another that we see ships go over the horizon, which you claim is curvature. If you are at the beach and see a ship go over your claimed horizon, if you fix that point where you claim it's going over the curvature, then rise to a higher altitude and view the horizon from there, the horizon will rise to your eye level ( I have also done this experiment 3 times at different locations, using a level at both heights). Now geometry dictates that this is not possible on a sphere. If the point you are claiming to is the curvature (horizon) where the ships are disappearing, then at a higher altitude, it is impossible for that point to rise up to the observers eye level.

A ship disappears over the horizon (or, if you prefer, just from view). If you were at the same spot, but then climbed up to a very tall building, you'd see that same ship you couldn't see from shore. Forget perspective. For every article that tries to explain that the Earth is flat and uses perspective to try and justify it, there's two others that use the same argument to debunk it. If the Earth was truly flat, you could use the most powerful telescopes available, and see the ship for hundreds and hundreds of miles. That won't happen, because of the curvature of the Earth. Speaking of visibility, I noticed you chose not to address my questioning your claim, or proof, of someone "seeing" mountains over 123 miles away as shown on an infrared video. I guess it's only YOU who can demand proof and question others assertions, but it doesn't work the other way around.

I never claimed density was a force. I said this fall down because that s the only direction and things fall because they are dense. Things that are more dense will fall faster because the air around them can't support them.

What does this even MEAN, Alpha?? Trying not to answer your condescension with my own, but it's quite tempting. For a self-avowed scholar, you certainly have a way with words. I'm not quite sure you're all that knowledgeable about forces, gravity, or acceleration, but we'll just leave it at that.

The sun follows a solstice. The Babylonians were fantastic astrologers, even to the point of being able to predict eclipses. They also believed the earth to be flat. I believe the sun and moon move around the earth. And as I have said, aside from our physical senses, the science now seems to realizing this as well. We don't really know what these are, apart from what the agencies and less than 500 people are telling us. I admit there are some issues with some of the models, but in saying that there are also issues with the heliocentric model. From what I have researched, it works better on a flat plane. Also like I have said previously, looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable of the ground beneath our feet. You and I will never go to space, and will probably never know anyone who has. We also can't get up there to move around 3 dimensionally to see how it all works. So it's all really observation, nothing we can experiment with.

Here's where it all falls apart for you. Once again, you DEMAND proof that water cannot possible adhere to a spinning globe..... but yet you spew forth a paragraph full of "black magic" and conjecture. Let's break it apart sentence by sentence.

"The sun follows a solstice." You look up the definition of "solstice" in the dictionary and there's nothing..... NOTHING.... that attaches it to a flat Earth theory.

"We really don't know what these are...." Oh wait a goddamn minute there. You mean to tell me you're gonna sit there and ridicule those who don't believe you, demanding proof of every single accepted scientific fact, only to turn around and tell us you "really don't know what these are"??!?? No bro..... you're not getting off the hook THAT easy.

"I admit there are some issues with some of the models...."

"From what I've researched, it works better on a flat plane."

"So it's really all observation, nothing we can experiment with."


I think I'm finally getting the gist of all this. In other words, WE are supposed to experiment and provide PROOF of OUR beliefs so that YOU'LL be satisfied..... but YOU can spew forth black magic, conjecture, and claim some things cannot be experimented with..... and THAT'S ok.

Got it.

I have stated space is fake as it's being sold to us. The claim is that it's a vacuum, unlike anything we can recreate on earth. So my question to you is how do you create pressure (like our pressurized atmosphere) without some sort of surface, membrane, barrier, container, whatever you want to call it? I understand that we are taught that the air pressure is a gradient, but it's still a higher pressure, even at it's lowest point than a vacuum. Now the laws of thermal dynamics state that hot will go the cold, and higher energy will go to low. This is a fact, and again is observable in everyday nature. Example, your cup of hot coffee, the hot goes to out into the cold. You will never see a cold cup of coffee turn hot. So firstly you need to answer how you can create pressure without a surface, and then explain how a higher pressure (even at it's lowest, is still more than a vacuum) does no disperse into the lower area. And again, with your claim of gravity, it' something we don't observe in nature. And you can't provide an experiment that proves it? Think about it, gravity is considered a weak force, think of a static balloon lifting up paper clips for example, but it's strong enough to hold trillions of gallons of water to the surface of earth, but not strong enough to pull say a sand fly to the surface as well.

I already explained this to you, but it doesn't matter, because you don't believe in gravity. If you don't believe in gravity, there is no point in my telling you about gravity holding the atmosphere to the Earth's surface, and that the pressure gradient as you go up in altitude makes perfect sense, until you get to the point where the pressure is negligible, and beyond that you've got increasing degrees of vacuum. Vacuum, by the way, is also a continuum. You don't go from positive air pressure to OOPS..... all of a sudden a perfect vacuum. For that, yes... you need a barrier.



Anyway, this has been rather pointless, to say the least. It degraded into insult-hurling, which I decided to stop, and can easily spiral back downward, which I won't be a part of. A word of advice. Lose the condescending, patronizing attitude and you'll avoid a lot of grief. Also, if you'd like to continue with the double standards (we have to submit proof..... you don't), then at least try to do so in a less transparent manner.

I would ask that you continue. As beanz pointed out previous this place has been lame since beanz ban was lifted. We need to step up the interactions

[TitoFan]

When you stare at the horizon, you do not look down, otherwise you would be staring at the ground. You stare out to the horizon, horizon meaning horizontal. Not down.

Please don't be patronizing. Otherwise we'll just go back to the insult-hurling you seem to enjoy. If I have to explain to you that there are certain degrees of "down" which can be broken down into infinitesimal portions of a degree, I'd rather really not continue this conversation.

Ships disappear because of perspective, when you see railway tracks disappearing to a vanishing point, or street lights getting smaller the further they go away from you, or a hallway, they are no getting smaller or disappearing over curvature, they are moving away from you.

You can't say in 1 post that the earth is so big we can't see any curvature, and then in another that we see ships go over the horizon, which you claim is curvature. If you are at the beach and see a ship go over your claimed horizon, if you fix that point where you claim it's going over the curvature, then rise to a higher altitude and view the horizon from there, the horizon will rise to your eye level ( I have also done this experiment 3 times at different locations, using a level at both heights). Now geometry dictates that this is not possible on a sphere. If the point you are claiming to is the curvature (horizon) where the ships are disappearing, then at a higher altitude, it is impossible for that point to rise up to the observers eye level.

A ship disappears over the horizon (or, if you prefer, just from view). If you were at the same spot, but then climbed up to a very tall building, you'd see that same ship you couldn't see from shore. Forget perspective. For every article that tries to explain that the Earth is flat and uses perspective to try and justify it, there's two others that use the same argument to debunk it. If the Earth was truly flat, you could use the most powerful telescopes available, and see the ship for hundreds and hundreds of miles. That won't happen, because of the curvature of the Earth. Speaking of visibility, I noticed you chose not to address my questioning your claim, or proof, of someone "seeing" mountains over 123 miles away as shown on an infrared video. I guess it's only YOU who can demand proof and question others assertions, but it doesn't work the other way around.

I never claimed density was a force. I said this fall down because that s the only direction and things fall because they are dense. Things that are more dense will fall faster because the air around them can't support them.

What does this even MEAN, Alpha?? Trying not to answer your condescension with my own, but it's quite tempting. For a self-avowed scholar, you certainly have a way with words. I'm not quite sure you're all that knowledgeable about forces, gravity, or acceleration, but we'll just leave it at that.

The sun follows a solstice. The Babylonians were fantastic astrologers, even to the point of being able to predict eclipses. They also believed the earth to be flat. I believe the sun and moon move around the earth. And as I have said, aside from our physical senses, the science now seems to realizing this as well. We don't really know what these are, apart from what the agencies and less than 500 people are telling us. I admit there are some issues with some of the models, but in saying that there are also issues with the heliocentric model. From what I have researched, it works better on a flat plane. Also like I have said previously, looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable of the ground beneath our feet. You and I will never go to space, and will probably never know anyone who has. We also can't get up there to move around 3 dimensionally to see how it all works. So it's all really observation, nothing we can experiment with.

Here's where it all falls apart for you. Once again, you DEMAND proof that water cannot possible adhere to a spinning globe..... but yet you spew forth a paragraph full of "black magic" and conjecture. Let's break it apart sentence by sentence.

"The sun follows a solstice." You look up the definition of "solstice" in the dictionary and there's nothing..... NOTHING.... that attaches it to a flat Earth theory.

"We really don't know what these are...." Oh wait a goddamn minute there. You mean to tell me you're gonna sit there and ridicule those who don't believe you, demanding proof of every single accepted scientific fact, only to turn around and tell us you "really don't know what these are"??!?? No bro..... you're not getting off the hook THAT easy.

"I admit there are some issues with some of the models...."

"From what I've researched, it works better on a flat plane."

"So it's really all observation, nothing we can experiment with."


I think I'm finally getting the gist of all this. In other words, WE are supposed to experiment and provide PROOF of OUR beliefs so that YOU'LL be satisfied..... but YOU can spew forth black magic, conjecture, and claim some things cannot be experimented with..... and THAT'S ok.

Got it.

I have stated space is fake as it's being sold to us. The claim is that it's a vacuum, unlike anything we can recreate on earth. So my question to you is how do you create pressure (like our pressurized atmosphere) without some sort of surface, membrane, barrier, container, whatever you want to call it? I understand that we are taught that the air pressure is a gradient, but it's still a higher pressure, even at it's lowest point than a vacuum. Now the laws of thermal dynamics state that hot will go the cold, and higher energy will go to low. This is a fact, and again is observable in everyday nature. Example, your cup of hot coffee, the hot goes to out into the cold. You will never see a cold cup of coffee turn hot. So firstly you need to answer how you can create pressure without a surface, and then explain how a higher pressure (even at it's lowest, is still more than a vacuum) does no disperse into the lower area. And again, with your claim of gravity, it' something we don't observe in nature. And you can't provide an experiment that proves it? Think about it, gravity is considered a weak force, think of a static balloon lifting up paper clips for example, but it's strong enough to hold trillions of gallons of water to the surface of earth, but not strong enough to pull say a sand fly to the surface as well.

I already explained this to you, but it doesn't matter, because you don't believe in gravity. If you don't believe in gravity, there is no point in my telling you about gravity holding the atmosphere to the Earth's surface, and that the pressure gradient as you go up in altitude makes perfect sense, until you get to the point where the pressure is negligible, and beyond that you've got increasing degrees of vacuum. Vacuum, by the way, is also a continuum. You don't go from positive air pressure to OOPS..... all of a sudden a perfect vacuum. For that, yes... you need a barrier.



Anyway, this has been rather pointless, to say the least. It degraded into insult-hurling, which I decided to stop, and can easily spiral back downward, which I won't be a part of. A word of advice. Lose the condescending, patronizing attitude and you'll avoid a lot of grief. Also, if you'd like to continue with the double standards (we have to submit proof..... you don't), then at least try to do so in a less transparent manner.

I would ask that you continue. As beanz pointed out previous this place has been lame since beanz ban was lifted. We need to step up the interactions

Can we pick something more rooted in reality? How about nonbinary? That topic will always be good for a spirited tussle.

[Alpha]

Tito I wasn't trying to be patronizing. Only stating that when looking out across to the horizon, I myself tend to look straight ahead. If you look down at any other angle than level, that's fine, but it makes it very hard to measure and record the angle you are looking at. When I make my observations with my camera I use a level and a tube, so I can accurately measure that it is actually level across the water of ground.

We'll have to agree to disagree on perspective. Although I disagree that it has been debunked. As you get higher you are changing the angle you are viewing from. Think about the experiment I mentioned, where you place your camera on the ground of say a football field or warehouse floor, then get someone to walk away from it. You will see them disappearing from the bottom up. Now we know they are not going over any curve, just out of our perspective. If you started rising the camera up, you will see more of the person comes back into view.

We can only see so far. Even with camera's or telescopes. Plus you need to add in things like the atmosphere and also things in the way. Stand out on your street and try to see 3 or 4 streets over. You will generally have other houses or trees in the way making that very difficult. It's the same with the earth. It has hills and valleys, plus the atmosphere, that makes it only possible to see so far.

You claimed we couldn't use the vids the show infrared footage over a 123 distance. So I left it out, because, you are right, I hadn't done that particular experiment myself. But I have done my own experiments and observations over the 11 mile distance, where I can see things that should be hidden by curvature. And again, you can go out and do some of these observations for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it. You can actually try and test and repeat your own observations. Real empirical evidence you can produce yourself.

You also failed to address that you claimed the earth is so big that we can't see any curvature in one post, but are able to see it going over the horizon at what 20 odd miles I think you said. And the fact that if you fixed that point where you claim it's the curvature the boat is going over, and went to a higher altitude, that that point couldn't rise up to your eye level, as the horizon does, because as geometry dictates, that point you claiming is curving, would continue to curve down, making it impossible for the horizon to rise to your eye level. I have mentioned this experiment before. I have done it myself at different locations.

Things fall because they are dense, is all it means. I can't explain that any simpler. We know what density is. And it's quantifiable. Basically the air particles can't support things that are denser than the air surrounding it, so the fall through the air to the ground. I know they fall at 9.81 m/s, but it has nothing to do with gravity, it's all about the density of an object.

If you want to claim that I can't use vids because I haven't done the experiments for myself, then the same goes for you and the luminaries. Have you been into the sky with the planets, sun and moon? The truth is we really have no idea what they are. Looking at them through a good quality telescopes, they look like pulsing lights, nothing like the CGI that NASA and other space agencies are selling you. And again, take a look for yourself, and see if what you are seeing is the same as what you are being presented. You don't have to take my word for it.

And yes, from my observations, the luminaries seem to work better on a flat plane, for example all the star trails circling Polaris, you can time lapse this for yourself. The fact that if we were hurtling through space, we should be seeing different stars every 6 months or so. But the fact remains, looking at the sky gives us nothing quantifiable for the ground beneath our feet.

Ok so can you give me 1 practical example of gravity holding our atmosphere to the earth?

Also a practical example of a gradient vacuum, beside a gradient air pressure?

You also failed to address how you can create pressure without a barrier of some sort.

I'm not sure why you are taking things so personally. I am only challenging the claims of the globe.

We are talking about objective reality.

You yourself have admitted that you can't give me a practical example of gravity. We don't observe mass attracting mass anywhere in nature.

We know we need a barrier or container to create pressure.

There is no measurable curvature.

The motion of the earth has never been detected.

We know how the natural physics of water work, and that it can't conform to the exterior of a shape.

You decide to stop throwing insults, after throwing the last insults. I was the 1 that took the higher road. I'm not sure what you mean by double standards. You can't accept my word or vids, but you can test these for yourself. Again I don't see how looking the the sky gives us anything measurable of the claimed curvature, or motion, or shows how water can conform to the exterior of a shape, or shows how we can have a pressurized system without a barrier.

You claim stuff to be scientific fact, all I'm asking is for it to be shown how they proved it. Remember the sciences. Reality was here before language. The formal sciences are a tool only. Did they use demonstrable, observable, testable, repeatable experiments to prove these things? If so then all I'm asking is to be shown these. I think you'll find they didn't. We don't observe mass attracting to mass in nature, so I would like to see the experiment that proves this. What demonstrable, observable, testable, repeatable experiment did Einstein use to disprove the ether, for his theory of relativity to work?

I couldn't care less if you wanted to continue or not. I never wanted to start this thread, but since it's here I'll post information, in case someone else is curious about the claims of the globe. As I have mentioned, Youtube and Google are already censoring the subject, and it can be hard to find relevant information.

Like I have said from the beginning, I'm not trying to convince anyone, just posting what I know to be true from actual Natural scientific experiments.

[TitoFan]

Well now you’re sounding like your old, calmer self. Good.

I’m glad you’re not trying to convince anyone and frankly, I’m not trying to convince you. My whole point has been that there is a better way to conduct an argument than saying… “I’m right and you’re wrong. My research is the only one that counts, and the rest of you are sheep for following what you’ve been taught.” It starts things off on the wrong foot. The fact of the matter is no… neither nor I have ever been to space, and cannot say firsthand we’ve seen the shape of the Earth in person.

As for your experiments, you’ll claim they are binding and representative of what holds true for the entire Earth, and others will say there are flaws in those assumptions. That other factors, such as physics of scale, must be considered. But that’s neither here nor there. Not wanting to start another argument. Just saying that everyone’s opinions are valid, even ours.

Arguments of yours I can sympathize with? The one about water staying on a spherical surface… I can see where that would give people pause. Saying gravity holds the oceans to the surface doesn’t seem to impress everybody. But the rest of it? I tried explaining how air pressure is a gradient and gradually goes down as you go into space, to the point where it becomes a vacuum, which in itself is a gradient. You know… partial vacuums vs. perfect vacuums.

The luminaries, as you call them, is another area where I just see too many holes. You yourself struggle to explain how two celestial bodies can just gyrate in circles above the center of the Earth without any explanation as to the forces that keep them in those circling patterns. But again, since you don’t believe in gravity, a lot of things just fall by the wayside (pardon the pun). If the force keeping those bodies from flying off in linear fashion comes from the Earth itself, then where exactly does if come from? It’s easier for most of us to imagine a sphere where gravity comes from the center of said sphere, than a mysterious force equally distributed across a flat plane. Your previous post did nothing to either explain this, or convince anyone of its veracity.

Try to keep in mind that most doubters you’ll encounter are not just some yo-yo’s who can’t think for themselves. Some of us have technical backgrounds, and are as much into experimentation and facts as you are. You don’t have a monopoly on gray matter, Alpha.

I think you’re the one who’s taking things personally, and I don’t blame you. Claiming 9/11 was an inside job is one thing. No one is going to ridicule you for that. They may disagree vehemently… but they won’t ridicule you because no one has any proof to the contrary. Claiming the Earth is flat is quite another ball…. er….. slab of wax altogether.

[Alpha]

Well now you’re sounding like your old, calmer self. Good.

I’m glad you’re not trying to convince anyone and frankly, I’m not trying to convince you. My whole point has been that there is a better way to conduct an argument than saying… “I’m right and you’re wrong. My research is the only one that counts, and the rest of you are sheep for following what you’ve been taught.” It starts things off on the wrong foot. The fact of the matter is no… neither nor I have ever been to space, and cannot say firsthand we’ve seen the shape of the Earth in person.

As for your experiments, you’ll claim they are binding and representative of what holds true for the entire Earth, and others will say there are flaws in those assumptions. That other factors, such as physics of scale, must be considered. But that’s neither here nor there. Not wanting to start another argument. Just saying that everyone’s opinions are valid, even ours.

Arguments of yours I can sympathize with? The one about water staying on a spherical surface… I can see where that would give people pause. Saying gravity holds the oceans to the surface doesn’t seem to impress everybody. But the rest of it? I tried explaining how air pressure is a gradient and gradually goes down as you go into space, to the point where it becomes a vacuum, which in itself is a gradient. You know… partial vacuums vs. perfect vacuums.

The luminaries, as you call them, is another area where I just see too many holes. You yourself struggle to explain how two celestial bodies can just gyrate in circles above the center of the Earth without any explanation as to the forces that keep them in those circling patterns. But again, since you don’t believe in gravity, a lot of things just fall by the wayside (pardon the pun). If the force keeping those bodies from flying off in linear fashion comes from the Earth itself, then where exactly does if come from? It’s easier for most of us to imagine a sphere where gravity comes from the center of said sphere, than a mysterious force equally distributed across a flat plane. Your previous post did nothing to either explain this, or convince anyone of its veracity.

Try to keep in mind that most doubters you’ll encounter are not just some yo-yo’s who can’t think for themselves. Some of us have technical backgrounds, and are as much into experimentation and facts as you are. You don’t have a monopoly on gray matter, Alpha.

I think you’re the one who’s taking things personally, and I don’t blame you. Claiming 9/11 was an inside job is one thing. No one is going to ridicule you for that. They may disagree vehemently… but they won’t ridicule you because no one has any proof to the contrary. Claiming the Earth is flat is quite another ball…. er….. slab of wax altogether.

I have always been calm, just wanted to show that insults against each other are irrelevant. There are no emotions involved in this for me, in my opinion objective reality is not up for debate. But insulting intelligence, rather than attacking the argument is pointless. I have been at this for 3 years. And for the better, now actually understand how the heliocentric model works. Before getting into questioning the globe claims, I don't think I ever questioned it once, like most I guess. I've not trying to say I'm right and others are wrong, I'm saying that actual empirical natural scientific experiments prove things in this reality.

I suppose that when I say sheep or brainwashed, I am really referring to myself back then, not meaning others. I find it hard to believe how easily I was fooled by the propaganda and pseudoscience for so long, without every questioning the globe.

Anyone is free to say there are flaws in my experiments. That's what experiments are for. But if they are claiming they are wrong, then obviously I will expect a practical demonstration showing the opposite of my results. And the great thing about natural science is that everyone should be able to demonstrate, observe, test and repeat the same experiments, producing the same results. We are all scientists really.

So if someone claims water can conform to the exterior of a shape, I will expect a practical demonstration of that.

Again with gravity, we don't observe it anywhere in nature, and there is no practical demonstration that can be observed of mass attracting to mass.

You did try explaining air pressure, but again didn't explain how we can have that pressure without some sort of barrier. I'm not claiming a dome or anything, but I do know that we need some sort of container or surface to create pressure.

Also if the claim is that gravity (that we can't prove with a practical demonstration) is whats holding the atmosphere to the earth, then again I would expect a practical demonstration of this.

And also a practical demonstration of this gradient atmosphere, beside this claimed gradient vacuum, without any barrier. We know by the laws of thermal dynamics that hot will always go to cold, and a higher energy (pressure) will always go to a low energy (pressure).

If the claim is that the earth is moving, then again, a practical demonstration would be required to show this. This has never been done.

And if the claim is the the earth is curving, in the shape of a sphere, the we should be able to quantify and measure this.

So I hope you can see where a lot of this becomes belief and pseudoscience, rather than actual science.

You shouldn't have to believe in gravity, it should be able to be proven by a scientific experiment. I call them luminaries because they look more like balls of light to me through a telescope. Like I said we have never been up there, and can only rely on what we see for ourselves vs the agencies, who like those in the scientific community have a agenda to protect. It's their livelihood. I don't know what they are exactly, but claiming that gravity (again a force we can't observe in the natural world, or provide a practical demonstration for) doesn't prove what they are or why they do what they do. I ask myself if gravity is real then why doesn't the moon move fast on it's cycle when it's closest to the sun? Surely the Suns mass would be pulling it towards it, making it's speed increase. But again, looking at the sky doesn't give us anything to measure this claimed curvature of the globe.

I have never claimed to have a monopoly on gray matter, I have always encouraged others to do their own research and experiments. But like I have said with the sciences, only natural science uses empirical evidence, tangible, quantifiable substances. Formal sciences are languages, created by man to assist as a tool, and aren't real scientific experiments.

The scientific community should be jumping all over this. Isn't that what science is. Observing, testing, demonstrating, repeating. And it should be repeatable by everyone, not just 'their' peers. Instead they prefer to focus on the formal side of science, creating things like dark energy and dark matter, because, funnily enough 'gravity' only works in our solar system.

But take sometime, a few days, a couple of weeks, I've been at it 3 years and am still learning things. But I highly recommend researching how some of these things like gravity were proved. And see if you agree that it was done with actual scientific experiments, or just pseudoscience. Either way you'll learn more about the heliocentric model, that for some reason or another, most of us seem oblivious to, until the questions are presented to us.

I'll leave a vid below in case anyone is interested in gravity vs density:

[TitoFan]

You provide more questions than answers, Alpha. You see that, don’t you? Give me a practical demonstration of water adhering to a spherical shape. Give me a practical demonstration of gravity. Give me a practical demonstration of the heliocentric model of the Earth, Sun and Moon.

What about you? Give ME a demonstration of a celestial body circling above a flat plane without any explicable forces keeping it in such a rotation. If the Earth is flat, what is its shape? Please don’t tell me you don’t know or don’t care. Give me alternatives. A sphere is a sphere is a sphere. You can walk around it, sail around it, fly around it. Explain the geometry of the flat Earth. Explain why and what holds the Sun and Moon in their respective circles above the flat Earth. Explain how it’s night and day simultaneously in different parts of the Earth. I’m sorry, but the animations I’ve seen don’t quite cut it. At least with the heliocentric model, gravity explains everything. Gravity holds the atmosphere against the surface of the Earth. Gravity holds the oceans against the surface of the Earth. Gravity holds the Moon in orbit.

Demonstration of gravity? Sorry… fresh out. I can’t conjure up a mass of 5.9 x 10²⁴ kg in order to replicate the effects of gravity. Anything other than that, we’re fooling ourselves. Let’s go back to air pressure again, because you insist on the barrier. And I’m sorry, but the key here is gravity, which you don’t believe in. Gravity is the key to the whole show, I’m afraid. If you WERE to believe in gravity, I would tell you that because gravity holds the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth, the air pressure is greatest at sea level. As you go up in altitude, this pressure gradually decreases, due to the lesser quantity of air molecules present. At some point, you go from zero pressure and cross over into what is known as a partial vacuum, which as you go further into space, becomes a deeper, or stronger vacuum. Why don’t the air molecules in the pressured area drift or move to the lesser pressured area? There’s that dreaded G-word again….. gravity. The force of gravity overcomes the forces that would move the air from a higher pressure area to a lower pressure area. The container, barrier, whatever you want to call it? The surface of the Earth. That is the "wall" the air is pressed up against. I'm sorry... that's the best I can do.

Gravity’s the key to the whole thing. But you don’t believe in it. You believe objects fall to the ground because of density. Tell me… how dense is the Sun and the Moon? Shouldn’t they come crashing down to the surface of the Earth? I can’t think of much denser objects than the Sun, can you?

You see…. If you want to convince round Earthers that they’re wrong, you’ve got to have alternative truths to prove to them. You just can’t say water doesn’t conform to a sphere and expect to leave it at that. A round Earth model needs no “end”…. no “edge”. Again, you can go around it endlessly. If it’s flat, where does it end? That question cannot be left unanswered. Otherwise, you’re just questioning things without an alternative.

The circling of the Sun and Moon is a big deal here. The heliocentric model explains night and day. Flat Earthers models don’t. And if they attempt to, it’s shoddy and unbelievable.