Is the earth flat?

[Beanz]

I am questioning the claims that were taught to all of us, it is the affirmative claim that we live on a globe. That is where the burden of proof lays.

So it's been 10 months and not one practical example of standing bodies of water naturally conforming to the exterior of a shape.

The physics of water are testable. The surface of a body of water will always be level.

Anyone want to provide a practical demonstration of the substance doing what they believe it can is welcome. Otherwise you are just pretending.

pseudoscience
/ˈsjuːdəʊˌsʌɪəns/
noun
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

You never addressed anything as per usual, just your same old phrase trotted out as deflection.

[Fatboxingfan]

It has occurred to me today that when a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Have you ever noticed the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon. The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident but Flat-~Brainers~ Earthers assume WRONGLY that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by "perspective". This "debunking" doesn't make much sense, as there's nothing about "perspective" that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.

And then there's THIS little inconvenient tid-bit: Aristotle figured out this one in 350 B.C., and as far as I have ever been able to tell, nothing's changed. Different constellations are visible from different latitudes. I can give 2 great examples are the Big Dipper and the Southern Cross. The Big Dipper is always visible at latitudes of 41 degrees North or higher. Below 25 degrees South, you can't see it at all. And in northern Australia, just north of that latitude, the Big Dipper just barely squeaks above the horizon. To make Flat-Earthers sweat their little derrieres off even worse, in the Southern Hemisphere, there's the Southern Cross, a bright four-star arrangement. That constellation isn't visible until you travel as far south as the Florida Keys in the Northern Hemisphere. These different stellar views make sense if you imagine the Earth as a globe, so that looking "up" really means looking toward a different sliver of space from the Southern or Northern hemisphere.

Oh and if we're still on Aristotle, he wrote (and we still have the text) during lunar eclipses, the Earth's shadow on the face of the sun is curved. I have repeatedly shown this to Alpha. Since this curved shape exists during all lunar eclipses, despite the fact that Earth is rotating, Aristotle correctly intuited from this curved shadow that the Earth is curvy all around — in other words, a sphere. For that matter, solar eclipses also prove the idea that the planets, moons and stars are a bunch of roundish objects orbiting each other. If the Earth is a disk and the stars and planets a bunch of small, nearby objects hovering in a dome above the surface, as many flat-Earthers believe, the total solar eclipse that crossed North America in August 2017 becomes very difficult to explain. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult.

Aaaaaaaaaand there's this: the curvature of the Earth limits our sight to about 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) … unless you climb up a tall tree, building or mountain and get yourself a perspective from higher up. You can see farther if you go higher. If the Earth was flat, you'd be able to see the same distance no matter your elevation. Think about it: Your eye can detect a bright object, like the Andromeda galaxy, from 2.6 million light-years away. Seeing the lights of, say, Miami from New York City (a distance of a mere 1,094 miles or 1,760 kilometers) on a clear evening should be child's play.

But it's not.

[Alpha]

It has occurred to me today that when a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Have you ever noticed the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon. The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident but Flat-~Brainers~ Earthers assume WRONGLY that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by "perspective". This "debunking" doesn't make much sense, as there's nothing about "perspective" that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.

And then there's THIS little inconvenient tid-bit: Aristotle figured out this one in 350 B.C., and as far as I have ever been able to tell, nothing's changed. Different constellations are visible from different latitudes. I can give 2 great examples are the Big Dipper and the Southern Cross. The Big Dipper is always visible at latitudes of 41 degrees North or higher. Below 25 degrees South, you can't see it at all. And in northern Australia, just north of that latitude, the Big Dipper just barely squeaks above the horizon. To make Flat-Earthers sweat their little derrieres off even worse, in the Southern Hemisphere, there's the Southern Cross, a bright four-star arrangement. That constellation isn't visible until you travel as far south as the Florida Keys in the Northern Hemisphere. These different stellar views make sense if you imagine the Earth as a globe, so that looking "up" really means looking toward a different sliver of space from the Southern or Northern hemisphere.

Oh and if we're still on Aristotle, he wrote (and we still have the text) during lunar eclipses, the Earth's shadow on the face of the sun is curved. I have repeatedly shown this to Alpha. Since this curved shape exists during all lunar eclipses, despite the fact that Earth is rotating, Aristotle correctly intuited from this curved shadow that the Earth is curvy all around — in other words, a sphere. For that matter, solar eclipses also prove the idea that the planets, moons and stars are a bunch of roundish objects orbiting each other. If the Earth is a disk and the stars and planets a bunch of small, nearby objects hovering in a dome above the surface, as many flat-Earthers believe, the total solar eclipse that crossed North America in August 2017 becomes very difficult to explain. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult.

Aaaaaaaaaand there's this: the curvature of the Earth limits our sight to about 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) … unless you climb up a tall tree, building or mountain and get yourself a perspective from higher up. You can see farther if you go higher. If the Earth was flat, you'd be able to see the same distance no matter your elevation. Think about it: Your eye can detect a bright object, like the Andromeda galaxy, from 2.6 million light-years away. Seeing the lights of, say, Miami from New York City (a distance of a mere 1,094 miles or 1,760 kilometers) on a clear evening should be child's play.

But it's not.

Should be easy for you then to provide a physical example of a standing body of water with the surface naturally bending.

[Beanz]

It has occurred to me today that when a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Have you ever noticed the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon. The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident but Flat-~Brainers~ Earthers assume WRONGLY that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by "perspective". This "debunking" doesn't make much sense, as there's nothing about "perspective" that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.

And then there's THIS little inconvenient tid-bit: Aristotle figured out this one in 350 B.C., and as far as I have ever been able to tell, nothing's changed. Different constellations are visible from different latitudes. I can give 2 great examples are the Big Dipper and the Southern Cross. The Big Dipper is always visible at latitudes of 41 degrees North or higher. Below 25 degrees South, you can't see it at all. And in northern Australia, just north of that latitude, the Big Dipper just barely squeaks above the horizon. To make Flat-Earthers sweat their little derrieres off even worse, in the Southern Hemisphere, there's the Southern Cross, a bright four-star arrangement. That constellation isn't visible until you travel as far south as the Florida Keys in the Northern Hemisphere. These different stellar views make sense if you imagine the Earth as a globe, so that looking "up" really means looking toward a different sliver of space from the Southern or Northern hemisphere.

Oh and if we're still on Aristotle, he wrote (and we still have the text) during lunar eclipses, the Earth's shadow on the face of the sun is curved. I have repeatedly shown this to Alpha. Since this curved shape exists during all lunar eclipses, despite the fact that Earth is rotating, Aristotle correctly intuited from this curved shadow that the Earth is curvy all around — in other words, a sphere. For that matter, solar eclipses also prove the idea that the planets, moons and stars are a bunch of roundish objects orbiting each other. If the Earth is a disk and the stars and planets a bunch of small, nearby objects hovering in a dome above the surface, as many flat-Earthers believe, the total solar eclipse that crossed North America in August 2017 becomes very difficult to explain. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult.

Aaaaaaaaaand there's this: the curvature of the Earth limits our sight to about 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) … unless you climb up a tall tree, building or mountain and get yourself a perspective from higher up. You can see farther if you go higher. If the Earth was flat, you'd be able to see the same distance no matter your elevation. Think about it: Your eye can detect a bright object, like the Andromeda galaxy, from 2.6 million light-years away. Seeing the lights of, say, Miami from New York City (a distance of a mere 1,094 miles or 1,760 kilometers) on a clear evening should be child's play.

But it's not.

Should be easy for you then to.

10 months is quite a long time but I thought you might have realized in that time that everyone was giving you a chance to explain yourself. People, quite unlike you , have been incredibly patient and gracious and, unlike you, have avoided strawman arguments and hilariously they have all avoided the trap you fell into from your very first post.

Circular reasoning.

Here you are still using the same logical fallacy. The pragmatic defect in your argument is that in order to prove the earth is flat you have to dismiss gravity and so you begin with what you are trying end with. So you start with the illusion that you can model the earth and that water is level because to YOU it looks level and HOORAY you think you have proved we can not be living on a sphere

When you ask for people to " provide a physical example of a standing body of water with the surface naturally bending" people are perplexed because it is a nonsense phrase. Water is defined by the very observable fact that it's very nature lies in it's innate flexibility. It bends and curves all the time, everyday, everywhere.







Looks like a physical example - photographed eyewitness account -of a standing body of water- the sea - with the surface naturally bending - a wave . It goes up and curves, but must always return down, because of gravity, the same force that keep it level and clinging to the outside of our sphere, in the absence of wind.



The sea sometimes looks level, precisely because we live on a sphere. It is being pulled down towards the centre of the earth. You can't see the curve because you are tiddly in comparison to the horizon and Earthly down will always be inward toward the centre. It is why things fall down toward the centre of the earth and why a spirit level is not level to the ground.

[Alpha]

It has occurred to me today that when a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Have you ever noticed the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon. The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident but Flat-~Brainers~ Earthers assume WRONGLY that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by "perspective". This "debunking" doesn't make much sense, as there's nothing about "perspective" that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.

And then there's THIS little inconvenient tid-bit: Aristotle figured out this one in 350 B.C., and as far as I have ever been able to tell, nothing's changed. Different constellations are visible from different latitudes. I can give 2 great examples are the Big Dipper and the Southern Cross. The Big Dipper is always visible at latitudes of 41 degrees North or higher. Below 25 degrees South, you can't see it at all. And in northern Australia, just north of that latitude, the Big Dipper just barely squeaks above the horizon. To make Flat-Earthers sweat their little derrieres off even worse, in the Southern Hemisphere, there's the Southern Cross, a bright four-star arrangement. That constellation isn't visible until you travel as far south as the Florida Keys in the Northern Hemisphere. These different stellar views make sense if you imagine the Earth as a globe, so that looking "up" really means looking toward a different sliver of space from the Southern or Northern hemisphere.

Oh and if we're still on Aristotle, he wrote (and we still have the text) during lunar eclipses, the Earth's shadow on the face of the sun is curved. I have repeatedly shown this to Alpha. Since this curved shape exists during all lunar eclipses, despite the fact that Earth is rotating, Aristotle correctly intuited from this curved shadow that the Earth is curvy all around — in other words, a sphere. For that matter, solar eclipses also prove the idea that the planets, moons and stars are a bunch of roundish objects orbiting each other. If the Earth is a disk and the stars and planets a bunch of small, nearby objects hovering in a dome above the surface, as many flat-Earthers believe, the total solar eclipse that crossed North America in August 2017 becomes very difficult to explain. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult.

Aaaaaaaaaand there's this: the curvature of the Earth limits our sight to about 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) … unless you climb up a tall tree, building or mountain and get yourself a perspective from higher up. You can see farther if you go higher. If the Earth was flat, you'd be able to see the same distance no matter your elevation. Think about it: Your eye can detect a bright object, like the Andromeda galaxy, from 2.6 million light-years away. Seeing the lights of, say, Miami from New York City (a distance of a mere 1,094 miles or 1,760 kilometers) on a clear evening should be child's play.

But it's not.

Should be easy for you then to.

10 months is quite a long time but I thought you might have realized in that time that everyone was giving you a chance to explain yourself. People, quite unlike you , have been incredibly patient and gracious and, unlike you, have avoided strawman arguments and hilariously they have all avoided the trap you fell into from your very first post.

Circular reasoning.

Here you are still using the same logical fallacy. The pragmatic defect in your argument is that in order to prove the earth is flat you have to dismiss gravity and so you begin with what you are trying end with. So you start with the illusion that you can model the earth and that water is level because to YOU it looks level and HOORAY you think you have proved we can not be living on a sphere

When you ask for people to " provide a physical example of a standing body of water with the surface naturally bending" people are perplexed because it is a nonsense phrase. Water is defined by the very observable fact that it's very nature lies in it's innate flexibility. It bends and curves all the time, everyday, everywhere.







Looks like a physical example - photographed eyewitness account -of a standing body of water- the sea - with the surface naturally bending - a wave . It goes up and curves, but must always return down, because of gravity, the same force that keep it level and clinging to the outside of our sphere, in the absence of wind.



The sea sometimes looks level, precisely because we live on a sphere. It is being pulled down towards the centre of the earth. You can't see the curve because you are tiddly in comparison to the horizon and Earthly down will always be inward toward the centre. It is why things fall down toward the centre of the earth and why a spirit level is not level to the ground.

Showing your intellectual dishonesty again Beanz. You are talking about waves, which is motion, not a standing body of water. Test the tangible substance. The physics will show you that the surface of a standing body of water will always be perfectly level. Now if you disagree, you need to practically demonstrate what you believe it does, using the tangible substance. Otherwise you are just dealing in pretend and psuedoscience.

[Fatboxingfan]

Is a soccer ball a sphere? Answer: (since you will not answer that or any other question @Beanz has castrated you with): YES, A SOCCER BALL IS A SPHERE.

Now imagine that soccer ball is the Earth then human beings would be smaller than the smallest possible pinpoint on that soccer ball and their vision would not be able to see more than 3.1 miles in any direction. Of course to them everything would look flat. But they cannot see the entire soccer ball because they are too small compared to the size of the soccer ball. That is why you believe the Earth is flat. Because you cannot see far enough with your own eyes. Telescopes will prove it but you won't admit it. You did not answer any of the points that I brought up about a ship who's h u l l disappears below the horizon first and then the mask of the ship last. And when the ship is returning towards you the mast will reappear first and then the hull of the ship after that. Go back and try to answer the four points that I burned you so badly with. Then go back and try to answer the points that Beanz has also grilled you mortally with.

Know what's funny?

We all know you won't answer any of them!

[Alpha]

Is a soccer ball a sphere? Answer: (since you will not answer that or any other question @Beanz has castrated you with): YES, A SOCCER BALL IS A SPHERE.

Now imagine that soccer ball is the Earth then human beings would be smaller than the smallest possible pinpoint on that soccer ball and their vision would not be able to see more than 3.1 miles in any direction. Of course to them everything would look flat. But they cannot see the entire soccer ball because they are too small compared to the size of the soccer ball. That is why you believe the Earth is flat. Because you cannot see far enough with your own eyes. Telescopes will prove it but you won't admit it. You did not answer any of the points that I brought up about a ship who's h u l l disappears below the horizon first and then the mask of the ship last. And when the ship is returning towards you the mast will reappear first and then the hull of the ship after that. Go back and try to answer the four points that I burned you so badly with. Then go back and try to answer the points that Beanz has also grilled you mortally with.

Know what's funny?

We all know you won't answer any of them!

So nothing practical as usual. I'm dealing with natural science. The physics of tangible substances. I already gave Tito a practical demonstation you can test for thing disapperaing from the bottom up a few posts ago. But of course you didn't read it.

What's funny is I'm still waiting on a practical demonstration. You know what psuedoscience is right?

[walrus]

The only thing he has now is water. He has had to drop the others. Then just throws insults. Water, insult, water, insult. He’s more slippery than a handful of water and I was always supporting my man alpha.

[Beanz]

It has occurred to me today that when a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Have you ever noticed the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon. The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident but Flat-~Brainers~ Earthers assume WRONGLY that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by "perspective". This "debunking" doesn't make much sense, as there's nothing about "perspective" that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.

And then there's THIS little inconvenient tid-bit: Aristotle figured out this one in 350 B.C., and as far as I have ever been able to tell, nothing's changed. Different constellations are visible from different latitudes. I can give 2 great examples are the Big Dipper and the Southern Cross. The Big Dipper is always visible at latitudes of 41 degrees North or higher. Below 25 degrees South, you can't see it at all. And in northern Australia, just north of that latitude, the Big Dipper just barely squeaks above the horizon. To make Flat-Earthers sweat their little derrieres off even worse, in the Southern Hemisphere, there's the Southern Cross, a bright four-star arrangement. That constellation isn't visible until you travel as far south as the Florida Keys in the Northern Hemisphere. These different stellar views make sense if you imagine the Earth as a globe, so that looking "up" really means looking toward a different sliver of space from the Southern or Northern hemisphere.

Oh and if we're still on Aristotle, he wrote (and we still have the text) during lunar eclipses, the Earth's shadow on the face of the sun is curved. I have repeatedly shown this to Alpha. Since this curved shape exists during all lunar eclipses, despite the fact that Earth is rotating, Aristotle correctly intuited from this curved shadow that the Earth is curvy all around — in other words, a sphere. For that matter, solar eclipses also prove the idea that the planets, moons and stars are a bunch of roundish objects orbiting each other. If the Earth is a disk and the stars and planets a bunch of small, nearby objects hovering in a dome above the surface, as many flat-Earthers believe, the total solar eclipse that crossed North America in August 2017 becomes very difficult to explain. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult.

Aaaaaaaaaand there's this: the curvature of the Earth limits our sight to about 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) … unless you climb up a tall tree, building or mountain and get yourself a perspective from higher up. You can see farther if you go higher. If the Earth was flat, you'd be able to see the same distance no matter your elevation. Think about it: Your eye can detect a bright object, like the Andromeda galaxy, from 2.6 million light-years away. Seeing the lights of, say, Miami from New York City (a distance of a mere 1,094 miles or 1,760 kilometers) on a clear evening should be child's play.

But it's not.

Should be easy for you then to.

10 months is quite a long time but I thought you might have realized in that time that everyone was giving you a chance to explain yourself. People, quite unlike you , have been incredibly patient and gracious and, unlike you, have avoided strawman arguments and hilariously they have all avoided the trap you fell into from your very first post.

Circular reasoning.

Here you are still using the same logical fallacy. The pragmatic defect in your argument is that in order to prove the earth is flat you have to dismiss gravity and so you begin with what you are trying end with. So you start with the illusion that you can model the earth and that water is level because to YOU it looks level and HOORAY you think you have proved we can not be living on a sphere

When you ask for people to " provide a physical example of a standing body of water with the surface naturally bending" people are perplexed because it is a nonsense phrase. Water is defined by the very observable fact that it's very nature lies in it's innate flexibility. It bends and curves all the time, everyday, everywhere.







Looks like a physical example - photographed eyewitness account -of a standing body of water- the sea - with the surface naturally bending - a wave . It goes up and curves, but must always return down, because of gravity, the same force that keep it level and clinging to the outside of our sphere, in the absence of wind.



The sea sometimes looks level, precisely because we live on a sphere. It is being pulled down towards the centre of the earth. You can't see the curve because you are tiddly in comparison to the horizon and Earthly down will always be inward toward the centre. It is why things fall down toward the centre of the earth and why a spirit level is not level to the ground.

Showing your intellectual dishonesty again Beanz. You are talking about waves, which is motion, not a standing body of water. Test the tangible substance. The physics will show you that the surface of a standing body of water will always be perfectly level. Now if you disagree, you need to practically demonstrate what you believe it does, using the tangible substance. Otherwise you are just dealing in pretend and psuedoscience.

The sea which is the exact thing YOU are talking about in your clinging to the surface bollocks. It is a standing body of water. Forces act upon it. It curves. It is in constant motion. The only the water that doesn't constantly move is ice. Your perfectly level illusion is not something you can demonstrate but because you are an impulsive liar you will not admit being unable to conform to your own criteria.

How does a spirit level work? Why does water flow down hills and mountains? Why do you insist on kidding yourself that any body of water on earth is perfectly level?

Do you even know the difference between level and flat?

How are you going to prove a standing body of water is perfectly level? You obviously can't use your eyes because if they were more reliable than instruments then craftsmen, tradesmen and engineers would still rely on them now to guess what is level. You can't use a spirit level because that relies on being perpendicular to the centre of the earth and only works because of gravity.

You can't use a laser because that measures flatness not whether something is level.

Nobody forced you to hang your entire theory on a fallacy you can not even demonstrate. Yet you think repeating it will make it true.

[Alpha]

Beanz, I have already defined level. It is your concept that is flawed and doesn't match reality. In reality, level doesn't mean curved.

You can test the tangible substance for yourself. The physics of the substance don't change. I can prove this using the scientific method, I can make predictions about the substance, test it, demonstrate it and repeat it.

All you need to do is practically demonstrate a standing body of water, showing the surface to be naturally bending.

You have already adimitted you can't, so we are done.

I've dealt with the likes of you for almost 4 years, so I don't care for the back and forth. Practically demonstrate what you believe to be true, using the tangible substances, because I don't deal in pretend.

[Andre]

It has occurred to me today that when a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Have you ever noticed the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon. The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident but Flat-~Brainers~ Earthers assume WRONGLY that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by "perspective". This "debunking" doesn't make much sense, as there's nothing about "perspective" that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.

And then there's THIS little inconvenient tid-bit: Aristotle figured out this one in 350 B.C., and as far as I have ever been able to tell, nothing's changed. Different constellations are visible from different latitudes. I can give 2 great examples are the Big Dipper and the Southern Cross. The Big Dipper is always visible at latitudes of 41 degrees North or higher. Below 25 degrees South, you can't see it at all. And in northern Australia, just north of that latitude, the Big Dipper just barely squeaks above the horizon. To make Flat-Earthers sweat their little derrieres off even worse, in the Southern Hemisphere, there's the Southern Cross, a bright four-star arrangement. That constellation isn't visible until you travel as far south as the Florida Keys in the Northern Hemisphere. These different stellar views make sense if you imagine the Earth as a globe, so that looking "up" really means looking toward a different sliver of space from the Southern or Northern hemisphere.

Oh and if we're still on Aristotle, he wrote (and we still have the text) during lunar eclipses, the Earth's shadow on the face of the sun is curved. I have repeatedly shown this to Alpha. Since this curved shape exists during all lunar eclipses, despite the fact that Earth is rotating, Aristotle correctly intuited from this curved shadow that the Earth is curvy all around — in other words, a sphere. For that matter, solar eclipses also prove the idea that the planets, moons and stars are a bunch of roundish objects orbiting each other. If the Earth is a disk and the stars and planets a bunch of small, nearby objects hovering in a dome above the surface, as many flat-Earthers believe, the total solar eclipse that crossed North America in August 2017 becomes very difficult to explain. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult.

Aaaaaaaaaand there's this: the curvature of the Earth limits our sight to about 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) … unless you climb up a tall tree, building or mountain and get yourself a perspective from higher up. You can see farther if you go higher. If the Earth was flat, you'd be able to see the same distance no matter your elevation. Think about it: Your eye can detect a bright object, like the Andromeda galaxy, from 2.6 million light-years away. Seeing the lights of, say, Miami from New York City (a distance of a mere 1,094 miles or 1,760 kilometers) on a clear evening should be child's play.

But it's not.

Should be easy for you then to provide a physical example of a standing body of water with the surface naturally bending.

Yep. Its called Planet Earth.

[Andre]

Id like a couple of answers on very basic questions if possible please.
Why is there a curved shadow of Earth on the moon during an eclipse if its flat?
How are there tides with water rising and falling across the (excuse the expression):globe,which are running west to east at perfectly defined timed but varying intervals due to the moon if its dead flat and the argument is that the water is dead flat or level along with it?

[walrus]

Id like a couple of answers on very basic questions if possible please.
Why is there a curved shadow of Earth on the moon during an eclipse if its flat?
How are there tides with water rising and falling across the (excuse the expression):globe,which are running west to east at perfectly defined timed but varying intervals due to the moon if its dead flat and the argument is that the water is dead flat or level along with it?

good luck Andre but this is no longer about asking questions and expecting to get an answer I guess you need to hold a round ball of water for him.

[Alpha]

Id like a couple of answers on very basic questions if possible please.
Why is there a curved shadow of Earth on the moon during an eclipse if its flat?
How are there tides with water rising and falling across the (excuse the expression):globe,which are running west to east at perfectly defined timed but varying intervals due to the moon if its dead flat and the argument is that the water is dead flat or level along with it?

Andre, by your post it is obvious that you haven’t bothered to look through the thread, there is a lot of information in here, especially regarding eclipses.

As for tides, I am happy to say I do not know what the actual cause is (I have my speculations: electromagnatism, temperature, nodes etc), but I know it is not the gravitational force of the moon. No lakes, of other bodies of water are affected. There are also amphidromic points (tidal node) locations all over that are not affected. You should do more research on tides.

If you would like to have a discussion, we would need to agree on first principles, to see where we agree and if there is any point in having a discussion.

So, could I ask:

Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

Anyway here’s a quick vid on eclipses:

[Fatboxingfan]

Made no sense at all.