Proof the Earth is round

  • Thread starter Thread starter 311boogieman
  • Start date Start date
VonBonfire said:
Oh NOW you're gonna resort to talking about how the roman catholic church has something right. You'd quote bozo the clown if you thought it helped your argument. :LOL:
Click to expand...
Even a broken clock's correct twice a day. :dunno:

Besides, you should well know that the Bible teaches not to pre-judge information based on its source.

Jesus himself was prejudged based on where he was born.

Bad Brain said:
Do you have examples we can scrutinize of anyone doing this?
Click to expand...
Not pinpoint-precise but there's a shedload of attempts to circumnavigate the globe on-record.

Aside from that flight paths can be "added-up". Pick one that heads east, then another, then another until you sendup back where you started.

Bad Brain said:
Yeah it is circumference divided by 24, although it is probably more complicated to get the intervals approaching the poles, where it goes to zero.
Click to expand...
That's prolly why such measurements have always been made at the equator.

Anywho, another question to the thread I think I asked earlier:
If it's not a globe, where're the edges? Why aren't there any pics of them?

The video above mentions the question but fails to provide an answer, just that if peeps ask this, they haven't done sufficient research.

I'd love to see an answer. I'm guessing they'd say that there aren't any edges? Curious as to what shape it'd have to be.
 
Oops... forgot to add this quote:

Bad Brain said:
Honestly it would be easier to just ask a few engineers whether they account for earth's curvature.
Click to expand...
Logic would dictate that it's a speed and / or scale issue.

In the vast majority of cases the margin of error would fall well within, for example, construction tolerances.
 
Monkey Man said:
Logic would dictate that it's a speed and / or scale issue.
Click to expand...
1750055089872.png
 
VonBonfire said:
then it seems logically possible that the globe earth model is also generated from an optical distortion of a different nature not yet discovered
Click to expand...
The problem is that is too hand-wavy. A lot of work has been put into measuring and characterizing how light behaves in different conditions, etc., including the conditions in our atmosphere. For you to get the sort of effect you're talking about, it's almost certain* that you would have to directly contradict established observations, in severity about the same as observing that "when I turn my flashlight on it shines darkness." It's not simply a matter of "we haven't looked in this corner yet, or made an approximation that was wrong." Not to mention everything else that contradicts a flat earth outside optics.

At any rate though, if you choose to interpret the evidence as it stands as "wrong in some way that I don't know and can't explain but take on faith that it is wrong" that is a different matter than I'm here to discuss at the moment. I'm focused on the numerous statements you make about the state of the empirical evidence, as that's separate from religious issues or beliefs about what the evidence should show. Things like "it's a fact that there are scientific issues with globe earth" or stuff about how navigation and curvature works (e.g. that video you posted), or optics, etc.

*quibbles about the nature of certainty put aside for now, as I'm only focusing on the evidence as we have it. I think you're mistaken in your interpretation of scientific progress, but that is a different topic and doesn't enter in to the question of whether the statements you make about the soundness of our current evidence hold water.
 
I've had people in the US facetime/skype me in Australia when it's night here and day in the US and vise versa. How would you explain that with a flat earth.
 
7704A said:
The problem is that is too hand-wavy. A lot of work has been put into measuring and characterizing how light behaves in different conditions, etc., including the conditions in our atmosphere. For you to get the sort of effect you're talking about, it's almost certain* that you would have to directly contradict established observations, in severity about the same as observing that "when I turn my flashlight on it shines darkness." It's not simply a matter of "we haven't looked in this corner yet, or made an approximation that was wrong." Not to mention everything else that contradicts a flat earth outside optics.

At any rate though, if you choose to interpret the evidence as it stands as "wrong in some way that I don't know and can't explain but take on faith that it is wrong" that is a different matter than I'm here to discuss at the moment. I'm focused on the numerous statements you make about the state of the empirical evidence, as that's separate from religious issues or beliefs about what the evidence should show. Things like "it's a fact that there are scientific issues with globe earth" or stuff about how navigation and curvature works (e.g. that video you posted), or optics, etc.

*quibbles about the nature of certainty put aside for now, as I'm only focusing on the evidence as we have it. I think you're mistaken in your interpretation of scientific progress, but that is a different topic and doesn't enter in to the question of whether the statements you make about the soundness of our current evidence hold water.
Click to expand...
You've only had time for a few posts in this thread. Everyone else here is repeating stuff they heard in a classroom. I'm not going to believe something just because it was presented as gospel truth in a public school cause my experiences outside that environment run in contradiction to most of what is taught there. .

If someone I know and respect presents some basic things that I can look into myself that's different. A few good questions I have that you might be able to assist me with is:

1) how can water curve? Why does a zoom lens somehow overcome a ship disappearing miles out behind a supposed curve of water?

2) s the actual calculation of earth's curve 8 inches per mile squared? There seems to be a lot of debate around the exacting formula and as to whether a bridge builder or tunnel digger would need to take that into equation in the planning phase. No one here seems to be an engineer or architect.

3) Coriolis effect. A sharpshooter has to make a correction at long ranges for the supposed spinning of the earth. Or is that related to earth's pull or something? I was reading pilots or flight path planners also have to arrange their flight path as a result? We are told that we can't feel it, ok, but when I jump in the air and come straight down technically I have actually moved a miniscule amount then? And taking that further, if I jumped up and down enough eventually I'd be at the end of my driveway due to earth spinning beneath my feet as the cumulative amount added up over time spent suspended between earth and sky?
 
View attachment 403864
Monkey Man said:
Not pinpoint-precise but there's a shedload of attempts to circumnavigate the globe on-record.

Aside from that flight paths can be "added-up". Pick one that heads east, then another, then another until you sendup back where you started.
Click to expand...
It's the north-south circumnavigation that would be impossible on a flat earth. Easterly travel continually following a compass oriented to magnetic north pole just takes one in a circle, like this:

ezgif.gif


Here is Magellan's voyage:

magellans-voyage-route-3115647868.jpg


And again:

1.jpg


Monkey Man said:
Anywho, another question to the thread I think I asked earlier:
If it's not a globe, where're the edges? Why aren't there any pics of them?

The video above mentions the question but fails to provide an answer, just that if peeps ask this, they haven't done sufficient research.

I'd love to see an answer. I'm guessing they'd say that there aren't any edges? Curious as to what shape it'd have to be.
Click to expand...
The video asked that if we can accept space doesn't have a boundary, why do we require that earth have a boundary? But I'm with you, I'd be curious as well.
 
Bad Brain said:
It's the north-south circumnavigation that would be impossible on a flat earth. Easterly travel continually following a compass oriented to magnetic north pole just takes one in a circle, like this:
Click to expand...

And several people have made a north-south transglobal navigation. Congratulations, you've just debunked flat earth.
 
Bad Brain said:
It's the north-south circumnavigation that would be impossible on a flat earth. Easterly travel continually following a compass oriented to magnetic north pole just takes one in a circle, like this:
Click to expand...
A look at some of the transoceanic flight paths of commercial airliners on a ball earth don't always make sense until you look at them on a flat earth model when it becomes clear they are mostly straight shot-routes. That's something I'd like to hear more about, just not sure where to find more data myself. Maybe I'll do some digging around later.
 
VonBonfire said:
A look at some of the transoceanic flight paths of commercial airliners on a ball earth don't always make sense until you look at them on a flat earth model when it becomes clear they are mostly straight shot-routes. That's something I'd like to hear more about, just not sure where to find more data myself. Maybe I'll do some digging around later.
Click to expand...
You will find that no commercial flights go over Antarctica for one. No tourist flights fly over the entire continent or traverse the entire perimeter of Antarctica either.
 
1750097274230.gif


Especially the level of stupid displayed here in this thread by our resident globe earth deniers. To the point where they outright make up "information" in a laughably poor and pathetic attempt to cover their stupidity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top