T1B

Softball Bat wrote:Show the curvature.

Again, a lunar eclipse proves the spherical shape of earth. If you can see the moon while in darkness around you you can observe the shape of the shadow the earth casts on the surface of the moon. This is a round shape both entering and exiting the eclipse. This tells us that the earth is either a sphere or a flat round disk. However if it were a disk everyone would be able to see the moon during the eclipse, or the sun. Since not everyone on earth can see the same things at the same time, this eliminates the disk of the two shapes.

Now you, prove the ice wall. Or show us a photo from the edge of the earth.

Softball Bat wrote:Show the curvature.

Why is your crack pipe round ?? Should it not be flat too ??

Left Seater wrote:Again, a lunar eclipse proves the spherical shape of earth.

Does it prove your globe?

No, it certainly does not.


Many people now have done their own scientific research on this, Seater.
They have measured for the curvature and guess what?

It is simply not there.


So...

You can explain why it's not.

Or... keep babbling about the moon, airplane flights, whatever...

I'm always interested in what people post on this issue.

LS wrote:Now you, prove the ice wall. Or show us a photo from the edge of the earth.

1. I have never declared that it is a fact that there is an ice wall. Never.

2. If there is an ice wall, maybe people can not possibly get to it.

3. NASA could show us a rocket going to space. But they don't. They never have and they never will. You know why?

They can't get there.

Softball Bat wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Again, a lunar eclipse proves the spherical shape of earth.

Does it prove your globe?

No, it certainly does not.

Wrong. So you think NASA or something else is distorting the shape of the earth? It is either a disk or a sphere or a disk based on the shadow. It since some of earth is still getting sunshine and other complete darkness during the eclipse it has to be a sphere.

Why do you hate facts?

Left Seater wrote:It is either a disk or a sphere or a disk based on the shadow

It's not your globe.

The curvature for your globe is not there.


See, there are a lot of people like me out there now.
We've seen the measurements that regular people have done on their own.

We see that the curvature for your globe is not there.

We don't luv the globe so much that we deny basic reality.


The curvature must be there if your globe is true.

It isn't there.

Remember, axial tilt is the reason for the seasons. Go ahead and explain seasonal change in a flat Earth model.

Still waiting for an explanation on why the sun set today if the earth is flat. I have seen some crazy ideas but that’s all they are, crazy.

Left Seater wrote:Still waiting for an explanation on why the sun set today if the earth is flat. I have seen some crazy ideas but that’s all they are, crazy.

It goes up and it goes down. Like a lot of things do.
What more is there to explain?

B wrote:Go ahead and explain seasonal change in a flat Earth model.

No thanks.

Papa Willie wrote:

Have you figured out yet why they fly that Melbourne to Santiago path yet, 'tart?

I've flown from Los Angeles to Frankfort and the plane showed the flight path on its entertainment center. We flew east and north across the arctic circle thru Northern Canada then south and east to Frankfort. Why not a straight line to Frankfort? Because it is shorter to fly near the North pole than a straight line due to the circumference of the earth being so much greater at the equator than near the poles.

It's not your globe.

The curvature for your globe is not there.

I can see pops running around with a yard stick trying to measure the curvature.....

This is a photo from Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana. It is from 1969. No photo shop or digital effects. Just a print.



What do you see pops?

Joe in PB wrote: Because it is shorter to fly near the North pole than a straight line due to the circumference of the earth being so much greater at the equator than near the poles....

Huh? Did you flunk out of school in 3rd grade?

Jay in Phoenix wrote:This is a photo from Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana. It is from 1969. No photo shop or digital effects. Just a print.

What do you see pops?

What point are you trying to make?

It should be rather obvious Sale. Pictures speak a thousand words, etc.

What did YOU see?

If it's so obvious why don't you just spit it out?
I see a lake and some towers.

Very good, you earned a cookie.

Now then, what are towers doing at the horizon vanishing point?

Moving Sale wrote:

Joe in PB wrote: Because it is shorter to fly near the North pole than a straight line due to the circumference of the earth being so much greater at the equator than near the poles....

Huh? Did you flunk out of school in 3rd grade?

:doh:

Pretty stupid to fly the polar route between LA and Frankfort, seeing as how Frankfort is in Kentucky.

If you tried to fly a straight line between LA and Frankfurt, Germany, you'd have to go through a few thousand miles of rock and other stuff. And you wouldn't be flying, you'd be digging a tunnel.

That is awesome Papa. I've ascended high enough that I've seen the curvature for myself. Pops dismissed it outright, but all he, or anyone else has to do, is get in a damn plane and see it for themselves. Of course, that would be too easy...

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Very good, you earned a cookie.

Now then, what are towers doing at the horizon vanishing point?

Vanishing.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:That is awesome Papa. I've ascended high enough that I've seen the curvature for myself.

Awesome. What altitude were you at?

You like to play at being obtuse Sale. They aren't just visually vanishing, they are curving downward, proving curvature.

Was that so difficult?

As to the how high, over 35,000 feet.

That pic was taken from a bridge which the photographer says is 30-60 feet off the ground from a place on the bridge he guesses at and takes pics of towers he says are big over a distance he estimates and then admits his pic has a mirage. That is not very sciencey.
Oh and you are an idiot.

Jay wrote:I've ascended high enough that I've seen the curvature for myself. Pops dismissed it outright, but all he, or anyone else has to do, is get in a damn plane and see it for themselves. Of course, that would be too easy...

Post pics.

I'd like to see it.


About the pic...

It's a vanishing point.

To actually learn anything from the pic, we need to know how far away the furthest pole is, and what the height of the camera is.

Joe wrote:I can see pops running around with a yard stick trying to measure the curvature.....

That's not how it is done.

Softball Bat wrote:
To actually learn anything from the pic, we need to know how far away the furthest pole is, and what the height of the camera is.

He estimated his height from the water at 30-60 feet. He says the tall tower in the distance is around 15 miles, beacuse he estimated his position on the bridge so he doesn't know for sure.

I wonder how tall that tall tower is.


If the photographer is 30 feet above the water, 46 ft of his viewing target (the tall tower 15 miles away) is supposed to be under the curvature of the earth.

If he is 60 ft above the water, 20 ft of his target is supposed to be under the curvature of the earth.

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial


The pic (and lack of concrete info) does nothing for us, really.

Pause your video at 2:00.

That is the earth curvature as seen from 70 miles up?


This is supposedly the earth curvature as seen from almost 4 times that high (250 miles up)...







Houston, we have a problem!

1st video is from 70,000 ft in a U2.

250 miles up is a view of a larger section of the earth.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

If you have ADHD or are adverse to taking time to digest info and THINK about matters, this isn't for you.

If you still have most of your bran intact, it could be for you.

1) Click link
2) Read
3) Watch video
4) Think
5) Comment?


https://www.wired.com/story/when-modeli ... r-wont-do/

The Mississippi River—it’s a big deal, OK? The combined ports of South Louisiana and New ­Orleans move more cargo, ton for ton,
than any other US port. So figuring out the Mississippi’s hydrodynamics—the way its water, silt, and sand ebb and flow—matters.
Matters so much, in fact, that Louisiana has dropped $18 million on a 10,800-square-foot model of Big Muddy’s sinuous meanders.
It’s made of 216 panels of high-density foam, carved to match mapping data down to a quarter-millimeter tolerance.


The elaborate, expensive, precise engineering model... which does not take into account earth curvature, which is obviously VERY substantial over the distance of land this model is based on.








It does not prove that the earth is any given shape, or not any given shape, but it quite interesting.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:You like to play at being obtuse Sale. They aren't just visually vanishing, they are curving downward, proving curvature.

Was that so difficult?

As to the how high, over 35,000 feet.

Actually, they aren't vanishing or curving downward. That would be something a curve ball does.
They're really not doing much of anything.
Besides power transmission, of course.

The response to Jay's photo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3_umFG ... pp=desktop


Neither Jay's photo or this video proves a shape of the earth.

I see Softbrain Batshit still believes the earth's atmosphere is a vacuum (which that basic sciencey stuff would lead one to believe might make it hard to breath).

The bulk of the earth is liquid, with a thin crust of hard shit floating on top. The fact this liquid comes oozing out at various places provides pretty good verification of this. So, try this at home -- flick a drop of liquid off your finger, and take note of the shape as it falls. It's very non-flat.

No. Firmament means firm.

Sincerely,

Poptart

I am afraid Dinsdale is babbling.

He has no idea how deep the earth is, or what exactly is down there.

Try a mental experiment, 'spray.


Because we know that the earth is a globe (I mean, everyone knows it -- we've all known it since kindergarten), everything we observe is observed through the globe lens.

Every observation we make is made with a mental bias that we are on a globe.

We ASSUME it, always.


So do it the other way -- just as a mental experiment.

ASSUME the earth is flat and stationary.
I mean, that is what we really sense, isn't it?

Do you feel you are moving?
I don't.
The earth seems flat.
The sun, moon, and stars seem to be moving in a circuit above us.

This is what we really sense.


So then make flat earth your mental bias.
Assume the earth is flat and stationary.

From that starting point, then observe other things and try to make them fit into the flat earth model you have created in your mind.


Give it a shot.

Softball Bat wrote:
The sun, moon, and stars seem to be moving in a circuit above us.

You haven't really looked up into the sky too much, have you.

None of those objects are moving "in a circuit above us" or even seem to be.

Where do they go when they disappear below the horizon and then reappear on the other side 12 hours or so later? Certainly they're not still "above us."


BTW...'spray is a living, breathing mental experiment without trying anything different.

Poptart, have you ever even looked through a telescope? If you look at Mars or Saturn as an example, if you do so long enough, you can see planetary rotation. The universe doesn't "move in a circuit" above us. It might be expanding, but it doesn't rotate. Planets do.

Reality can be your friend. So is visible proof. Use them wisely. Leave bad You Tube videos alone.