T1B

Did you use a 20 mile long level to make sure the salt flat is in fact completely flat? Until you can show us the proof the salt flat was in fact totally flat your claim is nothing but a story.

Kierland wrote:Then you have an explanation for why I can see headlights 20 miles down a salt flat?

Because the earth's atmosphere isn't a vacuum.

How does it feel to be as clueless as Softhead Bat?

LS,
No I did not. I was asking why I can see headlights on a salt flat. Is it flat or not? Mgo and 88 don’t seem to agree on the answer which is weird if it is so apparent what shape the erf is.

Kierland wrote: I was asking why I can see headlights on a salt flat.

Because it's dark outside and the lights are on?

Dinsdale wrote:

Kierland wrote:Then you have an explanation for why I can see headlights 20 miles down a salt flat?

Because the earth's atmosphere isn't a vacuum.

Yeah I know. So you think the salt flat is not flat and it’s due to refraction that I can see the headlights?

Mikey wrote:

Kierland wrote: I was asking why I can see headlights on a salt flat.

Because it's dark outside and the lights are on?

So you are saying the salt flat is flat? Or what?

Kierland wrote: Yeah I know. So you think the salt flat is not flat and it’s due to refraction that I can see the headlights?

Maybe you're not quite as dumb as your counterpart. And don't listen to his sure-to-be-idiotic denial.

While air doesn't have much mass, when you stack up many miles of it, it adds up. Light tends to travel through the more dense medium -- the air closest to the ground... duh. Similar to the reason why stars wiggle around in the sky.

Kierland wrote:Then you have an explanation for why I can see headlights 20 miles down a salt flat?

Refraction and atmospheric conditions would be one explanation. The other explanation would be that I don't believe you.

Lefty wrote:Theories? Thanks for again proving my point. You yell and demand the exact science that proves anything associated with a globe. Yet theories and I don’t know are acceptable answers for you, yet you know definitely what the shape isn’t.

You are not making any sense, Lefty.
But that is really nothing new.

I am not here to prove to you that the earth is any given shape, or that a given map of the earth is correct.
Because...

I do not know those things for sure.


You on the other hand declare that the globe is absolutely true.

So yes, it is incumbent on you to show us exactly why that is.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:So... I don't know.

And why should you know? You flat earth tards have only had since the dawn of human thought process to come up with a viable set of explanations for your position. How many more millenniums do you need before you can answer the tough questions? As you have said yourself, flat earth is the prevailing belief when you take all of human history into account, and yet it's still rather ambiguous and incomplete.

On the other hand, round earthers (aka sane people with access to technology) have explanations for everything related to a globe earth. You may not like the explanations, but we have them.

There is certain observable phenomena that occurs on our planet that would seem impossible in a flat earth scenario. You can't answer why. Nobody before you could answer why. And nobody after you will answer why. Why? Because your entire belief system is fucking whack. Care to consider that?

Mgo, if not for NASA's fakery, you globe worshippers would have no leg to stand on.
And of course I have pointed out to you that despite sending rockets up for many decades, we have no video of a rocket going from land to space.
Not to mention a whole slew of other things regarding NASA's fake bullshit that has been posted by me.

Also as was posted by me, 7 laser tests in 7 locations in 7 weather conditions.

Results show what we should, using our common sense, already know.

Standing water lays FLAT.

This does not match with your globe.

And these laser tests are not some obscure finding that does not match with other findings.
What we see is that the necessary earth curvature for your globe is CONSISTENTLY not present.

And we also see no science from you to show us thaat water can magically cling to the outside of a flying and spinning ball.

What you have are THEORIES.

That's it.

And "flat earthers" similarly have theories on our surroundings.

Softball Bat wrote: Also as was posted by me, 7 laser tests in 7 locations in 7 weather conditions.

OK, just for futility's sake, I'll ask for the umpteenth time:

What, I your own words, do you think this proves?

I did not say it proves anything.

It is evidence.

And what is documented can be used as a springboard for further water measurement experiments.


What the study shows is quite damning for your dumb globe.



The globe.

How fucking DUMB can you be to buy into that ridiculous bullshit?

Softball Bat wrote:
It is evidence.

Of what?

Dinsdale wrote:

Kierland wrote: Yeah I know. So you think the salt flat is not flat and it’s due to refraction that I can see the headlights?

Maybe you're not quite as dumb as your counterpart. And don't listen to his sure-to-be-idiotic denial.

While air doesn't have much mass, when you stack up many miles of it, it adds up. Light tends to travel through the more dense medium -- the air closest to the ground... duh. Similar to the reason why stars wiggle around in the sky.

Of course there is no math in that answer, so what is the proof that a salt flat is not flat? What is the mathematical formula for the atmospheric refraction of light? There isn’t one. Even astronomical calculations stop working as you approach the horizon. Which brings me back to what I said. The math says it’s flat.
And do u agree with 88’s assessment of the “bend” of water in a pan?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Kierland wrote:Then you have an explanation for why I can see headlights 20 miles down a salt flat?

Refraction and atmospheric conditions would be one explanation. The other explanation would be that I don't believe you.

Math. Drop some math.
As for the experiment, I would hope you would not believe me. My whole argument is kinda based on not believing other peoples’ accounts.

Dinsdale wrote:Of what?

It is evidence that the curvature for your globe is not there.

Something that was routinely pointed out by me 3 years ago.

Something which MS is able to absorb into his mind -- and process.
He did so long ago.


It isn't that difficult.

As I've also said, most of the smart people have already figured this out.

It is the crying, kicking, screaming goofs who are having a lot of trouble with it.

Softball Bat wrote:
I am not here to prove to you that the earth is any given shape, or that a given map of the earth is correct.
Because...

I do not know

Yet you claim to know what shape it isn’t without any doubt. Yet when presented with many many things that contradict your claim, you duck and dodge.

Troll on troll.

LS wrote:Yet you claim to know what shape it isn’t without any doubt. Yet when presented with many many things that contradict your claim, you duck and dodge.

This is getting old now.
Very.

1. The curvature for your globe is not there. This is sort of a big problem for you. Duh.

2. You can post no science experiment that will show us how water magically clings to the outside of a flying, spinning ball.

3. Further, you can post no science experiment that will show us air spinning, by necessity, with the ball that is spinning.

Rational individuals see the above, chuckle, close the book on the globe, and look at other models.

I'm sorry you remain behind.

Make a resolution for the new year to get yourself up to speed.

Btw, one of the most telling things regarding this topic is the fact that these globetards keep coming back to it.

I think I have only started one "flat earth" thread.

The globe freaks keep wanting to debate this issue.

Why?


If your globe is so obvious, and everyone knows it is so, why debate the loon (page-after-page, in thread-after-thread) who thinks otherwise?

Let the loon loon by himself.

Right?


What is your problem?

MS has not said that he thinks the earth is flat.
He has said that he recognizes that the curvature for the globe is not there, and he is curious as to why that is.

His response to the evidence he has been presented with is completely rational.

It is an extremely curious matter.

So millions of people across different countries, myself included are part of a vast conspiracy. No one has had a death bed confession? No one has accidentally spilled the beans.

Troll on troll.

Millions of people?

lol

No.
Bogus scenarios much?


Many thousands of people have been shown that the curvature of for the globe is not there, and yet they continue to act as if the evidence they have seen does not exist.

Go figure.


No more fl@t earth chatter for me.
It is enough.

If you have questions or criticisms, look it up on the interweb,
There is no shortage of info on this topic.

Have fun, and have a happy new year!

Sure it millions. Take all of the worlds pilots. Then add in all the people taking non stop Southern Hemisphere flights. A bunch of NASA workers. Space agency workers in other countries. Politicians around the world. Yup millions.

Take you ball and go home. Most would with the Epcot ass beatings you have taken.

Left Seater wrote:Sure it millions. Take all of the worlds pilots. Then add in all the people taking non stop Southern Hemisphere flights. A bunch of NASA workers. Space agency workers in other countries. Politicians around the world. Yup millions.

Take you ball and go home. Most would with the Epcot ass beatings you have taken.

When you fly do you compensate for the curve of the earth?

Kierland wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Sure it millions. Take all of the worlds pilots. Then add in all the people taking non stop Southern Hemisphere flights. A bunch of NASA workers. Space agency workers in other countries. Politicians around the world. Yup millions.

Take you ball and go home. Most would with the Epcot ass beatings you have taken.

When you fly do you compensate for the curve of the earth?

Please expound on your idea here a bit..I would love to hear the concept, since it never came up in flight school.

If the erf were a sq you would need to compensate for the edges correct?
Do pilots do that for a round erf? And I already know the answer. So the next question is why not? Why doesn’t it come up in flight school?

Kierland wrote: Math. Drop some math.

https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html

That is not math. If you had bothered to read it you would see that it is not math but an estimate.
One more time, the math says erf is flat. It’s people who say it is round.

Kierland wrote:That is not math. If you had bothered to read it you would see that it is not math but an estimate.

OK.



Mathy enough for you?

In my previous link, they have links to the interesting concept of "ducts," where light, under specific conditions, can follow the earth's surface for hundreds of miles.

that formula is only valid for red He-Ne laser wavelength of approximately 633 nmand is only accurate within an estimated expanded uncertainty of 1.5×10 to the minus 7.
Dude you will never be able to find a formula for terrestrial light refraction because there are too many variables and even if you did I can always still counter with the double slit experiment. You will then be in checkmate because nobody can explain how light is a wave and a particle.

Cool.

Care to explain what causes a mirage?

Kierland wrote:If the erf were a sq you would need to compensate for the edges correct?
Do pilots do that for a round erf? And I already know the answer. So the next question is why not? Why doesn’t it come up in flight school?

Well if you went to flight school you would know the answer. Gravity is a constant force always working to bring the aircraft to the center of the earth. Thankfully the Wright Brothers figured out lift and we have that on our side to counter the force of gravity. When the plane is sitting on the ground no lift is added. However if we want to get off the ground we need more lift than the force of gravity. When we want to stop climbing we trim the plane so that the lift force equals the gravity force. This keeps us an unchanging distance from the center of the sphere we are going around.

Conversely if the earth were a cube, then there would need to be continuous changes in the amount of lift applied as you flew across one face of the cube. The distance from the center of a cube to any point on the cube is going to be different (for the most part. Assuming the cube is perfectly equal on all sides then the center of each face would be the same distance from the center of the cube, same for each corner, etc.)

Assume you take off from the center of one face of the cube and fly towards any corner on that same face. The further you travel towards the corner the further you are from the center of the cube. Therefore the force known as gravity is going to continuously get weaker. As such less and less lift is going to be required to keep you flying level of the surface of the cube.

You would also have to be extremely careful as you reached the edge and adjusted the angle of attack as you passed the edge, less you fly off beyond the cube.

Left Seater wrote:You would also have to be extremely careful as you reached the edge and adjusted the angle of attack as you passed the edge, less you fly off beyond the cube.

Not to mention the Ice Wall.

Dinsdale wrote:Cool.

Care to explain what causes a mirage?

Photons of light traveling in the fastest way they can which is sometimes not a straight line because light travels faster in warm air. Which brings us back to math. The formula for terrestrial refraction does not exist. The know and provable math says flat, but people say round.

LS,
So you compensate for the curve by compensating for gravity which is an unproven theory. It’s just as likely that you are compensating for the gross weight of the plane.

I don’t like this any more than you do. But if you start at cogito ergo sum you can’t get to round erf using provable math. There are obviously people who have more info than I do like David R. Scott, but I’m not him so I going with what I can prove.

Left Seater wrote:[

You would also have to be extremely careful as you reached the edge and adjusted the angle of attack as you passed the edge, less you fly off beyond the cube.

Maybe he could explain what would happen if you fly off the edge of the cube, or how you could possibly make the transition to one of the other planes.

Kierland wrote:
LS,
So you compensate for the curve by compensating for gravity which is an unproven theory. It’s just as likely that you are compensating for the gross weight of the plane.

Gravity is an unproven theory? Or are you saying something else is unproven? As for weight of the plane it does have an effect on a plane. The heavier the plane the more lift is required to keep it flying, or overcoming gravity. On long flights think US to Europe or Africa to South American or South America to Australia, the plane will often not be able to climb to its optimal cruise altitude for the first few hours of the flight. When some of the fuel has been consumed the plane will then climb to its optimal cruise altitude.

But during flight if I want to change altitude I have to change the lift.

As for gravity and objects other than a sphere, it starts to get weird. Take a dinner plate. Does gravity pull directly down across all points of the plate equally or is there a central point that gravity pulls towards? If it was a central point things on the edges of the plate would be pulled to the middle of the plate. Same for a cube or any other shape.

Flight as we know it only works on a globe model.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Kierland wrote:Then you have an explanation for why I can see headlights 20 miles down a salt flat?

Refraction and atmospheric conditions would be one explanation. The other explanation would be that I don't believe you.

I'd go with the latter.

Human-scale objects are resolvable as extended objects from a distance of just under 2 miles (3 km). For example, at that distance, we would just be able to make out two distinct headlights on a car.

https://www.livescience.com/33895-human-eye.html

Goober McTuber wrote:

Human-scale objects are resolvable as extended objects from a distance of just under 2 miles (3 km). For example, at that distance, we would just be able to make out two distinct headlights on a car.

https://www.livescience.com/33895-human-eye.html

Upon reading this, I laughed, and thought "someone has never driven through the desert at night."

And a quick search confirms that whoever wrote this is an idiot (assuming there isn't more to it).

https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/FM/lights.html

Go ahead and drive around Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon, the flat parts of Nevada and California and Arizona and then tell me you still believe this retardation.