Comments by "T Brown" (@tbrown3356) on "Why People Think the World is Flat" video.

  1. Planes would have to keep constantly descending to keep up with the curvature of the Earth. And people would notice that descending. Planes fly level however. Earth is flat.
    10
  2. Globies claim to have a physical edge where boats are going over and buildings are being obstructed by. Lol. They believe the horizon is geometric but that's been debunked now proving the Earth is not a sphere.
    7
  3. Go ahead and post the scientific hypothesis (independent and dependent variable) of the experiment that you say proved that the earth is a spinning ball. And as for your claim you can see curvature, were you higher than 128,000 feet? Because Neil Degrasse Tyson says you can't see Earth curvature even from 128,000 feet up. "That stuff is flat" (NDT). https://youtu.be/YSg2DLWNIKg
    5
  4.  @AM-bj7yo  I'll leave you with this. If the scientific method is not being used then it's not science. Heliocentrism Pseudoscientists continue to claim science but can never post a scientific hypothesis (independent and dependent variable) for any experiment ever proving the Earth to be a sphere or moving. Flat Earthers also should not claim science if they are not using the scientific method. Many observations alone disprove the earth being a sphere and there is no science that can prove otherwise. The guy that presented this video was dishonest and claimed that flat Earthers want to stick to a simpler science. There is just one science and it involves using the scientific method.
    5
  5. @Big AL 311 Here's some more scripture where it says the ends of the earth. "28Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding." Isaiah 40:28.
    5
  6. Here's the Debunking of the Globe. It's logically consistent. It uses modus tollens. If p then q, not q therefore not p. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), then the distance to the horizon cannot be farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The distance to the horizon is farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). Now watch the video below. Can you see the horizon behind the second platform at 9.41 miles away? https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    5
  7.  @kidslovesatan  You can see the horizon in the pictures and it's over 10 miles away from an observer 3 to 6 feet in height. Another view shows the horizon over 9 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height. This is the debunking of the geometric horizon and your globe earth model. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), then the distance to the horizon can never be more than 1.225 miles times the square root of the observer height (q). The distance to the horizon from 1 foot height is farther than 9 miles (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). RIP Globe!!!
    4
  8. @Joejoe Joe As you said it's a globe model. Models are not reality. Prove we live on a sphere in reality. Don't just declare your model explanation for seasons and day and night makes sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me. So now what?
    4
  9.  @RealmsandRealms  Great post!!!
    4
  10. "14¶And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good." Bible.
    4
  11. @Big AL 311 Is a circle a sphere? The answer is no. Look down at your dinner plate and you'll see that it is circular but not spherical. Lol. And compassing the waters with bounds indicates a container. Water as well as the air we breathe must be contained. Why are you not a flat Earther after reading these scriptures? It's evident that God is above the Firmament looking down at us and that our oceans are not flowing away because God has contained them. Now read below and try to comprehend what it means to lift your eyes on high. Are people on the bottom of a ball looking in a different direction? Of course not. Lol. Wake up already. "26Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth."
    4
  12. Here's the Debunking of the Globe. It's logically consistent. It uses modus tollens. If p then q, not q therefore not p. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), then the distance to the horizon cannot be farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The distance to the horizon is farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). Now watch the video below. Can you see the horizon behind the second platform at 9.41 miles away? https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    4
  13.  @julesdomes6064  Can you see the horizon behind the second platform Jules? Lol. If the horizon is refracted Jules, then it's not physical. Say it out loud to yourself. "The line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground is refracted." Do you realize that your model must have a physical geometric edge that it claims boats are going over? If the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground is apparent Jules then we don't live on a sphere. Spheres must have a geometric horizon. 😂😂😂😂😂
    4
  14.  @fhiyos_2611  Yeah I saw it before. Flat Earth is so far beyond a theory now. It's very clear we don't live on a spinning ball whirling through space chasing the sun. Anyone that looks into enough will realize that Heliocentrism is a lie.
    4
  15. Here's the Debunking of the Globe. It's logically consistent. It uses modus tollens. If p then q, not q therefore not p. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), then the distance to the horizon cannot be farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The distance to the horizon is farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). Now watch the video below. Can you see the horizon behind the second platform at 9.41 miles away? https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    3
  16.  @boterlettersukkel  Keep saying that the horizon we see is apparent (not actual). Lol. That's the point. The horizon you globies thought were physical with boats going over it is just an optical effect caused by weather and perspective. Lol. RIP Globe!!!
    3
  17.  @trailbossdan1  Do you see the horizon behind the second platform? Yes or no?
    3
  18. Great because it's flat. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    3
  19.  @kidslovesatan  Just an ad hominem attack and stereotype fallacy about flat Earthers? Lol. Globies in 2020 have no arguments left. You can't even claim your math works anymore. Lol.
    3
  20.  @kidslovesatan  Even at 5 feet you cannot have the distance to the horizon be more than 9 miles away. The horizon is what we are talking about. Your model says it is physical and geometric based on the 3959 mile radius. So do the math 1.225 times the square root of 5 (observer's height). That equals 2.74 miles. That's where the horizon must be if the earth is a sphere. RIP globe.
    3
  21. @Joejoe Joe You said seasons can't work on a flat Earth because we all would see day and night? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. It's probably because you are trying to apply your model to reality. Your model doesn't work with reality.
    3
  22. @Joejoe Joe The sky is huge and we only see a sliver of the sky from our perspective. When it is dark to us other people's sky has light. That's easy to understand if you know about perspective.
    3
  23.  @SETIFilm  Mountains are objects. 😂😂😂😂😂😂. Are you saying that the horizon is not level? Read the definition of level below: "lev·el /ˈlevəl/ Learn to pronounce See definitions in: All Gaming Tools Surveying noun 1. a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point
    3
  24. Mass warping space time is a concept. It's not changing any wtf meters.😂😂😂😂
    3
  25.  @AM-bj7yo  please re-read Elijah's post again. As you are not understanding what science is.
    3
  26.  @AM-bj7yo  saying science is abstract is an oxymoron. "ab·stract adjective /abˈstrakt,ˈabˌstrakt/ 1. existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence." "abstract concepts such as love or beauty" "sci·ence /ˈsīəns/ Learn to pronounce noun the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
    3
  27. Outerspace is fake news. You just see lights in the sky. You don't know if they are round or not. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    3
  28. @Big AL 311 Here's some more just because you seem to like scripture. Lol. "2Hear attentively the noise of his voice, and the sound that goeth out of his mouth. 3He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth. 4After it a voice roareth: he thundereth with the voice of his excellency; and he will not stay them when his voice is heard. 5God thundereth marvellously with his voice; great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend. 6For he saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth; likewise to the small rain, and to the great rain of his strength. 7He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work. 8Then the beasts go into dens, and remain in their places. 9Out of the south cometh the whirlwind: and cold out of the north. 10By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened. 11Also by watering he wearieth the thick cloud: he scattereth his bright cloud: 12And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth. 13He causeth it to come, whether for correction, or for his land, or for mercy. 14Hearken unto this, O Job: stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God. 15Dost thou know when God disposed them, and caused the light of his cloud to shine? 16Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge? 17How thy garments are warm, when he quieteth the earth by the south wind? 18Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? 19Teach us what we shall say unto him; for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness. 20Shall it be told him that I speak? if a man speak, surely he shall be swallowed up. 21And now men see not the bright light which is in the clouds: but the wind passeth, and cleanseth them. 22Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty. 23Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict. 24Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart." Book of Isaiah.
    3
  29.  demigodzilla  Well the Geometry debunks the globe. Do you see the horizon behind the second platform? Don't keep running from this. 😂😂😂😂
    3
  30.  demigodzilla  Why are you dodging the question? Is it because you know it debunks the globe? No geometric horizon means no sphere. Lol.
    3
  31.  demigodzilla  No globe means no reality? Lol. You've made a model your reality. That's sad. Now do you see the horizon behind the second platform? Yes or no? Stop obfuscating. People can see you dodging this question. Lol.
    3
  32.  @julesdomes6064  Jules believes that the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground can be loomed over the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. No Jules the horizon can't be loomed over the horizon. We just have 1 horizon. 😂😂😂😂
    3
  33.  @julesdomes6064  So on one day Jules the line where the sky appears to meet the ground is physical and on another day the line where the sky appears to meet the ground is apparent? That's nonsensical. Your physical edge must be physical all the time. It can't take days off. Lol.
    3
  34.  @julesdomes6064  You're the one denying reality. The Geometry disproves the globe. You are reifying a physical edge that we don't see and have admitted to seeing the apparent one. There's just one horizon Jules. Just continuing to parrot refraction doesn't make the horizon physical, it acknowledged that it is not actual or physical. The only physical edge is in your model and not reality. So if you don't have a geometric edge that is based on the claimed radius, then none of your mathematics using the radius value are applicable. RIP Globe!!!
    3
  35.  @casanovafrankenstein4193  Jules claimed refraction but she's run away when asked about refraction effects. Lol.
    3
  36.  @harshitkumar4760  You just said that the horizon we see is refracted, then it's not physical or geometric. That's the debunking of your globe which requires a physical edge obstructing objects and for boats to be going over. But as you admitted, the horizon is apparent, as in the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground but not actually. Lol. Welcome to flat Earth.
    3
  37.  @harshitkumar4760  Your whole model is based on the radius value and you just debunked it. Congratulations! Lol.
    3
  38.  @magnetiktrax  Science is a method which validates cause and effect relationships in the natural world through using the scientific method. Post a scientific hypothesis (independent variable and dependent variable) for any experiment ever proving the Earth is a sphere or rotating. Otherwise don't claim science. Now respond to this debunking. And I am not claiming it is science. Here's the Debunking of the Globe. It's logically consistent. It uses modus tollens. If p then q, not q therefore not p. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), then the distance to the horizon cannot be farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The distance to the horizon is farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). Now watch the video below. Can you see the horizon behind the second platform at 9.41 miles away? https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    2
  39.  @bengrizzlyadams6187  Thanks! They refuse to let go of the ball. They all have a weird fascination with balls. Lol. Well we tried to deliver truth to them. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
    2
  40.  @boterlettersukkel  Here's the Debunking of your gyro claim. If earth rotates underneath a gyro then it will rotate underneath a drone, helicopter, or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to it. Flights from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because earth doesn't turn. And please don't claim the gyro observation is science. The first step in science is to observe a natural phenomenon (not a man made device). Then you have to pressupose a cause that you will later manipulate or vary to validate that it causes the effect. So if you say earth rotation causes the gyro to do something then you have to manipulate or vary Earth rotation. How you going to do that? So to sum things up you don't have a viable dependent variable or independent variable to even formulate a viable scientific hypothesis. Not science. And the observation lacks logical consistency, because earth doesn't turn underneath a drone, helicopter, or airplane. It can't just decide to turn underneath a gyro only. Lol.
    2
  41. Wouldn't it be simpler to just provide proof that we live on a sphere? The fact that there are no signs of Earth curvature or Earth rotation and Pseudoscientists don't have any logical arguments for the Heliocentrism model is the problem.
    2
  42. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    2
  43.  @SETIFilm  Your level observation misses an important part. Objects shrink with distance. We don't see in orthographic view. We have what is called perspective. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    2
  44.  @SETIFilm  So the earth doesn't turn underneath the gyro either. Lol. Maybe you should be concerned that earth doesn't turn underneath anything. Lol.
    2
  45.  @rogermoore7868  It sounds like you are saying you don't believe the Earth is flat and stationary, because you can't see how governments can lie. You are under the impression also that money is real. World leaders meet in secret all the time and the public is not privy to what is discussed. It's not difficult to pretend that you hate another world leader and even have your militaries go to war and many innocent people die. Money is also of no concern to these people as money can just be printed. Money is just used to control people. Elijah has presented you with so much evidence that proves the earth is flat and stationary. However, you won't accept it because you believe governments hate each other and would lose money (that they create) to cover up flat earth.
    2
  46.  @SoAS26  Gravity is not real. The current rhetoric in the Heliocentrism religion is that it's not a force but an effect of the mass warping space time. Space time is a concept. Read Elijah's post. He breaks down why things fall and it is not gravity. In summary objects more denser than the air will fall until a more denser objects (ie. Ground) stops it. So airplanes are not being guided by your imaginary concept. And flying level is horizontal as in flat, and not following any curve.
    2
  47.  @rogermoore7868  https://youtu.be/pOMptTcMQA0
    2
  48.  @jasonborne5359  https://youtu.be/jDHls64L-YE
    2
  49.  @globestrikeback1888  https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    2
  50.  @globestrikeback1888  So what's the horizon doing beyond the horizon? There can't be two horizons. Try using your brain.
    2
  51.  @HaHa-gg9dl  Do you believe that planes flying nose tilted slightly up proves mass is warping space time? I'm not following your logic. Planes are denser than air, so of course they have to fight against going down. The real question you should be asking is how do planes fly in a straight path and never have to reorientate it's position in relation to the claimed curvature of the Earth. After traveling a long distance the plane would eventually be vertical in relation to the earth. Use your brain and think about it.
    2
  52.  @HaHa-gg9dl  Watch the video as it gives you a visual, because you may not be able to perceive how flying straight paths doors not work on a globe. Even if constantly reducing altitude, the plane will eventually be in a vertical position in relation to a spherical earth. This does not happen, because the earth is flat and the ground is not reorientating itself into a sphere (curving away). The direction of down remain the same throughout the flight which allows for planes to fly straight paths. https://youtu.be/jDHls64L-YE
    2
  53. @Tinja Nurtle A sphere is curving. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California is about 2,400 miles. That would be around 705 miles of curvature. The plane would not be able to fly straight. But it does fly straight. And down is always the same direction. This is not that difficult to grasp.
    2
  54.  Tinja Nurtle  Looks like a straight path to me. Flew level the whole way. Also didn't have to worry about earth rotating underneath. Watch below. https://youtu.be/7g0xL88ebXs
    2
  55.  Tinja Nurtle  Here's another straight level flight. https://youtu.be/NNLwc7pHyGc
    2
  56. @Tinja Nurtle One more, so you get the point. https://youtu.be/GP8TaY4rgPw
    2
  57. @Tinja Nurtle Feel free to post the videos of the planes following the curved earth, using those controls to not whizz off in perfectly straight lines. 😂😂😂😂😂
    2
  58.  @trekkeruss  Using a map that is a projection from a globe. The map is not the terrain. You can clearly see planes fly straight level paths. Don't be deceived by models or maps. That's a reification fallacy.
    2
  59. @Tinja Nurtle Not sure what your last comment means. Planes fly straight paths. Not following any curve that would be there. The earth in your model has a radius, so we can calculate where it should be curving. It just isn't.
    2
  60.  @trekkeruss  That's a reification fallacy also. Models are not reality. I'm not claiming a flat Earth model. So don't straw man argument and try to assign a model to me. The flat Earth model you are referring to is fine if it helps you visualize how things can work differently, but again don't confuse the map with the terrain. We don't live on any models or maps.
    2
  61.  @trekkeruss  I didn't say maps don't work. I said maps are not reality. No map is an accurate representation of the Earth we live on. So if your argument for the globe is based on a map not working out, then you have a poor argument. And we know based on your claimed earth radius where earth must be curving, but it's not. Geometry and observation debunks the globe. But you will ignore this to argue about a map.
    2
  62. @Tinja Nurtle Only in your Heliocentrism religion is everything imperceptible. They condition you to believe that. In reality, you don't perceive earth curvature or rotation because earth is flat and stationary. But keep staying deceived, believing a level straight path flying plane is some how flying over a sphere without ever having to reorientate in relation to the sphere.
    2
  63.  @trekkeruss  It's a silly argument when you are asking me to draw a map for you in a comment section. Your argument was debunked already as it relied on a model and map. Scroll below for your map. It will guide you to the fallacy you are guilty of. "Reification is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. Wikipedia"
    2
  64.  @trekkeruss  I never claimed flat Earth is an abstract idea. Did you go to MSU (make shite up). Your fellow globehead on this comment thread claimed science was too abstract. Talk with him about that.
    2
  65.  @ushikiii  Learning something from a space program might be your first problem. Listen to what you just said. "They keep falling while rotating around the earth." Maybe say it out loud so you can hear how ridiculous it sounds.
    2
  66.  @trekkeruss  Flat Earth is reality. Maps and models are reifications. Try to keep up.
    2
  67.  @trekkeruss  You walk on the flat earth every day and you don't know what it looks like. Lol. And there are many videos showing planes flying straight level paths. I posted several to the other guy in here. How they do it is by having a flat level plane they are flying above. I know you don't expect me to go looking at flight routes and distances. That's a ridiculous request.
    2
  68.  @ushikiii  Get your money back from that space program. They have confused you.
    2
  69.  @ushikiii  I just looked up Kerbal Space Program. It's a video game. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 "Kerbal Space Program, commonly abbreviated as KSP, is a space flight simulation video game developed and published by Squad for Microsoft Windows, macOS, Linux, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One. In the game, players direct a nascent space program, staffed and crewed by green humanoid aliens known as "Kerbals". Wikipedia"
    2
  70.  @HaHa-gg9dl  What? You believe earth isn't curving because of gravity? I'm not following your logic.
    2
  71.  @raywhitson290  HAM radio operators get a government approved frequency and just aim their antennas around believing they are bouncing signals off the moon. This doesn't prove anything. "An amateur radio operator is someone who uses equipment at an amateur radio station to engage in two-way personal communications with other amateur operators on radio frequencies assigned to the amateur radio service."  Wikipedia › wiki › Amateur_radio_... Amateur radio operator - Wikipedia
    2
  72.  @raywhitson290  Great evidence. They wrote down that they can bounce radio waves off the moon. 😂😂😂😂😂
    2
  73.  @raywhitson290  It's a government approved frequency. That was 5 words.
    2
  74.  @raywhitson290  Nobody bounces anything off the Moon. Your argument has been debunked. Let It go. You have no evidence that anyone is bouncing anything off the Moon.
    2
  75.  @raywhitson290  Okay. Not going to keep going back and forth with you. Keep moon bouncing buddy. Just make sure it's on one of those government approved frequencies. Lol.
    2
  76.  @hedgie9823  And I wanted to add something to your question about why they lie about the globe. It's about stealing our real purpose. If we believe we are an accident and nothing more than star dust, then we don't feel like we have a purpose. Then they can give us our purposes and control us. We spend our lives chasing material things doing what they need us to do until we die, never knowing our true purpose.
    2
  77.  @Cornwall1888  Funny that flat is in the definition of level. "lev·el /ˈlevəl/ Learn to pronounce noun 1. a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point. adjective 1. having a FLAT and even surface without slopes or bumps." "we had reached level ground"
    2
  78.  @raywhitson290  You seem triggered that I debunked your moon bouncing fantasy. Hey guess what I have a moon rock for sale. It looks a lot like petrified wood and it was found on Earth, but trust me it's from the moon. Lol. Interested in buying?
    2
  79.  @Cornwall1888  Yes there is no need for nose down because the earth is flat. That's the whole point genius. If the earth were a sphere the plane would need to reorientate itself in relation to the curvature of the earth.
    2
  80.  @raywhitson290  So you do want to buy my moon rock? Lol.
    2
  81.  @Cornwall1888  Nice double speak. Lol. You said the plane nose has gone down but earlier you claimed that it's not necessary for the nose to go down. Lol.
    2
  82.  @Cornwall1888  I can't keep up with you. First you say it doesn't need to dip the nose. Then you said it does. Now you are back to it does but not relative to the ground below. WTF? You are a confused man. Lol.
    2
  83.  @Cornwall1888  Double speak. You're holding two different beliefs at the same time. Lol.
    2
  84.  @Cornwall1888  You're not making any sense. Planes can't fly nose up but also be dipping their nose. "Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g. "downsizing" for layoffs and "servicing the target" for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable."  https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki Doublespeak - Wikipedia
    2
  85.  @Cornwall1888  Imagine. Like you are imagining being on a sphere. Lol. No I'm not going to imagine things with you.
    2
  86. @Big AL 311 The sun's apparent position (not actual) in the sky from your perspective APPEARS to drop as it leaves your field of view and goes beyond that line where the sky APPEARS (not actually) to meet the ground. People further west have it coming up over that line where the sky APPEARS (not actually) to meet the ground from their perspective. In reality the sun is always in the sky above you. Maybe observe street lights down a long street. From the side you can see all the lights are the same height. But when looking at them from a front view, the farther away they are from you they start to drop in angular size and the top of the lights appear lower as they get closer to leaving your field of view. That's similarly how the lights in the sky work. It's just perspective buddy. Pay attention to the street lights in the video below and the image. https://youtu.be/VpIdISx1n7w https://images.app.goo.gl/qurTrPQN2BzXUiz46
    2
  87.  @jormungandr9251  You are some kind of special. That's how perspective works. It's the same as looking down a long hallway with a ceiling, walls, and ground. Put a point on the ceiling. If you walk towards the point the object is higher. If you walk away the object drops. If you go back far enough it will dip below your surface. It's how our eyes work. Lol. It's the same with sun sets ( sun departs). Take out all your latitude, longitude, equator, declination crap and this is easy to understand.
    2
  88. You realize that the ice wall is just a theory and not what all flat Earthers believe? It could be endless water or more land beyond the water. Point is we're not on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun. Lol. So if given the choice of which sounds crazier, a stationary flat plane with an ice wall and NASA and governments hiding it or a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun with everything magically sticking to the ball without people ever feeling or observing any of it, I would say an ice wall with lying governments sounds more logical. Lol.
    2
  89.  @trannkhaiminh9997  Nobody is claiming your high priest Neil is a flat Earther. The claim was he told you that you can't see Earth curvature from 120,000 feet up. That debunks ridiculous claims of people seeing earth curvature from a plane which flys at 30 to 40 thousand feet. So you can stop posting Neil videos. He already debunked you globies.
    2
  90.  @ConnellxSilverfur  Post the hypothesis (independent and dependent variable) for any experiment ever you say proved the globe.
    2
  91. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    2
  92. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  93.  @tartaglia420  Here's what gravity is not. It's not a force. https://youtu.be/ZonZ4PshKIY
    1
  94.  @tartaglia420  That's two different things. Einstein gravity states it is not a force. And all of your high priests have known it since 1915. Space time is just a concept. Bending concepts doesn't produce any forces. Which weighs more a box of space or a box of time? Lol.
    1
  95.  @tartaglia420  The lawgiver that created the world where we live has a direction for objects heavier than air to go. Helium balloons are lighter than air so it goes up. But your religion is Heliocentrism and your God is gravity I guess. Unfortunately for you, the laws that govern nature don't care about your religion. So you'll spend your life trying to figure out why heavy things fall down and light things go up, because you want to deny God and his laws.
    1
  96.  @tartaglia420  And yes you are religious. How else could you believe you are on a spinning ball whirling through space chasing the sun in a vacuum and never be able to notice it? That takes a lot of faith. Lol.
    1
  97.  @Bollibompa  Your own high priests don't understand it. Lol. It can't be a force but also not be a force. Lol. https://youtu.be/ZonZ4PshKIY
    1
  98.  @Bollibompa  Listen to another one of your high priests try to explain gravity. Stop pretending like you understand things your high priests can't even explain. https://youtu.be/9XjS4I4oQDY
    1
  99.  @tartaglia420  Let it go buddy. Gravity is not defined as a force anymore. Now go somewhere and imagine you are curving space time. Lol.
    1
  100.  @tartaglia420  We are both religious. And yes, my proof is through observation. Earth is noticeably and observably flat. You can't trust your observations because it is against the tenants of your religion. You must only trust your high priests. Lol.
    1
  101.  @tartaglia420  "Space in our Universe is three dimensional, and when you combine it with time, you get a four dimensional quantity. When it comes to the notion of spacetime curvature, this is what General Relativity refers to. But under no circumstances should you conceive of space as though it's a material, physical thing; it isn't.Aug 11, 2018"  Forbes › sites › 2018/08/11 › as... Ask Ethan: Is Spacetime Really A Fabric? - Forbes
    1
  102.  @zAggEr1907  Gravity is not a force, it's the curvature of space time in your religion. And gas pressure differentials still require a container. Your religion says we have no container but a sky vacuum. This is a violation of the second law and gas laws. Entropy always increases and the gas would fill the available volume. Boyle's Law states an inverse relationship between gas pressure and volume, where if you increase the volume you decrease gas pressure. Now how is earth maintaining gas pressure with an ever expanding vacuum surrounding it? Don't say gravity again as bending concepts (space time) can't do anything.
    1
  103.  @northstarmn  Here's proof. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  104.  @zAggEr1907  If you know gravity is not a force, then stop saying it is a force acting on gas. Lol. That's using double speak. Gas is expanding in all directions and not being pulled down.
    1
  105.  @justadude7752  You said earth drift was proven by a gyro. Well if earth turns underneath a gyro then it will turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone and helicopter could hover and have destinations come to it. Flights from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because the earth is not turning.
    1
  106.  @justadude7752  And talking about trains that are moving is not relevant because earth is not moving.
    1
  107.  @boudewijndalhuisen6169  You can see there is no container? Lol. Now that is a dumb comment. Your religion tells you we have a sky vacuum but having gas pressure debunks that lie. The necessary antecedent for gas pressure is a container. Outerspace is fake.
    1
  108.  @zAggEr1907  Are you too dumb to realize that you are using an equation with F (force) and describing an attractive Force you believe is happening? But at the same time saying you never claimed gravity is a force. Lol.
    1
  109.  @zAggEr1907  I just debunked the gyro claim by another confused globehead. Lol.
    1
  110.  @zAggEr1907  You can't see outerspace either. Lol.
    1
  111.  @zAggEr1907  Well if earth turns underneath a gyro then it will turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone and helicopter could hover and have destinations come to it. Flights from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because the earth is not turning.
    1
  112.  @zAggEr1907  Why are you talking about conservation of momentum? Earth has no momentum. Lol. And the gas at pressure on Earth has no bonds, as in not attached to earth, as in you are full of it. So if the earth is not turning underneath a plane drone and helicopter, it is not turning underneath a gyro. Can't have it both ways. Earth doesn't just decide when to turn and what it wants to turn underneath. Lol.
    1
  113.  @zAggEr1907  Now watch below as one of your high priests Neil Degrasse Tyson explains that earth can turn underneath a football, but you claim the air and earth are attached and rotate together. Lol. https://youtu.be/n_I73eh6GkY
    1
  114.  @zAggEr1907  So you have a contradiction to figure out. Your high priest Neil Degrasse Tyson says earth turns underneath a football but you say it can't turn underneath a drone helicopter and airplane. Lol. What a flawed model you globies have. You also claim gravity is not a force but then claim it's a force acting on all objects with mass. Lol. Double speak at it's finest. Lol.
    1
  115.  @justadude7752  So only the gyro works? So with nothing else can earth rotation be detected? That's not logically consistent. Sounds like maybe your gyro apparatus is not detecting what you thought. Maybe whatever it does is caused by the people that made it and not earth rotation. Lol.
    1
  116.  @justadude7752  That's a red herring. We're talking about something a gyro does being declared to prove earth rotation but with a helicopter, drone, and airplane there is no Earth rotation.
    1
  117.  @justadude7752  Not sure why you are talking about all these other things. Your argument: The gyro proves earth rotation. Debunking: Earth doesn't rotate under a plane, helicopter, or drone. Earth can't rotate under just a drone. Now do you have any other evidence that earth is rotating other than a man-made device that tells us something is happening that we never experience in reality?
    1
  118.  @boudewijndalhuisen6169  Because we see the night sky following the same orbit as the sun you conclude the earth spins. Lol. Well I can conclude that the lights in the sky are spinning and earth is stationary. You should think before you write dumb comments. Lol.
    1
  119.  @jimmynobody8344  Address the fact that you don't have a physical geometric horizon. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  120. Objects shrink with distance. Europe from the East coast would be too small to see with a telescope. Telescopes can only magnify things it can see. Lol.
    1
  121. The argument is that if the plane never dipped it's nose then how would it end up antipodal when you get to the other side of the imaginary globe. Lol. The answer is earth is flat.
    1
  122.  @rhinovirus2225  Einstein gravity replaced Newton in 1915 and since then gravity has not been a force. Lol. Just the warping of concepts.
    1
  123.  @rhinovirus2225  "Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass."  Wikipedia › wiki › Gravity Gravity - Wikipedia
    1
  124.  @rhinovirus2225  It says not a force. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  125.  @rhinovirus2225  Here's another citation from a different source. "Einstein's idea (discussed further on our relativity page) was that there is no such thing as a "force" of gravity which pulls things to the Earth; rather, the curved paths that falling objects appear to take are an illusion brought on by our inability to perceive the underlying curvature of the space we live in.Jun 27, 2015"  curious.astro.cornell.edu › physics If gravity is a "curvature of space" rather than a force, why do a ball ...
    1
  126. People travel over a flat plane not around a sphere. And if we are able to keep our oceans and air here, there's obviously a container. Interestingly, how are you not able to ask the same question about how people on the bottom of a ball don't fall off as well as everything else? Lol. With your model you can suspend all disbelief. Lol.
    1
  127.  @muzz3564  If you are using a compass to travel east you're just going in a circle. You can't go in a straight line and circumnavigate anything. Lol.
    1
  128.  @muzz3564  And warping concepts doesn't hold people on a spinning ball.
    1
  129. People know the earth is flat.
    1
  130. To fly around the world the plane would have to dip it's nose to reorientate itself to the curving ground below if the earth were a sphere. That's not necessary however because the earth is flat.
    1
  131. https://youtu.be/4sAoirPFOng
    1
  132. Have you seen the curvature of the Earth?
    1
  133. You can descend without nosing down but in order to follow the claimed earth curvature the place must nose down to reorientate it's position in relation to the ground. Now turn in your pilots license. Lol.
    1
  134.  @devosious7085  What was the Naturally observed phenomenon in Cavendish? I don't believe we have tortion bars in nature. Lol.
    1
  135. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  136. No because of perspective and vanishing points. It's all about how our eyes and light works. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vanishing%20point
    1
  137.  @GerardMenvussa  You can't see Mt. Everest from everywhere because objects shrink in angular size with distance. And there is no Earth based coriolis. Coriolis effect happens with things that actually turn.
    1
  138.  @GerardMenvussa  You don't believe objects shrink with distance? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😄😄😄😄😂😄
    1
  139.  @boterlettersukkel  So then there is no geometric horizon. Thanks for confirming that the horizon is apparent. So all of your mathematics don't work. If the horizon is not physical or geometric then you don't have a sphere.
    1
  140.  @boterlettersukkel  So you want to use a calculator that has radius value in the maths even though there is no geometric horizon when we use that radius value. Lol. The curve calculator is not applicable given there is no physical geometric horizon. There's just one horizon and it's been proven to be apparent. It can't be physical some days and others not physical. Lol. That's nonsensical.
    1
  141.  @trailbossdan1  I'm not focusing on the platforms, as the argument is about where the horizon is. It cannot be farther than 1.2 miles given the geometry based on the claimed globe radius of 3959 miles. It's not where it is supposed to be. Lol.
    1
  142.  @trailbossdan1  You said you do see the horizon behind the second platform. Well then that's a geometric impossibility and can only mean the earth is not a sphere. A sphere must have a geometric edge. The horizon can't loom the horizon over the horizon. That's not how looming works. Lol. Objects are loomed above the horizon in the definition. Lol. Welcome to flat Earth.
    1
  143.  Dylan sky  People assumed the earth were a globe. Unfortunately, those people are not here. Was your appeal to consensus your only evidence? Lol. Well logical fallacies don't prove the globe. "Argumentum ad populum. ... In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so"."  Wikipedia › wiki › Argumentum_a... Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
    1
  144. https://youtu.be/4sAoirPFOng
    1
  145. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  146. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  147. Why shouldn't there be an apparent line caused by perspective on our flat plane?
    1
  148. You can tell if lights in the sky are spherical? Lol. I think you mean they appear round. And lights appearing round doesn't cause the earth to also be round. Balls on a pool table are round. Does that mean the table is round. Lol.
    1
  149.  @4thGloryMonday  I have. It explains a lot.
    1
  150.  @4thGloryMonday  Yeah they love their Helios and solar system. Lol. Happy days to you as well brother.
    1
  151. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), then the distance to the horizon can never be more than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The video below shows the horizon farther than 10.10 miles from an observer at 8 feet height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  152. Sea Sparrow missles have line of sight targeting over 35 miles surface to surface. This is proof the earth is not curving into a ball. Watch video below. https://youtu.be/Q9QUBV-KQVs
    1
  153.  @ChrisMaxfieldActs  what is your best evidence?
    1
  154.  @ChrisMaxfieldActs  Are you searching for all that so called proof out there? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  155.  @Some_Thing_Nick  Lol. Sounds like excuses to me Nick. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  156.  @Some_Thing_Nick  Since you and Chris are too scared to put forth any evidence, I will disprove the globe. Watch the #1 Globe Killer below. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  157.  @Some_Thing_Nick  You said "if the globe doesn't exist then the earth doesn't exist." Lol. The earth is the ground you are walking on. It definitely exists. Your model is a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun. That definitely doesn't exist.
    1
  158. No just globe earth propoganda. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  159. RIP Globe!!! https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  160.  @Alan-nq5xg  Do you understand the argument? If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p) then the distance to the horizon can never be father than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The horizon is farther than 10 miles away from an observer between the height of 3 to 6 feet (not q), therefore earth is not a sphere (not p). RIP Globe!!! Now repeat the argument so I can see if you understand. Lol.
    1
  161. @QED If the horizon is refracted then it's not geometric. We only have one horizon and your model requires a geometric horizon. Now that you have admitted that the horizon we see is not geometric or physical, welcome to flat Earth!
    1
  162.  @Alan-nq5xg  The sun is a light that we don't know the distance of, size of, what it is, or how it functions. Your model claims it is a 93 million miles away rock but you have no evidence of this. The distance to the sun in your model is based on the earth having a 3959 radius which is debunked by the geometry failing.
    1
  163. @QED If using the words you say is contrary to your model, then that should tell you something. Thank you again for claiming that the horizon we see is refraction, because that means it is not geometric. If the horizon we see is not based upon the Geometry of your 3959 miles sphere radius, then we don't live on a sphere. All your maths using this radius value is wrong, including the distance to the sun, moon, stars. You also can't use your curve calculator which uses the radius value and/or terrestrial refraction. Given you admitted that the horizon is not geometric, all the past claims about boats going over a physical edge and buildings being obstructed by a physical edge are wrong. And sunsets and sunrises are also not going or coming up over a physical edge. Do you realize that you don't have the geometry to claim a sphere anymore and you can't trust in the radius value? It's been debunked.
    1
  164.  @Alan-nq5xg  I just explained to you that if you don't have an earth radius value, you can't get the claimed distance to the sun. And your claimed sphere radius has been debunked by the geometry as the distance to the horizon has been measured farther away than your model based on the 3959 miles radius allows. In other words that is a geometric impossibility. Now read below how the sun distance is calculated by using the Earth's now debunked radius: "Their initial calculations put the distance at 24,000 times the radius of the Earth. Not bad considering our modern measurement of 23,455 times the radius of the Earth." https://www.universetoday.com/14437/how-far-is-earth-from-the-sun/ And as you move away from all objects they drop their apparent position in the sky until leaving your field of view. It's just based on perspective, like the street lights down a street dropping their apparent position the farther away you move from them. In reality they are all the same size and height in the sky, but their apparent position changes with distance. For your other question, who cares how many days we put in a year. In the past it was 360 or 364. Men's way if tracking time is just a convention.
    1
  165.  @Alan-nq5xg  "The Enoch calendar is an ancient calendar described in the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch. It divided the year into four seasons of exactly 13 weeks each. ... The Book of Enoch gives the count of 2,912 days for 8 years, which divides out to exactly 364 days per year. This specifically excludes any periodic intercalations."  Wikipedia › wiki › Enoch_calendar Enoch calendar - Wikipedia
    1
  166.  @Alan-nq5xg  "25,200 days divided by 70 years equals a year of 360 days. (Herodotus, or perhaps Solon, then incorrectly calculates, by about an additional one day per year, the number of days when including the intercalation.) So this famed and learned ancient Greek calculated using a 360-day year."  360DayYear.com An Original 360-Day Year
    1
  167.  @Alan-nq5xg  You get the point? Days in a year are a man-made convention. Lol.
    1
  168.  @Alan-nq5xg  Obviously, you are not able to move past your model. I've posted 2 different citations about how days in a year are just a man-made convention. I also debunked your sun argument and explained apparent positions based on the observer's perspective and distance from the object. And I disproved the geometric horizon which your model must have to be a sphere. Your radius value is not valid because the geometry fails. What else is there to say? RIP Globe!!! See you later.
    1
  169.  @Alan-nq5xg  Appeal to concensus fallacy now. Lol where your evidence is based on what other people believe. And ad hominem fallacy where you attack me instead of my argument. Lol.
    1
  170. @QED So the horizon we see is not geometric. Lol. Then what were boats being claimed to be going over? Lol.
    1
  171. @QED Long distance flights are not great circle routes. Planes fly straight level paths to reach their destinations.
    1
  172. @QED Keep admitting that the horizon we see is not geometric. It's like music to my ears. Lol.
    1
  173. @QED I have not denied refraction. I welcome it because if the horizon is refracted then it's not geometric. Lol. You just gave up your physical edge. Lol.
    1
  174. @QED Lol. You can't have a physical horizon some days and others it's not physical. Lol. Your spherical earth model has constraints. It can't grow and shrink. Lol.
    1
  175. @QED And your modus tollens is not logically consistent. The horizon is not physical as you have already conceded. It's apparent. So why would the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground have to always rise to eye level for the earth to be flat?
    1
  176. @QED We only have one horizon. As you so beautifully stated the horizon we see is not the calculated (geometric) horizon. Lol. That only exists in your religion/model. Lol.
    1
  177. @QED You have already argued that the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground is not physical and can move based on how light bends. So it's not consistently logical to now say that line must always be at eye level. In reality that line does follow the observer all the way up. And it does appear to be at eye level. On a sphere the horizon would be rapidly falling away as the observer went up because the earth would be curving away. I've only heard globies trying to use the slight drop caused by looking through a window to say the horizon is not at eye level. It gets to be very knit picking. Lol. What you must look at is if there is an apparent line that you see all the way up. That can't happen on a sphere.
    1
  178. @QED Why are you deleting your comments. Where's your modus tollens argument? Lol.
    1
  179.  @Alan-nq5xg  See how your globehead buddies delete their comments when they are losing. It must have dawned on QED that he was admitting that there is no geometric horizon. Lol.
    1
  180.  @Alan-nq5xg  Lol. QED deleted his comments and ran off in true globehead fashion. Lol. The balloon footage is not showing earth curve. And your video from Narnia, I mean outerspace is debunked by the region where it's claimed to be from not existing. Can't have gas pressure or gas pressure gradients without a container, so a sky vaccum called outerspace is fake. So your video is automatically debunked.
    1
  181.  @Alan-nq5xg  Do you see the horizon behind the platforms in this video below? Yes or no? https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  182.  @Alan-nq5xg  Gas pressure is gas pressing on the walls of a container. Up there at the top what is the gas pressing on? Lol.
    1
  183.  @Alan-nq5xg  So if there is nothing for the gas to press on at the top, why doesn't it disperse off into your sky vacuum? Lol.
    1
  184.  @Alan-nq5xg  "Gases consist of tiny particles of matter that are in constant motion. Gas particles are constantly colliding with each other and the walls of a container. These collisions are elastic; that is, there is no net loss of energy from the collisions. Gas particles are separated by large distances."  https://opentextbc.ca › chapter › kin... Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gases – Introductory Chemistry – 1st Canadian Edition
    1
  185.  @Alan-nq5xg  No need for all the insults. Your current gravity rhetoric is mass warping space-time, and gravity not being a force. Lol. Gas is not being pulled down but expanding in all directions. That's why you can't even weigh gas without putting it in a container. Your model is wrong.
    1
  186.  @Alan-nq5xg  "The important thing to remember is that gravity is neither a push nor a pull; what we interpret as a “force” or the acceleration due to gravity is actually the curvature of space and time — the path itself stoops downward.Jan 3, 2018"  Science ABC › Eye Openers Does Gravity Push or Pull? - Science ABC
    1
  187.  @Alan-nq5xg  And the photo of the flat plane we live on is in the video I posted debunking your model. Here it is below: https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  188.  @Alan-nq5xg  How can something that is not a force be pulling gas down? So those particles at the top of your atmosphere have nothing to press upon and thus will escape. Then the next particles after will escape, and so on and so on. But that doesn't happen because we don't have a sky vaccum and entropy and gas laws are not being defied in reality. Now read below how your imaginary gravity is not even a force in your own model since 1915. Lol. "Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass."  Wikipedia › wiki › Gravity Gravity - Wikipedia
    1
  189. What was the scientific hypothesis (independent variable and dependent variable) in the science experiment that proved the globe? You said science so now provide it. Science is not just arguing that you can't see how Russia and America can both be lying to the public. Lol.
    1
  190. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  191. https://youtu.be/4sAoirPFOng
    1
  192.  @ghz24  Amateur radio is given frequencies they can use by the government. You are not moon bouncing anything by moving your little antenna around and changing to government approved frequencies. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  193.  @ghz24  Doesn't sound like people out there bouncing signals off the moon to get over Earth curve. Sounds very government controlled. Read below: "Amateur radio frequency allocation is done by national telecommunication authorities. Globally, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) oversees how much radio spectrum is set aside for amateur radio transmissions. Individual amateur stations are free to use any frequency within authorized frequency ranges; authorized bands may vary by the class of the station license. Radio amateurs use a variety of transmission modes, including Morse code, radioteletype, data, and voice. Specific frequency allocations vary from country to country and between ITU regions as specified in the current ITU HF frequency allocations for amateur radio.[1] The list of frequency ranges is called a band allocation, which may be set by international agreements, and national regulations. The modes and types of allocations within each frequency band is called a bandplan; it may be determined by regulation, but most typically is set by agreements between amateur radio operators. National authorities regulate amateur usage of radio bands. Some bands may not be available or may have restrictions on usage in certain countries or regions. International agreements assign amateur radio bands which differ by region."[2][3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_frequency_allocations
    1
  194.  @ghz24  You're using the government approved frequencies. I sent you the citation. Stop being in denial. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  195.  @ghz24  So keep sitting outside playing with your little radio trying to aim your antenna at the moon. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  196. @Joejoe Joe What is impossible. Having night and day? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  197.  @ghz24  Did it ever occur to you that radio and TV signals have other buildings, mountains, trees, etc. that obstruct signals? Of course not, you only believe it's earth curve. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  198.  @SETIFilm  And for the gyro debunking: If the earth turns underneath a gyro then it will turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to it. Flights from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. But that doesn't happen because the earth is not turning.
    1
  199.  @SETIFilm  You just acknowledged that water is level as in flat as in horizontal. And you have no understanding of perspective. Look at street lights down a long street. You'll notice that the farther away from you they are the more the top of the lights drop. Click the image below and see how perspective works. Lol. https://images.app.goo.gl/552HqoUyxqpgEHcE8
    1
  200.  @ghz24  Sounds like radio waves lose intensity over distance. Perhaps this is the reason for signals not traveling that far. But you'll read this and still say earth curve. Lol. "As radio waves travel outward from their source - a transmitter - they lose intensity, and fast. The intensity of radio waves over distance obeys the inverse-square law, which states that intensity is inversly proportional to the square of the distance from a source.Dec 15, 2014"  https://www.rfvenue.com › blog › w... When it Comes to RF, Distance Plays Tricks with the Mind - RF ...
    1
  201.  @ghz24  They go to the moon. Just like NASA right? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  202.  @ghz24  A skip zone is where a radio transmission cannot be received. Let me guess, that's because of Earth curve too right? It's always earth curve. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. Even though we have disproven the radius by showing that the earth is not curving where it must based on that radius. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  203. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  204.  @vikingslayer34  The Bible says the Earth is what we live on. Hell is below and heaven is above. The Bible says there is a Firmament separating the waters above from the waters below. In that Firmament there are lights including the 2 greater lights, which are all there for signs, seasons, time, and light for us. It also says the Earth is immovable and stationary. Modern day Pseudoscientists say we are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun along with other spheres and can never experience or observe any of this. We have to just trust that a select few people have been to a region that defies a natural law and gas laws. Lol. Now when I travel the world the earth is never curving from ground or plane. I never feel any movement outside of earthquakes. And I look up and see lights that have patterns to their movements. And lo and behold there are 2 greater lights. Then as I am breathing And looking at the oceans, I am reminded that our air and oceans are not leaving so there must be containment (Firmament). My reality matches what the Bible says, not the Pseudoscientists.
    1
  205.  @trekkeruss  do you realize that you are saying don't trust what you can observe in reality but instead you are asking for me to draw you a picture or give you a model? You are conditioned to seek poor evidence.
    1
  206.  @ushikiii  Are you joking? I can't figure out if you're being serious or not.
    1
  207.  @Cornwall1888  don't try to change the subject. You need to decide if planes dip their nose or not. I'm trying to help you through this cognitive dissonance.
    1
  208.  @Cornwall1888  Planes fly with their noses up. Thank you for making up your mind. Now planes fly with their nose up because the ground below is flat. Down is always the same direction and not curving. So planes can fly a straight path without ever having to nose down. See how easy it is when you are not using double speak? Have a nice life.
    1
  209.  @raywhitson290  Picture, imagine, conceptualize the sphere. Lol. You can never see it in reality, but if you have a great imagination you can reify one. Lol. Have a good life buddy. Go do some moon bouncing. Let me know if you want to buy that moon rock. I might have a deal for you on some space time also. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  210. @Miro Mato You must be another MSU (Make Shite Up) graduate. Did you imagine that? Lol. You all keep forgetting that your sphere earth has a claimed radius. So we can calculate how much the earth should be curving. It's not infinitely big. Planes never have to account for curvature or rotation because neither exist. Planes can fly level straight paths and never dip it's nose to reorientate because the earth is flat. Your religion tells you that you can fly around the world eventually traveling antipodal and never dip it's nose or have to reorientate itself in relation to the earth. It's not reality.
    1
  211. @Miro Mato Elijah explained why things fall. Hint: It's not your current form of gravity, which is mass warping space time. Which weighs more? A box of space or a box of time? Lol.
    1
  212.  @stuartgray5877  You guys really need to make up your minds. Do planes dip their nose or not? Double speak. Lol.
    1
  213. @Miro Mato Online pilot. The argument is not about how planes fly. It's about where the ground would be. Planes fly straight level paths and down is always the same direction, not curving away. Earth is flat. Now good luck getting your pilot license. Lol.
    1
  214.  @stuartgray5877  A gyro is not science. It's technology you knucklehead. Lol. Science is a method that validates cause and effect relationships in the natural world by first observing a natural phenomenon and then manipulating or varying a pressupposed cause to see if it causes the effect. You can't manipulate earth curve and you damn sure can't observe it. Lol. Report back to the 5th grade and learn the scientific method. Lol.
    1
  215.  @stuartgray5877  Moving forward is not the same as dipping the nose. Stop the double speak and answer the question. Do planes dip their nose. Yes or no?
    1
  216.  @stuartgray5877  So Planes do dip there nose to follow the claimed earth curvature now? Do all you globies agree with that? I've heard it doesn't and now it does. Lol.
    1
  217.  @stuartgray5877  There's the double speak again. Lol. It must be difficult trying to hold two different beliefs at the same time. Lol.
    1
  218.  Miro Mato  Lots of technology is created by using science. That doesn't mean technology is science you knucklehead. Lol. Later globies, I will leave you amongst yourselves to keep going back and forth about planes dipping their nose or not. Lol. Just for your information. Planes don't dip their nose as they fly over our flat level plane. Peace.
    1
  219.  @brendenlim2158  No you didn't misunderstand what Miro is saying. He's just using double speak, trying to hold 2 positions at once. You picked up on it.
    1
  220. @Miro Mato So now the plane doesn't have to dip it's nose because earth is rotating underneath? So what if the plane flew the other direction away from the rotation? Lol. Are destinations on Earth now coming to the plane? Lol. Can a drone or helicopter hover and have destinations come to it. Lol.
    1
  221. @Miro Mato It's actually funny to me how you all keep flip flopping on whether a plane dips it's nose or not. Now your new claim is it doesn't have to because earth rotates to it. Lol. Then that would mean a helicopter or drone could hover and have destinations come to it. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would be an hour and a half. But that doesn't happen does it?
    1
  222.  @stuartgray5877  When were you in a region that violates a natural law and gas laws taking pictures? Lol. Outerspace is fake buddy. Can't have gas pressure without a container. The sky is not a vacuum. The gas here on Earth would disperse into the vacuum. Lol. Would you like to see my pictures from Narnia? I can show you the talking lion. Lol.
    1
  223.  @stuartgray5877  Here's your gravity. From your own pseudoscientists. Lol. https://youtu.be/ZonZ4PshKIY
    1
  224. @Miro Mato So you just used an analogy that doesn't apply. Double speaking at it's finest. Lol. Give an example of Earth turning underneath a plane but then say that doesn't actually happen. Lol.
    1
  225. @Miro Mato Abstract means to exist in thought or idea but not have a physical or concrete existence. And you only offer more double speaking. Now your claim is that Earth is a closed system. Lol. Then how are people going to outerspace and coming back? Lol.
    1
  226. @Miro Mato Closed system means matter can't come in or out. But energy can. And if course you can't use real concrete examples for your model. It's all abstract.
    1
  227. @Miro Mato I'm bored with this conversation. You bring nothing to the debate. Just double speak.
    1
  228. @Miro Mato No, I just pick up on when you are trying to claim 2 separate positions. Your latest is earth is a closed system. Your model says earth is an open system surrounded by an ever expanding vacuum. Before that you claimed earth turns underneath planes but when realizing that would mean helicopters could hover and have destinations come to it you said no that's not what you meant. And you are trying to hold the position that planes do and don't dip their nose to follow earth curvature. Lol.
    1
  229.  @stuartgray5877  Your own high priests disagree with you. They say gravity is not a force. And here's another one saying Einstein may have been wrong also. So don't attack me personally for your religion's confusion. https://youtu.be/9XjS4I4oQDY
    1
  230. Later for now globies. Maybe if a good argument comes along from you guys I'll jump back in. Try to pick just one position in debates. The double speaking is killing you guys. Lol.
    1
  231.  @admiralcat3809  That is a straw man argument. Nobody here has claimed that planes levitate. The argument is not about how planes stay in the air. It's about how planes don't dip their nose to follow earth curvature because they are flying straight level paths over a stationary flat plane. Try to keep up. Lol.
    1
  232.  @admiralcat3809  Thanks Columbo for telling us that planes can fall from the sky (sarcasm). Lol. The argument is that planes fly in a straight level path as you stated (the air is lifting its underside to keep a straight line). And there is no need for a nose dip, because the ground is also straight and level and down remains the same direction, never curving away.
    1
  233.  @admiralcat3809  Stop using straw man arguments and stereotype fallacies. You're on a comment thread and nobody here has claimed planes don't fall. Now again, you miss the point and don't understand that the argument is about planes flying straight and level paths, and the ground remaining the same underneath and never curving away. Given that you acknowledge planes don't dip the nose the ground obviously is not curving.
    1
  234.  @henrivandesign4526  Lie Man Dan is your hero. Lol.
    1
  235.  @admiralcat3809  I heard you the first few times. Planes go straight. Earth's flat. Thanks again.
    1
  236.  @admiralcat3809  https://youtu.be/jDHls64L-YE
    1
  237.  J Calhoun  https://youtu.be/jDHls64L-YE
    1
  238.  J Calhoun  Lol. Just an ad hominem attack and no rebuttal. Lol.
    1
  239. @Big AL 311 Sunsets don't disprove the earth being flat. Lol.
    1
  240. @Big AL 311 It's your argument. How about you explain how? Lol.
    1
  241. @Big AL 311 You just said sunsets disprove flat Earth lol. That makes as much sense as saying trees disprove the globe. Lol.
    1
  242. @Big AL 311 Out of your field of view as I have said several times. Lol. The problem is you still don't understand that the horizon you see is not earth curve. Once you get that there is no geometric horizon, you'll understand that the earth is not a sphere and the horizon is the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. It's how our vision works. It's called perspective. Read below how vanishing points work. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vanishing%20point
    1
  243. @Big AL 311 It's always in the sky. When it leaves your field of view, you just can't see it anymore. Others west of you can. It's now in their field of view. Did you click on the link about vanishing points?
    1
  244. @Big AL 311 Here's another video about vanishing point showing you how parallel lines appear to converge. What you are believing is the sun going over Earth curve is just a lack of understanding about how perspective works. https://youtu.be/AkKx2DN6kyo
    1
  245. @Big AL 311 You clearly just want to believe in your model. There is no geometric horizon and earth curve has been debunked. Sunsets and sunrises are easily explained by perspective.
    1
  246. @Big AL 311 I'm not trying to argue with you. Believe what you want. You asked how sunsets and sunrises work. I explained it to you. And provided you with links to explain it further. If you are honest you won't keep going around saying flat Earthers can't explain sun sets. That's not true. You just won't accept the truth because you believe in your model.
    1
  247.  @globestrikeback1888  Not going to address you saying you personally measured earth curve. Lol. In regards to the sun not changing it's angular size. Your argument: The sun's angular size should shrink as it moves across the sky. Debunking: You don't know the actual size, actual distance, actual position, actual speed, and what the sun actually is. How can you make any actual claims about what a light in the sky should do when you don't have any actual information about it? Lol.
    1
  248.  @globestrikeback1888  So you just made declarations. The geometry proves that the earth is not curving away where it must if it is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles. So whatever you are personally doing is wrong. Seeing a light doesn't mean it's physical. Lol. Are shadows physical? And declaring that the sun is helium and hydrogen is just a claim by your model. And saying that the not actual size would change as it changed its not actual position in the sky is nonsensical. Lol.
    1
  249.  @globestrikeback1888  You are way too triggered about me not believing in your model/religion. Lol. Your high priests tell you it's a model. They even say it can change if someone comes along with a better model. Lol.
    1
  250.  @globestrikeback1888  Spectroscopy. Lol. Helium was discovered on the sun before being discovered on Earth. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  251.  @globestrikeback1888  When you use spectroscopy for the sun, did it ever dawn on you that the light is shining through the gas we have here? You know the stuff you globies call an atmosphere? And who knows what ever else is out there before the lights gets to your spectrometer. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  252.  @globestrikeback1888  You might be shocked to know that helium and hydrogen are in the "atmosphere." 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  253.  @globestrikeback1888  Have you saw what they use for spectroscopy when using on things here. It's an aparatus that closes and keeps all light out. Now the aparatus used for astronomical spectroscopy is completely open and is looking through all the "atmosphere" and you believe that it is getting an accurate reading of the makeup of the sun is. Lol. You have suspended all disbelief to follow your model/religion. Lol.
    1
  254.  @globestrikeback1888  Lol. You think you are winning this argument. Is the sun in your model a solid?
    1
  255.  @globestrikeback1888  Do you know that gas does not produce a continuous spectrum? And the sun spectrum produced by spectroscopy is continuous spectrum. Lol.
    1
  256.  @globestrikeback1888  "When solids are heated they emit all wavelengths of light (a continuous spectrum). ... When gasses are heated they emit only certain wavelengths of light (an emission line spectrum). Different gasses emit different wavelengths. A cool object (gas or solid) can absorb some of the light passing through it."  www.as.utexas.edu › ... PDF Spectra of gasses and solids
    1
  257.  @globestrikeback1888  Try to comprehend. Gases don't emit continuous spectrums (only certain wavelengths). Solids emit continuous spectrums. Your model says that the sun is a gas ball but with a continuous spectrum. Lol. That's a contradiction. "The spectrum of the Sun appears as a continuous spectrum and is frequently represented as shown below. ... In the case of the Sun, light is emitted at almost all energies in the visible spectrum, which is why you see all of the colors in the Sun's spectrum.May 5, 2016"  NASA (.gov) › gsfc › imagine › yba More About Spectra and the Spectra of Galaxies - Imagine the Universe! - NASA
    1
  258.  @globestrikeback1888  So maybe your model needs to decide if the sun is a solid or gas. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  259.  @globestrikeback1888  Sorry to debunk your model and spectroscopy. You are very gullible to believe that an apparatus can make out the elements of something claimed to be 93 million miles away and the results not changed by our "atmosphere" which has helium and hydrogen in it. Lol. You see a continuous spectrum which indicates a solid and still believe that you are making out elements of gas which emits only certain wavelengths. Your model and astronomical spectroscopy doesn't work. Later.
    1
  260. The size of the Earth is given in your model. Where and how much it should be curving can be calculated. Only problem is there is no curvature. Lol.
    1
  261.  @GerardMenvussa  The lights just look bigger with a telescope. I don't see spheres. And don't project your living situation onto me buddy.
    1
  262.  @GerardMenvussa  Here's what NASA has. Lol. https://images.app.goo.gl/uRtPZDurAp1Gnm93A
    1
  263.  @GerardMenvussa  Here's more footage of the lights in the sky with a telescope. Notice how they don't look like the CGI garbage NASA puts out? Just lights. https://youtu.be/JTsua0oHPZw
    1
  264.  @GerardMenvussa  You have never used a telescope. If you had, then you would not be saying lights in the sky are physical objects you can land on.
    1
  265.  @650Max  The Bible is a reality book. It never claimed to be science. Science is a method of validating cause and effect relationships in the natural world. Post a scientific hypothesis (independent variable and dependent variable) of any experiment ever proving we are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun. Lol.
    1
  266.  @GerardMenvussa  So you have no evidence. Just a false claim that you can't prove. Lol.
    1
  267.  @650Max  Perspective is the correct answer. The sky and the ground appears to converge with distance until reaching a vanishing point we call the horizon. That's where the sun goes (out of your field of view). The appearance of clockwise and counter clockwise rotation just depends on the direction the observer is facing. There is no hemispheres, just a plane we live on called earth. Your Models explanation for moon phases, seasons, eclipses and other phenomena can't be proven through science (experimentation) so it's just a story. The ability to predict these things are not based on their being a solar system as they were being predicted long before the Heliocentrism model.
    1
  268.  @GerardMenvussa  I posted links to the lights in the sky. You just said "my word against your." Lol.
    1
  269.  @650Max  The stars all arrive in the East and depart in the west. When they appear to be going left to right turn around and they will be going right to left. Lol. I don't mean to laugh at you but c'mon just turn around. 😂😂😂😂😂😂 "How did ancient people calculate eclipses? ... By 8 B.C. the Chinese could predict eclipses by using the 135 month period; and by A.D. 206 they could predict eclipses by analyzing the motion of the moon. By A.D. 390 they could predict how much of the moon would be in shadow."  https://www.quora.com › How-did-a... How did ancient people calculate eclipses? - Quora "Allen Christenson, professor of comparative arts and letters and an expert on Mayan society, explained that although the Maya couldn't predict the exact day of an eclipse, they could predict eclipse seasons by noting when Venus rose above the horizon just before sunrise.Nov 10, 2017"  https://humanities.byu.edu › the-ma... The Maya and Eclipses—The End of a World? - BYU College of ... "Though ancient astronomers wouldn’t have been able to monitor all iterations of a Saros cycle (eclipses can occur in the middle of oceans or uninhabited areas), they were able to figure out parts of the timing well enough to know when one might strike. But at this point in history, they just knew the when." https://www.popsci.com/people-have-been-able-to-predict-eclipses-for-really-long-time-heres-how/
    1
  270.  @650Max  Lol. Are you watching YouTube star trails videos imagining a southern celestial pole? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  271.  @650Max  You have been watching YouTube star trails videos. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  272.  @650Max  Check out these spiral star trails. What shape do you think they make the earth? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😄😂
    1
  273.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Post your pictures of these spherical objects in the sky that you globies believe causes the ground we live on to be a sphere. Lol. The argument: Lights in the sky APPEARING round or spherical causes the ground we live on to be spherical. Lol. That's such a silly argument.
    1
  274.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  The video you sent in the description says autostakkert and Photoshop was used for stacking photos. Here's a link to autostakkert imagining. In case you don't understand what I'm saying, let me make it clear the still photos in the video is not reality. It's created in Photoshop. Lol. The parts with the video showing lights are just that, "lights." https://www.autostakkert.com/
    1
  275.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Pay attention to the argument. Argument: Star trails videos prove celestial poles. I'm not saying you can't make star trail videos. People can make spiral star trail videos by stacking photos. In order to have a celestial pole, you have to have a geographic pole. The earth is flat and there are no geographic poles.
    1
  276.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  The earth is noticeably and observably flat and the Bible also says so. The Bible matches our reality. Your model/religion doesn't match reality.
    1
  277.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  There is no hemisphere. That's part of your confusion. Lol.
    1
  278.  @elcross77  If you can provide ACTUAL information about the lights in the sky, then you can declare what the sun should ACTUALLY do. So far all you have is a NOT actual size of a light in the sky that you have never been to. Lol. Proof that God exists is the natural world having laws and intelligence. Nature has laws so there must have been a law giver. Your DNA and everything about our world has information and instructions. If you see a book with words in it that you can read and understand, would you think that the book put itself together? Lol. Finally, the second law which states entropy always increases proves that nature could not have always existed as entropy increases and we know there was a starting point. And nature can't make decisions so we know there is a God, creator, and something outside of the laws of nature that is eternal.
    1
  279.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  No equator. You are using begging the question fallacies where you saying hemispheres and equator are unproven premises you need in order to draw your desired conclusion that we live on a sphere.
    1
  280.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Stars can appear to rotate clockwise and counter clockwise from any location in the plane just depends on the direction you the observer is facing.
    1
  281.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  I said you can see the stars appear to rotate clockwise and counter clockwise from any location. Don't change my words.
    1
  282.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  So here's the debunking of your argument. If you are looking North as in towards Polaris stars appear to rotate counter clockwise (because they are moving right to left). If you turn around they will appear to be rotating clockwise because now they are moving left to right. This is the case from any location. So all you have to do is turn around. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  283.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Also don't claim flat Earthers believe something that is your belief. And then say that it makes no sense. That's called a straw man argument.
    1
  284.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Yeah south on a plane, not down a ball. Lol.
    1
  285.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Your argument is that you can only see clockwise rotation in Australia or other southern continents. But if you see clockwise rotation say from Alaska, your not on the bottom of the ball are you? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  286.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  The southern skies. Boy have you drunk the Kool aid. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. You think there are separate skies. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  287.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Flat Earth is not a model. It's reality.
    1
  288.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Thanks for the laugh Fernando. Make sure the next time you are out star gazing you turn around. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. God bless you. I pray he opens your eyes.
    1
  289.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Here's a video that can remind you of what you need to do. https://youtu.be/lcOxhH8N3Bo
    1
  290.  oleyella85  Yes buddy. Because you can only see part of the sky from your perspective. So if facing north you see the stars move from right to left it appears to you as counter clockwise. If you turn around you see the stars going left to right appearing to you as clockwise. If you could see the entire sky you would see it is rotating the same direction always. But we all have just a sliver of the sky we can see because of perspective.
    1
  291. @SniperBlaster51 People in the Renaissance era are not here, so don't try to speak for them or declare what they believed, because that would be a consensus fallacy. What people believed in the Renaissance era doesn't prove the Earth is a sphere. Let your argument stand on it's own merits. Your argument: Other planets are spherical so earth must be. Debunking: You can't tell what the lights in the sky are. And even if the lights in the sky were giant Unicorns it would not cause the ground we live on to be a giant unicorn. Lol.
    1
  292.  oleyella85  Try to listen. Might help if you just use one star for now. If you see one star going right to left from one direction in an arched motion it appears to be going counter clockwise. Now if you turn around and can still see another star going in the same direction but now the star you see is going from left to right in an arched motion it appears to be going clockwise. I can't help you visualize this any better. You just have to turn around. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  293.  oleyella85  As I said earlier. You have to understand that you only see a sliver of the sky. In reality it is all rotating in the same direction. But from your small vantage point you are just seeing either left to right or right to left of one part of the sky.
    1
  294.  oleyella85  I am not saying what the other guy said, because he is saying that you can only get clockwise and counter clockwise rotation from southern continents suggesting being on the bottom of a sphere. As you now seem to realize, clockwise and counter clockwise rotation just depends on the direction you are facing. Globies have reified celestial poles by not understanding how perspective works. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I appreciate your honesty on this though. Humility is a good thing to have. God bless you.
    1
  295.  oleyella85  It's not just in Australia can you get clockwise rotation. It happens also in Alaska or continents farther north. That's the debunking of the argument. And there are no hemispheres. Lol.
    1
  296.  oleyella85  What you are also confused about is directions. North is towards the center of the plane. South is away from the center. North is not towards the top of a ball and south is not towards the bottom of a ball. Do you understand this?
    1
  297.  oleyella85  And there is no orbit. Just a flat level plane with the stars rotating above us.
    1
  298.  oleyella85  No worries. I don't believe in the mainstream view. I expect people to be insulting. I thought flat Earth was dumb also at first. Thanks for the apology. God bless you.
    1
  299. @SniperBlaster51 Post the scientific hypothesis (independent and dependent variable) for any scientific experiment ever proving we live on a sphere or that the earth is rotating. You don't just get to claim science with me. I'm going to make you prove it.
    1
  300. @SniperBlaster51 You claimed science, now don't back down.
    1
  301.  oleyella85  Yes it's all moving the same direction. But as you acknowledged clockwise and counter clockwise rotation is dependent on your limited perspective.
    1
  302. @Quentin Styger What are you referring to? I don't believe volume was being discussed here. Here's the definition of volume however. "Volume is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by a closed surface, for example, the space that a substance (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma) or shape occupies or contains. Volume is often quantified numerically using the SI derived unit, the cubic metre."
    1
  303. @SniperBlaster51 So your scientific evidence is asking me for scientific evidence?
    1
  304. @SniperBlaster51 Do you see the horizon behind the second platform? Yes or no?
    1
  305. @SniperBlaster51 You claimed scientific evidence. I never did. You asked for some evidence. I provided you with a video debunking the globe. You said the video is distorted. Can you not see the horizon behind the second platform in the video?
    1
  306.  @wilecatrexy  "14¶And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth," Genesis 1: 14-18
    1
  307.  oleyella85  Try to not lose track of the arguments. You seem to jump in on other people's arguments and don't understand what is being argued. Argument by Fernando: Clockwise and counter clockwise rotation prove we are on a ball. Debunking: As you already conceded clockwise and counter clockwise rotation just depends on the perspective of the observer from the direction he/she is facing. Argument by me to SniperBlaster51: From the video I showed. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), the distance to the horizon can never be more than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The distance to the horizon in the video is more than 9.41 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). Your rebuttal: The horizon distance is dependent on atmospheric conditions because on a different day the horizon is blocking the bottom of the platforms. The distance to the horizon is never consistent. My rebuttal and demolition of the globe: If the horizon we see is caused by atmospheric conditions (weather), then it's not geometric. Your model requires the horizon to be a physical edge where the earth is curving away based on the 3959 mile radius. Now that you concede that the horizon is not geometric, welcome to flat Earth!!!
    1
  308.  oleyella85  You write way too much. Argument: Sphere objects prove earth must also be sphere. Debunking: Can't tell if lights in sky are spherical. Even if they were, doesn't prove ground we live on is a sphere. The rest of what you said was just you backpedaling away from what you already conceded. And you threw in some straw man arguments and stereotype fallacies about flat Earthers.
    1
  309.  oleyella85  And you did say that the horizon changes because of atmospheric conditions. Now you are saying that an apparent line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground is an illusion. That's redundant. Of course the horizon is an illusion (the sky doesn't actually meet the ground). You globies are the ones claiming it's physical earth curve. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  310. Well regardless of what you believe we are on. Hopefully, God will bless you all. Peace.
    1
  311.  @Roop-n4z  Okay pay close attention. The stars, sun, and moon are lights in the sky that appear round. We don't know if they are spheres of if they are actually even round. They appear round from our perspective. The globehead argument is that because these lights in the sky appear to be round, the land we live on must be round. If the lights in the sky appeared to be Unicorns, would that mean we are on a giant Unicorn? Lol. The logic doesn't follow. Especially, since we have proven that the earth is not curving where it should in order to be a sphere with a 3959 mile radius. We also know that the Earth is not turning because it doesn't turn underneath drones, helicopters, or airplanes. I get that you have a model that says earth is a planet and in a solar system with other balls rotating around a giant fireball as it moves through a galaxy, which is one of many galaxies. But that's just a model. Models are not reality. In reality the earth is the land we live on. It's level as in flat, as in horizontal. There is an up and down. And the lights in the sky that appear round are there for time, seasons, and light for us here on Earth. You have no evidence that you are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun. Having water and gas pressure maintained proves we are not surrounded by a vacuum as both require containment. So showing photoshopped images of lights in the sky does not prove your model is true. Finally, look around you and recognize that everything has intelligent design. From how the sun causes plants and flowers to grow, to how the cycles that keep life going. How we have everything here to support life. From your DNA which is like a book with instructions. Are you too blind to see that the lights in the sky are here for us? Are you too blind to realize that God has created this world for us. I don't know what you believe, but I pray that you are able to come out of this sun worshipping Heliocentrism religion and serve the God that created you and all the lights you see up there. God bless you.
    1
  312.  @Roop-n4z  You clearly didn't read my post to you. If the lights in the sky were a unicorn, would that mean the land we live on is a unicorn? Yes or no?
    1
  313.  @Roop-n4z  You didn't answer the question. If the lights in the sky appeared to be Unicorns, would that mean the land we live on is a unicorn? Lol. Just a simple yes or no will do. If your answer is no , then stop making this ridiculous argument that there are spheres up there, so earth must be a sphere. If your answer is yes, then seek help immediately. Lol. As far as the other galaxies or the guy in your video showing a blurry light and claiming that's another galaxy, it's just you and his imagination. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. God bless you anyway. Have a nice day.
    1
  314.  @Roop-n4z  calm down, I had already posted my response before yours came in. Now reading your response, it sounds like you are saying that the lights in the sky appearing to be a sphere does not prove the Earth is a sphere. But because of your religious belief in the solar system model earth must be the same as the other lights in the sky. Lol. Thanks for admitting that you just have faith in a model. Your argument is now debunked. Models are not reality. You are guilty of what is called model reifications fallacy.
    1
  315.  @Roop-n4z  And there are no hemispheres. That's a begging the question fallacy where the premises (hemispheres) of your argument assume the truth of your conclusion (sphere). All objects will drop closer to your horizon when you move away from them until eventually leaving your field of view as it goes below the horizon. It's called perspective. Look at street lights down a long street. Lol.
    1
  316.  @Roop-n4z  The horizon is the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. As long as you have eyes and vision there will be a horizon. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  317.  @Roop-n4z  The horizon is not geometric, as in physical, as in earth curve.
    1
  318.  @Roop-n4z  The sphere is what doesn't exist.
    1
  319.  @Roop-n4z  Look at these street lights in the image posted here. Notice how the lines appear to converge with distance on the sides as well as the sky and ground. That's perspective. Because you globies don't understand how perspective works you have reified Earth curve for the horizon. https://images.app.goo.gl/TAtYyeyveMuPLtt98 So we put it to the test using modus tollens. If p then q, not q therefore not p. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), then the distance to the horizon can never be more than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). From 1 foot height the distance to the horizon is more than 9.41 miles away (not q) therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p).
    1
  320. Have you been under a rock? There's so much evidence that the globe is a lie and heliocentrism is just a religion. Here's the newest debunking of the globe. If p then q, not q therefore not p. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), then the distance to the horizon cannot be farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer's height (q). The horizon has been viewed on many occasions to be farther than 10 miles from observers at 1 foot to 6 feet height (not q), therefore earth is not a sphere. Watch the double speak from the globehead below. Lol. https://youtu.be/czU0xHiH8ac
    1
  321. The earth is flat because there's no curvature. Spheres must have curvature. Lol.
    1
  322. https://youtu.be/4sAoirPFOng
    1
  323. @QED You ask him. I'm not your messenger.
    1
  324. @QED Did you watch the video I posted. Mr. Sensible says your radius has been disproven. You realize how that destroys your whole model?
    1
  325. Easy. Perspective. Look down a street with street lights and notice how the lights farther from you get close to your horizon and apparent position drops as well as angular size shrinking. Eventually the lights won't be seen if you move farther away.
    1
  326. Heliocentrism is a religion. And being under the delusion that you are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun is mental illness.
    1
  327. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  328. Post a scientific hypothesis (independent and dependent variable) of any scientific Experiment that flat earthers reject. The apparent size of the sun appearing to not change as it changes its apparent position in the sky is not proof of anything. The Sun the moon and all the other lights in the sky never actually go down but their apparent position in the sky makes them appear to go down as they leave your field of view. The people pushing the heliocentrism model are the ones profiting from deception. Look into how much money NASA makes as well as SpaceX.
    1
  329. And last I checked it was people pushing heliocentrism claiming that science doesn't prove things. Lol.
    1
  330. @QED Do you know the actual size and actual distance and actual position of the sun in the sky? No , so in dealing with a light with everything about it being apparent (not actual), it's not logical to try to assume actual things like it's size never actually changing. You don't know that to be true.
    1
  331. @QED Jets, birds, balloons have actual sizes and their distances and location in the sky can be known. So with these things you can make determinations about them shrinking with distance. The sun, moon, and other lights in the sky have nothing that you actually know about them. So again, how are you going to declare what something apparent in every way should actually do? Not logical. What is your evidence of the distance to the sun? It wouldn't happen to be based on the Earth's radius would it? Lol. Because you know that the Geometry for the radius fails right? Lol.
    1
  332.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Do the math . Lol. What numbers should I plug in? We don't know what the actual size, actual distance, actual position in the sky, or what the light actually is. Lol. Not sure how we can make any conclusions or do any mathematics on something we don't have any actual information on. Lol.
    1
  333.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  And you have no idea how far the sun or moon is?
    1
  334.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Thanks for acknowledging that you don't know how far the sun or moon is. And you can measure the apparent size of something but you can't say what the apparent size should actually do when you don't know the actual size, and actual distance, actual position in the sky, or what the lights actually are.
    1
  335.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Pay close attention. You CAN measure apparent size but you CAN'T declare what something not actual should do if you know nothing but the NOT ACTUAL size of it.
    1
  336.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  The argument: The NOT ACTUAL size of the sun should change when it is in a NOT ACTUAL position in the sky based on it's NOT ACTUAL distance from the observer of light that may or may not be physical. Lol. That's your silly argument.
    1
  337. There's evidence of intelligent design (maybe not with you). There's no evidence of a spherical earth in orbit.
    1
  338.  @johnunderwood-hp8rj  You can't see the earth in orbit. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  339.  @johnunderwood-hp8rj  Keep looking at lights in the sky. They don't prove earth is in orbit. All the lights in the sky rotate above us from east to west. You have never been to these lights so you can't reify spherical orbits around the sun from seeing lights rotate above your head buddy. Lol.
    1
  340.  @jormungandr9251  Compasses work fine on a flat Earth. Declination refers to using true north which begs the question of Earth on an axis so you can draw your erroneous conclusion of a spherical earth.
    1
  341.  @jormungandr9251  Equator begs the question of a sphere also. So you keep imagining being on a sphere using declination and equator. That's the problem.
    1
  342.  @jormungandr9251  Words matter. And I will not allow you to have premises that automatically put us on your reified sphere. "e·qua·tor /ēˈkwādər/ Learn to pronounce noun an imaginary line drawn around the earth equally distant from both poles, dividing the earth into northern and southern hemispheres and constituting the parallel of latitude 0°."
    1
  343.  @jormungandr9251  So if earth doesn't have an equator, poles, and not on any axis you have no argument.
    1
  344.  @jormungandr9251  Declination assumes earth is on an axis. Uses true north. Your argument is based on a begging the question fallacy. Lol. "true north noun north according to the earth's axis, not magnetic north." "compass readings vary from 7.9° to 6.7° west of true north"
    1
  345.  @jormungandr9251  I got just a little into your video and stopped it because you are making declarations about the distances of the lights in the sky. You don't have any evidence of this. Not worth watching a video full of unproven claims.
    1
  346.  @jormungandr9251  Also more spherical language such as longitude and latitude. Do you have any evidence that doesn't use begging the question fallacy?
    1
  347.  @jormungandr9251  You've already been debunked. I don't know what you are still rambling on about. Lol. If you are talking about where you see Polaris in the sky then perspective applies as it always applies with optics.
    1
  348.  @jormungandr9251  You don't get to declare what we should see. You used an observation and I debunked it. We don't see linear. There's perspective effects when it comes to vision. Nice try but your trick has been exposed. The Crux of your argument is to get people to believe that we see linear like in orthographic view, but we don't. You can use this trick along with saying equator, latitude, longitude, and declination to convince people that you are traveling down a sphere. You have been debunked.
    1
  349.  @jormungandr9251  Your argument: We see linear. So Polaris should not be dropping and it must be because our latitude is changing as we go down a ball. Lol. Debunking: Perspective applies with all optics. You are not traveling down a ball. You've just replaced perspective with earth curve. Lol.
    1
  350.  @jormungandr9251  Here's the total demolition of your religion and argument. You don't have a physical geometric horizon. Watch the video below. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  351.  @jormungandr9251  And now we get a declaration about how far away Polaris is. Lol. Earlier you said the distances are not the point. Lol. And you can't minimize the impact of perspective. Only if you want to replace the very real perspective with a reified Earth curve.
    1
  352.  @jormungandr9251  Now watch the video you keep dodging. It ends your globe. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  353.  @jormungandr9251 Don't need to go to a photo from a different day. Can you see the horizon behind the second platform?
    1
  354.  @jormungandr9251  Are you not able to see the horizon behind the second platform in the video I posted?
    1
  355.  @jormungandr9251  Let go of your Polaris garbage. It's been debunked. Now do you not see the horizon behind the second platform?
    1
  356.  @jormungandr9251  The horizon is what I am asking about. Not if you see distortion on the platforms. Can you see the horizon behind the second platform in the video I posted? Lol. Quit running from this.
    1
  357.  @jormungandr9251  I'm also not claiming this is science. It's an argument based on logical consistency and geometry. It uses modus tollens. If p then q, not p therefore not q. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), then the horizon can't be no farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The horizon is farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). Now look at the horizon behind the second platform. Can you see it? Lol.
    1
  358.  @jormungandr9251  You are going to keep avoiding the question? Everyone can see how you are refusing to answer. Lol. Can you see the horizon behind the second platform? Yes or no? Lol.
    1
  359.  @jormungandr9251  So you acknowledge that the horizon is apparent as in not actual. You just admitted that you don't have a physical horizon obstructing objects or for the sun to go below. Welcome to flat Earth. There's just one horizon and it's not physical or geometric. And the beauty of modus tollens is you now saying the radius is wrong and earth could be bigger, proves none of your mathematics work. Any globe earth math using your radius of 3959 must be thrown out. Lol. And yes flat Earth does have a horizon because it's optical as you just admitted, caused by perspective, weather, and light effects. Lol. That's why it's called the number 1 Globe Killer. So you have a model that fails logically and mathematically. RIP Globe!!!
    1
  360.  @jormungandr9251  Yes keep explaining that the horizon is apparent as in not physical or geometric. Lol. That's the point buddy. Lol. Your model must have a physical geometric horizon. And as for a photo from a different day, this just proves even more that the horizon is not physical. It can't be physical some days and apparent on others. Lol. Once the horizon has been proven to not be physical, it can't just go back to being physical.
    1
  361.  @jormungandr9251  Your religion says there is a geometric horizon. But it's not there as you admitted. You see the apparent horizon. And you acknowledged that the only logical conclusion you can draw is that the Earth's radius is not 3959 miles. Lol. So you can't use the curve calculator anymore. And all of your past conclusions using the radius value is debunked. Lol. Have a nice life. And welcome to flat Earth buddy.
    1
  362.  @jormungandr9251  Earth's radius is not 3959 miles now. Lol. Throw out all the maths that you all said prove the sphere then. Lol.
    1
  363.  @jormungandr9251  There's a globe sale at the horizon. Hurry up and get there. Lol.
    1
  364.  @Maradnus  Yeah the globe belief is ridiculous. The weird thing is people can ridicule an ice wall or dome, but think it's perfectly rational to believe people are antipodal on a spinning ball with oceans and gas sticking to the ball along with everything else. Just trying to figure out how the sun can be moving through the Galaxy and all the claimed spheres orbiting it while it's moving is magical at best. But then they can deny God, when their whole model is supernatural. The sad part is they are too brainwashed to see that they are in a religion. Lol.
    1
  365. Columbus didn't figure out the world was round, you never see earth curvature, language doesn't prove the Earth is a sphere, and Astronauts are not going into a vacuum. Earth is flat and stationary just like we all observe and experience.
    1
  366.  @stopthecap5319  https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  367.  @toddvandell85  Space is fake news buddy. We don't have a sky vacuum as evidenced by us breathing. Lol. Earth's flat , stationary, and not floating in a vacuum. Lol. Your whole model/religion is wrong.
    1
  368. @Pearshapidness Yes it's a strong delusion indeed that they have. Lol. All we can do is keep telling them the truth. God will do the rest if they are open to the truth.
    1
  369.  @trannkhaiminh9997  Pearshapidness answered your question. Our air is not escaping because we don't have a sky vacuum. Earth is a closed system.
    1
  370.  @trannkhaiminh9997  We can see lights in the sky, that you globies have reified into massive rocks that can be landed on. Lol. You've been deceived. In order for you to get to the truth, you need to let go of all of the heliocentrism lies. There is no solar system. Giant spheres are not orbiting the sun. And gravity is a hoax. Things fall because they are heavier than the air. Helium balloons are lighter than the air and go up. The current rhetoric for gravity is that it is not a force but the warping of concepts. You sound intelligent enough to get this. Just let go of the ego and pride and realize that it's just a model that you are believing in, but it's not reality.
    1
  371.  @trannkhaiminh9997  Neil was not joking Lol. Boy are you in denial. You can watch the fuller clip if you want.
    1
  372.  @trannkhaiminh9997  Don't use a stereotype fallacy about the flat Earth community. I'm here with you and all you see are lights in the sky. You have not been there so that's the end of that discussion. And pens fall down because they are solid and heavier than the air. The ground stops it from continuing to fall. And nothing is actually falling until someone picks it up and drops it. So the cause of something falling is the person picking it up and dropping it.
    1
  373.  @trannkhaiminh9997  Have a good night. I see you are strongly holding on to your Heliocentrism model. You don't seem to want to know the truth and I am not going to force you to change your beliefs. Take it easy.
    1
  374.  demigodzilla  It continues to destroy the globe.
    1
  375.  demigodzilla  You're running from the truth. Just look at the video and answer if you can see the horizon behind the second platform. No need to name call. Lol. I don't know why you are so triggered by this. Don't you want to know the truth. Is the horizon behind the y platform? Yes or no?
    1
  376.  demigodzilla  When you are ready to get serious and answer the question I'll be here. You're clearly afraid of the truth. Lol.
    1
  377.  @ginaidoma4368  We did the geometry. There's no geometric horizon. Your model must have a geometric horizon based on the 3959 mile radius. It doesn't. Earth's not a sphere. Now off you go to ask an ant if it knows it's on a ball. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  378.  @ginaidoma4368  Here you go Gina. More evidence. Unless of course that ant is giving you answers. Lol. https://youtu.be/Y-Kn7Ma1PL4
    1
  379.  @ginaidoma4368  Why would I need to account for all of that to get an actual distance to the horizon? I just need the geometry and the claimed radius of 3959 miles. The Geometry calculates that the geometric horizon cannot be farther than 1.2 miles for an observer at 1 foot height. Do you see the horizon behind the second platform?
    1
  380.  @ginaidoma4368  Are you suggesting that the geometry does not work for getting the distance to the horizon? Then we don't have a physical geometric horizon. Lol. Your sphere must have a geometric horizon.
    1
  381.  @ginaidoma4368  so then you are saying that the horizon we see is not geometric but apparent?
    1
  382.  @ginaidoma4368  So you can't see the horizon behind the second platform?
    1
  383.  @ginaidoma4368  It's not anecdotal because I'm not giving you a personal account.I'm asking you can you see the horizon behind the second platform?
    1
  384.  @ginaidoma4368  you're throwing out all of these excuses and all I'm asking you is can you see the horizon behind the second platform. Lol.
    1
  385.  demigodzilla  Why are you talking about principles of optics? The horizon is supposed to be physical according to your religion. Are you saying boats are not going over a physical edge but it's just an optical effect? Buildings are not actually being obstructed by a physical edge but it is just optical?
    1
  386.  demigodzilla  Can you see the horizon behind the second platform? Lol. I'm going to keep grilling it into you globies until you understand that you no longer have a geometric horizon. It's been debunked. Lol. All your mathematics based on the 3959 radius is debunked. You can't use your earth curve calculator anymore because it requires a geometric horizon. The globe is done. And I'll start introducing other globe killers to you clowns.
    1
  387.  @julesdomes6064  Here's the repeat Jules. Lol. https://youtu.be/Y-Kn7Ma1PL4
    1
  388.  @bingo90210  There's just one horizon and it's definitely apparent as in not actual or geometric. It's the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground but not actually. Lol.
    1
  389.  @yogapranata28  You have any scientific evidence of gravity? Lol.
    1
  390.  @julesdomes6064  I'm not cherry picking Jules. It's the globies claim that there is a geometric horizon that physically obstructs objects. And it's geometry is based on the 3959 mile radius. You can't just ignore the days where the geometry fails Jules. Now that's cherry picking Jules. Your physical edge must always be there or it's not physical.
    1
  391.  @yogapranata28  Your answer to is there scientific evidence for gravity is "people don't float." Fascinating. Lol.
    1
  392.  @yogapranata28  Now throwing a ball is science? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  393.  @yogapranata28  Let me help you out. What is your Dependent Variable (naturally observed phenomenon) and Independent Variable (assumed cause) for any experiment ever proving gravity?
    1
  394.  @yogapranata28  Science is a method. If Newton or Einstein did not use the scientific method then their gravity claims are not science. Observing an apple fall from a tree does not validate mass attracting mass or mass warping space time as the causes. And an apple falling from a tree does not prove that the earth must be a sphere as you previously claimed.
    1
  395.  @casanovafrankenstein4193  Talking about the scientific method is nonsense to you? Lol.
    1
  396.  J Calhoun  "Wikipedia › wiki › Reification_(fall... Web results Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory"."
    1
  397.  J Calhoun  You believe in a model that says there's a geometric horizon that is based on the 3959 mile radius. There's supposed to be physical curvature for boats to be going over and buildings dipping below. Seeing the horizon farther than geometrically possible disproves the globe. I don't know how else to explain it to you buddy. It's over once the geometric horizon is disproven. Lol.
    1
  398.  @mosquitobight  To get you to believe in outerspace all it takes is a president saying he is creating a space force? Lol.
    1
  399. "3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5¶Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Bible
    1
  400.  @mosquitobight  I don't believe in any politician. They are all obviously part of the deception. Just giving people a fake choice. Pushing fear to maintain control. Why do you believe in outerspace or the earth being a sphere spinning and whirling through a vacuum? It's just a model with no evidence. The model fails to match reality.
    1
  401.  @mosquitobight  That's just an appeal to consensus fallacy. Those people are not here, so making claims about what they thought or believed is fallacious. It also doesn't prove the earth is a sphere. Is that your best evidence?
    1
  402.  @mosquitobight  You say it's simple and obvious to prove the Earth is a sphere but you are not giving any evidence. So far you said Trump created a space force, then used a stereotype fallacy for flat Earthers, and used an appeal to consensus fallacy about 15th century explorers.
    1
  403.  @mosquitobight  Polaris is not visible everywhere because of perspective. As you move away from objects they start to drop in the sky and also get smaller. You can only see so much of the sky from your position on the plane. The further out you go on the plane away from Polaris, it will eventually dip below the apparent horizon (not earth curve). The horizon is the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground.
    1
  404.  @mosquitobight  Try looking at street lights down a street. They are all the same height but the closer ones to you appear bigger and the apparent position of the lights at the top start to drop the farther away the lights are from you. Imagine Polaris being like the top of the street lights. When directly under the light it's above you. As you move away from it the lights apparent position drops. If you keep going away it will eventually not be visible anymore.
    1
  405.  @mosquitobight  Lastly, the southern Crux constellation is seen in continents farther out on the plane and sailors can use it because if facing it they know they are going away from Polaris. It doesn't prove a southern pole. If you take equator and hemispheres out your language you will understand that this is all happening on a level plane. I have looked at all of these arguments thoroughly as I also believed in the globe once and had similar questions. Just look into it unbiasedly and you will find the truth. It may require praying that God opens your eyes. Because I do believe that there is a strong delusion over people that are clinging to the globe. I pray you start believing in God and not these deceivers pushing pseudoscience.
    1
  406.  J Calhoun  I'm not sure how your story about watching launches relates to earth not having a geometric horizon. But if you are acknowledging that the horizon distance is a product of optics (magnification or refraction) and not geometric, then you are in essence saying the horizon we see is not physical. Do you see the problem? Your model/religion says objects are being blocked by a physical curve. That curve can't magically move behind objects that it should be obstructing. That curve is based on the Geometry of a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles. That's what your religion/model declared the horizon is. So it must be there and cannot be farther than geometrically possible. Now us flat Earthers know that the horizon is apparent because it's the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. We're not walking around believing that the horizon is the leading edge of the sphere. Lol. We realize boats aren't going over Earth curve when it goes over the horizon. We figured this out about 5 years ago when we started using telescopes to bring back the boats. But watch Bill Nye below explain the globehead belief. Lol. https://youtu.be/-SrZn1K5zoo
    1
  407.  J Calhoun  A sphere can't have an anomaly where it grows bigger on some days. Lol. Sorry buddy but your model has constraints based on the claimed radius. You don't get to cherry pick the evidence. Lol.
    1
  408. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  409.  @fatehgyani119  Just talking about the earth we live on here. I'm sure there are other sites you can debate global warming or climate change on. Lol.
    1
  410. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  411.  Din Djarin  Great argument. Just declare it has been debunked without saying how. What you really mean is it debunks your model/religion. Lol.
    1
  412.  Din Djarin  Watch this video and try to learn something. Lol. https://youtu.be/s_cTrRk2JRo
    1
  413.  @trannkhaiminh9997  Your video does not have anything to explain. Globies have all been conceding that there is no geometric horizon and that the horizon we see is caused by optics and refraction. So boats have no actual curve that they are going over. Buildings are not being obstructed by the curvature of the earth. Lol. You have no physical edge based on the claimed radius of 3959 miles. It's over. RIP globe. Stop and think for just a second. If the video you showed was the earth curving, why would everything be perpendicular beyond the line. Those buildings and objects would be also curving away and not standing perpendicular. I'm not even sure why this is still a debate in 2020. They lied to us all buddy. Let your ego and pride go, and accept the truth. What good is it doing you to keep believing a lie?
    1
  414.  @jaimecastillo5876  Formulas are not reality. The lights in the sky don't prove gravity. And saying clouds prove gravity has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. Lol.
    1
  415. It's "sense" and having a majority belief doesn't make something true. Lol.
    1
  416. More Flat Earth proof!!! https://youtu.be/Q9QUBV-KQVs
    1
  417.  @Alan-nq5xg  You didn't even address the video I posted. Lol. Your video says it is reconstructed from time lapse photos. Here's the definition of reconstruct below: "re·con·struct /ˌrēkənˈstrəkt/ Learn to pronounce verb build or form (something) again after it has been damaged or destroyed. "a small area of painted Roman plaster has been reconstructed" reorganize (something). "later emperors reconstructed the army" Similar: rebuild restore renovate recreate remake reassemble remodel refashion revamp recondition refurbish regenerate breathe new life into reform make over overhaul re-establish reorganize rehab form an impression, model, or re-enactment of (a past event or thing) from the available evidence. "from copies of correspondence it is possible to reconstruct the broad sequence of events"
    1
  418.  @Alan-nq5xg  Your video also claims to be from a region that defies a natural law and gas laws. You can't have gas pressure without a container. Earth has gas pressure so we know the sky is not a vacuum. Any pictures of video from Narnia I mean outer space is obviously fake.
    1
  419.  @Alan-nq5xg  now explain how sea Sparrow missiles can have line of sight targeting over 35 miles if the Earth is a sphere.
    1
  420.  @dirkardostevergreen4827  No it's surface to surface.
    1
  421.  @Alan-nq5xg  Yes earth has gas pressure differentials but that's only possible with a container. Introduce gas to a vacuum and watch how rapidly it disperses. Boyle's Law states an inverse relationship between gas pressure and volume where if you increase the volume the gas pressure decreases. Imagine what happens if you increase the volume to an ever expanding vacuum? Earth would have no gas pressure. The second law also states that entropy always increases and the gas would fill the available volume. Your model fails to match reality. We don't have a sky vacuum. Lol.
    1
  422.  @dirkardostevergreen4827  "Entropy. ... When a gas expands into a vacuum, its entropy increases because the increased volume allows for greater atomic or molecular disorder. The greater the number of atoms or molecules in the gas, the greater the disorder.Apr 27, 2019"  LibreTexts › chem 18.3: Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Chemistry LibreTexts
    1
  423.  @dirkardostevergreen4827  Gravity is not a force it's the warping of concepts. Lol. And gas particles are not being pulled down, they are expanding in all directions. Now read below how your model currently defines gravity. Lol. "The important thing to remember is that gravity is neither a push nor a pull; what we interpret as a “force” or the acceleration due to gravity is actually the curvature of space and time — the path itself stoops downward.Jan 3, 2018"  Science ABC › Eye Openers Does Gravity Push or Pull? - Science ABC
    1
  424. Stop with the excuses. Have you forgotten that the earth has a diameter and radius in your model/religion? We can calculate where the curve should be and how much it should be curving. It just isn't. Earth's flat.
    1
  425. The earth is flat and we do have a day time ever day. Lol. We also have a night time every day. Lol.
    1
  426. Outerspace is fake. Can't have gas pressure without a container. A sphere with gas next to a vacuum only exists in your Heliocentrism model.
    1
  427. Why people think the world is flat: There is no geometric horizon.
    1
  428.  @joshwallaceart  Don't just make a declaration. What is your evidence that we live on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun? Is it being from Africa and disagreeing with LGBTQ? Lol. Fascinating.
    1
  429. The globe has a radius that has been tested. No Earth curvature found. Earth is flat.
    1
  430. Since 1915 gravity has been the warping if space time and not a force. "Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass."  Wikipedia › wiki › Gravity Gravity - Wikipedia
    1
  431. Stereotype fallacy, about flat Earthers believing in witches with actual powers. Lol. Here's what you globies actually believe in. We're on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun with water, gas, people, objects, etc. stuck to the earth by mass warping space time but it's impossible to ever observe any of this. But we must believe not because of any experiments, but because men claiming to be scientists have thought it up in their minds and agreed on it. Lol.
    1
  432.  @LoneWolf-je9vr  Here's the Debunking of the Globe. It's logically consistent. It uses modus tollens. If p then q, not q therefore not p. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), then the distance to the horizon cannot be farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The distance to the horizon is farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). Now watch the video below. Can you see the horizon behind the second platform at 9.41 miles away? https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  433.  @LoneWolf-je9vr  Why come to a channel talking about flat Earth if you don't care? And then engage in the comments thread if you don't care? You need to be more honest with yourself. It's flat buddy.
    1
  434.  @LoneWolf-je9vr  And earth is a flat plane, not a planet (wandering star).
    1
  435.  @LoneWolf-je9vr  Calm down buddy. The earth we live on is flat. We're on a flat level plane that is stationary. I'm not concerned with the shape of the Earth as much as the heliocentrism religion trying to replace God's creation. They have stolen many people's purpose with their deception. You are not just a speck of stardust here by accident. Don't continue to be deceived. Heaven is above, not outerspace. Hell is below. You can believe in the heliocentrism religion or start putting your faith in the word of God. Time to wake up and get off the fence.
    1
  436.  @LoneWolf-je9vr  You're investing a lot of time into this for it to be something you don't care about. Lol. Look how much you wrote.
    1