Comments by "Flook D" (@flookd5516) on "The Guardian" channel.

  1. Ingo Kreh You aren’t open minded to the idea that anything can be true. You’re so open minded to conspiracies you can’t think of the obvious.
    212
  2. ego smack sequel You’re confusing elevation with curvature.
    23
  3. ego smack sequel The plane remains at the altitude with constant air pressure needed to keep in level flight at the speed it is travelling. It is irrelevant whether the Earth is round or flat.
    18
  4. ego smack sequel Long distance land surveyors need to factor in curvature. That surveyors for a building site do not (too little curvature for the distance covered) is not evidence long distance surveyors don’t need to.
    17
  5. Dorcas Winter Observation. The lunar eclipse always produced a circular eclipse and the sun & moon moved in a cyclical pattern with no variation in size and speed. They used the varying length of shadows at different latitudes to calculate approximate values for the diameter of Earth (close) and the distance to the sun (way off).
    16
  6. ego smack sequel 8” per mile squared describes a parabola not a circle. You’re ignoring observer elevation and atmospheric fraction. You’re still confusing elevation with curvature.
    15
  7. In 15 years of looking for the truth he hasn't considered whether 8"/mile^2 is the right equation.
    12
  8. B Me Unless it is refracted by the medium it is passing through.
    8
  9. ego smack sequel A plane will stay at the altitude where the air pressure provides the lift to maintain level flight at the speed it is travelling; it’s irrelevant whether the Earth is curved or flat.
    8
  10. ​ @vanessaruiz4705  There would be minerals in rainwater (and animal fur) if humans didn't and never had existed. Simply finding tracing of a mineral in rainwater is meaningless in itself; how much is there and has it markedly changed is what is relevant. How they came to change is relevant questions to ask; assuming conspiracies for mass poisoning is not. It would help if you could use correct names for elements; it's unlikely bohrium contaminates anything.
    8
  11. Håkan Pettersson BS like how your computer works?
    7
  12.  @hakan8997  You're saying the science used to design & build it are BS, yet it runs well enough for you to be on here saying it can't be possible.
    7
  13. No, they see the curvature expected from a 25,000 mile circumference rather than that of a 250 mile one.
    6
  14. BertleMcGertle I point out the multitude of conflicting beliefs on the FE model and you assume I haven’t looked into FE. That’s the poor level of reasoning that has people believing in a FE.
    6
  15. BertleMcGertle I made an observation not presented an argument.
    6
  16. How do they hide the motion of the sun?
    6
  17. Glitchy The quotation mark you refer to is the symbol for inch.
    5
  18. Mara Ram If you look hard enough you’ll find something regardless of whether it is there or not.
    5
  19.  @vanessaruiz4705  I passed no comment on anyone's expertise; don't criticise what I didn't say in the first place. Yes, there are people who are experts on such matters; there are also many self-declared experts who don't know what they are doing and it is necessary to distinguish between the two. Standing on a soapbox does not make someone right or competent. Finding something that is going to be there in the first place is not finding evidence of pollution; as I said, one should be looking for changes that can't be explained by nature and forming plausible hypotheses that can be tested, e.g., inadequate filtering during incineration. Jumping to a conclusion there's a nefarious plot by evil bogeymen to mass poison people for no apparent purpose is not an appropriate starting point.
    5
  20.  @jackmurphy563  You may not be lying deliberately but you are repeating a lie. A boat can become too small to see with the naked eye well before it reaches the horizon; telescope or binoculars will bring it back into view. Once it goes over the horizon nothing will bring it back into view (try it with the sun if you don't believe me).
    5
  21. Dubay’s videos are indeed b.s.
    5
  22. YourThoughtsBetrayYou You’re quoting an experiment from Convex Earth as evidence the Earth is flat?
    5
  23. I hadn’t noticed they were dedicating so much time.
    5
  24. Be novel and actually produce this evidence you all claim to possess. Explain his The retains a constant angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day and rises & sets if it doesn’t come within 10-20 degrees of the horizon.
    5
  25. Pat Moynahan which only happens when sun & moon are on opposite horizons and atmospheric conditions provides the refraction to make both appear a few degrees higher than they actually are. I realise that handling two variables simultaneously is probably beyond your mental capacity but that is the simple explanation.
    5
  26. Rust Jones In 15 years Dave has not thought to ask whether he is using the correct maths. That’s the depth of thought of these smart people. People who really are smart start by asking what the evidence, not concluding their personal ignorance is the epitome of human knowledge.
    5
  27. A lot of people who keep being told the Earth is flat by people who can’t provide valid evidence, cant explain how a FE could work or explain why the evidence for a globe is wrong while being adamant they know the answers.
    4
  28. supercat380 Several taken every hour. Look up EPIC, Himawari-8 and Elektro-L.
    4
  29.  @breal9014  People used stones tools before metal ones and for far longer. Do you think stone tools are better?
    4
  30.  @aliali-xx9ru  Given a 25,000 mile circumference sphere, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to find?
    4
  31. Ladles of gravy Michaelson & Morley used the known motion of the Earth to look for evidence of the hypothetical aether. They found no evidence the aether existed. This is not evidence of no motion. Einstein’s comment relates to the behaviour of light, not the absence of motion.
    4
  32. Traceable signal to, on and from the moon, detectable equipment left there, verifiable material brought back and the landing sites recently photographed.
    4
  33. Jeffery Poage Two people made solo crossings earlier this year.
    4
  34. People don’t find the curvature they expect to find. It reveals that they are incapable of doing the arithmetic for accurate predictions. Not finding evidence of a 25 mile circumference is not evidence against a 25,000 mile circumference.
    4
  35.  @aliali-xx9ru  What is so magical about Youtube that an all-controlling government can't touch it?
    4
  36. And spinning in two opposites directions while they are doing it.
    4
  37. Initially started to try to prevent science disproving biblical beliefs, later support from pranksters and most recently by people seeking to make money out of the gullible.
    4
  38. Same mass, different weight. Variation in the gravitational field is minimal and is down to the deviation away from a perfect sphere and the extent of the centrifugal force depending on the latitude.
    4
  39.  @tysonrinker5958  Weblinks disappear on this channel. You’ll need to explain it yourself or give something like the title of the video. I would note that “See my guru” is one of the standard replies, the gurus never providing the explanation.
    4
  40. Sure. Every time we provide the proof you simply claim you’re being deceived and demand we provide the proof we just gave you.
    4
  41.  @stevenmatthews1308  You mean if you do something wrong and it doesn't work this somehow disproves the results when done correctly? It would be really nice of FE'ers could come up with examples where they actually understand what they were doing. "Statue of Liberty" Check out the geography around New York and explain how the Statue of Liberty could be visible at that distance.
    4
  42. EARL SERIO A scientific theory is based on extensive experimentation & observation resulting in explanations that fully cover details. They are not guesses or hunches; that is the vernacular meaning of the word.
    4
  43. Joshua Gutierrez Somebody agonizing over whether 2+2 really equals four is not looking for answers, just being dumb. Pretty much the same for people seriously considering a flat Earth. You can’t prove something in science; you can compile a model that is consistent with the available evidence and support it by eliminating alternatives through experimentation & observation. The miasma theory and Ptolemaic system both fitted the known facts; they were displaced as conflicting evidence was collected. If you want to disprove something then you need to obtain evidence to support that assertion; ignorance and botched experiments are not that evidence.
    4
  44. Mike Boyd Considerable difference.
    4
  45. generalmax Yet the Antarctica Treaty says nothing about visitors to Antarctica being banned. Try reading it.
    4
  46. The Earth was demonstrated to be a globe by the ancient Greeks; a global Earth was the centre of the Ptolemaic geocentric system that you refer to. Copernicus initiated a shift to a geocentric system, not a change in opinion of Earth's shape.
    4
  47. You wouldn’t come out though (bar gymnastics en route) your feet would still approach the exit hole first. Friction with the air as you fell would reduce your momentum; having passed the centre of the Earth and now having gravity pulling you backwards you wouldn’t have sufficient momentum to reach the exit hole. You would start falling back and end up oscillating backwards & forwards around the centre.
    3
  48.  @Jason_Disbury  "pseudoscience theories and Cartoon images" Dismissing what you don't understand as pseudoscience and regarding explanatory diagrams as cartoons speaks volumes of your attitude.
    3
  49.  @Jason_Disbury  Nobody's debunked it. There are a lot of people who can't grasp there can be more than cause for an effect. A boat can become too small to be seen with the naked eye long before it reaches the horizon; that can be brought back into view with a telescope. A boat passes completely from view when it passes over the horizon; no amount of zooming will bring it back into view. The obvious means for testing would be tracking a large object like the sun and bring that back from over the horizon; no takers yet. Then we pass on to the people who can't grasp elevations of observer & object and atmospheric refraction have roles. This is critical thinking: asking what is involved in making an observation,
    3
  50. Douglas Tibbitts We like measuring & comparing things and understand when we’re dealing with absolute & relative values. You can lower pressure but you can’t take it to absolute zero; what passes for a vacuum depends on what is required so it is used as a relative term.
    3
  51. Douglas Tibbitts You’re gibbering.
    3
  52.  @lexluther919  That was completely garbled and you're telling other people that you understand it better than anyone. Have you considered the possibility you don't actually know what you are talking about? Gravity acts on everything; there's no selectiveness. More than one force can act on an object simultaneously before you go off about rising helium balloons disproving gravity. If an ocean was still then there would be no tides. The height of a tide has to do with the volume of water and change in elevation of the sea bed it moves over, not centrifugal force. Winter is due to the angle of the Earth's rotational axis relative to the sun and how much exposure a set area gets, not an elliptical orbit. None of your assertions in the "color book" because they're entirely in your head.
    3
  53. Lex Luther 360 degrees divided by 25,000 miles = 0.0144 degrees/mile. You’re arguing that should be apparent at about 5 degrees per foot. Try to reconcile the two. Have you never noticed that birds have wings?
    3
  54. Reed Twinkletoes The atmosphere moves with the Earth; there are also local currents (winds) within the atmosphere. Clouds are affected by both; they will move with the atmosphere as a whole with local variations due to winds, ie, local weather.
    3
  55. 1. Somebody is misunderstanding what they are reading. 2. The scripture is simply wrong.
    3
  56.  @breal9014  I gave you the definition of a scientific theory as opposed to the vernacular meaning of theory and it went over the top of your head. They aren't the same thing: is that clear enough? Your understanding of what qualifies as proof is way lower than what is required in science; by your standards a scientific theory is well proven. If you want to call a theory into doubt then you need to produce evidence that does that, not come out with "it's just a theory".
    3
  57. Steven Mays Produce some of this evidence.
    3
  58. I shouldn’t worry - they’re making the claim and can’t explain it either.
    3
  59. Glitchy Take it up with the people who devised that notation.
    3
  60. Glitchy You realise science existed before the adoption of SI units? If you aren’t familiar with the Imperial system don’t try teaching other people.
    3
  61. Black Auroras The Greeks already knew the sun was not a spotlight (no change in size regardless of time & place) and the Earth was round (lunar eclipses always had a round shadow). Repeating the experiment with three or more sticks itself indicates the sun is not local.
    3
  62. robemarcelo A permit that is as straight forward to obtain as any visa.
    3
  63. Earth's orbit takes 1 year, not 1 day and the lunar orbit is 28 days, not 24 hrs. The Apollo craft travelled substantially faster than your car; they were not driving to the moon.
    3
  64. Evidence?
    3
  65. They started the work not “perfected and decided”. The Ptolemaic geocentric system (100AD) was based on a sphere. Do you have any even evidence to support your notion a spherical earth was concomitant with a heliocentric system?
    3
  66. stonewall tommy jackson Answer the damn questions. All of you waffle on about how enlightened and informed you but NONE of you can ever answer the simplest questions. Try doing it.
    3
  67.  @corysamoila  Altitude is distance above sea-level and applies regardless of whether the Earth is flat or a globe. The atmospheric pressure declines with increasing altitude. The plane’s trim keeps at constant air pressure and thus at a constant altitude regardless of whether the Earth is flat or a globe. If it makes it easier to visualise then the correction you’re envisaging is continuous, not periodic.
    3
  68. Ladles of gravy Marrying a cousin was not unusual in those days. He did not marry his 2nd cousin and failing to understand relativity does not disprove it.
    3
  69. "how can the earth be spinning when we can see what appers to be the sun revolving in areas of the north for three days in a row" The Earth's axis of rotation is at a 23 degree tilt compared to its orbit around the sun. At that point of the year the north pole is tilted towards the sun; anywhere within the Arctic Circle will see the sun 24hrs/day. "if we were spinning we would see on our arc path the sun change it's apparent rotation reverse direction every 12 hrs" You're moving too; your orientation changes through the day. Imagine standing (for simplicity's sake) on the North pole facing in one set direction all day. The sun will appear on your left, move across the sky in front of you and completes 180 degrees of the loop over on your right. It then moves from right to left but behind you; turn around 180 degrees and it will be moving left to right as it did when it passed in front of you. While you were watching the sun pass in front of you, the Earth's rotation has changed your orientation 180 degrees.
    3
  70. Child of the Ancient I have yet to see the correct maths used. Where they do think to use calculations they ignore elevation of of observer & object and the role played by refraction, particularly over water. Perspective will not give you a clear cut horizon. I have yet to see any explanation why perspective enables the sun & moon retain the same angular diameter while everything else appears to decrease or why the decrease is both uniform and pronounced from the bottom up. Do you want to try explaining multiple effects?
    3
  71. Child of the Ancient You have yet to demonstrate any of it is wrong.
    3
  72. Child of the Ancient Michaelson & Morley were looking for evidence of the hypothetical aether and used the known motion of the Earth through space to look for it. They found no evidence of aether. The people who whine on about wanting evidence & proof consider lack of evidence for aether to somehow prove its existence while denying all evidence of the Earth’s motion.
    3
  73. Child of the Ancient M-M experiment used the velocity of the Earth’s orbit to look for the hypothetical aether. They failed to find evidence of aether. Only utter twits think this proves the existence of aether and disproves Earth’s orbit. Rotation has been demonstrated (and is measurable) with gyroscopes. FE’ers have yet to come up with plausible explanations for how days could work on a flat earth.
    3
  74. Child of the Ancient Your arguments so far are all hand-waving claims of “it’s wrong” and backed by no evidence. You might want to come up something more concrete if you wish to continue.
    3
  75. Centuries of empirical observation and measurement. I wish people would check before claiming the work hasn’t been done.
    3
  76. Chris Higgs I pointed out to you the size and distance between satellites; what didn’t you understand? Depends on the gas; my nitrogen & oxygen cylinders don’t. The pressure inside is measurable and is a 1000-fold higher than you claim can’t be contained.
    3
  77. If the sun rotating around a FE then everybody would have the same day & night. If it rotates above the Earth parallel to EArth's surface it wouldn't be night anywhere. In both cases the angular velocity (apparent speed), angular diameter (apparent size) and brightness would vary through the course of the day, some (effects of clouds aside) that is never observed.
    3
  78.  @BertleMcGertle  A scientific theory is fact based and comprehensive; it's not dependent on multiple conflicting beliefs like there is & isn't an edge, an ice-wall that nobody has seen, an infinite plane that somehow doesn't have infinite mass, no agreement on how far down a FE goes, whether there is a dome, the sun is inside or outside the dome, etc. You're referring to such an agreed model but it doesn't exist.
    3
  79. Summondadrummin There is open minded questioning and there is ignorance and denial. Asking for the evidence is questioning; asserting there is no evidence because you don’t know of it is close mindedness.
    3
  80. A P And yet we can measure curvature & rotation and you’re limited to “it looks flat” and hand-waving over the sun & moon’s behavior.
    3
  81. We’ve answered all your questions, you’ve largely ignored ours and we’ve had to correct your misconceptions about some basic principles.
    3
  82. Douglas Tibbitts Every question you’ve asked has been answered by at least one person; you haven’t been ignored. You haven’t answered our questions nor have been able to say what you consider wrong about our answers.
    3
  83.  @Porooooooo  Because the Earth is substantially larger than you're envisaging and the plane window is narrow. You need to be either substantially higher or have a much viewing angle.
    3
  84.  @aliali-xx9ru  We shouldn't question what someone tells us?
    3
  85. Who are you saying taught it and what is your evidence for saying it?
    3
  86. MrMeatWad Rsearch involves asking questions and presenting evidence to back your assertions.
    3
  87. The seasons are due to the Earth's rotational axis being inclined with regards to the sun; the inclination & curvature means a given area receives a varying amount of sunlight through the course of the year. FE has yet to explain how the sun would remain in the air, how it would move, how it would change its path over the course of the year, how it retains the same angular diameter through the course of the day, how it could rise & set and how Antarctica receives 24hr sunlight during its summer. Do you want to try explaining?
    3
  88. 500 years ago was the shift from geocentric to heliocentric system. A spherical Earth was the basis of the long accepted Ptolemaic system (100AD) based on work initiated by the ancient Greeks (500BC).
    3
  89. One rotation per day is not a speed you could describe as spinning. Where do you think the water would go and why?
    3
  90. Turk Turkic What do you think we use our labs for? I’ve spent nearly 30 years in a research lab; what do you think I have been doing?
    3
  91. You’re confusing lunar phases with lunar eclipses. The latter is the Earth’s shadow, the former due to the relative positioning of the lit side of the moon as the moon orbits the Earth. They don’t explain eclipses. The nearest they get is a mystery object that is suddenly visible only when near the moon but that doesn’t explain why everybody sees the eclipse at the same time.
    3
  92. Yet another person who hasn’t realised technology evolves and that data is transferable.
    3
  93. Byrd made no mention of an ice-wall and described the Antarctic continent as largely unexplored.
    3
  94.  @onefodderunit  As with other FE'ers you have no concept of scale. A pressure difference of 100kPa across 1cm would give you a pressure gradient of 10MPa/m. The same pressure difference across a 100km would give you a pressure gradient of 1Pa/m. Does 10MPa/m = 1Pa/m?
    3
  95. ali ali It really helps if you understand what you’re reading before lecturing other people on the subject.
    3
  96. Are you saying that you have detected the moon on a radar?
    3
  97. Adrian Tidd Details, bearing in mind MrSpongejoe’s comment above.
    3
  98. Galileo was working for NASA?
    3
  99. Experiments such as...?
    3
  100. freedom lover You have no grasp of distance or trigonometry. The nearest star is 4 light years away; Polaris is 434 light years away. The Earth’s orbit is 8 light minutes (0.00000158 light years). Angle change in 6 months for a star X light years away would be: 2 * atan(0.0000158/X) How big an angle change would you expect to see?
    3
  101. freedom lover I’ll keep asking you questions for as long as you profess to be the erudite holder of “the truth”.
    3
  102. Look into what Byrd actually said.
    3
  103. EARL SERIO Hypotheses are found to be wrong; it’s why we spend our time collecting evidence that will support or disprove different hypotheses si we can advance on what has sound basis A theory has stood up to this testing; the accumulated evidence supports it, no evidence has disproved it and the evidence has disproves alternatives. You’re equating hypotheses with theories, ie, going with the vernacular meaning not the scientific.
    3
  104. Science us based on evidence and replicable results, not belief. That you personally don’t know or understand something is not valid counter-evidence.
    3
  105. aunun ally Why do said stars simultaneously rotate in different directions in different parts of the world?
    3
  106. IstvanN1961 How do you spin in a straight line?
    3
  107. The Law of Just Does. They deny gravity exists and explain things falling by “they just do”.
    3
  108. O.D.S/D Shadow Demon Lunar eclipses always show a round shadow, there is s definite horizon, the stars above & below the equator differ and rotate in opposite directions in the course of the night. Explain all that with a FE.
    3
  109. Alex Jones Why do you think it impossible to leave Earth?
    3
  110. Billy Manalang Its something called scale, a concept that FE’rs have serious difficulty grasping. Do you know what the markings on a ruler are for?
    3
  111. Pat Moynahan Thank you for demonstrating you can’t handle more than variable at a time.
    3
  112. Bad Robot Explain how density, the ratio of mass to volume, can act as a force and why in a consistent direction.
    3
  113. In what way is reproducible experimentation fictitious?
    3
  114. Mark Bouquet No space agency claims you need 6ft of lead to get through the VAB. A blue screen is not going to work with a prominent white grid on it (how much thought does really take?). The “harness” was a walker-talkie aerial and nobody has yet produced a video showing wires. In Hebrew, nasa means lift or raise. Try asking questions before opening your mouth.
    3
  115. joel franco So what’s your technique for identifying CGI? Another one who just magically knows?
    3
  116. levoy foster I’m a scientist; you don’t have to explain falsifiability to me. You asked Blocco to produced falsified theories to back his statement, not falsifiable ones. I am not a mind reader; I replied to what you said, not what you thought you said. I don’t think I can put that more clearly.
    3
  117. And “first they laugh...” does not remove the requirement for producing supporting evidence.
    3
  118. Scale. You’re visualising a world 25 miles in circumference when it is 25,000 miles. Flooding is local and dependent on the local geography; being round doesn’t preclude the existence of mountains & valleys. At 0.0144 degrees/mile there is no reason for curvature to be figured into building a road; far greater changes have to be made for the terrain it passes over. Similarly with pilots; the plane follows the air pressure so its flight curved with the change in atmosphere. You also make the incorrect assumption that there is a universal down. Gravitational attraction is towards the centre of the Earth. Regardless of where you are in the surface, down is towards the centre of the Earth. Nobody is walking around at an angle or hanging from the ground by their fingertips; down is towards the centre of the Earth.
    3
  119. Do you know the details of how your phone or computer work?
    3
  120.  @aliali-xx9ru  "here will be button to adjust the the path or not" Try reading and comprehending what I wrote about aircraft requiring a constant air pressure to remain at a fixed altitude. Simply be remaining with the air pressure it needs to remain airborne the drone will follow the curve of the Earth. That remains true regardless of whether you are 6ft tall or 200 miles tall.
    3
  121. At rotation per day the water is not going to fly off. Since the tennis ball is adjacent to a ball with a billion times the gravitational pull the water does head straight for the big ball.
    3
  122. You mean you can’t think of any other way to determine the Earth is a spheroid?
    3
  123. Tracy Reinert 1000mph is a linear velocity. Centrifugal force arises from rotation. The Earth rotates once a day. The centrifugal force at the equator is about 0.5% the strength of gravity.
    3
  124. Andrew V The planes are self-powered and already compensating for the variable atmospheric conditions that greatly exceed the Coriolis effect.
    3
  125. And yet is accurately descriptive and predictive. What do you think is wrong exactly?
    3
  126. Captain Rankin You mean that water curves only when you perceive it to be curving. Given a 25,000 circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to observe?
    3
  127. Sharing evidence would be more convincing but FE'ers are reluctant to divulge their slam-dunk evidence.
    2
  128. Mel Mex You can’t produce this slam-dunk evidence either?
    2
  129.  @spikeytrike1758  It's pretty much a thought experiment only :-) You can think it through by considering what would influence your movement.
    2
  130. jason of the disbury family I don’t need to meet someone personally to determine what they understand when they are espousing an argument that uses pseudoscience to describe science.
    2
  131. P.E.L.E Planar Earth Lovers Everywhere All you have to do is explain why the evidence is wrong or why it would support a flat Earth.
    2
  132.  They Lie, You Sleep.  Raindrops, meniscus, waterfalls; water is very flexible. I take it you mean curvature of the water surface on large bodies of water. 360 degrees curvature over 25,000 miles = 0.0144 degrees/mile. Not a figure that is going to leap out at you. If the world were 25 miles in diameter then t would be 14.4 deg/mile which is what you ar expecting to see. "spinning in at least 3 different directions" Rotating slowly on one axis (1 revolution per day), orbiting on another axis (around the sun) at roughly 1 degree/day while the the galaxy rotates at the breakneck speed of one revolution every 230 million years, or essentially 0 deg/day. What the body senses are acceleration and a change in orientation; that you can't feel any of the above doesn't disprove they exist. That it explains exactly all the observed relative motion is evidence.
    2
  133. Dylan McShane Where does it say private citizens are banned? Produce the clause.
    2
  134. kieran franey Gravity has been proven over & over; that you don’t know that does not mean it hasn’t. Nowhere is there required to be a pressurised system next to a vacuum.
    2
  135. What technology do you think is needed?
    2
  136. The outermost layer of the atmosphere does, at a density lower than that found in the best vacuum chamber.
    2
  137. Douglas Tibbitts Nope. Why do you think it does?
    2
  138. Douglas Tibbitts Most mobile phones are cell phones; some are satellite phones and work well out of range of any cell towers each e.g., middle of the ocean.
    2
  139. Douglas Tibbitts There is no such thing as an absolute vacuum; vacuum is a used as a relative term.
    2
  140. Douglas Tibbitts Because, like your Garmin or TomTom, aircraft carry GPS receivers not transmitters.
    2
  141. Douglas Tibbitts If that were true then GPS (and satellite phones) wouldn’t function out of sight of land.
    2
  142.  @douglastibbitts6817  "light speed is slower than it used to be." Another non sequitur. Evidence?
    2
  143. Tony T You’re saying FE’ers have come up with a working model? I’d like to see it.
    2
  144. Tony T I see the sub & moon rising and setting while moving at a constant angular velocity across the sky, I see a horizon, I see the satellite dish on the roof pointing up into the sky. At night I have watched a lunar eclipse and the stars rotate. All nicely explained by the model you say is wrong and inexplicable according to any attempted model of a FE. How do you conclude they disprove a globe?
    2
  145. Tony T You can’t explain how my observations would disprove the globe or support the notion of a FE but think your failure to do either would win you a court case?
    2
  146. It just gotta be because it just gotta be.
    2
  147. The answers are straight; the problem is that the simplest of explanations is too complex for some people.
    2
  148. That equation is a parabola, not a circle , and makes no allowance for refraction or the observer’s elevation. You’re assuming you should see curvature indicative of a 25-250 mile circumference rather than 25,000 miles.
    2
  149. AZ Farmer Kobie 8” per mile squared for 25 miles would be 8*(25*25) = 5000 inches or about 417 feet.
    2
  150. Evidence?
    2
  151. You need to understand the concepts of scale and prediction. Given a 25,000 mile circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to observe?
    2
  152. 500 years ago was the move from geocentric to heliocentric system; that the Earth was a sphere was long accepted and the basis of the Ptolemaic model.
    2
  153. You can look up with a telescope and see but think it hasn't been constructed?
    2
  154. ​ @lastunctives2095  Cloud cover aside, it is visible to the eye as a moving point of light and being in orbit follows a regular , highly predictable path, orbiting every two hours. Its lateral speed is unimportant; it's the change of angle with time that is. Telescopes can be aimed; you don't have to roam the heavens looking for chance encounters. Cloud cover aside, the ISS isn't difficult to observe. Secret holographic transmitters beaming an image into space that for some strange reason isn't apparent on the underside of the cloud cover? Impressive technology. Any evidence to back your claim up? ESA's Olympus communication satellite in 1993. Space is bloody big; the chances of a 1" meteor hitting an object the size of a satellite are remote. In recorded history one person has been hit been hit by a meteorite; do you wish to argue meteorites don't exist?
    2
  155. Let me guess - research was watching lots of YT movies saying a globe doesn’t add up and you never bothered checking the accuracy or veracity of the claims?
    2
  156. At far fetched ideas that turn out to be right. It doesn’t mean far fetched ideas are automatically right (the vast majority aren’t) or that (in the case of FE) observable reality is wrong.
    2
  157. And they get given the evidence they demand over and over and over and over and over.
    2
  158.  @zariballard  Given a 25,000 mile circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to find on a sphere?
    2
  159. Trying researching basic physics and maths. Ask yourself why FE'ers can't come up with a working model or maps while the GPS can fix your location to within a few metres.
    2
  160. There are legions of heavily armed penguins patrolling Antarctica to ensure nobody gets to the edge. FE’ers have proved this by not going to check if the penguin patrons are real.
    2
  161. freedom lover Definition is mass attracting mass; the shape of either mass is irrelevant.
    2
  162. B Real Scientific theory: an explanation for a natural phenomenon well-substantiated by extensive experimentation and observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory. If you want to claim a scientific theory is wrong then the onus is on you to produce the evidence to back that claim.
    2
  163.  @breal9014  You want me to believe you when you claim the vernacular & scientific definitions of theory are the same even when a scientist is telling you that they differ?
    2
  164. ​ @clintonemusic  The second law is the net increase of entropy in a closed system. It doesn't prevent two or more forces acting simultaneously or require any force to be irresistible. When the centrifugal force at the equator is <0.5% that of gravity, said force is not going to fling mass away from Earth. The pressure gradient over 20 miles is weak enough to be countered by gravity. Conservation of momentum and lack of friction in a vacuum is why the Earth's orbit doesn't strip away the atmosphere. As I said, the concepts of scale and force do seem to be beyond your grasp. I did ask you how many times the Cavendish experiment has to be reproduced to qualify as having been done. Your answer is...?
    2
  165.  @clintonemusic  Thank you for agreeing the concepts of scale & force are beyond your grasp.
    2
  166.  @clintonemusic  Your wet vac has a 20 mile feed? Evidently you still have no clue about scale. "You have no concept of the second law of thermodynamics." Your projection. For some of us handling multiple variables in a given situation is a routine part of life.
    2
  167. Kendrick Ki11umin8a Johnson What are the holes that you speak of?
    2
  168. Top Tube Only if you are selective about which emergency landings you look at and ignore where the flight routes are on a globe. Clue: a straight line (direct flight with shortest distance) on a sphere becomes a curve when projected into a flat surface.
    2
  169. Aussie planes are fitted with wheels on top.
    2
  170. Elevation of the camera. In common with most FE'ers he takes only one factor into account (distance), ignores elevation & refraction and claims to have disproved the total model.
    2
  171. It means the horizon was above the centre of the screen to start with.
    2
  172. Rangdap Kharshiing Detectable equipment left there and material brought back. Who are you saying did it?
    2
  173. Rangdap Kharshiing You can’t answer my question?
    2
  174. JadeRaqs The variations in carbon dating dye to varying carbon-14 is known; it is not grossly inaccurate. That somebody’s imagination got carried away while drawing what he was actually looking at does not disprove evolution (seriously - you think that is the only evidence?). The rocket you refer stopped because its engine shut off. There was no indication of any impact; the camera didn’t even tremble when it should have been smashed to pieces.
    2
  175. The roots of science lie with the ancient Greeks; they determined the basics of the maths & physics that you learned in school. They also determined the Earth to be round, a spherical Earth bring the centre point of the heliocentric Ptolemaic system from about 100BC.
    2
  176. Randy Compton Wong’s commenting on your choice of words to explain yourself, not your opinion of space’s existence.
    2
  177.  @philippe_paradis-cadieux  If the world were a plain then you would be able to see land stretching out into the distance until either the Earth ran out or the less than perfect atmospheric clarity made it too fuzzy to see. That there is a horizon at all is indicative the Earth is curved.
    2
  178.  @mikkirefur  The curvature is measurable and measured; that you can't see the curvature expected of a 25 mile circumference does not mean the Earth must be bigger than 25,000 miles.
    2
  179. S. Carl You forget elevation and atmospheric refraction affecting viewing distance. You can’t ignore what needs to be taken into account and then complain when something seems off.
    2
  180. Why?
    2
  181. @freedom lover A FE'er has yet to produce this working map. You want to be the first?
    2
  182. He hasn’t so far though he has made quite a bit of money claiming it. He got the idea from Samuel Rowbotham.
    2
  183. It's not a interviewer's role to give an opinion.
    2
  184.  @colleenpenny6304  He asked for a working model. Find one.
    2
  185.  @corysamoila  How many degrees curvature per runway would you expect to find on a globe?
    2
  186.  @corysamoila  There wouldn’t be a horizon on a FE, you would be able to see much further than in a globe, the viewing distance would decrease with altitude, the horizon measurably falls with increasing altitude and we are still waiting on the FE’er explanations for why the horizon would exist and rise on a FE.
    2
  187.  @corysamoila  I haven’t. Eyeballing is not a reliable form of measurement. The horizon measurably falls with increasing altitude. Still waiting on FE explanations fir how a horizon could exist and do so at multiple heights simultaneously. The higher you go the further you can see. You are visualising the Earth as being less than a mile in diameter. It is substantially larger.
    2
  188.  @corysamoila  Non sequitur.
    2
  189. kunal amratlal You can’t see all the way across because of curvature. It looks flat because it is lacking any variation in elevation. A golf ball has curvature because it is a ball. It has variations in elevations; those are the dimples on the ball. Simple concept.
    2
  190. So why don’t any of you produce this proof? Why do you just keep repeating debunked canards?
    2
  191.  @voiceofreason7856  The atmosphere contains far more dust than the space to the stars. View would be restricted to several hundred miles, disappearing into haze, not a clear horizon and record photo (from a mountain top) of 250 miles. As Matthew says, all you need to do is look across a channel wide enough for curvature to block the view from that location.
    2
  192.  @aliali-xx9ru  "people who read the conversation they are my target" You would sound more convincing if you could supply evidence and counter-argument.
    2
  193. Flipdodge 392 Questioning what I’m told is helpless and close-minded while accepting your unsupported assertions would be open-minded and thinking for myself?
    2
  194. It's willfull ignorance; they ignore everything that contradicts what they want to believe while demanding people produce the evidence they're ignoring.
    2
  195. NASA has never said the last. The Apollo technology is too dated to be used and the people with the expertise in it retired or dead. The paperwork is readily downloadable from NASA.
    2
  196.  @reubensearle8200  Geodesy.
    2
  197. freedom lover Doesn’t surprise me.
    2
  198. Around and with. Such is net motion.
    2
  199. Ancient Greeks, 500 BC. Columbus thought the world had about half the circumference.
    2
  200. There is a gravitational constant, G, not constant gravity.
    2
  201. Douglas Tibbitts At what point do you think the atomic weight of an atom changes?
    2
  202. MrSpongejoe Of that I am aware. I have also previously noted that if such assertions aren’t questioned or challenged somebody gets it in their head they are true.
    2
  203.  @boosomentity  You orientation would still rotate 360 deg/day; you don't have to be standing on the axis of rotation to rotate. Anywhere within the Arctic circle, if at noon you were facing the sun then midnight you would have your back to it. If you moved far enough south to be standing on the Arctic circle then (assuming high summer) the sun would be overhead at noon and at the horizon behind you at midnight. Only when you stepped outside the Arctic circle would the sun be always behind you and sinking below the horizon at night.
    2
  204.  @azzpakadubzy-productions3125  That your head would hurt from thinking sounds right.
    2
  205. Why would an interviewer do it?
    2
  206. Bailey Bettazza The ancient Greeks surmised the Earth was a sphere; the Ptolemaic system was based on Earth being a sphere. Copernicus noted a heliocentric system made more sense; nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
    2
  207. What do you think this scientific reason is?
    2
  208. You’ve never heard of the Ancient Greek philosophers?
    2
  209. Babak 1350 In terms of the horizon dropping the sheer size of the Earth means the difference in angle of the horizon between telescopes at the highest & lowest elevations would be very small. What would differ between round & flat Earth is how much atmosphere a telescope would have look through. Since the atmosphere reduces the quality of the resolution a telescope on a FE would be looking through thousands of miles of ground level grot-laden atmosphere whereas on a globe the viewed atmosphere would thin out allowing a better picture. Telescope are usually pointed upwards since that minimises the quantity of atmosphere looked through. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an explanation for this from a FE’er. Generally, for any phenomenon, they will have multiple contradictory explanations none of which would actually work.
    2
  210. Have you heard of the Ptolemaic system?
    2
  211. The ancient Greeks first determined the Earth was a sphere around 500BC. A spherical Earth formed the basis of the geocentric Ptolemaic system from 100AD. It was the Ptolemaic system accepted model until the shift from geocentric to heliocentric by Copernicus et al; that shift retained a spherical Earth, not introduced it.
    2
  212. Science is built on both observation and experimentation. There is abundant evidence for the existence of evolution.
    2
  213. Chris Higgs You can find a long list on Wikipedia under “list of Foucault pendulums”. Lead us not a metal you would use for casing; too malleable. I have gas canisters here with the equivalent of 100atm pressure held by less than inch of steel. Provide Tesla’s calculations. Satellites are thousands of miles apart; how would you expect to photograph an object a few metres long st that distance? You can, with a reasonable telescope, see the ISS passing overhead.
    2
  214. Not if they can help it.
    2
  215. Craig Martin Ignoring the extensive evidence proving a globe and going with ignorant gibberish isn’t stupid?
    2
  216. snickerslacy05 Lunar eclipses are caused by Earth’s shadow. Lunar phases are due to the relative orientation of the moon with sun & earth as it orbits the Earth.
    2
  217. Andrew El Their level of expertise means they just can’t explain something to us mere mortals.
    2
  218. The Michaelson-Morley experiment does not indicate the Earth is motionless; it indicates a lack of aether to be moving through.
    2
  219. Coletane Billings But he didn’t see any curvature and you wouldn’t expect to see curvature at that height given the size of the Earth so how do you conclude the windows show curvature?
    2
  220. daniel rodriguez Which doesn’t answer my question. It is something you need to explain before you makes claims the moon is close by. That it doesn’t change in size is evidence and can’t be ignored. Bouncing a radio signal off the moon indicates it is 240,000 miles away; again you need to explain that and back your claim with evidence.
    2
  221. 15heartz Evidence?
    2
  222.  @BertleMcGertle  What flat earth theory?
    2
  223. Blocco Spirale South Carolina & Lebanon use trees; she can test her claim by stepping outside.
    2
  224. that'szack Why is a globe necessary for evolution to occur?
    2
  225.  @mikeknox7453  "would it really change anything if I did post a picture?" You would be the first to actually produce the evidence they claim to possess.
    2
  226.  @kilepreston7099  Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having circular shadows - all verifiable by anybody, all indicative that the Earth is a sphere and all unexplained by FE'ers.
    2
  227. Autotune Killed The Video Star Answer his question. Water flows to the oceans because of the difference in elevation between their sources and the ocean. The stars don’t line up perfectly; it’s usually seen as evidence the stars have moved. Like all FE’ers you have no grasp of scale; the stars are so far away that even in the lifetime of the pyramids the shift is not profound.
    2
  228. Surface curvature and viewing distance are two different things and 8”/mile^2 calculates neither. The latter depends principally on curvature, elevation and atmospheric refraction, not just curvature alone.
    2
  229. UNHEXED 2 Two things that need to be done for such an experiment: 1. Obtain a sample of a neutron Star. 2. Temporarily turn off Earth’s gravity. Until then we have the empirical observation that you deny.
    2
  230. UNHEXED 2 You think mass & gravity should be ignored when testing mass & gravity? And that empirical observation doesn’t qualify as empirical observation?
    2
  231. Wolfi Lime The eye is a passive receptor; it reacts to the light that reaches it regardless of how far it has travelled.
    2
  232. It’sbigger than you are visualising, not bigger than you’re told. You do realise that long distance travel requires people to navigate?
    2
  233. Cathy Marcello A horizon, the surface having been fully & accurately mapped, sun’s motion & angular velocity and several satellites taking full hemisphere shots per hour is sufficient clue for most people. Those who reckon not have yet to come up with plausible explanations for what they can readily observe.
    2
  234. Antoni Peters The length of the shadow would be shortest when the sun was highest in the sky and they wanted to know the highest angle the sun reached. Why would you need instantaneous communications to carry out local measurements? You think it through. Eratosthenes made only two measurements since it had already been determined the Earth was a sphere; the object was to measure the size. When repeated with 3 or more points the measurements indicate spheroid Earth and distant sun. Explain why a local globe sun over a flat earth would not illuminate the whole Earth.
    2
  235. Why would the CSM burn any fuel to leave Earth orbit?
    2
  236. 1969nitsuga Why would the third stage of the Saturn V be burning any of the CSM’s fuel? The third stage enables the Apollo craft to leave Earth’s orbit not Earth’s gravity. It will pass a point in the journey where the lunar gravity becomes the predominant gravitational force and you are confusing the two. Screwing up the maths does not make the correct maths incorrect.
    2
  237. Heide Hilbert By the dust being blown into the air currents in the upper atmosphere.
    2
  238. You’re confusing elevation with curvature. The surface of a sphere is equidistant to the centre of the sphere and gravitational attraction is towards the centre not a mysterious level off to one side. Elevation is the variation above and below that equidistant surface. Rivers flow from high elevation to low elevation.
    2
  239. Search4Truth Real science is “if we ignore variables then they won’t have any effect”?
    2
  240.  @search4truth616  There is no such theory. If you mean the Big Bang Theory that deals with the expansion of the universe from a single point, not what was at that point or how that came into existence. If you're going to call something pseudo-science then it would be wise to ask if you understand what is being proposed.
    2
  241. Evidence?
    2
  242. midnight rider They’re clueless, not geniuses.
    2
  243. Your evidence for it being flat?
    2
  244. Ibrahim Je'sus “plenty all around” but you can’t name anything.
    2
  245. David Romero There is detectable equipment left in the moon and verifiable material brought back. Who are you saying is responsible?
    2
  246. just me Explain why only half the moon would be illuminated. Explain what prompts the moon to only occasionally display its dark half and why the surface features don’t change while it is rotating.
    2
  247. just me Try answering my questions.
    2
  248. ​ @shortstuff7777777  I don't doubt you think you have answered but you don't see the inherent contradictions or lack of explanation in your answer. "it charges at a rate of 1/7 per day" What charges exactly? Rocks on the surface? A giant NiCd battery at the core? How does it charge? Solar panels? Heat exchange columns? If it uses only half the energy the sun gives it then where does the remainder go? If it the moon generates its own light then how does it do it? How would the moon not be illuminated by the sun at any time? How does it become invisible? How would sound render something invisible? Why can't you see through it if it is invisible?
    2
  249. just me Was the diagram too complicated for you? I don’t think it is feasible to explain direction and distance any simply. When the light source is a right angles to the viewer then the viewer sees half the sphere illuminated.
    2
  250. just me You realise there is a world outside the US, NASA is not the only space agency and has existed only since1958?
    2
  251. just me “mass does not generate or produce energy” Mass to energy is how atomic & nuclear bombs work. We can determine everything originated from a singularity; that we don’t know what that singularity was does not mean it didn’t exist.
    2
  252. <Sigh> 500 years ago was the shift from geocentric to heliocentric; the geocentric system was based on a spherical Earth. If you think it is indoctrination then come up with a convincing explanation for day & night.
    2
  253. john smith Inertia; the plane was moving with Earth before it took off and inertia means it continues moving with the Earth. when it takes off. Its engines modify the velocity but they don’t have to replace it. When you throw a ball it continues moving when it leaves your hand; it doesn’t stop dead because it broke contact with your moving hand.
    2
  254. "Pear-shaped" was the comment of the show host, not of any scientist.
    2
  255. Greentruth420 The sun rotates though that is not obvious to the eye. The moon’s orbit means we get to observe about 190degrees of the surface over time.
    2
  256. You aren’t omniscient and reality is not limited to your knowledge.
    2
  257.  bigpigslapper Oink  Proven "wrong" by ignoring key factors and using the incorrect maths?
    2
  258.  AwakeneAngryAmerican  Important things like methodology and data. The equipment can be as high tech as you like but unless you use it correctly and actually collect usable data then you are in no position to draw valid conclusions.
    2
  259. Turk Turkic In what way do you think I am not a “real scientist” and how do you reach that conclusion?
    2
  260. Nobody who is aware of the Ancient Greek philosophers.
    2
  261.  @stevergee  How does the FE sun maintain a constant angular velocity & diameter and rise & set without coming within 20 degrees of the horizon? Why do shadows change direction at a fixed 15 degrees/hr?
    2
  262.  @stevergee  "Sun circulates above the earth" Which would produce a variable angular diameter & velocity; explain how it maintains a constant angular diameter& velocity. "produce sunlight and shadows" With a variable angular velocity the direction of the shadows would change in similar variable rate; explain how the angle changes at a fixed 15 degrees/hr. "It appears to rise and set due to the law of perspective" A. Actually quote this Law of Perspective. B. Explain how it rises & sets without coming within 20 degrees of the horizon. C. Explain why perspective would make anything disappear form the bottom up. "you can see converge into the horizon" A FE has no horizon so explain where you think it comes from. "per the distance of the observer" The FE sun never reaches a sufficient distance to approach the horizon you says does/doesn't exist. Have you bothered doing any calculations?
    2
  263.  @stevergee  No reply?
    2
  264. The ancient Greeks deduced it and a spherical Earth was the centre point of the Ptolemaic model; that was accepted until ousted by the heliocentric system. Nobody was burned at the stake for saying the Earth was a globe but there were people in trouble for claiming heliocentrism. The Church saw it as undermining their authority.
    2
  265. ChgoKurt Why doesn’t people walking across Antarctica satisfy you?
    2
  266. The Earth was known to be round over 2500 years ago. Nobody is saying water should flow up hill on a sphere except those who can’t grasp the simplest diagram. One revolution per day is half the speed of an hour hand; why do you think that kind of speed would make you dizzy? Your senses are limited and you need to understand what you are actually looking for.
    2
  267. Steven D Oliver Dark matter & dark energy have nothing to do with a globe and gravity has been demonstrated & measured countless times. Try again.
    2
  268.  @onefodderunit  ""There are four states of matter and baryonic isn't one" Let me guess: solid, liquid, gas & plasma? "It is no matter {supposedly one molecule per square centimeter for so-called interstellar space)" Which is it: no matter or a little matter? What is the distance between Earth's surface and deep space? 1cm?, 1 metre, 1000km?
    2
  269. onefodderunit A gas would disperse into a vacuum unless held back by a barrier. When there is a shallow pressure gradient (I assume you understand the numbers) and substantial gravity (as with a planet) then the gravity can provide that barrier. The result would be what we observe; a gradual decrease in pressure with ascending altitude (and decreasing gravity) until the pressure has fallen to vacuum level. Not difficult unless you have a mind that can’t see the difference between 1cm and 100km.
    2
  270. onefodderunit In the scale you are thinking it would require a chamber. You do understand the difference between 1cm and 100km or am I making this difficult for you? The air pressure drops with increasing altitude. It’s why planes are pressurized and people require oxygen to climb Mt Everest. The decline eventually reaches zero pressure. At no point do you have 1atm pressure immediately adjacent to 0atm. Until you can grasp the scale you aren’t going to get your head around it.
    2
  271. onefodderunit I’m presenting evidence: air pressure declines with increasing altitude, hence the need for planes to be pressurized and oxygen to climb Mt Everest. Do you deny planes are pressurized? Do you have another explanation for why they should be? Gravity measurable declines with an increase of distance from the Earth’s centre. There are measurable differences on mountains compared to the low lands. Fine balances have to be calibrated to local conditions to ensure everybody is working with the same mass. I realise this is difficult for someone can’t grasp the difference between 1cm and 100km but you shouldn’t consider yourself an expert on subject when you don’t understand it.
    2
  272. Chris O The all-powerful law of just does.
    2
  273. "Common sense tells us that the world is flat, that the sun goes around the earth, that heavy bodies always fall faster than light bodies, that boats made of iron will sink." Stuart Chase You need to think more.
    2
  274. ego smack sequel Sorry for the lack of reply; your comment didn’t show up in my email. As long as each short section is built level (perpendicular to the direction of gravity at that point) then the canal as a whole will follow the curve of the Earth. Scale us the key factor; we’re speaking of 0.0144 degrees/mile curvature, too gradual to require any dips or sudden changes in angle in the canal.
    2
  275. You’re confusing scientific theory with the vernacular meaning of word. In science theories are backed with extensive evidence, evidence that FE’ers can’t come up with.
    2
  276.  @julianbrionesiii2438  What do you think would pull it off? Do you think water moves around by spontaneous motion?
    2
  277. freedom lover WGS84 has the sphere mapped. Gyroscopes and Foucault Pendulum long since demonstrated rotation.
    2
  278. Josh Thomas The strength of gravitational attraction is proportional to mass and you have more mass than an air molecule. The Earth has more mass and hence more gravitational pull than any container. The water will respond proportionally to whatever force acts on it, including gravity. No FE’er yet has been able to explain to me how density, the ratio of mass to volume, can act as a force or why consistently in one direction. Do you want to try?
    2
  279. REMIGIO PEREIRA He just gave you the evidence.
    2
  280. REMIGIO PEREIRA Does an experiment only have validity if Remigio Pereira personally has done it?
    2
  281. Explain why the sun retains a constant angular diameter, moves with constant angular velocity and rises & sets.
    2
  282. No evidence they do, just conjecture.
    2
  283. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation backed by extensive experimentation and observation. It is not a hunch or guess; that is the vernacular meaning of the word. A flat Earth is readily disprovable; espousing the idea is not thinking outside the box, just the inability or unwillingness to think.
    2
  284. Asked which question?
    2
  285. Alex Jones Where they exploded a nuclear bomb in the outside of an impenetrable dome than nobody can actually demonstrate exists?
    2
  286. Nope, it’s just that FE’rs have no grasp of scale and can’t handle the notion of just a tiny deviation from a perfect sphere.
    2
  287. brian cooper I took the trouble to watch the relevant video. It’s simple and explicit but totally beyond the FE’ers grasp of numbers.
    2
  288. brian cooper Your brain can’t handle the numbers?
    2
  289. About 2500 years to be more exact. The Ptolemaic system was based on Earth being a sphere and nothing has changed since then.
    2
  290. Such Antarctic bans don’t exist and you’re free to go if you wish. The inability of FE’ers to use technology proves only their own stupidity.
    2
  291. You do realise some of us are scientists?
    2
  292. NASA was founded in 1958, post-dating the ancient Greeks by over 2000 years. Do you want to explain how NASA passed along information to the ancient Greeks? I take it that, like apparently all other FE'ers, you have never asked yourself what you would expect to feel from 1 revolution per day, zero acceleration or an expansion of roughly 2*10^-18 metres/sec? Seemingly obvious questions and not difficult thinking; do you want to try it?
    2
  293. Bryon Rushing You can’t answer my questions?
    2
  294. UNHEXED 2 Those of us with a brain capacity larger than a carrot have calculated what that centrifugal force would be rather than just thinking 1000 mph is a large number. Do you want to display your brain capacity and do the calculation?
    2
  295.  @sunbear2644  "Learn to take comfort in not knowing" Which is the basis of "ignorance is strength" in Orwell's 1984. Your argument is not logical. You are trying to use epistemology to ignore evidence and arbitrarily dismiss theories built upon the evidence.
    2
  296. Shantell Peralta I notice you made no attempt to answer my original question. Want to try? Second questions: how many revolutions per day is the globe supposed to make?
    2
  297. Vic Wawa Scale. Water appears flat over readily observable distances, eg, swimming pools or lakes, because that distance is paltry compared to 25,000 miles (or 40,000km). Curvature is about 0.014 degrees/mile, not something that jumps out at you. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of a natural phenomenon, well substantiated by extensive experimentation & observation. It is not a hunch or guess; that is the vernacular meaning of theory. Gravity has been demonstrated to exist; its effects are readily calculable.
    2
  298. They can see the curve of a ball in their hand so if the Earth is a big ball they should be able see a curve too. No sense of scale or numbers.
    2
  299. Teresa Swann Even at the equator the centrifugal force is less than 0.5% the strength of gravity. You can be affected by more than one force at once.
    2
  300. Douglas Tibbitts It’s an answer but it requires some thought on your part. The further away an object is from you the smaller the angle change for whatever distance you move. You think Polaris should visibly change position but it is 430 light years away, not 430 miles, so how fast do you think the solar system moves? You’re claiming to have busted the globe so you must have an answer to the question.
    2
  301. levoy foster Reread your previous comment; you were saying falsified theories were the correct ones.
    2
  302.  @levoyfoster8510  You replied to Blocco Spirale when he said FE was a lie & a scam; you told to him to falsify the theories he believed in, otherwise they were just concepts & explanations, and that no empirical evidence existed. Regardless of your intent, you were unambiguously saying that falsification (not falsifiable experimentation) is necessary to support a theory.
    2
  303. "now say they never left lower earth's orbit" No, they say they currently aren't able. Saturn V launchers are burned up in the atmosphere, the Landing Modules are sitting on the moon, the Ascent Modules are smashed on the moon and the Command Modules are in museums. How many do you think are functional? You do realise there are other space agencies in other countries? That Nasa wasn't even the first?
    2
  304. Gaz Lee Rain drops, waterfalls and meniscus. Note the direction your pee takes. Try dividing 360 degrees by 25,000 miles.
    2
  305. Which is a parabolic equation, not a circular one. That should be an obvious clue its not for calculating a sphere. The Earth doesn’t spin; it rotates once per day. Explain why you think it would make the horizon move. Have you ever measured the declination of the horizon?
    2
  306. If you wish to profess to be thinking for yourself and questioning what you’re told then have the sense to actually think and question rather than just mindlessly accept any drivel you hear. All this has been questioned by thinking people for millennia and the only answer people arrive at is hat the Earth is a globe.
    2
  307. The ancient Greeks determined the Earth was a globe; the Ptolemaic model from about 100AD was a geocentric universe around a spherical Earth. Copernicus noted that a heliocentric system would be more practical given the greater knowledge by then; Kepler was able to establish it with elliptical orbits. If you mean 8" per mile squared, that is a rule of thumb used by land surveyors for relatively short distances. Since it is a parabolic equation it doesn't describe a circle but produces a similar number for the distances the surveyors work with. It only calculates the drop not how far you can see; that is additionally dependent on the observer's elevation and ambient refraction in the atmosphere. Bottom line: if you use the wrong formula for something, its inaccuracy says nothing about the accuracy of the correct formula.
    2
  308. Mike Boyd Columbus has the idea that the world was substantially smaller than believed and hence claimed it would be feasible to sail westwards from Europe to India.
    2
  309.  @generalmax4252  Thank you for acknowledging I am not a bot. Produce the documents.
    2
  310. Circular reasoning. Empirical evidence that contradicts their belief is dismissed on the grounds that the contradiction is proof the evidence is wrong. That they are left only with evidence that they can interpret (however badly) to support their belief is their justification for assuming the belief is correct.
    2
  311. Rostem It wouldn’t even rise & set; it would never be lower than about 20deg above the horizon.
    2
  312. Mass suicide by jumping off the edge?
    2
  313.  @Fartosaurus  How do you think the water would pour off the globe exactly, i.e., what do you think would induce it to do so? "Just does" or do you have something more plausible in mind?
    2
  314. Sheer distance would be a simpler explanation than an undetectable dome.
    2
  315. No, it means more vaccines are being developed.
    2
  316.  bogen broom  You can't figure out how birds fly and fish swim?
    2
  317. Divide 360 degrees by 25000 miles and think about it.
    2
  318. REMIGIO PEREIRA 1. Cavendish experiment, repeated countless times with similar results. 2. Lunar eclipses, accurate maps, horizon, etc 3. Design an experiment in which gravity can be generated without mass.
    2
  319. A few weeks ago two men finished solo expeditions across Antarctica.
    2
  320. ScareCro All you have to do is explain how the sun rises & sets without rising & setting. and why its angular diameter remains the same while increasing & decreasing.
    2
  321. Down is towards the centre of the globe; there’s no universal downwards direction and hence water is not clinging to the side of a globe with something trying to pull it off. Not a difficult concept. That would be the I recall that people crossing Antarctica have yet to encounter? You realise people sail around Antarctica?
    2
  322. With rotation you normally sense the change in direction, the acceleration being the change in orientation as you move. At one rotation per day it falls way below our sensitivity.
    2
  323. sgillman16 Copernicus suggested a shift from geocentric to heliocentric and later evidence confirmed that as valid. A spherical Earth was determined by the ancient Greeks and was the central point in the geocentric Ptolemaic system.
    2
  324. sgillman16 Pythagoras died around 500BC. How do you think the Jesuits were around in BC and why would a native of Ancient Greece not be an Ancient Greek?
    2
  325. codedecode Neither have power. You need to clarify what you’re asking.
    2
  326. Dylan McShane Two people did solo trips across Antarctica earlier this year.
    2
  327. Divide 360 degrees by 25,000 miles.
    2
  328. What are these 100 facts? Where does any FE explain how the sun retains its angular velocity and angular diameter through the day? How it rises and sets without approaching the horizon or any explanation for why there would be a horizon. Does the world have an edge & dome or not and no evidence ever supplied of either. A lot of handwaving that it’s all explained but none can ever produce these explanations. You reckon it’s explained so be novel and produce these explanations. Nobody has produced evidence of wires, just repeatedly coming up with claims there just gotta be invisible wires. Do you want produce one if these videos?
    2
  329. And yet nobody can produce a functional flat earth map....
    2
  330. The ancient Greeks deduced it. The globe was the centre point of the Ptolemaic system from 100AD onwards. Anybody with any education knew the world was round.
    2
  331. Qhai Evidence based and testable.
    2
  332. The plane’s trim keeps it at a constant air pressure and thus (weather aside) a constant altitude. That applies regardless of whether the atmosphere is curved or flat. There’s no need for a specific correction.
    2
  333.  @tbrown3356  "which allow us to make predictions" How do lunar eclipses occur and when do you predict the next one? How does the sun maintain a constant angular diameter & angular velocity through the course of the day?
    2
  334. Aimenn Penny It would take more than a second to observe but lunar eclipses always exhibiting a round shadow was told the Ancient Greeks the Earth was round. Map making us the other giveaway; we’re still waiting on FE’ers to come up with a map.
    2
  335. 1969nitsuga What exactly do you think stops the combustion chamber pressure rising above the external pressure?
    2
  336. Babak 1350 Chucking out “old beliefs” on the grounds they are old is not courage but stupidity.
    2
  337.  @andrejones2147  Shading on windows & visors to protect from the sun. One astronaut saw a few stars by standing in the shade of the landing craft and raising his outer visor; the light reflected from the moon's surface prevented a better view.
    2
  338.  @andrejones2147  You consider it a fluke that they used shading to protect from the sunlight or that it was a fluke that the astronaut deliberately raised his visor to see if it was possible to see stars in the moonlight?
    2
  339. FE Diplomat The only videos I’ve seen where the sun apparently changed angular diameter were filmed without a filter and the sun passing behind clouds. If the sun isn’t a real object then where is the light originating from? Why is Polaris below the horizon if you’re south of the equator? Are you saying the sun is at the same height as street lights? How close to the ground do you think it needs to be for perspective to explain falling below the horizon?
    2
  340. Raindrops, meniscuses & waterfalls - all flat as pancakes?
    2
  341. Captain Rankin I see only presumption on your part, not maths. What are your calculations to demonstrate objects 10-1000 light years away would be seen as a “smear of light”? Given that Polaris has only been the pole star for about 2 centuries it would be reasonable to conclude that it does move.
    2
  342. A flat earth wouldn't have a horizon and you would be able to see much further but the exact distance what be dependent on the atmospheric conditions; even with the clearest air the distance would eventually disappear into a haze.
    2
  343. Erik Deriso You can observe stellar parallax arising from the Earth’s motion.
    1
  344. Beyond Belief Erik commented on the Earth’s orbit rather than shape. For the latter you have horizon, sun moving at a constant speed & size to rise & set and the surface mapped down to the square metre.
    1
  345. Beyond Belief All measurable & measured; all verified. What do you think is wrong exactly?
    1
  346. How would you go about exploding a nuclear warhead on the outside of an impenetrable dome?
    1
  347. Wet a tennis ball and spin it; it remains wet. Where can I pick up the Bitcoin?
    1
  348. Jay C Open minded means a willingness to listen and consider other ideas. Unquestioningly believing someone who claims observable reality is wrong is mindlessness.
    1
  349. Why do they think governments are the only source of information? The government isn’t controlling what they but they happily everybody else is controlled.
    1
  350. They Lie, You Sleep. The raindrop is definitely curved; it is not a polyhedron. You’re lecturing me on scalability but, as with all FE’ers, failing to understanding it applies to gravity (you can’t replicate a planets gravity in the lab) and that 360 degrees curvature does not mean a set distance per degree regardless of the size of the sphere.
    1
  351. Fight For Freedom Scientific theories are based on evidence obtained extensive experimentation & observation; they are not guesses or hunches. You can’t see radio waves or microwaves but you probable own a cell phone & microwave oven. You can’t see the circuitry on microchips but your computer works.
    1
  352. Twin Flame Let me guess - the elevation over the ocean didn’t change with distance?
    1
  353. bigpigslapper Oink Critical thinking like asking if FE ideas reflect reality, e.g., the sun not changing angular diameter through the day?
    1
  354. pav Evidence got lasers & total visibility over these distances? An object can become too small to be seen with the naked eye before it reaches the horizon; zooming will bring that back. Once it has gone over the horizon no amount of zooming will bring it back; try doing it with the sun after it has set.
    1
  355. gotgood hair That proves the Earth doesn’t move how exactly? Think before you answer.
    1
  356.  thetlwaller  The tray table falls into chaos if I'm not careful crossing/uncrossing my legs but that's incidental... :-(
    1
  357. How many degrees does a triangle have in a curved surface?
    1
  358.  @bobsmithers3483  Not on a spherical surface. Do you want to explain the discrepancy?
    1
  359. Douglas Tibbitts A receiver picks up a signal that has been transmitted. It is entirely passive; it does not need to access the transmitter source.
    1
  360. Tony T Meniscus, raindrops, waterfall. If you mean an ocean then you need to grasp the difference between 25 and 25000.
    1
  361.  @AntonyThorburn  How many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to find on a 25,000 mile circumference circle?
    1
  362.  @azfarmerkobie8325  It would be a constant drop in all directions; why would you expect to curvature left-to-right? "What I'm trying to say is there is no curve." As I said earlier, you are envisaging the curvature as being greater than it actually is.
    1
  363. Mike Arthut That would be expected from the changing properties of the atmosphere with increasing altitude. Try applying Occam’s Razor.
    1
  364. The latter is physically impossible; the sheer mass would force it into a globe shape. With abundant planets throughout the galaxy the probability that this is the only planet on which life has appeared is remote. That doesn’t mean there is evidence of an intelligent civilisation, merely that the odds are in favour of alien life existing.
    1
  365. It originates with Samuel Rowbotham in the mid 19th century.
    1
  366. MrSpongejoe What will the resulting shape be?
    1
  367. On photographs taken from what elevation?
    1
  368. ikolo o You’re assuming we haven’t. You can’t come up with even a single bit?
    1
  369. How does a globe rather than a FE prop up the status quo?
    1
  370. Isabel Little What exactly couldn’t you debunk and what did you do to try debunking it?
    1
  371. Han Realistic Congratulations; I have a PhD and spend my life in a research lab. Few FE’ers seem capable of figuring out how you would calculate degrees per mile yet consider themselves intelligent and erudite because they see such serious problems with the globe like a 25,000 mile circumference not having the apparent curvature of a 25 mile one. How does GPS work in the middle of the ocean?
    1
  372. Han Realistic I asked you how it works in the middle of the ocean. The something can be done one way is not proof it is being done by that method nor that that method is the only way it can be done. Not knowing how something could work and knowing it couldn’t work are two different things. Shortwave signals can be bounced off the ionosphere to enable long distance communication. It does not require direct line of sight. Why do TV satellite dishes point up into the sky if the transmission is land-based?
    1
  373.  @hanrealistic  If it were a solid barrier then a far wider range of wavelengths would be reflected and there wouldn't be a significant difference in broadcast range between night & day. That you don't know the mechanism by which it is formed or how shortwave radio is reflected is not evidence "however, satellites baloons can do it beside LORAN" "Orbit is one of the most famous one." Which way do you want it? "Guess what, they create new jargons and make you believe." It's something called maths & physics; you said they were your favourite subjects.
    1
  374. I assume you mean gay rather than guy? We're talking about willful ignorance with FE'ers.
    1
  375. How many logos are 3D? How many people have curved forearms?
    1
  376. Cindy Temple There isn’t a horizon on a FE so how do you think the sun can be hidden behind one?
    1
  377. Cindy Temple It’s a scientific theory, not a hunch or guess.
    1
  378. Cindy Temple The horizon is the point at which objects start to disappear from the bottom up. As long as an object is taller than the drop at that distance then some if it will remain visible. Comparative DNA sequencing of genes indicates the branching of species over time just as evolution predicts.
    1
  379. Let me guess: what the centrifugal force doesn’t fling off would fall off the bottom?
    1
  380. Evidence?
    1
  381. Skooby Snax What do you think it would show and why?
    1
  382.  @agridecumates1238  Ptolemy was Egyptian and around 100AD was responsible for the geocentric Ptolemaic system that was based on a spherical Earth; that was the accepted model until Copernicus suggested otherwise.
    1
  383. A FE wouldn’t have a horizon; elevation aside, the landscape would stretch off and become too fuzzy to discern detail. You’re about 5 to 6 feet tall (1.5 to 1.8 metres) and think you should see the curvature of a horizon that would be apparent at 500,000 to 600,000 feet?
    1
  384. Merle May I’m afraid you need to use clearer English.
    1
  385.  @merlemay528  And so? The sun is 93 million miles away, not sitting on the Earth's surface.
    1
  386. Merle May In what way does the sun demonstrate flatness? If the Earth were flat and sun moving in a curved above it then its angular diameter and angular velocity would change with course of the day and it would never come within 10 degrees of the horizon. We do it behaving exactly as it should if the Earth is rotating while orbiting a distant sun.
    1
  387.  @merlemay528  Write in your native English and I'll run it through a translator. That would be better than the quality of your English.
    1
  388. ​ @merlemay528  Hardly; if you wish to communicate ideas or ask questions clearly then you need to do so in intelligible format. Given the quality of your English you would be better writing in your native Spanish or Portuguese and letting me use a translator; it would not be perfect but it would be an improvement on your writing. Apenas; Si desea comunicar ideas o hacer preguntas con claridad, debe hacerlo en un formato inteligible. Dada la calidad de tu inglés, sería mejor que escribieras tu español o portugués nativos y me permitas usar un traductor; no sería perfecto pero sería una mejora en su escritura. Dificilmente; Se você deseja comunicar idéias ou fazer perguntas claramente, então você precisa fazê-lo em um formato inteligível. Dada a qualidade do seu inglês, seria melhor escrever no seu espanhol ou português nativo e deixar que eu usasse um tradutor; não seria perfeito, mas seria uma melhoria em sua escrita.
    1
  389. Clint S Bear You can’t calculate centrifugal force either - what a surprise.
    1
  390.  @clintonemusic  You can't comprehend the difference between an inch (the thickness of tyre) and 20 miles. You are again nicely demonstrating you have no concept of scale.
    1
  391.  @clintonemusic  "If it doesn't work at the surface..." And yet it works fine: any object released in an evacuated vacuum chamber falls in the same direction and at the same rate.
    1
  392. Clint S Bear How many times does the Cavendish experiment need to be reproduced to qualify as having been done?
    1
  393. Simple - don’t look through a telescope.
    1
  394. Real Beginning I recall that at least one person has said they come with preprogrammed images though with no explanation how this could work.
    1
  395. Jay C So people don’t realise the people driving the vans are being taken out.
    1
  396. just me And yet curiously the people who have thought for themselves just can’t say what is wrong or produce logical alternatives.
    1
  397.  @shortstuff7777777  What do you think is wrong? Think carefully before you answer. How does the sun remain suspended over a FE? How does it move? How does it change direction? What powers the light? Why would a spherical light source be invisible to all but a narrow area? How does it retain the same angular diameter through the course of the day? How does it moves with the same rate of angular change through the day? How does it set without coming within 10 degrees of the horizon? How do you get 24hr sunlight in Antarctica?
    1
  398.  @shortstuff7777777  It doesn't; you're only trying to answer my first question and there is a wholly inadequate magnetic field for what you are suggesting and no indication that the sun is a superconductor. Now you said you had LOTS for me; try answering my questions.
    1
  399. Thomas Kundera I think it is due to the misconception of Columbus proving the world was round.
    1
  400. Thomas Kundera Columbus thought the globe was substantially smaller than actuality; he believed it was feasible to sail westwards to India. It gets portrayed as demonstrating you wouldn’t sail off the edge of the Earth and people believe he is responsible for demonstrating the Earth was round.
    1
  401. Schadenfreude.
    1
  402. Flipdodge 392 I waiting for your explanation of how governments can manipulate those experiments I gave you.
    1
  403.  @aliali-xx9ru  The analogy demonstrates what happens when something disappears over a horizon, be it a pen, candle or the sun; it isn't to demonstrate anything about how far away the sun is or what the relationship is between a planet & sun. You haven't answered my question.
    1
  404.  @aliali-xx9ru  You can't figure out how to divide by 360 by 25,000 and you have no concept of scale; seems typical of a FE'er.
    1
  405. The US government founded NASA. I take it you mean von Braun. His tombstone says nothing about Earth.
    1
  406.  @kendrickki11umin8ajohnson2  A globe with a dipolar magnetic field would have "holes" at both poles and dipolar magnets would align with the magnetic field in a north-south orientation; that is what we observe and has been observed by people independently travelling to each pole. Some far nobody have been able to demonstrate a monopole magnetic could exist, much less that one actually does. Nobody has been able to accurately demonstrate the Earth is flat much less come up with a workable map. Your argument is that unsupported conjecture somehow disproves a model that is operating exactly as predicted. Tesla did not invent free energy. It would have still have cost money to generate it. He did propose a method where people could "collect" electricity without paying for it. The economic stumbling block is nobody was willgi to generate the energy without recompense. No payment, no electricity generated; no electricity generated, no "free energy".
    1
  407.  @kendrickki11umin8ajohnson2  There are multiple arrangements possible on a ring magnet. One sort is the south pole on the inside of the ring, the north pole on the outside (or vice versa) which is what you are referring to. Pointing out errors in their reasoning and asking people for evidence to back their assertions is freemasonry?
    1
  408.  @brandonjerome  You still haven't demonstrated how much mass you believe is being lost and the proportion compared to Earth's total mass. You appear to have heard about hydrogen & helium escaping but not thought very far beyond that.
    1
  409. In this context level refers to equipotential with the force of gravity. Curvature is continuous at about 0.0144 degrees per mile; not an amount that jumps out at you.
    1
  410. Glitchy Notation: “a series or system of written symbols used to represent numbers, amounts, or elements in something such as music or mathematics”
    1
  411. The sun doesn't rise & set because the government tells you it does?
    1
  412. Writing existed.
    1
  413. 'Cos the tine is oval :-)
    1
  414. Less than in 1in 100,000. Doesn't qualify as a significant minority let alone a majority.
    1
  415. How does the sun stay up, how does it move in a circle, how does it maintain constant angular diameter & velocity through the day and how does it only illuminate part of the Earth at any give time?
    1
  416. ​ @jackdaw339  "Magnetism due to high voltage makes the sun and the moon float" "the compass and it show north" You haven't thought of the inherent contradiction between those assertions? "It goes around in larger and smaller circles" I asked you ho wit moved in a circle and you haven't answered. "sun is at a way lower altitude ... which makes it disappear at the evening" The smaller & lower the sun, the greater the change in angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day. I asked you how the sun would maintain the observed constant angular diameter & velocity. Explain. I also asked you to explain how the sun would illuminate only a specific part of the Earth, one that corresponded to one hemisphere on a globe. You haven't answered. It doesn't matter how low your sun appeared, unless you were living in a valley, it would always be visible. "When you get at a really high altitude you will see the sun again even if it is at night at that location" Which you would and do observe on a globe. "stars... thousands of miles not millions" What have you done to measure the distance? "The earth is covered by the firmament" Provide some evidence for its existence. How do meteorites land? How does atmospheric decline with increasing altitude? "[space] is supposed to have an edge" The Karman line. It's the point at which the atmosphere is so thin a plane would require travelling at escape velocity to remain airborne.
    1
  417. Brian Freeman It’s all DNA, all working by the same mechanisms. A scale of thousands of years implies developments in technology rather than genetic changes. The last significant change I’m aware of is the development of blue eyes, a trait that would be selected for in some environments. It’s somewhat unlikely evolution would lead to organisms being less-suited generally to their environment.
    1
  418. A scientific law is a statement of what happens; a scientific theory is an explanation of how it happens. Unlike the vernacular meaning of theory, in science it is not a hunch or guess but a comprehensive explanation based on extensive experimentation and observation. It can not be dismissed as “just a theory”.
    1
  419. 500 years ago was the shift from geocentric to heliocentric, the former being a spherical Earth based on evidence accumulated since about 500 AD.
    1
  420.  @elonmusk7096  Too fast for the plate to be photographed by the speeedcams 😊
    1
  421. Ray Bans One revolution per day is fast? Half the speed of an hour hand? Has it occurred to you that the atmosphere moves too?
    1
  422. Ray Bans Think about my last question, considering gravity and inertia while doing so.
    1
  423. Kritiko Rotation is measured in radians per second or revolutions per minute; the Earth rotates once per day. While the lateral speed can be as high as 1000mph the force we would feel comes from the change in angle of motion, ie, the rotation not the lateral speed.
    1
  424. FrederickTCold A lunar eclipse on which the shadow is on the back of the moon?
    1
  425. Angelfire 451 Curvature of space-time. I take it you can’t produce any evidence of an electromagnetic universe.
    1
  426. muirthilevincit It works when you use the correct maths and take into account all pertinent factors. Screwing it up is not evidence the correct method is wrong.
    1
  427. The ancient Greeks deduced the world was a sphere. Copernicus proposed a shift from geocentric to heliocentric system. Two different things.
    1
  428. Disabled Velociraptor That the Earth was a sphere was accepted over 2000 years ago by anybody with education; it was the basis of the Ptolemaic system. Lack of education did not provide meaningful insight on the shape of the Earth.
    1
  429. Disabled Velociraptor Rowbotham et al did not represent any legitimate dispute on the subject, just a religious dislike for science.
    1
  430. debdoll1 Let me guess: the centrifugal forces should fling us off if we haven’t fallen off first?
    1
  431.  @ShropshireFox  "that would be an optical convergence an apparent one" Why would that happen only in one particular horizontal line?
    1
  432.  @ShropshireFox  "that's a function of perspective" How does perspective make anything disappear from the bottom up? "diffraction limit" Make your mind up and explain why the effects of diffraction limit would appear so different at a particular horizontal line.
    1
  433. The technology to get people to the moon is too dated to be usable therefore the means has been lost. The Mars rovers didn’t require life support to get there or operate on the surface.
    1
  434. Eventually. You would accelerate as you went down the hole but gravity would diminish as you fell because there would be an increasing amount of mass behind you. Once past the centre the gravity behind you becomes strong and slows you down; since you lose some velocity through air resistance you wouldn’t make it the far side, just start falling back towards the centre. The result is oscillation backwards & forwards until air resistance gradually brings you to halt in the centre.
    1
  435.  @jqowens777  That the Earth was a globe was established around 500BC. Such a plot would require some phenomenal foresight.
    1
  436. MrSpongejoe Who’s that trip-trapping across my bridge...
    1
  437. The deviation from a perfect sphere being minute.
    1
  438. Earth was presumed to be flat; curvature has since been demonstrated. Everybody knows you can see further from a tall place. Can none of you comprehend the same applies to cameras? Oblate by 0.3%. FE’ers can’t understand scale.
    1
  439.  @bloccospirale4280  Perhaps I should try trepanning next time I have a migraine?
    1
  440. Hulbog Stonethrower Foucault Pendulum. Michaelson & Morley et al used the known movement of Earth to look for evidence of hypothetical aether. Difficult as it is for you to grasp, not finding any evidence of a hypothetical substance does not prove its existence.
    1
  441. Hulbog Stonethrower What’s your slam dunk evidence for existence of the hypothetical aether? Explain what you perceive to be wrong with the Foucault pendulum, gyroscopes and stellar parallax.
    1
  442. albert stankic How do you account for stellar parallax?
    1
  443.  @LiteralHitter  You don't have to shout. Stellar parallax occurs because of the Earth changing position through the course of the year; the closest stars appear displaced compared to those further away. If you want to claim Earth doesn't move then you need to account for everything that is explained by Earth moving, e.g., stellar parallax, retrograde motion of planets, phases of other planets. They didn't see what you think they saw. Check out the full and accurate story. If you are at the centre of your observations then your observation will be around you, not something else. If the universe is expanding then everything will be moving away from each other; since you are at the centre of your observations you will see everything moving away from you. You don't need to be at the centre of the universe, merely the centre of your observations.
    1
  444. albert stankic We understand what is being said in The Principle; you think you do.
    1
  445. albert stankic Understanding does come naturally for some of us; we’re blessed with clarity of thought and have learned not to stop thinking when presented with a simplistic conclusion.
    1
  446. You assume we haven’t looked into it. You may find gaping holes and contradictions with observable reality to be a plausible argument but we don’t. We have yet to find a FE’er who can either produce a plausible model for a FE or make an accurate criticism of the globe. Plenty of just gotta be right claims being passed around among FE’ers, none of which hold water.
    1
  447. Victor Seal FE’ers tend to be selective in their investigations, going with what will support their beliefs and ignoring the rest. We have thousands of years of evidence of a globe to the point we have it completely mapped and have satellites & a space station (observable) orbiting it.
    1
  448. Why?
    1
  449. @Yuri DeKhed Thanks, Bob.
    1
  450. You really like gibberish don't you? The moon's gravity is 1/6th that of Earth, not the atmospheric pressure, which is zero on the moon. The moon is not covered in sand. The tape solvent had long dried before Apollo was launched; the tape was bonded to the material. The sun's angular diameter does not vary in the course of the day (I did ask you to supply evidence that it does but you haven't answered). The moon has an elliptical orbit as do most orbiting bodies.
    1
  451. There are abundant full hemisphere shots of Earth from space with more being taken every hour.
    1
  452. Stank0ndahanghi If you had researched it then you would be aware that FE’ers long predate Dubay. You would also be aware why his ideas don’t hold water.
    1
  453. They don’t.
    1
  454. "i think that the mere concepts that flat earthers bring to the human stage..to be totally awe inspiring" Such as what exactly?
    1
  455. The heliocentric system has been around c. 500 years. The geocentric system (Ptolemaic) preceding it was based on a spherical Earth.
    1
  456. IsThisReal We’re made to think instinctively like every other animal; we are able to think contemplatively but most of our thought is instinctive. Being aware of which you are using at any given time is important.
    1
  457. North Sea Empire Reread what I wrote and think about it.
    1
  458. North Sea Empire Your reply didn’t correspond with what I wrote.
    1
  459.  @kubortthedane9487  I said that were are capable of contemplative thinking, not that we do think contemplatively; I made it clear most of our thinking is instinctive. I was making the point that quick conclusions should not be assumed to be thought out simply because we are capable on contemplation; you need to be aware of your thought processes. I agree that we should not assume rational thinking is entirely rational; that is why self-doubt is important.
    1
  460. North Sea Empire Usjng only monosyllabic words would be a sign of intelligence?
    1
  461. Flat and FREE What do you think lies between Earth & moon that would block the signal?
    1
  462. Swing Armer The reagents used in chemotherapy and the delivery methods have improved with time with resulting in accuracy and efficacy. To cure cancer you need to be able to target cancerous cells that are still exhibit most of the properties of normal cells; it’s not the same as antibacterial agents.
    1
  463. You’re dismissing the various circumpolar flights because they didn’t start from the North Pole?
    1
  464. The attack was launched from aircraft carriers not directly from Japan.
    1
  465.  @corysamoila  100 * (360/25000) degrees.
    1
  466.  @corysamoila  1.44 degrees. How the heck do you srfive at the conclusion 100 miles is 19-fold the circumference of the Earth?
    1
  467.  @corysamoila  No, the trim on the plane keeps it a constant atmospheric pressure.
    1
  468. kunal amratlal Flat is in lack of variation in elevation, not lack of curvature.
    1
  469. Evan E Countless videos made by people who can’t grasp the difference between elevation and curvature.
    1
  470. Flat Earth Preacher Evidence?
    1
  471. Greg Greer Even the Amish benefit.
    1
  472.  @Gr-Ra5  The distance to the horizon being far less than the several hundred miles I referred to.
    1
  473.  @Gr-Ra5  Explain to me why you think either distance is greater than several hundred miles.
    1
  474.  @Gr-Ra5  Several hundred miles is generally seen as more than twice that distance. Since dust & moisture have an accumulative effect then measurement of declining clarity at shorter distances can be extrapolated.
    1
  475.  @Gr-Ra5  The Red Bull jump was not from ground level. Reread my OP to Voice of Reason and insert the omitted “only” in front of the “250 miles”.
    1
  476.  @Gr-Ra5  You realise that I am saying that we don’t see further than expected on a globe and that there are horizons at all is incompatible with a FE?
    1
  477. snow man I can’t see most of what I work with. Do you wish to claim molecules don’t exist?
    1
  478.  @johnholmes2608  Change in density will refract light, e.g., passing through a water droplet and through changes in atmospheric density. The atmosphere is no uniform in density; refraction occurs. Where does the sun disappear to every night if it is still clearly above a FE's surface?
    1
  479. john holmes Produce a copy of this video. So many people claim to have one or seen one but nobody has been able to produce one. We’re talking about a “bend” of less than one degree. The light is coming from one direction and is being refracted by the moisture, not diffused. Imperfections would increase with distance regardless of whether there was refraction or not; distance on a FE would gradually disappear into a haze, not a horizon.
    1
  480. john holmes I’ve already pointed out we’re talking about <1degree of refraction, something that would have a significant effect over 10’s miles on a 25,000 mile circumference. Do you want to explain how an atmospheric water droplet wouldn’t refract light?
    1
  481.  @johnholmes2608  The aircraft stationed on the navy ships are equipped with lasers, not the ships themselves. The missile launched by the ships lock onto the targetting laser and follow it to the target. For visual targets the gunners factor in the horizon.
    1
  482.  @johnholmes2608  If it's over the horizon then it can't be seen to be directly targeted; the curvature has to be taken into account. When shooting a gun why would you need to factor in the curve when firing directly at a target you can see? I think you are referring to Coriolis force which arises from the Earth's rotation, not curvature.
    1
  483. Tony Z Abd yet circumnavigation can be achieved with only 25,000 mile travel.
    1
  484. Flipdodge 392 The flights between Sydney & Santiago are possible on a sphere but not a FE; how are you arguing it is proof of the opposite?
    1
  485. Flipdodge 392 You can’t produce the evidence I asked you for?
    1
  486. Distance from Johannesburg to Rio de Janeiro is 7115km. How far is it on your FE map?
    1
  487. Mike Arthut I see. If I load a 1min video of the rabbit hopping around the garden you’ll try answering my question?
    1
  488. Mike Arthut That is pretty dumb reasoning. Why would not having videos mean I was being paid? Explain your logic. The simpler explanation is that after Google purchased YouTube it became obligatory to have a channel to be able to comment, whether you wished to post videos or not. I take it you don’t dare trying answering my questions.
    1
  489. UNHEXED 2 And yet curiously we can demonstrate proof while you can’t figure out how to answer questions.
    1
  490. UNHEXED 2 I’ve already told you once what would be necessary to produce it in a lab. In the meantime you’ll have to make do with tens of thousands of pictures time lapse pictures.
    1
  491. UNHEXED 2 Some things just don’t stick in your head, do they? If you want a scale demonstration then it needs to be done in lab. Two basic requirements are that you would need mass from a neutron Star and be able to turn off the Earth’s gravity (and denying it exists will not magically neutralize it). If you want a full size demonstration then you already have tens of thousands pictures to choose from. Take your pick.
    1
  492. Evidence?
    1
  493. You really need to use three or more.
    1
  494. joanne-grace Alden Science is evidence-based; that evidence has to be confirmed by multiple sources before being accepted as fact. If you want to claim something isn’t a fact then the onus is you to demonstrate (competently) that is so.
    1
  495. OG MANE Evidence?
    1
  496. Paul Middleton What do you makes objects move downwards? They “just do”?
    1
  497. darryl dwyer Everything points back to the universe having originated from a subtle point. What preceded the “explosion”, ie, what that point was and where it came from, are as yet unknown but are being worked on.
    1
  498. Buenavidesl GAM The difference between major & minor radii is about 20 miles. It’s actually nearer a perfect sphere than a pool ball.
    1
  499. boosomentity OK, I figured out what you mean by arc. The Earth’s radius is about 3,900 miles, distance to the sun 93 million miles. The difference caused by +/- radius is too little to have a readily observable effect.
    1
  500. manchester 'Dubzy production's aka azzp m34 Azzp Despite 15 years of looking into it he hasn’t figured out that elevation of the camera is an important factor (3:00min). He’s not as clever as you think.
    1
  501. manchester 'Dubzy production's aka azzp m34 Azzp No, you are just visualising a 25 mile circumference when it is actually 25,000 miles. You can expect to see 0.0144 degrees/mile, not 14.4 degrees/mile.
    1
  502.  @azzpakadubzy-productions3125  You need to understand the limitations of your senses. You see light on a very narrow spectrum; you don't see infrared (heat), you don't see the radiowaves your phone is using and you don't see microwaves in the microwave oven. You can't see anything the size of bacteria or viruses mych less individual molecules. Your senses of smell and hearing is abysmal compared to most animals. Your taste is better than some but still very limited. Your fingers do have great sensitivity but they still have limits. That you can't see something that is too slight for your eyes to detect it says nothing of whether that item exists.
    1
  503. They don’t seem to understand the concepts of measurement, scale and multiple observation points.
    1
  504. That would be the Real Science that ignores variables, makes assumptions and uses inappropriate maths?
    1
  505. One person told me the underside were where the fire pits of hell were; he also insisted that down was a fixed direction and was flummoxed when I asked why he thought people weren't falling out of these pits.
    1
  506. It will if you get on a plane; do you want to arrive in the right place?
    1
  507. Mike Arthut Do you want to explain what observations & measurements you have made?
    1
  508. Mike Arthut 360 degrees divided by 130 million feet. How many degrees curvature are you saying you would expect over 45ft?
    1
  509. Mike Arthut Most channel don’t have content; for years now you’ve needed an account to be able to comment. You can’t handle arithmetic?
    1
  510. That you personally can’t explain something does not make it unexplainable.
    1
  511. Heliocentric system is relatively new; the geocentric system was based on a spheroid Earth dating back 2500 years. You won’t find an edge on a sphere. Gain sufficient elevation and that the horizon is a circle below you becomes apparent.
    1
  512. They insist they are just stars and refuse to look through a telescope.
    1
  513. Gerald Nordahl Your reasoning also means that pool balls are flat.
    1
  514. freedom lover Like Ptolemy?
    1
  515. The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a globe in about 500BC; a spherical Earth was the centre point of the Ptolemaic model of the universe from about 100AD onwards. The debate 500 years ago was whether the solar system was geocentric or heliocentric.
    1
  516. Rivers running to the sea proves the Earth is flat how?
    1
  517. You can see stars just above the horizon.
    1
  518. Are commenting and reporting the same thing?
    1
  519. Bob Czz Then surely FE’ers should be in agreement and each not relying on self-contradictory statements?
    1
  520. OnTheEDge How does the sun retain a constant angular velocity and angular diameter throughout the course of the day?
    1
  521. ali ali It’s why we have scientific methodology, detailed reporting, peer review (pre- & post-publication) and reproduction.
    1
  522. Stationary Plane And the evidence from the experimentation & observation is what supports scientific theories, ie, an explanation so well & uniquely supported it can be accepted as a working truth. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory.
    1
  523. Stationary Plane Not what I said. Proving something outright is essentially impossible; you can’t include what you don’t yet know in the evidence. If you want to claim a theory is wrong then you need to demonstrate that is so; if you have another theory that you think plausible it has to fit the existing evidence and make better predictions. Rubbing your chin thoughtfully and claiming your idea just gotta be right because the existing theory just gotta be wrong is an invalid, illogical argument. Is that clear?
    1
  524. You're confusing lunar eclipses with lunar phases. The former is the Earth shadow passing over the moon as the sun, Earth & moon briefly come into alignment. Lunar phases are due to the relevant placement of the sun, Earth & moon determining how much of the sunlit part of the moon is visible from Earth.
    1
  525. Gyroscopes & Foucault pendulum prove rotation followed by hundreds of satellites & spacecraft. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon, well substantiated by extensive evidence & observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory.
    1
  526. that'szack Which essentially runs that religion just gotta be right so any difference with science just gotta be satanic and screw evidence.
    1
  527. The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere and that formed the basis of the geocentric Ptolemaic system. That was replaced with heliocentric system 400 years ago. Nicotine was seen as beneficial. The seriousness of chronic lung damage was not yet appreciated and cancer was masked by other more prevalent diseases killing people off.
    1
  528. steve wittwer Or at least evidence the Earth isn’t round. Please think before you start typing, eg, what you expect to see and why.
    1
  529. GTOberfest Preferably naming one that isn’t based on the ignorance of the claimer.
    1
  530. GTOberfest And yet you haven’t provided the example you were asked for. How do you think you can obliterate people without producing anything to support your broad assertion?
    1
  531. GTOberfest You’ve provided as many links as you have examples.
    1
  532. Jddhawez The wobbling is to do with cloud layers between you and the sun. Try it with a solar filter in some clear days. We only get a lunar eclipse when the sun, Earth and moon are in direct line. Since the moon has an inclined orbit it is usually a little above or below that direct line and we see a full moon. Blocking the sun reduces the warming in the upper atmosphere, one way if possibly reducing global warming. I assume you are referring to a fusion reaction with “creating a sun”. That is on a tiny, tiny scale compared with the sun and is intended for generating energy. Some places are naturally cloudy due to their geographic location.
    1
  533. You don’t need go to space to determine the shape of the Earth. The ancient Greeks deduced it from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude and lunar eclipses, all indicative the Earth is a globe, all contradictory to a FE and all verifiable by anybody.
    1
  534. Marcos Martins Since when have FE’ers actually thought for themselves? Espousing an idea that differs from the received knowledge does not make it right or prove they are thinking, especially when it requires ignorance on their part and simply ignoring conflicting evidence.
    1
  535. CBDav How degrees curvature per mile would you expect to observe with a 25,000 mile circumference?
    1
  536. CBDav Try answering my question and you may understand why you can’t see any curvature.
    1
  537. Have you never heard the tale of Archimedes running naked through the streets yelling “Eureka!”?
    1
  538. chazz Lucas Are you serious?
    1
  539. daniel rodriguez Why do you think the moon doesn’t change in apparent size through the night?
    1
  540. The globe is true: what do you expect the government to do?
    1
  541. We accept that other explanations may exist. We don’t accept any possibility. An explanation has to be plausible and supported by the available evidence; there is no reason to consider possibilities that are neither.
    1
  542. awefull maw Evidence?
    1
  543. Slowly 😊. The Earth has an inclined axis of rotation with the result different parts get more or less sunshine as the year progresses. Dec the northern hemisphere is inclined away from the sun, Jun towards.
    1
  544.  @Semirouser  The deviation from perfect sphere is so slight it isn't going to show up in images; it's not being deliberately left out.
    1
  545. Meredith Wilson Someone needs to conclusively demonstrate it is wrong. “I don’t understand how....” is not that demonstration.
    1
  546. 10 billion years apart and you think one directly caused the other?
    1
  547. Clue: 360 degrees curvature and 25,000 miles circumference. How many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to find? Simple questions and I'm still waiting for a FE capable of answering it.
    1
  548.  @mikeknox7453  Great! Another FE'er who can't figure out division. What a surprise. The top of Mount Ka'ala is visible from Kauai, not the whole of Oahu; elevation of the observer and atmospheric refraction would allow the top 1000ft or so to be visible.
    1
  549.  @mikeknox7453  Then you should have no problem producing the evidence. 8"/mile^2 is a parabola.
    1
  550. Mike Knox Totally useless for calculating viewing distance.
    1
  551.  @mikeknox7453  And atmospheric refraction. You need to produce one of these pictures that shows the Oahu shoreline from 200ft elevation. The ones I've seen show the top 1000ft or so of Mount Ka'ala as would be expected.
    1
  552. L O L Have you ever considered dividing 360 degrees by 25,000 miles?
    1
  553.  @LOL-ng4br  When I was in Hawaii. Have you ever considered that simple arithmetic before shooting your mouth off?
    1
  554. The difference of whether reality is what the evidence says it is or conforms to what you would like to believe.
    1
  555. It was one particular place in the US (Zion, Illinois) that was founded & run by fundamentalists who denied what they didn't want to hear. Other than there it was never illegal to teach about the globe; it has been accepted for millennia that the Earth was a sphere.
    1
  556. How does the existence of a CGI picture exclude the existence of satellites?
    1
  557. Davey Duarte How do you think a CGI of a unicorn means unicorns can’t exist?
    1
  558. It got less than 2000ft in the air. Commercial jets have a cruising altitude of 20-30,000ft. The Karman line is above 300,000ft. He needs to improve his design a great deal if he wishes to get high enough.
    1
  559. David Estep The ancient Greeks first surmised a globe about 2500 years ago. The Ptolemaic system (geocentric) from about 100AD was based a spherical Earth.
    1
  560. A change in the Youtube algorithms for matching videos to your search.
    1
  561. So what’s the proof?
    1
  562. They don't try; that's rather the problem.
    1
  563. dosdude Given a globe with a 25,000 mile circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to find?
    1
  564. The balloon would have to take the weight of 20km of fishing thread; I suspect it wouldn't get very high.
    1
  565. Thapelo Chiloane Yes, once you comprehend the scale you are looking at.
    1
  566. Thapelo Chiloane The stars rotate In he course of the night and which stars are visible changes with course of the year. The change in position of stars due to the Earth orbiting the sun is too small to see with the naked eye. In terms of everything in the galaxy moving the sheer scale is such that takes thousands of years for any change to be apparent.
    1
  567. Emile Neslo Do X-Ray & MRI scans work?
    1
  568. Kevin Chamberlain Given a 25,000 mile circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to find?
    1
  569.  @antonipeters2333  What do you think Eratosthenes did wrong and why? You're making the claim, the onus is on you to back it, not us try to and figure out the warped logic of FE'ers.
    1
  570.  @mynamemylastname7179  Then you should have no problem taking a photo of objects several hundred mikes away. Why can’t any of you do it? You just said all you can see is a circle. Now you’re saying you can see infinitely. Which is it?
    1
  571.  @mynamemylastname7179  The collection of marvellous proofs that only FE'ers can find so easily but can produce neither evidence nor link when asked? World record photo is approximately 250 miles, taken from a mountain top of another mountain top projecting above the horizon. When elevation & atmospheric refraction are accounted for that is just about possible on a globe. Now produce photos or links to photos with greater distances.
    1
  572. 1969nitsuga Are you being obtuse or are just too dumb to understand what I wrote?
    1
  573. 1969nitsuga And yet people have rockets operating in a vacuum on Earth. How do you explain that? Why do you think fuel & oxidiser won’t burn when there is a vacuum outside the combustion chamber? What part of the Apollo craft couldn’t handle the launch from Earth? Why do you think Apollo braking to enter lunar orbit meant it had to brake to leave Earth orbit? You do realise there was period it wasn’t orbiting either Earth or moon? We can detect differences in gravity simply due to elevation on the Earth’s surface. Why do you think gravity can decrease going up Mt Everest but somehow remains constant when 100,000 times further away?
    1
  574. 1969nitsuga When fuel & oxidiser are mixed in a combustion chamber there is contact and pressure. How do you conclude the ambient pressure dictates the conditions inside the chamber? The launch took a smooth curved trajectory, starting from a vertical launch and finishing in an orbit parallel to the Earth’s surface. At no point did it need to make the maneuvres you have mind. You say the Earth’s gravity extends to the moon but not the reverse? Why? You don’t seem to grasp the different stages of the flight between Earth & moon. At no point is the gravity from one significant in breaking orbit from the other; that is done with the different engines. There is substantial time (days) between leaving Earth’s orbit and entering lunar orbit (and vice versa); which has the stronger pull on the craft at any given time is significant. We can detect gravity and observe its effects in space; there is abundant evidence of its occurrence. Being ignorant of the evidence does not negate it. If you want to lecture people it is advisable that you actually know what you are talking about.
    1
  575.  @Brousey  Explain how density (a ratio) can act as force and why in a consistent direction. You think your guru has explained it to you so you should have no problems answering.
    1
  576.  @Brousey  No answer to my question then? Why can’t any of you answer if Dubay told you how?
    1
  577. little eagle 500 years ago was the shift from geocentric to heliocentric. That Earth was a globe was determined in about 2500BC and formed the basis of the Ptolemaic geocentric system.
    1
  578. gunikx Raindrops, waterfalls meniscus. If you want to try arguing you’re referring to dead & oceans then calculate 360 degrees divided by 25,000 miles before continuing.
    1
  579. just me 1. 0.004 degrees/second 2. How long do you think it takes to focus a telescope?
    1
  580. just me E=mc^2; one big blast from a nuclear bomb.
    1
  581. just me You can’t understand the answers because it is beyond your mental capacity while you’re assuming you have a genius IQ. You think you have answered all questions put to you since you are unaware of your ignorant waffling.
    1
  582. ramon ortiz You had it pointed out to you months ago that the night-time stars change in the course of the year. You still haven’t stepped outside to check your claim?
    1
  583. Ron Paul 8”/mile^2 is a parabola, not a circle, and the only people claiming it is the correct equation are FE’ers.
    1
  584. Ron Paul It’s a rule of thumb that was used by land surveyors before calculators became commonplace. It will give a reasonable prediction of surface curvature (not viewing distance) for short distances but it is not the correct equation for accurately calculating curvature. Because it is easy it is frequently quoted and thus the popular answer on Google (which is a search engine rather than an encyclopaedia). FE’ers make great use of it in trying to predict viewing distance (which depends on observer elevation and atmospheric refraction as well) and subsequently claiming they have the smoking gun when it doesn’t work.
    1
  585. Another one with no grasp of scale. The oblate was is about 0.3%, not 30%, and the “pear-shaped” distortion less again; not something that would be apparent from a photo.
    1
  586.  @douglastibbitts6817  You're waving a couple of divining rods.
    1
  587. I provided you with a link to Cavendish’s paper yesterday.
    1
  588. Douglas Tibbitts And as I have pointed out twice it is continually being repeated with similar results.
    1
  589. Convex, adj, having an outline or surface curved like the exterior of a circle or sphere.
    1
  590. The Saturn V was needed to launch sufficient material for a moon mission. That project was scrapped when the Apollo programme ended. Over time the unused hardware was trashed or recycled by the different contractors or simply became obsolete. The blueprints still exist but use obsolete technology and assembly techniques.
    1
  591. Winston's Julia You can’t figure out how birds fly?
    1
  592. I hadn’t noticed they were using their brains, just telling other people to.
    1
  593. They profess to be thinking for themselves and questioning what they’re told but never think to ask the basic question of how which curvature would be apparent in a 25,000 mile circumference globe.
    1
  594.  @alexf962  How does water get around the bends in a pipe without bending?
    1
  595.  @jimmyfavereau  What exactly do you think would make the water move if the Earth was moving?
    1
  596. The geocentric Ptolemaic system with a spherical Earth was the accepted model. The trouble involving the church was the shift from geocentric to heliocentric system, not the shape of the Earth.
    1
  597. Terry Ingram The North Star lies on the orbital axis; where do you expect it to move to? If the Earth was 25 miles in circumference then you would see the curvature of water surface that you’re expecting.
    1
  598. There are people all around the globe observing curvature.
    1
  599. Brian Weir Columbus thought Earth was substantially smaller and thus sailing westwards from Europe to India was feasible for contemporary ships. It had been accepted for a few thousands years the Earth was a globe.
    1
  600. They have more guts than brains.
    1
  601. R3GARDL355 500 years ago was the shift from geocentric to heliocentric; that the Earth was a globe had been established 2000 years earlier. The two get confused.
    1
  602.  @RGARDL  Sorry, misread you ; my eyes are getting too old for reading a cell phone screen. :-(
    1
  603.  @BertleMcGertle  A selenelion can occur when the sun & moon, from the observer's perspective, are on opposite horizons; refraction in the atmosphere may (depending on weather conditions) make each appear a little higher in the sky than they actually are. Some people deny refraction exists (except when they want it to) while other people imply both sun & moon are high in the sky at the time. However, all three bodies are physically in a line when the eclipse occurs.
    1
  604.  @shortstuff7777777  "what question would this be" Explain why only half the moon would be illuminated. Explain what prompts the moon to only occasionally display its dark half and why the surface features don’t change while it is rotating. Your previous post didn't explain anything. You describes some means by which the sun "charges" the moon (but not the Earth), the portion of the moon illuminated varies while remaining constant and a mechanism that relates to the fictional Philiadelpha experiment. I'm sure you thought you explained but it was gibberish .
    1
  605. just me The post I sent 16hrs ago consisted only of a link to a document. Did it not show up?
    1
  606. freedom lover Weight is the result of gravitational attraction.
    1
  607. The Earth rotates in 24 hrs, the moon orbits in 28 days. The Earth turns eastwards at a greater rate than the moon orbits so the moon appears to continually move westwards.
    1
  608. Diana Endo Satellite phones would be affected but most phone are cell phones, relaying calls between ground based transmitters.
    1
  609. calmb4 storm We’re talking a rotational speed of one rotation per day, not a speed you are able to sense. You can’t directly sense motion, just acceleration, and deduce motion from what your senses are telling you. Since everything is moving with you there’s no obvious change in your environment; the acceleration that occurs because of an elliptical orbit is even weaker than the rotation you can’t sense.
    1
  610. calmb4 storm Let’s go back a step. How do you expect us to sense that motion? Think it through carefully before answering.
    1
  611. calmb4 storm 1000mph is a linear speed nit a rotational one. Rotation is measured in rad/sec or revolutions per minute. Earth rotates at 0.000073 rad/sec or 0.0007 revolutions per minute. Both are well below your inner ear’s sensitivity to rotation. How do you expect the body to sense that speed rotation? Think about it and try to come up with an answer. “You just gotta be able to” is not an answer.
    1
  612. Apparently there is an wholly undetectable moon that mysteriously turns opaque periodically. Still doesn’t explain the path the shadow takes but details don’t bother FE’ers.
    1
  613. jimvortex NASA was formed in 1958. The Ancient Greeks determined the Earth was round about 500BC; rotation was demonstrated in 1851. NASA wasn’t even the first to out satellites into space.
    1
  614.  @jimvortex  You're another one who thinks photos just gotta be CGI or do you actually want to describes your techniques for identifying CGI? Curiously, out of all the FE'ers who can instantly identify CGI not a single one can describe how they do it. Do you want to be the first?
    1
  615. Scale means the apparent curvature is far smaller than you are expecting to see and inertia means planes continue moving with the Earth after take-off.
    1
  616. David Anderson Round shadow, horizon, increased distance to horizon with observer elevation, motion of the sun, stars that are visible and their angle & rotation. The ancient Greeks determined the Earth was round 2500 years ago. You do not have to directly observe something to deduce its existence. Deceleration was at high altitude with the engines on low for the remaining drop to counter acceleration due to lunar gravity. Final landing was essentially by turning the engines off. There was sufficient blast to blow off the layer of “soil”. I think you’re assuming landing would be the reverse if the Saturn V lift-off. Traceable signal to, on & from the moon, detectable equipment left there and verifiable material brought back.
    1
  617. David Anderson They would accelerate at about 1/6th the rate and that is what I see with the hammer & feather demonstration. They would not drift down if that is what you mean.
    1
  618. Alasdair Macgillivray. Nothing unravels; some people just display a talent for failing to understand something and how you would test it.
    1
  619. Evidence?
    1
  620. 7hr time difference, Massachusetts in the morning, South Africa in the afternoon.
    1
  621. Given a 25,000 mile circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to observe?
    1
  622. john smith It is used as a rule of thumb by land surveyors; a parabolic equation was never used to describe a circle except by ignorant fools. You can’t answer my question? It’s not difficult.
    1
  623.  @johnsmith-zv8ws  Depends on the distance the bridge has to cover; the greater the distance, the greater the curvature covered and the greater the necessity of compensating for the curvature. That you can't see a 30 degree curve over the course of half a mile is not indicative the world is flat.
    1
  624. john smith In that situation it is the autopilot making the corrections.
    1
  625.  @johnsmith-zv8ws  Again, the engines modify the velocity; they do not replace it. The plane exhibits inertia and continmues moving withe Earth after take-off, the engines modifying that speed. Inertia applies regardless of the direction of the plane's flight. "so what happens when you go north and south" Assuming the plane is flying directly northwards then the both plane & Earth continue to move eastwards through inertia while the plane's engines propel it northwards. Since the plane & Earth are moving eastwards at the same speed, the plane's motion relative to the Earth appears entirely northwards. You need a frame of reference to understand the plane's motion, i.e. something has to be arbitrarily declared stationary for you to consider motion relative to that. You can either visualise the Earth as stationary and look at the plane's motion relative to that or you can visualise both from a stationary point above the surface in which the Earth & planes are both moving relative to you.
    1
  626. john smith You too are moving with the Earth. Earth, atmosphere and you are all moving eastwards at the same speed. Other than local variations (weather) there’s no significant difference in speed between you & the atmosphere regardless of which way you are moving.
    1
  627. Most FE’ers appear to be American therefore...
    1
  628. The answers I get when questioning FE'ers are off putting. You can't explain anything, you can't even understand some of the questions asked and you just keep falling back on "we've been lied to" (for a motive you can never give) and variations on "we know the truth" even though you can't actually produce this "truth".
    1
  629. westflo republic Then is it wise to be telling the world that some people didn’t exist?
    1
  630. westflo republic Which they did and that is what you are doing.
    1
  631. AwakeneAngryAmerican Unlike you, I stopped to think after I looked.
    1
  632. Cellmazu Black The Earth was deduced to be a globe in about 500BC. The Ptolemaic system was the accepted model from about 100AD: a geocentric model based on a globe Earth. 500 years ago was the shift from geocentric to heliocentric, not a change in Earth’s shape.
    1
  633. jr johnston We’re talking about people who insist the sun both does & doesn’t rise & set. Why should I regard their statements with enthusiasm?
    1
  634. There would an effect from acceleration or deceleration but not from a constant velocity. The angular velocity (change of angle relative to the sun as it orbits) is too gradual as is the acceleration & deceleration from the elliptical orbit.
    1
  635. How much curvature of the horizon would you expect to find on a 25,000 mile circumference globe viewed from 6 ft above ground?
    1
  636. Why is it so difficult for a FE’er to read and comprehend a sentence?
    1
  637. The ancient Greeks gave us a globe (the basis of the Ptolemaic model) a few thousand years ago and nobody has indicated an infinite universe.
    1
  638.  Ulrich Leland  Why would they travel in a U when a straight line would be more direct? On a globe they fly direct and that appears curved on a projection.
    1
  639.  Ulrich Leland  Produce your map. Explain the Auckland to Santiago direct flight.
    1
  640.  Ulrich Leland  And yet (covid aside) there and people flying directly between Santiago & Auckland daily. Do you think they teleport?
    1
  641.  @renespeksnijder6765  "So you still have day and night and timezones on diferent places of the world" How when the sun would always be visible? It's a simple enough question that FE'ers profess to know the answer to but it never gets answered. Do you want to try?
    1
  642. seb o Yet when I ask FeE’ers to explain their reasoning it simply boils down to “it just gotta be” and “if you screw it up then it doesn’t work”. None of you can explain. Perhaps I should apply thumbscrews? Have you considered the scale of the distances and the possibility that in a rotating galaxy those stars are moving in a similar direction?
    1
  643. They also knew lightning was thunderbolts hurled by the gods.
    1
  644. Grokme Amadeus Blue Marble II was a composite and stated to be a composite; some cretins just can’t think beyond one picture.
    1
  645. Science is dependent on replicable evidence.
    1
  646. CrappyCuberKid The impact would absorbs the kinetic energy of the meteor leaving a big crater; it would not punch a hole through the Earth.
    1
  647. Nooobie boii He read it in a book that totally ignores science so it just gotta be true.
    1
  648. The general population doesn’t know how to build a car either.
    1
  649. A spherical Earth was the basis for the geocentric Ptolemaic model that was the accepted theory until 500 years ago. Copernicus et al suggested a change from geocentric to heliocentric system, not a change in the Earth's shape.
    1
  650. Why? It's only in the last two centuries or so that we have figured most of what goes on around us.
    1
  651. What do you have doubts about?
    1
  652. What do you consider to be significantly different between the Ptolemaic, Copernican and modern Earth?
    1
  653.  @aliali-xx9ru  Antarctica is very inhospitable; people live in Alaska the year around. Have you never heard of the Antractic Cup Ocean Race? 16,000 miles around Antarctica.
    1
  654. Some satellites can be seen as small lights. A telescope will not pick up detail; they are objects 1-2 metres long, 100s to 1000s of km distant.
    1
  655. ali ali Both Britain and our various island territories are really American?
    1
  656. jayson gustafson When we are talking about a drop of only three feet to begin with it does.
    1
  657. James James Evidence?
    1
  658. They seem to visualise a 25-250 mile circumference.
    1
  659. The ancient Greeks deduced the the world was round in about 500AD, Ptolemy basing the geocentric system on a spherical Earth in about 100AD. 500 years ago was the shift from geocentric to heliocentric.
    1
  660. ​ @thepotatotubers8475  Try taking shots with a normal lens first.
    1
  661. alok aj raina 3 That the Earth was a globe was deduced around 500BC. The change in 1500-1600AD was the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric model.
    1
  662. Evidence of said membership being that they have space programs?
    1
  663. Catajbr What do you expect to have appeared in cancer therapy?
    1
  664. Catajbr Which is what we have. Cures are more difficult; you need a way to specifically identify & target cancerous cells, which is difficult when they are your own cells.
    1
  665. Steven D Oliver What are these issues exactly?
    1
  666. Winter Patriot45 You’re assuming that stellar parallax would have a profound effect, rewriting the constellations. You’re making the usual FE error about measurements: no numbers, it’s either nothing or really really big.
    1
  667. Thinking and espousing an opinion are not the same. Espousing an opinion that differs from most does not make you right. In fifteen years Dave has never thought “Am I using the right equation?” for viewing distance; that’s the level of thought that goes into FE. What do you think is wrong with science exactly? Be specific. You realize that conclusions have to be based on fact; we publish methods and data routinely. If you wish to try reproducing it you can. Not understanding it is not evidence we are wrong.
    1
  668. onefodderunit The numbers are too difficult for you?
    1
  669.  @onefodderunit  You provide evidence that the pressure doesn't decrease with increasing altitude. Explain why the difference between 1cm and 100km is inconsequential.
    1
  670.  @onefodderunit I take it you can't produce evidence. In what size container would you say the gas separation happens and what is your evidence to back that assertion? You think the concepts of distance and force are irrational?
    1
  671. The moon passing between the sun and the Earth’s one and only observer. They have no comprehension of multiple observers seeing different things at different times. A lunar eclipse is impossible on a FE.
    1
  672. Evidence?
    1
  673.  @tysonrinker5958  Repeat: your weblink disappeared. You can still see it because you posted it but nobody else can see it. If you don;t believe me then log out of your account and check again.
    1
  674. They aren’t; people withdraw the videos they mounted. Try finding videos claiming Xibaru or Planet X was going to smash into Earth in 2012.
    1
  675. kdkinen It isn’t the correct equation and doesn’t take into account the elevation of observer & target.
    1
  676. Ingo Kreh When a persistent argument is that it must be flat because they can’t see the curvature expected of a 25 mile circumference globe then, yes, their perception of scale is important.
    1
  677. andrei andrei Higher shots were taken by satellite. If you start high enough and zoom in you can see the point where it switches between two sources.
    1
  678. Critical thinking tells me one starts with a lowercase e, the other with uppercase e.
    1
  679. Watching the sun rising & setting on a horizon every day is a Hollywood animation?
    1
  680. MrSpongejoe Semi-apocryphal from what I’m reading. BMEWS has been turned on a few days earlier, one of the stations (Thule?) picked up returns from the rising moon but it raised eyebrows rather than alarms.
    1
  681. "cigarettes used to be healthy," It was believed the beneficial effects outweighed the ill effects, not that they were healthy per se.
    1
  682. Robert A Noble It’s something called free speech. Regrettably there is no requirement for intelligence, truthfulness or evidence when posting FE idiocy.
    1
  683. Jacob Ecret That would be novel. Produce it.
    1
  684. Jacob Ecret And all goes quiet....
    1
  685.  @julianbrionesiii2438  What do you think would pull it off?
    1
  686.  @julianbrionesiii2438  What determines the direction down and what makes the water move?
    1
  687.  @chris8534  The problem is the underlying assumption by some that any change just has to be immediately apparent to the senses. The distances to the stars are so large that the motion of stars & galaxies aren't obvious to the eye; everything in the galaxy is rotating in the same general direction which reduces the effect even further to the point you would have to compare star charts 10,000 years apart to notice small changes. The stellar parallax (slight shift of closer stars relative to further ones) that results from the Earth's orbit is only perceptible with instruments. The Earth requires 20,000 years to complete one wobble on the axis.Only the Earth's rotation has a readily visible effect (day & night and motion and the stars across the sky) and that requires observations over the course of hours rather than seconds.
    1
  688. Richard Paulson evidence?
    1
  689.  @richardpaulson8954  You're taking his word for it that is that is Mt Shasta?
    1
  690. Richard Paulson How did he confirm it at that distance?
    1
  691. Richard Paulson How did he measure the angle and what was so clearly identifiable at 200 miles distance?
    1
  692. Richard Paulson You made your determinations without asking he obvious questions?
    1
  693. Richard Paulson Data upon which to support an argument is key. How did he measure the angle and how did he identify the target he uses as a marker? Without that data it’s an empty claim. IR imaging observes curvature with established targets rather than guessed or assumed ones. The Sagnac Effect requires motion; that the effect occurs when the detector is stationary relative to Earth indicates the Earth is moving.
    1
  694. Richard Paulson Why do the “question what you’re told” mob regard asking questions as obfuscation? Surely if you’re the enlightened crowd the answers should be easy?
    1
  695. The heliocentric system is 500 years old; the Earth was known to be a sphere from around 2500BC.
    1
  696. freedom lover You aren’t even going to try answering my question?
    1
  697. Your senses are limited in their perception, being geared towards survival rather than science. That you can’t see or feel something eg bacteria and radio waves, does not make their existence doubtful; they are indirectly detectable. You’re geared to feeling acceleration rather than velocity; that you can’t directly sense velocity is not evidence doesn’t exist. Your sensitivity to angular momentum is too weak to detect one revolution per day; that you can’t sense it is not evidence it doesn’t exist.
    1
  698.  @taliarose6573  There's nothing stopping you. Why do you think all the jokes about AK47-toting penguins?
    1
  699. Talia Rose You need a permit the same way you need a visa for many countries. Thousands of people a year go. The Berserk didn’t bother with a permit and fell foul of the law in the same way you would if you didn’t bother with a visa.
    1
  700. Talia Rose No permit (in either occasion), the Berserk sank in a storm, Scandinavia is not a country and it is in the Northern hemisphere.
    1
  701. Say again?
    1
  702. That would be the spooky electromagnetism that does/doesn't attract magnetic materials and sometimes but never displays repulsion?
    1
  703. Daniel Downs I’m talking about the inherent contradictions of claiming gravity is really magnetism. As Biocco Spirale says, if you think it plausible then write & publish.
    1
  704. nokomis mn The body comes with appropriate vents that would allow rapid equalising of the pressure.
    1
  705.  @nokomismn9685  It's your lungs that contain the gas; you would rapidly lose it, not explode.
    1
  706. nokomis mn The laws of physics still apply.
    1
  707. nokomis mn One that went over your head.
    1
  708. You don't see the Earth's curvature because you are too small compared to a 25,000 mile circumference sphere. You need an elevation above 100,000 ft before any curvature becomes apparent to the eye.
    1
  709. You don’t need to see something to prove it. We can’t see viruses or radio waves but there is no doubt they exist.
    1
  710. ALWAYS LIVE Detectable magnetic field is too weak and iron content too low and highly variable.
    1
  711. Rey Rey So what’s your explanation for a lunar eclipse?
    1
  712. What are the real issues arising from FE?
    1
  713. They poison kids only the imaginations of people who don’t understand chemistry & biology and the successful aim is to generate immunity to specific diseases, not block it.
    1
  714. Joe Logan I’m pointing out that you “important issue” is incorrect, relying on sources dealing in panic-mongering and ignorance.
    1
  715. Two people finished solo crossings only a few weeks ago. You didn’t notice or conveniently forgot?
    1
  716. chazz Lucas Colin O’Brady & Louis Rudd back in Dec (time flies). Two men crossing Antarctica isn’t at odds with Dubay’s claim? What relevance would their employers have on a GPS signal?
    1
  717.  @chazzlucas6395  Whichever boogeymen the enlightened person believes has total control of everything all the way down to inanimate objects and Mother Nature.
    1
  718. The Ptolemaic model was based on a spherical Earth. Columbus’s idea was that the world was substantially smaller than calculated, making travelling westwards to India feasible.
    1
  719. Raindrops, fountains, waves, meniscus. Water responds according to the forces acting in it. Gravity makes any fluid move to where there is equal force acting across it, ie, it is equipotential across the surface. When the direction of gravity changes, as it does across the surface of a sphere, the water acts according to the gravity in each locality. The sphere is curved so the water surface is curved (about 0.014 degrees/mile).
    1
  720. jcbs It’s bigger than you are envisaging but the same size as is taught.
    1
  721. Evidence?
    1
  722.  @REMIGIOPEREIRA  If I do it and you haven't, do my results have validity or not?
    1
  723. REMIGIO PEREIRA I and other people have answered your questions. That you deny results because you personally have not done it is infantile.
    1
  724. I wouldn’t say he was rational; he relies heavily on willful ignorance and incredulity.
    1
  725.  @JudaismIslamUnited  By putting a cover over an object?
    1
  726.  @JudaismIslamUnited  Then why do the demos placing a cover over the object?
    1
  727.  @JudaismIslamUnited  No answer to my question then? How exactly do you think light could cool anything? How do you think the moon could emit light?
    1
  728.  @JudaismIslamUnited  Still no answer to my question. You're making the claim; the onus is on you to demonstrate it. So far all demos have either trapped heat, ignored nearby heat sources or claimed temperature differences within the error range of whichever for of thermometer they are using. None have actively sought to avoid such complications.
    1
  729. freedom lover FE’ers waffle on about perspective but can’t figure out why continents would apparently vary in size when photographed from space?
    1
  730. freedom lover You’re saying perspective works differently in space?
    1
  731. Creepy Sam The proof of its existence is not accepted by people whose explanation for why things fall is “they just do”.
    1
  732. @Vandal Savage How does your computer run if not by physics & maths?
    1
  733. ​@Vandal Savage Maths & physics are right if you're in no position to deny it? Why not just argue that your computer "just runs" with no power input and no software?
    1
  734. Try dividing 360 degrees by 25,000 miles.
    1
  735. Explain what you understand by “scientifically evaluated”.
    1
  736. Kevin Skinner It’s a common misconception arising from Columbus’s attempt to sail westwards to India.
    1
  737. Funk Obama “The stationery Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed” You’re being ridiculed because your total argument is incredulity, you can’t answer the simplest of questions about your “correct” theory and continue to insist you’re right because, well, because.
    1
  738. "government funds and has funded most research" The money is assigned as lump sums to funding agencies that are run by scientists who assign individual research grants Nobody specifies what the results need to be, least of all politicians.
    1
  739. The plane continues moving eastwards when it takes off on the same way a thrown ball keeps moving when it leaves your hand.
    1
  740. Aside from accurate maps to get your truck’s petrol to the station for you to fill up, do you use GPS or satellite TV?
    1
  741. bigpigslapper Oink You expect to see curvature of a 25,000 mile circumference globe from all of 150 feet? How much curvature did you calculate you should see? If independent travel on Antarctica is banned how do people make solo crossing of the continent?
    1
  742. Glen Thrall Gravitational attraction is a property of mass, not a result of motion.
    1
  743. And their minds become so open their brains fall out.
    1
  744. that'szack Evidence?
    1
  745. john jinglehimer How would you mount a 3D globe in a 2D flag? Actually listen to what Byrd said and consider where exactly he had been in Antarctica. Copernicus hypothesized a heliocentric system; Earth was long since accepted to be spherical.
    1
  746. john jinglehimer The Earth is fully mapped, measured and photographed. FE’ers can come up with maps, measurements or photos but are convinced you’ve just gotta right because, well, you’ve just gotta be right.
    1
  747. We have copies of the Amalgest going back centuries. How was that achieved?
    1
  748. Originally Samuel Rowbotham in the 19th century going on a religious anti-science bender. Modern day gurus capitalise on Rowbotham’s blather to milk the gullible.
    1
  749. Evidence?
    1
  750. the truthHurtz They didn’t go back because it was highly expensive for very little financial return. A fraction of the money could be spent on unmanned probes and still learn more.
    1
  751. Stars vary from night to night with seasonal constellations. The Earth's orbit leads to measurable stellar parallax with the nearest stars. The positions of the stars do measurably change with time but due to their distance and the fact they are moving in the same general direction as the sun the changes will requires 10,000s of years to be apparent to the eye, not night to night.
    1
  752. job bridges The ancient Greeks 2500 years ago; it doesn’t take much effort to look it up. What do you think is wrong with a globe? Be specific.
    1
  753. job bridges The Ptolemaic system was based on a spherical Earth and was the accepted model until the shift to a heliocentric model.
    1
  754. space munky No it doesn’t. Check your facts.
    1
  755. What exactly do you believe to be unproven and why?
    1
  756. Dom Dukes You mean you can’t provide an example.
    1
  757. WP45 The surface is curved because the surface of a sphere is by definition curved.
    1
  758. Are you aware there is a world outside the US?
    1
  759. joel franco Because the just gotta be technique isn’t reliable.
    1
  760. Beyond Belief Are you arguing that 7 billion+ people all have to individually very a fact before it can be accepted as a fact?
    1
  761.  @sunbear2644  Ignorance is strength?
    1
  762. Enemy of the Lie There is considerable difference between being comfortable with not knowing something and being comforted by ignorance; the latter encourages ignorance, the former does not.
    1
  763. Beyond Belief I’m pointing out that he is using one school of thought to avoid having to deal with evidence and to encourage ignorance. That that school is in the minority is irrelevant.
    1
  764.  @Beyond_Belief534  Like spectral analysis of the light? Do you have any evidence that you are a brain in a vat or in a similar predicament?
    1
  765.  @sunbear2644  In the absence of telepathy I have to go with what you wrote, not what you intended.
    1
  766. Given a 25,000 circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to be observable?
    1
  767. Blocco Spirale I think she’s intending to argue that hump bridges prove the Earth is less than a mile in circumference.
    1
  768. Blocco Spirale Sorry, being a bit facetious about the OP. I assume the argument would be that bridges not having marked curvature is evidence the world is flat.
    1
  769. Roxana Mosquera Rhenals How can two objects be in front of each other simultaneously?
    1
  770. Given a circumference of25,000 miles, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect there to be?
    1
  771. The length of a shadow on the ground is dependent on the angle of illumination. The shadow is always directly opposite the direction of illumination. The Earth’s shadow (umbra) is a cone extending behind the planet. The moon’s orbit is such that it usually passes within the tip.
    1
  772. Examples?
    1
  773. It lies on the rotational axis. Why would you expect it to move?
    1
  774. Douglas Tibbitts Polaris is about 430 light years away. How fast do you think the solar system needs to move for a change in Polaris’s position to be apparent to the eye?
    1
  775. Blocco Spirale Either he’s falling back on gravity being the Law of Just Does or he’s trying to refer to relativity. Difficult to know which with his mentality.
    1
  776. "If the stated curvature formula of the earth can be disproven with every amateur test," The key word being amateur. Amateurs screwing it up is not evidence the facts are wrong. "There are no real pictures of the earth from space" Let me guess; your eagle eye expertise can identify CGI in every picture of Earth but for some mysterious reason you are unable to explain what details you find amiss? "It looks like it’s made of tin foil and tooth picks" Your eagle eye expertise? What exactly do you think it should look like? "Where did the Rover moon buggy fit also.. it couldn’t fit" Once it was unfolded it wouldn't fit back in.
    1
  777. I take it you don't actually know how science grants are awarded?
    1
  778. levoy foster I don’t think you understand the term falsifiable.
    1
  779. levoy foster Been doing it for 30 years. Reread your original comment before you say anything more.
    1
  780. Omer Jr. Sauve Apollo was preceded by several series of manned & unmanned missions ranging from satellites little better than Sputnik to Gemini craft that carried two people into orbit. The Apollo craft were tracked to, on & from the moon, left detectable equipment in the moon and brought back verifiable material from the moon. How do you propose it was done?
    1
  781. Jack Richmond It rotates once a month in synchrony with its orbit around Earth.
    1
  782. Nadia Love How much curvature would you expect to see in your floor given a 25,000 mile circumference globe?
    1
  783.  @gazlee3208  What do you think is going to pull the water off a globe Earth?
    1
  784.  @gazlee3208  If there is nothing to pull the water off the face of a globe then it will stay in place. I'm asking you what you think would pull it off.
    1
  785.  @gazlee3208  What do you think makes water fall off spheres? There is not a Law of Just Does.
    1
  786. Does total ignorance = omniscience?
    1
  787.  @JudaismIslamUnited  MPH is a measurement of linear velocity and nothing rotates in a straight line. Rotation is 1 rotation per day. The tangential velocity at the equator is c. 1000mph. FE gurus use that because it sounds more dramatic than one rotation per day.
    1
  788. Why would the water not stay on Earth when the centrifugal force is <0.5% that of gravity?
    1
  789.  @charlesgould1962  Diddums. How are you claiming the attraction in the Cavendish experiment (reproduced countless times) occurs?
    1
  790. hopeseeker97 You’re confusing the vernacular meaning of theory with the scientific one.
    1
  791. He was referring specifically to theoretical physics that have since been shown to be accurate.
    1
  792. seb o I also asked you two days ago what the 100 facts supporting the FE were that you referred to; you haven’t replied.
    1
  793. What do you think would be pulling it off?
    1
  794. Beyond Belief Does that mean FE’ers have checked and are simply keeping quiet they found something rather than actually produce evidence to back their claims?
    1
  795.  @sunbear2644  You need a permit in the same way you need a visa to visit many countries. Trips across the continent are supervised by whom and how exactly? If you wish to trek across the continent then starting from and finishing at an existing base is the best option. Two people made solo crossings last July. The Scott-Amundsen South Pole Station is the closest permanently manned station. "It's thought that Antarctica is the ice wall around the flat earth with the north pole in the center." Which goes against the evidence we do have and is supported by bugger all evidence.
    1
  796. What makes the sun rise & set and maintain a constant angular diameter and angular velocity? How does it stay up, how does it move in a circle, what powers it and why does a sphere visible across a FE only light part of the FE?
    1
  797. The prime meridian (0 degrees east/west) runs form the North pole to the south pole; it passes the equator once. Are you think of 180 degrees east/west that runs from the North Pole to the South Pole on the other side of the planet?
    1
  798. anonymous individual Reread what I wrote, slowly.
    1
  799.  @dkln888  Try a theodolite.
    1
  800. Majid Khan Conservation of momentum. When you throw a ball it continues moving when it breaks contact with your hand. When a plane takes off it continues moving when it breaks contact with the Earth.
    1
  801. HKM _ What are your reasons for concluding that?
    1
  802. Momentum with no friction to slow it down. How do you conclude a rotating planet would only have one side lit?
    1
  803. Matthew Doyle You originally said that Earth would only get one side lit if it rotated; now you’re saying it has to rotate for the sun to be able to reach all areas. Which is it? Why do you think gravity would kill people? It’s not an irresistible force that would crush us death if not alleviated by a whopping 0.5% by gravity. Try dividing 360 degrees by 25,000 miles (or 40,000km) and ask yourself how many degrees would a boat 10 (16km) miles away be tilting on a globe.
    1
  804.  @matthewdoyle3018  You can't answer my questions? What a surprise. 25,000 miles is what is called an approximation; it makes for the easier back of the envelope calculations that are appropriate for this level of discussion. 360 degrees divided by approximately 25,000 miles gives 0.0144 degrees/mile. A boat 10 miles away would be tilted away from you at an approximately angle of 10 * 0.0144 degrees = 0.144 degrees. With a tilt that miniscule you aren't going to see the bottom of the boat. If the Earth had the 25 mile circumference you are envisaging then the boat would be at a 144 degree tilt; assuming the Earth wasn't getting in the way then you would indeed see the bottom of the boat. Would you like me to repeat the calculations with 24,901 miles to see if the answer is substantially different?
    1
  805. Assumption on your part. Science is too difficult for you to understand so it just gotta be wrong?
    1
  806. Its orbital period is the same as its rotational period; it has become tide -locked due to its size and time it has been orbiting Earth.
    1
  807. You’re saying that online.
    1
  808. MultiBrad777 dba ACid w Elder You’re saying it by a means you’re also claiming doesn’t work.
    1
  809. Kemp Elek If you want to test if you’re from Krypton then I would recommend trying a take-off from ground level rather than a skyscraper 😊
    1
  810. Cannon Ball With so many countries and cultures why would all space agencies be in agreement?
    1
  811. Cannon Ball And yet we have wars and endless diplomatic hoo-ha. Do you think the just gotta be argument is plausible without evidence?
    1
  812.  @cannonball416  There's an awful lot of bodies for games.
    1
  813. The Greeks did in about 300BC; a spherical Earth was the centre point of the Ptolemaic system.
    1
  814. generalmax Which documents? Are you going to start waving around papers on experimental aeronautics?
    1
  815. generalmax He said the unexplored area of Antarctica was as large as the US; they have similar size land area. Doesn’t require a hidden continent.
    1
  816. generalmax Personally I’ll go with facts.
    1
  817.  @generalmax4252  Hardly - you're convinced of the existence of an ice-wall nobody has seen.
    1
  818. generalmax The glaciers on the coast are documented. Nobody has found an ice wall there or anywhere inland.
    1
  819. What are your techniques for identifying CGI?
    1
  820. freedom lover How much curvature would you expect to be visible at 100,000ft on a globe Earth?
    1
  821. Short Bear The measurable expansion of the universe supports the Big Bang. Cavendish demonstrated gravity’s existence in an experiment that has been replicated countless times since. You think the sun can eject mass without being mass? That the sun is a Star is demonstrable with spectroscopy. Curvature is readily measured; that’s how we have accurate worldwide maps. Atmospheric pressure declines with increasing altitude; at no point is there an abrupt drop in pressure that would require a container.
    1
  822. Short Bear I notice you didn’t answer either of us that provided answers.
    1
  823.  @shortbear1198  Change in the focal point of the oscillation by changing the separation distance between two pairs of spheres. What's your explanation for the change? There is measurable expansion in the observable universe, which extends to a radius of 46 billion lightyears. Are you arguing that not being able to measure beyond this point disproves expansion within that region? The velocity varies by about 1000m/sec and takes six months (about 16,000,000 sec) to change. Acceleration is m/s^2 which would be about 0.0000625m/s^2. Gravitational attraction on the EArth's surface is 9.8m/s^2. What makes you think 0.0000625 > 9.8? How can something eject mass without being mass to begin with? What emits the light exactly?
    1
  824. Short Bear Boyle’s law dies not mean a container is required.
    1
  825.  @shortbear1198  And the existence of Boyle's Law does not stop something else acting upon a gas simultaneously, i.e., gravity. You haven't answered my questions, including the one about why you think the Cavendish experiment doesn't demonstrate the existence of gravity.
    1
  826. Short Bear That it is the effect of a gravitational field as opposed to a direct force does not mean it doesn’t exist. Objects don’t fall in your world?
    1
  827. Dom Dukes What laws of physics do you think are being broken?
    1
  828. REMIGIO PEREIRA The top of a mountain photographed from the top of another mountain in excellent atmospheric conditions for clarity & refraction. Why do you the record is only 250 miles if there is no curvature?
    1
  829. REMIGIO PEREIRA You want to argue it’s impossible to take a photo at that distance on a FE while claiming said photo as evidence of a FE? Which way do you want it. The limit depends on atmospheric conditions and the height of object & photographer. How far do you think should be photographable in a FE and why?
    1
  830. How would you go about mounting a 3D globe on a sheet of cloth?
    1
  831. David Martin Yiy need to answer my question. Water pours off the sides of a container because gravity pulls it off. What do you think would pull water off a planet?
    1
  832. David Martin You still haven’t tried answering my question.
    1
  833. craggy rock And yet a rotating spheroid explains everything about the world around us while a flat earth can't come up with a basic map or any explanation for the sun’s behaviour.
    1
  834. kulkev Today they can bounce a radio signal of Venus, calculating the distance by the delay in reply. Do that when Venus is a right angle to the sun and you can calculate the distance to the sun.
    1
  835.  @ichigobankai2343  Evidently you didn't bother reading what I said.
    1
  836. Tyrone You realise that 14 billion years is substantially longer than 14 days or even one human lifetime? The evidence indicates the universe originated from one point, not from nothing. Get it right if you want to criticise.
    1
  837. That one person can't understand it does not mean that nobody fully understands it. That some can't understand the explanations even when couched in infant school terms does not mean they have insight that there is something that everybody has missed.
    1
  838. What court case would that be?
    1
  839. Found it. The judge ruled that Thompson's methods didn't meet the requirements Garcia had stipulated, not that curvature was unproven or unprovable.
    1
  840. Tony T Given a 25,000 mile circumference, how many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to find?
    1
  841.  @xfiles5913  But no models that actually work. "you just need to research things yourself" You think we haven't because we aren't blind to the faults in all those models?
    1
  842. Diana Endo Cell phones are ground-based; satellite phones exist but are less common. Many people will use satellite TV though.
    1
  843. They aren't thinking critically; they don't understand something but simply interpret their lack of understanding as knowledge.
    1
  844. You think you can provide evidence of a flat earth?
    1
  845. CBDav You can’t produce any yourself?
    1
  846. CBDav The Earth, atmosphere and you move at the same speed; with no difference in relative speed there’s no 1000mph wind in your face. The body is sensitive to acceleration rather than motion; we infer motion from observation. Without any substantial acceleration you aren’t going to sense the Earth in motion.
    1
  847. rick Woods Why do you think hurricanes are circular?
    1
  848. Preceded by the Ptolemaic geocentric model built around a sphere which was based on work started by the ancient Greeks around 590BC.
    1
  849. Daniel Dufour They used the periodicity of the eclipses to calculate the probable occurrence of the next; they did not propose any model. You think you have an explanation of how it can occur on a FE; what is it?
    1
  850. that'szack The horizon behind which the sun rises & sets.
    1
  851.  @zackxmagz6343  I see. There is a sun that remains in floating without any means to keep it up. It moves without any form of propulsion The light just stops somehow. It somehow retains the same angular diameter and angular velocity regardless of distance from the observer and somehow manages to set without coming within 10-20 degrees of the horizon. The evidence to support this idea is a computer animation. Is that a reasonable synopsis?
    1
  852. that'szack I asked if it was a reasonable synopsis of the video?
    1
  853. calmb4 storm You’re confusing elevation with curvature.
    1
  854. ScareCro Sextants, telescopes, satellites.... Try answering my questions.
    1
  855. How could Jesuits be influencing matters 2000 years before there formation and 500 years before their raison d’etre?
    1
  856. L8blumR Look up EPIC, Himawari-8 and Elektro-L.
    1
  857. Since it is a property of matter, the strength of the gravity is proportional to mass. It is not the only force. If you want to criticise something then learn about it first.
    1
  858. TRU MAN How does the sun retain a constant angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day?
    1
  859. A drop of water on a table is flat, not curved?
    1
  860. They’re not thinking differently; they’re not thinking. Espousing a different opinion does not mean you are thinking.
    1
  861. How does the sun maintain a constant angular diameter and angular velocity? According to the app it should vary. Why does the app use a projection of the globe rather than an actual flat earth map?
    1
  862. The heliocentric system has been around 500 years. A spherical Earth was the basis of the geocentric Ptolemaic system
    1
  863.  @wishfix  In science a theory is an explanation for how something works, one that is well-substantiated by extensive experimentation & observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory. That gravity exists is readily demonstrable; the law of gravity is a description of the effect while the theory of gravity explain how it works.
    1
  864. mike WHY would it move at all and WHY in a specific direction? Density is not a force so HOW do you think it could work? Demonstrating gravity’s existence and determining how it would work are two different things. We’ve done the former and are still working on the latter. Some people just wave their, declare density does it despite being unable to explain how it could. Try it.
    1
  865. It’s way bigger than many people comprehend; 25,000 mile circumference rather than 25-250 miles. 8” per mile squared is s rule of thumb use by land surveyors and approximates to the drop in the surface. How far you can see is further dependent on observer elevation and atmospheric refraction; having to use three factors instead of one is beyond many peoples grasp.
    1
  866. I suppose he wouldn’t be ancient at the time... 😀
    1
  867. We should “question what we’re told” but not ask questions?
    1
  868. T Randll What questions did you ask?
    1
  869. T Randll What questions did you ask?
    1
  870. Tony Martin You’ve never played tug of war? One man at one end of the rope, a billion on the other and you think the lone guy would win?
    1
  871. Tony Martin Density is the ratio of mass to volume, not a force. If isn’t capable of moving anything.
    1
  872. There are satellites taking several such pictures every hour, all accessible by the public. Look up EPIC, Himawari 8 and Elektro-L.
    1
  873. Jor el The cameras are black & white for maximum resolution. They shoot pictures through a series of filters. Those in the visible spectrum are combined to give a single colour shot. What wavelength filters are used affects the apparent full colour hence different colouring from different satellites. EPIC has an orbit of 1.5 million kilometres.
    1
  874. Jor el You think it would look different because you are assuming deviation from a perfect sphere must be huge. We’re taking about 0.3% rather than 30%, not something that would be apparent in a photo. The distance & angle of the Earth in the photos is dependent on the distance and angle of the camera taking each shot. Since the positioning of the cameras varies, the shots taken vary.
    1
  875. ​ @el8558  Tyson did not call it pear-shaped; the host of the TV programme did. Tyson was quite exact about the actual deviation from a perfect sphere. The Earth is about 7800 miles in diameter. Viewing 1ft vase from 10ft away would be the equivalent of viewing Earth from 78,000 miles away. Viewing the vase from 1" away would be the equivalent of a satellite taking a shot from about 65 miles altitude. The ISS orbits at 254 miles, Himawari-8 at about 22,000 miles, EPIC 1,500,000 miles. In other words, you walking away from a vase doesn't reflect the altitudes shots have been taken from. "the proportions between continents changes drammatically" Because of the variation in altitude of the different cameras, ranging from <1" away from your vase to 190ft away. The closer you are the smaller the area viewable by the camera. Try taking a full picture of the vase from less than 1" away. Similar principle applies to you photographing a marble. You realise that camera lenses can be used to magnify the shots? That not all cameras are bound to use 1x magnification and if someone is going to spend a fortune putting a camera in orbit they would think to include means for such magnification? "explain how south america became 1.5 bigger than north america." Differing altitudes of the cameras. "distance effects proportion of the same object?!" No, that distance from an object alters how much of said object will occupy your camera lens. You're viewing marble & vase from sufficient distance to see the whole object. Hold the vase to the end of your nose and see if you can see all of it at once (without moving your eyes).
    1
  876. Jor el We’ve given you the orbital altitudes of the cameras you’re talking about; are you saying 1.5 million km is nearer than 2000 km?
    1
  877. Autotune Killed The Video Star And yet it has been calculated through observation of sun, stars, pendulums and gyroscopes. Since gravity is a property of mass it’s strength is proportional to the mass. You aren’t going to recreate the Earth’s gravity with a tennis ball. The Earth, atmosphere and helicopter are all rotating. Look up conservation of momentum.
    1
  878. Scale. It’s really difficult concept for FE’ers to grasp.
    1
  879. REMIGIO PEREIRA We can do it; since no records have survived we don’t know how they organized it.
    1
  880. Apparently things fall due to either the Law of Just Does or that somehow density acts as a force in a manner totally unrelated to density. Essentially, they have no explanation.
    1
  881.  @tbrown3356  No, you've just displayed your ignorance and refusal to a answer direct questions, something that seems typical of FE'ers who consider themselves in the know. You don't know how a gyroscope works but simply declare they don't. You don't believe in conservation of momentum despite having thrown a ball countless times in your life. I just pointed out that Earth has been accurately measured, that orbit, rotation & gravity are all measurable and measured but you ignore it. Now have the guts to try answering my questions: How do lunar eclipses occur and when do you predict the next one? How does the sun maintain a constant angular diameter & angular velocity through the course of the day?
    1
  882.  @tbrown3356  "Geodesy is not Science so that means it doesn't use experiments" Science is based on experiments and observations, not experiments alone. That is a fallacy put around by those trying to get out of supplying counter-arguments. "For example in math if I have 1 ice cream cone you can take away 2 ice cream cones leaving me with -1 ice cream cones" If you have $1 in the bank and withdraw $2 you now have -$1 in your account. Do you wish to explain to the bank manager that negative numbers have no meaning therefore you don't owe anything? "Natural Laws however, are laws because they always happen" Like attraction between two bodies? "These are natural laws" What's your definition of a natural law? We are into philosophy at this point so I assume you have thought it out. "Space, Earth curve, gravity, Axial rotation are all not scientific or natural laws" And yet we have satellites into space, Earth's curvature is thoroughly measured, gravity repeatedly demonstrated and gyroscopes have no problems spinning. How do you think it possible?
    1
  883.  @tbrown3356  "To me it's a light in the sky" Then try looking through a properly focussed telescope like other people have been doing for centuries. "You pressupose Earth is a sphere and in orbit" No, both curvature and orbit are measurable and measured. Your willful ignorance does not change that and there is no reason I should adopt willful ignorance to suit you.
    1
  884. T Brown We know the Earth is curved through the positioning of stars. As has been pointed to you a few times we can measure rotation with gyroscopes, orbit by stellar parallax and your wilful ignorance does not change that. A telescope shows you planets are not just lights; shadows can be seen on the moon. No doubt you will claim you have the real answers but like all FE’ers you are mysteriously prevented from saying what they are. Would you like to claim NASA is controlling your keyboard?
    1
  885. How many degrees curvature per mile would you expect to be observable on the surface of a 25,000 mile circumference sphere?
    1
  886. Jeff Moore How many dimensions does a flag have?
    1
  887. Mike Tuttle Because the gravitational attraction is towards the centre of the Earth, not some point in space beyond the South pole. Wherever you are in Earth, down is towards the centre of the Earth.
    1
  888. Mike Tuttle The outer core (fluid) is essentially an electromagnet; the motion within it generates a magnetic field. Do viruses exist?
    1
  889. that'szack Seismology.
    1
  890. If you mean greater distance between the constellation’s stars then the same applies to the distance between the sun and those stars, ie, the constellation would be further away.
    1
  891. Michel Coil You think the world is the same size as a roundabout? That’s even smaller than the usual 25 miles. Did Jules Verne write “Around the World In 80 Seconds”?
    1
  892. Michel Coil Centrifugal force is calculated from the angular velocity not the lateral one. A roundabout is not going to make a comparable rotational speed to Earth nor does it possess the mass to give Earth’s gravity. On Earth the centrifugal force is less than 0.5% that of gravity.
    1
  893. Michel Coil You’re posting on YouTube not sending a personal text; I see it when I see it. Centrifugal force is dependent on the radius and the angular velocity. While 3900 miles radius is impressive, one rotation per day is not; the result (even at the equator) is less than 0.5% that of gravity. Nobody is going to flung off. Rotation is measured in rad/sec or rpm (revolutions per minute) not linear speeds. On a rotating sphere where the distance from the axis varies describing the rotation as a linear speed is meaningless. What do you think is wrong with the globe map?
    1
  894.  @michelcoil1882  Glad to hear it; most FE'ers dont. What exactly do you find mystifying about night & day on the globe? A once a day rotation would make the sun rise & set on a regular schedule.
    1
  895.  @michelcoil1882  A spheroid planet, which orbits a star, rotates once per day; the part facing the star has daytime, the part facing away has night time. A moon that follows an inclined orbit around the planet as it orbits the star will inevitable (and predictably) line up with the star & planet; assuming the umbra from either is long enough, the moon in front of the planet causes a solar eclipse, while the planet in front of the moon causes a lunar eclipse. If I thought the Earth was flat would I continually make reference to a rotating sphere in my explanations?
    1
  896.  @michelcoil1882  "what actually rotate?" Earth, moon & sun all rotate.
    1
  897.  @michelcoil1882  "A spheroid planet, which orbits a star, rotates once per day" How explicitly do I need to explain it?
    1
  898.  @michelcoil1882  Reread your original comment.
    1
  899. Jack Richmond The sun does pull the moon. Due to its proximity the Earth pulls on the moon more than the sun does Too far away to be observable.
    1
  900. UNHEXED 2 The facts are verifiable; we do publish our work.
    1
  901. Nobody has yet demonstrated a dome exist. A rocket stops moving upwards when the engine shuts off. A rocket hitting a dome would be smashed.
    1
  902. Modern Day Sorcerer You call the CGI shoddy yet FE’ers can never explain what these obvious shoddy errors are. Do you’d want to try?
    1
  903. Michael Dubery It was done yet again a few weeks ago.
    1
  904. Yuri DeKhed Pay for his ticket on a Soyuz capsule?
    1
  905. jizzy The distance is limited by humidity and whatever material is carried in the air (including pollution). The lack of pollution would enable BC folk to see further but the distance would be limited by the horizon.
    1
  906. They are open to the same criticism as any other opinion. Certainly people should try to keep it civil but there is nothing sacred about opinions.
    1