1

Flat Earth General / Re: Please provide a Flat Earth model

« on: Today at 06:49:15 AM »

It's like the Clark Kent and Superman thing. From the equator, some nights you can see the Southern Cross.

The Southern Cross, or Crux, can be seen from the equator, but only during certain times of the year and for limited periods.

Bulma.  Do you understand that Polaris is at the northern celestial pole with specific constellations around it.

Bulma.  Do you understand that Crux is in the southern celestial sphere surrounded by completely different constellations.  Where crux is a group of stars called a constellation and not a single star like Polaris. 

Bulma.  Do you understand there are places and times you can see the constellation crux and Polaris at the same time.  With a “trail” of completely different constellations between them.  With Polaris in the northern celestial sphere and Crux in the complete opposite direction in the southern celestial sphere.
 

Bulma.  Are you just this stupid or brainwashed?

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Please provide a Flat Earth model

« on: Today at 06:38:39 AM »

Unless, you're actually looking like this. Including North Star and Southern Cross.
                                +
                              /   \
                            /       \
                          /           \
                        /               \
                      /                   \
                    /                       \
                  /             *            \
                /             /   \           \ 
              /             /       \           \
(______/_______/______\______\_______)

So obvious. But you who disprove "without science" (science means to know, without science means to shut off your brain, yeah this tracks) seem not able to grasp this.

You babbling and scribbling means nothing.

Bulma.  Can you read and comprehend.

What happens when stars visually combine because they are close together?

Are you this stupid.

Polaris is a star in the northern hemisphere that is basically sitting in line with the northern celestial pole.

A star that doesn’t dim as one travels south.  Once far enough south across the equator Polaris is physically blocked from view by the horizon to the north. 

As you travel south, Polaris gets lower on the northern horizon.  Crux a constellation rising above the southern hemisphere to the south is rising in the south as you travel south as Polaris gets lower in the sky to the north.  Crux is a constellation that points where one has to “look” more south to locate the southern celestial pole. 



And not this..

No one uses Sigma Octatntis to navigate to the supposed south pole.

I've ignored nothing, but I am going to start now by ignoring your stupid bullshit.

??

You keep trying to change the subject with basically lying how navigation in the southern hemisphere works with a sextant.  It’s not based off the celestial South Pole for the southern hemisphere where Polaris isn’t visible because of the earth’s curvature? 

How to find the celestial South Pole makes sense on a globe / sphere.






The celestial South Pole is meaningless on a flat earth

It's like the Clark Kent and Superman thing. From the equator, some nights you can see the Southern Cross.

The Southern Cross, or Crux, can be seen from the equator, but only during certain times of the year and for limited periods.

Have a source?  Can you link to it.

Bulma.  Can you read?

Bulma.  Your buddy AI again..

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Please provide a Flat Earth model

« on: Today at 06:36:32 AM »

It's like the Clark Kent and Superman thing. From the equator, some nights you can see the Southern Cross.

The Southern Cross, or Crux, can be seen from the equator, but only during certain times of the year and for limited periods.

Have a source?  Can you link to it.

Bulma.  Can you read?

Bulma.  Your buddy AI again..

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Please provide a Flat Earth model

« on: Today at 06:17:56 AM »

What happens when stars visually combine because they are close together?

Are you this stupid.

Polaris is a star in the northern hemisphere that is basically sitting in line with the northern celestial pole.

A star that doesn’t dim as one travels south.  Once far enough south across the equator Polaris is physically blocked from view by the horizon to the north. 

As you travel south, Polaris gets lower on the northern horizon.  Crux a constellation rising above the southern hemisphere to the south is rising in the south as you travel south as Polaris gets lower in the sky to the north.  Crux is a constellation that points where one has to “look” more south to locate the southern celestial pole. 



And not this..

No one uses Sigma Octatntis to navigate to the supposed south pole.

I've ignored nothing, but I am going to start now by ignoring your stupid bullshit.

??

You keep trying to change the subject with basically lying how navigation in the southern hemisphere works with a sextant.  It’s not based off the celestial South Pole for the southern hemisphere where Polaris isn’t visible because of the earth’s curvature? 

How to find the celestial South Pole makes sense on a globe / sphere.






The celestial South Pole is meaningless on a flat earth

5

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY NORTH STAR ELEVATION POSITION IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR LATITUDE?

« on: Today at 05:57:03 AM »

[
That is fucking stupid and you know it.

FE is stupid.

Where you don’t even understand the difference between the north  star Polars in the northern celestial sphere as the pole star vs a constellation Crux as an aid in the southern celestial sphere to point to the southern celestial pole.


Anyway..



Where the orientation of the face of the moon as seen depends on latitude which makes no sense for flat earth.

Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science - Part 1: The Moon

Where Bulma you abandoned a thread on what are phases of the moon because FE provides no model that works. 

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Please provide a Flat Earth model

« on: Today at 04:06:10 AM »

The stars orbit Crux which is in the North Pole

No, Crux and fundamentally different.
Cruz isn't even the south pole star, but points south.
From the equator you can see both.
The south celestial pole is not the north celestial pole.
So this doesn't even come close to an explanation, it is just a pathetic assertion made without any backing at all, which makes absolutely no sense.
It makes no attempt at all to explain the south celestial pole.

How can a flat earther post about being brainwashed, then not know the difference in physical locations between Polaris the North Star at the northern celestial pole vs Crux in the southern hemisphere that is a constellation that aids in pointing to the southern celestial pole?

How do you argue with Bulma that right out lies and butchers reality. 

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Please provide a Flat Earth model

« on: Today at 03:59:33 AM »

Stick your hand near a fireplace. Then back up 5 ft, then 20 ft, then 500 ft.

And you will see that the energy is spread out over a larger area.
That is not energy just magically dying like you pretend it needs to.
In fact, in a different thread you even admitted it can't.
Yet here you are contradicting yourself yet again and lying to everyone yet again.

Where Bulma ignores you can still see the fire as a point source of light.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about ships on the ocean?

« on: Today at 02:52:12 AM »

Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance,

Why wouldn’t an object on the horizon not also rise?


Simplified version of my flashlight and camera with the ruler as the rail they were resting on.



Turbo.  In the context of, “Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance” how can a flat surface ever physically block the light of the flashlight always above the flat surface from reaching the camera above the same flat surface?  FE has no explanation for sunset for a sun that supposedly stays 300 to 5000 miles above the earth. 

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo

« on: Today at 02:51:38 AM »

Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance,

Why wouldn’t an object on the horizon not also rise?


Simplified version of my flashlight and camera with the ruler as the rail they were resting on.



Turbo.  In the context of, “Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance” how can a flat surface ever physically block the light of the flashlight always above the flat surface from reaching the camera above the same flat surface?  FE has no explanation for sunset for a sun that supposedly stays 300 to 5000 miles above the earth. 

10

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?

« on: Today at 01:16:03 AM »

To dismiss the distance to the moon calculated by parallax is to be brainwashed.

I beg to differ.

You beg to differ because you’re brainwashed.

Parallax to the moon is something you and another person can do.  It’s backed by radar.  Where you can observe the moon passing in front of other planets, solar eclipses, and lunar eclipses.  All clues on the distance to the moon.  Where Bulma you rejected the science and math involved with using parallax to determine distance.  Bulma, the only thing you have to offer is false  assurances, stupidity, and views of your brainwashed cult, with no proof FE is close to being correct on the distance to the moon. 

Only a stupid brainwashed cult member would post “distance to the moon Covid.”

Bulma.  You’re in a cult that can’t even accurately determine the distance of the moon. 

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Please provide a Flat Earth model

« on: Today at 01:12:23 AM »

th.
3.  The moon is not, as round Earthers propose, a solid object. It, along with the "planets are stars appointed to provide lesser light

How is the moon lesser light than stars and planets?  Its whole magnitudes brighter than the planets and stars.

Bulma.  Give your stupidity a rest.  You been schooled on the moon several times.  FE is a brainwashed cult.

That model requires the moon to greatly change distance and apparent size for someone like me in the Midwest of the USA.  It doesn’t.

So.  Time lapse of the moon from yesterday evening into the night.  I’ll try again when it’s less cloudy.

Moon 5/7/2025 time lapse evening into night cloudy drifted out of frame



I would also like to make a video with the moon way overexposed so the video will show it passing in front of stars.  Or make a special filter?

Where the moon would be overhead above the earth the entire time. So doesn’t explain the moon setting and being blocked by earth’s curvature at moonset.  Where the moon would be directly in the line of sight the entire time for all persons on earth.

Flat earth is stupid.

More arguments with you that lead in circles.

Even with my largest sun on the flat Earth, it didn't cover all the way across.

No.  FE fails.  You can’t handle I have my own imagines that I captured that clearly shows by shadowing the moon is illuminated by the sun.  The distance of the moon can be calculated by a reliable means by parallax at a distance greater than the sun for the flat earth failed model where the moon gets in from of planets and the sun.  Backed by radar surveys and radio operators bouncing shortwave radio signals off the moon.  Where the moon still holds the same problems of the sun for FE.  For me in the Midwest, the moon still would have to greatly change distance and thus greatly change apparent size.  The moon doesn’t.  The moon would always be above a FE and in the line of sight.  Where in reality, the moon sets below the curvature of the earth being physically blocked from view.

Bulma, you still have no explanation of what causes the phases of the moon where the moon is clearly a spherical object being illuminated by the sun.  And what would replicate the shape of the phases of the moon if it wasn’t from being illuminated by the sun.


There is nothing circular that FE is a failed model.

You're just guessing,

Nope.

Funny that two people in the United States over 2000 miles apart can watch the moon at the same instance, rise and set times that match the radius of a earth of 3,963 miles, with enough parallax to calculate the distance to the moon.  Backed by lunar and solar eclipses.

Bulma.  The distance and existence of the moon is verified with radar. 

The moon is a very real object with mass and gravity helping drive tides on earth at a much greater distance than what the delusion of FE states.  The moon kills flat earth Bulma, and your delusional brainwashed stupidity. 

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo

« on: June 11, 2025, 08:13:47 AM »

Because you’re too high above the flat surface which isn’t long enough.

Posted about this before.  The camera was laid right on the track with only the case lifting the camera off the track.

I still couldn’t get a flat surface to block the flashlight. 

13

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?

« on: June 11, 2025, 07:53:22 AM »

• To be taught the Earth is round, the Earth orbits the sun, and the sun orbits the galaxy, that light extends infinitely, and that we know the soeed of light (because by consensus we have set it to the length of a meter which *ahem* we have set to the agreed upon speed of light)

It has everything to do with being useful.

Again. 

These dial star atlases are accurate because the earth is spherical.
 
Northern hemisphere





Southern hemisphere




Celestial south pole works because the earth is spherical.

The heliocentric model better explains comets. 

Star gazing, astronomy, celestial navigation, all would be different for a FE.  The sun wouldn’t set on a flat earth.

Bulma.  You posted about cults. FE is a cult based on a model that is useless.  From tides to celestial navigation.


The distance to the moon can be determined to a rather accurate measurement by people across the USA using parallax of the moon.  The calculations are relatively basic math.  The resulting distance to the moon kills flat earth and is backed by a number of things with more accurate radar being one of them.  To believe FE is to embrace something that isn’t really useful.  FE isn’t even a useful cult.  FE is dealt a death by using parallax of the moon to determine its distance.  To ignore the distance to the moon is to ignore something provable and useful.  To dismiss the distance to the moon calculated by parallax is to be brainwashed.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?

« on: June 11, 2025, 01:31:32 AM »

Therefore, anything that contains compulsion is a cult.

Which has nothing to do with the distance to the moon being an actual  measurable quantity that kills flat earth and makes FE a cult based in propaganda and lies.


 

Likewise for significant distances, the math tells you things which may or may not be so.

Bulma.  You are contradicting yourself again.  You understand math is a language of science.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.

And math with science can determine the distance to the moon.  Even if crudely used parallax is off by 10,000s of miles instead of radar with more precision, the distance proven to the moon is shown to break the FE model.

You're just guessing,

Nope.

Funny that two people in the United States over 2000 miles apart can watch the moon at the same instance, rise and set times that match the radius of a earth of 3,963 miles, with enough parallax to calculate the distance to the moon.  Backed by lunar and solar eclipses.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 10, 2025, 06:17:58 PM »

what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension while trying to wrap a level road to this "clearly visible" drop.

Bulma.  Is this why my road cracks.  Needs repairs every year.  And needs repaved every 10 to 12 years.






Bulma.  So even cracking roads prove the earth is round.  Huh. 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

16

Flat Earth General / Re: The Ontological Unity: Why 1+2+3+...=1 in a Relational Universe

« on: June 10, 2025, 07:41:07 AM »

Let’s reconsider the nature of division and quantity.

Ok?



https://www.amazon.com/12-Blade-Stainless-Divider-%EF%BC%8CSturdy-Integrated/dp/B0D17P3WX8/ref=asc_df_B0D17P3WX8?mcid=0c8ac04b3918381a9db356b7c5230c43&hvocijid=7944987543153387023-B0D17P3WX8-&hvexpln=73&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=721245378154&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7944987543153387023&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010912&hvtargid=pla-2281435177658&psc=1


The total mass is the same. But each division of the apple is smaller than the whole.   Now, mend the cut and divided apple  back together to its original wholeness.

Get one of the seedless slices to grow a new tree from a seed like the core that still has seeds. 

😂😂😂😂😂😂

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 10, 2025, 03:16:58 AM »

If bridges were really made to be dynamic,

Bulma.  Are you really this ignorant and stupid.

You never seen a thermal expansion joint for a bridge and / or overpass?  Never wondered what a joint like what is pictured below was for?

Calculating Thermal Expansion

Yes.  Bridges are made to be dynamic.

what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension while trying to wrap a level road to this "clearly visible" drop.

You do understand bridges are made to be dynamic?  Like skyscrapers.  Anyway..



Volgograd Bridge
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd_Bridge

They did have to find away to dampen the motions of the Volgograd Bridge.  But bridges have to be dynamic.  But you think they can’t build a road on a shallow curvature?

Bulma. Why do you post stupid crap?

Bridge Deflection, Load Capacity

Watch this video to see how the Golden Gate Bridge can move up and down by as much as 16 feet!

At midspan, the maximum downward deflection (or the distance the Bridge was built to move downward) is 10.8 ft (3.3. m). The maximum upward deflection is 5.8 ft (1.8 m).

https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/history-research/bridge-construction/bridge-design/

Bulma.  You are just stupidly and ignorantly flat out wrong.  You are proven to be a jackass. 

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 09, 2025, 08:39:33 AM »

Sorry but most bridges are fixed.

Added.  Then what’s the point of a book made to open at the spine? 

Bridges are made to be dynamic from everything from thermal expansion, small earthquakes, traffic running over them.  To large suspension bridges taking in account wind.

Can you read Bulma.  This was quoted for you.

Bridge Deflection, Load Capacity

Watch this video to see how the Golden Gate Bridge can move up and down by as much as 16 feet!

At midspan, the maximum downward deflection (or the distance the Bridge was built to move downward) is 10.8 ft (3.3. m). The maximum upward deflection is 5.8 ft (1.8 m).

https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/history-research/bridge-construction/bridge-design/

Are you really this stupid, or just this big of a lying troll Bulma? 

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 09, 2025, 08:14:01 AM »

The weight is on the sides, as your own arrows show.

Your stupid.

One, it’s nothing like a road supported on a running road bed.  To post otherwise is a stupid and obvious lie. 

A bridge is nothing like a road laid on a road bed of road pack on a running foundation.



Look again Bulma.  Another road literally on earth with “curvature” / grade more extreme than the radius of the earth. 

Bulma.  Are you this stupid?  Or just this much of a lying troll? 


Two…




Look at the picture jackass.

The question was…

  If there is no gravity, what is pulling straight down on the book to force it open like a simple machine trying to open. 

The weight of a deck of a suspension bridge is straight down.  Through mechanical means the weight can be transferred to cables, towers, and cable anchors.

The weight of the book is still straight down.  The hinging of the book lets the book lets the weight transfer to the edges, creating a lateral force.  If there was no gravity pulling the book down, there would be no force to transfer in the first place.

If there is no gravity in the first place Bulma. What is cause the book to “accelerate” down to cause the book to hinge open transverse load to the edges. 
 

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 09, 2025, 07:08:52 AM »

Many roads now are effectively bridges.

Stupidly false.

The Golden Gate Bridge that has a humped deck transfers the weight of the bridge to the towers, the cables, and the cable anchors.

Take a walk across Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco’s icon



Once on the bridge, the incline is steady but not steep.

A bridge is nothing like a road laid on a road bed of road pack on a running foundation.



Look again Bulma.  Another road literally on earth with “curvature” / grade more extreme than the radius of the earth. 

Bulma.  Are you this stupid?  Or just this much of a lying troll? 

21

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 09, 2025, 06:56:27 AM »

what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension while trying to wrap a level road to this "clearly visible" drop.

Bulma.  Is this why my road cracks.  Needs repairs every year.  And needs repaved every 10 to 12 years.






Bulma.  So even cracking roads prove the earth is round.  Huh. 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

22

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 09, 2025, 04:43:14 AM »

Likewise for significant distances, the math tells you things which may or may not be so.

Bulma.  You are contradicting yourself again.  You understand math is a language of science.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.

And math with science can determine the distance to the moon.  Even if crudely used parallax is off by 10,000s of miles instead of radar with more precision, the distance proven to the moon is shown to break the FE model.

You're just guessing,

Nope.

Funny that two people in the United States over 2000 miles apart can watch the moon at the same instance, rise and set times that match the radius of a earth of 3,963 miles, with enough parallax to calculate the distance to the moon.  Backed by lunar and solar eclipses.

Bulma.  You claim science.  Then make this claim out of wishful thinking.

what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension while trying to wrap a level road to this "clearly visible" drop.

Where you can’t show the roadway on a good foundation does anything but exert weight towards the center of the earth. 

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 09, 2025, 04:25:08 AM »

The amount of tension in 3569 miles of road would far surpass anything like that.

Weight is straight down.  So, why would there be “tension” on a road built properly on proper road pack/foundation.

 I have driven over the Appalachians and the Rockies.

Again…








[/quote]


Materials and roads follow “curvature” more extreme than the gentle curvature of the earth.  With little or no problem.   

 You have the stupidity to claim roads can’t be built on a curved earth.  When roads on hills and mountains are literally roads on “curved” earth.

Where roads are not even build flat, but built with a curvature towards the road edge to sheet water away from the road. 

 Bulma.  You have no credibility because you post things that are flat out wrong.  Stupid.  Bulma, you post things out of either being a troll or brainwashed.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 08, 2025, 05:17:37 PM »

In fact (AGAIN, stop fucking making me repeat myself), curvature creates tension that is incompatible with creating bridges.

Then way is the deck of the Golden Gate Bridge between the towers humpbacked towards the middle of the span?

Your actual post…

what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension while trying to wrap a level road to this "clearly visible" drop.

Was about roads in general, not about bridges.

Bulma.  Before you post anything else stupid concerning roads.  You understand roads usually are not built to be flat.  Bulma, you haven’t noticed a properly engineered road is higher running down the centerline, and slopped downward to the outside edges to help sheet water off the road.  I guess there isn’t many roads running through your mom’s basement, huh. 

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about ships on the ocean?

« on: June 08, 2025, 07:05:54 AM »

Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance,

The problem is.  Items on top of that the surface would also appear to rise jackass. Not be physically blocked from view bottom up that measurably increases with distance. 

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 08, 2025, 04:28:34 AM »

The modern way we build bridges has nothing to do with the fact that are in fact built level.

What’s the definition of level again?

Anyway…

Bridge Deflection, Load Capacity

Watch this video to see how the Golden Gate Bridge can move up and down by as much as 16 feet!

At midspan, the maximum downward deflection (or the distance the Bridge was built to move downward) is 10.8 ft (3.3. m). The maximum upward deflection is 5.8 ft (1.8 m).

https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/history-research/bridge-construction/bridge-design/

Take a walk across Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco’s icon



Once on the bridge, the incline is steady but not steep.

Do you understand Bulma most road suspension bridges don’t have a flat deck, but a slightly arched up deck?

Where this bridge did not collapse…

what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension while trying to wrap a level road to this "clearly visible" drop.

You do understand bridges are made to be dynamic?  Like skyscrapers.  Anyway..



Volgograd Bridge
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd_Bridge

They did have to find away to dampen the motions of the Volgograd Bridge.  But bridges have to be dynamic.  But you think they can’t build a road on a shallow curvature?

Bulma. Why do you post stupid crap?

Where your original statement ignored bridges, and was about roads.  Where you just ignore roads on hills.

what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension while trying to wrap a level road to this "clearly visible" drop.

WTF?

As for stupid meme about a beach ball or basketball looking flat when you look at a tiny piece under a microscope, there is a bit of a gaping hole in your logic.

The below with a camera with a built in zoom lens with a macro lens adapter shows just because you think it looks flat isn’t evidence of it being actually flat.



The same case that has been proven many times in different ways.

Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.



The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.



What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?

Materials and roads follow “curvature” more extreme than the gentle curvature of the earth.  With little or no problem. 

Bulma.  Are you this big of a troll to keep lying when you are proven to be caught in a lie.  Or you just this stupid and brainwashed Bulma.  You’r f’n ignorant.

How with any sense at all Bulma can you ignore roads are built on hills, bridges are built with inclines and to move with load and wind.  But you have the stupidity to claim roads can’t be built on a curved earth.  When roads on hills and mountains are literally roads on “curved” earth.

 

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about ships on the ocean?

« on: June 08, 2025, 03:23:17 AM »

No, this would absolutely prove the surface is flat.

No.  It proves curvature of the earth.

This is not a curve or a dip, it is rising up less than before at that point, again due to refraction.

Meaningless world salad to try and ignore things get physical blocked from view bottom up that increases with distance because of earth’s curvature.  Zoom in on the object, and the portion physically blocked from view stays blocked by the earth.

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km

During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.



Then a ship farther away.




If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon.  There is always my go to ship video.

Where the above shows the amount of curvature known as dip of the horizon can be measured


Where the flashlight right on a flat surface at a relatively great distance exhibits nothing that you claim tubs.  As in almost no hight above the surface with a comparatively great distance.  As in the light and bulb from the flashlight are not blocked at all.


360 steps flash


Why does the flashlight test not exhibit anything you claim Turbs.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo

« on: June 08, 2025, 03:21:40 AM »

This is not a curve or a dip, it is rising up less than before at that point, again due to refraction.

Meaningless world salad to try and ignore things get physical blocked from view bottom up that increases with distance because of earth’s curvature.  Zoom in on the object, and the portion physically blocked from view stays blocked by the earth.

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km

Where the flashlight right on a flat surface at a relatively great distance exhibits nothing that you claim tubs.  As in almost no hight above the surface with a comparatively great distance.  As in the light and bulb from the flashlight are not blocked at all.


360 steps flash


Why does the flashlight test not exhibit anything you claim Turbs. 

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 08, 2025, 03:08:31 AM »

You notice how the distance around southern latitude is about 3x or more than around the northern latitude?

What happen to your gif for the winter path?

Winter

Winter.gif?

Delete the picture off your hosting site when you realized the sun would have to be three times smaller for people in Ohio during their winter for FE to be true?  Heliocentric model wins again. 

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

« on: June 08, 2025, 01:44:06 AM »

You notice how the distance around southern latitude is about 3x or more than around the northern latitude?

Bulma.  You just shot yourself in the foot.

Where in FE you have no explanation why a sun would stay aloft above a FE, drift south, where you have no explanation why the sun would speed up three times faster for the longer southern track.  Where you now need the sun to drastically change distance and thus change apparent size hour by hour and month to month more than ever and does not.  The fact the sun stays a constant size kills flat earth.  Where the picture you used shows the sun would have to rise / set north / south for large areas and yet rises due south and sets due east on the equinox.

Where earth’s tilt explains the seasons perfectly, where earth’s tilt is proven by Lahaina noon.  And the path of the sun bs the planets.

LAHAINA NOON IN HAWAIʻI: WHEN AND WHERE TO SEE IT (2025)

Did you know there’s a moment in Hawaiʻi when your shadow completely disappears? This rare tropical phenomenon, known as Lāhainā Noon, happens only twice a year—and only in the tropics. Here’s everything you need to know to witness it.




https://www.lovebigisland.com/hawaii-blog/lahaina-noon-when-and-where/

Path of the sun..

For a flat earth, the sun would orbit the northern celestial pole like this…



So time lapse photography should result in the sun making a circle around the celestial North Pole like one nights worth of star trails?  Similar like this?


https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cd57d59ca525b7e9eae595c/a3311d67-06f0-460b-8122-3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg

The sun should circle the celestial North Pole on a FE.

But the sun does this…. For six months…


media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg


Again.  Flat earth soundly debunked…