1

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

« on: Today at 04:21:41 PM »

I literally just showed you that the horizon increased with the viewer's altitude.

No, you didn't. Because you seem to entirely fail to understand the difference between physical height and angular position.

You have not shown any change in physical height, because what you have provided is incapable of doing so.
You haven't shown that the angular position remains constant, because you have no reference for that. And no, you can't use the horizon for that reference.

Because God arranges that people who deceive others will find their arguments thwarted at every turn.

Like yours have been?

Right? So why is it that this line of horizon appears to rise higher than the heads of those swimming and even standing up?

In this case, that horizon formed by the mountains is physically above them. So that is a really pathetic point to make.

For the general case, simple geometry. I thought you said you understood that?

Here is a simple drawing, very much not to scale, with an exaggerated curve, showing the main principle:


Your vision is based upon angles.
The angle to these people is lower than the angle to the horizon.

Not hard to understand.

With no fisheye filter,

You mean clearly taken with a fish eye lens and then "corrected".
As we can tell from several parts of the photo.
The first give away is the top and bottom edges. These are horribly stretched out with pixels being stretched to take the place of several pixels, and having a much lower pixel density than the centre.
We can also see this in the definition of the edges of the clouds and objects on the ground, because it is effectively the same thing.
In the middle they are very well resolved, but at the bottom, it is all stretched making it blurry.

Likewise, we can see the glare from the sun, which goes around in arcs, instead of the straight lines it should, showing the straight lines have been "corrected" to a curve.
And we see it in the balloon, which is so horribly distorted it isn't funny, and the cord from it strangely arcing instead of going down in a straight line.

But if that isn't enough, we can go to the original source and see it is a 360 degree video which you have dishonestly misrepresented:
https://www.nytimes.com/video/science/100000005433524/noaa-ozone-balloon.html

Now, stop trying to throw shade on other people's beliefs and mind your own business.

We are "throwing shade" on your blatant lies.

If you don't want them to be exposed as the lies they are, then stop saying them.
If you don't people to point out your beliefs are BS, then keep them to yourself.

I'm gonna post here regardless. But you ought to ask yourself why exactly it's so important that you, kabool, Data, and JackBlack actively need to all gang up.

We don't.
We just each want to respond.

This isn't some crappy movie fight scene where we all take turns fighting.
This is real life, where if you spout pure BS, everyone gets to object at the same time.

Stop trying to catch my words in a trap, stop pretending to be my friend, and stop "throwing shade" as you put it.

We aren't.
I am not your friend. I would never be friends with someone like you, a compulsive liar who refuses to admit when they are wrong.
I'm not trying to catch you in a trap, I'm calling out your BS, including where you directly contradict yourself.

If I believe the Earth is a cylinder or a triangle or a trapezoid, in what way is it any of your business?

Because instead of keeping your BS belief to yourself, you decide to publicly lie to everyone and try to propagate this harmful mindset.

If you don't want people calling your beliefs BS, keep it to yourself.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re: Space Travel, the Firmament & God

« on: Today at 03:54:59 PM »

No, the rockets are real, and are really below the blue waters of the Firmament.

You keep asserting this, but you are yet to present to anything to justify it.

At no point are they ever going up through the blue ‘skies’ at all.

Really?
So just after launch, when they are quite literally going straight up, they are not going up?

They are clearly in air, which is also entirely clear as well.

You have already had that shown to be pure BS.

The blue is high above them the whole time.

Prove it.
Prove it isn't below or around them.

We see the blue high above them, so where would ‘space’ be seen?

That is a question for YOU.
How would you expect to see it given your complete lack of understanding of this?

There is no blue lower than them, it’s all high above them.

Based on what?
How are you measuring the height of the blue?

What IS faked is their ‘black space’ shots supposedly taken from the rockets!

Again, you have no basis for this?

Why would it be black across from the rockets but blue above them?

I isn't blue above them.
That is your baseless claim you are yet to justify.

Why don’t they show what it looks like above them, it should be black also!

They do, but rarely because it doesn't show anything useful normally. It is black.

It’s utterly ridiculous.

Your argument certainly is.
You fail to comprehend how seeing things work, so you repeatedly claim they are below the blue with no basis at all, and act like we should somehow see the "black" (which is really just an absence of light) coming through.

If you want to claim they are below the blue, then prove it.
If you can't, stop repeating the same BS.

3

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

« on: Today at 03:49:45 PM »

No, a flat surface appears to rise up to the horizon

No, a flat surface appears to rise until the edge.

The vanishing point is infinitely far away and is never reached.
The vanishing point is NOT the horizon.

Again, the surface appears to rise up high at a few miles out, how could we ever see it over a few hundred or thousands of miles out from us?

Because nothing is obstructing the view.

I've asked you

You have asked for lots of things, to deflect from your complete inability to provide things yourself.
You have been for asked for lots of things BEFORE you started asking us.

Why should we give you anything when all you do is lie and deflect?

How about you start providing the answers you were asked for instead of continuing to make these pathetic demands?

We can see the entire surface three miles out on the ground.

And then the curve gets significant enough to beat perspective and block more of the surface from view.

Start from three miles out at the horizon, at the height it appears to be from three miles away.

Why?
Why start from there?

The simple fact is a flat surface is self-similar.
Perspective means it will all be basically the same, just scaled down.
So you can zoom in and get the same thing.
And all it requires to see further is better optics.

I can even just appeal to your pathetic claim about "close" vs magnified.

Taking the entirely baseless assumption that Earth is flat, then take any picture of the horizon at a distance of 3 archaic units.
Now that is a picture of roughly what it would look like at a distance of 4 miles, just zoomed in.
And the same for 6 miles, just zoomed in more, and so on.

Because that is how geometry works.

e.g. you appealed to an image like this once:

This could be at ANY distance to the horizon, just with the right level of zoom.
Because again, THAT IS HOW THE GEOMETRY WORKS.

And this means nothing will ever be obstructed from view.
Instead the best you get is it being too small to resolve.

But that isn't how reality works, because in reality Earth is not flat.

You have also been provided links to simulations of it, which you just ignore.

Why bother asking when you are just going to ignore what you are given?

It would have to keep rising up higher and higher from there in order for us to keep seeing over the whole surface, which would soon be far too high to see anymore, it would block out the sky and all things beyond wouldn’t be seen at all.

You have already had this refuted as pure BS with no justification at all.
Why repeat the same BS?

The tiniest sliver of it would rise upward, but would never be seen by us, nor by any instruments. The angle would be so slight, we’d never see over it all, it’d be impossible to see at all.

Why?
What makes you so certain that no instrument would be able to measure it?

the bs story is all you can do.

Projecting again I see?

Perspective shows the whole surface is flat

You keep asserting this pure BS, but you can't justify it at all.
I have asked you in what way it looks flat, and you just continue to assert it looks flat with no explanation.

You simply have no clue about what perspective does, how it works over distance and our view of things in the distance.

I know quite well.
It is simple geometry.
Geometry you have been unable to refute, which you instead ignore because it shows you are wrong.

We’d never see the surface like we do if it was curved over it.

WHY?
Again, you just assert pure BS with no justification at all.

The surface appears exactly like we expect a curved surface to.

Again, flat surface - we can see all the way to the edge, with nothing obstructed from view.
curved surface - we can see all the way to a horizon, the point where a line a from our eye to the surface is tangent with the surface, with the surface closer to us then blocking the view to the surface more distant (beyond this horizon). This also obstructs the view to objects more distant, with objects going beyond the horizon appearing to sink and disappear from the bottom up.

So what we see is exactly like we would do if it was curved.
It is NOT like what we would see if it was flat.

I suppose you think perspective makes curved surfaces look perfectly flat over them?

No. I have said that is pure BS countless times.
I have also asked you just in what way does it "look flat", and the only thing you have been able to provide is the very thing which shows it is round, that we can see up to the horizon.

Again, in what way does the surface appear flat?
Clearly explain just what observation you are making and how that shows the surface is flat.
While you are doing so, clearly explain exactly what should be seen for a massive ball and how that doesn't match what we see.

Why would the surface be entirely seen as flat over three miles out?

Again, how is it seen as flat?
Clearly explain what observation you are making which shows that it is seen as entirely flat.

is that your argument here?

No, as I have explained repeatedly.

Again, the simple argument is summed up by this equation:
a=atan(h/d)
FE => a=atan(h0/d)
RE => a=atan(h0/d + d/2r)

this graph:


And these images:



Explain the magic.

Use your brain for once.

Follow your own advice.
I have been using my brain, which is why I reject your delusional BS.

Use your brain (if you have one which actually works) and answer the questions you have continually fled from:
What causes the horizon in your FE fantasy?
How does this obstruct the view to the bottom of objects beyond the horizon when we can still easily resolve them (showing it isn't simply perspective making it too small to resolve)?
Why is the horizon this particular distance away, a distance which does not vary with different optics; and why does this distance vary with altitude the way it does (importantly, this variation is non linear, showing again it is not perspective and not simply the angle is too small to resolve. If it was, it would rely upon h/d, and doubling your height would double the distance; and it not being based upon optics shows it isn't just a case of the angle being too small to see as that angle that is too small depends on optics)?
Why is the horizon below eye level, including plenty of cases from high altitude where we can see it is below eye level with an appropriate reference (again showing it isn't a case of the angle being too small to see), and explain why this angle of dip increases with increasing elevation?

Can you answer any of them?
Of course you can't. You can just lie and deflect.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars

« on: Today at 03:28:00 PM »

Their claims are the issue

No. YOUR claims are.
YOU accused them of lying.
YOU are the "prosecutor" in this case.
So the burden rests on YOU!

YOU need to show evidence the are lying.
If you don't, then your claims that they are lying can be dismissed as the pathetic, desperate BS that they are.

I’m certainly allowed to have my own view on it, say what I think of it, and we all have done that many times, on many issues.

And I'm allowed to challenge you on those views, and ask you to justify them.
But you seem to want to make up whatever excuse you can to pretend you shouldn't even have to justify your views.

What exactly do you think I should’ve said about it?

I have already told you that. If you want it just focusing on their views, then you shouold have just said you don't think they are supported by evidence and gone from there.
But instead you decided to boldly proclaim they are lies.

Again, if you want to make it about their views, then admit you have basis to think they are lies, and admit you have every time you have claimed that they are proven to be lies.

You think that I shouldn’t say what all the evidence shows

That is another lie from you.
The evidence you have provided does not show they have lied.

dismiss thousands of videos as crap

I have not simply dismissed them. I have explained why they do not support your claim.

who thinks nasa images are valid evidence

Converse to the above, you have just dismissed everything from NASA.
There is no actual basis for you to reject it as independent evidence.
Instead, you use entirely circular reasoning, where you assume they are all just the same group of liars, with no justification at all, to say they aren't independent to say they are liars (i.e. your claim).

If you have evidence that showed they lied, then provide it. If you don't, stop claiming to have it and stop saying that your baseless belief is based upon evidence.

My view of this issue, which is about their claims of Saturn, is entirely valid, in my opinion.

Your entirely worthless opinion which is not based upon actual evidence or understanding of that evidence.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does gravity works in FE?

« on: Today at 03:19:27 PM »

The ball Earth story has many more stories and they conflict with each other, and many problems that cannot be resolved logically or rationally.

You mean YOUR ball Earth story, i.e. the strawmen you and your dishonest FE buddies and cult leaders make up.

And as well as that you have the FE models promoted by them, which also have so many problems and conflicts.
So much so that these liars, instead of defending their model, try to deflect to blatant lies about the RE model.

Meanwhile you are yet to show a single contradiction or problem with the RE model.

Just look at what you are doing here.
The pressure gradient which destroys your delusional BS was brought up, and because you have no possible response to that, you just lie and deflect by claiming the RE storeies have problems.

Again, STOP WITH THE BS.
Address the massive flaws in your delusional BS.

In your delusional fantasy, what creates the pressure gradient?
This gradient is observable and measurable. In fact, your BS in other threads relies upon this pressure gradient existing.
Yet you have no explanation for it at all.

And once you have explained that, explain why this pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.
Modify message

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density doesnt make things go up or down, gravity does.

« on: Today at 03:16:47 PM »

Why not use objects that aren’t metals?

Because the densest substances are usually metal, making it the easiest to do.
And not all metals are magnetic. And not all non-metals are magnetic.

But here is the question for you:
Why don't you go do this yourself, with whatever materials you want.

The point is, the experiments exist which actually properly isolate the effects of Earth's gravity so the gravitational attraction between smaller can be verified to exist.
Yet here you are making excuses instead of accepting reality.

But I take it based upon what you have decided to deflect to you fully realise and accept that your prior example was pure BS and you were knowingly lying to everyone?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What keeps us on the ground

« on: Today at 03:14:25 PM »

Our greater mass than air keeps us on Earths surface, simple as that.

Not as simple as that.
This provide absolutely no basis for any directionality nor any reason to move at all.
It provides no reason for the rate of acceleration or the force felt on a scale, nor why this varies over Earth's surface.
It provides no reason for the pressure gradient and no reason for the why the pressure gradient doesn't push us up.

A simple similar example is standing on a trampoline.
The springs are all stretched out and providing a force pushing us up.
In order to not go up, we need a force trying to make us go down.

If you are saying our mass does this, then you are saying there is a force proportional to mass pulling us down, i.e. gravity.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airplane gyroscopic instruments proves FE made useless long ago.

« on: Today at 03:12:24 PM »

These instruments measure the Earths surface as flat.

These instruments do not measure Earth's surface.

Altitude

The instruments being discussed are the attitude indicator, and have nothing at all to do with measuring altitude.

When at altitude, they go into level flight, not as ascent or a descent, at same altitude along the flight.

Just as expected for a RE.
Again, your lies on this topic have been refuted countless times, with you fleeing from that refutation without response countless times.
Stop repeating the same lies only to flee from them and bring them up later.
Each time you do it, you just yet again demonstrate to everyone that you are a lying POS with no interest in the truth at all who is so pathetic that you need to continually repeat these lies instead of just accepting you are wrong and moving on.

9

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

« on: Today at 03:09:36 PM »

The only smug person I see here is all of you.

Says the smuggest of them all, who boldly acts like they must be right with no chance that they are wrong and anything that shows they are wrong is fake; all while being completely incapable of justifying their delusional BS.

The horizon is equal to eyeline because this is the way vision works.

And why don't you explain how you tested this and confirmed it?
Or have you just assumed that, not been able to notice any difference and assumed your baseless claim was true with no actual evidence?

As you look outward, your eye tells your brain that there are things there, and it figures out how to organize them spatially. Bottom to top, top to bottom, towards a center point.

No, it doesn't.
As you look outwards, your eyes are hit by incoming light, which produces an image based upon the incoming angle of that light.
Your brain doesn't need to organise it any more than a camera does.

This is also why, unless you are deeply brainwashed, when you see a line of electricity poles and suddenly they curve instead of diminishing into a singularity, your brain immediately tells you that this is wrong.

You mean that is why IF YOU ARE deeply brainwashed, you say that must be wrong.
When you observe something in reality that goes against the belief you have been brainwashed into believing, then reality must be wrong, it couldn't possibly be that belief you believe with no absolutely no evidence supporting it.

We as intelligent human beings can work out how to make tests to see if the horizon is below the vanishing point or not.
And plenty have been carried out and show that is not the case.
You, as a brainwashed fool, instead reject any part of reality that goes against your belief.

You have been provided with plenty of examples of how you could do this yourself to confirm it hasn't been faked, but you refuse to, as if deep down you know you are believing and promoting pure BS.

The people I trust don't try to deceive me.

Yet you try to deceive them so often it isn't funny.

Your thinking goes, the sea horizon should be six feet below the land horizon

No, our thinking goes based on angles.

The thing is that's impossible on a sphere.

You mean it is impossible on your tiny balls.
How about instead of a completely useless picture which demonstrates absolutely nothing of value at all, you try doing the math? And provide a picture to support your delusional BS.

but the point is that you ought to be looking down at any point on a sphere.

And the question is "How much"?

Why then does the view look uphill?

It doesn't.
That is just you completely failing to understand what you are looking at.

An increasing angle of elevation does not mean it is going uphill.
Try comprehending the basic geometry you claim to understand.

The ship is at least twenty feet off the ground from this view, yet the horizon appears level to halfway up the pillar.

You mean they have the same angle of elevation.
Again, try understanding basic geometry.

Bulma is correct about the horizon rising to meet your eyeLEVEL. Check for yourselves you roundy shills. Next time you put down your banjo, ask your sister to go to the beach with you. Instead of sleeping on your sleeping bag. Spend some money and go to a tall hotel or condo on the beach. The horizon will be LEVEL with your eyes from the 1st floor of the 20th floor.

Congrats on providing absolutely nothing of any value and instead choosing to repeat the same pathetic baseless lie.
Before "checking for yourself", you need to do the math.
This is because any measurement you take will have some level of uncertainty.
So how far below you would you expect the horizon to appear?
And to what level of uncertainty are you making your measurement?

Because if you can't measure it precisely enough, you can't tell.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of observations/measurements showing your claim is a blatant lie:

These paid trolls are here to try to talk you out of the truth and discourage open minded people. They want to call you names, lie, and make things confusing for everyone.

So they will do what you are doing?

10

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

« on: Today at 02:54:53 PM »

I keep bringing it up because you keep using this logic.

No, we don't.
That is your strawman of what logic we are using.
Because you are intentionally refusing to understand.

Instead, the logic we are using is more akin to this:

vs


By taking a reference point, and measuring the angle to this point at spots on the surface, and knowing/measuring the distance between those spots, you can determine the shape of the surface.
It is simple geometry.
Something you claim to understand, yet here you are strawmanning it.

You obviously discovered the wrong one.
Here's where I found it.

i.e. you blatantly lie about it yet again.

In this age of photoshop, if you still believe any image proves anything, you are gullible AF.

And notice the blatant hypocrisy there?
You happily believe anything which supports your delusional BS, while outright rejecting anything that doesn't.
You happily provided with absolutely no idea where they came from and acting like they prove your delusional BS.
Sometimes even taking composites which are clearly indicated as such, and just ignoring that.

But then a picture shows you are are a lying POS and suddenly it must be fake.
You clearly have absolutely no integrity and do not give a damn about the truth at all.

Especially because plenty of these existed long before photoshop.
And more importantly, this is something you can go verify for yourself.

They put an X by the second one. But the second is how actual vanishing point works.

Yes, the second is how actual vanishing point works, with the parallel lines continuing off to infinity and becoming too small to resolve.
But that isn't what happens in reality.
So it gets an X because it doesn't match reality.
i.e. the vanishing point does not explain the horizon.

This is real.

And still shows a curve:

But like the lying POS you are, you instead get a very thick line which you don't even bother drawing accurately, to pretend it doesn't.

This is doctored.

You mean because it shows you are a lying POS you claim it is, with no evidence at all.

Again, you accept things as "real" when they support your delusional BS, and reject it as fake when it doesn't, solely because it doesn't. You have no justification at all for why one should be accepted as real and not the other. You have no justification at all for why one should be rejected as fake and not the other.

If you want to have any semblance of integrity while appealing to the fact that things can be faked to act as if they are faked, then you have to reject EVERYTHING.
You don't get to accept the things consistent with your delusional BS, you need to reject them as fake as well.

He thinks

I don't give a damn what your lying POS thinks.
This is something which has been verified by countless people.

And even if it were live, as Eric Dubay pointed out in his video, trick angles are a thing.

I.e. you don't give a shit about reality or the truth or anything like that.
You have your delusional fantasy that you will desperately cling to like your depends upon it and look for whatever excuse you can to reject it at all costs.

Do you notice anything? Because I do! I notice that the line of vanishing point made does not match up to that curve made in the picture.

Do you mean the vanishing point doesn't match the horizon, like we know it doesn't.

When we look at a bridge picture of lake pontchartrain, like so

You mean at a drastically different angle to hide the curve?
So no, it doesn't show any doctoring at all.

It should read "If we made a real picture, it should intersect with the vanishing point, as all real pictures conform to that."

No, it shouldn't, because that is pure BS, with countless examples not conforming to that.
The best you get is low altitude shots and minimal zoom to minimise the angular separation between the vanishing point and the horizon makes it too difficult to see that they are different.
But that is you intentionally hiding from the truth.

This has all been explained to you before, but like the lying POS you are, you ignore it.

@dataidiot, why does the bridge appear straight  when it should arc with the curve of the earth??

Hoppyidiot, as explained repeatedly, a small enough section of a large enough curve will appear indistinguishable from a straight line.
So how about instead of spouting completely useless garbage like you have done, you instead provide the math telling us exactly how much it should appear to have curved. Ideally in units of px, given we have the photo.
Datasmartperson has already started helping.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Katy Perry in space

« on: Today at 02:25:46 PM »

Flipside Webcomic demonstrates what a plant is.

You mean you yet again appeal to your delusional fantasy.
You have nothing to indicate they are plants rather than being honest.

This is why I tell you that I understand these FE teachings

Yet you also tell us you defer your thinking to them, as if you don't understand at all, and are just playing follow the leader.

What is for certain is that you can't justify these FE teachings.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re: Space Travel, the Firmament & God

« on: April 17, 2025, 01:30:17 PM »

No - he didn't destroy it. He is there to fulfill it. It is completed. He is the result of it, and accomplished its goals.

And just what is meant by "fulfill"?
Does that mean render all the old laws, allegedly perfect commandments from a perfect being, suddenly no longer valid?
That homosexuality was only an abomination worthy of death then and no longer is now?
What changed to make that the case?
Or did God just screw up with the old one and need to fix it?

Or is the appropriate interpretation that it is still bad, but you no longer need to punish people at all for anything, and Jesus can save people who repent?

Its not me trying to use these excuses to "discard" the old testament.

Yes, I know that loads of "Christians" use excuses to discard parts of the Bible they don't like, and ignore the logical implications of it.
The child like view is picking and choosing which parts you want to follow, yet still pretending to follow it.

Not religious, but also not ignorant of what I'm talking of.

Yet you seem to wilfully ignore parts I pointed out.
I am not ignorant of what I'm talking about.

I used to be a Christian, and then I looked into it more, and rejected it for the pile of garbage it is.

You've been here long enough to learn about the flat earth

And I have repeatedly demonstrated faults with it that FEers are unable to address.

I often say read a book. Its literally almost everywhere. Just pick the fucker up.

Try telling that to the "Christians". They are the ones typically not reading it.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is there no evidenve

« on: April 17, 2025, 01:25:11 PM »

Human senses are literally the only way you have of gathering any evidence.

Blatantly ignores every instrument of measuring data

He very much likes playing semantics and other tricks.
Yes, we have instruments which can collect data. But the only way for us to get that data is if we use some sense to get it from the instrument to us.

What he is ignoring is that can use far more reliable transmission of the information than trying to obtain it directly from our senses.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Katy Perry in space

« on: April 17, 2025, 01:22:58 PM »

We literally don't see any spinning ball, only impulsive and hallucinated globers are thinking this proves the spinning wet globe, and only ignorant flat earthers are denying that it is real.

No, only people like you straw manning think that.
Just what are you expecting to see for a spinning globe, when you are mostly moving with it and it is rotating so slowly.

But it is certainly 100% consistent with a rotating round Earth, and inconsistent with a FE.
Care to explain the horizon in that footage?

Katy Perry said the Earth is flat:

Got a better source for that, rather than pretty much taking only a tiny fraction of a sentense?

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

« on: April 17, 2025, 04:01:25 AM »

These are all things that are addressed by buoyancy not gravity.

You mean the thing you are yet to be able to justify as independent of gravity?
The thing which when gravity is taken away (without something else to replace it) doesn't work at all and makes no sense?

Again, if you want to pretend it is buoyancy, you need to explain several key points:
1 - Why does a difference in density make it move at all?
2 - Why does this is cause it to accelerate downwards?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary (and no, not due to things like density or temperature or humidity)?
5 - How does this create a pressure gradient from a homogenous fluid?
6 - Why is this pressure gradient dependent upon the density of the fluid and the height?
7 - Why doesn't this pressure gradient push everything up?

As for your boat flying into space, the only reason you need gravity there is because you introduce a curve that isn't there.

Nope, it is needed for the very thing you keep ignoring.
The pressure gradient.
If you try to displace that water, it creates a pressure differential pushing the bottom of the boat up.
With no force to counter that, the boat goes up.

Even ignoring that, waves can push boats up.
What is there to correct it?

And before you say that is your delusional BS buoyancy and gravity is just needed for the curve, pure BS.
Firstly, as above, your BS can't explain it.
Secondly, perhaps more importantly, there is no reason for your delusional BS to not work the same for the curve.

He doesn't know (or need to know) to use trigonometry to avoid his boat lifting out of the water at each point in curvature.

Nor would he have to.
And if you had a shred of integrity, you would admit that and admit that is the case regardless of if Earth is round or flat.

16

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

« on: April 17, 2025, 03:55:37 AM »

No, I'm not lying. He literally does shamelessly plug that camera.

Which is not the lie I was referring to.
What I was referring to, as clearly indicated by my post (i.e. what I said):

Whereupon he brings objects outside horizon back in

He didn't. That is a lie by you.

17

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

« on: April 17, 2025, 03:28:53 AM »

Why can't you make your own honest arguments?

We can. I have. I even provided an image for this problem, and you just ignored like the lying POS you are.

But from what I saw, they made a strawman assumption of how the sun should look at those points

No. They honestly represented what is expected from the model.
Something FEers can't explain. Something they have been asked to explain, and then deflected from or made some BS excuse they shouldn't explain.
Look at you now, not even attempting to explain it and instead just dismissing it as a strawman without any explanation of how it is one.

Do you see anything "blocking it from view". No? Neither do I.

i.e. it is in front of the horizon and has nothing to do with what was being discussed.
Objects in front of the horizon appear smaller and smaller.
Objects beyond the horizon (which are low enough) then start appearing to disappear from the bottom up as if they are sinking into Earth.

Did I misrepresent how circles work? No, not really. A straight line in all sides (the horizon) is a circle. We can see infinitely across the horizon

You most certainly did then.
A circle is not a straight line.
A circle, a finite distance away is not infinitely.

The water is underneath the bridge/pier, and by definition cannot obstruct it.

Yet again, misrepresenting a circle, and ignoring the problem with a FE.
If Earth is flat, then that claim of yours is true, and we should never see the water appear to obstruct things like that.
But back in reality, we do see the water obstruct the view.
And that is because Earth curving allows it to obstruct the view.

Instead viewpoint vanishes upward toward the horizon, and downward from the sky to the horizon. Yes, like this.

Except as repeatedly explained and demonstrated, the vanishing point is infinitely far away, and the horizon is below the vanishing point.

Meanwhile in fantasy world, imaginary obstructions and curves block our view.

No, in reality obstructions from the real curve blocks our view.

Here's a second pier. Again, the only curve is one made by digital distortion.

You mean here is another example of your dishonesty where you provide an object which is useless at demonstrating what you have been asked about.

Again:
Draw a side view showing the sun, the cloud and the observer, showing their real physical positions.
Draw in the path of the light, explaining any curve or other change in direction in it.
Until you can, don't pretend the FE can actually work as a model.

18

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

« on: April 17, 2025, 03:10:57 AM »

That's the camera hyped by Eric Dubay. Whereupon he brings objects outside horizon back in

Lying again I see.
As we covered last time you brought that up, it wans't bringing objects beyond the horizon back into view.
Instead it was taking objects in front of the horizon, and having the camera zoomed out too much so it was unable to resolve them, and then increasing the zoom until it could resolve them.
At no point did it demonstrate the ability to bring something back that had gone beyond the horizon.

Part of the reason he mentions it is because it isn't the supposed zoom you should need to see such things.

Because he is a lying POS that seems to be intentionally misleading you with crap like that.
Either that or he has no idea what he is talking about.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is there no evidenve

« on: April 16, 2025, 03:16:10 PM »

There is plenty of evidence for the flat earth. I suggest you try picking up a book. The most obvious is that all visual evidence points to it.

Do you mean the visual evidence like the horizon, clearly showing Earth is round; and how the horizon gets lower with increasing altitude, clearly showing Earth is round; and how objects are obstructed form the bottom up as they go past the horizon, clearly showing Earth is round?
Or things like the direction to the sun and celestial objects, including the existence of a north and south celestial pole, 180 degrees apart, clearly showing Earth is round?
Or the photos from space, clearly showing Earth is round?
Or the shadow of Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, clearly showing Earth is round?

Just what visual evidence are you appealing to?

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What keeps the earth flat?

« on: April 16, 2025, 03:13:51 PM »

Most flat Earthers reject gravity. So, they reject that idea of mass attracting mass.
Others have it as much much much much weaker, so not strong enough to collapse Earth.
Others have Earth as infinite, and regular enough to prevent such a collapse.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re: Space Travel, the Firmament & God

« on: April 16, 2025, 03:12:46 PM »

It doesn't; this stems from a lack of understanding on your (and maybe their if we are being generous) parts. That would be in the Old Testament. Its pretty clear in many places that that should be ignored. Hebrews 8:13 for example, Matthew 5:17, Romans 7:6 etc.

Of course fundamentalists will ignore what they want (in contrast to what the Bible actually says) for their views.

Is that really the case, or that is just YOUR misunderstanding/lack of understanding.

It comes down to a quite simple fact, the old testament and the commandments therein are meant to be the commandments of a loving god.
The only way to rationalise rejecting those commandments and instead following the new testament is if you discard the idea of a loving god and instead accept God as an evil tyrant that must be obeyed or you will face eternal torment.

Yes, a "new covenant" is established, but does that mean that everything God has declared to be bad is no longer bad? That all the commandments of God should no longer be followed? Or is it more focusing on Jesus being the path to forgiveness instead of sacrificing animals?
Matthew 5:17 makes it clear that he has not come to destroy the law. And that not one iota shall be removed.
In fact, shortly thereafter we have 5:19 "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
So the "Christians" who advocate for setting aside the commands of God are the "least in the kingdom of heaven"

And we have the story at the start of John 8. While Jesus is opposing people carrying out punishments on the person, he doesn't say that what she was not wrong, instead she tells her to leave and sin no more.

And if you really want to try using these as excuses to discard all the commands, then what should they be doing? Thinking everything is fine?

If people are not following the fundamentals of something, they cannot be fundamentalists.

22

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

« on: April 16, 2025, 03:00:32 PM »

Elon Musk instead changed himself when his son became his daughter, and it turned out for a leftist

Elon Musk isn't a leftist.
He is a con man that will say whatever he thinks is needed to get what he wants.

I have been telling for years that the Earth is flat, has it made any dent?

No, because you are a like a screaming lunatic on the street corner.
You have nothing to support your claims, and instead need to lie to pretend to have support.

23

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

« on: April 16, 2025, 02:58:16 PM »

The horizon stretches on a long infinite line

No, it is quite finite.
If you stand in a spot, you can see the horizon, a finite distance away.
If you then turn on that spot, you can follow that horizon around, all the way around in a circle.
That means it is a circle with a finite radius giving it a finite distance.

The horizon is not infinitely far away. Another problem for the FE fantasy.

This is how the world operates. If you go east or west, you go in a circle, but anything you've build appears as a straight line.

So you are saying a circle can appear as a straight line?

If you head north, you go to the center. If you go south you go outward.

No, you don't.
As clearly shown by the fact that as you go south of the equator, the distance between 2 lines of longitude shrink. Clearly showing you are not going out.
And you can continue past the north pole or the south pole, and start going down the other side.

But none of this deflection helps you explain your BS at all.

Again:
Draw a side view showing the sun, the cloud and the observer, showing their real physical positions.
Draw in the path of the light, explaining any curve or other change in direction in it.
Until you can, don't pretend the FE can actually work as a model.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Trump Knows the Earth is Flat

« on: April 16, 2025, 02:54:42 PM »

Perhaps the reason you are doubling down on RE, is that you don't want to admit you have been conned once again, this time out of tax money that could have been added to your refund.

Perhaps the reason you are doubling down on FE, is that you don't want to admit you have been conned once again; while trying to pretend to be smart to get past a conning.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

« on: April 16, 2025, 02:53:23 PM »

In the real world, cartoons of outer space that NASA makes with CGI don't change the sky.

You mean in your delusional fantasy, where you dismiss reality as CGI.
Your pathetic dismissal doesn't make it suddenly all fake.

Your pathetic dismissal in no way changes the fact that the RE model works, with you unable to show fault and instead needing to repeatedly lie.
Your pathetic dismissal and lies in no way changes the fact that the FE model doesn't work, and you can't explain so many things.

But when it comes to FE, there is always a reasonable uncertainty.

For sane people, yes.
Because there is nothing FE can really explain.

But for FEers, they throw that idea entirely out the window.
They reject the RE, not based upon reasonable uncertainty, but because they don't like it.
They are certain with their rejection, even though they can't justify it at all.
Likewise, they are typically certain with their BS, even though they can't justify it at all.

After all, we can only verify what we can see within this horizon and using models in this reality.

Yes, like observing the difference between a light over a table, vs a light near a ball.
How we can observe the horizon and sunset on a round Earth, but not the fantasy FE.

So when, again, water drips off a boulder that is over 5 tons

You mean, when water goes to Earth, just like we expect it to.
It has been explained to you repeatedly how you could actually test gravity, and you just ignore it.

That is not reasonable doubt on your part.
That is wilful rejection of reality.

But again, your BS rejection of reality about gravity has nothing to do with the perspective of the sun.

Have you ever seen a comet go straight up? They should in a RE. Because of the ball shape of Earth, they could fly past in any direction.  But if the Earth is flat, stars can only ever be above us.

Define "straight up"
Do you mean appear on the horizon and go up in the sky, passing directly overhead?

If so, this is a matter of probability.
Yes, it is possible, but it requires the comet to go directly overhead. And given all the space on Earth, that would be expected to be quite rare.

But again, this does nothing to explain your BS and is just another pathetic deflection.
You are not showing reasonable uncertainty.
You are showing wilful rejection of reality and trying to hide it with lies and baseless crap.

You cannot explain the perspective of the sun in your FE fantasy at all.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Lunar eclipse

« on: April 16, 2025, 01:13:12 AM »

This is a joke, right? You're just saying this to get Jack going on a rant. I mean, you can see that the Moon reflects sunlight. What's the alternative? That it's a frigging lamp?

This is another example of Poe's law in action.
One of the many issues for FE is explaining the moon.
With the moon and sun above Earth, there is no way for the moon to be reflecting the light of the sun to give us what we see, so FEers need to reject it.
They have no reasonable alternative to substitute it, but that goes for the vast majority of the flat earth.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re: Space Travel, the Firmament & God

« on: April 16, 2025, 01:07:54 AM »

I'll bet the outfits that take people to Antarctica, whether as tourists, or for research, provide suitable clothing. When I went to Churchill, MB, to see the polar bears they (the people, not the bears) provided us with parkas and boots, because you wouldn't expect tourists to buy parkas for that one trip. I'm sure it's the same for Antarctica. It is expensive, but they'll provide you with adequate outer wear.

In this case it varies depending on provider.
If a place is cheap and easy to access, then in order to encourage people to come they will rent out the gear.
If it is much harder and more expensive to access, the people doing it will typically have a lot of money already and likely wont want borrowed gear.
Some will include it in the cost of the ticket.
e.g. here:
https://www.antarcticatravelcentre.com.au/faq/
"a complimentary polar expedition jacket to wear during your expedition and take home after your trip."

28

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

« on: April 15, 2025, 02:01:57 PM »

This is only possible in a flat Earth, not a heliocentrism.

Yet you cannot explain why.
Instead, you just make vague baseless appeals without any actual demonstration.
You also entirely ignore the distinction between the 2 separate but related issues of a FE vs RE and a geocentric vs heliocentric universe.
i.e. proving it wouldn't work in a heliocentric universe and it requires a geocentric universe wouldn't mean it must be a flat Earth, it can still be round.

And you entirely fail to comprehend that HC is still just a model which doesn't fully describe reality, because the sun is moving.
You are literally appealing to a non-HC universe, to say the HC universe is impossible.
Quite pathetic.
Again, you either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are blatantly lying to everyone.

The thing is, that even if we could justify Earth not hitting these other planets, it has gone pretty off course of the idea of predictable rise.

No, it hasn't.
As it is still following the simple laws of motion, it is still quite predictable.
Especially as this is just focusing on the sun, so the motion of the entire solar system doesn't matter.

ADB look like a year, but C looks like a gap.

Only because you have no idea what you are talking about and can't understand simple geometry.
A full year would be A to B to C to D.

With your stupid spiraling Earth while following the sun around the galaxy (designed by nihilists, obviously) there is no rhyme or reason to any astronomic events, and we can't even predict whether tomorrow Uranus might collide with Venus.

You mean you appeal to your wilful ignorance to pretend that is the case.

Notice how you have entirely failed to show any fault?
Notice how you have entirely failed to provide any reason that the view is impossible on a HC model?

Instead, you just appeal to a part looking like a gap and baselessly assert we can't predict anything.


See, this is what we mean by you don't explain.
You just assert crap, and pretend that crap explains when it does nothing of the sort.


Just like you have continually refused to provide an explanation for how the sun illuminates a cloud from below.
Draw a side view showing the sun, the cloud and the observer, showing their real physical positions.
Draw in the path of the light, explaining any curve or other change in direction in it.
Until you can, don't pretend the FE can actually work as a model.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Lunar eclipse

« on: April 15, 2025, 12:31:58 AM »

I simply can’t believe an intelligent individual could believe something so moronic as this nonsense about the moon reflecting sunlight. I can only think you must be getting paid to spread this rubbish.

You need help.
All the evidence shows it is.
There is nothing moronic about it.

Do you know what is completely moronic? Thinking it magically casts it's own light, and then magically shows phases with this magically produced light, complete with these phases causing apparent shadows in the craters, and then deciding to change colour for a lunar eclipse for no reason at all.
That idea makes absolutely no sense, there is no reason for it to do any of that, there is no explanation for any of it.

Meanwhile, the idea of it reflecting light makes perfect sense. It explains why it has phases because when you light up a sphere from one direction it only has half the sphere illuminated and you get different phases depending upon the angle it is viewed from (relative to the light).
This explains the shadows in the craters.
This even explains the eclipse.

So there is nothing moronic about accepting the fact that the moon reflects sunlight. But it is very moronic to think it doesn't.


It seems more likely that you simply can't believe an intelligent person wouldn't agree with you.
That an intelligent person can realise you are wrong.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Molokini

« on: April 15, 2025, 12:26:22 AM »

I didn't bring in the word, "rough." You did, implying large waves or choppy seas would be required to obscure the lower view, when it would not. Waves do not need to be "rough."

You would need a wave large enough to reach a point between the observer and the object being observed.
If the surface imperfections are too low, then they can't block the view.

Things do not sink, unless they are sinking.

But they appear to sink when going around a curve.
Thanks for confirming that these views are impossible on a flat Earth.

Atmoplanar conditions are generally consistent in that they are less murky as altitudes rise.

Again, if this was going to be the cause, the objects would't sink, it would just fade to a blur.

Your excuses don't work.