Can you convince ChatGPT that the earth is flat?

Shows the same pictures over and

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 23, 2025, 05:59:03 AM

Shows the same pictures o

Where your photo is dishonest.  Hides half the horizon in the photo.

It still shows curvature.



Look at the most right. The horizon is curving downward to the right.  The sea is more blue than the sky and is curving down to the right.




Where you still ignore dip of the horizon.






And you ignore how a tall tower can be used to gauge the dip of the horizon.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 20, 2025, 09:35:26 PM

 Only there is no such curvature drop.

Then why is the bottom of this towe increasingly physically blocked from view with distance by the curvature of the earth where zooming doesn’t unblocked the blocked portion back into view. 

Quote

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km
66K views · 9 years ago#TurningTorsoFlatEarth

Bulma.  Notice zooming in didn’t reveal more of the tower physically blocked from view.  The zoom made the image bigger.   By the shape of the structure, zooming in didn’t reveal more of the structure physically blocked by earh’s curvature.


Where Bulma.  FE doesn’t even have a working explanation for phases of the moon and why lunar eclipses interrupt the cycle.  Where it’s just demonstrable proof of the heliocentric model.

At any distance, you can look outward to the horizon

do simple linear measurements to determine that the Earth is locally flat at any distance.

Shows the same pictures over and over, then asks "Bulma, I bet you haven't disproved this!" Sure have. About eight or ten pages ago.

1. Fake horizon created by camera perspective trick (horizon is always at eye level, so this level is tweaked by setting the camera low)

3. Literally explaining how to create a trick curved sky, using high contrast and vertical stretching

4. Idiot making a video doesn't make it true

5. Your derpy leveling device. Which is distorted to such an extent that the object cannot be recognized, and just looks like a monstrous hanging windchime.

6. A pricture from a magazine of a plane superimposed in "space."

Or maybe you take a shot out of the side of a plane, no filters no editing

So yeah, looking at the sky you assume you know alot of stuff. Yet you haven't figured out that you're standing on a table.

1. Fake horizon

https://mctoon.net/photos-of-the-curve/

created by camera perspective

trick (horizon is always at eye level, so this level is tweaked by setting the camera low)

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km
66K views · 9 years ago#TurningTorsoFlatEarth

https://mctoon.net/photos-of-the-curve/

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 23, 2025, 05:59:03 AM

1. Fake horizon

This?

2. Doctored image mostly using layers to mock up the inside of a plane (and horizon trick above)

Where Bulma, all you can do is slander and make false accusations where you provide no proof of “fake”. Ignoring all the ways RE is useable, or must be taken into account.  Like radar horizon.

Posted by: DataOverFlow2022
« on: June 23, 2025, 07:44:46 PM »Insert Quote
You are ignoring this user.

It seems that all supposed satellite signals are actually signals from land-based towers. For example, this author’s wife has a “satellite” radio in her car. We have noticed that when traveling over a mountain road that rises in elevation approximately 2,000 feet above the foot of the mountain, we always lose the “satellite” reception on the radio as we reach the top of the mountain. It seems odd to lose reception from an alleged “satellite” that is supposed to be overhead as one rises in elevation. The radio receiver should be closer to the supposed “satellite” and thus receive a stronger signal the higher we rise in elevation. We have noticed that at the same moment that we lose satellite reception, we also lose cell phone tower reception. I infer, therefore, from the simultaneous loss of cellular phone reception and “satellite” radio reception that the “satellite” radio transmissions are not actually broadcast from satellites at all, but are broadcast via cellular towers.

Wow, you can't even  bother to honestly keep track of your own pictures?

https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/

Ironically, detractors of the project were correct when they declared that radio waves would not follow the curvature of the earth, as Marconi believed. In fact, Marconi’s transatlantic radio signal had been headed into space when it was reflected off the ionosphere and bounced back down toward Canada. Much remained to be learned about the laws of the radio wave and the role of the atmosphere in radio transmissions, and Marconi would continue to play a leading role in radio discoveries and innovations during the next three decades.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/december-12/marconi-sends-first-atlantic-wireless-transmission

Wow,

What's actually happening is the radar is pitched upward.

This.  They are actually really taking a picture down the hill from this, zooming in, and cropping the shot.

But horizon doesn't lie about this.

Followed by the the winner where you make this curve by adding contrast and vertically stretching it.

your picture spam of already addressed points

I'm actually here to talk to people

Now as for your last point, is a person standing on a particular point  on Earth assumed to be on the top of the world

What's actually happening is the radar is pitched upward.

This means the signal is spread outward and the signal ahead is rather thin

[LORAN]

It seems that all supposed satellite signals are actually signals from land-based towers.

For example, this author’s wife has a “satellite” radio in her car.

 “satellite”

Quote

Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific satellite, EchoStar 16.

EchoStar 16 was launched into space Nov 20, 2012, from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

I would say the quickest way of doing so is to point out that Kazakhstan is a largely Islamic country, and that Islam is even more committed to flat Earth than I am. Moreover, unlike me, Islam actually tends to oppose science (I support real science). Kazakhstan as a Russian satellite state did not build such a thing.

A 5° × 6° view of a part of the geostationary belt, showing several geostationary satellites. Those with inclination 0° form a diagonal belt across the image; a few objects with small inclinations to the Equator are visible above this line. The satellites are pinpoint, while stars have created star trails due to Earth's rotation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI

Hey.  Bulma.  Jackass.  Got looking at your picture.  Not only is half the horizon of the photo blocked from view by the wing.  There is a thick layer of clouds.  And there still is detectable curvature on the right side.  Jokes on you.

When these radio waves hit an object, they reflect back to the radar antenna. The time it takes for the echoes to return helps calculate the distance to the object, while the direction from which the echoes return indicates the object’s location.

First, the power of your radar plays a significant role in determining whether you can detect small boats. Most recreational boats use marine radars with a power output of 2-4 KW. These radars are typically effective at detecting larger vessels, but may not be very effective at detecting small boats. To detect small boats, you may want to consider using a radar with a higher power output, such as a 6-12 KW radar. However, higher power radars tend to be more expensive and require more energy to operate.

Second, the size and construction of the target vessel also affect radar detection. Small boats with a low profile, such as kayaks, canoes, and rowboats, are less visible on radar than larger boats with higher profiles, such as sailboats and powerboats. Additionally, boats made from non-metallic materials, such as wood or fiberglass, may not reflect radar signals as effectively as boats made from metallic materials, such as aluminum or steel.

Finally, environmental conditions such as fog or heavy rain can significantly impact radar detection. In these conditions, the radar signals may scatter and bounce off nearby objects, making it difficult to distinguish between small boats and other objects in the water.

Electromagnetic radiation intensity decreases with distance according to the inverse-square law, meaning that as you move away from the source, the intensity diminishes proportionally to the square of the distance.

By increasing contrast and stretching the vertical. 

Well first of all,

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km
66K views · 9 years ago#TurningTorsoFlatEarth

And how did we find that curvature?
By increasing contrast and stretching the vertical.

This is literally the level of delusion our society is at.

There's something you need to know about me. I don't double down, I don't try to lie.

If I'm wrong, I look at the cause as a puzzle.

It is not a foregone conclusion that it won't spot the boat and unlike vision the horizon doesn't have much to do with it.

At no point did they mention the curvature.

Again, like all signals, it spreads out and becomes less effective over distance.