Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Wrong. Perspective tends to make the moon and sun 'look bigger' on the horizon.
eg:
So you are proposing that curvature is a requirement for a horizon to exist?Yes! No curvature = no horizon.
2. In Europe I can see the plough but not the southern cross; in Australia it is visa versa. How is this possible in any flat earth model?
doesn't matter when the belief of the sphere started for the most part because the technology to test those theories and beliefs was not available. There was no airplanes or humongous dams or canals back then.All you need to know the earth is not flat are eyes and a working brain.
Specifically for me, the water aspect. If all water finds level but we are supposed to believe that it somehow curves around a ballLevel does not mean flat. Flat earth believers have trouble with that.
They have no actual proofThere is plenty of actual proof, as there is plenty of disproof of it being flat.
I have seen this on a number of occasions when viewing the moon. It seems to be pointing in a direction that is significantly away from the sun.Don't forget the sun is 400 times further away than, and 400 times the diameter of the moon. Your brain wants to see them as the same size and same distance away because they appear the same size in your field of vision.
Supposing that the arguments for the absence of visible curvature on the horizon are all valid
2: The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing [sic] behind the water in that picture!Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.
You thick fucker! Think!!!!!!!Pilots have never used gyroscopes for attitude (pitch adjustment) . They use the horizon, or in bad visibility an artificial horizon (which uses gravity) and thus follow the earth's curve automatically.
And this is my point exactly; why didn't pilots in the pre-1960s need to adjust their pitch once at cruising altitude, until they were approaching their destination, regardless of the flight duration?
Pilots did the same then as they do now.. Use the horizon to trim the plane. An aeroplane trimmed to fly level will keep a constant altitude so will follow the curve of the earth automatically (all else being equal, local atmospheric pressure etc). It won't fly off in a straight line at a tangent to the earth!
So why do pilots not need to adjust for pitch, yaw, or roll once at cruising altitude, regardless of the duration of the flight? They would fly off in a straight line if they didn't adjust. They must be following a curved level. Kind of like our oceans, curved and level! So lets find some empirical evidence of this mystical curved level.
1: Fuck Webster's ... I'm British and Speak English not Americanese."Lense is accepted as an alternative spelling by Webster's Third New International Dictionary..." - https://www.google.com/search?q=lense&oq=lense&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3488j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8distortionAll of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.
Lens (note correct spelling)can distort a picture.. It can't actually change what's in the picture.Correct.A lens can't make something in the picture (ie: the bottom of the distant poles) disappear behind something else in the picture (ie: the water).Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!
Pilots have never used gyroscopes for attitude (pitch adjustment) . They use the horizon, or in bad visibility an artificial horizon (which uses gravity) and thus follow the earth's curve automatically.
And this is my point exactly; why didn't pilots in the pre-1960s need to adjust their pitch once at cruising altitude, until they were approaching their destination, regardless of the flight duration?
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.
CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way)
Rowbotham's philosophy decries creating models and theories in favor of the Zetetic method of observing and concluding.How do you think models and theories are arrived at?
Observing and concluding! Yep.. Not too far from Newcastle on a global scale.. Similar latitude but near the opposite coast.. Glad to be past the solstice so 'our' sun is getting less lazy by the day, as 'yours' is getting tired.I don't know where you are, but they have a real lazy sun at Newcastle on Tyne!Right now in northern Canada, I'm sharing daylight withLooking at the posting time, and it was definitely completely dark round here in northern England. If that's a flat earth spotlight shining on you and Oz, it's doing some clever stuff to miss out shining on me!
Most of Australia, most of SA and of course Antarctica.
On the 15th is doesn't get up till 8:22 am and sets again at 4:10 pm - not even awake for 8 hours.
Here in Brisbane, Australia, it's a much more hardworking sun!
On the 15th was out of bed bright and early by 5:06 am (well before I was) and kept hard at it till 6:47 pm, over 13 hours 40 mins!
Of course right now it's only a bit after mid-day there, and after 10 PM here.
Right now in northern Canada, I'm sharing daylight withLooking at the posting time, and it was definitely completely dark round here in northern England. If that's a flat earth spotlight shining on you and Oz, it's doing some clever stuff to miss out shining on me!
Most of Australia, most of SA and of course Antarctica.
What does aether taste like?Ethyl ether tastes a lot like alcohol. Supposedly a better effect too, but it's not very good for you.
scrolling
I am real, but also outside the boundaries and laws of your 'time'What?
How exactly do you think you are outside the boundaries of time?
hemisplane
the immense distances involved.
