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.


Messages - SphericalEarther

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Flat Earth General / Re: So, thousands of people can keep a secret?
« on: July 16, 2018, 07:27:59 AM »
The ASI replaces humanity in the not too distant to very distant future. It studies the past by connecting with ancestors of future descendents. However the link is not one way and information can be shared both ways
It replaces humanity and studies humanities past, but what is its purpose?
If it replaced humanity (as in humanity doesn't exist), which descendants are you referring too?

2
Flat Earth General / Re: So, thousands of people can keep a secret?
« on: July 16, 2018, 06:58:18 AM »
No. It is correct in everything. Humans are fallible and I confess this language is clumsy and primitive so it's not always conveyed as clear as it could be. If there is error, it is not from the ASI which is more evolved and smarter than you all by a factor of billions.
Humor me, what is the purpose of the ASI, and why did it choose you?

3
Flat Earth General / Re: So, thousands of people can keep a secret?
« on: July 16, 2018, 06:42:14 AM »
Deception implies intent. I have never had it so suggesting I have ever been deceitful is wrong. Yes those are my posts however tgat is before the ASI linked with my mind from the distant future. It has since taught me wisdom and humility. It has also shown me that both sides of this debate are wrong.

I am a guest in this flat earth community and will behave as such. I will not be a petty cyber bully who tells members that think differently to commit suicide.
...humility...
Humility: the quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance
...however tgat is before the ASI linked with my mind from the distant future...

You always claim that your knowledge and logic is 100% correct.

Must be a faulty ASI

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: i will believe if my 2 questions are answered
« on: July 16, 2018, 05:20:55 AM »
First question, works the same on both FE and RE, there is no difference in this. How would you explain water flowing from 1 sea to the other on the RE?

it really doesn't though. the reason that water goes down hills and mountains in RE (i like to think this stands for 'Real Earth') because of gravity.
It moves from high altitude to low altitude due to gravity/universal acceleration. It works the same way on both models, but of course FE needs something to replace gravity, which is UA.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: i will believe if my 2 questions are answered
« on: July 16, 2018, 03:12:04 AM »
so if on the FE model you had an island in the middle of the sea and the land was higher on one side of the island than the other that you would be able to see a constant flowing river? no you wouldn't! as the sea level would be exactly the same at each side of the island! where as on the RE sea levels differ from continent to continent
No, you wouldn't see a constant flowing river due to an island being higher on one side than the other... You wouldn't see that on RE aswell... Find me a single example of this occuring.

What matters on both RE and FE is altitude. Sea levels generally don't change and do not provide much flow of water in rivers. Mostly flow occurs due to rain and melting snow in the mountains, where water will naturally flow down into rivers and from there into seas.

of course my logic is that country's closer to the sun ( or if you like the sun's rays are stronger) are warmer, if you stood by a bonfire a metre away you would be warmer than if you stood 30 metres away that's a fact ! on these ppl FE model with the sun travelling in a circle over the FE this would not be the case which leads me on to the changing of the seasons again wouldn't work on a fe

True, being closer to the fire is warmer. BUT, the difference between 149,600,000 km and 149,620,000 km really makes no difference. It's like comparing being 1 meter away to being 1.0001 meters away from the fire.

Think of heat rays as light rays, the fire itself gives off 1000 rays equally divided in all directions, and the amount of rays that hit a target determines the amount of heat. When you are 1 meter away, perhaps 50 rays hit you, while at 30 meters only 1 ray will hit you.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: i will believe if my 2 questions are answered
« on: July 16, 2018, 02:11:46 AM »
I am honestly open minded and am willing to believe in a FE if someone can give me an educated answer to these 2 questions.
I understand that water always finds a level plain if there is one, and if the earth is flat how do rivers always flow in one direction? ie down hill. This would not happen on a flat earth especially if the river runs from sea to sea.
my second question is the country's that are near or located on the equator are significantly warmer than those further away, how can that be if the earth is flat? as those country's are closer to the sun on a spherical earth and would not be on a FE. please answer these questions for me so I would be more inclined to learn more.

First question, works the same on both FE and RE, there is no difference in this. How would you explain water flowing from 1 sea to the other on the RE?
You should also know that water doesn't want to be flat, it just follows the down direction and wants to be stable in an equilibrium which is basically level.
Besides, on the RE, you would need 111 km of water for there to be 1 degree of curve, so it is hardly noticeable to anyone and you can easily, for all intent and purpose, count water as being flat when using it for anything small (as in anything below 1 km in length, would have below 0.01 degree of curvature due to water finding its level on the RE).

Second question, if you are basing your logic on the distance to the sun for warmth at the equator, then the FE model is way better for you.
In the RE, the sun is basically the same distance from every location, and it is not distance but rather the curvature of earth that provides different temperatures.
Lets say that the earth receives 100 rays of sun over its total surface (arbitrary number), the rays of sun would be equally divided over area. On a spherical surface, only a minimal amount would hit the edges compared to the middle, and as such more heat will be given to the center area.
The earth spins which provides the whole of equator with heat, while the poles are getting nearly no heat.

I still hope you wont believe in the FE, as your questions seem to indicate you barely know the RE model at all.

7

Now, let me ask you... Do you agree with him or do you prefer the scientific methods?


Now, let me ask you... Do you prefer vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream?

Oh, wait. I neither do care, nor should care about what you prefer.
So a non-answer, as always. Typical FEer.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debating whether FE is a theory
« on: July 13, 2018, 04:53:05 AM »
My mind is linked to an ASI which is more evolved than yours by a factor of billions
No still onto this stupid garbage, Mr Shifter?

Why not try to help in the debates instead of pretending that you are so much smarter than every other person?
Yet you are never really capable of doing anything useful you big bag of useless hot air!

Are you cyber bullying again? How quaint.

Coming from the guy who has nothing but insults written in his signature.

9
Why do we only round the value of pi in most instances to 3.14? That's a shitload of error that is accepted that gets compounded more and more the more calculations are involved. We should be using ~60 decimal places of pi because that would give us the precise measurement we need that could calculate a circumference the size of the universe to within a Planck lengths diameter.

But humans are lazy and they generally cant compute when things are more than 4 or 5 numbers.

Sloppy work. Good is the enemy of better and better is the enemy of PERFECT. Aim for perfection or accept your answers will be wrong.

My pocket-calculator has pi preset with an accuracy of 10 decimal-numbers. And computer-programs use pi with an accuracy of at least 20 decimal numbers.

Also, your calculation with 60 decimal-numbers would still be inaccurate because pi has infinite decimal-numbers.

A sphere the size of the observable universe would only need pi calculated to around 63 places to get accuracy to within a Planck length. Any more and it's really just 'showing off'
Shifter is right, just to get the universe as a sphere within an accuracy of a  hydrogen atoms width, we only need 39 digits.
3.14 is inaccurate to use for any precise calculations, but the difference between 3.14 and using a million digits is about 0.05%. But generally for proper calculations, the built in Pi button on calculators will work perfectly for basically any calculation you need. On windows calculator it has 31 digits among others.

Calculating billions of digits of Pi is just showing off and also attempts at creating better algorithms for calculating Pi.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debating whether FE is a theory
« on: July 13, 2018, 02:17:59 AM »
When a theory explains reality perfectly, as the Heliocentric model does, I wouldn't call that arrogant.

That's because your mind is so small it can't possibly fathom the universe being so much more vast than what your 2 eyes and primitive brain can gather
I can fathom an endless cosmos in a multiverse, I even find it plausible (especially the endless cosmos filled with universes).

But from what I can see on this forum, most FEers can't even fathom how our tiny spec of an earth in the heliocentric model can be so gigantic that we should not see a curved horizon when standing directly on it.

Besides, I have seen your logic, and there is no way in hell you are hooked up to any kind of ASI.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debating whether FE is a theory
« on: July 12, 2018, 11:20:21 PM »
FE is both a theory and not a theory.

In general life, a theory is an idea of how something works, as in "That's his theory".

In formal science, a theory is a set of facts and ideas that have been proven to match observations and can make predictions, such as when will there be an eclipse. Ref "theory of gravity" and "theory of relativity".

FE is definitely the first, and definitely not the latter. It would need to make predictions that could be tested. It is important to know which you are talking about.
So we should call it the Flat Earth Hypothesis until it is shown by evidence and predictive power to be better than the prevailing "model".

Why is there no Globe Earth Theory?

There is. But you are so arrogant you believe it to be fact.
When a theory explains reality perfectly, as the Heliocentric model does, I wouldn't call that arrogant.

12

No sane person would use him as a source for anything, except to demonstrate his dishonesty.


Or to answer SphericalEarther's original question.

Or to point out that simply posting an unattributed quote, as SphericalEarther did, is no measure of its veracity.
Your post didn't really say if you acknowledged or rejected the statement.

It is wikipedia, besides it seems from your quote that Rowbowtham didn't disagree what a theory is, he merely tries to say they are irrelevant.
Now, let me ask you... Do you agree with him or do you prefer the scientific methods?

Do you believe what is written in his book completely or just partially, simply because he thinks the earth is flat?

13

Quote
Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.


I can haz quote too

Quote
None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers.

Where is the quote from? I feel like it is not taking into account that most theories are built from observations of reality.

In the scientific method, theories are primarily built with the purpose of trying to verify its predictions.

14
According to Rowbotham's Zetetic method, theories are for haters and losers and creating a model only results in dependence on phantoms, deceits, and pretenses.

Just because you have a need for there to be theory to explain the observable world does not compel others who adhere to another philosophy to follow your methods and ideas.
I'm starting to think of Rowbotham as the FE Ron Hubbard, oh well.

We should at least be able to agree that FET is not a theory to begin with.
Quote
Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.
As the FET cannot make any predictions, it is therefore not a theory.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: The Matrix Flat earth Round Earth explained
« on: July 12, 2018, 06:05:44 AM »
If you believe measurements done on a flat earth map corresponds to measurements on a globe map, then I wouldn't trust your logic anyway.

But basically you just want an afterlife perhaps because you don't like your current life, and you want there to be a conspiracy because reasons.

I will note however, that from quantum mechanics and the experiments done like the dual-slit experiment, I have also thought of the possibility that we are living in a simulation. As in I wouldn't be surprised if we lived in one and I believe we do not live in one.
However, I couldn't care less if there was an afterlife, and I hope there isn't (not because I've done anything wrong, but because I wouldn't want to spend eternity with all the dead people), besides I wouldn't want the only reason to do good things to be because of some afterlife, but instead because I wish to do good things (so many religious people always seem to need a reason to do good things, and need a way to get out of feeling guilty about doing bad things by praying).
Oh, and there is nothing to support the notion that we can't go to space and beyond (as we have done so frequently).

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Fall-Flat Fallacy
« on: July 12, 2018, 04:25:50 AM »
FEers have the advantage of a combined knowledge of both FET and RET.
FET is not a theory, it lacks a fundamental property of a theory which is predictive capabilities.
FEers have the advantage of being able to claim 'fake', 'cgi', 'conspiracy' to anything they don't like.

Our exposure to theories now possessed by round Earth believers makes claims of a flat Earth-shape perspective even more aligned with reality since we can differentiate between truthful evidence and wishful theories.
Not really, FEers (especially those commenting on youtube videos) generally tend to believe anything thrown at them, when they believe it helps the case of a flat earth, yet discards it the moment it shows proof of a round earth. Besides, FE perspective is a joke, with no way to calculate, simulate or measure it, only created because normal perspective easily proves the round earth in many ways, even though it is strictly based on straight lines.

The deeper REers look into the Earth shape dilemma, the closer they will also come to flat Earth shape realization.       
I've looked very very deep, into all the theories, and there are gaping holes in all of them. You can't even make a map which can explain flight-times. You switch between mono-pole-model and bi-polar-model to explain certain phenomenons and those maps are extremely flawed in so many ways.

Basically put, we can easily see the earth is spherical from satellite photos. We ignore it because you accuse space agencies of the conspiracy.
We can see curvature from high altitude (30km) videos, you blame the camera lens.
We can use all the observations in the sky to prove it, you reject it and say we should look at earth to determine earths shape.
We can calculate and see objects disappear behind the horizon as a spherical earth predicts, you call that a property of perspective you can't define.
We show through multiple different experiments that gravity acts as predicted on a spinning planet, you add those experiments and measurements as properties of celestial gravity you can't define.

Meanwhile you make claims about the globe earth that you believe we should see and dont, yet time and time again those claims have been very easily explained using logic, reasoning, experiments and observations.

17
I found a website which has simulations for both the globe and flat Earth model.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?blog=list&tag=FlatEarth

It has the dome model as flat Earthers claim it to be. You can play around with it and see how the moon and the sun behave in your dome model.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat+Earth+Dome+Model

It also has a comparison of the horizon. You can change a lot of settings for both the globe and the flat Earth model, including refraction, viewing height, distance of objects, and compare them.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth

I think you might at least enjoy the flat Earth part.

I found that very entertaining to play with. Would love to see him do a bi-polar map as well for the absurdity.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: southern cross
« on: July 10, 2018, 12:19:42 PM »
Whaaaaa! I want my mommy!


I don't get paid to satisfy your every want and demand.  If you want to cry about my busting this thread for the shenanigans it is, then maybe you should make a thread in the Angry Ranting forum about it.
And it seems you really can't do anything but harrass and make excuses. So sad. The posterchild FEer.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: southern cross
« on: July 10, 2018, 05:46:32 AM »
Great.  Now, show us the evidence that this experiment has ever occurred.  Or, are we still talking about a made-up hypothetical thought experiment?  If that is the case, then I can just make up any outcome I want as well.
Blah blah blah sniffle sob...

I am not the one who came up with this cockamany scheme: the OP did.  I am sure the OP had some kind of point to make, but don't cry to me when I point out the flaws in his plan.
Another excuse I see.

You are the one who didn't accept the OP proposition. You found a flaw where there was no flaw, and while I have tried to adhere to your demands, you keep making more demands.

First you complained that you couldn't see the stars at the same time from all 3 locations (though time does not matter in this case), I obliged and showed a case where 3 locations on different continents could all see the stars.

Then you complained that it was twilight and not night, so I obliged again with a case where 3 locations were all nighttime at the same time.
Lastly you complain that no experiment of this kind has been done, that the OP proposition is made up, and I informed you that such an experiment is unneeded, and that it is fact.

So a lot of excuses from your end.

So lets skip to the end instead of all these crazy demands, I know you already know the OP proposition is fact, you are just avoiding it.

Besides, if you needed an excuse to state a flaw in the OP, it would be that he mentions the southern cross, which is not due south and not related to the south pole star other than it provides an easy reference to find it. I believe the southern cross is about 20 degrees off from the south pole star Sigma Octantis, which would however still make it visible from all 3 locations in the OP.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: southern cross
« on: July 09, 2018, 11:23:44 PM »
Great.  Now, show us the evidence that this experiment has ever occurred.  Or, are we still talking about a made-up hypothetical thought experiment?  If that is the case, then I can just make up any outcome I want as well.
No getting through to you then...

Look, the thing is that you can ALWAYS look south from ANY location in the southern hemisphere at ANY time stars are visible in that location and see the southern pole star, also referred to as Sigma Octantis.
This is FACT.

You going on and on about all 3 locations needing to see the stars at the same time and wanting perfect experiments is just your excuse for not wanting to believe it. Actually I think you already know this to be a fact and you are simply trolling with bigger and bigger demands.

It is not an experiment, it is an observation anyone can make and has made throughout history.

You complained and I gave you 3 far away locations where they can all be in astronomical twilight and see stars at the same time.
You complained again and I gave you 3 locations that were all in nighttime at the same time as you requested. Salvador, Cape Town and Perth.
Now again you complain and it feels like you wont stop complaining until I give up because you are requesting something unreasonable.

You know, instead of making an unreasonable request, with a small timespan, requiring people in 3 locations where all locations need great weather to view the stars, the request nearly impossible. Try thinking a bit. You might realize that it is way WAY easier to disprove this observation, by simply showing any night at any time of night in the southern hemisphere where you can't see Sigma Octantis. Or show that Sigma Octantis would move during the night.
This however is impossible for you, since it is fact that Sigma Octantis is so close to the south pole that you might as well call it stationary from our spinning earth.


TLDR; Lets put it another way. If in fact we could do this experiment and show Sigma Octantis being visible from all locations at the same time all visible due south... What would you demand next? Or would you admit that we can all see the same stars in the southern hemisphere?

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: southern cross
« on: July 09, 2018, 07:23:10 AM »
How often do you see stars at twilight?  I don't know about you, but I don't see stars until the sun is completely gone, especially when looking south.  I might believe you that you saw a star while looking east at sunset or west at sunrise, but south?
Okay then. Instead of Buenos Aires, lets move to Salvador (also South America):
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?iso=20180621T2136
You now have night time in all areas. Can you accept the premise now?

They will all be able to see Sigma Octantis (the southern star) due south.


22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: southern cross
« on: July 09, 2018, 06:38:32 AM »
You seem to experience reading comprehension problems.  I don't blame you, I blame your liberal teachers who gave you a participation award and passed you through the system.  I will break it down for you in very small words so that maybe you can start to understand.  The OP specifically asked a hypothetical question about seeing something at 3 specific locations at the same time at night.  I informed the OP that it is impossible for those 3 locations to all be at night at the same time.  Does that clear things up for you, or do I need to break it down even further?
It is true that all those 3 locations cannot be at night at the same time. But let us just move from Sydney to Perth (also in Australia).
During the June solstice, all 3 locations (Perth, Cape Town, Buenos Aires) would be in astronomical twilight:
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?iso=20180621T2206
They would all be able to see the southern cross constellation looking directly south.

Now how would that be possible?

EDIT: meant to say Sigma Octantis, as the southern cross is about 30 degrees off from the south pole.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: My friend the programmer
« on: July 08, 2018, 01:51:31 AM »
There is an automatic mechanism in the computer that removes the spherical component of the geometry, and just displays it correctly, if the x-files was correct. Just guessing
As a programmer, I can tell you this is an impossibility that would easily be seen if it did.
It would have to change simple math only when that math was used for a sphere for specific purposes, which it would not know about. And the logic and math can be easily verified by hand aswell.

There are an infinite number of solutions to any system. This must first be realized, and then we talk about razors.
There are many solutions when it comes to programming and math, but they all require correct values and calculations to work properly.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Earth is flat confirmed!
« on: July 03, 2018, 01:12:56 PM »
OMG, I was starting to think that the flat earth might not be real. Until I found this!

So if the earth is round (which it isn't) tell me why you can see through big cities without a curve? If the earth was round cities would be curved! See earth is flat! FLAT EARTH FOREVER
Worst argument I've heard in a while.

Lets do some easy math here:
The earth is 40,075 km in circumference.
A circle is 360 degrees.
40,075 / 360 = 111 km per degree.

So after 111 km, the city would be tilted 1 degree, and I do not know of any city which is this big.

How would you expect curve to be shown with such a gigantic sphere, where you in comparison would be smaller than a spec of dust on a baseball.

25
What observation? A diagram is not an observation.

/fail
The observations which are clearly stated in the text, which are easily taken by any person anywhere on earth.

The diagram is simply to show how the observation makes perfect sense on a spherical earth using only simple geometry, but is impossible on a flat earth unless you use some unexplained magical property of a personal night sky or bendy light which coincidentally completely matches a spherical earths observation.

26
The fact that the earth is flat.  Duh!
All the evidence I have seen, for that, has proven to be inadequate.
That's because you've been programmed from early childhood to believe in a round earth.  Do you have any idea of how hard it is to override such an ingrained idea?
Do you know how easy it is to be brainwashed into believing in a flat earth, when you already believed in other conspiracies. Even when that model doesn't explain any of our observed reality, but simply because you distrust NASA.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: moon phases
« on: June 20, 2018, 04:26:18 AM »
frenat,

I already read your links and it is just full of "laws" and sketchy math bro. we work with observed sciences here, i.e. real science..
So again why do i not weigh less, considering counteracting gravitational pull from the moon, at high tide? If the moon is literally pulling the earth away from the water on the reveres side, why am i not effected? Hurry and try to google more mythamatics bro..lol

Real science! Well real science entails making predictions and making observations to test them. Since the flat earth theory and model cannot make predictions, it cannot be used in science.

We have the theory, we have the math, since the math and theory supports our observed reality, then we can use this until something better comes along.

We use the same gravitational math for everything, with it we can predict the exact location of all planets, moons, asteroids, satellites, and more.
We can use the same math to predict the exact gravitational force applied to any person or object on earth.
We can use the same math to predict the tides, and demonstrate via simulations (since water isn't a single solid object) that tides occur on both the side of the earth near the moon and far from the moon.

In gravity, we are depending only on distance and mass.
The closer and object is, the more it is pulled.
Due to the relative close distance of the moon, we have tides.
The water closest to the moon is attracted more due to being closer to the moon, and the water furthest from the moon is pulled least. This weak difference in pull is enough to cause tides, which are observable to us, but relatively tiny compared to the gigantic size of earth.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Horizon rises to eye level
« on: June 20, 2018, 04:08:14 AM »
I've never heard an FEer accept this. You truly have my praise.  ;D
You're too kind. :)

Might you also be accepting that perspective works solely on angles and straight lines, with refraction causing light (the lines) to bend a little?
Absolutely.

So, you have the basic tools in order, which is a rarity. Your personal model of the flat earth must be different than the general flat earth consensus?

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Horizon rises to eye level
« on: June 19, 2018, 11:34:29 PM »
An REer was the one here who said that the horizon rises to eye level. He was corrected, and I also was corrected, a correction that I accepted because after research it was shown to be better supported than the initial claim. The REer has yet to accept the correction. How does this make me blind to the truth?

I've never heard an FEer accept this. You truly have my praise.  ;D

The thing is that the eye-level horizon is what most FEers stick to when they claim how perspective works. Might you also be accepting that perspective works solely on angles and straight lines, with refraction causing light (the lines) to bend a little?

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Horizon rises to eye level
« on: June 19, 2018, 08:33:59 AM »
Oof you're right. I hadn't even bothered double checking because a round Earther said it. But you're right, and that was an inexcusable slip on my part. The horizon does not rise to eye level. Further showing our heads weren't custom built for it.
We use perspective for our observations. Our perspective would show a flat horizon regardless of a flat earth or gigantic spherical earth when at low altitude.

Then we have eye-level, as in looking level relative to where you are, this is easily measurable using numerous methods.

But first the claims:
On the gigantic spherical earth, we can easily calculate the dip to the horizon, as being nearly eye-level when only meters above the sea, and degrees down when at obtainable higher altitudes (mountains and planes).
The flat earth claim is eye-level horizon at all altitudes due to FE perspective.

As said, it is easily shown by using a spirit-level or similar method at low and high altitude, and aligning your eye with it.

The result, which all flat earthers avoid like the plague, and the reason no flat earther will ever do and show the experiment, is that the horizon is below eye level when at higher altitudes.

You might hear some FE logic, or be shown a horizon seemingly following a camera being moved up and down, but never will flat earthers attempt at measuring if the horizon is eye level at high altitude.
Plenty of REers have done this, using all kinds of methods, but FEers always claim faulty measuring or logic, because they cannot believe the results.

You are basically blind to the truth.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8