Flat vs Globe Interrogation session

Hi all,

After learning how much we are lied to by the mainstream media regarding different topics, I have lost all trust in our government agencies and the media outlets representing them. This has led me deep down the rabbit hole and have now reached this question: Is the world a heliocentric globe or a geocentric plane.

I would like to first point out that currently I am questioning both concepts and do not lean towards one more than the other. I do not have a scientific or engineering background, nor am I equipped with advanced mathematical equations. I am an average citizen of this place we call Earth simply trying to wrap my head around what we are walking on. In saying that, please don’t think that everything has to be dumbed down to the level of a 3-year-old. I am certain that the vast majority of people in this forum are wise enough to comprehend basic geometrical calculations – and if not, there are plenty of explanations inside of Youtube.

Now, I have grown up being taught the Heliocentric Globe concept, so there is an advanced level of understanding of that. However, after seeing plenty of evidence to support the case that there was no lunar landing and it is questionable whether any NASA/SpaceX rocket has even left our upper atmospheres, I do put a big question mark on the Globe theory.

I have not been through every thread and every topic in this forum, so please excuse me if I bring up topics that have been spoken about previously – I’ll be happy to read through them if you can provide the links.
What I would like to do is put down a series of questions that I have towards both concepts in an attempt to find which is more logical and realistic between the Globular Model and Flat Model. I have seen other threads turn into a name calling thread with no real information present, can that not happen here? I am here to challenge and learn through logic, math, science and evidence. I am not interested in “NASA said so, so it must be true” or “Don’t trust NASA”, I just want pure unadulterated logic, math, science and reason.

To start, I would like to question the Globular Model. This is what we have all be taught, so I think it is fair to first see if we need to unlearn what we have already learnt before learning something new.

Globular Model:

1)   Can you provide an accurate mathematical formula for calculating the curvature of a sphere? This same formula must be consistent with any sphere no matter what it’s size (Tennis ball, wrecking ball, Moon, Earth or Jupiter).
2)   How does a person visually experience the curvature of the Earth? My understanding of basic logic shows that as a person is closer to ground level, his viewing distance is shorter. As a person rises in altitude the is more available to see. In saying this, how high does a person need to be in order to see the ground drop away? This can be proven, in my opinion, if an object with a height of several hundred metres can only be seen as being a few metres above the horizon from a distance.
3)   The August 21, 2017 Solar eclipse was only visible in totality from the Earth in a small band of 71miles wide. Google states that the moon’s diameter is 2159 miles. Using a single light source, how can this shadow area be smaller than the object itself?
4)   Can you provide the mathematical equation for measuring the tilt of the earth’s axis? How/Where can this tilt be proven correct, not a religious statement of ‘believe with no evidence’
5)   Based on the commonly known speed equation(speed=distance/time), earth rotates at the equator at a speed of 1037.5 mph. Why can we not feel this incredible speed? If I hover a quadcopter 30 feet above the ground for 10 minutes, why is it still above my head and not 173miles west of me?
6)   How does a passenger airplane land on a North-South runway if the Earth is rotating 1037.5mph in a West-East direction?
7)   If I take a plane from Bangkok(Thailand) to Bangalore(India) that are both 13degrees N, the flight time is 3hr 40min going an east to west direction. Distance between them is 1539miles.  Knowing that the rotational speed at 13degrees N is slower than the equator, but assuming it’s still pretty fast, let’s say 800mph – Why does this flight not take less than 2 hours? All the plane needs to do is reach a height and simply ‘wait’ for Bangalore to come to it.
   Is there a speed at which point an object is moving faster than the gravitational pull? Is it possible for an object with no self-propulsion method to overcome gravity and leave the atmosphere into zero-gravity space?

Thank you Globe concept.

Flat Earth. Please take the stand.

1)    I am going to assume that most (maybe all) flat earthers believe that there is a dome covering the world. In saying this, please explain what meteorites and comets are and how they move. What is the force behind their movement?
2)   How does a Solar and Lunar Eclipse happen? Can you provide any animated descriptions?
3)   The 12 zodiac constellations are not all visible during the entirety of the year. If all the stars are on the dome above our heads and rotating around us, how do the zodiac constellations disappear during 3 seasons and return for their specific season only?
4)   If the moon is much closer than we have been told (and smaller), why can we not reach it and land on it?
5)   Is the moon also a flat body facing us, therefore explaining why we can only every see one side of it? Or is the moon a spherical body?
6)   How are the waxing and waning of the moon explained in the flat earth model?
7)   Can you explain seasonal changes? Why is it winter in the central part (northern hemisphere) while it is summer in the outer part (southern hemisphere)?

Thank you Flat Earth Concept.

I would like to also mention, that I think it’s possible for there to be some points about the heliocentric model that can be true for the geocentric, and vice versa. For example, maybe we are on a heliocentric globe that also has a solid sphere surrounding it, maybe we are on a flat earth that spins while the sun is stationary (no idea what the moon would be doing).

I really look forward to seeing some of the responses. Please remember to keep this civil.

1. Curvature = 1/R
2. Depends on accuracy of what you use to measure "drop". An aircraft and a transit works.
3. Sun is an extended object, not a point source.
4. Definition of tilt makes assumptions about model. If you agree, measure altitude of sun throughout year.
5. You move with surface. Air moves with surface.
6. Air moves with surface.
7. Air moves with surface.
8. Yes. Maybe. Zero-gravity space is not what you think.

1. Few believe in dome.
2. Debatable. Many ideas.
3. Debatable. Many ideas.
4. Not answerable by pure unadulterated logic, math, science and reason.
5. Debatable. Many ideas.
6. Debatable. Many ideas.
7. Sun orbit circle changes size, over different parts different lengths of time.

So earth is flat and I believe that everything around the earth is created fir the earth and the human and we are not a small thing in an infinity universe

First up, many FEers start out by not believing the moon landing, thereby distrusting NASA and everything after that. The problem with that conspiracy, is that currently we are doing way cooler stuff like reusing booster rockets and sending unmanned missions to Mars. When you deny the moon landing, everything following becomes a conspiracy too, and with our current technology allowing live streaming from space, the FE theory and global conspiracy seems like the only solution when you think the moon landing is fake.

I hope you will at least consider that the moon landing was real, at least for the purpose of this theory to decide whether the earth is round or flat.

As for the globe earth questions:

1. We have the math, there are different calculations depending on which result you wish (hidden height by curvature, curvature angle, ect.), we can even simulate everything just using geometry and perspective.

2. The further you are from the earth, the further you can see.
Landscape, mountains, buildings and ships disappear bottom first over the horizon.
When looking straight from sea level, your angle to the horizon is 0 degrees, but when standing its 0.3 degrees down, which can provide enough of a difference to see a sun a tiny bit again after you have seen it set (lying flat on a beach, watch the sun set, quickly stand up, then you can see it a tiny bit again. And using a drone to fly even higher faster will show this even better). In Dubai there is even a hotel, where the elevator is fast and you can witness the same sunset twice (from ground and top floor).
At 10 km, you are able to see roughly 3 degrees, so the amount of actual curve on the horizon isn't really noticeable from an airplane window, but with a wide angle window you would begin seeing the horizon curve.

3. The sun is about 300 times bigger than the moon, meaning it is not a single lightsource point.
Due to the sun being roughly 300 times further away than the moon aswell results in an 'umbra and penumbra' effect (look it up for further details), where a very tiny area of the earth is in complete shadow from the moon (total eclipse), and a large part is only partly in shadow.

4. I can't provide a mathematical formula for you, but I can explain the effects of it. The tilt is always the same compared to the stars, which is the reason we have fixed points in the stars (over the north and south pole) where all the stars seem to rotate around. But in fact we are rotating and seeing the stars. We are orbiting around the sun with this tilt, which provides the seasons. This can be measured by detecting the elevation to the sun from anywhere on the earth during the year, which shows the tilt compared to the sun.

5, 6, 7. Pretty simple, but let me give you a small scale visual. You have a cup with water, and you spin that cup around. In the beginning the water will stay mostly still, but with time and the friction of the cup, the water will begin to spin with the cup.
Earth is constantly spinning, the atmosphere due to friction will spin with it (think of the atmosphere like water, just breatheable and way less boyancy). The atmosphere is moving with the rotation of the earth, and airplanes are moving through the air with the rotation of the earth. If the atmosphere was stationary however, you would achieve the effect you mentioned, but the cost would be 1000 mph constant winds at the equator.

8. Its not about speed, its about acceleration. you simply need to accelerate faster than 9.8m/s². But you will never escape the gravitational pull. Everything is attracted to everything (which I know is hard to imagine and understand), so unless there is no gravity to pull you, you would always be pulled. The amount you are pulled however becomes less and less, and then you can use sideways speed (relative to the pull of gravity) to create an orbit where you would basically be falling, yet moving so fast to the side that you avoid getting closer to the earth or any other massive object you would like to orbit. It is this reason that rockets going to space normally curve into space after liftoff, as they want the sideways speed to get into orbit.
At the ISS, they are still in low earth orbit, which means they are still experiencing gravity. But since the space station itself is following the same orbit, they feel completely weightless.
And we have nothing which can defy gravity without propulsion, though we are still experimenting. The EmDrive which is currently being testet, can in theory and shown in experiments provide acceleration without propelling anything from it. But the force is so tiny that we wouldn't be able to use it to escape the gravitational pull. However it is hoped that we can use the technology along with solar panels to have an engine which runs on solar power when in space. Though this is currently very far from being usable.

If you have anymore questions, I would be glad to answer, though I will admit that I'm bad at math. Though I'm good at the logic, computers and programming.

I would also like to add 1 observable fact which the FE theory never seems to address. The sun and moon do not change in angular size (perceived size) throughout the day/night, which they should when moving closer and further away. From anywhere on earth, the angular sizes are always the same which indicates the sun and moon are very far away. Unless they are a part of the unexplained dome.

Thanks for your responses Curiouser and Curiouser as well as SphericalEarther. I will certainly come back when i have an hour or so and properly respond with further questions.

I would also like to add 1 observable fact which the FE theory never seems to address. The sun and moon do not change in angular size (perceived size) throughout the day/night, which they should when moving closer and further away. From anywhere on earth, the angular sizes are always the same which indicates the sun and moon are very far away. Unless they are a part of the unexplained dome.

Yes, there is one explanation in the Wiki:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset

It says, the magnification occurs because the sunlight travels through more atmosphere to the observer.  But because 50% of the mass of the atmosphere is below 5.6 km, this would mean, that on Mount Everest (8.8 km) the evening sun would appear much smaller than at noon. But it does not.

Is the world a heliocentric globe or a geocentric plane.

Why not also consider a geocentric globe or a heliocentric plane?

there are plenty of explanations inside of Youtube.

Many things you find on youtube, especially allegedly supporting FE, is wrong.

However, after seeing plenty of evidence to support the case that there was no lunar landing and it is questionable whether any NASA/SpaceX rocket has even left our upper atmospheres, I do put a big question mark on the Globe theory.

I am yet to find any evidence to support that case, just nonsense. Perhaps you can provide some?
Regardless, even if the moon landing was faked there is still plenty of evidence that rockets have left the atmosphere, such as GPS and various other technologies provided by satellites which depend upon them to work.
Even without that, Earth was known to be a globe thousands of years ago, long before NASA, so that isn't a reason to question it.

1)   Can you provide an accurate mathematical formula for calculating the curvature of a sphere? This same formula must be consistent with any sphere no matter what it’s size (Tennis ball, wrecking ball, Moon, Earth or Jupiter).

That depends upon what you mean by curvature, and to what extent.
I will assume you mean how much it drops for a given distance.
For small distances you can use a right angle triangle.
You have a line tangent to Earth with a length of d.
You have a line at right angles connecting to the centre with a length of R.
You have a line going from the centre to a point along the first line with a length of R+h.

This gives:
(R+h)^2=R^2+d^2
R^2+2*R*h+h^2=R^2+d^2
2*R*h+h^2=d^2
h*(2*R+h)=d^2

Then with the approximation that R is much greater than h (again, this is for small distances) you can take 2*R+h~=2*R.
This gives:
h*2*R=d^2.
thus h=d^2/(2*R).

If you stick in some values and convert it you get approximately the 8 inches per mile squared.

However this doesn't include refraction which depends upon the atmosphere and conditions.

This formula can be done the other way around to find the distance to the horizon (d) based upon eye height (h).

Also, when calculating how much should be hidden you need to consider both sides of the horizon, the section between you and the horizon and the section between the object and the horizon.

2)   How does a person visually experience the curvature of the Earth? My understanding of basic logic shows that as a person is closer to ground level, his viewing distance is shorter. As a person rises in altitude the is more available to see. In saying this, how high does a person need to be in order to see the ground drop away? This can be proven, in my opinion, if an object with a height of several hundred metres can only be seen as being a few metres above the horizon from a distance.

The horizon is how.
You can measure the angle of dip again using a right angle triangle. (the same one as before).
The angle of dip will be the angle subtended at the centre (if you need this explained I can).
This is theta in the following formula:
cos(theta)=R/(R+h)

So how high you need to go depends upon what you are using to try and measure it.
Surveyors with accurate theodolites can easily measure it at ~1.5 m above ground level.
Without a tool to measure it, you don't stand much chance of easily seeing it until quite high up.

However, the mere existence of the horizon (other than at mountains) is the curvature.
The horizon can only be the edge of Earth. Otherwise it would just fade to a blur.
The fact that the horizon moves around as you move shows the edge of Earth is everywhere, which only happens on round objects (like a sphere).

We can also clearly understand the horizon is the result of curvature rather than perspective due to how objects act near the horizon. If it was the result of perspective, as objects approach the horizon they would just shrink and disappear as a point, some still quite high in the sky.
If it was due to a curve, assuming the object was large enough, it would go over the horizon and start to disappear from the bottom up.

This is an image with a bunch of possibilities shown:

The distance I used was d2, and the height h1, and the angle was a.

3)   The August 21, 2017 Solar eclipse was only visible in totality from the Earth in a small band of 71miles wide. Google states that the moon’s diameter is 2159 miles. Using a single light source, how can this shadow area be smaller than the object itself?

Because the light source is larger.
This shadow is where the entirety of the light from the object is blocked.

You can try it with a circle on your computer screen and a coin.

For a generic shadow, there are three regions, the penumbra, the umbra and the antumbra.
The umbra is the region of totality, that is the region where all light from the source is blocked.

That is any region where the coin above completely hides the circle on your screen.

The antumbra only exists for objects which are smaller than the light source.
That is where the obscuring object appears entirely inside the light source, i.e. where the coin appears inside the circle on the screen, with parts of the circle all around.
This is equivalent to an annular solar eclipse. At this distance, the shadow (the region of totality) has no size at all (or could be extrapolated to a negative size).

The penumbra is then basically any other religion where some light is blocked, i.e. regions where the obscuring object partially but not completely covers the light source, without being entirely inside the light source.

Again, a diagram showing this (not to scale):

The red circle is the sun, the blue circle is the moon.
The umbra, penumbra and antumbra are labelled U, P and A respectively.
The surface of Earth sits right around the intersection, where U,P and A all meet.
That is why a large section of Earth experiences the penumbra, and we can have total eclipses where we are in the umbra, or annular eclipses where we are in the antumbra.

This also helps show the common FE model with a close, tiny sun and moon is wrong, as it shows the moon and sun must both be larger than the largest ever observed total solar eclipse.
This is because we know the light source (sun) must be larger than the obscuring object (moon), otherwise we would never have annular solar eclipses. This means the shadow (umbra, region of totality) must be smaller than the moon.

4)   Can you provide the mathematical equation for measuring the tilt of the earth’s axis? How/Where can this tilt be proven correct, not a religious statement of ‘believe with no evidence’

This is (IMO) most easily done by measuring the angle of elevation of the sun at solar noon over the course of a year, in regions outside the Arctic and antarctic circles.
The tilt of Earth is evidenced by the sun not remaining in the same position. It is the angular offset of the axis of Earth's rotation with the axis of Earth's orbit.
If it was 0, there would be no variation and the sun would always appear at the same angle of elevation (at solar noon).
If there was a tilt, then the sun would appear to move back and forth between the 2 extremes. The change in this angle is twice the tilt.
However, this could also be explained in a geocentric globe model with the Earth rotating and the sun moving along an orbit which is tilted with respect to that axis.

(The FE model can't even explain the apparent position of the sun so it can't even begin to approach this question).

5)   Based on the commonly known speed equation(speed=distance/time), earth rotates at the equator at a speed of 1037.5 mph. Why can we not feel this incredible speed? If I hover a quadcopter 30 feet above the ground for 10 minutes, why is it still above my head and not 173miles west of me?

You don't feel speed, at all, ever.
Humans are completely incapable of detecting speed.
Instead they detect acceleration.
If you are riding in a jumbo jet, do you feel like you are flying really fast? No.
You can get up and walk around just as easily as on the ground. All you feel is the turbulence, the change in motion.


As for your quadcopter, that is likely because it is using a camera to keep track of its position and correct for it, or a very good GPS lock.
Slight breezes or imperfections means they will not stay in the same spot without correcting.
I have one of my own and it will happily stay mostly in place with its GPS lock (it drifts around a bit due to GPS only being accurate to a certain degree).
If I instead switch it to alt-hold mode, so it no longer keeps its position fixed, it will drift with the wind.
However, it doesn't drift the 173 miles, because the air, for the most part, is moving with Earth.
Again, this can be related to planes and trains.
If you jump on a plane do you find yourself slamming against the back of it? No.
That is for 2 reasons:
You have inertia, and thus will keep moving along with the train.
The air is also moving with it and thus wont slow you down.

However, if you change your latitude enough you can have some effect. That is seen with large scale weather systems rotating in one direction in the northern hemisphere and the other in the southern hemisphere. But this is a result of the velocity required changing.

6)   How does a passenger airplane land on a North-South runway if the Earth is rotating 1037.5mph in a West-East direction?

Because it is also moving sideways that amount.

7)   If I take a plane from Bangkok(Thailand) to Bangalore(India) that are both 13degrees N, the flight time is 3hr 40min going an east to west direction. Distance between them is 1539miles.  Knowing that the rotational speed at 13degrees N is slower than the equator, but assuming it’s still pretty fast, let’s say 800mph – Why does this flight not take less than 2 hours? All the plane needs to do is reach a height and simply ‘wait’ for Bangalore to come to it.

It would need to leave the atmosphere, and ditch all its speed, then speed back up to land on the runway without overshooting.
Instead planes fly in the atmosphere, keeping their speed.
Also note that they can do some pretty extreme cross wind landings.

   Is there a speed at which point an object is moving faster than the gravitational pull? Is it possible for an object with no self-propulsion method to overcome gravity and leave the atmosphere into zero-gravity space?

It would need a propulsion method to do so, such as a rocket.
It would also need to continue propelling itself to oppose air resistance.
However, once in space with negligible air resistance, it can continue going without further propulsion and without crashing back down.
Satellites in orbit will do so. (but the slight air resistance does mean they slowly fall).
If you could ignore air resistance you just need to be at the escape velocity, which is around 11.2 km/s.
So if you had a magic object which had no air resistance and you fired it at around 11.2 km/s or faster, it would not fall back down.

Also, space isn't 0 g. 0 g is an object in free fall such that all parts experience roughly equal acceleration from gravity with no outside forces acting upon it.

7)   Can you explain seasonal changes? Why is it winter in the central part (northern hemisphere) while it is summer in the outer part (southern hemisphere)?

Typically they explain this by having the sun change position.
During the northern summer the sun circles north of the equator, making it hotter there and colder in the south. During the southern summer it circles south of the equator, making it warmer there and colder in the north.

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

Is the world a heliocentric globe or a geocentric plane.

Why not also consider a geocentric globe or a heliocentric plane?

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

there are plenty of explanations inside of Youtube.

Many things you find on youtube, especially allegedly supporting FE, is wrong.

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

However, after seeing plenty of evidence to support the case that there was no lunar landing and it is questionable whether any NASA/SpaceX rocket has even left our upper atmospheres, I do put a big question mark on the Globe theory.

I am yet to find any evidence to support that case, just nonsense. Perhaps you can provide some?
Regardless, even if the moon landing was faked there is still plenty of evidence that rockets have left the atmosphere, such as GPS and various other technologies provided by satellites which depend upon them to work.
Even without that, Earth was known to be a globe thousands of years ago, long before NASA, so that isn't a reason to question it.

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

1)   Can you provide an accurate mathematical formula for calculating the curvature of a sphere? This same formula must be consistent with any sphere no matter what it’s size (Tennis ball, wrecking ball, Moon, Earth or Jupiter).

That depends upon what you mean by curvature, and to what extent.
I will assume you mean how much it drops for a given distance.
For small distances you can use a right angle triangle.
You have a line tangent to Earth with a length of d.
You have a line at right angles connecting to the centre with a length of R.
You have a line going from the centre to a point along the first line with a length of R+h.

This gives:
(R+h)^2=R^2+d^2
R^2+2*R*h+h^2=R^2+d^2
2*R*h+h^2=d^2
h*(2*R+h)=d^2

Then with the approximation that R is much greater than h (again, this is for small distances) you can take 2*R+h~=2*R.
This gives:
h*2*R=d^2.
thus h=d^2/(2*R).

If you stick in some values and convert it you get approximately the 8 inches per mile squared.

However this doesn't include refraction which depends upon the atmosphere and conditions.

This formula can be done the other way around to find the distance to the horizon (d) based upon eye height (h).

Also, when calculating how much should be hidden you need to consider both sides of the horizon, the section between you and the horizon and the section between the object and the horizon.

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

2)   How does a person visually experience the curvature of the Earth? My understanding of basic logic shows that as a person is closer to ground level, his viewing distance is shorter. As a person rises in altitude the is more available to see. In saying this, how high does a person need to be in order to see the ground drop away? This can be proven, in my opinion, if an object with a height of several hundred metres can only be seen as being a few metres above the horizon from a distance.

The horizon is how.
You can measure the angle of dip again using a right angle triangle. (the same one as before).
The angle of dip will be the angle subtended at the centre (if you need this explained I can).
This is theta in the following formula:
cos(theta)=R/(R+h)

So how high you need to go depends upon what you are using to try and measure it.
Surveyors with accurate theodolites can easily measure it at ~1.5 m above ground level.
Without a tool to measure it, you don't stand much chance of easily seeing it until quite high up.

However, the mere existence of the horizon (other than at mountains) is the curvature.
The horizon can only be the edge of Earth. Otherwise it would just fade to a blur.
The fact that the horizon moves around as you move shows the edge of Earth is everywhere, which only happens on round objects (like a sphere).

We can also clearly understand the horizon is the result of curvature rather than perspective due to how objects act near the horizon. If it was the result of perspective, as objects approach the horizon they would just shrink and disappear as a point, some still quite high in the sky.
If it was due to a curve, assuming the object was large enough, it would go over the horizon and start to disappear from the bottom up.

This is an image with a bunch of possibilities shown:

The distance I used was d2, and the height h1, and the angle was a.

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

3)   The August 21, 2017 Solar eclipse was only visible in totality from the Earth in a small band of 71miles wide. Google states that the moon’s diameter is 2159 miles. Using a single light source, how can this shadow area be smaller than the object itself?

Because the light source is larger.
This shadow is where the entirety of the light from the object is blocked.

You can try it with a circle on your computer screen and a coin.

For a generic shadow, there are three regions, the penumbra, the umbra and the antumbra.
The umbra is the region of totality, that is the region where all light from the source is blocked.

That is any region where the coin above completely hides the circle on your screen.

The antumbra only exists for objects which are smaller than the light source.
That is where the obscuring object appears entirely inside the light source, i.e. where the coin appears inside the circle on the screen, with parts of the circle all around.
This is equivalent to an annular solar eclipse. At this distance, the shadow (the region of totality) has no size at all (or could be extrapolated to a negative size).

The penumbra is then basically any other religion where some light is blocked, i.e. regions where the obscuring object partially but not completely covers the light source, without being entirely inside the light source.

Again, a diagram showing this (not to scale):

The red circle is the sun, the blue circle is the moon.
The umbra, penumbra and antumbra are labelled U, P and A respectively.
The surface of Earth sits right around the intersection, where U,P and A all meet.
That is why a large section of Earth experiences the penumbra, and we can have total eclipses where we are in the umbra, or annular eclipses where we are in the antumbra.

This also helps show the common FE model with a close, tiny sun and moon is wrong, as it shows the moon and sun must both be larger than the largest ever observed total solar eclipse.
This is because we know the light source (sun) must be larger than the obscuring object (moon), otherwise we would never have annular solar eclipses. This means the shadow (umbra, region of totality) must be smaller than the moon.

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

4)   Can you provide the mathematical equation for measuring the tilt of the earth’s axis? How/Where can this tilt be proven correct, not a religious statement of ‘believe with no evidence’

This is (IMO) most easily done by measuring the angle of elevation of the sun at solar noon over the course of a year, in regions outside the Arctic and antarctic circles.
The tilt of Earth is evidenced by the sun not remaining in the same position. It is the angular offset of the axis of Earth's rotation with the axis of Earth's orbit.
If it was 0, there would be no variation and the sun would always appear at the same angle of elevation (at solar noon).
If there was a tilt, then the sun would appear to move back and forth between the 2 extremes. The change in this angle is twice the tilt.
However, this could also be explained in a geocentric globe model with the Earth rotating and the sun moving along an orbit which is tilted with respect to that axis.

(The FE model can't even explain the apparent position of the sun so it can't even begin to approach this question).

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

5)   Based on the commonly known speed equation(speed=distance/time), earth rotates at the equator at a speed of 1037.5 mph. Why can we not feel this incredible speed? If I hover a quadcopter 30 feet above the ground for 10 minutes, why is it still above my head and not 173miles west of me?

You don't feel speed, at all, ever.
Humans are completely incapable of detecting speed.
Instead they detect acceleration.
If you are riding in a jumbo jet, do you feel like you are flying really fast? No.
You can get up and walk around just as easily as on the ground. All you feel is the turbulence, the change in motion.


As for your quadcopter, that is likely because it is using a camera to keep track of its position and correct for it, or a very good GPS lock.
Slight breezes or imperfections means they will not stay in the same spot without correcting.
I have one of my own and it will happily stay mostly in place with its GPS lock (it drifts around a bit due to GPS only being accurate to a certain degree).
If I instead switch it to alt-hold mode, so it no longer keeps its position fixed, it will drift with the wind.
However, it doesn't drift the 173 miles, because the air, for the most part, is moving with Earth.
Again, this can be related to planes and trains.
If you jump on a plane do you find yourself slamming against the back of it? No.
That is for 2 reasons:
You have inertia, and thus will keep moving along with the train.
The air is also moving with it and thus wont slow you down.

However, if you change your latitude enough you can have some effect. That is seen with large scale weather systems rotating in one direction in the northern hemisphere and the other in the southern hemisphere. But this is a result of the velocity required changing.

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

6)   How does a passenger airplane land on a North-South runway if the Earth is rotating 1037.5mph in a West-East direction?

Because it is also moving sideways that amount.

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

7)   If I take a plane from Bangkok(Thailand) to Bangalore(India) that are both 13degrees N, the flight time is 3hr 40min going an east to west direction. Distance between them is 1539miles.  Knowing that the rotational speed at 13degrees N is slower than the equator, but assuming it’s still pretty fast, let’s say 800mph – Why does this flight not take less than 2 hours? All the plane needs to do is reach a height and simply ‘wait’ for Bangalore to come to it.

It would need to leave the atmosphere, and ditch all its speed, then speed back up to land on the runway without overshooting.
Instead planes fly in the atmosphere, keeping their speed.
Also note that they can do some pretty extreme cross wind landings.

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

   Is there a speed at which point an object is moving faster than the gravitational pull? Is it possible for an object with no self-propulsion method to overcome gravity and leave the atmosphere into zero-gravity space?

It would need a propulsion method to do so, such as a rocket.
It would also need to continue propelling itself to oppose air resistance.
However, once in space with negligible air resistance, it can continue going without further propulsion and without crashing back down.
Satellites in orbit will do so. (but the slight air resistance does mean they slowly fall).
If you could ignore air resistance you just need to be at the escape velocity, which is around 11.2 km/s.
So if you had a magic object which had no air resistance and you fired it at around 11.2 km/s or faster, it would not fall back down.

Also, space isn't 0 g. 0 g is an object in free fall such that all parts experience roughly equal acceleration from gravity with no outside forces acting upon it.

Quote from: JH88 on May 01, 2018, 08:22:33 AM

7)   Can you explain seasonal changes? Why is it winter in the central part (northern hemisphere) while it is summer in the outer part (southern hemisphere)?

Typically they explain this by having the sun change position.
During the northern summer the sun circles north of the equator, making it hotter there and colder in the south. During the southern summer it circles south of the equator, making it warmer there and colder in the north.

Yeah. What I said. Jeez, you people love to chatter, dontcha?

So, I'm going to throw something in here.  While I can certainly appreciate the diagrams and equations and long explanations, my angle relies on "common sense" which was a term scoffed in my direction lately by a flat earther.  I still have not yet heard any scientific explanation as to how the sun and the moon could possibly be "spot lights".  Also, if they are in fact balls of light somehow hovering over the surface of the earth at an approximate elevation of 3000 miles, everyone on earth should be able to see them all the time even though the observer is not directly under said light sources.  Also from the highest point on earth, with a telescope we would be able to see almost all of the earth (taking into account that some places would be hidden by other mountains or ranges, obviously).

I have routinely seen videos on Youtube that are titled stupid things like "100,000 percent proof that the world is flat!"  The title speaks for itself that FEer's do not use things like logic and common sense.  But more to the point, no actual proof has yet been provided, just suppositions, mistrust and misunderstanding of science.  That is why it is called the Flat Earth THEORY, not accepted fact.

About the moon landing conspiracy...

I would like to mention that there is no proof of a moon landing conspiracy.
Take this example video:



Bringing up a lot of points stating the craft is in low earth orbit while houston are stating they are far far away, after which the conspiritors complain that the craft landed on the moon a few hours after.
The video is perfectly explained using simple perspective, which they do not seem to realise (this has been simulated numerous times).
Comparing pictures taken, where the ground is different, becomes their argument for having made it up in a studio, when NASA claims the images are taken miles apart (which is easily possible if the background consists of mountains instead of hills)
Then making an argument that the rover seems impossible to bring due to size, yet neglecting that it was actually folded up to a compact size when in the space craft.



I do not believe there is a single piece of evidense towards the moon landing conspiracy which hasn't already been debunked and explained with pure logic. But please show me anything to change my mind =)

Again, believing in the moon landing conspiracy will make you reject all the things we are doing in space currently aswell, so that will eventually lead you towards flat earth (which you are already exploring slightly).

I remember hearing something back in '09 or '10 about NASA admitting that they "accidentally destroyed" the original moon landing tapes and as a result they contracted with one or more news agencies to re-acquire footage.  However, because the original cameras didn't record in the same format as broadcasting stations, the original was re-formatted which resulted in a degradation of quality.  That being said, at this point, we have no way of knowing if the moon landing was actually real or not.

There are several trains of thought on this one:
1)  "Of course we've been to the moon.  Our technology is advanced enough to do that and more."
2)  "We faked the whole thing to make it look like we beat Russia."
3)  "We did go to the moon and found some things or someones there that threatened our safety if we returned."
4)  "We did go to the moon and we have continued to go back to build bases and now have established colonies there."
5)  "We faked the whole thing because we cannot get past the Van Allen radiation belt."

Take your pick.  I'm sure there are more but this gives you an idea as to the discord in the public eye regarding the subject.

This debate is heating up.

Many things you find on youtube, especially allegedly supporting FE, is wrong.

That leaves the door open to at least some things supporting FE to be right.

Can you point us to a Flat Earth supporting video showing something right?

So I've been reading through posts and getting my head around everything that has been written.
One thing that I do want to say is that it is i teresting to note that only RE'ers have actually been addressing the initial questions... Where are the FE'ers coming to defend their position?

The vast majority of the information given makes sense to me and a spherical earth is the camp that i want my flag placed in, but i need to hear the other side to decide for certain.
I am a believer of God and a believer of Creation, not evolution. In saying that I beleive that God works through science and nature. Science and nature is the 'how' while God and religion is the 'why'. So I don't think that a spherical earth contradicts a belief in God.

Regarding the moon landing and conspiracies, i do stand by the growing piles of evidence that we have tyrannical governments capable of manipulating whatever they want to force feed with with brainwashing material in order to carry out a global plan. Pearl harbor was known about and could have been prevented, 9/11 and WTC Building 7 were carried out with full knowledge and consent by the US shadow government and other intelligence agencies, and yes, the moon landing was a fake. Carefully and meticulously put together with hollywood director Stanley Kubrik.

My only issue with RE is that the moon and sun just look way to big in our skies to be hundreds of thousands of kms away (moon) or millions of kms away (sun). Also the images we have seen of a ship vanishing over the horizon only to be reseen when a telescopic zoom is used is kind of suspect.. Light can temporarily change direction (refraction through a glass of water or prism) but it cannot bend around a curved object. Either that boat is simply not visible to our naked eye due to atmospheric reasons, or there is something strange going on.

Also, the 'air rotates together with the earth' would seem to mean that thwre is a physical barrier holding the air and atmosphere in place (firmament?).  Maybe it is possible that there is a spherical firmament around our earth doing just that, but spherical, not dome. But then again,  we've seen vids claiming that rockets have bumped against the 'firmament', wouldn't they crumple and explode like a car hitting a concrete barrier? If a rocket is flying through the sky at whatever kms per hour and hits a solid object, surely inertia is going to make that thing crumple in on itself and the fuel onboard compress to ignition poimt, causing a massive fireball and debris. I'm looking at that video of thw amateur rocket that 'hits' the firmament and just kind of stops..

Anyway, my search continues and i await to hear explanations about my initial questions from some FE'ers. In the mean time, the real world of running a business and supporting a family is calling.

That leaves the door open to at least some things supporting FE to be right.

Yes, because i didn't specifically exclude that.
However it does not indicate that you will find things allegedly supporting FE which are right.
It just means lots of other things are wrong.

So I've been reading through posts and getting my head around everything that has been written.
One thing that I do want to say is that it is i teresting to note that only RE'ers have actually been addressing the initial questions... Where are the FE'ers coming to defend their position?

The vast majority of the information given makes sense to me and a spherical earth is the camp that i want my flag placed in, but i need to hear the other side to decide for certain.
I am a believer of God and a believer of Creation, not evolution. In saying that I beleive that God works through science and nature. Science and nature is the 'how' while God and religion is the 'why'. So I don't think that a spherical earth contradicts a belief in God.

Regarding the moon landing and conspiracies, i do stand by the growing piles of evidence that we have tyrannical governments capable of manipulating whatever they want to force feed with with brainwashing material in order to carry out a global plan. Pearl harbor was known about and could have been prevented, 9/11 and WTC Building 7 were carried out with full knowledge and consent by the US shadow government and other intelligence agencies, and yes, the moon landing was a fake. Carefully and meticulously put together with hollywood director Stanley Kubrik.

My only issue with RE is that the moon and sun just look way to big in our skies to be hundreds of thousands of kms away (moon) or millions of kms away (sun). Also the images we have seen of a ship vanishing over the horizon only to be reseen when a telescopic zoom is used is kind of suspect.. Light can temporarily change direction (refraction through a glass of water or prism) but it cannot bend around a curved object. Either that boat is simply not visible to our naked eye due to atmospheric reasons, or there is something strange going on.

Also, the 'air rotates together with the earth' would seem to mean that thwre is a physical barrier holding the air and atmosphere in place (firmament?).  Maybe it is possible that there is a spherical firmament around our earth doing just that, but spherical, not dome. But then again,  we've seen vids claiming that rockets have bumped against the 'firmament', wouldn't they crumple and explode like a car hitting a concrete barrier? If a rocket is flying through the sky at whatever kms per hour and hits a solid object, surely inertia is going to make that thing crumple in on itself and the fuel onboard compress to ignition poimt, causing a massive fireball and debris. I'm looking at that video of thw amateur rocket that 'hits' the firmament and just kind of stops..

Anyway, my search continues and i await to hear explanations about my initial questions from some FE'ers. In the mean time, the real world of running a business and supporting a family is calling.

So far as I know, there was a video made by what seemed like Stanley Kubrik stating it was all a hoax, the problem with that video is that it apparently shows the filming date, which is like a month after his death. I haven't looked at the video, so if you have a link I would be glad to watch it.
Update: saw the video in question, also saw the pile of evidense against it. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-stanley-kubrick-faked-moon-landings/
The film proclaimed to be filmed 2 months after his death, shows a different person both in speech and looks compared to other videos of him taken that very same year. So should we believe such a video? Also the video in question looks way nicer in quality compared to other videos I've seen from that time, though the camera angle and lighting hides a lot. It was filmed in a way to make the person look weak and secretive, while most normal interviewers would do everything to make the person look stronger and the footage more real (especially since we are exposing a national secret here).

It is simple trigonometry to get the size of the sun and moon in our perspective. It works, but you are welcome to try the math.

Normally you see boat videos where the boat is not visible because of resolution. When zooming in it becomes visible due to perspective. But no matter how far you zoom in, the boats will always look to be behind the horizon.

The air doesn't have a barrier around it. It is being held by gravity close to earth, denser at sea level due to the air above it, lighter at high altitude due to lesser gravity and the vacuum of space. Think of it as a gradient.

I'd love to see the video of the rocket exploding, but are you sure it was because it hit something, or could it simply be something else making it explode?

I'll skip over the conspiracy BS this time.

My only issue with RE is that the moon and sun just look way to big in our skies to be hundreds of thousands of kms away (moon) or millions of kms away (sun).

That is because of just how big they are.
Just how far away do you think an object which is something like 3000 km wide would have to be to appear as large as the moon?

Also the images we have seen of a ship vanishing over the horizon only to be reseen when a telescopic zoom is used is kind of suspect.

Because that isn't actually what happens.
I am yet to find a video which shows that. Instead they zoom in and out on a ship and it gets too small to resolve. It doesn't go over the horizon.

Also, the 'air rotates together with the earth' would seem to mean that thwre is a physical barrier holding the air and atmosphere in place (firmament?).

Why?
The important part is that there isn't a physical barrier outside trying to hold it in place against the rotation, and gravity is enough to hold the atmosphere (and objects) to Earth with its low rotational velocity (~ 1 revolution per day).

I'm looking at that video of thw amateur rocket that 'hits' the firmament and just kind of stops..

If it is the one I think you are talking about, it doesn't.
It keeps on moving, keeps on going higher. What it does is stop rotating. This is not due to the firmament or any nonsense like that. It is due to a mechanism inside it which is specifically made to slow its rotation, similar to a figure skater stretching out their arms. It has 2 weights inside which it releases.

Hi all,

After learning how much we are lied to by the mainstream media regarding different topics, I have lost all trust in our government agencies and the media outlets representing them. This has led me deep down the rabbit hole and have now reached this question: Is the world a heliocentric globe or a geocentric plane.

I would like to first point out that currently I am questioning both concepts and do not lean towards one more than the other. I do not have a scientific or engineering background, nor am I equipped with advanced mathematical equations. I am an average citizen of this place we call Earth simply trying to wrap my head around what we are walking on. In saying that, please don’t think that everything has to be dumbed down to the level of a 3-year-old. I am certain that the vast majority of people in this forum are wise enough to comprehend basic geometrical calculations – and if not, there are plenty of explanations inside of Youtube.

Now, I have grown up being taught the Heliocentric Globe concept, so there is an advanced level of understanding of that. However, after seeing plenty of evidence to support the case that there was no lunar landing and it is questionable whether any NASA/SpaceX rocket has even left our upper atmospheres, I do put a big question mark on the Globe theory.

I have not been through every thread and every topic in this forum, so please excuse me if I bring up topics that have been spoken about previously – I’ll be happy to read through them if you can provide the links.
What I would like to do is put down a series of questions that I have towards both concepts in an attempt to find which is more logical and realistic between the Globular Model and Flat Model. I have seen other threads turn into a name calling thread with no real information present, can that not happen here? I am here to challenge and learn through logic, math, science and evidence. I am not interested in “NASA said so, so it must be true” or “Don’t trust NASA”, I just want pure unadulterated logic, math, science and reason.

To start, I would like to question the Globular Model. This is what we have all be taught, so I think it is fair to first see if we need to unlearn what we have already learnt before learning something new.

Globular Model:

1)   Can you provide an accurate mathematical formula for calculating the curvature of a sphere? This same formula must be consistent with any sphere no matter what it’s size (Tennis ball, wrecking ball, Moon, Earth or Jupiter).
2)   How does a person visually experience the curvature of the Earth? My understanding of basic logic shows that as a person is closer to ground level, his viewing distance is shorter. As a person rises in altitude the is more available to see. In saying this, how high does a person need to be in order to see the ground drop away? This can be proven, in my opinion, if an object with a height of several hundred metres can only be seen as being a few metres above the horizon from a distance.
3)   The August 21, 2017 Solar eclipse was only visible in totality from the Earth in a small band of 71miles wide. Google states that the moon’s diameter is 2159 miles. Using a single light source, how can this shadow area be smaller than the object itself?
4)   Can you provide the mathematical equation for measuring the tilt of the earth’s axis? How/Where can this tilt be proven correct, not a religious statement of ‘believe with no evidence’
5)   Based on the commonly known speed equation(speed=distance/time), earth rotates at the equator at a speed of 1037.5 mph. Why can we not feel this incredible speed? If I hover a quadcopter 30 feet above the ground for 10 minutes, why is it still above my head and not 173miles west of me?
6)   How does a passenger airplane land on a North-South runway if the Earth is rotating 1037.5mph in a West-East direction?
7)   If I take a plane from Bangkok(Thailand) to Bangalore(India) that are both 13degrees N, the flight time is 3hr 40min going an east to west direction. Distance between them is 1539miles.  Knowing that the rotational speed at 13degrees N is slower than the equator, but assuming it’s still pretty fast, let’s say 800mph – Why does this flight not take less than 2 hours? All the plane needs to do is reach a height and simply ‘wait’ for Bangalore to come to it.
   Is there a speed at which point an object is moving faster than the gravitational pull? Is it possible for an object with no self-propulsion method to overcome gravity and leave the atmosphere into zero-gravity space?

Thank you Globe concept.

Flat Earth. Please take the stand.

1)    I am going to assume that most (maybe all) flat earthers believe that there is a dome covering the world. In saying this, please explain what meteorites and comets are and how they move. What is the force behind their movement?
2)   How does a Solar and Lunar Eclipse happen? Can you provide any animated descriptions?
3)   The 12 zodiac constellations are not all visible during the entirety of the year. If all the stars are on the dome above our heads and rotating around us, how do the zodiac constellations disappear during 3 seasons and return for their specific season only?
4)   If the moon is much closer than we have been told (and smaller), why can we not reach it and land on it?
5)   Is the moon also a flat body facing us, therefore explaining why we can only every see one side of it? Or is the moon a spherical body?
6)   How are the waxing and waning of the moon explained in the flat earth model?
7)   Can you explain seasonal changes? Why is it winter in the central part (northern hemisphere) while it is summer in the outer part (southern hemisphere)?

Thank you Flat Earth Concept.

I would like to also mention, that I think it’s possible for there to be some points about the heliocentric model that can be true for the geocentric, and vice versa. For example, maybe we are on a heliocentric globe that also has a solid sphere surrounding it, maybe we are on a flat earth that spins while the sun is stationary (no idea what the moon would be doing).

I really look forward to seeing some of the responses. Please remember to keep this civil.

What were the nature of the lies you were told that started you off on your journey and how did you discover the truth?

So for some reason i cannot see my last post here and i have forget the full contents of that posts.

I will look for the video and link it here, but a youtube search for 'amateur rocket hits firmament' should pull up the video.

How far would a 3000km wide object have to appearas large as our moon? I don't know. I have seen the mathematics being done, but there is still that gut feeling that something doesn't add up. Like when you pick up a food product that hasn't passed the used by date but doesn't look acceptable for eating.

Regarding the boats going over the horizon, i will have to experiment myself with a telescope.

In relation to the moon landing: the existance of shadows with different angles indicating additional light sources, the complete lack of any blast crater from the module landing, the question of what fuel was available and where was it stored for the return trip to earth, then there is also a 2014(i think) video of a nasa rocket engineer talking to future engineer graduates explaining the limited payload that nasa is capable of taking to space.. These things all point towards the probability of a fake moon landing to beat the russians and justify to the citizens where their tax money has been so-called 'spent'.
Hopefully this post will be visible..

When arguing with a flat earther you will never win because they will always claim to be victorious even though they lost so its pointless to attempt to convince them.

So for some reason i cannot see my last post here and i have forget the full contents of that posts.

I will look for the video and link it here, but a youtube search for 'amateur rocket hits firmament' should pull up the video.

How far would a 3000km wide object have to appearas large as our moon? I don't know. I have seen the mathematics being done, but there is still that gut feeling that something doesn't add up. Like when you pick up a food product that hasn't passed the used by date but doesn't look acceptable for eating.

Regarding the boats going over the horizon, i will have to experiment myself with a telescope.

In relation to the moon landing: the existance of shadows with different angles indicating additional light sources, the complete lack of any blast crater from the module landing, the question of what fuel was available and where was it stored for the return trip to earth, then there is also a 2014(i think) video of a nasa rocket engineer talking to future engineer graduates explaining the limited payload that nasa is capable of taking to space.. These things all point towards the probability of a fake moon landing to beat the russians and justify to the citizens where their tax money has been so-called 'spent'.
Hopefully this post will be visible..

As long as your not closed off to newer rocket launches and satelites, then okay. Also should note that any and all evidense from space agencies are generally discarded by flat earthers, so we tend to use many other sources for showing how we know the earth is a sphere.

Distance to the moon:
Simple trigonometry online: http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp
We know the angle we observe the moon to be about 0.5 degrees.
We half this value for the calculation as the 90 degree angle should be considered the center of the object. (Giving us 0.25 degrees) (at this distance it doesn't make much of a difference to half it, but for accuracy sake it is needed)
We can then either get the size of the object knowing distance or the distance using size.
In this instance we will get the distance using size, and since our triangle measures from the center of the object, we need to half the size (Giving us 1,500km)
We then get a distance of 343,772.49 km using simple calculus (this number doesn't need to be halfed or anything).
A simple google search will get the value 384,400 km to the moon, so its not that far off just using 3000 km wide moon.

UPDATE: using the values given by google, we get 382,777 km distance (diameter 3,474km, angle 0.52 degrees). Rabs calculation below is the simple version, but only approximates (doing a generally good job).

The math works, but then again, it assumes you know either size or distance. These measurements are not something we can measure easily from earth, but we can however quickly see using this math that the sun and moon are very far away, as a local sun/moon with an altitude of 5000km as flat earth believers would have you believe, would infact using the math start out small near the horizon and slowly get bigger until noon, then smaller again. Since this does not happen, we could easily conclude several thousands of years ago, that the sun and moon were very far away. Then after, using the knowledge of nearly parallel sun rays from a sun very far away, we could get a good approximation of the size of the globe.

How far would a 3000km wide object have to appear as large as our moon? I don't know. I have seen the mathematics being done, but there is still that gut feeling that something doesn't add up. Like when you pick up a food product that hasn't passed the used by date but doesn't look acceptable for eating.

The average angular diameter of the moon as seen from earth is 0.52° (you can measure it yourself easy enough, but remember that it varies over the monthly cycle).

The distance to the object is near enough to (diameter of object)/(angular size in radians),
so for you 3000 km object the distance is about (3000)/(0.009076) = 331,000 km.
But the moon is 3476 km in diameter and so is  (3476)/(0.009076) = 384,000 km away (little errors might be from rounding).

Look OK?

Globular Model:

1)   Can you provide an accurate mathematical formula for calculating the curvature of a sphere? This same formula must be consistent with any sphere no matter what it’s size (Tennis ball, wrecking ball, Moon, Earth or Jupiter).

It's important to remember that the earth (along with the other planets) is only approximately spherical.  It is more properly referred to as an oblate spheroid and is often described using a reference ellipsoid.
https://gisgeography.com/ellipsoid-oblate-spheroid-earth/

I will look for the video and link it here, but a youtube search for 'amateur rocket hits firmament' should pull up the video.

Yes, and it a video re-uploaded by people who want to pretend there is a firmament, and done quite dishonestly.
e.g. this one here:


They cut the footage there and then just show a bunch of other crap.
We could instead look at the original footage:

It isn't stopped in any sense of the word.
And it isn't by a magic firmament.
It has a despin mechanism inside which stops the rapid rotation.
Anyone claiming otherwise is lying.

How far would a 3000km wide object have to appearas large as our moon? I don't know. I have seen the mathematics being done, but there is still that gut feeling that something doesn't add up.

Because of just how large the distances are. Humans can have a hard time comprehending and accepting those kind of distances.
But other than this "gut feeling" can you actually explain anything wrong with it?

In relation to the moon landing: the existance of shadows with different angles indicating additional light sources

You mean indicating that it wasn't a flat surface, as the pictures showed.

the complete lack of any blast crater from the module landing

When there is no reason to have one?
That is like saying plane landings must be fake because there are no blast craters on every runway.

the question of what fuel was available and where was it stored for the return trip to earth

So you just haven't researched it.

then there is also a 2014(i think) video of a nasa rocket engineer talking to future engineer graduates explaining the limited payload that nasa is capable of taking to space.

Based upon the rockets that are available.

These things all point towards the probability of a fake moon landing

Not in the slightest.
These point to a fundamental lack of understanding of the moon landings.

I don't want this thread turning into a debate about the moon landing. Let's keep this as flat vs globe only.
A new thread can be opened up somewhere else to discuss the entirity of the moon landing.

I'll answer your question JackBlack,
Other than this 'gut feeling', no, I can't explain anything wrong with the mathematics of the moon's distance or size. Throwing out something like "well it's impossible for the human eye to see that far" doesn't have any scientific backing.

I will be testing with my cousin's telescope to compare the farthest object I can see through the naked eye vs large zoom. But i guess  that no evidence of any results will be accepted by either side due to camera resolution and image quality. So it'll just be a case of 'my word against yours'.

However, coming back to my initial questions for both sides, i think this debate has to go to the globe model. No-one has come forward from the flat model's side to bring any information, so it seems like a globe win by default. Bit disappointing by the FE'ers considering that this is a forum called the "Flat Earth Society" yet no FE'ers stand up with their opinions and evidence.

Thanks to JackBlack, rabinoz and spherical earther for your contribution and explanations. I may continue discussion with you via PM.
I think this should stay open and available and we'll check back to see if any FE'ers bring something to the table.

I don't want this thread turning into a debate about the moon landing. Let's keep this as flat vs globe only.
A new thread can be opened up somewhere else to discuss the entirity of the moon landing.

I'll answer your question JackBlack,
Other than this 'gut feeling', no, I can't explain anything wrong with the mathematics of the moon's distance or size. Throwing out something like "well it's impossible for the human eye to see that far" doesn't have any scientific backing.

I will be testing with my cousin's telescope to compare the farthest object I can see through the naked eye vs large zoom. But i guess  that no evidence of any results will be accepted by either side due to camera resolution and image quality. So it'll just be a case of 'my word against yours'.

However, coming back to my initial questions for both sides, i think this debate has to go to the globe model. No-one has come forward from the flat model's side to bring any information, so it seems like a globe win by default. Bit disappointing by the FE'ers considering that this is a forum called the "Flat Earth Society" yet no FE'ers stand up with their opinions and evidence.

Thanks to JackBlack, rabinoz and spherical earther for your contribution and explanations. I may continue discussion with you via PM.
I think this should stay open and available and we'll check back to see if any FE'ers bring something to the table.

Wot! Do I have to put in a word or two from the flat earth point-of-view ?
In the post liked here Flat Earth Debate / So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high? « Message by rabinoz on August 24, 2016, 01:22:33 PM »
I show that the flat earth has Samuel Birley Rowbotham measuring not more than 700 miles high for the sun.
Then Voliva claims to calculate the sun height as 3000 miles,  but with no measurements.

And the Wiki puts the moon at about the same height as the sun and states

The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

And the Wiki also has"A Solar Eclipse occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun."

Maybe someone smarter than I can work out something from that.

I will be testing with my cousin's telescope to compare the farthest object I can see through the naked eye vs large zoom. But i guess  that no evidence of any results will be accepted by either side due to camera resolution and image quality. So it'll just be a case of 'my word against yours'.

The problem isn't camera resolution or image quality.
The best you can get with observations like these is that the moon must be further than some distant object (such as an object on the horizon).
This is because it simply scales.
A close small moon can look the same (even with a telescope) as a distant large moon.
The only other option would be to measure the angle to the moon from various locations, but in order for that to be accurate enough, you need 3 points quite some distance apart where the curvature of Earth starts to have a very significant affect.

However, coming back to my initial questions for both sides, i think this debate has to go to the globe model. No-one has come forward from the flat model's side to bring any information, so it seems like a globe win by default. Bit disappointing by the FE'ers considering that this is a forum called the "Flat Earth Society" yet no FE'ers stand up with their opinions and evidence.

Thanks to JackBlack, rabinoz and spherical earther for your contribution and explanations. I may continue discussion with you via PM.
I think this should stay open and available and we'll check back to see if any FE'ers bring something to the table.

Thank you, and you're welcome.

Thanks to JackBlack, rabinoz and spherical earther for your contribution and explanations.

Hey! I answered *all* the questions, first, in as much detail as was necessary. Bother! 

Quote from: JH88 on May 03, 2018, 10:13:34 PM

Thanks to JackBlack, rabinoz and spherical earther for your contribution and explanations.

Hey! I answered *all* the questions, first, in as much detail as was necessary. Bother! 

True, to any reasonable person, what you gave might suffice, but have you forgotten the site you are on, beware, there are flat-earthers here!

Then you get a few just intent on throwing a spanner in the works (though I doubt Shifter knows what a shifter is.)

Quote from: JackBlack on May 01, 2018, 03:07:42 PM

Many things you find on youtube, especially allegedly supporting FE, is wrong.

That leaves the door open to at least some things supporting FE to be right.
Can you point us to a Flat Earth supporting video showing something right?

many others don't realise that Curvature = 1/R and have no idea what they, themselves, mean when they come out with "I don', see no coivacha".

And when you simply state the obvious, "Air moves with surface",
they demand more explanation but when it is presented the response is a loud tl;dr and all your work gets deleted.

I do wish a few flat earthers were Curiouser and Curiouser about obvious things like:

• How the constellations can stay the same shape and angular size if they are so close and
• How the sun and moon can stay the same angular size show the same face to everybody that can see them if they are so close.

Even people many centuries ago (see the writings of ) and almost 2000 years ago (see the writings of Ptolemy) were certain of that!

And then they ignore the Ultimate Proof!I  do hope that this has been a help.