why we know the earth is flat

The Earth curves at a rate of about ~12cm every kilometer. Is this OP dunderhead claiming that such a curve should be noticeable to the human eye?

Does he also claim that he can notice an inclination of ~6cm every 500m he walks (ignoring local topography for the sake of simplicity)?

Looks like septictank's sibling finally got access to a computer.

For the sake of humanity, please do not breed.

Thanks 

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 10:03:19 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 20, 2015, 09:19:56 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 08:17:06 AM

There are many space games and space simulators I have played that all have planets that look quite flst from the surface, but if anyone wants me to make an animation proving that the Earth looks flat from the surface then I can do that.

yeah, that's convincing, a biased round earther with complete control over a fictional simulation. if you think that was a good suggestion you've given up on logic.

I could even provide my .blend file which can be checked for realism by anyone with Blender (which is free).  You could even render out the animation yourself to make sure that the animation was made using that file.

wow, so now artificial software programmed to fake laws by total strangers is now a reliable source? you people keep getting more and more desperate, don't you?

All I am going to do is put a virtual camera right up to the surface of a massive virtual sphere and seeing what I see, I am not even going to use the physics simulation or anything, I am just going to go really close to a huge sphere.  How in the (round) world do you think I would rig this?

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong. you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 20, 2015, 02:23:31 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 10:03:19 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 20, 2015, 09:19:56 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 08:17:06 AM

There are many space games and space simulators I have played that all have planets that look quite flst from the surface, but if anyone wants me to make an animation proving that the Earth looks flat from the surface then I can do that.

yeah, that's convincing, a biased round earther with complete control over a fictional simulation. if you think that was a good suggestion you've given up on logic.

I could even provide my .blend file which can be checked for realism by anyone with Blender (which is free).  You could even render out the animation yourself to make sure that the animation was made using that file.

wow, so now artificial software programmed to fake laws by total strangers is now a reliable source? you people keep getting more and more desperate, don't you?

All I am going to do is put a virtual camera right up to the surface of a massive virtual sphere and seeing what I see, I am not even going to use the physics simulation or anything, I am just going to go really close to a huge sphere.  How in the (round) world do you think I would rig this?

a fictional simulation, run by fictional laws, created by a round earther. you can program in anything you want to see. that's how computers work.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 21, 2015, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

You're quite right, there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. However when the sphere becomes very, very large compared to the observer the change in height over distance becomes so small that it renders the surface effectively flat to observation. Scale is everything.

For instance, imagine the other way round. A road surface may look very smooth to the casual glance but if you get right up close it is actually on a very small scale very rough. Gain scale matters.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 21, 2015, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

You're one of those stubborn people that go on my ignore list. FE is a notion. RE is a scientific fact due to tests and visual evidence showing that the world is round.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 03:22:09 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 21, 2015, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

You're one of those stubborn people that go on my ignore list. FE is a notion. RE is a scientific fact due to tests and visual evidence showing that the world is round.

too scared i see.
you offer no evidence that hasn't been shown to be fake or misleading before. try again.

You have been offered a virtual animation which you could have personally checked for realism. That's called evidence.

Here's another thing you can do. Draw a circle using a compass. Then look at a segment of the circle with a microscope under low power. What you see will look flat

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 03:12:32 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 20, 2015, 02:23:31 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 10:03:19 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 20, 2015, 09:19:56 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 20, 2015, 08:17:06 AM

There are many space games and space simulators I have played that all have planets that look quite flst from the surface, but if anyone wants me to make an animation proving that the Earth looks flat from the surface then I can do that.

yeah, that's convincing, a biased round earther with complete control over a fictional simulation. if you think that was a good suggestion you've given up on logic.

I could even provide my .blend file which can be checked for realism by anyone with Blender (which is free).  You could even render out the animation yourself to make sure that the animation was made using that file.

wow, so now artificial software programmed to fake laws by total strangers is now a reliable source? you people keep getting more and more desperate, don't you?

All I am going to do is put a virtual camera right up to the surface of a massive virtual sphere and seeing what I see, I am not even going to use the physics simulation or anything, I am just going to go really close to a huge sphere.  How in the (round) world do you think I would rig this?

a fictional simulation, run by fictional laws, created by a round earther. you can program in anything you want to see. that's how computers work.

Yes, but then if I allow you to see what I programed in to the computer to make it do what it did then you can know if it's realistic.

wrong.

That is considered low content posting.  Please keep it out of the upper fora.  Thanks. 

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 20, 2015, 01:58:20 PM

Crystal formation on earth ,proves your spherical hypotheses to be total nonsence . As for theses so called asteroids  coming from outer space lol. There is no outer space .they are being hurled from volcanic eruption from  the dark part of earth.

Castlebravo, that is considered low content and is against the rules in the upper fora.  Please keep this in the lower fora.  Thanks. 

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 03:22:09 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 21, 2015, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

You're one of those stubborn people that go on my ignore list. FE is a notion. RE is a scientific fact due to tests and visual evidence showing that the world is round.

the problem is easley solved, build a one mile  trough level it & fill it with water . 150k would build it . If your so sure earth has a curviture then rasie the money & biuld it.

Quote from: Misero on February 21, 2015, 04:27:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 03:22:09 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 21, 2015, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

You're one of those stubborn people that go on my ignore list. FE is a notion. RE is a scientific fact due to tests and visual evidence showing that the world is round.

the problem is easley solved, build a one mile  trough level it & fill it with water . 150k would build it . If your so sure earth has a curviture then rasie the money & biuld it.

No need, just follow the sun round the earth.

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 01:46:38 AM

Quote from: Misero on February 21, 2015, 04:27:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 03:22:09 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 21, 2015, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

You're one of those stubborn people that go on my ignore list. FE is a notion. RE is a scientific fact due to tests and visual evidence showing that the world is round.

the problem is easley solved, build a one mile  trough level it & fill it with water . 150k would build it . If your so sure earth has a curviture then rasie the money & biuld it.

No need, just follow the sun round the earth.

what if I build one on my property & demonstrate the earth has no curviture . Would you still insist the earth is spherical ?

Quote from: inquisitive on February 22, 2015, 01:57:03 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 01:46:38 AM

Quote from: Misero on February 21, 2015, 04:27:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 03:22:09 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 21, 2015, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

You're one of those stubborn people that go on my ignore list. FE is a notion. RE is a scientific fact due to tests and visual evidence showing that the world is round.

the problem is easley solved, build a one mile  trough level it & fill it with water . 150k would build it . If your so sure earth has a curviture then rasie the money & biuld it.

No need, just follow the sun round the earth.

what if I build one on my property & demonstrate the earth has no curviture . Would you still insist the earth is spherical ?

Let's see the test and the result.  Please explain measured distances which prove a round earth.

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 03:15:42 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 22, 2015, 01:57:03 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 01:46:38 AM

Quote from: Misero on February 21, 2015, 04:27:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 03:22:09 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 21, 2015, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

You're one of those stubborn people that go on my ignore list. FE is a notion. RE is a scientific fact due to tests and visual evidence showing that the world is round.

the problem is easley solved, build a one mile  trough level it & fill it with water . 150k would build it . If your so sure earth has a curviture then rasie the money & biuld it.

No need, just follow the sun round the earth.

what if I build one on my property & demonstrate the earth has no curviture . Would you still insist the earth is spherical ?

Let's see the test and the result.  Please explain measured distances which prove a round earth.

well its a simple test . We build an open symmetric  level channel a mile long & fill it with water . If earth has  a curviture , then the water will be lower at both ends & higher in the middle.  A lot cheaper way of proving earth  flat or spherical then the trillions  NASA has spent  trying to bullshit the world.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 22, 2015, 04:01:53 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 03:15:42 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 22, 2015, 01:57:03 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 01:46:38 AM

Quote from: Misero on February 21, 2015, 04:27:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 03:22:09 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 21, 2015, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

You're one of those stubborn people that go on my ignore list. FE is a notion. RE is a scientific fact due to tests and visual evidence showing that the world is round.

the problem is easley solved, build a one mile  trough level it & fill it with water . 150k would build it . If your so sure earth has a curviture then rasie the money & biuld it.

No need, just follow the sun round the earth.

what if I build one on my property & demonstrate the earth has no curviture . Would you still insist the earth is spherical ?

Let's see the test and the result.  Please explain measured distances which prove a round earth.

well its a simple test . We build an open symmetric  level channel a mile long & fill it with water . If earth has  a curviture , then the water will be lower at both ends & higher in the middle.  A lot cheaper way of proving earth  flat or spherical then the trillions  NASA has spent  trying to bullshit the world.

Find a lake.

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 04:47:22 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 22, 2015, 04:01:53 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 03:15:42 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 22, 2015, 01:57:03 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 01:46:38 AM

Quote from: Misero on February 21, 2015, 04:27:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 03:22:09 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 21, 2015, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

You're one of those stubborn people that go on my ignore list. FE is a notion. RE is a scientific fact due to tests and visual evidence showing that the world is round.

the problem is easley solved, build a one mile  trough level it & fill it with water . 150k would build it . If your so sure earth has a curviture then rasie the money & biuld it.

No need, just follow the sun round the earth.

what if I build one on my property & demonstrate the earth has no curviture . Would you still insist the earth is spherical ?

Let's see the test and the result.  Please explain measured distances which prove a round earth.

well its a simple test . We build an open symmetric  level channel a mile long & fill it with water . If earth has  a curviture , then the water will be lower at both ends & higher in the middle.  A lot cheaper way of proving earth  flat or spherical then the trillions  NASA has spent  trying to bullshit the world.

Find a lake.

Here's a picture of a large lake courtesy of cikljamas:


Those are the tops of the tallest buildings in Chicago 46 miles away just breaking the horizon. The convex surface of the water is blocking the view of the rest of the city, so there's your test - already done!

Quote from: inquisitive on February 22, 2015, 05:03:41 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 04:47:22 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 22, 2015, 04:01:53 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 03:15:42 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 22, 2015, 01:57:03 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 01:46:38 AM

Quote from: Misero on February 21, 2015, 04:27:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 03:22:09 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 21, 2015, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 20, 2015, 03:23:48 PM

JRoweSkeptic seems to be of the opinion that the surface of a globe cant be flat.
He is right, a globes surface is curved.
But what he fails to realise, is that although the earth looks flat, it isn't.
I shall say it again.
THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HUGE.
Like, bigger than the empty space which is reserved for your brain.
Thats pretty darn big

you are wrong.

That about sums up your rebuttal.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 02:52:55 AM

you've missed a lot of discussion where i have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up. try thinking for yourself.

I think you must be using an obscure definition of the word 'discussion'.
You've just ignored everyone.
Try to think. By yourself would be a plus

there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. i have explained this. you respond by obviously false assertions.
think for yourself. you know what i say is true, yet you reject it to cling to your notion of a round earth. why?

You're one of those stubborn people that go on my ignore list. FE is a notion. RE is a scientific fact due to tests and visual evidence showing that the world is round.

the problem is easley solved, build a one mile  trough level it & fill it with water . 150k would build it . If your so sure earth has a curviture then rasie the money & biuld it.

No need, just follow the sun round the earth.

what if I build one on my property & demonstrate the earth has no curviture . Would you still insist the earth is spherical ?

Let's see the test and the result.  Please explain measured distances which prove a round earth.

well its a simple test . We build an open symmetric  level channel a mile long & fill it with water . If earth has  a curviture , then the water will be lower at both ends & higher in the middle.  A lot cheaper way of proving earth  flat or spherical then the trillions  NASA has spent  trying to bullshit the world.

Find a lake.

Here's a picture of a large lake courtesy of cikljamas:


Those are the tops of the tallest buildings in Chicago 46 miles away just breaking the horizon. The convex surface of the water is blocking the view of the rest of the city, so there's your test - already done!

The problem of using that for a conclusive test , is saturation of reflected light & shadow . Camouflage is a good example. The  bottom of the buildings are not behind any wall of water . It's just your  brian having to process trillions of shadows amongst the same spectrom of light wave.

That means nothing.  A valid test.

That means nothing.  A valid test.

a valid test would be the  trough test. Error due to optical allution would be ruled out.

well its a simple test . We build an open symmetric  level channel a mile long & fill it with water . If earth has  a curviture , then the water will be lower at both ends & higher in the middle.

I don't think that you understand the difference between "level" and "straight" in the context of a sphere.  On a round earth, "level" follows the curvature of the earth.  If you make the channel "straight" then you might see a difference (of maybe 4 inches).

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 04:47:22 AM

well its a simple test . We build an open symmetric  level channel a mile long & fill it with water . If earth has  a curviture , then the water will be lower at both ends & higher in the middle.

I don't think that you understand the difference between "level" and "straight" in the context of a sphere.  On a round earth, "level" follows the curvature of the earth.  If you make the channel "straight" then you might see a difference (of maybe 4 inches).

This is just one of the ridiculous things about a global Earth that literally shocks me, when I think how people actually buy into it.

There's a reason why things are called level and it's nothing to do with anything other than true - straight - perfectly horizontal - perfectly vertical. Never round. Never curved.

How in the hell can human beings not understand this simple thing?

Quote from: markjo on February 23, 2015, 06:24:26 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 04:47:22 AM

well its a simple test . We build an open symmetric  level channel a mile long & fill it with water . If earth has  a curviture , then the water will be lower at both ends & higher in the middle.

I don't think that you understand the difference between "level" and "straight" in the context of a sphere.  On a round earth, "level" follows the curvature of the earth.  If you make the channel "straight" then you might see a difference (of maybe 4 inches).

This is just one of the ridiculous things about a global Earth that literally shocks me, when I think how people actually buy into it.


There's a reason why things are called level and it's nothing to do with anything other than true - straight - perfectly horizontal - perfectly vertical. Never round. Never curved.

How in the hell can human beings not understand this simple thing?

He said in the context of a sphere. How in the hell can humans beings not undersyand this simple thing as context?

that literally shocks me

lol, really?

How in the hell can human beings not understand this simple thing?

That's pretty much what everyone else but you thinks when they read your threads.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on February 22, 2015, 08:23:10 AM

Here's a picture of a large lake courtesy of cikljamas:


Those are the tops of the tallest buildings in Chicago 46 miles away just breaking the horizon. The convex surface of the water is blocking the view of the rest of the city, so there's your test - already done!

The problem of using that for a conclusive test , is saturation of reflected light & shadow . Camouflage is a good example. The  bottom of the buildings are not behind any wall of water . It's just your  brian having to process trillions of shadows amongst the same spectrom of light wave.

The photo shows a distinct line that is separating the orange glow of sunset (not saturated, by the way) and the dark, silhouetted buildings from the grayish-blue water below? If the buildings were a similar orange color as the sky then they would be more difficult to see and you might have a "camouflage" argument, but even if the buildings were lighted to mimic the sky behind them, they would still be there, just hard to see. But that's obviously not what's happening here, anyway, is it?

The The surface of the water blocks both sky and building along the same line, so your argument fails.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 23, 2015, 12:05:38 AM

That means nothing.  A valid test.

a valid test would be the  trough test. Error due to optical allution would be ruled out.

Where do you get the word allution from?  Nothing wrong with using a lake.