Give me your top ten proofs for a globe earth

I'm aware of that ad hoc answer. Which in itself is funny because you keep yelling at people for making stuff up. But anyways, I want to see what he comes up with.

Then why do you repeat the same questions when you already know the answers?  Is this some kind of sick joke?  Is it just fun for you to troll around this forum? 

Still waiting. Why doesn't the sun appear half the size at sunset when compared to noon?

Refraction. Sigh, you guys have to try harder than that.

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2016, 01:32:02 PM

Still waiting. Why doesn't the sun appear half the size at sunset when compared to noon?

Refraction. Sigh, you guys have to try harder than that.

That is not a property of refraction. Try harder.

Quote from: sokarul on April 20, 2016, 07:44:27 PM

I'm aware of that ad hoc answer. Which in itself is funny because you keep yelling at people for making stuff up. But anyways, I want to see what he comes up with.

Then why do you repeat the same questions when you already know the answers?  Is this some kind of sick joke?  Is it just fun for you to troll around this forum? 

Are you madeI called out out for doing stuff you yell at others not to do?

Quote from: FLAT_IS_TRUTH on April 20, 2016, 10:06:40 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2016, 01:32:02 PM

Still waiting. Why doesn't the sun appear half the size at sunset when compared to noon?

Refraction. Sigh, you guys have to try harder than that.

That is not a property of refraction. Try harder.

Quote from: jroa on April 20, 2016, 08:45:35 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 20, 2016, 07:44:27 PM

I'm aware of that ad hoc answer. Which in itself is funny because you keep yelling at people for making stuff up. But anyways, I want to see what he comes up with.

Then why do you repeat the same questions when you already know the answers?  Is this some kind of sick joke?  Is it just fun for you to troll around this forum? 

Are you madeI called out out for doing stuff you yell at others not to do?

I am not, good sir, madel called out out for doing stuff, much less any other reason for doing stuff,  regardless of what I yell at others. 

Still waiting. Why doesn't the sun appear half the size at sunset when compared to noon?

Also this is a high quality question.

Quote from: İntikam on April 19, 2016, 01:37:44 AM

When it is rising, you see it small because it is far away to you.
When it is at top, then it is near to you then you see it bigger.

Sun is about 5.000 miles high. So we can calculate how is the sun about half, then the horizon we can see.

Watch and be illuminated, you benighted.

The sun in your diagram is well above the horizon.  Based off your diagram, how far away do you calculate the sun to be when appearing 5 degrees above the horizon?

What are you afraid of İntikam?

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2016, 01:32:02 PM

Still waiting. Why doesn't the sun appear half the size at sunset when compared to noon?

Also this is a high quality question.

Quote from: 29silhouette on April 20, 2016, 07:48:49 PM

Quote from: İntikam on April 19, 2016, 01:37:44 AM

When it is rising, you see it small because it is far away to you.
When it is at top, then it is near to you then you see it bigger.

Sun is about 5.000 miles high. So we can calculate how is the sun about half, then the horizon we can see.

Watch and be illuminated, you benighted.

The sun in your diagram is well above the horizon.  Based off your diagram, how far away do you calculate the sun to be when appearing 5 degrees above the horizon?

What are you afraid of İntikam?

There are so much trolls here and i can't reach to answer every posts. This is not my mistake. This is forum manegement's problem. They should not allow much more RE trolls like this much.

Quote from: sokarul on April 20, 2016, 11:27:10 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2016, 01:32:02 PM

Still waiting. Why doesn't the sun appear half the size at sunset when compared to noon?

Also this is a high quality question.

Quote from: 29silhouette on April 20, 2016, 07:48:49 PM

Quote from: İntikam on April 19, 2016, 01:37:44 AM

When it is rising, you see it small because it is far away to you.
When it is at top, then it is near to you then you see it bigger.

Sun is about 5.000 miles high. So we can calculate how is the sun about half, then the horizon we can see.

Watch and be illuminated, you benighted.

The sun in your diagram is well above the horizon.  Based off your diagram, how far away do you calculate the sun to be when appearing 5 degrees above the horizon?

What are you afraid of İntikam?

There are so much trolls here and i can't reach to answer every posts. This is not my mistake. This is forum manegement's problem. They should not allow much more RE trolls like this much.

This is the debate forum.  If you are not capable of defending your position in a coherent and rational manner without resorting to calling opponents shills, trolls, and Satanists, then you are the real problem here.  I agree; this is a management problem.  They let irrational people like you clog up the forum with painfully stupid topics. 

Quote from: sokarul on April 20, 2016, 11:27:10 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2016, 01:32:02 PM

Still waiting. Why doesn't the sun appear half the size at sunset when compared to noon?

Also this is a high quality question.

Quote from: 29silhouette on April 20, 2016, 07:48:49 PM

Quote from: İntikam on April 19, 2016, 01:37:44 AM

When it is rising, you see it small because it is far away to you.
When it is at top, then it is near to you then you see it bigger.

Sun is about 5.000 miles high. So we can calculate how is the sun about half, then the horizon we can see.

Watch and be illuminated, you benighted.

The sun in your diagram is well above the horizon.  Based off your diagram, how far away do you calculate the sun to be when appearing 5 degrees above the horizon?

What are you afraid of İntikam?

There are so much trolls here and i can't reach to answer every posts. This is not my mistake. This is forum manegement's problem. They should not allow much more RE trolls like this much.

I accept your defeat.

Quote from: İntikam on April 24, 2016, 11:54:28 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 20, 2016, 11:27:10 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2016, 01:32:02 PM

Still waiting. Why doesn't the sun appear half the size at sunset when compared to noon?

Also this is a high quality question.

Quote from: 29silhouette on April 20, 2016, 07:48:49 PM

Quote from: İntikam on April 19, 2016, 01:37:44 AM

When it is rising, you see it small because it is far away to you.
When it is at top, then it is near to you then you see it bigger.

Sun is about 5.000 miles high. So we can calculate how is the sun about half, then the horizon we can see.

Watch and be illuminated, you benighted.

The sun in your diagram is well above the horizon.  Based off your diagram, how far away do you calculate the sun to be when appearing 5 degrees above the horizon?

What are you afraid of İntikam?

There are so much trolls here and i can't reach to answer every posts. This is not my mistake. This is forum manegement's problem. They should not allow much more RE trolls like this much.

I accept your defeat.

There is nothing causes defeating.

My top 10, in no particular order:

1. Imagery from high altitudes and space. FE counterargument: these aren't real.
2. A sharp horizon over which objects disappear from the bottom upwards. FE counterarguments: the rules of perspective are wrong, atmospheric hazing, gigantic waves.
3. The ability of inertial navigation systems to function. FE counterargument: none.
4. Two visible poles of stellar rotation. FE counterargument: none that fits observations.
5. Rising/setting of celestial objects. FE counterargument: none that fits observations.
6. Direction of sunrise/sunset being due east/west from everywhere on earth at the equinoxes. FE counterargument: none ever given.
7. The coriolis effect. FE counterargument: wind.
8. Stellar aberration. FE counterargument: none.
9. Apparent rotation of the moon around the earth. FE counterarguments: eather and ORBISIMS.
10. 24 hour daylight/darkness at the poles. FE counterargument: denial that it happens.

There is nothing causes defeating.

Can you show the sun at a 5 degree angle?  You show it 5,000 miles high and 10,000 miles away, at which point it is well above the horizon.  What happens if you increase the distance to 40,000 miles?  Does the sun get close to the horizon?

Quote from: sokarul on April 14, 2016, 05:54:05 AM

The sun would appear roughly half the size at sunrise/sunset compared to noon, in your model.  This is not seen.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I'm sorry, are you trying to prove something that anyone can see is false JUST by looking up into the sky (namely that the sun is the same size throughout the day)?

Quote from: İntikam on April 14, 2016, 06:04:57 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 14, 2016, 05:54:05 AM

The sun would appear roughly half the size at sunrise/sunset compared to noon, in your model.  This is not seen.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I'm sorry, are you trying to prove something that anyone can see is false JUST by looking up into the sky (namely that the sun is the same size throughout the day)?

All I saw in this video is that this guy has no idea how to focus a camera.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on April 25, 2016, 12:32:58 PM

Quote from: İntikam on April 14, 2016, 06:04:57 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 14, 2016, 05:54:05 AM

The sun would appear roughly half the size at sunrise/sunset compared to noon, in your model.  This is not seen.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I'm sorry, are you trying to prove something that anyone can see is false JUST by looking up into the sky (namely that the sun is the same size throughout the day)?

All I saw in this video is that this guy has no idea how to focus a camera.

All I saw was a redneck with a cold attempting to focus a camera on the moon. I did not understand the point of it. Did anyone?

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on April 25, 2016, 03:13:08 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on April 25, 2016, 12:32:58 PM

Quote from: İntikam on April 14, 2016, 06:04:57 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 14, 2016, 05:54:05 AM

The sun would appear roughly half the size at sunrise/sunset compared to noon, in your model.  This is not seen.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I'm sorry, are you trying to prove something that anyone can see is false JUST by looking up into the sky (namely that the sun is the same size throughout the day)?

All I saw in this video is that this guy has no idea how to focus a camera.

All I saw was a redneck with a cold attempting to focus a camera on the moon. I did not understand the point of it. Did anyone?

Also, I added my comments to that video:

How can the Sun be SE at his location at ~sunrise, when it is 1/4 of the Earth away NE? Where is this guy? How can the sunrise be SOUTH of your location on a Flat Earth at any location other than the N.Pole (where everything is south of you by definition)?


To make this easier, pick a spot anywhere along the vertical yellow line above (noon) and see where the Sun needs to be at sunrise/sunset (6 hrs earlier/later 1/4 of the Earth away). Which way would you see it from your spot? Where on Earth would you have to be to see it SE of you? (BTW, if you need to be on the OTHER side of the N.Pole, it is no longer sunrise/sunset but sunset/sunrise)

To put it a differently, on the Equinox, the sunrise/sunset is DUE EAST/WEST EVERYWHERE on Earth. How is that possible when the Sun on a Flat Earth is 1/4 of the Earth away NE/NW? It gets worse the farther south of the equator you go. From Antarctica, the Sun is NNE/NNW away, yet they see it due E/W... How?

Furthermore, the farthest north the Sun appears during the year is the Tropic of Cancer (23.5 deg N). The farthest south the Sun appears is the Tropic of Capricorn (23.5 deg S). On a spherical Earth both are the same circumference and therefore take the same amount of time to travel. On a Flat Earth, the Tropic of Capricorn is almost TWICE the length of the Tropic of Cancer. To get around the Earth in 24 hours, the Sun would have to move TWICE as fast in the sky. Why doesn't it? How can it get around the Earth at the same speed down south as up north - in 24 hours?

Sorry, the Sun and Moon don't work on a Flat Earth. Keep in mind, to make the Sun "work" on a Flat Earth, you have to invoke the "spotlight" effect (the same applies for the Moon and planets as well because the travel in the same area of the sky - the ecliptic). Therefore, the Sun CAN NOT light up the Moon. The Moon has to be self-illuminating. How? How are the phases formed? How do Lunar Eclipses happen - every time during a Full Moon with a red fuzzy shadow ~4x the size of the Moon on the opposite side of the N.Pole from the Sun? Get ready for lots of Flat Earth ad hoc explanations and general BS.


Obviously this guy doesn't know how the Moon goes around the Earth on a spherical/heliocentric Earth. He is just making this stuff up.

I'll throw something in here. If you are at the tropic of Cancer with the sun directly overhead the sun should have an angular size of around  0.61115 degrees. Based on it being 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter.

6 months later when it is over the tropic of Capricorn when viewed from the original location it should have an angular size of 0.41566 degrees. Based on it now being 4411 miles away.

But we don't see that change in angular size.

INTIKAM

How far would an object, 3000 miles high, have to be away from the observer, for it to even touch the horizon?

INTIKAM

How far would an object, 3000 miles high, have to be away from the observer, for it to even touch the horizon?

Intikam rests in peace.

I could give ten bits of "evidence" that I see with my own eyes:

• While the horizon looks flat ( it does, simply because the earth is huge!) to me the look of the sky and the way the clouds move over the horizon look like a Globe.
• On a clear day looking out to sea the sky-horizon interface is a sharp line (it is only about 5 km away!). On a flat earth it would have to fade into the distance with no distinct boundary.
• The sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
• The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - actually it sometimes seems a bit little larger at sunrise and sunset.
• The sun always appears to be a disk, though sometimes a bit distorted at sunrise and sunset.
• The sun always rises due east and sets due west on each equinox - here, and I am told it happens all over the earth.
• Likewise the moon appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
• The moon stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at moonrise and moonset.
• The moon always appears to show the same face wherever it is in the sky. (And from wherever we observe it - though we have to travel for this observation).
• The full moon always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at moonrise and moonset.

These do not categorically PROVE that the earth is a Globe, to be they provide very strong visual evidence.

None of this is direct evidence of a rotating earth, but I believe it is strong evidence of a Globe with a distant (that is far further than the earths size) sun and moon.

I have posted what I think is ONE proof in Measurements of the Earth Prove it cannot be Flat.

Quote from: Thafatearth on May 03, 2016, 09:15:40 PM

INTIKAM

How far would an object, 3000 miles high, have to be away from the observer, for it to even touch the horizon?

Intikam rests in peace.

A NASA / CIA agent may have reached him. I am sure they made it look like an accident.

To add to my earlier comment. The sun actually gets bigger during winter in the USA. Shouldn't it get smaller because it's moved towards the south?

To add to my earlier comment. The sun actually gets bigger during winter in the USA. Shouldn't it get smaller because it's moved towards the south?

If the Earth were flat and the sun was actually moving laterally towards the south, yes. It should get visibly smaller.

If the Earth were round and its tilt was causing the seasons, winter would mean you're tilted away from the sun. Since that means the sunlight as to cut through more of the atmosphere to reach your eyes and that air is also colder (because winter) and thus more dense, that means there's much more potential for refraction. So the sunlight has more paths into your eyes, so more individual receptors pick up sunlight, making the sun take up more angular space in your vision.

Another (sometimes) contributing factor is that during winter the sun is consistently closer to the horizon, making it easier to compare to other objects, giving the psychological effect of making the perceived difference from refraction appear more pronounced because you can notice it more easily.

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2016, 01:32:02 PM

Still waiting. Why doesn't the sun appear half the size at sunset when compared to noon?

Refraction. Sigh, you guys have to try harder than that.

Sigh, you guys need to understand what refraction is.

Waves refract when they travel from one medium into another. When a transverse wave (e.g. light) reaches a medium in which it would travel slower than the rate in its current medium, the back-and-forth nature of a transverse wave will make part of it catch the "edge" of the new medium, slow down, and bend it into a new path.

RET: The sun's light is refracted by the atmosphere upon entry from outer space. It previously had negligible resistance, now it has constant air resistance, and so the light's path bends towards Earth. The spherical nature of the atmosphere allows for different levels of refraction at different times of day and year (<< tilt is also a factor here). This is also what causes the full moon; the atmosphere's refraction, and the size of the sun in relation to the Earth, allows light to travel past the Earth and onto the full moon, and so the side facing the sun also faces Earth.

FET: Sunlight consistently travels downward due to the spotlight effect. Since refraction angles are sinusoidal, the flatness of the earth prevents refraction from being manifested in the atmolayer at the levels we see it with our own eyes.

This has been posted before, but many have ignored it.
Using only math, following the numbers from the flat earth idea,
this diagram shows how the sun should behave if the earth was flat.

Refraction does not make the sun change THAT much in angular size to match what we see in reality.
If that was true, I really want to see how that refraction formula looks, and why refraction only effects
the sun, but not other objects near the horizon...

Also, the sun setting is NOT caused by perspective.

Perspective is the spatial relationship between volumes at different distances perceived in a two-dimensional frame.
The Law of Perspective is as follows:

a=2*arctan(g/(2r))

Where 'a' is the angular size of an object in reference to the angle of your vision, 'g' is the actual size of the object, and 'r' is the distance to the object. Note that 'g' is a constant for each object, the 'a' and 'r' are variables which negatively correlate with one another, meaning if distance increases, apparent size decreases. When we apply this to the moon, for example, we do not see a change in apparent size. If one were to hypothesize that the moon rotates at a height of 3,000 miles above Earth where distance changes drastically, then observable reality must demonstrate this correlation during its cycle around the Earth. However, when applied to orbiting spinning balls, distance does not change much in relation with the actual size of the moon, so the change in angular size of the moon to our eye remains imperceptible.

Let me explain something to all the flat earthers who claim that the sun and moon "set" at the horizon because perspective causes them to appear lower with increased distance. Perspective can only describe the change in angular size of an object, NOTHING more. It does not skew the angle closer to the horizon and it does not cause angular size to go negative, just like train tracks do not cross over in the distance.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Here's the diagram:

http://www.geogebra.org/m/2141849

Here is someone who photographed the sun in Madison USA. Summer and Winter. During USA winter the Earth is closest to the Sun. During USA summer Earth is farthest from the Sun.

http://webpages.charter.net/darksky25/Astronomy/Articles/sun/sunindex.html

Doesn't quite match up with the path of the sun on a flat map does it.

This has been posted before, but many have ignored it.
Using only math, following the numbers from the flat earth idea,
this diagram shows how the sun should behave if the earth was flat.

Refraction does not make the sun change THAT much in angular size to match what we see in reality.
If that was true, I really want to see how that refraction formula looks, and why refraction only effects
the sun, but not other objects near the horizon...

Also, the sun setting is NOT caused by perspective.

Perspective is the spatial relationship between volumes at different distances perceived in a two-dimensional frame.
The Law of Perspective is as follows:

a=2*arctan(g/(2r))

Where 'a' is the angular size of an object in reference to the angle of your vision, 'g' is the actual size of the object, and 'r' is the distance to the object. Note that 'g' is a constant for each object, the 'a' and 'r' are variables which negatively correlate with one another, meaning if distance increases, apparent size decreases. When we apply this to the moon, for example, we do not see a change in apparent size. If one were to hypothesize that the moon rotates at a height of 3,000 miles above Earth where distance changes drastically, then observable reality must demonstrate this correlation during its cycle around the Earth. However, when applied to orbiting spinning balls, distance does not change much in relation with the actual size of the moon, so the change in angular size of the moon to our eye remains imperceptible.

Let me explain something to all the flat earthers who claim that the sun and moon "set" at the horizon because perspective causes them to appear lower with increased distance. Perspective can only describe the change in angular size of an object, NOTHING more. It does not skew the angle closer to the horizon and it does not cause angular size to go negative, just like train tracks do not cross over in the distance.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Here's the diagram:

http://www.geogebra.org/m/2141849

It's really disappointing to see them use all the same things over and over again anyway in every thread about the horizon.

REers:
"How could there be sunsets and sunrises? How could things disappear at the horizon? How could the phenomenon in <this picture> ever occur if the earth were flat?"
Hero FEer:
"You guys can never seem to understand refraction/perspective."
<Promptly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of refraction/perspective>
<Misconceptions about the very nature of sight are consistently and undeniably disproven>
<Pretends not to see the posts>
<Waits for Jroa to find the thread and derail it with personal insults so nobody notices the lack of proof that the earth is flat and abundance of proofs that it isn't>
And then a new thread is started, and everybody does the exact same thing.

The simple answer is that the measured shape of the earth is NOT flat!

I gave more detail in  Measurements of the Earth Prove it cannot be Flat.

But here is an extract:
The following table gives the width of one degree (under the heading "km/deg") at various latitudes in both the northern and southern hemispheres, the circumference of the earth (the distance for 360°) from the map reading at each latitude, the circumference at that latitude based on a spherical earth (yes, I know it's not a perfect sphere!) and the circumference at that latitude based on a Flat Earth Ice Wall Map.

The "Flat Earth Circumference @ Latitude" is based on the 24,900 mile overall diameter of the "known earth" as in the Wiki, The Ice Wall. The circumferences are then simple "pro-rated" as the meridians on the "FE Ice Wall map" are simply radial lines.
The "Times Atlas" is just that a "good atlas", not a highly accurate map, and it is a bit out at -55.0°, but still less than 3% off, compared to a factor of 4.4 like the "Ice Ring map". Also note that the 1855 Australian Map and the US (1887 geological survey) are well before NASA was ever dreamed of, so you can't blame them!

These measurements can be repeated anywhere on earth you like. In many cases, if you have a straight E-W stretch of road you can verify the results yourself. No great accuracy is needed, as the differences between a globe and the flat earth are massive!


The only significant objection so far seems to take the line that "if you don't like the message, then shoot the messenger!"

Captain cook clocked the southern circumference at 67,000 miles which is consistent with a flat plane. Also, geodetic surveying has been refuted as a credible source of info. No doubt they used telescopes for centuries and would have quickly seen that there is no curvature with the equation given at 8 inches × distance squared. They would have also quickly noticed that boats don't disappear behind curvature when sailing off into the horizon. Geodetic surveying is also a Masonic created. They lied about the poles and curvature. No curve means no ball

First Justin_0318 simply lies about Captain Cook, then accuses everyone who doesn't believe in his "precious" as being Masons and/or simply liars.

In other words he has no evidence! So, has anyone else got some more constructive evidence against the "Shape of the Earth" not fitting on a plane surface!
Also note the posts that have shown the non-stop Southern Hemisphere flights that would be impossible on the flat earth map.