astounding easy to disprove flat earth

Let me help

I will answer it all

1. Startrails
From the north pole, looking straight up, it looks like this


And at the equator like this

This picture is taken from a FLAT EARTH so it proves the earth is flat

On a flat earth, the north star would be visible all the time. Or to go be bit deeper: In theroy, in infinte distance the north star would actually appear to be at ground level. But since earth is not infinite, this cannot be true. Additionally, on the southern hemisphere you can not see the north star at all – impossible, even on a infinite flat earth.

The eye can't see forever so the north star disappears from near the edge... i mean the south

2. Sunrise and  sunset



Notice: The clouds get illuminated from BELOW. On a flat earth, if the sun would just disappear in infinte distance, clouds could be illuminated from straight ahead but never from below.
This is a nice picture of a upward-cast shadow :


This would require a sun below the height of the clouds.

Wrong again. The clouds are shining from below because the Sun is so close far away it's shining strongly through the clouds. Like when you put your fingertips on a light it shines through. Sorry I just realised the clouds are close by... I meant to say the clouds are lit from the bottom because the sun spotlight is reflecting off the ground and illuminating the clouds from below.

Also, if you watch a sunset, you clearly see how the sun sets behind the horizon instead of actually getting smaller and smaller. If the sun was getting smaller and smaller, with a telescope you could bring it back into view - which you cannot.

No it doesn't. It just looks like that because of the TBSMU effect (TBSMU=Total Bull Sh!t Made Up effect).

3. Vanishing behind the horizon
Ships and buildings vanish behind the horizon. Look, for example, at this video:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You do not have to rely on this video. Go out and check it yourself, a telescope helps.

That's just high tides/waves... that was easy

4. GPS
The signal comes from the sky. With "ground-transmitter" / pseudosatellites I could not go onto a 2000m+ high mountain and shield everything but the sky, and still have a GPS reception.
Do not belive me, go out and check it yourself.

GPS doesn't exist. It's NASA controlling the signal to let you think you are where you are

This does not directly disprove the flat earth, but as far as I know flat earthers deny the existance of satellites.

No they don't.. I mean no we don't. Satellites do exist but just on the rooftops to get TV channels somehow

5. Size of the sun
On a flat earth with an approaching sun, its size would diffrentiate during the day.

Go out and check it yourself with a camera and suitable filters so it would not overexpose the sun.

It does get bigger that's why we can't look at it directly

6. Gravity
Flat earth argument is, that the world is acclereation with 9.81m/s^2.  But not all over the world the gravity is equally strong. In case of an acclerating plate, this would be impossible.

Go grab a scale and measure the same thing a the equator and the northpole! Or at least at somewhere near the equator and near the north pole.

Gravity doesn't exist so there's nothing to measure. We're moving up but we're stationary and the world is limited to our eye sight but the eye can't see forever so the world is Flat.. there totally 100% proven

7. Jetstream
I do not see a reason for the corioliseffect on flat earth.

The Coriolis effect is not to do with the rotation but it's to do with the magnetic field being slightly stronger on one side because there's more landmass making it heavier especially with American obesity on one side.

Your whole answer can be brought down to

We're moving up but we're stationary

Such foundational error in logic can be found in all your points. I do not think it is necessary to point them out as they are so obvious.

Still waiting for a serious reply.

Let me help

I will answer it all

None of that is evidence. You are just spouting meaningless words, with nothing to back them up.

In fact, the way you write makes me doubt that even you believe that rubbish.

Fancy claiming that the shadow from the setting sun is "a reflection from the ground". Sure even you don't really think that.

Your whole answer can be brought down to

Quote

We're moving up but we're stationary

Such foundational error in logic can be found in all your points. I do not think it is necessary to point them out as they are so obvious.

Still waiting for a serious reply.

Waiting for a serious reply from a Flat Earther?

None of that is evidence. You are just spouting meaningless words

Isn't that how Flat Earthers answer and refer to gibberish as definitive proof?

Just making sure the thread stays up
+ added two videos in the start post

User324, that Turning Torso footage is a good find, thanks for sharing that!

Just reminding the flatties that they still have no answer to this thread.
Plus added a new video

Just reminding the flatties that they still have no answer to this thread.
Plus added a new video

New here from the Netherlands.

Your last vid is weak proof for objects falling behind the curve, because the water in between the observer and the objects is obscuring the bottom first when the distance of the observer increases and the objects become ''smaller'' towards the horizon.
It is these kind of weak arguments from ball earthers (btw, i am no flatty) that keep me thinking.
It is obvious in the footage that the longer the distance the more the rough waters nearer to the observer obscure the bottom of far away objects.
Simply draw a scetch and see how the horizontal lines of a tower (top and bottom) enter our eye / retina.
It is easy to see when and how a bulge of water could easily obscure the bottom end of objects over large distances over water when our object is observed from increasing distances.

Quote from: User324 on September 05, 2016, 07:37:03 AM

Just reminding the flatties that they still have no answer to this thread.
Plus added a new video

New here from the Netherlands.

Your last vid is weak proof for objects falling behind the curve, because the water in between the observer and the objects is obscuring the bottom first when the distance of the observer increases and the objects become ''smaller'' towards the horizon.
It is these kind of weak arguments from ball earthers (btw, i am no flatty) that keep me thinking.
It is obvious in the footage that the longer the distance the more the rough waters nearer to the observer obscure the bottom of far away objects.
Simply draw a scetch and see how the horizontal lines of a tower (top and bottom) enter our eye / retina.
It is easy to see when and how a bulge of water could easily obscure the bottom end of objects over large distances over water when our object is observed from increasing distances.

Totaly ignoring the rock solid math. Whats wrong with you?

Totaly ignoring the rock solid math. Whats wrong with you?

The rock solid math probably fell on his head. Multiple times.

Thanks ! But i won't go that road.
I am sorry that i offended your intellect somehow, so i will pay attention next time and rephrase the best i again so it won't annoy you so much.
I am going to try.....promise !

Thanks ! But i won't go that road.
I am sorry that i offended your intellect somehow, so i will pay attention next time and rephrase the best i again so it won't annoy you so much.
I am going to try.....promise !

It's okay.

It is obvious in the footage that the longer the distance the more the rough waters nearer to the observer obscure the bottom of far away objects.

If h(observer) > h(waves) then the distance does not have an influence on a flat plane. I think this is given in the video example.

Anyway, in my starting-post I even wrote "Don't believe this video - go out and check it yourself!"
So don't even bother calling the videos "weak proof".

Quote from: User324 on September 05, 2016, 07:37:03 AM

Just reminding the flatties that they still have no answer to this thread.
Plus added a new video

New here from the Netherlands.

Your last vid is weak proof for objects falling behind the curve, because the water in between the observer and the objects is obscuring the bottom first when the distance of the observer increases and the objects become ''smaller'' towards the horizon.
It is these kind of weak arguments from ball earthers (btw, i am no flatty) that keep me thinking.
It is obvious in the footage that the longer the distance the more the rough waters nearer to the observer obscure the bottom of far away objects.
Simply draw a scetch and see how the horizontal lines of a tower (top and bottom) enter our eye / retina.
It is easy to see when and how a bulge of water could easily obscure the bottom end of objects over large distances over water when our object is observed from increasing distances.

What the...?  Does the link go to a totally different video for you or something?  The bulge of water? Do you mean the curvature of the Earth?

I haven't this video but wow great job whoever made it. There just isn't a lot of wiggle room for flat earth apologetics here. I almost think it should be banned on this site because how the hell are flat earthers supposed to argue with that?

Can anyone explain to me why the online calculator shows a hidden part of 108m from 1.38m eye level instead of the proclaimed 91.46m claimed in this video ? Distance to the object is said to be 41.32 km. Is the online calculator wrong ? Also the horizon is at 4.19 km instead of 4.52 km when an eyelevel of 1.38m is taken into account, something is off here......or it is due to my limited understanding ??
So please explain what is wrong here.....
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=41.32&h0=1.38&unit=metric

Can anyone explain to me why the online calculator shows a hidden part of 108m from 1.38 eye level instead of the proclaimed 91.46 m claimed in this video ? Is the online calculator wrong ? Also the horizon is at 4.19 km instead of 4.52 km when an eyelevel of 1.38m is taken into account, something is off here......or it is due to my limit

108m is correct and fits perfectly with the video.
Anyway, important is THAT some parts are hidden by curvature. There are lot's of reasons why it will not be that accurate, e.g.
- Refraction
- Waves
- Tides
- Hard to measure exact height of both observer and the "bulge" in between the objects.

Quote from: dutchy on September 05, 2016, 01:40:06 PM

Can anyone explain to me why the online calculator shows a hidden part of 108m from 1.38 eye level instead of the proclaimed 91.46 m claimed in this video ? Is the online calculator wrong ? Also the horizon is at 4.19 km instead of 4.52 km when an eyelevel of 1.38m is taken into account, something is off here......or it is due to my limit

108m is correct and fits perfectly with the video.
Anyway, important is THAT some parts are hidden by curvature. There are lot's of reasons why it will not be that accurate, e.g.
- Refraction
- Waves
- Tides
- Hard to measure exact height of both observer and the "bulge" in between the objects.

But it is a difference of appr. 15% ?......i thought it was about ''rock solid math'' ?
And this is by no means meant to be offending.
I am the first to acknowledge proof, but why do those who claim to have proof (seen that a lot on the flat earth side too) always favour the rock solid math to fit the prefered outcome ?

I live in the Netherlands and we have a 100+ km sealevel flat beach. Our country is one of the flattest in the world and below sealevel for big parts.
I have been to the coast all my life and have seen things streching to 20 km out.
My friend and i have a Nikon 83x zoom and you can slowly pan accross the coastline so that any disturbance in the seawater is easily avoided. A flat beach as far as the eye can see.
We have sea harbors (IJmuiden) with 100m harbor mouths into the sea. I could see them from great distances when doing a beach walk accross the coastline.
On a good clear day i will post pictures and all the involved distances, from camera level and object heights.

I think the flat earth model is crazy, but our current measurements of the globe seem to be off.
Always proof by the absence of so called ''bottom parts'' of skylines and towers or superiour mirages that pop into excistance.
If that online calculator is (like you said) correct, then i can measure the distance from the little town Katwijk (used to live there for 18 years) - IJmuiden (32.19 km) and set my camera on a height of 1.80 m and according to the curvature calculator IJmuiden should be a whopping 58.9 meters below the curvature.
I shouldn't be able to sea anything of the harbor mouth and or supertankers / large seaships coming in......

Furthermore in my childhood in Katwijk our fishermen's fleet was stationed in IJmuiden, because Katwijk didn't have an own sea harbor. The locals claimed they could see IJmuiden on a very rare clear day.......didn't pay any atention to this untill recently.
It will me my pleasure to take the Nikon out for a little experiment according to the accurate numbers of the curvature calculator.
Even ''Noorwijkerhout-IJmuiden'' shouldn't allow for the harbor mouth to be seen.....well that is bloody rediculous !!!
Noordwijkerhout-IJmuiden 23.7 km. Camera height 1.80. hidden height target 28m......by no means i should see the harbor mouth of rock and stone, because it hasn't got a height of 28m.

Very strange indeed..........please do not use all the mockery that seems to be normal around here.
This is so strange that i actually cannot believe the calculator is right, or that the curvature is not what we think it is........

I've quickly rewatched the video.
Min 2:27 you can see his formulas used; "refraction formula".
Seems like he's taking refraction into account to provide a more accurate result.
As it is impossible to determine the refraction that is in fact occurring, it might be better to leave out refraction. Another possiblity might be that "standard refraction" would (more or less) fit during the day, but not when the sun has already fallen below the horizon & the air has cooled down.

Anyway, using refraction formula you get

With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 7432.83 km (7432833.33 m)
Refracted Horizon = 3.86 km (3855.6 m)
Refracted Drop= 150.82 meters
Refracted Hidden= 127.26 meters

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/


Considering that in his video a little bit more was obscurred than that should have been (min 2:35), I think
--> Refraction might been less than "standard refraction"
--> His telescope was not as high as he thought it to be (at first location)
--> Tides
--> Waves
--> Video is pretty bad quality and doesn't allow a very precise result.

Very strange indeed..........please do not use all the mockery that seems to be normal around here.

If you'd be around here a bit longer, you'd realize that it's generally impossible to have a serious debate or discussion with anyone that doubts a round earth experiment or even is a flat earther.
I appreciate that you are not one of those people.

I'm eager to see the results of your own experiments.

Quote from: User324 on September 05, 2016, 01:48:24 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 05, 2016, 01:40:06 PM

Can anyone explain to me why the online calculator shows a hidden part of 108m from 1.38 eye level instead of the proclaimed 91.46 m claimed in this video ? Is the online calculator wrong ? Also the horizon is at 4.19 km instead of 4.52 km when an eyelevel of 1.38m is taken into account, something is off here......or it is due to my limit

108m is correct and fits perfectly with the video.
Anyway, important is THAT some parts are hidden by curvature. There are lot's of reasons why it will not be that accurate, e.g.
- Refraction
- Waves
- Tides
- Hard to measure exact height of both observer and the "bulge" in between the objects.

But it is a difference of appr. 15% ?......i thought it was about ''rock solid math'' ?
And this is by no means meant to be offending.
I am the first to acknowledge proof, but why do those who claim to have proof (seen that a lot on the flat earth side too) always favour the rock solid math to fit the prefered outcome ?

I live in the Netherlands and we have a 100+ km sealevel flat beach. Our country is one of the flattest in the world and below sealevel for big parts.
I have been to the coast all my life and have seen things streching to 20 km out.
My friend and i have a Nikon 83x zoom and you can slowly pan accross the coastline so that any disturbance in the seawater is easily avoided. A flat beach as far as the eye can see.
We have sea harbors (IJmuiden) with 100m harbor mouths into the sea. I could see them from great distances when doing a beach walk accross the coastline.
On a good clear day i will post pictures and all the involved distances, from camera level and object heights.

I think the flat earth model is crazy, but our current measurements of the globe seem to be off.
Always proof by the absence of so called ''bottom parts'' of skylines and towers or superiour mirages that pop into excistance.
If that online calculator is (like you said) correct, then i can measure the distance from the little town Katwijk (used to live there for 18 years) - IJmuiden (32.19 km) and set my camera on a height of 1.80 m and according to the curvature calculator IJmuiden should be a whopping 58.9 meters below the curvature.
I shouldn't be able to sea anything of the harbor mouth and or supertankers / large seaships coming in......

Furthermore in my childhood in Katwijk our fishermen's fleet was stationed in IJmuiden, because Katwijk didn't have an own sea harbor. The locals claimed they could see IJmuiden on a very rare clear day.......didn't pay any atention to this untill recently.
It will me my pleasure to take the Nikon out for a little experiment according to the accurate numbers of the curvature calculator.
Even ''Noorwijkerhout-IJmuiden'' shouldn't allow for the harbor mouth to be seen.....well that is bloody rediculous !!!
Noordwijkerhout-IJmuiden 23.7 km. Camera height 1.80. hidden height target 28m......by no means i should see the harbor mouth of rock and stone, because it hasn't got a height of 28m.

Very strange indeed..........please do not use all the mockery that seems to be normal around here.
This is so strange that i actually cannot believe the calculator is right, or that the curvature is not what we think it is........

So what are you saying? We should disregard the two examples where the math lines up perfectly because the first example, where more variables was unknown, has a error margin? Mockery you say You ARE funny

So what are you saying? We should disregard the two examples where the math lines up perfectly because the first example, where more variables was unknown, has a error margin? Mockery you say You ARE funny

He was mostly adressing the point that his maths/ online calculators gave a different result than what was calculated in the video - even though someone mentioned it was "rock solid maths" that were used.
It's totally legitimate to adress this matter; I have explained the different values above. Both are correct, but based on different approaches.

Quote from: Cirshiss on September 06, 2016, 04:28:13 AM

So what are you saying? We should disregard the two examples where the math lines up perfectly because the first example, where more variables was unknown, has a error margin? Mockery you say You ARE funny

He was mostly adressing the point that his maths/ online calculators gave a different result than what was calculated in the video - even though someone mentioned it was "rock solid maths" that were used.
It's totally legitimate to adress this matter; I have explained the different values above. Both are correct, but based on different approaches.

I know, It was me, and I stand by it. As you see in 2 out of 3 examples where the variables are known.

I meant to say the clouds are lit from the bottom because the sun spotlight is reflecting off the ground and illuminating the clouds from below.

 You do know how reflection works? Light must reach to the ground and reflect back from there and all the area below clouds should bath in sunlight. And there is also problem with reflection angles and reflective properties of ground. You also totally ignore shadow from the mountaintop. This "light is reflecting off the ground" is total BS in so many ways that its hard to imagine how you can come out with it.

Quote from: observer on September 02, 2016, 04:02:47 PM

I meant to say the clouds are lit from the bottom because the sun spotlight is reflecting off the ground and illuminating the clouds from below.

 You do know how reflection works? Light must reach to the ground and reflect back from there and all the area below clouds should bath in sunlight. And there is also problem with reflection angles and reflective properties of ground. You also totally ignore shadow from the mountaintop. This "light is reflecting off the ground" is total BS in so many ways that its hard to imagine how you can come out with it.

Sun spotlight Greetings from the Enterprise Holodeck

Quote from: Cirshiss on September 06, 2016, 04:28:13 AM

So what are you saying? We should disregard the two examples where the math lines up perfectly because the first example, where more variables was unknown, has a error margin? Mockery you say You ARE funny

He was mostly adressing the point that his maths/ online calculators gave a different result than what was calculated in the video - even though someone mentioned it was "rock solid maths" that were used.
It's totally legitimate to adress this matter; I have explained the different values above. Both are correct, but based on different approaches.

Thanks, your overall info is appreciated and helpfull.

Very interesting thread. Still wondering why a flat earther has answered any of your questions.

Just quickly pushing the thread to the top so a flatty might answer to the first post of this thread

Just quickly pushing the thread to the top so a flatty might answer to the first post of this thread

This

Just quickly pushing the thread to the top so a flatty might answer to the first post of this thread

This.

Quote from: User324 on September 09, 2016, 02:38:52 AM

Just quickly pushing the thread to the top so a flatty might answer to the first post of this thread

This.

Oi! it is considered bad form to bump your own thread. Allow me!

But seriously though, you might have better luck if you make a thread dedicated to a single topic. Eight topics in one thread is begging for chaos. I recently did one on the SCP, and rabinoz recently did one on the size of the sun. Number 6 has been beaten to death, and number 7 is a bit weak IMHO. Number 4 and 8 probably won't go anywhere. Which leaves 2 and 3.

Flat earthers rely heavily on Rowbotham's theory of "true perspective" to explain 2 and 3. I vote we start a thread dedicated to that.

But seriously though, you might have better luck if you make a thread dedicated to a single topic.

Takes too much time

Quote

But seriously though, you might have better luck if you make a thread dedicated to a single topic.

Takes too much time

Heh, fair enough. I'm definitely going to start that perspective thread sometime though. Flat earthers rely on it for almost everything. That and aether. As soon as I work up the motivation to dive back into Rowbotham's fun filled book of logical elegance... ugh.