How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?

  • 283 Replies
  • 66614 Views
*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
  • +3/-2
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #150 on: April 19, 2017, 03:21:00 PM »
If the earth was flat, then wouldn't pictures from space show all the countries in the world at once? We only ever see half of the earth at any one time. Why is that? Surely its not some sinister reason like being spherical or anything....

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #151 on: April 19, 2017, 04:08:45 PM »
Still no evidence actually from you that the "Earth is flat"

Says the guy posting on the Flat Earth website, which is filled with evidence.
Yes, it is filled with evidence that Earth is round.
I am yet to see anyone post any evidence that Earth is flat.

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #152 on: April 19, 2017, 06:43:25 PM »
Still no evidence actually from you that the "Earth is flat"

Says the guy posting on the Flat Earth website, which is filled with evidence.
Yes, it is filled with evidence that Earth is round.
I am yet to see anyone post any evidence that Earth is flat.
I would suggest lurking moar.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #153 on: April 19, 2017, 07:40:47 PM »
Still no evidence actually from you that the "Earth is flat"

Says the guy posting on the Flat Earth website, which is filled with evidence.
Yes, it is filled with evidence that Earth is round.
I am yet to see anyone post any evidence that Earth is flat.
I would suggest lurking moar.
And where would you suggest "lurking moar" for reasonable explanations of say "lunar eclipses".
FAQ - not even mentioned!
Wiki - some silly and quite impossible explanation involving a tiny shadow object!

Are to we consider ;D ;D ;D moonshramp next  ;D ;D ;D ??? At least that might make Space Cowgirl happy!

So, where next?  ??? YouTube  ???, that's 10 times worse!

Over to you, you claim to be the expert.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
  • +0/-0
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #154 on: April 19, 2017, 07:59:44 PM »
Irrelevant
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #155 on: April 20, 2017, 02:05:35 AM »
Still no evidence actually from you that the "Earth is flat"

Says the guy posting on the Flat Earth website, which is filled with evidence.
Yes, it is filled with evidence that Earth is round.
I am yet to see anyone post any evidence that Earth is flat.
I would suggest lurking moar.
No thanks. I think I will stick to speaking out against the FE nonsense rather than lurking and waiting for them to provide evidence.

If you think there is evidence, feel free to provide it, or link to it.
(However, if you try linking to a bunch, don't be surprised if I stop after refuting one or a few).

*

InFlatEarth

  • 1637
  • +0/-0
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #156 on: April 20, 2017, 12:36:15 PM »
To fairyland
Good night all
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #157 on: April 20, 2017, 01:56:38 PM »
To fairyland
Good night all
Yes, you'll be a lot happier in fairyland than reality!

Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #158 on: April 20, 2017, 09:20:55 PM »
Seeing the curve is up to perception and bias.
Scientifically you would have to start with how much curve you would want to see then you can calculate.
How much curve do you need to see in order to bring you to the conclusion that there is a curve?
As far as first hand accounts and photos on this it sounds like 70,000 ft.

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #159 on: April 21, 2017, 08:24:09 AM »

And where would you suggest "lurking moar" for reasonable explanations of say "lunar eclipses".

I would suggest lurking in a thread related to the topic of lunar eclipses, not a thread about the altitude required to perceive earth's alleged curvature. That is kind of how lurking works.


No thanks. I think I will stick to speaking out against the FE nonsense rather than lurking and waiting for them to provide evidence.
So you refuse to do any research, but feel confident about "speaking out against" a subject you are clearly lacking in. That about sums up the RE approach to most things.


If you think there is evidence, feel free to provide it, or link to it.
(However, if you try linking to a bunch, don't be surprised if I stop after refuting one or a few).

Evidence for what, specifically? You do know there are many different topics that can be discussed, right? The whole point of the forum is to start discussions about specific topics. It is also good form to actually stay on that topic.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 08:26:13 AM by Junker »

*

JackSchitt

  • 423
  • +0/-0
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #160 on: April 21, 2017, 02:07:51 PM »
If you read what he said, he said that he isn't going to lurk and wait for lunar eclipses to come up because they haven't anywhere yet. Oh and he has done research out of everyone on here I think JackBlack has refuted the most of your nonsense and provided countless calculations and bits of evidence to go with it. So if anyone has done enough to know what he is talking about, it's him
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #161 on: April 21, 2017, 03:06:53 PM »

And where would you suggest "lurking moar" for reasonable explanations of say "lunar eclipses".

I would suggest lurking in a thread related to the topic of lunar eclipses, not a thread about the altitude required to perceive earth's alleged curvature. That is kind of how lurking works.
You mean where the FEers spout nonsense and get refuted, or where REers ask questions which remain unanswered?

No thanks. I think I will stick to speaking out against the FE nonsense rather than lurking and waiting for them to provide evidence.
So you refuse to do any research, but feel confident about "speaking out against" a subject you are clearly lacking in. That about sums up the RE approach to most things.
Lurking isn't research. I have done my research. I am not clearly lacking in knowledge about the FE claims.
That is why I am speaking out against them. I know it is childish nonsense.

What you are describing is actually the FE approach, where they find some simplified crap they don't understand and try to use that against the RE without knowing anything about it.
You know, like repeatedly complaining that the horizon is flat, or claiming it rises to eye level, when it doesn't.

And of course, the other common tactic, ignore what people have actually said and meant and pretend they said something completely different, like you just did.

Rather than honestly state my position, which was to speak out against the FE when they provide a bunch of claims with no evidence backing them up, often filled with complete ignorance, rather than just sit silently waiting (lurking) for them to provide the evidence; you instead pretended that I wasn't going to research the FE and instead just ignorantly speak out against it.

Was there any part of my comment that indicated the latter at all? NO!

Are you going to admit your error and apologise for blatantly misrepresenting me and insulting me and REers?
I highly doubt it.

If you think there is evidence, feel free to provide it, or link to it.
(However, if you try linking to a bunch, don't be surprised if I stop after refuting one or a few).

Evidence for what, specifically? You do know there are many different topics that can be discussed, right? The whole point of the forum is to start discussions about specific topics. It is also good form to actually stay on that topic.
Evidence for the flat Earth. As the topic is on the curvature, how about that you should see a curve on the horizon if Earth is round and shouldn't if Earth is flat?

I also never said it had to be in this thread.
For example, if you think there is evidence for a FE model in which lunar eclipses work, or an explanation for lunar eclipses, start a thread on it, just make sure it is in the debate section rather than the liars only section where the REers can't point out all the bullshit.

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #162 on: April 21, 2017, 09:18:18 PM »
If you read what he said, he said that he isn't going to lurk and wait for lunar eclipses to come up because they haven't anywhere yet.
Hello there, random noob. I assure you the topic of lunar eclipses has come up before, as a simple search will yield. I know round earth logicians are known for their low effort posts, but you really are setting a new record.

Oh and he has done research out of everyone on here I think JackBlack has refuted the most of your nonsense and provided countless calculations and bits of evidence to go with it. So if anyone has done enough to know what he is talking about, it's him
Cool story, bro.



You mean where the FEers spout nonsense and get refuted, or where REers ask questions which remain unanswered?
What? No. I mean a thread. I would suggest that you try using the search function, especially if you are struggling as much as you seem to be.


Lurking isn't research.
Who ever said it was?

I have done my research. I am not clearly lacking in knowledge about the FE claims.
That is why I am speaking out against them. I know it is childish nonsense.
You are definitely lacking in knowledge about FE claims, as well as simple logic.

What you are describing is actually the FE approach, where they find some simplified crap they don't understand and try to use that against the RE without knowing anything about it.
I am not sure what you are projecting here, but I have no idea what you are talking about.


You know, like repeatedly complaining that the horizon is flat, or claiming it rises to eye level, when it doesn't.
No, I don't know. Anything else you want to throw against the wall?


And of course, the other common tactic, ignore what people have actually said and meant and pretend they said something completely different, like you just did.
How have I ignored what you said? I am literally replying to things you said. Is there something about simple conversation that is too difficult for you?


Rather than honestly state my position, which was to speak out against the FE when they provide a bunch of claims with no evidence backing them up, often filled with complete ignorance, rather than just sit silently waiting (lurking) for them to provide the evidence; you instead pretended that I wasn't going to research the FE and instead just ignorantly speak out against it.
You obviously have some unresolved issues with flat earth proponents you have encountered. However, that is no reason to project your issues onto me.

Was there any part of my comment that indicated the latter at all? NO!
If you are asking if it seems you haven't researched FET, then yes.

Are you going to admit your error and apologise for blatantly misrepresenting me and insulting me and REers?
I highly doubt it.
What error? You mean literally quoting you? I am sorry if you disagree with your own words, but I can't help you with that. I am not sure where all this hostility is coming from.


Evidence for the flat Earth. As the topic is on the curvature, how about that you should see a curve on the horizon if Earth is round and shouldn't if Earth is flat?
It is subjective using the round earth model. If you had spent five minutes researching this ahead of time, you would already know that people claim different things.

I also never said it had to be in this thread.
Irrelevant.

For example, if you think there is evidence for a FE model in which lunar eclipses work, or an explanation for lunar eclipses, start a thread on it, just make sure it is in the debate section rather than the liars only section where the REers can't point out all the bullshit.
Typical round earth response. Always wanting someone else to do your work for you. I would suggest you learn how to perform basic research. If that is too difficult for you, maybe try the search function on this forum. It really isn't that hard.



?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
  • +0/-0
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #163 on: April 21, 2017, 10:32:01 PM »
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #164 on: April 22, 2017, 12:17:40 AM »
If you read what he said, he said that he isn't going to lurk and wait for lunar eclipses to come up because they haven't anywhere yet.
Hello there, random noob. I assure you the topic of lunar eclipses has come up before, as a simple search will yield. I know round earth logicians are known for their low effort posts, but you really are setting a new record.
Yes, they have come up, several times, such as when FEers make posts about them and get refuted, or when REers ask questions and have them ignored.

No one has provided evidence for lunar eclipses which is compatible with a FE model.

You mean where the FEers spout nonsense and get refuted, or where REers ask questions which remain unanswered?
What? No. I mean a thread. I would suggest that you try using the search function, especially if you are struggling as much as you seem to be.
Yes, the various threads where FEers spout nonsense and get refuted or where REers ask questions which remain unanswered.

How about this, you stop being an arrogant, condescending prick and instead link to one of these magic threads you seem to think exist?

Lurking isn't research.
Who ever said it was?
No one said it directly, but if I take you to have honestly answered/responded to/represented my comment, you seem to think it is.
You told me to lurk more, and then when I said I didn't want to, you acted as if I had said I don't want to research.

So good question, who said lurking was research? And if no one did, why did you act like I didn't want to research things?

You are definitely lacking in knowledge about FE claims, as well as simple logic.
Yes, I likely lack some knowledge of FE claims, but I know quite a lot. I am also quite well versed in logic.
I know that no FE model can adequately account for so many things it isn't funny.
The only one which works is one where instead of curving Earth, they curve space.

I am not sure what you are projecting here, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Not projecting at all.

You know, like repeatedly complaining that the horizon is flat, or claiming it rises to eye level, when it doesn't.
No, I don't know. Anything else you want to throw against the wall?
I never said you personally did. I merely pointed out that FEers did so repeatedly.
Did you want me to link to some of those claims?

And of course, the other common tactic, ignore what people have actually said and meant and pretend they said something completely different, like you just did.
How have I ignored what you said? I am literally replying to things you said. Is there something about simple conversation that is too difficult for you?
Yes, you are "replying", but not to what I said. You are pretending I am saying things I am not.
For example, when I said I don't want to lurk, you acted like I said I don't want to research. Big difference.

You obviously have some unresolved issues with flat earth proponents you have encountered. However, that is no reason to project your issues onto me.
You are one of the ones I have "issues" with, which wont get resolved into you start acting honest and rational. They aren't my issues, unless you call wanting honesty and rational thought to be issues.
You make baseless claims.
You insult people for refuting you or objecting to your claims.
You blatantly misrepresent what people say.

Was there any part of my comment that indicated the latter at all? NO!
If you are asking if it seems you haven't researched FET, then yes.
But I have researched FE BS (It isn't a theory, stop pretending it is. It has no explanatory power, it has nothing backing it at all).
Yet no where in this is there any explanation of numerous things. That is why people ask about them, to show the flaws in FE models.
It isn't because I haven't researched it.

Are you going to admit your error and apologise for blatantly misrepresenting me and insulting me and REers?
I highly doubt it.
What error? You mean literally quoting you? I am sorry if you disagree with your own words, but I can't help you with that. I am not sure where all this hostility is coming from.
No. Literally quoting me and then pretending I said something completely different?
I'm not disagreeing with my own words. I am disagreeing with your blatantly misrepresentation of what I have said.
That is where this "hostility" is coming from, you effectively lying about me, misrepresenting me to try and slander me.

Evidence for the flat Earth. As the topic is on the curvature, how about that you should see a curve on the horizon if Earth is round and shouldn't if Earth is flat?
It is subjective using the round earth model. If you had spent five minutes researching this ahead of time, you would already know that people claim different things.
I have spent plenty of time researching it.
Yes, different people claim different things. But a common claim from FEers is that Earth can't be round because if it was you should see the curvature on the horizon.0

I also never said it had to be in this thread.
Irrelevant.
No. Quite relevant, when you object to providing evidence as it might derail threads.

For example, if you think there is evidence for a FE model in which lunar eclipses work, or an explanation for lunar eclipses, start a thread on it, just make sure it is in the debate section rather than the liars only section where the REers can't point out all the bullshit.
Typical round earth response. Always wanting someone else to do your work for you. I would suggest you learn how to perform basic research. If that is too difficult for you, maybe try the search function on this forum. It really isn't that hard.
Nope. Not wanting someone else to do MY work for me. Wanting someone else to do THEIR work.
I have done basic research. This research indicates Earth is round. The study of the phases of the moon and eclipses is one such piece of research. The round Earth model is capable of explaining it, the FE model can't.
The FE model can't explain the apparent position of the moon, the phases of the moon or lunar eclipses.
As such, all of that acts as evidence against the FE model.

It is your work to try and explain it in the FE model, not mine.
Stop trying to get me to do your work.

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #165 on: April 22, 2017, 07:58:20 AM »
Yes, they have come up, several times, such as when FEers make posts about them and get refuted, or when REers ask questions and have them ignored.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

No one has provided evidence for lunar eclipses which is compatible with a FE model.
How is that relevant to this thread? Maybe you should go back and read the topic. If you need any help with it, just ask.

Yes, the various threads where FEers spout nonsense and get refuted or where REers ask questions which remain unanswered.
What threads? Why are you round earthers so entitled? You do know that no one here actually owes you anything, right?

How about this, you stop being an arrogant, condescending prick and instead link to one of these magic threads you seem to think exist?
Pot, meet kettle. You are actually the arrogant one, as is evidenced by your posting behavior thus far. You can't seem to stay on topic. All you are doing is demanding answers from unnamed people about things that aren't being discussed in this thread. Do you really not see how ridiculous that is?

No one said it directly, but if I take you to have honestly answered/responded to/represented my comment, you seem to think it is.
You told me to lurk more, and then when I said I didn't want to, you acted as if I had said I don't want to research.
There is a lot of assumption in this assertion of yours. Maybe try asking questions next time so you don't come off as looking so foolish.

So good question, who said lurking was research? And if no one did, why did you act like I didn't want to research things?
Your behavior thus far has shown an unwillingness to perform research. I am sorry if that bothers you, but it is simply the truth.

Yes, I likely lack some knowledge of FE claims, but I know quite a lot. I am also quite well versed in logic.
Feel free to apply those skills anytime, then, because you haven't thus far. You entire diatribe up to this point is more suited for the Angry Ranting forum.

I know that no FE model can adequately account for so many things it isn't funny.
I would suggest doing some actual research, then.

The only one which works is one where instead of curving Earth, they curve space.
Are you suggesting space(time) doesn't curve (bend)?

Not projecting at all.
I would suggest looking up the definition of the word, then coming back. Hopefully you will see that you actually are, and then maybe you will stop.

I never said you personally did. I merely pointed out that FEers did so repeatedly.
Where? In this thread? Do you know what the topic is?

Did you want me to link to some of those claims?
What claims?

Yes, you are "replying", but not to what I said. You are pretending I am saying things I am not.
I am literally quoting you, using the quote feature. Are you suggesting that the words you are typing are  not what you are saying? You assertions are getting more an more ridiculous, quite frankly.

For example, when I said I don't want to lurk, you acted like I said I don't want to research. Big difference.
I "acted?" I don't know how you inferred that, but that is a you problem. If you have confusion about something someone says, you should just try asking them and stop making so many assumptions. However, that seems to be a common trait amongst you roundies, so I don't anticipate it to stop anytime soon.

You are one of the ones I have "issues" with, which wont get resolved into you start acting honest and rational.
Have we already covered the parable of the pot and the kettle? This is more of your projection shining through.

They aren't my issues, unless you call wanting honesty and rational thought to be issues.
You say that is what you want. Your posting behavior doesn't reflect that. You should really work on that because it makes you seem rather disingenuous.

You make baseless claims.
Where did that happen?

You insult people for refuting you or objecting to your claims.
You are literally just making things up at this point.

You blatantly misrepresent what people say.
No, I quote what they say. I am sorry if you have issues with your own words. You should think them through better before you post next time. At this point, you are bordering on intellectual dishonesty.

But I have researched FE BS (It isn't a theory, stop pretending it is. It has no explanatory power, it has nothing backing it at all).
Yet no where in this is there any explanation of numerous things. That is why people ask about them, to show the flaws in FE models.
It isn't because I haven't researched it.
You keep saying that you have researched it, yet nothing so far is indicative of that. You entire post thus far can be summed up as some perceived victimization on your part where you think you are being misrepresented by the actual words you said. Until you can work on that, I don't think productive debate will ever happen. You need to be honest with yourself, first.

No. Literally quoting me and then pretending I said something completely different?
I suppose it is a good thing that didn't happen, then.

I'm not disagreeing with my own words. I am disagreeing with your blatantly misrepresentation of what I have said.
That is where this "hostility" is coming from, you effectively lying about me, misrepresenting me to try and slander me.
See my point above about this victim narrative you are trying to frame. No one is lying about you friend, just quoting your own words. I would also suggest that you look up what slander means, because it doesn't seem you know how to use the term.

I have spent plenty of time researching it.
Yes, different people claim different things. But a common claim from FEers is that Earth can't be round because if it was you should see the curvature on the horizon.
I haven't seen that claim. But, if that is the case, they are wrong (assuming we are talking about someone viewing the horizon from the ground). It seems there is one thing we can agree on up to this point. Maybe more of this actual kind of discussion can take place.

No. Quite relevant, when you object to providing evidence as it might derail threads.
You have already derailed the thread. What does it matter at this point? Your entire rant here had one point that actually related to the topic.

Nope. Not wanting someone else to do MY work for me. Wanting someone else to do THEIR work.
Not what it looks like from over here. But, we have already established your loose approach with words, so I don't know what you actually mean.

I have done basic research. This research indicates Earth is round.
Cool, maybe apply some of that knowledge to the topic at hand.

The study of the phases of the moon and eclipses is one such piece of research. The round Earth model is capable of explaining it, the FE model can't.
They are explained. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but that is no one's problem but your own. Although, I don't frequent this site anymore, so I may be behind on the currently accepted model here. I spend most of my time at another FE community.

The FE model can't explain the apparent position of the moon, the phases of the moon or lunar eclipses.
As such, all of that acts as evidence against the FE model.
False, and not even tangentially related to the topic. You do know that if there is a particular thing you want to discuss, you can make your own thread about it, right?

It is your work to try and explain it in the FE model, not mine.
Stop trying to get me to do your work.
You managed to deflect and project at the same time. Well done. It is explained in the FE model. I would suggest doing some research instead of trying to get others to do your homework for you.

Take care! :)

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #166 on: April 22, 2017, 02:35:24 PM »
Yes, they have come up, several times, such as when FEers make posts about them and get refuted, or when REers ask questions and have them ignored.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
You are the one making outlandish claims here, indicating there is evidence for a FE, and we just need to look for it.
Do you have any evidence to back up yours?
As for mine, how about these threads:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62695.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61420.0

All the FEers appear to be able to do is spout nonsense.

Now where is your evidence?

No one has provided evidence for lunar eclipses which is compatible with a FE model.
How is that relevant to this thread? Maybe you should go back and read the topic. If you need any help with it, just ask
It isn't. Not my fault that a FE derailed the thread by asserting nonsense like there being evidence for a FE.

Why are you round earthers so entitled? You do know that no one here actually owes you anything, right?
We aren't entitled, we will just keep pointing out your bullshit until you can address the massive problems with it.

Pot, meet kettle. You are actually the arrogant one, as is evidenced by your posting behavior thus far. You can't seem to stay on topic. All you are doing is demanding answers from unnamed people about things that aren't being discussed in this thread. Do you really not see how ridiculous that is?
No. I am not just discussing this thread at the moment. I am discussing the entire forum/FE community.
I am demanding answers for serious problems with the FE model which shows it does not match reality.

No one said it directly, but if I take you to have honestly answered/responded to/represented my comment, you seem to think it is.
You told me to lurk more, and then when I said I didn't want to, you acted as if I had said I don't want to research.
There is a lot of assumption in this assertion of yours. Maybe try asking questions next time so you don't come off as looking so foolish.
I'm not the one looking foolish here.
I said I'm not just going to lurk and wait for you guys to provide evidence, and instead will call you out on your nonsense.
That in no way indicates I am not willing to research. If anything it indicates I have done the research to know that FE is nonsense.

The only assumption there was that your response was honest. Don't worry, I won't make the same mistake again.

Your behavior thus far has shown an unwillingness to perform research. I am sorry if that bothers you, but it is simply the truth.
No. It isn't the truth. It is blatant lie so you can try and dismiss people.

If you really think my behaviour has shown an unwillingness to perform research, feel free to explain.

Feel free to apply those skills anytime, then, because you haven't thus far. You entire diatribe up to this point is more suited for the Angry Ranting forum.
That is because I don't want to de-rail this thread too far by pointing out all the problems with a FE, which show that the FE model can't match reality.
If you go and look in other threads you will see it.

I know that no FE model can adequately account for so many things it isn't funny.
I would suggest doing some actual research, then.
I have. Perhaps you should try it some time?

The only one which works is one where instead of curving Earth, they curve space.
Are you suggesting space(time) doesn't curve (bend)?
Not enough to make a flat Earth match reality.
The curvature of space around Earth is so tiny it isn't funny.

I would suggest looking up the definition of the word, then coming back. Hopefully you will see that you actually are, and then maybe you will stop.
Nope. I no what it means. I know I am not the one projecting here.

I never said you personally did. I merely pointed out that FEers did so repeatedly.
Where? In this thread? Do you know what the topic is?
All over the place, such as the FAQ:
Quote
What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?

There are several readily apparent proofs of the planets flatness. The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth. The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case. There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes. We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space! One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?

Did you want me to link to some of those claims?
What claims?
How about you go back and read it in context. Even a complete moron would be able to figure out which claims I am referring to.

I am literally quoting you, using the quote feature. Are you suggesting that the words you are typing are  not what you are saying? You assertions are getting more an more ridiculous, quite frankly.
Yes, you are literally quoting me, then pretending I am saying something completely different.
It isn't the quote I am objecting to. It is your responses, which don't always match what I say.
For example, when I say I'm not going to lurk, you pretend I said I'm not going to research.

So no, like I said before, I am stating you are not actually responding to what I am saying, instead you are responding to what you want me to say so you can insult me.

For example, when I said I don't want to lurk, you acted like I said I don't want to research. Big difference.
I "acted?" I don't know how you inferred that, but that is a you problem. If you have confusion about something someone says, you should just try asking them and stop making so many assumptions. However, that seems to be a common trait amongst you roundies, so I don't anticipate it to stop anytime soon.
It is quite simple. I posted stating that I wasn't going to lurk.
Your response to that including a claim that I wasn't going to research.

If you don't want people to assume things like that, perhaps you should respond to what they actually say?

Have we already covered the parable of the pot and the kettle? This is more of your projection shining through.
Nope. Not projecting at all.

You say that is what you want. Your posting behavior doesn't reflect that. You should really work on that because it makes you seem rather disingenuous.
More lies and slander.
Where in my posting have I ever indicated something else?

You make baseless claims.
Where did that happen?
Where you stated I am unwilling to do the research.
Where you stated there is evidence for a Flat Earth.

You are literally just making things up at this point.
No. I'm not. I am going based off your post.

No, I quote what they say. I am sorry if you have issues with your own words. You should think them through better before you post next time. At this point, you are bordering on intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, you quote what they say, but then you go and pretend they say something completely different.
It isn't my words I have issue with, it is your blatant lies about them.

I'm not bordering on intellectual dishonesty. However you are way past that border.

You keep saying that you have researched it, yet nothing so far is indicative of that. You entire post thus far can be summed up as some perceived victimization on your part where you think you are being misrepresented by the actual words you said. Until you can work on that, I don't think productive debate will ever happen. You need to be honest with yourself, first.
And there you go lying about me yet again.
I have researched it. There is even evidence of that in these comments, where I have pointed out several things which simply don't work in the FE model.
Sure, you will likely just lie and baselessly assert that the FE model can explain them, but you wont provide any explanation because there is none.
Did you want me to derail the thread even more by pointing out every single problem with it?

The victimisation isn't perceived. The misrepresentation is not being done by me.
You are blatantly misrepresenting what I have said, pretending I have said things I haven't, and insulting me in the process.

I am honest with myself. You are the one being dishonest.

I suppose it is a good thing that didn't happen, then.
But it did.

See my point above about this victim narrative you are trying to frame. No one is lying about you friend, just quoting your own words. I would also suggest that you look up what slander means, because it doesn't seem you know how to use the term.
You are lying about me, repeatedly. You aren't just quoting me, you are misrepresenting what I have said by pretending I said something completely different.
Would you prefer I said libel instead?

Nope. Not wanting someone else to do MY work for me. Wanting someone else to do THEIR work.
Not what it looks like from over here. But, we have already established your loose approach with words, so I don't know what you actually mean.
Am I the one claiming Earth is flat? NO!
So why is it my work to show a FE model which works?
Why is it my work to find evidence for a FE model?

If people which to claim Earth is flat, or claim there is evidence for a FE, it is their job to provide that evidence and a model which works. It is not the job of those calling BS on the FE to do so.

As such, it is not my work to go find evidence of a FE or a model which works.
So no, I am not wanting other people to do my work.
I am wanting them to do their own work rather than demanding I do it for them.

Cool, maybe apply some of that knowledge to the topic at hand.
Do you mean as I did repeatedly, earlier in the thread?

They are explained. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but that is no one's problem but your own. Although, I don't frequent this site anymore, so I may be behind on the currently accepted model here. I spend most of my time at another FE community.
No. They are not explained, here or anywhere.
The best they have is pretty much just "magic".
They can't even explain why people in completely different parts of Earth see the same phases.
They can't even decide if it is meant to be a sphere or flat.

False, and not even tangentially related to the topic. You do know that if there is a particular thing you want to discuss, you can make your own thread about it, right?
No. Completely true, and it is related to your baseless claims that the FE model works and there is evidence for it.
A simple example is the position of the sun at sunrise/sunset at the equinox.
In the FE model the sun is positioned above the equator at the equinox, 1/4 of the way around the world from sunrise/sunset.
That means that for someone on the equator, the sun would appear to rise north east and set north west. As you move further south, it's apparent position moves further towards the north. As you move further north, its apparent position moves further towards the east, and only right near the north pole does it become almost due east.
But in reality, the sun rises due east and sets due west.
There are 2 main FE responses to this, one is perspective, which is just pure bullshit and doesn't explain it at all without putting the sun much much further away (say 150 000 000 km). The other is magic bending light, which they have no evidence for, and which magically bends the light such that it perfectly matches a spherical Earth.
It gets even more problematic in the southern summer, where the sun appears to rise from the south east, even places below the tropic, which the sun should never be south of.

So no, completely true.

Do you seriously think no one has raised these issues before?
The FEers either assert some baseless nonsense, or just ignore the thread.

Did you know you can make your own thread about it, and state how the FE model explains it just fine and that these aren't a problem for the FE?

You managed to deflect and project at the same time. Well done. It is explained in the FE model. I would suggest doing some research instead of trying to get others to do your homework for you.
Nope. I haven't been projecting at all, nor have I attempted to deflect.
Yes, you claim it is explained in the FE model, but no one seems to have ever provided this explanation.
I have done research, and found no explanation.

If you wish to assert these things are explained, it is your job to show they are, not mine.
Stop trying to get me to do your work.
Stop pretending that your work is my work.

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #167 on: April 22, 2017, 09:28:29 PM »
You are the one making outlandish claims here...
False.

Not my fault that a FE derailed the thread by asserting nonsense like there being evidence for a FE.
Except you are the one derailing the thread. You literally have no self-awareness.

We aren't entitled, we will just keep pointing out your bullshit until you can address the massive problems with it.
False. You are very entitled. Like many words you have used up to this point, I doubt you know what it means, as evidenced by your obvious misunderstanding here.

No. I am not just discussing this thread at the moment. I am discussing the entire forum/FE community.
I am demanding answers for serious problems with the FE model which shows it does not match reality.
What does this have to with the topic? Why do you struggle so hard with such a simple concept as not derailing a thread. Also, you can demand all you want. It is obvious you are not equipped to discuss FET, and your childish rants are an example of that. No one owes you anything, but you can "demand" all you want.


I'm not the one looking foolish here.
Actually, you are. You just lack the self-awareness to realize it.

I said I'm not just going to lurk and wait for you guys to provide evidence, and instead will call you out on your nonsense.
That in no way indicates I am not willing to research. If anything it indicates I have done the research to know that FE is nonsense.
Literally irrelevant.

The only assumption there was that your response was honest. Don't worry, I won't make the same mistake again.
Aww, now you are getting passive aggressive. It is okay, this is typical behavior when someone literally has no argument.


No. It isn't the truth.
False

If you really think my behaviour has shown an unwillingness to perform research, feel free to explain.
I would suggest going back and reading the thread to clear up your obvious misunderstanding.

That is because I don't want to de-rail this thread too far...
I am glad you are finally admitting to derailing, however you have already gone way off the rails.

I have. Perhaps you should try it some time?
If you have, you clearly haven't learned anything. I would suggest working on your research abilities.


The curvature of space around Earth is so tiny it isn't funny.
Irrelevant. Good job backtracking, though.

Nope. I no what it means. I know I am not the one projecting here.
Just because you say something, it doesn't make it true. Your own words prove that you do not. I am sure if you keep working hard on your 'research' that you can figure it out eventually.


All over the place, such as the FAQ:
What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
...

So, not at all related to this topic. Gotcha.

Even a complete moron would be able to figure out which claims I am referring to.
Yet you can't provide an answer. I suppose that makes you below even a complete moron based on your own words.

Yes, you are literally quoting me, then pretending I am saying something completely different.
It isn't the quote I am objecting to. It is your responses, which don't always match what I say.
For example, when I say I'm not going to lurk, you pretend I said I'm not going to research.

So no, like I said before, I am stating you are not actually responding to what I am saying, instead you are responding to what you want me to say so you can insult me.
Except, I am responding to what you are saying. I really don't want to have to explain such basic concepts to you. If you don't like your own words, I would suggest you refrain from posting. I am sorry you have such a tough time with that, friend.


It is quite simple. I posted stating that I wasn't going to lurk.
Your response to that including a claim that I wasn't going to research.
Up to this point, you have not. So, at this point I feel comfortable in explicitly saying you are not going to research. You would rather play the victim of some perceived narrative.

If you don't want people to assume things like that, perhaps you should respond to what they actually say?
It is a good thing I am literally responding to what you are literally saying, then.

Nope. Not projecting at all.
False.

More lies and slander.
Where in my posting have I ever indicated something else?
You very obviously do not understand the term slander. I would suggest you refrain from using it. But, if you want to continue to be ignorant, I can't stop you.

Where you stated I am unwilling to do the research.
What? I can't help that you aren't willing to do the research. In the amount of time you have been complaining, you could have learned so much.

Where you stated there is evidence for a Flat Earth.
I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and maybe doing some research.

No. I'm not. I am going based off your post.
You are, actually. However, based on your inability to understand simple concept thus far, I don't expect you to admit or understand it.

Yes, you quote what they say, but then you go and pretend they say something completely different.
False.

It isn't my words I have issue with, it is your blatant lies about them.
Also false. You aren't doing very good here.

I'm not bordering on intellectual dishonesty. However you are way past that border.
More deflection. Good attempt, though.

And there you go lying about me yet again.
False. Your own words are what I quoted. Based on that, if there is a lie, the only one lying is you.

I have researched it. There is even evidence of that in these comments, where I have pointed out several things which simply don't work in the FE model.
What have you pointed out in the thread doesn't work in the FE model. Do you understand what the topic is?

Sure, you will likely just lie and baselessly assert that the FE model can explain them
I don't need to make any assertions because you haven't provided any evidence.

...but you wont provide any explanation because there is none.
Did you want me to derail the thread even more by pointing out every single problem with it?
Explanation for what? You really don't understand how a forum works, do you? You have already derailed the thread, nothing you say will make a difference at this point. You clearly have no interest in discussing the topic.

I am honest with myself. You are the one being dishonest.
False. But this is an excellent 5th grade retort on your part.

But it did.
False. For someone who claims to not lie, you sure are doing plenty of it.

You are lying about me, repeatedly.
False.

You aren't just quoting me, you are misrepresenting what I have said by pretending I said something completely different.
Also false. They are literally your words. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Would you prefer I said libel instead?
I would have preferred if you use the correct term, yes.

Am I the one claiming Earth is flat? NO!
Irrelevant.

If people which to claim Earth is flat, or claim there is evidence for a FE, it is their job to provide that evidence and a model which works. It is not the job of those calling BS on the FE to do so.
Who in this thread is claiming the earth is flat? You seem to claim it is round. I would suggest yo provide evidence to support your claims. This is the same thing I would expect of anyone making a claim.

I am wanting them to do their own work rather than demanding I do it for them.
I promise no one wants you to do any work beyond providing evidence for your claims. You should try that sometime.

Do you mean as I did repeatedly, earlier in the thread?
Nope, I mean in actuality. Somewhere that you are far from at this point.

No. They are not explained, here or anywhere.
The best they have is pretty much just "magic".
They can't even explain why people in completely different parts of Earth see the same phases.
They can't even decide if it is meant to be a sphere or flat.
What does this have to do with the topic?

No. Completely true,
Literally, objectively false.

Nope. I haven't been projecting at all, nor have I attempted to deflect.
Literally false. You very clearly don't know what the terms mean, so you should probably stop using them until you do.

Stop trying to get me to do your work.
Sorry, friend, I would never want you doing my work. Your efforts thus far are incredibly pathetic, and I would certainly never want to be associated with anything you have done.

The reality is that you are just another nobody who has shown up here. You demand from others something that you refuse to provide yourself. You are literally a generic round earth stereotype member on this forum. You haven't contributed anything and no one will remember you when you are gone, except maybe your perpetual victim mentality. You are well on your way to becoming a meme, and that is about the best you can do. I do wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Hopefully you aren't as much of a failure in other areas as you are here. Take care!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #168 on: April 22, 2017, 11:38:47 PM »
Sorry, friend, I would never want you doing my work. Your efforts thus far are incredibly pathetic, and I would certainly never want to be associated with anything you have done.

The reality is that you are just another nobody who has shown up here. You demand from others something that you refuse to provide yourself. You are literally a generic round earth stereotype member on this forum. You haven't contributed anything and no one will remember you when you are gone, except maybe your perpetual victim mentality. You are well on your way to becoming a meme, and that is about the best you can do. I do wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Hopefully you aren't as much of a failure in other areas as you are here. Take care!
I deleted your attempt to compete in the Sandokhanian Longest Piece of Wallpaper Aaward, hope yo dpn't mind!

I'm sure Sandokhan still is ahead by a country mile!

But, back to the topic. I have made quite a number of posts on this topic indicating that only from about 45.000 ft does the curve become apparent and even then is it slight. A little can be seen in this video
]
Show me the Curvature... Here it is. Wolfie6020

This one has a bit of curvature,  and it is from this society's Wiki:

The observer is looking down at a circle. A circle is always curved in two dimensions.
Yes, I know some claim that it the "edge of the flat earth disk", but try proving that one.

And this shows a complete circle!

Himawari 2016.04.26 03.30 UTC

You may or may not accept that evidence, but that is your problem not mine.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #169 on: April 23, 2017, 04:01:10 PM »
You are the one making outlandish claims here...
False.
Nope. Completely true.
You are claiming there is evidence for a FE and a FE model which works, and that I haven't researched FE BS.

Not my fault that a FE derailed the thread by asserting nonsense like there being evidence for a FE.
Except you are the one derailing the thread. You literally have no self-awareness.
I may have assisted, but I wasn't the one that started it.

False. You are very entitled. Like many words you have used up to this point, I doubt you know what it means, as evidenced by your obvious misunderstanding here.
More lies and outlandish claims, I think I will just start skipping all your pathetic insults.

What does this have to with the topic?
Again, it isn't just the topic of this thread, it is the entire FE movement. Why do you struggle to grasp that concept?

Literally irrelevant.
No, quite relevant as it shows your blatant dishonesty, you effectively lying about me.

Except, I am responding to what you are saying. I really don't want to have to explain such basic concepts to you. If you don't like your own words, I would suggest you refrain from posting. I am sorry you have such a tough time with that, friend.
Again, my words are not the issue, it is your blatant misrepresentation of them.
e.g. I post I don't want to just lurk and wait for the FEers to provide the evidence they clearly lack, you then act like I said I don't want to research.

It is quite simple. I posted stating that I wasn't going to lurk.
Your response to that including a claim that I wasn't going to research.
Up to this point, you have not. So, at this point I feel comfortable in explicitly saying you are not going to research. You would rather play the victim of some perceived narrative.
Really?
So when you told me to lurk more, and I responded by saying NO. You didn't take that to mean I am not going to lurk?

Again, I'm not playing the victim. You are blatantly misrepresenting what I have said, effectively lying about me, defaming me, so you can pretend us REers are just retards that aren't looking honestly with an open mind.

You very obviously do not understand the term slander.
Again, would you prefer I say libel? Or just the more general defamation?
Yes, I understand that slander, in a legal sense is spoken.
I also understand the general use of words does not always reflect their technical legal definition.
People will often use slander for written defamation.

What? I can't help that you aren't willing to do the research. In the amount of time you have been complaining, you could have learned so much.
But I am willing to do research. I have done the research, and learnt much. One key thing I learnt is the the FE model is a load of crap which contradicts reality.

I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and maybe doing some research.
Again, I have. There is no evidence of a FE there.

I have researched it. There is even evidence of that in these comments, where I have pointed out several things which simply don't work in the FE model.
What have you pointed out in the thread doesn't work in the FE model. Do you understand what the topic is?
Yes, the original topic was on the curvature of Earth and how high you would have to be to see it, then after it was continually answered by REers, FEers derailed it claiming there was evidence for a FE. The topic I am discussing now is this evidence, and the evidence against the FE model.
I pointed out lunar eclipses, the phases of the moon, the apparent position of the sun and other stars and moon, all don't work on a flat Earth.

Explanation for what? You really don't understand how a forum works, do you? You have already derailed the thread, nothing you say will make a difference at this point. You clearly have no interest in discussing the topic.
I have already answered the OP, several times.

Am I the one claiming Earth is flat? NO!
Irrelevant.
Again, quite relevant, as it establishes who has the burden of proof and thus who's job it is to provide the evidence and the models that work.
I am not claiming Earth is flat, so it isn't my job to find the evidence for a FE or a model of a FE which matches reality.

You continually telling me to research and that it is my work is merely the burden of proof and trying to get others to do your work for you.


If people which to claim Earth is flat, or claim there is evidence for a FE, it is their job to provide that evidence and a model which works. It is not the job of those calling BS on the FE to do so.
Who in this thread is claiming the earth is flat? You seem to claim it is round. I would suggest yo provide evidence to support your claims. This is the same thing I would expect of anyone making a claim.
You have implicitly claimed there is evidence of a flat Earth.
(Notice how again you just focus on the entire comment and instead pretend I said something different?)

I have provided evidence of a roudn Earth, such as the position of stars (including the sun), the phases of the moon and eclipses, all which match the RE model.
Or would you like me to just use your dishonest bullshit, where I tell you to lurk more, go to the wiki (Wikipedia, not your BS FE one), and so on?
Call you stupid (explicitly or implicitly) and claim you are just unwilling to do the research and so on?

How about instead of continually deflecting you try and provide evidence of a flat Earth?

I promise no one wants you to do any work beyond providing evidence for your claims. You should try that sometime.
Except you, who wants me to do the work of the FEers and provide a model of a FE which matches reality and evidence of a FE.

The reality is that you are just another nobody who has shown up here. You demand from others something that you refuse to provide yourself. You are literally a generic round earth stereotype member on this forum. You haven't contributed anything and no one will remember you when you are gone, except maybe your perpetual victim mentality. You are well on your way to becoming a meme, and that is about the best you can do. I do wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Hopefully you aren't as much of a failure in other areas as you are here. Take care!
Why would I provide evidence of a flat Earth when I am not the one claiming Earth is flat?
I have provided plenty of evidence that Earth is round.

So no, I am providing evidence and asking/demanding FEers provide evidence.
I have explained how things work in the RE model, and asking/demanding FEers explain how things work in the FE model.

So no, I am demanding/asking for what I am proivding, evidence and explanations.
Unless you want to go full retard and claim because I am not providing the evidence, etc, for the FE, I'm not.

So far the failures on this forum has been FEers time and time again.
Yes, occasionally REers have made mistakes (even myself) but other REers have still refuted the FEers and the FE model. No one has been able to refute the RE model here.

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #170 on: April 23, 2017, 07:45:56 PM »
I have provided plenty of evidence that Earth is round.

Objectively false.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
  • +3/-2
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #171 on: April 23, 2017, 08:33:01 PM »
You don't have to go very high at all really. When your at a beach, lie down flat and look at the horizon. Okay now stand up. You will have seen a little further in the distance standing up then you did lying down. You will not see the horizontal line of the horizon curve. The curve goes downwards, past what you can see. Of course you cant 'see' whats beyond the horizon unless you can see through solid material. This argument of a curve and being on the horizontal plane is a ridiculous one. I think these people just don't realise just how enormous the Earth is. Even at the maximum height of a commercial airline, your field of view is a tiny fraction of the size of the planet. So no, you wont see a curvature from those heights either

Have you noticed that even when you get high enough to have the entire Earth in view, you only see half of it at any one time? If the Earth were flat, pictures brought back would show the entire world at once.



Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #172 on: April 23, 2017, 10:19:21 PM »
I have provided plenty of evidence that Earth is round.

Objectively false.
What happened to your usual "Irrelevant"? Just fancy your advancing to a two word answer!
Did you buy a dictionary?

Next, you might really explain something, but I won't hold my breath.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #173 on: April 24, 2017, 03:38:28 AM »
I have provided plenty of evidence that Earth is round.

Objectively false.

Nope. Objectively true. If you like, you can go and read it and refute it, unless you mean I haven't actually provided the evidence that it rises in the east and sets in the west on the equinox?

How about you explain how that can happen on a FE where the sun is always above some point on Earth? Preferably without appealing to magic.

?

Badxtoss

  • 3268
  • +0/-0
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #174 on: April 24, 2017, 08:02:01 AM »
I have provided plenty of evidence that Earth is round.

Objectively false.
No it isn't.  I've read his posts.  You can dismiss the evidence as some grand conspiracy or simply ignore it, but has absolutly presented lots of evidence.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
  • +0/-0
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #175 on: April 24, 2017, 08:07:58 AM »
Nah, when i began to read about curvature on the www prior to 2010, everyone claimed curvature was visible on their way to vacation to the Southern Hemisphere, where they witinessed their excrement going down the drain of a counterclockwise drainage in their hotelroom toilet.

I am always glad i remember certain facts of the past,....comes in handy at times !

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #176 on: April 24, 2017, 08:41:47 AM »
No one has provided evidence for lunar eclipses which is compatible with a FE model...

Have to, have to...

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #177 on: April 24, 2017, 09:33:13 AM »
What happened to your usual "Irrelevant"? Just fancy your advancing to a two word answer!
Did you buy a dictionary?
You do know that false and irrelevant actually have different meanings, right? Typically, when someone wants to convey a point, they use the word(s) that convey that point the best. If you need anymore help understanding that, just ask!

Next, you might really explain something, but I won't hold my breath.
Is there something about this topic that you do not understand that you would like explained? Again, all you have to do is ask, friend!


Nope. Objectively true. If you like, you can go and read it and refute it
It isn't up to me to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims. You literally have not done that up to this point, thereby making your claim objectively false.

How about you explain how that can happen on a FE where the sun is always above some point on Earth? Preferably without appealing to magic.
I know you have a very, very hard time with concepts such as topics on a forum. But, I really would recommend you do at least a bit of very basic research to understand how fora such as these work. Typically, you want to have a discussion in a topic that is actually related to that topic. I know these concepts can get dicey for round earth logicians, but it really isn't that hard.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
  • +0/-0
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #178 on: April 24, 2017, 09:40:23 AM »
Next, you might really explain something, but I won't hold my breath.
Is there something about this topic that you do not understand that you would like explained? Again, all you have to do is ask, friend!

Objectively false.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?
« Reply #179 on: April 24, 2017, 03:46:30 PM »
You do know that false and irrelevant actually have different meanings, right? Typically, when someone wants to convey a point, they use the word(s) that convey that point the best. If you need anymore help understanding that, just ask!
And your point seems to be "I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY EARTH HAS TO BE FLAT YOUR JUST A BIG MEANNNNNYYY!!!! :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'("


Is there something about this topic that you do not understand that you would like explained? Again, all you have to do is ask, friend!
Again, the topic has clearly been derailed.
Explanations for several things have been requested. If you don't want to explain them here, you are free to start your own thread.

It isn't up to me to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims. You literally have not done that up to this point, thereby making your claim objectively false.
Well you started well, but then completely failed.
I have substantiated my claims, at least to the level expected by any reasonable person as I am using facts that are quite well known.

Even if I didn't, that doesn't make my claims false.

Someone not proving a claim doesn't make that claim false.

I know you have a very, very hard time with concepts such as topics on a forum.
Again, you don't have to do it here.