Help

I was having an argument with my family on whether the earth is flat or not. I was doing pretty well until they asked me this: "If the earth were flat, ships would shrink and slowly fade on the horizon. But what we see is that they move downwards as they move over the curve of the earth."
Help me guys, I'm losing ground.
Please no REtards.

I was having an argument with my family on whether the earth is flat or not. I was doing pretty well until they asked me this: "If the earth were flat, ships would shrink and slowly fade on the horizon. But what we see is that they move downwards as they move over the curve of the earth."
Help me guys, I'm losing ground.
Please no REtards.

They are right. Linear perspective, like that which is necessary to explain what happens on a flat earth horizon, doe not apply.
I'd suggest conceding before you start sinking too.

I was having an argument with my family on whether the earth is flat or not. I was doing pretty well until they asked me this: "If the earth were flat, ships would shrink and slowly fade on the horizon. But what we see is that they move downwards as they move over the curve of the earth."
Help me guys, I'm losing ground.
Please no REtards.

Help me guys, I'm losing ground.

Yes due to the curve you kind of lose ground.

How about this, your family is telling you that you are wrong, are you suggesting your whole family is stupid and or retarded?

Its at points in life like these where parents / families choose to give family businesses to the able siblings cutting out certain family members.

Its also a turning point for where they choose to spend on their childs educations, I will state this now...

No matter how much cash your family has they will NOT be sending you to med school or similar EVER.

 

That was a little harsh, sem. He's genuinely looking for answers and its not up to us to put him down.

However, if you do start clinging to an antiquated theory that has had thousands of years of proof piled up against it, that's when you start digging your own grave.

There are some things are the Flat Earth theory just can't surmount and the "ships sink at the horizon" thing is one of them - I would jump off that particular ship before they start talking about moon phases.

That was a little harsh, sem. He's genuinely looking for answers and its not up to us to put him down.

However, if you do start clinging to an antiquated theory that has had thousands of years of proof piled up against it, that's when you start digging your own grave.

There are some things are the Flat Earth theory just can't surmount and the "ships sink at the horizon" thing is one of them - I would jump off that particular ship before they start talking about moon phases.

No harsh would be to NOT warn him about it in advance. Im helping him.

Quote from: Novarus on April 07, 2017, 02:04:53 PM

That was a little harsh, sem. He's genuinely looking for answers and its not up to us to put him down.

However, if you do start clinging to an antiquated theory that has had thousands of years of proof piled up against it, that's when you start digging your own grave.

There are some things are the Flat Earth theory just can't surmount and the "ships sink at the horizon" thing is one of them - I would jump off that particular ship before they start talking about moon phases.

No harsh would be to NOT warn him about it in advance. Im helping him.

I'd say not doing anything would be more heartless than harsh, but there's plenty of animosity on the board as it is - save it for the ones with their heads in the sand! They deserve it more 

Quote from: Semnomic on April 07, 2017, 02:16:51 PM

Quote from: Novarus on April 07, 2017, 02:04:53 PM

That was a little harsh, sem. He's genuinely looking for answers and its not up to us to put him down.

However, if you do start clinging to an antiquated theory that has had thousands of years of proof piled up against it, that's when you start digging your own grave.

There are some things are the Flat Earth theory just can't surmount and the "ships sink at the horizon" thing is one of them - I would jump off that particular ship before they start talking about moon phases.

No harsh would be to NOT warn him about it in advance. Im helping him.

I'd say not doing anything would be more heartless than harsh, but there's plenty of animosity on the board as it is - save it for the ones with their heads in the sand! They deserve it more 

Thank you both for your concern. Looking at the other Flat Earthers on this site, I am rethinking my beliefs. Physical observer really doesn't seem to have any real backups (no offense to him, I see where he's coming from). I went to a site explaining some of the laws of physics. I realize that a FE can't exist with them.

Quote from: Novarus on April 07, 2017, 02:32:35 PM

Quote from: Semnomic on April 07, 2017, 02:16:51 PM

Quote from: Novarus on April 07, 2017, 02:04:53 PM

That was a little harsh, sem. He's genuinely looking for answers and its not up to us to put him down.

However, if you do start clinging to an antiquated theory that has had thousands of years of proof piled up against it, that's when you start digging your own grave.

There are some things are the Flat Earth theory just can't surmount and the "ships sink at the horizon" thing is one of them - I would jump off that particular ship before they start talking about moon phases.

No harsh would be to NOT warn him about it in advance. Im helping him.

I'd say not doing anything would be more heartless than harsh, but there's plenty of animosity on the board as it is - save it for the ones with their heads in the sand! They deserve it more 

Thank you both for your concern. Looking at the other Flat Earthers on this site, I am rethinking my beliefs. Physical observer really doesn't seem to have any real backups (no offense to him, I see where he's coming from). I went to a site explaining some of the laws of physics. I realize that a FE can't exist with them.

A very wise choice - despite what anyone has to say about indoctrination or conspiracy, the physics is what should speak the loudest - keep observing, be critical, search for answers and if you are challenged then fight for what you believe - but remember it's far more stupid to cling to the losing side than to concede to an opposing view.

Stay scientific, Newhavener

I was having an argument with my family on whether the earth is flat or not. I was doing pretty well until they asked me this: "If the earth were flat, ships would shrink and slowly fade on the horizon. But what we see is that they move downwards as they move over the curve of the earth."
Help me guys, I'm losing ground.
Please no REtards.

You are in the debate section. As such, people that support the truth (Round Earthers) will chime in.

If you want just FE opinions, go ask it in Q&A.

However if you want to be able to win the argument with your family, then it would be better to let REers chime in here as they can provide likely counter arguments.

As to the issue:
Perspective results in objects appearing smaller. Nothing more. It doesn't result in them disappearing from the bottom up or the like.

Perspective cannot explain why ships and the sun disappear from the bottom up, nor why distant cities are either completely hidden (even with high zoom/high magnification lenses) or the bottoms are hidden and the tops still clearly visible.

If you want to win, I suggest changing sides. RE has reality backing it.

And this is just one of the many issues for FE.

I was having an argument with my family on whether the earth is flat or not. I was doing pretty well until they asked me this: "If the earth were flat, ships would shrink and slowly fade on the horizon. But what we see is that they move downwards as they move over the curve of the earth."
Help me guys, I'm losing ground.
Please no REtards.

Conclusive proof- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69299.0

Bet you can't- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69588.0

Hudson Bay- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69820.0

Water falls to lowest point- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70014.0

All you need is the information from the OP in these threads. But be warned, your family members that do not want to accept a motionless plane earth are really going to be pissed when you hit them with a little dose of reality from the threads, especially the Hudson Bay thread.

Quote from: Newhavener on April 07, 2017, 01:43:31 PM

I was having an argument with my family on whether the earth is flat or not. I was doing pretty well until they asked me this: "If the earth were flat, ships would shrink and slowly fade on the horizon. But what we see is that they move downwards as they move over the curve of the earth."
Help me guys, I'm losing ground.
Please no REtards.

Conclusive proof- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69299.0

Bet you can't- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69588.0

Hudson Bay- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69820.0

Water falls to lowest point- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70014.0

All you need is the information from the OP in these threads. But be warned, your family members that do not want to accept a motionless plane earth are really going to be pissed when you hit them with a little dose of reality from the threads, especially the Hudson Bay thread.

Firstly: he's already been educated, poppet - didn't get there fast enough.

Second: "only read the first post and ignore the plethora of information that follows, utterly discounting all claims made in it."

Quote from: physical observer on April 08, 2017, 02:46:33 AM

Quote from: Newhavener on April 07, 2017, 01:43:31 PM

I was having an argument with my family on whether the earth is flat or not. I was doing pretty well until they asked me this: "If the earth were flat, ships would shrink and slowly fade on the horizon. But what we see is that they move downwards as they move over the curve of the earth."
Help me guys, I'm losing ground.
Please no REtards.

Conclusive proof- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69299.0

Bet you can't- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69588.0

Hudson Bay- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69820.0

Water falls to lowest point- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70014.0

All you need is the information from the OP in these threads. But be warned, your family members that do not want to accept a motionless plane earth are really going to be pissed when you hit them with a little dose of reality from the threads, especially the Hudson Bay thread.

Firstly: he's already been educated, poppet - didn't get there fast enough.

Second: "only read the first post and ignore the plethora of information that follows, utterly discounting all claims made in it."

You can't even follow the request of the OP in this thread! None of you, and I mean none of you, could offer any physical evidence/clues/signs from earth's physical state the earth is a spinning speeding ball. All you had were assumptions, assertions and ugly insults. Newhavener can read through the threads to discover your lies, don't worry. But we all know you need to try and poison the well first, right?

Here is Lake Victoria on the equator in Africa. Spherical earth die-hards claim, because of earth's spin, the water on earth bulges out to make the marble globe shape, but we see water, where that bulge is supposed to be the greatest, is non-existent. As you can see Newhavener, the water at the equator falls to a lower point on earth, and is horizontally level across its surface.



Water cannot be obeying centrifugal forces, being pulled out to make a convex curve, and also be falling to a lower place on earth, it's impossible. I have asked the SE die-hards to provide evidence from a body of water in an earthly container that is obeying both forces at the same time, this is what I've got so far:

Here is Lake Victoria on the equator in Africa. Spherical earth die-hards claim, because of earth's spin, the water on earth bulges out to make the marble globe shape, but we see water, where that bulge is supposed to be the greatest, is non-existent. As you can see Newhavener, the water at the equator falls to a lower point on earth, and is horizontally level across its surface.

Beyond stupid.

Water cannot be obeying centrifugal forces, being pulled out to make a convex curve, and also be falling to a lower place on earth, it's impossible. I have asked the SE die-hards to provide evidence from a body of water in an earthly container that is obeying both forces at the same time, this is what I've got so far:

You've had it explained to you on numerous occasions, and all we get is this in response:

Quote from: physical observer on April 08, 2017, 03:08:21 AM

Here is Lake Victoria on the equator in Africa. Spherical earth die-hards claim, because of earth's spin, the water on earth bulges out to make the marble globe shape, but we see water, where that bulge is supposed to be the greatest, is non-existent. As you can see Newhavener, the water at the equator falls to a lower point on earth, and is horizontally level across its surface.

Beyond stupid.

Quote

Water cannot be obeying centrifugal forces, being pulled out to make a convex curve, and also be falling to a lower place on earth, it's impossible. I have asked the SE die-hards to provide evidence from a body of water in an earthly container that is obeying both forces at the same time, this is what I've got so far:

You've had it explained to you on numerous occasions, and all we get is this in response:

See what I mean, Newhavener! Just sorry trite insults. Absolutely no evidence/clues/signs from earth it is a spinning speeding ball, just NONE!

I was having an argument with my family on whether the earth is flat or not. I was doing pretty well until they asked me this: "If the earth were flat, ships would shrink and slowly fade on the horizon. But what we see is that they move downwards as they move over the curve of the earth."
Help me guys, I'm losing ground.
Please no REtards.

The Bonneville salt flats:



The Bonneville salt flats have a level flat surface horizontal to motionless plane earth, and is perfect for high speeds, as there is no upward slope, curvature, bow on the surface to contend with.

Here is why the salt flats are flat. Every spring the flats fill with water, causing the salt to float , thus mimicking the shape of the water's surface, horizontally level and flat to motionless plane earth. Once the water drains, the surface of the salt continues to mimic the surface of water, horizontally flat and level to motionless plane earth. Thus proving, Newhavener, water does not arch, bow, curve across its surface once it fills a void. We should expect no different with the ocean water, after all, oceans are just huge lakes.

This is what ships on the ocean are navigating:

Quote from: Newhavener on April 07, 2017, 01:43:31 PM

I was having an argument with my family on whether the earth is flat or not. I was doing pretty well until they asked me this: "If the earth were flat, ships would shrink and slowly fade on the horizon. But what we see is that they move downwards as they move over the curve of the earth."
Help me guys, I'm losing ground.
Please no REtards.

The Bonneville salt flats:



The Bonneville salt flats have a level flat surface horizontal to motionless plane earth, and is perfect for high speeds, as there is no upward slope, curvature, bow on the surface to contend with.

Here is why the salt flats are flat. Every spring the flats fill with water, causing the salt to float , thus mimicking the shape of the water's surface, horizontally level and flat to motionless plane earth. Once the water drains, the surface of the salt continues to mimic the surface of water, horizontally flat and level to motionless plane earth. Thus proving, Newhavener, water does not arch, bow, curve across its surface once it fills a void. We should expect no different with the ocean water, after all, oceans are just huge lakes.

This is what ships on the ocean are navigating:

Hi. The links you shared were very helpful. Thank you. But the Bonneville salt flats example is just not good. I'm sorry, but if you think like a RE believer, then the world would appear flat on a sphere at the right perspective. So I decided not to use that example with my family. I've been going to some sites that explain basic physics, and they do explain your question of how a spinning ball can hold water. Of course I did have to try and believe in gravity.
Thank you for your help though.

Swing and a miss, P.O..

Sorry.

The truth is, Newhavener, there is a whole lot of proof out there, and to make any of the flat models (because there is no one consistent model) make sense you have to disregard thousands of years of rigorously tested, peer reviewed and self-evident science.

Watch physical observer try and explain Sigma Octantis, the southern pole  star.
Or, alternatively, watch him stick his head back in the bucket.

quick question then, if you are having trouble with gravity then what causes things to fall down?  This is very dependant on what model of the so called flat Earth you subscribe to, as all non spherical models I have seen yet can be easily destroyed by, guess what, physical observations.  Do not get too tangled up in physical observers fool persona, he is just here to troll as a flat Earther.  He really doesn't believe what he posts, that has become very clear a while ago.
As of yet, I have not found a real flat Earth believer, quick clue is they either ignore anything you counter with or just claim it is false with no reasoning why.  If they believed in this stuff, they would have something tangible to back up their claims, I have seen none of this so far.  Perhaps a few will try to come in defend their forum persona's beliefs but  you will see soon enough it is thinly veiled bull crap. 

All you need is the information from the OP in these threads. But be warned, your family members that do not want to accept a motionless plane earth are really going to be pissed when you hit them with a little dose of reality from the threads, especially the Hudson Bay thread.

If his goal is to look like a complete moron, then yes, that is all he needs.
If he wants to look intelligent, it would be wise for him to go through those threads and see how you got your ass handed to you repeatedly after spouting such ignorant nonsense.

That "little dose of reality" in those threads is that Earth is round and that you have no rational defense of your claims that Earth is flat or a rational refutation of Earth being round.

You can't even follow the request of the OP in this thread!

That is because we realise Earth is round, and dislike people spoutng ignorant crap unchallenged.
However, we did address the OP, indicating ships and other objects disappearing below the horizon is evidence that Earth is round.

I notice you didn't bother with that and instead just bring up other, already refuted crap.

None of you, and I mean none of you, could offer any physical evidence/clues/signs from earth's physical state the earth is a spinning speeding ball.

We provided plenty, both from Earth directly, and otherwise.

You could offer nothing to refute it nor could you offer a single thing to support Earth being a flat motionless plane.
Every piece of "evidence" you provided was completley consistent with Earth being a spinning speeding ball.

All you had were assumptions, assertions and ugly insults. Newhavener can read through the threads to discover your lies, don't worry. But we all know you need to try and poison the well first, right?

There you go projecting again.

Here is Lake Victoria on the equator in Africa. Spherical earth die-hards claim, because of earth's spin, the water on earth bulges out to make the marble globe shape

This lie has already been pointed out repeatedly. Why do you keep claiming it?
It is gravity which is the predominate force responsible for the globe shape.
The spinning just produces a slight bulge.

but we see water, where that bulge is supposed to be the greatest, is non-existent.

Prove it.
All you have is an inability to detect it. It isn't suprising considering you are looking for a fairly small bulge, and looking at a tiny part of Earth.

There are only 2 ways to have a shot of seeing this bulge, one is directly, by observing Earth from far enough away to be able to get an almost side on view where you can observe the polar radius and equatorial radius. Then you will need a guide as you cannot tell that much is not a circle just by looking at it.

The other option is to accurately measure the curvature of Earth.

As you can see Newhavener, the water at the equator falls to a lower point on earth, and is horizontally level across its surface.

Yes, it is level, according to the apparent gravitational potential, but it doesn't fall to the lowest point.
The lowest point would be at the poles. The water level at the poles (ignoring the ice and land in case of Antarctica) is 21.3 km below the equator.
So if what you were saying was true, the water at the equator would be rushing to the poles, and some places near the pole would be completely underwater.
But this isn't the case.
Instead the centrifugal forces keep the water near the equator, such that it is level with the apparent gravitational potential, rather than the lowest point.

Water cannot be obeying centrifugal forces, being pulled out to make a convex curve, and also be falling to a lower place on earth, it's impossible. I have asked the SE die-hards to provide evidence from a body of water in an earthly container that is obeying both forces at the same time, this is what I've got so far

You have gotten plenty of examples of water (or other bodies) obeying both gravity (or some other force) as well as centrifugal forces at the same time. You even provided some yourself.
The water doesn't fall to the lowest point. It tries to level itself off based upont the apparent gravitational potential which takes the centrifugal forces into account.

You are yet to demonstrate that the water at Lake Victoria is not doing this.

The Bonneville salt flats:
The Bonneville salt flats have a level flat surface horizontal to motionless plane earth, and is perfect for high speeds, as there is no upward slope, curvature, bow on the surface to contend with.

No. They have a level surface. Not a flat one.
There is a curve, but because it is at the same apparent gravitational potential, no energy is needed to climb uphill.

Thus proving, Newhavener, water does not arch, bow, curve across its surface once it fills a void. We should expect no different with the ocean water, after all, oceans are just huge lakes.

Except you are yet to demonstrate any of that is actually flat.

This is what ships on the ocean are navigating:

No. It isn't.
Ships on the Ocean are not navigating a tiny lake.
Thanks for once again showing your ignorance of spherical geometry.

If you wish to scale it you need to scale Earth as well.

Now then PO, care to address the actual issue raised and try and explain why ships (and other things) disappear over the horizon, from the bottom up?

Now then PO, care to address the actual issue raised and try and explain why ships (and other things) disappear over the horizon, from the bottom up?

The same refuted issues over and over again. You need new material. Or you suffer from a serious mental disconnect.

If a blind ant walks across the surface of a wrecking ball, do you think it will notice the curvature of the ball?

The Salt Flats is the same principle only on a bigger scale, in order to notice it, the disturbance must be relative, so theoretically if say the whole universe rotated clockwise around the earth and the Earth rotated anti clockwise then there would be not relative disturbance it you could not notice the rotation.

 So unless there is something specifically there as a reference point, for instance something below the horizon slowly coming in to view top first, then there is no relative disturbance so you could not physically notice the difference, which is why the Salt Flats are level because every part of it is at the same altitude, but they are not flat because a straight stick lined up between points on the flat would not connect properly, for more info see my post on here about my new version of the Bedford Level Experiment I would like to do
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69743.0

I love the logic behind OP's intentions.


"They are proving me wrong, help me"

This is today's society.

Instead of saying "Oh, yeah. You showed me evidence that proves my point wrong, so you must be right", people just go "Oh, you tried to prove me wrong when I know just because I know it in my heart that the earth is flat, how dare you?"

Quote from: JackBlack on April 08, 2017, 03:19:22 PM

Now then PO, care to address the actual issue raised and try and explain why ships (and other things) disappear over the horizon, from the bottom up?

The same refuted issues over and over again.

Yes. That is all you have. The same refuted issues over and over again, like lies about perspective, while we bring up things you are yet to refute.

You need new material. Or you suffer from a serious mental disconnect.

No. I don't. The same material is still keeping your BS refuted. You are still yet to refute anything.
Why would I need to get new material when the current stuff is keeping you refuted?

Quote from: JackBlack on April 08, 2017, 03:19:22 PM

Now then PO, care to address the actual issue raised and try and explain why ships (and other things) disappear over the horizon, from the bottom up?

The same refuted issues over and over again. You need new material. Or you suffer from a serious mental disconnect.

That post is indicative of someone who has no arguments to the contrary. If you can't attack the argument then why attack the poster?

Physical Observer refuses any explanation of how the sun could be low enough (really lower than the horizon) to be able to do this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5ba92u/mt_hood_casting_a_shadow_on_the_clouds_this/

Look at the angle of the shadows pointing back to the Sun. Here is a similar view of another mountain:

https://www.google.com/amp/twistedsifter.com/2012/06/picture-of-the-day-mt-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds/amp/

If the Sun is 3,000 miles up and can only shine in a cone with a radius of about 6,000 miles (to only light half the Earth), then simple geometry says the sun is never below about 25°. If you have ever seen a sunrise or sunset, you know that this can't be true.

Quote from: physical observer on April 08, 2017, 03:30:06 AM

Quote from: Newhavener on April 07, 2017, 01:43:31 PM

I was having an argument with my family on whether the earth is flat or not. I was doing pretty well until they asked me this: "If the earth were flat, ships would shrink and slowly fade on the horizon. But what we see is that they move downwards as they move over the curve of the earth."
Help me guys, I'm losing ground.
Please no REtards.

The Bonneville salt flats:



The Bonneville salt flats have a level flat surface horizontal to motionless plane earth, and is perfect for high speeds, as there is no upward slope, curvature, bow on the surface to contend with.

Here is why the salt flats are flat. Every spring the flats fill with water, causing the salt to float , thus mimicking the shape of the water's surface, horizontally level and flat to motionless plane earth. Once the water drains, the surface of the salt continues to mimic the surface of water, horizontally flat and level to motionless plane earth. Thus proving, Newhavener, water does not arch, bow, curve across its surface once it fills a void. We should expect no different with the ocean water, after all, oceans are just huge lakes.

This is what ships on the ocean are navigating:

Hi. The links you shared were very helpful. Thank you. But the Bonneville salt flats example is just not good. I'm sorry, but if you think like a RE believer, then the world would appear flat on a sphere at the right perspective. So I decided not to use that example with my family. I've been going to some sites that explain basic physics, and they do explain your question of how a spinning ball can hold water. Of course I did have to try and believe in gravity.
Thank you for your help though.

Of course I did have to try and believe in gravity << forget gravity for now, look at everything else and FE still makes no sense.

Watch Nat Geo channel or science channel and ask yourself why there are NO FE programs, docs, etc.
Do you think everyone is hiding flat earth? your whole family is in on this?, your teachers ?
Ask yourself why you do not get told about FE in school? What would the point be of keeping it a secret ?
Ask questions and when there are NO answers ask yourself WHY cant they answer and who is not answering FE or BE.

Ask yourself HOW they are answering, with math OR childish answers, a crappy yt video OR a link to a mainstream channel like NAT GEO.

Ask yourself if 99% of the global population believe in ONE ball earth and the rest believe in MANY other variations and cant even agree on what replaces ball earth,sun,moon, how it works, who put it there, some have gravity!! some have fake moon, some have stars as holes in dark black blanket covering earth.

This is not a situation where two groups disagree on a theory (like how did the universe form) this is a situation where ONE group ignores math and science on a proven reality.

Which version of FE are you leaning towards? or are you more intent on just dismissing BE and replacing it with a FE you think has less proof against it? because they ALL have many problems and NONE are possible.

Physical Observer, please explain for our friend how the FE model has the sun go low enough for a mountain to cast a shadow on a coloud above. We can see in the picture that the Sun is below the horizon--easy to explain in sphere-Earth, but..."BET YOU CAN'T!!"

Is that New Haven, CT? Try this:

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html