Video Proof

  • 591 Replies
  • 18219 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #90 on: June 15, 2017, 06:35:05 AM »
Anyone care to try and follow my post. Jack Black fails miserably.
I already did it. What do you want me to copy and paste what I had already provided? (I doubt it as you will likely ignore it either way).

If so, here it is:
A nice simple one is measuring the path of the sun or other stars.
Doing so you notice that they appear to circle around us, not above us as is required for a FE.

The only way for Earth to be flat with that evidence in hand is to ignore the existence of other locations and time zones.

Again, to show this, in a nice simple physical way (with some more stuff for the globe), get a camera mounted such that you can control several axes in this order (and this is just to make it easier):
1 - A tilt to align the next axis with Earth's axis of rotation. This can be manually set.
2 - a motorised axis which allows you to turn it to cancel the rotation of Earth. This could also be controlled in a more complex manner where it instead tracks the object and displays what rate it needs to turn.
3 - Additional axes (2) such that you can aim the turning camera at any object.

Applying this to the sun (or any other celestial object) shows that they appear to circle Earth's axis.
For the sun, this means it would have to go BELOW the flat Earth.
But we know that the sun is always visible somewhere, making a flat Earth impossible.

And just in case you don't quite get it all, this shows it is circling Earth as it is moving at a constant angular rate. If it was circling above Earth it would appear to travel at different speeds based upon its distance.

Also, make sure you use a solar filter.



Now stop ignoring this proof.
Either accept it or refute it.

And again, can you provide any at all for your FE delusions?
Where would we have to be situated for you to perform this experiment that physically proves your spinning globe.

Also, how exactly does it prove a spinning globe and not lights moving above or around a stationary Earth?
Remember, do not revert to books.
I need you to sit beside me and talk me through this as if we are at the location that supposedly verifies your model.

Do not copy and paste anything.

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #91 on: June 15, 2017, 07:01:46 AM »
Anyone care to try and follow my post. Jack Black fails miserably.
You have not addressed the answers you have been given, you just repeated the question.  If you dispute the answers I gave you please say so but don't just repeat the question and pretend like no one responded.

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #92 on: June 15, 2017, 08:08:15 AM »
I see scepti is still playing the same shite games he's been playing for years. 

Stamps his foot demanding evidence.
Is presented evidence.
Declares said evidence to be gobbledegook
Calls everyone indoctrinated shills
Rants a bit more
Stamps foot

Rinse. Repeat.   

Until eventually he pulls a full on tantrum, throws his toys out of the pram and leaves the forum for a few weeks.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome
Should I examine the all shits?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #93 on: June 15, 2017, 08:13:08 AM »
Anyone care to try and follow my post. Jack Black fails miserably.
You have not addressed the answers you have been given, you just repeated the question.  If you dispute the answers I gave you please say so but don't just repeat the question and pretend like no one responded.
Try and understand what physical proof is.
Sitting on a beach or field and pointing to a disappearing sun is not proof of anything other than story telling as to what you were told about your global rotation.
All you have done is follow protocol.
Now I'll sit next to you and say, " see that sun disappearing?...It's moving away from us and over that dome as a reflection."
That doesn't make me physically right any more than you are physically correct on  your aided assumption.

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #94 on: June 15, 2017, 08:18:43 AM »
Anyone care to try and follow my post. Jack Black fails miserably.
You have not addressed the answers you have been given, you just repeated the question.  If you dispute the answers I gave you please say so but don't just repeat the question and pretend like no one responded.
Try and understand what physical proof is.
Sitting on a beach or field and pointing to a disappearing sun is not proof of anything other than story telling as to what you were told about your global rotation.
All you have done is follow protocol.
Now I'll sit next to you and say, " see that sun disappearing?...It's moving away from us and over that dome as a reflection."
That doesn't make me physically right any more than you are physically correct on  your aided assumption.
You are wrong.  You have yet to provide an explaination for the sun disappearing the way it does that both fits your model and observable reality.  It is proof you just don't want to accept it.  Until you can offer an explaination you should stop claiming it isn't proof.

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #95 on: June 15, 2017, 08:43:05 AM »
Anyone care to try and follow my post. Jack Black fails miserably.
You have not addressed the answers you have been given, you just repeated the question.  If you dispute the answers I gave you please say so but don't just repeat the question and pretend like no one responded.
Try and understand what physical proof is.
Sitting on a beach or field and pointing to a disappearing sun is not proof of anything other than story telling as to what you were told about your global rotation.
All you have done is follow protocol.
Now I'll sit next to you and say, " see that sun disappearing?...It's moving away from us and over that dome as a reflection."
That doesn't make me physically right any more than you are physically correct on  your aided assumption.

you must see something different than i do.
you see a sun disappearing, i see a sun dropping below a horizon.

if it would move away from me it would be appearing to go smaller till it is a little dot.
or if it would be disappearing because of something in the air like fog, dust or clouds the sun would fade out slowly.
also if the sun would disappear because it went out of sight the time that would happen would depend very on the air and weather conditions.
as all of this does not happen in reality we can say that you claim is not correct.

so next time you sit at the beach look how the sun drops below the horizon an does not fade out or getting smaller.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #96 on: June 15, 2017, 08:45:32 AM »
Anyone care to try and follow my post. Jack Black fails miserably.
You have not addressed the answers you have been given, you just repeated the question.  If you dispute the answers I gave you please say so but don't just repeat the question and pretend like no one responded.
Try and understand what physical proof is.
Sitting on a beach or field and pointing to a disappearing sun is not proof of anything other than story telling as to what you were told about your global rotation.
All you have done is follow protocol.
Now I'll sit next to you and say, " see that sun disappearing?...It's moving away from us and over that dome as a reflection."
That doesn't make me physically right any more than you are physically correct on  your aided assumption.
You are wrong.  You have yet to provide an explaination for the sun disappearing the way it does that both fits your model and observable reality.  It is proof you just don't want to accept it.  Until you can offer an explaination you should stop claiming it isn't proof.
Deal with the model you were bullied into, first.
Physically prove it to me. I'm sat right next to you.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #97 on: June 15, 2017, 08:48:35 AM »
you must see something different than i do.
you see a sun disappearing, i see a sun dropping below a horizon.

if it would move away from me it would be appearing to go smaller till it is a little dot.
or if it would be disappearing because of something in the air like fog, dust or clouds the sun would fade out slowly.
also if the sun would disappear because it went out of sight the time that would happen would depend very on the air and weather conditions.
as all of this does not happen in reality we can say that you claim is not correct.

so next time you sit at the beach look how the sun drops below the horizon an does not fade out or getting smaller.
I'm sitting next to you. Show me the physical proof of your indoctrinated model.

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #98 on: June 15, 2017, 09:00:16 AM »
you must see something different than i do.
you see a sun disappearing, i see a sun dropping below a horizon.

if it would move away from me it would be appearing to go smaller till it is a little dot.
or if it would be disappearing because of something in the air like fog, dust or clouds the sun would fade out slowly.
also if the sun would disappear because it went out of sight the time that would happen would depend very on the air and weather conditions.
as all of this does not happen in reality we can say that you claim is not correct.

so next time you sit at the beach look how the sun drops below the horizon an does not fade out or getting smaller.
I'm sitting next to you. Show me the physical proof of your indoctrinated model.

you look at it, is that not physical enough?

what is your physical proof of your idea?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #99 on: June 15, 2017, 09:30:38 AM »
you must see something different than i do.
you see a sun disappearing, i see a sun dropping below a horizon.

if it would move away from me it would be appearing to go smaller till it is a little dot.
or if it would be disappearing because of something in the air like fog, dust or clouds the sun would fade out slowly.
also if the sun would disappear because it went out of sight the time that would happen would depend very on the air and weather conditions.
as all of this does not happen in reality we can say that you claim is not correct.

so next time you sit at the beach look how the sun drops below the horizon an does not fade out or getting smaller.
I'm sitting next to you. Show me the physical proof of your indoctrinated model.

you look at it, is that not physical enough?

what is your physical proof of your idea?
You came here to brag about your globe and to ensure that people keep a belief that flat/alternate Earth theorists are crazed idiots, basically. Just like many of your so called global friends.

My Earth is of no concern to you. You already know that all (except your indoctrinated spinning globe) other theories are apparent nonsense.
You come here to show us all that your globe is correct.
I'm asking you to physically prove to me, side by side, as if we were literally at any location that is feasible....a rotating global Earth.

I want you to do this by using your own so called clever scientific mind and not resorting to use of copy and paste reliance on the bullies who force fed you your utter bullshit.

Yes, I'm calling it utter bullshit. Get angry and show me a physical proof. Show me how I can physically be under no illusions about what Earth apparently is, in your mind.


Re: Video Proof
« Reply #100 on: June 15, 2017, 10:13:58 AM »
Anyone care to try and follow my post. Jack Black fails miserably.
You have not addressed the answers you have been given, you just repeated the question.  If you dispute the answers I gave you please say so but don't just repeat the question and pretend like no one responded.
Try and understand what physical proof is.
Sitting on a beach or field and pointing to a disappearing sun is not proof of anything other than story telling as to what you were told about your global rotation.
All you have done is follow protocol.
Now I'll sit next to you and say, " see that sun disappearing?...It's moving away from us and over that dome as a reflection."
That doesn't make me physically right any more than you are physically correct on  your aided assumption.
You are wrong.  You have yet to provide an explaination for the sun disappearing the way it does that both fits your model and observable reality.  It is proof you just don't want to accept it.  Until you can offer an explaination you should stop claiming it isn't proof.
Deal with the model you were bullied into, first.
Physically prove it to me. I'm sat right next to you.
I did that.  You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said.  Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain.  It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see.  How does it work in your model.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #101 on: June 15, 2017, 10:19:55 AM »
I did that.  You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said.  Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain.  It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see.  How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #102 on: June 15, 2017, 10:23:17 AM »
I did that.  You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said.  Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain.  It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see.  How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.
I don't understand what you don't understand.  Have you never seen a sunset?  Explain it in your model.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #103 on: June 15, 2017, 10:37:00 AM »
I did that.  You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said.  Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain.  It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see.  How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.
I don't understand what you don't understand.  Have you never seen a sunset?  Explain it in your model.
I don't understand what a sun set is.
What is a sunset and how and why does it SET?

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #104 on: June 15, 2017, 10:50:59 AM »
I did that.  You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said.  Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain.  It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see.  How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.
I don't understand what you don't understand.  Have you never seen a sunset?  Explain it in your model.
I don't understand what a sun set is.
What is a sunset and how and why does it SET?

now you are really acting beyond stupid.

we all know what the words sun and set literally mean.
and we all also know what a sun set is.

back to my question above.

you did in no way answer my question.

how do you explain what we all can see at sun set: a sun that drops below the horizon without changing its size and without fading out?

if you what to prove your view of the shape of the earth you have to be able to explain it.
if you can not explain it, you only can say its your believe, but you can not say it is true.

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #105 on: June 15, 2017, 10:55:26 AM »
I did that.  You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said.  Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain.  It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see.  How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.
I don't understand what you don't understand.  Have you never seen a sunset?  Explain it in your model.
I don't understand what a sun set is.
What is a sunset and how and why does it SET?
I have explained this multiple times to you.  What is your explaination for the phenomenon?  Why do you work so hard to avoid this question?

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #106 on: June 15, 2017, 12:09:41 PM »
Sceptimatic,
 Since you ask me not to copy and paste or redirect, I will build my model once again. This is a crude model, I ask a little leeway with it, if you donít actually do it, just use your imagination. Here we go,(we do this at night.) we use a foot ball Field and to provide a Sun, a lantern is placed on a stool head high, in center field. The bleachers will represent the Star field and the constellations. You will be the earth on the side line, when you face centerfield, it is noon, and when you face directly away from centerfield, it is midnight. we walk a circle around centerfield in which you will walk one degree of the  circle stop, make a full rotation, this is a day. Note as you turn away from centerfield you have a sunset, as your turn towards centerfield you have a sunrise.
Now for the moon, size is a big problem, as your head represents the Earth, the size of the ball that we used to represent the moon, weíll be off, a soccer ball will be too big, a baseball is too small, to see what you would see, as the shadows they cast, maybe wrong, and the length of your arm will also be wrong. But anyway we will try. Holding the ball at arms length, moving it around you, you can see the phases of the Moon. There will be two special places, one is where the ball blocks the light from the lantern, creating an eclipse of the Sun. The second spot, is where the ball moves into the shadow of your head, creating a lunar eclipse.
I Will admit that scale is not correct, or even close, but I think the visual effects, are good.
What do you see is wrong with this, saying it is wrong is not enough, need a why.

Now I go out to centerfield lay myself down face up, using lights, balls, whatever, how do I create what I see, from day to day? You are the director, have at it.
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
The earth is a globe.

?

Aries

  • 76
  • And evolved monkeys can laugh!
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #107 on: June 15, 2017, 01:15:08 PM »
Maybe we all should remember that all kings said they were send by God to rule, they were empowered by God. But if you ever believe that  so called blue blood gave up their power you are wrong. Astronomers, philosophers, mathematicians and so on, all were paid by kings.
Just one example: Avogadro, do you thing that he actually counted the number of the molecules? How? It looks rather a gigantic number!
Yes, originally they were paid by royalty, and that is when some of the best (in some regards) science was done as they were free to investigate what they wanted without the pressure of needing funding.
Now basically none are, and instead they are judged on the merits of their work which puts a lot of them focusing on things which can get published and they can get more funding for rather than just investigating what they want.


As for avagadro, why would he need to count them all.
If I told you I have a field which is 1 km by 1 km, with trees arranged neatly in rows/columns 1m apart, would you need to count them all, or would you be able to just use math to figure it out?
If I told you I had a machine which produces 1 ball every 10 s, and it was running non stop at that rate for a week, would you need to count all the balls, or would you be able to just use math to figure it out?

We don't need to count every one. We just need to count how many per unit something, and then find out how many of those units fit.

So 2 simple ways, accurately measure the crystal structure, then measure the physical dimensions of a single crystal and its mass and then do some math; alternatively, have something going at a constant rate (or a measurable proportional rate) for some time and measure the mass change.

Neither method requires counting or weighing individual atoms.

Yes I did! And when I will have time I will read even more.
Yes you did read about how he did it or yes you did just spout whatever comes into your head?
If the former, then you should know that he didn't need to count them (and wasn't the one that actually figured out the number).

As I said, I need to read more about the experiment and how he actually managed to figure out that number, also I have to find out what tools he used at that time.


*

Tessa Yuri

  • 621
  • The shortest distance between two points is a lie.
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #108 on: June 15, 2017, 01:19:32 PM »
Maybe we all should remember that all kings said they were send by God to rule, they were empowered by God. But if you ever believe that  so called blue blood gave up their power you are wrong. Astronomers, philosophers, mathematicians and so on, all were paid by kings.
Just one example: Avogadro, do you thing that he actually counted the number of the molecules? How? It looks rather a gigantic number!
Yes, originally they were paid by royalty, and that is when some of the best (in some regards) science was done as they were free to investigate what they wanted without the pressure of needing funding.
Now basically none are, and instead they are judged on the merits of their work which puts a lot of them focusing on things which can get published and they can get more funding for rather than just investigating what they want.


As for avagadro, why would he need to count them all.
If I told you I have a field which is 1 km by 1 km, with trees arranged neatly in rows/columns 1m apart, would you need to count them all, or would you be able to just use math to figure it out?
If I told you I had a machine which produces 1 ball every 10 s, and it was running non stop at that rate for a week, would you need to count all the balls, or would you be able to just use math to figure it out?

We don't need to count every one. We just need to count how many per unit something, and then find out how many of those units fit.

So 2 simple ways, accurately measure the crystal structure, then measure the physical dimensions of a single crystal and its mass and then do some math; alternatively, have something going at a constant rate (or a measurable proportional rate) for some time and measure the mass change.

Neither method requires counting or weighing individual atoms.

Yes I did! And when I will have time I will read even more.
Yes you did read about how he did it or yes you did just spout whatever comes into your head?
If the former, then you should know that he didn't need to count them (and wasn't the one that actually figured out the number).

As I said, I need to read more about the experiment and how he actually managed to figure out that number, also I have to find out what tools he used at that time.

Avogadro didn't figure out the number. Jean Baptiste Perrin was the first to actually figure it out. Here's a link showing a couple of ways he did it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-was-avogadros-number/
Tessa believes in the scientific method.
Yuri believes the Earth is a flat disk.
     _________              _________         _________
.<`X######I---I|    |I[][][][][][][][]I|     |I[][][][][][][][]I|
-=o--o====o--o=-=o-o====o-o=-=o-o====o-o=

?

Aries

  • 76
  • And evolved monkeys can laugh!
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #109 on: June 15, 2017, 01:54:50 PM »
Maybe we all should remember that all kings said they were send by God to rule, they were empowered by God. But if you ever believe that  so called blue blood gave up their power you are wrong. Astronomers, philosophers, mathematicians and so on, all were paid by kings.
Just one example: Avogadro, do you thing that he actually counted the number of the molecules? How? It looks rather a gigantic number!
Yes, originally they were paid by royalty, and that is when some of the best (in some regards) science was done as they were free to investigate what they wanted without the pressure of needing funding.
Now basically none are, and instead they are judged on the merits of their work which puts a lot of them focusing on things which can get published and they can get more funding for rather than just investigating what they want.


As for avagadro, why would he need to count them all.
If I told you I have a field which is 1 km by 1 km, with trees arranged neatly in rows/columns 1m apart, would you need to count them all, or would you be able to just use math to figure it out?
If I told you I had a machine which produces 1 ball every 10 s, and it was running non stop at that rate for a week, would you need to count all the balls, or would you be able to just use math to figure it out?

We don't need to count every one. We just need to count how many per unit something, and then find out how many of those units fit.

So 2 simple ways, accurately measure the crystal structure, then measure the physical dimensions of a single crystal and its mass and then do some math; alternatively, have something going at a constant rate (or a measurable proportional rate) for some time and measure the mass change.

Neither method requires counting or weighing individual atoms.

Yes I did! And when I will have time I will read even more.
Yes you did read about how he did it or yes you did just spout whatever comes into your head?
If the former, then you should know that he didn't need to count them (and wasn't the one that actually figured out the number).

As I said, I need to read more about the experiment and how he actually managed to figure out that number, also I have to find out what tools he used at that time.

Avogadro didn't figure out the number. Jean Baptiste Perrin was the first to actually figure it out. Here's a link showing a couple of ways he did it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-was-avogadros-number/

Thank's for the link, I'll have a look at it.

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #110 on: June 15, 2017, 02:44:45 PM »
Anyone care to try and follow my post. Jack Black fails miserably.
I already did it. What do you want me to copy and paste what I had already provided? (I doubt it as you will likely ignore it either way).

If so, here it is:
A nice simple one is measuring the path of the sun or other stars.
Doing so you notice that they appear to circle around us, not above us as is required for a FE.

The only way for Earth to be flat with that evidence in hand is to ignore the existence of other locations and time zones.

Again, to show this, in a nice simple physical way (with some more stuff for the globe), get a camera mounted such that you can control several axes in this order (and this is just to make it easier):
1 - A tilt to align the next axis with Earth's axis of rotation. This can be manually set.
2 - a motorised axis which allows you to turn it to cancel the rotation of Earth. This could also be controlled in a more complex manner where it instead tracks the object and displays what rate it needs to turn.
3 - Additional axes (2) such that you can aim the turning camera at any object.

Applying this to the sun (or any other celestial object) shows that they appear to circle Earth's axis.
For the sun, this means it would have to go BELOW the flat Earth.
But we know that the sun is always visible somewhere, making a flat Earth impossible.

And just in case you don't quite get it all, this shows it is circling Earth as it is moving at a constant angular rate. If it was circling above Earth it would appear to travel at different speeds based upon its distance.

Also, make sure you use a solar filter.



Now stop ignoring this proof.
Either accept it or refute it.

And again, can you provide any at all for your FE delusions?
Where would we have to be situated for you to perform this experiment that physically proves your spinning globe.

Also, how exactly does it prove a spinning globe and not lights moving above or around a stationary Earth?
Remember, do not revert to books.
I need you to sit beside me and talk me through this as if we are at the location that supposedly verifies your model.

Do not copy and paste anything.
Firstly, this wasn't aimed at proving it was spinning, just that it was a globe, as per your earlier request in this thread. We can get to spinning later.

Secondly, you would do this experiment in a few locations around the world, although if you are willing to accept the observations of others, just doing it in one spot should be fine.

Thirdly, perhaps you should start reading what I said:
"And just in case you don't quite get it all, this shows it is circling Earth as it is moving at a constant angular rate. If it was circling above Earth it would appear to travel at different speeds based upon its distance."
Yes, technically I should have said that it shows it relative motion to Earth is it circling Earth.

If it was the sun moving above a stationary Earth, it's angular velocity would change depending upon how far away it was. This is due to perspective, where the further away something is the shorter a distance would appear, and as the sun would be moving at the same distance per unit time, it would appear to move at a slower rate.
Additionally, it would be found at a completely different location.

Alternatively, you could have the speed of the sun changing massively, but that would cause other issues such as its apparent size which does not change enough to compensate. So that would mean as well as changing position you would need it to massively change size.
But that still doesn't explain a sunset or sun rise, where it gets a negative angle of elevation and causes significant issues in other locations on Earth such as where the sun should be directly overhead.
But in fact, anywhere else would be a problem, as you set it up so it works out perfectly for you, then somewhere else would then observe something completely different.
For example, some one a decent amount west of you would see the sun slow down as it approaches you and then speed up once it goes past you, going past them much faster. They would also see it appear to grow significantly.

You then have the other issue of completing the circle to get back to the same spot.

Perhaps a good place to start would be at the equator on the equinox, preferably a few places stationed around the equator, where the equipment gets set up, you move on, the next one is set up and so on, synchronising the time between them. 3 should be fine.
This will allow you to observe the sun appear to move in a circle perpendicular to the ground (well, roughly the local level) at these three points and aligned in an east-west direction.

This shows that the equator is a circle and that the sun's apparent path is a circle.
But a key point is that these 2 circles are in the same plane, one which is perpendicular to the ground and aligned east-west. The only way that works out is if Earth is round. This is because the circle at the equator would have to bend into the ground.


Try and understand what physical proof is.
Sitting on a beach or field and pointing to a disappearing sun is not proof of anything other than story telling as to what you were told about your global rotation.
That's right. It doesn't show Earth is rotating, but it does show it is a globe.
This shows the sun is at a negative angle of elevation. The only way for it to work on a flat Earth is if it goes under the flat Earth (like it did in ancient FE models). That would mean it couldn't be above some other place on the FE at the same time.


Now I'll sit next to you and say, " see that sun disappearing?...It's moving away from us and over that dome as a reflection."
That doesn't make me physically right any more than you are physically correct on  your aided assumption.
And then I will sit next to you and explain how that doesn't work at all, providing several examples.
Lets start with the southern summer (don't worry, I will use other examples as well).
Lets jump to a time (around the 21st of December) where the sun appears directly overhead the tropic of Capricorn at 0 degrees east.
Where would the sun need to be?
Well if it is a "reflection" off the dome (by which I assume you mean the dome is somehow bending the light akin to refraction, but not bending it back after it goes through the dome), it would need to be some place south of that location (unless you are going to claim the dome isn't a dome).

For places south, it would appear due north. It would take some complex math and assumptions about the dome to get any issue with this, so I won't bother, and instead just leave that as working fine. However note that it only appears due north, no where else.

For places north of the dome, it would appear due south. This includes a point on the Arctic circle where it will appear due south at roughly 0 degrees angle of elevation (it would be sitting right on the horizon).
Anyone along that line (at least those which aren't further away) should thus be able to look along that line and see the sun.
But this line goes all the way down that 0 degree longitude, right to the edge of the dome. That means places like the tropic and even further south like Antarctica should be able to look due south at the horizon and see the sun, but they don't.
So that alone is enough to poke some serious holes in that idea, as it simply doesn't match reality.

But don't worry, it gets worse.
What is happening around the world, at 180 degrees longitude, south of the Antarctic circle?
Well right on that circle the sun appears due south, just above the horizon. At first this doesn't seem like an issue, until you remember that in the FE model, due south here is the same direction as due north at 0 degrees east.
This means the sun has to be in a completely different location further refuting this model.

I would use the equinox, but you will likely say you can't get to Antarctica making it pointless, so lets move on the the northern summer.
You get similar issues here.
The sun appears directly above the tropic of cancer at 0 degrees East. Again, due to how the dome works, it must be somewhere south of here.
On the Antarctic circle, at 0 degrees East, it appears due north, on the horizon.
This means the light goes almost all the way across the entire Earth, and requires the sun to be in a completely different location. But that means almost anyone on Earth, at some point during the northern summer should be able to look due north and see the sun on the horizon, or due south and see the son on the horizon.
But they can't.
In fact, if they are at midday (or north of the Arctic circle at midday or midnight), they should be able to look in either direction and see the sun. This is due to the Arctic circle at 180 degrees East.
Here the sun appears due north, on the horizon. That means the light goes over half way across the world and requires the sun to be in a location more akin to that of the southern summer.

Similar problems arise for other stars, like Polaris.
With Polaris, due to how it appears on the equator, with the light going 3/4 of the way over Earth, along Earth, such that Polaris appears on the horizon, due north, anyone in the northern hemisphere should be able to look due north or due south and see Polaris on the horizon. Anyone south of the equator should at least be able to look due south and see it on the horizon.
But again, this doesn't match reality. Those significantly south of the equator can't see Polaris at all. Those north of the equator see it above the horizon.

So no, that dome explanation doesn't work at all.

You came here to brag about your globe and to ensure that people keep a belief that flat/alternate Earth theorists are crazed idiots, basically. Just like many of your so called global friends.
I came here (to this forum) to see the arguments and evidence put forward for the FE model, and so far have found none that hold up to scrutiny.

My Earth is of no concern to you. You already know that all (except your indoctrinated spinning globe) other theories are apparent nonsense.
Do you know one of the big reason I know they are nonsense?
Because of people like you that claim there is proof but continually refuse to provide it and instead just provide crap or complain about the RE model.

I want you to do this by using your own so called clever scientific mind and not resorting to use of copy and paste reliance on the bullies who force fed you your utter bullshit.
Yes, I'm calling it utter bullshit. Get angry and show me a physical proof. Show me how I can physically be under no illusions about what Earth apparently is, in your mind.
Yet you have been completely unable to explain why it is bullshit. You just dismiss it or ignore it.

I did that.  You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said.  Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain.  It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see.  How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.
Something like this:

You have the sun illuminating the clouds and the mountain from below, such that the mountain obstructs the path of the light from the sun to the clouds creating a shadow on the clouds.

I did that.  You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said.  Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain.  It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see.  How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.
I don't understand what you don't understand.  Have you never seen a sunset?  Explain it in your model.
I don't understand what a sun set is.
What is a sunset and how and why does it SET?
That wasn't what you put in bold.
The sun doesn't actually set, it just appears to.

This is due to the rotation of Earth.
This changes the apparent angle of the sun, with it appearing to move at a near constant rate of 0.25 degrees per minute.
During this apparent motion, its apparent angle of elevation will drop below 0 and drop below the horizon.
This means Earth will start to obstruct your view of the sun, causing it to appear to drop below Earth and thus "set"

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #111 on: June 15, 2017, 03:05:48 PM »
As I said, I need to read more about the experiment and how he actually managed to figure out that number, also I have to find out what tools he used at that time.
I don't know the specific experiment used, but there are several which can be done. A modern one used today is to grow a single crystal of some substance (like diamond, but isotopically pure substances are better, however you can just average the isotopes).
You grow or cut this to a specific shape (like a sphere or a cube) and accurately measure its weight and dimensions.
This allows you to determine the mass per unit volume.

Next you measure the crystal structure such as via x-ray diffraction.
This allows you to accurately measure the distance between the atoms and also their arrangement in space.
Thus it allows you to determine the number of atoms per unit volume.

Now with these 2 bits of information, the number of atoms per unit volume (nd, measured in units equivalent to 1/m^3, typically using nm or angstroms) and the mass per unit volume (p, measured in units equivalent to g/m^3), as well as the definition of a mole, the number of carbon 12 atoms in 12 grams of carbon, which is effectively defining the molar mass of carbon (M) to be 12 g/mol, you can now calculate Avogadro number, which is the number of atoms per mole of atoms (technically due to what the mole means it is actually a value of 1):
First note that you can get the number density, expressed in units of mol/m^3 (which I will call md) by noting that you can determine the number (as moles) by the formula:
n=m/M, thus md=p/M.

That means you have a number density as atoms per m^3, and as mol/m^3.
Now you need to find NA, the number of atoms per mole, which is simply nd/md.

Thus NA=nd/md=nd/(p/M)=M*nd/p.

Note a key thing though: This requires an accurate measurement of length (directly or indirectly) at both the macroscopic level and the atomic level.

Unfortunately, I know this couldn't have been used back then as X-ray crystallography was not that well established/developed back then.

A method they could of used was coloumetry. This would be a form of electrodeposition where they accurately measure the current and time to determine the amount of charge involved, combine that with an accurate measurement of the charge of an electron, and that will produce the number of electrons involved.
Then, measure the weight difference of the electroplated material, combine that with the molar mass of the substance and the specific redox chemistry involved to determine the number of moles of electrons required.
Then you combine the number of moles of electrons with the number of electrons to determine the number of electrons per mole of electrons.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2357
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #112 on: June 15, 2017, 03:07:28 PM »


You could watch one of those for yourself and realize the Sun goes behind the horizon.  This phenomenon of the Sun going behind the Horizon happens fairly regularly.  Almost like clockwork, once every 24 hours for each location on the Earth.  You could also watch what some people call a Sunrise. like this one



I understand you would have to wait like a whole 24 hours to see 2 Sun sets.  I know it is hard.  No math needed, just the ability to notice the apparent shape and size of the Sun during these "rare" occasions and see that it does not change, just sinks behind or rises from behind depending on Sun rise or Sun set. 

BTW I take your non response to my provided data to mean you have no clue how to do simple math.  This would explain your attitude towards people who provide it.  Just know, scepti, just because someone can do something you cannot, doesn't mean you are less of a person, you can learn it too.  I have faith in you. 

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #113 on: June 15, 2017, 03:44:36 PM »
Scepti why do you hate pieces of paper bound together so much? Did it try to hurt you? Are you scared of the truth?

I drop objects. Measure how fast they accelerate. Figure out how drag plays a role. Voila, I have figured out acceleration on Earth is 9.8m/s^2. Now it's in a book though so obviously we can't use it.

I combine flour, water, yeast, and salt. Voila, I've made bread. I'll put it in a recipe book, whoops now we can't use it.

I figure out a^2 + b^2 = c^2 for triangles. That seems useful. I'll put it in a... whoops.

Your requirements are asinine.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #114 on: June 15, 2017, 11:42:29 PM »
I did that.  You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said.  Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain.  It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see.  How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.
I don't understand what you don't understand.  Have you never seen a sunset?  Explain it in your model.
I don't understand what a sun set is.
What is a sunset and how and why does it SET?

now you are really acting beyond stupid.

we all know what the words sun and set literally mean.
and we all also know what a sun set is.

back to my question above.

you did in no way answer my question.

how do you explain what we all can see at sun set: a sun that drops below the horizon without changing its size and without fading out?

if you what to prove your view of the shape of the earth you have to be able to explain it.
if you can not explain it, you only can say its your believe, but you can not say it is true.
To your view, it massively changes its size.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #115 on: June 15, 2017, 11:47:38 PM »
Sceptimatic,
 Since you ask me not to copy and paste or redirect, I will build my model once again. This is a crude model, I ask a little leeway with it, if you donít actually do it, just use your imagination. Here we go,(we do this at night.) we use a foot ball Field and to provide a Sun, a lantern is placed on a stool head high, in center field. The bleachers will represent the Star field and the constellations. You will be the earth on the side line, when you face centerfield, it is noon, and when you face directly away from centerfield, it is midnight. we walk a circle around centerfield in which you will walk one degree of the  circle stop, make a full rotation, this is a day. Note as you turn away from centerfield you have a sunset, as your turn towards centerfield you have a sunrise.
Now for the moon, size is a big problem, as your head represents the Earth, the size of the ball that we used to represent the moon, weíll be off, a soccer ball will be too big, a baseball is too small, to see what you would see, as the shadows they cast, maybe wrong, and the length of your arm will also be wrong. But anyway we will try. Holding the ball at arms length, moving it around you, you can see the phases of the Moon. There will be two special places, one is where the ball blocks the light from the lantern, creating an eclipse of the Sun. The second spot, is where the ball moves into the shadow of your head, creating a lunar eclipse.
I Will admit that scale is not correct, or even close, but I think the visual effects, are good.
What do you see is wrong with this, saying it is wrong is not enough, need a why.

Now I go out to centerfield lay myself down face up, using lights, balls, whatever, how do I create what I see, from day to day? You are the director, have at it.
And you are doing this whilst walking around a flat circle, right?
You didn't turn the field into a rotating ball and are using a moving person to represent stationary objects.
Are you sure you're representing a physical truth here?
It doesn't appear like you are giving me any proof that physically matches a so called spinning globe.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #116 on: June 15, 2017, 11:57:04 PM »
Anyone care to try and follow my post. Jack Black fails miserably.
I already did it. What do you want me to copy and paste what I had already provided? (I doubt it as you will likely ignore it either way).

If so, here it is:
A nice simple one is measuring the path of the sun or other stars.
Doing so you notice that they appear to circle around us, not above us as is required for a FE.

The only way for Earth to be flat with that evidence in hand is to ignore the existence of other locations and time zones.

Again, to show this, in a nice simple physical way (with some more stuff for the globe), get a camera mounted such that you can control several axes in this order (and this is just to make it easier):
1 - A tilt to align the next axis with Earth's axis of rotation. This can be manually set.
2 - a motorised axis which allows you to turn it to cancel the rotation of Earth. This could also be controlled in a more complex manner where it instead tracks the object and displays what rate it needs to turn.
3 - Additional axes (2) such that you can aim the turning camera at any object.

Applying this to the sun (or any other celestial object) shows that they appear to circle Earth's axis.
For the sun, this means it would have to go BELOW the flat Earth.
But we know that the sun is always visible somewhere, making a flat Earth impossible.

And just in case you don't quite get it all, this shows it is circling Earth as it is moving at a constant angular rate. If it was circling above Earth it would appear to travel at different speeds based upon its distance.

Also, make sure you use a solar filter.



Now stop ignoring this proof.
Either accept it or refute it.

And again, can you provide any at all for your FE delusions?
Where would we have to be situated for you to perform this experiment that physically proves your spinning globe.

Also, how exactly does it prove a spinning globe and not lights moving above or around a stationary Earth?
Remember, do not revert to books.
I need you to sit beside me and talk me through this as if we are at the location that supposedly verifies your model.

Do not copy and paste anything.
Firstly, this wasn't aimed at proving it was spinning, just that it was a globe, as per your earlier request in this thread. We can get to spinning later.

Secondly, you would do this experiment in a few locations around the world, although if you are willing to accept the observations of others, just doing it in one spot should be fine.

Thirdly, perhaps you should start reading what I said:
"And just in case you don't quite get it all, this shows it is circling Earth as it is moving at a constant angular rate. If it was circling above Earth it would appear to travel at different speeds based upon its distance."
Yes, technically I should have said that it shows it relative motion to Earth is it circling Earth.

If it was the sun moving above a stationary Earth, it's angular velocity would change depending upon how far away it was. This is due to perspective, where the further away something is the shorter a distance would appear, and as the sun would be moving at the same distance per unit time, it would appear to move at a slower rate.
Additionally, it would be found at a completely different location.

Alternatively, you could have the speed of the sun changing massively, but that would cause other issues such as its apparent size which does not change enough to compensate. So that would mean as well as changing position you would need it to massively change size.
But that still doesn't explain a sunset or sun rise, where it gets a negative angle of elevation and causes significant issues in other locations on Earth such as where the sun should be directly overhead.
But in fact, anywhere else would be a problem, as you set it up so it works out perfectly for you, then somewhere else would then observe something completely different.
For example, some one a decent amount west of you would see the sun slow down as it approaches you and then speed up once it goes past you, going past them much faster. They would also see it appear to grow significantly.

You then have the other issue of completing the circle to get back to the same spot.

Perhaps a good place to start would be at the equator on the equinox, preferably a few places stationed around the equator, where the equipment gets set up, you move on, the next one is set up and so on, synchronising the time between them. 3 should be fine.
This will allow you to observe the sun appear to move in a circle perpendicular to the ground (well, roughly the local level) at these three points and aligned in an east-west direction.

This shows that the equator is a circle and that the sun's apparent path is a circle.
But a key point is that these 2 circles are in the same plane, one which is perpendicular to the ground and aligned east-west. The only way that works out is if Earth is round. This is because the circle at the equator would have to bend into the ground.


Try and understand what physical proof is.
Sitting on a beach or field and pointing to a disappearing sun is not proof of anything other than story telling as to what you were told about your global rotation.
That's right. It doesn't show Earth is rotating, but it does show it is a globe.
This shows the sun is at a negative angle of elevation. The only way for it to work on a flat Earth is if it goes under the flat Earth (like it did in ancient FE models). That would mean it couldn't be above some other place on the FE at the same time.


Now I'll sit next to you and say, " see that sun disappearing?...It's moving away from us and over that dome as a reflection."
That doesn't make me physically right any more than you are physically correct on  your aided assumption.
And then I will sit next to you and explain how that doesn't work at all, providing several examples.
Lets start with the southern summer (don't worry, I will use other examples as well).
Lets jump to a time (around the 21st of December) where the sun appears directly overhead the tropic of Capricorn at 0 degrees east.
Where would the sun need to be?
Well if it is a "reflection" off the dome (by which I assume you mean the dome is somehow bending the light akin to refraction, but not bending it back after it goes through the dome), it would need to be some place south of that location (unless you are going to claim the dome isn't a dome).

For places south, it would appear due north. It would take some complex math and assumptions about the dome to get any issue with this, so I won't bother, and instead just leave that as working fine. However note that it only appears due north, no where else.

For places north of the dome, it would appear due south. This includes a point on the Arctic circle where it will appear due south at roughly 0 degrees angle of elevation (it would be sitting right on the horizon).
Anyone along that line (at least those which aren't further away) should thus be able to look along that line and see the sun.
But this line goes all the way down that 0 degree longitude, right to the edge of the dome. That means places like the tropic and even further south like Antarctica should be able to look due south at the horizon and see the sun, but they don't.
So that alone is enough to poke some serious holes in that idea, as it simply doesn't match reality.

But don't worry, it gets worse.
What is happening around the world, at 180 degrees longitude, south of the Antarctic circle?
Well right on that circle the sun appears due south, just above the horizon. At first this doesn't seem like an issue, until you remember that in the FE model, due south here is the same direction as due north at 0 degrees east.
This means the sun has to be in a completely different location further refuting this model.

I would use the equinox, but you will likely say you can't get to Antarctica making it pointless, so lets move on the the northern summer.
You get similar issues here.
The sun appears directly above the tropic of cancer at 0 degrees East. Again, due to how the dome works, it must be somewhere south of here.
On the Antarctic circle, at 0 degrees East, it appears due north, on the horizon.
This means the light goes almost all the way across the entire Earth, and requires the sun to be in a completely different location. But that means almost anyone on Earth, at some point during the northern summer should be able to look due north and see the sun on the horizon, or due south and see the son on the horizon.
But they can't.
In fact, if they are at midday (or north of the Arctic circle at midday or midnight), they should be able to look in either direction and see the sun. This is due to the Arctic circle at 180 degrees East.
Here the sun appears due north, on the horizon. That means the light goes over half way across the world and requires the sun to be in a location more akin to that of the southern summer.

Similar problems arise for other stars, like Polaris.
With Polaris, due to how it appears on the equator, with the light going 3/4 of the way over Earth, along Earth, such that Polaris appears on the horizon, due north, anyone in the northern hemisphere should be able to look due north or due south and see Polaris on the horizon. Anyone south of the equator should at least be able to look due south and see it on the horizon.
But again, this doesn't match reality. Those significantly south of the equator can't see Polaris at all. Those north of the equator see it above the horizon.

So no, that dome explanation doesn't work at all.

You came here to brag about your globe and to ensure that people keep a belief that flat/alternate Earth theorists are crazed idiots, basically. Just like many of your so called global friends.
I came here (to this forum) to see the arguments and evidence put forward for the FE model, and so far have found none that hold up to scrutiny.

My Earth is of no concern to you. You already know that all (except your indoctrinated spinning globe) other theories are apparent nonsense.
Do you know one of the big reason I know they are nonsense?
Because of people like you that claim there is proof but continually refuse to provide it and instead just provide crap or complain about the RE model.

I want you to do this by using your own so called clever scientific mind and not resorting to use of copy and paste reliance on the bullies who force fed you your utter bullshit.
Yes, I'm calling it utter bullshit. Get angry and show me a physical proof. Show me how I can physically be under no illusions about what Earth apparently is, in your mind.
Yet you have been completely unable to explain why it is bullshit. You just dismiss it or ignore it.

I did that.  You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said.  Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain.  It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see.  How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.
Something like this:

You have the sun illuminating the clouds and the mountain from below, such that the mountain obstructs the path of the light from the sun to the clouds creating a shadow on the clouds.

I did that.  You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said.  Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain.  It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see.  How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.
I don't understand what you don't understand.  Have you never seen a sunset?  Explain it in your model.
I don't understand what a sun set is.
What is a sunset and how and why does it SET?
That wasn't what you put in bold.
The sun doesn't actually set, it just appears to.

This is due to the rotation of Earth.
This changes the apparent angle of the sun, with it appearing to move at a near constant rate of 0.25 degrees per minute.
During this apparent motion, its apparent angle of elevation will drop below 0 and drop below the horizon.
This means Earth will start to obstruct your view of the sun, causing it to appear to drop below Earth and thus "set"
Piece by piece, show me a physical proof of a spinning globe.
Also make your picture fit the post size.
When I say, piece by piece, I mean a little at a time.
Ok, we are sat together and you have brought your tools and have no access to anyone for reference, except me. Show me your proof of your spinning globe.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #117 on: June 16, 2017, 12:06:08 AM »


You could watch one of those for yourself and realize the Sun goes behind the horizon.  This phenomenon of the Sun going behind the Horizon happens fairly regularly.  Almost like clockwork, once every 24 hours for each location on the Earth.  You could also watch what some people call a Sunrise. like this one



I understand you would have to wait like a whole 24 hours to see 2 Sun sets.  I know it is hard.  No math needed, just the ability to notice the apparent shape and size of the Sun during these "rare" occasions and see that it does not change, just sinks behind or rises from behind depending on Sun rise or Sun set. 

BTW I take your non response to my provided data to mean you have no clue how to do simple math.  This would explain your attitude towards people who provide it.  Just know, scepti, just because someone can do something you cannot, doesn't mean you are less of a person, you can learn it too.  I have faith in you.
Looks like it moves up a dome to me as it moves towards a person view.
It certainly doesn't give anyone any impression of an Earth ball rotating towards it...at all.

Re: Video Proof
« Reply #118 on: June 16, 2017, 12:12:46 AM »
Sceptimatic,
 Since you ask me not to copy and paste or redirect, I will build my model once again. This is a crude model, I ask a little leeway with it, if you donít actually do it, just use your imagination. Here we go,(we do this at night.) we use a foot ball Field and to provide a Sun, a lantern is placed on a stool head high, in center field. The bleachers will represent the Star field and the constellations. You will be the earth on the side line, when you face centerfield, it is noon, and when you face directly away from centerfield, it is midnight. we walk a circle around centerfield in which you will walk one degree of the  circle stop, make a full rotation, this is a day. Note as you turn away from centerfield you have a sunset, as your turn towards centerfield you have a sunrise.
Now for the moon, size is a big problem, as your head represents the Earth, the size of the ball that we used to represent the moon, weíll be off, a soccer ball will be too big, a baseball is too small, to see what you would see, as the shadows they cast, maybe wrong, and the length of your arm will also be wrong. But anyway we will try. Holding the ball at arms length, moving it around you, you can see the phases of the Moon. There will be two special places, one is where the ball blocks the light from the lantern, creating an eclipse of the Sun. The second spot, is where the ball moves into the shadow of your head, creating a lunar eclipse.
I Will admit that scale is not correct, or even close, but I think the visual effects, are good.
What do you see is wrong with this, saying it is wrong is not enough, need a why.

Now I go out to centerfield lay myself down face up, using lights, balls, whatever, how do I create what I see, from day to day? You are the director, have at it.
And you are doing this whilst walking around a flat circle, right?
You didn't turn the field into a rotating ball and are using a moving person to represent stationary objects.
Are you sure you're representing a physical truth here?
It doesn't appear like you are giving me any proof that physically matches a so called spinning globe.

Yes.
It is apparent that you donít see the model, you are the planet earth, youíre turning represents a rotation of earth for the day night cycle, the walking around in the circle is the orbit around the sun for a year cycle.
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
The earth is a globe.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22378
Re: Video Proof
« Reply #119 on: June 16, 2017, 12:19:39 AM »
Scepti why do you hate pieces of paper bound together so much? Did it try to hurt you? Are you scared of the truth?
Pieces of paper do not always portray a truth and there's no real way of determining that what you read, is a truth.

I drop objects. Measure how fast they accelerate. Figure out how drag plays a role. Voila, I have figured out acceleration on Earth is 9.8m/s^2. Now it's in a book though so obviously we can't use it.
You've figured out that you can drop a dense object and it will overcome atmospheric resistance. What are you proving?

I combine flour, water, yeast, and salt. Voila, I've made bread. I'll put it in a recipe book, whoops now we can't use it.
And you can physically see your end product and even eat it if you do it correctly enough.
Let me know when you can show me a spinning globe.
Try it without the yeast.
I figure out a^2 + b^2 = c^2 for triangles. That seems useful. I'll put it in a... whoops.

Your requirements are asinine.
My requirements are perfectly sensible.
People like you will not accept that because you cannot prove what you are indoctrinated into and take it as a personal insult to you when people question the rotating globe nonsense.

If what I say, is stupid and if I am stupid, then show me a way that this stupid can have no way of denying your globe and spin.
Merely saying it's too complicated for people like me and all the rest of it, is a massive cop out and a load of clear nonsense.
You lack the ability to search for the truth and are a weakling that prefers to follow a complete and utter encyclopedia of global bullshit.


I'm sitting next to you. Grab your basics of tools and your pen and paper and show me your spinning globe.