Why does the Earth look like a sphere?

I've noticed a recent trend in Flat Earthers backing away from "The Conspiracy" and claiming that the entire scientific community is just honestly confused or mistaken or some other reason for saying the Earth is round.

This question is for the NONCON sect of the Flat Earthers. 

How are we mistaking all these pictures and measurements of the Earth from space? What evidence is there that the photos are somehow making a disk, or an infinite plane, or a 4D cylinder look and behave exactly like a sphere should?

If I said an apple in my hand was actually an elephant, people would rightly want to know what makes me think that.

How do you explain the Earth looking like a sphere from space?

If you think all the pictures are fake, how does that happen without a conspiracy?

I'm so glad to find out I'm a trendsetter.

As Leo Ferarri once said, one would expect a flat earth to look curved through curved space.

Throughout history we have all thought we had a hold on the truth. And every single time we've found out we are wrong and working off an approximation that was good enough at the time. As I've said - a tool. Now I don't hold the tools in contempt or anything for being tools. They can't help what they are. Tools.

But every single time we have seen advance - advance that really matters and provides a paradigm shift - it is because we have asked instead about some model that is empirically incorrect.

Eratosthenes with his shadows. Copernicus with heliocentrism. Galileo with his use of opticks. And so on.

Every. Single. Advance. has come from ideas that everyone thinks are wrong.

So my question to you is this. Are you here to think, be wrong, try something - or are you just simply here to lick the boots of masters that don't even hear your voice.

Personally, my money is on roundy gimps.

Notice anything about your examples?  All were primarily pushed back on by religious and emotional ideas. 
Erastosthenes really didn't have detractors, he was active in an age of enlightenment and many discoveries.
Copernicus dared to say the Earth, God's creation, wasn't the center of the universe.
Galileo, dared to look deeper into the cosmos and was accused of trying to disprove heaven or steal a glimpse of God.  The church were the only ones who should have had the privilege of the knowledge of heaven in those days. 
Yep, they dared to buck the system, not a scientific system, a religious based one.

As Leo Ferarri once said, one would expect a flat earth to look curved through curved space.

If the flat earth had the gravitational potential of a black hole yes. But 9.8m.s.s is not nearly enough to make it look even slightly curved with the most accurate instruments.

Every. Single. Advance. has come from ideas that everyone thinks are wrong.

You mean, only those few examples.
There is nothing wrong with pushing against the main line of reasoning. But it should be because you have a better theory, not because you want to be special.

I'm so glad to find out I'm a trendsetter.
As Leo Ferarri once said, one would expect a flat earth to look curved through curved space.

But notice the key thing lacking? An explanation of how.
Just how is this space curved in such a way to make Earth appear to be a sphere?

I'm so glad to find out I'm a trendsetter.

I can't say who is copying who here, but it's something I've seen for a year or so on several sites. I think it's the start of yet another split in the FE community. The other site has it worse.

As Leo Ferarri once said, one would expect a flat earth to look curved through curved space.

This is an empty claim, even if it was serious.

Throughout history we have all thought we had a hold on the truth. And every single time we've found out we are wrong and working off an approximation that was good enough at the time. As I've said - a tool. Now I don't hold the tools in contempt or anything for being tools. They can't help what they are. Tools.

But every single time we have seen advance - advance that really matters and provides a paradigm shift - it is because we have asked instead about some model that is empirically incorrect.

Eratosthenes with his shadows. Copernicus with heliocentrism. Galileo with his use of opticks. And so on.

Every. Single. Advance. has come from ideas that everyone thinks are wrong.

This also has nothing to do with my question. It's just another "we don't know everything so don't know anything" style of response. We were wrong before so everything is wrong now. Flawed logic and a misunderstanding of science and history.

But feel free to start a new discussion on this topic, I'd happily explain in more detail what's wrong with the entire concept.

So my question to you is this. Are you here to think, be wrong, try something - or are you just simply here to lick the boots of masters that don't even hear your voice.

Personally, my money is on roundy gimps.

This also has nothing to do with my question.  It's not an answer or a reason or evidence, it's just insulting me. Which is fine, but AR is a better place for that.

I'm so glad to find out I'm a trendsetter.

As Leo Ferarri once said, one would expect a flat earth to look curved through curved space.

Throughout history we have all thought we had a hold on the truth. And every single time we've found out we are wrong and working off an approximation that was good enough at the time. As I've said - a tool. Now I don't hold the tools in contempt or anything for being tools. They can't help what they are. Tools.

But every single time we have seen advance - advance that really matters and provides a paradigm shift - it is because we have asked instead about some model that is empirically incorrect.

Eratosthenes with his shadows. Copernicus with heliocentrism. Galileo with his use of opticks. And so on.

Every. Single. Advance. has come from ideas that everyone thinks are wrong.

So my question to you is this. Are you here to think, be wrong, try something - or are you just simply here to lick the boots of masters that don't even hear your voice.

Personally, my money is on roundy gimps.

You seem to be missing a kind of crucial part of a paradigm shift-   The bit where you demonstrate that your ideas describe reality better than the current theories.

Did you get to the point of having ideas everyone else thinks is wrong and decide that was good enough?

I'm so glad to find out I'm a trendsetter.

As Leo Ferarri once said, one would expect a flat earth to look curved through curved space.

Throughout history we have all thought we had a hold on the truth. And every single time we've found out we are wrong and working off an approximation that was good enough at the time. As I've said - a tool. Now I don't hold the tools in contempt or anything for being tools. They can't help what they are. Tools.

But every single time we have seen advance - advance that really matters and provides a paradigm shift - it is because we have asked instead about some model that is empirically incorrect.

Eratosthenes with his shadows. Copernicus with heliocentrism. Galileo with his use of opticks. And so on.

Every. Single. Advance. has come from ideas that everyone thinks are wrong.

So my question to you is this. Are you here to think, be wrong, try something - or are you just simply here to lick the boots of masters that don't even hear your voice.

Personally, my money is on roundy gimps.

No boot licking required though you may go ahead and suck on the cherry picked footwear of Leo Ferrari if you feel the need to.
The ‘advances’ you speak of are all rather old hat and to say every advance, bar none has come from an idea considered at on time to be wrong is a pretty bold and desperate claim.
It is true that some beliefs do take some effort to overturn to allow the truth to emerge much like the ancient beliefs that the world was flat and that space was filled with the ether. In the end science triumphs and the truth wins out.
The problem that you have is holding on to the notion that one day your wrong belief in the infinite earth will one day be shown to be correct is sadly for you a lost cause. The ship has sailed on that one as the earth has been shown to be a very finite somewhat spherical body that no wishful thinking will every change.

Why does the Earth look like a sphere?


Because that's what we were told to believe it to be a sphere with supposed pictures and video, nothing more.
In physical reality, nobody can see Earth looking anything like a sphere.

Why does the Earth look like a sphere?


Because that's what we were told to believe it to be a sphere with supposed pictures and video, nothing more.
In physical reality, nobody can see Earth looking anything like a sphere.

Good job entirely missing the point of the thread.
This thread isn't for conspiracy nuts like you who think everyone is lying to them. Instead it is for those who want to claim that all the scientists are just "mistaken", and that someone a photo of Earth from space should show a round Earth, even though Earth is actually "flat".

Why does the Earth look like a sphere?

Because that's what we were told to believe it to be a sphere with supposed pictures and video, nothing more.
In physical reality, nobody can see Earth looking anything like a sphere.

Please read my question more carefully, your answer has nothing to do with what was asked.

Why does the Earth look like a sphere?


Because that's what we were told to believe it to be a sphere with supposed pictures and video, nothing more.
In physical reality, nobody can see Earth looking anything like a sphere.

It’s what been observed, photographed and shown to be the case. The fact you don’t like it matters not a jot. The earth like all observed celestial bodies over a given size are all spheres.

I'm so glad to find out I'm a trendsetter.

As Leo Ferarri once said, one would expect a flat earth to look curved through curved space.

Throughout history we have all thought we had a hold on the truth. And every single time we've found out we are wrong and working off an approximation that was good enough at the time. As I've said - a tool. Now I don't hold the tools in contempt or anything for being tools. They can't help what they are. Tools.

But every single time we have seen advance - advance that really matters and provides a paradigm shift - it is because we have asked instead about some model that is empirically incorrect.

Eratosthenes with his shadows. Copernicus with heliocentrism. Galileo with his use of opticks. And so on.

Every. Single. Advance. has come from ideas that everyone thinks are wrong.

So my question to you is this. Are you here to think, be wrong, try something - or are you just simply here to lick the boots of masters that don't even hear your voice.

Personally, my money is on roundy gimps.

Good old Leo. What he did promoting critical thinking was actually pretty important. You should try it sometime.  You might even come to the same conclusion about the shape of the earth that Leo did.

The Earth doesn't look round, it looks flat, measures as flat, and proven to BE flat.

You're referring to FAKE images of a round Earth, in 'space', not the real Earth, which we all see, and measured, as flat.

If you need to resort to fakery from those who LIE about Earth being a ball in 'space', that's your problem, not mine.

You've never been up into 'space', nobody has, and never WILL go into 'space', because it doesn't exist, not as they CLAIM it does, that's for sure!

You think we flew rockets up to a moon, about 1/4 million miles away from Earth, back in the 60's, with such primitive computers? They were complete crap. Today, kids can fly planes with remote control, or drones, etc. Take videos and photos with them, flying over a building, or a city, miles away, and THOSE ARE JUST TOYS, used by kids today.

NASA had primitive technology in the 60's, so weak, so crude, that KIDS of today, make them look like country bumpkins, in terms of technology, in all forms, all types, because all are connected to each other, in many ways, nothing stops, or goes backwards, in any of our current technologies.

Apollo looked so impressive to people of the day, computers were all powerful, and NASA used them in their rockets, to fly people to the moon, and back to Earth again, safe and sound!

If you look closely at their older 'images' of the ball Earth, then compare them to their more recent 'images' of the ball Earth, you might notice they're vastly different, in many ways, if you really study them up close. They had to PAINT Earth in 'space', back then. Not today, with computer simulations, etc. But they also cannot make them TOO different than they did back then, either, that's for sure. It has to look consistent, or sort of, anyway.

So another thing we can compare - 'images' of the ball Earth in 'space', over the years!

Look at anything else we've taken photos of, over the years....like the moon, for example....

Look at the best photos we had of the moon, taken from Earth, about 50-60 years ago, with the best cameras of the day... we saw some craters, not in much detail, back then. Obviously, they had far better instruments than WE did, and still do.

Right, if they really have images of distant galaxies, and whatever, right now, they'd surely have better images of your BALL EARTH in 'space', than they show us today!!

They're supposedly taking images of galaxies nobody has ever SEEN before, yet, images of the Earth haven't changed in over 60 years, or barely so?!?!

Are you serious?

That's a laugh.


Images of Earth from 'space', would show INCREDIBLE DETAIL, of things we couldn't SEE back then, just like we have with images of the moon, and everything else, too!

Except for images of the ball Earth from 'space', which have NOT changed, for over 60 years now, since the FIRST images of the ball Earth in 'space', ever taken, by 'astronots'.   

No 'atmosphere' excuse works, either. The moon can now be seen in far more detail than it was back then, so it obviously has nothing to do with our atmosphere, blocking out details of a ball Earth, it would block out details of the MOON, and proves this is a BS excuse.....the same old crap, again and again.

We've never seen Earth from 'space', any BETTER, any SHARPER, more in DETAIL, than we did 60 years ago, but nothing is odd about that, right? No, of course not! It's not fishy at all!

They cannot show 'images' of Earth from 'space', in any detail, for obvious reasons, because they're all FAKE images of a ball Earth. How would anyone show DETAILS of it, when it's all been faked? I'm not sure how it could be done, so they don't try to, and have shown the same Earth 'images' for that very reason, they CAN'T show it in any detail. It's fake.

We've never seen Earth from 'space', any BETTER, any SHARPER, more in DETAIL, than we did 60 years ago, but nothing is odd about that, right? No, of course not! It's not fishy at all!

Todays GOES weather satellite full disc & US:

Why can't we see any details on Earth, while supposedly much, much closer to it, than we are from the moon, but we see the moon in such great detail.

The reason is because those ball Earth 'images' are all fake. Simple as that.

The Earth doesn't look round, it looks flat, measures as flat, and proven to BE flat.

You keep asserting this same old BS, yet you can't justify it at all.
Regardless, that is irrelvaent to this thread.

You're referring to FAKE images

Like I said to septic, this thread is not addressed to the conspiracy nuts that claim everyone on the globe is lying to them.
Instead it is addressed to those who want to claim that so many people are somehow mistaken.

This isn't to discuss if the images are fake. You had a previous chance at that and blew it, being incapable of providing any justification for why anyone should think they are fake.

But don't worry, it could be slightly expanded to include something you are struggling with in another thread, but I think I will leave that for that thread. No need to bring it in here.

Why can't we see any details on Earth, while supposedly much, much closer to it, than we are from the moon, but we see the moon in such great detail.

The reason is because those ball Earth 'images' are all fake. Simple as that.

Earth = Big
Moon = Small

Basic human knowledge = To see the entirety of something very large, one must move further away from it.

Looks pretty detailed to me. From Meteosat (Altitude: 36,000km)



From the ISS (Altitude: 422km)

Why can't we see any details on Earth, while supposedly much, much closer to it, than we are from the moon, but we see the moon in such great detail.

The reason is because those ball Earth 'images' are all fake. Simple as that.

What are you talking about? You can see far more detail in photos of the earth from space than you can see detail on the moon

Here's a photo you can see from the ISS, you can see details like rivers

The smallest detail you can probably make out on the moon from earth with the naked eye would be something like Tycho crater, which is 85km across

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_(lunar_crater)

So a river, vs 85km crater. Which can we see more detail on? Earth or the moon?

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 16, 2022, 12:08:45 AM

Why can't we see any details on Earth, while supposedly much, much closer to it, than we are from the moon, but we see the moon in such great detail.

The reason is because those ball Earth 'images' are all fake. Simple as that.

Earth = Big
Moon = Small

Basic human knowledge = To see the entirety of something very large, one must move further away from it.

Looks pretty detailed to me. From Meteosat (Altitude: 36,000km)



From the ISS (Altitude: 422km)

There's nothing shown of details here. Look at the details we see of the moon, while nothing is shown in ball Earth 'images'. Same stupid 'outlines' of the 'continents', and no surface details - the same old crap.

There's nothing shown of details here.

You sure do love just pretending things don't exist don't you?
The same old crap is all you have.

You can quite easily see a lot of detail there.
What do you call this?


Stop with the dishonest BS, grow up, and just admit you were wrong.

Quote from: Stash on July 16, 2022, 12:38:29 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 16, 2022, 12:08:45 AM

Why can't we see any details on Earth, while supposedly much, much closer to it, than we are from the moon, but we see the moon in such great detail.

The reason is because those ball Earth 'images' are all fake. Simple as that.

Earth = Big
Moon = Small

Basic human knowledge = To see the entirety of something very large, one must move further away from it.

Looks pretty detailed to me. From Meteosat (Altitude: 36,000km)



From the ISS (Altitude: 422km)

There's nothing shown of details here. Look at the details we see of the moon, while nothing is shown in ball Earth 'images'. Same stupid 'outlines' of the 'continents', and no surface details - the same old crap.

Let's be honest your claim is crazy. Satellite imagery is so integrated into every day life to claim its fake is nothing short of delusional. To keep posting one particular low res cherry picked image and use that to support your claim that the whole earth imagining industry is fake makes no sense when there are thousands of far better images available.

If you are looking for detailed satellite images then try here:-
https://skywatch.com/free-sources-of-satellite-data/

OR

So you want hi res of the whole earth then here you go:-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/6760135001/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Though Im pretty sure even that image won't please you!

Quote from: Stash on July 16, 2022, 12:38:29 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 16, 2022, 12:08:45 AM

Why can't we see any details on Earth, while supposedly much, much closer to it, than we are from the moon, but we see the moon in such great detail.

The reason is because those ball Earth 'images' are all fake. Simple as that.

Earth = Big
Moon = Small

Basic human knowledge = To see the entirety of something very large, one must move further away from it.

Looks pretty detailed to me. From Meteosat (Altitude: 36,000km)



From the ISS (Altitude: 422km)

There's nothing shown of details here. Look at the details we see of the moon, while nothing is shown in ball Earth 'images'. Same stupid 'outlines' of the 'continents', and no surface details - the same old crap.

Meteosat satellite (altitude: 36,000km):



Zoomed in on same image - Looks pretty detailed to me - I can see the Nile quite clearly:



Go here: http://www.fvalk.com/day_image.htm

You can view near real-time images from several satellites and zoom in and see some great detail.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Every time you say something doesn't exist, you're shown it does. Kinda hilarious.

The Earth doesn't look round, it looks flat, measures as flat, and proven to BE flat.

Thanks for playing, but I wasn't asking for more bad examples of how you deny reality. 

Three for three flat earthers failing to actually understand the question.  Is reading comprehension not part of the Zetetic method?

Why can't we see any details on Earth, while supposedly much, much closer to it, than we are from the moon, but we see the moon in such great detail.

The reason is because those ball Earth 'images' are all fake. Simple as that.

Yet another idiot that doesn't understand scale.

If there is no conspiracy, and the Earth just looks round from space but is actually flat, how can satellites or spacecraft in general orbit this flat Earth?

If there is no conspiracy, and the Earth just looks round from space but is actually flat, how can satellites or spacecraft in general orbit this flat Earth?

They travel a straight line through curved space.
http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html

Quote from: stankann on July 16, 2022, 09:31:32 AM

If there is no conspiracy, and the Earth just looks round from space but is actually flat, how can satellites or spacecraft in general orbit this flat Earth?

They travel a straight line through curved space.
http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html

The problem in providing an answer that just quotes yourself hardly cuts the mustard.
The other problem is all the evidence, you can go look it up if you are interested, unanimously and unequivocally points to you being majorly wrong both about the shape of the earth and the nature of space. The other problem you being pretty much earth bound leaves you with no way to actually study the great void of space up close. Which in turn begs the question of how do you manage to even have an opinion on it that contradicts all those who have actually been in space and have the daily wherewithal to actually study it up close. Let’s remember the ISS has been in constant use since 1998 so it had clocked up quite a bit of observing time, just over twenty two years by multiple scientist from scores of nations, while you have zero time.
You have a notion that’s based on no more than vague belief and that’s about as far as it goes. You have no actual data to support your own standpoint and more importantly no verifiable proven data to overturn conventional wisdom that had stood the test of time, observation and experimentation.
So good luck believing in what you do despite it being wrong big time.

Quote from: Username on July 19, 2022, 12:14:41 PM

Quote from: stankann on July 16, 2022, 09:31:32 AM

If there is no conspiracy, and the Earth just looks round from space but is actually flat, how can satellites or spacecraft in general orbit this flat Earth?

They travel a straight line through curved space.
http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html

The problem in providing an answer that just quotes yourself hardly cuts the mustard.
The other problem is all the evidence, you can go look it up if you are interested, unanimously and unequivocally points to you being majorly wrong both about the shape of the earth and the nature of space.

Oh perfect. I'm a fan of changing my views when shown they are wrong. Since all the evidence unanimously and unequivocally points to me being wrong, I'm sure you can provide one piece of evidence that unanimously and unequivocally falsifies the above that does not also falsify the round earth hypothesis.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 19, 2022, 01:22:39 PM

Quote from: Username on July 19, 2022, 12:14:41 PM

Quote from: stankann on July 16, 2022, 09:31:32 AM

If there is no conspiracy, and the Earth just looks round from space but is actually flat, how can satellites or spacecraft in general orbit this flat Earth?

They travel a straight line through curved space.
http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html

The problem in providing an answer that just quotes yourself hardly cuts the mustard.
The other problem is all the evidence, you can go look it up if you are interested, unanimously and unequivocally points to you being majorly wrong both about the shape of the earth and the nature of space.

Oh perfect. I'm a fan of changing my views when shown they are wrong. Since all the evidence unanimously and unequivocally points to me being wrong, I'm sure you can provide one piece of evidence that unanimously and unequivocally falsifies the above that does not also falsify the round earth hypothesis.

All the evidence is freely available if you care to look. I care not a jot what you believe. I simply pointed out that
a) you were wrong and
b) you could have no evidence on which to either base your claim or evidence that cast doubt on conventional wisdom. What you say is no more than an unfounded opinion.

It also begs the question how on earth could you be in a position to comment on the nature of something that you have zero experience of and at the same time cast doubt on those who have.

The ball is firmly in your court when it comes to evidence. To date all you have to offer is one link to some flat earth site. Hardly convincing is it especially when set against the combined knowledge of humanity.

When it comes to evidence your not even in the hunt.