The earth is round prove me wrong

Subject text.

It looks flat. On a clear and cloudless day you might be able to stand at a point and see something from over 5 miles away.
On a round earth, this would be impossible because of the curvature but on a flat earth this makes sense.

It looks flat. On a clear and cloudless day you might be able to stand at a point and see something from over 5 miles away.
On a round earth, this would be impossible because of the curvature but on a flat earth this makes sense.

This is easy to disprove, the earth is so big that you have to be high up to see the curvature of the planet!

Quote from: Alexei on March 08, 2023, 10:54:40 AM

It looks flat. On a clear and cloudless day you might be able to stand at a point and see something from over 5 miles away.
On a round earth, this would be impossible because of the curvature but on a flat earth this makes sense.

This is easy to disprove, the earth is so big that you have to be high up to see the curvature of the planet!

You can say it but can you prove it?

Felix Baumgartner skydived from the stratosphere sponsered by red bull (not a space agency) and photos of the event show curvature of the planet, also no i can't prove it but who can? you! you go by a air plane and fly up and look at it yourself. i sure as heck can't but whats stopping you guys from crowd funding the money to by a sky dive trip.

Quote from: flatisthetruth on March 08, 2023, 11:05:32 AM

Quote from: Alexei on March 08, 2023, 10:54:40 AM

It looks flat. On a clear and cloudless day you might be able to stand at a point and see something from over 5 miles away.
On a round earth, this would be impossible because of the curvature but on a flat earth this makes sense.

This is easy to disprove, the earth is so big that you have to be high up to see the curvature of the planet!

You can say it but can you prove it?

And Uno revers logic can be applied to what you just said

Firstly, that isn't how the burden of proof works.
The burden is on the one making the claim.
Why should people need to prove your claim wrong, you have provided nothing to support your claim?

Otherwise, I have an invisible pet dragon, prove me wrong.

Felix Baumgartner skydived from the stratosphere sponsered by red bull (not a space agency) and photos of the event show curvature of the planet, also no i can't prove it but who can? you! you go by a air plane and fly up and look at it yourself. i sure as heck can't but whats stopping you guys from crowd funding the money to by a sky dive trip.

Did it show the curvature of the planet, or the curvature from a fish-eye lens?

Firstly, that isn't how the burden of proof works.
The burden is on the one making the claim.
Why should people need to prove your claim wrong, you have provided nothing to support your claim?

Otherwise, I have an invisible pet dragon, prove me wrong.

you have nothing to support the claim of flat earth beside the existence of a fish-eye lens and some theorys that can be disproved with a google search       ONE WORD: AUSTRALIA

Quote from: JackBlack on March 08, 2023, 12:40:06 PM

Firstly, that isn't how the burden of proof works.
The burden is on the one making the claim.
Why should people need to prove your claim wrong, you have provided nothing to support your claim?

Otherwise, I have an invisible pet dragon, prove me wrong.

you have nothing to support the claim of flat earth beside the existence of a fish-eye lens and some theorys that can be disproved with a google search       ONE WORD: AUSTRALIA

My understanding is that Australia doesn't exist.

My understanding is that Australia doesn't exist.

Thats the point

you have nothing to support the claim of flat earth

You are the one coming here declaring Earth to be round.
Why should anyone believe you?

Again, the world doesn't work on "prove me wrong".
It works on you proving your claim.

Exactly. Lurk moar schoolkid.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 08, 2023, 12:40:06 PM

Firstly, that isn't how the burden of proof works.
The burden is on the one making the claim.
Why should people need to prove your claim wrong, you have provided nothing to support your claim?

Otherwise, I have an invisible pet dragon, prove me wrong.

you have nothing to support the claim of flat earth beside the existence of a fish-eye lens and some theorys that can be disproved with a google search       ONE WORD: AUSTRALIA

Australia exists. Depends on who you ask though.
Silly human. We do not have shits for brains and most of us actually have an education.
Also, it's "theories" not "theorys" and the first letter of a sentence should be capitalized.

The Earth is horizontally, quite large, but thinking of it as a big globe has been debunked over, over, and over again.

Throughout the site, there are so many claims, visuals and common misconceptions put forth by RE, but let us all say the issue of Earth shape is put to rest.

Round Earth believers can twist, turn, and shout all they want but this thread is now considered a victory for FET.

The Earth is horizontally, quite large, but thinking of it as a big globe has been debunked over, over, and over again.

Throughout the site, there are so many claims, visuals and common misconceptions put forth by RE, but let us all say the issue of Earth shape is put to rest.

Round Earth believers can twist, turn, and shout all they want but this thread is now considered a victory for FET.

TBH that's a bit of a stretch

The Earth is horizontally, quite large, but thinking of it as a big globe has been debunked over, over, and over again.

Throughout the site, there are so many claims, visuals and common misconceptions put forth by RE, but let us all say the issue of Earth shape is put to rest.

Round Earth believers can twist, turn, and shout all they want but this thread is now considered a victory for FET.

My understanding is that the Earth is spherically, quite large, but thinking of it as flat has been debunked over, over, and over again.

Throughout the site, there are so many claims, visuals and common misconceptions put forth by FE, but let us all say the issue of Earth shape is put to rest.

Flat Earth believers can twist, turn, and shout all they want but this thread is now considered a victory for RET.

My understanding is that the Earth is a dream I’m having, floating a clear century away from my final recorded position, pumped full of hallucinogens, painkillers and anti-psychotics, batteries no longer capable of both life support and powering the rescue beacon, but thinking of it as reality has been debunked over, over, and over again.

Throughout the site, there are so many claims, visuals and common misconceptions put forth by true Earthers, but let us all say the issue of Earth’s existence is put to rest.

Real Earth believers can twist, turn, and shout all they want but this thread is now considered a victory for my imagination.

Firstly, that isn't how the burden of proof works.
The burden is on the one making the claim.
Why should people need to prove your claim wrong, you have provided nothing to support your claim?

Otherwise, I have an invisible pet dragon, prove me wrong.

Quote from: flatisthetruth on March 08, 2023, 11:19:19 AM

Felix Baumgartner skydived from the stratosphere sponsered by red bull (not a space agency) and photos of the event show curvature of the planet, also no i can't prove it but who can? you! you go by a air plane and fly up and look at it yourself. i sure as heck can't but whats stopping you guys from crowd funding the money to by a sky dive trip.

Did it show the curvature of the planet, or the curvature from a fish-eye lens?

First 15 seconds ... horizon is severely convex, then severely concave. OP needs to learn some basic video/photo info. Barrel distortion, not Earth curvature.

The Earth is horizontally, quite large, but thinking of it as a big globe has been debunked over, over, and over again.

Throughout the site, there are so many claims, visuals and common misconceptions put forth by RE, but let us all say the issue of Earth shape is put to rest.

Round Earth believers can twist, turn, and shout all they want but this thread is now considered a victory for FET.

God its so weird how on this Forums FE act like RE is the conspiracy theory not FE. The simple fact is that you have to assume many more facts to get a FE than a RE.

Deleted post

I'm glad you realized your reply was stupid and deleted the post. You shouldn't make it so easy to show you have no idea what you're talking about.

Lol. The mockery.

Quote from: flatisthetruth on March 09, 2023, 09:45:39 AM

Deleted post

I'm glad you realized your reply was stupid and deleted the post. You shouldn't make it so easy to show you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ok? Glad you think that you win, in the end you need to take a look at all of it, there is this thing called confirmation bias, YOU HAVE THIS! Also i must point out that the "flat earth" has no consistency, for instance some of you believe objects simply fall but at the same time some of you say the earth is infinity traveling upwards and objects come to meat it, we can disprove 1 by tossing a object upwards in a car, and 2 by firing a bullet.

Ok? Glad you think that you win, in the end you need to take a look at all of it, there is this thing called confirmation bias

And when you start with the premise that Earth is round and demand others prove you wrong, it sure sounds like something you have.

for instance some of you believe objects simply fall but at the same time some of you say the earth is infinity traveling upwards and objects come to meat it, we can disprove 1 by tossing a object upwards in a car, and 2 by firing a bullet.

And just how would either of those claims be disproved by either of your examples?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 09, 2023, 11:27:49 AM

Quote from: flatisthetruth on March 09, 2023, 09:45:39 AM

Deleted post

I'm glad you realized your reply was stupid and deleted the post. You shouldn't make it so easy to show you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ok? Glad you think that you win, in the end you need to take a look at all of it, there is this thing called confirmation bias, YOU HAVE THIS! Also i must point out that the "flat earth" has no consistency, for instance some of you believe objects simply fall but at the same time some of you say the earth is infinity traveling upwards and objects come to meat it, we can disprove 1 by tossing a object upwards in a car, and 2 by firing a bullet.

You might want to take the time to read what I've written to you before you go off on a non sequitur rant. All I've done is tell you you should learn some photo and video basics so you don't mistake Earth curvature and barrel distortion on a video. (And a little deserved mockery for wondering why the suit didn't show distortion. Hope you got it now.)

Quote from: flatisthetruth on March 09, 2023, 12:52:52 PM

Ok? Glad you think that you win, in the end you need to take a look at all of it, there is this thing called confirmation bias

And when you start with the premise that Earth is round and demand others prove you wrong, it sure sounds like something you have.

Quote from: flatisthetruth on March 09, 2023, 12:52:52 PM

for instance some of you believe objects simply fall but at the same time some of you say the earth is infinity traveling upwards and objects come to meat it, we can disprove 1 by tossing a object upwards in a car, and 2 by firing a bullet.

And just how would either of those claims be disproved by either of your examples?

Lets start with 2 as its the most simplistic, lets also say that its a artillery shell because you may say that a bullet is to fast and/or to hard to track and that shell will leave a nice explosion. in the way that the earth moves up the shell could not (if fired in a straight line) avoid crashing in to the ground at the speed the planet must be moving up, now lets say this is a civil war canon, that moved even slower. This disproves that theory, now lets do 1, if you toss a object in a (moving) car according to some FE the object will hit the back of the car, lets cut to the chase and IT DOES NOT the object does the same thing as not in a car and caress the velocity from the movement of the car, or is 7th grade science to much for you.

if you toss a object in a (moving) car according to some FE the object will hit the back of the car,

Who are these FEr's that say this?

Quote from: JackBlack on March 09, 2023, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: flatisthetruth on March 09, 2023, 12:52:52 PM

Ok? Glad you think that you win, in the end you need to take a look at all of it, there is this thing called confirmation bias

And when you start with the premise that Earth is round and demand others prove you wrong, it sure sounds like something you have.

Quote from: flatisthetruth on March 09, 2023, 12:52:52 PM

for instance some of you believe objects simply fall but at the same time some of you say the earth is infinity traveling upwards and objects come to meat it, we can disprove 1 by tossing a object upwards in a car, and 2 by firing a bullet.

And just how would either of those claims be disproved by either of your examples?

Lets start with 2 as its the most simplistic, lets also say that its a artillery shell because you may say that a bullet is to fast and/or to hard to track and that shell will leave a nice explosion. in the way that the earth moves up the shell could not (if fired in a straight line) avoid crashing in to the ground at the speed the planet must be moving up, now lets say this is a civil war canon, that moved even slower. This disproves that theory, now lets do 1, if you toss a object in a (moving) car according to some FE the object will hit the back of the car, lets cut to the chase and IT DOES NOT the object does the same thing as not in a car and caress the velocity from the movement of the car, or is 7th grade science to much for you.

Does the phrase "straw man" mean anything to you?

Lets start with 2 as its the most simplistic, lets also say that its a artillery shell because you may say that a bullet is to fast and/or to hard to track and that shell will leave a nice explosion. in the way that the earth moves up the shell could not (if fired in a straight line) avoid crashing in to the ground at the speed the planet must be moving up, now lets say this is a civil war canon, that moved even slower. This disproves that theory, now lets do 1, if you toss a object in a (moving) car according to some FE the object will hit the back of the car, lets cut to the chase and IT DOES NOT the object does the same thing as not in a car and caress the velocity from the movement of the car, or is 7th grade science to much for you.

So in your attempt at disproof, complete with pathetic mocking suggesting 7th grade science is too much, you completely fail at very basic science (not sure what grade it would be, but pretty sure I knew it before high school, but Einstein would also have something to say about your nonsense).

I have never seen an artillery shell or any other projectile like it avoid crashing into Earth.
They all manage to fall and crash into Earth.
So just what is the problem here?
What you are saying is that if I am in a plane, and throw a ball in the air it should smash the back of the plane?

Conservation of momentum demonstrates your disproof is garbage.
Say Earth is currently travelling upwards at some velocity vy.
And you have a cannon which if stationary would result in the vertical velocity of the ball being vb.
When you fire this cannon on this moving Earth, the ball doesn't just magically lose the velocity it is moving at.
At a basic science level it would be fired at a speed of vb+vy. (At the more complex level it would be (vb+vy)/(1+vb*vy/c^2).
And without anything to change that, that would be its velocity as it moved through the air, with Earth increasing in velocity until it surpasses the velocity of the ball and starts gaining on it, eventually colliding with it.

So that is one massive failure on your part.

As for number 1, no, that is a very poor attempt at a disproof of number 2, and the part you ignore is that the car would need to be accelerating.
For what you gave earlier as number 1, it is that objects fall. Earth is stationary and objects fall down.
So even in a car, the object would still fall down.

So that is another failure on your part.

So I guess 7th grade science is too much for you.

And if you would like more advanced science to fail, the equivalence principle states that an object in a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from the ground accelerating upwards.
But as 7th grade science is too much for you, I suspect this will be as well.

Quote from: flatisthetruth on March 09, 2023, 01:19:18 PM

if you toss a object in a (moving) car according to some FE the object will hit the back of the car,

Who are these FEr's that say this?

i linked it to the "objects fall theory" as that takes out so much, like how gravity works. and im at least not any worse as the FE

Curiouser and Curiouser
does the phrase "straw man" mean any thing to you