Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

You can say that all you want.

There is documented proof the earth is spherical….

Cavendish experiment

A feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate in a vacuum

(Real Time) Bowling Ball and Feather Dropped in a Vacuum

Feathers and coins drop at the same rate in a vacuum

Feather and Coin in a Vacuum

Meteorite impact craters on earth.

Satellites tracked by radar.

Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun
If Zuma is still up there, these are the people who might spot it.

BY MARY BETH GRIGGS JANUARY 12, 2018

https://www.popsci.com/zuma-spy-satellite-amateur-astronomer/

Lake Pontchartrain Power Transmission Lines: Evidence of Earth’s Curvature

https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain

Math associated with right triangles proves it’s impossible for objects like the sun and North Star to appear to set beyond the horizon

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 09, 2023, 06:30:16 AM

You just saw it. It's not below.

The sun is literally below the clouds that it is shining up into.



Same for this photo.  Taken before the time of sunrise. 



Where the sun is relatively below the lower clouds casting a shadow up into the higher clouds.

Earth’s movement and gravity backed by the theory of relativity, and shown in how it measurably impacts time/clocks. And ring laser gyroscopes.

Parabolic Motion of Projectiles

The blast from the Tsar nuclear bomb resulted in seismic waves and atmospheric pressure waves that circled the earth three times.

Distance to the sun measured by parallax

The way comets pivot around the sun.
Solar and lunar eclipses.
Comets pulled into the sun or Jupiter.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC
Earth's Curvature and Battleship Gunnery
Phases of Venus
Third party verification of Sputnik
Third party verification of moon missions
Third party / amateur verification of satellites in the hundreds. If not thousands
Star parallax
Earth based photos of the International Space Station.
Map projection
Great Circle paths
Long bridges and tunnels need to take in account the earth is curved.
Geodetic Survey.
Bouguer anomaly/survey


——Only takes one item being true to demonstrate the reality of a spherical earth and destroy flat earth.  And they are all true—-

Needed your calc?
No
I ddint
But i needed you to admit to the number.
Because you said' a level stays level'
Therefore on the proposed scale of the earth, and using a level what angle?

You can't verify or disprove anything from a limited sample and alot of math.
Exactly!
Therefore your '1m level rpoof' is invalid.


Circles and triangles are now imaginary?
Amaz9ng!

But if you define Earth thusly, it isn't a sphere.

Again, it isn't defining Earth as that, it is trying to get you to recognise something quite simple.
The size of Earth is quite large. The angle you need to be able to measure to detect the curve from a direct measurement is tiny.

You have not debunked anything, because you have not proved this angle exists.

It debunks the idea that Earth must be flat because you can't measure the curve directly over a tiny distance.
It demonstrates what you need to be able to support your delusional BS.

The best proofs do not involve math. Math is largely a way for the mind to deceive itself into delusions of brilliance.

Pure BS.

The best proofs often do involve math, as they allow you to check your work rather than just think you are right and run away with it.
But don't worry, there are also plenty of proofs which don't use math.
Photos from space, objects disappearing from the bottom up as they go over the horizon, 2 celestial poles, and perhaps most important for this thread, the fact that the sun can be very high above some location on Earth, while for another location it is observed to be casting light upwards to illuminate clouds from below.

Because something seems real in a tiny area, you cannot crunch numbers and predict that it is the case for the entire Earth. But that's what the math of the first round Earthers did. They looked at a rounded shadow in Egypt, and decided the sun was a sphere, so Earth must be a sphere because calculation. Exploration, not calculation, is key. You can't verify or disprove anything from a limited sample and alot of math.

And more delusional BS.
There were plenty of things that demonstrated Earth was round. With regards to shadows, that would be Earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. But that is for another thread.

The experiment you are probably describing was to measure the radius of Earth as they already had quite strong evidence it was a sphere, such as the different stars in the night sky in different locations; and the different directions to the sun while the sun remained with the same angular size.

You can show that water doesn't work in a curved bathtub, that it lays flat instead of arcing up to adjust to the weird shape of the bath.

And this is where math comes in.
Is it truly flat? Or is it curved to an extent you cannot see?

But again, what we see is the water being drawn to Earth, a very large ball.
Which is also where the math comes in.
What is the force holding the water to the ball (i.e. round Earth); what is it holding it to the bath? How do these compare?

Even this simple observation would be enough to realize that water cannot collect on the underside of Earth (the southern hemisphere), that it would drip down constantly. That a sphere simply is not a workable shape for liquids.

No, it isn't.
That is just your dishonest BS which has been refuted countless times.
You have no justification for why the southern hemisphere should be the underside, rather than any other location.

Again, Earth is not a tiny object sitting on top of a much larger object.

The designers of this house know that water will not stay put. That water rolls off rounded objects. Apparently, you have trouble with this concept.

It rolls of objects towards Earth.
Again, Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger object.
This is not a difficult concept to understand, but you seem incapable of underestanding
Or lets be honest, you fully understand this, but you don't care; you hate the round Earth so you are willing to use whatever dishonest, delusional BS you can to pretend that Earth isn't round.

Is your model of Earth a tiny bathtub sitting on top of a much larger ball? No. So your test isn't valid for that either. But its a different thread where you get to explain why things fall.

A feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate in a vacuum

Quote

(Real Time) Bowling Ball and Feather Dropped in a Vacuum

Feathers and coins drop at the same rate in a vacuum

Quote

Feather and Coin in a Vacuum

Exactly. But if "outer space" means "no gravity" then you should expect both the feather and the bowling ball to float. They don't, consistent with what these videos show, and consistent with what I have frequently said about "gravity" really being mass vs liquid or gas medium in a buoyancy equation. In a vacuum, everything is in free fall. Therefore everything NASA shows us, and everything we learn from movies about space cadet floating around is just so much crap. In actuality, any ship attempting to go to outer space would be thwarted by the fact that propulsion is pushing against nothing, and the ship is heavier than nothing.


Lake Pontchartrain Power Transmission Lines: Evidence of Earth’s Curvature

https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain

More pulling that tired meme out. Even though FE ppl have actually shown you the real Lake Pontchartrain, you insist on a badly doctored image



Cylinder



Earth’s movement and gravity backed by the theory of relativity, and shown in how it measurably impacts time/clocks. And ring laser gyroscopes.

Parabolic Motion of Projectiles

The blast from the Tsar nuclear bomb resulted in seismic waves and atmospheric pressure waves that circled the earth three times.

Distance to the sun measured by parallax

The way comets pivot around the sun.
Solar and lunar eclipses.
Comets pulled into the sun or Jupiter.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC
Earth's Curvature and Battleship Gunnery
Phases of Venus
Third party verification of Sputnik
Third party verification of moon missions
Third party / amateur verification of satellites in the hundreds. If not thousands
Star parallax
Earth based photos of the International Space Station.
Map projection
Great Circle paths
Long bridges and tunnels need to take in account the earth is curved.
Geodetic Survey.
Bouguer anomaly/survey


——Only takes one item being true to demonstrate the reality of a spherical earth and destroy flat earth.  And they are all true—-

Actually, you just pile on ideas, and hope I'll give up. You think that this is a mountain of evidence, but it's a mountain of lies.

For instance, you can sail around the world on a flat Earth too. This is because of the physics of it being a disc. East and west are clockwise, north is toward the center (this, and not magnetism is why the magnet gives a strange reading at NP, you're at north, so everywhere else is south). You can't go around the South Pole though. They "circumnavigate" the South Pole either by making a left or right turn (on an overhead map, you can see what they are rwally doing is skimming the coast) or doubling back. Never flying straight through.

Geodetic surveys & the other one I dunno about... surveys can be doctored if you have money. 
Talked about lunar and solar eclipses before. Ditto for sunset and the seasons. 
Satellites can be explained by land systems like towers and by "weather balloons". And some of these objects are holographic projections.

A bridge in China, one of the longest, kinda doesn't.

They marked it, but it doesn't convince anyone but you. It doesn't matter that it's the wrong bridge. 102.4/22 = 4.6545.
That is whatever ft curvature it demands is 4 times what that actual bridge is. 1501.7578125 ft curve needed. No such curvature in 22 miles.

Circles are possible on a flat Earth. Vertical circles are not.

You can make map projections. But a projection, by definition, is just an idea. You're making a projection based on concept.

A projection of a pyramid Earth.

Here's a photo of Godzilla. Doesn't make it real.


Increasing height gives broader range because air is thinner. Thinner air means less resistance. Despite all your talk about sound not being radio, the degree of air resistance makes a difference. However range in a complete vacuum is finite, when you run out of energy, there's no more, unlike models of radio transmitting through space. In other words, actual sound doesn't carry at all in a vacuum, but radio has sound plus energy. That energy decreases as it moves through a vacuum.

Projectiles have parabolic motion when we toss them upward for a specific reason. Momentum is finite. As it decreases, an object's mass is greater than its momentum and it falls as a reason of being heavier than the air. See my buoyancy stuff above. Also applies to Battleship Gunnery.

Yes, it's easy to fool a bunch of rubes. That doesn't mean you have third party proof. I've seen shuttles take off too from Wallop's Island. It's across a bay with the land distance 3 hours away. The thing is, after a certain height, I really can't see it anymore. They can tell me the it escaped Earth's atmosphere, but actually I saw it fly a mile or so and disappear, curving as it did. The atmosphere is about six to ten times as thick as the point where we can't see objects in the sky.

Still not all the questions. You load and load your mountain of lies, but all of them can be picked apart. That's why you load them like this. So you can say "See? You didn't discuss everything! You must not know."

Exactly.

Yes, exactly. Notice how density doesn't matter?

But if "outer space" means "no gravity"

It doesn't.
That is a pathetic strawman made up by dishonest FEers and other conspiracy nuts to pretend there is a problem.

In actuality, any ship attempting to go to outer space would be thwarted by the fact that propulsion is pushing against nothing, and the ship is heavier than nothing.

You have had this BS refuted before.

More pulling that tired meme out. Even though FE ppl have actually shown you the real Lake Pontchartrain, you insist on a badly doctored image

You mean even though FE people have blatantly lied about it and tried to use carefully cherry picked images to pretend there is no curve?
Where they intentionally use a different angle which obscures the curve, instead of trying for an honest view which would be able to see the curve?
And now you have even chosen one which dishonestly takes a fish eye lens to pretend there is no curve?

Just look at the crap you provided. They claim the image is 31 miles wide, but provide no justification for that at all.
That means the drop due to the curve from the middle to the side of the image (equal to the bulge), assuming it is a great circle, will be given by, as an approximation, 8*(31/2)^2 inches = 0.0303346 miles.
That is 0.000978 times the width of the image.
The image is 999 px wide. That means the bulge would amount to a massive 0.9776 px.
So basically just a single pixel.

And you are surprised you don't see that, when the horizon is blurred across a few pixels, with a red line that is 2 px wide at its most solid part, and extends for an additional 2 px on either side?
So any curve expected would be blocked by the line.

And to make it worse, that great circle that calculation was for, only touches the horizon at one point. For all the other points, the horizon obstructs the view to it.
The horizon is the same angle of dip all around. What you actually need is a straight reference, like viewing that bridge from the side, and then you could try to see if it goes up and down, and struggle with seeing that tiny drop in such a wide image.

So it entirely fails to demonstrate there is no curvature.

Compare that to the honest one, which looks in a manner to make seeing the curvature easy.

Actually, you just pile on ideas, and hope I'll give up. You think that this is a mountain of evidence, but it's a mountain of lies.

Maybe that is because of how you repeatedly ignore the issue and start spouting irrelevant BS?
Funny how you seem fine to do it yourself, but object when a REer does it?

If you don't like it, perhaps you can try explaining the sunrise?

For instance, you can sail around the world on a flat Earth too.

But not in all directions, and the time taken is vastly different.

You can't go around the South Pole though.

You can, and people have.
You can even easily observe a south celestial pole, located due south, and keep that to one side the entire time, clearly demonstrating you are circling a point south of you.

They "circumnavigate" the South Pole either by making a left or right turn (on an overhead map, you can see what they are rwally doing is skimming the coast) or doubling back. Never flying straight through.

You now appear to be appealing to try to go through the sole pole, rather than circumnavigate it, but people have done that as well.

Geodetic surveys & the other one I dunno about... surveys can be doctored if you have money.

And the typical FE BS, when you can't explain the evidence, just claim it is fake.

Talked about lunar and solar eclipses before. Ditto for sunset and the seasons.

And you entirely failed to explained them.

Satellites can be explained by land systems like towers and by "weather balloons". And some of these objects are holographic projections.

No, they can't.

A bridge in China, one of the longest, kinda doesn't.
They marked it, but it doesn't convince anyone but you. It doesn't matter that it's the wrong bridge. 102.4/22 = 4.6545.
That is whatever ft curvature it demands is 4 times what that actual bridge is. 1501.7578125 ft curve needed. No such curvature in 22 miles.

So you are now demonstrating dishonesty on the part of FEers? By showing how FEers are allegedly picking the wrong bridge.
And then you get the math entirely wrong?
If the bridge is 1/4 the distance, the drop due to curvature is 1/16. But in this case it is 1/4.65 times the distance which gives 1/21.7 times the drop.
Remember, it is 8 archaic units per archaic unit squared. Or more correctly, it is d^2/2R. If you double the distance, you quadruple the drop.

So for a 22 mile bridge, the "drop" expected is 323 ft.
And the bridge allegedly has a 62 m or ~200 ft clearance to allow boats underneath, so the photo is clearly from much higher and no part of the bridge would be expected to be hidden by this drop.

Once more, you have absolutely nothing to justify your claim that there is no such curvature.

You can make map projections. But a projection, by definition, is just an idea. You're making a projection based on concept.

Yes, and the question is how correctly do these projections match up to Earth, and why do we have so many projections?

There is a single globe, with the continents having the same size and shape on these different globes. But there are so many different flat projections of this globe it isn't funny.
If Earth truly was flat, it would be the other way around.

Increasing height gives broader range because air is thinner.

If this was the case, things would not appear to drop and be obscured by the horizon. Instead it would fade to a blur.
It would be like a foggy day.

However range in a complete vacuum is finite, when you run out of energy, there's no more,

Repeating the same delusional BS wont help you.
The energy doesn't just magically die. It needs somewhere to go.
So it needs to be either absorbed or reflected by something.

What actually happens most commonly (when you have an omnidirectional antenna) is that the energy spreads out.

Projectiles have parabolic motion when we toss them upward for a specific reason.

Yes, gravity.

Momentum is finite. As it decreases

If it was momentum magically dying for no reason at all, the object would not follow a parabolic trajectory. It would follow a straight line, slowing down as it moves, eventually reaching a point where it has all died out and the object stops and remains motionless.

The fact that it is a parabola demonstrates that there is a downwards force acting on it.

it falls as a reason of being heavier than the air.

This explains nothing.
Being heavier than the air provides no reason at all for things to fall.

Yes, it's easy to fool a bunch of rubes.

Yes, look at yourself and other FEers.
So easily fooled into thinking Earth is flat. So happy to buy into all the lies FEers spout.

You load and load your mountain of lies, but all of them can be picked apart.

You mean you can spout a bunch of lies to try to refute facts that you can't handle?

Again, care to explain the sunrise? How the sun is casting light upwards?

Let's discuss the remaining ones, shall we?

Earth’s movement and gravity backed by the theory of relativity, and shown in how it measurably impacts time/clocks. And ring laser gyroscopes.

Yeah, two scientists can agree with each other. That does not make either of them right. Einstein has a reputation from globalists as being brilliant, actually Tesla was the last real genius we had in science. His devices are what modern electrical devices all still use. Einstein? Theoretical physics. And by the way, he did not help build the atom bomb.

Gyroscopes have to do with light not aligning in a closed pathway. Not anything else.
 "Unlike mechanical or gas-bearing gyroscopes, optical gyroscopes do not rely on a rotating wheel or bearing. Optical gyroscopes are not based on the conservation of angular momentum. These gyroscopes use two coils of fiber optic cable spun in different orientations. According to the Sagnac Effect, when the device is tilted, the two beans of light will travel different distances, which can be measured."
More conflating falling with rotation. Not the same thing, and to use the same force ( "gravity") for both is to invent a catch-all.


The blast from the Tsar nuclear bomb resulted in seismic waves and atmospheric pressure waves that circled the earth three times.

Because you say so? What actual proof do we have that anything of the sort happened? And wouldn't that amount of pressuee have killed all living things? We're still here.

Distance to the sun measured by parallax

Like with the Tsar nuclear bomb, saying something doesn't make it so.

The way comets pivot around the sun.

Comets pulled into the sun or Jupiter.

Again. Saying doesn't make it so.

Over the horizon radar
You don't wanna go do that rabbit hole. The implications of this are that radio/radar carry farther than light. If this is true, then the idea that the sun is where NASA says it is would clearly be wrong. In order for us to see it, simple light distance limits would demand that yes, the sky has to be a screen, and that the sun, moon, stars, and planets are all projected. Failing this, you have a near sun & moon.

Skywaves
Dunno what that is. Sounds like crap though.
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Different wavelengths travel different distances and speeds, contrary to the "everything electromagnetic travels at speed of light" fallacy.
 
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
We there are alot of theories for this but the the one that best works without inventing gravity is that you are seening an inner and outer screen of stars. The orbiting rotating Earth model doesn't work. We'd be unable to seethe same stars over the millenia. There are century old star maps that show us Orion, the Southern Cross, etc. None of this is possible if the Earth constantly shifts.
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Prove planets exist first.
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
So?
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Prove planets exist first.

Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Yeah about those. As I've said before, there are suspiciously less flights in souther hemisphere, and certain paths they simply don't take. "Too cold" to fly ove Antarctica, even though planes are apparently used to flight in -70, and the lower atmosphere means it doesn't make a difference. Why can't they really fly through Antarctica, hmmmm???
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC
Not really. He measures a short distance and then fiddles around with math to extrapolate the rest. Did he do any actual exploration? Probably not.
 
Phases of Venus
Prove planets exist first.

Star parallax
See also screen theory above. See also the radio vs light problem. And then we have the problem that we ourselves can see limited distances clearly yet somehow see stars light years away.
Parallax:
1. A change in the apparent position of an object relative to more distant objects, caused by a change in the observer's line of sight towards the object.
2. An apparent displacement of an object observed, due to real displacement of the observer, so that the direction of the former with reference to the latter is changed.

Exactly the effect you would get looking at a screen. The displacement is because the object is not actual distance away from you, you're seeing projection.

I think that's it!

Now since you've piled questions on me like steaming loads of shit, how about I dump on you instead?

The fact that we can't observe sidereal days. That all days set and rise more of less the same.
The fact that we can't observe water ever sticking to a ball. We have all this "science" ironically based on what we can't know.
The fact that gravity never has been proven in any meaningful way that couldn't be explained by other existing forces.
If we have all these satellites as you say, ummm why do we still have extensive fiberoptic systems, land-based broadcast towers, etc? Shouldn't something way in the sky blanket the area with coverage? Yet the signal seems to crap out when you travel to mountains above the towers. And it seems to go down with rough weather which shouldn't affect anything in space.
We literally live in an age where holograms can make anime characters look fully 3D. Prove you actually saw the ISS.

I can't think of more offhand. Sorry, but I'm not like a bitter housewife holding on to a list.

Now since you've piled questions on me like steaming loads of shit, how about I dump on you instead?

The fact that we can't observe sidereal days. That all days set and rise more of less the same.
The fact that we can't observe water ever sticking to a ball. We have all this "science" ironically based on what we can't know.
The fact that gravity never has been proven in any meaningful way that couldn't be explained by other existing forces.
If we have all these satellites as you say, ummm why do we still have extensive fiberoptic systems, land-based broadcast towers, etc? Shouldn't something way in the sky blanket the area with coverage? Yet the signal seems to crap out when you travel to mountains above the towers. And it seems to go down with rough weather which shouldn't affect anything in space.
We literally live in an age where holograms can make anime characters look fully 3D. Prove you actually saw the ISS.

I can't think of more offhand. Sorry, but I'm not like a bitter housewife holding on to a list.

In order:
"The fact that we can't observe sidereal days. That all days set and rise more of less the same."

Bullshit! Astronomers routinely observe and work with sidereal days. The reason a given star transits every 23h56m4.1s and the sun transits every 24h00m00.0s on average is the difference between sidereal and mean solar days. That 4 minute difference can be observed when a telescope on a good mount is set to track at the mean solar rate instead of sidereal rate; over a period of a few hours, there can be noticeable drift - up to about 1/8 degree (that's a lot to an astronomer) in three hours if you're tracking at solar rate when looking at a star or sidereal rate when looking at the sun.

You could see this, too, without much more than an accurate timepiece if you could be bothered to try - it's not even that hard but does require a modicum of effort. Note the time a bright star rises in the night for a week or longer. After one week it rises almost half an hour earlier (7 × 3m56s = 27m32s). After a month it rises two hours earlier. Six months later, the star rises 12 hours earlier in the day.

This also shows the second part of your assertion is wrong. Rising and setting times are clearly not the same for stars; they change completely over the course of a year.

They aren't even approximately the same for the sun if you are away from the equator. In mid and high latitudes, sunrise and sunset times vary by hours at different times of year. In polar regions the sun doesn't rise or set at all on some days. In case you're confused about the reason for this, it's because the earth is spherical and unrelated to the difference between sidereal and mean solar time.

"The fact that we can't observe water ever sticking to a ball. We have all this "science" ironically based on what we can't know."

By "observe water sticking to a ball" I presume you mean a spherical object - something like a basketball, handball, pool ball, bowling ball, etc. - near the surface of the earth. Try this: take a basketball (etc.) and spray it with a hose, or leave it outside in the rain, or dip it in a water-filled basin (if it floats and can't be submerged, rotate it so it gets wet all over). Does the outside of the ball stay wet until the water evaporates after being removed from the rain, spray, or tub? Congratulations... you have seen water sticking to a ball.

Note that this water is adhering to the surface because of electrostatic forces, not gravity. The gravitational effect of the minuscule (compared to the earth) ball is completely negligible compared with the gravitational force of the enormously large (compared to the ball) and nearby earth. No matter... you claimed "we can't observe water sticking to a ball", but "we" do and you can if you actually try.

"The fact that gravity never has been proven in any meaningful way that couldn't be explained by other existing forces."

What other existing forces? The fundamental forces known in physics are electromagnetic, the strong and weak interactions, and gravity. All of these have different characteristics so they cannot be substituted for one another. All of them have been well characterized, however, and the behavior of real objects due to their effects can and are be accurately predicted up to galactic scale. "Proven?" Ain't possible in science.

I'll break up the next set of claims:

"If we have all these satellites as you say, ummm why do we still have extensive fiberoptic systems, land-based broadcast towers, etc? Shouldn't something way in the sky blanket the area with coverage?"

Everything is a compromise; some things are better in some ways and worse in others in terms of cost, coverage, bandwidth, and convenience.

Fiber optics have enormous bandwidth compared to RF-based systems but require a lot of infrastructure to install and maintain.

Receivers for terrestrial broadcasts are cheap to manufacture because the received signal strength is comparatively high and the frequencies involved are relatively easy to work with. The limited range of broadcast antennas is both an advantage and disadvantage: it's a disadvantage because you obviously need more of them to cover a large area, and remote places where you can't build towers (like the oceans away from land and other very sparsely-populated places) won't have any coverage; an advantage because the same part of the spectrum can be shared by different transmitters without interference if they're far enough apart, which makes up somewhat for the comparatively limited bandwidth - this is a basic operating principle of the cell phone system: it's based on varying, but limited size "cells" of coverage depending on how many phones are expected in a given area - the same limited spectrum can be reused in different cells that are far enough apart that one can't hear signals in the other; cells that are closer together use a different part of the spectrum so they don't interfere with each other.

Satellites, as you note, can have large "footprints" (cover large areas at the same time). But they are expensive to manufacture, operate, have limited lifespan, and cannot be serviced once launched. If they are in geostationary orbit, they have to be so far away that the received signal level on earth is so low that they require accurately pointed large high-gain antennas, extremely sensitive receivers, or both, which adds to cost and inconvenience; they also have to support very high bandwidth so they can provide a lot of different programming at the same time, which requires higher frequencies, which require more sophisticated (i.e. expensive) equipment to transmit and receive (and see below for other less-desirable effects). If they are in low or medium-height orbits, they can provide stronger signals at the receiver, and each satellite may not need as much bandwidth to be practical so they can use lower frequencies and cheaper hardware, but they move fast and have smaller footprints so the entire system must be more complex and requires a lot more satellites to provide adequate coverage at a given location.

"Yet the signal seems to crap out when you travel to mountains above the towers. And it seems to go down with rough weather which shouldn't affect anything in space."

Remember those "other effects" mentioned above? Here they are. The very, very short wavelengths necessary to make broadcasts from high orbits mean the signals don't penetrate or go around obstructions like mountains at all and are limited to strictly line of sight - if you can't see the point in the sky where the satellite is because there's a mountain in the way, you probably can't receive its signal, either.

The satellites are in space, but the signals must travel through the atmosphere to reach the ground. Those uber-short wavelengths (which are necessary to make the economics work) are more strongly attenuated by water droplets in the air than longer wavelengths used by terrestrial TV and radio are, so thick cloud cover can reduce the signal strength to below the level needed to receive.

Satellites are about the only viable option for mid-ocean communications other than shortwave radio, which has its own serious limitations.

Everything is a compromise.

"We literally live in an age where holograms can make anime characters look fully 3D. Prove you actually saw the ISS."

There is that word "prove" again.

The evidence that it's what it is said to be, a satellite in low-earth orbit is the fact that its location at any time can be predicted based on nothing more than six numbers describing its orbit, its apparent position from a given spot on earth is exactly as predicted, its apparent position from even a relatively short distance away changes enough to be consistent with its calculated distance from the observers, and when viewed and photographed through telescopes it looks like it's described. There are hobbyists that watch for ISS transits of the moon and sun. To be successful doing this requires being in exactly the right place within a few kilometers and watching at the right time within a fraction of a second. See https://transit-finder.com/ for examples of predictions for ISS and Tiangong. If there's a lunar transit predicted for near where you are, get the latest prediction, find a spot on the predicted path, and watch for it. If it's near dusk or dawn you don't even need a telescope because you should be able to see the bright satellite pass right "through" the moon. If it's well before or after dawn or dusk, you will need a 'scope and accurate time because the satellite won't be visible (it's in earth's shadow so it's dark) until it wooshes in front of the moon briefly; you will need accurate time so you know exactly when to be looking - don't blink! 

Are you suggesting that there's a world-spanning hologram? What were satellites before the age where holograms of any size existed?

do circles and triangles not work the same in your universe as they do in everyone else's?




https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc0NDczMTM3OTEwNDU3OTkw/calculator-techniques-for-circles-and-triangles-in-plane-geometry.png

Yeah, two scientists can agree with each other.

And so can experimental results.
You also appear to confuse GR and relativity.

Because you say so?

No, because it was documented and measured.
But sure, just reject everything you haven't personally experienced.

And wouldn't that amount of pressuee have killed all living things?

Only in the blast zone.

Again. Saying doesn't make it so.

And your wilful ignorance doesn't make it not so.

You don't wanna go do that rabbit hole.

Sure we do. If Earth was flat, there would be no horizon, so no radar would be over the horizon.

It in no way indicates radio waves travel further than light.

Dunno what that is.

It has been explained to you before.
Your wilful ignorance doesn't make it cease to exist.

Different wavelengths travel different distances and speeds

Demonstrably false, by plenty of observations.

We there are alot of theories for this

No, there isn't.
There is 1 coherent theory, and a bunch of BS excuses made up to pretend the FE can work.
The 1 theory that actually works, is that Earth is round.

the the one that best works without inventing gravity is that you are seening an inner and outer screen of stars.

This does not work at all.

The orbiting rotating Earth model doesn't work. We'd be unable to seethe same stars over the millenia.

You have already had this delusional BS refute.
What makes you think repeating the same BS will magically make it true?
Why don't you try making a rational coherent argument?

Prove planets exist first.

You can observe them in the sky, including observe their apparent size changing over the course of a year (or several).

So?

So there is no explanation for why they work on a FE.
On a RE it is trivial, the equatorial mount means it rotates in a plane parallel to the equator, i.e. about an axis parallel to the axis of rotation of Earth, allowing the effect of rotation to be eliminated (other than as a tiny residual from parallax).

Yeah about those. As I've said before, there are suspiciously less flights in souther hemisphere

Which is just a dodge from the ones that do exist.
You cannot address these flights at all except by dodging or blatantly lying.

And then we have the problem that we ourselves can see limited distances clearly yet somehow see stars light years away.

Your inability to see through a wall does not mean your vision is magically limited to 1 m, and that you wont be able to see something outside a window.

How many times are you planning on repeating the same pathetic, refuted, delusional BS?

Now since you've piled questions on me like steaming loads of shit, how about I dump on you instead?

Or, how about you stop repeating the same refuted BS and instead explain the sunrise?

The fact that we can't observe sidereal days. That all days set and rise more of less the same.

Yes we can. You just dishonestly pretend that a sidereal day is a solar day and act like it should have the exact same observation.
You have had it explained how to observe one. Again, the simplest way is set up a camera pointing at the night sky, and start filming (or taking pictures every few seconds) and wait for over a day to collect the footage, then time how long it takes for a star other than the sun to return to its original position.

The fact that we can't observe water ever sticking to a ball.

Sure we can. Every time we see water sticking to Earth.
If you keep on insisting on your incredibly dishonest BS, why can't I observe water sticking to a plate? Why does it fall off the plate to the much larger ball underneath it?

The fact that gravity never has been proven

It has been proven beyond any sane doubt, with countless tests.
Your wilful ignorance doesn't change that.
And you have been unable to provide a viable alternative.

If we have all these satellites as you say, ummm why do we still have extensive fiberoptic systems, land-based broadcast towers, etc?

For a variety of reasons.
First, the bandwidth for a single satellite is limited.
To increase the bandwidth you need more satellites, which defeats the point of satellites.
Satellites work well for broadcasting a single signal to lots of people, or where the population density is small. If the population density is large it can be much better to have fibre optics or other land based connections to provide greater bandwidth.
This is also why cell towers are land based. In this case they intentionally want to limit the range.
If you have multiple towers with overlapping areas sharing the same frequency, they also share the bandwidth. So they intentionally make the cells small so the large number of people in an area are spread out over multiple towers so they each get a decent bandwidth. But for remote areas, with virtually no one ever there, it is cost prohibitive to have land based towers, so a satellite is used to cover a very large area.
For a similar reason, TV and radio are often intentionally local. If I run a business selling food in NY, I don't want to pay for advertising to people living in LA. They aren't my target audience. I would want to pay to advertise to NY people. By using land based transmitters (often still quite high to cover a decent area) this allows broadcasts to be local and contain information or ads relevant to locals.

Yet the signal seems to crap out when you travel to mountains above the towers.

No, satellite signals work fine in mountains above the towers.

And it seems to go down with rough weather which shouldn't affect anything in space.

The signals don't stay in space, they have to go through the atmosphere to reach whatever it is communicating with on Earth, and that CAN affect the signal.

I can't think of more offhand. Sorry, but I'm not like a bitter housewife holding on to a list.

And the problem is you can't think of anything which actually challenges the RE.

Now again, care to explain the sunrise?

Pffft about astronomers working with sidereal days.

Mathematicians can work with can work with pi, but strictly speaking the number number doesn't exist. It's a construct used in order to measure the square of a circle. But you don't need to do that. You just divide a circle into four 90° parts. And then use 4 instead of 3.14. "But it's more accurate." But is it though? An irrational number, when you clearly can see that a circle has  four distinct ninety degree zones? Just replace 3.14 with 4 and deal with the fact that everything will be slightly different. As long as you measure wheels or circles the same way every time, you measure a circle with a radius of 6 as (4 * 2r) = 48, while everyone else gets 36.(something). If you must have accurate to existing models, use a perfect triangle (120 degrees) and use the number 3. Nix the decimal point.
Similarly, sidereal days are a construct to fill a giant hole in the round Earth theory. If we trace the path of a circle rotating at the same rate all year, day and night become inverted at 180 degrees (6 months). That is, if I were to spin around a table, eventually my back would be to the table. That is, if we look at a day that the sun rises at like 6 and sets at 6, in summer, 6 months later, the sun should rise at 6. Oh yes, sidereal days are convenient. But they aren't real.

Then you try to justify how satellites can be in space but somehow have trouble being picked up when they blanket the area. Mmmhhmmm.
https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/11/24/satellites-dont-exist/

Quote

While electromagnetic waves can travel through some surfaces, like walls, it is generally thought that “earth’s curvature is a direct block to line-of-sight communication. When enough distance separates the two radio stations so that their antennas fall behind the curvature, the Earth itself blocks the transmitted signals from the receiver.” This fact confused the father of radio, Guglielmo Marconi. On 12 December 1901 he was able to make the first long distance Morse code wireless communication between St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada, and the Poldhu Wireless Station, Cornwall, England. That radio signal was transmitted a distance of more than 2,000 miles across the Atlantic ocean. Such a transmission is an impossibility on a spherical earth. Indeed, it would be blocked by a 126 mile high bulge, if the earth were a sphere. Because Marconi thought the world was a sphere, and he understood that radio waves travel in a straight line, he was at a loss to explain how the radio waves traveled more than 2,000 miles on a globular earth.

Quote

Modern science has come up with all sorts of convoluted theories to explain such long distance radio transmissions, because they cannot allow it to be known that the earth is flat. The most prevalent theory is the ionosphere bounce theory. Under that mythology, radio operators can talk to people on the other side of the supposed spherical earth, not because the earth is flat, but because their radio signal bounces off the thin upper atmosphere, called the ionosphere.

Think about it logically. Under the ionosphere bounce stratagem, radio waves travel through the atmosphere until the atmosphere gets extremely thin (it is then called the ionosphere), and when those radio waves reach that thinnest part of the atmosphere, they bounce off and return to earth. Now, the modern scientists are not sure where the bouncing takes place, because the height of the ionosphere ranges from 50 miles to 600 miles in altitude. Does that make sense? No.

Radio waves, like light waves, are electromagnetic waves, and thus follow similar rules of refraction as they travel through the atmosphere. In most cases, the atmosphere refracts electromagnetic waves, it does not bounce (i.e., reflect) them. But reflection of radio waves as an explanation for long distance radio communication is not out of the question. The issue is what is reflecting the waves. It certainly cannot be reflected by a thin upper atmosphere. There must be something with much more physical density.

The modern myth of the ionosphere-bounce theory is completely impeached by the practice of what is known as moon-bounce, or earth-moon-earth (EME) communication.
 Moon-bounce communication or EME is where radio operators, including amateur radio (ham) operators, bounce radio signals off the moon. The moon is supposed to be 238,900 miles from earth. Think about this logically; if the ionosphere, which is the atmosphere that is at a height of 50 to 600 miles from the earth’s surface is supposed to reflect radio signals back to earth, how can those same radio signals pass through the ionosphere and travel all the way to the moon, which is supposed to be 238,900 miles from earth?

Either we have never been on the moon because real communication with it is impossible, or the ionosphere bounce theory is bogus and the Earth is flat. Or both are true. I pick both.

Are you suggesting that there's a world-spanning hologram? What were satellites before the age where holograms of any size existed?

There have always been holographs.

Holograms were invented in 1947 but only perfected after the invention of the laser in 1960.

But the actual word? Originates in 1623.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holograph

It gets worse. Lao Tzu talked of how heaven and earth is a bellows. Do me a favor and sit in the inside of a chimney, and you'll see what he means. There is chimney wall in all directions. Plato compared reality to a cave where actors wave objects at the parapets which are reflect by the cave fire, while about three prisoners are chained to the wall. Ancient Egypt has this art.


There have always been people in power who had a higher degree of science than the general population. Thankfully, the masses usually burned them as witches rather than calling them gods.

I was on the beach about two to three days ago, and the coast could be seen. Standing straight ahead, you can draw a straight line across the horizon. Earth is flat and not a sphere. I could then turn in place and rather easily draw a dome around myself. Heaven and earth is a bellows. I could walk for a day, and I would never get any closer to the sun or moon, nor would it get more distant from me until it set. Actors are holding these images in the parapet, and you are gullible enough to think they are the real thing when you see the shadows.

When even the sky and stars are actually a hot lady being held up by a very lucky dude, talking about one holograph like it's something novel is proof you are very gullible.

The cut she made,  would it sit flat on a table top or would the cut plane be round like the edge?

Dp you have circles where youre from?





https://www.google.com/imgres?h=1800&w=1200&tbnh=275&tbnw=183&osm=1&hcb=1&usg=AI4_-kTegSMzoJx4CFzKrRq9DWA0gTMPRg&imgurl=https://feelgoodfoodie.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/how-to-cut-watermelon-1.jpg&imgrefurl=https://feelgoodfoodie.net/recipe/how-to-cut-watermelon/&tbnid=OIc95Jc4jXUfLM&docid=si3eNNBUr8oThM

astronomers working with sidereal days.

Yes, in a manner you can easily observe, but intentionally choose not to, instead dishonestly pretending a sidereal day is just like a solar day and should be observed as a solar day; because you are happy to blatantly lie to everyone because you do not give a damn about the truth.

Again, go observe the stars (other than the sun), time how long it takes for them to go from their starting point (which can be any arbitrary point) to then get back to that position.

The simplest way is by setting up a camera on a mount, pointing it at the night sky, and having it take a picture every second. Then compare the starting picture to one taken roughly 24 hours later, and go back or forwards through them until you find the closest match.

If you do this, you will find it is less than 24 hours. Instead it is roughly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. This is a sidereal day.

If we use sidereal days, a star other than the sun rises at the same time each day, and is in the same position at the same time. But the sun drifts quite a lot.
If we use a mean solar day, then the rising of the sun is more consistent , but the stars drift.

It is not a mere construct. It is something just as observable as the solar day, but using the stars other than the sun, instead of the sun. You just choose to ignore it so you can lie about the RE to pretend there is a problem.

It also relies upon such dishonest BS it isn't funny, where you need to pretend that in the RE, HC model, where Earth is rotating about its axis while it orbits the sun, that somehow a solar day, the time between successive points where the sun is highest in the sky, should be based purely upon rotation.

If you were honest, you would make your argument using sidereal days. But you know that if you do that wouldn't show a problem. It would demonstrates the model works and so easily explains what is observed. So instead you resort to pathetic lies to pretend there is a problem when there is none.
Which is quite typical for FEers, as that sums up so many of their arguments. Just blatantly lie to pretend there is a problem, and when called out on the lie just claim the response is an excuse.

Your irrational BS about pi is in no way relevant to the thread.

Then you try to justify how satellites can be in space but somehow have trouble being picked up when they blanket the area.

Care to provide a reasonable source, rather than dishonest BS which has already been refuted?

Either we have never been on the moon because real communication with it is impossible, or the ionosphere bounce theory is bogus and the Earth is flat.

Or, you are spouting the same dishonest refuted BS yet again.
The ability for the ionosphere to reflect (or bounce) radiation, depends on its frequency.
Just like so many things.
You can have a piece of plastic, stained green, to allow some light through while blocking other light, causing it to appear green.
You can do the similar but have it appear red.

In order for your delusional BS to be true, that would need to be impossible. Colour would need to be impossible, as you would need green light to behave identically to red light. You would have these objects be black or white (or possible shades of grey). There could be no other colour.

But back in reality (you know that thing you hate because you can't handle?) electromagnetic radiation of different frequencies will interact with things differently.
It is entirely possible for one frequency to pass through unaffected, while another frequency is absorbed, and another is reflected.

I was on the beach about two to three days ago, and the coast could be seen. Standing straight ahead, you can draw a straight line across the horizon.

Try it on a mountain, where you can trace the horizon around you.
It is a circle, you are just seeing a portion of it.

Earth is flat and not a sphere.

Then why does all the evidence either clearly demonstrate it is roughly spherical, or can't tell the shape?
Why does nothing indicate Earth is flat rather than a very large sphere?

For example, the very subject of this thread, that you keep on fleeing from.
The sun illuminating objects from below.

I could walk for a day, and I would never get any closer to the sun or moon

Yes, because it is far away, which is also why it doesn't appear to change in size significantly, demonstrating that it rising and setting have nothing to do with appearing to sink due to greater distance.

Actors are holding these images in the parapet, and you are gullible enough to think they are the real thing when you see the shadows.

Quite the opposite.
You are gullible enough to believe such convoluted, delusional BS; all to escape reality that you can't handle. And you even dishonestly claim it is "simpler", even though you need to appeal to so much magic.

Quote

Pffft about astronomers working with sidereal days.

Mathematicians can work with can work with pi, but strictly speaking the number number doesn't exist. It's a construct used in order to measure the square of a circle. But you don't need to do that. You just divide a circle into four 90° parts. And then use 4 instead of 3.14. "But it's more accurate." But is it though? An irrational number, when you clearly can see that a circle has  four distinct ninety degree zones? Just replace 3.14 with 4 and deal with the fact that everything will be slightly different. As long as you measure wheels or circles the same way every time, you measure a circle with a radius of 6 as (4 * 2r) = 48, while everyone else gets 36.(something). If you must have accurate to existing models, use a perfect triangle (120 degrees) and use the number 3. Nix the decimal point.

Huh? How long is the arc with some radius, r, spanning a perfect 90° or a perfect 120°? How much metal do you need to manufacture circular tubing with a certain diameter and length? People (obviously not you, but you aren't the only person) need to know these sort of things. Good luck finding this without good ol' pi.

Quote

Similarly, sidereal days are a construct to fill a giant hole in the round Earth theory. If we trace the path of a circle rotating at the same rate all year, day and night become inverted at 180 degrees (6 months). That is, if I were to spin around a table, eventually my back would be to the table. That is, if we look at a day that the sun rises at like 6 and sets at 6, in summer, 6 months later, the sun should rise at 6. Oh yes, sidereal days are convenient. But they aren't real.

What time does some star rise on that first day? What time does it rise a day later? A week? Month? Do you think its rise time suddenly jumps by 12 hours after half a year? Spoiler: it doesn't.

Sidereal days exist not because they're "convenient", they exist because that's the rate earth actually rotates with respect to the observable universe.

Quote

Then you try to justify how satellites can be in space but somehow have trouble being picked up when they blanket the area. Mmmhhmmm.

Not "somehow". The limitations of radio frequencies used in satellite communications are well known.

Similarly, light can blanket an area but if there's something blocking it, where you happen to be can be much darker or completely dark. Is it possible to have a darkroom inside a brightly-lit building? The answer, in case you don't realize it, is yes. Why is this hard for you to understand.

[/color]

Quote

While electromagnetic waves can travel through some surfaces, like walls, it is generally thought that “earth’s curvature is a direct block to line-of-sight communication. When enough distance separates the two radio stations so that their antennas fall behind the curvature, the Earth itself blocks the transmitted signals from the receiver.” This fact confused the father of radio, Guglielmo Marconi. On 12 December 1901 he was able to make the first long distance Morse code wireless communication between St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada, and the Poldhu Wireless Station, Cornwall, England. That radio signal was transmitted a distance of more than 2,000 miles across the Atlantic ocean. Such a transmission is an impossibility on a spherical earth. Indeed, it would be blocked by a 126 mile high bulge, if the earth were a sphere. Because Marconi thought the world was a sphere, and he understood that radio waves travel in a straight line, he was at a loss to explain how the radio waves traveled more than 2,000 miles on a globular earth.

He didn't know about atmospheric ionization.

Quote

Quote

Modern science has come up with all sorts of convoluted theories to explain such long distance radio transmissions, because they cannot allow it to be known that the earth is flat. The most prevalent theory is the ionosphere bounce theory. Under that mythology, radio operators can talk to people on the other side of the supposed spherical earth, not because the earth is flat, but because their radio signal bounces off the thin upper atmosphere, called the ionosphere.

Think about it logically. Under the ionosphere bounce stratagem, radio waves travel through the atmosphere until the atmosphere gets extremely thin (it is then called the ionosphere), and when those radio waves reach that thinnest part of the atmosphere, they bounce off and return to earth. Now, the modern scientists are not sure where the bouncing takes place, because the height of the ionosphere ranges from 50 miles to 600 miles in altitude.

The flaw in your idea is: if the earth were flat, why doesn't worldwide line of sight radio communication work all the time at many wavelengths?

It doesn't work like this at all. Ham radio operators and shortwave radio listeners know the general patterns - shorter wavelengths are more effectively reflected by the ionosphere during daytime, especially during periods of greater sunspot activity, when there's more ionization caused by solar radiation and particle bombardment. Longer wavelengths work better at night and at times of lower solar activity because they are more easily reflected by the weaker ionosphere than shorter wavelengths, but they are more effectively absorbed by a stronger ionosphere.

Quote

Does that make sense? No.

Obviously not to you. News flash: reality doesn't care what you understand and don't understand.

Quote

Radio waves, like light waves, are electromagnetic waves, and thus follow similar rules of refraction as they travel through the atmosphere. In most cases, the atmosphere refracts electromagnetic waves, it does not bounce (i.e., reflect) them. But reflection of radio waves as an explanation for long distance radio communication is not out of the question. The issue is what is reflecting the waves. It certainly cannot be reflected by a thin upper atmosphere. There must be something with much more physical density.

Or interacts with it more strongly, like an ionized layer of atmosphere.

Quote

The modern myth of the ionosphere-bounce theory is completely impeached by the practice of what is known as moon-bounce, or earth-moon-earth (EME) communication.
 Moon-bounce communication or EME is where radio operators, including amateur radio (ham) operators, bounce radio signals off the moon. The moon is supposed to be 238,900 miles from earth. Think about this logically; if the ionosphere, which is the atmosphere that is at a height of 50 to 600 miles from the earth’s surface is supposed to reflect radio signals back to earth, how can those same radio signals pass through the ionosphere and travel all the way to the moon, which is supposed to be 238,900 miles from earth?

As alluded to earlier, different wavelengths of electromagnetic waves (wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency) are affected differently by the ionosphere. If the frequency is high enough (wavelength is short enough) the ionosphere is basically transparent. Do you know the wavelength bands used for moonbounce? Do you know what wavelengths comprise the world-spanning so-called "shortwave" (shortwave, aka "high frequency" or "HF" is a misnomer now but is still used because that's what it has always been called; it was shorter than the "midwave" band where AM broadcast radio among other things reside when these things were originally named)? You might want to look these two items up. Are they the same? Do you think the difference (if any) may be at least part of the reason one is used for moonbounce, satellite communication, and NASA's communication with APOLLO, and the other for worldwide communication?

Either we have never been on the moon because real communication with it is impossible, or the ionosphere bounce theory is bogus and the Earth is flat. Or both are true. I pick both.

I pick neither. This is what's known as the fallacy of False Dichotomy. The reader is presented with a limited choice of possibilities but it fact there are (sometimes many) others, including the correct one. "Have you stopped beating your dog? Yes or no?" is a common example. The choices omit the obvious possibility "I never have beaten my dog" so neither proposed answer applies.

Like, for instance, NASA communicated with the Apollo program astronauts using frequencies that are not significantly affected by the ionosphere.

Quote

Are you suggesting that there's a world-spanning hologram? What were satellites before the age where holograms of any size existed?

There have always been holographs.

Quote

Holograms were invented in 1947 but only perfected after the invention of the laser in 1960.

But the actual word? Originates in 1623.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holograph

You were talking about holograms. Now you change to holographs and offer a definition of holograph. Those are different words and refer to different things.

Was this another lame attempt at deflection, or deception? Regardless, it didn't work.

It gets worse. Lao Tzu talked of how heaven and earth is a bellows. Do me a favor and sit in the inside of a chimney, and you'll see what he means. There is chimney wall in all directions. Plato compared reality to a cave where actors wave objects at the parapets which are reflect by the cave fire, while about three prisoners are chained to the wall. Ancient Egypt has this art.

What are you babbling about here? Are you claiming that crude 2-D drawing is somehow related to:

We literally live in an age where holograms can make anime characters look fully 3D.

Honey, that illustration ain't what's called "anime" and it sure as heck ain't 3-D. It doesn't even recognize perspective.

I was on the beach about two to three days ago, and the coast could be seen. Standing straight ahead, you can draw a straight line across the horizon.

Good on you! How do you know it was really a straight line you "drew"? Did you look at it and think "that looks straight", or did you trace it with your finger? Neither of those is very precise. You were looking at a segment of a circle - the part of the horizon you can see at once - almost exactly on the plane of the circle; if your eyes were exactly on the plane the circle would look exactly like a straight line. The difference was too small for you to notice it.

Earth is flat and not a sphere. I could then turn in place and rather easily draw a dome around myself.

That's what you think. So what?

Heaven and earth is a bellows. I could walk for a day, and I would never get any closer to the sun or moon, nor would it get more distant from me until it set. Actors are holding these images in the parapet, and you are gullible enough to think they are the real thing when you see the shadows.

How come the sun and moon don't actually appear to get smaller when they set if they're getting more distant?

When even the sky and stars are actually a hot lady being held up by a very lucky dude, talking about one holograph like it's something novel is proof you are very gullible.

You're babbling again.

[Edit] Correct nested quote.

Only fielding this question.

How come the sun and moon don't actually appear to get smaller when they set if they're getting more distant?

Quote

When even the sky and stars are actually a hot lady being held up by a very lucky dude, talking about one holograph like it's something novel is proof you are very gullible.

You're babbling again.

I'm just saying, look at where his hands are.

Because they aren't ever getting closer or further away. They are angling out of sight.

At the start of the day, the sun is at a horizon in the process of rise. I want you to picture a circle where you're standing inside another circle. One of these is the zone of perspective, the other is the sun's orbit. Now, within this circle, when the sun arcs towards us at the beginning of the day, no matter where we are, we see it moving from 0° to 1° where we can just see it at the horizon. Over the course of the day, it moves gradually from 0° to 15° then 45° then 90°then eventually at 180° it drops from sight. It never dips, it never rises, so it never moves closer or farther. But it appears to dip as it is moving past us, and appears to rise as to moves overhead towards us. Same elevation, different angle. Visibility is like the area where two circles cross each other. Outside angular range, you can't see a damned thing. And no, you can't really extend angular visibility. It's like that experiment where they were able to see the flashlight when someone lifted it (supposedly "proving" RE). You have to "lift" the sun in order for it to be seen after it angles out. No amount of telescopes can see it after it sets. Round Earthers say this is because it has gone around the Earth. Sorry but uhhh the timing you gave for Earth's spin doesn't pan out. What really happened is that it angled outside of the sky. If you want to actually understand this (instead of just arguing), draw several lines. One is the ground below. You can pretend it's a hill if it makes you feel better. Two lines on either side for a convergence point where the ground and sky meet the horizon. You should draw your stick figure in the center and have the upward lines match eye level. Draw a line straight across between these upward and downward lines, representing the horizon. Place  the sun in the center too, between the two lines heading downward, above the horizon. Now, create an -> arrow before and aftee the sun.
If you did it right, the sun is at noon position, and you can see that as it travels straight across (actually it has a horizontal arc, but let's simplify so you can understand), it appears to rise in relation to the horizon and the onlooker, then appears to fall. Eventually, down hits up as it meets the horizon, and no more sun. Whatever position the sun is, the telescope can't see it.

Only fielding this question.

Quote

How come the sun and moon don't actually appear to get smaller when they set if they're getting more distant?

Quote

When even the sky and stars are actually a hot lady being held up by a very lucky dude, talking about one holograph like it's something novel is proof you are very gullible.

You're babbling again.

I'm just saying, look at where his hands are.

That has exactly what to do with holographs (or holograms)?

Because they aren't ever getting closer or further away.

Why did you omit the claim I was responding to? Here it is, highlighted for your convenience:

I was on the beach about two to three days ago, and the coast could be seen. Standing straight ahead, you can draw a straight line across the horizon. Earth is flat and not a sphere. I could then turn in place and rather easily draw a dome around myself. Heaven and earth is a bellows. I could walk for a day, and I would never get any closer to the sun or moon, nor would it get more distant from me until it set. Actors are holding these images in the parapet, and you are gullible enough to think they are the real thing when you see the shadows.

Is it getting further away when it sets, or not? You go on...

They are angling out of sight.

At the start of the day, the sun is at a horizon in the process of rise. I want you to picture a circle where you're standing inside another circle. One of these is the zone of perspective, the other is the sun's orbit. Now, within this circle, when the sun arcs towards us at the beginning of the day, no matter where we are, we see it moving from 0° to 1° where we can just see it at the horizon. Over the course of the day, it moves gradually from 0° to 15° then 45° then 90°then eventually at 180° it drops from sight. It never dips, it never rises, so it never moves closer or farther. But it appears to dip as it is moving past us, and appears to rise as to moves overhead towards us. Same elevation, different angle.

How are the parts highlighted in red consistent with each other?

Orange: which circle? There are two, remember?

Green: how can that apparent angle change if the distance from you never changes and the elevation never changes? How could it ever reach the horizon at all if its elevation is above you?

Does any of that make sense even to you?

Moving on...

Visibility is like the area where two circles cross each other. Outside angular range, you can't see a damned thing. And no, you can't really extend angular visibility. It's like that experiment where they were able to see the flashlight when someone lifted it (supposedly "proving" RE). You have to "lift" the sun in order for it to be seen after it angles out. No amount of telescopes can see it after it sets. Round Earthers say this is because it has gone around the Earth. Sorry but uhhh the timing you gave for Earth's spin doesn't pan out. What really happened is that it angled outside of the sky. If you want to actually understand this (instead of just arguing), draw several lines. One is the ground below. You can pretend it's a hill if it makes you feel better. Two lines on either side for a convergence point where the ground and sky meet the horizon. You should draw your stick figure in the center and have the upward lines match eye level. Draw a line straight across between these upward and downward lines, representing the horizon. Place  the sun in the center too, between the two lines heading downward, above the horizon. Now, create an -> arrow before and aftee the sun.
If you did it right, the sun is at noon position, and you can see that as it travels straight across (actually it has a horizontal arc, but let's simplify so you can understand), it appears to rise in relation to the horizon and the onlooker, then appears to fall. Eventually, down hits up as it meets the horizon, and no more sun. Whatever position the sun is, the telescope can't see it.

Rather than trying to describe what you propose that someone else draw, how about drawing it yourself and posting your drawing here? That word salad makes no sense whatsoever.

Only fielding this question.

Because you think that is the only one you can answer? Yet it clearly demonstrates your claims are nonsense?

I'm just saying, look at where his hands are.
Because they aren't ever getting closer or further away. They are angling out of sight.

Just like you would expect for a RE.
For a RE, at sunrise, the sun is at the horizon. It then appears to circle around as Earth rotates, eventually going to the other side of the horizon at sunset.

This makes perfect sense for a RE, but none at all for a FE.

This is also where comparisons between ancient FE models and the new FE garbage really demonstrates how ridiculous the modern FE cult is.
Do you know why the sun set in these ancient FE models? Because it went below Earth.
It didn't just move along into the distance. It set below Earth.

These ancient FE models have more in common with the RE model of today than the FE garbage of today.

I want you to picture a circle where you're standing inside another circle.

Lets make this a bit more accurate, we can even use numbers.
One of these circles (the one you are standing on the edge of) is Earth. It has a radius of 6371 km.
The other circle is the apparent path of the sun. It had a radius of roughly 150 000 000 km.

Now you can either rotate the inner circle with you moving along as you do, or you can rotate the outer circle as it appears from the frame of reference of Earth.
We see the angle to the sun change dramatically. But the distance doesn't change much at all.

The 150 000 000 km distance to the sun changes by (going for an extreme of mid day to mid night) 12 742 km, or 0.008%.

That would be like standing, looking at an object 100 m away, and then moving 8 cm closer to it. That is not going to cause a significant difference.

So observations match a simple RE model, with no convoluted BS to try and prop up a FE needed.

Compare this to a FE, where if I use the commonly quoted 5000 km altitude of the sun, the sun goes from being 5000 km away if directly overhead to over 10 000 km away (and still high in the sky).
Simple trig demands that for a sun 5000 km above a flat reference plane level with you, to appear 1 degree above that plane it would need to be above a point 286 000 km (5000 km/tan(1 degree)).
But the simpler one to use (as we want to focus on size) is the distance to the sun, which would be basically the same at this point, also over 286 000 km away (5000 km / sin(1 degree)).
Now you can try to make it closer, by making the sun lower, but you will run into the same issue. The key factor is the 1/sin(1 degree). This is 57.
That means that if the sun was remaining in a plane above a plane passing level through you, then the distance to the sun when it is 1 degree above that plane is 57 times what it is when it is directly overhead.

This should cause a MASSIVE difference in the apparent size of the sun (as an approximation which works quite well until it gets very close), it should appear 57 times as large when it is overhead. And the same applies to the moon.

One of these is the zone of perspective, the other is the sun's orbit.

So you are saying the sun's orbit is outside the zone of perspective so the sun should not be visible?
That no one should ever see the sun with your magic limited vision.
After all, with you wanting to claim that you can only see 5 km away, it would be impossible for the vast majority of the world to see the sun.

And no, you can't really extend angular visibility.

Your inability to see through a wall 1 m away, doesn't mean your vision is magically limited to 1 m.

Just like your inability to see through Earth 5 km away, doesn't mean your vision is magically limited to 5 km.

No amount of telescopes can see it after it sets.

Yes, clearly demonstrating is NOT an issue of angular size making it too small to resolve.
Instead, it clearly demonstrating something is blocking the view.

Sorry but uhhh the timing you gave for Earth's spin doesn't pan out.

How?
You keep making pathetic assertions like these, but you cannot justify it in any way.

You should draw your stick figure in the center and have the upward lines match eye level.

Why?
The horizon is below eye level.

If you did it right, the sun is at noon position, and you can see that as it travels straight across (actually it has a horizontal arc, but let's simplify so you can understand), it appears to rise in relation to the horizon and the onlooker, then appears to fall. Eventually, down hits up as it meets the horizon, and no more sun. Whatever position the sun is, the telescope can't see it.

And another complete misrepresentation of how perspective works.
If you do want to pretend Earth is flat, then do it properly.
You draw 2 lines for the sun, one for the top, one for the bottom. This shows the sun shrinking as it approaches the horizon, shrinking to an unresolvable dot.

But this works much better if you use a vector graphics program, as you can then zoom in, like a telescope would, and see that even when it is a dot to the large scale view, it is still resolvable in the zoomed in view.

But the fact that the sun doesn't shrink as it moves away means that this explanation doesn't work.

They are angling out of sight.

At the start of the day, the sun is at a horizon in the process of rise. I want you to picture a circle where you're standing inside another circle. One of these is the zone of perspective, the other is the sun's orbit. Now, within this circle, when the sun arcs towards us at the beginning of the day, no matter where we are, we see it moving from 0° to 1° where we can just see it at the horizon. Over the course of the day, it moves gradually from 0° to 15° then 45° then 90°then eventually at 180° it drops from sight. It never dips, it never rises, so it never moves closer or farther. But it appears to dip as it is moving past us, and appears to rise as to moves overhead towards us. Same elevation, different angle.

(Something about highlighting different colors)

Do I need to draw this out for you in ASCII? On Kindle right now.

The horizon is a flat line in all directions. The earth and sky is a finite line arcing from ground to sky back to dome.

What do you get when you put together a line that extends in all directions and an arc that ends in every direction in the ground (or sea) and extends up to the sky? You get a flat circular horizon, and overall you get a dome extending around yourself.

(1) Human perspective is a dome. Though we don't actually see the full dome at once because we don't have omnidirectional vision.

Next we can know that the sun goes into sight and then out of sight and appears to us to rise and fall in an arc. I showed you that video where the guy tests the idea that shadow is possible on flat Earth by making a cutout box.



(2) Because of this arcing motion of a circular path of a celestial body hitting a dome of perspective, and hitting another dome called atmosphere, something funny happens. The sun appears upright and three dimensional, when in fact it is neither of these things.

(3) As you can see watching this video, it is possible for a flat cutout to provide a sloped shadow, and is in turn possible for our perspective to tell us funny things like that  an object is rising or falling, when in fact neither of these things is true.

(4) Why did I have you draw two circles? Well is we erase the ground and erase the fact that we only have frontal perception, when two circles overlap, we get this.

But since the ground does exist (and humans only see in front of them), draw a line through the overlap, and what do you get? A perfect arc.

(5) If you actually bothered to understand my explanation, you wouldn't be trying to pick apart its awkward phrasing.

15:02

Amazing

Buddy draws the sun angling down but fails to also draw the clouds angling down.
The two should angle together.

Amazing

Do I need to draw this out for you in ASCII? On Kindle right now.

Paint would be better.

The horizon is a flat line in all directions.

Also known as a circle. Just like we expect for a RE.

The earth and sky is a finite line arcing from ground to sky back to dome.

What dome?
What line?
We don't see a line for the sky.
We see a horizon.

Our vision being based upon angles doesn't mean the sky is a dome.

(1) Human perspective is a dome.

No. Humans perceive the world through angles.
Typically they use Earth as a reference, having 360 degrees of azimuth and 180 degrees of altitude.

I showed you that video where the guy tests the idea that shadow is possible on flat Earth by making a cutout box.

And you had it refuted, and it doesn't explain why the sun doesn't appear to shrink like you would need it to.

Because of this arcing motion of a circular path of a celestial body hitting a dome of perspective, and hitting another dome called atmosphere, something funny happens. The sun appears upright and three dimensional, when in fact it is neither of these things.

How?

(3) As you can see watching this video, it is possible for a flat cutout to provide a sloped shadow

What video? Do you mean the refuted one above which in no way explains how the sun sets?
And doesn't demonstrate the sun can cast a shadow upwards either.

(4) Why did I have you draw two circles? Well is we erase the ground and erase the fact that we only have frontal perception, when two circles overlap, we get this.

Try actually explaining what the circles are.
Otherwise, you don't have anything to help you here.

(5) If you actually bothered to understand my explanation, you wouldn't be trying to pick apart its awkward phrasing.

You don't have an explanation.
You have a vague claim which explains nothing.

If you bothered understanding how perspective works, you wouldn't be spouting such ignorant nonsense, nor providing videos of such garbage.

Just look at the angle drawn in the video, and compare that to the observed angle to the horizon. It is nothing alike.
It is just another pathetic FE lie to pretend the FE works.

Actually, no, you compare the angle that the sun is arcing vs the supposed rotation and orbit and everything else.

The sun would be flying sideways! That's exactly the perspective you get turning on a merry go round, and that's much slower. People do not rise or set from that perspective. Nor objects in air like birds. You get dizzy and nauseous, but everything goes straight around you. Why do you get dizzy and nauseous from a mere 10 rpm merry go round, but not feel 1000 mph (this is 16.666 entire miles of rotation per minute) rotation of the Earth. Oh I'm sure you play games with this, telling me the actual rpm is mych less, but the magnitude is more. If you were tossed 16 miles away in a minute, you should feel it. You don't. Why not? Because it doesn't happen!
 Nor does it explain the in and out effect of sunrise/sunset in a heliocentric model. You'd see the sun go across the sky, but the Earth is always progressing forward in this model. Every day the sun would be further off center.

It's wrong. And stupid.

Maybe my model needs work. At least it represents something right. That is, that an object needs to be still, and another object has to pass across it in order for there even to be a sunrise and sunset. The other way around doesn't work.
You could fly past me (on foot) in a plane at a circular route, I might see something similar to a plane set. But if you took off in front of me then stood stood still in a helicopter, and had me drive past, it would look different from the car. Simple perspective, and you don't seem to get it.

Takeoff in front of me, then as I drive past, the object slowly shrinks from sight, reaching the horizon in a straight line.

versus

An actual arc (in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION).

When you ask me to keep an open mind about RE, what you really mean is to agree with you. I don't have to. Neither do you need to accept my ideas, but I am able to defend them. So when you say something that is nonsense, I can call it out as such.

We would legitimately see the sun travel sideways overhead. The angle sounds right on paper but is actually very screwed up in fact.

Whereas an object circling overhead consistently moves at different angles based on position.

Actually, no, you compare the angle that the sun is arcing vs the supposed rotation and orbit and everything else.

You mean we honestly compare the expected direction to the sun for a RE with that observed in reality and find they match.

The sun would be flying sideways!

Only at the poles, where it observed to do just that.
And that is also what you would expect for your delusional FE.

Remember, in your delusional FE the sun is above us circling around.

That would be like being on a merry go round without a roof, and looking at something fixed above the merry go around. It wouldn't rise and set, it would always appear up.

So the question for an honest understand is what is the orientation of the axis?
At the poles, the axis of rotation is vertical. This means the sun would appear to move sideways.
At the equator, the axis of rotation is horizontal. This means the sun appears to trace out a vertical arc.
And at other locations between, the axis is at an angle between vertical and horizontal.

Yet again, the RE works to explain what is observed, while the FE destroys itself.

Why do you get dizzy and nauseous from a mere 10 rpm merry go round, but not feel 1000 mph

Try doing it honestly. People do not get dizzy or nauseous from linear velocity.
Otherwise, why do people get dizzy and nauseous from such a slow merry go round, but don't from driving quite fast down a highway?

There are multiple aspects to it. But the main component which makes you dizzy is the disconnect between what you feel and what you see.
You can also get dizzy from having a tent above and around you spinning around while you are stationary.

But if we ignore that aspect, and just focus on the motion, what you should be appealing to is the angular motion.
On a merry go round, you are turning quite quickly. Typically several revolutions per minute. But lets just be generous for you and say it is 1.
On Earth, you are spinning at ~1 revolution per day.
That means the merry go round is spinning 1440 times faster. (and real ones would go much faster).

Oh I'm sure you play games with this, telling me the actual rpm is mych less

And there you go showing you know you are spouting dishonest BS.
You know you are cherry picking numbers to make it seem like the RE is impossible, when you know it is garbage and you should be using a different measure.

If you were tossed 16 miles away in a minute, you should feel it. You don't.

No, you shouldn't.
Because you aren't picked up and tossed.
Just like you don't feel the very fast speed on a plane.

You don't feel linear velocity. What you feel are forces being transmitted through your body.

Again, you appeal to pure BS to pretend there is a problem with the RE.

You'd see the sun go across the sky, but the Earth is always progressing forward in this model. Every day the sun would be further off center.

I assume with this you are yet again appealing to your blatantly dishonest misrepresentation of solar days vs sidereal days?

Again, if you want to observe these things, use the sidereal day to count the rotations of Earth. If you do, you will observe the sun shifting throughout the year, but the others stars remain in position.
If you use a solar day, the opposite is true. This is because a solar is longer than a sidereal day. (and if you use a mean solar day, the sun will drift as well tracing an analemma).

Maybe my model needs work. At least it represents something right.

Your model is wrong and stupid.
It doesn't work at all.
Conversely the RE model does represent plenty of things correctly.

That is, that an object needs to be still, and another object has to pass across it in order for there even to be a sunrise and sunset. ... Simple perspective, and you don't seem to get it.

Simple perspective dictates that what matters are the relative positions and relative motions.
That which object is actually moving doesn't matter at all.

So it wouldn't matter if Earth is stationary with the sun circling around it (yet remaining the same distance); or if the sun was stationary and Earth was rotating.
They would produce the same result, as the relative positions and motions are the same.

What does produce a difference is the difference between that model, and your garbage, where the sun remains overhead, circling above Earth in a plane parallel to Earth, a short distance above.

The RE model explains why the sun appears to arc as it does, without changing its angular size significantly; because it remains roughly 150 000 000 km away at all times.
The RE model explains why the sun appears to set, with the view to the sun being obstructed by Earth.
The RE model explains how the sun casts light upwards onto the bottom of clouds, because in a cartesian coordinate frame centred on the clouds, the sun is below, as it is above a point roughly 90 degrees away.

Your garbage doesn't explain it at all.
With your garbage, the sun should always be above and NEVER set. It should appear to get larger and smaller as it moves, and it should never cast light upwards on an object below it.

When you ask me to keep an open mind about RE, what you really mean is to agree with you.

No, I mean keep an open mind, and honestly considering what the RE model contains, rather than just spouting lie after lie.

but I am able to defend them.

No, you aren't.
You have repeatedly failed to defend your BS. That applies both to your dishonest, irrational attacks against the RE, and the garbage you have provided as an alternative.

We would legitimately see the sun travel sideways overhead.

"sideways overhead" makes very little sense.
What you are describing (I presume for the RE model), would be you laying down on the ground looking up, and watching the sun appear to move sideways from this lying down position.
That would be it appearing on the horizon, rising above, going overhead and setting.

Whereas an object circling overhead consistently moves at different angles based on position.

And never sets.

No, when someone says keep an open mind, and they don't have any compelling evidence, what they really mean is for you to stop thinking and let them put ideas in your head.

But you don't have any compelling evidence.

Lemme get a good picture (or video) of what's going on.

I didn't feel like coming up with a bunch of pictures dealing with angles, so I'll mainly use perspective.





(1) You are inside a merry-go-round, even if you yourself are moving, everything, rocks, trees, people appears to be spinning around you. (2) Now, compare that to sitting on the ground completely still and having four kids run around you nearby. You can clearly see that the trees, the sky, and all fixed objects are are not moving, but you can can tell the kids are moving.

Would any sane person confuse kids around them moving for themselves moving?

Yet...
(1) This is precisely the story that RE tell us
(2) when we can clearly see that rocks and trees do not move, and that only the sun and moon move.

You are either lying. Or you are insane. Unlike Jesus (in CS Lewis's proposal that Jesus was either lying, mad, or telling the truth), there is no possibility of truth here.

Because we can demonstratably see the difference between what spinning around something, and something spinning around us looks like.

Source: https://practicalcounseling.com/how-do-you-know-2/

There are many godly believers who want to “dig deeper” into the Bible, as my friend said, but the first thing they have to confront is the question whether they are prepared to believe what they read and whether they are ready to change their minds about what is true.” Too many believers want to learn more about Bible teaching but will struggle greatly when they are confronted with something that differs from their existing beliefs.

From the first day you entered a school class, you were faced with a globe of the earth. The concept of a round earth was immediately implanted in your mind, and then it has been reinforced continuously since then. We hear about space, and trips to the moon, and possibly other planets. We are told the earth spins around at 1,000 miles per hour, and 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, and over hundreds of thousands of miles per hour through the Milky Way Galaxy. We are told that nothing existed, but that the nothing exploded and, due to that, we now have a universe. I could keep on going with all that we have been taught, and we have accepted all of that with little to no real proof. If the scientists say it is true, we accepted it as truth. You can go outside this very moment, look up into the sky, and if you pay attention to your natural senses alone, you will notice nothing that proves the earth is spinning. Yet, regardless of what your senses tell you, your mind will argue that the earth is spinning. Why? Because that is what you already believe.

RE ppl tell flat-Earths that they have somehow been brainwashed. Are you sure you're not projecting your own indoctrination? Think about it. I can sit all day watching the sun, and I can tell that the Earth is not spinning but that the sun is moving. But because you were taught otherwise, and the teacher seemed nice, you never question your perception. Who among us is a freethinker? Not the atheists that call themselves freethinkers, that's for sure.

The rpm?

Its 1 revolution in 24hrs...

No, when someone says keep an open mind, and they don't have any compelling evidence, what they really mean is for you to stop thinking and let them put ideas in your head.

But you don't have any compelling evidence.

Lemme get a good picture (or video) of what's going on.

I didn't feel like coming up with a bunch of pictures dealing with angles, so I'll mainly use perspective.





(1) You are inside a merry-go-round, even if you yourself are moving, everything, rocks, trees, people appears to be spinning around you. (2) Now, compare that to sitting on the ground completely still and having four kids run around you nearby. You can clearly see that the trees, the sky, and all fixed objects are are not moving, but you can can tell the kids are moving.

Would any sane person confuse kids around them moving for themselves moving?

Yet...
(1) This is precisely the story that RE tell us
(2) when we can clearly see that rocks and trees do not move, and that only the sun and moon move.

You are either lying. Or you are insane. Unlike Jesus (in CS Lewis's proposal that Jesus was either lying, mad, or telling the truth), there is no possibility of truth here.

Because we can demonstratably see the difference between what spinning around something, and something spinning around us looks like.

Source: https://practicalcounseling.com/how-do-you-know-2/

Quote

There are many godly believers who want to “dig deeper” into the Bible, as my friend said, but the first thing they have to confront is the question whether they are prepared to believe what they read and whether they are ready to change their minds about what is true.” Too many believers want to learn more about Bible teaching but will struggle greatly when they are confronted with something that differs from their existing beliefs.

From the first day you entered a school class, you were faced with a globe of the earth. The concept of a round earth was immediately implanted in your mind, and then it has been reinforced continuously since then. We hear about space, and trips to the moon, and possibly other planets. We are told the earth spins around at 1,000 miles per hour, and 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, and over hundreds of thousands of miles per hour through the Milky Way Galaxy. We are told that nothing existed, but that the nothing exploded and, due to that, we now have a universe. I could keep on going with all that we have been taught, and we have accepted all of that with little to no real proof. If the scientists say it is true, we accepted it as truth. You can go outside this very moment, look up into the sky, and if you pay attention to your natural senses alone, you will notice nothing that proves the earth is spinning. Yet, regardless of what your senses tell you, your mind will argue that the earth is spinning. Why? Because that is what you already believe.

RE ppl tell flat-Earths that they have somehow been brainwashed. Are you sure you're not projecting your own indoctrination? Think about it. I can sit all day watching the sun, and I can tell that the Earth is not spinning but that the sun is moving. But because you were taught otherwise, and the teacher seemed nice, you never question your perception. Who among us is a freethinker? Not the atheists that call themselves freethinkers, that's for sure.

Notice the difference between 1 and 2?  One you are moving but the non moving things relative to you looks like they are moving.  Two some things are moving around you but you are stationary relative to everything else around you, therefore those thing like the trees and rocks don't appear to move with respect to the kids running around you. 
So things like, say a satellite that is moving much faster than you are appear to move much faster than the background, like the kids in your example.  And the trees in the first example appear to move because of your movement.
Good job proving rotation.

Its 1 revolution in 24hrs...

That's nice. You missed the point where I said...

(this is 16.666 entire miles of rotation per minute) rotation of the Earth. Oh I'm sure you play games with this, telling me the actual rpm is much less
(yup, you did)
, but the magnitude is more. If you were tossed 16 miles away in a minute, you should feel it. You don't. Why not? Because it doesn't happen!

Do you feel 16 miles away from where you were a minute ago?

Do you feel 1000 miles away from where you were an hour ago?

Do you feel constantly seasick? Because even the gentle rocking of a boat with only a few feet of motion each minute is enough for me to feel something. Feet. Not miles. You should feel it, yet you can't.

Because it doesn't happen.

Quote

Its 1 revolution in 24hrs...

That's nice. You missed the point where I said...

Quote

(this is 16.666 entire miles of rotation per minute) rotation of the Earth. Oh I'm sure you play games with this, telling me the actual rpm is much less
(yup, you did)
, but the magnitude is more. If you were tossed 16 miles away in a minute, you should feel it. You don't. Why not? Because it doesn't happen!

Do you feel 16 miles away from where you were a minute ago?

Do you feel 1000 miles away from where you were an hour ago?

Do you feel constantly seasick? Because even the gentle rocking of a boat with only a few feet of motion each minute is enough for me to feel something. Feet. Not miles. You should feel it, yet you can't.

Because it doesn't happen.

Being that it is a constant velocity and not a sudden acceleration change, yes I feel exactly the amount of force expected.

If you understood how motion works, or how the organs in your body experience motion, you might have realized how stupid your assumptions are about the rotation.

People feel changes in avcelleration.


Remember the angles between a 300,000side polygon?
Right.
Imagine trying to percieve that anglge every MINUTE.
Wow.
You must be verysenstive.

No, when someone says keep an open mind, and they don't have any compelling evidence, what they really mean is for you to stop thinking and let them put ideas in your head.

Like FEers do all the time?
Like you do with your fantasy parabola and magical screens?

Like you do when you are completely incapable of demonstrating any fault with the RE model and need to resort to repeatedly lying about it?

I didn't feel like coming up with a bunch of pictures dealing with angles, so I'll mainly use perspective.

And completely fail at the same time.

(1) You are inside a merry-go-round, even if you yourself are moving, everything, rocks, trees, people appears to be spinning around you. (2) Now, compare that to sitting on the ground completely still and having four kids run around you nearby. You can clearly see that the trees, the sky, and all fixed objects are are not moving, but you can can tell the kids are moving.

Notice what you need to appeal to? A stationary background.

What would this be in the RE model? The darkness of the night sky, with small stars appearing?

Why not be honest, observe the sky, preferably at night. What do you see? The entire sky appearing to rotate around you.
That certainly sound like what we observe on a spinning merry go round, with the entire outside world appearing to spin around us.

You are appealing to something which either clearly demonstrates you are wrong, or which simply doesn't exist.

Here is an example of such footage:


There is some distortion due to the camera, but we observe the sky appears motionless, while Earth is rotating.
Just like we observe for a merry go round rotating while the outside world remains "stationary".

It isn't just the kids moving. It is the entire scene around you. (To complete the analogy you either need to have the merry go round also orbiting, or have the kids walking about while the merry go round rotates, so lets ignore the motion of the sun against the background stars for now and just focus on one day.)

So instead of just having some kids walking around, get a panoramic view, and paste it on the inside of a tent.
Then hang that tent around you and the merry go round. Now which is moving?
The merry go round, or the tent?

You need something capable of measuring the angular motion (like a laser ring gyroscope) to determine which is in motion.

(1) This is precisely the story that RE tell us
(2) when we can clearly see that rocks and trees do not move, and that only the sun and moon move.

No, this is yet another strawman from you.

The rocks and trees in this case are the background stars.
The rocks and tress on Earth are merely part of the merry go round in this analogy.
And when you are on the merry go round rotating, you see it appear stationary relative to you.

You are either lying. Or you are insane.

Or the far more likely option, YOU are lying.
There is the possibility of truth on my side.
As clearly backed up by the video above.

Because we can demonstratably see the difference between what spinning around something, and something spinning around us looks like.

Again, the difference isn't 1 thing moving around us. It is EVERYTHING moving around us.
And that is something that CANNOT be observed visually.

RE ppl tell flat-Earths that they have somehow been brainwashed. Are you sure you're not projecting your own indoctrination

Yes. I am sure.
Because I can examine the evidence.
I can examine which model more directly matches even my own experiences.

The FE needs so much magic to pretend it works, while the RE just works.

I can sit all day watching the sun, and I can tell that the Earth is not spinning but that the sun is moving.

How?
What observation leads you to conclude that it is the sun moving rather than Earth?
You cannot use Earth as a reference to claim Earth doesn't move.

But that isn't even an argument for RE vs FE. That is an argument for GC vs HC.

And as demonstrated above, I can sit at night and watch the sky, and observe the sky collectively appear to rotate, just like I would expect if Earth was the one rotating. Just like I observe sitting on a merry go round and watching the outside world appear to move around me.

But according to your delusional nonsense, if I am sitting on a merry go round, the entire world around me is rotating, because I don't see the merry go round moving.

But because you were taught otherwise, and the teacher seemed nice, you never question your perception. Who among us is a freethinker?

The one who discard garbage religious beliefs and faces the world, regardless of how harsh it is instead of retreating into a fantasy because they can't handle reality.
The one that can answer simple questions to justify their model and their claims.
The one who has beliefs supported by evidence and rational thought instead of needing to escape reality.

That's nice. You missed the point where I said...

Meanwhile, I didn't. I called out how that just displays your dishonesty.
You intentionally cherry pick a number so you can pretend there is a problem, when you know there are different ways of expressing it which demonstrate it is not a problem.

Do you feel 16 miles away from where you were a minute ago?
Do you feel 1000 miles away from where you were an hour ago?

Do you feel the speed on a plane?
Unless there is turbulence, it doesn't feel much different to just sitting at a desk.

Because even the gentle rocking

Notice the key part? ROCKING!
This is far more chaotic motion where your acceleration keeps on changing, and even that changes in a chaotic manner.

You should feel it, yet you can't.

This is just typical FE BS.
Just what should we feel and how?
Should it feel like being on a plane travelling at 1000 km/hr?

I feel exactly what I would expect to standing on a rotating round Earth.

Laser ring gyroscopes, being far more sensitive than humans, are capable of easily detecting the rotation.

RE ppl tell flat-Earths that they have somehow been brainwashed.

Or just don’t understand the size of the earth?

Are just trolls?


You haven’t taken the time to use a telescope with an equatorial mount?



What navy in the world has a tactical advantage because they treat the world at flat?

What was that term?  For radar?  Slant range?


Remember this post?

Quote from: Stash on January 06, 2023, 10:10:13 AM

"The M5 gun director" to a platform.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_(military)#Example

Wonder what calculations went with the M5 when used for targeting…

Quote

The M5 director is used to determine or estimate the altitude or slant range of the aerial target.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_(military)#Example

Slant Range?

New term to kick around?

Quote

Slant Range

https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Slant%20Range.en.html



However, this would only be valid if the earth were a flat disk. In addition, however, the earth's radius also has an effect, as shown in figure 3. Thus, the actual topographic distance concerning the slant distance measured by the radar depends on:
the measured slant range,
the actual height of the aim, and
the earth radius, which is valid for the location of the radar unit.



From figure 3 one can see the solution approach. A triangle between the points: Center of the earth, the location of the radar unit, and the location of the flight target, whose sides defines the cosine theorem and thus by the equation:
R2 = re2 + (re + H)2 - 2re(re + H) · cos α
(re is the equivalent radius of the earth).
Under the assumption that the earth is a sphere, from the angle α, the part of the earth's circumference can be calculated with a simple ratio calculation from the total earth circumference:
360° · Rtopogr. = α · 2π re
This partial section of the earth circumference can be regarded as an approximation (here still without consideration of the refraction) to the actual topographic distance.
In practice, however, the propagation of electromagnetic waves is also subject to refraction, i.e. the transmitted beam of the radar is not a rectilinear side of this triangle, but this side is additionally also curved depending on
the transmitted wavelength,
the barometric pressure,
the air temperature and
the atmospheric humidity.
Since all these parameters cannot be included in the radar video map, the map is inevitably inaccurate if the radar software does not take into account the relationship between slant range and topographic range. And this is unfortunately always the case with 2D radar devices since these lack the height information compellingly necessary for these computations!

Didn’t see anything about visually adjusting for the fucking delusional parabola….

Sorry to disappoint. I'm not being a a troll.

You see, there's sonething you should know about that geometry.

In math, you could determine the length of sides of a triangle when at least two sides are known. When two sides are unknown, the marh becomes a guess for anything not a perfect 3, 4, 5 triangle. Oh you can try to solve but there is a margin for error. If all three are misding, forget it! It would be similar to a fill in the blank English sentence where too many blanks were present. We don't know the depth to Earth center because we haven't actually visited there (the heat and pressure will kill us). You don't know the distance to the poles is accurate or that you even have a south pole. We don't know the distance to the sun, as we have never flown to the sun. You're filling in blanks. You're being told measurements by other people, and you solve the math problem based on that. And if you think a radar's reading is infallible, trust me, I have personally coded math for computers. It's entirely possible to create a logic error. Accurate measurements? No, there are variables and constants that are coded in by programmers. Constants in particular are problematic because they are a hard-coded assumption of the programmer. If I the programmer decide that Venus has 1.59867% oxygen, the readings will always use that for assumptions of Venus. My high school math teacher used to say "Assuming makes an ass out of you and me." She also apparently sang the Chiquita banana song on occasion.But she was right. You can't make math out of unexplored horizontal and vertical dimensions and expect accurate readings.

Stop lying to yourself and to us.

You haven't been to the sun, you only can say its distance from conjecture about the size of the Earth and what other people have told you about the length of ayear. But a year's length is arbitrary. Some countries or religions even have different week lengths (as few as 4 days or as many as 13), to sat nothing of the year length. We like to pretend that years are standardized but actually some calendars have leap weeks, some have as few days as 210.

Why do you think some years have unseasonably early or later spring? It's because our systems were made up! It's all crap.