Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

Science experiment time. Grab a pack of Crayola crayons and a rubber globe (any size is fine). And a circular wooden table.

I think you mean dishonest FE BS time.

Again, Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
Also, telephone poles are not just sitting on the ground. They are embedded into it.

Stop just using dishonest BS to try and pretend there is a problem with the RE and start dealing with the complete failure of the FE model.

Again, how does the sun illuminate a cloud from below when it is above?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 03, 2023, 06:14:55 AM

This distance (around 700+ miles)
https://www.rome2rio.com/s/New-York-NY/Chicago
doesn't matter like its latitudinal curvature.

Science experiment time. Grab a pack of Crayola crayons and a rubber globe (any size is fine). And a circular wooden table.


 face them against the globe, in which case they a tilt in different directions.

Youre absolutely correct

The posts on one of the longest spanning bridges had to have their angles calcualted to account for the curvature of the earth.

Congratulations.

They adjusted for HEIGHT not for ANGLE. And their adjustment was often based on a token adjustment, just to say "See? See?!? The Earth is round because I added a four foot lift/drop at the end for show." When you would actually need 425 ft drop oe so, they adda few feet and call it done. Meanwhile the angle is not adjusted at all. 

"They did it just to keep the round earth lie going"

Very compelling reasoning.
Cant see any flaw in that logic.
None at all.
Not like people couldnt do math and say "i agree based on how circles work."

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 03, 2023, 08:33:51 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 03, 2023, 06:14:55 AM

This distance (around 700+ miles)
https://www.rome2rio.com/s/New-York-NY/Chicago
doesn't matter like its latitudinal curvature.

Science experiment time. Grab a pack of Crayola crayons and a rubber globe (any size is fine). And a circular wooden table.


 face them against the globe, in which case they a tilt in different directions.

Youre absolutely correct

The posts on one of the longest spanning bridges had to have their angles calcualted to account for the curvature of the earth.

Congratulations.

They adjusted for HEIGHT not for ANGLE. And their adjustment was often based on a token adjustment, just to say "See? See?!? The Earth is round because I added a four foot lift/drop at the end for show." When you would actually need 425 ft drop oe so, they adda few feet and call it done. Meanwhile the angle is not adjusted at all.

Another day.  Another pointless incoherent bulmabriefs144 rant.


bulmabriefs144 rants are increasingly more and more incoherent.  Is that you Joe Biden, Mr President? 

They adjusted for HEIGHT not for ANGLE. And their adjustment was often based on a token adjustment, just to say "See? See?!? The Earth is round because I added a four foot lift/drop at the end for show." When you would actually need 425 ft drop oe so, they adda few feet and call it done. Meanwhile the angle is not adjusted at all.

No. The claim is they adjusted based upon angle because the towers are not parallel, so this results in the top being further apart.

The construct it based upon altitude, so they are not making height adjustment.

But your claim is clearly BS.
Consider a bridge spanning 50 km, with a constant latitude of 0 degrees. How far should it drop, and should it drop so the east end is lower or so the west end is lower?

Before you try saying it is the outside is lower and the inside is higher, consider that I can then just break the bridge in half and focus on a 25 km long bridge going from the middle of that one to the east or west end.

 They adjusted for HEIGHT not for ANGLE. And their adjustment was often based on a token adjustment, just to say "See? See?!?

Nope just have to build to the definition of level in surveying.  As pointed out many times in many threads across many forums.


If you’re reading this turbo, I’m citing another source.  Not you. 

Terms Used in Levelling

https://civilengineeringx.com/surveying/terms-used-in-levelling/amp/


1. Level Surface: A surface parallel to the mean spheroid of the earth is called a level surface and the line drawn on the level surface is known as a level line. Hence all points lying on a level surface are equidistant from the centre of the earth. Figure 15.1 shows a typical level surface.

Like trying to say there is a “height difference” of two ships at sea.  Or trying to say one ship is “up hill”. When in reality they are both at sea level in the context one only has to travel the sea to get between the two ships.


Is that the FE’rs problem.  The ones that claim they think so out of the box.  But don’t have the imagination to grasp a simple working definition from civil engineering/ surveying. 

"They did it just to keep the round earth lie going"

Very compelling reasoning.
Cant see any flaw in that logic.
None at all.
Not like people couldnt do math and say "i agree based on how circles work."

Apparently you can't.



This table is round, no? It has no head and no foot, perfect for King Arthur to put a bunch of friends at.

So when you say "The Earth is Round," I would agree with you at this point.

 Yet, King Arthur can also stick documents on it, or even have a map with figurine pieces in it for discussing war strategy. Said pieces even stand up.

Is there ANY good reason why he'd build a globed table? Documents won't stay on, figurines won't stay on. Simple laws of practicality show that for pretty much any purpose, there simply isn't any good reason to add vertical slope and an underside to a system that already works.

We know of several round objects that are discs (or bowls). Plates, vinyl records, CDs, even frisbees. And there are some that are food (okonomiyaki, pancakes, pizza, flatbread, tortillas, even ramen). When did people start misunderstanding round to mean a globe?



It's obvious they make them that way because it is an expression of microcosm. You can stuff everything on top of such things. You can circle the rims. Meanwhile, a ball-shaped object (like a malt ball or that chocolate orange thing) is only good for what you can put inside. If the ball's outside isn't firm, things spill out. If the Earth is not a disc or bowl, then southern hemisphere space travel is impossible, or worse, it creates tiny pinpricks in the atmosphere that cause moisture to escape or something. That means every mission to Mars must be done in the northern hemisphere. But that's not so, is it?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/nasa-launch-rocket-arnhem-land-success/101183776

Math is fine when it's based in reality. But some mathematicians do extrapolation in their head and don't both checking whether things are actually true. The two mortal enemies of true math are delusion and assumption.

Yesterday, I tossed a banana peel I ate the rest of out of a car window. It appeared to curve back. A RE follower would tell me this is the coriolis effect and proof that the Earth spins. You know what I think though?
 (A) Either the wind pushed it back, or (B) it was travelling straight. My position at throw was at point A but moving ahead of it, at point B, it appeared to move behind me. Because its motion was straight,  the gradual moving ahead while the car also moves ahead forms a curved path of perspective.
While the coriolis effect sounds convincing, were I to take part in an experimental toss upon hitting a line, the banana would be parallel to this line. I would able to pull off after observing it "curve back" and realize that, no, it really did travel straight, I just viewed it wrong.

Real tests bear out faulty assumptions. Doubling down on faulty assumptions that you cannot in fact secure a test for is proof you are delusional. I have showed on one thread or another my ball vs ashtray test, using a sink. The ashtray holds water, the ball only holds water enough to get wet. It might indeed spin as the sink's tap hits it, but it is not holding water. There is water above it rolling off and the rest is under it as it floats. Were we to extend this real world test to the reality of Earth, South America past Brazil would have atmospheric water all the way up to the sky. Only the northern hemisphere would have dry land and sky and normal conditions. But it gets worse because actually the northern hemisphere would be a dry and lifeless desert. Spherical planets are not suited to life. Earth is a world, not a planet.

You can do math all you want, but if it's based on faulty data, it's better for you not to do math.



A spherical table has to have flat sections (top, bottom, and shelves). It's simple design. Maybe design a few tables before you tell me what can and cannot work?

Another day.  Another pointless incoherent bulmabriefs144 rant.

bulmabriefs144 rants are increasingly more and more incoherent.  Is that you Joe Biden, Mr President?

At least you're not among the 1-4% who thinks he makes perfect sense.

You're just confused by what I say. That doesn't mean I'm incoherent. It means you're not smart enough to figure it out.

What I said was simple. If telephone poles can balance upright on a large ball, then the same force of gravity you swear exists should allow you to balance crayons (which have no problem on either of the tables I showed above) on this:


I'll even expand that ball to the size of a beach ball.

Go ahead.

I'm waiting.

 You say I'm incoherent, but somehow your brain convinces you that this works. So go ahead.

You're just confused by what I say.

What the fuck?  What picture Joe Biden?




First show me a series of “balanced” power poles supporting power lines completely not anchored in anyway.

then the same force of gravity you swear exists should allow you to balance crayons

Get me a ball or table the same size of the earth and the same density, and I will.


If you’re done changing the subject to BS….

 They adjusted for HEIGHT not for ANGLE. And their adjustment was often based on a token adjustment, just to say "See? See?!?

Nope just have to build to the definition of level in surveying.  As pointed out many times in many threads across many forums.


If you’re reading this turbo, I’m citing another source.  Not you. 

Terms Used in Levelling

https://civilengineeringx.com/surveying/terms-used-in-levelling/amp/


1. Level Surface: A surface parallel to the mean spheroid of the earth is called a level surface and the line drawn on the level surface is known as a level line. Hence all points lying on a level surface are equidistant from the centre of the earth. Figure 15.1 shows a typical level surface.

 or face them against the globe, in which case they a tilt in different directions.

What is your incoherent rant about today?





From anther thread, but drives the point home.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 02, 2023, 03:36:18 AM

If the Earth curved down 3 miles away, it would CERTAINLY be significant, and would have been MEASURED as such.

Used this in another thread..

Like this?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 21, 2023, 08:49:25 PM

A sphere is by definition three-dimensional. A ball can't be flat.

You really have no concept of how big the earth is to an individual’s frame of reference.


Just like this large tank and using this small straight edge on this level as a frame of reference.



Looks flat with a small frame of reference?

But the tank is clearly curved.






What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip

The “seen curvature” is the dip of the horizon because of how large the earth is.

Apparently you can't.





A spherical table has to have flat sections (top, bottom, and shelves). It's simple design. Maybe design a few tables before you tell me what can and cannot work?

AMAZING!
See how each slice of the white ball table reveals a flat plane like the brown table?
All the way around.
A sectional cut of a Ball makes a Flat line.
so from your perspective standing on a beach looking at the setional slice you see flat horizon, it's flat.
coool
Amazing!

Real tests bear out faulty assumptions. Doubling down on faulty assumptions that you cannot in fact secure a test for is proof you are delusional. I have showed on one thread or another my ball vs ashtray test, using a sink. The ashtray holds water, the ball only holds water enough to get wet. It might indeed spin as the sink's tap hits it, but it is not holding water. There is water above it rolling off and the rest is under it as it floats. Were we to extend this real world test to the reality of Earth, South America past Brazil would have atmospheric water all the way up to the sky. Only the northern hemisphere would have dry land and sky and normal conditions. But it gets worse because actually the northern hemisphere would be a dry and lifeless desert. Spherical planets are not suited to life. Earth is a world, not a planet.
You can do math all you want, but if it's based on faulty data, it's better for you not to do math.

And the bowl and the tennis ball are sitting on what?
What are they sitting on?
And brazil is on the “globe” and the “globe” is sitting on what?
is there an EVEN bigger globe underneath the globeearth?

Where’s down in the globe model?
towards the south?
or towards the center?



amazing!

Making excuses again.

Remember, if you can't prove something exists at the micro level, you can't prove it exists. Meanwhile, I can prove that an ashtray holds water, a metal or plastic wash basin holds water,  a cup of noodles holds water, a frying pan holds water, a small dip in the road holds water, and even a plate holds water with any sort of rim. Does a ball hold water? No, it does not.

So I do not have to humor your delusion at all.

But I will anyway. I will increase the size and weight to roughly that of Jupiter, but the curve is consistent with a ball. None of that will hinder the fact that your telephone pole/crayons will be unable to stay up. Why not? Because this.



If you have 5 ft ball, you have 5 ft of curvature. If you have 360 mile ball, you have 360 mile curvature. Unless you're doing funny things with space (i.e. trying to make a sphere not actually be a sphere; i.e. cheating), this rule of curvature persists. Oh sure, there is a mathematical formula for curvature. But it was written by you guys, not us, in order to underestimate the actual curve you would encounter given the assertion that Earth is a sphere.

You can have all the density you want, including the size and density of Jupiter. It won't make any difference! Those poles have enough angle alone to pull each other to the ground, well before we talk about distance!

what are you going on about now?
i'm not sure how that discredits your super bad failure to understand the water-is-in-the-bowl-and-the-bowli-s-on-the-earth model.
if everything you have to do your "experiments" is ON THE EARTH, and the model says that ALL THINGS FALL TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE EARTH.
so when things fall DOWN, NOT SOUTH, why are you not comprehending that a wet tennis ball will STILL FALL DOWN BECUASE IT"S ON THE EARTH.

holy crapballs





and what poles are you talking about?
north and south poles?
there aren't literal poles at the north and south poles of the 'globe" model.
did you get all your geography lessons from picture books of santa claus?

Making excuses again.

Remember, if you can't prove something exists at the micro level, you can't prove it exists.

That’s pure BS

First off.  For any validity you need to scale down the crayon and its mass to be in scale with the model you want.

If the model of the earth you’re using is scaled down to 1 billionth of the size, then the crayon needs to be scaled down too.


Let’s go the other way.  A crayon in your model would be longer than what the USA is west to east.  By all means show us you can balance an actual 3000 mile long crayon vertically on end on earth without any anchoring.


Two.  There is error of scale.  Because the way forces and stresses work often in powers the adjustment of going from small to larger are not linear. 
 

Example.  3000 mile long wax crayon probably could not be stood on end because the wax would fail under the weight of itself.  But works fine when the crayon is only 2 or three inches long. 



 

(i.e. trying to make a sphere not actually be a sphere; i.e. cheating), this rule of curvature persists. Oh sure, there is a mathematical formula for curvature. But it was written by you guys, not us, in order to underestimate the actual curve you would encounter given the assertion that Earth is a sphere.

I think this is the most hillairous saddest part of his quote.

Do circles measure differently on your planet?

Citcles are now part of the conspiracy?

The secret society of circles and fakenews math?

When did people start misunderstanding round to mean a globe?

Because it is used in the context of people falsely claiming Earth is flat.

A globe is round.

If the Earth is not a disc or bowl, then southern hemisphere space travel is impossible

Again, Earth is not a tiny ball on top of a much larger ball.
Your pathetic dishonest strawmen don't work.
They just show how incredibly dishonest you are.
They demonstrate you are quite happy to repeatedly lie to people to pretend your delusional BS is true.
It shows how pathetic you and your position are.

You can't even demonstrate why it should be the southern hemisphere.

Down on the RE is towards the centre.
The southern hemisphere is not the bottom. There is no bottom.
The bottom of small balls are due to their position relative to a much larger ball, Earth.

And it says absolutely nothing about space travel.

Yesterday, I tossed a banana peel I ate the rest of out of a car window. It appeared to curve back. A RE follower would tell me this is the coriolis effect and proof that the Earth spins.

No, they wouldn't.
Stop inventing lies about what REers would say to pretend you are right.

Real tests bear out faulty assumptions.

And they show your claims are BS.
For example, real tests of a simple light source above a flat surface, showing the entire surface illuminated by it.
Showing that any point on the surface can see it.
Clearly demonstrating a FE can't work.

Doubling down on faulty assumptions that you cannot in fact secure a test for is proof you are delusional.

Like your faulty assumption that Earth is flat?
And your repeated lies about the RE?

I have showed on one thread or another my ball vs ashtray test, using a sink.

Showing exactly what was expected with a RE and gravity.
Water flowing towards the RE.

Were we to extend this real world test to the reality of Earth

We would instantly see the problem.
Earth is not a tiny ball sitting in a sink.
It is in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any larger body.
This means your test is useless, and you continuing to appeal to it just demonstrates your dishonesty.
And as you would say, how delusional you are.

South America

Or we could rotate your toy and have the north pole in your toy point to the centre of Earth in reality.
This also highlights the problem.
You have no justification for why the southern hemisphere should be the bottom.
The only reason that part was under water was its position relative to Earth.

Your entire argument is built upon faulty assumptions.

But again, going back to the scale model, using light, somethign that it can test.
We can also put a layer of clouds there, even a patchy layer, and clearly observe that the clouds are illuminated from above, not below, but the light source above.
The only way to make them illuminated from below is to move the light below the clouds (or alternatively, rely upon incredibly dishonest tests with the light very far away from the table).

What I said was simple. If telephone poles can balance upright on a large ball, then the same force of gravity you swear exists should allow you to balance crayons (which have no problem on either of the tables I showed above) on this:

And more faulty assumptions from you. Faulty assumptions which have been exposed as faulty.
So by your own standard, you are delusional.

Where is this little toy ball of yours?
Is it in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any larger object?

Or is it sitting on top of a much larger ball?

Again, an honest application of gravity would be gravity pulling the crayons to Earth.
The gravitational attraction to your tiny ball is not strong enough to overcome gravity from Earth.

But you also have another faulty assumption. Telephone poles are not balanced on Earth. They are embedded into Earth.
According to a quick google search, a normal pole is embedded 6 feet, with 34 feet above ground.

You say I'm incoherent, but somehow your brain convinces you that this works. So go ahead.

Yes, you are incoherent.
You appeal to gravity, as if the gravitational attraction to your toy should hold the crayons in place.
While at the same time, you entirely ignore the gravitational attraction to Earth which should pull those crayons to Earth.

This makes your argument incoherent.

Making excuses again.

That does appear to be all you do.

Remember, if you can't prove something exists at the micro level, you can't prove it exists.

Wrong again.
Your inability to prove something at one level has no impact on if you can prove it exists at other levels.

But that is also irrelevant as we HAVE proven gravity at the human scale, and even at the atomic scale.

But do you know the real challenge for proving gravity for water?
Without external forces, water will naturally adopt a spherical shape due to surface tension.

Meanwhile, I can prove that an ashtray holds water, a metal or plastic wash basin holds water,  a cup of noodles holds water, a frying pan holds water, a small dip in the road holds water, and even a plate holds water with any sort of rim. Does a ball hold water? No, it does not.

Hold the cup upside down. Does it hold water? No.

So clearly it isn't the cup or the plate or any crap like that.
Something else is happening.
Anyone with a brain who chooses to use it can see this.

The cup is not magically holding it. The water is merely trying to go down to Earth.

Again, to do an honest test, you need to remove Earth, as Earth is a not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.

So I do not have to humor your delusion at all.

Again, by your own standard YOU are the delusional one here.

Those poles have enough angle alone to pull each other to the ground, well before we talk about distance!

How?
And if you are going to appeal to angle, you most certainly need to discuss distance.

Again, how about you stop with the faulty assumptions, and go back to explaining how the sun casts light upwards on clouds which it is meant to be above in your fantasy?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 05, 2023, 11:50:11 AM

(i.e. trying to make a sphere not actually be a sphere; i.e. cheating), this rule of curvature persists. Oh sure, there is a mathematical formula for curvature. But it was written by you guys, not us, in order to underestimate the actual curve you would encounter given the assertion that Earth is a sphere.

I think this is the most hillairous saddest part of his quote.

Do circles measure differently on your planet?

Citcles are now part of the conspiracy?

The secret society of circles and fakenews math?

I apologize if it sounds funny.

No, I mean, you think somehow by increasing the size of an object it will magically not have the traits of a sphere.

Living on a sphere, EVERY POSSIBLE POINT is on the SIDE of a circle, not WITHIN a circle. This results in a rather profound inability to make any kind of building because of a loop effect. You can demonstrate this by making a sphere out of overlapping rubber bands. Or drawing one of those atomic orbits and just continuing until you have full overlap. Everywhere on Earth is on the outside of a sphere.

But you have deluded yourself into thinking by making a sphere big enough, it will ignore the 360 law of circles. Sorry but uhhh on a true sphere, you get a 1:1 mile:curvature. That is, each degree is a degree, each mile diameter is a mile of curvature, and that bridge that you added a few feet to "adjust for curvature"? :scoffs: :starts_laughing: :cannot_stop:

Yeah no. Even if I were add all the density in the universe, those poles will fall over because they are at an off-balance angle. Making a longer sphere doesn't make it any flatter BECAUSE IT MUST MAINTAIN ITS SHAPE.

Meanwhile, if I dance on the top of a table, making a table wide enough that I can do this does actually change things because I at a point within a circle and the curve of the rim is not relevant to someone within a circle. I'll show you what I mean by this later maybe but for now, I'll let you think about what it means when I say that by definition living on the crust of a sphere is curved no matter how big you make it.

But you have deluded yourself into thinking by making a sphere big enough, it will ignore the 360 law of circles.

How is the earth ignoring what?

https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip

The “seen curvature” is the dip of the horizon because of how large the earth is.

cool

circumference aka perimeter aka outside of a circle = 2 x pi x R.

if the bridge tower support is 100ft tall = R + 100ft.

R = 40,000,000ft
R+bridge = 40,000,100ft

so the bottom of the bridge, let's pick a random distance at 6,500ft.
and the top of the bridge the distance would then be 6,500ft x (2 x pi x R+Bridge) / (2 x pi x R) = 6,500.01625 ft

i'm bad at math
someone check it.



and what DIRECTION are these angled poles falling?
if you are living in the globe model, you have to use globe model...

cool

circumference aka perimeter aka outside of a circle = 2 x pi x R.

if the bridge tower support is 100ft tall = R + 100ft.

R = 40,000,000ft
R+bridge = 40,000,100ft

so the bottom of the bridge, let's pick a random distance at 6,500ft.
and the top of the bridge the distance would then be 6,500ft x (2 x pi x R+Bridge) / (2 x pi x R) = 6,500.01625 ft

i'm bad at math
someone check it.



and what DIRECTION are these angled poles falling?
if you are living in the globe model, you have to use globe model...

The Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge often comes up.

Engineer still marvels at Verrazano Bridge’s creation

https://www.riverdalepress.com/stories/engineer-still-marvels-at-bridges-creation,55787


By Tanisia Morris
At the mention of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, retired civil engineer and Hebrew Home at Riverdale resident Mark Carter’s eyes become as vibrant as the bright yellow shirt and golden bow tie he was wearing on a recent Friday afternoon.

“This was the longest suspension bridge in the world when it was built and it’s still the longest bridge in the United States,” he gushed with a drawing of the famed Othmar H. Ammann-designed Bridge hanging on a wall behind him in his room at the Hebrew Home at Riverdale.

With a clear span of 4,260 feet and its colossal 70-story steel towers, the bridge, which was described by “master builder” Robert Moses as a “triumph of simplicity, and restraint over exuberance,” connects Staten Island with Brooklyn.

“It’s just a majestic building structure,” added Vice President and Chief of Operations James Fortunato of MTA Bridges and Tunnels in an over-the-phone interview. “The planning and design of this structure was way ahead of its time.”

The two 693-foot towers weigh 27,000 tons and they are joined together by three million rivets and one million bolts. To consider the curvature of the earth, the tops of the towers had to be one and five-eighths inches farther apart than their bases, according to the MTA.

Who knows if curvature was actually accounted for?  Or if making the bridge towers inline with gravity just resulted that way?  With the 1-5/8th inch difference for the tops of the 693 foot tall towers means the towers were built correctly.  Or assumed to be built correctly?


But the math behind the speculation.

https://www.mathscinotes.com/2017/01/effect-of-earths-curvature-on-suspension-bridge-dimensions/

Another build that comes up supposedly taking in account the curvature of the earth.  This one is more along the lines of measurable and practical.  But if the tank is made level, it would follow the curvature of the earth anyway?

There is one huge towing tank of about 500m, so long that the tank has been built following the Earth curvature - as the water surface would do - and not straight to avoid vertical position offset of models under test (about 18 cm). The second towing tank is shorter (about 220m) but it can generate controlled waves to analyze hull behavior at difference sea force levels.

https://dewesoft.com/blog/marine-performance-testing-and-simulation

Long story short.  If the difference of two towers almost 700 feet tall is an additional 1-5/8” farther apart at the tops, the difference would be negligible for 50 foot poles that would still be perpendicular to the level line of the earth.  So, they really wouldn’t “lean”.

How straight do trees grow again…..

but it's not "leaning'.

down is towards center of earth.
not "south".
things in the south don't fall more south.

No, I mean, you think somehow by increasing the size of an object it will magically not have the traits of a sphere.

No, we think that if you increase the size (and more importantly) mass of the object, so it the dominant mass in the system (in free fall, outside the roche limit of any other larger object), that it will behave dramatically differently to a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger one.

This results in a rather profound inability to make any kind of building because of a loop effect.

What "loop effect"?
Yet again, rather than demonstrating any fault with the RE model, or even attempting to address the faults in the FE model; you just spout vague garbage making an entirely empty claim of another fault.

Yeah no. Even if I were add all the density in the universe, those poles will fall over because they are at an off-balance angle.

Only because you are thinking along the lines of a FE fantasy where objects just magically fall for no reason.

What force is acting on them to pull them over? Gravity, pulling towards the centre of Earth.
So no, it wont.
When you analyse the model honestly, there is no issue.

Meanwhile, if I dance on the top of a table

Can you do it with the table on its side? No. Stop ignoring Earth in your pathetic dishonest models.

by definition living on the crust of a sphere is curved no matter how big you make it.

And the question is how significant is the curvature?
Living on the surface of a tiny ball is dramatically different to living on the surface of a massive ball.

Love that scale argument!

Behind the Scenes: Flat Basketball Proof

https://imgur.io/gallery/nSGtPtz

That's nice, but you're cross-sectioning a "flat" area and you think somehow this is the same as cross-sectioning a truly flat object.

Let's say I'm doing this using a combination camera/microscope, a microscopic zoom camera if you will,  hanging in place focused on one point in the basketball.

There's a problem though. Objects do not only have general appearance of shape. They have traits due to shape. For example, if I used some sort of summoning magic to call forth a giant green trapezoid, the trapezoid would have the following traits:

• Wider bottom than top. I promptly flip it over and use it to provide shade.
• Angled sides. Due to it being a mental construct (magic? temember) and angular momentum, it is light and easy to flip.
• Awkward shape. Were I to pick it up instead of turning it, it would seem heavy (despite being a construct) due to being wider in one area than another. The contrast between sides would make it an awkward lift.

Round objects roll, water slopes off them, and they exhibit momentum in multiple directions (english, backspin, etc). While both flat and round objects exhibit angular momentum on a sloped surface (a hill), round objects turn the entire object (rolling down), flat objects skid on the underside. For example while riding a ball down a snowy hill would be more interesting than riding a sled, we tend not to do that as we don't like to be crushed by the thing we're riding on. At least, I don't?

How well does this "flat" basketball square up under a cross-section, when some random kid that the camera can't even see pokes the basketball hard enough to push it? Not well. The cross-section moves on the camera to a new one, then other new ones, as the "flat" object rolls entirely and eventually passes the camera, leaving it looking at the table underneath. The camera sees a table also as flat. The kid tries to push this, away from the wall. It scoots rather than rolls, assuming the table wasn't too heavy for the kid. If his mom pushes it back, there is a good chance it scoots back to the original spot. Short of marking the spot, there is no way to even identify the original spot.

You can play around with tiny areas, but all of that is the same the trapezoid that I summoned. Ultimately, not real.  I realize the trapezoid isn't real and poof it goes up in smoke. Persistent delusions are a little harder to cause to outright disappear though.

But arguments only work if they are grounded in reality.

Naming someone with a penis between their legs a woman is an exercise in denial. Now, you can get one to look like a woman. In fact, very convincingly sometimes.

In this case, most reasonable people would realize that even if they knew this is a crossdresser, that the breasts are fake, and there is something tucked in the panties that "woman" is wearing, she will get bullied if people try to force her to use a men's restroom or address her as "him."

However this person's shape has traits. This "woman" cannot suckle young as those breasts are forms (usually silicone), and she cannot bear children. She can however make a woman pregnant, and probably lift more than her body seems to allow.

Distorting what facts are by playing games with zoom or dimensions doesn't change the base nature of objects. It doesn't change facts, it just makes you a fiction writer. You knowingly called a ball flat. None of us know what shape Earth is, but it is decidedly not a triangle due to lacking the traits of triangles. And when it lacks the water traits of a globe, and double down on that, I think you're lying about it being a globe.

A basin holds water. So does a plate to some extent.

A globe doesn't hold water. Neither does your argument.

That's nice, but you're cross-sectioning a "flat" area and you think somehow this is the same as cross-sectioning a truly flat object.

Ok?

https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip

The “seen curvature” is the dip of the horizon because of how large the earth is.

That's nice, but you're cross-sectioning a "flat" area and you think somehow this is the same as cross-sectioning a truly flat object.

You certainly seem to.
As you claim a curved surface will appear curved no matter what.

This fact you ignore is why so much of your delusional BS fails.

The photo demonstrates how a round object (like a basketball) can produce the same effects that we see on Earth.

Round objects roll, water slopes off them, and they exhibit momentum in multiple directions (english, backspin, etc).

And why does that happen?
Due to attraction to Earth, which they are quite close to.
So that BS doesn't work as an argument against Earth being round.

But arguments only work if they are grounded in reality.

Which is why your argument fails, and why clearly demonstrating how a round object like a basketball can appear like Earth doesn't fail.

Distorting what facts are by playing games with zoom or dimensions doesn't change the base nature of objects.

So why do you keep doing it?

You knowingly called a ball flat.

No, they didn't. They exposed your dishonest BS.
Your dishonest BS pretends Earth is flat because of things like the appearance of a horizon, and because you can't see obvious curves.

They aren't actually saying it is flat. They are saying your argument is BS.

None of us know what shape Earth is

Plenty of people know it is roughly a sphere.
Your wilful rejection of reality does not change this.

And when it lacks the water traits of a globe

What traits are lacking?
In all your pathetic experiments, we see water going to the globe, Earth.

It doesn't stick to your tiny globe for the same reason it doesn't stick to a plate on its side.

Your experiments are just as honest as holding a plate on its side and demonstrating the water flies off.

In this dishonest garbage of yours, we see the water going off your tiny balls and towards Earth.
In the real RE model, what is it that this water is flowing to?
What direction is it?

You keep claiming the water should go to the southern hemisphere, but you have no reason for why.

Again, Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
Instead, it is a massive ball in free fall well outside the Roche limit of any larger object.

A basin holds water. So does a plate to some extent.

Not any more than a sphere, as clearly demonstrated by turning it on its side.
Do you know what does hold water? A bottle, where it is closed at all side.


Now again, how about you stop with all the dishonest BS and explain how the sun illuminates clouds from below when it is above them?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 07, 2023, 05:23:53 AM

That's nice, but you're cross-sectioning a "flat" area and you think somehow this is the same as cross-sectioning a truly flat object.

Ok?

Quote

https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip

The “seen curvature” is the dip of the horizon because of how large the earth is.

I have a video out there on a previous post where they demonstrate using an extreme zoom camera that the curve you see is actually imperfect perspective. Upon zooming, the area straightens out completely and you can see further. It is the limit of your eyes and vanishing point. The curve doesn't actually exist.

And yes, I think it was a Lake Pontchatrain disproof video. Sorry guy, not how things really work.

Upon zooming, the area straightens out completely and you can see further. It is the limit of your eyes and vanishing point. The curve doesn't actually exist.

Which is a meaningless bullshit statement as proven by this thread, “Horizon did not block duck from view”
Horizon did not block duck from view


And the opening post of this thread.

Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91626.0

Too much information for one thread?  Or does it show how knowledge leads to knowledge.

Probably another thread that will be largely ignored.  I guess spice up the title.  Who makes who dance…..

Anyway.

I guess the best way to organize this thread is in four parts.

A quick example of refraction.  Old proof the earth is curved. Modern proof the earth is curved.  What to me is the classic proof the earth is curved.

Part one. First refraction. 

Refraction over simplified leads to how much of a distance target can be seen through mirage.  The new well known example is Chicago.

Quote

Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

Flat earther’s ignore certain factors when using the Chicago skyline.  Such as, the pictures used are often from Tower Hill.

Quote

The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

And atmospheric conditions that change the amount of atmospheric refraction will change how much of the Chicago’s skyline that can be seen.  Seen as in the visible length of buildings. 

Quote

On a normal sunny day, say in summer you can only see a dozen or so of Chicago’s tallest buildings from southwest Michigan. Yes, you can see Chicago, just not all of it.
“Anything more than that, especially when you get above 10 or 12, something's happening, because that's not usually there," Nowicki said.
That something is a strong temperature inversion, warmer air above colder air, that causes light to bend.
“A mirage is just a case of atmospheric refraction, it’s caused by the fact you have temperature variations in the atmosphere and these cause density variations.”  says Doctor Mark Rennie, an associate professor in areo-optics at the University of Notre Dame. “So literally the speed of light varies within the air. And this variation of the speed of light has the effect of bending light rays."

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

The fact you need to stand on a 250 foot hill, and the changing visibility of building lengths is strong evidence the earth is curved.    And refraction is a factor that can’t be ignored, and most be factored for. 

If you doubt refraction, do you believe this is a real double decker ship?



Part Two.  Henry Yule Oldham and his take on the Bedford Level experiment.

Quote

In 1901, Henry Yule Oldham, a reader in geography at King's College, Cambridge, reproduced Wallace's results using three poles fixed at equal height above water level. When viewed through a theodolite, the middle pole was found to be about 6 feet (1.8 m) higher than the poles at each end.[10][11] This version of the experiment was taught in schools in England until photographs of the Earth from space became available, and it remains in the syllabus for the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education for 2023.[12][13][14][15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Seems reasonable proof the earth is curved.  If you understand refraction, how it’s mitigated. And a reasonable experiment that can be replicated.  I tried to find the original photos.  But could not find them.  This is all the original documentation I could find.

https://ia600902.us.archive.org/35/items/reportofbritisha01scie/reportofbritisha01scie.pdf









Part three.  Modern proof.

I came across this video.  I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.

Quote

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km

The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.

Part four, the classic.  Ships disappearing bottom up.

During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.



Then a ship farther away.




If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon.  There is always my go to ship video.

Quote

So.  There you go.

Proofs the earth is curved.  The Chicago skyline.  The 1901 take on the Bedford experiment published in British Association for the Advancement of Science.  The video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km” published on YouTube.  And the classic boats disappearing bottom up as a bonus to the video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”.  And in the video “Huge container ship eclipsing the horizon. Nikon Coolpix P900.”

Upon zooming, the area straightens out completely and you can see further. It is the limit of your eyes and vanishing point. The curve doesn't actually exist.

Explain “straightens” out. When you’re narrowing the field of view.

And if it takes the whole horizon to see the dip.  What does zooming in to narrow the field of view do for you.  So we are back to you not understanding a smaller/narrower frame of reference.

Again..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 21, 2023, 08:49:25 PM

A sphere is by definition three-dimensional. A ball can't be flat.

You really have no concept of how big the earth is to an individual’s frame of reference.


Just like this large tank and using this small straight edge on this level as a frame of reference.



Looks flat with a small frame of reference?

But the tank is clearly curved.






What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip

If you’re “zooming” in.  You’re changing the frame of reference just like with this basketball.

Behind the Scenes: Flat Basketball Proof

https://imgur.io/gallery/nSGtPtz

Thanks bulmabriefs144 for validating that zooming in on a curved surface like a basketball to a small enough frame of reference will make it look flat.

I have a video out there on a previous post where they demonstrate using an extreme zoom camera that the curve you see is actually imperfect perspective. Upon zooming, the area straightens out completely and you can see further. It is the limit of your eyes and vanishing point. The curve doesn't actually exist.

And yes, I think it was a Lake Pontchatrain disproof video. Sorry guy, not how things really work.

And where is this video of yours? I am yet to see it.

For any curve, if you zoom in, it appears to "straighten out" as you are seeing less of the curve; unless you are zooming in on that curve side, while keeping enough in frame.

But you don't get to see further.
Vanishing point/perspective does not make things curve. Anyone claiming it does is lying to you.

The limit of your eyes doesn't make things curve, nor does it hide the bottom of objects. It makes things appear to shrink to an unresolvable point.

So, observations from reality require a curved Earth.

For example, the observation of the sun illuminating clouds from below.
For a FE, with the sun quite high above the clouds, there is no way for it to directly illuminate the clouds from below and cast a shadow upwards.