Evidence for flat earth?

If you remove ALL of the accusations of conspiracy from the flat earth argument. What remains? What science does flat earth ideology offer society? Where is the proof that the Earth is flat?

When you say things like, "I can see just by looking around me that the Earth is flat", this means you cannot visualize how that could be possible on a sphere. So I want to propose this thought experiment:

Picture yourself standing on a ball that is the size of Los Angeles. You're at the top of this ball and in every direction you look, you can clearly see where the curve of the ball is. But then imagine the ball growing larger and larger right under your feet. You can imagine, I'm sure, where the curve of the ball would start moving away from you in all directions. And if you continue to picture this ball getting larger and larger, the curve that you could see with your eyes would eventually get so far away from you, that you would no longer be able to discern, from your vantage point, how far away the curve is and everything in all directions would simply look flat to you.

So then the appearance of the earth looking flat from your vantage point is not evidence that the Earth is flat.

I purchased the flat earth simulation software from Steam gaming site and ran the simulation and read everything it had to say.

One of my biggest issues with the flat earth model is that it does not show how the sun can appear to rise up from below the horizon and then drop down below the horizon every single day. This is something we all see happening with our own eyes. But the flat earth model fails to show this happening.

The flat earth simulator simply says that the sun will appear to go below the horizon in the same way that birds will disappear below the horizon when watching them fly away.

That's the explanation of how the sun rises and sets every day. Yet it also says that the sun is 3,000 miles above the Earth. Since the longest distance anyone could ever be from the sun in terms of it being away from a person, could only be roughly 15,000 miles or so since the sun does not circle at the edge of the earth (where the earth's diameter is roughly 22,000 miles).

This means that at 3,000 miles high, at the max distance of 15,000 miles away, on a flat surface, the sun will NEVER drop down below the horizon.

In fact, I would argue that on a flat surface, NOTHING would drop below the horizon because on a flat earth, there would never be a horizon. The horizon is the breaking point where the curvature of the earth's surface drops down out of sight, and the only reason why birds even disappear is because they are following the path of the earth, where from their perspective they are going in a straight line, but since gravity is always in the direction of the center of the earth at all points along the globe, a person will always be upright no matter where they are on the globe, including the birds, but to a distant observer, the only reason why the birds drop below the horizon in the first place is because the curvature of the earth surface makes them drop out of view.

The only way to prove that objects could drop below the horizon on a flat surface would be to scale the model down to a manageable size and then show how the phenomena works on a flat surface and where the sun is 3,000 miles in the air at 15,000 miles away, you could take a drone at say 30 feet in the air and place it at a distance of 150 feet away and see if it is no longer visible. I assure you, it will be visible even from the ground. You could put that drone 300 feet away at 30 feet in the air and it will still be visible from the ground.

But this requires critical thinking and experimentation and in this case, the flat earth model fails miserably to show us how the sun drops below the horizon.

The only model that can show us visually, the things we see with our eyes every day, is the globe model where the sun is a long distance away and the spin of the globe on its axis explains the rising and setting of the sun. It also shows us how the sun can stay in the sky for weeks at a time at the southern and northern points on the globe because of the Earth being tilted on its axis and while the sun remains in the sky for weeks at a time - never setting, it continues to rise and set for the rest of us day in and day out. Only the globe model visually demonstrates that phenomenon - that we can all see with our own eyes.

In 450 BC, the Greeks had concluded that the Earth is a sphere, based solely on years of studying the stars and the moon and allowing that data to tell them what the shape of the Earth is. It has been accepted for more than 2,000 years that the Earth is a sphere ... no government coverups are required.

Horizons are seen as a perfectly straight, horizontal line across the Earths surface, in all directions it’s seen in.

It is always seen as a straight and horizontal line, whatever the shape of line.

The longest horizons we see are over thousands of miles long, and are straight and horizontal lines across them, as all of them are.

A ball Earth is said to be about
24000 miles in circumference. That is its distance around the ball, when seen on the surface, outward to a horizon of about 3 miles away.

But when we are 25000 feet above that ball, the circumference of 24000 miles is much smaller than that, because we are high above that ball, when seeing it from a great distance away from us.

So when we see a horizon stretch over a thousand miles across the Earths surface, from such a great distance away from the Earth, at smaller circumference than it’s true measurement of 24000 miles as seen from ground, when we see a horizon of a thousand miles in length, and we are in planes flying beside horizons or almost so, we see horizons at the same or nearly the same distance over them, at times. That is, seeing the horizon from a plane, is not in a circle of it going around a circular line. It is seen as a straight or mostly straight line of the same distance away from it.

A flight of 2000 miles over the Earth, in clear daylight skies, seeing the same horizon along the flight, in consecutive segments over it, as a panorama view of it, is always a straight across line, nothing of a curve anywhere at all.

It’s that easy to prove Earth is flat, for absolute fact.


Look at a horizon about 3 miles away, at its center point from your position. Move along it at the same distance away, to see it as one straight line going across from you. 

Horizons are seen as a perfectly straight, horizontal line across the Earths surface, in all directions it’s seen in.

It is always seen as a straight and horizontal line, whatever the shape of line.

From a ground vantage point, this is 100% correct AND EXPECTED given the size of the earth. Refer back to my thought experiment. it only makes sense that in all directions, where the curve is so far away it cannot be seen, that everything would look flat from that vantage point.

The longest horizons we see are over thousands of miles long, and are straight and horizontal lines across them, as all of them are.

When was this established? From what vantage point? I would argue that at the point where things drop down below the horizon from a stationary vantage point, that the width of the horizon from a stationary field of view is less than a hundred miles across in any direction. The only way to confirm this would be to go out to that point where the object moving away from you drops below the horizon and place markers and measure the distances to the markers and using angles, calculate the horizon length.

If you are aware of such an experiment, I would be interested in seeing it.

A ball Earth is said to be about
24000 miles in circumference. That is its distance around the ball, when seen on the surface, outward to a horizon of about 3 miles away.

Again, evidence? Experiment notes? Anything to validate this claim?

But when we are 25000 feet above that ball, the circumference of 24000 miles is much smaller than that, because we are high above that ball, when seeing it from a great distance away from us.

Five miles above the earth when it has a circumference of 24,000 miles is hardly "high above that ball". 24,000 miles is 126,720,000 feet. 25,000 feet is only .0197% in ratio. That's not nearly high enough to be able to see the curve at the edges.

A flight of 2000 miles over the Earth, in clear daylight skies, seeing the same horizon along the flight, in consecutive segments over it, as a panorama view of it, is always a straight across line, nothing of a curve anywhere at all.

Ummm ... what planes do you know that fly 2,000 miles above the earth?

It’s that easy to prove Earth is flat, for absolute fact.

'Fraid not, you haven't proven anything and you've certainly not cited any evidence to back up the "facts" you seem to be claiming.

Look at a horizon about 3 miles away, at its center point from your position. Move along it at the same distance away, to see it as one straight line going across from you.

Again, my argument is that from a ground vantage point, everything will look flat in all directions when you're on a ball that is 24,000 miles in circumfrance.

It’s that easy to prove Earth is flat, for absolute fact.

Look at a horizon about 3 miles away, at its center point from your position. Move along it at the same distance away, to see it as one straight line going across from you.

There wouldn't BE a horizon about 3 miles away if he earth were flat.  The existence of a nearby horizon when viewing out over a large body of water is the simplest proof that the earth is not flat.

Horizons are seen

And that is as far as you need to go.
That part of your statement alone kills your flat Earth fantasy.

As pointed out on plenty of threads, the horizon is clear proof that Earth is curved.

A flat surface would not have a horizon.

And the rest of your statement is a line.

as a perfectly straight, horizontal line across the Earths surface, in all directions it’s seen in.

No, it isn't. The fact you can follow it around you, in all directions, with it remaining ~the same distance away, means it is a circle.

Try drawing a straight line on the ground and seeing how that appears.
Try holding a straight rod up around eye height, fixed in place, and seeing how that varies.
Try to follow that straight line around you.

Again, for an observer 2 m high with the horizon a circle with a radius of roughly 5 km, the distinction between your inexplicable fantasy BS and reality is that your BS has the horizon 2 m below you while reality has it 4 m.
Any argument you make against reality, will work equally with your fantasy BS (unless you want to appeal to the angle of dip of the horizon which kills your BS).

The longest horizons we see are over thousands of miles long, and are straight and horizontal lines across them, as all of them are.

[
Care to provide a picture?
And care to state how much of that horizon is in that picture.

24000 miles in circumference. That is its distance around the ball, when seen on the surface, outward to a horizon of about 3 miles away.

And the vast majority of that 24 000 archaic units are entirely hidden from view.

So when we see a horizon

We know Earth cannot be flat.

That is, seeing the horizon from a plane, is not in a circle of it going around a circular line.

Because you are only seeing a tiny portion of it.

A flight of 2000 miles over the Earth, in clear daylight skies, seeing the same horizon along the flight

No, over a flight you see the horizon move.
It is NOT the same horizon.

And do you know what shape that is consistent with? A ball.

It’s that easy to prove Earth is flat, for absolute fact.

If it is so easy, then why do you keep appealing to the horizon which clearly demonstrates Earth is not flat, and then appealing to a bunch of dishonest BS?
Why don't you offer this easy proof?

Look at a horizon about 3 miles away, at its center point from your position. Move along it at the same distance away, to see it as one straight line going across from you.

Do you mean turn on the spot and observe the circle around you?
Or do you mean move and have the horizon itself move?

Now try the same thing with a hula hoop.
Because it will work just as well.

If you believe a flat surface cannot have a horizon, and you believe that a horizon that is seen only 3 miles out, has gone over a curving downward surface, then you’d also believe the surface 3 miles away on a flat surface would be seen higher than it is now, right?

Perspective would make both surfaces appear to rise up, both appear entirely flat over that 3 miles, yet one of the surfaces is curved, only the other is flat? 

How could perspective make curved surfaces appear to be completely flat? 

If we tilted up both of these surfaces, one that is flat, one that curves downward by 8 inches in the first mile, and by 3 feet or so by 3 miles, would it look perfectly flat over the three miles of curving surface?

Perspective doesn’t make curved surfaces appear completely flat, nor make a ragged surface with dips and bumps look perfectly flat over it. 

When we see a wake or waves on the water, they don’t look flat, but the whole surface itself looks flat.

Yet somehow you believe that perspective makes curved surfaces look perfectly flat, because you think there really IS a curved surface that cannot be seen at all, because the curve is only down a couple feet over 3 miles, and you believe that would make it look exactly like it was perfectly flat?

Then you would HAVE a perfectly flat surface, not a curved surface that looks exactly like a flat surface.

Perspective makes whatever type of surface appear to rise, unless it slopes down over the first 50 feet out or something. Even that surface would first appear higher for a bit, though.

There is one thing we know that perspective cannot do, won’t do, could never do….it cannot change the appearance or shape or type of those surfaces, from a bumpy uneven surface into a perfectly smooth and flat surface. 

Since a curving downward surface is never at all flat, and only curves over it, they cannot look perfectly flat over them, three miles out on it.

What would possibly make a curved surface, that has curved downward by about 2 or 3 feet, in three miles, look exactly the same as a REAL flat surface would look? 

Perspective does not make a curve going further and further down on a surface, lift upward from there, and flatten it out, and rise upward as a flat surface, it magically flattened out curves over it!!

It is correct that perspective makes all surfaces appear to rise upward over distance, that is based on how we see things in the distance, where objects look smaller and smaller with distance, yet they’re the same size throughout. They will eventually be too small to see, if they could be seen, and we can always see them with instruments, as long as they can be seen at all.  Instruments are basically more powerful eyes we use as our own eyes. They magnify what our eyes cannot see, or not as close, or as clear or sharp.


This idea that horizons cannot exist on a flat surface is nonsense, even if the surface continued to rise and rise forever outward as you claim.

Look at how high the surface appears to be three miles out. You think it’s that high over a downward curving surface, so you’d think it’d be higher than that over a flat surface, right?

Imagine it’s all flat beyond the horizon. You think it would keep rising up higher and higher after 3 miles out, but what would it look like by another 10 or 50 miles out while still ‘rising up’?

If it only rises very very slightly over the next 50 miles, then you’d have 50 miles of that surface which is past the height of the horizon, or where the horizon would be, you think there wouldn’t be one on a flat surface.

But you know that the flat surface would look at least that high up, or higher, that cannot be excused away. 

So we would have to either see all objects over a flat surface that’s already higher up than we are, a ship we see atop the horizon is only three miles out from us. When it is 4 miles out, and is still seen as before, how could it rise up enough to see it beyond that height, could only be done if the surface rises up higher than the next mile over the surface, otherwise it would not rise up enough to see it over the mostly flat surface in that one mile past the high surface.

It cannot rise up, however slightly, over the next 300 or 400 miles, and could possibly see objects that are there, simply because our angle of view past 3 miles is already higher than us.

Imagine a ship you see high upon a horizon, and past that point, it is entirely flat or ‘slightly rising’.

Our angle of view is lower than the ship is seen by us, so when it sails out another 10 miles more, where does that 10 miles of surface go? Where do we see that 10 miles more of surface?  It has to go up higher than the first 3 miles in order to still see it all, right?

If it doesn’t rise up more than the rest of the surface has risen, we couldn’t see it, right?


You’ve got either an endlessly higher up surface that’s always seen higher than the nearer surface is, which would soon block out the entire sky above Earth, block out the Sun, moon and stars, within the first few hundred miles outward, or maybe half that distance, but whatever the distance would be, we’d see nothing at all by that point.

Or you have an extremely slightly rising up surface, where everything past that height of surface goes out almost at that height, over a nearly flat and level surface over the next 300 miles, where we can see a ship high above us 3 miles away.  The angle of objects would be smaller and smaller with more distance, and already would be seen higher than we are, so objects past that would soon be impossible to see, once again, and there WOULD be a horizon on it. The angle is eventually as high as we can see out on the surface, and forms a horizon on it at that point of distance.


Either one fails to work, but thankfully neither one happens on our flat surface of Earth. It would look horrible if it did either one.

If you believe a flat surface cannot have a horizon, and you believe that a horizon that is seen only 3 miles out, has gone over a curving downward surface, then you’d also believe the surface 3 miles away on a flat surface would be seen higher than it is now, right?

Yes, as repeatedly explained. However, the difference is quite small.

Perspective would make both surfaces appear to rise up, both appear entirely flat over that 3 miles, yet one of the surfaces is curved, only the other is flat?

No. Only one appears flat, the one which doesn't have the horizon.
The horizon is how we clearly see it isn't flat.

If we tilted up both of these surfaces, one that is flat, one that curves downward by 8 inches in the first mile, and by 3 feet or so by 3 miles, would it look perfectly flat over the three miles of curving surface?

The question, which you entirely ignored, is HOW DO YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?
Do you know a simple way? THE HORIZON!

Perspective doesn’t make curved surfaces appear completely flat

i.e. it can't magically make you see forever, beyond the horizon.

Yet somehow you believe that perspective makes curved surfaces look perfectly flat

No, I don't, as we see a horizon.

What would possibly make a curved surface, that has curved downward by about 2 or 3 feet, in three miles, look exactly the same as a REAL flat surface would look?

It doesn't.

If you go to the effort of marking out distances in a clearly identifiable way and carefully measure the angle of dip to these points, they wont match a flat surface.

It is correct that perspective makes all surfaces appear to rise upward over distance

Which further demonstrates that your prior claims were lies.
That what we see is consistent with a round Earth.

Again, the distinction is that for a curved surface, eventually the curve wins.
For a flat surface, the curve can't win.

we can always see them with instruments, as long as they can be seen at all.

Except when we do that, we observe the bottoms missing.

This idea that horizons cannot exist on a flat surface is nonsense, even if the surface continued to rise and rise forever outward as you claim.

Yet you can't show any fault with it, and instead resort to the same dishonest BS.

Imagine it’s all flat beyond the horizon. You think it would keep rising up higher and higher after 3 miles out, but what would it look like by another 10 or 50 miles out while still ‘rising up’?

Yes. As that is what the evidence shows. That is what basic math shows.
You not liking it wont change that.

So we would have to either see all objects over a flat surface that’s already higher up than we are

No, it would always be below.

It cannot rise up, however slightly, over the next 300 or 400 miles

Why?
Because you say so?

Our angle of view is lower than the ship is seen by us, so when it sails out another 10 miles more, where does that 10 miles of surface go?

Already explained:


Again, for a flat Earth:
a = atan(h/d).

You’ve got either an endlessly higher up surface that’s always seen higher than the nearer surface is, which would soon block out the entire sky above Earth

Repeating the already refuted lie wont help you.
It continues to rise at a decreasing rate, approaching but never reaching 0.

Either one fails to work, but thankfully neither one happens on our flat surface of Earth. It would look horrible if it did either one.

You mean your dishonest BS fails to work, while the geometry of a flat surface does work but fails to match reality.
Meanwhile, the RE works just fine.


Notice how you yet again fail to provide an explanation for what magic magically causes a magical horizon which magically blocks the view to more distant land and objects?
Because you know there is no possible way to do this.

The geometry doesn’t show the surface rising up in the distance, so it doesn’t match the reality of what happens on Earth.

A rising horizon is seen, so what we see of the surface does not match the reality of the surface not rising.

Horizons are illusions, a rising surface is an illusion, the horizon isn’t a real thing atop an illusion of a rising surface. Both are illusions, both due to perspective.


It may seem to be magical, but many illusions are magical, yet they exist anyway. Is a rising surface magical or not? So why would horizons be magical on top of an illusion of a higher surface? It doesn’t switch into reality on top of an illusion, they are both illusions of perspective, and that’s why we cannot see past them. Perspective has a vanishing point, a distance that we cannot see beyond. That is what is happening here.

It’s easy to prove the surface is entirely flat when it is seen going across the surface. If a curve was blocking out ships, it would show a curve in the cross view of the surface. You take it as a curve in one view, not the other views of it. The curve has to work from all views, not the one that is an illusion of perpective. But the curve is an illusion, it doesn’t work with real views of the surface. It’s used for bs claims on illusions, and is just bs

A rising horizon is seen,

You just posted there was no horizon.  Make up your mind.

And why is there a measurable dip to the horizon?

How could perspective make curved surfaces appear to be completely flat? 

Picture yourself standing on a ball that is the size of Los Angeles. You're at the top of this ball and in every direction you look, you can clearly see where the curve of the ball is. But then imagine the ball growing larger and larger right under your feet. You can imagine, I'm sure, where the curve of the ball would start moving away from you in all directions. And if you continue to picture this ball getting larger and larger, the curve that you could see with your eyes would eventually get so far away from you, that you would no longer be able to discern, from your vantage point, how far away the curve is and everything in all directions would simply look flat to you.

The geometry doesn’t show the surface rising up in the distance, so it doesn’t match the reality of what happens on Earth.

Again, stop doing it in this dishonest manner.
The geometry shows the ANGLE OF ELEVATION, i.e. the angle to it, gets higher.

Your vision works based upon angles, not physical heights.

What we see is the ground going to higher angles of elevation.
This is entirely consistent with simple geometry.
Including the horizon being formed due to the curve.

A rising horizon is seen, so what we see of the surface does not match the reality of the surface not rising.

Again, the angle goes up, and then stops (going down after).
This DOES match the reality of the surface curving down.
It does not match your fantasy of a flat surface.

Both are illusions, both due to perspective.

Neither are illusions. Both are simple geometry.

It may seem to be magical, but many illusions are magical, yet they exist anyway.

No illusion is magical.

Is a rising surface magical or not?

Again, what rising surface?
If you present it honestly, all your BS falls apart.

The surface is at a greater angle of elevation.
Simple geometry, no magic.

So why would horizons be magical on top of an illusion of a higher surface?

They would be magical as they defy the basic geometry you want to pretend is an illusion.

Again, for a flat surface:
a=atan(h/d).

This just gets closer and closer to 0, never reaching 0. Never stopping rising.
So to have it stop, to have it defy that basic geometry, would be pure magic.

But having a curved surface, which follows a different formula doesn't require any magic at all.

It’s easy to prove the surface is entirely flat when it is seen going across the surface.

You keep claiming this, yet you cannot provide any proof.

If a curve was blocking out ships, it would show a curve in the cross view of the surface.

And to see that curve you need to be far enough away to see a great circle, not just a tiny horizon.

This has been explained to you repeatedly.
Here it is again:

The line that shows the curve is the grey line.
But the horizon is the blue line.
Notice how they aren't the same?
The curve you are appealing to is hidden by the horizon.

If you want to see that curve, you need to be high enough above Earth to be able to see it clearly.
If you would like a simple demonstration, go get a hula hoop. Hold it level with your eyes, then look at it as you slowly lower it and see how far below it needs to be for you to easily see the curve.

If Earth was flat, the bottom of objects wouldn't be hidden. With good enough optics and clear enough days you would be able to bring anything into view. The sun would never set. And so many other things.

The horizon is clear evidence that Earth is round.
Until you have an explanation for the magic, that fact will remain:

One of my biggest issues with the flat earth model is that it does not show how the sun can appear to rise up from below the horizon and then drop down below the horizon every single day. This is something we all see happening with our own eyes. But the flat earth model fails to show this happening.

You must be joking of course.

The Green Flash phenomenon cancels/nullifies the rising/setting RE sun:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2252015#msg2252015 (two consecutive messages)

The Sun has some 636 meters in diameter and rises/sets every day (highest altitude some 10-12 km above the surface of the Earth).

You must be joking of course.

Nope.
But you must be.
Notice how you fail to address the issue, and instead just provide a 0 effort link to your prior BS?

The Sun has some 636 meters in diameter and rises/sets every day (highest altitude some 10-12 km above the surface of the Earth).

Which would make the apparent size change dramatically throughout the day, with it appearing comparable to a plane.
How would such a pathetic sun be able to illuminate half of Earth?

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 03, 2024, 03:40:08 AM

The geometry doesn’t show the surface rising up in the distance, so it doesn’t match the reality of what happens on Earth.

Again, stop doing it in this dishonest manner.
The geometry shows the ANGLE OF ELEVATION, i.e. the angle to it, gets higher.

Your vision works based upon angles, not physical heights.

What we see is the ground going to higher angles of elevation.
This is entirely consistent with simple geometry.
Including the horizon being formed due to the curve.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 03, 2024, 03:40:08 AM

A rising horizon is seen, so what we see of the surface does not match the reality of the surface not rising.

Again, the angle goes up, and then stops (going down after).
This DOES match the reality of the surface curving down.
It does not match your fantasy of a flat surface.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 03, 2024, 03:40:08 AM

Both are illusions, both due to perspective.

Neither are illusions. Both are simple geometry.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 03, 2024, 03:40:08 AM

It may seem to be magical, but many illusions are magical, yet they exist anyway.

No illusion is magical.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 03, 2024, 03:40:08 AM

Is a rising surface magical or not?

Again, what rising surface?
If you present it honestly, all your BS falls apart.

The surface is at a greater angle of elevation.
Simple geometry, no magic.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 03, 2024, 03:40:08 AM

So why would horizons be magical on top of an illusion of a higher surface?

They would be magical as they defy the basic geometry you want to pretend is an illusion.

Again, for a flat surface:
a=atan(h/d).

This just gets closer and closer to 0, never reaching 0. Never stopping rising.
So to have it stop, to have it defy that basic geometry, would be pure magic.

But having a curved surface, which follows a different formula doesn't require any magic at all.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 03, 2024, 03:40:08 AM

It’s easy to prove the surface is entirely flat when it is seen going across the surface.

You keep claiming this, yet you cannot provide any proof.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 03, 2024, 03:40:08 AM

If a curve was blocking out ships, it would show a curve in the cross view of the surface.

And to see that curve you need to be far enough away to see a great circle, not just a tiny horizon.

This has been explained to you repeatedly.
Here it is again:

The line that shows the curve is the grey line.
But the horizon is the blue line.
Notice how they aren't the same?
The curve you are appealing to is hidden by the horizon.

If you want to see that curve, you need to be high enough above Earth to be able to see it clearly.
If you would like a simple demonstration, go get a hula hoop. Hold it level with your eyes, then look at it as you slowly lower it and see how far below it needs to be for you to easily see the curve.

If Earth was flat, the bottom of objects wouldn't be hidden. With good enough optics and clear enough days you would be able to bring anything into view. The sun would never set. And so many other things.

The horizon is clear evidence that Earth is round.
Until you have an explanation for the magic, that fact will remain:

If you believe a flat surface doesn’t have a horizon, yet has an eternally rising surface that would be completely seen from the ground, how high would it have to appear to rise up and be completely seen over 100 or 200 miles? It cannot be seen if it rises very slightly over 100 miles, draw out what you think would be seen of this flat surface, if you have no clue yet.

You can support your claim with a simple drawing of some sort, can’t you? A surface completely seen over thousands of miles, that would block out the whole sky in less than 100 miles, if that much.

Take it from where the surface is seen 3 miles out. Try and draw the next 3 miles out, which is entirely seen like the first 3 miles are.

You might not need to draw it out at this point, if you simply visualize what it would look like.

That’s what you believe a flat surface would look like, a massive wall of surface going only 50 miles out, blocking the entire sky, and the Sun in the distance!!!

If you believe a flat surface doesn’t have a horizon, yet has an eternally rising surface that would be completely seen from the ground, how high would it have to appear to rise up and be completely seen over 100 or 200 miles?

What does it have to rise up to overcome?
What magic is blocking the view?

It cannot be seen if it rises very slightly over 100 miles

Why? Because you say so?

You can support your claim with a simple drawing of some sort, can’t you?

Yes, the drawing above, showing the magic that is needed to block the view.

A surface completely seen over thousands of miles, that would block out the whole sky in less than 100 miles, if that much.

Or, how about instead of your repeated lie, you stick to what is expected for a flat surface, where it wouldn't.

Again, the formula is trivial:
a=atan(h/d).
How does that block out the entire sky in less than 100 miles?

You are lying to everyone to pretend your delusional BS is true.

That’s what you believe a flat surface would look like, a massive wall of surface going only 50 miles out, blocking the entire sky, and the Sun in the distance!!!

No, that is your lie to avoid the simple question which destroys your dishonest BS.

WHAT IS BLOCKING THE VIEW?
What is preventing us from seeing this further ground?
What is preventing us from seeing objects above this ground?

The curvature is blocking the view.

Jack, your hitting yourself with a brick. These guys are just fucking with you. Give it up, dude.
Everyone knows a flat plane has no horizon.
If the world was flat, I could see the Rocky Mountains from Mt. Washington with a pair of binoculars, on a clear day, instead of the 50 miles or so that's actually visible.
Let the crazy FE guys draw the geometry. ha ha.
Picture yourself on a train at a station, plastercene porters and looking glass ties....😂🌎

The Sun has some 636 meters in diameter and rises/sets every day (highest altitude some 10-12 km above the surface of the Earth).

If the earth is flat, why can’t I bring the sun back into view after sunset with a telescope that brings stars too faint to be seen with the unaided eye into view?




This was a sunset.  Once the sun went relatively below the horizon it was physical blocked from my line of sight. The light and radiation was physically shielded from me.


If the earth isn’t spherical, how within a few minutes does the big old sun become physically blocked from detection by my telescope that brings stars too faint to be seen with the naked eye into view. 

Wow….. all this claim and counter claim when there is no need for it especially as the answer to all this is right in front of your collective noses.
The real question everyone avoids is : why do people avoid this obvious truth? What is it that is compelling them from rejecting the obvious in your face truth?



That is the real and as yet unanswered question.
Here we have a rocket in full public view watched by crowds of people being launched. There are photographs and videos of the event all over social media. Everyone has a phone with a camera each recording what happened.
The rocket had cameras on board documenting the flight. What more do you want?
If you were told you had some internal growth that needed to be removed and were given proof via a scan would you demand to be cut open to be allowed to see it with your own eyes?

200 years ago the arguments on this forum would be understandable. But now they are nothing short of ridiculous with stupid people arguing the toss with other stupid people who hold beliefs that are beyond ridiculous. As I said the real question is ; why do these ridiculous people want to hold on desperately to their ridiculous beliefs?
The other pertinent question is why do these ridiculous people avoid at all costs addressing that question?

Wow….. all this claim and counter claim when there is no need for it especially as the answer to all this is right in front of your collective noses.

If you want to be like that, just say Earth is flat and piss off, as you aren't offering anything constructive.

Why are you on a debate forum if you have no interest in debating?

And if you want to provide evidence, trying providing it from something other than a known lying piece of shit like Musk.
Musk will happily spout whatever BS he thinks will help, and fake any evidence to try supporting it.

But now they are nothing short of ridiculous with stupid people arguing the toss with other stupid people who hold beliefs that are beyond ridiculous.

And do you count yourself as being among those stupid people?

Quote from: Timeisup on March 23, 2024, 01:56:40 AM

Wow….. all this claim and counter claim when there is no need for it especially as the answer to all this is right in front of your collective noses.

If you want to be like that, just say Earth is flat and piss off, as you aren't offering anything constructive.

Why are you on a debate forum if you have no interest in debating?

And if you want to provide evidence, trying providing it from something other than a known lying piece of shit like Musk.
Musk will happily spout whatever BS he thinks will help, and fake any evidence to try supporting it.

Quote from: Timeisup on March 23, 2024, 01:56:40 AM

But now they are nothing short of ridiculous with stupid people arguing the toss with other stupid people who hold beliefs that are beyond ridiculous.

And do you count yourself as being among those stupid people?

I’ll piss off it you stop talking utter shite Jack.

Constructive! You would know constructive if were rammed up your ass.

I just supplied an answer that clears it all up.

I suppose it’s your aversion to the truth.

As it’s not your very own rocket then it doesn’t exist.

You people with selective vision and blinkers that filter out what you don’t want to see is hilarious.

I suppose ignoring it allows you to keep spouting the same old crap over and over again.

Are you claiming that rocket that was witness live and on line by who knows how many thousands of people …….and  recoded on thousands of different cameras/ phones etc was all faked !!!!!

Debate what? What is there to debate? The only question to debate is just how big a total arsehole you really are. Now that is something that could be debated.

The nature of the earth… not so much. It’s pretty clear from all those images it’s spherical, so nothing to debate. Case closed man.👨

I’ll piss off it you stop talking utter shite Jack.

You not liking me calling out your BS doesn't mean I am talking utter shite.

You seem to have come here to pretend to be smart, and utterly failed, and are now hanging around throwing a tantrum in the hopes of pretending to be smart some day.

I just supplied an answer that clears it all up.

No, it doesn't. It makes no attempt at all to discuss the horizon.

Your response is no better than just screaming Earth is round and running off.
You aren't providing an answer to clear anything up.
You are providing an answer to pretend to be smart.

And yet to do it, you relied upon footage from a known conman, someone who has faked plenty of footage before.

Are you claiming that rocket that was witness live and on line by who knows how many thousands of people …….and  recoded on thousands of different cameras/ phones etc was all faked !!!!!

No, I am pointing out Musk and his companies happily lie to everyone and provide faked footage to pretend they are doing great.
Were those many thousands of people on the rocket recording it going into space?

Debate what? What is there to debate? The only question to debate is just how big a total arsehole you really are. Now that is something that could be debated.

I see you are projecting again.

The debate here is if a flat surface could produce a horizon, and if so, how?

Case closed man.👨

So again, why are you here?

I especially notice that you didn't answer my question. Do you count yourself among the stupid people? Because you seem to imply that anyone here is stupid, on both the FE side and the RE side.
That would include you.

But I suspect you want to pretend you are special and better than everyone else.
Why else would you have come here (to this forum) and spouted so much crap when you clearly have no interest in any sort of intellectual engagement?