LoyaIty wrote

Fold wrote

Schwarz wrote

LoyaIty wrote

Schwarz wrote

LoyaIty wrote

Schwarz wrote

Unauthenticated wrote "If I was to sail of the right hand side of the earth (if it was flat) how would I then appear at the left hand side without knowing it."

To me, that just disproved everything you said.

How does one statement that makes no sense, and has no logic, disprove everything I just said? Some people...

That does make sense though. What he is saying is this:

(flat earth point of view bare in mind)
If he was to sail from the far right side (east) of Australia and sailed forwards (right side of a flat earth to left) towards Mexico/Argentina/Brazil (South America) in a straight line, how would he have landed on what is the left side of the flat earth. Within the flat earth theory this is not possible as there would be an edge that wouldn't allow for that to happen. Yet you can do so, as well as fly that way also.

Sorry, it was not well explained. I kind of understand your point but it's hard to visualize from words. Can you create a demographic so I get the full picture?

From aus (stared) to sa (stared) arrows show direction.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

But that map you used is an incorrect depiction... Use an Azimuthal Equidistant map, and re-evaluate your question, you will get your answer.

Azimunthal projection isn't accurate though, at least not for that purpose. Unless you want to maybe plan flights, it isn't worth using Azimunthal projection. In all my years of geomatics I've never once used it. Currently, the most accurate map are probably those using Authagraph projection, although not many are using it since it was only recently developed. Mercator distorts the planet (as anything does when trying to put a sphere onto a flat surface) but it is still the most useful we have for working on a planetary scale. Using polar projections isn't helpful for this topic since you are essentially looking down on the Earth and the further away from the starting pole you get, the more distorted it becomes. Similarly, working with Mercator, the further from the Equator you go the more distorted it is. A single projection is never good enough to come to large conclusions.

For some of my own points.

If I'm not misunderstanding the pythagorean image you posted, nothing would dip down below the curvature of the earth until around 48 miles away, and even then only slightly. All of the images of skylines you showed were <40 miles and therefore it is completely logical that they would be seen. However, anything over 50-60 would then unable to be seen which makes perfect sense. Also, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth using nothing but shadows, and if the Earth was flat, I'd imagine shadows and time zones would all be the same since the sun would rise and set equally across the globe. Next, there would be no cause of thermal gradients across the globe since all of the major wind systems we rely on wouldn't be able to circumvent the globe, and would essentially stagnate and force homogeny in climate across the globe. Also, the images are often different colors for a few reasons, but the biggest is seasonality. Continents will look browner in their dry season/cold weather and greener in the wet season/warm weather. Oceans will look darker blue during upwelling, and lighter blue during periods of low nutrients. Algal blooms can force them to become dark blue or even green/red during intense eutrophication events causing large blooms. Finally, you said that the horizon is flat no matter how high you go, however if you watch youtube videos of people using weather balloons, when they reach a decent height, you can see the curvature of the Earth, and it gets more intense the higher you go.

That made me feel like you slapped him right across the face and told him to sit down +rep.

Point well proven, this does indeed prove flaws in the flat earth theory. However it does not justify the flaws in the globular earth theory. I will look into this further, thank you for the input.

LoyaIty wrote

Fold wrote

Schwarz wrote

LoyaIty wrote

Schwarz wrote

LoyaIty wrote

Schwarz wrote

Unauthenticated wrote "If I was to sail of the right hand side of the earth (if it was flat) how would I then appear at the left hand side without knowing it."

To me, that just disproved everything you said.

How does one statement that makes no sense, and has no logic, disprove everything I just said? Some people...

That does make sense though. What he is saying is this:

(flat earth point of view bare in mind)
If he was to sail from the far right side (east) of Australia and sailed forwards (right side of a flat earth to left) towards Mexico/Argentina/Brazil (South America) in a straight line, how would he have landed on what is the left side of the flat earth. Within the flat earth theory this is not possible as there would be an edge that wouldn't allow for that to happen. Yet you can do so, as well as fly that way also.

Sorry, it was not well explained. I kind of understand your point but it's hard to visualize from words. Can you create a demographic so I get the full picture?

From aus (stared) to sa (stared) arrows show direction.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

But that map you used is an incorrect depiction... Use an Azimuthal Equidistant map, and re-evaluate your question, you will get your answer.

Azimunthal projection isn't accurate though, at least not for that purpose. Unless you want to maybe plan flights, it isn't worth using Azimunthal projection. In all my years of geomatics I've never once used it. Currently, the most accurate map are probably those using Authagraph projection, although not many are using it since it was only recently developed. Mercator distorts the planet (as anything does when trying to put a sphere onto a flat surface) but it is still the most useful we have for working on a planetary scale. Using polar projections isn't helpful for this topic since you are essentially looking down on the Earth and the further away from the starting pole you get, the more distorted it becomes. Similarly, working with Mercator, the further from the Equator you go the more distorted it is. A single projection is never good enough to come to large conclusions.

For some of my own points.

If I'm not misunderstanding the pythagorean image you posted, nothing would dip down below the curvature of the earth until around 48 miles away, and even then only slightly. All of the images of skylines you showed were <40 miles and therefore it is completely logical that they would be seen. However, anything over 50-60 would then unable to be seen which makes perfect sense. Also, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth using nothing but shadows, and if the Earth was flat, I'd imagine shadows and time zones would all be the same since the sun would rise and set equally across the globe. Next, there would be no cause of thermal gradients across the globe since all of the major wind systems we rely on wouldn't be able to circumvent the globe, and would essentially stagnate and force homogeny in climate across the globe. Also, the images are often different colors for a few reasons, but the biggest is seasonality. Continents will look browner in their dry season/cold weather and greener in the wet season/warm weather. Oceans will look darker blue during upwelling, and lighter blue during periods of low nutrients. Algal blooms can force them to become dark blue or even green/red during intense eutrophication events causing large blooms. Finally, you said that the horizon is flat no matter how high you go, however if you watch youtube videos of people using weather balloons, when they reach a decent height, you can see the curvature of the Earth, and it gets more intense the higher you go.

That made me feel like you slapped him right across the face and told him to sit down +rep.

Point well proven, this does indeed prove flaws in the flat earth theory. However it does not justify the flaws in the globular earth theory. I will look into this further, thank you for the input.

It's not flat lmao!

Visxal wrote It's not flat lmao!

The wold is our oyster so it cannot be flat.

Visxal wrote It's not flat lmao!

This video very well explains why people like you have problems accepting new beliefs. I hope after watching this your perspective might change, and maybe you might start researching the topic before denying it... You haven't even looked into it, how can you just deny it?

You think that the "Round Earth" theory implies that the earth is a perfect sphere? lol

Dbz wrote You think that the "Round Earth" theory implies that the earth is a perfect sphere? lol

No .. But NASA's official images do. By the way they have admitted their own images are photoshopped.. Whats controversial is, their archives state the world is an oblate spheroid. More proof of deception..

False because NASA and Satellites bruh

GT40 wrote False because NASA and Satellites bruh

At least read the topic before replying to it. 16 pages of replies and you don't think that a single person has brought up NASA and Satellites?

Cioran wrote

GT40 wrote False because NASA and Satellites bruh

At least read the topic before replying to it. 16 pages of replies and you don't think that a single person has brought up NASA and Satellites?

NASA contradict their own arguments on a regular basis, and all of their images of Earth are doctored. They themselves has also admitted to this.

Secondly, satellites are nothing but a hoax, or their version anyway. There are no pictures or footage of any satellites, regardless that there are supposebly thousands floating in the thermosphere. I also find it hard to believe any satelkites would be able to sustain the 1,000 degree heat without melting.

All 'satellites' are ground based, and any communication methods are acheived via GPS, triangulation and WiFi. Which is all run by underwater, fibre optic cables.