gsjackson wrote: ↑December 10th, 2023, 11:42 am
The late Rob Skiba put a telescope to the Chicago skyline a few years ago and brought everything into view. Probably others too.
Unfortunately for me a lot of these discussions depend on complex (complex to me anyway
) mathematical formulas which only bamboozle me. I confess that math is not my strong suit at all. I'm sure there are mathematicians who can make sense of the formula offered. I can't, however. As I said I think
@Yohan made some interesting contributions based on perception and angles or some such buried among the comments in this thread.
I wonder though, why does the Chicago skyline and other things such as ships viewed sailing across the horizon disappear from the bottom up rather than gradually get smaller? Telescopes do not help you see farther, they just bring things farther away back into focus. But the same question still applies. Why does only the bottom of the city skyline disappear?
I've read that refraction and light can play a part in what you're talking about. To demonstrate this point take these photographs of the Chicago skyline and the differing sizes which can only be refraction at work.
upload images
This is a photo of Sears Tower highlighted in red on the Chicago skyline. we can tell there is some serious refraction going on by looking at the Sears Tower inside the red outlined area. What do you suppose that building looks like? Does it have a tall thin section below the spires on top? No, it doesn’t. So we’re seeing the top of the building Stretched by differences in the refractive index along each sight-line.
This is unequivocal evidence for the refraction.
upload images
And where do you suppose the ENTIRE bottom of the city went exactly besides hiding behind the curvature of the Earth?
upload images
These are side by side images of the skyline with all the tops of the buildings being stretched by refraction.
How do you explain this?
I saw Skiba's, but it has been purged from the internet by Youtube, like 99 percent of the flat earth videos, which were abundant six or seven years ago. You'd think putting their little warning that flat earth is an archaic and scientifically disproven theory on each FE video would be sufficient, but I guess anything that jumps out as clear proof has to be removed. Youtube are, of course, dutiful censors on behalf of establishment narratives, including covid shots and alternative treatments, the 2020 elections, and "hate speech" (aka criticism of Jews). Ever vigilant to suppress speech that contradicts "science," don't you know. Science as the official narratives define it.
I don't disagree with what you're saying about YouTube. They are indeed dutiful censors on behalf of the establishment. Censorship and the attack on free speech has only been ramped up in recent years. I don't understand why flat earth videos on YouTube should be censored. If the earth is 100% a globe why would they care if someone challenges their assertion that the earth is a globe? That is indeed strange.
There are some considerations we have to make with the regard of censorship and science. Firstly, when it comes to censorship we have to consider that just because it is censored doesn't mean it is censored because it's the truth. For example a racist right wing extremist might make videos about how it's right to beat and burn ethnic minorities to death and be censored, would that mean his position is the truth? This example is extreme when compared to flat earth theory. But the logic still applies. Just because it is censored (justly or no) doesn't make it the truth.
Also with science we could apply nuanced thinking too. I do not accept all scientific establishment narratives as absolute truths. I do my own research and formulate my own opinions based on what resonates with me. I don't accept the Big Bang Theory. I think the evidence is flimsy and based purely on guesswork. How can they possibly know how the universe started? They don't have nearly enough evidence. When it came to the covid vaccinations several people, including a portion of the medical community, were skeptical and silenced by the mainstream. That is suspicious. Plus we could see a similarity with what happened with Purdue Pharma and the revolving door between Big Pharma and the FDA etc. The corruption and lies are prolific! So obviously we are in agreement with things like that!
But with science, and everything else really, there has to be a nuanced outlook. It isn't one things bullshit so everything is bullshit! When it comes to science I think the heliocentric model explains everything we can observe in the physical world a lot better than the geocentric model can. Unlike the scandal with covid, we don't have portions of the scientific community condemning the heliocentric model as a hoax. We don't have any whistle-blowers. We only have people who seem to struggle grasping concepts such as abstract "up" and "down".
So yes, when it comes to the theory of relativity, gravity and all the rest of it I generally accept these theories as the best explanation we have for the observable phenomenon around us. Flat Earth and the theories offered by its proponents just do not do an adequate job of explaining this phenomena to my satisfaction and as such I view the theory to be mainly guess work based on misunderstandings and "observations" and guesswork. Mind you, I am someone who accepts that the theories laid out in the heliocentric model could be entirely wrong. Our entire understanding of physics could be wrong. We are only human after all, and I believe even the smartest among us have the capacity to make mistakes or be wrong.
"The plane is part of the planet's mass," you say. Interesting concept. One normally doesn't think of air as planetary mass. But leaving that aside. what happens to this spinning air "mass" when it comes into contact with the vacuum of space? Is there some barrier keeping the two entities separate? Austin Witsit has some thoughts on this. Galii has provided his Youtube channel info.
Of course air is part of the planets mass! Air isn't weightless, it has mass and weight. There is no barrier separating them from the vacuum of space and the fact the atmosphere doesn't go flying off into space is only testament to the theory of gravity, isn't it? Otherwise if space isn't real then how is there differing air pressure at higher altitudes? How does air pressure work on flat earth? How can there be lightning or even rain without air pressure?
Gee, If only Einstein had observed flushing toilets in both the North and South hemispheres he might not have said that the movement of the earth can never be proved. I take it this is the "observable proof" you're talking about. I'm guessing you yourself haven't observed large numbers of flushing toilets in both hemispheres, so who would be the expert witness who has done so? This source -- straight out of officialdom, no less -- refutes this contention about the Coriolis effect as a canard:
https://www.livescience.com/33567-toile ... uator.html
The direction of the toilet water might change determined by the manufacturer. I shrug my shoulders and say fair enough. Even if we discount the toilets entirely we still have natural phenomena which serve as proof as coriolis effect.
Coriolis force is an apparent force caused by the earth's rotation. The Coriolis force is responsible for deflecting winds towards the right in the northern hemisphere and towards the left in the southern hemisphere. It's evidence that the earth is rotating and moving. It is natural and cannot be attributed to manufacturers like the toilets.
Coriolis force can also explain why flight paths are curved and not linear like flat earthers like to argue. Coriolis effect cannot just be dismissed as nonsense as it accounts for weather patterns, ocean currents and even air travel. If you have evidence which supercedes coriolis effect as evidence for these phenomenon then please provide it.
They tried proving that the earth moves in the 19th century and it didn't work. That's why Einstein came up with all this relativity hocus pocus in order to pull the heliocentric model's chestnuts out of the fire. They tried proving the existence of gravity as the attraction between large masses but that came a cropper too, so Einstein came up with some hocus pocus about a warp in the time-space continuum. Roll out some bullshit in defense of false establishment narratives and you too can be called a genius. But it would help to be Jewish.
Well, so far I've challenged a lot of flat earth beliefs and received nothing which convinces me that the geocentric model and its theories hold more credence than the heliocentric model.
My analysis is that flat earth is based on some or all of the following concepts: 1. Mistrust in government and mainstream narrative (perfectly understandable) 2. Misunderstanding abstract concepts such as "up" and "down". And 3. Unable to comprehend vast distances and sizes. I don't get how these sizes and scales are so unbelievable? 4. Unable to accept that we are NOT the centre of everything.
So far I've asked about several observable phenomenon which are adequately explained by the scientific mainstream to my satisfaction. Unless you can explain these better with evidence and proof of experiments being invested into this study then I'm forced to make the claim that there is NO proof or scientific data which can empirically prove without a doubt that the earth is flat. Don't get me wrong,
@gsjackson, I'm not one of these people who looks down on flat earth or thinks people who believe it are idiots. I don't think that at all. I watched the video shared by
@Winston with an open mind, but it just failed to convince me of a flat earth.
Could you answer?
1. My question about refraction and things disappearing across the horizon bottom first? Like the Chicago skyline why can you clearly see the tops of buildings and not the bottom if the world is flat and curvature is not responsible for this? How do you explain the refraction I demonstrated in the photographs I shared? Are you going to try and dismiss them as part of the globalist conspiracy?
2. The Coriolis effect with regard to weather and ocean current affected by rotation and curvature of the Earth. If the earth is stationary then how does this effect exist? What other explanation can you offer?
3. Lunar eclipse... again.... The spherical object which eclipses the moon as the earth passes between the sun and the moon. What other absolutely huge celestial round object can cause this, yet we have no Knowledge or proof of its existence?
4. Atmospheric pressure. Without gravity how can the atmosphere of the earth be held in place unless there is a firmament separating the atmosphere from the vacuum of space? If there is a firmament or barrier then how does difference in air pressure exist? Why does higher altitudes have lower air pressure? What is your scientific explanation for this?
5. Why does NASA being corrupt, lazy and greedy prove the earth is flat? How does the government being corrupt and greedy prove this? Where are the whistle-blowers and what is the ultimate purpose of this lie? If its to hide God then why does the heliocentric model not have credence as a created universe when we consider the fine tuning? If its for monetary incentive NASA could fake trips to space regardless of what shape the planet is.
You are free to make any decision you desire, but you are not free from the consequences of those decisions.
