gsjackson wrote: ↑November 19th, 2023, 2:50 am
So you reject the conclusion of "scientists" that the earth's circumference is around 25,000 miles and therefore the curvature is eight inches per mile squared, even though you accept the rest of their ludicrous, jerry-built theory? if it is correctly calculated, you would certainly see some curvature from 35,000 feet flying in a commercial airliner. But you don't.
I think mainstream science has the capacity to be wrong about certain things. It's a possibility they could be wrong about their measurement of Earth's circumference, but I don't know if I'm being honest. There are some things I believe with science and other things I don't.
For example I believe the Earth is a globe. I accept mainstream science explanation of physics etc. But I reject the "science" of the pharmaceutical industry a lot of the time. The flat earth model throws everything we know about science up into the air.
By now you should have read enough FE theory to know the answer to your point about the Chicago skyline. It's the same as boats disappearing over the horizon. Simply get out a telescope and you will see the bottoms of the building, so the earth's curvature is not blocking the view of the bottoms. And if it was the case, at 45 miles away from the skyline (boats start disappearing from the bottom up at about three miles out) then it sure as hell invalidates your point about the earth being so vast that the curvature can't be perceived from a few miles above. Please pick one of these mutually exclusive theories.
Has anyone ever tried this with the Chicago skyline? Why can't you see the bottom of the buildings then? Surely someone can make a video proving that the bottom of the buildings can be seen from across Lake Michigan.
Telescopes do not help you see farther than your limited vision. All they do is bring things further away into focus. So a telescope or camera wouldn't even be able to see the bottom of the Chicago skyline, because if they could then surely flat earthers would have already put this to rest by now.
With your refutation about "mutually exclusive theories" it was a good rebuttal and it got me thinking lol. The only thing I can think of is that obviously when you're higher your perspective and view expands much farther than if you were on the ground.
@Yohan mentioned something about this and posted a good example. Being 35,000 up in the air I just don't think you would perceive curvature from that height because of perspective. You just wouldn't see the world curve away from that height because you're higher up and your perspective is broader.
Re flying, maybe you'll have a go at the question Galii studiously avoids. If the earth is spinning west to east, 1,030 mph at the equator, how can the flight time be about the same flying west to east and east to west, after accounting for wind speed? How is that possible? And how do they fly north and south over this spinning ball? Constantly tack to the right or left to keep up with the spin? That's absurd, and I'm sure if you ask a pilot he will tell you that he does no such thing. And how do you hit the moving target runway?
What the hell are you talking about? You're talking as if Once the plane takes off it becomes independent and separate from the world it is flying around. You do realise that the entire sky and everything in the sky, including the plane is spinning too right? The plane is part of the planets mass so it isn't affected by this.
Imagine when you are travelling on a plane and you walk from the back of the plane to the front. You're not walking faster than the plane is flying, are you? You'd have to walk at over 300mph or you'd get splattered like a bug against the tail end of the plane. The person walking down the plane is part of the planes mass, the same way the plane flying around the Earth is part of the Earth's mass as well. The Earth, the runway, the sky and the plane all rotate together. The plane doesn't become separate from the Earth the minute its wheels take off from the runway. Otherwise every time someone jumped they'd go flying over the horizon.
I think this is one of the more confusing arguments put forward by flat earthers.
So your point about the rivers not running up or down the curvature relies on your contention that the earth is so vast that any given point it will be perceived as flat? Not sure I understand. If you're saying that the Nile does not go up the earth's curvature and then down it, I'm sure cartographers who accept the globe theory would disagree strenuously.
No. I'm saying when it comes to landmass rivers and streams will always run from the highest point of landmass to the lowest. The curvature is completely irrelevant when it comes to the flowing of water. A river will flow up or down the curvature depending on whether the land is higher or lower. "Up" or "down" on a globe earth do not really exist. It's all relative to your perception and where you are standing on the planet.
Once again, a firmament is not essential to FE theory, and is not argued by Dubay or most FE proponents. You should refer all questions about air pressure to Youtuber Austin Witsit. You would learn a lot from his videos
Can you private message me this guy's name so I don't forget it? Or post a video in this chat. I will check it out but I'm pressed for time between work and seeing my child etc.
Once again re eclipses, please account for the 56 occasions in which the globalist Royal Academy of Science observed both the sun and the moon in the sky during an eclipse. Clearly, something else causes them.
I read that this depends where you are when the eclipse takes place. The Earth's shadow is the only logical explanation for a lunar eclipse. What else could possibly cause a shadow that big to be cast on the moons surface but there isn't a shred of evidence to prove its existence?
I think it's interesting that you're skeptical of the science which explains how a globe model works, yet something like this lunar eclipse and you're wiling to believe in a huge circular object casting a shadow on the moon, but no evidence of such a massive object exists. It can literally only be the Earth!
The "Coriolis effect" just seems like nonsense, and relies on observations that can't be verified, unless you have time and witlessness enough to flush a million toilets in both the north and south hemispheres. A little mini-argument, a pointlet.
Seems like nonsense? Why is that? Because it doesn't fit the theory? It's an observable phenomenon which directly proves the earth is round and spinning. You travel a lot, don't you? You could just flush some toilets yourself when you're in the North or Southern Hemispheres. Easy peasy lemon squeezey.
I try to resist drawing conclusions on the basis of the lameness of globalist responses to FE evidence -- from yourself and Galii to His Eminence, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the very voice of "science" -- but it's not easy to do. Surely there's someone out there, some High Priest of the globalist religion, who will deign to come down from the mountaintop and make a strong, irrefutable case for the spinning ball. But he never arrives. It's always just cherry-picked, unpersuasive responses to a small handful of the FE arguments, almost all of which can be verified by observation.
You are wrong. How are any of the flat earth arguments verified through observation? Flat earth is more like people making stuff up to fit their theory. When it comes to physics and things like that the globe model fits perfectly well. In fact, I even gave you observable proof and you just outright denied it without an explanation why.
I picked out a few of Dubay's arguments in the video because I couldn't be arsed to list all 200 and systematically go through why they can't be true. I just mentioned some of the obvious reasons. Plus, a lot of his Proofs were just rehashed, like 20 of them were talking about different flight paths, but that's only really one point.
You are free to make any decision you desire, but you are not free from the consequences of those decisions.
to display the 4 seasons...
