right, and I replied to you asking for a link to where I was "BTFO" and you didn't get back to me
I expect you were referring to someone else's comment about the bullet not being self-powered and able to change its course like the helicopter, airplane, hot air balloon, or bird
I then reminded you that it's 1000mph spin at the equator and none of those things take that into consideration
There's a lot more I can go on about; more evidence to debunk the spinning globe lie but these two points are enough on their own and can be experimented by anyone, anywhere
I'm not sure yet what you mean or why it matters but I'm interested, if you could please elaborate?
In case we don't come to agreement on the Coriolis effect problem, I encourage you to experiment the distant landmark example for yourself sometime
No theory or physics involved, really
Just some trigonometry
Measure distance between yourself and the distant object using Google Maps and then punch the distance into an earth curvature calculator to get the amount of curve or drop there should be
At 25kms, easily visible with the naked eye, there should already be appx 150ft of drop, meaning anything shorter than 150ft would be 100% blocked from view
You'll instead find that you're staring at 100% of the distant landmark; zero drop
We have examples much further than this were the object should be blocked by an entire mile of earth
At some point you will be limited due to the atmosphere, regardless of your optical zoom
I have has this conversation a few times since I was little... there are actually a few factors which affect how far you can see. But since I only have a few minutes, I will try to keep it simple. Light curves around the edges of a sphere, in addition, atmospheric conditions can create a lense effect. If on the water, an shoreline 200 miles away, can be seen if there is enough humidity. Light reflecting off the water will reflect into the atmosphere making the waterline appear farther. The atmospheric lense effect makes the shoreline or city appear closer at the same time.
If you 100% disagree with me, mind pointing out why the Coriolis effect contradiction doesn't give you pause?
Also, how can you disagree with someone standing on a shoreline staring at a distant object/landmark 100% visible that should be completely obscured from view?
"There must be an explanation"
"Impossible that this could be kept a secret"
Ignore your brain's cognitive dissonance for a few minutes and truly consider those two points as I've described
I'm very interested in having a proper discussion about it
No one has been able to properly refute the claim, which makes sense, because it's Truth that cannot be shilled or spun
I’m not claiming that objects don’t disappear behind the horizon
The Law of Perspective is real; I would never contest this
Next time you’re about to set sail, take a peek at the furthest distant object/landmark you can view
Should easily see over 20kms with naked eye but bring optics to really leave yourself zero room for doubt
Even at 25kms there should be appx 150ft of drop
Bring a veteran sailor you probably already know that one can see much further than 25kms over the water on a clear day
We have countless examples of much further distant objects than 25kms
Lighthouses, all over the place, provide proof that it’s not the globe with radius of 3959mi as claimed and then the other plethora of evidence to debunk the spinning lie
Calculate your distance between your point of reference on the shoreline and your distant landmark using google maps
Right click, measure distance
Punch that into the earth curve calculator
Go see for yourself, it’s the only way you’ll believe it
You can calculate how much curve there should be over a given distance. This one requires a large body of water to test out, as a long stretch of land, however unlikely, COULD be flat and so I wouldn't want to rely on that for proof
You could test over land in a few different locations to significantly reduce the possibility that you are sampling over a large flat parcel of land every time, however unlikely that would be
We know water finds and maintains its level
What you want to do is stand on the coastline and spot a distant landmark; the further the better
Bring binoculars if you have them, really give yourself little room for doubt
With the naked eye on a clear day you should likely be able to see much further than 20 kms, easily
Even at 20kms you should be seeing about 95 feet of drop, meaning, anything shorter than 95 ft should be completely obstructed from view due to the curve of the earth
You can hit Google Maps and right click the screen to measure distance from a starting location to your landmarks you spotted
You will find that you can see the entire distant landmark 20kms away, the entire thing and even the ground running up to it
Zero curve, let alone the 100ft of drop there should be at that distance
Try another location and in a different direction, if you still aren't convinced
The second other easy one, would be the Coriolis effect which we have all heard of
The sniper that must account for the spin of the Earth (appx 1000mph at the equator, reducing in speed as you get further from the equator)
We all accept this as accurate. They've made movies about it.
Ask yourself why this same principle does not apply to airplanes, helicopters, hot air balloons or even birds
Those two examples should be more than enough evidence to blow holes through the spinning globe with a radius of 3959mi falsehood
Why would they do this? How could they possibly pull it off? And the other questions that you will be defending the globe lie with in your head
Skip all of that for now and focus on the two examples I gave
They contradict the foundation of the globe lie
Just pause and look at it, I promise I do not mean to mislead you
There is nothing “LowIQ” about viewing a distant object, measuring distance between object and reference point, then punching the distance into any of the earth curvature calculators freely available online
earthcurvature.com provides the formula in case you’d like to ensure that variable is accurate
Well, you're retarded enough to stay there. This is an outrage!
Huh. Maybe they aren't as completely retarded as I thought.
haha I love you, handshake
Consider the Coriolis effect contradiction and the visible distant landmark impossibility described in my other comment
Either of those two points should be enough to give pause, and I can provide plenty of other evidence to debunk the spinning globe claim, upon request
Again with this coriolis effect bullshit? I already told you I saw you get btfo trying to use that nonsense. Time for a new script.
right, and I replied to you asking for a link to where I was "BTFO" and you didn't get back to me
I expect you were referring to someone else's comment about the bullet not being self-powered and able to change its course like the helicopter, airplane, hot air balloon, or bird
I then reminded you that it's 1000mph spin at the equator and none of those things take that into consideration
There's a lot more I can go on about; more evidence to debunk the spinning globe lie but these two points are enough on their own and can be experimented by anyone, anywhere
And I looked for maybe a minute and couldn't find it and that was a minute too long to be engaging with your nonsense and well poisoning.
I'm presenting you with very simple evidence, handshake
I don't yet understand why this is simple for some and impossible to understand for others
Coriolis effect example doesn't work if you account for sea level
I'm not sure yet what you mean or why it matters but I'm interested, if you could please elaborate?
In case we don't come to agreement on the Coriolis effect problem, I encourage you to experiment the distant landmark example for yourself sometime
No theory or physics involved, really
Just some trigonometry
Measure distance between yourself and the distant object using Google Maps and then punch the distance into an earth curvature calculator to get the amount of curve or drop there should be
At 25kms, easily visible with the naked eye, there should already be appx 150ft of drop, meaning anything shorter than 150ft would be 100% blocked from view
You'll instead find that you're staring at 100% of the distant landmark; zero drop
We have examples much further than this were the object should be blocked by an entire mile of earth
At some point you will be limited due to the atmosphere, regardless of your optical zoom
Bring binoculars if you have them
I have has this conversation a few times since I was little... there are actually a few factors which affect how far you can see. But since I only have a few minutes, I will try to keep it simple. Light curves around the edges of a sphere, in addition, atmospheric conditions can create a lense effect. If on the water, an shoreline 200 miles away, can be seen if there is enough humidity. Light reflecting off the water will reflect into the atmosphere making the waterline appear farther. The atmospheric lense effect makes the shoreline or city appear closer at the same time.
Why they tell u to download Kerbal space program ? This game sucks
You just did
If you 100% disagree with me, mind pointing out why the Coriolis effect contradiction doesn't give you pause?
Also, how can you disagree with someone standing on a shoreline staring at a distant object/landmark 100% visible that should be completely obscured from view?
"There must be an explanation"
"Impossible that this could be kept a secret"
Ignore your brain's cognitive dissonance for a few minutes and truly consider those two points as I've described
I'm very interested in having a proper discussion about it
No one has been able to properly refute the claim, which makes sense, because it's Truth that cannot be shilled or spun
I’m not claiming that objects don’t disappear behind the horizon
The Law of Perspective is real; I would never contest this
Next time you’re about to set sail, take a peek at the furthest distant object/landmark you can view
Should easily see over 20kms with naked eye but bring optics to really leave yourself zero room for doubt
Even at 25kms there should be appx 150ft of drop
Bring a veteran sailor you probably already know that one can see much further than 25kms over the water on a clear day
We have countless examples of much further distant objects than 25kms
Lighthouses, all over the place, provide proof that it’s not the globe with radius of 3959mi as claimed and then the other plethora of evidence to debunk the spinning lie
Calculate your distance between your point of reference on the shoreline and your distant landmark using google maps
Right click, measure distance
Punch that into the earth curve calculator
Go see for yourself, it’s the only way you’ll believe it
earthcurvature.com
You can calculate how much curve there should be over a given distance. This one requires a large body of water to test out, as a long stretch of land, however unlikely, COULD be flat and so I wouldn't want to rely on that for proof
You could test over land in a few different locations to significantly reduce the possibility that you are sampling over a large flat parcel of land every time, however unlikely that would be
We know water finds and maintains its level
What you want to do is stand on the coastline and spot a distant landmark; the further the better
Bring binoculars if you have them, really give yourself little room for doubt
With the naked eye on a clear day you should likely be able to see much further than 20 kms, easily
Even at 20kms you should be seeing about 95 feet of drop, meaning, anything shorter than 95 ft should be completely obstructed from view due to the curve of the earth
You can hit Google Maps and right click the screen to measure distance from a starting location to your landmarks you spotted
You will find that you can see the entire distant landmark 20kms away, the entire thing and even the ground running up to it
Zero curve, let alone the 100ft of drop there should be at that distance
Try another location and in a different direction, if you still aren't convinced
The second other easy one, would be the Coriolis effect which we have all heard of
The sniper that must account for the spin of the Earth (appx 1000mph at the equator, reducing in speed as you get further from the equator)
We all accept this as accurate. They've made movies about it.
Ask yourself why this same principle does not apply to airplanes, helicopters, hot air balloons or even birds
Those two examples should be more than enough evidence to blow holes through the spinning globe with a radius of 3959mi falsehood
Why would they do this? How could they possibly pull it off? And the other questions that you will be defending the globe lie with in your head
Skip all of that for now and focus on the two examples I gave
They contradict the foundation of the globe lie
Just pause and look at it, I promise I do not mean to mislead you
♥
The fact that they dv even here proves Math P. Was correct.
All this nonsense is to try and protect the fking shtty globe baal-ists.
They shill against flat earth more than anything, I find
Once FE goes mainstream, it’s going to devastate their house of cards
Their pillars are already crumbling all at once
It’s going to be stormy but will be incredible on the other side
❤️
Insults have no effect on me, my love
I encourage you to consider these two points
There is nothing “LowIQ” about viewing a distant object, measuring distance between object and reference point, then punching the distance into any of the earth curvature calculators freely available online
earthcurvature.com provides the formula in case you’d like to ensure that variable is accurate
This cannot be spun or shilled