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
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