I'm agnostic on the subject, but see some good (and bad) arguments on both sides. (This is just how I view the different arguments, I could be missing something.)
Water is flat argument is flawed by droplet of water, water meniscus surface tension would hold water together in a round shape as it does in free fall state. There is video of water in fake 'space' (which is probably filmed in a free fall location showing large balls of water floating and held together. those videos don't appear to be cgi and also work with water and know it's surface tension is a strong force. - no point awarded to firmament earth.
Laser measurement of large lakes or Suez Canal showing the expected drop in height due to curvature does not exist, -point goes to firmament earth.
Eclipse w/ Sun and Moon the same size give low probability of natural occurrence of 2 objects at dramatically unequal distances being the exact same size (93 million miles and 239000 miles, sun and moon respectively). -point goes to firmament earth but a bit more circumstantial or probabilistic.
Idea that atmosphere can't exist in vacuum of space and that this disproves ball earth - atmospheric pressure drops w/ elevation which can be observed at high elevations with either pressure gauge or just breathing. for example 4000m in altitude is a loss of ~40% pressure. at some point the pressure approaches zero. -no point awarded to firmament earth.
Observation of moon showing plane of focus closer than expected for 239000 mile distance - point firmament earth.
In southern hemisphere the moon rises in the sky 'upside down' from the orientation that it is observed in the northern hemisphere (i've witnessed this in australia). this did not occur in europe, north america, asia (which i've also witnessed). i don't see how this rotation and orientation is explained on the firmament earth model.
Water is flat argument is flawed by droplet of water, water meniscus surface tension would hold water together in a round shape as it does in free fall state.
This is obvious misinterpretation of whats meant by "water is flat" man, come on.
atmospheric pressure drops w/ elevation which can be observed at high elevations with either pressure gauge or just breathing. for example 4000m in altitude is a loss of ~40% pressure. at some point the pressure approaches zero
This exactly makes sense with the flat earth model and density.
What doesnt make sense is that the atmosphere is there at all, with no barrier between it and a vacuum.
In southern hemisphere the moon rises in the sky 'upside down' from the orientation that it is observed in the northern hemisphere (i've witnessed this in australia). this did not occur in europe, north america, asia (which i've also witnessed). i don't see how this rotation and orientation is explained on the firmament earth model.
I'm not 100% sure what you're exactly talking about here, but maybe this video can explain some.
I look at photos of curved water all the time at work.
It's called a meniscus.
it can curve in a lot of different directions depending on surface tension factors.
I think there are stronger arguments for the firmament earth case.
Thanks for the atmosphere video, i'll check it out.
Atmosphere could have variable pressure w/ altitude in the firmament model, but some claim the ball mode is invalid because it is a gas without a container next to a basically infinite vacuum.
For the moon thing, have you ever looked up and saw the 'face' on the moon or 'man on the moon'? When it rises in the southern hemisphere it comes up upsidedown to how it is seen in the northern hemisphere. it's actually kinda freaky if you're not expecting it.
constellations are upsidedown too. i've seen it irl.
happened in australia but not south asia or europe or north america.
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2014/02/a-matter-of-perspective
(only sharing the link for the phenomena which can be found elsewhere not necessarily the explanation.)
and when surface tension is a negligible factor in the “flatness” of something, say, anything larger than a test tube, then it always appears flat. You wouldn’t say the surface of a swimming pool has any curve to it.
some claim the ball mode is invalid because it is a gas without a container next to a basically infinite vacuum.
That’s exactly what i’m saying. Gravity is a force so weak that bugs can go against it, but so strong it can hold air in against an infinite vacuum? Really?
And i think that last one i linked is the correct video to explain the differences in perception between the hemispheres.
I'm agnostic on the subject, but see some good (and bad) arguments on both sides. (This is just how I view the different arguments, I could be missing something.)
Water is flat argument is flawed by droplet of water, water meniscus surface tension would hold water together in a round shape as it does in free fall state. There is video of water in fake 'space' (which is probably filmed in a free fall location showing large balls of water floating and held together. those videos don't appear to be cgi and also work with water and know it's surface tension is a strong force. - no point awarded to firmament earth.
Laser measurement of large lakes or Suez Canal showing the expected drop in height due to curvature does not exist, -point goes to firmament earth.
Eclipse w/ Sun and Moon the same size give low probability of natural occurrence of 2 objects at dramatically unequal distances being the exact same size (93 million miles and 239000 miles, sun and moon respectively). -point goes to firmament earth but a bit more circumstantial or probabilistic.
Idea that atmosphere can't exist in vacuum of space and that this disproves ball earth - atmospheric pressure drops w/ elevation which can be observed at high elevations with either pressure gauge or just breathing. for example 4000m in altitude is a loss of ~40% pressure. at some point the pressure approaches zero. -no point awarded to firmament earth.
Observation of moon showing plane of focus closer than expected for 239000 mile distance - point firmament earth.
In southern hemisphere the moon rises in the sky 'upside down' from the orientation that it is observed in the northern hemisphere (i've witnessed this in australia). this did not occur in europe, north america, asia (which i've also witnessed). i don't see how this rotation and orientation is explained on the firmament earth model.
This is obvious misinterpretation of whats meant by "water is flat" man, come on.
This exactly makes sense with the flat earth model and density.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbCGrG0c2gI
What doesnt make sense is that the atmosphere is there at all, with no barrier between it and a vacuum.
I'm not 100% sure what you're exactly talking about here, but maybe this video can explain some.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-w8acuxF6w
I look at photos of curved water all the time at work. It's called a meniscus. it can curve in a lot of different directions depending on surface tension factors. I think there are stronger arguments for the firmament earth case.
Thanks for the atmosphere video, i'll check it out. Atmosphere could have variable pressure w/ altitude in the firmament model, but some claim the ball mode is invalid because it is a gas without a container next to a basically infinite vacuum.
For the moon thing, have you ever looked up and saw the 'face' on the moon or 'man on the moon'? When it rises in the southern hemisphere it comes up upsidedown to how it is seen in the northern hemisphere. it's actually kinda freaky if you're not expecting it. constellations are upsidedown too. i've seen it irl. happened in australia but not south asia or europe or north america. https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2014/02/a-matter-of-perspective (only sharing the link for the phenomena which can be found elsewhere not necessarily the explanation.)
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
and when surface tension is a negligible factor in the “flatness” of something, say, anything larger than a test tube, then it always appears flat. You wouldn’t say the surface of a swimming pool has any curve to it.
That’s exactly what i’m saying. Gravity is a force so weak that bugs can go against it, but so strong it can hold air in against an infinite vacuum? Really?
And i think that last one i linked is the correct video to explain the differences in perception between the hemispheres.
What holds a bug to flat earth?