At what distance do you expect one to be able to see the curvature?
322,000 feet is roughly 60 miles. The Earth's supposed circumference is roughly 25,000 miles. The distance traveled upwards is roughly .02% of the Earth's circumference.
Comparing this relative to a basketball, that is roughly .006 of an inch off the ball that has a circumference of 29.5 inches which translates to roughly 1/6th of a millimeter from the surface.
If you were a small fraction of the size of a grain of sand, 1/6th of a millimeter above the ball's surface, do you think it would appear round from that perspective? I would have a hard time saying yes to that.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm retarded when it comes to the math.
If I travel 24,901 miles, the earth's circumference, then the drop is 0 inches and not 4960478408 inches.
I like how you tell other people they are stupid but then use the 8 inches per inch squared, which is obviously wrong.
Additionally, if the earth was flat then the star system would look the same in North America vs. South America. But it doesn't - and you can't explain it.
Additionally, if the earth was flat then the star system would look the same in North America vs. South America.
Why do you think that?
If the earth were flat, then the stars would obviously look exactly the same as they currently do...
But it doesn't - and you can't explain it.
I can explain most anything, as you can - but that doesn’t make our explanations correct. Explanations without adequate validation are merely mythology.
dude the stars in the southern hemisphere are different than the ones in the northern hemisphere because we are on a giant ball. Even snipers have to take in the curvature of the earth when firing. Stop smoking the CIA crack.
dude the stars in the southern hemisphere are different than the ones in the northern hemisphere
Sure.
because we are on a giant ball.
That doesn’t follow from the first statement. The shape of the world is not dependent upon the sky - that’s silly!
Even snipers have to take in the curvature of the earth when firing
Lol. Find a sniper, and ask them if this is true. People on the internet also say other silly things about snipers, like they have to take into account the rotational speed of the earth. People say lots of silly things on the internet.
No one is shooting at targets blindly around the curve of the earth - that’s ridiculous. How far do you think snipers shoot?
Stop smoking the CIA crack.
Agreed! You seem confused about what i am saying and why, and yet aren’t disagreeing with or addressing anything i have actually said :(
a) looking implies through the perspective of each different one.
b) one among other ones can only look at perceivable differences...others suggest sameness to distract from that.
c) ones perspective implies as partial (perceiving) within whole (perceivable)
d) "Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind men and the elephant."
It doesn’t really matter. All curved lenses cause barrel distortion - just not the “fun house” extreme of a fisheye.
As you can see in the screenshot above, the horizon appears concave (which i think we all - except the minority, concavers - agree is NEVER the case in reality - regardless of altitude). This is caused by barrel distortion and is due to the focal point (dead center) of the lens being pointed below the visible horizon.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or are at all interested in the greater subject.
So we are required to believe and repeat, but round isn’t necessarily the same as spherical.
Gravity is not a theory, it is a Law.
That’s true, and woefully misunderstood by most. The law of gravity is thousands of years old, and is simply the phenomenon of falling - “what goes up , must come down”. Laws do not, and cannot, speculate on the cause of the law - that’s what theories are for!
Gravitation is the (pseudo) theory, billed/advertised as a law, which supposedly explains the cause of the law of gravity. It is a few hundred years old, and is what most people mean (incorrectly) when they say “gravity”. It is a fundamental dogma in the creation mythology of scientism - not gravity.
Mythology is believing that gravity and mass are not interrelated. Mythology is believing the earth is flat despite all of the evidence against it. Mythology is calling something scientism merely because you don't agree. Celestial bodies are oblate sphereoids, all of them. The earth formed, it was not made.
Mythology is believing that gravity and mass are not interrelated
Belief has no place in science, and is directly across purposes to it (it’s called bias). Believing that gravitation is caused by mass is a religious/mythological position, not a scientific one.
There is a very good reason that, since their invention 3+ centuries ago, no progress has been made on understanding how mass could ever cause gravitation or be consistent with observation even if it did. There is a noteworthy reason why such progress will never occur.
Mythology is believing the earth is flat despite all of the evidence against it
There is evidence for LOT’s of things, but that doesn’t make them true.
Mythology is the human default. Science is much more difficult and is the procedure intended to suppress and surpass that inherent bias.
Believing the earth is spherical, as the vast majority (perhaps even yourself?) does, is every bit as mythologically/religiously based as believing it flat.
Mythology is calling something scientism merely because you don't agree
Not really, that would be more of a rhetorical tactic and/or delusion.
Scientism is belief in / worship of a mundane technical procedure, and its practitioners and acolytes.
When science is based upon belief, it is scientifically proper to call it scientism.
Celestial bodies are oblate sphereoids, all of them
So we are required to believe and repeat. But belief and rote do not make things true, and they certainly don’t make them science. Understanding, acutely, what science is and why is critical to being able to discern science from pseudoscience/mythology/religion taught under its guise. Perhaps this is the reason scientific illiteracy is so ubiquitous - to stop that from being possible.
The earth formed, it was not made.
Once again, this is a belief. You want the earth to have formed itself without being made the exact same way a religious zealot wants it to have been made without randomly having been formed.
With such bias, if the world were made and not randomly formed you would never discover it and vice versa.
At what distance do you expect one to be able to see the curvature?
322,000 feet is roughly 60 miles. The Earth's supposed circumference is roughly 25,000 miles. The distance traveled upwards is roughly .02% of the Earth's circumference.
Comparing this relative to a basketball, that is roughly .006 of an inch off the ball that has a circumference of 29.5 inches which translates to roughly 1/6th of a millimeter from the surface.
If you were a small fraction of the size of a grain of sand, 1/6th of a millimeter above the ball's surface, do you think it would appear round from that perspective? I would have a hard time saying yes to that.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm retarded when it comes to the math.
Always further than you can check/verify/validate friend... Coincidence?
farther*
Tomayto tomaughto
Yes, please.
Bonneville flat earth proof in utah. Alt link cause youtube wants you to sign in for "some reason".
https://www.y2mate.com/youtube/6s-XeP8T06o
Radius is 3900 miles.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced%20Earth%20Curvature%20Calculator
http://walter.bislins.ch/blog/media/CurveCalcNoRefraction2.png
Should be tilting down bruh.
And sportsball is for fags.
you people are so fucking stupid
They are fake. Don’t be gullible.
It’s spam.
No shit, subhuman. So you’re now on record holding diametrically opposed positions in the same fucking thread. How are you not a paid shill, exactly?
If I travel 24,901 miles, the earth's circumference, then the drop is 0 inches and not 4960478408 inches.
I like how you tell other people they are stupid but then use the 8 inches per inch squared, which is obviously wrong.
Additionally, if the earth was flat then the star system would look the same in North America vs. South America. But it doesn't - and you can't explain it.
But keep on believing that CIA psyop garbage.
Why do you think that?
If the earth were flat, then the stars would obviously look exactly the same as they currently do...
I can explain most anything, as you can - but that doesn’t make our explanations correct. Explanations without adequate validation are merely mythology.
dude the stars in the southern hemisphere are different than the ones in the northern hemisphere because we are on a giant ball. Even snipers have to take in the curvature of the earth when firing. Stop smoking the CIA crack.
Sure.
That doesn’t follow from the first statement. The shape of the world is not dependent upon the sky - that’s silly!
Lol. Find a sniper, and ask them if this is true. People on the internet also say other silly things about snipers, like they have to take into account the rotational speed of the earth. People say lots of silly things on the internet.
No one is shooting at targets blindly around the curve of the earth - that’s ridiculous. How far do you think snipers shoot?
Agreed! You seem confused about what i am saying and why, and yet aren’t disagreeing with or addressing anything i have actually said :(
a) looking implies through the perspective of each different one.
b) one among other ones can only look at perceivable differences...others suggest sameness to distract from that.
c) ones perspective implies as partial (perceiving) within whole (perceivable)
d) "Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind men and the elephant."
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e6/aa/18/e6aa1869343f0cd0f3719e6a5d934b9f.jpg
Not to sound like too much of a smartass, but did they not use the fisheye lens this time?
It doesn’t really matter. All curved lenses cause barrel distortion - just not the “fun house” extreme of a fisheye.
As you can see in the screenshot above, the horizon appears concave (which i think we all - except the minority, concavers - agree is NEVER the case in reality - regardless of altitude). This is caused by barrel distortion and is due to the focal point (dead center) of the lens being pointed below the visible horizon.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or are at all interested in the greater subject.
I KNOW the earth is flat, because god is a pancake. My logic is irrefutable.
trying to gain favor?
good grief, it's god! (bowing and making an offering of maple syrup)
https://www.youtube.com/@godgevlamste
The earth is round, all planets are round. Gravity is not a theory, it is a Law. It doesn't matter what your book of bronze age mythology says.
So we are required to believe and repeat, but round isn’t necessarily the same as spherical.
That’s true, and woefully misunderstood by most. The law of gravity is thousands of years old, and is simply the phenomenon of falling - “what goes up , must come down”. Laws do not, and cannot, speculate on the cause of the law - that’s what theories are for!
Gravitation is the (pseudo) theory, billed/advertised as a law, which supposedly explains the cause of the law of gravity. It is a few hundred years old, and is what most people mean (incorrectly) when they say “gravity”. It is a fundamental dogma in the creation mythology of scientism - not gravity.
Mythology is believing that gravity and mass are not interrelated. Mythology is believing the earth is flat despite all of the evidence against it. Mythology is calling something scientism merely because you don't agree. Celestial bodies are oblate sphereoids, all of them. The earth formed, it was not made.
Belief has no place in science, and is directly across purposes to it (it’s called bias). Believing that gravitation is caused by mass is a religious/mythological position, not a scientific one.
There is a very good reason that, since their invention 3+ centuries ago, no progress has been made on understanding how mass could ever cause gravitation or be consistent with observation even if it did. There is a noteworthy reason why such progress will never occur.
There is evidence for LOT’s of things, but that doesn’t make them true.
Mythology is the human default. Science is much more difficult and is the procedure intended to suppress and surpass that inherent bias.
Believing the earth is spherical, as the vast majority (perhaps even yourself?) does, is every bit as mythologically/religiously based as believing it flat.
Not really, that would be more of a rhetorical tactic and/or delusion.
Scientism is belief in / worship of a mundane technical procedure, and its practitioners and acolytes.
When science is based upon belief, it is scientifically proper to call it scientism.
So we are required to believe and repeat. But belief and rote do not make things true, and they certainly don’t make them science. Understanding, acutely, what science is and why is critical to being able to discern science from pseudoscience/mythology/religion taught under its guise. Perhaps this is the reason scientific illiteracy is so ubiquitous - to stop that from being possible.
Once again, this is a belief. You want the earth to have formed itself without being made the exact same way a religious zealot wants it to have been made without randomly having been formed.
With such bias, if the world were made and not randomly formed you would never discover it and vice versa.
Fake and gay fed poster. Fuck off.
Your spam is not allowed on this board. Take your mental illness somewhere else, paid shill.
You have no power here.
They’re probably in your shill network.
Phony.
So you’re defending flat earth now, are you? Eat shit an die.