FE crowd is not about explaining anything. It is a 130-year old (Zetetic society and all that stuff in late 1800s) British elites operation to litter with grabage any uncensored platform where people dare to question official narratives.
So easy that you’re physically incapable of explaining how the angular diameter of an object can become negative without it moving below the visible plane.
Oh, so “seeing in a line”? A line that can’t stop being seen unless it’s interrupted by something? Something like the ground? The ground under which the sun “never” moves? Because otherwise you could never not see the sun, but you, the flat earther, say you can always see the sun. But the sun can’t be seen at night.
optically
THE ANGULAR DIAMETER OF AN OBJECT CAN NEVER BE NEGATIVE.
Not sure what you're proving here. Using the Gleason map checks out for all these. For example a Toronto to Sao Paolo flight is 11 hours, and using the distance calculation for the Gleason, it makes sense for the Sydney Houston flight.
Because I've never flown that route. I've flown other long haul flights into the southern hemisphere where I now live. However, Dubay's video explains that the distance is roughly 7000 miles on the flat earth map, and that ends up fitting within the air speed of a 747 to get there within the 13 hours alotted for the flight.
The biggest thing is the report of compass readings taken by a passenger of one of those flights, as discussed in the second link I shared.
While it's not a cut and dried response, the maps you showed aren't the gotcha you may think they are. Also look up real emergency landing stories in history and see where some of these hit the ground... Those flight paths make no sense on a globe. But also not the gotcha flat earth supporters think it is.
Its like arguing what shade of blue the sky is. It doesnt matter unless you own a spaceship. Better off putting energy in to raising chickens or buying assets that you can flip in a hyperinflation environment.
therefore smart people say earth is flat (because they say so)
Piss off.
Why can everyone south of the equator see the exact same stars rotating in the same direction around the same fixed central point in the sky due south of them if they’re supposedly all looking in different directions?
Why are the distances between degrees of latitude uniform and don’t grow exponentially away from the equator?
Why does everyone on Earth get the same result for the Eratosthenes experiment, when people nearer the equator should get a much smaller circumference for the Earth than those nearer the poles?
Come to think of it, was Eratosthenes part of the “round Earth” conspiracy?
Surviving records show that the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians based their astronomical forecasts on calculations assuming the Earth is a globe. Did this conspiracy begin at the dawn of civilization, or are all ancient artifacts nothing but Victorian forgeries? If so, why has this never been detected by modern carbon-dating techniques?
Why do arc lengths of given angles of longitude decrease rather than increase south of the equator?
Why does the sun not rise in the northeast and set in the northwest, year round, for everyone on Earth?
Why DOES the sun set, when the law of perspective states that the angular size of the sun’s altitude, like everything else, can’t become negative?
Why does the sun’s angular size not change throughout the day or year, since it is “moving toward and away from us” and is “closer than we’re told”?
Seriously, did you fall asleep during geometry class, or are you just completely demented?
If you believe in zeteticism, why do you keep relying on magical and unprovable solutions, which can’t be shown to exist with your own eyes and clearly don’t exist at all? Apparently, zeteticism is just code for “make any old bullshit up and pretend it’s true.”
If all photographs of a round Earth are a hoax, why not simply create photographs of a flat Earth?
A property of mass is that it has gravitational force regardless of size. If the Earth did not have a gravitational field, wouldn’t that imply that the Earth doesn’t physically exist?
Where is the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station located if the south “pole” is the whole circumference of the Earth?
Wouldn’t creating such elaborate fakes and conspiracies cost an equal–if not greater–amount of money than the science they are supposedly covering up?
The idea of the Earth as a sphere has existed at least since the time of the ancient Greeks, long before NASA. What were their financial motives?
What financial motives could NASA have, since their budget is still cut every year?
How could the sun be a spotlight if it is a sphere? On the flat Earth, the light projection would have to be a semicircle.
Why does the North Star goes to the horizon?
Why do constellations appear to be different in the Southern and Northern hemispheres?
Why is the Coriolis effect stronger near both poles, instead of stronger in the north and weaker in the south?
If the circumferential south pole is preventing the oceans from pouring over the edge of the flat Earth, why didn’t the oceans disappear during the incredible amount of time it would have taken for that ice to form?
If the oceans would–if they could–pour off the edge of the flat Earth, where, then, would they go? Does this mean that whatever keeps the oceans on the surface of the flat Earth only operates in a downward direction on the uppermost surface and is absent on the underneath?
Why are satellites visible from Earth with a pair of binoculars and even the naked eye?
How could a flat body maintain an atmosphere?
Why are other celestial bodies spheres but the Earth is not? How, and why, was the Earth created differently?
"Earth" is a tiled tessellation. If you travel east from Chicago all the way "around" until you land in Chicago again, you are in a second, distinct, yet identical Chicago. It's like a chessboard.
Why can everyone south of the equator see the exact same stars rotating in the same direction around the same fixed central point in the sky due south of them if they’re supposedly all looking in different directions?
Why are the distances between degrees of latitude uniform and don’t grow exponentially away from the equator?
Why does everyone on Earth get the same result for the Eratosthenes experiment, when people nearer the equator should get a much smaller circumference for the Earth than those nearer the poles?
Come to think of it, was Eratosthenes part of the “round Earth” conspiracy?
Surviving records show that the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians based their astronomical forecasts on calculations assuming the Earth is a globe. Did this conspiracy begin at the dawn of civilization, or are all ancient artifacts nothing but Victorian forgeries? If so, why has this never been detected by modern carbon-dating techniques?
Why do arc lengths of given angles of longitude decrease rather than increase south of the equator?
Why does the sun not rise in the northeast and set in the northwest, year round, for everyone on Earth?
Why DOES the sun set, when the law of perspective states that the angular size of the sun’s altitude, like everything else, can’t become negative?
Why does the sun’s angular size not change throughout the day or year, since it is “moving toward and away from us” and is “closer than we’re told”?
Seriously, did you fall asleep during geometry class, or are you just completely demented?
If you believe in zeteticism, why do you keep relying on magical and unprovable solutions, which can’t be shown to exist with your own eyes and clearly don’t exist at all? Apparently, zeteticism is just code for “make any old bullshit up and pretend it’s true.”
If all photographs of a round Earth are a hoax, why not simply create photographs of a flat Earth?
A property of mass is that it has gravitational force regardless of size. If the Earth did not have a gravitational field, wouldn’t that imply that the Earth doesn’t physically exist?
Where is the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station located if the south “pole” is the whole circumference of the Earth?
Wouldn’t creating such elaborate fakes and conspiracies cost an equal–if not greater–amount of money than the science they are supposedly covering up?
The idea of the Earth as a sphere has existed at least since the time of the ancient Greeks, long before NASA. What were their financial motives?
What financial motives could NASA have, since their budget is still cut every year?
How could the sun be a spotlight if it is a sphere? On the flat Earth, the light projection would have to be a semicircle.
Why does the North Star goes to the horizon?
Why do constellations appear to be different in the Southern and Northern hemispheres?
Why is the Coriolis effect stronger near both poles, instead of stronger in the north and weaker in the south?
If the circumferential south pole is preventing the oceans from pouring over the edge of the flat Earth, why didn’t the oceans disappear during the incredible amount of time it would have taken for that ice to form?
If the oceans would–if they could–pour off the edge of the flat Earth, where, then, would they go? Does this mean that whatever keeps the oceans on the surface of the flat Earth only operates in a downward direction on the uppermost surface and is absent on the underneath?
Why are satellites visible from Earth with a pair of binoculars and even the naked eye?
How could a flat body maintain an atmosphere?
Why are other celestial bodies spheres but the Earth is not? How, and why, was the Earth created differently?
I can guess the number is 12,000 km. So. Plus or minus. Why do you think you need that info, for what logical purpose will U used it for?
To compare it with reality.
So, if the distance between the two on the Gleason map is 12000km, what's the diameter of the whole flat Earth?
If the Gleason map is an accurate map of a flat Earth and the distance you propose is correct, it would mean that the land masses closer to the North Pole are much, much smaller than they would be on a globe. do you agree with that?
FE crowd is not about explaining anything. It is a 130-year old (Zetetic society and all that stuff in late 1800s) British elites operation to litter with grabage any uncensored platform where people dare to question official narratives.
And yet, on a flat earth, there is no explanation for why the sun falls below the horizon.
So easy that you’re physically incapable of explaining how the angular diameter of an object can become negative without it moving below the visible plane.
Translation: I can’t prove any of my claims.
Oh, so “seeing in a line”? A line that can’t stop being seen unless it’s interrupted by something? Something like the ground? The ground under which the sun “never” moves? Because otherwise you could never not see the sun, but you, the flat earther, say you can always see the sun. But the sun can’t be seen at night.
THE ANGULAR DIAMETER OF AN OBJECT CAN NEVER BE NEGATIVE.
NO MATTER HOW FAR AWAY IT IS.
Yet difficult to explain?
It’s a shame you don’t know yourself then
Not sure what you're proving here. Using the Gleason map checks out for all these. For example a Toronto to Sao Paolo flight is 11 hours, and using the distance calculation for the Gleason, it makes sense for the Sydney Houston flight.
What's the distance between Sydney and Santiago de Chile according to a flat Earth map?
I'll be honest. That's the one flight that makes the flat earth theory less tenable.
Here's what the Dubay guy says about it...
https://rumble.com/v1y50x2-how-do-flights-like-sydney-santiago-work-on-flat-earth.html
And here's what the compass readings of Max Igan showed when he took that flight...
https://youtu.be/wgDokIxCtrk?si=1XlEXmcyWA0_3bjv
Why can't you simply answer the question?
Because I've never flown that route. I've flown other long haul flights into the southern hemisphere where I now live. However, Dubay's video explains that the distance is roughly 7000 miles on the flat earth map, and that ends up fitting within the air speed of a 747 to get there within the 13 hours alotted for the flight.
The biggest thing is the report of compass readings taken by a passenger of one of those flights, as discussed in the second link I shared.
While it's not a cut and dried response, the maps you showed aren't the gotcha you may think they are. Also look up real emergency landing stories in history and see where some of these hit the ground... Those flight paths make no sense on a globe. But also not the gotcha flat earth supporters think it is.
Stalemate.
have you ever looked at the Gleeson map?
https://imgur.com/a/nBtOuoE
You sure that this is 7000 miles according to the Gleason map? that would mean the whole diameter of flat earth would be about 10000 miles.
I guess you think shit tastes delicious, right?
I don't follow, faggot.
Not surprising you needed your own worldview spelled out.
can you repeat the point in your own words?
On a flat Earth, what is the distance between Sydney and Santiago de Chile?
Its like arguing what shade of blue the sky is. It doesnt matter unless you own a spaceship. Better off putting energy in to raising chickens or buying assets that you can flip in a hyperinflation environment.
Piss off.
Thank you for admitting the Earth is not flat and that space exists.
Reported for spam.
Fuck off. Reported.
So you don't have an explanation that matched with a flat earth?
"Earth" is a tiled tessellation. If you travel east from Chicago all the way "around" until you land in Chicago again, you are in a second, distinct, yet identical Chicago. It's like a chessboard.
All airplanes are required by law to travel in such a way as to simulate globe distances, lol
Which law is that?
What's the distance between Sydney and Santiago de Chile according to a flat Earth map?
What's the distance between Sydney and Santiago de Chile according to the Gleeson map?
why can't you just give a number? you have a map, doesn;t that map show you distances?
To compare it with reality.
So, if the distance between the two on the Gleason map is 12000km, what's the diameter of the whole flat Earth?
If the Gleason map is an accurate map of a flat Earth and the distance you propose is correct, it would mean that the land masses closer to the North Pole are much, much smaller than they would be on a globe. do you agree with that?