Lol my words exactly
I think you're right on the money
This is very well-written, clear, patient. It's a shame that you'v ehad the same experience as I've had: only encountering those who are unable to articulate clearly what their own beliefs are about this flat earth theory
Of course I'm interested in gaining knowledge. What startles me is that every flat earth believer I speak to is so reluctant to share knowledge
If the world is flat, why do you want it to be some big secret? Why do you shy away from giving basic answers to questions about the world? Why are you so reluctant to have a rational discussion about it, under the guise of "oh I'm just so busy"?
You are giving up. It's what you do.
I'm more than happy to learn. You just expect learning to mean I believe everything you say. Asking questions is the best way to learn.
It's one group of one, so it's just one thing.
Let's say you have a box with a number of apples in it. In this particular box, you have one apple.
So, one box, of one apple, is just one apple total.
To use 3x4, say the box has 3 apples, and you have four of those boxes. 4 boxes, each with 3 apples in it, is 12 apples total.
Oh I thought we were doing a scene.
The mom probably is doing all right with it though. She buries her head in the sand and will just divert the topic into insults if people don't say that she's right. Ignorance is bliss after all.
The evidence is out there and yet, how strange, everyone who believes this can never seem to pull any up!
Go find groups on telegram or Facebook, whatever..that share evidence and make productive discussions.
None do. They all do what you do. They say things like "I just think you're a bit lazy for no already knowing about tartaria evidence" and expect people to believe them right out the gate, and any critical questions get ignored. It's a shame really.
I'm not gonna link evidence for you to argue.
Because you don't know how to find any
He quits when it gets difficult. I have a few comment threads where he stops replying after you ask a specific question. He prefers to give up rather than actually engage in reasonable discussion.
Not that you're any better, but it's fun seeing both of you go at it
And yet, if you employ any critical thought about the flat earth theory, it all falls apart. Notice how many people who support the FE theory refuse to elaborate further.
There are no arguments for a flat earth. They always divert to talking shit about a globe earth.
No, 10k. 5k away as rise. 4.5k over your head, and 5k away at set.
That's 1K miles of lateral travel, my guy. Maybe you need a different way to explain what you mean.
The sun is 4.5K miles above us at noon, so it is 4.5K miles away. You're saying at sunrise, it's 5K miles away. So that means in order for the sun to go from 5K miles away from us at sunrise, to 4.5K miles away from us at noon, then it would need to travel 500 miles. You then say it's 5K miles away at sunset. So in order for the sun to get from 4.5K miles away from us at noon to 5K miles away from us at sunset, it needs to travel an additional 500 miles.
Total, that's 1000 miles of lateral travel from sunrise to sunset, which is half the width of the US. It's not computing.
I just see that same blurry video of the sun fade out.
Yeah so that's gonna be an issue. I've watched sunsets from sea level and sunrises from mountaintops, and vice versa. In all instances, when the day is clear at least, the sun never fades away/into vision. It always appeared to rise and set into the horizon.
On a flat earth, it doesn't quite compute how or why this occurs. That's the basis of my question.
Ya 12500 miles is the total travel from rise to set
Are we assuming an equinox? So it's travelling 12.5K miles from rise to set and then an additional 12.5K miles from set to rise? 15K miles total?
Is this an estimate or does this come from any calculation?
We were in Europe and on East coast USA...It's not possible to see the sun at the same time and observe the angles we did if the earth were a globe.
What angles did you get? Did you write anything down?
As for why we make xyz observations. Could you explain what you mean?
Specifically, why we observe the sun appearing to set below the horizon when it is above us at all times.
From my observation point, if I were in an open field, my sightline to the sun is virtually never obstructed at any point in the day. However, roughly half the time, I experience night. It goes against observations of light and vantage I see on earth, so something very unique is happening. I've asked several people why this is, and people, such as yourself, don't really seem to have nor know where to find any clear answer as to what causes this illusion.
It suggest 10000, (5000 + 5000,) but ya, maybe it's 12000
It suggests <1,000.
5,000 miles away to 4,500 miles away from sunrise to noon is 500 miles of travel, then to be 5,000 miles away again at sunset is another 500 miles of travel. The scenario here is that the sun is closest to us at noon, where it is 4,500 miles away from us.
What exactly is 12,000 though? The travel from sunrise to sunset? Because that's still only just over the width of the Eurasian continent, and the fact that there is only an 8 hour difference in time zone between the two coastlines makes that number also a lowball estimation.
All said though, that's a big jump for your original figures. Are you just guessing these numbers or do they come from some actual dataset?
Getting an accurate number would tale me a lot of work.
Well, yes. Accuracy takes work. That's the reason why I have doubts on this proposed scenario. In all conversations I've had, there are major accuracy discrepancies.
Search Yandex for "sun fade out"
I have. Several times in the past. The one I usually find, and the "best" I've seen, is a very blurry video, and it is not convincing. Because of the shot being out of focus it could also be construed as a setting sun, not a fading sun. I asked you for a link because I was hoping you might have a good/better one.
Also could track the difference between the sun path over days and then you'd have a larger angle to measure. Survey equipment just isn't meant for this kinda distance.
Sounds like you've done some of this yourself. Can you detail a bit how you did your study? I'd be curious to try it out!
If we go back to the point, we just have to prove the Earth doesn't curve
I agree! My stance currently is asking the critical questions: if the earth doesn't curve, then what is the reason we make xyz observations?
Interesting. Is there any evidence that the earth is flat? Or no?