accurate to the region
Jesus H, what part of that map is accurate? None of it. You're just being obtuse.
Dude, you do realize that a map from the 1500s can not be anything more than pure conjecture at where and what they were looking at right? For fuck sake, how can you place more validity or any relevance whatsoever on an infantile map that is obviously wrong vs. live image satellites and modern cartography? What fucking grade did you graduate from anyhow?
Are you in Tel Aviv by chance?
Anti-semitism does not make you smart. It makes you look like a fool.
was obviously fake
I rest my case. You are a complete 100% utter moron. No amount of evidence will persuade your teeny tiny brain. In your mind, everything is fake except things you only find on conspirator websites. You want to believe because you have been left feeling empty due to your total lack of education and deductive reasoning.
A picture of earth, not NASA
Here's live video NOT from NASA fucktard; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk6qxprCuGY
Here's one from fucking communists; https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeWsZd9W0AA9yUn?format=jpg&name=medium
Oh but you'll just say it's animation or some other conspiracy theory bullshit right?
I couldn't care less the shape of the earth
Yes, you do Old man. So, now you are a liar and a flat earth twat. You are so hung up on NASA; your only evidence of manipulation or conspiracy is some other flat earth 1/2 wit on Youtube conjecturing about things they know nothing about.
Every claim you fuck tards have made is never supported by anyone with formal education. It's like your brains have stopped functioning and logic left through the window just because you want to be edgy and think you know something others don't.
Well, you don't know shit and your wasting your life wearing tin foil hats.
ironically detailed for the time
No, they are representative of a time when man still believed in dragons and observations were new thus had no accuracy since clocks were still rudimentary and cartography was in its infancy. To suggest that maps from the 1500s are any more than crude is moronic. Imagine asking an 8-year-old to draw a map. This is the equivalent.
"Sun goes around the equator"
As I've said so many times; you feeble 1/2 wits bake some pot cookies and conjecture about things you have no basis in fact other than some other bakes brains on Youtube. You dumb shits have no one above grade 10 education supporting you. you have no one of ANY credibility supporting you, so why do you persist in these redonkulous tin foil hat conspiracy theories? The amount of time you waste your lives on when you could be focusing on real conspiracies that actually are supported with facts might be worth your time. Instead, you wallow in moronic flat earth bull shit that no one with an IQ above 30 believes.
OK, sure, but I don't think you are on the right track regarding the OP. Air & air pressure has nothing to do with a regular ship floating or sinking so it's not part of the absurd 'gravity does not exist' part this OP was on about explaining how ships can float. It's the weight of the ship that needs to displace the same amount of weight in water. If the weight of the ship can displace its own weight in water, without exceeding the freeboard height, it will float.
Submarines are completely different. They use air/water ballast to rise or sink, to overcome their natural buoyancy, so while you are on the right track as far as air pressure relating to submersed vessels, the OP was referring to regular ships (non-pressurized) that float.
Regular tankers/ships are not pressurized, nor are they air-tight as far as double-hulled vessels are concerned, so having air between hulls only protects their cargo against ruptures, but does not increase buoyancy.
lol. OK sure, but the only reason a gap between metal plates would exist in a steel hull design would be for protecting the contents, like oil. It is not designed to increase buoyancy since the extra weight has to be factored in hull length, shape etc. without the extra weight, it would naturally be MORE buoyant since it would need to displace less water.
A steel boat holds air, that's why it doesn't sink,
No, that is wrong. It has nothing to do with air because the ship is not air-tight. It does not sink because the hull tries to displace its weight in water. So take two hulls; both weigh 1 ton and contain the same amount of air. One is shaped with a flat bottom, very wide with low sides, the other is a very narrow wedge with super tall sides, which one would sink? The wedge would sink because it does not have enough sideways displacement force to counteract gravity.
These rays are obviously hitting earth at a triangle shape which, to be fair, ought not to happen if the sun is massively bigger than the earth,
Well sort of. It depends where you are on the ball The image is silly and cannot be used to demonstrate anything. The sun is showing through an opening in the clouds. It has nothing to do with the sun's size in relation to the earth. The sun 'broadcasts' and spreads out in that image, just like you expect it to. Remove the clouds and the light is all over uniform for the angle you are looking at. If you're on the north pole, the sun rays are at a low angle. If you're at the equator, it's above you. Simple.
The irony is you using a map from the 1500s for 'proof' - lol.