The shape of Earth

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How do flat Earthers explain the time difference between the UK and Australia?

When you think conviction should be required to be explanatory, much less predictive, that means your intelligence is disgracefully high, at least double digits.   Shame on you. 

Go lobotomize yourself.

I believe the above may be a misdirected response.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why is it that these Flatties are so focused on the Earth? You never hear about Flat Marsers or Flat Venusers.

Since they seem to have no issue with other planets being (more or less) ball-shaped, what is it that excludes the Earth?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a fast food restaurant.

Hardee’s still exist?    

Thank god....!  If you want a verified gut buster of a burger, accept no substitutes.   Seriously, though, their breakfast menu is above and away from any of their competitors.  Taco Bell is gunning for it.  Reflected in the prices.

[Thumpalumpacus]

People who have taken photos of city skylines across more than 60 miles of water for instance.

The fact that those photos don't show the bases of those skyscrapers is actually evidence that the surface of the Earth is curved. Indeed, that phenomenon is exactly why -- contrary to myth -- most sailors in antiquity knew the earth was not flat; when a ship passed out of their horizon, the hull disappeared first, while the masts remained visible.

Predating that, Eratosthenes's experiment with the sticks at noontime showed that at the same time, those sticks cast different angles when a few hundred miles apart. That too is evidence that the Earth has a curved surface.

You should probably read more. There's scads of information about this.

ETA: Never mind. I just realized you're a crackhead. Carry on.

[h311inac311]

People who have taken photos of city skylines across more than 60 miles of water for instance.

The fact that those photos don't show the bases of those skyscrapers is actually evidence that the surface of the Earth is curved. Indeed, that phenomenon is exactly why -- contrary to myth -- most sailors in antiquity knew the earth was not flat; when a ship passed out of their horizon, the hull disappeared first, while the masts remained visible.

Predating that, Eratosthenes's experiment with the sticks at noontime showed that at the same time, those sticks cast different angles when a few hundred miles apart. That too is evidence that the Earth has a curved surface.

You should probably read more. There's scads of information about this.

ETA: Never mind. I just realized you're a crackhead. Carry on.

Have you ever used a telescope to bring that ship back into view? Plenty of people have and they've caught it on video. Let's make one thing clear however, some of the bottom of the ship (or in this case the city) will be obscured by the waves. The more turbulent the water, the more it will obscure the bottom of any physical object that you look at. If you have a large enough pool you can observe this effect for yourself by creating your own waves and noticing how it affects your vision of the other side.

If we use Earth's curvature calculation (8in * (Number of Miles) Squared) we can see that (60^2) * 8 inches = 28,800 / 12 = 2,400 Feet. That's how much curvature is separating the observer from the city. Do you know of any buildings that are that tall? Again, just because some of your view is obscured that doesn't mean it is the amount that we would expect on a Ball roughly 24,900 miles in circumference. So please explain to me how the light is bending around the curve so as to make the Earth look flat.

Eratosthene's experiment assumes that the Sun is very far away and much larger than Earth, his observation does nothing to prove weather or not the Earth is flat or if it has curvature. If the sun were much closer to Earth (like a flashlight above a flat table with two pencils pointed straight up on it) then that localized light could be directly above a well in New York but cast a long shadow off of a building in Ohio. Again, if you understood how his observation worked you would've know that his beginning assumptions weren't being challenged or established by this often mis-understood measurment.

Eric Dubay has already done most of the ground work and so far you guys haven't been able to suprise me with anything new. Nasa uses Helium to keep those satillites up, the air surrounding your spinning globe can't velcrow a helicopter, drone, weather ballon or airplain to the outside of a spinning, orbiting, helix-spyraling Earth That's constantly moving at impossibly high speeds that you've never felt or observed before. Since when has air ever been proven to attach one object to another? 

Also, why do you guys call Earth oblate? Who put that word into your brain?

If you want more video proof why not just search for it using an un-biased source? 
I referenced YouTube earlier but now the old Flat-Earth footage (that used to be much easier to find back in the day) has now been suppressed and replaced with "Flat Earth debunking" videos.

So my advice is either try BitChute, or any other video sharing website that is less controlled than YouTube; if you really do have a scientific curiosity.

Or, you know, you could just go outside with a telescope and perhaps try to make your own observations. My favorite is zooming in on those little underwater disco-balls you guys call "stars" that hover over our heads at night. I'm sure you'll be surprised when you see one for the first time as they look nothing like their CGI counter parts.

[h311inac311]

How do flat Earthers explain the time difference between the UK and Australia?

The sun is much smaller and much closer to Earth than in your model.

Imagine a Dinner-plate with the center as the magnetic North pole, now imagine a glowing airplane about 5,000 mile up that constantly travels west ward, spiraling either upwards or downwards in-between the tropics.

The light from the Sun is localized (as you can see in high-altitude footage) obscured by both air particles as well as our perspective.



Also, quick question, have any one of you ever observed a full moon at midnight?

[zebo-the-fat]

Also, why do you guys call Earth oblate? Who put that word into your brain?

It's a perfectly good word to describe a slightly fattened sphere
Who put the word "cat" into your brain?

[zebo-the-fat]

Why do you think the Earth is different, we know all the other planets are spherical, just look at Mars through a telescope, you can see it rotate over a few hours.
Can you explain why, if I phone someone in Melbourne Australia they will tell me time is 22:36 when here it's 13:36?

[polymath257]

Really? How do they stay up there?

Is this the only explanation for GPS technology? Or could it be that our phones rely on ground based towers?

How high are they?

They stay up using basic orbital mechanics. You can derive the motion using Newtonian mechanics as a good first approximation. I have gone through the mathematics.

Yes, it is. Ground based towers can't do the triangulation required, especially in a moving vehicle away from towers. You can get GPS signal even if you can't use your phone for a call or text message. I have done such.

How far up? About 12,600 miles: they are in orbits that take half of a sidereal day to complete. I have watched satellites in real time through binoculars.

As for the shape of the Earth:

I have watched a lunar eclipse and have seen the shadow of the Earth on the moon.

I have traveled to different places and have seen the change in which stars are visible.

I have learned about how gravity works, including basic experiments, and have verified that something the size and mass of the Earth would become spherical, slightly modified by centrifugal forces into an ellipsoid.

I have seen other planets and have verified that they are spherical (basically--elliptical in more detail). Given orbital mechanics, the Earth is a planet and would be expected to be spherical as well.

I have seen multiple photos that I trust showing the shape and size of the Earth from orbiting satellites, from non-orbiting satellites, from the moon, etc. I trust them because the information given agrees with what i can personally verify only in much more detail.

I also know the history associated with trying to understand the shape of the Earth. Even Aristotle understood it to be basically spherical. Eratosthenes managed to figure out its size 2200 years ago (although later measurements weren't as accurate--Eratosthenes was lucky).

[polymath257]

Can footage be faked?

Why wouldn't the issue of trust matter?

Have these claims been independently verified?

Also, Nudger, there are plenty of individuals who have actually captured footage with a Nikon P900 who would disagree with you. People who have taken photos of city skylines across more than 60 miles of water for instance.

Advances in science are not made by an appeal to authority. Also, there are plenty of people who have placed cameras on weather baloons who have come to the opposite conclusion, that there is no visible curvature to Earth and that the horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer. Unless of course you use a fish-eye lense.

Yes, some of the footage could be faked, but the issue of motivation arises. Why would they?

Yes, most of these claims can be independently verified. It doesn't even take that much work.

I don't need to trust *my* government. Governments that actively oppose each other come to the same conclusions. When opponents agree, they are likely to be right.

Yes, those who don't know basic optics can get strange results. Have you seen the picture of the tanker hovering above the sea?
https://futurism.com/the-byte/bizarre-pi...-above-sea

If you neglect temperature inversions (which also produce mirages), you can get legitimate pictures that 'raise' the image above where it 'really is'.

Fish eye lenses can be accounted for fairly easily. And no, the horizon does not always 'rise to eye level'. In fact, this was one of the methods used by Islamic scholar to determine the size of the Earth (from mountain tops).

Too bad the people doing these measurements are so ignorant of basic optics.