B flat B♭

[Apple Sky]

Proverbs 26:11

​

2 Timothy 3:12-14​

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it​

​

 

[prodromos]

2 Timothy 3:12-14​

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it​

Proverbs 3:5

I note that 2 Timothy 3:12-14 can't apply to you, because you don't know Dean Odle or Rob Skiba. You've never met any of the people you put forward as your teachers.

 

[David Lamb]

You mean towards Antarctica where there are giant fixed relay sat dishes, or sat dishes in the south towards the Arctic.

View attachment 373277

I mean that it has already been explained (by other posters, not me) that the satellites used for tv signals are located over the equator, so the further north you are from the equator, the more your satellite has to point south. If you are on the equator, the dish must point directly overhead. If you're south of the equator, the dish must point to the north. I don't know anything about relay sat dishes; we've had several posts here from somebody who set up his own satellite dish, and he certainly didn't say he had to angle it to any relay station.

 

[David Lamb]

View attachment 373279

• Geographical challenge: Antarctica's location at the South Pole means that most satellites in geosynchronous orbit (which circle the Earth above the equator) are blocked by the Earth's curvature. This makes continuous, high-speed communication a challenge.
• Large antennas at bases: To compensate for the low angle and limited visibility of available satellites, research stations utilize large, fixed antennas (often within massive radomes to protect against hurricane-force winds) to capture signals when satellites pass over the horizon.

Antarctica is not "located at the South Pole." The South Pole is a point on Antarctica. Anyway, how does that prevent satellites being in geosynchronous orbit over the equator?

Then, having posted an image headed, "Satellites are a Myth," you say (or quote somebody else saying,) "To compensate for the low angle and limited visibility of available satellites, research stations utilize large, fixed antennas (often within massive radomes to protect against hurricane-force winds) to capture signals when satellites pass over the horizon." How are mythical satellites available? How do they pass over the horizon?

You still haven't told Phil G where the television signals come from that he picks up on his satellite dish which is pointed at the sky. The things mentioned in your image wouldn't work - how would a sky-pointing satellite pick up signals from an undersea cable? How would a fixed dish pick up a constant signal from a moving balloon, plane or drone? How would Phil G's dish, which points to the sky above the equator, not to any tower, antenna or parabolic reflector?

 

[prodromos]

@Apple Sky also still hasn't told us how the 'local' sun and moon stay the same size as they pass from the East, to almost directly overhead, to the West, on the 'true' flat earth.

She claims it is 3000 miles up, but from where I am in Sydney the sun is approaching the East coast of Africa, some 9000 miles away which according to Pythagoras will put the sun about 9487 miles away before sunset, yet the sun is exactly the same size as it was at noon in Sydney. According to the flat earthers it should be one third the size.
How? She can't claim "perspective", because that would make the sun appear to get smaller, which doesn't happen.

 

[prodromos]

@Apple Sky also hasn't told us how flights from Sydney to Santiago take less time than flights from Sydney to Los Angeles, despite the shortest route on her flat earth map for the former being almost double the distance of the latter, and passes over L.A.

 

[Strong in Him]

1. It's not my map
2. I've no idea,
3. Try googling it

1. Do you accept the answer that was given to your previous question, and are you changing the subject because you don't want to admit it?
2. So if you have no idea, why won't you accept that it's something to do with the curvature of the earth?
3. When we suggest to you that you Google something, you reply "what, so that they can tell me more lies? I don't think so." So why do you only accept Google when it suits you?

 

[Strong in Him]

2 Timothy 3:12-14​

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it​

If the people you "learned" flat earth from were Odel and Skiba; a) you don't know them and b) a person can only learn the truth if they have good, honest teachers. Nuff said.

 

[Apple Sky]

why won't you accept that it's something to do with the curvature of the earth?

Because there is no curvature & this has been proven.

 

[Apple Sky]

Sometimes I think that people are only posting on this thread to bump up their reaction score.

 

[Jerry N.]

Because there is no curvature & this has been proven.

Your “proofs” are rather lacking. When surveyors make long measurements, they have to take into account the curvature of the earth. If they didn’t, there would be serious problems with the construction of large projects like highways. If the earth was flat, the thousands of surveyors would have to be in on the cover up in almost every country in the world. It is even more improbable than all of the space agencies being in on the conspiracy. How does surveying over great distances take into account the curvature of the Earth's surface? - Physicsgurus Q&A

It is a matter of geometry, like all of the other things that have been presented to show the earth is a globe. There is no ideology or philosophy, just physical reality. Physical reality doesn’t care about what you believe.

 

[prodromos]

Because there is no curvature & this has been proven.

It has not been proven, this is a lie you repeat over and over.

 

[prodromos]

Sometimes I think that people are only posting on this thread to bump up their reaction score.

Heaven forbid them being actual challenges for you to make a response.

 

[Apple Sky]

It has not been proven, this is a lie you repeat over and over.

No, well watch a few videos in real time where they have done the laser experiment proving the earth has no curvature.
If you want I can post a few, but I know you wont watch them or even believe them.

 

[Apple Sky]

Heaven forbid them being actual challenges for you to make a response.

 

[prodromos]

No, well watch a few videos in real time where they have done the laser experiment proving the earth has no curvature.
If you want I can post a few, but I know you wont watch them or even believe them.

The guys doing the laser experiments fail to take refraction into account, something they would have included if they had studied surveying.
I've seen several of those videos. Atmospheric refraction, particularly over large bodies of water, causes the laser light to bend downwards, following the curve of the earth.
If they had set their laser source a few metres above the water surface where the air is less dense, then the effect of atmospheric refraction would have been far less pronounced and the laser would not have curved down so much. The earth's curvature would have then become obvious.
This is the problem with most flerf experiments.

 

[Jerry N.]

No, well watch a few videos in real time where they have done the laser experiment proving the earth has no curvature.
If you want I can post a few, but I know you wont watch them or even believe them.

Let’s try it the other way around. The following video shows the problems with the laser experiments:

 

[BNR32FAN]

1. It's not my map
2. I've no idea,
3. Try googling it

You do realize that with a globe you can measure the distance between any two points anywhere and get an accurate distance right? That should be impossible if the earth is flat. How do you explain this? You can test this theory at home with a simple sheet of paper. Just make the sheet of paper into a sphere without overlapping, folding, or cutting the edges. If you can’t do that then obviously there’s a problem if the distances between any two points on a globe can be measured accurately.

 

[Jerry N.]

If you can’t do that then obviously there’s a problem if the distances between any two points on a globe can be measured accurately.

I don't understand this sentence.

 

[Strong in Him]

Because there is no curvature & this has been proven.

Yes, there is and no, it hasn't.

Try thinking for more than 2 minutes: if it had been proved that the earth was not curved/a globe, do you really think that scientists who study such things would deny it? They'd just look stupid.