FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[Bradskii]

Maps, distances etc ............ Doesn't prove the earth is a globe - Sorry.

We weren't looking to prove that the earth was a globe. We were looking to see if the map issue by the Flat Earth Society was in any way accurate. That we could trust it, just for something simple like getting from A to B.

You have discovered that it's very wrong. What the Flat Earth Society is telling you that what the flat earth actually looks like is very wrong indeed. You have discovered this by yourself. And as I said, producing a flat map of a globe is not very easy at all. Producing one for a flat earth would be child's play. And they failed.

How you deal with that is up to you.

While you deal with that I'll just mention the North star (Polaris) and the Southern Cross. Polaris is the brightest star in the sky where you live. It's part of the Big Dipper. If you're still up when I post this and it's a clear night, see if you can find it. Or do it tomorrow. Face the star and you're facing north. Turn around and you're facing south.

Where I live, to find south you generally face the Southern Cross. Turn around and you're looking north.

Let me know if you're following this or have actually found Polaris (if you're near the coast, look out to sea and then turn around - you'll be looking north).

 

[prodromos]

I say it means being able to look straight ahead and see it, what do you say it means?

Extending out from your eyes at an angle of 0° (zero degrees, horizontal from the eyes)

When using a water level or a water bottle, that angle is achieved by looking along the surface of the water over a short distance. If the two levels of the dyed water line up then that is 0° from your eyes. If you are not seeing the surface of the water in the water bottle either from above or below, but instead see a line along the edge, then that is 0° from your eyes. That is eye level.

Anything above or below that line is at a non zero angle from eye level

 

[prodromos]

The first image with water bottle is showing a horizon within eye level,
meaning you can look straight ahead and see the horizon.

The surface of the water is eye level. The horizon is not at eye level but below it. I'm on the train going home from work and I can seet the feet of the people standing across from me. According to your claim above that means their feet are at eye level, when in fact they are at least 1.5m below eye level. It is clear what you are claiming is nonsense.

One can always look straight ahead and see the horizon, as shown in all your images.

No, on all but the first image at near sea level you look down slightly at the horizon. If the earth was flat then the horizon would always be exactly at eye level due to perspective, no matter what altitude you are viewing from.

On the plane, one should have to look out the window and down to see the horizon

Not if the earth is flat. From high up you can see much further and the horizon would again be at eye level.

we are not microscopic on this ball, given the math they give us.

If the earth was a beach ball 1m in diameter, we would be on average 0.000141465 mm tall. Mt Everest would stand 0.64 mm high. We are indeed microscopic on the earth

Because you draw a little square between the water bottle line and the horizon means nothing,
both are within straight ahead eye level.

There is no "within eye level". Something is either at eye level or it is not.

And you can hold that water bottle however, where exactly is it being held?

It is being held so that they are looking neither down onto the surface of the water in the bottle nor up under the surface of the water, but along the edge, so that the view along that line is horizontal from the eyes.

For the four images and red water, how high is the wooded platform on the beach that the 'sea level' one is on?
Should it not be on the sand itself?

It is close enough to sea level. Even on the sand would be slightly above see level, but you would have to half bury your camera in the beach to have the water level and the horizon lined up.

Notice that the red water remains level, to prove that water can curve, you would need to put it in a curved vessel
and show some top side curvature somehow.

Sorry but that is complete nonsense.

Water does not curve

It sure does

it is always level

"level" means equidistant from the centre of the earth. It does not mean "flat"

if "gravity" is curving the water onto
the ball, we all should have a lot harder time walking around.

This does not remotely follow.

And certainly fish coming to the surface should have a hard fight against gravity.

Buoyancy works because of gravity. Your statement is utter nonsense.

 

[Apple Sky]

We weren't looking to prove that the earth was a globe. We were looking to see if the map issue by the Flat Earth Society was in any way accurate. That we could trust it, just for something simple like getting from A to B.

You have discovered that it's very wrong. What the Flat Earth Society is telling you that what the flat earth actually looks like is very wrong indeed. You have discovered this by yourself. And as I said, producing a flat map of a globe is not very easy at all. Producing one for a flat earth would be child's play. And they failed.

How you deal with that is up to you.

Sorry - I thought the object of this exercise was to prove the globe or the level earth.

While you deal with that I'll just mention the North star (Polaris) and the Southern Cross. Polaris is the brightest star in the sky where you live. It's part of the Big Dipper. If you're still up when I post this and it's a clear night, see if you can find it. Or do it tomorrow. Face the star and you're facing north. Turn around and you're facing south.

Where I live, to find south you generally face the Southern Cross. Turn around and you're looking north.

Let me know if you're following this or have actually found Polaris (if you're near the coast, look out to sea and then turn around - you'll be looking north).

I'm sorry again - But what is this exercise for ?

 

[Strong in Him]

Your post was very informative but I don't think that anyone has ever been to the moon let alone walked on it.

So what's your answer to those who say they have done just that; not to mention all the scientists and so on who worked on the Apollo missions?
It wasn't that long ago that someone here scanned in pages from a book that was written by such a man.

 

[Bradskii]

Sorry - I thought the object of this exercise was to prove the globe or the level earth.

No, just to show that the map that they use is useless. They tell you it's what the world looks like and you found out it doesn't look like that at all. You have to decide why they did that.

I'm sorry again - But what is this exercise for ?

We're going to look for stars. We each should be able to see them all.

 

[Apple Sky]

We're going to look for stars. We each should be able to see them all.

But we know we don't, someone living in Oz to someone living in the UK will see a different night time sky, it's called the 'Coriolis effect'.

 

[Bradskii]

But we know we don't, someone living in Oz to someone living in the UK will see a different night time sky, it's called the 'Coriolis effect'.

Can you explain that to me? As to how it affects stars?

 

[Apple Sky]

So what's your answer to those who say they have done just that; not to mention all the scientists and so on who worked on the Apollo missions?

Answer - How was Hollywood, fame at last.

 

[Apple Sky]

Can you explain that to me? As to how it affects stars?

Not really, but I know a man who can

 

[Bradskii]

Not really, but I know a man who can

Well let's hear it from him.

 

[Strong in Him]

Answer - How was Hollywood, fame at last.

So if someone said to you "my dad walked on the moon" you would tell them to their face that they were lying, and ask if he had enjoyed being a film star?
Let's hope that you never say, "I have met the risen Jesus" to such people; they would have no reason at all to believe you.

 

[Bradskii]

Not really, but I know a man who can

But bear in mind the following from The Flat Earth Society: Coriolis Effect

'The Coriolis Effect, however, appears to be a fictitious effect that is not, and has never been, properly demonstrated with experimental evidence.'

 

[Apple Sky]

But bear in mind the following from The Flat Earth Society: Coriolis Effect

'The Coriolis Effect, however, appears to be a fictitious effect that is not, and has never been, properly demonstrated with experimental evidence.'

I do not trust the flat earth society, I was told a long time ago that their forum is a Government supported site, mean't to oppose or ridicule flat earth.

 

[Strong in Him]

I do not trust the flat earth society, I was told a long time ago that their forum is a Government supported site, mean't to oppose or ridicule flat earth.

You don't even believe your fellow flat earthers!

You have already doubted the integrity of those going to Antarctica, saying that the government has paid people to believe in a flat earth.
You once wrote a post where you said "I am not going to write about a flat earth any more; I will answer @d taylor but that's it." Yet when d taylor posted a photo of the ISS you doubted that it was real.
You now doubt the flat earth society. You were told that their site was produced to ridicule a flat earth - when it's likely to be the exact opposite. So you believe what you were told - though you have no evidence of it.

Let me guess; you and Dean Odle are the only people in the world who tell the truth about anything. Even then, you would change your mind in an instant if he told you to.

 

[Bradskii]

I do not trust the flat earth society, I was told a long time ago that their forum is a Government supported site, mean't to oppose or ridicule flat earth.

It's not a forum but a wiki. And it's put together by the Flat Earth Society itself. It's their wiki. Why would someone who wanted to oppose the society put together a wiki that supports what they believe in? That makes no sense. And do you have anything from the Flat Earth Society itself that warns us about their own wiki? It even has a link to the forum.

It seems exceptionally odd that the Society tells us everything that you have been telling us, backs up what you say, but...you don't trust them?

Anyway, let me know who you trust and tell me about how the coriolus effect is relevant to the stars.

 

[Apple Sky]

You don't even believe your fellow flat earthers!

I do just not the flat earth society, never have & never will.

 

[Apple Sky]

It's not a forum but a wiki. And it's put together by the Flat Earth Society itself. It's their wiki. Why would someone who wanted to oppose the society put together a wiki that supports what they believe in? That makes no sense. And do you have anything from the Flat Earth Society itself that warns us about their own wiki? It even has a link to the forum.

It seems exceptionally odd that the Society tells us everything that you have been telling us, backs up what you say, but...you don't trust them?

See even Obama agrees with me

 

[Bradskii]

See even Obama agrees with me.

I'm afraid that most people in this thread would be including you in that group. Which is unfortunate, as I'm pretty sure that you're a smart person.

 

[Apple Sky]

I'm afraid that most people in this thread would be including you in that group.