FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[Phil G]

Yes but that's the problem. You spend so much time mocking and laughing at things, how are we supposed to know whether you are joking or really believe it?

There are really only three possibilities here:

1. She has been indoctrinated and is completely delusional, in which case she needs professional help beyond what can be provided here.

2. She is trolling, in which case she is receiving the attention she craves but generally doesn't get.

3. A combination of both of the above.

I would advise not to further engage with her as it is probably causing you more frustration than it is helping her. The only thing we can do to help her is to pray for her and hope she gets the help she very obviously needs. I'm with @Bradskii on this one, I see no point in any further engagement with her.

 

[Apple Sky]

Yes but that's the problem. You spend so much time mocking and laughing at things, how are we supposed to know whether you are joking or really believe it?

Sorry - I thought most people would see the humor.

 

[Apple Sky]

There are really only three possibilities here:

1. She has been indoctrinated and is completely delusional, in which case she needs professional help beyond what can be provided here.

2. She is trolling, in which case she is receiving the attention she craves but generally doesn't get.

3. A combination of both of the above.

I would advise not to further engage with her as it is probably causing you more frustration than it is helping her. The only thing we can do to help her is to pray for her and hope she gets the help she very obviously needs. I'm with @Bradskii on this one, I see no point in any further engagement with her.

No worries, I'm out of here & I'll leave you all to live in your fairy tale world.

 

[Strong in Him]

There are really only three possibilities here:

1. She has been indoctrinated and is completely delusional, in which case she needs professional help beyond what can be provided here.

2. She is trolling, in which case she is receiving the attention she craves but generally doesn't get.

3. A combination of both of the above.

I would advise not to further engage with her as it is probably causing you more frustration than it is helping her. The only thing we can do to help her is to pray for her and hope she gets the help she very obviously needs. I'm with @Bradskii on this one, I see no point in any further engagement with her.

Yes, agreed

 

[contratodo]

This doesn't make sense. Paignton is on the coast. I can easily see the sea (The English Channel) from my living room window. But I cannot see France, or indeed ships as they go beyond the horizon, no matter how powerful a lens I look through. That is not because France is too far away - it's about 120 miles distant, and large enough to be seen at such a distance. Rather, it is because it is beyond the horizon.

For me, you would need to prove that statement, as I said, with a p-900 you would be able to see France.

 

[David Lamb]

For me, you would need to prove that statement, as I said, with a p-900 you would be able to see France.

No I wouldn't. Powerful telescopes or other view apparatus do not enable one to see beyond the horizon. Try next time you are by the coast. Watch a ship disappear as it passes the horizon, then try looking for it through a pair of binoculars.

 

[contratodo]

I'm on the train going home from work and I can seet the feet of the people standing across from me.

If you can see their feet while looking straight ahead, they are within your eye level.
But it is likely you are using your peripheral vision to see the people's feet.
In your image one can see the full little black outline, and horizon by simply looking straight without using peripherals.

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

In other words you can look straight ahead and see it. All of the photos you show have the horizon at your defined eye level.
Because an angle of other than 0 means one would have to be moving their eyes or using their peripheral vision.
If the eyes can remain exactly straight and see the thing, it is at eye level.
A 0 angle eye is an eye that is looking perfectly straight ahead and not using peripherals.

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.

You do not look slightly down, don't even have to use peripherals, the horizon is straight in front at 0 angle eye level.
You can also see above the horizon without having to move the eye, the whole horizon area is at 0 angle eye level,
in every photo with the red water.

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

That's right, as it is in the photo you gave with the water bottle.
As I said, a land shot would show it better, the horizon is within eye level.

If the earth were a ball, from higher and higher up one would have to look more and more down to see any horizon.

So on a plane would should have to look down, but as in your photo we can look straight ahead and see the horizon.
It would be a better example if it were land and not clouds.

 

[contratodo]

No I wouldn't. Powerful telescopes or other view apparatus do not enable one to see beyond the horizon. Try next time you are by the coast. Watch a ship disappear as it passes the horizon, then try looking for it through a pair of binoculars.

That is exactly why I say for me you would have to prove your statement.

I have indeed done exactly that and seen ships after they left what I could see with my eye.
I bought a telescope so I could do things like that.
A p-900 zoom is one of the farthest zooms, with it, you, could see France from your house.

 

[prodromos]

If you can see their feet while looking straight ahead, they are within your eye level.
But it is likely you are using your peripheral vision to see the people's feet.
In your image one can see the full little black outline, and horizon by simply looking straight without using peripherals.



In other words you can look straight ahead and see it. All of the photos you show have the horizon at your defined eye level.
Because an angle of other than 0 means one would have to be moving their eyes or using their peripheral vision.
If the eyes can remain exactly straight and see the thing, it is at eye level.
A 0 angle eye is an eye that is looking perfectly straight ahead and not using peripherals.



You do not look slightly down, don't even have to use peripherals, the horizon is straight in front at 0 angle eye level.
You can also see above the horizon without having to move the eye, the whole horizon area is at 0 angle eye level,
in every photo with the red water.





That's right, as it is in the photo you gave with the water bottle.
As I said, a land shot would show it better, the horizon is within eye level.

If the earth were a ball, from higher and higher up one would have to look more and more down to see any horizon.

So on a plane would should have to look down, but as in your photo we can look straight ahead and see the horizon.
It would be a better example if it were land and not clouds.

Your definition of "eye level" is completely meaningless, so it is no wonder that you make the nonsense claims you do. You are claiming range of view as eye level when it refers to a line at the height of your eyes. A line is 2 dimensional whereas what you describe is 3 dimensional. Your definition, and thus the claims derived from it are false.

 

[prodromos]

That is exactly why I say for me you would have to prove your statement.

I have indeed done exactly that and seen ships after they left what I could see with my eye.

That isn't the same as going beyond the horizon. Small boats become smaller than the angle our eyes are able to discern at distance. Try doing the same with a cargo ship or passenger liner.

I bought a telescope so I could do things like that.
A p-900 zoom is one of the farthest zooms, with it, you, could see France from your house.

Complete nonsense

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No I wouldn't. Powerful telescopes or other view apparatus do not enable one to see beyond the horizon. Try next time you are by the coast. Watch a ship disappear as it passes the horizon, then try looking for it through a pair of binoculars.

I tried to say the same when discussing how I, living in North Wales, can't see the Isle of Man from where I am. Their only response to the pictures I took and showed were "Zoom in more!" and "Use a powerful telescoping camera to see!"

 

[David Lamb]

That is exactly why I say for me you would have to prove your statement.

I have indeed done exactly that and seen ships after they left what I could see with my eye.
I bought a telescope so I could do things like that.
A p-900 zoom is one of the farthest zooms, with it, you, could see France from your house.

Of course I couldn't. I don't have a telescope, but I do have binoculars. They make thing that I can see look closer, but if a ship goes beyond the horizon, even if it's just happened, and the ship is just a few feet beyond the horizon, it doesn't become visible again using the binoculars.

 

[The Liturgist]

No I wouldn't. Powerful telescopes or other view apparatus do not enable one to see beyond the horizon. Try next time you are by the coast. Watch a ship disappear as it passes the horizon, then try looking for it through a pair of binoculars.

This is quite correct. And also, don’t forget, as the ship passes the horizon, the tallest point on the ship will be the last to disappear from view.

If the world were flat, the ship would rather shrink consistently to a single small point, which is not what we see at the horizon.

Interestingly I have heard that Muhammed, who believed the world was flat, unlike the majority of people of that era, taught that the disappearance of the ships over the horizon was an optical illusion. There is also the Sura in the Quran where Dhul Qarnayn, that is to say, Alexander the Great, travels all the way to the West and meets the sun relaxing in a muddy pool, before he has to get up and travel east to light up another day. It’s some pretty wild stuff.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhul-Qarnayn_and_the_Sun_Setting_in_a_Muddy_Spring_-_Part_One#Translation_(Yusuf_Ali)

As a Christian I feel compelled to reject on an absolute basis the idea of a Flat Earth, for the reasons you have cited - all the evidence disagrees with it, and since Jesus Christ is the Truth, it follows that we must pursue truth at all times.

 

[The Liturgist]

Your definition of "eye level" is completely meaningless, so it is no wonder that you make the nonsense claims you do. You are claiming range of view as eye level when it refers to a line at the height of your eyes. A line is 2 dimensional whereas what you describe is 3 dimensional. Your definition, and thus the claims derived from it are false.

Actually, to be really pedantic, straight lines are one dimensional connections between zero dimensional points, from which we can draw two dimensional figures such as squares, which have area, and three dimensional shapes such as cubes which have volume.

I myself find points to be endlessly interesting since they have no dimension, as they are merely locations. This might also make them endlessly uninteresting, except for the fact that they apparently exist in nature in the form of the singularity of a black hole, which has been compressed down to a single infinitely dense point by the collapse of a massive object. And these points are the basis for the supermassive black holes which hold galaxies like our galaxy, and our neighboring galaxies such as Andromeda and Triangulum, together.

 

[The Liturgist]

Their only response to the pictures I took and showed were "Zoom in more!" and "Use a powerful telescoping camera to see!"

Yes alas that doesn’t work. If it did I could point my telescope at Australia and my friends down under such as @prodromos and @Xeno.of.athens could point their telescopes at me, and we could wave to each other. Which would be about as close as we could ever hope to communicate, since in a flat Earth the distance from North America to Australia would become too long for any commercial airliner to fly non-stop between the two continents. And the flights which exist, operated by Qantas that connect Australia with Jo’burg and Santiago de Chile, across the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific close to Antarctica, and connect Sao Paulo and Jo’burg, across the South Atlantic, would be utterly impossible, which is why some Flat Earthers try to claim these services do not exist, and made a great to do about it because for a brief period, due to covid, those services were suspended, but now that they have been resumed, one can see them, and using ADS-B one can see lots of aircraft movements in the Southern Hemisphere which would be impossible if the world was as Flat Earthers claim.

 

[Paul4JC]

How do round earthers explain the celestial dome not changing nor spinning? Where the constellations are today they will be next year at this time. Be still.

 

[prodromos]

How do round earthers explain the celestial dome not changing nor spinning? Where the constellations are today they will be next year at this time. Be still.

You've never seen a long exposure photograph of the night sky?

Stunning Long Exposure Shots of Australian Star Trails

Many photographers like to experiment with long exposure photography techniques, but an Australian Lincoln Harrison gives a new definition to the word long. A 37-year-old Victorian showcases a portfolio of mesmerizing long exposure star trail photography, with some of his photo shoots taking up...

www.boredpanda.com

The constellations do change, it just occurs so slowly that it can't be discerned in a lifetime, apart from the "planets", the so called "wandering stars" which are constantly changing position. If they are "stars" as one of your flat earth brethren claims, then you have falsified your own claims.

 

[The Liturgist]

The constellations do change, it just occurs so slowly that it can't be discerned in a lifetime, apart from the "planets", the so called "wandering stars" which are constantly changing position. If they are "stars" as one of your flat earth brethren claims, then you have falsified your own claims.

Indeed, one proof of this is the procession of the pole star. The ancient Egyptians aligned the Pyramids at Giza using Thuban, before Polaris took its place, and Vega is next in line.

 

[Paul4JC]

Is this not what you believe?

"Considered we're moving at about 540,000 mph as a solar system and on top of all of that the Milky Way is shooting through the universe if we measure the Galaxy's speed relative to cosmic background radiation from the big Big Bang we find it's traveling at an incredible 1.3 million mph so you're moving on earth the earth is moving around the sun the sun is moving around the Galaxy and the entire galaxy is moving around the universe at a combined speed of over 1.9 million M hour or 530 M every second"

 

[prodromos]

Is this not what you believe?

"Considered we're moving at about 540,000 mph as a solar system and on top of all of that the Milky Way is shooting through the universe if we measure the Galaxy's speed relative to cosmic background radiation from the big Big Bang we find it's traveling at an incredible 1.3 million mph so you're moving on earth the earth is moving around the sun the sun is moving around the Galaxy and the entire galaxy is moving around the universe at a combined speed of over 1.9 million M hour or 530 M every second"

From the frame of reference of someone standing on the surface of the Earth, the Earth is not moving. From the frame of reference of Earth orbit, the Earth is rotating at a speed of 0.0167 rpm. From the frame of reference of the Sun, the Earth is in an orbit that takes 1 year to complete. The speed at which things are moving is all relative to your reference point so all the numbers you've thrown out there are meaningless from the Earth's frame of reference.