Put a flat earthier into space

[Kevj]

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Nukehasslefan]

One common theme I see popping up in your blabberings is religion and it being evidence that people believe what they are told. Religion started many centuries ago but people were far more susceptible compared to now.
In a modern world, the belief in religion has declined since centuries ago and possibly quite a lot in just the last century. I'd dare say that in most developed countries religious belief will continue to fall and eventually in the future be a minority group or even cease to exist.

There's a reason for that drop as the evidence for religion isn't really that 'believable' and it's more about faith.

Just like a global Earth and all it's add ons. It's all about faith because there's no proof.

Yet there's a shit load of evidence for the earth being a spinning globe which some may choose to ignore, including yourself and it's your right to believe what you want.

Though most beliefs that are in the minority are normally based on a lack of evidence.

Yep, it is my right, as it it your right to believe what you want. However, there is no proof of the Earth being a globe and evidence for it being a globe is based on video and pictures and stuff like that, plus the obvious schooling we all had through books, etc.
There's plenty of evidence that star wars is real or the film, gravity or even Alien with Sigourney Weaver.
Does it make it real or is the reliance on being told one is real and the others are fictional?

This is something the human race will probably alway have and you've got your minority beliefs so enjoy it and all the attention you're getting here

It's not about enjoying it it's about trying to find the truth of a lie.

So are you saying that if you could put your own camera at a very high altitude, and know there was no fish eye lens in use, and it came back with photos showing the curve of the earth, that would prove nothing?

Why?

Because don't believe for one second it could be proved either way, globe or whatever.
What can be proved is right here where we exist. Water level and flatness.

Being asked to believe large bodies of water just curve convexly goes against logical sense but people can be made to follow it (obviously) because it's gained mass following by severe schooling and saturation, plus magical mysteries like gravity to make it appear real.

So far agreed: Night/Day, Stars, North, Can measure angle to stars from horizon and stars appear to rotate around Polaris.

Ok, so if the world is a globe, and we took a cross section of that so that for easier drawing purposes, we could imagine 3 people standing on the outline of a circle, each would have their horizon pointing in different directions? As a diagram, circle represents the earth. A, B and C are three observers and the 3 lines I've drawn show their individual horizons. These are tangents to the circle and essentially at right angles to straight up for each person.

Agree? (Sorry that image came out bigger than I intended, it is a bit in your face!)

Logon or register to see this image

I take it you're taking about each person looking out horizontally with this diagram, right?
I take it this is what you mean by your stars on the horizon. Is this correct or am I not following?

@Nukehasslefan I have stepped back from trying to provide evidence but I have found a video that is very interesting. I specifically think that Michelle Thaller has some very interesting points. There are also videos from the underside of the ISS where you can see close up items not distorted and a clear curve of the earth behind.

You must be logged on to see media items

The 2 main points that I like that are very easy to see are ships at sea and the lunar eclipse. Please watch and see what you think.

That video looked more like a threat to alternate thinkers (NDT) rather than actually explaining anything factual.
However.
However in terms of my thought process of Earth it is merely a loss of reflective light due to movement within Earth of the energy (sun).
What you see outside is what's going on inside, reflected back. Anything getting in the way of any of it will create a light shut out. a wavelength absorption to that reflection or part of it.

There are other theories that flat Earth theorists have but that's their theory, not mine.
As for ships disappearing.
The horizon is a theoretical line...not a line, literally.
The reason it's a theoretical line is because it's a blend of atmospheric density that creates a thicker to thinner separation to the horizontal distance of your vision.
This difference can be seen as darker below and lighter above.
Basically you see more light hitting above than below.

This applies to anything that gets within that theoretical horizon line, like a ship.
The bottom does not show light back to your vision but the top is still in the lighter part above that theoretical horizon line and so, stays in view because that light can get back to your vision.

There's no going over curve and it kills off any argument where people argue fr seeing a curve from a balloon at 25 miles up, apparently but see a massive curve only a few miles out to see where it causes a ship to g down it.

It becomes senseless and massively contradictory which is a massive thing with this global stuff.


Also and an add on....does anyone believe in NDT and go with his so called scientific storylines?
I've noted that some on here seem to think he's a top scientist on a so called globe and what not, so how would you answer his argument that you cannot see curvature at 25 miles up nd yet go with college stuff of balloons apparently taking footage of a supposed massive curvature?


Ultra contradictory.

The thing is there are many religions, different cultures disagree on which religion is true.
Whereas all normal people of all religions think the earth is a globe, I'll rephrase that KNOW the earth is a globe.
Autocorrect nearly meant I said the earth is a glove, I'm not sure if that's more or less ridiculous than your theory

So basically what you'r saying is people have groups and many religions to follow just as there's groups of agnostic people and also groups of people who simply wave away all religious beliefs and all gods.

Soo, either , there are many different gods and the atheists are wrong, or the atheists are right and there are no gods.

It's now all about proof.
It's about studying every religion to see what they're about and why they act like they do in prayer and in life in general in fear or in awe or subservience to their god.

Or simply accept none of it and say the burden is on those who have those beliefs to show a reality or enough proof to convince an atheist to become agnostic or even have faith.

Whatever way it's done, it's no different to this globe stuff.
A person does not believe in it and wants evidence.
The evidence is based on books and pictures and movies/documentary type set ups.
Religious films can also be made as well as books and pictures with statues thrown in, plus massive buildings all over the place to worship invisible gods.

The evidence is all there for all kinds of religions.
Are the biggest cathedrals/churches...etc..... giving out the biggest evidence?

Where does the proof come into it all after sifting through the evidence presented?

This is where we're at with the globe story.

You see, people can be coerced/coaxed into believing almost anything if the salespeople are believable and presentable and appear authoritative.


It's all about theories/hypotheses/musings/truth's and lies and then it comes down to the real proof's and what is expected to be accepted on the faith value.

Because you could not fill a bath on a globe. Why? Fuck knows, but you can’t.

I try to keep an open mind and think why can people think this, how would things we observe on a globe work on a flat earth (for example stars rotating around polaris works on both if you only consider the northern hemisphere ), but that one I have no idea.

Imagine if the earth was flat and you had a bath of water and a space capable helicopter. You could lift it up carefully and transport it to other giant space biscuits. In open space it could hang below the helicopter and retain the water if you ignore the fact there is no gravity to hold it down. But one day you encounter a globe planet and the second you touch the bath down, out jumps the water because of reasons.

The issue is your globe manages to keep the water on it but also nce and level, yet we get told it's not level and is really curving all around it.

And this is supposed to be a reality even though logical sense dictates it to be utter absolute nonsense.

 

[legend7]

Just like a global Earth and all it's add ons.
There's plenty of evidence that star wars is real or the film, gravity or even Alien with Sigourney Weaver.
Does it make it real or is the reliance on being told one is real and the others are fictional?


So basically what you'r saying is people have groups and many religions to follow just as there's groups of agnostic people and also groups of people who simply wave away all religious beliefs and all gods.

Soo, either , there are many different gods and the atheists are wrong, or the atheists are right and there are no gods.

It's now all about proof.
It's about studying every religion to see what they're about and why they act like they do in prayer and in life in general in fear or in awe or subservience to their god.

Or simply accept none of it and say the burden is on those who have those beliefs to show a reality or enough proof to convince an atheist to become agnostic or even have faith.

Whatever way it's done, it's no different to this globe stuff.
A person does not believe in it and wants evidence.
The evidence is based on books and pictures and movies/documentary type set ups.
Religious films can also be made as well as books and pictures with statues thrown in, plus massive buildings all over the place to worship invisible gods.

The evidence is all there for all kinds of religions.
Are the biggest cathedrals/churches...etc..... giving out the biggest evidence?

Where does the proof come into it all after sifting through the evidence presented?

This is where we're at with the globe story.

You see, people can be coerced/coaxed into believing almost anything if the salespeople are believable and presentable and appear authoritative.


It's all about theories/hypotheses/musings/truth's and lies and then it comes down to the real proof's and what is expected to be accepted on the faith value.

Where is there plenty of evidence that star wars is real, I don't believe there is anyone, never mind any scientists who believe it's real (unless you have a brother or sister with similar capacity/imagination maybe), can't wait to see this. Please can you share this evidence you know of that purports that star wars is real and not just a movie?

Same as there is no scientific proof/evidence of any religions being real, this is where your argument falls down, scientitists from all across the world from different backgrounds and cultures, from countries that would love to get one up on another country and prove they were wrong, all agree and have scientifically proven the earth is a globe.
I believe them over some dribbling idiot who sits in his bath with a ruler shouting "eureka, I knew they were all bloody wrong, the earth is flat and I can see all of my rubber duck at the end of the bath so that double proves it"

 

[taipeisafc]

Just like a global Earth and all it's add ons. It's all about faith because there's no proof.



Yep, it is my right, as it it your right to believe what you want. However, there is no proof of the Earth being a globe and evidence for it being a globe is based on video and pictures and stuff like that, plus the obvious schooling we all had through books, etc.
There's plenty of evidence that star wars is real or the film, gravity or even Alien with Sigourney Weaver.
Does it make it real or is the reliance on being told one is real and the others are fictional?




It's not about enjoying it it's about trying to find the truth of a lie.

Because don't believe for one second it could be proved either way, globe or whatever.
What can be proved is right here where we exist. Water level and flatness.

Being asked to believe large bodies of water just curve convexly goes against logical sense but people can be made to follow it (obviously) because it's gained mass following by severe schooling and saturation, plus magical mysteries like gravity to make it appear real.

I take it you're taking about each person looking out horizontally with this diagram, right?
I take it this is what you mean by your stars on the horizon. Is this correct or am I not following?

That video looked more like a threat to alternate thinkers (NDT) rather than actually explaining anything factual.
However.
However in terms of my thought process of Earth it is merely a loss of reflective light due to movement within Earth of the energy (sun).
What you see outside is what's going on inside, reflected back. Anything getting in the way of any of it will create a light shut out. a wavelength absorption to that reflection or part of it.

There are other theories that flat Earth theorists have but that's their theory, not mine.
As for ships disappearing.
The horizon is a theoretical line...not a line, literally.
The reason it's a theoretical line is because it's a blend of atmospheric density that creates a thicker to thinner separation to the horizontal distance of your vision.
This difference can be seen as darker below and lighter above.
Basically you see more light hitting above than below.

This applies to anything that gets within that theoretical horizon line, like a ship.
The bottom does not show light back to your vision but the top is still in the lighter part above that theoretical horizon line and so, stays in view because that light can get back to your vision.

There's no going over curve and it kills off any argument where people argue fr seeing a curve from a balloon at 25 miles up, apparently but see a massive curve only a few miles out to see where it causes a ship to g down it.

It becomes senseless and massively contradictory which is a massive thing with this global stuff.


Also and an add on....does anyone believe in NDT and go with his so called scientific storylines?
I've noted that some on here seem to think he's a top scientist on a so called globe and what not, so how would you answer his argument that you cannot see curvature at 25 miles up nd yet go with college stuff of balloons apparently taking footage of a supposed massive curvature?


Ultra contradictory.

So basically what you'r saying is people have groups and many religions to follow just as there's groups of agnostic people and also groups of people who simply wave away all religious beliefs and all gods.

Soo, either , there are many different gods and the atheists are wrong, or the atheists are right and there are no gods.

It's now all about proof.
It's about studying every religion to see what they're about and why they act like they do in prayer and in life in general in fear or in awe or subservience to their god.

Or simply accept none of it and say the burden is on those who have those beliefs to show a reality or enough proof to convince an atheist to become agnostic or even have faith.

Whatever way it's done, it's no different to this globe stuff.
A person does not believe in it and wants evidence.
The evidence is based on books and pictures and movies/documentary type set ups.
Religious films can also be made as well as books and pictures with statues thrown in, plus massive buildings all over the place to worship invisible gods.

The evidence is all there for all kinds of religions.
Are the biggest cathedrals/churches...etc..... giving out the biggest evidence?

Where does the proof come into it all after sifting through the evidence presented?

This is where we're at with the globe story.

You see, people can be coerced/coaxed into believing almost anything if the salespeople are believable and presentable and appear authoritative.


It's all about theories/hypotheses/musings/truth's and lies and then it comes down to the real proof's and what is expected to be accepted on the faith value.

The issue is your globe manages to keep the water on it but also nce and level, yet we get told it's not level and is really curving all around it.

And this is supposed to be a reality even though logical sense dictates it to be utter absolute nonsense.

MORON

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Where is there plenty of evidence that star wars is real, I don't believe there is anyone, never mind any scientists who believe it's real (unless you have a brother or sister with similar capacity/imagination maybe), can't wait to see this.

The only reason people don't accept it as real is because it's told as a fiction.
The globe and space stuff we're told about today is fictional (in my opinion) but told and sold as factual and people believe it.

All have books, video and pictures.

Please can you share this evidence you know of that purports that star wars is real and not just a movie?

Maybe read what I said and you wouldn't need to ask this.

Same as there is no scientific proof/evidence of any religions being real, this is where your argument falls down, scientitists from all across the world from different backgrounds and cultures, from countries that would love to get one up on another country and prove they were wrong, all agree and have scientifically proven the earth is a globe.

Going by stats and the people who teach religious studies to people, It appears that christianity appears to have over 2 billion followers or islam very close to that with near 2 billion and Hinduism with a billion then a mix of agnostics and atheists making up another billion. Then the lesser populated religions dotted about.
Whether those figures are correct or not, I don't know but they're given out as an estimated sort of fact by authority.
The point being people follow it based entirely on faith.
Many of these people are regarded as pillars of society and have all kinds of jobs that garner respect.

All those religions come backed with lots of paperwork/books/bibles and even films depicting what they stand for and are about.
And then you have the atheists who will be regarded as the lowest of the low to some religious believers and cast off as ignorant, yet who has more proof of reality?

The same goes for the spinning globe. It's nothing more than faith based but people will argue it for truth because they simply massively appeal to the authority surrounding it.

 

[DaveH]

Because don't believe for one second it could be proved either way, globe or whatever.
What can be proved is right here where we exist. Water level and flatness.


I take it you're taking about each person looking out horizontally with this diagram, right?
I take it this is what you mean by your stars on the horizon. Is this correct or am I not following?

Camera challenge: Again, I think this shows where you are at. Refusing to acknowledge that a camera on the edge of space/edge of the dome, would get a much wider view of the planet. If that turned out to be a flat disc then the flat earthers are right, if that shows a clear curve and you know you have not added a fish eye lens, then it curves. It is something people can do. To refuse to even entertain the idea that this will yield any results shows a religious like devotion to anti-globe sentiment. "I already know because water looks flat to me, so no point in trying anything else" is literally the opposite of what you preach about thinking freely, not just repeating what we have been told and work things out for ourselves with experiments.


But anyway, the slow proof we were chatting about. I thought you would start to come unstuck a bit here. For each of the 3 people on my diagram, A, B and C, the line the sit on represents what looks like flat ground to them. The line in each direction is where they would perceive the horizon to be. If they saw a star low in the sky then it would be close to touching this imaginary line that stretches out into space. If a star appeared above their heads, you could draw a line to it at right angles to this line.

 

[Hend79]

The only reason people don't accept it as real is because it's told as a fiction.
The globe and space stuff we're told about today is fictional (in my opinion) but told and sold as factual and people believe it.

All have books, video and pictures.

Maybe read what I said and you wouldn't need to ask this.




Going by stats and the people who teach religious studies to people, It appears that christianity appears to have over 2 billion followers or islam very close to that with near 2 billion and Hinduism with a billion then a mix of agnostics and atheists making up another billion. Then the lesser populated religions dotted about.
Whether those figures are correct or not, I don't know but they're given out as an estimated sort of fact by authority.
The point being people follow it based entirely on faith.
Many of these people are regarded as pillars of society and have all kinds of jobs that garner respect.

All those religions come backed with lots of paperwork/books/bibles and even films depicting what they stand for and are about.
And then you have the atheists who will be regarded as the lowest of the low to some religious believers and cast off as ignorant, yet who has more proof of reality?

The same goes for the spinning globe. It's nothing more than faith based but people will argue it for truth because they simply massively appeal to the authority surrounding it.

Dribbling moron The Earth is a globe, it has been proven by far more intelligent people than you, it is understood by people who are far more intelligent people than you. In short, almost everyone is more intelligent than you.

 

[riffraff]

SMB:Flat Earthers
PF: Data Refuseniks.

 

[taipeisafc]

The only reason people don't accept it as real is because it's told as a fiction.
The globe and space stuff we're told about today is fictional (in my opinion) but told and sold as factual and people believe it.

All have books, video and pictures.

Maybe read what I said and you wouldn't need to ask this.




Going by stats and the people who teach religious studies to people, It appears that christianity appears to have over 2 billion followers or islam very close to that with near 2 billion and Hinduism with a billion then a mix of agnostics and atheists making up another billion. Then the lesser populated religions dotted about.
Whether those figures are correct or not, I don't know but they're given out as an estimated sort of fact by authority.
The point being people follow it based entirely on faith.
Many of these people are regarded as pillars of society and have all kinds of jobs that garner respect.

All those religions come backed with lots of paperwork/books/bibles and even films depicting what they stand for and are about.
And then you have the atheists who will be regarded as the lowest of the low to some religious believers and cast off as ignorant, yet who has more proof of reality?

The same goes for the spinning globe. It's nothing more than faith based but people will argue it for truth because they simply massively appeal to the authority surrounding it.

You get stupider and your arguments worse - Utter Moron

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Camera challenge: Again, I think this shows where you are at. Refusing to acknowledge that a camera on the edge of space/edge of the dome, would get a much wider view of the planet. If that turned out to be a flat disc then the flat earthers are right, if that shows a clear curve and you know you have not added a fish eye lens, then it curves. It is something people can do. To refuse to even entertain the idea that this will yield any results shows a religious like devotion to anti-globe sentiment.

Make your mind up what and who you want to believe.
Students with their high altitude camera or NDT the supposed scientific genius?

"I already know because water looks flat to me, so no point in trying anything else" is literally the opposite of what you preach about thinking freely, not just repeating what we have been told and work things out for ourselves with experiments.

Not it's not opposite. It's a simple reality that people who follow globe throw out because they're told/coerced/coaxed to go against their own logical sense.

But anyway, the slow proof we were chatting about. I thought you would start to come unstuck a bit here. For each of the 3 people on my diagram, A, B and C, the line the sit on represents what looks like flat ground to them. The line in each direction is where they would perceive the horizon to be. If they saw a star low in the sky then it would be close to touching this imaginary line that stretches out into space. If a star appeared above their heads, you could draw a line to it at right angles to this line.

Ok, this is what I thought you mean and is why I asked.
Carry on.

The Earth is a globe, it has been proven by far more intelligent people than you, it is understood by people who are far more intelligent people than you.

There's no proof so the proof cannot be understood by anyone.
The explanation for the fiction of it can be said to be understood without knowing a reality. Basically like you're doing.

In short, almost everyone is more intelligent than you.

And you're welcome to that thought.
Forgive me for smiling even though you can't see that. I just felt I needed to be honest.

 

[DaveH]

Make your mind up what and who you want to believe.
Students with their high altitude camera or NDT the supposed scientific genius?




Not it's not opposite. It's a simple reality that people who follow globe throw out because they're told/coerced/coaxed to go against their own logical sense.

Ok, this is what I thought you mean and is why I asked.
Carry on.

There's no proof so the proof cannot be understood by anyone.
The explanation for the fiction of it can be said to be understood without knowing a reality. Basically like you're doing.



And you're welcome to that thought.
Forgive me for smiling even though you can't see that. I just felt I needed to be honest.

No idea what NDT is. I've not changed my argument. Stick a camera very high in the air without a fish eye lens and make sure you know it is not a fish eye lens. If it shows the curve of the earth, then there is a curve of the earth. You seem reluctant to entertain the idea because you think you know what the outcome will be already. That feels a bit close minded. "What is in the box? Chocolate. Well it could be a chicken, why not look? No need, I know it is chocolate. But you have never seen inside the box. But I know it is chocolate."


But you accept that each person has a different personal horizon. Ok, do you also accept that then as you move further south, Polaris appears closer to the horizon for each observer, by a predictable amount for every mile they travel?

 

[The Krankie Returns]

No idea what NDT is. I've not changed my argument. Stick a camera very high in the air without a fish eye lens and make sure you know it is not a fish eye lens. If it shows the curve of the earth, then there is a curve of the earth. You seem reluctant to entertain the idea because you think you know what the outcome will be already. That feels a bit close minded. "What is in the box? Chocolate. Well it could be a chicken, why not look? No need, I know it is chocolate. But you have never seen inside the box. But I know it is chocolate."


But you accept that each person has a different personal horizon. Ok, do you also accept that then as you move further south, Polaris appears closer to the horizon for each observer, by a predictable amount for every mile they travel?

I know I said I would bow out but NDT is Neil DeGrasse Tyson a renowned astrophysicist.

 

[Pancho]

You've got to have a sneaking admiration for a scam that is so complex that there must be a whole department solely dedicated to continually manipulating images to represent the changing pattern of contemporaneous weather events with pin point accuracy.

Now that's remarkable attention to detail.

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[DaveH]

I know I said I would bow out but NDT is Neil DeGrasse Tyson a renowned astrophysicist.

Ta, so that line makes less sense. Am I agreeing with a student project who demonstrated the curve of the earth of a renowned astrophysicist who doesn't think the earth is flat?

 

[The Krankie Returns]

Ta, so that line makes less sense. Am I agreeing with a student project who demonstrated the curve of the earth of a renowned astrophysicist who doesn't think the earth is flat?

NDT is very much a ‘the earth is a sphere’ type of astrophysicist. He has a bit of a problem with flat-earthers. I love watching him on telly as he makes very complex things sound so simple. You should watch Cosmos which is a tv series where he explains the universe. He’s the American equivalent of Brian Cox.

 

[Hend79]

Make your mind up what and who you want to believe.
Students with their high altitude camera or NDT the supposed scientific genius?

Erm both of those believe the same thing. A high altitude camera would show the curve of the Earth and NDT doesnt believe the Earth is flat

 

[legend7]

The only reason people don't accept it as real is because it's told as a fiction.
The globe and space stuff we're told about today is fictional (in my opinion) but told and sold as factual and people believe it.

All have books, video and pictures.

Maybe read what I said and you wouldn't need to ask this.




Going by stats and the people who teach religious studies to people, It appears that christianity appears to have over 2 billion followers or islam very close to that with near 2 billion and Hinduism with a billion then a mix of agnostics and atheists making up another billion. Then the lesser populated religions dotted about.
Whether those figures are correct or not, I don't know but they're given out as an estimated sort of fact by authority.
The point being people follow it based entirely on faith.
Many of these people are regarded as pillars of society and have all kinds of jobs that garner respect.

All those religions come backed with lots of paperwork/books/bibles and even films depicting what they stand for and are about.
And then you have the atheists who will be regarded as the lowest of the low to some religious believers and cast off as ignorant, yet who has more proof of reality?

The same goes for the spinning globe. It's nothing more than faith based but people will argue it for truth because they simply massively appeal to the authority surrounding it.

Erm you said there is loads of evidence star wars is real, even the people who made it are quite clear its just a movie not real so you're talking absolute tosh again.

As I say none of these religions can do experiments backed by maths and science to show they are real.
Yet pretty much everyone in the world bar a few fruitloops know the world is a globe.

Also by your logic can I ask you 3 random things
Do you believe the amazon rain forest exists as you probably haven't been so it could just be a story.
Do you believe polar bears exist in the wild, same reason.
Do you say believe the president of the US Is real and governs the country or just a movie star like on say independence day?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No idea what NDT is. I've not changed my argument. Stick a camera very high in the air without a fish eye lens and make sure you know it is not a fish eye lens. If it shows the curve of the earth, then there is a curve of the earth. You seem reluctant to entertain the idea because you think you know what the outcome will be already. That feels a bit close minded. "What is in the box? Chocolate. Well it could be a chicken, why not look? No need, I know it is chocolate. But you have never seen inside the box. But I know it is chocolate."

NDT is Neil deGrasse Tyson who people regularly use to try and prove an argument for a globe.
So who do you believe. The Leicester students or NDT?

Just for clarity.

You must be logged on to see media items

But you accept that each person has a different personal horizon.

Of course. It depends on how far each person can see directly out to sea. Some people's eyes are not as good as others.
Even though horizons would be similar in most cases they're still only pertaining to each persons vision.
And remember, the horizon is only a theoretical line.

Ok, do you also accept that then as you move further south, Polaris appears closer to the horizon for each observer, by a predictable amount for every mile they travel?

If you move away from something then you're going to change the angle of that something, obviously.
Move away from your point of light and you change the viewing angle.

And of course if you travel a mile you can visually set a gauge for angle and then for each mile after.

Go on; I want to see where you're going with this.

Ta, so that line makes less sense. Am I agreeing with a student project who demonstrated the curve of the earth of a renowned astrophysicist who doesn't think the earth is flat?

He also doesn't believe you can see curvature of the globe he believes in, at 25 miles high, so who is right and who is wrong, to you. You can't have both.

Erm both of those believe the same thing. A high altitude camera would show the curve of the Earth and NDT doesnt believe the Earth is flat

Yep and he also believes you can't see the Earth curvature of his globe at 25 miles and yet we apparently see the students showing a curve.
Are they making it up or re they using a fish eye lens or is NDT correct in what he states? You can't have both, like I mentioned to Dave H.

 

[DaveH]

NDT is Neil deGrasse Tyson who people regularly use to try and prove an argument for a globe.
So who do you believe. The Leicester students or NDT?

Just for clarity.

You must be logged on to see media items

Of course. It depends on how far each person can see directly out to sea. Some people's eyes are not as good as others.
Even though horizons would be similar in most cases they're still only pertaining to each persons vision.
And remember, the horizon is only a theoretical line.

If you move away from something then you're going to change the angle of that something, obviously.
Move away from your point of light and you change the viewing angle.

And of course if you travel a mile you can visually set a gauge for angle and then for each mile after.

Go on; I want to see where you're going with this.

Lets drop the Leicester students vs NDT, that is too confusing. As both are saying the earth is a globe, I'm happy to believe both.


So we have agreed on night and day, stars, the idea that all stars appear to rotate around polaris. We agree that if on a globe people standing in different positions would have their own theoretical line to their own horizon, and we agree we can measure the angle to stars from the horizon. We also agree that people have observed this effect with our stationary point polaris, and have travelled south and accurately measured the apparent angle to polaris decreasing by a predictable amount as they move south.

So do you think it is then reasonable to say that if we can find a shape of the earth where the established equations of geometry accurately predict the change in height of Polaris as you move south around this shape, then it is possible that this shape is the shape of the earth? However if we try the same geometry on other possible shapes of the earth and it just doesn't match at all, then these shapes can't be the shape of the earth?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Erm you said there is loads of evidence star wars is real, even the people who made it are quite clear its just a movie not real so you're talking absolute tosh again.

Imagine if they said it was all factual like they do with the globe and moon landing stuff and what not. Rovers and helicopters on mars and 70's probes still sending data back from billions and billions of miles.

It's great stuff but fictional sold as factual. In my honest opinion.

As I say none of these religions can do experiments backed by maths and science to show they are real.

Nor can those that believe a spinning global Earth.

Yet pretty much everyone in the world bar a few fruitloops know the world is a globe.

You may believe that but that's not a fact either.

Also by your logic can I ask you 3 random things
Do you believe the amazon rain forest exists as you probably haven't been so it could just be a story.

I can accept it does and have no reason to question it.

Do you believe polar bears exist in the wild, same reason.

I can accept they do and have no reason to question them being real or not.

Do you say believe the president of the US Is real and governs the country or just a movie star like on say independence day?

I think all presidents are just puppets parroting whatever is put into their ear pieces or on their scrip.