The Earth is Flat?

[PzR Slim]

Well I do not belive anything that I simply read or hear about anymore if I myself can confirm it...

Which is what we have all been saying the scientific method does for all of us. And the scientific method has proved beyond any doubt that the earth is a globe. You can repeat yourself as many times as you like, it's not going to change the fact that you are simply wrong.

 

[homeforsummer]

Well I do not belive anything that I simply read or hear about anymore if I myself can confirm it...

And as has been pointed out dozens of times, you can go outside right now and confirm that the Earth isn't flat by yourself, and consign flat-earthism to the bin.

 

[Scaff]

You people believe anything? Okey? I feel like I am the only one here that actually try to read other posts. What do I say repeatedly that the FE topic have done to me? Well I do not belive anything that I simply read or hear about anymore if I myself can confirm it...

Again.. how many times do I need to repeat myself Haha, funny

And yet you repeatedly refuse to test it for yourself!

BTW the feed from the ISS I'm watching right now is it faked?

 

[PzR Slim]

And yet you repeatedly refuse to test it for yourself!

BTW the feed from the ISS I'm watching right now is it faked?

Just been watching it myself. I'd also ask @Pillo-san if all of the Space X launches I have watched, where they launch the rocket with lots of cameras attached and monitor it as it delivers it's payload and at the same time the first stage rocket lands on a platform at sea is also fake.

 

[Dennisch]

Just been watching it myself. I'd also ask @Pillo-san if all of the Space X launches I have watched, where they launch the rocket with lots of cameras attached and monitor it as it delivers it's payload and at the same time the first stage rocket lands on a platform at sea is also fake.

FAKE.

Elon is just a hologram cooked up by the guvrment!

 

[Northstar]

And yet you repeatedly refuse to test it for yourself!

BTW the feed from the ISS I'm watching right now is it faked?

It’s obviously a webcam in a studio watching a CGI film.

 

[Carbon_6]

Wow. This thread really took off.

 

[Dennisch]

Wow. This thread really took off.

Unlike that flat earth guy's missile!

 

[Pillo-san]

There are inconsistencies because the universe is a very inconsistent place. That’s why the scientific method uses controls.

Also, I’ve never seen someone argue so strongly for something they claim to not believe.

So "space" (astrophysics) isn't science... Jeepers.

Define "scientific inconsistencies".

What on Earth is all of this drivel about divers and bubbles? And what are you talking about with stars and communication delays? Yes, you can see stars (hey, here's a thought, go outside on a clear night) and yes, you have a delay in communication of roughly one second for every 186,000 miles distance.

How hard is it for you to understand that nobody needs to blindly believe anything? I've explained over and over and over again that the entire point of the scientific method is that you can test it out for yourself.

Why are you stuck on going into space? You still didn't answer why Flat Earthists don't need to go into space for their measurements on the Sun and Moon to be accepted, while anyone who says they aren't small and close does need to.

Why is going into space relevant?

What?

Do you think all the continents are really - and coincidentally - exactly the same size? I have no idea what you're trying to convey here.

There aren't. Although Flat Earthists bring up the photographs a lot, because they don't understand how convex mirrors work and - crucially - never, ever test it for themselves and just settle on "I don't understand it, so it's fake".

I have defined those Inconsistencies, like that some says that they never saw stars and some are saying that they do even midday, that sometimes there is a delay in communication an sometimes there is no delay at all. And the fact that the continents on each ball earth "photo" is in difference sized if you compare each ball earth.

If you thought that I meant that all continents are the same size then you have not even watched more than 1 min of any flat earth video And like many that said that they have looked into this and yet they have not heard about the stars being visible or not and the delay and other inconsistency proves you have not even looked for more than 2 min into this topic, basically if you dont know what you are talking about in this matter how can you voice your arguments when it comes to this FE stuff?

I will try to find the star video and then it is enough or soon I may be using words like you are mean and you go to far which is a no go How many times I say that I am not 100% flat earther and that this is more like an eye opener to me you all still dont seem to understand it. Strange

 

[Carbonox]

If someone's seeing stars during midday, they probably have a concussion and should get that checked.

 

[Pillo-san]

If someone's seeing stars during midday, they probably have a concussion and should get that checked.

And astronauts being in space = someone watching the sky on earth?

Once again, this is enough for me as it is not woth having any discussions when nobody have even a clue what and how FE crowd seems have problems with in the narrative we all are given.

All people seems to react to is that they go full ballistic after reading two magical words: flat earth haha

Now it is time for more wheel of times, peace out.

 

[Dennisch]

If someone's seeing stars during midday, they probably have a concussion and should get that checked.

Everyone sees a star during the day, except for the British.

 

[Scaff]

And astronauts being in space = someone watching the sky on earth?

Once again, this is enough for me as it is not woth having any discussions when nobody have even a clue what and how FE crowd seems have problems with in the narrative we all are given.

All people seems to react to is that they go full ballistic after reading two magical words: flat earth haha

Now it is time for more wheel of times, peace out.

That might be because you have failed to provide a specific example to work with.

Vague and unsupported claims can dismissed as easily as they are made.

Now, back to a question I asked and you ignored. Have you ever been to my house?

 

[homeforsummer]

And the fact that the continents on each ball earth "photo" is in difference sized if you compare each ball earth.

That's known as "perspective".

If you're on the ISS - 205-270 miles above the Earth's surface - and take a picture, the majority of your viewfinder will be filled with whatever ground you're directly above. Even a relatively small country like the UK will fill most of your view:

A continent like Africa fills just about your entire field of view. Actually, just a small part of it does:

The famous Blue Marble image was taken from 18,000 miles from the Earth's surface - and from that perspective, with Earth itself taking up a smaller slice of your field of view, the majority of Africa is now visible:

The continent hasn't changed size or shape - Africa doesn't actually take up half the planet, like it appears to from the ISS, or even a third of one face of the planet, like it seems in Blue Marble - you're just viewing it from a different perspective. In "Earthrise", taken aboard Apollo 8 as it orbited the moon, Africa is visible to the lower end of the ball (and South America to the upper end) - and Africa looks even smaller compared to the size of the planet than it does in Blue Marble:

But then it would, because the moon is an average of about 239,000 miles from Earth - more than 10x further than the Blue Marble image, so while the planet is smaller in your field of view, you're seeing more of its surface - and objects on that surface, like continents, take up proportionally less space.

It doesn't take a genius to work out - if you stood in the middle of the Sahara Desert then you'd only be viewing the tiniest proportion of the continent's surface but it would fill the entirety of your view below the horizon for 360 degrees.

What it isn't is an "inconsistency" - just a simple effect of what happens when you move closer to or further away from an object.

How many times I say that I am not 100% flat earther and that this is more like an eye opener to me you all still dont seem to understand it.

Then why not open your eyes to the correct information, rather than the baseless drivel spouted by flat-earthers?

 

[wfooshee]

...hemisphere...

Is the use of this word by this user one of those "inconsistencies" we're supposed to be worried about?

 

[Vegard]

What it isn't is an "inconsistency" - just a simple effect of what happens when you move closer to or further away from an object.

 

[Pillo-san]

That's known as "perspective".

If you're on the ISS - 205-270 miles above the Earth's surface - and take a picture, the majority of your viewfinder will be filled with whatever ground you're directly above. Even a relatively small country like the UK will fill most of your view:

View attachment 694718

A continent like Africa fills just about your entire field of view. Actually, just a small part of it does:

View attachment 694719

The famous Blue Marble image was taken from 18,000 miles from the Earth's surface - and from that perspective, with Earth itself taking up a smaller slice of your field of view, the majority of Africa is now visible:

View attachment 694720

The continent hasn't changed size or shape - Africa doesn't actually take up half the planet, like it appears to from the ISS, or even a third of one face of the planet, like it seems in Blue Marble - you're just viewing it from a different perspective. In "Earthrise", taken aboard Apollo 8 as it orbited the moon, Africa is visible to the lower end of the ball (and South America to the upper end) - and Africa looks even smaller compared to the size of the planet than it does in Blue Marble:

View attachment 694723

But then it would, because the moon is an average of about 239,000 miles from Earth - more than 10x further than the Blue Marble image, so while the planet is smaller in your field of view, you're seeing more of its surface - and objects on that surface, like continents, take up proportionally less space.

It doesn't take a genius to work out - if you stood in the middle of the Sahara Desert then you'd only be viewing the tiniest proportion of the continent's surface but it would fill the entirety of your view below the horizon for 360 degrees.

What it isn't is an "inconsistency" - just a simple effect of what happens when you move closer to or further away from an object.

Then why not open your eyes to the correct information, rather than the baseless drivel spouted by flat-earthers?

No man, you dont even know what I am talking about yet you try to have an argument? Nasa have a lot of flat earth pictures and on those ball earth pictures the continets have different sized landmasses when the pictures are scaled down to the same sizes. In one pic the the southern tip of northern America is way lager then in some other, in some pictures the usa is different size then in others and that goes one and one and one. Yet they are org Nasa pictures of the ball earth that many thinks are real pictures o the earth.

This is often spoken about when Flat earthers says that we have not had true pictures since the famous blue marble earth pic and one in 2015 I think it was, yet many people says that nasa had plenty of real pictures of the earth like that. To bad that none of them have real scale of the continents and are computer enhanced or cgi if you read the fine print.

That is what I mean talking about. if you dont know what I am referring to then do not really try to even "debate".

To calm you all down a bit I am more interested in stuff like this, small inconsistencies from Nasa and co more than the flat earth thingy as if you really want to believe in a flat earth cosmology you need a GOD. I am christian but I have not been that much into faith and would rather say that we have never been on the moon or that iss is bogus with all its oddities than go so far at to say that we live in an enclosed flat earth with moon and sun circling around over the disc world beneath the firmament and the stars and planets being luminaries. Many flat earthers are saying they come closer to GOD ie it gets more of a theological discussion and if that is true so be it but I would settle for Nasa and space agencies to acknowledge that we never gone to the moon or been up in space.

Just looking at the conference after the moon landing is odd to odd, I would celebrate and be happy like there is no tomorrow but no, they dont know if they went through the van allen belts or that they seen any stars at all. Hmm, the best is that there seems to be no data from it either. Okey that would be like the most precocious piece of data to us but no, Nasa seems to have misplaced it. If I would have done some thing like that on my job my head on a plate would not be sufficient as a punishment.


Anyway, just stop trying to point me as a bad guy here, regardless if I fancy the FE topic because it simply reflect on what personality you are than what I like to watch/read about. Let me ask you then, do you believe in GOD? If so then you must believe in an enclosed cosmology if not then you are not a true believer says the bible I leave you today with those words because I know many will get started by this remark but it is true, if you are a christian then you must believe that the bible is at least inspired and then you should not speak against word of God.

Me on the other hand well, I read and watch what ever I please and pretty much dont believe in anything that I cant confirm myself but if all the fakery on nasas behalf is about hiding how our world really is and it much strongly than now hints about a creator so be it, I have no problem with that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Me on the other hand well, I read and watch what ever I please and pretty much dont believe in anything that I cant confirm myself

You could confirm yourself that the earth is sperical, you simply choose not to. Visit the Humber Bridge with a spirit level, that's a good one.

 

[Pillo-san]

You could confirm yourself that the earth is sperical, you simply choose not to. Visit the Humber Bridge with a spirit level, that's a good one.

If I want see how the earth really looks like I only need to say yes when the Military call for seasonal training and I get to fly in those hercules pigs to and from the training. Rigth now fe is something that I use as a tool to not believe in everything I read in sciences magazines. Instead of saying, -this sounds cool. Now I am saying, -meh what more crap are they gonna say next without actually showing any progress, like flying cars, which takes us the earths orbit or a weekend on a hotel on the moon by 2030 or everything is a scam.

 

[Famine]

If you thought that I meant that all continents are the same size then you have not even watched more than 1 min of any flat earth video

No man, you dont even know what I am talking about yet you try to have an argument? Nasa have a lot of flat earth pictures and on those ball earth pictures the continets have different sized landmasses when the pictures are scaled down to the same sizes. In one pic the the southern tip of northern America is way lager then in some other, in some pictures the usa is different size then in others and that goes one and one and one. Yet they are org Nasa pictures of the ball earth that many thinks are real pictures o the earth.

This is often spoken about when Flat earthers says that we have not had true pictures since the famous blue marble earth pic and one in 2015 I think it was, yet many people says that nasa had plenty of real pictures of the earth like that. To bad that none of them have real scale of the continents and are computer enhanced or cgi if you read the fine print.

That is what I mean talking about. if you dont know what I am referring to then do not really try to even "debate".

We don't know what you're referring to because it's very badly expressed.

What you say above is that NASA has some pictures that show the continents in different sizes on a flat earth that's a ball earth but they're not real except some are real but the continents are different sizes.

I suspected you meant something like what @homeforsummer covered, but apparently you didn't mean that either. Either way, it all sounds an awful lot like the usual Flat Earthist argument that they can't fit a rectangular map onto a ball-shaped object, so the planet isn't round - because they're never heard of the concept of "projections" before, or have but don't understand it.

Rigth now fe is something that I use as a tool to not believe in everything I read in sciences magazines. Instead of saying, this sounds cool now I am saying, meh what more crap are they gonns say next. Progress, like flying cars, that takes us the earths orbit or a weekend on a hotel on the moon by 2030 or everything is a scam.

Flat Earth is nonsense, junk science perpetrated by conspiracy whackjobs. It can't help you understand anything, any more Tarot cards can.

Flying cars, on the other hand, have existed since at least 1946.

 

[Spurgy 777]

We don't know what you're referring to because it's very badly expressed.

What you say above is that NASA has some pictures that show the continents in different sizes on a flat earth that's a ball earth but they're not real except some are real but the continents are different sizes.

I suspected you meant something like what @homeforsummer covered, but apparently you didn't mean that either. Either way, it all sounds an awful lot like the usual Flat Earthist argument that they can't fit a rectangular map onto a ball-shaped object, so the planet isn't round - because they're never heard of the concept of "projections" before, or have but don't understand it.

Flat Earth is nonsense, junk science perpetrated by conspiracy whackjobs. It can't help you understand anything, any more Tarot cards can.

Flying cars, on the other hand, have existed since at least 1946.

He's talking about these pictures, asking why isn't NA the same size in both, to me it just looks like the second picture was taken closer to Earth, but it must be a conspiracy ;

 

[Pillo-san]

We don't know what you're referring to because it's very badly expressed.

What you say above is that NASA has some pictures that show the continents in different sizes on a flat earth that's a ball earth but they're not real except some are real but the continents are different sizes.

I suspected you meant something like what @homeforsummer covered, but apparently you didn't mean that either. Either way, it all sounds an awful lot like the usual Flat Earthist argument that they can't fit a rectangular map onto a ball-shaped object, so the planet isn't round - because they're never heard of the concept of "projections" before, or have but don't understand it.

Flat Earth is nonsense, junk science perpetrated by conspiracy whackjobs. It can't help you understand anything, any more Tarot cards can.

Flying cars, on the other hand, have existed since at least 1946.

If you actually have looked into the FE topic as you said then you would instantly know what I was referring to. Spurgy 777 is on right track. Why do you people keep on arguing about something that you have not looked into at all?

If you know of any flying cars that I can use just as in back to the future and if I can take a long and much needed holiday on the moon for a bargain price then please be my guest and tell me where I should look.

Look how fast it took for us to be ably to fly in airplanes but how long we have waited for space holidays at lest in the orbit yet nothing has happened.
Too me all this is one big question mark, even if it is harder to get to space we should have been able to take space holidays or something like that since at least decades back if you look how fast we adapted to other technologies. Space agencies are milking like crazy but does not show any usable progress at all. This make me ich my head and conspiracy theories such as nasa fakerey and even stuff like FE pushes at lease me even further into beliving in those directions.

Like I said, FE stuff that I know of is from youtube sites and can be for all I/we know be funny business but if Nasa and other space agencies and co was so slow and we see lots of strange things it does make you think and that is what I like about the whole FE thingy. I am what I am, a person after all and I am not ashamed to say that I enjoy FE.

 

[Spurgy 777]

If you were like you said into the FE topic or at least knew what I was talking about then you would know instantly what I refereed to. Spurgy 777 is on right track. why do you people keep on argueing abut something that you have not looked into at all?

Would help if you actually provided examples of what you were talking about.

If you know of any flying cars that I can use just as in back to the future and if I can take a long and much needed holiday on the moon for a bargain price then please be my guest and tell me where I should look.

Look how fast it took for us to be ably to fly in airplanes but how long we have waited for space holidays yet nothing has happened.
Too me that is one big question mark, even if it is harder to get to space we should have been able to take space holidays or something like that since at least decades back if you look how fast we adapted to other technologies. Space agencies are milking like crazy but does not show any usable progress at all. This make me ich my head and conspiracy theories such as nasa fakerey and even stuff like FE pushes at lease me even further into beliving in those directions.

Like I said, FE stuff that I know of is from youtube sites and can be for all I/we know be funny business but if Nasa and other space agencies and co was so slow and we see lots of strange things it does make you think and that is what I like about the whole FE thingy. I am what I am, a person after all and I am not ashamed to say that I enjoy FE.

We can't just go on holiday to the moon for lots of reasons, the main ones being that it is incredibly expensive to get there (you are after all fighting gravity for about 400,000km in a massive rocket about 40,000 times higher than planes fly) and it's also incredibly dangerous place to go to so unless you want a high chance of dying, it makes the trip even more expensive.

 

[Pillo-san]

Would help if you actually provided examples of what you were talking about.



We can't just go on holiday to the moon for lots of reasons, the main ones being that it is incredibly expensive to get there (you are after all fighting gravity for about 400,000km in a massive rocket about 40,000 times higher than planes fly) and it's also incredibly dangerous place to go to so unless you want a high chance of dying, it makes the trip even more expensive.

I did, I mentioned the different sizes of the continents if you compare the various blue marble earth pics.

Does not matter, about the cost as this should has been resolved after such a long time by now. We as a human species are quite resourceful are we not? Yet sending us on a orbital holiday has not happened yet.

 

[Northstar]

theSpace agencies are milking like crazy but does not show any usable progress at all. This make me ich my head and conspiracy theories such as nasa fakerey and even stuff like FE pushes at lease me even further into beliving in those directions.

I’m guessing you benefit from space agencies on a daily basis even if you don’t know it.



And that’s just stuff NASA has done or played a role in. I’m sure other space agencies have just as many things they can claim to have helped develop.

 

[Pillo-san]

I’m guessing you benefit from space agencies on a daily basis even if you don’t know it.



And that’s just stuff NASA has done or played a role in. I’m sure other space agencies have just as many things they can claim to have helped develop.

All that could simply have been possible to make on earth. Just because an agency need to say that this is what they are responsible for does not really make it so. Where is my holiday in space

 

[rono_thomas]

All that could simply have been possible to make on earth. Just because an agency need to say that this is what they are responsible for does not really make it so. Where is my holiday in space

Are you for real?

 

[polysmut]

Are you for real?

I suspect not. Is it award season or something?

 

[Famine]

If you were like you said into the FE topic

Quote me.

If you know of any flying cars that I can use just as in back to the future and if I can take a long and much needed holiday on the moon for a bargain price then please be my guest and tell me where I should look.

I don't know about Moon holidays, but then I didn't say I did. I said that flying cars have been around since at least 1946. Which they have.

Commercial production flying cars... not yet. Although Zhejiang Geely - the owners of Lotus and Volvo - has just bought flying car manufacturer Terrafugia, with a view to bringing its TF-X to market by 2019.


Interesting how you demand evidence of flying cars from me, but won't go outside to test, in five minutes, whether the Earth is flat or not and how far away the Sun is...

Spurgy 777 is on right track. why do you people keep on argueing abut something that you have not looked into at all?

Then so was @homeforsummer. It's perspective, distance and projection.

He's talking about these pictures, asking why isn't NA the same size in both, to me it just looks like the second picture was taken closer to Earth, but it must be a conspiracy ;

In those shots, the first is slightly closer to Earth than the second.

The first is a normalised composite from MODIS, shot in 2001-2, at roughly 700km. It's a few million images all shot at the same altitude, composited into one. The second is a near-sided projection (the focal point is between the camera and the surface, providing a very wide-angle) of literally just North America, shot by Suomi NPP over a few passes in 2012, at roughly 800km.

So if that's a Flat Earthist argument, it's down to them not understanding photography.

 

[Northstar]

All that could simply have been possible to make on earth. Just because an agency need to say that this is what they are responsible for does not really make it so.

That’s really hard to say. Necessity is the mother of creation and some of those things probably wouldn’t exist if not for NASA.

Where is my holiday in space

I doubt we will ever get to that point as there just isn’t any money in it. Space travel is far to taxing on the human body and most people probably wouldn’t be willing to go through months of training just for a weekend getaway.

I’m still confused as to what exactly your stance is. You claim you don’t support FE, while at the same time seemingly arguing in favor of it.