The number is derived from a ball w circumference of 24-25k miles

The curve of the earth is never seen and doesn’t conform to this formula so where’s the curve?

If my senses are wrong you have to prove it’s a ball that’s spinning the onus is on you

Can you show me the derivation?

Except that is has been seen and does conform the formula. I challenge you to give your precise location when looking across the lake into Chicago, and then demonstrate that you are able to see things that you "shouldn't" be able to see.

Not really. I don't have any obligation (intellectual, moral, or otherwise) to prove to you that your senses are wrong.

All I'm doing is showing you that your logic is wrong. And there's no obligation for that. I'm just doing it because it's entertaining to me.

It wouldn't do any good at this point.

The answer is clear-cut but it doesn't matter ATM. You had everything you need to figure it out on your own and it didn't work then.

2nd suggestion: Don't do the (this mountain should be under 5400 ft of curvature) bit. Some people here are good at math.

Are you saying that gravity doesnt exist? If thats the case, in your flat earth model, what makes people stick to the surface of the flat earth?

Relative density and bouyancy

You are denser than air around you so you go down air goes up... helium is lighter and less dense than air so it floats..

How come large heavy things never show any attraction to each other but we are supposed to believe gravity is possible. We can see magnetism on a small scale why can’t we see gravity on a small scale?

Why don’t you actually explain things?

Just FYI, most Flat Earther's think that the shadow (phase) of the moon is from the Earth casting a shadow. That's probably why you might hear a confused question like "how is the sun and the moon both visible at the same time?"

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

rj, this is literally what the Cavendish experiment shows: weighty balls moving towards weightier balls!

What happens to helium in a vacuum chamber?


Last Q (a good one, and it was brought up earlier):
Do you know how an equatorial mount works? If not, it'd be easier for you to look it up than for me to explain it here. You can watch timelapse videos that show how they track the sun (they only require one axis of rotation to track it). The question is, how do you think that could be possible under Flat Earth? Tracking the circular path of the sun that you described would require two axes of rotation (excluding from the central point).

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

On that note, if the moon phases are the earth's shadow on the moon, then how does a lunar eclipse work?

The usual explanation for the fact that materials separate by density is that this is caused by gravity (e.g. it would not happen in a vacuum), so it seems like a non-starter to appeal to "relative density and buoyancy" as a non-gravitational explanation for gravitational phenomena.

I feel as though I've challenged you on the same thing.

Does the moon generate its own light? Is it like a mini-sun, or is it something else? If it doesn't generate its own light, then where does the light of the moon come from?

Yes, often the FE'er believes the moon generates it's own light. What's more, moonlight is cold. This is 'supported' my measuring the temperature of the ground in moonlight vs in moon shadow. To be fair, it's an odd phenomenon, but when you think about what's happening it makes more sense (e.g. you're not measuring moon light temperature but radiated heat from the ground, and ground in moon shadow has something causing the shade, which would also, probably, act as insulation or reflect heat back to the ground... at least that's how I understand it).


If you'd prefer our Flat Earther to answer your questions, I'll butt out. It's just a weird obsession I've had for a few months, so I've heard it all before.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Interesting. Are there other sources of "cold light" out there?

I don't mind at all. I may not share your "weird obsession" but there is a sense of morbid curiosity of the type of mental machinations required of the beliefs. It reminds me of exploring some American fundamentalist Christian thinking. There's "some level" at which you can kind of "make sense" of it, but it requires one to ignore and assume a large number of things.

no, what keeps you on the surface, if theres no gravity, you can just jump and fly off the earth.

Not to mention that we can see gravity on small objects, and we have since the 1700s and the experiments are easily replicable. But, such details doesn't matter when there are conspiracies to affirm regarding flat earth. Conspiracies which have to assume that modern history is fake, modern technology is fake, natural science since the 1700s is fake and that pretty much everyone is either in on it or ignorant.

They also of course have to completely ignore all the easily available options to disprove their conspiracy. You can buy a trip around the world, you can pay to visit both the south and the north pole. Modern technology have long since made these things doable without too much in the way of preparation. None of these things are cheap, but compared to the stuff flat earthers actually HAVE collected money for - it's a drop in the bucket.

Of course, the list of of intuitive experiments you can carry out for cheap is even longer. You have to ignore all those as well.

We're beyond belief. We're into dysfunctional behavior: It isn't about getting to know the world or arguing your belief. Like most outlandish conspiracy theories it's about making the world simple, which will give an illusion of control. It doesn't matter if it is Zeitgeist (remember when these world were overrun by the Jesus = Horus crowd?), QAnon, Truthers or flat earthers. What they all have in common is that they might superficially seem like big webs, but they actually reduce the world to to very simple variables. They remove the unknown and the complicated, and anyone who who claims otherwise is either "in on it" or "stupid". And the aim isn't to make your theory better, it's about convincing others. After all, convincing others means you are worth listening to, right?

Actual conspiracies, like most of us know aren't elegant. They're messy, filled with incompetence, arrogance, greed and ambition in uneven doses. And they certainly don't make the world simple, rather they tend to make it even more unclear. Thus you get the ultimate irony: People who tend to believe outlandish fanciful conspiracies easily disproven as pure fiction will tend to ignore actual conspiracies.

Thanks to this thread I just wasted fifteen minutes of my life looking at how flat earthers explain Foucault's pendulum. It was fairly disappointing in that they just say confused and obvious stuff - "they use hidden motors!" and the like, but I did find this comment quite funny. Flat Earth is old hat it seems.

Hopefully I'll not look up anything more.

I don’t know. I do know I can create a purpose for the universe. I just did. Which is pretty cool that I, an individual organism in a supposable whole universe, can create purpose for a whole universe. Wait, can you? How can you not?

Why tell a joke without the punchline?
🤣


Which purpose did I create? The purpose to ask.*rimshot*