Define "mountain".

Water contained in the same body will be the same distance from the center of the earth. So yes, on a round earth, the water will be "curved" when looked at from a perspective outside of earth. The larger the body of water, the easier to see the curve.

What does this mean? The shadow of the earth appears just as it should during a lunar eclipse. You'll need to show images/video to explain this better.

I literally do not understand what any of those pictures are supposed to be saying

How would this smoke stack behave when the earth would be moving up at high speed according to your indoctrination?

The water one is the best.

Also the graffiti on the NASA globe, what's going on there?

Moo - "you are all correct that I confused a foot with a mile to fit my flat earth gotcha, but still that doesn't mean you're all not globetard sheeple!"

Again, gravity. Gravity ensures that water will try to go as close to the center of the earth as possible, not that it will be equidistant from the surface of the earth.

Going left to right, top to bottom

Picture 1 is obvious. It's what we see when we have something like a flat pan with water in it. Level bottom, level top of the water.

Picture 2 is what we see when we look at the pan with the bottom pushed up. In both cases the water is trying to get as close to the center of the earth as possible.

Pictures 3 and 4 are not possible because of gravity. (Although if you are far enough out, picture 3 is what a cross-section of the earth would look like for a flat part of the ocean floor)

[QUOTE=pudley4;52157004]

It means they are morons who didn't pay attention in science class.

The are all kinds of digital manipulation signs when pictures of Earth are released from NASA. Clouds that are cloned and pasted is pretty common. This is making fun at that.

Pictures 3 and 4 are not possible, yet this is what you need to believe to adhere to water sticking to the side of a big space rock and forming it into a land/water sphere. This is the mountain of water question.

Since the Earth is flattened at the poles and bulges at the equator, the earth is not a perfect sphere, and geodesy represents the shape of the earth with an oblate spheroid. Not everyone is as smart as you and me and know what an oblate spheroid is, so NdGT dumbed is down a bit and called it pear shaped.

.

water, how does it work?

Because they're millions or billions of light years away, so the speed at which the earth is moving is extremely tiny when compared to the distance they are away.

When I'm walking down the street and I see a skyscraper off in the distance, why doesn't it disappear as I keep walking?

Funnily enough the constellations have all "changed" because of the shape of the earth. The star signs that apply at your birth shift every ~2000 years. If you're dumb enough to believe in astrology the sign that you think you are is likely wrong.

I assume you're going to concede each and every one of those pics as they're proven wrong, right? Like - you'll say, "oh I didn't know that the constellations have changed over thousands of years. I'm sorry for copy and pasting such an obviously stupid belief that I could have googled." Right?

Again, simple. The moon orbits the earth in a roughly west to east direction (counterclockwise when viewed looking down at the north pole from above earth. So even though the rotation of the earth makes it look like the moon is traveling east to west, the actual path of the moon is making it travel to the east, so when it goes into the earth's shadow the eastern edge of the moon is the first part to be obscured.

I'm pretty sure Moo doesn't understand that if a star, say, 50,000 light years away from Earth, is being observed from someone on Earth, that they are seeing the light being omitted from that star 50,000 years ago. You're not seeing it as it is today.

Or is the speed of light fake too?

I like he thinks the earth is spinning super crazy fast and that it should be noticed in pictures or videos from astronauts.

like, you dont need advanced physics to understand why that is. just takes a small amount of common sense.

First of all, Rex, TibosaurusRex on youtube, is well respected for his sniper and long distance shooting knowledge. He's not a "salesman" on any kind that I know of.

Secondly, he's talking about left-right correction wrt azimuth. That's the angle horizontally that the gun is pointing. The correction is still necessary, the amount is just not dependent on azimuth until the range is over 10,000 yards. But it's still necessary! The other guy is talking about ELEVATION which is completely different than azimuth.

Thirdly, I don't know why they would try to paint Rex in a negative light. From his youtubes it's pretty clear he's a devout Christian.

Here's the complete Rex video where the clips were taken from:


edit: Trivia - my co-worker was involved in helping develop those artillery tables. He was drafted into the Army and given his advanced math degrees they figured he was more useful working on the artillery calculations in Oklahoma rather than humping an M-16 in Vietnam. One time where being a math geek paid off!

1,


What about the ones that show curvature?

I guess I need to clarify because you're unable to differentiate between the pictures based on size and perspective.

Picture 1 is what we see if we take an extremely small cross section of the earth. The land looks flat and the water looks flat

Picture 1 is NOT possible if we take a big enough cross section of the earth. For example, say the endpoints of the picture were just off the coasts of LA and Tokyo. If we cut directly through the earth in a straight line, the water would then look like a mound compared to the land, but it would look correct compared to the overall shape of the earth (e.g. the surface of the water would be the same distance from the center of the earth)

Picture 2 is what we see if we take an extremely small cross section of the earth. We see a mound at the bottom (of a lake, for example) but the water looks flat.

Picture 2 is NOT possible if we take a big enough cross section of the earth. For example, say the endpoints are again just off the coasts of LA and Tokyo. If the earth curved perfectly between those two points, the water layer would be exactly the same depth for the entire distance; there would not be any spot deeper than any other.

Picture 3 is NOT possible if we take an extremely small cross section of the earth. Again, we see this in example 2 - the water doesn't become equidistant from the bottom of the container it is in, it becomes equidistant from the center of the earth.

Picture 3 is IS possible if we take a big enough cross section of the earth. As pointed out in my statement above, for a large enough cross section the bottom of the container is similar to the curvature of the earth and so the surface of the water is equidistant from the center of the earth and from the bottom of the container.

Picture 4 is not possible period. It doesn't matter how big or small a section you take, the surface of the water cannot be equidistant from the center of anything.

So they say the sun moves in a complex spiral over the flat earth. What causes it to move? Pixies?

To be more precise, the surface of the water is equidistant from the center of gravity of the earth. That is, if you believe in such things as gravity.

Not gravity, that's for damn sure.

I'm going with imaginary sky daddy.

Explain the time zone thing. I don't understand your point.

From your model:

If the sun is over Russia, why can't I see it from the US?
Why does the sun stay the same shape as it moves farther away from me? Why doesn't it flatten out until it disappears?
Why does the moon change shape but the sun doesn't?