The best way to refute the Flat Earth

[Skwim]

The simplest refutation of the "flat earth" theory is simple logic. How can it be flat when we all know it's hollow? Simple common sense.

Don;t scoff. The renown Dr. Raymond Bernard, A.B., M.A., Ph. D. (pseudonym for Walter Isidor Siegmeister) wrote a book on just this subject, The Hollow Earth: The Greatest Geographical Discovery In History.

254 pages of mind blowing revelations with breathtaking illustrations.

....I even have a copy of my own---as should everyone. 1969 by University Books Inc. ($5.95, hard cover)​

.

 

[Tazarah]

As @exchemist noted, because London is north of the Tropic of Cancer and Capetown south of the Tropic of Capricorn, the sun is never directly overhead in either place at any tie, that is, a vertical pole will always cast a shadow.

"The Tropic of Cancer, which is also referred to as the Northern Tropic, is the most northerly circle of latitude on Earth at which the Sun can be directly overhead. This occurs on the June solstice, when the Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun to its maximum extent."

Read about the famous experiment the ancient Greek Eratosthenes performed to estimate the size of the earth. When the sun was directly overhead in Syene, it cast no shadow (and illuminated a well), whereas in Alexandria at the same time, about 500 miles away. it did cast a shadow. Trigonometry allows one to determine the angle called alpha below, and from that, the approximate dimensions of the earth.

Do you think that that would be possible on a flat earth?

The top picture is not from 100,000 feet. That's approximately how the earth looks from the International Space Station, and I'll bet that that is where it was shot from. This is about 250 miles up.


View attachment 39720



This is incoherent. Heliocentrism does not suggest that objects orbiting the sun are in unison, whatever that means. They mostly travel in the same plane and in the same direction, but the planes of the orbits aren't the same just as the plane of the moons orbit is not the same as the plane of the earths orbit around the sun, the shapes of the orbits have varying eccentricity, and the velocity of planetary orbits vary from one another, which is why earth and mars are at times on the same side of the sun making mars larger and brighter than when the two are on opposite sides of the sun.

Nothing about the velocity of the ISS tells us that the earth is flat.



No, not everybody thinks that the sun is directly overhead at noon.

Nor do they think that it is directly overhead in either of those places ever, much less simultaneously

I believe Cape Town (GMT + 2) is TWO hours AHEAD of London (GMC + 0), although during the summer, I believe only London observes daylight savings time (BST = British Summer Time = GMC + 1), at which time the clocks might be an hour apart, but what clocks show has nothing to do with the location of the sun in the two places at the same time. The sun still rises 120 minutes earlier in one than the other.



It's not the case.

Perhaps you need to be a bit more careful about your information sources.

Why did you ignore the first two images? I find it interesting how when attempting to validate the globe earth, people who advocate for it usually avoid dealing with actual numbers and measurements which cannot be explained away or mistaken as accidentally being interpreted to mean something else.

For the record, I'm not saying that I support the flat earth model or the globe earth model. I'm just sharing things that I found while researching.

 

[Skwim]

Cape Town (South Africa) is only one hour behind London, UK. Everybody knows that the sun is directly overhead at noon, and at 1 PM the sun is still overhead for the most part. So when it's 12 noon in London, UK, it's only 1 PM In Cape Town, South Africa -- meaning that the sun can be seen directly overhead in both locations. How can this be when one location is at the "top" of the earth and the other location is at the "bottom" of the earth?

Because the Sun ISN'T "directly overhead" at either places. With London situated at 51.5 degrees north, about 28 degrees north of the Tropic of Cancer, and Cape Town situated at 34 degrees south, 10.5 degrees south of the Tropic of Capricorn. the Sun will NEVER be "directly overhead" at either places. At most, on June 21, the Summer Solstice, it will be at it's highest point on the Northern Hemisphere, and on December 21, the Winter Solstice, it will be at its highest point on the Southern Hemisphere.


As for the question "how much does the 8.4 mile line curve,' it's about 5 minutes of a degree.
.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The point I'm making is that two completely opposite locations on the earth (the top of the earth and the bottom of the earth) can both see the sun directly overhead at the same time. This should not be the case, regardless of how far away the sun supposedly is.

You either didn't read what I wrote, or you are simply incapable of imagining it.

 

[Tazarah]

Because the Sun ISN'T "directly overhead" at either places. With London situated at 51.5 degrees north, about 28 degrees north of the Tropic of Cancer, and Cape Town situated at 34 degrees south, 10.5 degrees south of the Tropic of Capricorn. the Sun will NEVER be "directly overhead" at either places. At most, on June 21, the Summer Solstice, it will be at it's highest point on the Northern Hemisphere, and on December 21, the Winter Solstice, it will be at its highest point on the Southern Hemisphere.


As for the question "how much does the 8.4 mile line curve,' it's about 5 minutes of a degree.
.

How do you feel about this one?

 

[gnomon]

The best way to refute the flat earth once and for all is to wander straight through the Antarctica. If the flat-Earthers see that there is no Invisible Wall ("firmament") at the end of the world, then it would be the end of this theory. It would be an irrefutable proof and they would see this proof with their own eyes.

How about letting flat-Earthers wander through the Antarctica while streaming this live to the whole world? Would you agree? But unfortunately it seems that it is not allowed. Maybe a petition would help?

I would think taking a round trip would be proof enough.

 

[Tazarah]

You either didn't read what I wrote, or you are simply incapable of imagining it.

What you said made zero sense and did not explain anything about the point that I was making. However, a few other people have explained what I think you were trying to explain, but in a more scientific and logical manner that leaves no room for any misunderstanding. Perhaps you should read what they wrote regarding the illustration in question so that you can see how inefficient your explanation was.

 

[Tazarah]

I would think taking a round trip would be proof enough.

I never understood these types of remarks or how they are supposed to be proof that the earth is round or a globe. Some people even say things like "around the world". If I drive around the city, does that mean the city is round? If I purchase a round trip ticket from New York to California, does this mean that the trip was "round" or that I went in a circle?

 

[gnomon]

I never understood these types of remarks or how they are supposed to be proof that the earth is round or a globe. Some people even say things like "around the world". If I drive around the city, does that mean the city is round? If I purchase a round trip ticket from New York to California, does this mean that the trip was "round" or that I went in a circle?

It was a bad joke. Don't dwell.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What you said made zero sense and did not explain anything about the point that I was making. However, a few other people have explained what I think you were trying to explain, but in a more scientific and logical manner that leaves no room for any misunderstanding. Perhaps you should read what they wrote regarding the illustration in question so that you can see how inefficient your explanation was.

it made perfect sense. you are simply having a hard time imagining in your own mind what the sun would look like from so far away, and of such a great size. It renders your objections moot.

Think of a wall with an open doorway to the next room. If your nose is right up next to the wall, you can't see through the door. But if you stand on the other side of the room, you can see through the doorway into the next room. All this to say that things look very different depending on if the sun is very close to the earth, as mistakenly drawn in your image, or incredibly far away. At the distance the sun actually is from the earth, YES it can be middle of the day in both England and South Africa.

 

[Tazarah]

it made perfect sense. you are simply having a hard time imagining in your own mind what the sun would look like from so far away, and of such a great size. It makes your objections nothing.

It made perfect sense to you. Like I said, compare what you said to what some of the most recent posters said and see how much more sense their responses made. All you said was that in the illustration the sun was "too close" or that the illustration was "out of proportion". Compare that to the responses given in posts #36, #38, and #43.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It made perfect sense to you. Like I said, compare what you said to what some of the most recent posters said and see how much more sense their responses made. All you said was that in the illustration the sun was "too close" or that the illustration was "out of proportion". Compare that to the responses given in posts #36, #38, and #43.

Listen, I don't consider a flat earth argument worth the time of day. I've spent too much energy on it already. I'm not interested in looking up what anyone else said. I told you what is obvious. The picture you supplied was innately false because it placed a too small sun too close to the planet.

 

[Tazarah]

Listen, I don't consider a flat earth argument worth the time of day. I've spent too much energy on it already. I'm not interested in looking up what anyone else said. I told you what is obvious. The picture you supplied was innately false because it placed a too small sun too close to the planet.

Well if you don't consider a "flat earth argument" worth the time of day when formulating a response then don't be surprised when someone tells you that your response doesn't make complete sense. The same goes for any other type of argument regarding anything else as well.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well if you don't consider a "flat earth argument" worth the time of day when formulating a response then don't be surprised when someone tells you that your response doesn't make complete sense. The same goes for any other type of argument regarding anything else as well.

Tazarah, Tazarah, Tazarah... What I pointed out was something so simple and obvious. It made sense. It doesn't make sense to YOU because you are not being entirely rational.

 

[Tazarah]

Tazarah, Tazarah, Tazarah... What I pointed out was something so simple and obvious. It made sense. It doesn't make sense to YOU because you are not being entirely rational.

Like I said, feel free to check out posts #36, #38, and #43 to get an idea of what a "rational" explanation regarding the illustration that I posted actually looks like. It's funny how you say you aren't interested in comparing what you said to what other posters in this thread have said about the illustration, but for some reason you seem to have no problem returning over and over again to try convincing me that something is wrong with me or that I'm not being rational. There's a word for what you're doing and it's called "gaslighting".

 

[rational experiences]

Maths O and Time O. Circular rotation, a cycle. Both words that prove movement is by a circle and not by a line.

To count by Numbers is a line, to say I can place numbers in a line and claim infinite.

And you cannot imply infinite to O maths in time O...for it is bound/held and a circle and a cycle.

Why they argue, for they do not want either NATURAL LAWS to exist...as they are proven to be the Destroyer mentality.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Like I said, feel free to check out posts #36, #38, and #43 to get an idea of what a "rational" explanation regarding the illustration that I posted actually looks like. It's funny how you say you aren't interested in comparing what you said to what other posters in this thread have said about the illustration, but for some reason you seem to have no problem returning over and over again to try convincing me that something is wrong with me or that I'm not being rational. There's a word for what you're doing and it's called "gaslighting".

And you think there is nothing wrong in your claiming my post was incomprehensible? ROTFL.

 

[ecco]

How do you feel about this one?

From where was the "photo" of Chicago taken? Don't just say, from across the lake. Be specific.

 

[Tazarah]

And you think there is nothing wrong in your claiming my post was incomprehensible? ROTFL.

If you still don't understand why I claimed that your response didn't make complete sense, then why don't you just refer to posts #36, #38 and #43 to see the difference between the way they explained the picture compared to the way that you did?

Like I said, what you said made sense to you, and that's most likely because you understand your own logic and what you are trying to say.

 

[Tazarah]

From where was the "photo" of Chicago taken? Don't just say, from across the lake. Be specific.

I'm not entirely sure, but that's just one of many images where there should be a visible curvature of the earth when there isn't. I will share three more.

According to Google earth the length of the stretch of islands on the horizon (from left to right or right to left) is about 105 miles.

In this first picture we can see Corsica all the way to Isola d'Elba. Again, the distance from one end of the island to the other is about 105 miles.

Next we have this one:

And then this one: