rattlesnake

Water always remains level. Water drops are round because of a phenomenon called "surface tension", which is caused by the cohesive forces between water molecules, making them naturally pull together to form a spherical shape that minimizes their surface area, essentially acting like a "skin" on the water drop.

"As for only certain areas being accessible this on the whole is true but because it's very dangerous." Letting people decide where you are allowed to go or not, what is true or not, without question.

The earth is very big and gravity is very weak and water is heavy and paper isn't. That doesn't mean anything. Midnight sun and Summer solstice already explained in this thread. Antartica (bar small enclave granted to the plebs) inaccessible due to Antarctic Treaty. If you wish to refute, kindly articulate rationally and refrain from posting laughing or confused emojis.

Please explain how a force can be strong enough to stick trillions of gallons of water to a ball, but not enough to flatten a napkin on the surface of said ball.

Think.

Please explain why this entire napkin, when dropped on the ground, isn't pulled towards the Earth's core.

It appears you did a bit of googling and (at least partially) copy-pasted whatever result suited what you wanted to say (as evidenced by the change in font and white background in the text, which only happens when copy-pasting from an external source). If you had had the humility and patience to get acquainted with the facts presented, you would know that the Jesuits were the driving force in establishing heliocentrism. This is what @DD86 meant when he said “Specially the Jesuits part in all this is important”. But you interpreted it as being a claim the Jesuits supported the flat Earth, which demonstrates that you have no idea who the Jesuits are, nor what the political and cultural context was at the time. I will take this opportunity to make a general comment on the dynamics of this thread: there are two opposing views on this matter and nobody is superior to anybody in this debate. If one doesn’t actually know what they are talking about, one takes a big risk (and risks damaging one’s credibility and relevance) by making assertive comments.

Please explain.

Nice jargon! Water doesn't curve.

Ouch, misunderstanding there… That's what happens when one "knows" without knowing.

Ah, well I know better than to challenge Those Who Know. Happy knowing!

There are seven lines of supporting argument after the quoted sentence.

1h42 is very little considering the wealth of information presented.

Please elaborate rationally.

Your point on water mass makes sense. Though Newton himself, and many detractors (especially in the 18th century) stressed that gravitation was merely a theory. That is absurd to me. A pull so great that it would force water to curve (a physically impossible phenomenon in any case) could not be overcome by a measly bird.

Good.

I could do a better job with GIMP. Where are the stars? (Off you go on Google – fear not, there is an official explanation.)

At leat he has the honesty to say he doesn't have a clue what gravity is. video_2024-12-25_20-16-24.mp4

I appreciate you having the honesty to follow your rationale all the way (most people don't) and admit that ultimately, what prevents you from going there is that you are not prepared to accept the scale of such a deception. I totally get it as I was in that position myself for a long time. The Overton window is shifting quickly on this issue, which has moved away from the fringes, from Elon Musks's troll comments on space footage "looking like fake CGI but definitely real" to Candace Owens claiming she has "broken away from the cult of science" and now totally open to alternative theories regarding the shape of the Earth. (I'm guessing I'm going to get at least 5 laughing emojis for this one.)

The "blue marble" is an invention and NASA has in fact never taken a picture of the entire planet Earth. Each one of the pictures released over the years is unequivocally altered and the inconsistencies are undeniable: But don't take my word for it, here is NASA data visualizer and designer Robert Simmon, creator of the "blue marble": In the existing cloud map some people have noticed a few repeating features that appear photoshopped. They are. There are gaps between orbits near the equator, and there’s no way to fill them with real data. Compositing separate images into a convincing whole is (of course) easier said than done. Even with control of each layer in my image processing software (Photoshop) it took hours of tweaking and re-tweaking transparency, layer masks, hue, saturation, gaussian blur, and curves to get an image that looked like the picture I had in my head. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/elegantfigures/2011/10/06/crafting-the-blue-marble/ The hard part was creating a flat map of the Earth’s surface with four months’ of satellite data. Reto Stockli, now at the Swiss Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, did much of this work. Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble. https://www.nasa.gov/people-of-nasa/robert-simmon-aka-mr-blue-marble/

I don’t give much credence to Newton’s theory of gravity. Density is, I believe, the most probable theory (to the smart*sses: yes,if I jump off a building I will crash to the ground, because my body is denser than the surrounding air). The gravity idea, just as the Earth curvature idea, is riddled with contradictions and absurdities. Newton himself, according to David Wardlaw Scott, confessed that the explanation of the moon's action on the tides did not fit well with his theory of gravitation, which asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller (but the mass of the Moon is only one-eighth of that of the Earth). Why are lakes not affected by tides? Gravity is strong enough to hold the oceans to a spinning ball, yet weak enough that birds can still fly?

I don't see how this contradicts the level plane model. Please elaborate.

The midnight sun makes more sense on a still, level plane (around which the sun circles) than on a globe circling the Sun. Simply because during the summer solstice, the Sun at its innermost cycle is circling tightly around the polar center and therefore remains constantly visible above the Horizon. Likewise, during that time in extreme Southern latitudes, the Sun disappears from view for over two months because it is circling the northern Center too tightly to be seen from the South.

That would be very interesting.

It's much more than 19.