Is Earth round or flat❓

[dinsdale]

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

This is nonsensical.

 

 

Please explain why? If anything is nonsensical it's a belief in the earth being flat and it is a "belief" because there is absolutely nothing to support it that can't be debunked by science and ration thought. 

[ignis]

Where I live it is flat

 

But the earth must be round

Look at flights BKK to London Heathrow  12.47  must be going up hill ?

Flight time London Heathrow to BKK 11,25  so quicker as going down hill ?

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, ignis said:

Where I live it is flat

 

But the earth must be round

Look at flights BKK to London Heathrow  12.47  must be going up hill ?

Flight time London Heathrow to BKK 11,25  so quicker as going down hill ?

 

Short explanation warm air travels north, and the earth's rotation influence on the jet streams in higher altitude

 

 

This results in wind that moves faster than the Earth rotates. Therefore, as air moves towards the poles, it also moves from west to east relative to the surface. This is the Coriolis effect. Cross section of the Northern Hemisphere showing jet streams and tropopause elevations.

 

https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet-stream

[Hamus Yaigh]

That we now have ELEVEN pages and counting of astute AN members discussing whether the earth is flat suggests this whole web site has very little hope for the future.

[rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Please explain why? If anything is nonsensical it's a belief in the earth being flat and it is a "belief" because there is absolutely nothing to support it that can't be debunked by science and ration thought. 

 

A friendly reminder of the model you believe in, visually represented below, shooting through space at 200 km per second or 720,000 km per hour.

 

Orion was observed and described by the Babylonians and ancient Egyptians, and has consistently been seen above the Equator since.

 

The rest is kindergarten-level deduction.

 

[richard_smith237]

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Somewhat difficult when your beliefs are irrational...  we get dragged down the rabbit hole and the Mark Twain quote springs back to minds.... "Never argue with a... "

 

So far, my beliefs have not been rationally refuted. I recall derogatory language, lots of laughing emojis and lying by omission.

 

I encourage you to write the entire Twain quote.

 

Here's the quote...    But, given your writing its clear you are not stupid, which is why I assumed you can't seriously believe this nonsense and are simply playing the roll of a trollish devils advocate in this thread... 

 

I still struggle with the idea that an intelligent person could genuinely believe the idea of a non-spherical Earth.

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Vast Distances: Stars are so far away that Earth's and the Sun's motions barely affect their apparent positions.

 

Relative Motion: Stars also move, but their shifts are tiny from our perspective over thousands of years.

 

Short Observation Time: Human history is too short to notice significant changes in constellations.

 

Local Motion: Earth's and the Sun's speeds are insignificant compared to the cosmic scale.

 

Slow Changes: Precession and star motion cause small shifts, but constellations only change noticeably over millennia or more.

 

Expand  

 

This is nonsensical.

 

 

Thats your intelligent counter argument ??...     the whole idea of a non-spherical Earth is completely non-sensical, as is every comment you have made attempting to support your flawed idea (not even a theory), which can be scientifically picked apart in an instant by anyone with basic knowledge.

 

 

Explained again for you (below), this time in greater detail... to counter your simplistic and dumbed down simplification that fails to acknowledge or understand scale. 

 

The constellations haven’t significantly changed over thousands of years despite Earth's and the Sun's incredible motions because of the vast distances between Earth and the stars.

 

 

This is why: 

 

Stellar Distances Are Immense: The stars in constellations are incredibly far away, ranging from tens to thousands of light-years. A light-year is about 5.88 trillion miles, meaning that even though Earth, the Sun, and the entire solar system are moving through space, these motions are minuscule compared to the scale of the cosmos.

 

Relative Motion: The constellations appear fixed to us because their relative positions on the celestial sphere change extremely slowly over time. This is due to the fact that the stars themselves are also moving through the galaxy, but their motion, known as proper motion, is so small from our perspective that it takes tens of thousands to millions of years to become noticeable.

 

Human Observation Timeframe: Humanity has only been observing the stars in detail for a few thousand years, a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. Over longer timescales, constellations do change shape, but these changes are imperceptible on the scale of a human lifetime or even recorded history.

 

Earth’s Movements Are Local: The Earth's rotation at ~1,000 mph and its orbit around the Sun at ~66,600 mph are local motions confined to the solar system. They don't significantly alter our line of sight to distant stars.

The Sun’s motion around the galaxy at ~450,000 mph is more significant, but the galaxy is vast, so the Sun's position relative to most stars changes only slightly over thousands of years.

 

Precession and Small Shifts: Earth’s axial precession (a slow wobble of its rotation axis) over ~26,000 years causes shifts in which stars are seen at different times of the year, but the constellations themselves remain recognisable. Minor changes in constellations have been recorded, but they are subtle and require precise measurements.

 

In summary, while Earth and the Sun are moving at high speeds, the immense distances to the starts make their apparent positions stable over the relatively short timescale of human history. Over millennia or millions of years, constellations will change, but these changes are gradual and take an extraordinary amount of time to become evident.

 

 

But.. I'll put it in very simple terms if you still struggle with the above.

 

Think of a plane in the sky:

 

Vast Distances: A high-altitude aircraft looks almost stationary because it's far away, even if it's moving fast. Similarly, stars are so far that their motion appears negligible.

 

Relative Motion: Just as two aircraft at different distances can appear to stay in the same spot relative to each other, stars move so slowly relative to us that we don’t see changes over thousands of years.

 

Short Observation Time: Watching an aircraft for a minute won’t reveal much about its journey. Similarly, a few thousand years of human observation is too short to notice major shifts in constellations.

 

Local Motion: A low-altitude aircraft appears to move fast across the sky because it’s close. Earth and the Sun’s motion are like the low aircraft, they’re significant locally but negligible relative to the stars.

 

Slow Changes: A high aircraft will seem to move slowly across the sky. Over long periods, constellations do change, but like the high plane, the changes are too gradual to notice in the short term.

 

 

[rattlesnake]

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Thats your intelligent counter argument ??...     the whole idea of a non-spherical Earth is completely non-sensical, as is every comment you have made attempting to support your flawed idea (not even a theory), which can be scientifically picked apart in an instant by anyone with basic knowledge.

 

 

Explained again for you (below), this time in greater detail... to counter your simplistic and dumbed down simplification that fails to acknowledge or understand scale. 

 

The constellations haven’t significantly changed over thousands of years despite Earth's and the Sun's incredible motions because of the vast distances between Earth and the stars.

 

 

This is why: 

 

Stellar Distances Are Immense: The stars in constellations are incredibly far away, ranging from tens to thousands of light-years. A light-year is about 5.88 trillion miles, meaning that even though Earth, the Sun, and the entire solar system are moving through space, these motions are minuscule compared to the scale of the cosmos.

 

Relative Motion: The constellations appear fixed to us because their relative positions on the celestial sphere change extremely slowly over time. This is due to the fact that the stars themselves are also moving through the galaxy, but their motion, known as proper motion, is so small from our perspective that it takes tens of thousands to millions of years to become noticeable.

 

Human Observation Timeframe: Humanity has only been observing the stars in detail for a few thousand years, a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. Over longer timescales, constellations do change shape, but these changes are imperceptible on the scale of a human lifetime or even recorded history.

 

Earth’s Movements Are Local: The Earth's rotation at ~1,000 mph and its orbit around the Sun at ~66,600 mph are local motions confined to the solar system. They don't significantly alter our line of sight to distant stars.

The Sun’s motion around the galaxy at ~450,000 mph is more significant, but the galaxy is vast, so the Sun's position relative to most stars changes only slightly over thousands of years.

 

Precession and Small Shifts: Earth’s axial precession (a slow wobble of its rotation axis) over ~26,000 years causes shifts in which stars are seen at different times of the year, but the constellations themselves remain recognisable. Minor changes in constellations have been recorded, but they are subtle and require precise measurements.

 

In summary, while Earth and the Sun are moving at high speeds, the immense distances to the starts make their apparent positions stable over the relatively short timescale of human history. Over millennia or millions of years, constellations will change, but these changes are gradual and take an extraordinary amount of time to become evident.

 

 

But.. I'll put it in very simple terms if you still struggle with the above.

 

Think of a plane in the sky:

 

Vast Distances: A high-altitude aircraft looks almost stationary because it's far away, even if it's moving fast. Similarly, stars are so far that their motion appears negligible.

 

Relative Motion: Just as two aircraft at different distances can appear to stay in the same spot relative to each other, stars move so slowly relative to us that we don’t see changes over thousands of years.

 

Short Observation Time: Watching an aircraft for a minute won’t reveal much about its journey. Similarly, a few thousand years of human observation is too short to notice major shifts in constellations.

 

Local Motion: A low-altitude aircraft appears to move fast across the sky because it’s close. Earth and the Sun’s motion are like the low aircraft, they’re significant locally but negligible relative to the stars.

 

Slow Changes: A high aircraft will seem to move slowly across the sky. Over long periods, constellations do change, but like the high plane, the changes are too gradual to notice in the short term.

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

As I mentioned near the beginning of this thread, ultimately, most globe proponents will always default back to this notion of "scales too vast to grasp" and the like.

 

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats your intelligent counter argument ??...     the whole idea of a non-spherical Earth is completely non-sensical, as is every comment you have made attempting to support your flawed idea (not even a theory), which can be scientifically picked apart in an instant by anyone with basic knowledge.

 

This is incorrect. So far, nobody has rationally explained the footage of a level surface visible at 121,000 feet, one poster even stating that "science" says the curve should be visible at 35,000… and then defaulting to the notion that the deception would be too big to accept before moving on to another aspect of the issue, leaving this one unresolved.

 

Also, the post-Reformation historical context, which is essential to understand that the switch to heliocentrism was decided and implemented for political and ideological reasons, has consistently been laughed at and ignored, one poster even making a grossly inacurate contradiction as a result of his arrogance and ignorance (usually two sides of the same coin).

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Thanks.

 

As I mentioned near the beginning of this thread, ultimately, most globe proponents will always default back to this notion of "scales too vast to grasp" and the like.

 

Of course...  but not because 'the scale is too vast to grasp' but because the scale is too vast to distinguish any discernible movement over such a short time span of humanity.

 

You seem to be criticising people resorting to 'fact' as a weakness - of course you are arguing that fact, but this discussion then gets as silly as arguing with someone who believes were in a digital construct.

 

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats your intelligent counter argument ??...     the whole idea of a non-spherical Earth is completely non-sensical, as is every comment you have made attempting to support your flawed idea (not even a theory), which can be scientifically picked apart in an instant by anyone with basic knowledge.

 

This is incorrect. So far, nobody has rationally explained the footage of a level surface visible at 121,000 feet, one poster even stating that "science" says the curve should be visible at 35,000… and then defaulting to the notion that the deception would be too big to accept before moving on to another aspect of the issue, leaving this one unresolved.

 

Lens distortion is often used by flat earthers to argue against any image which shows the curvature of the earth.

Equally, so for the same reasons, accusations of lens distortion of any image which shows a level horizon at 121,000 feet can also be argued.

 

I'll show this in the the next post I make using screenshots from the 121,000 ft video.

 

Field of view is also another reason, without a wide enough field of view, the horizon can appear flat. Wider perspectives show more curvature.

 

 

This is anecdotal - however, I have a close friend who flew Concorde and saw the curvature of the Earth first hand at 60,000 feet (or thereabouts) - I trust his observations. 

 

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Also, the post-Reformation historical context, which is essential to understand that the switch to heliocentrism was decided and implemented for political and ideological reasons, has consistently been laughed at and ignored, one poster even making a grossly inacurate contradiction as a result of his arrogance and ignorance (usually two sides of the same coin).

 

The post-Reformation historical context does not demonstrate that the adoption of the heliocentric model was driven solely by political and ideological reasons. Instead, the switch to heliocentrism emerged primarily from advancements in observational astronomy, mathematics, and the scientific method. Pioneers like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler provided empirical evidence and mathematical models that challenged the geocentric worldview, such as the phases of Venus and the elliptical orbits of planets.

The transition to heliocentrism was fundamentally rooted in a scientific revolution rather than being a premeditated political or ideological scheme.

[richard_smith237]

1) Unless the antenna is bent - the image below shows the lens distortion flattening the horizon.

 

2) The lens distortion is such that the horizon appears slightly concave, further confirming lens distortion.

 

Using this 121,000 ft altitude video is an extremely weak attempt to try and squeeze out any validity for the flat earth idea - surely you can see the basic flaws [rattlesnake] ?

 

 

 

[dinsdale]

 

[Walker88]

On 12/27/2024 at 12:21 PM, rattlesnake said:

 

Still water doesn't curve.

I'm not sure you are aware of the nature of reality. In another post you thought you were making a valid point by saying if gravity is strong enough to hold water on the planet, how can a tiny little bird fly?

 

Well, easy. Water is made up of very tiny, very light things called molecules. I'm sure you've heard of them. Of course even those are made up of smaller atoms, which are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, some of which are made of quarks and muons.

 

Anyway, gravity acts on individual particles, and despite gravity being a weak force, it's strong enough to attract the extremely light molecules. As I noted in an earlier post, each molecule is on a force vector aimed at the Earth's center of mass, and these force lines are not parallel. Thus, bodies of water can stay on the surface of a spherical planet. Sometimes a photon smacks into some water molecules and has enough force to break the bonds between atoms and molecules, and you get something called evaporation. Heated air, which means the air molecules are moving quickly, can also hit H2O molecules and have enough energy to break bonds and cause evaporation.

 

A tiny bird is also made up of molecules, but they are joined together by other forces of nature, so gravity cannot pull any of them away and disintegrate the bird, nor can photons or rapidly moving air molecules, unless the bird is moving through air at extreme speeds. The bird, however, has muscles that create lift, so that it can essentially make itself 'lighter than air', and fly, overcoming the weak gravitational force. Birds have a service ceiling, just as airplanes do. Once the air is too thin, their wings and efforts cannot overcome the force of gravity, and they fall back to where the air is dense enough so that controlled flight is possible. Sometimes aircraft end up going into a flat spin, and can never regain lift after exceeding their service ceiling, and gravity brings them crashing to Earth.