Quote (Santara @ Nov 8 2016 09:24am)
10. All the other planets are round, but does that mean that we are a sphere? If you go to a party and all the guys have black hair does that mean you have black hair? Definitely one of the top stupidest reason to think we are on a ball
This does not disprove a spherical Earth. It asks an innuendo-laced question. This proves zero things.
And assuming the earth is a sphere because the other planets are round is just innuendo - Im just point out that the logic is moot and flawed9. Time zones work perfectly fine on a flat Earth.
This also does not disprove a spherical Earth. Just because you think something is plausible on a flat Earth does not disprove a spherical one.
exactly - this is not disproving we live on a ball, its disproving the people that say we live on a ball 100% because "dot dot dot" and is not only true on a ball.
If I said "We live on a flat earth because of time zones" - thats pretty stupid wouldn't you say?8. 8. The Coriolis effect is 99% myth.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/what-hemisphere-you-are-in-does-not-affect-the-way-water-spins-down-your-drain/Its a tourist trap taught to idiots who think they are educated. There is many example of hurricanes spinning in the wrong direction of the "supposed" Coriolis effect. The spinning of bullets and cannon balls is due to rifling in the barreling and that spinning a projectile will make them travel straighter.
Water going down drains has little to nothing to do with the Coriolis effect. Smoke less crack. It has to do with atmospheric movement. Flat Earth does not explain prevailing winds.
The supossed spin of the earth at 1000 mph while we orbit the sun at 66.600 mph and spiral around the Galaxy at 500,000 mph is not the reason we have a mph prevailing wind. That wind is because the earth is made of land and water and the sun heats them up at different rates.7. Whose walked 10,000 in 3 directions? Spherechuckers are obviously not to bright. All you've done is explain geometry of a ball, not actually done anything.
Can I get this in English? Can I also get an explanation as to how this disproves a spherical Earth? Because it fucking doesn't as-is.
Again it doesn't prove we live on a ball when you state something that has never been done, The statement is just stating the geometry of a sphere. I can walk around my neighborhood - does it prove my neighborhood is a sphere - of course not!6. The sun lower in the sky is due to perspective of the Sun being close as well as being more consistently closer to the equator. Different shadow lengths can be explained by a close sun, an illogical conclusion can be made only if you assume the Sun is far away and the earth is curved, its called the circle jerk paradigm:
Angles and shadow measurements have worked since the 3rd century BC in determining the Earth's diameter and shape. You aren't DISPROVING a spherical Earth with unsubstantiated claims.
The sun being close and small is proved by crepuscular rays, the laws of perspective, how it obeys the inverse square law, selenelion lunar eclipses - basically all the points you dont wish to address of even learn the basics about.There. That's already half of your list, and not once have you DISPROVEN a spherical Earth. I could go further, but why bother. You don't understand logic anyways.
the points that you address are mostly not debunking the ball earth, just pointing out that those beliefs are all myths
The points that you dont address are bunking ball earth and really you need to understand logic and clearly this is not your forte.
This video shows that perspective will not splay out things that are oriented perpendicular to your plane,
The "astro-science"explanation say that light rays diverge because of the atmosphere and the debate is whether the atmosphere in the Helio Model is
1. )( = Concave
2. () = Convex
but I think it mostly resemble what is called a meniscus or (( <------like that
So from wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)Convex-concave (meniscus) lenses can be either positive or negative, depending on the relative curvatures of the two surfaces. A negative meniscus lens has a steeper concave surface and is thinner at the centre than at the periphery. Conversely, a positive meniscus lens has a steeper convex surface and is thicker at the centre than at the periphery. An ideal thin lens with "two surfaces of equal curvature" would have zero optical power,
meaning that it would neither converge nor diverge light.
If the sun is really 93 million miles away and light rays arrive on Earth completely parallel, and you dont have perspective or light refraction to explain how light rays are divergent:
Sun worship busted yet again.
This post was edited by card_sultan on Nov 8 2016 03:23pm