That would be a ridiculous assumption, that there is an edge - it just as likely that the flat earth is much larger than you think.
They also just discovered a huge ocean that is 400 miles below the earth surface that is 3x a big as our oceans and it is thought the two ocean cycle their water.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/huge-underground-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/

This post was edited by card_sultan on Sep 16 2016 11:55am

no edge means it either goes on forever or manages to loops back on itself. both these things defy convention for objects in 3d space and there's never been any evidence for it

the ocean thing would be rather interesting if true, wonder what the pressure would be like down there probably going to make exploring practically impossible


all this flat vs globe is basically resolved by going up high enough to see it, surly as air travel becomes cheaper/easier more and more people will get the chance to test it themselves, I don't see why nasa wouldn't just tell us the truth now

i know you say that you can't see the curve on videos but you also can't see forever like you should be able to on flat, i guess vision becomes too blurred then terminus is the same as horizon

This post was edited by dakariii on Sep 16 2016 12:25pm

It would, people believe in the globe because they see a "picture" of the globe earth from Nasa - but even Nasa itself talks about how this "picture" is just a composite of 1000s of aerial photographs. Nasa claims these "pictures" are from a satellite 700 miles up, but if the world was truly a globe and gravity was real there would be so much evidence, it would be unquestionable. The fact there is none, that it is all assumption and myth is just a giant clue that is so obvious - it's shocking you dont see it.

evidence can't ever be evidence if you don't trust the leading source is the problem. why does being a composite hurt the overall idea? if i take half a picture of my car and another picture of the other half does that mean my car must be fake?

Because i have seen a whole car 100000000x with my own eyes, no one has ever seen a complete picture of the entire Earth. Its like that Space X program which shows how deluded people are - Did you really think they were going to allow people to go to the edge of "space" to get a view of this terrestrial plane we live on. LOL, come on bro....

The problem with a sphere is that no matter what angle you take a picture from some of it will always be obscured by the rest of it.

The problem when I mention taking a complete picture of the Earth - is that somehow i mistaken think that someone could ever possible taking an all encompasses 360 degree of a sphere with one photograph. This denotes the complete ridiculous that spherechucckkers need to resort to in order to maintain their delusions. To clear up your delusion - only a complete picture of 1/2 of the sphere would be possible and not the art paintings we get from Nasa whose artists freely admit are made of 1000 of composites stitched together with photoshop and the "ball" is mere speculation based on personal delusions based on previous myths. No single picture of the complete view of 1/2 of the globe exists, just composites stitched together with a lot of assumption and in 2016 that's nothing short of WTF! Distraction Works!

This post was edited by card_sultan on Sep 16 2016 06:13pm

so you're saying you don't trust any video evidence because it's a compilation of multiple photos?

depends on whether it relies on logic or assumption, and intent and if your refering to anything Nasa produces in regards to Astro Priests telling me what to believe, i have seen 100s of things that make me question their truthfulness, perhaps you haven't.

For example: the idea that light can travel infinity is an assumption, can light travel in a vacuum - of course - that is proved.

But - let me show you their assumption - Let's say a jogger can run 24 miles, could they run in a vacuum - of course. Could they run for infinity in a vacuum? Welcome to stupid science assumptions of pure ridiculousness.

If the moving air is relative to the direction of the spinning Earth, it can't also be relative to the random direction of an airplane in flight.