the Earth only has a diameter of about 8000 miles

Here's the math that says it's a ball , which states that at over 100 miles you should be able to see over a 1.26 mile drop, but that's simply not true - is it?

At the top of mount everest , its not inconceivable that one might have a horizon of a few hundred miles , so we should see a drop of 5 miles on the side right?

Yet we can't even see drop at balloons that reach 100,000 + ft and view 1000s of miles, awfully strange don't ya think?



Well the Fe is just a theory, but if you look at all the ancient cultures - they all believed it was flat and there is different myths about that stuff, can't say which is true - just that there might be some truth in those ideas.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jun 3 2016 08:19pm

Knew I should have looked up the trig instead of Iphoning while driving lol.

Either way, no I don't expect to be able to visabley detect that.
Your always at the centre and viewing out hundreds of miles either way is virtually flat.

One thing that convinced me there was some truth to FE was that if you take a bridge that is 20 miles (and there are a few of them ) it is supposed to drop over 266 feet, yet they are perfectly flat.
Thats pretty weird.
When you really get into why we believe what we do, you really have to look at 1900s - industrial capitalists who were opposed to the idea of any model that didn't put them financially at the top.
It has to do with Free Energy and Nikola Tesla and why it has been hidden from people and especially now when our reliance on conventional fossil fuels just might destroy the world.
It has to do with keeping the rich , very rich and any model that doesn't keep that in mind, is going to get completely ridiculed by the army of idiots who are unable to see anything beyond there own nose.

There are some delusional people living on this globe

If anyone wants to tell if they can spot an 8" difference over a mile away just come a mile away from me and ill pull my pants down.

What proof do you have that it's a globe besides the few composite photos from Nasa and a lifetime of indoctrination?



LOL, now that's a real stretch - but of course you could spot a 266 foot drop over 20 miles couldn't you?

I've listened to Neil Tyson refute this claim and his best ways to put it are basically that we're ants who can't conceive the scale properly.

But on topic he had a tit for tat with rapper BOB, who posted a photo of him (bob) on the top of a mountain looking at Manhattan. He had done some math that was a bit off (neil corrected it) and his assertion was "if the earth is round I shouldn't be able to see Manhattan right now." Neil did the math and found that actually anything over 150 ft up in the air was still visible given hte curvature of the earth, if you look at BOB's photo the only buildings are the manhattan buildings 10 stories or more up. No streets or other things below 10 stories can be seen. It was a massive fail by BOB, not something that entirely disproves his theory given geographic differences but it goes to show the poor math and lack of scientific application among some flat earthers.

I'm not talking about 150 feet up, nor am I talking about your immediate direct line of site, I'm saying that the drop should be visible on the sides, and actually that drop on the sides should be more visible the higher you ascend, What about a 20 mile bridge that is completely flat? Why is there not a 266 foot drop?

Watch NDT admitting he has no idea what Gravity is then he slowly starts to double talk to distract from the original question, so funny.

Im unfamiliar with the trig at play so i cant say what these numbers are. Nor do i know the visible perception abilities that we have as humans. If you stand far enough away from an arc it appears to be a line, thats a basic principle of geometric perspective. As to "the higher you get the more it should be seen" that's correct, but perhaps not to a perceivable magnitude given our perspective. If you rose into the air 10 miles you'd certainly notice a difference from a flat ground perspective, but a 100 foot observation tower? much less so.

Overall when i look at the two perspectives, flat earth versus conventional science, we have one that brings some good points (FE) but ultimately fail to explain a wide variety of phenomena given their perspective. I'm not talking about circumnagivation, i get how that could be theoretically possible. I'm more referring to tides, satellites, observed curvature of the earth like in the BOB example. Its all too much for me to even question the scientific narrative that has concrete theories attempt to explain these phenomena instead of eluding to a grand conspiracy.

NDT's answer is spot on, we only "know" what gravity does, and can predict what it will do based on what its done. I find it funny that you call scientists too stringent with their theories, then condemn NDT for not doing that and instead giving an honest answer about what we can conclusively believe about gravity and what we can't yet explain...

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 4 2016 08:17am

I posted the trigonometry for a ball earth in post #61 which states that at 20 miles, there is a 266 foot drop, at 100 miles - there is a 1.26mile drop , really you need to realize that when NDT talks about scale - he's talking about the scale of BS.
Also, where do I call scientists to stringent for their theories? I think your confusing some other conversation you had, and equating it with me, that might explain why you thought the Mercator Map projection was the actually map and would make circumnavigation impossible if the earth was flat.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jun 4 2016 08:44am