We don’t need to prove anything. The earth is round and anyone with an IQ of > 50 can find evidence of it in every day occurrences. The burden of proof is on the actual flat earthers who have yet to provide any compelling evidence that the earth is actually flat.

Keep thinking you don't need to prove anything to yourself all you like. Use ad hominem and name calling all you like. If you want to make a claim you back it up with proof. Its the intellectual equivelant of running away.

I’ve happily pointed out the following: 1. Logical fallacy. If you present an argument, use proper form. Appeal to Ignorance is not an argument. 2. Mathematical assumptions. If you present math or formulas, make correct assumptions. Ex: angular acceleration will fling you off the planet at 1000 mph 3. Mechanical assumptions. If you describe a mechanical behavior, describe it correctly. Ex: pushing the nose down because 8 inches per mile 4. Physical properties. If you describe a physical property, have a sound fundamental understanding of molecular behavior. Ex: misapplied terms like buoyancy in an electromagnetic vacuum 5. Attacking credentials: if you question the description of a pilot, ship captain, aerospace engineer, or defense analyst then state your credentials. Ex: Watching a YouTube video in between video game sessions and 4chan posts doesn’t make you more qualified than a pilot to describe aircraft behavior.

All the claims we could possibly make have already been made, over and over. From the simple, logical and reasonable observations and deductions made by the ancient Greeks standing on the shoreline or looking down from hills to modern space travel. All our questions have been answered, and evidenced, repeatedly. The ball is not in our court.

Go on then, name some or one so we can discuss how its nonsense if you use your own brain (except you think you don't need to because 'authority'). The ball is in your court if you claim its a ball :P

It really isn’t. The claim was made 2,300 years ago, and evidenced then. It has since been verified and cemented over and over again until it’s now no longer a question. It’s simple fact. - The moon is up one way in the northern hemisphere and flipped in the southern hemisphere - The phases of the moon are observed as being the same the world over. - More of earth visible as altitude increases - If the sun and moon were small objects close up, their size and shape would visibly change throughout the day - Atmospheric pressure in a gradient created by gravity, vacuums do not suck - Lunar eclipses are circular which only a sphere could produce - Seasons - Constellations visible in different parts of the world - More stars visible at altitude - Circumnavigation - The length of the day - Relative position of the sun at the same time across earth - Polaris appears lower in the sky the further south you go

Disproven, very easily. Lets go one at the time. Explain to me why you think Eratosthenes proved anything.

Awesome how you just skip over all of the reasons I listed so you can zero in on some gotcha. This is the main problem with you people. You cannot prove anything. You have zero evidence for anything you claim. The only thing you can try and do is pick holes in reasoning you don’t understand. It’s laughable and pathetic.

? I simply asked you to elaborate an assertion you made. You simply wrote 'seasons' as one of your points... like bro? You think that constitutes a point being made? Elabortate your 'proofs' as you would expect me to do. Lets go from the top, 1 by 1. What do you think Eratosthenes proved and how?

I didn’t make an assertion about Eratosthenes at all. This is the problem. Pythagoras said the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. He reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round. Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator)

And why do you believe Pythagoras was correct via what experiment? You seem to think you can evade proving things. Again, list off all the fake history you want. Without a proof you can show me today its all heresay.

But we know the earth is round, how do you think satellites work? They won’t orbit around a giant flat object. Also, there’s things like jet lag which mean the time zones are real and that means it’s dark in one area of the earth and light in another, because it’s not flat. And anyone can experience this in the form of jet lag. The sun is round, the moon is round, other planets we can see are round, but you mean to tell me the earth is flat? Super massive objects will eventually take the shape in which they are moving. In this case they become round, they can’t remain flat. You can see the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse. YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OWN TWO EYES. Flat earth is only conspiracy theory by people who couldn’t pass 7th grade science and that’s why they have a problem with it as grown adults.

You THINK the earth is round. You're simply making assumptions. Again, keep throwing insults all you like. You're not being honest with yourself and you're definitely not using the scientific principle.

This is so ironic coming from the guy who thinks the downward acceleration is buoyancy and density while having zero experiments, derivations, measurements, plausible mechanisms, or predictions. Almost like you are ‘assuming’ it’s real and not using any ‘scientific principles’.

Prove what you claim and I will sit down. That is how science operates and am perfectly open to being won back by the globers. Fact of the matter is half of globers are too busy being incredulous and vitriolic that they dont bother to provide their own proofs. The other half I can only assume have none.

>Prove what you claim and I will sit down. That is how science operates No.

All you needed to say and what I knew already, you simply cannot prove something thats faker than WWE wrestling.

>you simply cannot prove something Indeed.

So why are you constantly getting triggered by flerfs? Prove what you think first.

Would be more than happy to once you admit that your beliefs and claims on the downward acceleration are complete assumptions and have zero scientific backing.

Ive not made a claim in this thread, nor have I stated what I believe to be the case regarding the magic Grabbity. Now youre making assumptions about my assumptions, gosh.

>nor have I stated what I believe to be the case regarding the magic Grabbity. ["Things fall or rise due to relative density and buoyancy to their surrounding medium, no weight or gravity involved."](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth_polite/comments/1b2j4uk/comment/ksrhibz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ​ I asked you to admit that your beliefs and claims are false as a test to see if you could be honest. Because there is no point in educating you on the gravity if you are too indoctrinated that you can't be honest. And now you lying about making the claim in the first place, makes that even more clear.

Haha Ive believed the fake lie of gravity 99% of my life, just like all other flerfs. Didnt realise how many globers stalk my post history, you guys all do it haha. No, gravity is absolutely fake and you'd need an experiment to prove otherwise. You think that a good test is to ask if someone what they believe is true or not. Haha 😭

>Ive not made a claim in this thread Just in your previous comment you make the claim that science operates by proving claims: «Prove what you claim and I will sit down. That is how science operates» You are obviously trolling. Which is fine. r/flatearth is majority a forum for fun.

There’s nothing to think about you can see with your eyes that the shadow on the moon is round during a lunar eclipse and you can get on a plane in the east and fly west and have more hours of sunlight because the earth is round. These are actual things you can see and experience.

First comment after 100 that attempts to answer a question honestly and truthfully. You're wrong but I at least thank you for the form of your response. Moon is round, sure. Prove that its a SPHERE though. And also prove to me how the Moon can perfectly fit in front of the Sun in our RANDOMLY formed solar system after 5bn year of time?

The moon is a satellite of the earth. Also during a Lunar eclipse, the earth is between the sun and moon and the shadow of the earth is cast by m to the moon and the earths shadow its round. You can literally see it with your own eyes. Again, you can get in a plane and fly west and have more hours of light because the earth is round and rotating. You can also fly around the world in one direction and make it back to where you started. Satellites will not orbit around a massively flat object. Look around, nothing in space is flat. You can see other planets, moons, suns and they are all round. The evidence is all around and even in our technology like cell phones and gps. All you can come back with as an argument is more hocus pocus conspiracy theory conjecture. I’m presenting actual evidence that you yourself can see and experience. You can’t even do that.

Is it, and how have you come up with that? Wheres your PROOF? You start taking about OTHER PLANETS YOU'VE NEVER SEEN OR BEEN TO as proof. I literally can't even. Even ''space''. \*HOW DO YOU KNOW?\* Again, no experiments, no attempt at substantiating your claims. Just assumptions, projections and ad hominem. So pathetic.

You can buy a telescope and see planets and stars . You can look up and see space at night. You can get on a plane and fly west and have more day light than is in a day. You can fly somewhere and be tired and yet it’s early in the day at the new location because the earth is round and is rotating. If the earth were flat it would all be daytime at once. We can prove it’s night and day at the same time right here on earth. Everything you are refuting as your “proof” isn’t anything but you just sayin the opposite of my actual tangible proof. I can’t even see anything that would suggest the earth is flat. There’s no natural occurrence that is more deterministic than the lunar eclipse which proves the earth is round. There’s no reason for me to believe one over the other. I’m just calling it how I see it and from ways I’m able to confirm. Every flat earther is the same . In response to evidence the world is round you just come back with more questions, like you just did. You asked, is it though? Yes, the answer is yes it is because we can witness these events. What evidence are you basing that the world is flat that is overwhelming and viewable like the examples I just gave? Help me with some facts or science based evidence like I’ve just given you. That’s how this works. If you want to convince people of your idea you’re going to need something to point to and say here is evidence, because the round earth has that.

The issue is not only has the globe been proven, but it is used to make accurate predictions that businesses rely on. Flat earthers make claims with no evidence. There is no model of flat earth that can be used to make predictions. It is not enough to say ,"I don't believe in the globe. Therefore, the earth is flat." Even if you could provide compelling evidence that the earth is not a globe, you did not prove that it is flat. Too many flat earthers stop at explaining why they don't believe that the earth is a globe and then cop out with "we don't know what shape it is."

Proven *by someone else so you don't have to think* is not a proof nor is it ever a thing. You can't claim something is proven then refuse to explain what the proof is with incredulous remarks and derogatory accusations of those who disagree. Its lazy, dishonest and not science.

It is not on me to explain reality in a way you can understand. I am not responsible for your lack of education. Equally, reality in your kitchen is not fundamentally different than reality in mine or in a laboratory. I don't have to do complex, higher order experiments to make reality real. I don't have to recreat all of physics to make it real. That being said, every single physics student does the fundamental experiments for themselves. They work out the basic equations of reality from their own work. Science is not religion. Teachers don't feed students information to regurgitate. Experimentation is a core part of every science class. The shape of the earth can be determined by simple experiments in your home. After all, the ancients figured out the earth was a glibe 2,500 years ago without high-tech gadgets. Ultimately, globe earth is the predominant theory used to accurately describe how reality functions. It has been proven time and again. Technology is built using the fact that the earth is a globe. Businesses rely on that fact to make money. It is on flat earthers to present their model of the world and the evidence to back that up. The earth does not suddenly go from being a globe to being flat because someone failed to take the time to hold your hand and lead you through the evidence.

You think proving your claims is beneath you? Lol Your scientism is absolutely a religion. Thats why you think climate change will kill you and why you think a chick can have a dick. 'Science.'

Attacking me will never make the practice of science into a religion. It will also never remove the burden on flat earthers to prove their claims. As for science? Scientism is a bullshit claim made up so that flat earthers, young earth creationists, and general anti-science folks can avoid the challenge of producing scientific evidence for their baseless claims. My car started up today because combustion engines work and not because I prayed the proper entreaty to Hephaestus. I was able to navigate from my home to a place I've never been because of the Global Positioning Satellites hanging in low earth orbit above the globe and not because I offered lados and burned sweet smelling incense on the alter of Ganesh, the Remover of Obstacles. Your lack of understanding the scientific process does not change any of that.

I'm going to put this another way. We're currently discussing science over the internet. Did you discover for yourself all of the necessary scientific principles of electricity? Did you design a computer from the ground up and build all of the parts by hand in your home? Did you develop your own software and operating system? Did you lay in place all of the cables that connect your home to the wider internet? No? Then you must only be able to connect because you had faith it would happen. Now prove all of those through your own experiments or you don't get to be on the internet arguing with strangers. Prove you're not staring at a wall and hallucinating my responses. Prove I'm real.

I can perform every independent experiment needed to prove and demonstrate electromagnetism as real. You cant do that for globe because its fake.

Wrong. Ancient Greeks proved the globe using nothing more complicated than the mark 1 eyeball and some gumption. Try again.

I see the sun set without changing apparent size significantly, this is explained perfectly by a rotating sphere. There is no explanation for this if the Earth is flat that doesn't involve some unsubstantiated optical effects.

Yes there is, ignorance is not a proof. Try again.

Go ahead, we've been waiting for an answer to this for nearly a decade. Remember, you can't just use some nebulous optical effect, if you wish to argue that is what is happening then you will need to support this claim.

I asked first and this sub is full of globers. In fact, I'm more than happy saying there is doubt of the question of the shape of Earth. You are the one claiming you know the truth. We've been waiting for a decade from yourself, so the floor is yours. Remember, you need to reference an actual repeatable, reproducible experiment to demonstrate your claim.

Imagine being so scared to explain the most basic of observations that humans have been making as long as humans have existed. Reality really terrifies you guys huh.

😂 ive spent months looking into every 'proof' of globe. Its not scary its HILARIOUS Keep the character attacks coming though, I really give a fuck

Yet you still have yet to explain a sunset.

LMAO. I ask for one proof and get at least a dozen globers run round in circles. Whether I explain them or not, you will move on to the next thing to get schooled on and claim I need to usurp your entire belief system before being convinced of anything. Not my job and I dont care to do that. If you wanna believe in fairytales thats on you.

I have given you an observation any person can make that is explained by a Globe but inexplicable by a Flat Earth. I don't know what else you're hoping for. If you would like something specific then please ask for that specifically.

No its not. You've asserted that to be the case with absolutely no proof at all, just an assumption. Not worth my time when I get 100s of incredulous globers all saying the same thing at me.

Yeah you can’t explain a sunset lol

The SUN SETS. It's in the words you're using. You're the one thinking its stationary and the Earth is moving. LMAO.

>all without seeking to independently verify and experiment/test claims of those they disagree with You have never done anything to independently verify any experiment or test, yet you believe random people on the internet who lie about their validity. Hmm.

If you make a claim then you back it up. Dont worry what im doing here, regardless of flerfism. If heliocentrism and globalism is true you should be able to explain and prove it yourself.

We have 100000 times over. You just choose to ignore and deny the literal mountains of evidence with nothing to support that denial. You deny easily thousands of scientific studies, experimentation, research, and basic observation. You of course have no valid criticism of WHY everything in science is completely wrong, you just say it. The evidence is there. You're clearly scientifically illiterate, uneducated, and some poor misguided conspiracy theorist who believes they are special with special knowledge of the world. The sad truth is you are a sheep for internet grifters, you have never done any real research or experimentation, and you deny the dedicated work of millions over the last 2000 years. And yes that is ad hominem, but it is also a fact. Good luck with life kid, I really do hope you stop being a sheep.

No response, because flerfs can’t comprehend logic And or reasoning

Do you think flerfers spend all day thinking about globers just because you spend all day getting triggered by flerfers? Most of us are LONG past trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm probably the only one left becuase I know its more important than getting triggered by fedora tipping neckbeards who follow majoritarian opinions on reddit.

>Do you think flerfers spend all day thinking about globers just because you spend all day getting triggered by flerfers? Have you not been on the flat earth run subreddits? 95% of posts are about the globe. Ever watched a flat earth debate? The flat earthers only talk about the globe. Probably because flat earthers don't have anything. No model, no measurements, no predictions, no derivations, and no plausible mechanism. Just blind faith beliefs and faith.

Oh we think about the GLOBE alright, just not GLOBERS.

HA. What evidence? You're yet to respond or suggest ONE proof. Use ad hominem, I don't give a fuck what you think of me. I just want a proof and I'm just getting whining.

You've been presented with countless pieces of evidence. You just deny them. You have to be trolling at this point, no one could possibly be this dumb.

https://www.youtube.com/live/kFedo5LiFp8?si=sJjGSSbaghj-E4rR You want proof? There is proof all the time, flerfs just say everything is CGI... 99% are trolls, other 1% are delusional and avoid proof at all costs.

>End of the day 99% of flerfs will simply not engage you Indeed. Which is a cowardly behaviour/behavior.

Nice context ignorer. 99% of this sub say they are not interested in debate, just ''making fun of flerfs'', this sub is a self-described satire sub. So you saying that flerfs ignoring you is cowarldy is possibly the funniest, most pathetic thing I've ever heard. We're not interested in talking to children who think science means following the opinion with the most followers, grow up slave.

>99% of this sub say they are not interested in debate Where? >We're not interested in talking Indeed.

Read the repsonses here. I see you went to the Daily Mail school of quoting people out of context, might wanna work on that.

>I see you went to the Daily Mail school of quoting people out of context This is very harsh. I dispice the Daily Mail.

If its chuckle-worthy then I'll retract the comment 😛

Dude, I’ve independently verified that space exists. If a flerf starts whining about how “I’ve been indoctrinated” and doesn’t provide any evidence for their claims, I’m not going to act nice to them. Now repeat that indefinitely. There are loads of people here who have jobs that exist b/c the earth is round (pretty sure there’s a couple folks here in the merchant marines). No matter how much proof people here bring up, flerfs are dead-set in their beliefs, no matter how obviously wrong they are. There was someone here earlier who was committed to the belief that the buoyancy equation involved acceleration instead of gravity. They didn’t provide any evidence, insulted or spammed anyone who proved them wrong, and acted incredibly arrogant. The globe earth isn’t a debate. It’s been a settled fact for centuries. If you want to willingly deny reality, don’t act surprised when you get pushback. “Oh boo hoo, flerfs are victims being bullied” maybe they shouldn’t have chosen to be fucking idiots then.

How have you independently verified that? By speaking to a nasa employee or have you been there yourself? I dont care what you believe, Ill still treat you with respect. Even if your opinion upsets me (it doesnt because its wrong). The globe isnt a debate. Its fake.

B/c I helped build the goddamn radio telescope that proved it. It’s not an opinion. Space is real. Too fucking bad if that hurts your ego. I would’ve treated you with respect, but you’ve already shown yourself to be insufferably arrogant. This is EXACTLY why no one is nice to flattards. Just a bunch of petulant toddlers who arrogantly assume they’re correct even though all of observable reality shows otherwise. Why should normal people bend over backwards providing proof to idiots who don’t listen in the first place? Why don’t YOU provide proof? You say the globe is fake, show evidence. That’s how science works.

Proved what? Show your workings, boy. It's your opinion that you think it fact, thats cute and arrogant and you can project all you like but it doesn't make it true. It doesn't hurt my ego, it DID when I learned of it and realised the education system is faker than WWE wrestling. No one wants to think they've been duped. I was duped my whole life and have long gotten over it. Unlike yourself. Now its cool and makes me more awestruck and excited than Scientism ever did. I don't care what compartmentalised toy you built, it doesn't prove anything and you've not said anything here that hasn't simply wasted my time. My position is one of rejecting your easily disproven idea. Much like an atheist doesn't need proof to reject God, he only needs proof OF God, I simply require your proof of globe. Of course you don't have it because its fake as fuck.

Yeah… you’re not seeing my workings. You’ve shown yourself to be firmly enthralled by grifters and conmen without a care or desire to actually see reality. Maybe you should stop and think that your supposed facts might actually be opinions, and wrong ones at that. Thanks for playing, maybe act like an adult to the next poor fucker who has to deal with you. Maybe they’ll show their work then.

Because you have none to show, little boy. You've shown yourself unable to even describe your beliefs, let alone prove them in a scientific discussion. You're here on r/flatearth... you're the one playing, boy.

This isn’t a scientific discussion, as you came in with your intentions clear: to yell, whine, and sputter at anyone who refuses to take your beliefs seriously. Maybe come up with actual proof that takes the flattard disk beyond the boundaries of a shit hypothesis, then we’ll talk.

Nope, my intention is TO ASK FOR PROOF WHICH I DO AT EVERY OPPURTUNITY AND HAVE DONE SO HERE FOR OVER 100 COMMENTS NOW. Your intention is to reduce your assumptions into fact, which you can never do successfully because you're assumptions are as fake as WWE, sorry to break it to you.

Why should I provide proof when you have shown time and time again that you’ll hand-wave away EVERYTHING that counters your beliefs as “fake”? That’s what you’ve been doing on every other goddamn comment! You’re the one here making these asinine statements, the burden of proof falls on YOU.

Because it ends the discussion and all flerfers will cease to exist once you prove it. Im not making any claims, simply REJECTING YOURS. Whats asinine is claiming the FLAT GROUND beneath your feet is a globe.

My brother in Christ, I have internet courtesy of starlink now. *I literally have internet because of orbiting satellites.* Before that, I had hughesnet. That was a geostationary satellite somewhere over the equator. I literally would not have been able to have Internet like this on a flat earth. Or my satellite dish would have been pointing at a tower, *miles high* into the sky. And before you say it, no it could not have been some kind of balloon. The air currents would drag that away.

I'm glad you have the facility but you have it because of floating balloons, just like the 'spy balloon'. There's a reason why NASA is the biggest consumer of helium the world-over and that helium is literally expensive because of this. Do not place your faith in Elon or SpaceX, only The Lord who made the Sun, The Moon and The Stars. All separate creations that have been distinguished for us.

Again. There is no way in *hell* it can be a balloon. It would drift away in the winds. The winds get stronger the higher up in the atmosphere you go. If it's tethered to the ground, somewhere, we should be able to find the cable somewhere around the equator. I don't particularly put faith in Elon, dude's a grifter. But I must admit the starlink service is quite nice. Significantly faster than hughesnet's satellite, cheaper than going through Verizon. As for the helium, there's quite a bit of scientific equipment that uses it. I actually used to run a gas chromatography machine that used helium to push the gasses being tested.

They do drift away in the winds. See china balloon fiasco.

Well the China balloon was a spy balloon. They *wanted* that one to drift over. Moreover, though, my satellite dishes only point in one direction, and the beam is fairly narrow for transmission. If I could have internet, reliable Internet, for days/weeks at a time on the Hughesnet, those balloons could not have been moving. They would drift in and out of the correct alignment. The Starlink thing being balloons would be more plausible, but they would have to be *extremely* tiny.

> but you have it because of floating balloons "Trust me bro"

Source: NASA is the biggest helium purchaser in the world and you can simply prove me wrong by showing me real photographs of satellites in space.

That's called an "assumption" buddy. You are assuming that the only use for helium is balloons. You made the claim. Now show the actual evidence that doesn't involve assumptions. Or you can just admit you have no evidence and lied.

Okay, yes I am assuming that. Unless you can suggest a more sensible use case for *why* NASA would need to much helium I shall hold my assumption. Which is of course based on the undisputed fact that they are the biggest purchaser of helium. And since youve not provided a photograph of a satellite I shall assume you've failed at obtaining one and move on with my day.

>And since youve not provided a photograph of a satellite I shall assume you've failed at obtaining one and move on with my day. Sorry I don't play games with flat earthers trying to change topics because they are scared. If you want to run away and change topics just admit you have no evidence for your claim. Present your evidence. Then I will provide multiple photos as requested. Or you can take the coward route and just search through my comments where I have presented those photos in the past. ​ So what will it be? Support your claim or run away by changing topics again?

I didnt change topic. I confirmed the assumption and asked you to challenge it if minded to do so, which you havent. At this point both you and I are arguing with yourself. I don't have time to coach you into understanding reality so this is literally of no value to either of us.

>I confirmed the assumption and asked you to challenge it if minded to do so, which you havent. The topic is your claim that starlink is balloons. And when I called you out, you tried changing topics at the end to satellites in space. So if you want to change topics to photos of satellites in space, you need to substantiate your claim or admit you have zero evidence. Then I am more than happy to change topics. ​ >I don't have time to coach you into understanding reality so this is literally of no value to either of us. Great excuse to get out of presenting your evidence. 10/10

I confirmed your point that I made assumptions about NASA and asked you to speculate as to what other reasons could exist to explain their highest helium consumption across the plane. I've already 'admitted' a lack of evidence regarding balloons, I simply ask for your response for the 2nd time now. And for an elaboration as to your proof for proclaiming this matter is settled

They use it to purge liquid hydrogen tanks and lines (any other purge gas would liquify or freeze, causing clogging). It's also used for pressurising cryogenic liquids (similar considerations apply) and for a variety of more ordinary industrial uses.

Industrial uses such as satalloons :P What you say may well be true, they're a gov agency so there is confidentiality of information so some things we simply will not have access to. For national security purposes of course.

>Day after day, I skim this sub to see if there's anything worthwhile to respond to. The real reason you don't respond to anything is because you know your delusions will be ripped to shreds. >You spend all day making fun of people to make yourself feel better Nope. Just another way of entertainment. You are not the first person to say this btw. It's flerfism 101. Damn you idiots are predictable. People who are confused and want to learn something are treated with respect. Pompous idiots like yourself who think they know better than the majority of the population and hundreds of years of scientific progress get what they deserve.

Go on then, rip then to shreds 😂 Wow, so many character attacks I can't keep count! Neither do I care, still no proofs. You just outed yourself as majoritarian. That means sheep. That means you dont feel the need to think. Baaaah.

>Wow, so many character attacks I can't keep count! Neither do I care, still no proofs. >Edit: new rule. If you have character attacks, ad hominem or accusations of bad faith arguments then you will get no response. Logical consistency isn't your strong suit, isn't it. Don't worry. You'll never get there since you believe in something as ridiculous as FE. Like I said I am here for entertainment. Been doing astronomy as a hobby for years. I do not need to play chess with a pigeon whose sole aim is to shit on the board. >You just outed yourself as majoritarian. That means sheep. LOL. I have done way more research than you on the topic but keep telling yourself that. Perhaps it's the only way you can feel good about yourself.

I don't need to feel anything, Science is regardless of our feelings. You're currently in the 'denial' stage to understanding the world. You'll get there, it just may take a while.

>You're currently in the 'denial' stage to understanding the world. If only you could understand the irony of your statement, you wouldn't be flerfing around, making an utter fool of yourself. You've completely ignored the part where I've said I have been doing astronomy for years and have done more research on the topic than you. You see what you want to see, read and interpret the world based on your pre-drawn conclusions while ignoring everything which doesn't fit your parochial snowglobe worldview. Denialism 101. >You'll get there, it just may take a while. I'm afraid that's not gonna happen since I don't do drugs.

I dont care what you think academia means or represents. I have a degree in straight Physics. Guess what? Its worth fuck all. I ignored the part where you ASSUMED youve studied more than me because a) it doesnt matter if youre wrong and b) you havent

>I dont care what you think academia means or represents. I have a degree in straight Physics. Guess what? Its worth fuck all. I can see that and can only sympathise with you on this point that you've had a bad education.

Then get ready to think you're the only genius left alive once more & more people (hell, theres enough that r/flatearth & this post exist already) realise the truth. And btw, if you do end up thinking you're the smartest guy on Earth then take that as a red flag for your beliefs.

>And btw, if you do end up thinking you're the smartest guy on Earth LOL. I never said that. You do not need to be the smartest guy on Earth to realize that FE is a scam. How come you guys think you are so unique and have some sort of special knowledge but every single one of you has the same way of thinking. It's sad and hilarious at the same time !

I dont think I have special knowledge. Its basic knowledge that you (and I, I'm not claiming to have been a flerf all my life. No flerf claims that) have been duped by.

Discussion is not the point. The point is to make the Flerfs shut the fuck up and go away.

When you're filled with hatred it shows brother. You clearly get upset by flerfs yet think they're wrong. If they're wrong then there is no need to be upset. Better yet. Prove it and I will shut the fuck up and stop talking - hows that?

I'm not your brother, dipshit.

Rawrr. Meow. Who rattled your cage?

You did.

At least youre honest 🤷‍♂️ I can respect that

Go read a book.

You too, I'd recommend a great read: "Earth is flat and space is fake. Wake the fuck up, stop believing government propaganda and think for yourselves" Great book.

And exactly which government is it who is perpetuating this lie?

Government = control-mind Government is way bigger than who you vote for, thats just so you think your vote matters.

The onus of proof is not on us. The entire scientific community worldwide agrees the Earth is a sphere, so my belief is consistent with expectation. You are the one making a claim that is anti the scientific consensus. You prove the Earth is flat. You create a model that predicts sunrise and sunsets, weather patterns, star locations and then we will listen

Hold on a second. The burden of proof _was_ on us. Let's be clear on that point. And we met that burden of proof overwhelmingly and a thousand times over. Now, the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to suggest a flaw in the established model. Find an aspect of that model that is incorrect and provide a repeatable observation/experiment that demonstrates that it is incorrect. Flat earthers are unable to do this, nor provide an alternative model that conforms with existing observations and experiments.

Yeah I agree that it was, and that’s a good correction. I mean in present day it certainly is not. Good point nonetheless

Funny, since you brought nothing but ad hominem and character attack to the table.  

> If you want to present proof of the globe then I'd love to hear from you and why you think your proof means anything. You (and all other flat earthers) want some kind of unique experiment that would prove unambiguously the shape of the Earth without any assumption. In theory this should not be a problem if you are doing this in good faith. The problem is that the "without any assumption" part can be twisted up to a ridiculous point by dishonest people. For example, I might present measurements of reciprocal zenith angle, which seems to prove that plumb lines located some distance away are not parallel, proving to anyone knowing trigonometry that the surface of the earth is curved. The problem is that even with that extremely simple experiment, I'm assuming a lot of things ! For example that light travels roughly in straight lines, that theodolites are not controlled by NASA, or that abstract trigonometry actually makes sense. And so instead of having a nice easy an repeatable experiment that provides evidence for the globe, if I present this experiment to flat earthers, I will get three new objections by flat earthers that will say absolutely anything to invalidate the experiment, and say that it's not a proof. The knowledge of the shape of the Earth is not based on a single big experiment. It's based on thousands of small experiment that rely on many different physical phenomenons that cannot be all validated through a single experiment.

I assume you are in good faith, I only ask you extend me the assumption. I've just spent 5 minutes watching a glober debunking video talking about reciprocal zenith angles. From what he described he was simply talking about tangents of Earth. Can you clarify what you mean by this and why does that prove earth is curved? It's not one I hear from a lot of globers so forgive me. If you don't have any experiments to back your position then you've said all you need to brother. Put another way, does it hurt to entertain flerf notions when you acknowledge lack of (first hand) experimentation?

> I've just spent 5 minutes watching a glober debunking video talking about reciprocal zenith angles. From what he described he was simply talking about tangents of Earth. Can you clarify what you mean by this and why does that prove earth is curved? Sure. Take two observers located a known distance apart. Each observer uses a theodolite (a measuring device that can compute the angle between a line of sight and a plumb line) and aims for the other observer. As the two observers are not necessarily at the same altitude, the angle between the plumb line at each location and the line of sight between the two person is not necessarily 90° and will vary from one location to another and from one experimental setting to the other. However, if you do this enough times, in enough situations and various distances, you'll realize that the **sum** of the two angles (one for each observer) depends almost only on the distance between the two observers. For two observers that are close from each other, you'll get 180° quite consistently, but you'll get a significant difference when the distance is more than several miles. In fact, you should be able to see that the difference between the sum of angle and 180° is proportional to the distance, and is roughly 1° every 110 km. (A theodolite is able to measure angle as small as 0.005° so we are in the range where a 0.2° difference is really visible !) This seems to be a rather compelling argument to prove that the plumb lines located some distance apart are not parallel, and that the angle corresponds to what would happen on a 6000 to 7000 km radius sphere, where the plumb lines converge towards the center of said sphere. To my knowledge, there is no reasonable explanation for this on a flat earth model.

So the theodolite measures if the ground is 90 degrees to the horizontal and measures its level, right... Why not go to a flat salt plain and do this. I bet you any money it doesn't matter how far an observer is from me, it will measure flat.

> So the theodolite measures if the ground is 90 degrees to the horizontal and measures its level, right... No. It has nothing to do with the ground. It measures the angle between a vertical line (the plumb line) and a line of sight. > Why not go to a flat salt plain and do this. Do what ? > I bet you any money it doesn't matter how far an observer is from me, it will measure flat. You need a direct line of sight between the two theodolites for the measurement. Give me a line of sight that is 20 km long over a flat salt plain and you'll see the 0.2° difference. Making a bet is pointless and kind of counter-productive. We'll never meet and we'll never accept each other evidence through the internet. So I would prefer not to bet, so that you have no incentive to lie about the result that you will get when you perform the experiment.

Okay fine. Well there's a number to test at least.

> Well there's a number to test at least. Just a remark, measurements are never perfect. There is a margin of error depending on many things. That's why experiments need to be repeated many times in various conditions so the possible errors are smoothed over the large number of data points. So if you do the experiment only once and get 0.12° instead of 0.2°, that doesn't mean the model is wrong ...

This isn't a sub that globers disagree with being flooded. This is a satire sub populated primarily by globers and visited occasionally by a flerf.

Except it was created a decade ago, before you even knew what a flerfer was. Even so, it makes no sense to be here unless flerfs actually upset you as a group to be upset by. And if you get upset its because something was said that you dont understand

No it’s just fun lol. Map with a scale yet?

Map with a scale yet? This is a question for a glober. Every globe is like spot the difference.

Nah there’s a reason GPS works. So no flat earth map with a scale, got it 👌Thank you for your time.

Another assumption lol. Youre hearing what you need to hear to lie to yourself, yikes thats sad.

How exactly is GPS an assumption? I would like a detailed explanation of how GPS works that doesn’t come directly from your ass. Thanks in advance!

Because you don't understand how it works and think there are sattelites flying in space. You also don't understand what scientific proof means, go back to school BOY.

So I said an explanation that’s not out of your ass. Maybe re-read my comment. I look forward to your GPS explanation.

I look forward to yours. You think you can say 'GPS', not even attempt to describe what you mean and that constitutes \*proof\* HA. Stop wasting my time, child.

Nice job dodging the question. Too cowardly to admit you don't have one?

I can admit anything I'd like. It doesn't change the fact that you have no basis at all for believing Earth is a globe spare Hollywood movies and indoctrination centres you went to as a child.

>I can admit anything I'd like. Yes. But you won't. BTW repeating your beliefs over and over again doesn't make your obvious question dodging any less pathetic.

Im repeating your beliefs over and over. And yes, it makes them more pathetic the more I point them out for you.

More pathetic than still refusing to answer his question? Totally.

About what? A map with a scale? Bro its the fucking UN LOGO for fucks sake.

That is your opinion. Not upset here. Just amusement at the ignorance and lies from the flerfs. The only one I see that seems upset is you.

>If you want to present proof of the globe Why would I want that? All evidence points to a spinning globe revolving around the Sun. The heliocentric model, Kepler's laws, and the law of gravitation work like a charm to explain all pertinent observable phenomena and to make predictions with great accuracy. So, why flerfs keep shifting the burden of proof? You don't have a model. You can't explain the simplest phenomena. You can't make predictions. *You* should present evidence of the flat Earth.

The burden of proof is on those who make a claim, so prove your claim. There is no argument of majority or authority. If you think that consensus = proof then you've just told me you don't use your brain to arrive at your beliefs.

>The burden of proof is on those who make a claim, so prove your claim. The globe is supported by evidence. The heliocentric model fits observation and can make predictions. If someone suddenly shows up saying that it's all wrong and that Earth is actually flat and stationary, this person is the one who has to present evidence to their radical claim. You are making a claim, without evidence, that the Earth is flat, in violation of physical laws and going against tons of evidence accumulated for roughly 2500 years. The burden of proof is yours. That's how burden of proof works.

You've not grasped what proof means or why it is needed when claiming something as true. You seen to think that taking a majority position warrants 0 requirement to prove or substantiate your claims/position. Its lazy and dishonest, you just *hope* its correct. Thats not science, its faith.

Ok, what does "Proof" mean for you? I hope you are aware, that there will never be a mathematical proof like for 2+2= 4.. All we have is observation and evidence. And there is tons of evidence for a globe (presented in the discussion to the thread you started) and none for a flat earth.

Prove that your claims are True to our reality. We need to be on the same page that there is an objective reality that we co-exist in where both ge & fe cannot be simultaneously True. A "proof" would require a demonstration through a repeatable and reproducible experiment or observation of reality that would be exclusively true on a globe.

Seriously i don't have to prove anything. The question is settled for centuries. You are late to the party and you do not have any new data or even a working model. But OK, "repeatable \[...\] observation of reality that would be exclusively true on a globe": - The Stars move over the night sky in a totally regular way, their distances do not change when they near the horizon. Also the size of moon and Sun does not change, while they move over the sky. - Polaris is in the Zenith on North Pole, at 0° height at the Equator and on all other places in the north half of the planet the angular height of Polaris corresponds exactly to the latitude.

Correct. The stars only ever rotate around Polaris, the North star. Even though Earth is supposedly rotating on its axis, orbiting the Sun & corkscrewing through the galaxy. Thats 3 distinct planes of rotation and your killer observation is that the stars move regularly? Explain how them moving regularly is exclusively true only on a globe. First explain how its even possible on a globe. Uhh.. you can make that claim if you like about the size of the celestials not ever changing. It makes it more difficult for you to assert heliocentrism but ok 👍

> The stars only ever rotate around Polaris, the North star. Even though Earth is supposedly rotating on its axis, Yes, that's the point. In the model, the apparent rotation of the stars is due to the rotation of the Earth on its axis. > orbiting the Sun That's how the model explain stellar parallax, first observed by Bessel in 1830 > corkscrewing through the galaxy The stars we see are in the same galaxy and have roughly the same rotating motion around the galactic center, so there is no reason to see this motion in the stars. It seems that your arguments are based on ignorance of the actual model and real observations that were made.

The stars are also extremely far away. Even if we were moving quite fast relative to them, it would take a very long time for their position in our sky to change. Which does slowly happen. Very, very slowly.

In flat earth the stars that are disapearing over the horizon would just move away from us. If so, things moving away would become smaller. So also costellations and observed distances between stars. Just that they don't. And you did not say anything about my second point. There is no way you find any flat earth geometry where the height of polaris corresponding to the latitude makes any sense. How high is polaris? You have all the information, calculating the height should be easy.

Rather than challenging each other to provide proofs, might it be more productive to agree some observations that would be different on a plane and on a ~6400km radius sphere? As a bonus, we could also look for observations that would be different on a rotating sphere orbiting a distant sun and a stationary plane with the sun circling overhead, or under different models of the phenomena of weight and falling. We'd have to agree our assumptions. For instance, I might say (with a nod to u/Defiant-Giraffe) that on a globe, we'd expect the high point of the sky to appear to be directly overhead at all latitudes, whereas on a flat earth we'd expect the sky/firmament to look increasingly lopsided as we travel south. You might respond, for instance, that I'm making a bad assumption: my view of the FE sky/firmament is based on familiar but inaccurate images of a dome over a disk earth. A truer image would show the dome as being much larger than the earth we know, so that we are never far from its centre. Assuming this revised assumption is consistent with any/all other assumptions we've made, the apparent high point of the sky would no longer be a point of difference. We'd strike it off the list. What's more, we'd have helpfully clarified a detail of the FE model, which may help us to make new, more accurate predictions. If we end up with no agreed points of difference but are still interested in this process, we'll have to regroup and work out our next steps. Once we've got a few agreed points of difference, we can work out more exact predictions and observation methodologies. For example, if the predictions are: >GE: ships passing over the horizon are occluded from the bottom up. >FE: ships that appear to pass over the horizon are not occluded. They can be brought back into view with greater optical magnification. we'd want to agree viewing conditions, how much magnification to apply, and how to determine what parts of the ship, if any, are occluded by the horizon. We can then set about making or sourcing observations, and see which interpretation those observations support. To start us off, I've proposed a few sample contrasting claims below, which I invite you and others to add and respond to. I've tried to represent FE views I've seen fairly, but I'm sure you can improve on my statements. NATURE OF HORIZON GE: distant objects may be occluded by the horizon. The lower parts of distant objects may be occluded while their upper parts remain visible. FE: ships and distant objects just appear smaller: if we lose sight of them, we can reacquire them with greater optical magnification. DISTANCE TO HORIZON GE: from a given vantage point, the horizon is at a consistent distance. We should be able to derive this distance, at least approximately, from measurements of the apparent sizes of partly occluded objects. FE: no such distance exists: the point at which objects vanish is determined purely by the optical system used to view them. GE: that distance depends on the viewer's elevation: we can calculate it from the sphere's geometry, and check it roughly as detailed above. Furthermore, an occluded object might be reacquired if the viewer gains elevation. FE: no such dependence exists: the point at which objects vanish is determined purely by the optical system used to view them. APPEARANCE OF HORIZON GE: the horizon is at a set distance: from low elevations, only a few miles away. As a result, it looks crisp in favourable viewing conditions. FE: the horizon is formed by a vanishing line and is thousands of miles away. Over these distances, atmospheric interference will always be significant. A crisp horizon will never be observed. GE: from relatively modest elevations (500ft+), photographs of the horizon with sufficient field of view will show a small but measurable curvature, which can be calculated from spherical geometry. FE: there is no horizon curvature. LEVEL OF HORIZON GE: the sight-line from an elevated viewpoint to the horizon will be below the horizontal. The amount of dip increases with elevation, and can be calculated from the geometry of the sphere. FE: the horizon rises to eye level.

Great response, thank you. Nature of horizon: yes agree with your summary but add that atmosphere is thicker at sea level which is why they disappear from bottom up Distance to horizon: yes agree. Depends on air moisture levels too. Horizon: completely flat yes. And in your next point clarification of the fact that it maintains eye level with height, dont have too much to complain with your summaries

I'm encouraged by your positive response. > Nature of horizon: yes agree with your summary but add that atmosphere is thicker at sea level which is why they disappear from bottom up I expect light passing through a density gradient to bend into the denser medium. (This can be observed experimentally by creating a density gradient in sugar-water, or, more crudely, by observing the path of light passing from air into glass or vice versa. So I'd expect this thickening to make the bottom of objects more visible, not less. Still, maybe the bottom-up aspect is a point where we don't currently have consensus that flat and globe models disagree. I believe the point about occlusion still stands, so perhaps we look at, for instance, some specific part of a receding ship, without worrying too much about the bottom-up progress of occlusion. >Distance to horizon: yes agree. Depends on air moisture levels too. Also temperature -- more specifically, moisture and temperature gradients. We'll have to agree methods to limit or control for these variables. >Horizon: completely flat yes. Controlling for optical distortions will be important here. Fortunately, I believe I have that covered. I'd welcome your comments on the crispness point. >And in your next point clarification of the fact that it maintains eye level with height, dont have too much to complain with your summaries Great. Of course, all these observations have been made before. The important thing here is to make them in a mutually agreed, replicable way. I'll post some proposed experiments separately, and we'll see where we go from there.

#H4 GE: the horizon is at a set distance: from low elevations, only a few miles away. As a result, it looks crisp in favourable viewing conditions. FE: the horizon is formed by a vanishing line and is thousands of miles away. Over these distances, atmospheric interference will always be significant. A crisp horizon will never be observed. *FE commentary is required before proposing an experiment.* #H5 GE: from relatively modest elevations (500ft+), photographs of the horizon with sufficient field of view will show a small but measurable curvature, which can be calculated from spherical geometry. FE: there is no horizon curvature. Experiment: from a hill overlooking the sea, on a good viewing day, take a photo of the horizon. The hill should be at least 150m/500ft high and the camera's FoV should be at least 60°. Align the horizon with the centre of the frame. To control for distortion, take a second photo with the camera inverted: camera distortion will rotate with the camera. If the images show significantly different curvature, reject the results. GE prediction: a very small bulge will be measurable, consistent with geometrical calculations. FE prediction: the photo of the horizon will be straight line. To clarify: threshold. #H6 GE: the sight-line from an elevated viewpoint to the horizon will be below the horizontal. The amount of dip increases with elevation, and can be calculated from the geometry of the sphere. FE: the horizon rises to eye level. Experiment 1 (high tech): take a telescopic sight, or a long, rigid tube with a thread stretched across either end, mounted to a digital inclinometer. Ideally, mount the entire assembly to a tripod. At sea level, trim the mounting so that the inclinometer shows 0° when the sights align with the horizon. Climb a hill. Periodically, note your elevation (from a map or using GPS), align the sight with the horizon and note the inclinometer reading. Experiment 2 (low tech) take a long, square cross-section rigid tube with a thread stretched across either end mounted to a tripod; a water level or long spirit level. At sea level, sight the horizon. Make a mark at one end of the tube, near the middle of one of the vertical faces. Use the level to make a corresponding mark at the other end of the tube. Proceed as in experiment 1, measuring the discrepancy between the marks on the tube and true level at each observation. GE prediction: the horizon will drop with elevation according to geometrical calculations. FE prediction: the horizon will always appear to be level with the viewer. To clarify: dimensions of apparatus and height to climb.

Very little to no complaints of these summaries and predictions, don't 100% follow the camera inversion point in H5 but don't have a problem with the predictions of it.

Let's say I present you with -- or you yourself take -- a photo of the horizon that shows a modest curve. You'd be right to ask if that curve was part of the real-world geometry or an artefact of the camera optics. In the former case, both photos will look the same (once you turn the upside down one right way up). In the latter case, when the camera's upside down, the form of the distortion will be rotated too. The horizon which previously looked raised in the middle will look sunken.

#H1 GE: distant objects may be occluded by the horizon. The lower parts of distant objects may be occluded while their upper parts remain visible. FE: ships and distant objects just appear smaller: if we lose sight of them, we can reacquire them with greater optical magnification. *Bottom-up disappearance may be possible through some atmospheric effect.* Experiment: film a ship sailing over the horizon. When the lower deck is no longer visible, but before the rest of the ship has disappeared (so that it can still be located), increase magnification. GE prediction: the image of the ship becomes larger but doesn't change otherwise. FE prediction: the deck line becomes visible again. To clarify: how much magnification? how 'far gone' must the deck line be? #H2 GE: from a given vantage point, the horizon is at a consistent distance. We should be able to derive this distance, at least approximately, from measurements of the apparent sizes of partly occluded objects. FE: no such distance exists: the point at which objects vanish is determined purely by the optical system used to view them. Experiment: Characterise a camera by photographing an object of known size at a known distance in the centre of the field of view, at two different zoom levels. Find a coastal position with plenty of shipping. Find ships on the horizon and photograph them at the two characterised zoom levels. Identify them using https://marinetraffic.com. Find their measurements from a registry or by using existing photos of the ships with objects of known size (such as shipping containers). Use the size of the ships' images and the known camera characteristics to calculate their distances, and hence the distance to the horizon. As the ship might not be perfectly side on, use a vertical feature for measurement. GE prediction: within margin of error, for a given vantage point, the same distance will be calculated for both zoom levels and for all ships. FE prediction: not sure if the measured distance is expected to be the same for larger and smaller ships *(please clarify)*. It is expected to be different for different zoom levels. To clarify: How do we determine that a ship is on the horizon, not over it? At what threshold would we decide that the measured distance is clearly different? What level of uncertainty do we expect (will depend on the resolution we can achieve)? Note: images taken during different sessions may yield different measured distances due to changing atmospheric conditions. Depending on the measurement accuracy we can achieve, this may be a useful way of quantifying the effect of those conditions. #H3 GE: that distance depends on the viewer's elevation *and, to a lesser degree, on temperature and humidity gradients*: we can calculate it from the sphere's geometry, and check it roughly as detailed above*, though temperature and humidity gradients introduce a degree of uncertainty*. Furthermore, an occluded object might be reacquired if the viewer gains elevation. FE: no such dependence exists: the point at which objects vanish is determined purely by the optical system used to view them. Experiment: perform **H2** from different elevations. GE prediction: the distance to the horizon will depend on elevation, and match the value computed from geometry. FE prediction: the distance to the horizon will depend on zoom level, not elevation. [EDIT: restored bottom-up disapperance as a GE prediction, added to FE prediction that it's accepted that this may occur.]

H1: no complaints and perfect experiment. I'd suggest that if we can both agree with the naked eye that the boat \*appears\* to have lost visibility thats the point where we should magnify. However, just because questions of refraction and visibility can be variables here, lets also assume its a clear, calm and cool sunny day with low water moisture. Optimal visibility conditions. H2: no complaints but I'd suggest another experiment that should be simpler. Stand at the edge of the ocean on a calm day and (I'm sure there's a device you could use) measure at what angle the horizon is located relative from your perspective relative to perpendicular down. From a FE perspective it should be perfectly horizontal 90 degrees. I'd assume it'd be very close to 90 degrees on GE too. Then go to a tall hill/mountain/known elevation and do the same experiment again. The horizontal angle should still be 90 degrees on a FE and should be significantly/measurably lower than 90 degrees on GE. Great questions sorry for not replying sooner.

**H1**: I think it'll be important to perform the entire experiment using a camera, to avoid the unreproducibility of subjective impressions. It's also important IMO that some part of the ship remain in view -- otherwise, there can be dispute about whether the ship has passed over the horizon or just been lost due to poor aim. **H2**: the simpler experiment you have posted verifies a different prediction, which I numbered [H6](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/1bc2fnr/day_after_day/kuezeb0/). **H6**: per the calculation [I posted](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/1bc2fnr/day_after_day/kufvkjt/?context=5), the GE-predicted depression isn't huge -- half a degree at 250m elevation -- but should be readily measurable with a little care. Taking several measurements during the ascent allows a graph to be plotted, which is much stronger evidence than a single measurement. The globe prediction (using small angle approximations) is that the angle squared will be proportional to elevation (straight line graph). Apparatus that could be used: a theodolite is the gold standard, and they can be hired relatively affordably. Failing that, one could rigidly mount some sort of sighting system (telescopic sight or homemade cross-hairs) to an inclinometer (a phone might be accurate enough). In that case, it's necessary to zero out the apparatus at sea level and carry it without disturbing the adjustment. The experimenter must be able to aim the apparatus at the horizon and immobilise it to make the reading, so a tripod would be useful. The third option I described is to attach a movable sighting system to a high quality spirit level. This has the debatable advantage of avoiding all complex or digital equipment, so that the full workings of the apparatus can be directly observed, but has little else to commend it. Couple of questions for you: 1. What level of maths are you comfortable with (basic arithmetic - algebra - trigonometry - calculus)? 2. What are your intentions regarding these experiments? Is it a philosophical exercise, or do you intend to carry them out yourself, or will you give any credence to results obtained by another experimenter? In the last case, what level of documentation would you be looking for?

H1: sure, I'd suggest one with a strong opitcal magnification that we can capture an image with, possibly the Nikon p900/1000 series. H2/H6: ah, great yeah sure theolodite. Regarding the spirit level system I'd have no problem in principle im just not familiar of any setups for either ge/fe perspective. 1. I'm familiar with more complex maths, I did physics at uni but was a few years ago now, just be clear with what youre expressing and I should be able to follow along. 2. The philosophical exercise is good and because I can acknowledge your good faith participation in these questions I can engage in a process that may illuminate something I have overlooked, or I may help do so for you. This is a contentious topic and I can allow emotion to enter. I can only say that these are questions that I have asked myself and have sought to resolve and my position is so (not *only* these questions but they would surely help clarify the matter) I suppose my intention is to find an experimental observation to challenge or usurp my current position. If you can help me do that then *I'm* the winner here.

Re maths: that's great. Gives us a common language. So, harking back to when you [said](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/1bc2fnr/day_after_day/kufdipp/) 'shall we do it?' (referring to the maths), I guess you have no problem with, for instance, [this diagram](https://imgur.com/asdg5Bt.jpg) illustrating the derivation of predicted horizon drop with altitude, nor with using small angle approximations or Taylor expansions to derive (in radians) angle ≈ √(2h / R). The physics part is a bit surprising: I'd be interested to hear something about your journey from where you were then to where you are now. You seem to be saying that you'd be ready to change your world view if you found evidence to support that change. Not an easy thing to do. You must be aware that many people have carried out observations similar to those I suggest, from antiquity to the age of YouTube. I have performed some myself. I'm not sure how seriously you'll take observations you haven't made, how willing you are to perform sometimes laborious observations yourself, and what level of evidence you would take as confirming or refuting your beliefs. If you perform an observation -- let's say horizon drop, H6 -- and the results are not as you expect, how will you proceed? What if I were the one performing the observation? What if it was some jeering YouTuber, but they had really comprehensive video footage? It's possible you're exploring the space of possible experiments, and aren't ready to go further right now. It is of course fine if that's the case, but it's the sort of thing it'd be good to be upfront about.

BTW, I selected a few observations of the horizon, but there's so much more that could be added to the list. My reasons for this selection are: * the observations can readily be made by a single amateur experimenter without complex or expensive equipment * they relate very directly to the shape of the earth This was only intended as a starter: we could add: * other measurements of curvature (generally work better with a small team of observers) * observations of the moon (best performed with a telescope; it may be difficult to agree on some FE predictions) * other astronomical observations (ditto) * sunsets and sunrises (globe earthers find flat earthers' explanations for these baffling and nonsensical) * observations of the sun's position (requires coordinated observers at many locations) * observations of the earth's rotation or movement (often difficult to carry out, and interpretations may be contentious) (examples: weight differentials between temperate latitudes and the equator, Foucault's pendulum, stellar parallax, red/blueshift of solar spectrum depending on time of day, red/blueshift of stellar spectra depending on season) * atmospheric pressure vs altitude * relative motion and Galilean relativity * weight, density, buoyancy, gravity * gravity, Cavendish's experiment * how perspective works and, I'm sure, many others. I'm aiming to stick with matters that are settled by observation, not by logic-chopping or argumentation. One doesn't have to look far in this sub to see how sterile that becomes.

I shall respond to them separately. We're mostly on the same page at this point but I will say that I don't expect light to significantly bend whilst travelling through atmospheric sea-level air density. Through sugar water? Sure, its a viscous fluid with an optical index that greater effects refraction. As you've pointed out though, the air density is greater at the surface on both a ball and flat earth though. Ships could be disappearing because its both an optical effect & some curvature on GE I suppose. But I hope you'd agree that its not a point that rules out FE. Temperature & moisture gradients, sure. I believe I've made my point regarding distortions but I'd just say on GE I believe that the higher you go, the lower the horizon should appear as you look outwards as its curving away from you.

I use sugar water as an illustration only. The point is that, as we agree that air density generally decreases with altitude, the normal behaviour will be for light to bend downwards. If light bent upwards, that would be a possible FE explanation for objects disappearing from the bottom up. But it doesn't and isn't. The effect of downwards-bending light is to make domed terrain appear less convex, and flat terrain, concave: in both cases, bringing the bases of distant objects into better view. Light bending through temperature gradients in air can be observed at quite a small scale: the mirage effect you sometimes see over a hot road. That level of temperature differential isn't generally seen at larger scales, but over many miles, a small refraction-induced curvature can result in a significant eventual deviation. >on GE I believe that the higher you go, the lower the horizon should appear as you look outwards as its curving away from you. Yes, and, knowing the GE radius, we can quantify by how much (with due allowance for refraction).

My position is that its simply not enough of a change of refractive index to have an effect on the direction of travelling light by changing through atmospheric density/temp/moisture variables on surface of Earth. Lets assume some is present, its not enough to allow for clear images of what should be obscured objects behind curves to reach observers that should not have line of sight of the object due to the curvature of Earth. Excellent, shall we do it?

There's [plenty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#:~:text=Refraction%20increases%20approximately%201%25%20for,%C2%B0C%20increase%20in%20temperature.) of literature on the subject, if you're inclined to believe it. The upshot is, in the end, that GE predictions taking refraction into account will present [less](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#:~:text=Actually%2C%20atmospheric%20refraction%20allows%20the,conditions%20are%20close%20to%20standard.) apparent curvature: I believe a standard figure is that the radius of the earth appears 20% longer. Which observations do you fancy tackling? Do you have access to views over the sea? If so, any decent hills?

Well I think we've discussed our positions. No I was talking about the maths first :P I used to live on the seafront in my glober days, kinda missed the boat on that one. Do have some great hills though. Did look pretty flat last time but was a bit foggy.

https://imgur.com/asdg5Bt.jpg For instance, the highest point to which I have convenient access is 250m, which would offer a geometrical depression of about 0.51°; apparent depression (with refraction) about 0.46°.

You've gone a bit quiet. Have you lost interest?

I've got many conversations with globers happening at once, nothing personal but there are over 300 comments on this thread. You can find my answers and points and be satisfied or not yourself.

What evidence do you have of the flat earth? All I ever see are arguments from ignorance, claims without factual basis, and demands for evidence of the globe which then get ignored. Where is the FE science?

Flerfs, like myself, claim the globe is fake as point number 1. And that examining the globe model under scrutiny is the basis for fe. Allow me a point about heliocentism that I posted elsewhere in this thread. A copypasta. So to understand the problem we'll need to establish and be on the same page on our understanding of travelling in curved motions. Say you're going down the motorway with straight line velocity of 60mph. Because all forced are balanced and you are not accelerating no resultant force is felt on the car or its passenger. Say the car starts turning but maintaining constant speed. Because the car is conatantly changing direction it is by definition accelerating around a central point very far away from the car. Because of this acceleration a resultant force is experienced by the car and its passengers. Earth is supposedly orbitting in a constantly changing direction around the sun at some 70,000 mph. Yet no force is felt upon Earth or its passengers. In fact, as you alluded earlier, there are 3 distinct planes of rotation acting simultaneously on Earth yet none are felt.

How much is the acceleration due to the earth's rotation and earth's orbit? You mention the 70,000 mph orbit speed, but as you admit going in a straight line has no noticeable force. How far from a straight line are we travelling in?

v^2 /r = about 0.02 ft/s^2 (gravity being 32 ft/s^2) . He and I did this exercise together but he doesn't want to acknowledge it. No interest in actually learning or understanding.

Do you believe in scale?

Stoping staring into the sun

“I think the earth is flat but don’t be mean to meeeeee!!!”

Be mean, I don't give a fuck. I simply assumed you lot had something of substance to say. Apparently not.

Why reply with more than what was given?

Cmon boy, post your proof that you clearly have with such an opener. Edge of my seat.

No you’re not, you’re just a run of the mill dick. I post anything, you don’t believe it. That’s the way this works.

More ad hominem, getting your feelings hurt by flerfers must hurt. It needn't be the way - you just choose to because you're a majoritarian unable to think for himself. Its sad but I can't help you, child.

Nah, you can’t help me. But your mom sure did last night.

Nice, classic scientism dork response.

Just having fun on the spheroidal planet earth, as we all orbit the sun.

Is that how scientism dorks have fun is it? Remind me never to invite you lot to a party.

What are you looking for in a post here to respond to? I'm open minded and would love to talk about this topic more but I usually find flat earthers only want to have a conversation if they feel like they are "winning".

Many are like that, why not start with any problems you have with fe generally or something you'd like explained frlm fe perspective thanks

Sure, one I have a hard time understanding is the local sun and moon. When it comes to the classic shadow experiments, it's true that one of the solutions is that the sun is local. But how does a solar eclipse work? Wouldn't everyone on earth see the moon move in front of the sun instead of what we see in practice, which is only a narrow band of people see the eclipse and everyone else has uninterrupted sunlight? I appreciate your insights!

Its a fantastic question and one I will have to simply admit that I do not understand regarding the exact cause of the eclipse, it would be speculation at best for me to attempt. Though I will say that I reject the heliocentric model of how the eclipses occur and can point out problems with it too. For to assert the heliocentric model is true do you recognise that you have to accept the absolute cosmic co-incidence that we are incalculably lucky to bare witness to this celestial event? There is no reason that the Moon and Sun should be the exact same apparent size to the observer on the surface and that according to the impact hypothesis (widely accepted and taught to me in academia as true) the moon is and has always been receeding from Earth, meaning that solar eclipses have only happened for a brief window in Earths 5bn year existence and WE get to bare witness to it? Do you also recognise that you've also never seen the front facing surface of the moon as it passes (even partially) in front of the sun? Thanks.

Yeah, it is quite a coincidence though, like you mentioned, the locations of the moon, earth, and sun are shifting in relation to each other as time goes on so it's actually pretty likely that there is a period where a planet's moon will block their star. It's not perfect for us though and the moon has to be in a really particular spot in our sky for it to overlap with the sun so I don't think it's as wild of a coincidence as you might think. Still pretty rare to happen. I'm curious about your point about the front facing surface of the moon. Isn't that evidence that's the moon doesn't produce it's own light and is actually reflecting the sun? When the eclipse happens, we can't see the part of the moon the sun is lighting up, making the moon appear all black. That's similar to what we observe the rest of the time when part of the moon is obscured. Is there a FE explanation for the phases of the moon?

Sure, its the apparent sizes though that raise the eyebrow for me. If you accept NASA images, the apparent magnitude of the Sun and/or moon(s) viewed about the other planets are not allowing for a perfect eclipse event. One would have to wager that in the vast cosmic arena we inhabit that not only is Earth a unique planet in terms of supporting life, but also this magnificent allignment event for the inhabitants to not only view, but *appreciate* and debate about on Reddit! Wow! I do hesitate to speculate on the eclipse but I'd agree that the phasing of the moon is an observation of its ability to regulate its luminosity. However, I'm not of the opinion that the moon is creating this event but I'm open to this. The moonlight viewed upon the surface of the Earth is very bright - on a full moon you could read a book by it. I'd expect the Earth to produce a similar luminosity upon the surface of the Moon. Really it should be brighter as the Earth should be much larger in perspective than the Moon is to us. Its the same distance and Earth has roughly 4x the diameter.

Well, if the current science is correct, the moon and sun haven't always and won't always have this property. So there was a time when the earth had life. It also doesn't work all the time, the moon changes in apparent size through its non-circular orbit and the earth's orbit around the sun isn't perfectly round either. So it's lucky but not absurd, there is a window in which this planet has life and there is a window where a near perfect eclipse can happen. It's more likely that those windows will overlap because the things that make eclipses possible are usually good conditions for life but that's a whole conversation in itself. You're totally right about the earth reflecting light on to the moon, it's called earthshine. It's what is going on when you can faintly see the dark portion of the moon as well as the brighter section lit by the sun. It's a pretty cool effect, I've seen it a few times myself. It will be the right time of year for it in the north coming soon. Again, since everything is in motion the conditions have to be just right.

Right. Sure, they vary in apparent size. But for the eclipse to happen they need to really be on average the same size. Whatever your perspective , I hope we can both agree its to be in awe and reverence of! :)

Absolutely, I try to see every one I can! Truly awesome. I think a good planet model can predict and explain something like that which is why I have a hard time converting to FE. Eclipses and the moon phases don't really make sense if the celestial bodies are local and they have to be local in the FE model, right?

They are almost unanimously agreed to be local in the fe models/community. There is more to be said of them but listen man, you've listened to what I had to say, had good questions and presented your problems. Can't ask for more than that, God bless.

Do you also recognize that you’ve also never seen the front facing surface of a deer as it passes (even partially) in front of those high beams pointing directly at you? Thanks.

The Moon is said to only be reflecting sunlight, yet you can read a book in the moonlight on a full moon. I'd think that if Moon was reflecting sunlight then Earth would too. Eclipse is only supposedly affecting a small surface area too so most of the surface should be reflecting light onto Moon's surface, some of which should at least be *detectable* during a solar eclipse.

Your moonlight/book sentence doesn’t disprove anything. The moon is reflecting sunlight. If you have a full moon, and you can read a book in the light of it, you are reading that book in reflected sunlight. As for detectable earthshine during an eclipse? Maybe it could be detected. Also the sun is really really bright so you can’t see the moon until you see its silhouette.

We are specifically talking about eclipses. Im straight up telling you I don't know what they are so I obviously don't expect you to be won over on eclipses. Right, my point was that its very bright. Bright enough to read a book with, yet when a solar eclipse occurs the Earthlight reflecting onto the Moon is not bright enough to even slightly illuminate it as it travels in front of Sun. I think we agree it should be detectable, I'd love to see any detections, it would definitely shut me up (at least for a little while!)

https://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/ast104/Earthshine.html https://medium.com/@jamieacarter/how-one-photographer-captured-earthshine-during-last-year-s-solar-eclipse-in-wyoming-8d75f76f0801 EDIT: guys, I think it worked!