The sun is so much astronomically larger than the earth that the distance you travel as the earth rotates is totally irrelevant. It'd be like looking at the empire state building from the perspective of an ant from 10 feet away, and then 10 feet and one quarter inch. You'd never be able to see a difference in size there from the naked eye. Even the scale of the moon is large enough that you wouldn't see a difference (or rather, the distance between the earth and moon).
Also, if you trust Q, Q post 2622 clearly dictates that the earth is not flat.
I could point you to dozens if not hundreds of engineering designs that functionally rely on and compensate for the Earth's roundness.
There are also experiments you personally can do if you so desire to prove the earth round.
This one, for example, was used by the Greeks to estimate the size of the Earth remarkably accurately.
It does require some mathematical work (geometry) but it's all about what shadows are cast at what lengths and directions at any one given point.
That said what you said about focusing on being a good person is far more important than knowing the nature of the Earth unless you work in a field (like engineering) that may require appropriate design knowledge.
The sun is so much astronomically larger than the earth that the distance you travel as the earth rotates is totally irrelevant. It'd be like looking at the empire state building from the perspective of an ant from 10 feet away, and then 10 feet and one quarter inch. You'd never be able to see a difference in size there from the naked eye. Even the scale of the moon is large enough that you wouldn't see a difference (or rather, the distance between the earth and moon).
I am aware of what the heliocentric model states.
Also, if you trust Q, Q post 2622 clearly dictates that the earth is not flat.
Q is rather self aware. If Q were to say that the earth is flat, no one would believe anything else that was said.
I could point you to dozens if not hundreds of engineering designs that functionally rely on and compensate for the Earth's roundness.
Go ahead.
It does require some mathematical work (geometry) but it's all about what shadows are cast at what lengths and directions at any one given point.
Yes, I've heard about that experiment. The calculations depend on the assumption that the earth is round, and then backtrack from there that since this math works out that must mean the sun is this far away and so on and so fourth with more math. It's basically a house built on sand phenomena. It relies on a false premise and then tries to force math to work so its true.
That is not exactly correct. What is done is one is measuring the shadows of each stick and their angles. If the earth were totally flat, these should be indicative of that; either they'd be the same lengths and angles or they'd be indicative of a "point" of light at a certain distance; the shadows would match (think a dark warehouse with a single hanging bulb with two sticks, and the shadows that would cast).
Those shadows are not cast by the sticks; the ones that are are indicative of some angle between the flat surface in each area. This means that the earth has some degree of curve (or angular shape, but I've not seen anyone argue that there are seams where different flats merge). From there it's a question of "is the earth a sort of flattish bowl, or a full blown spheroid?". From there, you calculate the differences in surface angle alongside the distance. that tells you the rate of curve. That rate allows you to calculate the size of a sphere from that; whether or not the earth IS that full sphere is then the point of question. If the sphere is hugely larger than the apparent surface area of the earth, that would tell you that "saucer earth" is true. You'll find that the area of the sphere would be pretty close to matching the supposed area of the earth.
There is no house of sand here. It's just geometry.
Other engineering designs:
Long range gunnery tables account for spherical earth. What looks to be a good analysis of that here
The entirety of the GPS system relies on round earth.
Maps and coordinate systems. Most maps and their respective coordinate systems are overlaid in such a way to account for the distortion from the creation of a two dimensional projection of a three-dimensional object. If these maps were inaccurate, ships, planes, trucks, and damn near anything else traveling significant distances would be unable to reach their destinations accurately. You can read more about the details of these projections here and here
Railways are made to minimize travel distance. Their routes would be different if the earth were flat. There are documents that can be found from early to present describing this. More info can again be found here: https://flatearth.ws/c/construction
Suspension bridges: The tops of the "towers" of some of the longest suspension bridges are a tiny bit farther apart (than the bottoms) to account for the difference. If the earth were flat or anything but round there, the difference would be a construction weakness and potentially ruin the bridge. Blueprints for these bridges will show this and likely show the reasoning behind it.
I could do more but until you can explain these thoroughly it'd be a waste of my time.
"Q is rather self aware. If Q were to say that the earth is flat, no one would believe anything else that was said."
So you're suggesting Q tells people what they want to hear rather than the truth? Do you understand what kind of implications that would have on everything said by Q?
From there, you calculate the differences in surface angle alongside the distance. that tells you the rate of curve.
I've never actually heard that they calculated the rates and all of the angles for, say, an entire day at both sticks.
Long range gunnery tables
Ah, seems like theres an official military source in there, thanks.
The entirety of the GPS system relies on round earth.
I've heard that could just be high altitude balloons.
Maps and coordinate systems. Most maps and their respective coordinate systems are overlaid in such a way to account for the distortion from the creation of a two dimensional projection of a three-dimensional object. If these maps were inaccurate, ships, planes, trucks, and damn near anything else traveling significant distances would be unable to reach their destinations accurately. You can read more about the details of these projections here and here
in the first link
The so-called ‘flat-Earth map’ is claimed to be distortion-free, and some flat-Earthers take that as proof of its correctness. In reality, a map can only be distortion-free if the actual shape it represents is also flat. But this is not the case as the Earth is a sphere.
lol, flat earth map is wrong because the earth is a sphere. I love that website sometimes.
Supposedly sailors used to crash and shit all the time because their maps were off and they couldn't understand why. I'd provide a link but It'd be to a like 6 hour Eric Dubay doc because I can't remember what part of it it was in.
Railways are made to minimize travel distance. Their routes would be different if the earth were flat. There are documents that can be found from early to present describing this. More info can again be found here:
Suspension bridges: The tops of the "towers" of some of the longest suspension bridges are a tiny bit farther apart (than the bottoms) to account for the difference. If the earth were flat or anything but round there, the difference would be a construction weakness and potentially ruin the bridge. Blueprints for these bridges will show this and likely show the reasoning behind it.
I love the one bridge that had 1 5/8 inches of compensation for earths curvature in it, as if a tolerance like that can be, or would even want to be held over such a long distance. Bridges like this are supposed to move a little like steel skyscrapers are made to sway.
So you're suggesting Q tells people what they want to hear rather than the truth? Do you understand what kind of implications that would have on everything said by Q?
Optics are important, yes.
Also I don't think you ever addressed the fact that I can clearly see, in it entirety and in a clear, non distorted image, something 25 miles away. I'm not really that hardcore of a flat earther even but I know the arguments on both sides.
Can do all sorts of experiments with the sticks. Hell, if you can't find someone else that's done it, it's not too hard of an experiment if you're careful. Maybe you could be the first!
GPS and other satellite systems are far too dynamic to be balloons. Signals drop in and out, some are stationary (geostationary orbit), some are high speed movement. Many of these systems rely on triangulation; that is to say measuring distances (likely often by measuring transmission delay) and using some fairly straightforward geometry to determine position on the ground. If you were to dig around enough and find the programs or some data from one of those calculations, you could see that the distances reported are properly aligned with round earth.
And that's without considering the satellites you can observe moving at high speeds in the night sky; too high of speeds for balloons.
That part of the map you've picked out is rightfully a pretty circular sentiment, but my original point of the differences in projections and so on stands regardless of that.
I'd need more context on the sailor thing. What time in history? Any time before satellite mapping will have some pretty big inaccuracies just because ground mapping is not easy and navigation wouldn't be as high accuracy or quality either [as in, getting "coordinate" positions or the likes].
The bridge compensation is still a pretty significant amount in engineering and construction. Just because it has the capacity to flex doesn't mean that the position when it comes to "true" isn't important. Hell, if that compensation weren't needed and the earth were flat, the natural resting position should be flexed towards equal distance at top and bottom, but it isn't.
For the final point, you'll need to provide more direct context. where can an image be seen, at what distance, of what. There are a lot of factors that come into play with stuff like that, just saying an ethereal "people can see an image 25 miles away without distortion and clear" isn't exactly a scientific argument. If it were, so would "Humans can see their toe when their foot is behind their head"; it's an unapproachable statement that can't be scientifically explained when left so detail-less and nebulous.
The sun is so much astronomically larger than the earth that the distance you travel as the earth rotates is totally irrelevant. It'd be like looking at the empire state building from the perspective of an ant from 10 feet away, and then 10 feet and one quarter inch. You'd never be able to see a difference in size there from the naked eye. Even the scale of the moon is large enough that you wouldn't see a difference (or rather, the distance between the earth and moon).
Also, if you trust Q, Q post 2622 clearly dictates that the earth is not flat.
I could point you to dozens if not hundreds of engineering designs that functionally rely on and compensate for the Earth's roundness.
There are also experiments you personally can do if you so desire to prove the earth round.
This one, for example, was used by the Greeks to estimate the size of the Earth remarkably accurately.
It does require some mathematical work (geometry) but it's all about what shadows are cast at what lengths and directions at any one given point.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5122095/The-experiment-ancient-Greeks-used-Earth-round.html
That said what you said about focusing on being a good person is far more important than knowing the nature of the Earth unless you work in a field (like engineering) that may require appropriate design knowledge.
I am aware of what the heliocentric model states.
Q is rather self aware. If Q were to say that the earth is flat, no one would believe anything else that was said.
Go ahead.
Yes, I've heard about that experiment. The calculations depend on the assumption that the earth is round, and then backtrack from there that since this math works out that must mean the sun is this far away and so on and so fourth with more math. It's basically a house built on sand phenomena. It relies on a false premise and then tries to force math to work so its true.
Last to first:
That is not exactly correct. What is done is one is measuring the shadows of each stick and their angles. If the earth were totally flat, these should be indicative of that; either they'd be the same lengths and angles or they'd be indicative of a "point" of light at a certain distance; the shadows would match (think a dark warehouse with a single hanging bulb with two sticks, and the shadows that would cast).
Those shadows are not cast by the sticks; the ones that are are indicative of some angle between the flat surface in each area. This means that the earth has some degree of curve (or angular shape, but I've not seen anyone argue that there are seams where different flats merge). From there it's a question of "is the earth a sort of flattish bowl, or a full blown spheroid?". From there, you calculate the differences in surface angle alongside the distance. that tells you the rate of curve. That rate allows you to calculate the size of a sphere from that; whether or not the earth IS that full sphere is then the point of question. If the sphere is hugely larger than the apparent surface area of the earth, that would tell you that "saucer earth" is true. You'll find that the area of the sphere would be pretty close to matching the supposed area of the earth.
There is no house of sand here. It's just geometry.
Other engineering designs:
I could do more but until you can explain these thoroughly it'd be a waste of my time.
I've never actually heard that they calculated the rates and all of the angles for, say, an entire day at both sticks.
Ah, seems like theres an official military source in there, thanks.
I've heard that could just be high altitude balloons.
in the first link
lol, flat earth map is wrong because the earth is a sphere. I love that website sometimes.
Supposedly sailors used to crash and shit all the time because their maps were off and they couldn't understand why. I'd provide a link but It'd be to a like 6 hour Eric Dubay doc because I can't remember what part of it it was in.
I love the one bridge that had 1 5/8 inches of compensation for earths curvature in it, as if a tolerance like that can be, or would even want to be held over such a long distance. Bridges like this are supposed to move a little like steel skyscrapers are made to sway.
Optics are important, yes.
Also I don't think you ever addressed the fact that I can clearly see, in it entirety and in a clear, non distorted image, something 25 miles away. I'm not really that hardcore of a flat earther even but I know the arguments on both sides.
Can do all sorts of experiments with the sticks. Hell, if you can't find someone else that's done it, it's not too hard of an experiment if you're careful. Maybe you could be the first!
Source wise it traces back to this document: https://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/OP-770-1.html which admittedly could be faked, but I don't know if you could really get that much in a way of a direct military source for range tables for antique weapons systems.
GPS and other satellite systems are far too dynamic to be balloons. Signals drop in and out, some are stationary (geostationary orbit), some are high speed movement. Many of these systems rely on triangulation; that is to say measuring distances (likely often by measuring transmission delay) and using some fairly straightforward geometry to determine position on the ground. If you were to dig around enough and find the programs or some data from one of those calculations, you could see that the distances reported are properly aligned with round earth.
And that's without considering the satellites you can observe moving at high speeds in the night sky; too high of speeds for balloons.
That part of the map you've picked out is rightfully a pretty circular sentiment, but my original point of the differences in projections and so on stands regardless of that.
I'd need more context on the sailor thing. What time in history? Any time before satellite mapping will have some pretty big inaccuracies just because ground mapping is not easy and navigation wouldn't be as high accuracy or quality either [as in, getting "coordinate" positions or the likes].
The bridge compensation is still a pretty significant amount in engineering and construction. Just because it has the capacity to flex doesn't mean that the position when it comes to "true" isn't important. Hell, if that compensation weren't needed and the earth were flat, the natural resting position should be flexed towards equal distance at top and bottom, but it isn't.
For the final point, you'll need to provide more direct context. where can an image be seen, at what distance, of what. There are a lot of factors that come into play with stuff like that, just saying an ethereal "people can see an image 25 miles away without distortion and clear" isn't exactly a scientific argument. If it were, so would "Humans can see their toe when their foot is behind their head"; it's an unapproachable statement that can't be scientifically explained when left so detail-less and nebulous.