You're right about the sun. On the FE side, it's assumed that the sun is small and close, rather than enormous and far. With a close sun, the sun could 'set' exactly as you've seen it with the naked eye. The measurements on either side of the debate are assumptions, and aren't that interesting to me.
You mention objective observations - to me, objective observation related to the sun would cause me to conclude it behaves much more like a local heat-lamp rather than a star 100,000,000 miles away.
With Antarctica, all that either of us can say with certainty is that for some reason, we're not allowed to go there. We're perfectly free to visit the arctic, yet Antarctica is totally off-limits. I don't agree that there's any reasonable explanation for that. Token tourism via one umbrella company isn't enough.
That’s interesting you don’t find the measurements interesting. That’s exactly what I would want to find out. It’s similar to wondering how tall the tallest mountain is, or even just how high you climbed over a hike.
In any case, for the sun setting in a flat earth as I see it, I don’t really understand how it makes sense. I don’t exactly look at the sun, but it appears to stay the same size throughout the day, even seeming almost bigger at sunset. If we were experiencing that effect as you say where the distance between objects appears smaller at a greater distance, shouldn’t the sun also appear to grow smaller? Especially in a FE model.
Antarctica isn’t off limits. There are cruises that take you there, some get you to be close enough to the surrounding ice caps. There are several companies who offer this, not just one
You're missing a key point - the distance 'measurements' of the sun are assumptions. They aren't empirical. The entire Scientism religion is built upon 'evidence' like this. Heliocentrism and Catastrophic-Anthropogenic-climate-change are almost identical in this regard.
Science is NOT merely the combination of assumption and mathematics. Science has always been about experiments generating empirical evidence, drawing conclusions based upon the evidence which moves us closer and closer to an answer.
Heliocentrism is a mathematical religion. It is not based upon empirical findings. We can't measure the curve of the Earth. We can't observe curvature from high altitudes. We can't measure gravity on Earth. We can't measure any of the movements of the Earth. We can't measure the distance to the sun. We can't measure the rotation of the moon. This list goes on, and on.
Yet we've got this 'fancy' reverse-engineered math where some calculations line up with some observations. That's wonderful, but that's not science. Showing me that you can solve some trigonometric equation and it outputs the number you posit that it will proves exactly nothing empirically.
You should absolutely follow what you said earlier. Objective observation. There is no possible way, without your programming, that based upon your own objective observation that you would conclude the earth is a ball, spinning corkscrewing rocketing through space at millions of miles per hour in several directions at once. Nothing, absolutely nothing, suggests that.
here's more 'stuff' down at the horizon level than there is at higher viewing angles. That's due to perspective. You've seen large moons, small moons, large suns, small suns, and those never actually change distance
But then why don’t we see this same effect when other things move further away in the sky? Why do planes get smaller but the sun gets bigger, for instance? Why do trees and mountains look smaller at the horizon level but not the sun and moon?
I'm not asserting anything about that specific flight. I searched for the flight and it certainly isn't one being flown with much frequency, assuming covid is getting in the way here. I'd heard that an FE or two flew on these flights, and their compass disagreed massively with what the flight path was showing.
Frequency is irrelevant. This specific flight is flown occasionally, but there are other flights between Australia and South America that are of similar times and patterns. Additionally, Australia to Africa would have to be much longer than what they are.
You talk a lot about the round earth model again, and I have to again say that you’ve said plenty to disprove the round earth model. What my objective here now is to understand the flat earth model and how events are observed on a flat earth
But then why don’t we see this same effect when other things move further away in the sky? Why do planes get smaller but the sun gets bigger, for instance? Why do trees and mountains look smaller at the horizon level but not the sun and moon?
The sun is still ultimately much bigger than those objects, and is a light source. I think the general consensus from the FE community is that we're talking around a hundred miles for the diameter of the sun, but don't quote me on that. So in reality, you're still seeing a massive object in the sky.
Frequency is irrelevant. This specific flight is flown occasionally, but there are other flights between Australia and South America that are of similar times and patterns. Additionally, Australia to Africa would have to be much longer than what they are.
I mean this is true about frequency, but as I said, apparently there had been a couple of trips where a FE'er brought a compass onboard the flight, wrote down his readings throughout the duration and then laid them out, and they lined up with the path you were talking about across the flat earth map. I don't understand how that would be possible, just letting you know what I had heard on that topic.
I'd recommend looking into the electrostatic atmosphere, what colors the ionized gasses produce when they're electrified / charged by the sun. You'll find the colors explain why sunrise/sunsets can be as beautiful as they are.
It gets larger and smaller because it is moving from overhead (near you) to far away. We discussed this before. This is also what sets the sun, you can experiment and prove this yourself.
But my point is when the sun sets that is when it is furthest away, right? But with my own eyes I see it and it appears to be bigger. What is the explanation for this in the flat earth model? Why do I observe this happening?
The flight, honestly I have no idea. I've never looked into that specific flight. A flight doesn't 'debunk' a flat earth. A curve would.
My point is on a flat earth a flight from Australia to South America taking 15 hours is impossible. However, we can observe a flight taking only 15 hours to make this journey. That's an objective observation we can all make. This is something we experience.
So, how is this able to happen? We know the fuel capacity of a plane and we know how long it takes for planes to get from point A to point B at various speeds. We can also note that between south america and australia there are huge tracts of land, and yet on the flight passengers will only see ocean. How is this possible?
Well, you should. You believe in it, and the only reason you believe in it is because you were told to believe in it. The model is so monumentally stupid, it is a blessing to be on the other side of it.
I think there is plenty out there to disprove the round earth theory. Currently what I'm doing is trying to see the other side of it and confirm the flat earth theory, and learn why we can observe these things happen on a flat earth.
But my point is when the sun sets that is when it is furthest away, right? But with my own eyes I see it and it appears to be bigger. What is the explanation for this in the flat earth model? Why do I observe this happening?
The image is being distorted by the atmosphere and your eyeballs. The sun appears 'smaller' when there's less in the air. The colder the better, the clearer the better. A cold, clear day + unobstructed horizon + solid zoom camera will produce the results you're looking for.
My point is on a flat earth a flight from Australia to South America taking 15 hours is impossible. However, we can observe a flight taking only 15 hours to make this journey. That's an objective observation we can all make. This is something we experience.
So, how is this able to happen? We know the fuel capacity of a plane and we know how long it takes for planes to get from point A to point B at various speeds. We can also note that between south america and australia there are huge tracts of land, and yet on the flight passengers will only see ocean. How is this possible?
To keep it simple, the maps aren't representative of the Earth. We don't have a true picture of what the Earth looks like. These are all estimations at this point, and so all maps are different.
I think there is plenty out there to disprove the round earth theory. Currently what I'm doing is trying to see the other side of it and confirm the flat earth theory, and learn why we can observe these things happen on a flat earth.
Worth noting - there is no funding for Flat Earth research. This science is done by passionate people who refuse to be shamed into silence. Not to say there aren't qualified people doing this work. There are plenty of smart people within the movement.
That said, there is no Flat Earth model. Ideas are slowly piecing themselves together to form something coherent, but not everything is covered yet. We've discovered tons.
Do you know the best current explanation for what you'd call gravity? What MIT teaches? Electrostatic charge. The ground has a measurably negative charge. The sky has a gradient of positive charge. Your body has a positive charge. This establishes a directional 'down' force, and density + buoyancy take care of the rest. All of that is measurable, empirical.
Once you break free of the heliocentric conditioning, you see just how incredibly absurd it all is. It's mind-boggling. And look at the globe-responses through this thread. They're all insipid, vacuous garbage. Don't be fooled by mathematics. I'd keep looking into it, search for these channels on youtube: DITRH, Flat Earth Sun, Moon & Zodiac Clock app, Taboo Conspiracy, Eric Dubay. That'll get you started. Not everything they say is gospel, but it's a great start.
So, the thing with your Circle in a magazine is silly. Yes, if you had me a picture and ask me to measure the exact size of the circle I wouldn't be able to do it, because I'd need to go to the actual canvas itself. But the thing is that you CAN go to the canvas and measure it. Someone drew it, someone's been there, so someone knows.
Now, with the sun, maybe we don't know exactly how big it is, BUT the fact is it HAS to have a diameter. It HAS to have a size. And, logically, it SHOULD remain consistent, at least relatively.
To your earlier point that I did skip - the sun does get larger and smaller. Heliocentrists say that's all due to refraction.
Okay, so what's the explanation in the flat earth model? I don't give a shit about the round earth model because that's not what we're talking about.
As far as the flight, planes wouldn't work if the earth was a rotating ball - but I know nothing of that flight. Yes, there are plenty of irrational excuses as to why it's possible that planes could fly, but they don't follow the laws of physics. I'll believe in God on faith, I won't believe in science on faith.
So, in the flat earth model, the distance between South America and Australia is about as far of a distance as you can get. This would, theoretically, be by far the longest flight you could take. However, it only takes about 15 hours. How is it possible for a flight from the two farthest points to be that short?
So, the thing with your Circle in a magazine is silly. Yes, if you had me a picture and ask me to measure the exact size of the circle I wouldn't be able to do it, because I'd need to go to the actual canvas itself. But the thing is that you CAN go to the canvas and measure it. Someone drew it, someone's been there, so someone knows.
Now, with the sun, maybe we don't know exactly how big it is, BUT the fact is it HAS to have a diameter. It HAS to have a size. And, logically, it SHOULD remain consistent, at least relatively.
You're breaking through. Above is mostly correct. There's no 'maybe' involved, unless you know someone who travelled to the sun and back.
Okay, so what's the explanation in the flat earth model? I don't give a shit about the round earth model because that's not what we're talking about.
It gets larger and smaller because it is moving from overhead (near you) to far away. We discussed this before. This is also what sets the sun, you can experiment and prove this yourself.
So, in the flat earth model, the distance between South America and Australia is about as far of a distance as you can get. This would, theoretically, be by far the longest flight you could take. However, it only takes about 15 hours. How is it possible for a flight from the two farthest points to be that short?
The flight, honestly I have no idea. I've never looked into that specific flight. A flight doesn't 'debunk' a flat earth. A curve would.
I don't give a shit about the round earth model because that's not what we're talking about.
Well, you should. You believe in it, and the only reason you believe in it is because you were told to believe in it. The model is so monumentally stupid, it is a blessing to be on the other side of it.
Look into gravity. Without gravity, heliocentrism doesn't exist. Try and define gravity as something separate from Buoyancy and Density.
Prove the curvature. Use an earth-curve calculator, find an object that you're able to see from too far away. You'll need a camera with good zoom, or a telescope.
Explain how gas exists next to a vacuum, ignoring the second law of thermodynamics.
When researching this above, look into how man-made objects react to vacuums that we're capable of reproducing on earth. Then consider the supposed vacuum of space is exponentially stronger than this. Then consider satellites.
Present data aside, things have measurements. No matter what you want to say about current state of science as it is it doesn't change the fact that a foot is 12 inches. The sun must have a measurement in size, and I'm at a loss as to how big it would be to make the flat earth model work.
How do you figure we can't measure these things? is it impossible to measure force? I don't believe that to be true.
Based on my observation, there is nothing that can confirm that the earth is flat either. I wrote several reasons why in my last comment.
Another big one is a flight from the tip of south america to australia. If we are to assume the flat earth model to be true, then there is no way a flight could make that trip in one go. And yet it does, every single day. Objective observation means this cannot happen in a flat earth model, unless you've been able to find an explanation for that?
Hahaha, yes - things have measurements. A foot is twelve inches.
Let's briefly summarize why you and I agree that a foot is twelve inches. Humans created the unit called an inch. We decided on its specific size. This unit is the same worldwide. Every human can empirically test this measurement, and validate that 12 inches does indeed equal one foot.
Now I hand you an issue of Time magazine. They're celebrating how beautiful circles can be. One page shows a picture of a circle painted onto textureless white canvas. How big is the circle?
You can see it, right? You can measure it on the page of the magazine, right? Maybe put your thumb up to it, measure how many thumbs it is across, your thumb's distance to the page, etc. You can even write a formula about what you're seeing, and solve for X, right? That's all wonderful.
In reality, the only way we'll find out how big this specific circle is, is if we find the original painting and physically measure the circle on the canvas.
I'll say it once more - we cannot possibly measure the sun, in distance or diameter, without assumptions. This means we're taking a guess. Your guess is as good as mine. And if you factor in physics that involve empirical evidence, your guess isn't quite as good as mine, because the sun behaves like a heat lamp, planes wouldn't be able to operate on a rotating ball, we'd be able to measure the Earth's many simultaneous movements through space, we'd be able to measure the curve, gravity would be measurable, etc. Yet none of that is true. It is absolutely mindblowing when you dig, and you find out just how much of the Heliocentric model is founded on something measurable. Something empirical. Something repeatable. Absolutely none of it.
To your earlier point that I did skip - the sun does get larger and smaller. Heliocentrists say that's all due to refraction. Refraction and gravity magically solve nearly every problem in their model. It's like zoom->enhance in CSI Miami.
How do orbits work? Gravity.
Wouldn't the planets pull on each other as distances between them change, and knock orbiting all out-of-whack? No. Why? Because gravity.
How do we not feel the orbiting of the Earth as we change speeds around an ellipse? Gravity. But, we're accelerating and decelerating; couldn't we measure that? No. Why? Gravity.
How does water stick to a rotating ball? Gravity.
How does gas near space ignore the second law of thermodynamics? Gravity.
How do planes catch up to the spinning earth? Gravity.
Why can we see so far? Refraction. But... refraction wouldn't work like that. Yes it would. No, it wouldn't - prove it! We can't.
Why do we see rays of light coming in at different angles all over the world, if all rays are supposedly parallel? Refraction.
How does radar work from 100 miles away on a sphere? No explanation, but we'll assume it's a combination of refraction and gravity.
Why don't submarines see curvature on the bottom of the ocean, as they're able to scan for hundreds of miles? Same as above.
How does the Earth cause an eclipse on the moon, when both the moon and the sun are visible in the same sky? Refraction.
How do we see the same set of stars in the sky at night in January and June, if we're facing 180 degrees in the opposite direction? Distance, probably gravity, maybe a dash of refraction.
How do wireless point-to-point communication systems work on a sphere? Gravity + refraction. But that's not possible!
There's so much else. And yes, there are silly formulas to solve for that attempt to explain much of this. But saying 5 unicorns - 3 unicorns = 2 unicorns doesn't prove unicorns.
As far as the flight, planes wouldn't work if the earth was a rotating ball - but I know nothing of that flight. Yes, there are plenty of irrational excuses as to why it's possible that planes could fly, but they don't follow the laws of physics. I'll believe in God on faith, I won't believe in science on faith.
The image is being distorted by the atmosphere and your eyeballs. The sun appears 'smaller' when there's less in the air. The colder the better, the clearer the better. A cold, clear day + unobstructed horizon + solid zoom camera will produce the results you're looking for.
Not really making a ton of sense. How is the atmosphere distorting it? If the earth is a flat plane, and other objects appear smaller as they move further away, why is it that the sun appears larger? I also haven't seen differences on colder days vs warmer days. In both scenarios, a rising/setting sun appears larger at the horizon, and then when it goes below the horizon. How exaclty is it being distorted?
To keep it simple, the maps aren't representative of the Earth. We don't have a true picture of what the Earth looks like. These are all estimations at this point, and so all maps are different.
Well this is confusing to me. We at least have a general idea of where things are located. People fly, sail the coasts, and map terrain for a living. So, we still know relatively where things are located even if the maps aren't exactly the same. If you're going so far as to claim that maybe land masses and maps are inaccurate by a factor of hundreds of miles I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion.
This is the map I'm referencing. What about it, to you, seems so inaccurate that my flight question bears no further exploration?
Not really making a ton of sense. How is the atmosphere distorting it? If the earth is a flat plane, and other objects appear smaller as they move further away, why is it that the sun appears larger? I also haven't seen differences on colder days vs warmer days. In both scenarios, a rising/setting sun appears larger at the horizon, and then when it goes below the horizon. How exaclty is it being distorted?
I've touched on this before, long explanations are out there to search for - the gist is, there's more 'stuff' down at the horizon level than there is at higher viewing angles. That's due to perspective. You've seen large moons, small moons, large suns, small suns, and those never actually change distance in the helio model.
This is the map I'm referencing. What about it, to you, seems so inaccurate that my flight question bears no further exploration?
I'm not asserting anything about that specific flight. I searched for the flight and it certainly isn't one being flown with much frequency, assuming covid is getting in the way here. I'd heard that an FE or two flew on these flights, and their compass disagreed massively with what the flight path was showing. I have no proof either way.
The reason it's not really interesting to me is just the physics behind planes themselves. Plane radar. Planes wouldn't work on a spinning ball. Nor would their radar. Regardless of a sheep doing calculus on physics-stack-exchange, Earth, nor 'gravity', would cause the air to spin at the exact same speed at all altitudes along a perfect gradient as you go from the poles (0.25mph) to the equator (1100mph) on a spinning ball. The entire concept is something no one could ever reproduce empirically, and is ridiculous on its face. So whether or not a particular plane route happens isn't interesting - planes couldn't take off, land, or fly, if the earth was a spinning ball. To me, the fact that the flight takes place is simply a matter of our lack of understanding of the southern hemisphere. You should take a look at a 'flat map of the ball earth'. Look at where the equator is. Look at the land mass above the equator, and below it. 80% of livable 'Earth' is above the equator. Isn't that a bit odd in and of itself?
You're right about the sun. On the FE side, it's assumed that the sun is small and close, rather than enormous and far. With a close sun, the sun could 'set' exactly as you've seen it with the naked eye. The measurements on either side of the debate are assumptions, and aren't that interesting to me.
You mention objective observations - to me, objective observation related to the sun would cause me to conclude it behaves much more like a local heat-lamp rather than a star 100,000,000 miles away.
With Antarctica, all that either of us can say with certainty is that for some reason, we're not allowed to go there. We're perfectly free to visit the arctic, yet Antarctica is totally off-limits. I don't agree that there's any reasonable explanation for that. Token tourism via one umbrella company isn't enough.
That’s interesting you don’t find the measurements interesting. That’s exactly what I would want to find out. It’s similar to wondering how tall the tallest mountain is, or even just how high you climbed over a hike.
In any case, for the sun setting in a flat earth as I see it, I don’t really understand how it makes sense. I don’t exactly look at the sun, but it appears to stay the same size throughout the day, even seeming almost bigger at sunset. If we were experiencing that effect as you say where the distance between objects appears smaller at a greater distance, shouldn’t the sun also appear to grow smaller? Especially in a FE model.
Antarctica isn’t off limits. There are cruises that take you there, some get you to be close enough to the surrounding ice caps. There are several companies who offer this, not just one
You're missing a key point - the distance 'measurements' of the sun are assumptions. They aren't empirical. The entire Scientism religion is built upon 'evidence' like this. Heliocentrism and Catastrophic-Anthropogenic-climate-change are almost identical in this regard.
Science is NOT merely the combination of assumption and mathematics. Science has always been about experiments generating empirical evidence, drawing conclusions based upon the evidence which moves us closer and closer to an answer.
Heliocentrism is a mathematical religion. It is not based upon empirical findings. We can't measure the curve of the Earth. We can't observe curvature from high altitudes. We can't measure gravity on Earth. We can't measure any of the movements of the Earth. We can't measure the distance to the sun. We can't measure the rotation of the moon. This list goes on, and on.
Yet we've got this 'fancy' reverse-engineered math where some calculations line up with some observations. That's wonderful, but that's not science. Showing me that you can solve some trigonometric equation and it outputs the number you posit that it will proves exactly nothing empirically.
You should absolutely follow what you said earlier. Objective observation. There is no possible way, without your programming, that based upon your own objective observation that you would conclude the earth is a ball, spinning corkscrewing rocketing through space at millions of miles per hour in several directions at once. Nothing, absolutely nothing, suggests that.
But then why don’t we see this same effect when other things move further away in the sky? Why do planes get smaller but the sun gets bigger, for instance? Why do trees and mountains look smaller at the horizon level but not the sun and moon?
Frequency is irrelevant. This specific flight is flown occasionally, but there are other flights between Australia and South America that are of similar times and patterns. Additionally, Australia to Africa would have to be much longer than what they are.
You talk a lot about the round earth model again, and I have to again say that you’ve said plenty to disprove the round earth model. What my objective here now is to understand the flat earth model and how events are observed on a flat earth
The sun is still ultimately much bigger than those objects, and is a light source. I think the general consensus from the FE community is that we're talking around a hundred miles for the diameter of the sun, but don't quote me on that. So in reality, you're still seeing a massive object in the sky.
I mean this is true about frequency, but as I said, apparently there had been a couple of trips where a FE'er brought a compass onboard the flight, wrote down his readings throughout the duration and then laid them out, and they lined up with the path you were talking about across the flat earth map. I don't understand how that would be possible, just letting you know what I had heard on that topic.
I'd recommend looking into the electrostatic atmosphere, what colors the ionized gasses produce when they're electrified / charged by the sun. You'll find the colors explain why sunrise/sunsets can be as beautiful as they are.
But my point is when the sun sets that is when it is furthest away, right? But with my own eyes I see it and it appears to be bigger. What is the explanation for this in the flat earth model? Why do I observe this happening?
My point is on a flat earth a flight from Australia to South America taking 15 hours is impossible. However, we can observe a flight taking only 15 hours to make this journey. That's an objective observation we can all make. This is something we experience.
So, how is this able to happen? We know the fuel capacity of a plane and we know how long it takes for planes to get from point A to point B at various speeds. We can also note that between south america and australia there are huge tracts of land, and yet on the flight passengers will only see ocean. How is this possible?
I think there is plenty out there to disprove the round earth theory. Currently what I'm doing is trying to see the other side of it and confirm the flat earth theory, and learn why we can observe these things happen on a flat earth.
The image is being distorted by the atmosphere and your eyeballs. The sun appears 'smaller' when there's less in the air. The colder the better, the clearer the better. A cold, clear day + unobstructed horizon + solid zoom camera will produce the results you're looking for.
To keep it simple, the maps aren't representative of the Earth. We don't have a true picture of what the Earth looks like. These are all estimations at this point, and so all maps are different.
Worth noting - there is no funding for Flat Earth research. This science is done by passionate people who refuse to be shamed into silence. Not to say there aren't qualified people doing this work. There are plenty of smart people within the movement.
That said, there is no Flat Earth model. Ideas are slowly piecing themselves together to form something coherent, but not everything is covered yet. We've discovered tons.
Do you know the best current explanation for what you'd call gravity? What MIT teaches? Electrostatic charge. The ground has a measurably negative charge. The sky has a gradient of positive charge. Your body has a positive charge. This establishes a directional 'down' force, and density + buoyancy take care of the rest. All of that is measurable, empirical.
Once you break free of the heliocentric conditioning, you see just how incredibly absurd it all is. It's mind-boggling. And look at the globe-responses through this thread. They're all insipid, vacuous garbage. Don't be fooled by mathematics. I'd keep looking into it, search for these channels on youtube: DITRH, Flat Earth Sun, Moon & Zodiac Clock app, Taboo Conspiracy, Eric Dubay. That'll get you started. Not everything they say is gospel, but it's a great start.
So, the thing with your Circle in a magazine is silly. Yes, if you had me a picture and ask me to measure the exact size of the circle I wouldn't be able to do it, because I'd need to go to the actual canvas itself. But the thing is that you CAN go to the canvas and measure it. Someone drew it, someone's been there, so someone knows.
Now, with the sun, maybe we don't know exactly how big it is, BUT the fact is it HAS to have a diameter. It HAS to have a size. And, logically, it SHOULD remain consistent, at least relatively.
Okay, so what's the explanation in the flat earth model? I don't give a shit about the round earth model because that's not what we're talking about.
So, in the flat earth model, the distance between South America and Australia is about as far of a distance as you can get. This would, theoretically, be by far the longest flight you could take. However, it only takes about 15 hours. How is it possible for a flight from the two farthest points to be that short?
You're breaking through. Above is mostly correct. There's no 'maybe' involved, unless you know someone who travelled to the sun and back.
It gets larger and smaller because it is moving from overhead (near you) to far away. We discussed this before. This is also what sets the sun, you can experiment and prove this yourself.
The flight, honestly I have no idea. I've never looked into that specific flight. A flight doesn't 'debunk' a flat earth. A curve would.
Well, you should. You believe in it, and the only reason you believe in it is because you were told to believe in it. The model is so monumentally stupid, it is a blessing to be on the other side of it.
Look into gravity. Without gravity, heliocentrism doesn't exist. Try and define gravity as something separate from Buoyancy and Density.
Prove the curvature. Use an earth-curve calculator, find an object that you're able to see from too far away. You'll need a camera with good zoom, or a telescope.
Explain how gas exists next to a vacuum, ignoring the second law of thermodynamics.
When researching this above, look into how man-made objects react to vacuums that we're capable of reproducing on earth. Then consider the supposed vacuum of space is exponentially stronger than this. Then consider satellites.
There is so much, these are entertaining starts.
Present data aside, things have measurements. No matter what you want to say about current state of science as it is it doesn't change the fact that a foot is 12 inches. The sun must have a measurement in size, and I'm at a loss as to how big it would be to make the flat earth model work.
How do you figure we can't measure these things? is it impossible to measure force? I don't believe that to be true.
Based on my observation, there is nothing that can confirm that the earth is flat either. I wrote several reasons why in my last comment.
Another big one is a flight from the tip of south america to australia. If we are to assume the flat earth model to be true, then there is no way a flight could make that trip in one go. And yet it does, every single day. Objective observation means this cannot happen in a flat earth model, unless you've been able to find an explanation for that?
Hahaha, yes - things have measurements. A foot is twelve inches.
Let's briefly summarize why you and I agree that a foot is twelve inches. Humans created the unit called an inch. We decided on its specific size. This unit is the same worldwide. Every human can empirically test this measurement, and validate that 12 inches does indeed equal one foot.
Now I hand you an issue of Time magazine. They're celebrating how beautiful circles can be. One page shows a picture of a circle painted onto textureless white canvas. How big is the circle?
You can see it, right? You can measure it on the page of the magazine, right? Maybe put your thumb up to it, measure how many thumbs it is across, your thumb's distance to the page, etc. You can even write a formula about what you're seeing, and solve for X, right? That's all wonderful.
In reality, the only way we'll find out how big this specific circle is, is if we find the original painting and physically measure the circle on the canvas.
I'll say it once more - we cannot possibly measure the sun, in distance or diameter, without assumptions. This means we're taking a guess. Your guess is as good as mine. And if you factor in physics that involve empirical evidence, your guess isn't quite as good as mine, because the sun behaves like a heat lamp, planes wouldn't be able to operate on a rotating ball, we'd be able to measure the Earth's many simultaneous movements through space, we'd be able to measure the curve, gravity would be measurable, etc. Yet none of that is true. It is absolutely mindblowing when you dig, and you find out just how much of the Heliocentric model is founded on something measurable. Something empirical. Something repeatable. Absolutely none of it.
To your earlier point that I did skip - the sun does get larger and smaller. Heliocentrists say that's all due to refraction. Refraction and gravity magically solve nearly every problem in their model. It's like zoom->enhance in CSI Miami.
How do orbits work? Gravity. Wouldn't the planets pull on each other as distances between them change, and knock orbiting all out-of-whack? No. Why? Because gravity.
How do we not feel the orbiting of the Earth as we change speeds around an ellipse? Gravity. But, we're accelerating and decelerating; couldn't we measure that? No. Why? Gravity.
How does water stick to a rotating ball? Gravity.
How does gas near space ignore the second law of thermodynamics? Gravity.
How do planes catch up to the spinning earth? Gravity.
Why can we see so far? Refraction. But... refraction wouldn't work like that. Yes it would. No, it wouldn't - prove it! We can't.
Why do we see rays of light coming in at different angles all over the world, if all rays are supposedly parallel? Refraction.
How does radar work from 100 miles away on a sphere? No explanation, but we'll assume it's a combination of refraction and gravity.
Why don't submarines see curvature on the bottom of the ocean, as they're able to scan for hundreds of miles? Same as above.
How does the Earth cause an eclipse on the moon, when both the moon and the sun are visible in the same sky? Refraction.
How do we see the same set of stars in the sky at night in January and June, if we're facing 180 degrees in the opposite direction? Distance, probably gravity, maybe a dash of refraction.
How do wireless point-to-point communication systems work on a sphere? Gravity + refraction. But that's not possible!
There's so much else. And yes, there are silly formulas to solve for that attempt to explain much of this. But saying 5 unicorns - 3 unicorns = 2 unicorns doesn't prove unicorns.
As far as the flight, planes wouldn't work if the earth was a rotating ball - but I know nothing of that flight. Yes, there are plenty of irrational excuses as to why it's possible that planes could fly, but they don't follow the laws of physics. I'll believe in God on faith, I won't believe in science on faith.
Not really making a ton of sense. How is the atmosphere distorting it? If the earth is a flat plane, and other objects appear smaller as they move further away, why is it that the sun appears larger? I also haven't seen differences on colder days vs warmer days. In both scenarios, a rising/setting sun appears larger at the horizon, and then when it goes below the horizon. How exaclty is it being distorted?
Well this is confusing to me. We at least have a general idea of where things are located. People fly, sail the coasts, and map terrain for a living. So, we still know relatively where things are located even if the maps aren't exactly the same. If you're going so far as to claim that maybe land masses and maps are inaccurate by a factor of hundreds of miles I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion.
This is the map I'm referencing. What about it, to you, seems so inaccurate that my flight question bears no further exploration?
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uRpMCAmQo33CV4M2srWivf.jpg
I've touched on this before, long explanations are out there to search for - the gist is, there's more 'stuff' down at the horizon level than there is at higher viewing angles. That's due to perspective. You've seen large moons, small moons, large suns, small suns, and those never actually change distance in the helio model.
I'm not asserting anything about that specific flight. I searched for the flight and it certainly isn't one being flown with much frequency, assuming covid is getting in the way here. I'd heard that an FE or two flew on these flights, and their compass disagreed massively with what the flight path was showing. I have no proof either way.
The reason it's not really interesting to me is just the physics behind planes themselves. Plane radar. Planes wouldn't work on a spinning ball. Nor would their radar. Regardless of a sheep doing calculus on physics-stack-exchange, Earth, nor 'gravity', would cause the air to spin at the exact same speed at all altitudes along a perfect gradient as you go from the poles (0.25mph) to the equator (1100mph) on a spinning ball. The entire concept is something no one could ever reproduce empirically, and is ridiculous on its face. So whether or not a particular plane route happens isn't interesting - planes couldn't take off, land, or fly, if the earth was a spinning ball. To me, the fact that the flight takes place is simply a matter of our lack of understanding of the southern hemisphere. You should take a look at a 'flat map of the ball earth'. Look at where the equator is. Look at the land mass above the equator, and below it. 80% of livable 'Earth' is above the equator. Isn't that a bit odd in and of itself?