Does Scientific Evidence Prove a Flat Earth?
Second Round-First argument
Third Round-Rebuttal and second argument
4th Round-Rebuttal, third argument and conclusion
All statistical claims need to be backed up with a source.
Good grammar and punctuation required.
If any of us break the above rules, voters, vote for the other person.
Here is the question again in more detail:
"Does current scientific evidence prove that the Earth is flat and not round(i.e. a sphere or any other round shape).
My First Proof
This is arguably the most simple way of proving that the Earth is round. I would like to see you try to counter this argument. A person standing at a high altitude can see farther than a person at sea level. If you wish to test this, go to the nearest skyscraper or hill. When wishing to see for long distances people have for thousands of years climbing to high altitudes in order to be able to see far. How does this prove a Round Earth? If the Earth is curved, someone looking straight forwards would eventually have the earth blocking their view (just search "round earth horizon" on google images). Also, ships or planes that fly too far away from the view eventually disappears under the horizon, that is, it is blocked by the curved earth.
My Second Proof
As of yet no Flat Earther has managed to explain how a Lunar Eclipse happens. According to science it is caused by the shadow of the earth on the moon. If this is true, than the Earth orbits around the sun and is a sphere. There is also the lunar phases. As the moon is seen to be covered with an oval shadow during each of the lunar phases the earth must be orbiting around the sun and round as well.
My Third Proof
If you were to observe the stellar constellations on the Northern Hemisphere and on the Southern Hemisphere you would find that they are different, as some constellations are blocked by the curvature of the Earth. After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that "there are stars seen in Egypt and ["] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2-10)
These are my first three, simple, easily provable arguments. Next I shall display my next three proofs and debunk my opponent's argument.
Tens of proofs, I have hundreds of proofs to the contrary. Anyway I will discuss those mentioned by con, and provide a few of these for rebuttal.
"Proof" one (high altitude visibility)
The fact that you can see farther from higher altitudes has nothing to do with any curve on the water (which we know through scientific experimentation is impossible as the natural physics of water is to find the lowest, and most level point) or land. It actually has to do with2 different aspects of perspective: atmospheric perspective, and the Law of Perspective. As we can barely make out the last mountain in the photo above, it isn't because it is over any curve. Atmospheric perspective is just dense, more thick air, smog, fog, heat, dust, dew, exhaust, anything that hovers close to the flat earth that will eventually, at a distance, block light from coming through all together. As it is thicker at lower altitudes, an object going away from you will appear to disappear from the bottom up, until it hits the vanishing point. A telescope (1)will bring it back into view, provided it can see through the dense atmosphere, which gets thicker with distance. Of couse, if you were at a higher altitude, you would be looking through a smaller portion of atmosphere, so you could see farther. It is for this reason (aside from swells) that we can't see across oceans. A plane follows the LAW of Perspective on a vertical axis just as telephone poles do. It does not lose altitude as it might appear, as anyone with any knowledge of planes(wonder why they call them planes?) and autopilot can tell you, this function sets the planes perfectly level with the horizon for hundreds, if not thousands of miles. This cannot hold true if it were traveling over a ball. Pilots would have to adjust their altitudes every few miles or fly nose down constantly as to not fly straight into space! That ended up being a proof for pro!
"Proof " 2 a) lunar eclipses b) lunar phases
The flat earth may not have come up with an explanation as a whole (some theorize a 3rd invisible object in the sky which could be where this idea originated from, and civilians have no access to whatever can see the light it gives off as many claims of these bodies exist in the official universe , while others claim it to be a projection, or hologram, which I will get to in part b), but we know through scientific observation that no solid objects can produce a red shadow(3). Also, accounts of lunar eclipses have shown both the sun and moon appearing on the horizon, this is impossible if the earth is directly in between the sun and the. moon(4). With these two observations, it can be logically deduced that the earth does not block the light of the sun on the moon.
This one is a little harder to explain, (and believe, but you have to believe your own eyes on a situation like this) and I gotta admit, it is one thing I myself am still wondering, but, we know some things don't match up with the official story like, it does not spin like all the other celestial bodies in the universe as they claim, we've never seen the other side of it! And the faces wouldn't match up if the sun were not standing still. it's kind of hard to explain, I hope this video helps you understand(2). Recently, many people have recorded what appears to be a refresh line slowly going up the moon, which if you have ever seen a security camera pointed at another screen, you will see a slowly ascending, or descending (depending on if you were in the southern or northern hemisphere) line. This has not been observed anywhere else in nature. If you put two and two together you can safely assume that the moon is not what we are told it is, and we may never fully understand it. Why do you think they have not commercialized flights to the moon by now? When they go back to the moon(5)(lol, if you believe that)(6), we as taxpayers, should demand a live(delayed) camera aimed at earth, available to all taxpayers. Surely you have figured out that the lunar landings we're all a hoax. But that is another debate all together.
Proof 3 stars.
‘But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars!
This is an exhert from 1984 by George Orwell. In the flat earth model, (i might add the Bible, and the great Nicholas tesla (7) back this up as well) the stars are much closer to the earth, and rotate around it. If this is actually the case, they would follow the two aspects of perspective. It is and they do, only they are much further up than any plane, so they can be seen from farther away.(8)
3 down, 3 to go.
1. If the earth were spinning at 1,000 mph, air travel would be a lot different, helicopters or balloons would only have to fly a bit north or south, wait for their destination to come around to them, provided they could hit a 1,000 mph moving target. The reason we're given is because the atmosphere spins with the earth due to friction, but at what height does this magical event stop?
2. Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”
3. The Go Fast rocket video(9), although shot through a fish eye lens, which bends any line not centered, proves the earth is flat. At the apex of it launch, after it(hits the dome?) stops abrubtly, we see a very faraway, yet familiar face! The date and time is in the description, but this would be impossible on a globe. The launch was done from Nevada's desert, but the moon should be slightly over Australia! (10)Which is on the opposite side of it.
4. I'll claim the plane thing explained in 1 as proof 4
Many of your sources are slight dubious, by the way.
You claim that the atmosphere becomes less dense as you move upwards. However, the world's highest skyscrapers are about 800 metres high. There is only a minimal change in the atmosphere between those two altitudes yet you can see much farther while you are on those skyscrapers. The atmospheric change would only have a tiny effect on the distance you can see. Also, when looking down at the ground from high up your angle of sight is the hypotenuse (if your angle of sight, altitude and distance from the point you are looking at are drawn) and you would have to look through MORE atmosphere. Therefore this is not a rebut, but a proof of my point.
You claim that the autopilot on a plane always points at the horizon and never gains altitude, but this is not true. The system upon which autopilot works uses gravity to determine where the horizon is. The plane does not need to move at all to counter the curvature of the earth, thanks to gravity. Assume that the Earth is a ball and a small model plane is connected to the ball by a robe (representing gravity). If you were to spin the ball (the equivalent of the plane flying) the centripetal force ensures the plane is flying in the right direction. Therefore this is not a rebut.
Your source 3 just gives me "404 not found." Nice try.
I'd like to see your accounts of lunar eclipses both showing the sun and the moon, and I'm not sure that your "3rd invisible object" has any scientific proof that could possibly back it up. There exists no proof that any of your theories explain lunar eclipses. You say that the moon doesn't actually spin because we never see the dark side. However, the fact that we do not see the back of the moon actually proves my point. Scientists (www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html) have shown that the Moon has "synchronous rotation", which means that as it rotates around the earth, it rotates so that it is continually facing the earth and we cannot see its back side. We have not commercialised flights to the moon because it is simply too expensive. There is no proof of your "refresh line".
I don't understand your rebuttal of my third argument, please explain it more clearly. You seem to be proving my point by saying that in your flat earth model the stars should be visible from everywhere when I showed in my last argument that it clearly isn't. Your source 8 uses a very low definition camera, very much unlike the extremely powerful telescopes used by both governments and private companies around the globe. Those smudges of pixels could easily be spheres. This is not a rebuttal.
Not only does the atmosphere spin with the earth, the balloons and helicopters spin with the earth as well. No matter how high you go you still retain the speed. This is why rockets today aim to orbit eastwards because they have their eastwards velocity from the very beginning. Your argument is invalid.
Railroads do curve. In fact, they bend quite easily. This is exploited when engineers want rails to curve right or left. Simple mathematics shows that in order to compensate for the curvature of the earth a 1440 inch rail piece needs to curve around half an inch. This is tiny and gravity should be able to curve the rail accordingly. However, the rail piece would seem straight because the orientation of our brain (and thus our perception of objects) is based on gravity, and gravity is constant from the centre of the earth. uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090117165813AA0SxcY has some answers from rail workers.
Your source 10 actually shows that the moon was over the South Pacific, making it easily visible from Nevada (probably where it was launched). The other side of the Earth from Nevada is actually quite near Madagascar (www.freemaptools.com/tunnel-to-other-side-of-the-earth.htm). Therefore, the Moon should have been visible.
I have already debunked this proof.
Okay, I have rebutted your rebuttals and rebutted your arguments, time to show my other proofs.
1. NASA and other space agencies.
Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent by NASA alone, not including the European space agencies and the Russia space agency. While government-owned space agencies may be part of conspiracy (if there was some sort of conspiracy, NASA would certainly spend much less money) private space agencies that are not controlled by the government go to space and orbit the earth, disproving a flat earth. If the moon landings really were faked, it is almost certain that it should have been revealed to the earth by someone who leaked information to the press. Tens of thousands were in involved in the moon landings and more would have to be told the secret every day (i.e. new NASA scientists). Therefore such a conspiracy would not be sustainable and evidence given us by NASA and other Space agencies is reliable proof.
2. Shadows and sticks
If you were to at the same time place two sticks a hundred miles or so apart they would create a different shadow. This is because of the curvature of the earth. Eratosthenes the Greek scientist used this method to calculate the circumference of a round earth.
3. Other planets
500 or so years ago (before any round earth conspiracy) Galileo, the great Astronomer saw Jupiter through a telescope. It was round, spun like the earth (we know this because in some pictures of Jupiter the Red Spot is visible, in others it is not visible) and had moons that orbited around it. If every other planet in our solar system is round and a sphere then it is extremely probable that the earth, formed in the same way as the other planets, is round as well.
Regardless of how you feel about my sources, the information is still relevant, and true, as the nature of this topic is controversial, you don't expect me to use mainstream, or government media to disprove government or mainstream accounts do you? Just because its independent research does not mean it is false or dubious. On the contrary, it is I who should be questioning your sources, because I can prove them repeated lies.
s://mrmilitantnegro.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />
Vision at altitude
Con admits that the atmosphere is less dense at higher altitudes, but then claimed that you would be looking through more atmosphere if you are higher up. This is a contradictory statement. However slight the reduction of atmosphere, it's still a reduction, which adds up over distance. If you were viewing something from a higher altitude you would be looking through less atmosphere, (the atmosphere below you and directly in front of you at lower altitude) therefore you can see further, again you would not be looking over any curve or the object you were looking at would be leaning away from you. Even standing on a level plane you can still see farther, simply because you can see more of it.Therefore this is no proof that the earth is a globe.
I never said planes don't gain altitude, I stated they never have to fly slightly nose down. At cruising speed, they fly level . After a little more research, it turns out that autopilot uses air pressure to maintain altitude, which in fact supports my side, because pilots know they are not flying nose down. A pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected. The airplane swung from the rope experiences centripetal force, therefore anything inside would have a feeling of getting pulled into the top of the plane. Neither airplanes, nor their pilots experience this force.
My missing link was nothing but a blood moon eclipse, which are not actually a shadow, but a red filter.The accounts im talking about are called selenelions, where both the sun and moon are visible above the horizon. Not possible if we were between them. Again the 3rd object in the sky can't be proved yet, but I did say it was only a theory and that lunar eclipses cannot be a result of the earth blocking the sun's light on the moon. As far as the lunar waves, there is simply no other explanation for this other than it being some sort of hologram or projection (possibly onto the firmament). The line appears to be refreshing the moon's position in the sky. Maybe they hide the real moon, or maybe it's just a light in the sky. If you didn't go to school, and somebody told you there was a giant rock in the sky, you'd think they were mad. Again there are several theories, but we can logically deduce from observing selenenoids, blood moons, and lunar waves that tha moon is not what were told, and the earth does not block the suns light from the moon. I'd go do far as to say that anything you see in the sky should have no bearing with anthing under our feet in any way, for a lack of better words.
“They want you to believe that the Moon’s rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that’s why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious – that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon’s speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don’t think there is one person in many, many thousands – regardless of education – who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon’s observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses.” -Marshall Hall
They could've just admitted it doesn't spin.
Plainly put, since I was misunderstood, the stars are not Brazilians of light years away, they are in the firmament about 100-200 I'm away, so, just like the sun, moon, and eveything else, they follow laws of perspective, which is why you can't see them from across the plane.I will ask you this, if the earth is spinning, orbiting around the sun, and the sun is orbiting around the center of the galaxy, which is orbiting the center of the universe at some speed that is preposterous to say the least, why don't the constellations change? Not even a little bit, we should see a whole new set of stars if the earth were on a different side of the solar system every six months. Also as we approach each side, the stars should appear to move closer together or farther away from each other depending on where they and we are in the universe. They don't, it's flat and there's a dome.
Polaris is shown to not move at all by taking a slow exposure photograph of it shown here.
Con stated that since no matter how high you go they still retain the speed. So you are saying that everything revolves with and around the earth? So that, when the astronots left the atmosphere on their way to the moon they were never free of this atmospheric frictional pull and did not fly independently of its rotation?
" Not only does the atmosphere spin with the earth, the balloons and helicopters spin with the earth as well. No matter how high you go you still retain the speed"
Con's rebuttal is a false one. Never in the history of science, has gravity bent a piece of iron rail. Canals were dropped by con.
The moon was only spotted at the rockets peak, it would have been setting, and would have been much closer to the horizon.
Firstly, Earth is a “plane” not a “planet,” so the shape of these “planets” in the sky have no bearing on the shape of the Earth beneath our feet. Secondly, these “planets” have been known for thousands of years around the world as the “wandering stars” since they differ from the other fixed stars in their relative motions only. When looked at with an unprejudiced naked-eye or through a telescope, the fixed and wandering stars appear as luminous discs of light, NOT spherical terra firma. The pictures and videos shown by NASA of spherical terra firma planets are all clearly fake computer-generated images, and NOT photographs.
Modern astronomy claims that planets revolve around the Sun and Moon revolve around planets in an elliptical orbit. Which means they get closer to the source of gravitational pull and further away from it later in their orbit. This is said to be the reason for the seasons changing. Newtons laws require that this orbit remain constant or the gravitational pull will increase as a result. What opposing force is pulling the planets away from the source of original gravitational pull, which is getting stronger. This pull should continue to get stronger, not the reverse, eventually sending the object on a collision course.
The usgs uses the flat earth map for a lot of purposes. This is because it is the only accurate map in existence. In this Wikipedia article you can scroll down the various types of map till you come to the Flat Earth Map if you scroll all the way to the right you will see that it is used by the USGS which if you click on the link is the official map making organization of the world. It is also used by the U.N. as it's symbol and flag.
The van allen belts prove we never went to the moon, and nasa is not a reliable source.
Rebut Rebut Rebut Rebut 1
Perhaps I should have worded it better. I meant that when you were at a high altitude you at first had to look through some less dense air but because you are on the hypotenuse of the triangle you have to look through more atmospheric mass. The less dense air only causes changes for a small portion of your line of sight (before your line of sight reaches into the dense air that other people see). I have not many scientific sources on the subject, but as Pythagoras' theorem states that A squared plus B squared equals C squared, the atmospheric density would create a small, if any, change as it is the hypotenuse of the triangle instead of the straight line. You also cannot rebut the fact that ships disappear under the horizon instead of simply fading away.
Yes, planes do not fly nose down. However, the curve of the earth in relation to the length and speed of an airplane is very small. If the plane starts to gain altitude, plane autopilot would make extremely slight changes to the direction in which the plane flies. The fact that the curve is small in relation to the size and speed of the plane is another reason why people inside planes are not thrown to the top due to the centrifugal force, but it is enough to keep the plane pointed in the right direction. The airplane would not be going as fast as the model swung by the rope because gravity exerts significantly less force than the rope.
Rebut Rebut Rebut Rebut 2
There is an extremely simple explanation to why the moon turns red during a lunar eclipse. While the moon is directly in the umbra (direct shadow of the earth) light from the sun that hits the earth's atmosphere (on the sides of the earth) bends and scatters, turning into red light while hitting the moon, thus turning it red (www.dailymail.co.uk/video/sciencetech/video-1125724/NASA-explain-Blood-Moons-caused.html). The fact that the moon turns red is actually a proof that the earth is round.
Rebut Rebut Rebut Rebut 3
The Astronomer Dr. Sten Odenwald said on his site (/www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/qanda.html) "Because the Moon may already have solidified into a football-shaped non-spherical body, there is a portion of the Moon that is always slightly closer to the Earth than other portions of the Moon. This becomes a 'handle' that the gravitational field of the Earth can 'grab onto' to apply a slightly greater force upon the Moon that at other times during the lunar orbit around the Earth. For the Moon, and the larger satellites of the other planets, a similar deformity leads to a 1:1 resonance so that the same side of the satellite always faces the planet."
Rebut Rebut Rebut Rebut 4
Indeed, they do change over a long time period (i.e. when the sun moves around the galaxy etc.). news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/changing-constellations-50000-years.htm shows that constellations will be radically different in 50,000 years. We do not go very far around the galaxy in only 6 months. It takes over 200 million years to orbit the galaxy(simply google the question). Your six months would have no effect on the position of the stars. hubpages.com/education/How-The-Constellations-Change-With-The-Seasons shows how constellations do change with the seasons. This is exactly why different star signs i.e. Taurus, Gemini appear at different times of the year. Only some stars would change with the seasons because the ones far above the earth would not be affected at all by the earth's orbit around the Sun. This is why the North Star and Polaris B are always visible. The different star signs prove a spherical earth.
Rebut Rebut Rebut 1
Yes, when the astronauts went to the moon they retained their speed. Again, this is why the rockets were aimed eastward because they already had the eastwards velocity. Even when they left the atmosphere they kept the velocity they gained while on the earth, simply because there was nothing to slow them down.
The joints between the rails are weak enough to be bent the extremely tiny amount by gravity.
Rebut Rebut Rebut 2
The moon easily could have been spotted before then. However, the camera was pointed at the ground. We only saw the moon when the rocket tilted. As the rocket was already at a high altitude, it is not necessarily true that the moon would have been setting.
Rebut Rebut Rebut 3
Yet any amateur with a reasonably strong telescope (unlike the camera used by your source last argument) could show that the planets are spheres. For example, Jupiter seen at different times show the Great Red Spot in different places or not at all while Saturn's rings, clearly visible, effectively prove that they are spheres (www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQVm7p6LkdI). Yes, the planets technically do not have any influence on the Earth, but if every other body is spherical then it is probable that the Earth is spherical as well, for there is no reason why the Earth might have been created in a different way. The fact that the Jupiter has moons that ORBITS AROUND IT proves the existence of gravity. On that note, no flat earther has yet managed to provide a credible theory that explains the creation of a flat earth.
The distance of the earth from the sun is not the reason why the earth has seasons. It is to due with the earths axis and how when it is at a certain point in its orbit the Northern hemisphere is tilted away from the Sun and Southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, and vice versa 6 months later. This is basic science. Also, it is the centrifugal, or centripetal, force that counteracts the gravity produced by the object. The sideways velocity coupled with the pull of the large object creates centrifugal force that keeps the small object in orbit. Also, as the small object reaches the highest point in orbit and falls back towards the large object the gravity creates speed which allows the small object to swing around the large object once more. This is not a valid argument.
The USGS and the United Nations both use the map because it is the best way to put the entire earth onto a single small circle. If there really was a flat earth conspiracy two extremely important associations would not use the "real" Earth map in front of everyone. The USGS do not use this map on their atlases.
The van allen belts did provide a threat to the Apollo astronauts, but was nothing compared to the risks of other failures. Today space travel is much safer and NASA would obviously take the Van Allen belts into much more consideration.
Today many people employ GPS and other navigation systems to get around. If satellites and a spherical earth did not exist then we would not be able to navigate as GPS requires satellites to function (www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/). This is also true with satellite television.
Commercialised space travel is growing into a much more possible idea every year. Very soon any human with 100,000 dollars will be able to go to space and prove a round earth (www.virgingalactic.com).
Why should you vote for me? I have provided a large number of accurate, backed up and scientifically sound proofs (growth in sight at high altitudes, ships going under the horizon, lunar eclipses, constellations, NASA, varying shadows, other planets, GPS and commercial space travel). My opponent either has not rebutted them or I have rebutted his rebuts. I have proven his arguments to be incorrect (air travel, railroads, rocket footage, stars, oval orbits, maps and van allen belts). I hope that my opponent exercises good conduct by not argument spamming, and if he does, I shall respond accordingly in the comments. Vote Con!
Yet, you have plenty of opportunity to prove any of my sources wrong. I actually did prove your sources wrong
Your hypotenuse statement is confusing to say the least, what do triangles have anything to do with the fact that you are above the more dense atmosphere, looking down?
I have in fact proved that ships do not go over any curvature, and only become subject to the perspectives explained in round 2. Any decent binoculars, or telescope will bring the ship back into view fully. As shown in my first source in the same paragraph. If you watch a car travel away from you on a long (flat) stretch of highway, you will notice that after some time, the car will appear to have lost its tires, and it will appear to be dragging the ground.
In conclusion, you do not need any theorem to show that if you are above a portion of the thicker atmosphere, you are not looking through "more" of it. This should not only be a rebuttal, but a proof for pro, as they should in fact be over the supposed curvature, which is an easily measurable 8" for the first mile, then 8" squared per mile thereafter.
Basic Geometry on a Sphere
The Global Earth theorists for 500 years have been telling us the Earth is a sphere. IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity–every part must be an arc of a circle.
From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the diagram above. Spherical trigonometry dictates that a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference would curvate 8 inches per mile varying inversely with the square of the mile, so after six miles there would be an easily detectable and measurable 16 feet, 8 inches of downward curvature.
To determine how much the Earth falls away on the curve you take miles squared X eight inches. This is an inverse relationship so the farther one travels the greater the distance of feet or miles the Earth will fall away.
Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1
Miles squared X 8 inches
Curvature of Earth
10 miles 66.666 ft. or 1.2626 miles
100 miles 6,666.66 ft. or 12.626 miles
So the farther one travels the greater the drop (or rise) in distance.
Con admits that planes do not fly nose down. As it would be impossible on a globe to fly level with the earth on both axise for hundreds, if not thousands of miles, we can conclude that it does not fly the expected measures I explained in the last round.
Con continues to ignore selenelions (which are impossible if the earth were blocking the light from the sun on the moon), and lunar waves, only to favor the "simple explanation" that somehow, the earth turns it's shadow red (which can't be scientifically proven or explained even if the earth were a globe). The moon can't be reshaped into a football to prove it does rotate. It is round. Stars have also been shown through the dark side, further questioning the solidity of the moon.
Constellations have not changed for thousands of years, so in 50,000 years, it is unlikely that they will be radically different. While the pole star may not be affected by the orbit, the wobble, or precession would definitely sway it from its immobile position in the sky.
If the moon circles the earth, and the earth circles the sun at 18 mps, the fact that they didn't have to compensate for this, and save some fuel, (combustible engines in no atmosphere?) and either race the moon and catch it as it circles with the earth, or wait for it to come to them proves the earth is not mobile. This goes for other planets circling the sun, as well as the moon.
As you can see moonset is under an hour away and if you divide the 360 degrees by the 24 hours you get 15 degrees which is very slight taking away the time it took the rocket to reach its apex and the 15 minutes off of an hour it should be very close to the horizon yes we do not even see the horizon with the moon. The moon is clearly not in the place it is supposed to be if the earth were a globe.
So, is it the rails, or joints that gravity bends(which engineers do not account for)? Con had conceded canals, which run level for hundreds of miles in some cases. The Bedford level experiments As well as the engineers involved in building these, prove this.
Con admits that objects in the sky do not have influence on the ground we stand on. This proves the earth is not a globe. As the video looks exactly like nasa's footage, which is 100% photoshopped, and this video is the property of taxpayers, it probably is the same. The bible can be considered a credible source that explains how the earth was made flat.
For centrifugal force to counteract a growing gravitational force, the speed of the object would also have to increase, causing more problems as you can imagine.
Con's statement is a false one, as you can see from the lengthy list of map projections, there are several ways to get the entire earth in a small circle. Con continues with a contradictory statement about how they would not use the real map of earth in plain site(which they do), then stated that they do not use it in their atlases for everyone to see. Have you seen Antarctica on that map?
If the original lunar mission passed through both belts unharmed, why the guessing game? They should be able to just reproduce the flight. An astronot, when questioned, claimed that they hadn't gone far enough to reach the belts (One of the smartest men on the planet?)
Then, after being corrected, backpedals then says that they posed no threat because they didn't know about it.
Gps was invented by, and controlled by the government, and they control the information on the screens. There are no pictures or video in existence of satellites in orbit at all. The GPS system could be done with cell tower triangulation and other ground based technology. These 3 facts show that satellite GPS is nonexistent.
They have been saying this for years, no one will ever go to space, much less a civilian. When this happens, I will be proved wrong, provided I can't prove they've absorbed some of my tax dollars to keep the story going. To say that an even will happen in the future is not scientific proof.
I would like to thank con for a chance to debate this always interesting topic, and encourage anyone interested in it to continue research, as more and more people are.
UNDENIABLE PROOFS OF FLAT EARTH: http://www.youtube.com...;