For the flat Earth people!

[fonzerrillii]

THIS CANNOT BE DEBUNKED. YOU NIGGAS ARE SQUIRMING TO DEFLECT AND FIND ANYTHING YOU CAN GRASP ONTO INSTEAD OF FACING THIS SIMPLE FACT.



We live on a sphere, that's what you guys say....



Not this....

But this....

I'm sure will you agree with that.


The earth is 24,901 miles in circumference.

This means the earth curves at 8" per mile.

So let's look at a clean sphere...no mountains, no obstructions, everything at sea-level.

According to this Earth Curve Calculator, , at a height of 6ft , the horizon will be 2.9995471525609774 miles away, or we'll just round up to 3 miles.

Based on a sphere-earth model, I also assume you would all agree.

This illustration is from the EC calculator site I just posted. The flaw with this illustration is that if h0 is a person and h1 is a building, the person is leaning towards the horizon looking downward while the building is also leaning in the opposite direction towards the horizon. Looks like this.....

h0 (the person) is leaning forward and looking downward (dashed line).

If gravity keeps you stuck to a sphere, then no matter where you stand on the sphere, you are on top of the sphere from your perspective. From whatever point you’re standing, the ground will curve downwards in any direction.

@blackras9 said:



Yes, using this logic and as illustrated above, h0 at 6ft would ALSO have to look downward to keep from looking into the stratosphere.

h0 = 6ft.

If you're 6ft tall looking straight ahead, you are indeed looking into the stratosphere as illustrated by the horizontal red line above.

As stated before, the earth curves at 8" per mile. This means that if the distance to the horizon is 3 miles and the earth curves at 8" per mile, the horizon would be 2ft below the h0. This is what the slanted, dashed line represents.


Next, lets take a look at things from the building's perspective......

Okay, so that's the Leaning Tower of Pisa.....And that building is 486 feet tall, based off the EC calculator.

Remember, if gravity keeps the building stuck to a sphere, then no matter where the building stands on the sphere, it is on top of the sphere from it's perspective. From whatever point on the sphere it's standing, the ground will curve downwards in any direction.

Likewise, if I straighten up the building and stand on the roof, the horizon will be 27 miles away. At 8" per mile of curvature, the horizon would be 18ft below the ground level of the building.

So I would use this hallway for my next point, especially in illustrating how the sun behaves, but I know y'all hate hallways.....

So I'll use railroad tracks.

This is what we actually see when looking to a horizon at 6ft tall.

As above so below, the lines converge to a vanishing point which SHOULD BE 3 miles away. The thickness of the atmosphere makes the mountains less visible, but the key is that the picture is not looking down at a horizon. The horizon is eye level.

As I've stated before, no matter how high you go,
the horizon stays at eye level.

At the h0 (height) of 35,000 ft on a commercial flight, according to the EC calculator the distance to the horizon is 229 miles. At 8" per mile of curvature, the horizon would be 35,152ft below the air plane and you would have to look down to see it because the higher you are on a round earth, the lower the horizon.

This is the math for the sphere model:

I do not yet have a formula to determine the distance to the horizon on a flat plane, because unlike the sphere model, there is no radius. So I'm working on that. It comes down to measuring it physically in my opinion, which you can do using railroad tracks in place that's really flat with no hills, valleys or mountains. (http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...by-florida-are-flatter-than-a-pancake/284348/) You have to measure the distance to the vanishing point at various heights to see how much the horizon extends, because it definitely does extend the higher you go.

But what I do believe I've proven,

is that the earth is definitely NOT a sphere, it is flat.

I'm going to supplement this presentation with a video.




GAME OVER...

The biggest problem with this theory is that fails to even account for perception. The Earth isn't a true sphere. It isn't flat. You have to account for elevation. You have to account for light refraction. Neither of these are accounted for with this.

 

[fonzerrillii]

The Horizon always appears at eye level because the distances involved are comparatively long (for perception), that's why you can't notice the curvature until you get really high.

Say you start at sea-level and place your head on the beach sand, you might be lucky to see over wave crests. Getting higher you might see more texture in the ocean and landscape as you go up near by mountains (assuming no obstructions).
Being in a jet or even low Earth orbit the curvature is slight, your entire horizon would be below you.

Why is this so hard to grasp? It's simple logic and basic geometry.

 

[fonzerrillii]

Here's a primer. We'll discuss later.



It's saturday nigga, it's Miller time.

Before I really watch this... I want to point out that you complained about a CAC in one of my videos who was physically planting a flag at the South Pole, yet you once again want us to watch YouTube clip art videos made, produced, written, starred, and gripped by CACs. Ok

 

[cashwhisperer]

The biggest problem with this theory is that fails to even account for perception. The Earth isn't a true sphere. It isn't flat. You have to account for elevation. You have to account for light refraction. Neither of these are accounted for with this.

Then what is this?

Isn't this the picture they showed us when they supposedly went to the moon??

Or was it just photoshop??

And you said you have to account for elevation??

bye fool

 

[cashwhisperer]

The Horizon always appears at eye level because the distances involved are comparatively long (for perception), that's why you can't notice the curvature until you get really high.

Say you start at sea-level and place your head on the beach sand, you might be lucky to see over wave crests. Getting higher you might see more texture in the ocean and landscape as you go up near by mountains (assuming no obstructions).
Being in a jet or even low Earth orbit the curvature is slight, your entire horizon would be below you.

Why is this so hard to grasp? It's simple logic and basic geometry.

Dude, you need to quit while you're behind. You're just digging a deeper hole now.

 

[cashwhisperer]

Before I really watch this... I want to point out that you complained about a CAC in one of my videos who was physically planting a flag at the South Pole, yet you once again want us to watch YouTube clip art videos made, produced, written, starred, and gripped by CACs. Ok

I've said this time and time again, I'm not against white people, I'm against white supremacists...you know....the ones that have you stuck in the Matrix right now.

 

[Mr. Del]

There is a Company... That Travels to the FUCKING SOUTH POLE... Every FUCKING YEAR...

Why must we continue to do this Man.. Give it up.


Here is their Website... If you have the Cheese.. (49,000k) You can take a Trip to the South Pole by land... RIGHT NOW

That's a trip I would do, but 49 grand? Hell no. I wouldn't pay more than $3000.

 

[RoadRage]

I remember posting flight times from Australia to Santiago, Chile where's-by in order for them to fly the distance (as represented by their own map) the planes will have to be flying, I believe three times the capability of a commercial jet..
So I did the math, a flight from Sydney to Sydney to Santiago, Chile takes roughly 12 hours, about the same from a flight from NYC to Japan

Sydney to to Santiago, Chile
7000 miles

NYC to Japan 6,738 miles

Now lets see how those trips would look like on a flat earth model..

Now these dopes will have you believe that both lines are the same lengths but it gets worse!!

It's even worse than a simple straight line on the flat surface would suggest. If you take the great circle route (which they would have to take to "pretend" to be on a globe), then the route looks like this...



So Flat Brainers how do you explain this, especially when anyone can go on line and get the same exact numbers that I posted..

 

[cashwhisperer]

I remember posting flight times from Australia to Santiago, Chile where's-by in order for them to fly the distance (as represented by their own map) the planes will have to be flying, I believe three times the capability of a commercial jet..
So I did the math, a flight from Sydney to Sydney to Santiago, Chile takes roughly 12 hours, about the same from a flight from NYC to Japan

Sydney to to Santiago, Chile
7000 miles

NYC to Japan 6,738 miles

Now lets see how those trips would look like on a flat earth model..

Now these dopes will have you believe that both lines are the same lengths but it gets worse!!

It's even worse than a simple straight line on the flat surface would suggest. If you take the great circle route (which they would have to take to "pretend" to be on a globe), then the route looks like this...



So Flat Brainers how do you explain this, especially when anyone can go on line and get the same exact numbers that I posted..

The same reason you think cacs went to the moon.....y'all like the plantation huh?......wow....ok

 

[RoadRage]

Here is where you guys can check for yourself..
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=UTF-8#q=sydney+to+santiago+chile+flight+time
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=UTF-8#newwindow=1&q=flight+time+nyc+to+tokyo

Just to see I am not making shit up..

 

[roots69]

Roots just using any general platitudes that are coming to mind.

"The only thing to fear is fear itself!"

"What goes up must come down!"

"If Young Metro don't trust you I'm gon shoot ya!"

"Si se puede!"

Haha... Thats a good one

 

[cashwhisperer]

The Horizon always appears at eye level because the distances involved are comparatively long (for perception), that's why you can't notice the curvature until you get really high.

Say you start at sea-level and place your head on the beach sand, you might be lucky to see over wave crests. Getting higher you might see more texture in the ocean and landscape as you go up near by mountains (assuming no obstructions).
Being in a jet or even low Earth orbit the curvature is slight, your entire horizon would be below you.

Why is this so hard to grasp? It's simple logic and basic geometry.

Aye, I agree with this right here...



You have to be really high to see a curvature in the earth....



Gimme sum of that cali bud bro!

 

[fonzerrillii]

Then what is this?

Isn't this the picture they showed us when they supposedly went to the moon??

Or was it just photoshop??

And you said you have to account for elevation??

bye fool

The fuck was this shit....

 

[fonzerrillii]

Again shit isn't rocket science.

This video demonstrates what I'm talking about at the 1:00 mark.




Why can't you understand this shit? It's straight logic...

 

[cashwhisperer]

The fuck was this shit....

All your official photos from NASA showing a clear sphere. You can't have it both ways dude. You can't defend NASA and their blue marble "photo"shops and then in the same breath tell me the earth isn't a sphere.

Do you realize how dumb you're sounding right now?

Do you realize......

 

[fonzerrillii]

 

[cashwhisperer]

Again shit isn't rocket science.

This video demonstrates what I'm talking about at the 1:00 mark.




Why can't you understand this shit? It's straight logic...

 

[sammyjax]

The same reason you think cacs went to the moon.....y'all like the plantation huh?......wow....ok

That's your answer?

You want it both ways. You stick your fingers in your ears to everything then want to claim victory and post a thousand gifs for your horizon mess.

The thing is, proof for proof or theory for theory, you have 1 that self and someone else semi-conceded as a thought experiment, while you've ignored a dozen or better legit questions about your belief.

I know why, just pointing out that you're better at trolling and gif googling than defending your position.

But it's indefensible.

How do you answer the flight time question? Can you? Seriously.

 

[fonzerrillii]

All your official photos from NASA showing a clear sphere. You can't have it both ways dude. You can't defend NASA and their blue marble "photo"shops and then in the same breath tell me the earth isn't a sphere.

Do you realize how dumb you're sounding right now?

Do you realize......

You showed three still photos... so of course you can't tell a curvature from a static photo of an extremely slow rotating object. But when we showed video evidence of a curvature of a rotating earth.. your argument is " this video is fake."

 

[cashwhisperer]

Maaaaaaaan, This dumb ass shit. I disproved everything that idiot said. You LOST!

YOU CANNOT REFUTE THIS LOGIC!


ONE MO 'TIME!

According to this Earth Curve Calculator,

https:// dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial

, at a height of 6ft , the horizon will be 2.9995471525609774 miles away, or we'll just round up to 3 miles.

Based on a sphere-earth model, I also assume you would all agree.

This illustration is from the EC calculator site I just posted. The flaw with this illustration is that if h0 is a person and h1 is a building, the person is leaning towards the horizon looking downward while the building is also leaning in the opposite direction towards the horizon. Looks like this.....

h0 (the person) is leaning forward and looking downward (dashed line).

If gravity keeps you stuck to a sphere, then no matter where you stand on the sphere, you are on top of the sphere from your perspective. From whatever point you’re standing, the ground will curve downwards in any direction.

@blackras9 said:

I don't know if this point was made but the sheer idiocy of this movement can be debunked with one uncomplicated fact.
Pilots who travel across the globe have to descend to keep from flying into the stratosphere.

Yes, using this logic and as illustrated above, h0 at 6ft would ALSO have to look downward to keep from looking into the stratosphere.

h0 = 6ft.

If you're 6ft tall looking straight ahead, you are indeed looking into the stratosphere as illustrated by the horizontal red line above.

As stated before, the earth curves at 8" per mile. This means that if the distance to the horizon is 3 miles and the earth curves at 8" per mile, the horizon would be 2ft below the h0. This is what the slanted, dashed line represents.


Next, lets take a look at things from the building's perspective......

Okay, so that's the Leaning Tower of Pisa.....And that building is 486 feet tall, based off the EC calculator.

Remember, if gravity keeps the building stuck to a sphere, then no matter where the building stands on the sphere, it is on top of the sphere from it's perspective. From whatever point on the sphere it's standing, the ground will curve downwards in any direction.

Likewise, if I straighten up the building and stand on the roof, the horizon will be 27 miles away. At 8" per mile of curvature, the horizon would be 18ft below the ground level of the building.

So I would use this hallway for my next point, especially in illustrating how the sun behaves, but I know y'all hate hallways.....

So I'll use railroad tracks.

This is what we actually see when looking to a horizon at 6ft tall.

As above so below, the lines converge to a vanishing point which SHOULD BE 3 miles away. The thickness of the atmosphere makes the mountains less visible, but the key is that the picture is not looking down at a horizon. The horizon is eye level.

As I've stated before, no matter how high you go,
the horizon stays at eye level.

At the h0 (height) of 35,000 ft on a commercial flight, according to the EC calculator the distance to the horizon is 229 miles. At 8" per mile of curvature, the horizon would be 35,152ft below the air plane and you would have to look down to see it because the higher you are on a round earth, the lower the horizon.

This is the math for the sphere model:

I do not yet have a formula to determine the distance to the horizon on a flat plane, because unlike the sphere model, there is no radius. So I'm working on that. It comes down to measuring it physically in my opinion, which you can do using railroad tracks in place that's really flat with no hills, valleys or mountains. (http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...by-florida-are-flatter-than-a-pancake/284348/) You have to measure the distance to the vanishing point at various heights to see how much the horizon extends, because it definitely does extend the higher you go.

But what I do believe I've proven,

is that the earth is definitely NOT a sphere, it is flat.

I'm going to supplement this presentation with a video.

 

[cashwhisperer]

That's your answer?

You want it both ways. You stick your fingers in your ears to everything then want to claim victory and post a thousand gifs for your horizon mess.

The thing is, proof for proof or theory for theory, you have 1 that self and someone else semi-conceded as a thought experiment, while you've ignored a dozen or better legit questions about your belief.

I know why, just pointing out that you're better at trolling and gif googling than defending your position.

But it's indefensible.

How do you answer the flight time question? Can you? Seriously.

YES that's my muthafuckin answer, the same reason it costs $49,000 to go to the "south pole". The shit is fake.

I know one thing though, y'all still can't disprove my previous post so....

 

[cashwhisperer]

You showed three still photos... so of course you can't tell a curvature from a static photo of an extremely slow rotating object. But when we showed video evidence of a curvature of a rotating earth.. your argument is " this video is fake."

you showed me cgi dude.

 

[cashwhisperer]

The horizon on a ball will always be below your physical body. ALWAYS.

It's as simple as that. The math checks out. The higher you go, the lower and more angled the horizon. And it's the ONE thing y'all REFUSE to acknowledge.

 

[fonzerrillii]

He ain't done shit.

I just want this Nigga to explain how we have earthquakes on a flat earth... since Tectonic plat movement is a theory. Or again... how can we have tectonic plate movement on a flat Earth period.


I'm not even getting into how a compass functions without a magnetic core.


I've got no clue why he is focusing on debunked science.

 

[fonzerrillii]

you showed me cgi dude.

Dude you have delusions on top of delusions...

You have showed me nothing but CGI, clip art, crazy CAC in basement, passed around scraps of notebook paper horseshit. Yet I've respectfully watched 97% of these videos waiting for these guys to show one fucking ounce of sciense and not pseudo theory. SHOW SOME GAWD DAMN SCIENCE.

That last video was the first one where they tried... but again.. their experiments are flawed because it still couldn't accurately account for perception & atmospheric refraction at attitudes high enough. How can you truly simulate atmospheric refraction in a basement with glow sticks and a laser pointer?

Where is a flat earth video showing a flat earther inside a high attitude airplane or a Flat Earth sponsored satellite...

Or a flat earthier on an expedition to Antarctica to prove that the South Pole doesn't exist.

Are all you niggas broke???? Can't y'all join forces and buy one ticket. Wouldn't it be worth it.

Right now you have thousands of people marching on parliament and in airports protesting what they believe in.. they all came together for a cause.

Are you telling me that you guys can't do this???? YOU DONT FEEL PASSIONATELY ENOUGH ABOUT THIS TO JOIN UP AND PROVE THE ENTIRE WORLD WRONG.

The answer is clear... You don't. You Don't care enough about this. It just a hobby for you. It makes you stand out as a rebel with a cause. Like Fonz from Happy Days.

 

[cashwhisperer]

Dude you have delusions on top of delusions...

You have showed me nothing but CGI, clip art, crazy CAC in basement, passed around scraps of notebook paper horseshit. Yet I've respectfully watched 97% of these videos waiting for these guys to show one fucking ounce of sciense and not pseudo theory. SHOW SOME GAWD DAMN SCIENCE.

That last video was the first one where they tried... but again.. their experiments are flawed because it still couldn't accurately account for perception & atmospheric refraction at attitudes high enough. How can you truly simulate atmospheric refraction in a basement with glow sticks and a laser pointer?

Where is a flat earth video showing a flat earther inside a high attitude airplane or a Flat Earth sponsored satellite...

Or a flat earthier on an expedition to Antarctica to prove that the South Pole doesn't exist.

Are all you niggas broke???? Can't y'all join forces and buy one ticket. Wouldn't it be worth it.

Right now you have thousands of people marching on parliament and in airports protesting what they believe in.. they all came together for a cause.

Are you telling me that you guys can't do this???? YOU DONT FEEL PASSIONATELY ENOUGH ABOUT THIS TO JOIN UP AND PROVE THE ENTIRE WORLD WRONG.

The answer is clear... You don't. You Don't care enough about this. It just a hobby for you. It makes you stand out as a rebel with a cause. Like Fonz from Happy Days.

Dude, I can walk you through this. Do you agree that the circumference of the earth is 24,901 miles? If not, what is it? Cuz NASA says it is, that's not debunked logic based on your position in this debate, which is that the world is is a ball. If it is a ball, what is the circumference?

 

[fonzerrillii]

Dude, I can walk you through this. Do you agree that the circumference of the earth is 24,901 miles? If not, what is it? Cuz NASA says it is, that's not debunked logic based on your position in this debate, which is that the world is is a ball. If it is a ball, what is the circumference?

That's the theory that the earth is 24,901 miles... I'll let you explain and then I'm going to point out the problem with your equation. And it's based on the exact same problem that was with the Bedford Level Experiment.

Can you agree that the Bedford Level Experiment was also mathematically sound at the time?

 

[cashwhisperer]

That's the theory that the earth is 24,901 miles... I'll let you explain and then I'm going to point out the problem with your equation. And it's based on the exact same problem that was with the Bedford Level Experiment.

Can you agree that the Bedford Level Experiment was also mathematically sound at the time?

Dude, you said the BLE came out to 25k miles instead of 24.9k. I'm asking you what is the correct measurement?

 

[fonzerrillii]

Dude, you said the BLE came out to 25k miles instead of 24.9k. I'm asking you what is the correct measurement?

The Bedford level Experiment is like a 100 years ago. At that time the thought was that the circumference was 25,000.

For today's purpose I'll go with the modern 24,900. Either way it doesn't matter but go on.

 

[knightmelodic]

I'm not trying to say the earth isn't flat, I'm asking the dimensions and measurements. Like, if it is flat how far do we have to go to get to the edge? And if it's two dimensional what's on the other side? And how far do we have to drill to get to the other side?

I ain't tryna sway anyone's beliefs, or prove them wrong, I'd just like the Flat Earthers to answer my questions please.

 

[fonzerrillii]

I'm not trying to say the earth isn't flat, I'm asking the dimensions and measurements. Like, if it is flat how far do we have to go to get to the edge? And if it's two dimensional what's on the other side? And how far do we have to drill to get to the other side?

I ain't tryna sway anyone's beliefs, or prove them wrong, I'd just like the Flat Earthers to answer my questions please.

That's all I've been asking for...

I even said.. let's assume the Earth is flat. That raises a lot of questions.

 

[cashwhisperer]

The Bedford level Experiment is like a 100 years ago. At that time the thought was that the circumference was 25,000.

For today's purpose I'll go with the modern 24,900. Either way it doesn't matter but go on.

Which, if you actually read my post, I SAID the earth was 24,901 miles. So we both agree on that being NASA's official circumference of the earth.

NOW!

Do you agree that the earth curves at 8" per mile?

 

[cashwhisperer]

From whatever point you stand on a ball earth, the land beneath you will slope downwards. Therefore, the drop-off point of the land (horizon) HAS to be below the point from which you're standing.

Face it fellas, the earth is flat.

 

[cashwhisperer]

I'm not trying to say the earth isn't flat, I'm asking the dimensions and measurements. Like, if it is flat how far do we have to go to get to the edge? And if it's two dimensional what's on the other side? And how far do we have to drill to get to the other side?

I ain't tryna sway anyone's beliefs, or prove them wrong, I'd just like the Flat Earthers to answer my questions please.

I don't know. Nobody has the POWER to truly know except white supremacists, the ones blocking access for you to be able to see. For all I know we could be on an "infinite plane of existence", which Dr. Phil Valentine talked about.

I don't have all the answers on this, I've only been on this flat earth shit for a year so I'm still learning....

....but I'm sorry, y'all ain't gonna convince me I live on a ball, that's that bullshit and deep down y'all know it too.

Wake up KINGS.

 

[RoadRage]

That's all I've been asking for...

I even said.. let's assume the Earth is flat. That raises a lot of questions.

Carl Sagan once said extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence, so if they cannot offer a simple explanation then you know its bullshit!