Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

Post Hole Digger wrote:

GeneR wrote:

I doubt you teach anything. It's basic stuff taught in HS.

Translation: "I now realize that 'irregardless of gravity' is nonsense so I'll avoid saying anything further about it".

On Earth, water will settle to gravitational level and follows the curve of the Earth, very small amounts can form droplets and will reshape due to surface tension. In a zero-g environment, it forms into droplets or globullar masses due to adhesion and surface tension.

Legit question wrote:

Happy Super Bowl Sunday everyone. My rant for today:

Forget the drawings. Forget the NASA CGI's and composites. Forget pretending your a scientist or math wiz. Forget long distance pictures of ships on the ocean. Just go outside and photograph a CURVE.

2 people, each 6 feet tall, only 3 miles away from each other should not be able to see each other. Because the curvature would place each 72 inches below the other, and their eyes would be only about 68 inches off the ground. Use a telescope, binoculars, or a laser pointer, it doesn't matter, the curvature will completely block the line of sight, right? Prove it. You can't.

Except you can't because there is no curve.

Try to photograph the curve, in simple easy to do experiment. It can't be done.

That's dumb. The Earth is more like a geodesic dome with multiple flatter surfaces forming an average curve.

You could have people on opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean point lasers at each other and see if the beams meet to prove your point. They won't.

He's also wrong about the 6 foot thing. They would see each other just fine, although their feet my be only half visible to each. The 68 inch drop is from the surface, not eye level.

This guy wrote:

frikken laser wrote:

That's dumb. The Earth is more like a geodesic dome with multiple flatter surfaces forming an average curve.

You could have people on opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean point lasers at each other and see if the beams meet to prove your point. They won't.

He's also wrong about the 6 foot thing. They would see each other just fine, although their feet my be only half visible to each. The 68 inch drop is from the surface, not eye level.

Placing the guys on ground is silly too. You need to put Jesus and his twin brother on water to prove this. They wouldn't be able to see each other.

This guy wrote:

On Earth, water will settle to gravitational level and follows the curve of the Earth

You are neglecting the tides! The water is tilted one way or the other everywhere except the exact point where the tide is changing. Its change in slope equals the change in slope of Earth in at most one place and possibly none.

In a zero-g environment, it forms into droplets or globullar masses due to adhesion and surface tension.

Zero g is just a misnomer for when things are affected by gravity the same. The ocean is falling toward the bottom of the universe just as fast as Earth and the Sun are. Its "weight" on Earth is from that adhesion you mention, which sticks it there.

man every time you try it just gets less funny

You have been having Bad Wigins issues for nearly a week now, but venting is not going to help. It is not me that must change, but you.

Teach your eyeballs not to read things you don't like and maybe you will get healthier.

Bad Wigins wrote:

This guy wrote:

On Earth, water will settle to gravitational level and follows the curve of the Earth

You are neglecting the tides!

Accounted for in 'gravitational level'. But you're still entertaining to read.

yeah you're right.

the one time I decide not to just scroll past your post I see a very unfunny version of legit question replies.

I should know better.

Did you listen to this radio show?Because the statement from the Australian Intelligence Officer:- did not say GPS transmissions were ground based- did not say for the whole Southern HemisphereHe gave a statement about something specific to the military -- they have a secret.Every commercial operator of Optus, or Palapa, or Brazilsat/Star One, or O3B, requiring directional and tracking antennas, can confirm that the receptions come from the sky, at very precise, and predictable locations.

Legit question wrote:

Mark Sargent interviews Australian intelligence officer (ASIS)- GPS is ground based for Southern Hemisphere.

http://truthfrequencyradio.com/strange-world-mark-sargent-61937/

The false assumption here is that light travels in a straight line in the atmosphere.We know from prisms and rainbows, that light can be bent.This "refraction" in the atmosphere gives a "flattening effect" that also explains other things, like your partial lunar eclipses at the horizon, seeing far away bridges on clear days, and receiving radio signals without a direct line of sight.In the desert, the "refraction" gives the opposite effect, causing mirages.

Legit question wrote:

Happy Super Bowl Sunday everyone. My rant for today:

Forget the drawings. Forget the NASA CGI's and composites. Forget pretending your a scientist or math wiz. Forget long distance pictures of ships on the ocean. Just go outside and photograph a CURVE.

2 people, each 6 feet tall, only 3 miles away from each other should not be able to see each other. Because the curvature would place each 72 inches below the other, and their eyes would be only about 68 inches off the ground. Use a telescope, binoculars, or a laser pointer, it doesn't matter, the curvature will completely block the line of sight, right? Prove it. You can't.

Except you can't because there is no curve.

Try to photograph the curve, in simple easy to do experiment. It can't be done.

Actually refraction causes things to appear curved. You are making his argument for him. Both of you need a little more education.

Legit question wrote:

Happy Super Bowl Sunday everyone. My rant for today:

Forget the drawings. Forget the NASA CGI's and composites. Forget pretending your a scientist or math wiz. Forget long distance pictures of ships on the ocean. Just go outside and photograph a CURVE.

2 people, each 6 feet tall, only 3 miles away from each other should not be able to see each other..

Not true. If you are six feet tall then the horizon is just about 3 miles away. So you'd be able to see pretty much all of them (even their shoes). Move 6 miles away and you'd just be able to see the top of their head.

This assumes no refraction, of course.

omg almost 1000 posts of people scrambling to prove the earth is round . . . you guys are a freakin joke!

youfedthetroll wrote:

omg almost 1000 posts of people scrambling to prove the earth is round . . . you guys are a freakin joke!

American education at it's finest.

"Fisheye lenses often scream “Distortion!” and as a result, the fisheye is considered a specialty lens by most photographers. It is a lens that rarely sees itself mounted to your camera, either staying in your bag or sitting on the shelf and collecting dust. Fisheye lenses are rarely used for landscapes because of their tendency to curve the horizon..." aha!!!

http://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/

Oh no the North Koreans are launching satellites. ... THEY ARE JOINING THE CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!

snsnsnnsnssnnansns wrote:

Oh no the North Koreans are launching satellites. ... THEY ARE JOINING THE CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!

Actually I take that back.. their satellite is just tumbling through space.

Obviously, they thought that the earth was a globe because nobody was willing to tell them the TRUTH.

That is what you get for being isolationist.

If you ask any optician, refraction can do way more than that.My argument is that refraction undermines any line-of-sight experiment conclusions, and in the right conditions, can make the earth appear flatter than it is, if you are unaware of, or unwilling to accept, this effect.By asserting that there is a distortion, you are unwittingly helping me make that argument.

senster wrote:

Actually refraction causes things to appear curved. You are making his argument for him. Both of you need a little more education.