# The Earth is flat

Please see the video I have shared before you comment.
Nobody has seen water curve BTW.
.................apart from just about every sailor, for the last 5 thousand years or so.

The Ancient Greeks realised the Earth was a sphere. Eratosthenes actually estimated its circumference, as long as ago as 300BC (and came up with a fairly accurate result, too).

3. Vacuum next to high pressured cannot be proven in a lab or show in nature
This one is prime example of an argument based on ignorance.
First off, you need to understand what air pressure is. Air is a mixture of molecules which are constantly in motion, bouncing off of each other and anything else in their way ( such as the wall of a container). Air pressure is a measure of the force per sq unit of area these molecule exert on a surface they are colliding with. A vacuum is just an absence of said molecules. If we have two chambers, side by side, one with air in it, and one a vacuum, with a divider between, you will have air molecules bouncing off one side of the divider, and none on the other, and you have a net force acting on the divider. If you were to remove the divider, molecules that would have hit the divider are now free to travel into the other chamber. Essentially, the molecules are given more room to spread out and they do so.
Now put the vacuum chamber on top of the air chamber, and remove the divider again. The air molecules will again start to spread out, but now, in order to move into the upper chamber, they have to climb. They do so at the cost of losing speed. (just like when you toss a ball in the air; it loses speed as it climbs). Now the distribution of speeds of the molecule are not even and you are going to have faster molecules and slower ones. The faster ones will make it all the way to the top before bouncing off it, but the slowest ones won't. They'll slow to a stop and fall back to the lower chamber before reaching the top.
Put another chamber on top of the second one, and remove the divider. Again, some of the molecules that reached the top of the second chamber will still have enough speed to reach the top of the third chamber, and others will not. Keep adding chambers on top of each other. With each successive chamber, fewer and fewer molecules will have initially been moving fast enough to make it that high. Eventually, you'll reach a point where no molecules ever reach the top of the chamber, and even if the top chamber was open to a vacuum, no air will escape.* You will end up with higher air pressure at the bottom of the column of chambers, with decreasing air pressure as you move upwards.
This is what happens on the Earth; air molecules attempt to spread upwards, but don't have enough speed to get too far from the surface before they "fall back" At greater and greater heights, fewer and fewer molecules make it that far, and the air gets thinner with altitude. ( as noted in an earlier post).

* Though on occasion, a rare molecule will, by a chance series of collisions, pick up enough speed to escape the chamber, But this type of "leakage" would happen at an extremely slow rate. For something like a planet, it would take billions of years to make a significant difference.

Don't be silly! If there was vacuum in space around the flat earth, how would the tortoises breathe?
I thought they were turtles.

Guru:

This brief and confused list is your best evidence for the flat earth? You haven't even attempted to explain your best two, which is all I asked you for. Briefly:

1. I don't understand what you mean, from what you have written. You'll need to explain.
2. I don't know what curvature formula you're talking about. Without details, this is useless.
3. What does "vacuum next to high pressured" have to do with the shape of the earth? Explain.
4. Do you mean it never appears to move, as seen from the ground on Earth, or that the star itself has no proper motion through space? In fact, both claims are false. Polaris is not directly aligned with the north pole, so its apparent motion is a small circle as the Earth rotates. The star itself also has a proper motion. So, this doesn't support your claim at all.
5. I have no idea what you mean, unless you explain. International flights tend to follow great circle routes, which only make sense on a sphere - if the aim is to minimise flight time and fuel consumption - generally speaking. Probably you don't understand the paths.
6. Firstly, how do you know they are all photoshopped? Secondly, what about live feeds, such as from the International Space Station, or from the recent launch of the James Webb telescope? Do you believe those are photoshopped on the fly, so to speak? Or just outright fakes? And, while you're at it, tell me why you think NASA wants to publish faked photos/videos. What is gained from the massive conspiracy you allege? Who benefits?

So there's a conspiracy to suppress information about the flat earth and the moon landing, according to you. Who benefits from these conspiracies? And why are they doing such a bad job of censoring the views of people such as yourself? After all, here you are, telling us all your truth - publishing it for all to see on the interwebs.

How do you account for the rotation of weather systems and things like hurricanes? What causes them to rotate? Or do you perhaps deny that hurricanes rotate (or are hurricanes fake, too)?

So pumps are impossible? Are all pumps fake? How is it possible to have an inflated bicycle tire? What would happen, in your opinion, if an inflated bicycle tire was placed in a vacuum?

It's held onto the surface by gravity. Do you believe in gravity? How does gravity work on your flat earth?
Who is David Weiss? How do you know he would pay up? Maybe he's not being honest. After all, it isn't hard to prove the Earth is spinning.

What do UFOs have to do with the flat earth?

It sounds like you believe in at least two grand conspiracies to suppress the truth: about flat earth and about aliens. How many other conspiracies do you believe? Could you be wrong about any of them?

You can't understand why, in the 21st century, it is ludicrous to assert that the Earth is flat? Are you for real?
No, he's not for real. It's all a pose.

Except that...hang on minute....no, he's right. If the Earth were a sphere, all the people in Australia and New Zealand would be upside down. Well, I've been there - and I can tell you they are the right way up. So there you are.

The tortoises can breathe because the elephant is blowing air at them.

Don't be silly! If there was vacuum in space around the flat earth, how would the tortoises breathe?
I actually did LOL at that...

If the Earth was flat could you jump or fall off it?

View attachment 4599

The pylons look like they get smaller because of the perspective.
Why isn't the line straight? Why does the line of pylons look like it curves over the horizon?

How would the builders of this bit of engineering, arrange it so it's a fake?
Is that what they have to do anytime they build a set of pylons that stretches over the horizon, y'know, so everyone believes the earth is curved?

I mean, except for those in the know, such as yourself.

mean, except for those in the know, such as yourself.[/QUOTE]

#### Attachments

551.6 KB · Views: 0
mean, except for those in the know, such as yourself.
There's no way we can know whether those bottles on the floor were placed in a straight line along the floor, or whether the floor is actually flat, as you claim.

On the other hand, we know that the sea is flat (i.e. as flat as it can get on the curved earth), and we can be confident those pylons are in straight line.

mean, except for thoView attachment 4602se in the know, such as yourself.

Hmm, so a floor that is obviously not flat, produces an effect over a few feet and you think that is what things do in the case of pylons hundreds of yards apart?

Is that it? A dozen replies loaded with observations / questions and you post a crummy picture as your response?

Well, if you happen to be a budding engineer, maybe it helps to practise first with bottles of water.

You can upgrade to power pylons later on.

But since our budding engineer hasn't explained why a line of pylons all the same height, looks like it curves over the horizon of the sea, maybe he can't. Maybe he's one of those people who just believe things without question, like Trump voters or something.

Although we should know, this kind of behaviour is a form of trolling. Sometimes, I think people like to sign up to a form of denialism because it makes them feel better, somehow.
Maybe they feel better because they think they aren't dumb any more.

Which is kind of funny in a sad, pathetic kind of way.
Kind of.

Last edited:
The Bedford Level Experiment:
"is a series of observations carried out along a 6-mile (9.7 km) length of the Old Bedford River on the Bedford Level of the Cambridgeshire Fens in the United Kingdom, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, to measure the curvature of the Earth. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, who conducted the first observations starting in 1838, claimed that he had proven the Earth to be flat. However, in 1870, after adjusting Rowbotham's method to avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction, Alfred Russel Wallace found a curvature consistent with a spherical Earth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Well, if you happen to be a budding engineer, maybe it helps to practise first with bottles of water.

You can upgrade to power pylons later on.

But since our budding engineer hasn't explained why a line of pylons all the same height, looks like it curves over the horizon of the sea, maybe he can't. Maybe he's one of those people who just believe things without question, like Trump voters or something.

Although we should know, this kind of behaviour is a form of trolling. Sometimes, I think people like to sign up to a form of denialism because it makes them feel better, somehow.
Maybe they feel better because they think they aren't dumb any more.

Which is kind of funny in a sad, pathetic kind of way.
Kind of.
To quote you. most of the denial I have see is from you.
Why the hate - just because I proved your Pylon pictures a false proof of curve?
There is no engineering manual or for that matter flying manual that talks about Earth curvature in any formula. In fact it talks about assuming a non rotating flat earth. You are the one who has now somehow linked a discussion on earth shape to Trump and then calling me a troll. Sorry your picture did not work, please throw something more of a challenge at me.

This one is prime example of an argument based on ignorance.
First off, you need to understand what air pressure is. Air is a mixture of molecules which are constantly in motion, bouncing off of each other and anything else in their way ( such as the wall of a container). Air pressure is a measure of the force per sq unit of area these molecule exert on a surface they are colliding with. A vacuum is just an absence of said molecules. If we have two chambers, side by side, one with air in it, and one a vacuum, with a divider between, you will have air molecules bouncing off one side of the divider, and none on the other, and you have a net force acting on the divider. If you were to remove the divider, molecules that would have hit the divider are now free to travel into the other chamber. Essentially, the molecules are given more room to spread out and they do so.
Now put the vacuum chamber on top of the air chamber, and remove the divider again. The air molecules will again start to spread out, but now, in order to move into the upper chamber, they have to climb. They do so at the cost of losing speed. (just like when you toss a ball in the air; it loses speed as it climbs). Now the distribution of speeds of the molecule are not even and you are going to have faster molecules and slower ones. The faster ones will make it all the way to the top before bouncing off it, but the slowest ones won't. They'll slow to a stop and fall back to the lower chamber before reaching the top.
Put another chamber on top of the second one, and remove the divider. Again, some of the molecules that reached the top of the second chamber will still have enough speed to reach the top of the third chamber, and others will not. Keep adding chambers on top of each other. With each successive chamber, fewer and fewer molecules will have initially been moving fast enough to make it that high. Eventually, you'll reach a point where no molecules ever reach the top of the chamber, and even if the top chamber was open to a vacuum, no air will escape.* You will end up with higher air pressure at the bottom of the column of chambers, with decreasing air pressure as you move upwards.
This is what happens on the Earth; air molecules attempt to spread upwards, but don't have enough speed to get too far from the surface before they "fall back" At greater and greater heights, fewer and fewer molecules make it that far, and the air gets thinner with altitude. ( as noted in an earlier post).

* Though on occasion, a rare molecule will, by a chance series of collisions, pick up enough speed to escape the chamber, But this type of "leakage" would happen at an extremely slow rate. For something like a planet, it would take billions of years to make a significant difference.

I can understand your explanation, now show me the same experiment on a ball with air trapped on top of it and then swing the ball in a room of vacuum at the speed at which the earth is moving thru vacuum around the sun while rotating on the axis and also moving around another center (Galaxy) in another direction. Then show me the high pressure around that ball intact like we have on earth.

Coming to your experiment - show me a study that proves your hypothesis that the bottom chamber will be high pressure while the upper chamber remains a vacuum as in the case of earth - we are not talking about a low pressure chamber we are talking about ultimate low pressure in which we have no friction of any molecules. And we have a vacuum chamber in Sandusky, OH. I am sure this experiment must be one of the first ones attempted to prove how the atmosphere sticks to a heavy object due to gravity or maybe to the floor of a flat chamber.

Again calling someone ignorant does not make you intelligent.

Guru:

This brief and confused list is your best evidence for the flat earth? You haven't even attempted to explain your best two, which is all I asked you for. Briefly:

1. I don't understand what you mean, from what you have written. You'll need to explain.

2. I don't know what curvature formula you're talking about. Without details, this is useless.

I will explain in parts your list of questions for now will reply to your top 2. (I have a presentation tomorrow and this week seems to be very busy. )

1. We can see to far - on a curved earth we would not be able to see far with high powered binoculars: I will explain the formla below. But according to the formula you should not be able to see after a certain point because the earth has curved and it is ove the bend of the curve. But if you use a powerful camera or telescope you would be able to see beyond the curve and it will also bring back the ship that has sailed over the cuve this should not happen. People call it refraction to explain the image over the distance, but refraction would distort the image not show the image as is.

2. Have not seen water curve based on the curvature formula

The curvature formula is 8 inches per mile squared. It means that the sea should be curving 8 inches per mile squared. If we were living on a whirling ball-Earth, every pond, lake, marsh, canal and other large body of standing water, each part would have to comprise a slight arc or semi-circle curveting downwards from the central summit. For example, if the ball-Earth were 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomers say, then spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downwards an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Has this experiment been done to prove the curved earth? Yes it has been done but ended up proving flat earth - check out Dr. Samuel Rowbotham's experiment in early 19th century.

I can understand your explanation, now show me the same experiment on a ball with air trapped on top of it
On the Earth, the air is not "trapped on top of it." The air is trapped by gravity, which acts in a vector towards the center of the Earth. There is no bottom or top.
and then swing the ball in a room of vacuum at the speed at which the earth is moving thru vacuum around the sun while rotating on the axis and also moving around another center (Galaxy) in another direction. Then show me the high pressure around that ball intact like we have on earth.
To do that accurately you'd have to swing a ball the mass of Earth in a similar space the Earth orbits.

Fortunately we don't have to do that. We can use telescopes and probes to examine, say, Venus, which has a much denser atmosphere that it retains just as Earth does. And it is quite similar to Earth - the gravity on Venus 89% of Earth's, its orbit is 72% the distance of Earth's and the orbital speed is 18% faster. And as I mentioned it retains its atmosphere quite well.
Coming to your experiment - show me a study that proves your hypothesis that the bottom chamber will be high pressure while the upper chamber remains a vacuum as in the case of earth
You can do it yourself. Construct a chimney about 100 feet tall. Seal both ends. Now take a sensitive pressure meter (often called an altimeter) and measure the pressure at the top and the bottom. You will observe lower pressure at the top. Now you can extrapolate and get a rough estimate of what will happen up at 100 miles.

If you have the resources, build a chimney 100 miles tall and do the same measurement. The pressure at the top will be very close to zero.
Again calling someone ignorant does not make you intelligent.
Right. His intelligence is what makes him intelligent.

Has this experiment been done to prove the curved earth? Yes it has been done but ended up proving flat earth - check out Dr. Samuel Rowbotham's experiment in early 19th century.
Yes, it has been done, and as expected the Earth curves.

Fun fact - the towers of the Golden Gate Bridge are not parallel to each other; their tops are two inches farther apart than their bases. But both are exactly upright when measured with respect to gravity. This, of course, is because the Earth curves slightly between them.

Why the hate - just because I proved your Pylon pictures a false proof of curve?
Say what, now?

So the engineers who build straight lines of pylons have to make them look curved if they build them across large bodies of water? Why do they do that, and more interestingly, how do they do it? How is the apparent curvature "false"?

I imagine you have no idea whatsoever. You just don't come across as a person who knows what an idea is.

Say what, now?

So the engineers who build straight lines of pylons have to make them look curved if they build them across large bodies of water? Why do they do that, and more interestingly, how do they do it? How is the apparent curvature "false"?

I imagine you have no idea whatsoever. You just don't come across as a person who knows what an idea is.
Are you saying his/her ideas might be warped?