# The Earth is flat

Are you saying his/her ideas might be warped?
It's possible his ideas are free of curvature, I'd say. Probably torsion-free too.

It's possible his ideas are free of curvature, I'd say. Probably torsion-free too.
You don't suspect his nickers could be in a twist?

Maybe some frame(or nuckle?) dragging?

I get the idea that the posted image of a row of bottles is, in fact, a few bottles in front of a mirror.

If you tilt the mirror, the curvature in the image changes.
That's schoolboy games, right there.

Guru:

You say the Earth is flat. I have some questions I hope you can help me with.

What shape is it, exactly? Circular disc? Square? Doughnut?
Where are the edges? Can we travel to an edge? What is seen when we do that?
Where is the centre of the flat Earth?
Does the flat Earth rotate?
Why does the sun rise and set on the flat Earth?
Why do weather systems rotate on the flat earth?
Where are the north and south poles on the flat Earth? Are they in the centre, at the edges, or what? Can we travel to either of them on the flat earth?
What does the round-earth equator correspond to on the flat earth? Why is it hotter at the "equator" than at the "poles"?

Thanks.

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.
I would not expect the ball to hold on to a significant amount of air( or any air if the the ambient temp is normal room temp.) Let's say our ball is one cubic meter of lead. This gives it a radius of 0.62 meters and a mass of 11,343 kg. The gravitational force you'd expect at its surface would be 0.00000002 g (1/4976917 that of the gravity at the surface of the Earth). The escape velocity would be 0.0016 meters/sec (compared to over 11 km/sec for the surface of the Earth) Air molecules at room temp have velocites in the hundred of meters/sec. Many times that needed to escape the surface of the lead ball, but well short of that needed to escape the Earth. You'd have to cool the ball down to a amazingly low temp to get the air molecules speeds down below its escape velocity. For this same reason, smaller bodies in the Solar system do not have any significant atmospheres. Even the Moon, with 1/81 the Earth's mass only has the thinnest of atmospheres. This is because the ability of a planet to hold on to an atmosphere does not scale linearly. It goes up with mass and down with increased radius, However as you increase the radius of a body, its volume, and therefore it mass increases much faster( by the cube of the increase in radius, double the radius and the volume increases by a factor of 8). Basically, as we move to larger and larger bodies, the Mass to radius ratio gets greater and greater.
And of all those motions you mention, only the Earth's rotation really matters at all ( the Sun's influence on the Earth, causing it to orbit acts on both the solid body of the Earth and the atmosphere equally, as does the influence that causes the Solar system to orbit in the Galaxy. And as far as the Earth's rotation goes, it would be 1/2 as fast as the hour hand of a typical analog clock rotates. I know that Flat Earthers like to make a big deal about the Earth "spinning at 1000 mph", but that is the tangential speed at the equator ( where I live it is closer to 707 mph) To put that in perspective, imagine a 1000 mile long stretch of road with a 15 degree curvature over its length. You start at one end, traveling at 1000 mph. After one hour, and 1000 miles later you are now heading in a direction 15 degrees different than what you started at. Without any other visual clues, you be hard pressed to even detect the curvature in the road.
Again calling someone ignorant does not make you intelligent.

Ignorance means simply lacking in knowledge, it has nothing to do with intelligence. I gladly admit to being ignorant of quite a few things. (For instance, I'm totally ignorant of pre-Byzantine architecture.)

I do have a problem with people who make arguments about a subject which they very clearly made no attempt to study deeply; trying to pass off ignorance as greater understanding.

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.

The Pylons are not curving, do you understand perspective. Have you ever been to a long hotel corridor like in Vegas - you will see all the walls and ceiling converging to a small point - it does not mean the builder was curving because of hotel curvature. It also does not mean the floor is rising towards the ceiling. So the engineers did not do anything - they followed a flat earth assumption when creating the pylons - the picture you are showing is because of prespective where there is a point of convergence when you take a picture or use any lens organic or inorganic. Is this clear?

The Pylons are not curving
In the image, the line of pylons looks curved at the far end. Are you blind?

Wait, I know the answer to that one, You are blind, wilfully blind. You have to ignore what your eyes tell you because you want desperately to believe you know something; something other people don't know or understand, so you're special. One of the chosen few.

Right?

Have you ever been to a long hotel corridor like in Vegas - you will see all the walls and ceiling converging to a small point - it does not mean the builder was curving because of hotel curvature. It also does not mean the floor is rising towards the ceiling.
Correct! Put a ruler along the lines on that picture and they are all straight.

So how do you account for the fact that the pylons in your picture curve downwards? Why does that hallway appear to go straight, but the line of pylons curves downward?

The Pylons are not curving, do you understand perspective.

The pylons are curving over the horizon. The Earth is a planet. It is the height of irony when a flat earther suggests others don't understand perspective!

Explain the Sunset and the Sunrise. You see how things get smaller on your picture, tell everyone why the Sun doesn't

Are you going to answer my questions, Guru? And David C's one about sunrise and sunset?

Are you going to answer my questions, Guru? And David C's one about sunrise and sunset?
I suspect not. There are three possibilities here:

1) He is a real flat Earther who really believes the Earth is flat. Real flat Earthers can't afford to question their beliefs (or answer questions about their beliefs) since it takes so much effort to maintain all those myths to begin with. They simply can't afford to think about things like GPS or sunrise too carefully.

2) He's a troll and he thinks it will make you madder if he doesn't answer (which means he won't answer.)

3) He is simply ignorant and hasn't thought about it much. In which case it's possible for him to learn.

In my experience 1) and 2) make up 99.9% of the flat Earthers out there.

Or is he just using an indefensible position to exercise his disputational faculties?(which would also amount to trolling, I suppose)

Or is he just using an indefensible position to exercise his disputational faculties?(which would also amount to trolling, I suppose)
Yeah, I'd call that trolling. Any time you are intentionally dishonest (or you distort your own position) in order to create an angry response that's pretty much trolling.

Yeah, I'd call that trolling. Any time you are intentionally dishonest (or you distort your own position) in order to create an angry response that's pretty much trolling.
I think I read somewhere that there is a class of people who one might call contrarian, who set out to espouse positions at variance with the mainstream, because they get a kick out of being part of what they portray (to themselves at least) as a persecuted minority. It can, I gather, be hard to determine whether such people genuinely hold the views they advocate, or whether it is an adversarial pose. Sometimes the people themselves don't seem to know: cognitive dissonance can be harnessed.

I'm trying to remember where I read this.............

Yes, it has been done, and as expected the Earth curves.

Really, please provide details of Earth curve experiment that proves earth curves. Or for that matter water curves, just show that in a lab experiment it should make me a globe believer back again.

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.

So you are saying there is no outside tension on those towers like the heavy steel ropes - curve of earth is the only explanation. Then if that is the case we should see the manhattan city skyline show the same curve when viewed from New Jersey ..have not seen that in person or in pictures and the skyline of Manhattan must be atleast 4 time wider than golden gate bridge.

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.

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.

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.

Right. His intelligence is what makes him intelligent.

So you are missing the point your experiment to prove requires earth or venus. Sorry that does not hold true. Secondly, the chimney experiment is not relevant you are trying to prove in vacuum the atmosphere settles in layer - we have the Sandusky Vacuum chamber show me one experiment that proves your theory - Chimney experiment is not needed because things settle down based on density and mass not because of gravity.

Thank you.

Are you going to answer my questions, Guru? And David C's one about sunrise and sunset?
I will answer your questions just this week is busy for me till Friday, I will answer with a nice warm sake. Short answer the Sun moves away and comes into view it does not rise over the horizon or sets behind one. It is funny, I used to be a glober till 2017 and in the past have discounted people.
For now a small clip of sun fading away.

So you are missing the point your experiment to prove requires earth or venus. Sorry that does not hold true.
Things that hold true for one planet do not hold true for others? What an odd claim.
Secondly, the chimney experiment is not relevant you are trying to prove in vacuum the atmosphere settles in layer - we have the Sandusky Vacuum chamber show me one experiment that proves your theory - Chimney experiment is not needed because things settle down based on density and mass not because of gravity.
So how do you explain the fact that, in the chimney experiment, the pressure decreases as you go higher? And that at the top it is effectively vacuum?
Really, please provide details of Earth curve experiment that proves earth curves.
Sure. Here are a few simple ways:

Launch a weather balloon with a camera. As it rises you will see the curve of the Earth.

Take a flight around the Earth. As you fly from one place to another, you will see the time of day change as well as the stars you can see. I once took a flight from France to California, for example, and saw two sunrises and two sunsets within about 14 hours. That's not possible in the flat Earth model.

Call a friend of yours on the opposite side of the Earth. You will note that while you see daylight he will be in night and vice versa. That cannot happen on a flat Earth.
o you are saying there is no outside tension on those towers like the heavy steel ropes - curve of earth is the only explanation.
Of course there is outside tension that pulls in both directions.

If the Earth was flat then both towers would be vertical and parallel and inclinometers would show them to be exactly vertical.

However, since the Earth is curved, the towers are 2 inches further apart at the top than they are at the bottom - and inclinometers still show them to be exactly vertical.

Then if that is the case we should see the manhattan city skyline show the same curve when viewed from New Jersey
Yes, you do. But since your eye cannot see a 2 inch difference over 12 miles (the length of Manhattan, which is 760,000 inches) you cannot perceive it with your eyes alone.

Last edited: