No but reality and all of the evidence proves that the earth is round. Nothing proves or even suggests that it is flat
Other than your eyes and senses, in which you rely on to survive. Water which is the greatest tool for leveling, I wonder why? Your ability to detect motion, and yet you cannot detect any. Actually there is more empirical evidence for a flat earth than a ball earth. I know how you like balls, and blue balls at that, but sooner or later truth is going to hit you like a ton of bricks, and turn your world upside down. Definition of empirical 1riginating in or based on observation or experience empirical data 2:relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory an empirical basis for the theory 3:capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment empirical laws 4f or relating to empiricism Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.Jul 27, 2017
The deeper you get in water, the more weight (mass) is above and on you. You go to deep, not only are you not going to be able to overcome the weight (mass), but your going to be crushed.
that is incorrect. People use their senses thousands of years ago particularly their eyes to surmise the world was spherical. Again ships as they sail over the horizon they disappear from the bottom up they wouldn't do that if it was flat You have to make false statements in order to suggest that isn't true.
There is absolutely zero empirical evidence for a flat earth, Nothing is empirical about a flat earth since ALL observation including your own shows the earth to be round. The round earth has been verified and cannot be disproved by any observation or evidence. So it is not empirical that the earth is round it is simple absolute reality which you routinely lie about. you lie about their being empirical evidence of a flat earth also. If there were any such empirical evidence you could present some and you never have
Where is any of this being used for gravity? Where is the experiments (repeatable) and observations of gravity?: A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2]Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3] Being used for gravity? Where is the experiments (repeatable) and observations of gravity? And in the definition I gave you, it literally uses "theoretical physicists". So don't even try.
I got people here where I am, that believe the earth is flat, and people who think it's round. And they all agree that you have mental problems.
Yes, that's exactly what would happen on a flat plane. Prove that it wouldn't. You know, "science", it's not to prove things, rather disprove them.
it's observable everytime you drop something. There is nothing of any significant mass that doesn't fall to the Earth. the Wikipedia article I gave to you explained it in more depth. I'm going to tell you every time I can that the dictionary is descriptive not prescriptive.
For one I'm not lying. And for two, no Christian is going to not sin. And for three, being wrong is not lying.
No. You have to prove that it would. Your claim that that is exactly what would happen on a flat surface is a positive claim I don't have to prove it wrong you have to prove it correct. I'm sorry the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove your claim is correct. Proof that that would happen on a flat surface.
That aside he is correct. It is not theoretical that the Earth is spherical it is proven fact. Anybody who says it's not is deluded and thus I wouldn't trust them to evaluate someone's mental state.
Yes you are. You lied when you said this. Now if you were born blind you may think that but you wouldn't have any sensory input and which to base it on. It would still be a lie of omission.
The properties of air (medium) are not going to hold anything up, unless they have the same buoyancy. Pretty simple isn't it. It's the properties of the medium, the variables within the medium, that grant it's results. To add something non observable is irrelevant. Meaning the variable falling is observable, but gravity is not. Matter fact, what is gravity?
Brilliant. Drive around your neighborhood without changing your direction and tell us what happens. It helps a lot. It occurred to me that you don't understand why your video is another OMG moment. It's not because it's CGI (though it is completely hypocritical of you to rely on a CGI video when you constantly dismiss all contra visual proof as "CGI"), but because of the astoundingly ignorant claims it makes. The person who made that video is either astoundingly ignorant, or fundamentally dishonest. Or both. Now, you've claimed multiple times to have studied and be fully familiar with the "heliocentric" model. If that were true, you would never have posted this video. Unless you are also fundamentally dishonest. So I'm not sure you are being intellectually dishonest by posting a video you know to be absurd, or you are being intellectually dishonest in asserting you are familiar with the heliocentric model. I'm going to assume the latter, though there is plenty of evidence in your posts for the former. So let's look at your video and see why I went "OMG." First, the video claims or implies that the fact Polaris remains in a fixed place in the sky cannot be true, because the Earth is 93 million miles from the sun, and in orbiting the sun, is moving in a circle 184 million miles wide (giving a million miles for the diameter of the sun). Your video claims that because the Earth moves that distance, Polaris should be in different places in the sky. If you know the heliocentric model, you also then know that Polaris is about 2,500,000,000,000,000 miles away. At that distance, a movement of a couple hundred million miles isn't going to have any perceptible change on the position of Polaris in the sky. So the premise of the video that because the Earth rotates around the sun means that we should be seeing Polaris move about the sky reflects fundamental ignorance. As to this fact, your video says "hmmmmm". [1:16] And then, to prove that Polaris is really not far away at all (and this is the real "OMG" part) he shows that when you go near the equator, Polaris moves closer to the equator. And then he makes the astounding assertion that the movement from the US to the equator is a "miniscule distance compared to the millions of miles away. Yet you can see a drastic change in the location of polaris if you simply go from the United States to the equator." [3:32] Honestly, if you have even the slightest understanding of the heliocentric system, you should be able to instantly see the grossly ignorant error the video is making. But apparently you do not see it? Really? Or are you being dishonest with us? He is trying to compare the distance traveled as the Earth is moving (around the sun), with the distance from the US to the Equator that someone moves on the Earth, in the effect of how the appearance of Polaris in the sky. The fundamental difference should be obvious to anyone with just common sense, much less a thorough understanding of the heliocentric model as you've claimed you have. The former situation involves the Earth's movement through space, while the latter involves a person's movement on the Earth. Polaris appears to remain in the same place in the sky (if you don't change your latitude) because it is (nearly) directly in line with the axis of the Earth above the North Pole. When you change your latitude on the Earth, Polaris doesn't change its position relative to the Earth as the video astoundingly argues. What changes is your plane of view because you are on a sphere. Because you are on a sphere and Polaris is directly in line with the axis of the sphere, when you change your latitude, Polaris appears in a relative (and geometrically) different position relative to Polaris. If you are on the North Pole, the plane of the horizon is perpendicular to the axis, and Polaris will appear directly overhead. But if you are on the equator, the plan of the horizon is nearly parallel to the axis, and thus, Polaris will appear right at the horizon. And everywhere in between those two points, the angle of the plane of the horizon changes relative to your latitude, so that Polaris will appear in the sky at an angle relative to how far north above the equator you are. Because of these fact, you can figure your (North) latitude on the Earth by measuring the angle of Polaris in the Sky. At the North Pole, 90* latitude, the angle of Polaris relative to the horizon is 90*. At the equator it is 0*. Here in Miami, where we are at 25* latitude, the angle of Polaris from the horizon is 25* as well. If you live in New York City, at 40* latitude, the angle from the horizon is 40*. You can measure this yourself. Go out one night with a protractor (a sextant will give you a much more precise measure, but a protractor will do), and measure the angle between the horizon and Polaris, and you will find that it is the same as the latitude in which you are located. Here's an illustration to help you visualize: So, as I've demonstrated, only those who are fundamentally ignorant of the heliocentric system would post a video that made such fundamentally ignorant assertions. To the contrary, your video proves the Earth is a sphere. If the Earth was flat, Polaris would appear in the same position in the sky regardless of where you are on the Earth. But your own video proves it doesn't. Your video, and your own observations, prove that Polaris' relative position in the sky changes geometrically as you change latitude (and disappears completely as you move south of the equator). This could only happen if the Earth is a sphere. As an aside, your video also proves that the stars do not appear to revolve around the Earth, but appear to revolve around Polaris (in the Northern Hemisphere; in the Southern Hemisphere, the appear to rotate around the Southern Cross, which is over the Southern Pole axis (but not as directly as Polaris is over the Northern axis)). Thus, your own common sense must tell you that the Earth cannot be the center of the universe with everything revolving around the Earth. The little "BS" meter at the end of the video should have given you a clue that your video is BS. If your great knowledge of the heliocentric model and common sense hadn't told you that long before.
is it explains how things fall to the Earth no. That only explains that denser matter does not Float On Air. The reason why it would Float On Air is because air is matter and because matter has mass it is attracted to other matter things such as planets or the Earth would be more dense so the air would stay attracted to the Earth. This would be true regardless of the shape of Earth the property of having Mass. actually gravity is should there have been no gravity No Object would fall buoyancy only exists because of gravity. gravity is the term used to describe the property of matter that gives matter Mass. Mass attracts mass. Mass is the amount of atoms contained within the matter
Feeding trolls will only make them have a larger income. If they post this a click bait. Which, IMO, this is what this flat earth BS is. This is like the 6th such click bait thread in the last year.
This video is not quite as "OMG" as the first, but just about. It claims the heliocentric model is "flawed" because the orbit of Venus is inside the orbit of the Earth, and thus, the view to Venus will always be on the "bright side" of the Earth and we should not be able to see Venus at night. It's another example of ignorance. You can see Venue at times early in the evening or morning because it is 67 million miles from the Sun. The angle from Earth to Venus is not the same as the angle from Earth to the Sun, which is the error the video makes. The video is grossly disproportional as to the size of the planets and their relative distance from the sun, and simple mathematics shows why its conclusion is completely bogus. Picture the orbit of Venus at a 90* angle from the Sun relative to Earth. We will have a right triangle, with the 90* angle at the sun. One side of the triangle is the Earth to the Sun, about 93 million miles. A second side of the triangle is from Sun to Venus which is 67 million miles. The final side of the triangle is the line from Earth to Venus. With this data, simple geometry allows us to calculate the angles between Earth and Venus. Now go to this site, which calculates angles for a right triangle: http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html. In the diagram, the Earth is A, Venus is B, and the Sun is C. The distance "b" is 93. The distance "a" is 67. Input those values, and press calculate. The calculation reveals that the distance between Earth and Venus will be 114.62 (million) miles. Angle "A or B" (35.77*) will be the angle of Venus from the Earth relative to the Sun, and Angle 3 will be the angle from Venus to Earth, relative to the sun (54.23*). That's why you can see Venus after the Sun sets. Picture yourself on the Earth at the moment the sun sets on the horizon; the sun at that moment will be at an angle of 0* relative to the plane of the horizon. But Venus will be at an angle 35.77* above the horizon. The Earth turns at 15* per hour (360* /24). Thus, you could see Venus for a period of a little more than two hours after the sun sets (or before the sun rises). You can see Mercury for the same reason, though because it is closer to the Sun, the time frame of visibility will be shorter. This is simple mathematics, and simple common sense. Anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the heliocentric models should know this. Anyone can run the numbers themselves. And this is yet another example of why you should be careful about making conclusions about things from nutjob internet videos. Have you learned your lesson yet? Doubtful.
No they don't and you only speak for yourself. No one THINKS it is round it simply is round which you cannot refute.
Yes you are. It is not a question of being wrong it is a question of willfully disobeying the god you believe in.
If you want to claim Polaris is 2,500,000,000,000,000 miles away you go right ahead. Nothing is going to be seen at that distance or measured. Such tremendous and outrageous claims, none in which can be proven. So your math starts with a claim. No, Polaris is claimed to be 2,500,000,000,000,000 miles away. Nothing more than a claim.
Sorry, you don't get to move the goalposts. You presented that video as proof that the heliocentric model is erroneous and false. The burden of proof is on you based upon the tenants of the heliocentric system. I have proved, using commonly accepted tenants of the heliocentric system, that the claims in that video are completely bogus (and indeed, they demonstrate my point of how Polaris proves the Earth is a sphere, not flat, which you still have not rebutted). Thus, that video itself in no way proves the heliocentric system is erroneous. Your denial now is making a new claim, that the distance to Polaris, based on the heliocentric system, is not accurate. The only "proof" the video makes about the distance of Polaris is the fundamentally ignorant demonstration, as I pointed out in my post you cited, that the relative position of Polaris in the sky based upon your latitude on Earth in no way proves anything about the distance to Polaris. I asked you in my post:Honestly, if you have even the slightest understanding of the heliocentric system, you should be able to instantly see the grossly ignorant error the video is making.But apparently you do not see it? Really? Or are you being dishonest with us? Why did you dodge my question? Please address it. The only thing the fact that the position of Polaris changes geometrically with latitude proves (which again, you have utterly failed to rebut) is that the Earth is a sphere. If you deny that, please explain how the position of Polaris could change geometrically with latitude (which again, you have utterly failed to rebut) if the Earth were flat. As to the distance of Polaris from the Earth, you've utterly failed to prove Polaris is not a couple quadrillion miles away. Your unsupported, baseless denials of fact are not proof of anything. However, regardless of the actual distance, the fact that Polaris's relative position in the sky is a geometric function of your latitude is irrebuttal proof that the Earth is a Sphere. As I pointed out, if the Earth were flat, Polaris could be see from all over the Earth, it would not change its position geometrically with latitude, and it would not be obstructed in the Southern Hemisphere. If you deny that, please explain why you cannot see Polaris from the entire Earth if the Earth wax flat. And then explain how you can see the Southern cross from the Southern Hemisphere but nor from more northern latitudes (above 30* N) This is proved by observation and simple mathematics. And if nothing more, common sense.