Globe Earth debunked

No need to move the goal posts. The operative term is escort. Military or otherwise doesn't really matter.

Let's get back to Antarctica. Someone please explain why we aren't allowed to go there without a military escort. Bullshit answers not welcome.

So, I asked you to be intellectually honest and confirm you "know" you live on a spinning ball? Instead you fail and try to just turn it on it's head.

I am offering you nothing...

...and selling you no ideas I have nothing to prove and the burden of proof comes with those making a claim.

I've told you before I can fly....you believe this?

I can get pictures and video but just not show this in the real life.....you believe this? At what point can you believe this....maybe when you see it for yourself. Someone making outrageous claims should be asked for specifics.

Nothing could sell me an idea without a tangible measurement. All I have asked for is tangible measurement...

I certainly do not think your claim to have seen the curvature of the earth first hand is meaningful nor true.

I look forward to your parroted response and intellectual dishonesty Bobo. Really go for it!!! Don't forget to wear funny clothes, big shoes, paint yer face and make people laugh by performing some hilarious tricks while you behave in such a silly way.

It does matter. That was your original claim, which has been refuted.

Quoted for truth. Not going to let you back out of it.

Proper motion is real and can be measured, but it's incredibly slow in human terms.


46 milliarcseconds per year * about 13,0000 years = about 598 arcseconds or 10 arcminutes, about 1/3rd the diameter of the full moon. Even if you could hop through time and go back tens of thousands of years, Polaris would barely seem to move by eye. It's very far away, so much so that even with a relative motion of at least 48,000 mph to our solar system, the motion is too small to see by eye over human time spans. Precession does mean that Polaris has not always been the north star in human history though, but that's due to the earth's axis of rotation, rather than a motion of Polaris itself.

Just to further prove the point, here is a catalog of stars measured by Tycho Brahe, published by Johannes Kepler, about 400 years ago. This excel sheet contains the ecliptic coordinates, names, and even correlated HIP designations for each star. The highlighted columns are the ecliptic longitude and latitude in the epoch at which these stars were originally measured, around the year 1600.
[link to dropcanvas.com]
Let's take Arcturus as an example, the brightest star in the constellation Boötes. It's on row 135 in the excel sheet, and accounting for 400 years of precession, those coordinates translate to equatorial coordinates of approximately the following:
RA: 214.04 degrees
Declination: 19.44 degrees

Now, what are the coordinates of Arcturus today? Well the J2000.0 coordinates are the following:
RA: 213.9153
Dec: 19.1824

Note, this difference is not from precession, I already accounted for that when converting from ecliptic to equatorial coordinates. This is the actual motion of the star over the last 400 years. Taking the published expected values for the proper motion of Arcturus ( [link to simbad.u-strasbg.fr] ) we can extrapolate the modern coordinates for Arcturus backwards in time to predict what the coordinates should have been 400 years ago back when Tycho and Kepler were doing their work. Here are the coordinates predicted by the proper motion of the star:
RA: 214.04
Dec: 19.40

Well, would you look at that, it's almost a perfect match to what Tycho actually measured, to within 4 hundredths of a degree!

It's NOT a motion of the entire constellation of Boötes either. Let's take a look at another major star of Boötes, the star Izar:
[link to simbad.u-strasbg.fr]

As you can see by its HIP number of 72105, Izar is listed on row 128 of my spreadsheet with ecliptic long and lat of 202.4916667 degrees and 40.66666667 degrees respectively. Once again, calculating for 400 years of precession and converting that to equatorial coordinates we get the following:
RA: 221.24687
Dec: 27.08932

This star has much lower proper motion than Arcturus, it's not moving as fast, so the difference between Tycho's coordinates and modern coordinates is much smaller.
Here are the J2000.0 coordinates of Izar:
RA: 221.24674
Dec: 27.07422

The fact that Arcturus has moved by about 0.29 degrees while Izar has barely moved at all means the constellation of Boötes HAS changed its shape in the last 400 years and you CAN see this difference by examining centuries old star catalogs and comparing to the modern positions of the stars. I just did that. I warned you yesterday not to push me or I'd whip out Tycho on you, but you didn't listen, you just had to resort to slandering me by calling me a pedo and other crap. So now you get to deal with the fact that I just destroyed your claim completely. Enjoy.

.



I gave you several reasons, which you (gasp) handwave away. Exactly as expected.



You can say that, again.



You are doing both. You are making the claim the world is flat. I have disagreed, both citing sources you reject out of hand, citing observations you can make yourself, first hand experiences I have had, and asking for what specific evidence can change your mind. There apparently is no such evidence, so I have concluded that your position is irrational on its face.



Strawman noted. Other than demonstrating you intellectual dishonesty.



Great! What specific evidence would allow you to conclude that the Earth is globular?



This point I addressed citing the measurements between various Southern-Hemisphere distances between different cities on different continents. Those distances are flown non-stop, daily, by Qantas airlines. Those distance *cannot* be true on a flat Earth.

Another tangible measurement is with Southern Constellations.

Another tangible measurement is the Earth's shadow on the Moon during an eclipse.

Another tangible consequence -- that the Earth cannot be modeled accurately on a flat map. Distortions in distance *must* occur on any flat surface. Why would that be, if the Earth itself was flat?

Another tangible consequence - the laser experiment I linked to earlier which you (gasp) ignored and handwaved away.

You will, of course, handwave away these and other tangible measurements. It's what you do. It's also the reason why you will never give a concrete experiment or observation by which your mind may be changed.



How unexpected.



Ad hominem and poisoning the well noted.

Beep! Beep! Here he comes Bobo the Clown. Squirting pish from his fake flower all over people's faces and completely fixated in adding up fallacies with his crayon believing it to be of interest to anybody. Big massive shoes too to try to give the false impression of having a big D. Deluded man. Hilarious moves.

Try and detract all you want. I apologise it was unfair to ask you, a fucking clown, to be intellectually honest when you demonstrate clear misunderstanding of the word tangible.

I hate clowns

Flat Earth Theory can't even explain basic observations of daylight hours.

NO FE model can explain 17+ hours of daylight in Rio Grande, Argentina on December 22

[link to weatherspark.com (secure)]

Even if it did, any theory must explain all hours, 365 days of the for all points on earth. FE completely fails to do that for the fundamental observation of daylight.

To understand this, one would have to know basic geometry, which the FE community apparently does not.


Regardless, Flat Earth Debunked.

Flat Earth Theory can't even explain basic observations of daylight hours.

NO FE model can explain 17+ hours of daylight in Rio Grande, Argentina on December 22

[link to weatherspark.com (secure)]

Even if it did, any theory must explain all hours, 365 days of the for all points on earth. FE completely fails to do that for the fundamental observation of daylight.

To understand this, one would have to know basic geometry, which the FE community apparently does not.


Regardless, Flat Earth Debunked.

Have you actually looked into the various models and simulations even using all the measurements from NASA et al?

There's a lot to question here. Look up the infrared long distance photography on Youtube. Now they're squelching a lot, but the main point is there is stuff to question.

Have you actually looked into the various models and simulations even using all the measurements from NASA et al?

There's a lot to question here. Look up the infrared long distance photography on Youtube. Now they're squelching a lot, but the main point is there is stuff to question.

1st, you are comparing a FE university of YouTube video to basic observations of daylight? Really?

2nd, "infrared long distance photography" is a subject that would require a researchable, reputable optical engineer to make a valid determination.

There are NO! researchable, reputable engineers or scientist on earth who support FE. To say they are ALL brainwashed by the establishment is a paranoid delusion.

I'm not going to get into a typed yelling match with you or even an argument. I just asked you two questions, to which you respond with vitriol. And all I can say, is fine. You don't have to look.

"Reputable scientists and engineers"? To take videos? Look up Dr John D's experiments on YouTube. He's a PhD in spectography I think. Just examine information is all I'm suggesting. It isn't any threat to your paradigm to examine things.

If you don't want to, fine.

Well I just looked and their is no mention where he got his PhD, where he was worked as a professional. When I google "Dr, John D's PhD spectrography", I get ZERO.

If you want me or any objective person to consider his material, provide his credentials education/professional experience.

That s funny because nobody really knows.
If it was a globe and if we went to the moon or mars (lol) we would have already thousands of videos of our earth spinning, right?
I don t knwo if it s a globe or if it s flat, but i know that Nasa lies since the beginning.

My eyes, binoculars, and the ability to factor math that requires 8 inches per mile squared to be the curvature of Earth as it is described to us. And is required by the size and model we are taught.

And yes, the cardboard covered in tin foil Moon Lander does factor