An american guy claims he found proofs of Earth being flat. Prove him wrong.
You can start the video on the 44seconds spot and finish the following 4 minutes.
Admittedly, I smiled when I first came across a video claiming that the Earth is flat rather than a globe and I thought to myself; " How backward can people get?"
Then I chose to view a short one to be able to get just enough info on what are their reasons for believing such "bs" in this day and age. Thinking it will be easy to prove them wrong, if ever I meet them. The guy in the video seem to have the same line of thought.
It is easy to laugh at them and call them crazy, insane and many other negative expletives. Proving them wrong on the other hand, is a whole ballgame in itself. As I discovered later; is rather hard.
To put it simply, using pythagorean theorem it is easy to prove the curvature of the surface of a ball in a given distance with a known circumference. (Earth's circuference is SUPPOSEDLY 40,000 Km.) Meaning there is an expected 8 inches curve every 1.6 Km or 1 mile.
If you would like to see the expected curvature of a globe Earth horizon please see the image below:
Here is a simple challenge to all of you out there who are scientifically and mathematically inclined thinkers: Using math, some Euclidean geometry and some observable evidence, prove this guy wrong. Or did he discover something that is deliberately hidden from us for sometime now.
Here is a practical way to observe this yourself. When you chance to see two distant and separated landmarks in your horizon, find out their exact distance from one another, using Google Earth ruler tool. Remembering that your horizon is also the outer limits of this supposedly globe Earth and see if you can find the expected curve. Find 2 farthest separated things from each other as you can observe in your horizon.
Happy thinking.
Let's start by saying that this guy is a fucking liar and/or a complete idiot, where did he get the 885ft number from? that number is only true IF your eyes are at sea level like your toe fingers. https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=36.039529149746&h0=0&unit=imperial
We don't even know at what height the picture he is showing us was taken, my gues is that probably 10s of ft above sea level. Also we don't know if other factors played a role that day like tidal force, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
Althought extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, he doesn't have to work so hard, all he has to do is to stand in a beach in Europe and send a light signal across the Atlantic Ocean, if the signal can be detected on the other side then he is right, as simple as that.
EDIT
This a$$hole shows us pictures (e.g. 3:16) taken much much higher than sea level and then gives us his "calculations" at sea level, as if we had eyes in our toes. Yeah sure!! earth is flat!! because... IDIOTS!!!
If the Earth was a ball this is what would happen when we tried to stand up.
People can't stand on balls silly head.
He is just clumsy...
It's so easy...
Hehe. Some expletives right there. But have you considered the supposed ciucumference of the Earth? If you make a scaled down copy of that by drawing a circle on a paper or cardboard and cutting it out, you can use that to verify if your horizon will coincide with it's curve. Because when viewed in perspective, circles' outer sides will perfectly align with other circles' outer sides.
hm.. I can't understand what exactly you are saying, my english are not as good as I would like them to be :(
Maybe an example, a link or a picture could help me understand more
Okay, I'm sorry I too can't put my meaning well into words clearly...let us start with something easier to do: Get 2 coins 1 much larger than the other, put the bigger one on the table, while you hold the smaller one and look at its edge directly perpendicular above the coin on the table while standing until the circles of both coins coincide. This same principle should also hold true for the Earth's horizon being supposedly globe(circular).
But if instead of coinciding you see a straight line(your horizon) intersecting the curve of your scaled down circle Earth(the cardboard you drew and cut), then the globe does not exist.
I got the two coins part but I can't understand how you can do the same thing with something HUGE like earth when you stand on it and something relatively small that you can hold on your hand while you stand on earth. I guess this could work if we were able to move far away from earth, but again there might be something that I still don't understand.
If you could find some picture or link where this idea originates from maybe it could help clear things up
Satellites.
Well that was easy.
Show him a photograph of a satellite in space.
Satellites can exist in both plane and globe.
Why do you spend so much effort to convince yourself of something that's obviously wrong?
Prove it.
no
Flat Earthers are those who do incredible amounts of mental gymnastics inorder to justify their ignoring hundreds of years of scientific fact that the earth is a damn sphere.
I think I found one "honest to goodness" counter logic/proof to whatever logic/proof the youtube guy on the this post is presenting (https://www.youtube.com/user/Alegzander1990) has presented, here it is:
Alegzander19905 days ago (edited)
Honest request here.
If the Earth is flat as you say, could you please explain sunset.I will elaborate my argument for you. How come the Sun goes bellow the horizon ? In the FE model, the Sun is supposedly at ~3000 miles altitude, yet it somehow goes bellow the horizon, when it reality it would NEVER EVER go bellow the horizon no matter how far away it would get.
Think of a right angled triangle (Such as this one.Open it in a new tab so you can stick with me on this : http://www.mathportal.org/calculators/plane-geometry-calculators/triangleRightAngle.gif), with the Sun at the top (point "B" in the picture), and your horizon line as the bottom side of the right angle (in the picture that would be "b", or the "CA" segment).The length of "b" also represents your distance, in length, from the Sun.The altitude of the Sun would be represented by the "CB" segment, and your relative position is "A". Now, while maintaining "CB" (the "altitude" of the Sun) constant, you can increase the "b" side / "CA" segment (your relative distance from the Sun along the flat plane) virtually as much as you want, and it would always remain a triangle, and the Sun would always be above your horizon line "b" (the "CA" segment).
Basically, on a FE, the Sun would only appear to shrink as it went further away, but it would never disappear, the way i see it. Now, the argument FE people make, is that it "disappears" because of perspective, but you have to keep in mind, the Sun is still pretty big, even in the FE theory, and more importantly it's VERY bright (it emits huge amounts of light).The Sun is the brightest thing in the sky.During daytime we can't see the stars because of the light of the Sun.Sure, us humans can't see infinitely, infact things on the Earth's surface are already kind of hard to make out, or even see at the "horizon limit", but that applies to relatively small objects compared to the Sun, they're not the brightest thing the human eye has ever experienced either, and they "reside" on the surface, not supposedly "3000 miles up in the sky".
IF IT WERE perspective, you should be able to bring the Sun back into view after sunset, by zooming on the "vanishing point" with a high powered zoom camera, like you see other people do with boats to "prove" the Earth is flat.But you can't do that, can you ? And this introduces my argument against the second proposed reason it supposedly disappears according to FE theory people, and that is atmosphere. Some people have actually tried to justify the inability to bring the Sun back into view right after sunset, by saying it was because of the atmosphere, basically once it got far away enough, it would be "hidden" by the air. No offence, but i call BULLSHIT on that one, and here's why : - First of all, the Sun is too big and bright for that to happen. - Second of all the "atmosphere" argument should apply always and in all directions.The stars are supposedly on the "dome ceiling", correct ? What altitude is that at ? What's that ?
Higher than the Sun, in the FE model ? Are they smaller than the Sun and do they also emit less light than the Sun, in the FE model ? How come we can STILL see them at night provided there's not substantial cloud coverage ? - Third of all, you can prove me wrong anytime by bringing the Sun back into view after sunset.You can choose whatever weather conditions you want.A clear day would be best for a few reasons, first and foremost to allow you to see that you STILL can't bring it back into view, thus confirming the Sun goes bellow the horizon (impossible on the FE model since the Sun is at 3000 miles altitude, which it maintains throughout it's "orbit of the stationary flat Earth") because we're actually turning away from it. P.S. If you do decide to try, make SURE the footage is NOT filmed at sea (for obvious reasons), and what you see is some distorted "hazy" image... - Last but not least, doesn't it seem strange that the atmosphere "obfuscation" effect would CONVENIENTLY "kick-in" right when the Sun has set ? Another point which someone else made, but i feel i MUST include aswell, is how come you can't see the North Star Polaris from every single place on Earth ? Quick read-up : http://www.space.com/15567-north-star-polaris.html Quote : "When you head south, the star drops lower and ultimately disappears once you cross the equator and head into the Southern Hemisphere."
I am not a scientist, nor do i believe everything the government or the scientific community says, i agree NASA are a bunch of lying crooks, and i also agree there are inconsistencies present in the Globe model (based on my knowledge and logical thinking based on that knowledge), and finally i agree the government these days is not to be trusted blindly, but COME ON PEOPLE. Anyways, the way I see it, the Earth is NOT flat, and the Sun setting and rising prove it.I am a fairly open minded person when it comes to accepting different views, but they have to have some actual functioning logic behind them. I hope i didn't come across as too "offensive", and if i did, i apologize; it was merely to express my point of view as closely as possible (to express how ridiculous some stuff seems to me). And finally, if anyone here has an actual argument to support sunset/sunrise on the FE model, i'll be glad to read it. Thanks for reading mine.
NOTE: emphasis are mine to highlight the most relevant portions**
This open minded logical and clearly presented counter reason is what I am looking for from an educated people and it can be found from this link.
Take a plane and don't move the stick until you "come back" to the same airport you started....
Its almost a good point, but it also happens above a plane(flat disc). A plane taking off from a point on a surface trace a circle and can come back to the exact point. Here's what more intersting in real life. Try to trace flight paths (true planes route on Earth) and try to see if you can find an INTERCONTINENTAL flight route tracing the equator. All of them climbs up first to the northern part before going back down to their destination.
Here's how they represent it on a plane Earth
http://postimg.org/image/kbefrpbe9/
I'll give you an upvote for having the balls to post this. ;)
We need more balls :)
Agreed. Please have the balls to do a little more research than a couple youtube videos.
A controversial map... http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1907-01-11/ed-1/seq-2/ showing more continents beyond the "south pole" rim.
Here's a monetary "added bonus" in line with the above...1000$ for anyone who can prove.