That's fine, continue living on your ball. But did you research the 66,600 MPH orbital speed? Would be curious if you arrived to the same conclusion as those early (((scientists))) did when they concluded on that 'speed'. And while you're at it see if it is possible to spin a ball while keeping water stuck to it. It seems otherwise your research is incomplete (because the onus is on you and the other heliocentric radicals to prove these miracles & extreme mathematical models).
you can approximate the size/shape of the earth (as well as the changing orbit) with trig/measurements you can perform yourself.
yes, I am fully aware math has infinite numbers and as such infinite formulas you can iterate through until you finally get the fucking number you want. This trick of presenting valiid formulas using numbers that have no bearing on reality might work on normies but has no effect on me or anyone who uses math day to day in their profession.
So you'll have to come up with some more compelling response, such as proof of this so called curvature you can see with the naked eye - show us a picture or tell the location to go where this curvature can be viewed. Evidently you found the proof of the ball so this location should be famous ! Otherwise, all non-fisheye lens cams of the upper atmosphere captured to date simply show a horizon that rises to the horizontal middle of the camera's view to the highest altitudes possible, no curve is found.
I haven't calculated the speed myself but, I doubt god intended you to measure it in MPH or that it's exactly 666. If it is, stranger things have definitely happened. Water is polar so it wants to stick to itself anyway and the acceleration due to gravity at aprox 9.8 m/s2 is pretty dam strong.
The formulas used to calculate the size and shape of earth is trigonometry/geometry. There's a little bit of iteration involved to calculate orbit but it can easily be done by hand. Not super easy but nothing even close to the level of math I think you think it is. If your talking about quantum physics and shit, yes, there are a decent number of assumption that are questionable and may be wrong.
I think a better example would be approaching a land mass with an mountain or some other landmark from sea. Island is out of sight then progressively comes into view from the top down. As for a specific, personal land based example, water tower and fort fincastle in nassau Bahamas. Idk, try to find a lighthouse on a peninsula or something and climb it.
(post is archived)