![Flat Earthers [750x1076 - 93KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/6DmM0h.jpg){kind=link}
I wouldn't call myself a flat earther. But ill say anyone who "thinks" they "know" definitively one way or the other is a fool.
50 miles away https://pic8.co/sh/V3NuMJ.png
A lot of people will argue atmospheric refraction, which by the way is absolute nonsense. Mirages are not clear and uniform. But I will argue and having done so myself, that with a large enough lens or telescope you can see all of Chicago on any day. According to math you should be able to see the earth starting to fall away from you at about 8 miles.
I'm just saying nobody knows. Why do we choose to have another degree of separation between us instead of being angry at the ones who deny us truth?
For those buildings to be visible at that apparent height from 50 miles away, quite a lot of zoom is used to get in that tight. I don't know which skyline that is, but lets just argue that the tallest building in the shot is 1000 feet tall. That would put the horizon approximately 35,000 feet wide (I measured it in PhotoShop). That's approximately 6.6 miles. The circumference of the Earth is approximately 24,900 miles. That puts one degree of circumference at 69 miles (24,900 / 360 = 69.1 miles). The width of the horizon view assuming the 6.6 mile from before is only one tenth of a degree on the Earth's surface. Exactly how much curvature would you be able to discern from 0.1 degrees of view? And what if the tallest building isn't even 1000 feet tall? That would mean less than 0.1 degrees field of view and even less detectable curvature.
According to math you should be able to see the earth starting to fall away from you at about 8 miles.
starting to fall
starting
And exactly what concrete measurement is "starting"? Starting == 1 foot? 100 feet? 1000 feet? Give me something concrete to work with here other than the ambiguous term "starting" as a measurement. Given that you only see the taller buildings poking up and can't see anything else, I think your picture does show the falling away. The buildings appear to come right out of the water with nothing to support them. Is the land 100% at zero feet sea level? Why can't I see where the land in the foreground begins or ends? I'm pretty certain that there is land there as we have no floating skyscrapers. I think this photo does show that the curvature is clearly causing the land to fall away. Do you see land in the foreground where the buildings are? If you do, please point it out to me since I see none.
I thought chicago was shaped like a watermelon with a bullet hole at the poles.
That picture is deceiving.
It is Chicago. From the point indicated on the picture.
Asking for concrete when you literally just used Photoshop to "assume" measurements. Priceless.
And exactly what concrete measurement is "starting"? Starting == 1 foot? 100 feet? 1000 feet?
At about 8 miles. It was included in the sentence... From standing on the earths surface a human should not be able to see the horizon beyond ~8 miles. And if you use the official math to calculate the distance to the horizon depending on viewing height its even less.
d² = h² + 2rh
distance² = height² + (2 * radius * height)
You aren't going to get a fantastical debunk on me...
Nobody knows and I do not claim to be one that does. There is evidence that supports both arguments. The fact everyone is busy fighting about it instead of being angry that those who do know and are not transparent in their findings is the issue I pointed out.
Asking for concrete when you literally just used Photoshop to "assume" measurements. Priceless.
Since all I had to work with was your picture with no information, I used what I could to make comparisons. I made a line the height of the tallest building and used that line to measure across the picture. Assuming the height of the building was 1000 feet (just a guess since I didn't know the city), I found that there was about 35 lines across the picture. How much more concrete could I get with what you provided? What would you do differently?
I notice you didn't say anything about where the land was. Why isn't there any visible land? Where did it go? Why didn't you answer that question? You're not going to simply dismiss my work on this just because you chose to avoid answering that question.
You need to provide something better than "those who do know and are not transparent in their findings is the issue I pointed out" when a picture like this doesn't have anything to do with anyone who might "know". Are you suggesting this image is fake then?
The buildings appear to come right out of the water with nothing to support them.
Your missing the point. Plus that is almost ground level. With better focus you'd see the ground. Do you not know what Chicago looks like? So given the fact the earth falls away from you by 8" every mile the bottom ~50ft should not be visible at all. And that picture definitely shows closer than 50ft to the ground.
With better focus you'd see the ground
So show me a picture with better focus then. There has to be one if such a thing is possible.
So given the fact the earth falls away from you by 8" every mile the bottom ~50ft should not be visible at all
I'd say the picture does show that ~50 ft are missing. There should be a lot of other buildings that are around 50 feet tall yet they are all missing. I've been to Chicago and I know there should be a lot surrounding those skyscrapers. Where'd they go?
The Willis tower is 1450 ft by the way.
We do know, you're just a fucking idiot trying to sound smart. Let me guess, atoms don't exist or protons because I can't see with my math not good.
What the fuck are you going on about? You don't know. You can think you do and that's fine, but you don't...
Stating "basic" math that you can do on a piece of paper or Google for that fucking matter, is not an attempt at sounding smart. You're just a whiny bitch that cant justify his own beliefs and therefore you lash out with retard anger.
Your beliefs are easily challenged... You are very weak minded. Go lick foreskin somewhere else rabbi.
(post is archived)