Da eard is flat!

People can present you with explanations all day (I am sure you have read about most of them) but if you are not willing to accept them, why should people bother with feeding you? Most people don't care enough about this to put the time into that you apparently do and who wants to argue an unwinnable fight?  I don't think this is the place to find spherical Earth specialists.A quick internet search gave me enough info to understand where you are wrong:How much does the earth curve in 20 miles?[The Earth  has a radius of approximately 3965 miles . Using the Pythagorean theorem, that calculates to an average curvature  of 7.98 inches per mile  or approximately 8 inches per mile  (squared).] How high do you have to go to see the curvature of the earth?[You should be able to detect it from an airplane at a cruising height of around 10,600 meters  (35,000 feet ), ] How far can you see on the horizon?[For an observer on the ground with eye level at h = 5 ft 7 in  (1.70 m ), the horizon is at a distance of 2.9 miles  (4.7 km ). For an observer standing on a hill or tower 100 feet (30 m) in height, the horizon is at a distance of 12.2 miles (19.6 km).]
 
I stated very plainly that the curvature is said to be 8" per mile squared. And so I calculated. The horizon shows to be 15 miles beneath someone at an altitude of 40,000 feet, and yet, they see it at eye level all around the aircraft they are in. A boat at 10 miles out on the sea is said to be beyond the curve from someone standing on the shore, and yet, hull, and all are seen. I have shared factual observations along with calculations using the same formula you are giving. Why don't the formula, and the observations match up? Why do the observations contradict the spherical earth formula? Where are your calculations that you can see a curve? Your surmising that you "should be able" to see it is not scientific.No one has presented any facts, or answers to these 2 plain examples, not here on this thread, or in a year, and a half anywhere that I have asked. I must assume at this point it is because no one is able to do so, or, as you said, they can't be bothered. (They can be bothered long enough to pop in to tell me I am wrong with no facts to back it up.) It is much easier to just tell someone they are wrong based on a mass meme than to prove it, isn't it? If nothing else, this can be approached as a riddle, something to get the juices flowing upstairs, right? Can you do it? Can you figure out what is going on in these 2 examples? Can you show how the heliocentric model explains these apparent discrepancies? I have tried, and I keep coming to the same conclusion. "It can't be done!"{This site barely has 4 people using it at any given time. I don't expect to get any astrophysicists' response either!:)}
 
A while back on this thread I gave you the answer to the boat, but you didn't like it.  Water does some neat things with how it reflects light.  Have you seen the glass of water with arrows behind it? https://youtu.be/G303o8pJzls  I suppose this happens because the Earth is flat as well!
 
You mean when you said to try to see land on the other side of the pacific ocean with a telescope? And because you can't, that proves the earth is not flat? Uhh, you know that humans do not have vision that can see an infinite distance, right? Painters know this, and incorporate perspective into their paintings. At a certain distance, the sky, the ground, and both sides around the distant object we are looking at converge into a vanishing point. No, I don't like that if that is the "proof" you are referring to because it does not hold water. But I appreciate you tryin'!:) 
 
Once again you prove my point by look right past what my point was.  This was the reason I stopped replying to you the last time.  This video is another example of the point I tried to make before that you have confused with something else.  Nothing to do with a telescope. https://youtu.be/QjIxRMWM5do  This must be because the Earth is flat as well!!!  It is easy to say the Earth is flat if you refuse to believe the science around what we see and experience and I don't think anyone is going to convince you otherwise.
 
This is just a boat on water with atmospheric haze around it. I am at a loss as to how this answers my question about seeing hull, and all of a boat that according to the curvature formula we should not be able to see, and yet many do. Don't let this hick out talk you! Prove something! My math is still standing on the 10 mile boat experiment, and the 40,000' airliner experiment. As long as the math stands, the globe model falls.OK, let me help. Water does funny things, so how do we know that funny things aren't happening when we can see things that we should not be able to see? Is that it? If that is it, then you should not trust anything that you see ever again - just wait for some smart folks with letters behind their names from the "gubement" to tell you "what's what". 
 
You are really good at narrowly focusing on what you want to be true, but refuse to look at the other side.  Why not try and play the role of the opposite side?  I have looked into the flat Earth theory and I am not buying it.  How could so few fool so many for so long and why?!?  Part of this reminds me of you!
 
And you are good at going off topic. Please tell us the "other side" that explains these discrepancies regarding these 2 examples I have brought up! Here is your chance to help me look at that "other side" in a tangible way. I have been patiently waiting, and still am. I am right here asking the world (or the 3 persons that visit this site any more) to show me the "other side". Instead of giving me the "other side" of either of these 2 issues, you are telling me "to look at the other side." Could it be that you don't know what the "other side" is, and that you have actually accepted on blind faith what you have been taught? If you cannot give me the "other side" of these 2 issues, who can? Do we need an astrophysicist to come and tell us what to believe, and what not to believe even when we can see it with our own eyes?I have presented 2 very simple examples along with calculations based on a formula that you agree with (the formula, not the examples), and you have presented nothing to contradict these. Show me that "other side", or admit, like I had to do, that you cannot find the answers! I have posted another thread that explains how the recent eclipse could not be possible based on the ball earth model. If you prefer, explain what to me, at least, are impossibilities for the ball model to overcome for that west to east shadow movement.Just telling me to look at "the other side" while offering nothing tangible from the other side is disingenuous.I appreciate your consideration of the topic!    
 
I don't think anyone on this forum feels like it is their job to help to understand the world around you.  I was trying to point out the fact that there are many things in this world that don't make sense when viewed by the naked eye or by running simple math equations.  Sometimes there is more to it than what you can see and readily experience on your own. I haven't answered your questions because I don't fully understand what you are trying to ask!  With a little searching around it is easy to find lots of answers, to similar questions but who saw a boat 10 miles out?  Where did that even come from?  Why would I explain something you are claiming to be truth?  Did it even happen?  Try this, How can a man jump a 10 story building without any mechanical help?  Explain that!  You can explain it by saying that it is a made up story.  So where is your proof?Here are some interesting things that might be related to what you are asking in your first question:
 
[By the way said:
You think you have eyes good enough to see an 8" change over the distance of a mile!?!  I need your eyesight!You could start explaining some of these findings or continue down your bashing of me getting off topic.  That link I posted before calls out flat Earth people as being good at dodging the tough questions:
 
Oh, I thought that you had likely been in an airliner, and had seen the horizon at eye level instead of 10, or 15 miles below you. If you think that this is a ridiculous claim, then I am overtaxing you! My bad! :) And I certainly never intended to disrespect you in any way! I am used to people that can't back up their globe claims being insulting. I was insulting at first, too, because I was just as determined to hang on to something that I could not explain. I had blind faith in something that was completely second hand knowledge, but it seemed that I would fight to the death to protect it. I got good grades in school because I could learn the facts shown in books, and repeat them at test time. I had no confirmation of my own, though, but just had blind faith in what I was told. I was brainwashed like everyone else. The fact that you cannot detect the curve because it is so small, and yet, the hull of a boat supposedly disappears at 3 miles away tells the whole story!!!!! But brainwashing has done it's job! Millions have seen boat's hulls well beyond 3 miles aided by zoom lenses. This means that the curve presented by the globe model has some problems. This thread is here to present these facts, and to discover why there is a discrepancy, or, as is the case so far, to show that no one can do it. If someone takes this as an insult I submit that they should ask themselves why that is. Could it be because they find themselves, as I did, advocating, and having advocated for their entire lifetime something that won't hold water upon examination? This is where I found myself, and it can be difficult.I'll cut your cabbage for a hundred years if that will make things better! :)[ ] 
 
This is sounding more and more like you and all the other flat Earthers out there:
It is okay for you to say whatever you want without any proof (did you do a boat experiment and track it's distance as it goes out to sea?) or your own.  I think you need to become a scientist instead of taking what you read online as fact.  Have you forgotten the answer to seeing downtown Chicago across the 59 mile Lake Michigan?  Why can you only see it sometime?  Why does it change throughout the day? Some nice, long reading with MATH, just for you!!!https://www.quora.com/Chicago-is-59-miles-from-the-opposite-shore-of-Lake-Michigan-Given-the-earth%E2%80%99s-curvature-it-should-be-2320-feet-below-the-horizon-How-can-it-be-seenThis is what I was referring to earlier.  I tried to tie that into you not being able to believe everything you see (mirage, arrow when viewed through water, etc.).  You seem to be looking for explanations to things while throwing all of the math and science you learned in school out the window!  That is not possible, which is why I started by saying that people don't want to respond because we all know that non of this will change your mind.  You should start a "Send me to the moon!" gofundme!  I will contribute!!! 
 
Anyone ever been in an airliner? Please tell us about how you saw something other than the horizon at eye level. If you were at 40,000 feet, you should have had to look down about 15 miles below you in order to see it. Of course there is variation with mountains, and valleys. Why then was it seen at eye level? Eyes playing tricks on you? Was it a mirage? Is the earth much larger than we've been told? Need a smart person to tell you what you really saw? Were you flying over a huge crater? Brainwashed from birth, and fighting like hell to stay that way? :)This is one simple question that should not overload anyone. My explanation is that I believe what I see, and therefore I must conclude that the earth is not a sphere as is described by the present heliocentric model. A flea an eighth of an inch above a basketball would have to look down to see the horizon on that ball, for cryin' out loud. Tell us how you saw the horizon from 40,000 feet, and that it appeared to be many miles beneath you. Please don't leave out that it only happened when the plane was making sharp banking turns. :) And all that crazy stuff about seeing a curve from 20 miles up on a balloon with a go pro camera? Forget all that! Tell us why the horizon is at camera level even at that height!
 
So you mean to tell me that a flea of size 2 mm on a 242.6 mm diameter basketball at a height of 3.175 mm is equivalent to a 6 ft tall man on a 41804400 ft diameter of the Earth at a height of 40000 ft?6/41804400 = 1.43525561e-72/242.6 = 0.00824440000/41804400 = 9.56837079e-43.175/242.6 = 0.01308Your math seems WAY off to be using that comparison!  I am a bit disappointed that you would put poor information out like that.What this means is that your flea would have to be on a ball that is 13,934,800 mm or 8.65868 miles in diameter at a height of 13,333 mm or 43.7434 ft high.  WOW, now I can see how that horizon might look like it is at eye level!More fun stuff to read that I know you won't!The point of this is that you are not high enough for such a massive mass under you to notice.  You speak as though you think the ratio between us and the Earth is the same as your flea to a basketball!  Just try the simple test from the link above with the picture and an eye level focal point.  Your eyes lie to you and that lie continues to grow the further away you look.  If that simplistic approach is not good enough for you, actually READ here!
 
How do you see something at eye level that is really 15 miles lower than you?Standard answer: You can't! Your eyes lie to you.Basis for conclusion: Some "smart people" have worked it out, and tell us this.Reason to accept what they say: We can't trust our own perceptions, and aren't smart enough to figure it out ourselves. They have letters behind their names, and do lots of deep thinking.Reason for thinking this: Some "smart people" have worked it out, and their findings tell us what we see can't be trusted. This means that everything we perceive is suspect, and needs checking in with some "smart people" to see what is really gong on.Result: We stop believing anything we perceive on our own that involves the world we live in. Now we have been trained, and our trainers can tell us anything they want. They can tell us the moon is more than 200,000 miles away even though we can pick out details with the naked eye. They can tell us that stars are trillions of miles away even though we can focus in on them with a zoom camera. They can tell us that the sun is 93 million miles away, and yet, from a weather balloon at 20 miles up it looks like you could almost touch it. They can tell you that water always seeks it's own level, and it also conforms to the shape of a ball because of gravity? They can tell us anything now that we have been trained to disbelieve our own brains. They can tell us that earth is spinning 1000 mph, orbiting the sun at 66,600 mph, all of that spiralling in some direction at 200,000 mph, all of that rotating at 2 million mph around the galaxy, and we don't feel anything. And the north star stays continuously centered above the north pole through all that. And the constellations maintain a continuous rotating position around it through all of this? They can tell us that a mysterious force called "gravity" is responsible for orbiting bodies as well as for falling bodies. They can tell us the earth has a molten core a couple of thousand miles down, but have never dug any deeper than 8 miles.End result: In addition to being trained to depend completely on "smart folks" to tell us what to think, we have also been programmed to defend to the death, and to perceive as a personal attack any forays into thinking for one's self about these subjects. This is why there are so many ardent defenders of a model that is impossible to defend.I did bother to read those articles. I cannot verify those calculations. I either believe my own eyes, or I just push it back in my mind, and make excuses for it not jiving. If I am in a plane at 40,000 feet, when looking straight down it is seen to be a long ways down. It only follows that at the horizon 245 miles away where it is said to be 40,000 feet lower than directly beneath me, that it would appear to be a longer ways down than that. If you trust your own eyes, this is your expectation. By the formula for curvature that science has given us, the earth is not really that big. The size of the USA keeps changing though. (I know, nasa has a good explanation for this. They always do! They are completely trustworthy, and would never lie.)https://flatearthperspectives.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/official-nasa-so-called-photos-of-earth/It just seems that all of the science given to us by "smart folks" explains away many things that we perceive with our own senses that point to a fixed, motionless plane earth with sun, moon, stars, and wandering stars travelling above us.      
 
I concede the 4 degrees of angle looking down at the distant horizon from 40,000 feet. I figured it to be about 3.5 degrees. But I still maintain that since that distant horizon is 245 miles away, and 15 miles lower than the airliner, that you would be looking noticeably downward. 3.5 degrees is not much, I know, but as I said, at 245 miles away it is 15 miles lower. I have an idea for a simple experiment. I will share when I get it done. 
 
Top