I'd love to see you attempt to engage in ANY sort of rational debate at all.

I don't buy into flat earth because: The time it takes to fly from London to New York to Tokyo to London is significantly shorter than the time it takes to fly Dubai to Miami to Hong Kong to Dubai, and that time is longer than the time it takes to fly Sydney to Sao Paolo to Johannesburg to Sydney. This only makes sense if the earth is round and thicker near the equator. If the earth was flat with the north pole in the middle, the Sydney circumnavigation would be the longest, London the shortest. I can't think of any other explanation.

Nah, dude, that's just because of the wind. Plus they make the pilots carry extra chemtrail stuff on the Dubai-Miami-HK-Dubai route, so that obviously slows the down. D'uh, better luck next time.

i mean the same stars are also inverted at different places on earth and the sun pretty clearly does down below the horizon like the rest of the stuff up there, it doesn't scream off into the distance and gradually get dimmer but yeah flight times.

I am a former broadcast engineer. If the Earth were flat, FM radio stations in Oahu could be heard clearly in Los Angeles 24/7. But they can't be heard there at all. The signals are blocked by the curvature of the Earth. Radio broadcast and communications engineering coverage calculations have to take that curvature into account in order to be accurate. The Earth is not flat.

I was driving the other day, minding my own business. The moon, beautiful on the sky. And I realized the hilarity in flat earth theory only being a thing because we, for good reason, have a hard time seeing the earth .... because we are on it. But. We are in fact able to observe other planets with a simple telescope and it hit me, that funny enough, all of them are round 😬😁 But noooooo the earth is special, the eaaaaarth muust be flat. 😬

Radio signals dissipate per inverse square law, and due to limited permeability & permittivity of free space. Also, radio signals can and often do bend through free space. Signal in Oahu can't be heard in LA because the signal-noise ratio is insufficient for the receiving equipment to be able to filter.

Lol “scream off into the distance”

clearly you're a CIA asset 🙄

That’s why it’s the dumbest and most pointless conspiracy theory. The real answer doesn’t really matter for the average tard.

1) The inverse square law applies in free space, true, but beyond the horizon (and the horizon is defined by, among other things, the curvature of the Earth) the signals drop off far more rapidly than the inverse square amount. Bending of waves is negligible on FM broadcast frequencies, and we're talking about normal direct-wave conditions here anyway. (Related question: If you drive a lot, ask yourself -- Do FM stations fade out pretty regularly once you are 30-70 miles from the station, or do they stay strong for hundreds of miles?) 2) FM broadcast signals from Oahu would be _more_ than adequate for clear high-fidelity reception in Los Angeles if the Earth were flat, and we were only dealing with inverse-square path losses. Here are the numbers: If the transmitting antenna is on a mountain near Oahu, for example, at 300 meters high, and the receiving antenna is in LA on a hill at say, 300 feet, with only ocean in between, there would be no mountains or other obstacles to alter our calculations. Let us say that the FM broadcast transmitter is running 50,000 Watts (+77 dBm) into a unity-gain antenna, the receive antenna is also unity gain, and the goal is a 20 dB signal-to-noise ratio, good enough for decent high-fidelity reception. This would typically take a signal strength of -73 dBm at the receiver antenna terminals (S9 +20 dB based on ordinary VHF signal strength meters, quite a good signal!). Therefore, the allowable path loss is 150 dB. The question then is, how far apart could the two stations be to achieve that signal strength? On a flat Earth, you would only be limited by path loss, the horizon could never block anything at surface level or above. So path loss strictly follows the inverse square law rule (loss increases 6 dB every time you double the distance). Running the numbers, the transmitter could be 4,700 miles away from your receiver and still give you perfect reception. On a spherical Earth, the radio horizon must be taken into account. For the antenna heights given, the radio horizon is at 60 miles. The signal would still be more than adequately strong at 60 miles, but would attenuate very precipitately beyond that distance. So, on the real Earth, the transmitter could be not much more than 60 miles away from the receiver. You would not receive Oahu FM stations in LA on a spherical Earth. Oahu is 2,560 miles from LA -- far less than the maximum 4,700 miles for good reception on a flat Earth. So, on a flat Earth, Oahu FM broadcast stations would be _far_ stronger than needed for perfect high-fidelity reception. If Oahu FM stations are booming in all the time in LA, the Earth is flat. If they are not, then the Earth is not flat.

I agree with most of this. But tropospheric ducting also applies. And of course signal attenuation due to ambient atmospherics particulates. Also, I'm not sure whether modulation scheme has any bearing on bendyness; I thought only wavelength and ducting. I think my point is that RF wave propagation is a suboptimal way to prove or disprove flat earth, due to an overabundance of confounders.

Seeing Saif comment on a flat earth topic, was not on my bingo card

flat earthers in shambles 👍

transient atmospheric conditions isnt adequate to explain why you cant hear the signals at all, rather than simply having some interference sometimes.

Caging the transmitter [or receiver] in an extremely thick case of thick lead is tantamount to an atmospheric condition, albeit ex-extremis. There would effectively be zero measurable signal. In a superhetrodyne receiver (I.e. commercial FM radio), the point at which there is no signal is the point at which the IF Filter (Intermediate Frequency) can't squelch any signal from noise. Your oscilloscope would then show no meaningful signal at the IF Amp and the Demodulator stages. A listener to a radio receiver / transciever hears the signal fading in and out when it is marginal to IF Filter sensitivity. This can be due to atmospherics or noise (i.e. perhaps a train engine on an electrified rail somewhere inbetween nodes). However, if the signal is significantly below the IF Amp sensitive threshold (even after pre-amping) then you won't hear diddly squat... well, apart from static.

This is an old one. When you present the Southern hemisphere commercial fights to them they say these things: 1. the maps are wrong 2. the planes are faster 3. THE FLIGHTS ARE FAKE, THEY DON'T EXIST, literally

I grew up South Australia. Did student exchange in Minnesota. Mt Gambier > Melbourne > Sydney > Los Angeles > Atlanta > Chicago > BIS from Chicago to Twin Cities. 2 days+ of travel. No timezones in there, just timexl. That was 20+ years ago. Good luck to anyone trying that. I thought I was going to die when on the Atlanta>Chicago bus where I woke up thinking we were on the wrong side of the road. Nothing wrong with the maps. This is just literally opposite sides of the planet stuff.

Thanks for jumping on the flat earth mine Saif. You should spend more time here; way more interesting stuff going on here than Xitter despite your following differences. Maybe check your DMs once in a while…

Nobody really believes in the flat earth theory. It’s just a running joke / troll seed.

I’d agree with you in most contexts, but we’re in a Ben Wehrman thread. That dude has ODed on redpills. I expect hes a proper flat earther.

Oh no people actually believe it

I, too, used to be blind to the reality of the potential depth of stupid in people. 🐊🫂

Nobody, except all those retards ala Ben who do.

Ben isn’t stupid. He just lacks a filter, entirely. He’ll get sucked in to anything that matches his worldview. This thread will become proof of whatever Ben wants it to become

He’s arrogant which is a roadblock to overcoming stupidity

The people who believe it are Christians because it because it because it makes the Bible stories true.

Even the church eventually accepted that a flat earth was not the centre of the universe after initially excommunicating Galileo.

A lot of christians still believe in a flat earth, referencing the firmament. I know some personally and they don't have any evidence other than the bible said so.

Sounds like shallow thinking more than a running joke.

Shallow thinking from religious NPCs? Shocker

fun fact True Christians like Galileo and Newton saw scientific discovery as a way to glorify God. they did not reject observation and understanding but tried to reconcile it with the Church.

Really? Some believe in strange things like the Bible being inerrant when even a casual limited reading shows blatant contradictions. But I have never encountered anyone who claimed that they believed in Flat Earth because of their religion. The Bible doe not say it is flat. If you think so then exactly where does it say so?

It says the earth is a firmament. Look up a picture of it.

The funny thing about that…it takes some of the smartest people to think deeply about ancient literature. And that’s why many go astray reading by desired outcome alone.

Which people go astray?

People who read with a desired outcome in mind, paying no heed to the genre of literature they are reading. Language is complex and ancient cultures are not familiar to most.

I’d make that excuse for human writers but not “god.” Most human writers were translated good enough.

The celestial theodolite experiment is hard to reconcile. It eliminates common variables that tend to be disputed. It is data heavy so feel free to have an llm break it down.

Celestial_Theodolite_Index - Obsidian Publish

The Celestial Theodolite A method of measuring the precise timing of celestial occlusions, which are moments when a celestial object intersects wit...

Looks like obfuscation of the obvious with ten jiggers of needless complexity added. When traveling from the northern hemisphere across the equator into the southern hemisphere, Polaris sets, still-visible constellations become inverted, and new constellations rise and come into view. None of that could possibly happen on a flat Earth.

I think you're ignoring the experiment and moving to a different example because it's uncomfortable to address. Whenever the topic comes up the goalposts are always moved. The perceived 'complexity' is not that complex on the face of it. Predicting the position of stars using globe based data for when a star is occluded by a mountain peak across over 40 data points is a pretty comprehensive way to test the hypothesis. The complexity is to eliminate the typical "you didn't control for x or y". It's simple - does globe or 'flat' geometry produce the expected observations. It has to be comprehensive so that it can't be picked apart with silly talking points like refraction. People don't want to address this because of the potentially uncomfortable conclusions. And falsification of the claims requires no further proof.

so go ahead and explain the phenomena he mentioned, why do observable constellations become inverted when you move from the northern to southern "hemisphere"? because I can explain it in a few sentences if we start with a globe hypothesis. ie the hypothesis matches the observations people have made for a few thousand years. surely your explanation is even more simple and doesn't move the goalposts at all.

If this experiment does suggest a flat earth… 1) we have this big pile of experiments and evidence over hear suggesting the earth is a globe and this 1 experiment here suggesting it’s flat. Occam’s razor would suggest the earth is a globe but there is a gap in our understanding ( or methodology, or data analysis of the 1 experiment) that needs reconciled. 2) we have this big pile of experiments and evidence over hear suggesting the earth is a globe and this 1 experiment here suggesting it’s flat. Throw out all of the well established evidence because1 experiment appears to contradict it. I’m ok with 2 IF an explanation can be given as to why each and every experiment and observation for a globe earth can be explained and a new model for each presented that can reliably predict what we observe in the real world.

this experiment assumes spherical geometry to calculate "real positions" of stars. ie. It uses the Earth's radius, lat/long conversions to determine where a star "really is." so you see when the star is observably occluded and calculate it's "true position" (based on spherical geometry) and theres a difference between the two, which is traditionally explained by atmospheric refraction. iow, they say the apparent position of a star is true on a flat earth but wrong if on a globe. if you perform an experiment in this way you've either baked spherical geometry into your reference point (the "real star position" that refraction is needed to explain) or your using the apparent position as your reference and are assuming refraction doesn't exist. either way the experiment doesnt prove ANYTHING AT ALL because its not independent of either model. somebody doesn't understand logic and has too much time on their hands.

Jesus fucking christ dude. No, I raised a point to discuss that point, no obfuscation. IT ALWAYS goes this way. "Explain flights bro" "What about the stars bro" What about this experiment?

Lmao Talk about embarrassingly putting your ignorance on display. I suggest you review the experiment a little closer

But, but.... what about all these other experiments? Your points 1&2 are exactly the same. I suspect you haven't looked if you think we have this big pile of irrefutable experiments. You see, you have unreasonable criteria - on one hand you'll swallow a consensus views and CGI imagery from government agencies, and on the other have unreasonable criteria never sought on your default belief. What are the best globe earth poofs? This is cognitive dissonance in action. If you falsify a hypothesis, which this experiment does thoroughly, then that is independent of having to provide an alternative hypothesis. So instead, you would rather cling to a disproven idea unless someone provides you with something to replace that belief with. You being unable to reconcile it is what everyone who examined the topic has to deal with. Hence the predictable "whataboutism", I called it before and you guys all still went there anyway. Topic too hard to address. I have more of these by the way, this is just one that stands out because of how well it is put together.

The experiment says: we have some peaks and they will occlude stars. One model predicts it will happen at X, while the other at Y. > Run experiment > Results matches Y instead of X, consistently "Experiment doesn't prove anything at all" 😂

It's understandable to try use the stars as proof when you spend no time on the topic, but not even anti-flat earthers use that talking point anymore. Stars actually make a stronger case for a geocentric model. So in fact, the explanation was simple. 👍

sorry bro you're going to have to actually explain what I got wrong. not just scream "wrong" and run away. I did the work, try doing some yourself.

so this is a video of somebody just straight up lying. rather telling if you ask me.... anybody who's ever looked at the night sky knows that the apparent motion of the stars doesn't change if you look south instead of north. are you going to try and explain anything yourself or just share stupid videos?

The point is it is the same on a flat or globe model, which is what you're missing here. This specific point has been discussed ad nauseum in the his space and it's never brought up anymore because it's not a proof of anything. Care to address the experiment I posted, or will you continue to ignore it with whataboutism? I can condede that I don't have all the answers to explain certain points, yet when I present something y'all lose your minds avoiding it at any cost. No concessions for your religion or it all falls apart. Address the experiment. Point out the flaws.

Here's the follow up clip from the discussion. This is using stellerium to model the star rotation. You don't even know the model you're defending. 😂

I notice that the Theodolite site is credited to an outfit called "Aether Cosmology." I decided to look up their other publications, and found this mass of risible nonsense:

Making sure you're not a bot!

They also distribute kooky "Biblical cosmology" texts. I also wasted considerable time I'll never get back to reading the Theodolite screed. Whole sections are totally empty, others give "missing image" errors, and quite a few sentences of the text are unintelligible, almost as bad as the inchoate rambling in their video above. Furthermore, their core assumption that star positions should appear lower to an observer on a globe than on a plane ("If the earth's curvature is real and causes the angular descent of stars") is faulty (along with their conclusion that occlusions would happen earlier if the Earth were spherical). A simple thought experiment can validate this. You're standing on a plane, looking at a star. You're looking up at some angle. All else being equal, replace the plane with a globe. Does the angle change? Replace the place with a cube, or a cylinder, or a dodecahedron -- or with empty space. The angle to the star will not change. Lastly, the Stellarium software, on which they depend for predicting occlusion times, is intended for star observation session planning, not exact timing. It can be a minute or two off at times, and atmospheric conditions add more potential errors.

> Furthermore, their core assumption that star positions should appear lower to an observer on a globe than on a plane ("If the earth's curvature is real and causes the angular descent of stars") is faulty Where's the fault? Can you be specific? Stellarium uses globe data and it is considered very accurate for mapping the timing and positions of stars. That's why it was used. It's interesting how it's used as a source to support the globe model predictions in other scenarios, yet here it's 'not accurate'.

Best globe earth proofs, off the top of my head, in no particular order: Ships disappearing over the horizon from the bottom up not just getting smaller until you can’t see them anymore. (Same for mountains or any distant tall object). The mathematics of navigating using the stars and a sextant that work in the real world but would not work if we were not on a globe. Plane flight paths which follow an apparently curved route but when mapped on a globe is a straight line. (And no I don’t believe all the private aviation companies in the world are somehow in on the conspiracy.) A laser beam projected out level to the ground does not stay level but appears to rise at exactly the rate predicted if we were on a globe with a circumference the same as that which we have calculated for the earth. Our model of the earth which can explain how it formed and what its structure is which is supported by P and S waves from earthquakes. Constellations getting lower in the sky as you travel south in the northern hemisphere and or as you travel north in the southern hemisphere. The fact that different constellations are visible in the northern and southern hemisphere.

No do the rabbit hole ECDO theory, way more plausible.

A man of the commons! 🤙🏼

The only thing that surprises me is that you wasted your time just making this statement.

From the comment you’re replying to I quote; “the Stellarium software, on which they depend for predicting occlusion times, is intended for star observation session planning, not exact timing. It can be a minute or two off at times, and atmospheric conditions add more potential errors.”

Ya that’s one reason I guess

but.. but..planes can fake speed

I think they believe we live on a pancake! Anyway Allah said He will flatten the earth for the Day of Judgement so it can’t already be flat

Or the day of judgement already occurred and the judgement, well, you’re seeing it…this is it.

Nah. It has a lead up that has been prophesied and we will remember it!

Flat earth is a psyop to discredit actual conspiracies

Seems more likely than anything else.

Power and money obviously. Not sure how it garners anyone power and money but, you know, reasons…

Stellerium is as accurate as consumer software gets when it comes to predicting where a star appears in the sky at a given time. The timing is pretty much exact for these purposes. Not a few minutes, seconds if you really want to split hairs. Lets be clear, and I'm quite perplexed that this needs to be explained. The timing from stellerium is the same reference used for both models being tested. Stellerium gives you the stars position, then that position is compared against the predictions of the globe and 'flat'. If it was inaccurate (it's not, I don't know why it's even been disputed aside from cope) then both sets of models are still using the same data. Any timing errors would move the models closer to each other, and you substract the difference between where the two predictions land. So any supposed timing errors cancel out, they are not a factor in the difference of results between the two predictions. What you could try to dispute would be factors that are specific to each prediction - observer height, elevation and distance to the peak. The test is setup to be sensitive to parameters that appear in one model and not the other (curvature, for example) while specifically being agnostic to parameters that appear in both models, for which timing false into. The point is moot.

Those are almost all very baseline arguments for the globe. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't seem like you have looked at what the other side has to say about those examples. Most people really don't care though, which is fine too. I just find it a bit odd that if one is presented well constructed observations that contradict the globe model (this theodolite is one good example), they wouldn't think "hmmm, that's odd", and instead tend to respond "well, explain how ______ works then".

When at rest, water always finds it’s level. Always. Earth is said to be 70% water. FLATEARTHDAVE.com

flights near the edges (Sydney loop) are longer because planes slow down as they approach the abyss, pilots instinctively ease off the throttle. London-NY-Tokyo stays central, full speed ahead your flight time data doesn't prove roundness, it proves 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭. the closer to the edge, the slower they fly

This makes sense, and also the length of a mile gets longer as you approach the ice wall. At The Edge, it reaches infinite length, showing neatly why they can't show it to us.

Did you just describe earth as a non-euclidean plane?

Hard to type now, as my head is spinning pretty fast. I just realized that if the mile is longer south of the equator, so must be the foot. This explains why Argentinians are at least twice as tall as Norwegians.

As someone that’s sailed around it I concur it’s round 🌏

Neti neti

it isnt an experiment AT ALL. its an alternative explanation that claims atmospheric refraction doesn't exist and observed star position is the true position and ties itself in knots trying to make a dome over a flat earth fit the observable data. because the data shows that the observed occultation of star S over mountan A for two observers at different elevations and distances is NOT explained by simple trigonometry on a flat surface. it matches what you'd expect to find on a curved surface. and if theres no refraction or terrestrial curvature, what causes the difference? apparently they think we should just adjust the dome geometry or something.... theyre understandably silent on this point and only provide single observer measurements. anyway its not an experiment that tests a hypothesis. they just say "refraction doesn't exist and observed star positions are the true positions."

Out of curiosity, I roughly mapped out the 3 routes on a Gleason's (FE) map. The 1st route is clearly the fastest since you are crossing over the centre of the FE map (north pole). It seems to align with flight times. The 3rd route is the longest on the FE map since you are touching all 3 southern tips of our known earth. The second route miami (red) - Dubai - Hong Kong - Miami is the one that's interesting. According the FE map it should be the second longest but it looks to spend much more time in the air than the 3rd route. That route is fighting against a headwind but that's not enough to offset the distances flown according to a FE map.

And you believe it because a book said so?

Yes

But the water is never level. It’s always moving.

LOL Bruh you don't even know the globe earth model, I had to teach you about the rotation of stars that "everyone knows about". This is clearly an experiment a little beyond your depth so we'll leave it there.

I don’t buy into it cos it’s fucking stupid

you've done nothing to show you understand ANYTHING you just post video and run away from any real convo and you retarded video doesn't explain AT ALL why different stars rotate in the opposite direction around a different pole you're just at the level of sharing "refutations" that are totally unrelated to the point, then LOL and run away. but please continu. so everyone in the thread can see how this works.

you are wasting your energy on retards. no point in engaging this level of retardation

I dunno I think there's a significant percentage of the population on the verge of retardation and they need to see the conversation happen to make up their minds whether to go full retard or not

I'm laughing at you because from your first reply, you call it an experiment and then you spend a whole note telling me how you don't think it's an experiment. And you expect me to take what you're saying seriously? I'm supposed to be the crazy one here. I've explained things in fair detail where points have been made, but you've made zero valid points. If you're too lazy to look at how the experiment was constructed, why even bother commenting on it at all? Not only does the experiment NOT claim refraction doesn't exist, it factors it includes and excludes it so you can see it with both. You seem to be confused about what the independent variables are. I'll explain the experiment, and then you can tell me what you think the issues are. The two models predict different angles a star will be occluded because a globe has the peak curving away from you. It should sit lower than it would on a flat surface relative to a straight line from the observation height. The globe prediction says the star has to be at a lower angle to line up with the peak. The flat prediction says it has to be higher. The gap between the two predictions is what was measured. These measured angles are then compared to where the star actually was (the independent variable) using Stellarium, specifically because it’s built on the mainstream astronomical framework. So you’re testing whether the observations match the predictions of the model. Whichever model’s prediction (measured) best matches the stars real position (stellarium, actual) is the model that is consistent with the observations made. Typically the globe model will invoke atmospheric refraction to explain away the discrepancies in these kinds of ‘observational “experiments”’. The methodology accounts for this by using the stars true position rather than an apparent (observed) one, so you can’t make claims of refraction without justifying them, especially with the emergence and occlusion data -

Emergence_vs_Occlusion - Obsidian Publish

Emergence vs Occlusion: Why Refraction Cannot Save the Globe Of the 18 celestial theodolite observations, 11 are occlusions and 7 are emergences. T...

Spreadsheets:

Google Docs

Celestial Theodolite v2

It’s difficult when your defence is already steel-manned in the presentation. You'll have to get really creative to explain why, across 40 observations, the globe prediction is off by exactly the curvature drop every single time. If the Earth is a curving at the claimed rate, there’s no reason a FE prediction would consistently better match observations. ZERO reason. Good luck!

Spreadsheet data visualized

All about epistemology. Study Islam. It’s the unassailable truth

I'm pleased to see that shaming you into making some effort was successful 👍

You didn’t answer my question

Wait.. seriously?

?

Nice response, pretty much exactly what I expected. Your position on this is weak, and your ability to engage your brain is even weaker. See if your comprehension is any better than Kevin's. He strawmanned the observation and didn't even understand what is being tested. And then suggesting stellarium can be minutes off. 🤣 Bunch of jokers

Ironic

Similar to the they put humans in McDonald's. I conceed there likely is a inconsequential amount of human DNA present. But to what end? Humans are expensive. Similar gestational period for 3.5kg or 40kg at birth. Cost per year $10K versus $1.2K Weight (OK, mass) 0.5 kg / month versus 0.5kg / day for a cow in first year But, there are 2 million missing kids... 1st that is reported incidents, not individuals. How many individuals? 2nd have you been on the streets? There's a chuck. 3rd how would you hide this? I really think you could unfortunately get like 7 people on board with this, but to introduce humans into McDonald's burgers doesn't make sense. Where is the benefit? Beef is cheap, compared to human and it doesn't send you to Cub Fed. Really, smart people believe this. AI reinforces it once they start down the rabbit hole. I spent more time typing this that coming up with the argument because I'm old enough and have enough experience to see flaws. The 20 year olds that lived through Covid see the wool being pulled over but don't have ant defense against shit like this other than talking to someone older. And Alex Jones is partially right enough , especially on a long scale. But the question, to what end, is pretty powerful for these beliefs.

1. what obviously nobody would ever pay taxes on a flat earth. duh.