Proof is pretty much impossible (like @Medrewb, you can just go down the rabbit hole of continuing to question everything), but a few fairly convincing shows, like Foucault's pendulum. (Basically a lowtech gyro).

 

One simple experiment not by Nasa, Gov or the military. Just one simple, like the gyroscope, experiment that proves rotation or curvature.

Remember the earth is rotating at 1040 mph.

LEt's examine the canon ball experiment.
If that experiment was conducted on the Equator, how far does the canon travel for 28 seconds once the canon ball is shot straight up in the air?
I think it's more than 2 feet...... is my guess.......
Come on. simple math guys.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2017

is that how burden of proof works for you. You show me a proof, which should be quite easy right? ONe surveyor's or railway, bridge designing software with the simple sentence. This software takes into consideration of the curvature.
One proof please.

 

DOWNLOAD ENGINEERING DRAWING MANUAL and READ it.. its there..

PROOF of Earth's rotation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

Galileo a Christian, proved it..
he used to believe The earth is the center and all the other stuff revolves round it..
Until his Church funded him for the experiment (All Church funded scientific experiments in the early days) and he change his mind
You can see his prove on that..
If you want the research links tell me.,,

You don't have to look.. but just posting it in case.. I have posted it before

Proof of Earth's Curvature

Newton explained why the apple falls, why humans don't fly. here is the experiment

No money.. So many countries have pictures of earth from space..

If i can drive a plane like him.. maybe some day

You can calculated from here..
you can see how strong or weak the attraction is.

Okay I guess there is no need for me to participate anymore.. posting PROOF FLAT EARTH 100% and not trying to covert me.. strange

So i guess no need proof for the following..
Namley

https://audiosex.pro/threads/who-ha...ogether-during-the-night-at-flat-earth.32957/

and

So I shall end by saying ..


As the frontiers of science have moved further and further away from the world of the familiar and the world of common sense as inferred from our direct experience, our picture of the reality underlying our experience is getting increasingly difficult for us to comprehend or accept. Some find it more comforting to retreat to myth and superstition for guidance.

Enjoy what every you are trying to do in this thread.. i guess my intention was wrong

 

Last edited: Dec 23, 2017

Do this:
1. Get on an airplane; bring with a coin.
2. As airplane reaches its cruising speed (say ~600mph), toss the coin straight up in the air.
Does the coin always land far behind you, or can you catch it?

BRB, Lizard Overlords calling

 

George Sagnac's experiment is a good one to examin. The math didn't work for super relativity so Einstein omitted the existence of aether. Now that's funny

 

I would run too because you can't produce the one sentence. Again with the childish large font. bye bye
You are the one getting upset with all the evidence I have presented.
You can't produce one youtube video experiment or any experiment proving rotation or curvature. Got it.
You want me to waste time after you proclaimed the exixtence of that one ellusive sentence. got it
bye bye

I'm not trying to convert or convince anyone. Just presenting simple experiments that don't add up.
Just so you know the idiot that is video taping the one pic off of the laptop trying to show water curvature reminds me of NASA making the TV stations broadcast a projection for the moon landing. If that is your proof. bye bye

 

no you are completely wrong
Maybe you can't read. How many times have you brought that up with me?
One experiment showing curvature or rotation. I know you can't do it so don't even bother trying.
Just like the one sentence you failed to produce.
bye bye
All you have done is question my intelligence repeatedly while ignoring evidence nor admitting the Nowiki photo at least looks similar to the one 8 miles out.
You were completely wrong about the bottom of the buildings obscured by curvature. It was only haze. All the fancy math, which you know I don't understand, and you forgot about haze.

At least thru all this you learned one thing .....haze is not curvature.

You asked me what is the number one evidence? It is all the gyroscope experiments.
Try to find one Youtube video using a gyroscope to PROVE rotation.
I;m glad you are leaving 'cause that large font shit is annoying and childish.

Talk about idiots. You post a Joe rogan show with professor Steve o as your evidence? That shit is funny. Notice he admitted he only went up a little above 30k. yet his video evidence uses the same fisheye gopro I have debunked. The video I posted had two cameras one fisheye, one NOT fisheye remember? all the way up to 10,000feet.
Is 10000 feet close to 3 times the height professor Steve o was flying at with his BS fisheye lens.
That is funny. I almost want to use large font.
Steve o is your source? That is a big fucking laugh. That is a joke right.
i literally can't stop laughing right now..............
Prof Steve o staples his ball sack to his thigh......sorry my mistake to both thighs......for a living.

i don't have the evidence for that india flight you keep asking for but Chile to Australia doesn't add up.
The compass he carried with him didn't match the on screen inflight path the plane was supposedly taking.

Here is a flight from Bali indonesia to LA with the pregnant lady diverting to anchorage? WTF

someone please do the math on this one?
the distance to Anxhorage from Bali is 11082 km
distance to LA is 13864 km
6 hours into the 19 hour flight the plane heads to Anchorage

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2017

Please understand that your ability to ignore everything offered & remain unconvinced is, in no way, singular. It's shared by most inanimate objects, like rocks and rusty buckets. Trolling's OK, but step up ur gaym, ru even trying?

OK, that was good, carry on then.

 

It's not though, there are gravity anomalies all over the place, I've measured them myself.

 

No, you are evading the point again. If clouds were immune to gravity, they could float off into space, gather at ground level or spread out into a uniform fog. It's because clouds, which are water vapour, are affected by gravity, that form, typically, a singular layer at the point at which boyancy with heaver, colder gases meets lighter warmer gases.

You still haven't explained how gravity on a flat earth works, you just avoided answering the questions which are:

Do you refute the validity of experimental method?

and

What shape is the flat earth underneath that explains the uniformity of gravity on the surface of the earth?

This isn't ever going to get old.

 

All of that is irrelevant to germain issue, which is: how do you account for the fact that gravity is the same all over a flat earth?

We're waiting and watching.

 

once again take it up with @Fudsey Plange he is the one that said gravity is linear?
@Fudsey Plange care to comment?

 

The world is also rotating/orbiting/moving relative to the sun at 1.997 km/s, The Sun's orbital speed around the Galaxy: ~200 km/s (720,000 km/h, 450,000 mph) The speed of the ground beneath your feet, as a result of the Earth's rotation: 1000 km/h (600 mph) at the latitude of Dublin. it goes up to 1670 km/h (1000 mph) at the equator.

So how does your math work, given that you are moving at 451,000 mph?

 

Well, gravity is linear to the surface of the earth at all points on the earth. If I hold a cannon ball in my outstreched arm and drop it at the north pole, it hits the ground perpendicularly and at nearly the same speed as at any point on the earth's surface. If the earth were flat, there has to be non-linear gravity that changes across the 'coin' of the flat earth, or, there has to be a body of mass that extends to infinity under the far circumference of the earth, in order for the fall of gravity always to be parallel at all points.

The single simplest explanation is that the earth is an oblate spheroid, with a center of gravity at the center, which attracts all obects uniformly at all points, within the margin of error caused by oblateness.

Whatever explanation of gravity a flat earth requires, is subject to easy disproof, using simple weights and dropping them.

 

i'm not evading... I don't know. Logic does tell me there has to be a line where gravity and space vacuum must meet for all this to happen? I thought a vacuum at zero pressure has quite strong attraction when there is any kind of higher pressure present?

so what is the correct distance of canon to ball with all these astronomical speed numbers? Should it be less that or more than the reported max of 2 feet from canon?
Now it's @Yuri's turn to answer the linear gravity issue? I don't fucking know. You guys talk about that among yourselves. I've got too many easily provable facts that don't require theoretical math and equations

 

Let's cut some of the deadwood out.

Because the diameter of the earth is wider across the equator than it is across the poles becuase of centripital rotation bulging the shape out, there is a marginally greater mass of planet under your feet at the equator than there is across the poles, causing a marginally larger gravitational effect the equator.

This occurs in a donut shaped band half across the surface of a flat earth, so in addition to accounting for the uniformity of gravity, you have to account for the marginal non-uniformity of gravity in a donut, on a flat earth.

 

Well, you are assuming the existence of a force that causes all objects in the universe to have a tendency to stasis. This is contrary to Newtons law of the conservation of momentum. It matters not one whit what speed the earth is moving, because it is moving through an effective vacuum, relative to the mass of the earth.

 

For all intents and purposes gravity is linear, I'm talking about differences of milligals due to anomalous density distributions within the Earth, such as mantle thickening. I'm wondering how and if Universal Acceleration accounts for that.

 

Gravity is the accumulated force arising from all mass within a gravitational body, the existence of tiny differences in say, Philadelphia compared to Timbuktu does not change the total aggregated gravity at the center of gravity. The equatorial bulge and the effects of the surface centripital force due to rotation mean that sea-level effective gravity increases from about 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator to about 9.832 m/s2 at the poles, so an object will weigh about 0.5% more at the poles than at the Equator.