He first implied that gas disproved it, now the fact we just can't disproves it.Erfisflat said:"but the horizon is not visible at this height."
Sure looks like the horizon to me. Are you suggesting all that is just atmosphere?
SilverishGoldNova said:So the the sky and ocean can be perfectly flat like thisDawnBringerRiven said:The picture of the atmosphere? Whether it is real or faked, it still proves and disproves nothing. It's a gas. The shape of the atmosphere does not have to be the same as the shape of its contents (e.g. land and the ocean). Even if the atmosphere is completely pizza flat, the earth can still be spherical, and vise versa.
Also, I took the liberty to backwards search the second picture, and I have found that it is literally, a wall paper. https://imgur.com/a/EGJ1d
No. Flat does not mean two dimensional, if it did that would mean you are arguing that Earth is as flat as this picture. A flat shape can have things inside it, just like if you hallow out a flat cube or square or what have you, you can place objects inside it. I never specified the thickness of the atmosphere as it was only a hypothetical scenario meant to be used as an example.
but the Earth can be a big ol ball? I thought we were able to see curvature at 35,000 feet, but none at 317,000 feet.
35,000 feet you can still see the landscape and horizon. At 317,000 feet, you cannot see the land this way. The curvature you are speaking of relates to the horizon, but the horizon is not visible at this height.
And you aren't even trying to address the picture of Rahu I sent you, and are you saying Gas means the image above this proves nothing or that that is why Rahu appears which would make my earlier sentence incorrect, because either way ROFL wow... just wow. Are you conceeding now?
What picture of Rahu? I already addressed a video of it and you still have not addressed my rebuttal to that video. What difference would it make if addressed a picture if I have already addressed an alleged video of it?
JoePineapples said:I think the majority of conspiracy theories are ridiculous and can have a negative effect in that, by utilising the most far-fetched of factors and scenarios, we might not notice when much more likely and realistic actual conspiracies are taking place, right under our noses.
As for people that follow conspiracy theories, often referred to as 'conspiracy theorists' it would be more applicable top call them 'conspiracy fans' as the overwhelming majority just latch on to and perpetuate existing theories, rather than come up with any of their own.
It's also worth noting that there is a pattern, nearly all conspiracy fans latch on to any and all conspiracy theories that come along, it's like a hunger for them rather than a conviction they have about any one theory. In some cases there are even unrelated conspiracy theories that contradict one another when compared (such as people saying we've never been to the moon, then claim that there's a colony living inside the moon conspiring alongside reptilian overlords).
I think that the chances that an all powerful intelligent being that can manipulate the very laws of physics is less likely to pop into existence, then a bunch of rocks and balls of fire popping into existence.THEDENIER said:By the way, about the chances of earth developing such amazing life, it is important that we are only asking these questions because earth has the ability to foster and create life. Billions, Trillions of worlds have no life. So of course if we say "what are the chances of a given world creating life?" they would be unbelievably small, but if we say "what are the chance that one world will create life?" then obviously, it becomes far larger due to the sheer number of planets in the universe. Our sample is obviously biased because on a world without life, no one is there to ask what the chances that their world can create life are.
JoePineapples said:Those videos don't really show anything of value that would prove your point. If there was an actual barrier surrounded a flat Earth, it would be very easy to visit (as long as you had access to a suitable craft). Boats and cameras have been around for centuries, there should be hundreds of thousands of accounts of people reaching the barrier, paintings/tapestries/poems about it, not to mention the overwhelming amount of photographs there should be of it.
Instead you're relying on videos of rockets gradually self destructing (rather than impacting on something) and sketchy conspiracy fan vids which deliver no goods.
SilverishGoldNova said:PowerPikachu21 said:Okay. So what exactly is the Flat Earth, if not a disk (meaning it would have an edge)? If we're talking about an infinite plane, then would this mean I can go straight forever? If it's an infinite plane, will I eventually reach my house if I choose one direction and go straight?
This is a dome, which is we travelers don't "fall off the edge all the time"
Is that a real picture of the dome or CGI?