Search results

ISS altitude: 254 miles Highest balloon height: 32.9 miles I'll let you think about that for a moment.

You said: And: And I was correcting your false assumption. Orbiting does not assume or presume a globe OR a flat earth. In fact, it has nothing to do with the shape of the object being orbited.

Nope. https://youtu.be/wagDQ7i85ho In order to prove [PHOTOS FROM ORBIT ABOVE FLAT EARTH], one must prove [ORBIT ABOVE FLAT EARTH]. But it will give us a basis for [PHOTOS FROM ORBIT ABOVE FLAT EARTH].

Supra: "used in academic or legal texts to refer to someone or something mentioned above or earlier."

Now we just need Dave agree to change topics, because otherwise he'll get mad that we're changing topics on his thread.

I recommend we move on to talk about the Flood. What do you think?

Yes, Dave, seeing that sort of drop IS beyond our ability to see. 8 inches / 1 mile = 0.0126262626% change in elevation from starting point. 32 inches / 2 miles = 0.0252525253% change in elevation from starting point. 72 inches / 3 miles = 0.0378787879% change in elevation from starting point...

He implied that long ago on the original thread.

Put the answer in your own words, Dave. No one is going to watch any more of your videos.

Just because you can't SEE the curvature doesn't mean the curvature isn't there, Dave.

I can think of one way to do it. take a 360 degree camera, and get the ratio of land to sky from each frame. Average the %-age of land in all the frames, and compare it to the average of the %-age of sky in all the frames. If the numbers are about 50-50, then the horizon is eye level at all...

3,959 miles compared to 93,000,000 isn't much of a difference, Dave. In fact, it's only slightly more than a 0.004% difference. If something changes in size 0.004%, can you tell the difference? I highly doubt it. Dave, you realize that if the Sun is the same size because it is the same...

So you're admitting that in order for the sun to appear the same size to you above the horizon as it would above your head, on a flat earth it would have to be ground level 3000 miles away? Pretty sure someone would notice that... Which means that (once again) the FE model falls... Well... Flat...

Saying it doesn't make it so, David. See RD's response.

lev·el ˈlevəl/Submit noun 1. a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point. 2. a position on a real or imaginary scale of amount, quantity, extent, or quality. "a high level of unemployment" synonyms:quantity, amount, extent, measure, degree, volume, size...

I've given you a way to determine that a while back, Dave. Here it is, works best with a camera or some sort of lens system to look through. Take a camera that can be mounted on some sort of pivot point, say, a tripod. Ensure that the pivot point is completely level. Look through the camera...

Scared of his own image in the mirror, it seems... Right, because you've been able to identify the flaws in the FE model already. :mock: You don't see the flaw in arguing that the exception is the rule? If the earth was flat, it would be possible to see Chicago from Michigan ALL THE TIME...

You know, if we ever get the chance in this thread, I'd like to discuss the Flood of Noah and which model supports the event found in the Bible the best.

Then you should have no issue presenting the best argument from each side. Please do so in your next post. Which means nothing, considering only one of them can be true. Except there is no debate. Of all the flat earth "arguments," when examined, let alone thoroughly tested, NONE of them...