Man Jumps From Space To Earth... https://www.topbuzz.com/article/i65...d=6532958128755968265&gid=6510889122784084490
Round
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Round
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Flat earth proven false
- Thread starter User Name
- Start date
It's an optical illusion due to the way we perceive distance. Try looking at the moon through a tube, and it will appear the same size regardless of where it is in the sky.
But anyway, the flat earth fantasy must have the moon getting bigger as it 'rises', because it would be closer when it is directly overhead.
So you appear to have disproved the flat earth. Well done.
Stuart
:chuckle:
So you can make the horizon look flat, or even concave, using a wide-angle lens. I think we knew that already.
Stuart
First of all, as someone who has driven to all three of those cities, KC is NOT north of STL. It's slightly north of directly east of STL. And Omaha is NOT north of KC, it's north-northwest of KC.
And what do you mean "they have STL north of Omaha"? The station travels along a near circumpolar route, not equatorial. The cameras are facing (for the most part) forward along the direction they are traveling, meaning sometimes they're facing north, sometimes south.
Philosophy and science/mathematics are two completely different subjects. Your argument is a non-sequitur. Do you deny a buddhist's claim that 1+1=3 based on their philosophy or because their math is wrong?
You haven't because you couldn't, and you won't because you can't.
I hope you deal with this one, as it is a slam dunk against the flat earth fantasy:
Stuart
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Nope, all one has to do is fall back on the unknown properties of refraction.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
There is no point of perspective in reality that can have St.Louis northeast of Omaha.
Let alone one that would have Kansas City missing from it.
Just because something is unknown to you doesn't mean they don't exist. That's called an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
What's that got to do with developing theories based in philosophy?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Reminds me of the spinning globe model. :crackup:
Do you mean cardinal directions? Or relative direction?
If you mean relative direction, just go to Google Maps, center it on Omaha, and rotate the map until STL is in the top right corner of the screen.
I'm still not sure why you're making this argument, though, as as far as I'm aware, no one here has said that STL was NE of Omaha...
You're (Flat Earthers) the one making the argument that someone's philosophy leads to mistakes in their science, are you not?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
The point I was making is that it was CGI.
My post was in response to RD's denial of it.
Then the burden of proof is on you to prove such.
And my question was in response to your post. Could you please answer the question:
Do you reject a Buddhist's claim that 1+1=3 based on his philosophy? Or because 1+1 does not equal three?
:rotfl: