Mr. Nice

Because of the increased rotation you posted about, at the equator. It reaches its equilibrium point.

It was an exchange with a long time user and Basket Case where he must have come back from the pub a bit drunk and started a couple of pages of abuse. Forget his moniker. The evidence was "tidied up" as usual - not by BC another mod. I'm not lying though.

Great, so what is he saying that confirms the Earth is flat? His views do not match with those from passenger planes and Lear jets.

Yes I do. The gravitational force pulls the air towards the surface, creating a compression effect from air above. As the altitude increases the pressure decreases slowly until it reaches equilibrium with the vacuum. There is no magic blanket, just progressively less and less pressure.

Right there demonstrating the very thing you complain about. Your reply is needlessly obnoxious and aggressive. You failed to answer my responses like a civil person. Explain my response to your moon image about the southern hemisphere inversion. None of my posts are aggressive, rude, uncivil or provocative.

Not true. The centrifugal force is very small and nowhere near enough to counter gravitational force. The angular velocity is 360 degrees in 24hrs. No it would not. That makes no sense at all. Yes. Do I weigh less on the equator than at the North Pole? | Science Questions with Surprising Answers (wtamu.edu) Not sure what you mean. Clarify.

Just answer my posts thank you. Nobody. Answered above. Please read my replies. My replies are perfectly civil. There is no aggression in any of my posts and you just cast the first stone by labelling me as cognitively dissonant. The second stone lumps in "ball believers" into a group with similar attributes. The other thread was locked because a flat earther came in and started abusing a moderator. Just answer the questions and replies, try not to get sucked in to the personality game and defend your case. Now, the Moon questions when you're ready.

I say we can't and every single piece of high altitude footage shows this. Your example image is from footage confirming this. Did he now. Planes get up to to 35000 feet and clearly that is a load of nonsense. Lear jets fly at that altitude and it just shows a low level curve as expected. Says who? Let me guess the source is a manipulated flat earth video. You are quoting something that has been proven to be absurdly wrong.

Thank you for the stock and absurd explanation. Now tell me why the view from the same latitude the same distance apart doesn't do the same thing. If you view the Moon at rise from South America and at set in Perth Australia the same face is visible at the same time. Explain please. Further to your picture, track the Moon down to the horizon and show the view from either of those two observers - it now becomes the same!

Answered already pending mod approval see above. That post wasn't from one of your quotes. It was from alexa.

This would be the video that that you are citing. It is always the same, the video shows curvature, briefly flat as it crosses the lower lens and always shows a circle that is NOT the full Earth. No confusion. We see a partial of a circle that is round and curved, but not the full flat earth. Explain why we cannot see the entire flat earth from so high up.

This is where I ask you to explain why they should be moving significantly. EVERYTHING together in the Milky Way is rotating. They are so far away from the Earth it is really, really difficult to demonstrate. It's like if I was The Earth and you the Sun 10 feet away - the nearest star would be about a billion miles away. Our shared movement is tiny compared to the distance of the stars from us. Axial precession - Wikipedia It's wiki, that doesn't mean it's wrong since every statement is sourced. There is movement, just very very slow and over significant time.

Perhaps you can share your faith properly and demonstrate that you can answer things that prove your views incorrect. Explain why the Moon is inverted in the southern hemisphere. I have numerous follow up questions accordingly.

This is the deceptive use of one small section of footage where the curve matches the inversion of the lens. Basically there was no fish-eye lens used at all. It was a wide angled lens for sure, showing curvature as you would expect but as the camera tracked high, the curvature passed over the lower half of the lens. This for a tiny section balanced out the curve and effectively straightened it. If you wish I can find a video showing this. One thing NEVER noted on any of these videos is that we often see the camera do a complete 360 scan and lo and behold there is no complete flat Earth, just a segment of the circle. Right there is the slam dunk proof it aint flat.

There are thousands of pictures of the Earth taken from space, many dating back during and before the Apollo missions, well before digital imaging software. Every one of them kills off flat earthers, but they just invoke the only response possible and suggest that they are all faked. The ISS which orbits the Earth and can be seen doing so, had a 24hr real-time coverage video running the whole time for years on end. To suggest there is magical software capable of doing this is just absurd. The film gravity took months just for small sections and modelled its video on actual footage.

The idea behind its purpose is that it is in a position that enables it to be safe and able to be used for imaging things we haven't seen before. The idea that you think they should image the Earth so that flat earthers are placated is rather daft. Yes, you will just make a blanket denial of the images and consign them to a bullring. There would be no point in doing it in the first place.