Carlos

No, such magic domes are figments of weird imagination. Is there a big hole in "the dome" or did somebody dig that out with a JCB? Explain gravity. P.s. when you start going on about density being the cause you can explain why you can't jump proportionally higher at altitude, such as Mexico City.

It's odd but the Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

The bitter irony. It's time to ask why you are afraid to answer real questions, but you will ignore that as well. Explain the sunset and explain a lunar eclipse. Here's Mars doing a rotation - all zoomable planets have such animated gifs and can be observed with anyone with a telescope: https://gfycat.com/fakefeistyharborseal-mars-rotation

And with a dishonest wave of the hand the tactic of every flat earther. Denial. But of course none of the "experiments" placed on youtube by his peers are phoney. And yet again you ignore my other posts. Very cowardly - are you really that afraid to lose face? Here's Chicago, or the top bits of it - that yellow ball is the Sun setting without any size change:

Have you been up a very high mountain? The air density is significantly lower. If you climb Everest it is very difficult to breath with the drop in pressure limiting the amount of oxygen. The air compresses at sea level and gets progressively less compressed the higher you go. Question for you to avoid: Does air pressure decrease as you gain altitude? I cannot envisage anyone could be that dumb to deny this, it is one of the limiting factors in aircraft maximum altitude. It is fairly obvious that pressure gets progressively less and less until such a point that there is virtually none at all. There is no magic vacuum next to atmosphere. The whole atmosphere is held in place by gravity. A similar thing happens in the ocean the deeper you get - the pressure just keeps increasing. Your only recourse is to deny everything that literally billions of scientists work with and understand - it is the most incredible arrogance for you to assume that just because you don't understand how this incredibly obvious thing works, that your crazy claim is correct and every single person who knows otherwise is somehow mistaken!

You are deliberately evading posts that show this! The sun is above any observers eyeline - it is a physical impossibility for it to drop below it. See the picture above for the youtube video Lake Pontchartrain - flat earth sees the base of the poles on a level plane - not curving as we can plainly see.

Refraction effects, bouncing off the surface of the sea and of course deception. Explain why you continue to avoid evidence presented to you? Nonsense. Flat Earth nonsensical interpretation. He is in a plane doing 2,200mph. If he is over Tuscon at any point, 1 minute later he is 36 miles away. Whatever reference he gives as his viewing point and it would be pure guesswork given the height and speed he is doing, in 5 minutes he is 180 miles away from it. Yes it has, it curves around the globe. There is no mechanism whereby a volume large enough to be videoed or photographed can show this, the curve is too small to either. You already mentioned lasers. I already put one of these up as my first post, needless to say you ignored it. Your comment is just ignorant rhetoric. No, your list is fairly useless. What you actually NEED to do is start acting honestly and addressing things presented to you. Preferably without a 2 hr nonsensical youtube video. But NASA lies you claimed? How about the millions of ones that don't take the static Earth as its baseline? There's a very good reason they don't do that and its because the small differences it makes are truly miniscule. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/319909/why-does-nasa-need-an-aircraft-model-flying-over-a-flat-and-nonrotating-earth " All models are wrong. Some are useful. These days there's a popular trend when simulating things to simulate every possible mechanism we can imagine. Those who think that way would agree with you. Why would you ever make a flat Earth model when everything is eventually going to make its first flight on a real rotating spherical-ish Earth? This approach works great until you come across real development or computational limits. The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then. For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars. Contrast that to today. A Geforce GTX 1070 is capable of 6,500,000 megaflops (6.5 teraflops) and has a price tag of around $400. In those days, you didn't waste computational power on frivolities. It turns out that for a vast array of aeronautical problems, the effects of a flat earth vs. round are minimal (much less the effects of rotating vs. not). If you're shooting a shell 15km, and need it to land with pinpoint precision, you need all that extra complexity. However, many aero problems include a guidance unit which would address any error due to Coriolis effects or the spherical ground the same way it would handle any other errors. It'd simply see it wasn't on the right path and make a correction. The other sources of error here, such as winds, play a far larger effect in deviations from a flight plan, so all the rotating and spherical effects can just get lost in the noise. Even today, we still make flat Earth models. The reason is not computation time, like it was in 1988, but development time. The more things you model, the more things you need to develop, verify, and maintain. If a particular problem does not call for advanced models, why waste budget developing and maintaining them? A real life example of this shows up in geoids. Quite often we can do all the modeling we need with a spherical Earth. However, sometimes we find that we need to model the Earth with its proper oblate shape, so we them switch to the WGS84 geoid, or any one of its brethren. The price: all sorts of fun complexities. When I say I have a "forward/right/down" body rotation matrix, is the "down" vector towards the center of the earth, or is it perpendicular to the geoid? On a sphere, they're the same. On an oblate spheroid, I have to take the time to figure out which one was intended. If I don't take the time, then I might as well have just used a sphere." Yes, think about how this crazy fringe movement operates. They systematically ignore every contradictory item and copious amounts of evidence, frequently offering the most ridiculous of explanations. There are videos on youtube about "flatards" that these people will never watch. I urge any person who is in confusion over this to seek and watch them. Again, the setting sun, no size change constant motion everywhere on the planet 15 degrees per hour every day of the year - that alone proves the globe.

Pure gibberish. I am not trying to convince you or any fellow flat earth claimants. No amount of evidence or logic will suffice - because you respond with nonsense like that.

QED.

Your continued evasion is very telling and any casual readers of this thread will be able to see this. There is no gathering consensus of flat earth believers. Water doesn't need to bend around the planet. The curve is so very gentle and provable gravity pulls it towards the centre of mass. Laser experiments DO lie, at least to those who do not consider the far simpler explanation. Two things are in play regarding refraction at the equator - the air density and heat gradient. It's why the Sun distorts so much when it is setting. Besides: https://www.newsweek.com/behind-curve-netflix-ending-light-experiment-mark-sargent-documentary-movie-1343362 Head shaking stuff - and that's from one of your leaders!

You can only deny. It is proven beyond any doubt that we live on a rotating globe. Your distraction videos gloss over all the major issues that you are avoiding. Refraction through denser mediums is a known and provable fact. Even on a flat earth model there is massively more air for the light to travel through. https://nationalweathermuseum.com/astronomical-refraction/#:~:text=When a celestial body is,is higher in the sky. "When a celestial body is low on the horizon, the light from it has to travel through the Earth’s atmosphere, which causes it to be refracted or bent. Because of the low position in the sky, the light must pass through much more of the Earth’s atmosphere than when the object is higher in the sky."

Nicely dodged. There is nothing all ridiculous about it. The boat is travelling away from the observer and drops over the horizon bottom first. You have no answer to this except blanket denial and you continue to avoid presented evidence - all flat earthers do this. He simply moved the camera periodically, keeping it rolling. The objective, to keep the boat continuously in view. That is not a boat moving in front of it. There is little change to the boats distance afterwards, but clearly the camera has a slightly altered HIGHER elevation(sea level is lower in the image).

It is inherent to that which you deny, the 1/2 degree refraction at the horizon causing the sun to be visible for that distance after it has set. I cannot prove anything to those who are so locked in to their crazy world view. I certainly hope you are not able to sway any more easily led people. http://piecubed.co.uk/atmospheric-refraction/ "In fact, at the horizon, light is bent about 0.5 degrees, which also happens to be very slightly more than the size of the sun in the sky. So, when you see the sun just ‘touching’ the horizon, it is actually already completely below it." One of numerous sites that you can only deny. This forum has a really poor quotation facility. Anyway - prove that. Prove it with more than hearsay. Ursa Major is not that "near Polaris". It extends southwards for around 3-4 degrees and has a declination of just under 70 degrees. It is visible in entirety up to 25 degrees south then it starts dropping stars from the top part. Explain that on your flat Earth? Kindly explain also why you are basically avoiding all the major points I have raised?

Who claimed this nonsense? It is possible to see it a half degree into the Southern hemisphere facing north on the edge of the horizon through refraction, but other than that, anyone who says it can be viewed in Thailand for example is making a false claim.

They are supposed to look at proper evidence. Why have you ignored my posts? It isn't a NASA thing! The entire cosmology community are being labelled as stupid by very ignorant claims of flat earthers. These are people who are ridiculously smart. What are you talking about regarding water levels? The visible surface of water maximum is always going to look flat, it's simply too small on the eye to detect a curve. In fact the human eye probably won't detect curvature until several miles up, nor should it. Now address the presented material, it should be easy for you. 1. How is the sun the exact same size all over the globe regardless of its distance to the observer? 2. How can it always travel 15 degrees of arc in 1hr wherever it is viewed from? 3. How can it possibly set? It is categorically impossible for anything above the eyeline to drop below it. Just the observation of the Sun proves everything. All this nonsense about things visible farther than they should is simply explained from refraction close to the horizon. Items concerning lasers are almost certainly where the laser skips off the surface of the sea. If you confine your searches and 'evidence' to sources that agree with you, you will forever stay in this crazy group who deny reality. Explain This -

Kindly address my post and spare me your diversionary ad hominem observation. I think flat earth claimants cause severe and rightful derision and act to lump other conspiracies into the same bucket.

To really hammer this home, the sizes of the Sun projected onto his false horizon show the vanishing point on a flat Earth - looks to be on the small side. QED. The angular velocity of the Sun anywhere on Earth is measurably the same - 15 degrees of arc per hour. This is impossible on a flat Earth with the variable distances claimed from observer to the Sun.

The flat earther casually shoots himself in the foot. Notice how the Sun is now about a quarter the size and in terms of its proximity to the artificial horizon it's about halfway from when it started. Notice also all the garbage he left up because he knows full well it never goes lower than the worktop. It is impossible.

Truly epic physics fail. The Earth is to all intents and purposes a broadly enclosed system. Similar but not identical to inside a train or car, Coriolis and wind currents notwithstanding. The Golfer, the ball, the air, the ground are all moving relative to each other, so the ball will not need to travel any extra distance. As can be seen on a train - throw a ball from one end to the other, duration 2 seconds, the ball is unaffected from being in the air. Take the roof off and the only difference is air resistance. Unlike the golfer and the ball on the spinning Earth, the train is in a different inertial reference frame to the air around it.

Hidden in plain sight is the route on a globe - The setting sun proves the globe. There is no scenario or explanation whereby an object that always has to be above eye level can drop below the horizon and without changing size. It is one of the most absurd things possible that this amazingly obvious thing is ignored.