> So there are pictures which shows us seeing further than we should be able to, and your response is nahuh?
No, my response to that particular claim would be:
A. How do we know how far that ship really was?
B. How do we know the video wasn't doctored?
C. Look at those waves! They lift your ship up and down but if the ship was really as big as it looks, they'd just be lapping upon the hull. That ship simply can't be what & where it appears to be, and that should be obvious.
> Surface tension on a water droplet isn't curvature dude
You didn't specify what the force creating the curve was. Going forward I'll assume you mean gravity-specific curvature.
Of course that brings me to one of the root reasons I strongly believe that everything large in the solar system is a sphere... The explanation of mass as a basis for gravity simply makes tons of sense. It's easy to conceive mass clumping together in the weightless vacuum of space and creating objects like planets. It's not so easy to conceive a bigass flat disk that somehow has mass pointed downwards. What's causing gravity to flow in that direction? It doesn't make any sense. Nor do orbits, the fact that water balls up when dropped, and a thousands other observed phenomena!
So many mathematical formulas wouldn't work either, like good ol' e=mc^2. We literally would be set back to the absolute stone ages if flat earthers' ideas of how the universe worked were accepted in mathematics. Suddenly, nothing would work anymore as you change the formulas to reflect that 'reality.'
> You claimed the flight goes over Antarctica, which it objectively doesn't
Dude, you realize that weather causes pilots to change all flightpaths drastically, right? Check again some other time. I've seen a different path take that same flight very close to the pole.
> you ignored my question about how you establish airspeed vs ground speed
No, I told you why that line of reasoning is stupid. Stop trying to measure apples to oranges when you should be thinking about how many miles away the orchards are.
> now you're demonstrating that you don't even know tail winds exist
Lol, same again. A cross-pacific flight gains or loses about 2 hours depending on the direction... So a 1 hours average in, let's say, a 7,000 mile flight path is simply not enough to account for the massive, massive, MASSIVE distances (100,000 miles?!?) that flights around the south pole would take in a flat earth!
Modern airlines simply do not have the fuel capacity to get anywhere near it if you flatten the globe. Tailwind arguments are just bikeshedding.
> Ah yes, political boundaries. I didn't realize the sun subscribes to those
Oh boy. You were the one that brought up the lack of time zones that exist in the south. No one brought up Lattitudes, just time zones, which are inherently political boundaries.
> 1 hour sections would necessitate that they are all equal, above and below the equator
Those are lattitude lines. Politicians didn't care for them very much.
> yet they somehow have to reduce the number of timezones in exactly the way that would be expected on a plane.
I have no idea what you're referring to here.
> can you define gravity in your own model? Can you elaborate on the fine tuning problem? How about the anisotropic measurements of the CMBR, how do you reconcile those? What about the fact that the tychonian model has less epicycles
Typical unnecessary technobabble employed only when you're being backed into a corner. There is no good reason to use these words in this context.
In Florence there is a great museum to Galileo showcasing things like his telescope and all kinds of gravity experiments he conducted. I think they said for every experiment on display there were 50 more back in storage. When I was in my late 20's I went backpacking around europe and spent a few weeks in Florence, absolutely in love with that museum and the town. I'll never forget all the different ways he found to measure & affect a ball rolling down a track. That was true science.
I honestly don't know what half the words you just used mean but I do feel I understand gravity better than most after seeing those experiments. A bunch of wooden tracks and metal balls that tell us plenty about the nature of this existence of ours.
Calibrate it then point it at Jupiter. Now note the claimed distance. Now, without refocusing, send your telescope to the moon. Now, explain to me how it's in focus.
Easy. Focal points in a telescope are not linear, they are exponential.
That means it takes less turning of the knob to focus from the moon to jupiter than it does from someone standing 10 feet away to someone 100 feet away. I find myself refocusing wildly between all terrestrial objects but objects inside the solar system are pretty much the same focal distance, and interstellar objects are just pinpricks of light anyway so it's impossible to say how much you need to refocus for those.
