Recently, I was reminded of the fact that there really is a very
simple way to prove that the Earth is indeed a globe. It's so
simple that even a flat-Earther ought to be able to understand it
and also be unable to find an argument with which to wiggle out
of it.

Lately, flat-Earthers have taken to using the polar case of the
Azimuthal Equidistant projection to show that time zones and
the voyage of Magellan are not impossible on a flat Earth.

This still leads to minor problems that would be difficult to
explain away. Yes, you can't travel to Antarctica without permission,
so perhaps a "conspiracy" might be concealing that it's a giant ring
around our world. But people in Australia can travel by car from
Perth to Sydney, and they would notice it if their journey was twice as long
as expected, or if Perth and Sydney were not as many time zones apart
as they should be.

But there is a much simpler way to show - without the possibility of
fudging matters to make room for some bizarre layout for a flat
Earth - that the Earth *must* be a ball.

No matter where you are on the Earth, at night when you look up
at the sky, you can see the stars. And you can see a lot of stars.
Almost half of the celestial sphere.

And so there is no question whatsoever about maps based on
the celestial sphere (fictitious though it is) being an accurate
representation of the night sky.

And whether you're in Oslo or Santiago, the constellations will
march past you in the sky over the course of the night, and
over the course of the seasons.

This only makes sense if the direction of "up" wherever you
might be on this Earth corresponds to the direction to the stars
at your zenith on the celestial sphere... and therefore to the
direction that is "up" on the globe.

This is why Ptolemy, in his book about the geocentric cosmos of
his day, and including a star catalog, also described the Earth as a
sphere. The Earth, when considered in relation to the stars of the
night sky, could be absolutely nothing else.

John Savard

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 5:53:12 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> Recently, I was reminded of the fact that there really is a very
> simple way to prove that the Earth is indeed a globe. It's so
> simple that even a flat-Earther ought to be able to understand it
> and also be unable to find an argument with which to wiggle out
> of it.
>
> Lately, flat-Earthers have taken to using the polar case of the
> Azimuthal Equidistant projection to show that time zones and
> the voyage of Magellan are not impossible on a flat Earth.
>
> This still leads to minor problems that would be difficult to
> explain away. Yes, you can't travel to Antarctica without permission,
> so perhaps a "conspiracy" might be concealing that it's a giant ring
> around our world. But people in Australia can travel by car from
> Perth to Sydney, and they would notice it if their journey was twice as long
> as expected, or if Perth and Sydney were not as many time zones apart
> as they should be.
>
> But there is a much simpler way to show - without the possibility of
> fudging matters to make room for some bizarre layout for a flat
> Earth - that the Earth *must* be a ball.
>
> No matter where you are on the Earth, at night when you look up
> at the sky, you can see the stars. And you can see a lot of stars.
> Almost half of the celestial sphere.
>
> And so there is no question whatsoever about maps based on
> the celestial sphere (fictitious though it is) being an accurate
> representation of the night sky.
>
> And whether you're in Oslo or Santiago, the constellations will
> march past you in the sky over the course of the night, and
> over the course of the seasons.
>
> This only makes sense if the direction of "up" wherever you
> might be on this Earth corresponds to the direction to the stars
> at your zenith on the celestial sphere... and therefore to the
> direction that is "up" on the globe.
>
> This is why Ptolemy, in his book about the geocentric cosmos of
> his day, and including a star catalog, also described the Earth as a
> sphere. The Earth, when considered in relation to the stars of the
> night sky, could be absolutely nothing else.
>
> John Savard

Very simple , go out to any ocean or flat lands, one can see the Earth is curving.
You walk many miles ahead and it still curving!
Even the Neanderthal noticed it too!

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:0171d537-ebfe-4d52-9c31-160ee85fc287n@googlegroups.com:

> Recently, I was reminded of the fact that there really is a very
> simple way to prove that the Earth is indeed a globe.

There's s simpler way that yours. All you need is a flat surface and
a flashlight. If the world were flat, the sun would rise everywhere
at the same time. All someone at the other end of the country, and
they'll tell you that the sun rises several hours earlier or later
than where you are.

The flat earther answer to this is that other flat earthers are part
of the conspiracy.

If they can't accept something *that* simple, there's no point in any
further conversation. They're too mentally damaged to interact with
reality.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 2019 Wuhan military games was ‘one of the earliest super spreader
events’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/23/congress-wuhan-military-games-2019-covid/

https://media.giphy.com/media/SuIDKboVhHgtLPG6zm/giphy.mp4

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 1:53:12 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> Recently, I was reminded of the fact that there really is a very
> simple way to prove that the Earth is indeed a globe. It's so
> simple that even a flat-Earther ought to be able to understand it
> and also be unable to find an argument with which to wiggle out
> of it.
>
> Lately, flat-Earthers have taken to using the polar case of the
> Azimuthal Equidistant projection to show that time zones and
> the voyage of Magellan are not impossible on a flat Earth.
>
> This still leads to minor problems that would be difficult to
> explain away. Yes, you can't travel to Antarctica without permission,
> so perhaps a "conspiracy" might be concealing that it's a giant ring
> around our world. But people in Australia can travel by car from
> Perth to Sydney, and they would notice it if their journey was twice as long
> as expected, or if Perth and Sydney were not as many time zones apart
> as they should be.
>
> But there is a much simpler way to show - without the possibility of
> fudging matters to make room for some bizarre layout for a flat
> Earth - that the Earth *must* be a ball.
>
> No matter where you are on the Earth, at night when you look up
> at the sky, you can see the stars. And you can see a lot of stars.
> Almost half of the celestial sphere.
>
> And so there is no question whatsoever about maps based on
> the celestial sphere (fictitious though it is) being an accurate
> representation of the night sky.
>
> And whether you're in Oslo or Santiago, the constellations will
> march past you in the sky over the course of the night, and
> over the course of the seasons.
>
> This only makes sense if the direction of "up" wherever you
> might be on this Earth corresponds to the direction to the stars
> at your zenith on the celestial sphere... and therefore to the
> direction that is "up" on the globe.
>
> This is why Ptolemy, in his book about the geocentric cosmos of
> his day, and including a star catalog, also described the Earth as a
> sphere. The Earth, when considered in relation to the stars of the
> night sky, could be absolutely nothing else.
>
> John Savard

None of you ever kept company with the old researchers and it shows in those vapid comments, but then again, observations have been so hollowed out by RA/Dec perspectives that it even falls below the category of throwing pearls to swine and therefore an insult to pigs. Somehow, in the presence of new material, making yourselves feel better by conjuring a 'flat Earth' proponents into existence says more about yourselves than any imagined group.

I look out into space or towards the central solar system when I look in the direction of the Sun. The old solar system researchers too looked out into space by gauging the change in position of other celestial objects, including the Sun, to the stellar background and not 'up' or 'down'.

I am proud of my heritage, whereas most here are just recent followers of a celestial sphere subculture or the 'clockwork solar system' sycophants.

It certainly is dismaying to see this newsgroup go quiet but, as a Christian, it is said that unless something completely dies can it spring back to life again.

" XI. “And, finally, in what sense, and in reference to what thing is Earth said to be ‘intermediate?’ For the
universe is infinite; now that which is infinite hath neither beginning nor limit, so it does not belong to it to
possess a middle: for infinity is the deprivation of limits. But he who makes out Earth to be the middle not
of the universe, but of the world, is ridiculous for his simplicity if he does not reflect that the ‘world’ itself
is liable to the very same objections: for the universe hath not left a middle place for it also, but it is borne
along without house or home in the boundless vacuum, towards nothing cognate to itself; perhaps it has
found out for itself some other cause for remaining fixed, and so has stood still, but certainly not owing to
the nature of its position. And it is allowable for one to conjecture alike with respect to Earth and with
respect to the moon, that by some contrary soul and nature they are [actuated, the consequence of the
diversity being] differences, the former remaining stationary here, the latter moving along. But apart from
these considerations, see whether a certain important fact has not escaped their notice. For if whatsoever
space, and whatever thing exists away from the center of Earth, is the ‘above,’ then no part of Earth is
‘below,’ but Earth herself and the things upon Earth; and, in a word, everybody standing around or
investing the center, become the ‘above;’ whilst ‘below’ is one sole thing, that incorporeal point, which has
the duty of counterbalancing the whole constitution of the world; if, indeed, the ‘below’ is by its nature
opposed to the ‘above.’ And this is not the only absurdity in the argument, but it also does away with the
cause through which all ponderous bodies gravitate in this direction, and tend downwards: for there is no
mark below towards which they move: for the incorporeal point is not likely (nor do they pretend it is) to
exert so much force as to draw down all objects to itself, and keep them together around itself. But yet, it is
proved unreasonable, and repugnant to facts, to suppose the ‘above’ of the world to be a whole, but the
‘below’ an incorporeal and indefinite limit: whereas that course is consistent with reason, to say, as we do,
that the space is large and possessed of width, and is defined by the ‘above’ and the ‘below’ of locality. "
Plutarch

https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~dduke/lectures/plutarch-moonface.pdf