I looked a little further into this and had two reactions:
1) I was surprised at the depth of explanation and creative thinking of flat earth models.
2) I slapped myself.
Where to begin?
A) If the sun and moon are 3000 miles away and are rotating above a flat earth, both would be visible at all times. Because trigonometry.
B) If there is no gravity, and if the atmosphere isn't rotating along with the earth, and if the earth is accelerating upwards at the rate of gravity, then why doesn't the Earth slam into the clouds, or the sun and moon for that matter?
C) If there is both gravity and a flat earth, why don't people at the edges of the earth tumble back to the center?
D) Explain the speed of light, e.g. why does light from the moon reach us significantly faster than from the Sun?
E) Explain wind and tides.
How many do you need? I like that people aren't afraid to question conventional thinking, but I'm getting tired of face-palming.
A) 1. Most places have between 50-100% humidity all the time so the 'dirtier' the water the shorter the distance you can see.1) I was surprised at the depth of explanation and creative thinking of flat earth models.
2) I slapped myself.
Where to begin?
A) If the sun and moon are 3000 miles away and are rotating above a flat earth, both would be visible at all times. Because trigonometry.
B) If there is no gravity, and if the atmosphere isn't rotating along with the earth, and if the earth is accelerating upwards at the rate of gravity, then why doesn't the Earth slam into the clouds, or the sun and moon for that matter?
C) If there is both gravity and a flat earth, why don't people at the edges of the earth tumble back to the center?
D) Explain the speed of light, e.g. why does light from the moon reach us significantly faster than from the Sun?
E) Explain wind and tides.
How many do you need? I like that people aren't afraid to question conventional thinking, but I'm getting tired of face-palming.
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YQ0dMJEjsk&feature=youtu.be&t=1512
B) 1, Earth is stationary. (earth is accelerating upwards, wat? )
2. There is no Gravity
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgnVRdQ7wg0
C) There is no Gravity and there is a Flat Earth and density
D) It needs determined what the moon is, certainly not a rocky sphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdyYKGeSekQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUW3BKYpsw
E) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg2deAEhoF4
Something for the Globots to explain, I am waiting.
A) Humidity? I know what you're suggesting, but no. I think you missed my post above where I asked what one might infer from a sun half-visible above the horizon line. While to the prior poster the important point was that the sun is apparently just as large as when it is directly above you (goodbye 'vanishing point' idea), to you I would point out that it is also just as clear (goodbye 'dirty water' idea). The Sun doesn't get hazy or blurry just before sunset, nor is it blurry or hazy at sunrise. What you do see, however, is Earth blocking the Sun's otherwise clear visibility.
B & C) If there is no gravity but just density, why don't the Sun and Moon fall on us? You mean to tell me from that picture you believe the Sun and Moon are less dense than air?
D) Skipping this for a second, because...
E) ...this is just falling apart now. First of all, generally speaking, this video is suggesting that the Sun and the Moon are responsible for the tides. Well...yeah. The Moon "is" responsible for the tides, just in a different way. Second of all, electromagnetism? Wait a minute, back in B&C you're suggesting the moon is less dense than air. So, what could the Sun and Moon be if they are 1) less dense than air, 2) are capable of generating such a strong electromagnetic field with so little mass (and no rotation? Or...)? From "D" we know you don't know, so don't you think you ought to figure that out before jumping to such conclusions?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
F) I'm not even sure what the picture means. Is it saying 1) The curvature in the bridge doesn't exist or 2) design to compensate for the curvature doesn't exist or 3) both?
A) My home town right now has over 90% humidity and sun shines. Back to your trigonometry. Here are some basic vids, I am certain there are better once around but you get the drift.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R52_PdZlSq8
Watch it twice you too can (un)learn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzRlsvWj8Hc
B & C & E) From information available to date it appears moon is some sort of glowing magnet. One thing is certain it is different from east to west. Like a projector screen hanging in the middle of the room and from front and back the same image has a mirrored image.
A lot of people providing some really good info. A lot more than NASA's blue marble painting where they can't even deceit how big to paint America (or did it grow over the years)
D) Yes so much to unlearn.
F) Design to compensate for the curvature and curvature in the bridge don't exist. Hello, 1.3 miles (2km) drop.
G) Yeh looks totaly natural (4 parts)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU2NM3PRbAg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU2NM3PRbAgA) These are anything but "back to your trigonometry." It's more like, "Let me distract you with other models so I never have to explain why the Sun and Moon aren't both visible at all times to everyone on the planet."
B,C,E) You don't get to have it all ways without an explanation. You're suggesting 1) the Moon is a magnet, 2) but is less dense than air, and at its proposed size would have so little relativistic mass that it couldn't generate that kind of electromagnetic field, 3) is like a projection, but a...magnet. Plus, 4) it seems you don't know what the Sun is, either, as it would need to adhere to your density idea, too.
D) At least you don't have as much to unlearn. I think flat-earthers fall into two categories: 1) Pretty intelligent people with stubborn, contrarian attitudes that will do anything they can to make a contrarian idea work, or 2) people who will believe anything they are told.
F) What do you think the difference is between making a bridge of any small length vs. a bridge of longer length? The curvature is the same regardless. It's even possible for straight girders to form curved paths on bridges; they're used all the time. You could build a bridge around the world without issue. I think using the word "drop" is misleading you. It's curvature, not a "drop." It doesn't "drop" anywhere. I'm having difficulty responding to this because I'm still having a hard time understanding what you're conceptualizing. Regardless, it's not an issue.
G) I have to go to work. No time to look at this. Summarize?
