https://beyondrange.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/
Pull up a curvature calculator and check the numbers for yourself, and then try to explain how we are observing something that should be obscured by over 1km of curvature.
Next, you couldn't even be honest and concede that surface tension isn't an example of water curving based on gravity, which is obviously what we have been discussing this whole time, or how else are you claiming that large bodies of water are curving?
Mass attracting mass was superseded by relativity, which claims that gravity is the warping and bending of space time. Once again, flat earthers have to educate globers on the very things they cling to like a religion.
What causes things to clump together? Electrostatics, because everything is electric.
You're straw-manning the FE position by calling it a disk. No one claims that, but you think this because you have never even listened to the other side. What causes a downward bias on the inertial plane? Electrostatics, which are a much stronger force than gravity claims to be. Electricity and magnetism is another topic, but you obviously hold the mainstream position on what that is, even though you nor a physicist could define what a field is, or explain magnetism. Gravity is an effect of electricity.
> So many mathematical formulas wouldn't work either, like good ol' e=mc^2.
Why not? Go ahead, explain why this wouldn't work in a geocentric model.
You're once again working off assumptions, like light travelling, which is what the formula relies on. The perceived rate of induction (which is what light is, a coaxial circuit) changes depending on the medium light travels through. So, explain to me where the energy comes from for light to speed up once it has passed through a glass object?
Funny how the people who came up with our entire electrical grid understood that light doesn't travel, but that it is an aether perturbation modality. That, however, has little to do with FE but relates to the topic of magnetism, dielectricity and the aether.
Tailwinds vary in direction and speed depending on the altitude. Uninformed claims. You're also avoiding mentioning GPS, which uses an EARTH CENTRED EARTH FIXED (ECEF) coordinate system, and is the basis of how all calculations with regards to flights and sailing are done.
> 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.
Firstly, I messed up what I was saying by inverting the reality - there are many more time zones in the South.
> Those are lattitude lines
I'm not talking about latitudes, time zones are along longitudinal lines my guy, from North to South.
> I have no idea what you're referring to here.
One a globe, these should all be exactly the same. You're not grasping it. Will you watch a skipper who has sailed over 100,000 nautical miles and competed in races around the world explain this issue to you? It's a 20 minute presentation.
For example, the US lies on the same LATITUDE in the North as Australia does in the South. They are roughly the same distance across, yet the US has 4 time zones and Australia has 2.
https://youtu.be/lMhheDWThxE
> 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.
LOL! You almost did the thing and called it a word salad. No, dude. These are the fundamentals of physics and what modern science is centred around when it comes to cosmological models. But, once again, you haven't spent any time on the subject so you couldn't possibly know anything about the very thing you BLINDLY believe in. I was just proving that point, and I wasn't expecting you to know those things.
To give you some context, the cosmic microwave radiation (CMBR) was measured 3 times at different Lagrange points by "space" agencies. Each time, they found that the Earth had a unique position based on the distribution of the cosmic radiation, which was anisotropic, meaning that it had a preferred direction which all points back to the Earth. It was dubbed the axis of evil. They can't explain it, it "must be wrong" or "it's inconclusive". It has been measured independently on 3 separate occasions. It is objectively is very conclusive.
What they come up as explanations are things like multiverse theories to explain the issue. What's the simplest, most obvious explanation those results? The Earth is fixed in a 'special' position, at the center of everything. Robert Sungenis has a documentary on this which you can find on YT called The Principle. For reference, he's a geocentrist but doesn't think the Earth is flat.
> That was true science.
I tend to agree that what people did in the past was much closer to resembling science than the theoretical horse shit spewed out by paid off retards today. Mental circle-jerking morons that can't even define basic things like fields and magnetism - in reference to 'scientists'.
All of that which you just described has been superseded in your own model. It is completely irrelevant today.
> 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.
Most people don't know those words. That's the whole point. You understand gravity better than most though? Then explain it! You referred to mass, then you referred to Einsteins equation within the frame of relativity. Newton's gravity (mass-mass) was replaced with general relativity because of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment.
You're only making my point for me - most people have no idea what they believe, because they have spent no time on the subject, even in terms of what the mainstream 'experts' tell you to believe.
This is why it's so painful to discuss this in a meaningful way with people who willingly choose to remain ignorant on the subject.
On the last point, the focus is manual on the telescope and it required no adjustment between Uranus and Jupiter, and the moon. That was through a Celestron CPC 1100 if I recall.
> find myself refocusing wildly between all terrestrial objects but objects inside the solar system are pretty much the same focal distance
... which suggests that the celestial bodies are not at the claimed distances apart.
The globe model is as fiat as it gets, most people are not ready for the conversation. However, just like Bitcoiners don't go back to being fiat maxis, there is no such thing as a "former" flat-earther. It only trends in one direction, and it only grows day-by-day.