Yes, Flat-Earthers Really Do Exist

Captain Tinkle

Honorable
sub-buzz-16445-1547057743-10.jpg
 

AD1184

Celestial
If one lived on terrain of constant elevation (what we colloquially refer to as 'flat', but do not mean flat in the sense that flat-earthers mean flat), and one's eyes sit at a height of five feet above the ground, then the distance to the horizon is 2.7 miles. If one sees a 'windmill' (I assume a wind turbine for electricity generation), must it be within those 2.7 miles? No. If we assume a hub height of only 200 feet (apparently the average hub height for a power-generating turbine in the US is now 460 feet), then the distance to the horizon is 17.3 miles from the hub. Thus, the hub is visible to a five-foot observer from the sum of these distances, or 20 miles. More than 27 miles for a 400-foot-tall turbine hub. If there is a change in elevation between the observer and the turbines, then these distances can be even longer.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
D120G44XQAADegW.jpeg
 

nivek

As Above So Below
They just won't concede to the truth...

Flat Earthers Plan Trip Around Antarctica to Prove You Know What

Well, the “tough” Flat Earthers are getting going and they’re going to … Antarctica! For those not familiar with the theory, the continent at the bottom of the planet that’s round to the rest of us is different if a globe were flattened with the North Pole in the center. Then, the outer rim would be a thin band we’d all call Antarctica. For those who know their math, that’s also called a circumference. The circumference of the round Earth is about 24,900 miles (40,000 km) but that’s around the equator and there’s still the southern hemisphere to flatten out and add to the flat map.

In an interview with Forbes, flat-earther Jay Decasby, who is developing a flat earth reality series, puts the white ring of Antarctica circling such a round map at over 60,000 miles.

Flat_earth-300x300.png


“But, but, but!” you say … didn’t Colin O’Brady just complete the first-ever solo crossing of Antarctica on a trip that took 54 days and measured 932 miles from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean via the South Pole?

Decasby scoffs at your question.

They’ve made laws to not allow any kind of motorized equipment on the ice which would help us prove not only flat earth but what’s beyond the ice wall, but in reality, we don’t even need to get onto the ice to prove flat earth.
That’s right. He claims the best way to prove the Earth is flat is to sail a ship around the circumference of Antarctica which should be 60,000 miles. Such a trip would also prove that the edge of the Earth is circled by a wall of ice 150 feet high. Captain James Cook did this first, although that claim is obviously disputed by flat earthers like Decasby who says there’s no way Cook sailed 60,000 miles (did you catch the flaw in this logic?), but still quotes Cook’s description of a high wall of ice in which the captain was never able to find an inlet that penetrated it. Never mind that Antarctica has since been circled many times and many inlets have been found.

iceberg-79389_640-570x372.jpg


Jules Verne’s Phileas Fogg strove to go around the world in 80 days.

Viking Ocean Cruises is offering an Ultimate World Cruise that will circumnavigate the Earth and visit 59 countries in 245 days (for the low, low price of $93,000). Why not, in the name of science or the debunking of science, let these flat earth believers finance and sail a ship around Antarctica and prove their theory to the “the sun-worshipping cult of heliocentrism” or forever hold their peace?

Entertainment could be provided by bands singing flat versions of “I Get Around,” “Roundabout” and “Fat-Bottomed Girls (You Make the Rockin’ World Go Round).” The challenge will be to find a cruse ship with a big enough galley to stock a buffet for 60,000 miles. What would Bluto say?


.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
for example.. according to their math or the curvature.. i shouldn't be able to see the windmills outside my back door that are 9 miles away. according to their math it would be below the curvature of the earth.

Umm. Not sure that is relevant.

Windmills are located on top of hills generally.
 

AD1184

Celestial
To my knowledge there's no flat object in space. o_O
Saturn's rings are fairly flat. Although arguably they are not a single object. Each ring consisting of millions of rocky pieces. Many galaxies are also rather flat, at least in relation to their diameters. Although the same applies as for planetary rings.
 

Toroid

Founding Member
Saturn's rings are fairly flat. Although arguably they are not a single object. Each ring consisting of millions of rocky pieces. Many galaxies are also rather flat, at least in relation to their diameters. Although the same applies as for planetary rings.
I see the Milky Way as a hockey puck. It's 100,000 light years in diameter and 30,000 deep. Since it has a bulge in the center it could be compared to the shape of a UFO.
Milky Way - Wikipedia
sideview.gif

694940094001_5339799205001_5339792147001-vs.jpg
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Somehow full of beer this seemed so clear .....

I was drinking a little wine last night when I saw that, it cracked me up, so I proceeded to watch a few more clips of Bugs on youtube lol...Cheap bubblegum lol...

...
 
Top