nasa states the earth curve can be seen at 35,000 ft and you'll need a wide view. cameras have been up atleast 100,000ft and none was detected.
ships can see light houses atleast 20 miles away , using the formula for the earth curve , that lighthouse would be a more than 150 ft below the horizon.
your correct , only difference is the water is inside of the container , gravity solves this issue as many would claim , but there is one problem , gravity has the power to hold millions of tons of water stuck to the earth , but butterflies and insects go about their lives unaffected by the massive force called gravity.
If I say something's clearly visible to me and the reason you can't see something is probably because of poor vision, just saying the words "none was detected", i.e. repeating the fact that you can't see the thing, doesn't refute me.
Oh gee I wonder how a tower built to shoot a directional beam of light over the horizon to be easily spotted by passing ships might be spotted from a ship that's over the horizon?
And how could a force that affects objects in proportion to their mass possibly have so small an effect on creatures whose mass is very small?
that was not the issue , im just asking the question , nasa says something total different so , unless you have done more extensive research i cant see how you can explain why we dont see it when nasa says we should. this is your science im using.
if this where true , the beam of light would be poiting to the sky , use your senses and look at diagram of this example.
density causes objects to rise and fall , not gravity.
Eh, I can't refute or necessarily explain the fact that you can't see something, but if I can see it and the scientific establishment says it's supposed to be there, then I have every reason to think the problem is with you. That's maybe not much of an argument for the Earth being round, but if you're just asking a question, then I'm fine just answering "well, I can see the curvature, so maybe it's something wrong with your eyes?"
Okay, describing lighthouses as specifically designed to send light over the horizon was an exaggeration and they'd be designed differently if that was the main goal; they're intended to send light as far as possible but that mostly means being visible at medium distances through bad weather, being visible over the horizon on clear nights is a useful side effect. The point is, powerful directional beams of light are visible over the horizon. Also, between the height of a shipboard observer and the height of the top of a lighthouse, some ships might simply have direct line-of-sight to some lighthouses over 20 miles' worth of curvature.
The first problem with that theory, and there are lots of problems with it, is that "Density" is a scalar quantity and not a force.
your not even making sense at this point , we can see ships go over the curve , but we cant see the curve , good point, very scientific. your a mad man if you claim to see a curve with your own eyes lmao
on a ball earth , wouldnt the curve affect the angle of the structure thus making it lean if its 20miles away? , maybe a 1% tilt? , which would scale the higher it goes from ground level? and light travels in a straight direction , MEANING , the lights would be traveling upwards,at that distance , wouldnt u think this abnormally would be visable? no? on a ball earth that lighthouse would be under the horizon , the same horizons that makes ships disappear....unless you have a curved line of sight , your theory is garbage
gravity is a theory , density is reality.
Its a shame , if you put that same amount of energy you got there attacking flat earthers on steemit , you could apply some geniuine research into the subject and wise up a little. I am not taking billions of dollars to shoot up parabolic rockets and make computer generated imagery in the name of science bro. But your seeing curves where there is none , unless your eyes are go pro lenses....
Were we not talking about how visible the curvature of the Earth is in pictures taken at high altitudes?
Light diffracts and shines on other things and generally is visible to people not in its direct path, we're not talking about a laser in a vacuum here. And you're conveniently ignoring my point about the heights of observer and observed.
Technically true, since a fact and a theory are different things, but "density causes things to fall" is a theory, and it's a much worse theory than gravity because, before any other issues with it, density isn't even a force.
I'm looking at obviously wrong things and giving off-the-top-of-my-head reasons why the obviously wrong things are wrong - you think this is effort for me?
your not , your just being devils advocate against flat earthers for some reason , be genuine and do some research and stop pulling theories out if your a@$ lmao
Believing in bigfoot is seen as ridiculous because it's a very uncommon belief that's contrary to what mainstream science teaches... so it's weird for a flat-Earther to use "this is like saying you've seen bigfoot" as if it's a diss.
Well, that makes two of us giving up on repeating ourselves.
Since causing things to move is one of the defining properties of a force, and you said "density causes objects to rise and fall, not gravity", it's you who said density needed to be a force.
You obviously have no idea what "devil's advocate" means.
If I wanted a debate that involved actual research, I'd debate people with more plausible beliefs than flat-Earthers, who have some chance of actually proving me wrong - like Marxists or Young Earth Creationists. Or people who think Bigfoot is real.