RE: Round earth theory vs flat earth theory
The trouble with most flat earth vs ball earth discussions, and this post, is that EVERYTHING you said, works just fine in either model.
When they changed from the earth being the center of the solar system to the sun being the center of the solar system, did any measurements change? NO.
And the thought about them hiding the truth about the shape of the earth is small potatoes.
There is a secret space program. You can watch it with special binoculars.
NASA was started by THE occultist. Occult meaning to hide.
Everything the schools taught you about science is wrong. Everything. And this can be traced back to the same people.
Now, boats disappearing "over the horizon" is completely debunked.
So, you watch a boat disappear into the horizon, and then you take out your binoculars and you can see the entire boat again.
This happens because our sight sees by detecting edges. As things get further away, the edges blend into each other. Very similar to showing something on a computer screen. As the object gets smaller and smaller, it gets more and more blurred together. Until it is all just one pixel which is a combination of all the colors.
The real flat earth proofs come from seeing things that should be beyond the curvature of the earth.
Like light houses, whose light can be seen, when it clearly is over the edge of the horizon. And not just a little bit.
Like pictures taken across lake Michigan on an exceptionally clear day.
How does satellites operate, if they are not rotating around the flat earth? Even assuming the sattelites moves in circles above a flat earth, the math would change dramatically, millions of engineers working with GPS systems must be aware that the earth is not round.
Measurements on a globe and on a paper map is not the same. Map makers always have problems projecting world maps down on paper, ref this XKCD comic strip
I must admit that the errors in measurements on the flat earthers map in northern hemisphere may probably not be measurable by a common pleb like me (except when trusting the GPS), but on the southern hemisphere the differences are dramatic! Antarctica surrounding all the world? That makes no sense.
Ok, so one actually needs a special permit to visit Antarctica legally - maybe someone is hiding something secret there? I would not believe so, at least some tens of thousands of people have been visiting Antarctica, some with and some without a valid permit.
that's mad is that euphemism widely used in oslo!? I thought it was just a English thing, loving the usage though and I'm sure your not a common pleb me old fruit your analysis is spot on btw
So, looking a bit on the map, I found one spot where one can sit on stable land, 33 nm away from the Færder light house, and look towards it with a binocular without obstacles in the way. Unfortunately I don't think I have the possibility to take up that challenge this year.
However, such an experiment won't really prove anything. For one thing, it may be that I won't be able to see anything due to the distance. For the second thing, the height of the light is measured at the highest water levels, hence at normal water levels one has to be even a bit further out. Then there is the indirect light - I will most likely be able to see light reflecting in particles/mist in the air. Light may also bend in the atmosphere. Perhaps I'm better off finding a smaller light house and observing it on a smaller distance. Anything less than 7 nm is moot anyway as I calculated in a comment somewhere else here. Everything beyond 5 nm tends to be a bit blurry anyway.
Here are some experiments already done.
http://coconutrevival.com/?p=2066
And the light not travelling straight is a really important measurement.
It truly appears that light follows the curvature of the earth... or the earth is flat.