CHALLENGE TO FLAT EARTHERS: If it is flat can you provide me with a heightmap of the world? That seems difficult to provide...
I want to state now that I am NOT a believer in the flat earth. Though I occasionally have some intelligent people come at me about one Flat Earth Hypothesis or another. I often can see some obvious problems with some of these hypothesis and I can model them in my mind. Yet, I have realized that many people cannot apparently do that. So that means I'd need to show them what I can see inside my mind.
Now there is a popular Flat Earth model that looks like this...
It proposes the Sun and the Moon as something like this...
So as some of you may know I am a game designer. This means I also like making computer simulations.
I see some extreme problems with the above maps and models. Yet simply stating it doesn't seem sufficient for people.
Well one day I had an idea...
What if I made that map as 3D? What if I placed the sun and the moon in as indicated?
What if I could then drop a person into that map?
Well all of these things are indeed possible yet I've found one extreme deficit.
You see I can get height maps from all over the globe at any time provided by satellites.
I can't get a height map for this FLAT model.
I've searched and I've found people projecting the globe. I can't find any evidence that such a map exists.
That means producing such an actual flat earth simulation using this model is difficult simply due to lack of such a height map existing.
This is further examples that if you know physics well, you consider distance and travel times, you consider phases of the moon, seasons, and many other things this map makes no sense. It fails to account for so many observations.
So this is my challenge to those flat earth proponents here on steemit. If you can provide a height map of this style map or what you believe accurately models the "flat earth" I can make some simulations.
The higher resolution you can provide this map the better I can do such a simulation. Ultimately I'll convert it to a square texture where width and height of the texture are identical. If this would distort what you find then please keep this in mind.
The higher the resolution the more realistic I can make this appear. Ideally I'd like at least a 4096x4096 height map though even higher resolution than that would be better. If it is low resolution then I can still do it but the appearance of the simulation will be of much lower detail and less smooth and accurate.
My plan is to take whatever is given and likely stick it on a 10Kx10K projection and then scale a person and other things appropriately to match scaling the world to that. I could also scale movement speeds and in theory it could be experimented with, observed, and experienced.
EDIT: I am proposing making something like the following but with accurate height map data, scale, and potential ability to interact with and experience it in third person, flight sim, or other approaches. Also properly handling the movement of that sun and moon.
EDIT 2: Sometime last year I player around with a height map of mars a bit in this post.
Musings on a Flat Mars - Move from Flat Earth and Teraform Flat Mars - Visual Humor
I understand now why all the flat earthers are so so concerned that the ice is melting. Because once the south pole melts all the ocean waters and the air will spin of into space.
where did you read this from? you guys just make stuff up to bash.
my proof https://steemit.com/science/@klevn/proofs-the-world-is-not-moving-or-a-globe-high-tides-when-moon-opposite-side-for-your-consideration-please-examine
lol
no kidding - really? I actually have looked at the math.
If you're a game designer you know how to make two-dimensional and three-dimensional images. Draw a flat plane then place to vertical lines at a distance. If those lines are parallel and 90° to the surface then it's a flat plane. Right? If the lines are not perfectly parallel then there is curvature. Water is always level. A plumb line is always 90 degrees to the water surface. The Earth is covered in 70% water. Yet it's all at sea level? Google search a picture of the Chicago skyline from Lake Michigan . I have a picture in my blog . The water surface is 90° to the edges of the buildings. Even the buildings at the extreme edges are 90° to the water surface . On a globe Earth you would have to account for curvature because all things would point toward the center of the earth to be perfectly plum. But that's not what we observe. This is very easy to prove take a long spirit level and tripod to a large body of water. Adjust the level to the Horizon where the water meets the sky. Stand back and compare. You will see that the Horizon is level in every direction. You could also hang Plum lines extending trough both ends of the level and you will see that they are 90 degrees to the surface of the water and perfectly parallel to each other. The word horizon means horizontal. Horizontal means level. Level means flat. Why do you think it's called sea level? Everyone of us thought the Earth was a globe at one time. Because we were taught that from birth. If you question everything you will see that what you are being told contradicts what you see with your own eyes. People who believe the lie have cognitive dissonance. People who don't believe the lie can see truth. At least your reasonable and not resorting to childish insults. Peace
People like to say what "can" and "can't" be done. Also pointing out flaws does not replace a model. It simply indicates you have flaws with the model. I have yet to see ANY Flat Earth model that can explain a lot of the observable phenomena that the globe can. This is partially why I am asking for a height map of the world that fits the best model. I am also asking for it from Flat Earthers as if I take that projection version with Antarctica encircling the globe and build my own height map from that which I'd likely use the fast cheating method instead of an accurate one, the the result would be that Flat Earthers would scoff and say I did it wrong and I would have wasted a lot of time.
People in religions around the world say/believe the same thing every day. Believing in absolutes can be dangerous. In rare cases they are absolute, but when it comes to theories/hypothesis there are none that cannot be questioned, challenged, and either evolve or die. Unless they are treated like a religion. :) Those tend to evolve too but they are not exactly receptive to ANY form of challenge. Their adherents treat anyone that disagrees as someone who believes a lie.
Actually it is Funny, when we look at other planets we see those are round.
How to prove the earth planet is round; should be simple; sent a mirror into the sky, and have a look with the telescoop 😊
They have many anecdotal experiences, videos, etc that they'll say "see this flaw"... that must mean the world is flat. Though flaws can be many things, and it doesn't prove that the answer is then FLAT.
@dwinblood - I am not a flat-earther myself - but I like your questions - and I look forward to seeing your map.
Not likely to see the map if the flat earthers can only prothelisize and not provide a height map to build the model from
Thank you @dwinblood. I am not too sure how I got around to this post, but I appreciate your ability to communicate. Unlike some posts, and even more comments, it seemed you were able to pose opposition to an idea without insulting the other view. I think this is very important. No matter someones view on something we shouldn't speak to them as if they are intellectually challenged. There are so many theories, that theories have theories. I do believe it is possible for we humans to coexist without having to believe the same thing....or even be in a constant battle of "where is the proof".
Nice post! I followed you, looking forward to see more awesome post in the future. Don't forget to follow me back. I also upvoted this.
(Upvoting this comment will help street children of Manila, Philippines this Christmas season)
Explaining an eclipse is pretty difficult with that model as well. The sun and moon orbit around but then, for whatever reason, they decide to completely change alignment? I like the idea of the entire world being wrong about something they hold so dearly as being a scientific fact, but the flat Earth model has a lot of issues that are ridiculous.
Here are some more weird phenomena about the sun and the moon.
When the moon (supposedly) goes in front of the sun it casts a shadow on the surface of the earth.
If you take that size, and work in the relative size of the earth and the moon, when the moon goes into the earth's shadow, it should not, in any way, blot out the whole moon.
People, with sophisticated video equipment have tried to photograph the moon going across the sun. And they have found that the moon doesn't exist. Something else seems to go across the sun.
The moon appears to a video sync problem. Every once in a while, the moon gets a horizontal line going across it. Like you would get with an old tube TV that wasn't locked to the station. It has been filmed by multiple people.
Or so they claim. I can fake all of that. The problem I've found with most people making claims is speculations without actually putting it to the test.
A man and his child using a weather balloon with a go pro to film the earth before the balloon bursts the argument from the flat earth community will be that "see it has a fish eye lense".
I'm waiting for flat earthers to do some actual experiments themselves with the raw footage not edited showing successes and failures as both are important.
Instead they typically poke holes at someone elses footages and do a lot of Appeal to Authority action.
I've seen lots of artifacts in video. I've also seen some bizarre stuff I can't explain in life. That doesn't mean I then speculate on what the bizarre stuff was and then pass my speculation off as fact.
If people want to propose a hypothesis then great... yet it is only speculation until it is tested, and documented, and the test can be repeated. It must explain all observable phenomena.
Video is so easy to fake these days that I personally don't believe much that I see on video. I could even fake some UFO videos pretty easily for example with all of my 3D and video experience. IF I added in noise and grain and such to make it seem more raw that's not too hard either... lots of ways to do that.
That doesn't mean UFOs do not exist. It simply means it takes more than a video to prove things these days because it is so easy to fake.
Also consider their sun model. Is the light gradient or equal in intensity the distance from the sun. If it is equal in intensity that will make some oddities with what we see in the world. If it is not equal then that creates a new set of problems. Then you take places where there are places where they have periods where the sun never is completely gone, and then times where the sun never appears for days. This cycles. That model does not explain any of that at all.
If the sun is equal intensity then the effect on that sun should be rather uniform in effect upon the surface. IF it varies in intensity either due to distance from it's position in the light spot light like disk, or height of the surface then I'd expect to see banding and quite a different appearance of how the earth looks.
This is something I've recently thought about.
My earlier problems with that map and hypothesis have nothing to do with the sun and the moon. They have simply to do with distances and travel and the severe problems with that map,
So these flat earthers need to provide something that I haven't seen yet.
They need to find a model that works and explains the observations, is predictable, and can be tested and explain the results.
As far as I can tell there isn't anything even close to that.
see how the light fans out? that can't be explained in the globe earth model, if the sun was so far away the light would come directly down, all from one direction.
this clearly point to a much closer sun than the globe earth.
Uhm.... yes it can be explained. Just saying it can't doesn't mean it cannot.
Do some research on prisms and other types of materials that light passes through.
That's a problem with flat earthers... they like to point at something and say it can't be explained and say SEE FLAT EARTH.
Yet there is no flat earth model I've SEEN (if they are out there I haven't seen them) that can explain vast amounts of observable phenomena that are explained by physics, and a elipsoid/spherical/globe earth.
Pointing out something YOU or your AUDIENCE don't know the explanation for does not suddenly PROVE what you would like it to prove. That isn't how proof works.
Because, YOU don't know how to explain a thing or someone points out something you yourself may not know explanations for does not suddenly mean that what they then say is TRUE.
Yes, our atmosphere acts as a kind of fresnel lens. This is very well known and makes perfect sense. His argument is ridiculous, if the earth were that close to the sun, the sun would not have enough mass (in hydrogen)to last this long without already begining expansion.
want me to link you all the times that uvas/kerriknox and others on here have done that exact thing? they claim victory in every post.
i don't need to research prism. i understand them fully. what are you trying to say the atmosphere is doing that? i think this is mental gymnastics that i see with globe earthstars to keep their theory alive.
you trying to say that somehow, the light travels, then funnels down into sun size prism in the sky, then redirects outward? this is ridiculous and fails occum's razor.
also why is it so many globe earthers are in every forum/chat defending globe earth? could it be the trillion dollar space industry that sells us cgi can easily afford all these people? nobody is trying to defend water being wet.
lies fall apart in the face of scrutiny, truth becomes clearer.
i see that when i examined the globe earth i found more and more reasons to doubt.
http://ericdubay.com/
I started going thru his proofs. I found them to be true.
you seem more interested in mocking me than addressing anything.
no the sun is closer than we have been told.
I'd be interested in seeing a model that actually explains things like..
Those are but a few examples. Yet for it to matter it needs to be a model that can replace the existing one and explain more observable phenomena.
The popular map which I linked into this post and was SERIOUSLY asking for a height map was so I could play around with it and see what it does. There are some major flaws with that map.
Sure. I asked for something specific in this post. A Height Map. I didn't ask for someone to prosthelitize about Flat Earth. As you stated there is already plenty of that.
Yet I've not seen a working model anywhere.
So when someone shows me sun shafts and says they can't be explained then yeah you're going to get mocked. That is you stating something you clearly don't know the physics behind. There are good explanations for them. Those particular ones are in the field of refraction. We've also gone on to build a lot of technology based off of refraction. I guess none of that stuff works.
And Zeus is standing upon Mount Olympus.
the tides are an interesting one, because there is a high tide when the moon is on the other side of the earth. that is explained away as the earth is being pulled to the moon... yeah, ain't buying it.
actually the lack of video of a day full of sun on at the Antarctica is one of the things that bothered me. only found videos of a 270 degree rotation. how does that make sense?
i don't know how it all works. i just see flaws, things that don't fit together, and when you have that you must try and find a new way of thinking about it.
who is to say it wasn't a man, with technology from days of old, that stood there pretending to be a god. seems to me the stories of old are just these men, with great technology wielded over men, claiming to be gods. that is the most likely truth, that i've come to see.
do you know how many times the globe model has been modified? how many times the distance the sun is to make it all work where brought forth? things keep changing to fit what they see, but they are making it fit within a box they already have in their minds, they aren't letting the facts dictate the truth, they are letting their model dictate the facts in a strange role reversal.
Yes, that is what is supposed to happen.
Find a flaw. Can you explain it? IF so modify the model.
That is science. There is no PERFECT "see it explains everything" we simply go with the model that explains the MOST things.
There are plenty of things we haven't explained. That is part of the fun.
Yet we don't do that by saying "that is wrong so X must be right".
Your prism effect is conjecture. I've looked into it. It is an attempt to explain something but is completely untested aside from appearing to explain what we see.
Seems to me it is exactly the same as gravity, you can provide me models, but all the evidence comes from NASA and other such.
You say we are wasting each others time, in that you'd be right. You fail to see when conjecture is not fact. You want proof, I want proof of your prism in the sky. You have none, you just have what we see, and you have explanation that is a THEORY about why it is. That is not a fact. Extracting a model from a theory and proving it against that is not fact.
Much like the center of the earth being a core of lava, you can't prove that either. How do I know? because we've only ever been twelve miles down into the earths crust. That is literally 1% of the distance on a globe model.
I also wanted to point out for your image. Even though that can be explained. Also consider it DOESN'T ALWAYS look like that. So any model would need to account for the many varied ways that light can behave as it comes from the sun. I mean it's not like we look at the sky and that is what we always see. An image like that is actually pretty rare, which is why they are popular to photograph.
The times I've seen something like that with my naked eyes was when I lived deep in the mountains and there had been a recent rain or even the rain going on.
I've also seen rain coming down in the distance with light hitting it look like that quite a few times. Which is easily explained by refraction.
seen this in real life, with my own eyes. i have also photographed it myself.
sorry, but on this one, no explanation is going to make it go away. there is no way a far away sun is going to do that.
Uhm. I've seen things like that many times with my own eyes too.
What does that have to do with not being able to explain it?
Refraction explains that just fine.
explanations are fine. but even when they make sense it doesn't mean they are right.
Have you ever taken a college level course in Physics? How about even a high school one?
People debating in a chat are not going to be able to teach people physics in the span of a chat, or a debate.
At some point the people are going to realize that the barrier is the person they are debating with not having the knowledge necessary for the debate/discussion to continue and realizing they can't teach a very massive subject in the scope of that debate, and they many or may not have already seen whether the person would be receptive to such knowledge anyway.
Now a clue in these barriers are people saying things "cannot be explained" or that "this should be happening" when often neither of those are true statements IF you actually know the physics behind it.
Just tipping your toes into physics may give you the idea that NOW I KNOW and can go explain big things. Yet, it does take a bit more than dipping your toes as they can only cover so much of it. You can get gravity, motion, thermal, work, electricity and various other topics and may or may not go deep into refraction and light though that is something one typically encounters in physics at an early level.
Physics is so huge and ever expanding that it can't even be covered in a single college course. They usually have it expanded across 4 years of physics. From that point on you still keep expanding it but a lot of that is keeping tabs on new findings, doing your own experiments, etc.
Those videos had some flawed concepts and statements which are explained in physics.
Though it did give me an idea for an experiment I could do myself while I wait to see if anyone actually can furnish a height map of their preferred model of the flat earth.
at some point we find that the problem is the people you are debating are invested in some way, they in fact have an agenda.
what i have found debating globe earthers is an agenda.
what you can't explain away is why satellites (or weather balloons, whatever they are) don't take a picture of the north pole. how do i know this? because i did my homework, i'm old enough to remember that black circle that used to exist on weather maps of the earth, then i saw them 'draw it out, and fill in' to hide it. there is something odd up there, what i do not know...
why did they do that?
I also know we never fly over the Antarctica. so there is something odd down there as well.
So what i have are some strange facts. whether they lead to a flat earth remains to be seen, but talking to globe earthers is like proof in itself that something is wrong, it is like they are afraid of having it explored.
So for me, this is one more proof, the light thru the clouds, it supports an idea that we have been lied to. that something else is going on, you claim it is a prism effect, i say you are wrong, that doesn't make sense to me.
you claim you can explain it, of course you can! a reason has been given for everything, but these reasons i don't believe are all true. I have enough reasons to believe the dishonesty of authority, their willingness to suppress the truth, so until i can make sense of it, there is no way you are going to simply claim my lack of understanding a bunch of formulas is limiting my ability to understand.
on this i have Nikola Tesla on my side.
if it really is as you say it is, then it should be easy to explain, there is nothing that complicated, and i have mastered many subjects, so i haven't time for you terse manner, nor you grab for authority over me. i know when i'm being 'handled' .. i can also spot when you cannot bring anything to the table to explain it.
there is no prism in the sky.
I have no agenda. In fact the statement you made. It is sometimes worth looking into a mental mirror as we ALL can fall prey to this at times. Human nature.
Never said there was. Again you are clearly showing your lack of knowledge about things you are trying to talk about. Go do some serious research on refraction. In fact I highly recommend spending several months (if your serious it'd take that at a minimum) studying physics.
At least then when you speak about some things you won't immediately appear ignorant about the topic you are choosing to speak as though you have knowledge in.
No agenda. Just truth. If Flat Earth is true you don't prove that by disproving something else. You must develop a model that explains all observations, and if it is to replace the current model it must explain more observations than the current model.
I haven't seen that. When I do then I'd consider it having merit.
All I see is people pointing at other people's videos or taking photos and acting like they know what they are talking about when often they don't know simple concepts such as refraction and how it works. They might even come back and say silly things like "There is no prism in the sky"... or they will view an argument won when in fact the person may have simply realized that they were talking to someone that didn't have the tools to actually explain their point because they speak about REALITY without ever actually becoming well versed in some of the best tools to tear apart and try to explain reality.
Yep. There are SO many things that model fails miserably at. They can't see it. So I thought... If I make it then perhaps they will clue in.
Seasons... changing lengths of days and nights... phases of the moon.... eclipses as you indicated of both types...
Also distance distortion of traveling between points... parts of that map are extremely distorted in terms of distance.... They don't match actual ground, air, or sea travel times and distances at all.
So if they want it to be believable then the first thing they need is a workable model. I haven't seen such a thing.
it is known that the moon moves closer and farther away. honestly it makes less sense given it orbiting the earth. why would it do that?
the flat earth model would rely on electromagnetic forces. and the moon simple moves higher and lower than the sun in rotation.
then we have tides, if you learn anything about tides, you see that there is a high tide when the moon is on the OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET .. they explain it by the moon pulls the earth towards it or some insane logic.
seriously, more mental gymnastics are needed for globe earth than flat earth.
so your question is how thick is the flat earth? I would also like to know - because if the Gray's are living underground - how far down can they go if the earth is flat? And also, where does the inner core lava exist?
No actually what I am asking for is what is known as a height map. It is a gray scale texture that indicates altitude. They look something like this:
With that you can modify the traits of one or more planes and actually make a 3D map of the surface of the world.
You can then even texture it, put trees and vegetation on it, or whatever else you might want.
Once I had that I could easily stick this sun and moon concept accurately above the surface and model what their proposal states.
Better. I could put a car, a person, a plane, etc into the scene and people could try actually traveling in such a world. I personally believe anyone that believes in that map would FINALLY start to see some huge problems with it.
So they might come and say that map is just an example...
Great... if your hypothesis is going to be valid then we need a working model that explains observations not some example that fails to explain observable data.
Though all of your questions are indeed VALID. :) My goal is to show them why their model doesn't work simply by bringing their model to life. :)
It's a valid cause, but I doubt with all off the evidence that exists you will be able to change their view with the model. I think it would be interesting to see though. You could even change the distance the sun and Moon are from the surface and show the lengths of the shadows. Is there no way to take a height map of the 3d Earth and project it on a flat plane and get what you're looking for?
Yep I could tweak all kinds of variables, light intensities... add in satellites... whatever... and yeah it is mostly curiosity and I do think some people that are just confused because a flat earther pointed out a few things and it is compelling and they don't really stop to consider if that compelling thing fits with all known observable phenomena.
As to the data. I can get a height map of the earth but it'd be something to wrap onto a sphere and it wouldn't look anything like their model. So I need a height map that matches their model.
it would only need to be 12 miles deep or so. Because that is all the farther we have ever been.
reminder too that the inner core of lava is pure conjecture, since 12 miles is 1% of the globe earth's depth. it is purely based upon volcanos existing and trying to explain that and magnetic fields.
ok where do hotsprings come from?
that is the exciting part, we don't have a clue! we don't know, we just know magma exists. we know that volcanos explode.. .but why, what is going on, we don't know.
neither do globe earthers, they just claim they do, which to me, is really a sign of arrogance and the sure sign of a lie. they put it in our school books as facts, when all they are is theories.
then again, maybe it is a civilization that lives below the earths surface, and it is their factories. there is a lot of evidence there are enormous cave system below the surface, that we know for sure.
Familiar with the game Kerbal Space Program? There are quite a few people in that gaming community looking for some sort of flat earth model mod. It's a flight sim as well as an orbital mechanics sim.
Yep I own it. :)
Imagine how much "science" you'd have to invent just to make things stop falling from the edge to the center.
why? nasa founder believed in the firmament.
Please don't waste my time. Thank you!
don't provide you with alternative views? are you just here for justification of you own views?
suppose this has no interest for you either then..
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
No, you see, YESTERDAY, I was interested and had to time to speak to dwinblood briefly on this subject. I received your message during a period of my life where I was quite busy. I don't know you. You did not introduce yourself. I looked at the comment section. It seems as if you have all day to sit here and chit chat, but I do not. Me not wanting to speak to you has nothing to do with alternative views. I simply don't have the time, nor do I know you, therefore, you're way down at the bottom of the list of things I need to be doing right now.
I do hope you can find a way to deal with that.
i can deal with it fine. but most just wouldn't respond until they had time. that is what i do.
sorry you feel so affronted by my comments, that were given in good faith, to see if you are like the others, or if you have interest beyond mere chattering between those that agree.
Well that's the problem. They hypothesize... consider it fact and totally ignore that a hypothesis is an idea without proof. The burden to make the hypothesis into a theory and is upon them to test it and insure it matches and explains all observable phenomena.
I have yet have seen such experiments or data. The models that are presented are pretty damn primitive when you look at them and fail in so many different aspects. Yet a person can get too close to a thing and fixate on a few details and be blind to other factors. I believe some people that buy into these models are victims of their own mind in that respect.
Victims of their media consumption. The earth is flat for views and likes, not because the earth is actually flat. The earth is flat because there is a market for such ideas, not because the earth is actually flat. That's a deep rabbit hole to go down. It shows how gullible and malleable to human mind is. The topic also provides evidence of how stubborn people can be when it comes to their beliefs. The flat earth model does prove a lot of things in some way, shape or form... but it certainly doesn't prove the planet is flat.
you lost me when you said
'flat earther' and use the descriptor 'intelligent'.
I can't wrap my mind around that concept.
Well I see intelligence, common sense, and wisdom to be very different things. Intelligence to me is raw processing power. A lot of people have processing power and you can tell by what they say, but they seem to be lacking in other areas. I don't actually consider them unintelligent. Uninformed, naive, religiously blind/fixated, dogmatic. These things are all possible from intelligent people.
Intelligent people are OFTEN wrong. :)
I mean I've pretty much already made up my mind on a lot of reasons why it is hogwash, but they can't see it. I look at that planetary model with the sun and the moon and distances and instantly see huge problems.
They can't see it.
So what if I make that? Maybe then they'll be able to see it. :)
while searching for its meaning we see that firmament has been removed from almost all bible translations.
if the founder of NASA believed it... and it is getting harder to find this version in a search on google or duckduckgo. The first results all speak of 'handiwork' instead of 'firmament'
perhaps this is why our current leadership is so keen on destroying the muslims, they haven't forgotten God.
This explains a lot. You described me as trying to put a square peg in a round hole. I can describe you as the guy who sees lightning and says "Zeus must be angry".
The bible doesn't prove anything to me. I do not believe in any written or revealed religions. That doesn't mean I discount the possibility of a creator. I actually think that may be likely. I just don't believe what that creator is will be found in any simplistic human book written in primitive language before man knew how to explain many things.
Or especially after it went through two councils of nicea before it even existed to form that bible and those councils decided what WOULD go into the bible and what would not.
This is part of why the dead sea scrolls were a big deal. They predate that early censorship/editing.
Your mention of Firmament is actually another good example of editing/censoring.
So why would I take a human written and edited and censored book as proof of anything?
If you expect me to believe that then that explains much about your position.
actually i described you as trying to put a square peg in a square hole and pretending you can't figure it out.
Ahh... yes. So when you asked in the other reply elsewhere if all I wanted to do was mock you. :) You started it. ;)
i might be getting a bit of a short fuse, talking to globe earthers. it started with kerriknox, downvoting me for simply commenting.
Well I promise you I won't down vote you for your comments. If you start calling me names I'd likely mute you before I down voted.
If you mock me, though I might mock back.
Especially since I didn't make this particular post to debate flat earth.
I was serious about wanting to construct a 3D version of that or another Flat Earth model.
Yet to do that I need a height map that a Flat Earth proponent considers a good representation.
I looked on google before I posted. If I had found one I wouldn't have posted and would have gotten to work on making the model.
Why do it?
I haven't seen anyone else do it? Have you?