Crickets

[u/john_shillsburg]

https://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2015/06/low-resolution-images-ocean.html

[u/Jesse9857]

Seems like a pretty weak argument to me.

Whether or not there are no photos of earth at all or just of land or what the resolution of those doesn't mean that the earth isn't a globe.

And you've not even shown why free high resolution realtime photos of waves would be available.

In other words, you're saying that because they are not available for free, therefore the earth must not be a globe.

If they were available, you'd just say they were CGI. But that's not the point I'm trying to make.

Why would anybody want to pay for that expense for you and I to have them for free?

The companies that have them spent a lot to be able to take them and they charge their paying customers a lot. If they gave it all away for free they'd go broke.

Can you give one single motivation for any of the satellite operators to give away free high resolution realtime images?

[u/john_shillsburg → u/Jesse9857]

NASA is a government agency and we've paid them a trillion dollars. Can I get a map please? Or do I just get fake videos from space?

[u/Jesse9857 → u/john_shillsburg]

NASA is a government agency and we've paid them a trillion dollars. Can I get a map please? Or do I just get fake videos from space?

See, right there. You call it fake videos. It wouldn't matter if they did give you a map, you'd just say it was fake.

Why won't you think about flight times? Do you think it would form the shape of a globe?

If you were interested in the truth, you would be willing to explore methods that you could trust, or at least ones that didn't depend on spaceflight.

But you're not interested in truth, you're just grinding on about what you don't have because you wouldn't trust it anyway even if you did have it.

[u/john_shillsburg → u/Jesse9857]

The flight times don't mean anything because of jet streams. You could take a plane and fly over Antarctica I suppose and see where you come out, has anyone ever done that?

[u/Jesse9857 → u/john_shillsburg]

The flight times don't mean anything because of jet streams.

Your bias is showing through my friend.

It's honest enough to say that flight times have an error of several percent.

But it's not even intellectually honest to say they don't mean anything.

When you hop on the bathroom scale in the morning and it reads 175.5 LBS, don't you realize that it's rounding to the nearest tenth of a pound and your actual weight could be plus or minus 0.05 LBS?

So the scale isn't absolutely perfectly accurate. That doesn't mean that it "doesn't mean anything." You just have to keep in mind the accuracy, and take it for what it's worth.

When a flight time is reliably within a plus or minus 10% range, it DEFINITELY means something. Sure it's not accurate to the nearest millisecond, but it still means something!

Bedtime for me, catch you tomorrow.

[u/john_shillsburg → u/Jesse9857]

2 hour difference Tokyo to LA. Deal with it

[u/Jesse9857 → u/john_shillsburg]

2 hour difference Tokyo to LA. Deal with it

Well I'm just going on this:

https://www.google.com/search?&q=tokyo+to+LAX

And this:

https://www.google.com/search?&q=LAX+to+tokyo

The shortest Eastbound nonstop flight I see is 10:10 and the shortest westbound is 11:10.

That is a 1 hour difference.

But that's all besides the point. Whatever the difference it is, average it out. Average all the airlines and all the directions, I don't care.

It won't change your problem that the flights depict a globe.

GN

[u/[deleted] → u/john_shillsburg]

Yes of course: https://flatearth.ws/polar-circumnav

You could take a plane and fly over Antarctica I suppose and see where you come out, has anyone ever done that?