The formula you were looking for @mineyful

2(-)2=4

lol if the earth was scaled like that

14 miles is not that noticeable on that scale lmao

if the gif was somewhat accurate that bulge is more like a couple hundred miles

Mount Everest is ~5 miles high

4 Mount Everest's aren't going to show up as a a significant thing on that scale

What. You don’t like @Citizen Z ‘s gif? 😮

lol no if he scaled it right I might

but I shouldn't talk out against authority right

but i should be able to have constructive criticisms against a gif without fear of getting banned

I haven't cursed or thrown out insults, but just pointing out what first comes to mind

sure it's a humorous gif, and it's pretty funny, but from a critical thinking standpoint, it isn't very valid

Usually what first comes to mind is a representation of what we are looking and are hoping for.

like if I followed that map the bulge is like half the width of africa

which doesn't make much sense

It is to represent a concept...no one claimed it was to scale. 🙄

The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings "noon" to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun's position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the Sun's position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the Earth where "time" is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be "put on" or we may be said to "gain time." If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still "morning," the watch has to be "put back," and it may be said that we "lose time." But, if we travel easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the Earth's "rotundity," as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.

I am curious about the above.

right but I have to take most things seriously here, because as we saw 70% of the links in FE lounge are videos

dunno what is to be taken as a meme or actual evidence

is that from 100 proofs the earth is not a glovbe

from FES

"practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe." that bit rings a bell

Mr Hind speaks of the astronomer watching a star as it is carried across the telescope by the diurnal revolution of the Earth." Now, this is nothing but downright absurdity. No motion of the Earth could possibly carry a star across a telescope or anything else. If the star is carried across anything at all, it is the star that moves, not the thing across which it is carried! Besides, the idea that the Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly move in an orbit of nearly 600,000,000 of miles with such exactitude that the cross-hairs in a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide gently over a star "millions of millions" of miles away is simply monstrous; whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the stars, though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer supposes them to be; for, as Mr. Proctor himself says, "the further away they are, the less they will seem to shift." Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair's-breadth, - if the Earth on which they fix them move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor's mass of "six thousand million million million tons" is "rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever" with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a "very slow coach," with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair's-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance.

Captain R. J. Morrison, the late compiler of "Zadkeil's Almanac;" says: "We declare that this "motion" is all mere 'bosh'; and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined with an eye that seeks for TRUTH only, mere nonsense, and childish absurdity. "Since, then, these absurd theories are of no use to men in their senses, and since there is no necessity for anything of the kind in Zetetic philosophy, it is a "strong presumptive proof" - as Mr. Hind would say that the Zetetic philosophy is true, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe..

There two here @mineyful have always bothered me

" Zetetic" rings a hard bell as well

thought you guys liked scientific

in 24/7 they only wanted me to use zetetic

I prefer the Socratic Method

"The Socratic method, also known as method of Elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions."

that one

debate wise or just for evidence

I am telling you how I try to debate

😃

alright

just making sure what method it was for

<:happycube:507990858960732162>

Sadly many do not do this