>>8242722

>sorry anon, but the earth is flat, not hollow

>*pic related clearly shows a flat horizon as seen from an Indian beach

You clearly failed trigonometry and calculus. A sufficiently short segment of the circumference of any circle can be approximated as a straight line. That's what you're seeing in that photo; a very short segment of the circumference of the Earth, which visually approximates a straight line. Go back to math class; you can prove this principle to yourself as many times as needed until you grasp the concept.

>>8242741

>Do you believe Q more than your own eyes?

I believe mathematics, and science. We don't get "dizzy from spinning all the time" because of the principles of inertia and acceleration. We don't notice how fast we're traveling in an auto or airplane; we notice when the velocity changes (acceleration). We notice if the vehicle speeds up, slows down or turns, but when we're traveling at a steady rate, we don't notice our velocity.

Therefore we don't notice the velocity of the turning of the earth nor its travel around the Sun. We would most certainly notice if Earth's velocity were to change.

>>8242853

>SUCKER!

Adding to your apparent failure at mathematics, you've proven you also failed logic and rhetoric. Name-calling isn't a valid argument against a logical premise.

>>8242877

>…and yet your in a gravitational well that prevents you, a tiny spec on the cosmic scale, from feeling all those things.

That's an erroneous application of the concept of gravitational wells. Back to school, and pay attention this time.

>>8242915

>Math tells us a curvature is not found , as is movement of the surface.

Can you expand on this statement? As written, there is no context and it therefore makes no sense. A curvature is not found in what context? Movement of the surface of what?

>>8242915

>if you walk south on a ball velocity goes up(dont feel a thing)

Really, what are you saying here? That you're comfortably numb and don't feel a thing? Are you asserting that velocity varies with geospatial vector? I've calculated, then tested, friction components in falsifiable situations like a book sitting on the seat of a vehicle which then decelerates (rapid braking). I've not calculated the coefficient of friction of a shoe against a concrete sidewalk or similar, because of the variables of surfaces and the difficulties of repeatability in the testing.

For the record, any time you're successfully walking rather than sliding, friction is involved, no matter which direction you are walking.

Nothing I've mentioned qualifies as "scientism;" I'm not trying to explain why we exist nor am I pretending to see into the mind of God. I'm merely citing mathematics which has been thoroughly tested and proven over and over for centuries, and Newtonian physics principles which have application in everyday life. Since these things appear to you as articles of faith, I urge you to improve your education. Life will seem much less complicated when you understand trigonometry, calculus and physics.

>>8242945

>what are your thoughts on ayys ?

I have no personal experience with that topic, nor have I ever encountered a reliable source of information on it; therefore I offer no response to your query.

>>8242984

>Wrong!!

>Vision distance straight ahead is appr. 4 miles, at a vision angle of 140 degrees the line visible on the horizon is appr. 18 miles.

Visual distance to horizon depends upon atmospheric conditions, and upon what you are looking at.

>This should show curvature ( at least )or the circle can not be completed.

should is always associated with an assumption. Assumptions are not "Geometry."

Geometry is about proofs, not assumptions. Now go back to school and learn trigonometry and calculus.

>>8243034

>If Earth spins it moves…..in opposite of what? movement gives friction,where?

Can you rephrase your question, "…in opposite of what?" It seems you're making assumptions, but I'm making assumptions trying to suss out your query, and I prefer to avoid assumptions wherever possible.

>Curv should be visible with the human eye according to Given geometry of ball.

There's another "should" assumption on your part, and repetition of the implication that Earth is a "ball." It's an oblate spheroid rather than a perfect sphere, and the circumference is sufficiently large that on a human scale, our visibility perceptions are affected.

If one day you are standing on Pluto, or perhaps Ceres, your visual perception of curvature will be much more satisfying to your initial assumptions.