I too grew up on the beach and was a sea captain of my own boat for 14 years

GREAT CIRCLE SAILING.

"AMONG landsmen a great amount of misconception prevails as to what is really meant by the so-called "great circle sailing;" and notwithstanding that the subject is very imperfectly understood, the "project" or hypothesis--for it is nothing more--is often very earnestly advanced as an additional proof of the earth's rotundity. But, like all the other "proofs" which have been given, there is no necessary connection between the facts adduced and the theory sought to be proved. Although professional mariners are familiar with several modes of navigation--"parallel sailing," "plane sailing," "traverse sailing," "current sailing," "middle latitude sailing," "Mercator sailing," and "great circle sailing," the "Mercator" and "great circle" methods are now the favourites. Nearly all the above systems necessitated the sailing by, or in relation to, Rhumb-lines, or lines at right angles to the meridian lines; and whether the earth is a plane or a globe, these are not geometrically at right angles to lines of latitude, except at the equator. Hence Mercator's projection, on account of its lines of latitude and longitude being square to each other, has been almost universally employed. But previous to the general adoption of Mercator's plan, many leading navigators saw that Rhumb-line sailing upon a globe was practically a series of small circles, and conceived

p. 280

of a method very similar to that which is now called the "great circle" system. As early as 1495 Sebastian Cabot suggested the adoption of this method. It was also advocated in 1537 by Numez, and in 1561, and subsequently by Cortez, Zamarano, and others. After lying dormant for a long time, the system was revived by Mr. Towson, of Devonport, who read a paper before the Society of Arts, in May, 1850, and afterwards presented his "tables to facilitate the practice of great circle sailing," to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, who "ordered them to be printed for the use of all mariners."

Many persons suppose that the words "great circle sailing" simply mean that the mariner, instead of sailing in a direct line from one place to another, on the same latitude, takes a circuitous path to the south or north of this direct line, where the degrees of longitude being smaller, the distance passed over, although apparently greater, is actually less. It is then falsely argued that as "the greatest distance round is the nearest path," the degrees of longitude must be smaller, and therefore the earth must be a globe. This is another instance of the self-deception practised by many of the advocates of rotundity. It is really painful to reflect upon the manner in which a merely fanciful hypothesis has reduced its advocates to mental prostitution. The poor dawdling creature, who vaguely wanders in search of anything or everything which will satisfy her longings, is only a type of the philosophical wanderer who seeks for, and pounces upon, whatever will prove, or only seem to prove, his one idea--his uncontrolled and often uncontrollable longing for something to confirm

p. 281

his notions, and satisfy his desire to be wise and great. The motive which actuates the greater number of modern philosophers, cannot be less or other than the love of distinction. If it were a love of truth and of human progress and welfare they would scrupulously examine the premises on which their theories are founded. But this the advocates of the earth's rotundity and motion have seldom or never done. There is no single instance recorded where even the necessity for doing so is admitted. Hence it is that whilst to question the groundwork is forbidden, they abruptly seize upon everything which gives colour to their assumptions, although in many cases neither pertinent nor logically consistent. In the case before us the contraction or convergence of the degrees of longitude beyond the equator is unproved; and again if they were convergent there could not be a single inch of gain in taking a so-called great circle course between any two places east and west of each other. Let the following experiment be tried in proof of this statement. On an artificial globe mark out a great circle path, between say Cape Town and Sydney, or Valparaiso and Cape Town. Take a strip of sheet lead, and bend it to the form of this path; and after making it straight measure its length as compared with the parallel of latitude between the places. The result will fully satisfy the experimenter that this view of great circle sailing is contrary to known geometrical principles. Strictly speaking, it is not "great circle sailing" at all which Mr. Towson and the Lords of the Admiralty have recommended. The words great circle are only used in comparison with the small circles which are described in sailing upon a Rhumb-line track.

p. 282

"The fundamental principle of this method is that axiom of spherical geometry, that the shortest distance between any two points on the surface of a sphere lies on the line of a great circle; or, in other words, of a circle passing through the centre of a sphere. But maps and charts, being flat representations of the surface of a globe, are of necessity distorted, and are only correct near the equator, the distortion increasing as the poles are approached; and hence it follows that the course which on the globe is the shortest, is on the chart made to appear very much the longest, and the reverse. This was clearly shown to be the case by the comparison on a chart and on a globe of the course between Van Dieman's Land and Voldivia, on the western coast of South America: the course, which by the chart appeared to be a straight line, when laid down upon the. globe was found to be very circuitous, whilst the line of a great circle, cutting the two points, appeared on the chart as a loop of great length." 1

"Mercator and parallel sailing conduct the ship by a circuitous route when compared with the track of a great circle." 2

In nautical language Rhumb-line sailing, which was almost universally practised before the recent introduction of great circle sailing, consists in following parallels at right angles to the meridian lines, and as these meridian lines are supposed to be convergent, it is evident that the course of a ship so navigated is not the most direct; a great circle path is one at angles less than 90° north and

p. 283

south of the meridian. If the reader will draw a series of Rhumb-lines on a map of "the globe," he will at once see that the course is circuitous. But if he draws lines at a slight angle north in the northern, and south in the southern region, to the above-named Rhumb-lines, he will readily notice that the ship's course is more direct, and therefore the mariner adopting the so-called "great circle'' method, must of necessity save both time and distance, but only in comparison with the Rhumb-line path. It is not absolutely the shortest route; as the earth is a plane, the degrees of longitude in the south must diverge or expand, and spread out as the latitude increases; and the parallels or lines of latitude must be circles concentric with the northern centre. Hence there is in reality a still shorter path than either the Rhumb-line or the great circle course.

This will at once be evident on trying the following simple experiment. Place a light, to represent the sun, at an elevation of say two feet on the centre of a round table. Draw lines from the centre to the circumference to represent meridian lines. Mark any two places to represent Cape Town and Melbourne; now take any small object to represent a ship sailing from one of these places to the other, and, on moving it forward, keeping the light at the same altitude all the way the line of latitude or path of the ship will be seen to be an arc of a circle, which practically is a great circle route, whilst the Rhumb-line and greater route would be represented by a series of tangents to the meridian lines between the two places. The nearest route geometrically possible is the chord or

p. 284

straight line joining the ends of the arc which forms the line of latitude. Let this line or chord be drawn, and all argument will be superfluous, the proposition will be immediately self-evident.

Thus we have seen that great circle sailing is not the shortest route possible, but merely shorter than several other routes, which have been theoretically suggested and adopted; and to affirm that the results are confirmatory or demonstrative of the earth's rotundity, is in the highest degree illogical."
Footnotes

282:1 "From "A Paper on the Principles of Great Circle Sailing," by Mr. J. T. Towson, of Devonport, in the "Journal of the Society of Arts," for May, 1850.

282:2 "Treatise on Navigation," p. 50. By. J. Greenwood, Esq., of Jesus College, Cambridge. Weale, 59, High Holborn, London.

Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881],

How about you take some flights around the Southern Hemisphere? You'll see the distances will be the same as those northern hemisphere counter parts.

"It is not absolutely the shortest route; as the earth is a plane, the degrees of longitude in the south must diverge or expand, "
Which they absolutely do not :) The lines of longitude beyond the equator converge. Woops?

There is utterly no point in arguing with someone who cannot fathom the word "context".

Every piece of so-called evidence provided thus far has been taken wildly out of context. A photo of a map proves nothing, no matter how many times you show it.

Nor does placing Admiral Byrd in front of a flat map mean anything.

You are creating your own fictional context based on what you WANT to believe.

It is called CONFIRMATION BIAS.

Study LOGIC before claiming to be an expert at deductive reasoning.

Learn about False Premises and Slippery Slopes and Straw Men. Your arguments are full of logical fallacies to which you turn a blind eye, and try to deflect by pointing fingers at anyone who disagrees.

As I said, typical brainwashing tactics. It's called GASLIGHTING.

So there is no point in arguing.

"The [denial] is strong in this one..." -- Darth Vader (what he was really thinking)

Orbit = the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.
a sphere of activity, interest, or application.
synonyms: course, path, circuit, track, trajectory, rotation, revolution, circle, cycle, round, sphere, sphere of influence, area of activity, range, reach, scope, ambit, compass, sweep, jurisdiction, authority, remit, span of control, domain, realm, province, territory, preserve, department, turf


The 7 Layers the Earth's Atmosphere

Exosphere
Ionosphere
Thermosphere
Mesosphere
Ozone Layer
Stratosphere
Troposphere
Earth's Surface

You acknowledge there ios an atmosphere right?
Atmo Sphere

Compared to the size of the Earth, the atmosphere is thin, very thin.
Compare it to the thickness of the skin on an apple.
Gravity is a major force keeping the atmosphere close to the Earth.
Gravity is subject to mass, how thick is the flat Earth and what is it made of? Is this material distributed evenly thus keeping the atmosphere against the surface?

How do you explain the Sun moving across the sky after rising in the East and setting in the West?
I have skyped with my son while he was stationed in Japan and it was night there and daytime here or night here and daytime there.
Where does the Sun go when it sets (besides over the horizon)?

In high school, our science class did an experiment where we did a time lapse photo of the night sky. How do you explain the stars lines in a circular arc pattern? You can also do this experiment yourself. Just point your camera straight up on a clear night and set it for a long duration exposure. Make sure the camera remains in a fixed position.
Depending upon your latitude, the streaks will arc.
If the Earth is flat and not rotating, you would see very bright points of light exposed in a fixed position on the film.

Airplanes fly level around the planet because the size of the Earth and its mass far exceeds the size of the plane and its mass.

On the surface of the Earth, the escape velocity is about 11.2 km/s, which is approximately 33 times the speed of sound (Mach 33),about 17,600 miles per hour.
The actors (your word) over at Princeton explain Force and Gravity
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/ph115/Chapter03D.pdf
If you could throw a rock with enough force to make it soar up out of the atmosphere at 17,600 mph you could throw that rock into orbit.

Satellites, you do believe satellites are real doncha?
Satellites are in orbit. To get to orbit they must be lifted to orbit at Mach 33. They don't just shoot them up there and they hang there, all satellites are moving, moving very freakin fast, yes, even the geosynchronous ones.
A geostationary orbit can be achieved only at an altitude very close to 35,786 km (22,236 mi) and directly above the equator. This equates to an orbital velocity of 3.07 km/s (1.91 mi/s) and an orbital period of 1,436 minutes, which equates to almost exactly one sidereal day (23.934461223 hours). Geostationary orbits fall in the same category as geosynchronous orbits, but it's parked over the equator. ... While the geostationary orbit lies on the same plane as the equator, the geosynchronous satellites has a different inclination.
Your directTV and cell phone is geosynchronous, GPS satellites are not in geosynchronous or geostationary orbits. Each satellite in the GPS constellation orbits at an altitude of about 20,000 km from the ground, and has an orbital speed of about 14,000 km/hour (the orbital period is roughly 12 hours.
Here is a list of all the satellites in geosynchronous orbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satellites_in_geosynchronous_orbit

“Baloney Detection Kit” (to separate sense from nonsense)


~Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

~Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

~Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

~Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.

~Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

~If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.

~If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

~Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified…. You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

I would really like to see some feasible explanations of gravity, centrifugal force, and centripetal force from the Flat Earth crowd.

Centripetal force is what keeps water from flying off of a round Earth. Gravity is the "string" that tethers it.

Centrifugal force is what would cause water to fly of a rotating Earth if there was no gravity.

Basic high school physics.

And yet based on one post already presented by a certain Flat Earth proponent, a round Earth must have no gravity. (The pour water on a spinning globe argument)

I love that picture from the Pratchett stories! Perhaps he was right? Perhaps there really are elephants supporting the disk?

But seriously, several people have sailed 'round the world' and more recently some have been 'round the world' in hot air balloons. That would be difficult if the planet was flat.

How come no pictures of the 'edge'? How come we are 'not allowed' to see beyond a distance? What is that distance? If the military are in charge of keeping us away from the 'edge' who did that job hundreds of years ago before there was a military?

Is Trump in on this secret? Knowing him and his tweets, by now he would have 'accidentally' said something but as far as I know he has never mentioned it.

Strange...

Unless of course you're just reading the flat earth BS and quoting it here to wind us all up, as I said in a previous post, which has not been answered.

Neither has my challenge to show me a picture of the 'edge' or perhaps pictures of the miliary installation at the 'edge' that is stopping anyone from going further. Could it be possible that with all the media attention on anything and everything that nobody has snapped a pic to prove your point?

And why would whole governments (about half the population) go to all that trouble to fool the other half? What's in it for them to spend all that money? Another question that has not been answered.

Nah, you're just having some fun winding up the rest of the world who all understand at one level or another that this planet is a GLOBE

Just as I suspected, someone who can quote Darth Vader

FLAT Earthers have studied more about the globe than any heliocentric believer (in such nonsense), has
Flat Earthers know more about orbital mechanics, propulsion in a vacuum, fluid mechanics, gravity, relativity, atmospheric refraction, perspective,,big bang, evolution, geology, astronomy, calculus, trigonometry, pressure systems, gyroscopes, sun dials, pendulums, line of sight convergence, putting 2 sticks in the sand, water level, centrifugal and centripetal forces , astrology, astronomy, satellites, Coriolis, Copernicus, Newton, Tesla, weapons testing, energy, frequency, Fibonacci, platonic solids, noble gases, weather systems, tides, eclipses, lunar and solar cycles, star trails, auroras, electricity, magnetism, buoyancy density, Antarctica and north pole expeditions, circumnavigation, piloting, space travel, escape velocity, moon landings, rocket science, dumb mass, mass attraction, art, deception, propaganda, star wars,submarines, torpedoes, periscopes, radio signals, camera lenses, telescopes, CGI fakery, mind control, and the military budget,...
... than any ball beLIEver knows about any single one of those things

AAAAAH! NO YOU DONT

Water always seeks level
the hoRISEon always RISES to eye LEVEL... no matter how high one ascends


make sense common again

Yes, water does attempt to seek its own level.
What one might fail to realize is, level to what?
In relation to what?

I live near the Mississippi River.
On a fair weather day, I can go to parts of the river and it appears level.
In reality, that water is flowing downhill to the sea.
It appears level to me. Its all relative to the observer.

The oceans are anything but level.
There are many factors involved with the dynamics of oceans including temperatures, GRAVITY, undersea disturbances, salinity, wind, storms, undersea storms and mass displacement. The oceans are full of dips and rises in its level.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere.
It bulges at the equator because it is spinning.
The reason the ocean levels are as they are is because relatively the weight(mass) of the water column is insignificant to the weight(mass) of the planet under it.
Its the same reason why water spills out of the bowl you are holding when you tilt the bowl. The water is gravitationally bound to the Earth and spills when you move its container.
Fluids are fluids because their molecules have a lower electromotive force binding them, so they easily slip past one another.
The atmosphere that you breathe is also a fluid. It acts like an ocean of air. It too finds its own levels. Barometric air pressure is the weight(mass) of a column of air in relation to the weight(mass) of the planet under it.
Water also has what is called surface tension. The water at the edge of any container isn't feather-edged to a molecule thick. It just 'looks' that way.

If you drop a ball off a building.
The low mass of the ball falls in the direction of highest mass.
This is also the reason why you, trees, buildings, trash cans and everything else can stay vertical and upright no matter where you are on the Earth.
If you balance a pole on its end, it means you have centered its center of gravity over the planet's center of gravity.

Relative to the planet, our world view is tiny. Our mass is insignificant to the mass of the planet. On a sphere, no matter where you are located, gravity is determined by the mass below it. Its like shoving a toothpick thru the exact center of a ball. The toothpick representing the force of gravity.
This is why buildings in Alaska and buildings in Egypt stand vertical, its also why people in Antarctica and people in the Amazon stand vertical.
Its all relative to the center of the mass of the planet.

The Earth is not just a spinning globe. It is a spinning globe that has a tilt and that tilt is also spinning, like a top that is slowly spinning down.
Its why we have seasons.
Its also why it 'appears' the Sun and the Moon traverse the sky at different places at different times of the year. All which has been documented thru history long before movies, videos, photography and government mind control were possible.

Those big round balls you see in the sky are also spinning.
The dimmer one, we humans call it the Moon, has different phases as it spins around the Earth. You can see the shadow of the planet on the Moon when part of the light from the Sun is blocked by the Earth. You can actually see that the Earth is round because it appears as a crescent shadow on the moon.
You don't need a picture or a degree to see this, anyone that has eyes and can look into the sky at night can see this on a regular basis.

Since you were a sea captain you know about tides.
Because of the tidal force, the water on the side of the moon always wants to bulge out toward the moon. This bulge is what we call a high tide.
Again, oceans are not level.
There is a point at which the two shores on an ocean basin can experience no tide but the center of that body of water is in high tide. Not called tide because tide refers to the condition at the basin shoreline. So, in the Pacific, California may have a stable tide, Japan may have a stable tide but Guam and Hawaii may be experiencing different degrees of high tide.

The Earth-Moon barycenter is located on average 4,671 km (2,902 mi) from Earth's center. This means the Earth and Moon orbit each other (the Moon doesn't just orbit the Earth). Together they form a single system that orbits the Sun. The Sun-Earth barycenter is deep within the Sun. The Sun's Gravity also affects ocean tides.

The horizon is always relative to the observer.
As you ascend, your horizon does change but the horizon is not relative to location. If you align a point on your horizon (The tip of a church steeple far off in the distance) and you move upward, away from the surface of the planet, your horizon moves. Now the same point (tip of the church steeple) appears below the horizon. When you return to the ground, it is then again at the horizon. This is because your view from above the surface of the planet allows you to see past the arc of the planet relative to your view.
That, in itself explains the Earth is not flat.
Once being a sea captain you understand the concept of the "Crow's Nest" on a mast? It is to allow a 'view' beyond the deck's horizon. "Land HO"

In respect to this discussion, most people's sense is common.
Some attempt to promote NONsense and I personally am not interested in living in a world where nonsense is common.

Did someone say 'astrology'?

Oh dear....

Thanks for all that regurgitated pseudo psaence..
but I have already heard it
the sky moves, not the earth..
do some real research... you have a good head on your shoulders but a clear case of cognitive dissonance... you are simply repeating things what you have been told, not what you have actually experienced.. and not things based on observation, experimentation and evidence

There are other explanations for things
just take 10 minutes of your precious time here
and humor me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uxdntylhBo

The sky does move but so does the Earth, the Moon, the Sun and the stars.
We live in a dynamic Universe.
That fact is evident anywhere and at any level you might look.
From quantum to macro.

The flat Earth scenario demands certain things that are not witnessed in nature. I am a realist.
I actively try to remove my delusions.
Reality doesn't care.
It has no agenda.
It just is and no matter how one might try to manipulate a meaning to it, reality will not just go along with it.

The real world things that I notice all align with a global Earth.
If they aligned with a flat Earth, believe me, I would be the first to promote it.
There are just way too many real world personal experiences in my life to support flat Earth ideas.
I do not believe anything on youtube.
As far as I am concerned, youtube is just as worthy as those science documentaries on the National Geographic Channel. All scripted.
I believe what I see and what I witness first hand.
Plus, I really don't care if you believe me or not.

I suggest that everyone use their own senses, tally their own experiences and make their own conclusions.
I stand to gain nothing by convincing you of what I have witness except to generate an interesting discussion that might cause someone to ponder the world around them.
I only seek to cause someone to say "hey, wait a minute, maybe I should take a closer look at the world around me."
What they conclude from their own observations and deductions is their business, not mine, I already make my own conclusions.

However, some of the things that you suggest to adamantly prove your point are far from what I have witnessed in my life.
There are a few different things I must consider.
1. You are wrong.
2. I am wrong.
3. What you witnessed is different than what I have witnessed.
4. That reality is not universal (which I highly doubt).
5. That I am completely and utterly unable to understand the reality before me.

I think the most convincing factor supporting a global Earth and a spherical Universe is the fact that real world technology exists based on the science related to a spherical Earth and spherical Universe.
The evidence is just to specific and detailed.
If it were a ruse, there would be inconsistencies.
Many of the things we see and use daily would not work.
The very fact that we have worldwide communication is an example of a spherical Earth.
Plus, you have all the natural phenomenon that intricately proves a global Earth.

Plus, what if you are absolutely right in every example you give?
How does that fact change anything we experience day to day, moment to moment?
Why is it so important?
Its not, it really isn't.
Does it put food on your table?
Dose it make you well when you are sick?
Will it make you find the love of your life?
At what point, does it actually matter?

You think the world is flat.
You think that ghosts exist.
You think that aliens are here.
You think that you will still exist after you die.
You think you can make someone love you.
So?

I don't.
Is that so terrible?
We are all different people with different ideas about life.
I don't believe your beliefs make you any less than a person so why would you think that of me?

Who can you name, who sailed off the edge of the flat Earth ?
Why doesn't the oceans just drain away at the sides ?
What is underneath the flat Earth, dust and spider webs ?

Here lies the problem.

You offer to answer questions, then you get upset and call names when someone disagrees with your answer.

You talk about science, but you do not follow empirical methods. Therefore, your science ends up flawed.

When someone points this out, you belittle them.

And to claim all photos from space were CGI?

That technology did not even exist when the first photos were printed. My dad was involved in the development of that technology. In fact, my dad designed and installed the communications systems on Air Force One back when Nixon was serving his first term as President. Computers were still using archaic analog technology. I used to have the punch cards from them myself. Digital technology was only just beginning to be researched. The compact disk was just a concept at the time, and nothing more. Therefore, the digital technology for CGI wasn't even around yet. If my dad were still alive, I would have him explain this himself.

Just for you, I looked at this. I also saw this and suggest you take a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkRnJutL5ko

Where is the picture of the 'edge' of the planet? There isn't one because there isn't an 'edge' to a globe!

Who prevents people from visiting this 'edge' and taking photos? Don't say the military, because they've only been around very recently in the history of this planet. Who was there before we had military? How come these people never ever make a mistake and accidentally tell someone that their job is to prevent curious people from having a look at the 'egde'? How many people are involved in this conspiracy to confuse the rest of us? Any why is it so important to them that we are all so confused and get it wrong? What is the REASON for anyone wanting to do this?

No ansers yet, I'm still waiting. Hope you enjoyed that YouTube video clip.

I am not claiming there is any edge... where do you get that idea?
Do you believe that space is infinite?... if so... why is it so hard to consider that the earth may be infinite?
Space is sci fi... everything you see in the sky is part of the Earth... is it so hard to believe that we might actually be special and not a random accident that exploded out of nothing?