Earth is a cube, or supermassive, not a sphere!

As the guys from OK Go once said, "Here it goes again". Let's have at it. I hope you've devised something logical that I'll have a tough time working around. Nah. Probably just the same old nonsense. Yup. here we are. Round 3, and still nothing. I still don't understand anything you're saying, sir, you seem to be talking gibberish. This is a new spin on that old "flat earth" baloney, I'll give you that. Very new and very weird. I don't get what you're trying to prove here. You can't prove it anyway, but you could try a little better. Your math is actually pretty flawed, sir, because, see, I gave you just ONE photo, that proves Earth is s sphere. I ROVED it in less than four photos, because you do not need four photos of a sphere to prove that the object is a sphere. Just one will suffice. Your math is flawed. I can take a picture of a tennis ball, and I can see, just from that ONE photo, that it is a sphere. It's all about the lighting. Now, I'll post another photo, once again taken from space, by some astronauts, and it might prove to you how Earth is a sphere. OK? https://www.nasa.gov... That picture is from NASA, very reliable source, taken from some spacecraft. Right? look at how the shape we see is not a SQUARE, but a CIRCLE. It's a 3-dimensional circle. In other words, it's a SPHERE. It's a big, rocky sphere in the middle of space. When the solar system formed, little chunks of rock became bigger chunks of rock. Gravity, in its most natural state, does not have the ability to form complex 3-dimensional shapes like cubes. As gravity pushed in from all sides, equally, we were left with the shape of a SPHERE. This is not hard to grasp, sir. That photo is only of ONE half of Earth, but we can still see that it's a circle, so the other side must be circular, too. For gosh sakes, man, we can't document the entire surface of the Earth in one photo, that's geometrically impossible. We can only take one half at a time. To see the whole surface of the Earth, it would have to be made of hollow glass. And it's not. There is NO difference between a SPHERE and "Earth's sphere effect"-whatever that means. Still using those fancy scientific buzzwords, aren't ya? EARTH is a SPHERE, no matter how many ways you slice it- a THREE DIMENSIONAL CIRCLE WITH AN EQUAL DIAMETER AND CIRCUMFERENCE ALL OVER. This isn't hard, man. Why are you making it so hard? Spheres on Earth are exactly the same as the sphere that IS Earth. You can't take two-thirds of a tennis ball in one picture. Again, that's mathematically impossible. You can only take half, not MORE than half. Same with Earth- you can't only get 1/4 in a picture, that's LESS than half. You can ONLY get HALF of a sphere in one picture, unless 1/4 of the sphere is excluded from the picture or something like that. Since all these fractions are a bit confusing, I'll post some fractions here for reference: http://questgarden.com... Earth IS a planet. It's not a "SUPERMASSIVE" planet, though, whatever that means. Just a planet, and, like 99.99999999% of all the planets in the universe, it's pretty spherical. i mean, why call it "supermassive"? that makes it sound BIG. it's not a very big planet in the grand scheme of things, even though WE perceive it to be big. It's pretty small for a planet. According to Google, 1,300 Earths could fit inside Jupiter. It's a tiny little ball of dust. Not SUPER-MASSIVE or whatever you call it. The biggest planet we've discovered, though, as of late, outside our own solar system, is TRES4, which is talked about in this article, WAY bigger than Jupe. https://zidbits.com... Is "supermassive" just how you say "big"? Well, just so you know, the laws of geometry apply EVERYWHERE in the universe. No matter how BIG earth is, it's just a sphere, just like any soccer ball or baseball. This must be pretty astonishing for a dimbulb like you. It CAN be defined as a single sided shape. A SPHERE IS A SINGLE SIDED SHAPE. It sure isn't a cube- cubes have SIX SIDES. Earth does not have six sides. And it is NOT "supermassive"- so it CAN'T be "defined by it's supermassive quality." Also, you used the wrong kind of "ITS" there. Just thought I'd point that out. A DRAWN cube is NOT the same as a "SUPERMICRO" cube-you're right, there- because "SUPERMICRO" cubes don't freaking EXIST- just another fancy scientific buzzword you made up in order to give yourself credibility. You're not Neil DeGrasse Tyson, man. You never will be. Drawn cubes CAN only be understood by their features- their number of faces and vertices and edges- and so can REGULAR cubes. If something doesn't have six equal sides, it's not a cube. our heads and our minds are not cubes. They're irregular little lumps of flesh. they look nothing like cubes. HERE'S what we'd look like if our heads were CUBES: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com... Just thought I'd point that out. I just HAD to. You made it too easy for me. Human beings are not "Supermicro cubic-" and we can't see through our own heads. What did you take before starting this debate? LSD or something? Also, cubes in nature are the same as cubes we make- except there are very few cubes in nature. Thee are some circles, maybe a few triangles, but very few natural cubes with 6 equal sides. I can't think of any, but if there were any, they'd be subject to the same undeniable laws of geometry as a man-made cube. Earth has mountains, and seas, and it is not affected by the "cubic time continuum"- because that thing is fake- and it's a sphere that spins around the sun. Really, how have I written twenty paragraphs about this already? It's so simple to understand. So insanely simple. Kindergarteners know this stuff. Why don't you get it? Why do you refuse to learn anything, you ignorant lout? Earth's orbit IS due to the mass of the sun, you have that right. but it has nothing to do with "a great harmony of opposite stars and planets"- that sounds like L. Ron Hubbard to me- and there are no OPPOSITE stars and planets, just DIFFERENT stars and planets- and we only have ONE star near us- and earth is NOT constructed cubic and the harmony is NOT "cubic" harmony". I feel like I'm grading the test paper of a class clown. A star does not move in "vertical" orbit in the universe- because in space, there is no "up" or "down". Stars move in all kinds of directions, but they don't orbit around much-mainly, it's the PLANETS who orbit around THEM. The process of Earth's horizontal orbit and spin around the sun IS pretty complex- there are entire books dedicated to its physics- and a video taken from Earth's orbit can't capture all the complex processes it goes through- some of those processes take MILLIONS of years, after all. The gravity of all the things around Earth all Do have a say in how Earth moves around- every planet exerts a little tugging on everything around it- But Earth is not supermassive, and its supermassive shape- I repeat- is NOT a cube. Earth is nothing like a cube, it is NOT a cube. It is a sphere. Plain and simple. What's perceived in a photo of Earth IS a sphere. and, since photos are an accurate representation of reality, unless they're photoshopped, Earth ITSELF IS A SPHERE. You're doing what I asked you not to, sir, you're refusing to accept any of the evidence I've provided and you're calling it invalid. You're a twit, sir. Earth does not have any "perceptive sphere" effect"- we PERCEIVE it to be a sphere, because it IS a sphere. Its geographical nature and how its geographical nature is perceived are NOT different, what we see is what there is. We don't PERCEIVE Atlantis, so, therefore, it doesn't exist. You don't see to have much faith in completely accurate human perception. Your argument does not win. It is completely invalid. If you want to win, then give me some sources about this cube thing and tell me what "supermassive" means. I can only hope that you have something to bolster your weak argument and give it a shred of credibility. I'll be waiting-one last picture, for you: http://cdn6.bigcommerce.com...