The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[Right Divider]

An orbit is a circle. You can circle a globe and a flat earth.

--Dave

Wow Dave.... your mind is amazing. Do you know anything at all about physics?

Orbits in the global model (the only one that makes any sense), satellites are held in a balance between their inertia and the pull of gravity.

There is no such relationship in the "flat earth model" (as if anyone has given anything even remotely resembling a "model" for the flat earth).

What magic forces allow a satellite to "circle orbit" the flat earth?

 

[Clete]

An orbit is a circle. You can circle a globe and a flat earth.

--Dave

So, this is wrong but lets go with it for now...

Does this look like a circle?....

http://www.isstracker.com/

 

[DFT_Dave]

How a small close sun works and why we cannot see it beyond the horizon on a flat earth

1. Perspective: Everything that moves across the sky appears to descend, even though it's parallel to the flat plane of the earth. The ground beneath our feet appears to rise up to our eye level, even though it's actually level. The sun will also disappear behind the horizon.

2. Density: The lowest layer of atmosphere, the troposphere, "is the densest layer of the atmosphere...containing approximately 75% of the atmosphere's mass and 99% of the total mass of water vapor". It extends 6 miles into the sky. It's impossible to see very far through this density of atmosphere across and parallel to the flat earth. We can see much further through a telescope looking up than we can looking straight ahead.

3. Refraction: The sun appears a little larger than it actually is at the horizon due to looming. The actual location of the sun would be above and smaller than the image of it we see on a flat earth.

This is the best I can do at this time to explain how the sun works on the flat earth model. This does not mean I believe it. But unlike you all I cannot accept or reject what I don't properly understand.

The problem with globe earth model is it rejects perspective by assuming a curved earth and telling us we are actually looking down seeing the actual beginning of the curvature at the horizon. This argument is filled with incoherence, contradiction, and logical fallacies.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

How a small close sun works and why we cannot see it beyond the horizon on a flat earth

1. Perspective: Everything that moves across the sky appears to descend, even though it's parallel to the flat plane of the earth. The ground beneath our feet appears to rise up to our eye level, even though it's actually level. The sun will also disappear behind the horizon.

Wrong and silly, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Dave, create a SCALE model and you will see that this idea is just plain FALSE (and silly).

BTW, Perspective cannot make you see a HALF A SUN during a sunset.

2. Density: The lowest layer of atmosphere, the troposphere, "is the densest layer of the atmosphere...containing approximately 75% of the atmosphere's mass and 99% of the total mass of water vapor". It extends 6 miles into the sky. It's impossible to see very far through this density of atmosphere across and parallel to the flat earth. We can see much further through a telescope looking up than we can looking straight ahead.

You pretend like air is really thick, like a chocolate milk shake.

3. Refraction: The sun appears a little larger than it actually is at the horizon due to looming. The actual location of the sun would be above and smaller than the image of it we see on a flat earth.

Once again, even parallel to the earth air is NOT SO thick that you cannot see clearly through it.

This is the best I can do at this time to explain how the sun works on the flat earth model. This does not mean I believe it. But unlike you all I cannot accept or reject what I don't properly understand.

Your best is really bad.

The problem with globe earth model is it rejects perspective by assuming a curved earth and telling us we are actually looking down seeing the actual beginning of the curvature at the horizon. This argument is filled with incoherence, contradiction, and logical fallacies.

Baloney. Plain and simple... BALONEY!

 

[CabinetMaker]

How a small close sun works and why we cannot see it beyond the horizon on a flat earth

1. Perspective: Everything that moves across the sky appears to descend, even though it's parallel to the flat plane of the earth. The ground beneath our feet appears to rise up to our eye level, even though it's actually level. The sun will also disappear behind the horizon.

Your model of a flat Earth has the sun moving in a circular motion above a disk. Where is the horizon that the sun disappears behind? Remember the video you posted? It showed that there was another plain between the surface of the Earth and the sun that caused the sun to disappear behind. Can you explain this other plain to us? Where is it located? Is the moon above or below this other plain? How do the phases of the moon interact with all of this? These are serious questions raised by your explanation of a flat Earth. Please take your responses very seriously.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How a small close sun works and why we cannot see it beyond the horizon on a flat earth

1. Perspective: Everything that moves across the sky appears to descend, even though it's parallel to the flat plane of the earth. The ground beneath our feet appears to rise up to our eye level, even though it's actually level. The sun will also disappear behind the horizon.

This is true on a globe earth.

But this isn't true on a flat earth which Clete proved beyond any doubt mathematically. Dave were you around when Clete demonstrated that? Maybe we should revisit that.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I don't question the "existence of" satellites, the ISS, space shuttle, or anything else that is in low earth orbit.

This is interesting. You don't question them but you reject the imagery that they capture of the earth correct?

Why do you believe in them at all? Maybe the entire thing is faked not just the imagery.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Wrong and silly, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Dave, create a SCALE model and you will see that this idea is just plain FALSE (and silly).

BTW, Perspective cannot make you see a HALF A SUN during a sunset.

You pretend like air is really thick, like a chocolate milk shake.

Once again, even parallel to the earth air is NOT SO thick that you cannot see clearly through it.

Your best is really bad.

Baloney. Plain and simple... BALONEY!

Refraction/looming plus the horizon line at eye level causes the half sun to appear on a flat earth.

This explanation is reasonable and coherent.

Looking straight ahead the density of the atmosphere is more like a brick wall than chocolate milk. You can't see three feet in thick fog where I come from. Image trying to see anything across an ocean.

I explained the prediction of perspective on a flat earth. The horizon will remain at eye level as we elevate and that we will see further into the distance. All photos and videos confirm that is exactly what happens. The prediction of a curved earth is that the horizon will drop lower and lower as you go higher and higher. This does not happen.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

This is true on a globe earth.

But this isn't true on a flat earth which Clete proved beyond any doubt mathematically. Dave were you around when Clete demonstrated that? Maybe we should revisit that.

Even before Clete, I showed Dave that ... based on HIS MODEL.... the sun is STILL 9 degrees ABOVE the horizon at "sunset".

This is why Dave plays games with atmospheric refraction and a perverted idea of perspective.

Dave has even claimed that BOTH:

• The sun really does get smaller (typically demonstrated with bogus over-saturated videos).
• The sun does NOT get smaller due to atmospheric magnification.

Dave wants to make TWO CONTRADICTORY claims at the same time.

Dave is illogical and crazy and YET believes that he is the rational one in these discussions.

 

[Right Divider]

Refraction/looming plus the horizon line at eye level causes the half sun to appear on a flat earth.

This explanation is reasonable and coherent.

Pure utter nonsense Dave. This nonsense will never come true even if you repeat it a million times.

Looking straight ahead the density of the atmosphere is more like a brick wall than chocolate milk.

That is the DUMBEST thing that you've said yet!

You can't see three feet in thick fog where I come from. Image trying to see anything across an ocean.

Thick FOG is thick.... the fresh AIR is NOT!

I explained the prediction of perspective on a flat earth. The horizon will remain at eye level as we elevate and that we will see further into the distance. All photos and videos confirm that is exactly what happens. The prediction of a curved earth is that the horizon will drop lower and lower as you go higher and higher. This does not happen.

You simply remain confused and completely rigid in your confusion.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Your model of a flat Earth has the sun moving in a circular motion above a disk. Where is the horizon that the sun disappears behind? Remember the video you posted? It showed that there was another plain between the surface of the Earth and the sun that caused the sun to disappear behind. Can you explain this other plain to us? Where is it located? Is the moon above or below this other plain? How do the phases of the moon interact with all of this? These are serious questions raised by your explanation of a flat Earth. Please take your responses very seriously.

I've posted many video's so I'm not sure which one you're referring to.

We all agree that the sun sets sooner from the beach than viewed from a high hill up above the beach. The difference is why. In the globe model we are told we are seeing farther over the curved earth. But that also implies we will be looking further down or lower at the horizon from the hill than from at the beach. The flat earth model predicts the horizon will still be at eye level just as it is on the beach and we are seeing farther into the distance on the flat earth.

The problem for the globe model is it fails its own prediction.

--Dave

 

[Silent Hunter]

Here is how the FE argument goes:

Seeing anything at distances we are not supposed to see them at, because of the curvature of the earth, is at the heart of the flat earth movement.

When one sees a right side up image that should not be visible it's evidence/proof the earth is flat and not curved.

No, its evidence of refraction caused by the Earth's atmosphere. As I've told you before one can NEVER see the actual object they are "looking" at. What we see, you included, is light reflected off of the object or light emitted from the object even if the object is inches in front of your eye(s). All we EVER see is an image of the object, NEVER the object itself.

Globe Earth Answer: What we are seeing is not the real thing but only an image of it because of refraction. A refraction happens when warm air passes over colder air. The image is projected over the actual thing, as illustrated below.

View attachment 26496

Supra.

Flat Earth Objection: But then what are we seeing when we see an upside down image over an upright image of what is actually hidden behind the earth's curvature, as illustrated below?

View attachment 26497

Onions have layers and so does our atmosphere. Your tunnel-vision thinking leads you to believe there is only one condition existent of the atmosphere in which light can be refracted which is demonstratively false.

Globe Earth Answer: That's a mirage, a reflection of the what you cannot actually see. It's also produced when warm air passes over colder air.

Supra.

Flat Earth Question: How come we get two different effects from the same atmospheric condition, warm air over colder air?

Please explain.

Supra.

The answers from globe earth, as I see it, involve the fallacies of circular reasoning and equivocation. When one word, refraction in this case, can be used to mean more than one thing, we will not get a coherent answer when we object to a contradiction in an argument being made that in incoherent.

The term Cognitive Dissonance comes to mind when you write something so patently false. Have you looked up what that is yet?

So, according to your "theory" the nature of light and refraction is/was taught incorrectly in 5th grade?

The real question is, "Why are you?".

ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING you see is "quite clearly" NOT the actual thing. What we "see" is light reflected off of or emitted from/by an object. We never "see" the actual object... ever. The light we see from the object is affected by a variety of mostly uncontrollable conditions (the atmosphere, water, the physical limitation of our eyes, etc.) and a few controllable conditions (man-made lenses, such as telescopes, glasses, etc.)

Clete explains this clearly above, "... no one denies that light is refracted by the atmosphere. When light travels from a medium of lesser density into a medium of higher density (or vise versa), it refracts. The amount it refracts depends on the amount of difference between the densities of the two mediums (and other factors such as the angle of incidence), the bigger the difference in density, the more the light is refracted".

Effectively, the light reflected off of and emitted from the Chicago skyline is "bent around" the curvature of the Earth ("lifted upward"?) by refraction of the light by the atmosphere between Chicago and our (your) eye(s).

Whack-a-Mole time? Instead of looking at just the pictures, did you bother to read the article?

As I said above, we NEVER EVER see the actual object, we see light reflected off of or emitted from the object. The light we see then is our perception of the object and that light is affected (refracted) by a variety of mediums, the atmosphere being the primary medium refracting the light from objects far away and "parallel" to the Earth's surface. My fellow amateur astronomer, Clete, and I have both explained how light is refracted by the atmosphere such that the Chicago skyline is visible from "50 miles" away despite the curvature of the Earth. That you're still questioning this phenomena is confusing to us who aren't allowing cognitive dissonance to cloud our judgement.

Thanks, good questions.

I'm not questioning the basics of refraction. I'm questioning how it's applied in relation to atmospheric conditions, how can the same atmospheric condition be said to produce two different effects, both upside down and right side up images?

Because it doesn't. The atmosphere is quite dynamic and there are atmospheric condition that can (and do) exist capable of producing the optical effect(s) we witness. Supra.

If an image of Chicago is "reflected" off the layer of warmer air then we would see it upside down not right side up.

As you now know, it depends on how many layers of atmosphere (warm/cold/warmer/colder) the light is refracted by.

If we see it right side up then we are not seeing a reflection, we are seeing the actual city.

Nope, we NEVER, EVER, see the "actual city" as I've explained above.

Flat earth argues that atmospheric conditions are causing the water to appear to go up and down, when it actually is not. I believe the time lapse video of Chicago from Michigan compared with the time lapse video over Skunk Bay demonstrates this.

Perhaps in your untrained, uneducated opinion, yes; in actuality, no.

"We NEVER EVER see the actual object, we see light reflected off of or emitted from the object."

But that does not mean the actual object does not exist exactly where we see it. Right?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The object exists, we just might not see the light from the object exactly where the object exists in space, the pencil in water effect comes to mind to explain/demonstrate this. That you're doing everything you possibly can to NOT understand this is frustrating more people than just me.

The speed of light. How it affects what we see and where and WHEN we see it is at the heart of Einstein's special relativity. This also makes us question what we are really seeing. I digress, but Einstein was a pantheist and he mixed his philosophy with science and gives us an irrational universe that does not distinguish time from space, what is and is not moving through space.

Here you exhibit a profound lack of understanding of Special Relativity. Poisoning-the-well (your even more profound bias against Einstein) will forever cloud your judgement and prevent you from ever understanding it even at the most basic level. Please note the two words I added to your quote.

That you're still questioning this phenomena is confusing to us who aren't allowing cognitive dissonance to cloud our judgement.

Rational thought is driving my doubts about Globe earth arguments.

That you ignore EVERYONE'S explanations why your thinking is flawed clearly shows you are unable to rationalize what you think you "see" with what science demonstrates is true.

Your appeal to "cognitive dissonance" is an ad hominem attempt to discredit arguments you can't answer.

Since an ad hominem has nothing to do with "arguments (I) can't answer" you are confused yet again. Cognitive Dissonance clearly explains why you cannot reconcile what you "see" with what science proves is.

Atheist's could argue that belief in God is due to cognitive dissonance, and vise versa.

I disagree but I'll let you have this one your way.

There is no way you can explain the existence of a mirage over a refraction over the actual city hidden by the curved earth of Chicago from across Lake Michigan without circular reasoning, equivocation, and contradiction.

Completely untrue and you know it. This is simply you doing what you do and you do it often, asserting as fact that which you have failed to demonstrate. Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"?

You alone are the one guilty of circular reasoning, equivocation, and contradiction. In fact, I'm not sure what "Flat Earth" predicts anymore because you've changed those "predictions" so many times.

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is true on a globe earth.

But this isn't true on a flat earth which Clete proved beyond any doubt mathematically. Dave were you around when Clete demonstrated that? Maybe we should revisit that.

If the horizon stays at eye level the higher we go we have evidence for flat earth.

If the horizon drops lower and lower below eye level the higher we go we have evidence for a globe.

Globe earth fails it's own prediction. All photo and video show the horizon staying at eye level up to the height of high altitude balloons, as I have shown over and over.

Mathematical triangulation does not trump visible, repeatable, empirical evidence.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is interesting. You don't question them but you reject the imagery that they capture of the earth correct?

Why do you believe in them at all? Maybe the entire thing is faked not just the imagery.

Yes, it's easy to fake/photoshop/CGI the imagery. Regardless if we are under the dome of a flat earth or surrounded by a protective atmosphere over a globe, we still can fly around in it, take pictures, make equipment for that purpose for NASA.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Even before Clete, I showed Dave that ... based on HIS MODEL.... the sun is STILL 9 degrees ABOVE the horizon at "sunset".

This is why Dave plays games with atmospheric refraction and a perverted idea of perspective.

Dave has even claimed that BOTH:

• The sun really does get smaller (typically demonstrated with bogus over-saturated videos).
• The sun does NOT get smaller due to atmospheric magnification.

Dave wants to make TWO CONTRADICTORY claims at the same time.

Dave is illogical and crazy and YET believes that he is the rational one in these discussions.

Globe earth still fails it's own prediction. Deal with that. I've explained why we can't see the sun or anything else far into the distance of a flat earth. You can call this reasoning perverted but that does not destroy the argument.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Pure utter nonsense Dave. This nonsense will never come true even if you repeat it a million times.

That is the DUMBEST thing that you've said yet!

Thick FOG is thick.... the fresh AIR is NOT!

You simply remain confused and completely rigid in your confusion.

The globe model fails its own prediction, deal with that.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Globe earth still fails it's own prediction.Deal with that.

Dave, continuing to spout nonsense is not proving your case.

What "prediction" are you referring to? The fact that we cannot see the Rocky Mountains from a thousand miles away under any conditions?

I've explained why we can't see the sun or anything else far into the distance of a flat earth.

You may believe that you have with your phony "facts".

You can call this reasoning perverted but that does not destroy the argument.

--Dave

Laughable Dave, just laughable.

Have you decided yet whether the sun really does get smaller as the day progresses or stays the same size due to atmospheric magnification?

P.S. It would be quite the MIRACLE if the atmospheric magnification kept the sun the EXACT SAME SIZE under any and all atmospheric conditions, because the sun staying the EXACT SAME SIZE all day long is EXACTLY what we actually OBSERVE.

 

[Right Divider]

The globe model fails its own prediction, deal with that.

--Dave

I see how you deal with a problem.... just deflect.

Which "prediction" is a problem?

 

[CabinetMaker]

I've posted many video's so I'm not sure which one you're referring to.

We all agree that the sun sets sooner from the beach than viewed from a high hill up above the beach. The difference is why. In the globe model we are told we are seeing farther over the curved earth. But that also implies we will be looking further down or lower at the horizon from the hill than from at the beach. The flat earth model predicts the horizon will still be at eye level just as it is on the beach and we are seeing farther into the distance on the flat earth.

The problem for the globe model is it fails its own prediction.

--Dave

Actually, the globe model actually has a physical horizon that the sun can go behind. A rotating globe orbiting a sun means that the sun is hidden from view for about half the day. This is what we actually observe. A flat Earth with the sun following a circular path above the disk never has a horizon that the sun can go behind. How can the sun go down behind an horizon when it is said to be forever above the disk?

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, its evidence of refraction caused by the Earth's atmosphere. As I've told you before one can NEVER see the actual object they are "looking" at. What we see, you included, is light reflected off of the object or light emitted from the object even if the object is inches in front of your eye(s). All we EVER see is an image of the object, NEVER the object itself.

Supra.

Onions have layers and so does our atmosphere. Your tunnel-vision thinking leads you to believe there is only one condition existent of the atmosphere in which light can be refracted which is demonstratively false.

Supra.

Supra.

The term Cognitive Dissonance comes to mind when you write something so patently false. Have you looked up what that is yet?

Because it doesn't. The atmosphere is quite dynamic and there are atmospheric condition that can (and do) exist capable of producing the optical effect(s) we witness. Supra.

As you now know, it depends on how many layers of atmosphere (warm/cold/warmer/colder) the light is refracted by.

Nope, we NEVER, EVER, see the "actual city" as I've explained above.

Perhaps in your untrained, uneducated opinion, yes; in actuality, no.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The object exists, we just might not see the light from the object exactly where the object exists in space, the pencil in water effect comes to mind to explain/demonstrate this. That you're doing everything you possibly can to NOT understand this is frustrating more people than just me.

Here you exhibit a profound lack of understanding of Special Relativity. Poisoning-the-well (your even more profound bias against Einstein) will forever cloud your judgement and prevent you from ever understanding it even at the most basic level. Please note the two words I added to your quote.

That you ignore EVERYONE'S explanations why your thinking is flawed clearly shows you are unable to rationalize what you think you "see" with what science demonstrates is true.

Since an ad hominem has nothing to do with "arguments (I) can't answer" you are confused yet again. Cognitive Dissonance clearly explains why you cannot reconcile what you "see" with what science proves is.

I disagree but I'll let you have this one your way.

Completely untrue and you know it. This is simply you doing what you do and you do it often, asserting as fact that which you have failed to demonstrate. Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"?

You alone are the one guilty of circular reasoning, equivocation, and contradiction. In fact, I'm not sure what "Flat Earth" predicts anymore because you've changed those "predictions" so many times.

Supra is neither an explanation nor an argument.

--Dave