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

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, I think you will agree with me that even one clear observation that contradicts what a theory predicts disproves that theory. So, for example, if you point out that on a globe, Chicago should not be visible from across Lake Michigan, yet it is- then it is a serious challenge to the globe theory. Anybody who thinks the Earth is a globe better have a really good explanation of how that can happen- right?

Now this holds true for the flat earth theory as well. If we point out observations that contradict the flat earth theory, then the theory is disproven, unless you have a really good explanation for that observation that fits the flat earth theory.

I hope you will agree with me up to this point.

So, if somebody says, for example: "Perspective cannot make you see a HALF A SUN during a sunset.", then you need a really good explanation- or else the flat earth theory is dead.

This is true for all observations that contradict either of the theories.

So to use the half-sun observation, you understood that if there isn't an explanation- flat earth is dead- right. So here is your explanation:

"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."​

The problem I have here is that the explanation is neither reasonable nor coherent. Refraction can shift where one sees an object- it doesn't hide half an object. I don't know what "looming" is supposed to mean here. And the horizon being at 'eye-level', besides being poorly defined, doesn't fit a flat earth at all. In fact, any horizon at all doesn't fit a flat earth.

It is possible that I am just not understanding how refraction, looming and horizon together work here to make only half a sun appear. So please explain this. A drawing would be useful. I won't watch a video- sorry.

If I didn't see problems with both views I would not be saying I see good arguments from both.

You all never seem to read some of the things I write or you're old like me and suffer memory loss. Now where was I?

View attachment 26515

Perspective is how we see everything.

Now look at the light poles in this drawing. The bottoms ascend to the horizon and the tops descend to the horizon. If we imagine the sun sitting where the light is at the top of the pole, the sun on a flat earth stays at the same elevation as it moves away from us just as the ploes seem to get shorter and shorter but not really.

Eventually the sun will hit the horizon and then go beyond it. Just as the cityscape in this drawing is hidden at the bottom but because it's taller than our eye level we see half of it. When the sun hits the horizon at our eye level it's still higher up than our eye level and so it gradually moves past the horizon until it disappears.

Even on a flat earth we still have refraction which takes place at the horizon and produces magnification/looming, which is why it does not appear to get as small as one would think it would when it rises and sets.

--Dave

 

[chair]

If I didn't see problems with both views I would not be saying I see good arguments from both.

You all never seem to read some of the things I write or you're old like me and suffer memory loss. Now where was I?

I've read many of your posts, and your ad hominem attack is out of place.

View attachment 26515

Perspective is how we see everything.

Now look at the light poles in this drawing. The bottoms ascend to the horizon and the tops descend to the horizon. If we imagine the sun sitting where the light is at the top of the pole, the sun on a flat earth stays at the same elevation as it moves away from us just as the ploes seem to get shorter and shorter but not really.

Eventually the sun will hit the horizon and then go beyond it.

1. Note that this is a drawing. "Perspective" is a drawing method. You use the term differently .
2. Now you need to explain what it means on a flat earth that the "sun hits the horizon and then go beyond it." What is this "horizon"? What is "behind it"?

as the cityscape in this drawing is hidden at the bottom but because it's taller than our eye level we see half of it. When the sun hits the horizon at our eye level it's still higher up than our eye level and so it gradually moves past the horizon until it disappears.

Again- what is this "horizon" on a flat earth?

Even on a flat earth we still have refraction which takes place at the horizon and produces magnification/looming, which is why it does not appear to get as small as one would think it would when it rises and sets.

--Dave

Which doesn't in the least explain why we see half a sun....

 

[Clete]

Rays from the sun all point back to a singular location, a singular point of origin, they are not parallel. Parallel rays means each ray has its own point of origin that's equal in distance apart from where we see it to where they originate from.

And you call me stupid? :rotfl:

--Dave

P.S. Parallel lines/rays never meet. The rays from the sun all meet at the center of the sun.

I never said that they were parallel. MORON!

What I did do was prove you're stupid.

Good bye David. I'm not participating in this idiotic waste of time any longer.

Go be stupid and make the whole Christian world look like idiots while you're at it.

:wave2:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Here is a very interesting article about the Titanic

Did An Optical Illusion Doom the Titanic? By Rebecca Boyle

View attachment 26517 View attachment 26518

The article explains that a superior mirage caused the ship to sink and delayed the rescue of the passengers.

"A thermal inversion refracts light abnormally and can create a superior mirage: Objects appear higher (and therefore nearer) than they actually are, before a false horizon. The area between the false horizon and the true one may appear as haze."--Article

But a superior mirage would have lifted the ship and the iceberg above the horizon if the earth were cured and they would not have been hidden. In the illustrations above and in the account of the event it's the water that's lifted up and hiding the ship and the iceberg which is what happens on a flat earth.

The air above the water is miraged to reflect the water beneath it and creates a false/elevated waterline/horizon. Just like Chicago from across Lake Michigan.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I never said that they were parallel. MORON!

What I did do was prove you're stupid.

Good bye David. I'm not participating in this idiotic waste of time any longer.

Go be stupid and make the whole Christian world look like idiots while you're at it.

:wave2:

It seemed to me that was what you were saying. If I was wrong than I apologise. There are many who do say the suns rays that hit the earth are parallel.

But rather than say I was mistaken about what you were saying and giving me a chance to consider your comments again, you just call me more derogatory names.

I will miss your participation and good arguments that challenge flat earth, you've made me have to dig deep and do better at understanding and explaining FE, but I will not miss your continual shameful ad hom bullying. You think you have won every argument, I don't think that you have, but you have certainly lost all decorum in this debate.

You're not only waving goodbye to me but to everyone else who you disagree with on every other subject. Morons all who disagree with you on any matter I would guess. That Christians can't be flat earth without being apostates is ludicrous. I have simply found myself in the middle and you have had the nerve to denigrate my character as if having doubts about the cosmology of the earth is not possible or even a sin.

--Dave

 

[chair]

...That Christians can't be flat earth without being apostates is ludicrous.

That isn't what he said, if I am not greatly mistaken.

 

[DFT_Dave]

That isn't what he said, if I am not greatly mistaken.

It's been said I've been led astray and it follows that by advocating flat earth I'm leading others astray. If it was not for the sake of Christianity itself neither Clete or anyone else would have charged me with all the derogatory ad homs. To Clete I "make the whole Christian world look like idiots". If heliocentrism is Christianity then I understand his concern. But Christ is Christianity so I don't look at a debate about the cosmology of the universe to be as disruptive to Christianity as Clete, and others, think it does.

With all the emotional and derogatory rhetoric one would think FE is apostasy, though not directly stated with that word being used. Copernicus did not publish his work merely because in his day he would be laughed at and considered crazy. Copernicus knew he would have been considered an apostate trying to lead the Church away from Biblical teaching.

--Dave

 

[chair]

It's been said I've been led astray and it follows that by advocating flat earth I'm leading others astray. If it was not for the sake of Christianity itself neither Clete or anyone else would have charged me with all the derogatory ad homs. To Clete I "make the whole Christian world look like idiots". If heliocentrism is Christianity then I understand his concern. But Christ is Christianity so I don't look at a debate about the cosmology of the universe to be as disruptive to Christianity as Clete, and others, think it does.

With all the emotional and derogatory rhetoric one would think FE is apostasy, though not directly stated with that word being used. Copernicus did not publish his work merely because in his day he would be laughed at and considered crazy. Copernicus knew he would have been considered an apostate trying to lead the Church away from Biblical teaching.

--Dave

Speaking a a non-Christian, I can understand why some Christians would be embarrassed by the co-religionists having such obviously wrong ideas.

Be that as it may, I would appreciate a response to my last post about seeing a half-sun.

 

[Silent Hunter]

:delete:

 

[DFT_Dave]

I've read many of your posts, and your ad hominem attack is out of place.

1. Note that this is a drawing. "Perspective" is a drawing method. You use the term differently .
2. Now you need to explain what it means on a flat earth that the "sun hits the horizon and then go beyond it." What is this "horizon"? What is "behind it"?

Again- what is this "horizon" on a flat earth?

Which doesn't in the least explain why we see half a sun....

What ad hom attack have I made???

Perspective is a reality that is explained through art.

The horizon is where the ground beneath us rises up to our eye level. The higher up we go the farther we can see over the flat plane.

Everything that we cannot see is "beyond" the horizon because it's to far away.

The horizon from our perspective rises and lowers as we do. There are things we cannot see from a low view that we can see if we rise up higher which means the horizon blocks what is beyond it. How do we know this is not just seeing over a curved earth? Because the higher we rise over a curved earth the lower the horizon would go. But in reality the higher we go the horizon continues to rise with us.

This video below shows how the horizon falls and rises with the viewer/camera. You need not see the whole video, just go to 9:00 mark of the video and watch for about 30 seconds.

When we go from ground level to high altitude we see the same thing, a horizon that rises with us and stays at our eye level. On a curved earth the horizon would drop farther and farther below eye level the higher we go. It's argued that because of the scale of the earth such a drop would not be very noticeable and yet look how noticable the rise and fall of the horizon is from the beach.

--Dave

 

[chair]

What ad hom attack have I made???

Perspective is a reality that is explained through art.

The horizon is where the ground beneath us rises up to our eye level. The higher up we go the farther we can see over the flat plane.

Everything that we cannot see is "beyond" the horizon because it's to far away.

The horizon from our perspective rises and lowers as we do. There are things we cannot see from a low view that we can see if we rise up higher which means the horizon blocks what is beyond it. How do we know this is not just seeing over a curved earth? Because the higher we rise over a curved earth the lower the horizon would go. But in reality the higher we go the horizon continues to rise with us.

This video below shows how the horizon falls and rises with the viewer/camera. You need not see the whole video, just go to 9:00 mark of the video and watch for about 30 seconds.

When we go from ground level to high altitude we see the same thing, a horizon that rises with us and stays at our eye level. On a curved earth the horizon would drop farther and farther below eye level the higher we go. It's argued that because of the scale of the earth such a drop would not be very noticeable and yet look how noticable the rise and fall of the horizon is from the beach.

--Dave

Dave, what is the horizon? "where the ground beneath us rises up to our eye level"? " Everything that we cannot see is "beyond" the horizon because it's to far away?" What is it?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

There are videos that show the ISS in space, or what looks like it.

Couldn't those videos be fake?

I cannot confirm or deny what is up there, how it stays up there, or for how long. Could data be received from a satellite hung below a balloon and we don't know it?

Sure why not?

Maybe they invented special balloons that can float forever. Maybe the ISS is hanging from one of those special balloons?? Hmmm... I wonder how many balloons it would take to levitate something as large and heavy as the International Space Station? :think:

Here we have very interesting footage of a balloon carrying a satellite into the stratosphere. I wonder just how many balloons are keeping other types of satellites in space???

Yeah... I'm guessing all satellites have a giant balloon keeping them afloat. That's really the only possible explanation.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Couldn't those videos be fake? Sure why not?

Maybe they invented special balloons that can float forever. Maybe the ISS is hanging from one of those special balloons?? Hmmm... I wonder how many balloons it would take to levitate something as large and heavy as the International Space Station? :think:
Yeah... I'm guessing all satellites have a giant balloon keeping them afloat. That's really the only possible explanation.

:mock::rotfl:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Once again, Dave, you exhibit one-dimensional and non-critical thinking.

At the basic level "orbit" means to travel around (usually some thing) in a circular or elliptical path. A satellite can orbit the Earth or a warplane can orbit a potential target.

You circle a target you don't orbit it.

One-dimensional thinking seems to be the only way you analyze a problem. How, exactly, does one "circle a target" without "travel(ing) around" it?

supra-
a prefix meaning “above, over” (supraorbital) or “beyond the limits of, outside of” (supramolecular; suprasegmental).

You've been a member of TOL since the year (for Knight's benefit) 2005 and have read the word "supra" and NEVER considered what the word meant in context? Ignorance is one thing, deliberate stupidity is another.

I merely thought you were using the word "supra" to mean a supra-refraction or a supra-mirage.

You were not specific so I was not sure what you were getting at. And obviously I was not aware of the legal use of the word.

Your thought process needs work. I never thought for a minute you would MIS-understand a word used so often on TOL.

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.

A refraction is a change in direction of light rays.

Basically, yes… very basically.

Not all light rays change direction.

Which ones?

Therefore not everything we see is a refraction.

This is a faulty conclusion based on a faulty understanding of light AND a case of TOTALLY not addressing what I said.

One NEVER sese 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.

When we speak of atmospheric refraction we're not talking about what's happening inside our eye we're talking about what's happening outside of our eye.

Not everything is being refracted outside of our eye due to atmospheric conditions.

That’s true. Along with atmospheric refraction there is gravity and water in the form of rain (the reason we see a rainbow), among other factors.

We always see the actual world before us unless certain, irregular, atmospheric conditions prevail.

Nope. One NEVER sese 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.

We always see the world in perspective. Perspective is a fundamental truth that must be denied in order for us to accept the globe.

No, it isn’t.

Ok, let's do this.

Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics

"If we look at the structure of matter, we see that it is comprised of atoms, which is, essentially, electrons orbiting protons and neutrons. But neutrons are, by definition, protons sandwiched to electrons. So the fundamental structure of matter is just two particles, electrons and protons and a glue that binds these atoms into molecules, which are photons. These particles spin. What keeps them spinning? Ether theory suggests that elementary particles are absorbing ether all the time to maintain their spin. And when they do this, they emanate the absorbed energy as electromagnetic fields. That is the link between gravity and electromagnetism..."

"...Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether to keep all of its elementary particles spinning."

Electromagnetism is the primary force that holds everything together and moves things in the flat earth model covered by a dome.

There are a number of factual errors in what you’ve quoted from New Dawn Magazine; I will only address one:

“"If we look at the structure of matter, we see that it is comprised of atoms, which is, essentially, electrons orbiting protons and neutrons. But neutrons are, by definition, protons sandwiched to electrons. So the fundamental structure of matter is just two particles, electrons and protons…”

Electrons are a fundamental particle. Protons are made up of three fundamental particles, 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, neutrons are made up of 1 up quark and 2 down quarks.

That you would believe what some fringe “science” magazine has to say about anything is insulting to your intelligence.

The surface of the sun is not the center of the sun and a line that continues past the sun's surface is where the rays of the sun all meet which is why they are not parallel.

This is among the dumbest things I’ve ever read and clear evidence you haven’t the first clue what you’re talking about. Worse is that you say it again…

Rays that come from it (the Sun) confirm this if indeed the rays are not parallel. There's no way I would consider rays from a sphere as being parallel from any distance regardless of the size of the sphere.

You couldn’t be more of an idiot if you tried.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Couldn't those videos be fake? Sure why not?

Maybe they invented special balloons that can float forever. Maybe the ISS is hanging from one of those special balloons?? Hmmm... I wonder how many balloons it would take to levitate something as large and heavy as the International Space Station? :think:
Yeah... I'm guessing all satellites have a giant balloon keeping them afloat. That's really the only possible explanation.

Here's an example of a fake ISS and Shuttle docking. Do I have to explain why this is phony?

I'll say why if no one can figure it out.

The ISS is still a mystery to me at this point. As I've said it's clearly not flying 200 some miles above us. I'll show from high altitude balloons that the ISS is no higher, or just not much more than they are. The motionless earth also seems to show up in ISS video as well.

As far as satellites, obviously they exist, the question is, other than balloons at low earth altitude what else is carrying them? We can't say how they are propelled or at what altitude they are flying accept for what we are told.

At least we have ballooned satellites that can work on a flat earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, what is the horizon? "where the ground beneath us rises up to our eye level"? " Everything that we cannot see is "beyond" the horizon because it's to far away?" What is it?

My answer is clear and easy to understand.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

One-dimensional thinking seems to be the only way you analyze a problem. How, exactly, does one "circle a target" without "travel(ing) around" it?

You've been a member of TOL since the year (for Knight's benefit) 2005 and have read the word "supra" and NEVER considered what the word meant in context? Ignorance is one thing, deliberate stupidity is another.

Your thought process needs work. I never thought for a minute you would MIS-understand a word used so often on TOL.

Basically, yes… very basically.

Which ones?

This is a faulty conclusion based on a faulty understanding of light AND a case of TOTALLY not addressing what I said.

One NEVER sese 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.

That’s true. Along with atmospheric refraction there is gravity and water in the form of rain (the reason we see a rainbow), among other factors.

Nope. One NEVER sese 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.

No, it isn’t.

There are a number of factual errors in what you’ve quoted from New Dawn Magazine; I will only address one:

“"If we look at the structure of matter, we see that it is comprised of atoms, which is, essentially, electrons orbiting protons and neutrons. But neutrons are, by definition, protons sandwiched to electrons. So the fundamental structure of matter is just two particles, electrons and protons…”

Electrons are a fundamental particle. Protons are made up of three fundamental particles, 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, neutrons are made up of 1 up quark and 2 down quarks.

That you would believe what some fringe “science” magazine has to say about anything is insulting to your intelligence.

This is among the dumbest things I’ve ever read and clear evidence you haven’t the first clue what you’re talking about. Worse is that you say it again…

You couldn’t be more of an idiot if you tried.

Tesla's objection to Einstein's relativity is well known. Needlessly displaying your knowledge of atoms does not address any point I'm making.

When asked to explain a flat earth vs the globe, Tesla's electromagnetism is adopted in opposition to Einstein's gravity waves. I'm not proving FE or electromagnetism but only offering an explanation of how the FE works in answer to the question.

That sun rays are not parallel is simply true and why is easy to understand as I have explain.

That we see the actual world is axiomatic.

--Dave

 

[chair]

My answer is clear and easy to understand.

--Dave

Apparently not. You use words in a strange way. And no- I am not senile or uneducated. English is my native language. You say things that simply don't mean anything.

 

[DFT_Dave]

High altitude video showing the sunrise with possible light hitting the dome.

--Dave

 

[chair]

What ad hom attack have I made???

....

"you're old like me and suffer memory loss. "