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

[JudgeRightly]

You and no one else can determine what is or is not stupid for someone else. Atheists have no problem doing this, Christians have a higher standard.

--Dave

There you go, bringing up atheism again. Didn't you say you weren't going to discuss what atheists believe?

Hypocrite.

See, here's what you're really saying Dave: You're saying that truth is relative to the observer.

I'm saying that truth is absolute. As we have shown time and time and time and again on this thread and the original, we have shown you that the FE conspiracy nonsense IS IN FACT NONSENSE. Not subjective nonsense, as you are trying to claim, but absolute nonsense.

 

[DFT_Dave]

There you go, bringing up atheism again. Didn't you say you weren't going to discuss what atheists believe?

Hypocrite.

See, here's what you're really saying Dave: You're saying that truth is relative to the observer.

I'm saying that truth is absolute. As we have shown time and time and time and again on this thread and the original, we have shown you that the FE conspiracy nonsense IS IN FACT NONSENSE. Not subjective nonsense, as you are trying to claim, but absolute nonsense.

You fail to distinguish between what people consider is stupid and what is true. I'm not saying truth is relative, I'm saying what you consider stupid is not what is stupid to someones else.

Is it true that the earth is flat or is it true the earth is a spinning globe is not a relative issue to me, one view is true and the other is false, absolutely.

But you're saying anyone who does not share your view is stupid is a matter of your opinion not a statement of fact.

That earth is a spinning globe you think is an absolute fact with out bias, presuppositions, or faulty calculations. Flat earth argues you are absolutely wrong, not that there are no absolutes.

Atheists have no problem calling people stupid who disagree with them about what they believe is true, but, I will again say, Christians have a higher standard, "But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire." --Matthew 5:22

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

You fail to distinguish between what people consider is stupid and what is true. I'm not saying truth is relative, I'm saying what you consider stupid is not what is stupid to someones else.

Except that's not the point, Dave.

It IS, regardless of my opinion or consideration, as a matter of fact, stupid. We have shown it to be so, and denying it doesn't change that it is stupid.

Is it true that the earth is flat or is it true the earth is a spinning globe is not a relative issue to me, one view is true and the other is false, absolutely.

It is absolutely true that the earth is a globe.

We have presented the evidence for such.

But you saying anyone who does not share your view is stupid is a matter of your opinion not a statement of fact.

I'm saying that anyone who rejects reality in favor of some conspiracy theory is stupid.

That earth is a spinning globe you think is an absolute fact with out bias, presuppositions, or faulty calculations.

No Dave, I don't "think" that. I and others have SHOWN it to be so, WITH calculations, WITHOUT bias, WITHOUT presuppositions. And you have either ignored or dismissed it.

Flat earth argues you are absolutely wrong, not that there are no absolutes.

It argues based on lies and misdirection, intentional or not.

Atheists have no problem calling people stupid who disagree with them about what they believe is true, but, I will again say, Christians have a higher standard, "But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire." --Matthew 5:22

--Dave

More talking about atheists.

Hypocrite.

 

[Right Divider]

You have your opinion on what the facts are and what the videos reveal and FE as their's.

Classic DFT_Dave.... FACTS are FACTS... they are NOT based on OPINIONS.

This is not a battle of opinions. It's a battle of FACTS and that is where the FE loses (and you with them).

You always seem to forget I'm not the author or originator of these arguments.

No, I do not "forget". I could care less who the "author or originator of these arguments" are... YOU'RE the one presenting them HERE.

That I argue on behalf of FE does not make me FE. That I think they make some good arguments and that GE has some bad ones is why I started this debate.

--Dave

You use the same FAILED arguments that they do Dave. It's just that simple.

You might was well be FE, since you are foolishly parroting their bogus arguments.

 

[Clete]

Thanks Clete, good response. Yes an orbit that's not circular would make the sun appear smaller and larger. But what about from sunrise to overhead than to sun set, wouldn't the sun appear larger over head because of the distance to viewer?

Your pictures deal with the ground in perspective not the sky in perspective.

We can see farther into the sky above us than we can over the ground beneath us. So, show or explain to me how perspective works in relation in the sun and sky since that's where the sun is.

The argument being made is that the sun can be seen until it vanishes beyond the horizon line of our viewing limitations because of perspective not because of the curvature of the earth, the sun being small compared to the earth and close. Over the ocean video is presented that is said to show the sun merging and shrinking into the horizon and not going over the curve. Over land we cannot see this because of the elevation of land. The sun being above us could still be seen beyond the landscape and would appear to set from top to bottom and not merge into the horizon because the horizon is blocked by the elevated land mass in front of it. Seascapes are where we can see farther into the distance.

I hope this makes sense. That does not mean it's true. But flat earth and globe earth must make sense first before either can to believed to be true. You, and others, will argue that nothing about flat earth makes sense. I will argue that there is much about a spinning globe rotating around the sun that makes no sense either.

--Dave

No, it doesn't make sense. Perspective is perspective, David. It makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE whether the distance is over land or over the sea or into the sky or down a well. Distance is distance and that is the only factor when discussing perspective. An object will appear twice as large if it's half as far away and vise-versa - period.

Once again, this single point alone is proof that the Earth cannot possibly be flat.

Clete

 

[Clete]

I always answer posts from the bottom up and some of what I asked you in my last post I see you have answered in this post. Thanks.

So we can calculate a difference that we cannot see, hmmm.

I'm definitely going to study that site, thanks.

I notice one thing immediately, View attachment 26572

You should always respond to posts in the order in which they were posted but whatever floats your boat.

This illustration seems to be the opposite of how we see the world in perspective. I'm not sure that is the case but I will study this.

--Dave

If you're thinking that the diagram seems backward, it's because you're thinking that g is the apparent size rather than the actual size.

The apparent size all about the angle α. Basically, it's all about how much of your field of view something occupies, which can be expressed as an angle by presuming that a circle around your head is 360°. Your total field of view is about 190°. The more of that field of view an object occupies, the bigger the angle α is and the larger the object's "apparent size" is. In fact, on object's apparent size is almost always expressed as an angle.

In the diagram, if g (the ACTUAL SIZE of the object) remains the same then as you increase the value of r (the distance between your eye and the object) the smaller the angle α (the apparent size) will be.

It should be intuitive. Just imagine that the diagram is the same height from bottom to top (i.e. the size of g is the same) but that the diagram stretches all the way across the screen instead of being an inch and half wide. Now imagine that it stretches across the room. The triangle would get a sharper and sharper point on the left side and thus the angle α would be getting smaller and smaller.



Clete

 

[Clete]

I wasn't saying Google/You Tube didn't have the right to filter content.... I was just saying I hope they don't.

Yes, I know. I was really just making conversation and clarifying the point for the peanut gallery.

I made a similar comment in the comment section of a video one time and people reacted as if I had I suggested that Hitler was the Messiah or something.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Except that's not the point, Dave.

It IS, regardless of my opinion or consideration, as a matter of fact, stupid. We have shown it to be so, and denying it doesn't change that it is stupid.

It is absolutely true that the earth is a globe.

We have presented the evidence for such.

I'm saying that anyone who rejects reality in favor of some conspiracy theory is stupid.

No Dave, I don't "think" that. I and others have SHOWN it to be so, WITH calculations, WITHOUT bias, WITHOUT presuppositions. And you have either ignored or dismissed it.

It argues based on lies and misdirection, intentional or not.

More talking about atheists.

Hypocrite.

Atheists have no standards, that should be obvious to you.

You think you have absolute facts that make you think you have absolute truth that the earth is a spinning globe.

All of this is an opinion for all the reasons I've argued.

1. The earth is motionless.

2. Oceans / water are level.

3. The sun, moon, and stars are moving across the sky.

4. Horizons rise with the viewer and maintain eye level.

You can argue that these are only appearances or what seems to be true in other words you would say:

1. We can't feel the motion of the earth because of gravity.

2. All bodies of water only seem level over a short distance.

3. The movement of heavenly bodies are relative to which one your on.

4. The curvature of the earth is so large that we can't really tell that we are actually looking down at the horizon.

That we have not been back to moon since the 70's just might be because we never went there in the first place undermines everything we know from NASA about outer space.

No one is stupid for questioning a world view that negates all our basic senses. I't your opinion that people who question a spinning globe are stupid. That all the facts of science prove a spinning globe is not the case. There are, as argued, many fact of science and contradictions in a spinning globe scenario, that say the earth is not a spinning globe.

That you all have proven beyond all doubt a spinning globe just ain't so.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, it doesn't make sense. Perspective is perspective, David. It makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE whether the distance is over land or over the sea or into the sky or down a well. Distance is distance and that is the only factor when discussing perspective. An object will appear twice as large if it's half as far away and vise-versa - period.

Once again, this single point alone is proof that the Earth cannot possibly be flat.

Clete

Then the sun should appear over the globe at sunset and sunrise to be a lot smaller then when overhead because the observer is twice as close to when he first sees it compared to when he sees it overhead.

Perspective is not just about the distance of an object its about what we can or cannot see at and beyond the horizon line where parallel planes meet. So, no, according to perspective we cannot see indefinitely into the distance of a flat earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You should always respond to posts in the order in which they were posted but whatever floats your boat.


If you're thinking that the diagram seems backward, it's because you're thinking that g is the apparent size rather than the actual size.

The apparent size all about the angle α. Basically, it's all about how much of your field of view something occupies, which can be expressed as an angle by presuming that a circle around your head is 360°. Your total field of view is about 190°. The more of that field of view an object occupies, the bigger the angle α is and the larger the object's "apparent size" is. In fact, on object's apparent size is almost always expressed as an angle.

In the diagram, if g (the ACTUAL SIZE of the object) remains the same then as you increase the value of r (the distance between your eye and the object) the smaller the angle α (the apparent size) will be.

It should be intuitive. Just imagine that the diagram is the same height from bottom to top (i.e. the size of g is the same) but that the diagram stretches all the way across the screen instead of being an inch and half wide. Now imagine that it stretches across the room. The triangle would get a sharper and sharper point on the left side and thus the angle α would be getting smaller and smaller.

Clete

Ok. I'll work on this.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Silly Dave being silly again.

1. We can't feel the motion of the earth because of gravity.

False accusation AGAIN!

2. All bodies of water only seem level over a short distance.

Well proven by repeated and repeatable observation (that's what science does).

3. The movement of heavenly bodies are relative to which one your on.

Well proven by repeated and repeatable observation.

(And it's YOU'RE on).

4. The curvature of the earth is so large that we can't really tell that we are actually looking down at the horizon.

Well proven by repeated and repeatable observation.

 

[Yorzhik]

But this is a big part of the problem. Dave actually thinks that he is defending the FE "model" by repeating the same old worn out and completely disproved "ideas" that he has found on the Internet (like the silliness that the sun does actually get smaller from midday to sunset).

What bothers me is that Dave isn't responding in this discussion. He says the sun changes size, and we say it's lens flare. Is there a way to get rid of lens flare? Sure, easy, photographers do it all the time. Does he do it to learn the truth? Nope. He trots out another video. We say, "Dave, it's not fair that you didn't check lens flare before moving on" and he ignores that. It makes a poor discussion when he does that... and THEN he turns around and claims "THIS IS ALL FOR THE DISCUSSION! DON'T GET FRUSTRATED WITH MY IGNORING YOUR POINTS AND CALLING ME NAMES!"

Dave. Please, check the lens flare. You can do it with a welding mask and a cell phone camera. We got great results with this when the eclipse happened.

 

[Right Divider]

What bothers me is that Dave isn't responding in this discussion. He says the sun changes size, and we say it's lens flare. Is there a way to get rid of lens flare? Sure, easy, photographers do it all the time. Does he do it to learn the truth? Nope. He trots out another video. We say, "Dave, it's not fair that you didn't check lens flare before moving on" and he ignores that. It makes a poor discussion when he does that... and THEN he turns around and claims "THIS IS ALL FOR THE DISCUSSION! DON'T GET FRUSTRATED WITH MY IGNORING YOUR POINTS AND CALLING ME NAMES!"

Dave. Please, check the lens flare. You can do it with a welding mask and a cell phone camera. We got great results with this when the eclipse happened.

I couldn't agree more. Dave is not discussing, he's just being stupid.

 

[Clete]

Then the sun should appear over the globe at sunset and sunrise to be a lot smaller then when overhead because the observer is twice as close to when he first sees it compared to when he sees it overhead.

Maybe it is in the flat-Earth fantasy land but in the real world it is only .006% closer at noon than it was at sunrise. The difference in apparent size would not be at all noticeable.

A point I have already made, by the way!

Why do you ignore half of what I say?


Go take a tennis ball and place it 91.44 meters away (25 feet). Then get another tennis ball and place it 5 cm closer to you.

The difference in the apparent size of the tennis balls will be 10 times larger than the difference in the apparent size of the Sun at noon vs at sunrise/sunset.

That's right! If you want to physically see the difference for yourself, with you own eyes. Place one tennis ball at 91.44 meters and the other 5 millimeters closer to you (91.435 meters).

(I chose 91.44 meters because that's how far away a tennis ball needs to be to have the same apparent size as the Sun. Numbers are approximate.)

Perspective is not just about the distance of an object its about what we can or cannot see at and beyond the horizon line where parallel planes meet.

Nope! That's flat-Earth stupidity talking.

Perspective has to do with NOTHING at all other than the actual size of the object and it's distance from the observer.

So, no, according to perspective we cannot see indefinitely into the distance of a flat earth.

--Dave

Yes, you absolutely could!

The only limiting factors are the number of photos bouncing off the object and the resolution of our eyes. If you have help in that regard, as in a telescope, which both collects more light and magnifies the image, you could see indefinitely. Why wouldn't you be able too? What would there be in the way to obscure your sight?

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

Maybe it is in the flat-Earth fantasy land but in the real world it is only .006% closer at noon than it was at sunrise. The difference in apparent size would not be at all noticeable.

A point I have already made, by the way!

Why do you ignore half of what I say?


Go take a tennis ball and place it 91.44 meters away (25 feet). Then get another tennis ball and place it 5 cm closer to you.

The difference in the apparent size of the tennis balls will be 10 times larger than the difference in the apparent size of the Sun at noon vs at sunrise/sunset.

That's right! If you want to physically see the difference for yourself, with you own eyes. Place one tennis ball at 91.44 meters and the other 5 millimeters closer to you (91.435 meters).

(I chose 91.44 meters because that's how far away a tennis ball needs to be to have the same apparent size as the Sun. Numbers are approximate.)


Nope! That's flat-Earth stupidity talking.

Perspective has to do with NOTHING at all other than the actual size of the object and it's distance from the observer.


Yes, you absolutely could!

The only limiting factors are the number of photos bouncing off the object and the resolution of our eyes. If you have help in that regard, as in a telescope, which both collects more light and magnifies the image, you could see indefinitely. Why wouldn't you be able too? What would there be in the way to obscure your sight?

Clete

91.44 meters is not 25 feet... Did you forget a zero in there somewhere??

Also... Photons...

 

[Clete]

91.44 meters is not 25 feet... Did you forget a zero in there somewhere??

I have no idea what I did. :doh:

I don't have the time to figure it out.

Dave, forget the 25 ft. The point is that the difference is itsy bitsy and you wouldn't be able to detect it with the naked eye and it's nowhere near the "twice as close" that you mentioned.

Also... Photons...

Stupid auto correct got me again. I think I spend almost as much time correcting the auto correct as I would correcting my actual typos.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have no idea what I did. :doh:

I don't have the time to figure it out.

Dave, forget the 25 ft. The point is that the difference is itsy bitsy and you wouldn't be able to detect it with the naked eye and it's nowhere near the "twice as close" that you mentioned.


Stupid auto correct got me again. I think I spend almost as much time correcting the auto correct as I would correcting my actual typos.

Just turn it off and (if you're on a mobile device), start using Minuum keyboard in collapsed mode. Its autocorrect is far better than the standard, and even if you mess up, you can tap on the word and fix it using the keyboard's suggestions.

Here's how mine is set up...

 

[Stripe]

Reasons already stated.

--Dave

OK, well, you said the answer was in OP. It's not.

So it looks like you're a liar.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[DFT_Dave]

Maybe it is in the flat-Earth fantasy land but in the real world it is only .006% closer at noon than it was at sunrise. The difference in apparent size would not be at all noticeable.

A point I have already made, by the way!

Why do you ignore half of what I say?


Go take a tennis ball and place it 91.44 meters away (25 feet). Then get another tennis ball and place it 5 cm closer to you.

The difference in the apparent size of the tennis balls will be 10 times larger than the difference in the apparent size of the Sun at noon vs at sunrise/sunset.

That's right! If you want to physically see the difference for yourself, with you own eyes. Place one tennis ball at 91.44 meters and the other 5 millimeters closer to you (91.435 meters).

(I chose 91.44 meters because that's how far away a tennis ball needs to be to have the same apparent size as the Sun. Numbers are approximate.)


Nope! That's flat-Earth stupidity talking.

Perspective has to do with NOTHING at all other than the actual size of the object and it's distance from the observer.


Yes, you absolutely could!

The only limiting factors are the number of photos bouncing off the object and the resolution of our eyes. If you have help in that regard, as in a telescope, which both collects more light and magnifies the image, you could see indefinitely. Why wouldn't you be able too? What would there be in the way to obscure your sight?

Clete

It seems the density of the atmosphere in the troposphere makes it impossible for us to see through it at great distances. Combine that with objects become to small and even land masses shrink in size and we just can't see beyond a certain distance.

When we look up we are not looking through layers, or miles, of dense atmosphere which is why we can see farther into the sky than we can parallel to the ground.

So, when I say we can't see that far into distance I thought you understood me to mean across the earth not into the sky.

"The troposphere is the lowest layer of Earth's atmosphere, and is also where nearly all weather conditions take place. It contains approximately 75% of the atmosphere's mass and 99% of the total mass of water vapor"--Wiki

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I have no idea what I did. :doh:

I don't have the time to figure it out.

Dave, forget the 25 ft. The point is that the difference is itsy bitsy and you wouldn't be able to detect it with the naked eye and it's nowhere near the "twice as close" that you mentioned.


Stupid auto correct got me again. I think I spend almost as much time correcting the auto correct as I would correcting my actual typos.

No problem. I still understand your point.

I've been reading up on calculating angular diameter. There are good videos on it.

--Dave