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

[chair]

...
The argument for the skyline being a refraction or a mirage does not prove a curved earth it merely assumes a curved earth....

Nobody is saying that the refraction effect is evidence for curved Earth. You raised the fact that sometimes one can see Chicago from far away as an objection to the global earth idea, and it was explained to you why and how that happens. It is a non-issue.

What is an issue is that you haven't dealt with many proofs of the global earth, motion of the sun, the way objects are generally not visible far away, that you can see further if you are higher up, sunsets, the size of the sun staying the same during the day, and a whole set of other facts, that you deny, ignore, change the topic or "will consider". Then you have the gall to explain to us how you are having a "debate", and how it works.

 

[Right Divider]

Nobody is saying that the refraction effect is evidence for curved Earth. You raised the fact that sometimes one can see Chicago from far away as an objection to the global earth idea, and it was explained to you why and how that happens. It is a non-issue.

:thumb:

What is an issue is that you haven't dealt with many proofs of the global earth, motion of the sun, the way objects are generally not visible far away, that you can see further if you are higher up, sunsets, the size of the sun staying the same during the day, and a whole set of other facts, that you deny, ignore, change the topic or "will consider". Then you have the gall to explain to us how you are having a "debate", and how it works.

:BRAVO:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Rush to a conclusion?

We've been beating this dead horse for a year!

This is not a dead horse to me, is that OK???

Can I, and I'm not alone, have doubts and say I see good arguments from both sides without being judged by some of you as....

The Last year and a half I've been working 8 to 12 hour days it's not like I had as much time to study this as you might think. This is not the only topic I study either.

Now that I've retired, moved, and unpacked I will have more time to research and write.

I hope you all enjoy this as much as I do.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

This is not a dead horse to me, is that OK???

Sure... why not? You deny other obvious facts, why not this one too?

Can I, and I'm not alone, have doubts and say I see good arguments from both sides without being judged by some of you as....

Do you just doubt everything? Do any facts have an effect on you?

The Last year and a half I've been working 8 to 12 hour days it's not like I had as much time to study this as you might think. This is not the only topic I study either.

Then now is your time to "get with it".

Now that I've retired, moved, and unpacked I will have more time to research and write.

I hope you all enjoy this as much as I do.

--Dave

We don't only because of the irrational side of "your debate".

 

[DFT_Dave]

None of this makes any sense. Who ever said anything about more than one atmospheric condition existing in one place at the same time. That's stupid. You're rebutting an argument that has never been made.

There certainly can be more than one atmospheric condition existing between two places (i.e. the observer and the object observed). You mention 50 miles. Surely you aren't attempting to suggest that there can't be more than one atmospheric condition extant in a 50 mile expanse over water.
Further, why in the world would there need to be more than one condition anyway?

Further still, NOTHING about mirages or refracted light has one single thing to do with whether the Earth is flat. If anything it argues against it! If you can see a city 50 miles away because the Earth is flat then you'd be able to see it every day. You wouldn't need any special atmospheric conditions to exist at all.

The top of a building that is 1/4 mile high (about a thousand feet) would be about 1/3rd of a degree above the horizon from 50 miles away on a flat Earth. That's not quite the apparent size of the Sun or Moon but still plenty big enough to be quite visible on a clear day without any need for temperature inversions or other atmospheric conditions that would bend the light. In fact, such conditions would tend to bend the light into the ground making it less visible, not more.

All of this, in one form or another, has already been said. What I want to know is why it won't sink in? What is it that makes it bead up and roll off your back? Why oh why do you keep on repeating this same old tired nonsense as if it hasn't been responded too? I just don't get it.

Clete

In an inferior mirage the surface of the land or water has become hotter than the colder air above it. The surface of warm air, in the distance, acts like a mirror and reflects what's above it. An inferior mirage reflects the sky above as well making it look like very calm water.

In a superior mirage a warm layer of air moves over a colder layer of air. The warm layer of air acts like a mirror above that reflects a distant cityscape, landscape, or ship below the layer of air.

An upside down reflection over a right side up refraction over the actual city would amount to three different temperature layers of air over each other. Since you can't get a superior, upside down image, of anything in a warm, or warmer, layer of air over a warm layer of air, a superior mirage proves the city of Chicago is the actual city and not a refraction of it.

A. Layer of air----------->
1. Upside down cityscape reflecting refracted image
B. Warm Layer of air----------->
2. Rightside up refracted image above actual cityscape.
C. Cold Layer of air----------->
3. Actuall cityscape hidden below horizon of curved earth.

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

Do you see the contradict in these two pics? Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an up right image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air.

A refraction of a city or ship, if it is actually hidden behind the curved earth, means we are not seeing the actual city or ship. So what are we seeing if not a reflection? If it's a superior mirage then I think it would follow that we would always see it upside down whenever we see it.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

This is not a dead horse to me, is that OK???

Can I, and I'm not alone, have doubts and say I see good arguments from both sides without being judged by some of you as....

The Last year and a half I've been working 8 to 12 hour days it's not like I had as much time to study this as you might think. This is not the only topic I study either.

Now that I've retired, moved, and unpacked I will have more time to research and write.

I hope you all enjoy this as much as I do.

--Dave

I just deleted a whole response to this post. Suffice it to say that, no, it's not OK.

Intellectual dishonesty is no more OK than any other sort of dishonesty.


So, what's next? Which aspect of this debate do you want to repeat now?

Go ahead, if that's what you find so enjoyable, pick anything and I'll repeat the same old boring crap that has already been said a dozen times and then you'll ignore it all again.


Clete

 

[Clete]

In an inferior mirage the surface of the land or water has become hotter than the colder air above it. The surface of warm air, in the distance, acts like a mirror and reflects what's above it. An inferior mirage reflects the sky above as well making it look like very calm water.

In a superior mirage a warm layer of air moves over a colder layer of air. The warm layer of air acts like a mirror above that reflects a distant cityscape, landscape, or ship below the layer of air.

An upside down reflection over a right side up refraction over the actual city would amount to three different temperature layers of air over each other. Since you can't get a superior, upside down image, of anything in a warm, or warmer, layer of air over a warm layer of air, a superior mirage proves the city of Chicago is the actual city and not a refraction of it.

A. Layer of air----------->
1. Upside down cityscape reflecting refracted image
B. Warm Layer of air----------->
2. Rightside up refracted image above actual cityscape.
C. Cold Layer of air----------->
3. Actuall cityscape hidden below horizon of curved earth.

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

Do you see the contradict in these two pics? Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an up right image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air.

A refraction of a city or ship, if it is actually hidden behind the curved earth, means we are not seeing the actual city or ship. So what are we seeing if not a reflection?

--Dave

As has been told to you countless times, it isn't about reflection it's about refraction. This entire argument is literal stupidity that you're repeating, the source of which almost certainly knew it was a lie when he wrote it


Terrestrial Refraction

http://mathscinotes.com/2013/08/distance-to-the-horizon-assuming-refraction/

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Sure... why not? You deny other obvious facts, why not this one too?


Do you just doubt everything? Do any facts have an effect on you?


Then now is your time to "get with it".


We don't only because of the irrational side of "your debate".

Then I want you to enjoy presenting your "rational" side to this debate.

I'm presenting all the arguments made for flat earth, and there is growing number of followers. I would think you all would be very happy to debunk FE.

But you all are under the illusion that just presenting arguments for the globe model is sufficient. That's not the case. You must show where the arguments for FE are wrong.

I'm showing why a superior mirage over Chicago from 50 miles away means the city is not a refraction of it.

If my argument is flawed I want you to show that, without calling me insane. Just show me where my understanding of refraction is wrong or if my argument has a fallacy that I can't see.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

As has been told to you countless times, it isn't about reflection it's about refraction. This entire argument is literal stupidity that you're repeating, the source of which almost certainly knew it was a lie when he wrote it


Terrestrial Refraction

http://mathscinotes.com/2013/08/distance-to-the-horizon-assuming-refraction/

Clete

Please answer the contradiction.

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

Do you see the contradict in these two pics? Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an up right image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air.

Equations are not answers, they presuppose a curved earth.

--Dave

 

[intojoy]

This is not a dead horse to me, is that OK???

Can I, and I'm not alone, have doubts and say I see good arguments from both sides without being judged by some of you as....

The Last year and a half I've been working 8 to 12 hour days it's not like I had as much time to study this as you might think. This is not the only topic I study either.

Now that I've retired, moved, and unpacked I will have more time to research and write.

I hope you all enjoy this as much as I do.

--Dave

That explains the delusion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DFT_Dave]

I just deleted a whole response to this post. Suffice it to say that, no, it's not OK.

Intellectual dishonesty is no more OK than any other sort of dishonesty.


So, what's next? Which aspect of this debate do you want to repeat now?

Go ahead, if that's what you find so enjoyable, pick anything and I'll repeat the same old boring crap that has already been said a dozen times and then you'll ignore it all again.


Clete

I want you work on those answers and stop regurgitating the same old answers with your emotional crap.

You can do better.

I'm working on FE answers to make them better understood. I'm studying what I have not yet answered. And this time I'm working on arguments and not just putting out videos which takes more time.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

That explains the delusion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go away if you have nothing intelligent to say.

--Dave

 

[intojoy]

Go away if you have nothing intelligent to say.

--Dave

Flat earth equals flat brain dead goofballs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Right Divider]

Then I want you to enjoy presenting your "rational" side to this debate.

Many a rational argument has been made on a number of topics. They are met with your irrational responses.

I'm presenting all the arguments made for flat earth, and there is growing number of followers. I would think you all would be very happy to debunk FE.

As you should well know, the numbers of followers is irrelevant to its validity. That you feel the need to bring that up tells us something about your arguments.

But you all are under the illusion that just presenting arguments for the globe model is sufficient. That's not the case. You must show where the arguments for FE are wrong.

We have shown how the FE "model" is wrong in MANY respects. But you just "do the dance" no matter what you're shown.

I'm showing why a superior mirage over Chicago from 50 miles away means the city is not a refraction of it.

Seeing the city of Chicago more fully than under normal (i.e., clear and no significant refraction) conditions does not support a flat earth nor prove a globe.

That under normal conditions only the "top" of the city is visible supports a globe and not the flat earth.

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html

If my argument is flawed I want you to show that, without calling me insane. Just show me where my understanding of refraction is wrong or if my argument has a fallacy that I can't see.

--Dave

I did not call you insane. I said that many of your comments are irrational.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Many a rational argument has been made on a number of topics. They are met with your irrational responses.

As you should well know, the numbers of followers is irrelevant to its validity. That you feel the need to bring that up tells us something about your arguments.

We have shown how the FE "model" is wrong in MANY respects. But you just "do the dance" no matter what you're shown.

Seeing the city of Chicago more fully than under normal (i.e., clear and no significant refraction) conditions does not support a flat earth nor prove a globe.

That under normal conditions only the "top" of the city is visible supports a globe and not the flat earth.

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html

I did not call you insane. I said that many of your comments are irrational.

Yes, you have made many good arguments.

It could also be said that many Copernican's is not a validation of heliocentrism. But I see your point.

I'll look at "Looming" next, thanks.

Here is my argument about refraction. How do answer it.

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

Do you see the contradict in these two pics? Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an up right image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, you have made many good arguments.

It could also be said that many Copernican's is not a validation of heliocentrism. But I see your point.

I'll look at "Looming" next, thanks.

Here is my argument about refraction. How do answer it.

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

Do you see the contradict in these two pics? Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an up right image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air.

--Dave

That is irrelevant to the issue of seeing only part of a distance city (the TOP part) over a lake.

The right side up refraction that makes it possible to see MORE (but not all) of the same city under special circumstances does NOT invalidate the global model and does not provide any support for a "flat earth".

 

[DFT_Dave]

That is irrelevant to the issue of seeing only part of a distance city (the TOP part) over a lake.

The right side up refraction that makes it possible to see MORE (but not all) of the same city under special circumstances does NOT invalidate the global model and does not provide any support for a "flat earth".

We've been told the Chicago Skyline is hidden below the curvature of the earth 50 miles away.

When we see it we have been told it's a mirage, so I looked into mirages.

Then I was told it was a refraction not a mirage. So I looked up refractions.

You said it was looming: "How can you watch the Chicago skyline 'rise up' from behind the horizon, constantly shimmering and flickering through all kinds of different refraction and mirage effects and deny that you're seeing the effects of atmospheric refraction?" --Flat Earth Insanity

So, looming is a refraction as well. Regardless what we call it the fact remains that refraction occurs when warm air passes over much colder air.

So, here again is my argument about refraction.

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

Do you see the contradict in these two pics? Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an upright image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air. Right?

The FE argument is, "If we see the actual city of Chicago 50 miles away then it's not hidden behind a curved earth".

--Dave

 

[Silent Hunter]

We've been told the Chicago Skyline is hidden below the curvature of the earth 50 miles away.

Well, that's because it is.

When we see it we have been told it's a mirage, so I looked into mirages.

Then I was told it was a refraction not a mirage. So I looked up refractions.

If you had actually done what you say you would have learned in your "research" mirages are caused by the refraction of light. You're either a liar or lack the cognitive ability to understand FE is just a version of "the big lie" you've been gullible enough to have been duped by.

You said it was looming: "How can you watch the Chicago skyline 'rise up' from behind the horizon, constantly shimmering and flickering through all kinds of different refraction and mirage effects and deny that you're seeing the effects of atmospheric refraction?" --Flat Earth Insanity

Did you even read the link you gave or did you read it just enough to quote mine something you imagine to be some sort of "gotcha"? Had you read and understood it instead of relying on FE websites you wouldn't be so confused. Heck, even
Wikipedia would give you a clearer explanation than one of the FE sites.

So, looming is a refraction as well. Regardless what we call it the fact remains that refraction occurs when warm air passes over much colder air.

So, here again is my argument about refraction.

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

Do you see the contradict in these two pics? Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an upright image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air. Right?

Supra.

The FE argument is, "If we see the actual city of Chicago 50 miles away then it's not hidden behind a curved earth".

Using such superior logic as this it's no wonder you're so confused since you actually DO see Chicago BECAUSE OF the mirage effect.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well, that's because it is.

If you had actually done what you say you would have learned in your "research" mirages are caused by the refraction of light. You're either a liar or lack the cognitive ability to understand FE is just a version of "the big lie" you've been gullible enough to have been duped by.

Did you even read the link you gave or did you read it just enough to quote mine something you imagine to be some sort of "gotcha"? Had you read and understood it instead of relying on FE websites you wouldn't be so confused. Heck, even
Wikipedia would give you a clearer explanation than one of the FE sites.

Supra.

Using such superior logic as this it's no wonder you're so confused since you actually DO see Chicago BECAUSE OF the mirage effect.

Explanations are not proofs.

We have a contradiction that so far no one has addressed.

Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an upright image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air. Right?

Next we'll look at the skyline as a "Fata Morgana".

--Dave

 

[intojoy]

What? The earth is flat and we never went to the moron?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk