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

[Clete]

View attachment 26487

Here is a fish in water that we know is not where we actually see it from outside of the water.

But if we are in the water we will see the fish exactly where it is.

A city refracted over a curved earth is "not" at all like seeing a fish (or straw) that is in water from outside of the water.

We are not seeing the city through an atmosphere that we are outside of either. We are simply not seeing the city because it's behind a wall of water, no different than trying to see through a brick wall.

If the earth were curved the only way we could see the city skyline hidden behind and below it would be if there was a "reflection" of it, and above it, aka, a superior mirage.

Even if the cityscape was a refraction, we would have to believe that the same atmospheric conditions that produce the refraction could also at the same time, and in the same place, produce a superior mirage, which is not possible.

Again, the existence of an upside down superior mirage over the right side up cityscape of Chicago from 50 miles away over lake Michigan proves the right side up image is not a mirage or a refraction of the city, but is the actual city located exactly where we see it.

--Dave

This misses the point, Dave. The refractive index of water is the refractive index of water, whether you're in it or not. The transition from water to air and vice versa exaggerates the effect but that doesn't mean that light isn't refracted just because you're in the water with the fish. It is refracted, just not as dramatically. Light is refracted because of variations in density. Liquid water, being mostly uncompressible, has only very slight changes in density from one area to the next and so mirages can't really happen underwater. Air, on the other hand, being a gas, can vary greatly in density over relatively short distances and thus have a significantly greater refraction index in one place than in another. When light moves from an area of higher density to an area of lower density or vise versa the effect is most prominent just like when light goes from water to air, effectively placing you outside the fish bowl.

No time to edit that! Hope it makes sense!

 

[DFT_Dave]

Broken clocks



Yeah, except there's no comparison between the two!

It's equivalent to comparing the arguments for the existence of DNA (something you have no way of confirming first hand) and the existence of Sasquatch.

People who try to convince others that Sasquatch exists are lunatics, David. They are all lying - all of them. People who believe them are gullible, weak minded, followers.

FET is on par with Pyramid Power, Ancient Aliens and the belief that Mary Magdalene was the Holy Grail. Putting FET on equal footing with anything scientific is not to elevate FET but to degrade science. It is an insult to reason and antithetical to clear thinking. It is a fantasy propagated by liars for the express purpose of seeing how many gullible people they can fool into believing it. There is not one single good argument for it. Not one.

Clete

I disagree, and I don't think I'm a lunatic for exploring this.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

This misses the point, Dave. The refractive index of water is the refractive index of water, whether you're in it or not. The transition from water to air and vice versa exaggerates the effect but that doesn't mean that light isn't refracted just because you're in the water with the fish. It is refracted, just not as dramatically. Light is refracted because of variations in density. Liquid water, being mostly uncompressible, has only very slight changes in density from one area to the next and so mirages can't really happen underwater. Air, on the other hand, being a gas, can vary greatly in density over relatively short distances and thus have a significantly greater refraction index in one place than in another. When light moves from an area of higher density to an area of lower density or vise versa the effect is most prominent just like when light goes from water to air, effectively placing you outside the fish bowl.

No time to edit that! Hope it makes sense!

I would conclude from what you're saying that we never see anything exactly where it is.

Is everything we see actually a little to the left at times, or a little to the right at other times, or a little up, or a little down?

Things close would not be that far off, but the greater the distance the further off things would be.

Do long range shooters adjust for refraction?

--Dave

 

[Silent Hunter]

... I don't think I'm a lunatic for exploring this.

I found your problem.
Cognitive Dissonance

Dunning-Kruger Effect

 

[DFT_Dave]

I found your problem.
Cognitive Dissonance

Dunning-Kruger Effect

Just other ways of saying the same thing.

Ad hominem arguments prove nothing.

--Dave

 

[chair]

I disagree, and I don't think I'm a lunatic for exploring this.

--Dave

Dave, just throwing out a statement that someone is STUPID is not a valid form of argument. It is just a silly insult. But when someone ignores mountains of clear-cut evidence, then he is not using his cognitive abilities as well as he should. That is what you are doing.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Just other ways of saying the same thing.

That you don't know it's not testifies to your (total) lack of critical thinking skill(s).

Ad hominem arguments prove nothing.

Cognitive Dissonance and Dunning-Kruger Effect are two reasons you take offense where none exists.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Dave, just throwing out a statement that someone is STUPID is not a valid form of argument. It is just a silly insult. But when someone ignores mountains of clear-cut evidence, then he is not using his cognitive abilities as well as he should. That is what you are doing.

Exactly!

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, just throwing out a statement that someone is STUPID is not a valid form of argument. It is just a silly insult. But when someone ignores mountains of clear-cut evidence, then he is not using his cognitive abilities as well as he should. That is what you are doing.

I'm not ignoring evidence from either side. I'm exploring and studying all arguments. I have said many times that both sides have good arguments as I see it at this time. I'm also trying to form arguments rather than just show videos, that takes time.

Both sides claim "clear-cut" evidence and Biblical confirmation.

I enjoy studying both sides of an issue, I always have.

Just keep putting out GE view and I'll keep putting out FE view. Show me where you think my arguments are wrong and I will try to defend and rebut. That's what a debate is for.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

That you don't know it's not testifies to your (total) lack of critical thinking skill(s).
Cognitive Dissonance and Dunning-Kruger Effect are two reasons you take offense where none exists.

I'm not taking offence, I'm taking a position in a debate.

What is it about a debate you don't get?

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not ignoring evidence from either side. I'm exploring and studying all arguments. I have said many times that both sides have good arguments as I see it at this time.

Then you should have no issue presenting the best argument from each side. Please do so in your next post.

I'm also trying to form arguments rather than just show videos, that takes time.

Both sides claim "clear-cut" evidence and Biblical confirmation.

Which means nothing, considering only one of them can be true.

I enjoy studying both sides of an issue, I always have.

Just keep putting out GE view and I'll keep putting out FE view. Show me where you think my arguments are wrong and I will try to defend and rebut. That's what a debate is for.

--Dave

Except there is no debate. Of all the flat earth "arguments," when examined, let alone thoroughly tested, NONE of them hold any water. You can present as many "arguments" as you want, but that doesn't make them any good.

 

[Clete]

I would conclude from what you're saying that we never see anything exactly where it is.

Is everything we see actually a little to the left at times, or a little to the right at other times, or a little up, or a little down?

Things close would not be that far off, but the greater the distance the further off things would be.

Do long range shooters adjust for refraction?

--Dave

Actually, on my way to work, after having posted that really fast post, it occurred to me that I may have been less than clear about what I meant. Light travels basically in a straight line through whatever it is that its traveling through. It refracts whenever it encounters something with a different refraction index. The point I was trying to make is that whether the change in index is due to a change in density or a change in material isn't really relevant. Refraction is refraction whether it's caused by water, or corn syrup or a region of higher density air or whatever, you're just as much "outside of the fish bowl" in either case.

And yes, long range shooters do indeed adjust for refraction.

Here's a excerpt from the "US Army Special Operations Sniper Training and Employment"...

Effect of Light

Light does not affect the trajectory of the bullet; however,
it may affect the way the sniper sees the target through the
telescope. Light affects different people in different ways. The
general tendency, however, is for the sniper to shoot high on a
dull, cloudy day and low on a bright, clear day. Extreme light
conditions from the left or the right may have an effect on the
horizontal impact of a shot group.

This effect can be compared to the refraction (bending} of
light through a medium, such as a prism or a fish bowl. The same
effect, although not as drastic, can be observed on a day with high
humidity and with sunlight from high angles. To solve the problem
of light and its effects, the sniper must accurately record the
light conditions under which he is shooting. Through experience
and study, he will eventually determine the effect of light on his
aero. Light may also affect firing of unknown distance ranges
since it affects range determination capabilities.​

Incidentally, snipers also adjust for both the curvature and spin of the Earth.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Then you should have no issue presenting the best argument from each side. Please do so in your next post.

Which means nothing, considering only one of them can be true.

Except there is no debate. Of all the flat earth "arguments," when examined, let alone thoroughly tested, NONE of them hold any water. You can present as many "arguments" as you want, but that doesn't make them any good.

Only one can be true, yes!

Who is dumb?

One who thinks there is a good reason to debate FE vs GE or one who does not think there is a good reason to debate this?

Answer: The one who thinks there is no reason to debate this but debates it anyway.

I don't mind your position because I think there a lot of people who are not sure about this issue and they are interested in it and you have made contribution.

--Dave

P.S. In a debate one side takes for the other against or else I would be debating myself. But, that make me the obvious winner.

 

[Clete]

I disagree, and I don't think I'm a lunatic for exploring this.

--Dave

No lunatic ever thinks he's a lunatic so...

Besides, like I said, there isn't one single good argument for a flat Earth. Not only that, but it has been fundamentally falsified!

Yet you remain unpersuaded and unpersuadable.

Clete

 

[George Affleck]

View attachment 26487

Here is a fish in water that we know is not where we actually see it from outside of the water.

But if we are in the water we will see the fish exactly where it is.

A city refracted over a curved earth is "not" at all like seeing a fish (or straw) that is in water from outside of the water.

We are not seeing the city through an atmosphere that we are outside of either. We are simply not seeing the city because it's behind a wall of water, no different than trying to see through a brick wall.

If the earth were curved the only way we could see the city skyline hidden behind and below it would be if there was a "reflection" of it, and above it, aka, a superior mirage.

Even if the cityscape was a refraction, we would have to believe that the same atmospheric conditions that produce the refraction could also at the same time, and in the same place, produce a superior mirage, which is not possible.

Again, the existence of an upside down superior mirage over the right side up cityscape of Chicago from 50 miles away over lake Michigan proves the right side up image is not a mirage or a refraction of the city, but is the actual city located exactly where we see it.

--Dave

Based on this and other short-sighted answers, I have come to the conclusion that you are not interested in listening to reason or science.
I have no idea why. A globe earth does no violence to the scriptures.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that you enjoy being contrary.
That being so, I will end here.

You asked for an undeniable proof of a globe earth.
I gave it and you will not, or cannot, comment on it.

Here it is again:
The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.

When you care to advance a solution to this simple, but fatal, flaw in your flat earth theory, let me know.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Actually, on my way to work, after having posted that really fast post, it occurred to me that I may have been less than clear about what I meant. Light travels basically in a straight line through whatever it is that its traveling through. It refracts whenever it encounters something with a different refraction index. The point I was trying to make is that whether the change in index is due to a change in density or a change in material isn't really relevant. Refraction is refraction whether it's caused by water, or corn syrup or a region of higher density air or whatever, you're just as much "outside of the fish bowl" in either case.

And yes, long range shooters do indeed adjust for refraction.

Here's a excerpt from the "US Army Special Operations Sniper Training and Employment"...

Effect of Light

Light does not affect the trajectory of the bullet; however,
it may affect the way the sniper sees the target through the
telescope. Light affects different people in different ways. The
general tendency, however, is for the sniper to shoot high on a
dull, cloudy day and low on a bright, clear day. Extreme light
conditions from the left or the right may have an effect on the
horizontal impact of a shot group.

This effect can be compared to the refraction (bending} of
light through a medium, such as a prism or a fish bowl. The same
effect, although not as drastic, can be observed on a day with high
humidity and with sunlight from high angles. To solve the problem
of light and its effects, the sniper must accurately record the
light conditions under which he is shooting. Through experience
and study, he will eventually determine the effect of light on his
aero. Light may also affect firing of unknown distance ranges
since it affects range determination capabilities.​

Incidentally, snipers also adjust for both the curvature and spin of the Earth.

Clete

I had a good question and you had a good answer.

Thanks, this is what makes a good debate.

My rebutal:

But, because refractions can occur on a flat plane they are not in themselves evidence of a curved earth. Refractions are not denied by FE model, the issue is seeing a refraction with a superior mirage over a curved earth at the same time.

Superior mirages occur over actual things/ships/city and land scapes, not refracted things.

At 50 miles the earth drops 1667 feet or .3 miles on a curved earth. A refracted skyline would be higher than the skyline itself. In other words atmospheric conditions cause an image of the entire skyline to appear above and a little higher than the actual skyline.

And yet every image we ever see above the object of the actual object is always upside down and directly under the actual object.

Also it's not possible to have more than one atmospheric condition over the city at a time. So when we see an upside down image of Chicago over a refracted image with the actual city under the other two we would have to have more than one atmospheric condition in the same place at the same time. Which is impossible as already stated.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No lunatic ever thinks he's a lunatic so...

Besides, like I said, there isn't one single good argument for a flat Earth. Not only that, but it has been fundamentally falsified!

Yet you remain unpersuaded and unpersuadable.

Clete

Who is the lunatic...

--Dave

P.S. I'm not going to rush to a conclusion. Just because you and others are absolutely sure about this others of us are not and we are not lunics for having doubts.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Based on this and other short-sighted answers, I have come to the conclusion that you are not interested in listening to reason or science.
I have no idea why. A globe earth does no violence to the scriptures.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that you enjoy being contrary.
That being so, I will end here.

You asked for an undeniable proof of a globe earth.
I gave it and you will not, or cannot, comment on it.

Here it is again:
The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.

When you care to advance a solution to this simple, but fatal, flaw in your flat earth theory, let me know.

I'm showing a flaw in the curved earth model, Chicago skyline seen from more than 50 miles away, and you want me to follow the sun as if that has anything to do with seeing the actual Chicago skyline when it's supposed to be hidden behind .3 miles of curvature.

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

It's impossible to have the actual city with a refracted, not real, image of the city over it and then a superior upside down image of the refraction, not real image, over it. That's three images stacked one over the other.

1. The image of the real city on the bottom..

2. with a not real image right side up over the real city in the middle...

3. then a not real upside down image of the not real right side up image of the city on the top.

All of this is supposed to be produced by the same atmospheric condition at the same time and in the same place over a city hidden by .3 miles of a curved earth.

View attachment 26488

Chicago Skyline photographed with superior upside down mirage over it from more than 50 miles away.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

I had a good question and you had a good answer.

Thanks, this is what makes a good debate.

My rebutal:

But, because refractions can occur on a flat plane they are not in themselves evidence of a curved earth. Refractions are not denied by FE model, the issue is seeing a refraction with a superior mirage over a curved earth at the same time.

Superior mirages occur over actual things/ships/city and land scapes, not refracted things.

At 50 miles the earth drops 1667 feet or .3 miles on a curved earth. A refracted skyline would be higher than the skyline itself. In other words atmospheric conditions cause an image of the entire skyline to appear above and a little higher than the actual skyline.

And yet every image we ever see above the object of the actual object is always upside down and directly under the actual object.

Also it's not possible to have more than one atmospheric condition over the city at a time. So when we see an upside down image of Chicago over a refracted image with the actual city under the other two we would have to have more than one atmospheric condition in the same place at the same time. Which is impossible as already stated.

--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

 

[Clete]

Who is the lunatic...

--Dave

P.S. I'm not going to rush to a conclusion. Just because you and others are absolutely sure about this others of us are not and we are not lunics for having doubts.

Rush to a conclusion?

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