The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Don't be coy. Please provide "the answer" so that we can all interact with the discussion substantively.
AMR
Right Divider
Body part
I don't deny logic, I leave that up to you.
Strange atmospheric conditions are NOT THE NORM. So quit fixating on them as if they are the answer.
Distance objects ON the SURFACE of the EARTH cannot be see over great distances because the CURVED surface of the EARTH gets in the way.
This is one CLEAR DISPROOF of the "flat earth model".
Perspective means the earth beneath our feet appears to rise up in the distance when actually it does not.
Things in the sky appear to fall downward before us in the distance when they actually do not.
--Dave
Unless perspective is the reason, or one of the reasons, that we cannot see very far into the distance.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
Gee Dave.... back to the same old worn out invalid "argument".
Put your money on the table and make a comment on what perspective is if I'm wrong.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
Optical perspective simply means that things that are farther away appear smaller.... that's ALL there is to it Dave.
This video show it very simply and concisely:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So you are adopting the usual abracadabra argument of the flat earth proponent? Sigh.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-Flat-...s-the-horizontal-plane-which-we-know-the-Sun#
https://www.quora.com/Can-the-rotun...ASA’s-the-government’s-or-the-military’s-data
Etc:
https://www.quora.com/profile/Bill-Hazelton-1
AMR
There are different phenomena that cause differing effects. There is the phenomenon of different air densities that cause light to bend, which is no different than what happens with a pencil that is partly submerged in water. And there is another phenomenon that causes light to bounce off it like a mirror. These phenomena are not the same, but could be present at the same time. Then do not contradict each other any more than a pencil that appears to "bend" in water contradicts seeing that same pencil in a mirror. So I don't understand your claim of contradiction.
Secondly, in a way, I suppose you can say that what you see in a mirror is not the real item. But will you admit that isn't true for looking at something through a magnifying glass?
View attachment 26500
Ok, here is what I'm talking about. We know we are not walking up hill even though the horizon is at our eye level.
The clouds in the distance are not on the ground they are above the ground the same distance as they are directly over our head. Maybe not exactly but you get the point.
The prediction of perspective is that the horizon line will stay at eye level even as we rise higher in elevation over a flat/level/plane making it possible for us to see further into the distance.
The location of the horizon according to globe earth is that it's a little below eye level. The prediction of the globe model is as we rise higher in elevation the further over the curved earth we can see. But the horizon would also sink lower and lower and not stay at eye level as in the flat earth model.
View attachment 26502
--Dave
The problem is that we already know what the phenomenon, atmospheric condition, is for an upside down mirage to occur and it's the same condition that an upright refraction occurs from--warm air passing over cold air.
The question is not reflection vs looming it's warm air passing over cold air produces upside down mirage vs warm air passing over cold air produces right side up refraction.
The same atmospheric condition cannot produce two completely opposite results.
I'm not making this up, it's textbook and illustrated.
--Dave
Ok, the ground rises up and things get smaller the further away they get.
Imagine the tennis ball in the pic rising up over your head. What happens? It shrinks in size proportionately to the distance along the flat surface.
A tennis ball directly in front of you 10 feet away appears the same size 10 feet directly above you. Right? So, the sun 3,000 miles directly above you would look the same size 3,000 miles away from you at the horizon. Right?
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
We know (even flat earther's, but apparently not you) that the diameter of the earth is FAR MORE the 3000 miles. I've shown you the math a million times and STILL you make these types of silly claims.
What happened to you Dave? It's these sorts of things that get you people telling you that you are not "fair and balanced", but looking dishonest instead.
So you're admitting that in order for the sun to appear the same size to you above the horizon as it would above your head, on a flat earth it would have to be ground level 3000 miles away? Pretty sure someone would notice that... Which means that (once again) the FE model falls... Well... Flat at explaining reality.
The globe model states that at noon, the sun is 93M miles away, and at dawn and dusk is ALSO 93M miles away, hence no change in size.
Thanks for conceding that the earth is round. Can we move on to other things now?
You are correct that that would be another thread. If you like, go ahead and open one. I will not join you there. I've wasted enough time with your form of "discussion" and "argument" here.
The point is, regardless of distance, the sun over a flat earth will look relatively the same over head as it does at the horizon. The change in size would not be as dramatic has been argued by critics.
--Honest Dave
Right Divider
Body part
NONSENSE Dave.... just repeating IDIOCY does not make it become true.
I've shown you the NUMBERS! The sun should be at least SIX TIMES SMALLER at SUNSET in YOUR MODEL.
- Status