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

[DFT_Dave]

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?

Even in the globe model the distance of the sun from the viewer is greater at noon than at sunrise and sunset.

The point I made was not to be exact but to answer the argument that the sun would look much smaller at sunrise and sunset than at noon. A low small sun over a flat earth would not suffer a dramatic change in size.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

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.

I have explained why that would not be the case since you did not factor the distance in height would have the same effect as the distance along the flat plain of earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'm still waiting for someone to comment on this.

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

 

[Right Divider]

I have explained why that would not be the case since you did not factor the distance in height would have the same effect as the distance along the flat plain of earth.

--Dave

That's NUTS Dave. You do not even understand simple geometry that an 8th grader can handle.

If the earth is a FLAT PLANE (as you are supposedly trying to "defend"), then this is what the sun would look like at sunset:
View attachment 26503
It really is just that simple, except in your bizzaro world.

P.S. The angle is not shown to scale BUT the 9 degrees is correct.

 

[DFT_Dave]

That's NUTS Dave. You do not even understand simple geometry that an 8th grader can handle.

If the earth is a FLAT PLANE (as you are supposedly trying to "defend"), then this is what the sun would look like at sunset:
View attachment 26503
It really is just that simple, except in your bizzaro world.

P.S. The angle is not shown to scale BUT the 9 degrees is correct.

Not to scale and not to perspective as we will see.

Do we see the sun where it actually is?

No, we don't.

--Dave

 

[chair]

 

[DFT_Dave]

Sunlight is said to take 8 minutes to get here. So where we see the sun is not where it actually is. It's 8 minutes ahead of where we see it in globe model.

The sunlight coming through the earth's atmosphere is said to be refracted also making the sun not where we see it. The sun is below or behind where it actually is, see pic.

View attachment 26504

Now if we add 8 minutes of time for the suns rays to reach us, the actual sun is above or ahead of where it actually is.

How can the sun be both below/behind where it actually is and above/ahead where it actually is at the same time?

Globe earth presents us with another contradiction. Can any one answer this?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Curiously enough, this is exactly what we see.

Raw Uncut High Altitude Balloon Launch Above California

Do you see the horizon fall away and go down as the balloon goes up?

Or, do you see the horizon stay at eye level and rise up as the balloon goes up?

--Dave

 

[chair]

Raw Uncut High Altitude Balloon Launch Above California

Do you see the horizon fall away and go down as the balloon goes up?

Or, do you see the horizon stay at eye level and rise up as the balloon goes up?

--Dave

dave, I'm not going to watch 3 hours of a video, when I can take 3 seconds and look out my window. If you are talking about a balloon, then you are going to have to explain what "level" means in a non-stationary object.

Dave- when you go up on a mountain, can you see further than if you are on the ground? Yes, or no?

 

[chair]

Sunlight is said to take 8 minutes to get here. So where we see the sun is not where it actually is. It's 8 minutes ahead of where we see it in globe model.

The sunlight coming through the earth's atmosphere is said to be refracted also making the sun not where we see it. The sun is below or behind where it actually is, see pic.

View attachment 26504

Now if we add 8 minutes of time for the suns rays to reach us, the actual sun is above or ahead of where it actually is.

How can the sun be both below/behind where it actually is and above/ahead where it actually is at the same time?

Globe earth presents us with another contradiction. Can any one answer this?

--Dave

There isn't anything to answer, except in your imagination. The sun is where it is, and where it appears to be to us depends on atmospheric factors and the speed of light. So what?

The sun still rises and sets. When it does so, you can see part of the sun, while the rest is below the horizon. an 8 minute delay or shift due to refraction doesn't change that. There is no way to see half a sun at sunset in a flat earth model. This is the simplest everyday indication that the earth is not flat- yet you deny it- and claim to be intellectually honest and logical.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I continue to ask and have yet to be given a clear answer about the flat earth proponent's claim that all images from space vehicles are "rigged" and not to be believed. I have never seen a claim by any flat earth proponent that will accept the evidence of these pictures, for example:

https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

The above are images from a craft nearly one million miles from earth. Click the Play link in the Slideshow controls section at the bottom left.

The glaring failure of the flat earth proponent is that he or she begins with the assumption we have been duped by some massive conspiracy that permeates all major countries having some space launch capabilities. Such a cabal would be unimaginable, in that we would have Russia, China, and the U.S., all cooperating in this vast conspiracy.

Can the flat earth proponent explain the processes required to pull off this "rigging" of the data from space images? PJ liked to claim it was just a handful of people needing to be "in" on the rigging going on. PJ's dissmissive wave-off is simply impossible when one considers what it actually takes to engineer the hardware and software required for space flights.

@DFT_Dave, do you also believe that for the flat earth view to hold, an assumption that the majority have been fooled via some conspiracy afoot is required?

Or, if you do not believe all the images taken from space vehicles are accurate, and no conspiracies are at play, how do you explain this disbelief?

AMR

 

[DFT_Dave]

dave, I'm not going to watch 3 hours of a video, when I can take 3 seconds and look out my window. If you are talking about a balloon, then you are going to have to explain what "level" means in a non-stationary object.

Dave- when you go up on a mountain, can you see further than if you are on the ground? Yes, or no?

You don't have to watch all of it, just enough of it to get the point.

All views as we elevate show the horizon staying at eye level and absolutely no video shows the horizon dropping down further and further away the higher we go.


If the horizon stays at eye level then by prediction we are living on a flat plane not a globe/ball.

View attachment 26505

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Even in the globe model the distance of the sun from the viewer is greater at noon than at sunrise and sunset.

3,959 miles compared to 93,000,000 isn't much of a difference, Dave.

In fact, it's only slightly more than a 0.004% difference.

If something changes in size 0.004%, can you tell the difference? I highly doubt it.

The point I made was not to be exact but to answer the argument that the sun would look much smaller at sunrise and sunset than at noon. A low small sun over a flat earth would not suffer a dramatic change in size.

--Dave

Dave, you realize that if the Sun is the same size because it is the same distance from you at both noon and dawn/dusk and all times of the day, it's because it's traveling in a circle around you....

According to you logic, the earth would have to be less 6000 miles wide, and the sun wouldn't be orbiting horizontally, but vertically, and ONLY over the observer, which means either A) the observer is the only one in existence and everyone and everything else is just an illusion, B) there are 7+ BILLION Suns, each one only visible to each individual person on earth, and they can pass through this flat earth of yours, or C) your model is not only completely incorrect, it's inane.

The flat earth model does NOT fit reality. It even contradicts itself. That you refuse to acknowledge this fact shows you are not being intellectually honest about this debate.

 

[DFT_Dave]

There isn't anything to answer, except in your imagination. The sun is where it is, and where it appears to be to us depends on atmospheric factors and the speed of light. So what?

The sun still rises and sets. When it does so, you can see part of the sun, while the rest is below the horizon. an 8 minute delay or shift due to refraction doesn't change that. There is no way to see half a sun at sunset in a flat earth model. This is the simplest everyday indication that the earth is not flat- yet you deny it- and claim to be intellectually honest and logical.

Flat earth must first establish what perspective is and how it affects what we can and cannot see before we look at the sun.

How do you explain perspective?

It seems that only a limited perspective is acceptable for globe earth. I'd say globe earth understands what perspective is but rejects it's logical implications and verifiable predictions.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Thank you so much Clete, great answer, clearly stated.

First, I don't how often the city is seen from over 50 miles away. The photographer, Joshua Nowicki, would probably be a good source for that. But the amount of times it occurs is not the issue to me, or to flat earth arguments. Here is how the FE argument goes.

Seeing anything at distances we are not supposed to see them at, because of the curvature of the earth, is at the heart of the flat earth movement.

When one sees a right side up image that should not be visible it's evidence/proof the earth is flat and not curved.

Globe Earth Answer: What we are seeing is not the real thing but only an image of it because of refraction. A refraction happens when warm air passes over colder air. The image is projected over the actual thing, as illustrated below.

View attachment 26496

Flat Earth Objection: But then what are we seeing when we see an upside down image over an upright image of what is actually hidden behind the earth's curvature, as illustrated below?

View attachment 26497

Globe Earth Answer: That's a mirage, a reflection of the what you cannot actually see. It's also produced when warm air passes over colder air.

Flat Earth Question: How come we get two different effects from the same atmospheric condition, warm air over colder air?

Please explain.

The answers from globe earth, as I see it, involve the fallacies of circular reasoning and equivocation. When one word, refraction in this case, can be used to mean more than one thing, we will not get a coherent answer when we object to a contradiction in an argument being made that in incoherent.

--Dave

We DO NOT get two different effects from the same atmospheric condition! How many times do I have to answer the same objection?

Do you know what a temperature inversion is?

Let me just tell you.

Normally warm air masses want to rise and cold air masses want to sink. A temperature inversion happens when warm air is trapped UNDER cold air.

But warm air is less dense than cold air and so why would it bend light toward the surface, you might ask.

The answer is because temperature is not the only thing that determines the density of air. There is also atmospheric pressure and humidity. Warm air, especially when it happens to be over a relatively warm body of water can hold a great deal more water vapor which is more dense than dryer, colder air above it. This leads to a reasonably stable condition that can persist for some period of time. Conditions, however, have to be just right for the air mass to remain clear. It's easy to create clouds under such conditions and if the lower air mass warms too much, then its extra buoyancy overcomes the other factors and bye bye temperature inversion.

If you want to understand the topic there are plenty of places to go that have NOTHING at all to do with whether the Earth is flat.

Mirages in Finland



What doesn't fit with Flat Earth Theory is the fact that we cannot typically see across a 50 mile stretch of the Earth, which we should easily be able to do on a regular basis. What you say isn't the issue to you is the exact thing that should be the issue! Have you ever heard the saying, "The exception proves the rule."? Most people who have heard it don't understand what it means. They think it some sort of logical fallacy because counter examples would normal disprove something, not prove it. But that isn't what it means. It means that you ought not treat an exception to the norm as if it was the norm, which is exactly what the line of thinking you presented above does.

If the rare occurrence of the ability to see 50 miles across a lake is proof that the Earth is flat, then what does the normal every day occurrence of only being able to see 3-4 miles prove?

Clete

 

[Clete]

Now explain the atmospheric conditions that produce both a refraction and a reflection at the same time in the same location of what is actually hidden behind the curved earth.

--Dave

More than one layer of atmosphere! :bang:

 

[Clete]

No, no. The real us is not the mirrored image.

Of course it is! The fact that it's bounced off a piece of glass doesn't change it's source, just the path it took to get to your eye.

The real city is below the curved earth not located at the horizon where we see it.

That is not relevant to whether what you are seeing is that actual city, which it is! What else would it be? Is it a pretend city? Are we imagining it? If the city lost power and all the light went out, we would see the light go out just as if we were seeing the city. That's because we are seeing the city.

You can use a mirror to cause another person to see two of you and not know which one is the real you vs your reflection. Magicians use mirrors in many of their tricks to make us see things that are not really where they actually are.

I hope you see your error.

--Dave

You reasoning would mean that we never see anything at all, David.

Light bounces off an object and then into our eyes. When that happens we say that we see the object. The path the light takes can create distortions and other effects but it doesn't change the fact that the light bounced off the object and as distorted as the image might be, we are seeing the object. If a mirror causes me to see two images of something, it doesn't mean one image is false while the other isn't. It just means I'm seeing the object twice. Something you do all day every day, by the way. You have two eyes and different photons of light enter each eye and the images each eye produces is slightly different than the other. This is what creates 3D vision. If you cross your eyes, you see two of something, or if you look past something you detect two images of whatever you're looking past. Which eye is giving you the image of the real thing, David?

BOTH!

Clete

 

[Clete]

You have committed a fundamental error, a contradiction, by making an image of you in a mirror to be both the real you and not the real you. By definition an image of something is not the real or actual thing.

Then we never see the real thing of anything, David. See my previous post.

When we move to other aspects of proofs for globe vs flat earth I will look for contradicts from both sides as well.

The flat earth argument is that we see the actual, not a refracted or reflected image, city of Chicago from Michigan and so far I see no flaw in that argument.

Stupidity

It's does not deny refraction nor reflections but explains how those are working on the flat plane of earth and not a curved earth.

We know how refraction works and I've asked you over and over again about why we can't see cities from 50 miles away on a regular basis and you ignore the point! YOU IGNORE THE POINT! "It isn't the issue."

Atmospheric conditions can also make water appear to rise up and hide what is in the distance as shown in the Skunk Bay time lapse video. Which is why the Chicago skyline can be hidden at the bottom but still visible exactly where it is on a flat earth.
The flat earth model also is consistent with basic physics that water levels itself and does not bulge or curve over distance.

If you think that any of this makes sense then you are, in fact, stupid.

There isn't any other conclusion that is possible! What the Hell am I doing here?

That the sun, moon, and stars can refute flat earth is not been proven to me as yet. But flat earth must also reasonably explain sun, moon, and stars or it will defeat itself.

--Dave

WHICH HAS BEEN DONE!!!!!

OMG! I am going insane!

 

[chair]

Flat earth must first establish what perspective is and how it affects what we can and cannot see before we look at the sun.

How do you explain perspective?

It seems that only a limited perspective is acceptable for globe earth. I'd say globe earth understands what perspective is but rejects it's logical implications and verifiable predictions.

--Dave

Dave, I think you need to define "perspective". You seem to be using the term in a non-standard way.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I continue to ask and have yet to be given a clear answer about the flat earth proponent's claim that all images from space vehicles are "rigged" and not to be believed. I have never seen a claim by any flat earth proponent that will accept the evidence of these pictures, for example:

https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

The above are images from a craft nearly one million miles from earth. Click the Play link in the Slideshow controls section at the bottom left.

The glaring failure of the flat earth proponent is that he or she begins with the assumption we have been duped by some massive conspiracy that permeates all major countries having some space launch capabilities. Such a cabal would be unimaginable, in that we would have Russia, China, and the U.S., all cooperating in this vast conspiracy.

Can the flat earth proponent explain the processes required to pull off this "rigging" of the data from space images? PJ liked to claim it was just a handful of people needing to be "in" on the rigging going on. PJ's dissmissive wave-off is simply impossible when one considers what it actually takes to engineer the hardware and software required for space flights.

@DFT_Dave, do you also believe that for the flat earth view to hold, an assumption that the majority have been fooled via some conspiracy afoot is required?

Or, if you do not believe all the images taken from space vehicles are accurate, and no conspiracies are at play, how do you explain this disbelief?

AMR

The earth is flat and we never went to the moon.

The two phrases are actually heads and tails from the same coin, I'm sure you remember the words from an old song, "you can't have one without the other."

If we did go to the moon then all that NASA informs us of is basically true and the earth is a spinning globe.

The first question is, was it possible for NASA to have faked the moon trips? I would say yes, it was possible, but that does not mean that they did fake it.

The next question is, is it possible for NASA to be faking the ISS and the videos and pictures it takes of earth. I would say yes but, that does not mean they are faking it.

Politics is like science in that those with a minority view are deemed by the majority as out of their minds. Trump won an election because there was an unknown and unacknowledged slim majority that never voiced their opinion because they knew they would by mocked as having lost their minds. I was surprised at how many flat earth people exist today and I think there are a lot more that won't tell you because...you get the point.

So, I would ask you to, and everyone else, to set aside the number of people who might be involved in the conspiracy, and the number of people who are actually being fooled, because numbers of people involved in any belief is not proof the belief is true.

There are many geocentrists today as well who must reject many of NASA's claims.

The way to expose NASA, to build a case against them, is to show their contradictions and explain the methods they use to deceive us. The reason and motive of those who go along with such a deception must also be considered.

I have always believed that NASA faked the moon landings because the technology was not up to the task, not because I thought the earth was flat. The motive in my mind was to cover up military activity in space and the use of billions of dollars for military not really for a trip to the moon.

--Dave