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

[chair]

A globe that drops 8 inches per mile squared in all directions is not beyond our ability to see and test for.

--Dave

Exactly right! And many here, including myself, have presented you with such observations- ones that you yourself can see and test! So, being a logical, honest man, you clearly have come to the conclusion that the earth cannot possibly be flat.

So who says this thread was a waste of time? Dave has finally understood that the earth is a globe. Thanks to all the posters who helped in this effort! And thanks to Dave for arguing- but finally facing the facts!

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, Dave, seeing that sort of drop IS beyond our ability to see.

8 inches / 1 mile = 0.0126262626% change in elevation from starting point.
32 inches / 2 miles = 0.0252525253% change in elevation from starting point.
72 inches / 3 miles = 0.0378787879% change in elevation from starting point.

Dave, it is not humanly possible to see changes that are that small.

Dave has proven, time and again, that he does not understand SCALE in the slightest.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

Dave,

Again, I must ask that you provide some theory or opinion about how such a conspiracy would actually take place. How does NASA or anyone else involved actually pull off the "rigging" of the results that are shown to the public. NASA uses hundreds of contractors for space equipment. Companies and corporations with thousands of hardware and software engineers (I was once among them while working on the low-earth-orbit (LEO) Iridium satellite system for Motorola.)

Rather than waving my question off, how about offering up some notions on how exactly all those engineers were fooled, and continue to remain silent. The images from space are not wholly owned by NASA. The imaging and telemetry data is also received by contractors at companies behind all the space hardware. In other words, they, too, are "in the know" about what is being reported by space vehicles. Yet, somehow, all this data is being manipulated and rigged is the claim of the flat earth proponent, while the thousands of engineers apparently are being duped.

In effect, your claims are that the data before an engineer that when rendered shows a global earth is in fact not accurate. For if it were accurate, per your view, that data when rendered would show the earth to be flat. So this means that somewhere between the time the data is sent and received, some interlopers among the assumed cabal of riggers exist in the middle of the sending and receiving of data, manipulating this data to make it appear that the earth is a globe.

Provide a scenario that could explain how this could be possible.

AMR

 

[Right Divider]

Dave,

Again, I must ask that you provide some theory or opinion about how such a conspiracy would actually take place. How does NASA or anyone else involved actually pull off the "rigging" of the results that are shown to the public. NASA uses hundreds of contractors for space equipment. Companies and corporations with thousands of hardware and software engineers (I was once among them while working on the low-earth-orbit (LEO) Iridium satellite system for Motorola.)

Rather than waving my question off, how about offering up some notions on how exactly all those engineers were fooled, and continue to remain silent. The images from space are not wholly owned by NASA. The imaging and telemetry data is also received by contractors at companies behind all the space hardware. In other words, they, too, are "in the know" about what is being reported by space vehicles. Yet, somehow, all this data is being manipulated and rigged is the claim of the flat earth proponent, while the thousands of engineers apparently are being duped.

In effect, your claims are that the data before an engineer that when rendered shows a global earth is in fact not accurate. For if it were accurate, per your view, that data when rendered would show the earth to be flat. So this means that somewhere between the time the data is sent and received, some interlopers among the assumed cabal of riggers exist in the middle of the sending and receiving of data, manipulating this data to make it appear that the earth is a globe.

Provide a scenario that could explain how this could be possible.

AMR

Expected response: :juggle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That picture was taken on a globe Dave. The clouds that are really far away REALLY are BELOW the horizon.

BAM! Exactly.

 

[Yorzhik]

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

Again, these are not the same phenomena, but two different phenomena. Both have warm and cold air, but one causes refraction and the other reflection because the construction and humidity of the air is different to cause each effect.

I'm not seeing where you are seeing a contradiction. Just because they are both in warm and cold air they must be the same?

 

[Clete]

Is it possible for this atmospheric condition that you are describing, a very dense layer of air trapped above the water filled with a high volume of water molecules, to block the view of what is in the distance, say 50 miles away, and appear as if it were water.

--Dave

Possible? Probably. Who cares?

For a refracted image of Chicago to be seen with a superior mirage over it would require actually three different layers of air.

1. First layer is cold air over water.

2. The second layer would be warm air over the cold air.

3. What would be the third layer of air in order to get an upside down mirage over the refracted image?

If a superior mirage occurs when warm air is over cold air it would not be possible for an upside down image to appear over the warm air that has produced the refraction. Warm air over warm air does not produce a superior upside down mirage neither does cold air over warm air.

--Dave

Yes, three layers is more than one layer. There could be several layers and they would not have to begin with a cold layer near the surface. Temperature is only one of at least three variables.

None of which is at all relevant.

You are fundamentally flawed in your thinking if you can't make the distinction between what is real and what is not, what is a reflection of something and what is the actual thing.

Again, a reflection is not the real thing. We are not the mirrored image. We are outside of and distinct from reflections and refractions of ourselves.

Throw a spear directly at the fish in water and you will not hit the fish because the refracted image is not the fish. The actual fish is not where you see it.

View attachment 26506

--Dave

Saying it doesn't make it so, David. A reflect image merely an indirect way of seeing something. It doesn't mean that you aren't seeing it. You are seeing it. WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU BE SEEING?

It's not as if you're seeing some sort of a recording or something that does not exist in real time. The city (or fish or whatever) exists and you are seeing it, it's just that the light has taken an indirect path to your eyes. That's THE ONLY difference!

When you look into a pond or aquarium and you see fish swimming around, you are seeing the fish! It doesn't matter that the apparent position is slightly off to one side or another due to the refraction of light when it leaves the water. It's still the same fish that you're seeing and if you adjust for the distortion of the light and are quick enough you can reach down and grab a real fish out of the water and when you do it'll be the self same fish that you saw before you pulled it out.

AT BEST all you are saying is that a thing is not the equivalent of the light rays that bounce off of it. When someone takes a photo of me, it is, in fact, a photograph of me but the image is not me, ontologically. That doesn't change the fact that it is a photograph of me! It makes no difference that the light had to travel through several lenses and may even have been bounced off of a mirror in the process. Regardless of the path the light took or to what degree it was bent around in all sorts of ways, the fact remains that it was me that someone was seeing through the view finder.

Now, that's it and that all! I'm not discussing this any further. Change the subject now. This is juvenile, 5th grade level thinking here, David. I'm done with it. If you cannot acknowledge it then you are literally too stupid to bother with.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

Possible? Probably. Who cares?



Yes, three layers is more than one layer. There could be several layers and they would not have to begin with a cold layer near the surface. Temperature is only one of at least three variables.

None of which is at all relevant.



Saying it doesn't make it so, David. A reflect image merely an indirect way of seeing something. It doesn't mean that you aren't seeing it. You are seeing it. WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU BE SEEING?

It's not as if you're seeing some sort of a recording or something that does not exist in real time. The city exists and you are seeing it, it's just that the light has taken an indirect path to your eyes. That's THE ONLY difference!

When you look into a pond or aquarium and you see fish swimming around, you are seeing the fish! It doesn't matter that the apparent position is slightly off to one side or another due to the refraction of light when it leaves the water. It's still the same fish that you're seeing and if you adjust for the distortion of the light and are quick enough you can reach down and grab a real fish out of the water and when you do it'll be the self same fish that you saw before you pulled it out.

Now, that's it and that all! I'm not discussing this any further. Change the subject now. This is juvenile, 5th grade level thinking here, David. I'm done with it. If you cannot acknowledge it then you are literally too stupid to bother with.

Clete

I recommend we move on to talk about the Flood. What do you think?

 

[Clete]

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

The horizon dropping is exactly what actually happens! The problem is that the Earth is large enough that the difference is too small for our eyes to resolve. With sufficiently precise instruments the effect can and has been measured but only by the illuminati and others involved in propagating the globe Earth myth.

Incidentally, in answer to a question you ask someone else...

Perspective is the phenomena where an object takes up a smaller and smaller amount of your field of view as the distance between you and the object increases. An object's apparent size can be thought of as a portion of a circle with the distance between you and the object being the radius of that circle. That means that the effect would be subject to the inverse square law.

So, for example, if an object takes up 10° of your field of view at 10 feet, then at twice that distance it would take up 1/4 as much of your field of view or 2.5°.

Clete

 

[Clete]

The horizon dropping is exactly what actually happens! The problem is that the Earth is large enough that the difference is too small for our eyes to resolve. With sufficiently precise instruments the effect can and has been measured but only by the illuminati and others involved in propagating the globe Earth myth.

Incidentally, in answer to a question you ask someone else...

Perspective is the phenomena where an object takes up a smaller and smaller amount of your field of view as the distance between you and the object increases. An object's apparent size can be thought of as a portion of a circle with the distance between you and the object being the radius of that circle. That means that the effect would be subject to the inverse square law.

So, for example, if an object takes up 10° of your field of view at 10 feet, then at twice that distance it would take up 1/4 as much of your field of view or 2.5°.

Clete

I'm responding to my own post to point out that I was wrong. It isn't the apparent size that would be subject to the inverse square law. If we were talking about an object's apparent surface area THEN we'd be talking about geometric progression but when talking about the apparent size (i.e. height and width), the function is linear, not geometric. Not only is it liner but the ratio is an inverse one to one ratio. So an object twice as close looks twice as big and vise versa.

The proof of this is that the circumference of a circle doubles as the radius doubles It's does not, as my previous post suggests, increase by the square of anything. And so 1° in a circle with radius X would be half the size of 1° in a circle with radius 2X.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

Again, I must ask that you provide some theory or opinion about how such a conspiracy would actually take place. How does NASA or anyone else involved actually pull off the "rigging" of the results that are shown to the public. NASA uses hundreds of contractors for space equipment. Companies and corporations with thousands of hardware and software engineers (I was once among them while working on the low-earth-orbit (LEO) Iridium satellite system for Motorola.)

Rather than waving my question off, how about offering up some notions on how exactly all those engineers were fooled, and continue to remain silent. The images from space are not wholly owned by NASA. The imaging and telemetry data is also received by contractors at companies behind all the space hardware. In other words, they, too, are "in the know" about what is being reported by space vehicles. Yet, somehow, all this data is being manipulated and rigged is the claim of the flat earth proponent, while the thousands of engineers apparently are being duped.

In effect, your claims are that the data before an engineer that when rendered shows a global earth is in fact not accurate. For if it were accurate, per your view, that data when rendered would show the earth to be flat. So this means that somewhere between the time the data is sent and received, some interlopers among the assumed cabal of riggers exist in the middle of the sending and receiving of data, manipulating this data to make it appear that the earth is a globe.

Provide a scenario that could explain how this could be possible.

AMR

I don't question the "existence of" satellites, the ISS, space shuttle, or anything else that is in low earth orbit.

I question the moon landings.

I question that anything is actually orbiting higher than high earth altitude. The highest ameture rocket went up about 70 miles.

So that NASA employs many for legitimate work is not in dispute, at least not with me.

--Dave

 

[User Name]

The highest ameture rocket went up about 70 miles.

How do you know for sure that an amateur rocket got up that high? Did you measure the distance yourself?

 

[DFT_Dave]

How do you know for sure that an amateur rocket got up that high? Did you measure the distance yourself?

Amateur rocket team launches rocket to 73.1 miles

CSXT(Civilian Space eXploration Team) launched their new “GoFast” rocket on July 14th to an confirmed altitude of 73.1 miles or 385,800 feet. This is the second successful space launch for the team. The CXST first entered the record books in 2004 becoming the first amateur rocket to reach space.The top speed of the new GoFast 2014 rocket was 3420 mph. According to Ky Michaelson the amateur rocket accomplished the following for amateur rocketry:

World record highest altitude rocket launch
World record fastest speed rocket launch
First photo taken from space on-board an amateur rocket
Second amateur rocket in history to reach space

--Dave

 

[User Name]

Amateur rocket team launches rocket to 73.1 miles

--Dave

So you're just taking their word for it???

--User

 

[Right Divider]

I don't question the "existence of" satellites, the ISS, space shuttle, or anything else that is in low earth orbit.

How does anything orbit in the flat earth model?

Perhaps you need to look up the word 'orbit' to learn what it means.

 

[Clete]

I recommend we move on to talk about the Flood. What do you think?

Anything besides this refraction stuff.

 

[Clete]

I don't question the "existence of" satellites, the ISS, space shuttle, or anything else that is in low earth orbit.

I question the moon landings.

I question that anything is actually orbiting higher than high earth altitude. The highest ameture rocket went up about 70 miles.

So that NASA employs many for legitimate work is not in dispute, at least not with me.

--Dave

The orbits of satellites are very predictable. You can know precisely when the ISS will be visible in your location and when it will move into or out of the Earth's shadow.
Take a wild guess what all the math that is used to make those predictions is based on?

Hint: It can't be made to work with flat plane geometry.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

Anything besides this refraction stuff.

Now we just need Dave agree to change topics, because otherwise he'll get mad that we're changing topics on his thread.

 

[DFT_Dave]

How does anything orbit in the flat earth model?

Perhaps you need to look up the word 'orbit' to learn what it means.

An orbit is a circle. You can circle a globe and a flat earth.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

An orbit is a circle. You can circle a globe and a flat earth.

--Dave