Yes, actually we do. The higher you are the more you have to look down to see the horizon. It's usually undetectable by the naked eye because the Earth is very large.
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Obviously, the government is better at keeping some conspiracies intact than they are others...
Whistle-Blower: ‘Global Warming’ Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference
Whistle-Blower: ‘Global Warming’ Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference
Here's a link to a site that calculates the angles down to the horizon from 25,000 - 41,000 ft. The angles range from 2.8 to 3.84 degrees. (i.e. not easily noticable with the naked eye but very easily measured with even crude instruments.
Determine angle down to horizon from different flight altitudes
Determine angle down to horizon from different flight altitudes
The article did not answer my questions. I was asking about things we see on the earth, in the distance, like skylines, boats, cars, etc. How do we know when and if a distant object on earth is a refraction or the real actual object?
--Dave
Obviously you know nothing about sailing. And you're avoiding my questions about refraction.
--Dave
You clearly did not click the second link. If you had, you would have found your answer.
My post was intended to answer your question about "Is it a proven science."
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
To quote Cook himself (again) from the article you linked to:
So, Dave, I'd like to ask you, does the flat earth model have a "North" and "South Pole"? Or does it only have a single Pole, which would be at the center point of the Earth? If so, then why would Cook be saying anything about a 'pole' if he's exploring the southern "hemisphere"
If it only has a North Pole, then why would Cook say "Pole" if he was toward the southern edge of the world? A pole is something that fits only a Globular Earth model, and a globe always has 2 of them.
The quote you used, this one:
seems like it's talking about his entire voyage, as 3 x 20,000 = 60,000.
Just did some googling, and came upon this site. Now, granted, take it with a grain of salt, as it's just one person who has a blog, but I think he makes a decent point about "which line is the 60,000 mile journey."
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
You're doing plenty of avoiding yourself, nor does it seem you know anything about sailing either, let alone flying. I and a few others are still waiting on answers to several questions. One of mine was about the Global Flood of Noah, more specifically, what is the Flat-Earth model's explanation for it.
And? There are people who think that everything and every memory somehow came into existence just a few seconds ago, but that doesn't make them right.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
If "you" don't know how to answer the question, fine. I have not seen an article that has answered my questions.
The flat earth movement exists today because ordinary people with high power lenses have been seeing things that they are not supposed to be seeing. Some one put a camera on the Chicago sky line 60 miles away across Lake Michigan. They traveled across the lake on a motor boat and they had it in direct view until they reached Chicago. The Sears/Willis Tower is 1,450-feet high, the curvature is supposed to be a 2,4000 foot drop. There is no way that skyline of even much lower buildings should be visible even from a 6 foot height.
Do you think a mathematical formula will convince them they were seeing a "mirage" or a "refraction" and not the actual city skyline from beginning to end?
How would you answer them? How do you explain to them they were not seeing the actual sky line? They carried out an actual experiment to prove their point. Thy were not just using their imagination.
--Dave
What people can see and test for themselves is more important than what any one else says and is what I want to focus on right now?
--Dave
I answered this question directly. It's a false dichotomy. Every object you see is seen with light that has been refracted or reflected by the atmosphere. The question isn't whether it's been refracted, it's how much. Light refraction over large bodies of water, down close to the surface are refracted more than it is typically because the water is usually quite a bit colder than the air mass. This has the effect of cooling a thin layer of air close to the water's surface making it more dense and causing it to bend the light down toward the surface.
I don't know what else you want me to say about it. I mean, I get that this makes it tough for you to prove a flat Earth by using our ability to see past what we'd otherwise be able to see but the knife cuts both ways. The effect is also responsible for ruining my laser light experiment to proof the Earth is round. But if this stuff was easy, this would be a really silly thing to be debating!
Yes, really.
I don't need to know anything about sailing!
Look, Antarctica only has about 11,000 miles of shoreline. There is, therefore, no way to sail around it and come up with a 60,000-mile journey. Either Cook's data is wrong or you are being lied too. JudgeRightly's link I think goes a long way toward explaining what I'll call "an error" from now on so as to avoid offense.
Now, I understand that from the strict context of this debate, using the actual length of Antarctica's shoreline as a counter argument would be question begging but I don't care about that because I think we all know that the Earth isn't really flat and that we're all just going through a mental exercise here.
Do you get my argument about why Cook couldn't have even sailed a clockwise course around Antarctica if the Earth was flat? The only way to sail clockwise around Antarctica (with Antarctica on your right and turning your boat to the right) is if the world is a sphere. If it were an ice wall as the flat earthers say, then a clockwise course with Antarctica on your right is not possible. If it is an ice wall, then a clockwise course would keep the wall on your left and you would make course corrections to the right. In other words, if the Earth is round, you have Antarctica on your right and you turn TOWARD it, following its shoreline around in a clockwise fashion. Whereas, if the Earth is flat, then you'd keep the ice wall on your left and turn AWAY from it, following it around in a clockwise fashion, which Cook did not do.
So how many miles he sailed in altogether irrelevant! No matter how many miles he sailed, whether he sailed 20,000, 60,000 or 6 million, the fact that he sailed in a big starboard turning circle is PROOF that the Earth is not flat. It is proof, Dave. Your own evidence has proven your position impossible.
Last edited:
Curved earth position
Flat earth response
Things are where they are if they are in the light or not. Light tells us exactly where things are to say other wise is absurd. Light through the atmosphere does not make things appear to be located somewhere other than what they actually are.
Unusual atmospheric conditions can cause aberrations we call mirages but normal conditions do not create them and distance things are still located where we see them just as close things are.
Circular reasoning
Dave: "I saw the Chicago Skyline from Michigan 60 miles away, no curvature."
Clete: "You saw a refracted image of the Chicago skyline not the actual skyline which is below the curvature."
Dave: "How do you know it's a refracted image?"
Clete: "Because the earth is curved."
Dave: "How do you know the earth is curved?"
Clete: "Because the skyline is a refracted image, just like everything we see."
--Dave
Flat earth response
Things are where they are if they are in the light or not. Light tells us exactly where things are to say other wise is absurd. Light through the atmosphere does not make things appear to be located somewhere other than what they actually are.
Unusual atmospheric conditions can cause aberrations we call mirages but normal conditions do not create them and distance things are still located where we see them just as close things are.
Circular reasoning
Dave: "I saw the Chicago Skyline from Michigan 60 miles away, no curvature."
Clete: "You saw a refracted image of the Chicago skyline not the actual skyline which is below the curvature."
Dave: "How do you know it's a refracted image?"
Clete: "Because the earth is curved."
Dave: "How do you know the earth is curved?"
Clete: "Because the skyline is a refracted image, just like everything we see."
--Dave
You (Mr. Flat Earther) cannot mean this!
Mirages and other atmsopheric aberrations are observed every day all over the world by nearly everyone.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Atmospheric refraction is an easily observed and very well understood phenominon. Every time the sun sets you see it. Everytime the moon looks huge on the horizon, you experience it. Every time you drive down the road on a warm day, you witness it happening right in front of your own face. It's so common that, in the case of mirages on the road in front of you, your brain will often filter them out of your conscious visual field and you won't even notice that its there unless you're looking for it.
Are there two cars in the image below or only one?
View attachment 25292
Is the Sun round and white or is it funky shaped and striped with different shades of red?
View attachment 25293
I already acknowledged this WHILE I WAS MAKING THE ARGUMENT, Dave! The accurate term is question begging which I stated explicitly when I wrote it!Circular reasoning
Dave: "I saw the Chicago Skyline from Michigan 60 miles away, no curvature."
Clete: "You saw a refracted image of the Chicago skyline not the actual skyline which is below the curvature."
Dave: "How do you know it's a refracted image?"
Clete: "Because the earth is curved."
Dave: "How do you know the earth is curved?"
Clete: "Because the skyline is a refracted image, just like everything we see."
--Dave
The point is that neither of us have the means, nor the motivation, to make any attempt to do the science that would confirm for ourselves that atmospheric refraction happens. We can either choose to believe that it exists or we can add yet another layer to the already impossibly complex nature of the Spherical Earth Conspiracy.
Why do you continue to ignore direct questions?
I will not post another syllable on this thread until you directly and substantively respond to the following....
Do you get my argument about why Cook couldn't have even sailed a clockwise course around Antarctica if the Earth was flat? The only way to sail clockwise around Antarctica (with Antarctica on your right and turning your boat to the right) is if the world is a sphere. If it were an ice wall as the flat earthers say, then a clockwise course with Antarctica on your right is not possible. If it is an ice wall, then a clockwise course would keep the wall on your left and you would make course corrections to the right. In other words, if the Earth is round, you have Antarctica on your right and you turn TOWARD it, following its shoreline around in a clockwise fashion. Whereas, if the Earth is flat, then you'd keep the ice wall on your left and turn AWAY from it, following it around in a clockwise fashion, which Cook did not do.
So how many miles he sailed in altogether irrelevant! No matter how many miles he sailed, whether he sailed 20,000, 60,000 or 6 million, the fact that he sailed in a big starboard turning circle is PROOF that the Earth is not flat. It is proof, Dave. Your own evidence has proven your position impossible.
So how many miles he sailed in altogether irrelevant! No matter how many miles he sailed, whether he sailed 20,000, 60,000 or 6 million, the fact that he sailed in a big starboard turning circle is PROOF that the Earth is not flat. It is proof, Dave. Your own evidence has proven your position impossible.
Actual location is the point and the car pic shows it's exact location. The inferior mirage does not mean the car is not where I see it.
The location of the sun is not at issue with where things are on earth.
Curvature is assumed not proven by refraction, circular reasoning. An argument for what you see is not actual is what has to be proven not what you see is actually what is.
Sailing around Antarctica on a globe or a flat earth is the same direction in a circle. If you are going east then the antarctic is on the right, if you are going west the antarctic is on your left, side for both globe and flat earth. The globe would be a smaller circle of 10,000 miles and the flat earth circle would be larger and more like 60,000 miles.
View attachment 25294 View attachment 25295
--Dave
It does mean exactly that! You see it twice but it is not in two locations at once, therefore, one of those images is of a car that is somewhere other than where you are seeing it at.
The fact that atmospheric lensing is negligible for normal use in many situations does not imply that it does not occur. It cannot not occur. The laws of physics demand it. As I said, atmospheric lensing is very well understood phenomenon. Surveyors have to account for it all the time and they understand exactly why. It isn't a mystery or even a question.
Says who? It's the same atmosphere it's being seen through. Billions of dollars have been spent on fancy systems to help telescopes cope with Atmospheric refraction. Of course, Mr. Flat Earther probably thinks that's all just part of the Spherical Earth Conspiracy or something.
No, it isn't Dave! NO, IT ISN'T!!!! No No No!
Atmospheric refraction does happen. We know for a fact that it happens whether we are looking past the horizon or not. Atmospheric lensing is perfectly fine to use as an explanation of why things seem to do all sorts of things near the horizon even for Mr. Flat Earther. THE ONLY THING gravitation lensing is not allowed to be used for is to explain why we can see things that would otherwise be hidden by the curvature of the Earth. That's called a special pleading fallacy.
Thanks for finally responding to this, although I cannot understand why you're missing the point here. In fact, I have a hard time believing that you don't see it.
Here, let me draw you a picture...
View attachment 25299View attachment 25300
Both sets of arrows on the maps are drawn in the west to east direction. Notice that one goes around with Antarctica to the right and the other goes around with an ice wall on the left. One turns to the right, towards Antarctica to go around it and the other turns to the left, away from the ice wall to go around the whole world.
Once again, the number of miles you travel is not even a relevant question. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that a course around Antarctica as reported by Cook and which is cited by virtually every flat earther in existence, cannot have even been done at all if the world was flat because his starboard course corrections would have been turning his ship toward the ice wall rather than keeping him away from it.
He is not talking about east or west, which is related, but not necessarily the same thing. Here is a bird's eye view of a flat earth with Antarctica around the outside
And an image of the continent of Antarctica at the south pole of a globe.
What Clete is saying is that to go around the perimeter of Antarctica from west to east on the flat earth, you would go counterclockwise on a flat Earth, always turning to the left. But on a spherical Earth, moving east to west around the perimeter of Antarctica would be clockwise, always turning to the right.
You cannot go clockwise anywhere on a flat Earth and always be moving west to east, you would only be moving eastward a little less than 50% of the time, and less so the closer you get to the center of the map.
However, on a round Earth, you can, if your path goes around the South Pole (not necessarily centered on it, even), go around the Earth in a clockwise direction and always continue in an eastward direction, always turning to the right.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
- Status