The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Nirmala on April 07, 2017, 09:27:16 PM
-
I am sure this has been debated to death already somewhere on here, but if, as flat earthers claim, you can bring a ship that has disappeared over the horizon or rather into the distance back into view with a telescope, why can't I do the same with the sun or the moon after it has set? After all, either the sun or the moon is much larger and brighter than any ship. It should be easy to magnify them back into view once they have supposedly receded out of view over the flat earth. But once the sun or moon has set, I cannot bring it back into view with a pair of binoculars or a telescope. Where did it go?
And they both disappear without getting smaller, so are they supposedly almost instantaneously too small to be seen anymore?
-
I suppose if the flat earth were perfectly flat and the atmoplane were perfectly transparent, you would be able to. I'm not sure why round earthers suddenly forget about elevation and geography when discussing what can and cannot be seen.
-
The discussions about ships and telescopes obviously all refer to the coast, where geography is not a factor. So to clarify, why can't I bring the sun back into view when it sets over the ocean on a very clear day when it is easily visible right up to the time it disappears below the horizon?
-
The discussions about ships and telescopes obviously all refer to the coast, where geography is not a factor.
I understand that round earthers aren't the sharpest bunch, but do you really not see what is wrong with your statement here?
So to clarify, why can't I bring the sun back into view when it sets over the ocean on a very clear day when it is easily visible right up to the time it disappears below the horizon?
I would suggest reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.
-
Flat earthers may claim that you can bring an entire ship that has passed over the horizon, completely out of view, to completely back into view in its entirety by viewing it with a telescope.
When I was in the U.S. Navy, unfortunately we had none of those telescopes the flat earthers used. Once a ship passed over the horizon, the last thing that we could see were the tops of the masts of those ships. And we could not bring all of those ships back into view with our telescopes after they had passed over the horizon and out of sight completely.
We could only magnify with our telescopes.
We couldn't even bring land back into view after it had disappeared from view after sailing out of a port to sea.
Maybe some of the other navies in the world had better telescopes than ours and could do what the flat earthers claim they can do.
If a ship sails so far that it appeared to be so small that it appeared to disappear, you could restore it back to view with a telescope....before it had passed over the horizon. But once a ship had passed over the horizon, there was no way you could see it again, even with the most powerful telescope. Even for a lookout in the crow's nest, 100 feet high, the horizon would be no more than 12 miles away.
-
I suppose if the flat earth were perfectly flat and the atmoplane were perfectly transparent, you would be able to. I'm not sure why round earthers suddenly forget about elevation and geography when discussing what can and cannot be seen.
Which brings up another question. If the atmoplane was perfectly transparent, where would the horizon be if the earth was perfectly flat ? How do you explain away how it is on a round earth ?
-
The discussions about ships and telescopes obviously all refer to the coast, where geography is not a factor.
I understand that round earthers aren't the sharpest bunch, but do you really not see what is wrong with your statement here?
So to clarify, why can't I bring the sun back into view when it sets over the ocean on a very clear day when it is easily visible right up to the time it disappears below the horizon?
I would suggest reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.
I know you think you are being clever and catching me in some logical fallacy but forget it. If you can't explain it then don't bother.
And of course it is a ridiculous question anyways because if the earth were actually flat, the sun would never be below about 10 degrees above the horizon where I would not need a telescope to see it 24 hours a day, as explained using the simplest of geometry here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ithkxW04imM
-
Once a ship passed over the horizon, the last thing that we could see were the tops of the masts of those ships. And we could not bring all of those ships back into view with our telescopes after they had passed over the horizon and out of sight completely.
We could only magnify with our telescopes.
You must have not had much experience observing, then.
Which brings up another question. If the atmoplane was perfectly transparent, where would the horizon be if the earth was perfectly flat ? How do you explain away how it is on a round earth ?
It isn't perfectly transparent. Is there something about that concept that is difficult to understand for you? I would have assumed that you would already know that, given your time in the Navy.
I understand that round earthers aren't the sharpest bunch, but do you really not see what is wrong with your statement here?
So to clarify, why can't I bring the sun back into view when it sets over the ocean on a very clear day when it is easily visible right up to the time it disappears below the horizon?
I would suggest reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.
I know you think you are being clever and catching me in some logical fallacy but forget it. If you can't explain it then don't bother.
So, you don't understand, then. Gotcha.
-
So, you don't understand, then. Gotcha.
Oh god, the shame, the disgrace. I have no choice now but to go join a monastery and do penance for the rest of my life. I hope you are happy now that you have destroyed my life and ruined me for any other forum participation, truly a fate worse than death.
-
So, you don't understand, then. Gotcha.
Oh god, the shame, the disgrace. I have no choice now but to go join a monastery and do penance for the rest of my life. I hope you are happy now that you have destroyed my life and ruined me for any other forum participation, truly a fate worse than death.
Nice deflection.
-
Aren't there rules against low content posts on here?
-
Aren't there rules against low content posts on here?
Yes. I would suggest you follow those rules. If you have nothing to add, you should refrain from posting.
-
It isn't perfectly transparent. Is there something about that concept that is difficult to understand for you? I would have assumed that you would already know that, given your time in the Navy.
If the horizon's edge is due to atmospheric opacity, then even on the clearest of days it should fade out slowly to a vanishing point line at eye level towards perceivable infinity
Instead, it cuts off cleanly when not obstructed by weather or landmass at an appreciable distance. This is consistent with a surface curving out of sight, not a flat plane. No law of linear perspective can contravene this.
-
If the horizon's edge is due to atmospheric opacity, then even on the clearest of days it should fade out slowly to a vanishing point line at eye level towards perceivable infinity
Instead, it cuts off cleanly when not obstructed by weather or landmass at an appreciable distance. This is consistent with a surface curving out of sight, not a flat plane. No law of linear perspective can contravene this.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
-
If the horizon's edge is due to atmospheric opacity, then even on the clearest of days it should fade out slowly to a vanishing point line at eye level towards perceivable infinity
Instead, it cuts off cleanly when not obstructed by weather or landmass at an appreciable distance. This is consistent with a surface curving out of sight, not a flat plane. No law of linear perspective can contravene this.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
I would say that we often can a clearly defined horizon and simultaneously see objects that are still beyond the horizon line. A great example of this is city scapes around the Great Lakes.
-
Aren't there rules against low content posts on here?
Yes. I would suggest you follow those rules. If you have nothing to add, you should refrain from posting.
I will stop posting to this thread because as I said, it is a ridiculous question. First of all, the sun cannot set on any flat earth model, and second, the earth is not flat.
And I guess I really should take it as a compliment when you pointed out my deflection, since you seem to be a master yourself of deflection and passive aggressive responses, without ever really answering anyone's questions. I also find it ironically appropriate that this forum has someone policing people for low content posts that is the worst offender on this forum by far of that rule.
-
Aren't there rules against low content posts on here?
Yes. I would suggest you follow those rules. If you have nothing to add, you should refrain from posting.
I will stop posting to this thread because as I said, it is a ridiculous question. First of all, the sun cannot set on any flat earth model, and second, the earth is not flat.
And I guess I really should take it as a compliment when you pointed out my deflection, since you seem to be a master yourself of deflection and passive aggressive responses, without ever really answering anyone's questions. I also find it ironically appropriate that this forum has someone policing people for low content posts that is the worst offender on this forum by far of that rule.
>asks for evidence
>gets reply "it is a ridiculous question"
>round earth logic
-
Aren't there rules against low content posts on here?
Yes. I would suggest you follow those rules. If you have nothing to add, you should refrain from posting.
I will stop posting to this thread because as I said, it is a ridiculous question. First of all, the sun cannot set on any flat earth model, and second, the earth is not flat.
And I guess I really should take it as a compliment when you pointed out my deflection, since you seem to be a master yourself of deflection and passive aggressive responses, without ever really answering anyone's questions. I also find it ironically appropriate that this forum has someone policing people for low content posts that is the worst offender on this forum by far of that rule.
>asks for evidence
>gets reply "it is a ridiculous question"
>round earth logic
>never answers anyone's questions
>flat earth absence of any logic
-
Aren't there rules against low content posts on here?
Yes. I would suggest you follow those rules. If you have nothing to add, you should refrain from posting.
I will stop posting to this thread because as I said, it is a ridiculous question. First of all, the sun cannot set on any flat earth model, and second, the earth is not flat.
And I guess I really should take it as a compliment when you pointed out my deflection, since you seem to be a master yourself of deflection and passive aggressive responses, without ever really answering anyone's questions. I also find it ironically appropriate that this forum has someone policing people for low content posts that is the worst offender on this forum by far of that rule.
>asks for evidence
>gets reply "it is a ridiculous question"
>round earth logic
>never answers anyone's questions
>flat earth absence of any logic
I know words are probably hard for you, but you really should go back and read the thread. Unless you don't mind looking more foolish with every post.
Also, you said you were done posting in this thread. You round earthers can't seem to get anything right.
-
If the horizon's edge is due to atmospheric opacity, then even on the clearest of days it should fade out slowly to a vanishing point line at eye level towards perceivable infinity
Instead, it cuts off cleanly when not obstructed by weather or landmass at an appreciable distance. This is consistent with a surface curving out of sight, not a flat plane. No law of linear perspective can contravene this.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
I would say that we often can a clearly defined horizon and simultaneously see objects that are still beyond the horizon line. A great example of this is city scapes around the Great Lakes.
What is the flat earth answer to "where is the horizon on a flat earth ?"
Example: You are a 6 feet tall person standing on the beach, looking out to sea. How far does it appear that the hofr the horizon.
-
Once a ship passed over the horizon, the last thing that we could see were the tops of the masts of those ships. And we could not bring all of those ships back into view with our telescopes after they had passed over the horizon and out of sight completely.
We could only magnify with our telescopes.
You must have not had much experience observing, then.
You must have never been in the navy.
-
Aren't there rules against low content posts on here?
They don't apply to flat earthers and moderators.
They only apply to round earthers.
-
Aren't there rules against low content posts on here?
They don't apply to flat earthers and moderators.
They only apply to round earthers.
Ahh! I guess I should have read the fine print :)
-
Just what and where is the horizon on a flat earth ?
-
Aren't there rules against low content posts on here?
They don't apply to flat earthers and moderators.
They only apply to round earthers.
Ahh! I guess I should have read the fine print :)
And posting round earth facts and figures is "low content."
-
And posting round earth facts and figures is "low content."
Aside from being an oxymoron, you haven't even attempted to do what you're claiming. Your round earth friends may be gullible enough to blankety accept your nonsense, but it won't fly here.
-
Once a ship passed over the horizon, the last thing that we could see were the tops of the masts of those ships. And we could not bring all of those ships back into view with our telescopes after they had passed over the horizon and out of sight completely.
We could only magnify with our telescopes.
You must have not had much experience observing, then.
Does any video exist of a ship, of which the view is partially blocked by the horizon, rising back up to full view with increasing magnification?
If so, does anyone here have a link to it?
-
Once a ship passed over the horizon, the last thing that we could see were the tops of the masts of those ships. And we could not bring all of those ships back into view with our telescopes after they had passed over the horizon and out of sight completely.
We could only magnify with our telescopes.
You must have not had much experience observing, then.
Does any video exist of a ship, of which the view is partially blocked by the horizon, rising back up to full view with increasing magnification?
If so, does anyone here have a link to it?
Here is a video that shows a zoom onto a ship partially over the horizon, but in this video, the hull of the ship never reappears and all that is visible even after zooming is the superstructures on the ship like smoke stacks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw
-
And here is another one where the ship continues to disappear even after it has been zoomed (which happens in the first few seconds of the video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPrTMz7a4X8