The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: AATW on April 03, 2023, 05:31:05 PM
-
NASA announce their latest group of astronauts who will
pretend to go to the moon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65165845
-
Reparations for all.....
-
Like Apollo which preceded it in the 60s, this is a developmental programme in which each mission uses proven tech, and adds on new developments. Apollo 1 through 7 developed and proved the basic space-worthiness of the vehicles, 8 explored the tech to reach the moon, 9 the ability to rendezvous in Earth orbit, 10 took that rendezvous-technology to lunar orbit and 11 actually landed. Artemis does all that in 3 planned missions, presumably because greater reliance can be placed on developments due to the ability to test computer modelling, and the shear experience of being in space for 6 decades.
What I find particularly interesting is that Apollo was laid out in the early 60s and every schoolboy (it was the 60s; it was a boy-thing) knew the names of the modules, length of the journey, how the modules interacted and so forth well before any of the tech actually got close to the moon. The difference with Artemis is that NASA was quite open early on that how they will get from lunar orbit to lunar landing has not yet been developed; they are still just assuming that something will be facilitated by emerging technology. That's the difference between fact and fiction; if they were just making this stuff up, they wouldn't have to wait another 2 or 3 years to actually work out how to build something.
-
Like Apollo which preceded it in the 60s, this is a developmental programme in which each mission uses proven tech, and adds on new developments. Apollo 1 through 7 developed and proved the basic space-worthiness of the vehicles, 8 explored the tech to reach the moon, 9 the ability to rendezvous in Earth orbit, 10 took that rendezvous-technology to lunar orbit and 11 actually landed. Artemis does all that in 3 planned missions, presumably because greater reliance can be placed on developments due to the ability to test computer modelling, and the shear experience of being in space for 6 decades.
What I find particularly interesting is that Apollo was laid out in the early 60s and every schoolboy (it was the 60s; it was a boy-thing) knew the names of the modules, length of the journey, how the modules interacted and so forth well before any of the tech actually got close to the moon. The difference with Artemis is that NASA was quite open early on that how they will get from lunar orbit to lunar landing has not yet been developed; they are still just assuming that something will be facilitated by emerging technology. That's the difference between fact and fiction; if they were just making this stuff up, they wouldn't have to wait another 2 or 3 years to actually work out how to build something.
Since you're clearly an expert in space travel technology - How many more years until the warp drive do you think? Once the Space Force gets done developing the warp drive, are they going to be able to use it to get to the Moon in a nanosecond, or is 240,000 miles too close for the warp drive?
The sad part is that Artemis 1 was originally scheduled for 2016 and didn't happen until 2022. Who knows how many more years of delays for the upcoming "missions". Meanwhile, NASA gets $69 million a day and Biden wants to increase that to $74 million a day in 2024. All so that people like you can keep their cozy uncritical faith intact.
-
Since you're clearly an expert in space travel technology - How many more years until the warp drive do you think? Once the Space Force gets done developing the warp drive, are they going to be able to use it to get to the Moon in a nanosecond, or is 240,000 miles too close for the warp drive?
The sad part is that Artemis 1 was originally scheduled for 2016 and didn't happen until 2022. Who knows how many more years of delays for the upcoming "missions". Meanwhile, NASA gets $69 million a day and Biden wants to increase that to $74 million a day in 2024. All so that people like you can keep their cozy uncritical faith intact.
I don't know where you got the idea that I'm "an expert in space travel technology", though as a licenced aircraft engineer I understand some of the technologies and challenges involved. Warp Drive? Completely outside my training and experience, and I haven't seen reference to it in any industry journals, so I've no idea how it might work, what progress they are making, or what limitations may apply to it.
Artemis delayed by 6 years? My goodness, what are they frigging around at. Appalling progress. Should be ashamed of themselves.
What I do understand though (referencing JFK, and this really isn't rocket science) is that they don't attempt these things because they are easy, but because they are hard. Humankind doesn't achieve anything unless it strives for what appears to be unachievable. I'm sure medieval Europe and Viking Scandinavia had its share of cynics complaining about how many millions of Krona were being spent on pointless (non-existent?) sea voyages, when they should be concentrating on witch burning.
Fortunately, others believed in the need to explore frontiers and send vessels on 5-year missions to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man had been before.
-
if they were just making this stuff up, they wouldn't have to wait another 2 or 3 years to actually work out how to build something.
As the resident expert in epistemology, how have you established that they have to wait 2 or 3 years, as opposed to simply deciding to?
-
I'm no more an epistemologist than a cosmologist, but If you want my opinion; if I was in the White House, I'd prefer to get the deed done, and accolades garnered whilst I was still rational and elected. And alive.
I suppose we could always put the delay down to the Writers Guild of America dispute. This narrative doesn't write itself.
-
I'm no more an epistemologist than a cosmologist, but If you want my opinion; if I was in the White House, I'd prefer to get the deed done, and accolades garnered whilst I was still rational and elected. And alive.
I suppose we could always put the delay down to the Writers Guild of America dispute. This narrative doesn't write itself.
"Get the deed done".
(https://i.imgur.com/yhkWbMN.jpg)
:-X
-
I'm no more an epistemologist than a cosmologist, but If you want my opinion; if I was in the White House, I'd prefer to get the deed done, and accolades garnered whilst I was still rational and elected. And alive.
I suppose we could always put the delay down to the Writers Guild of America dispute. This narrative doesn't write itself.
"Get the deed done".
(https://i.imgur.com/yhkWbMN.jpg)
:-X
It's a lot easier to fake a fake moon trip being faked than to fake a real moon trip. Anybody could craft the kind of green screen bullshit that the moon conspiracy people post. What makes your bullshit pictures real and everyone else's bullshit pictures fake?
What if "the deed" is about getting lulz and making money by messing with people who don't know what's real?
Wouldn't be the first time...
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/moon-shot-race-a-hoax-and-the-birth-of-fake-news
What evidence would you have to examine to believe the moon trip occurred?
-
It's a lot easier to fake a fake moon trip being faked than to fake a real moon trip. Anybody could craft the kind of green screen bullshit that the moon conspiracy people post. What makes your bullshit pictures real and everyone else's bullshit pictures fake?
What if "the deed" is about getting lulz and making money by messing with people who don't know what's real?
Wouldn't be the first time...
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/moon-shot-race-a-hoax-and-the-birth-of-fake-news
What evidence would you have to examine to believe the moon trip occurred?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVnfc6v7hmg
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-india-66576580
They all look pretty happy, considering they're faking it all.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-india-66576580
They all look pretty happy, considering they're faking it all.
99.9% of the people who work for space agencies don't know they're faking it. You would be happy too if you lived 2000 years ago and believed you helped Jesus walk on water and never questioned it.
Another non-argument from the heliocentrist religion pusher.
"Oh, look at how happy these religious members are. You just have to have faith in their church/religion like they do and you can be happy too!"
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-india-66576580
They all look pretty happy, considering they're faking it all.
99.9% of the people who work for space agencies don't know they're faking it.
And your evidence for that is...?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-india-66576580
They all look pretty happy, considering they're faking it all.
99.9% of the people who work for space agencies don't know they're faking it.
And your evidence for that is...?
Most people can't fake being that happy. So clearly they are just useful idiots like you.
-
I think more credit is due to Roscosmos. They're losing a war, Rouble is collapsing, and their only friends on the disc are Belarus, Iran and North Korea.
Obvious thing to restore credibility to your regime is to fake your spacecraft obliterating itself on the moon.
ps. "... idiots like you"? Is that going to stand?
-
I think more credit is due to Roscosmos. They're losing a war, Rouble is collapsing, and their only friends on the disc are Belarus, Iran and North Korea.
Obvious thing to restore credibility to your regime is to fake your spacecraft obliterating itself on the moon.
How do you know that it crashed on the Moon? Did you get your binos out and saw it?
You have the most cringe-worthy arguments for beliving in heliocentrism.
ps. "... idiots like you"? Is that going to stand?
Useful idiots. It's well known that useful idiots exist. It is a matter of fact.
-
[
How do you know that it crashed on the Moon? Did you get your binos out and saw it?
You have the most cringe-worthy arguments for beliving in heliocentrism.
You're missing my point. On the basis that no lay-person can observe it, why announce it? Did it crash? Did it exist? Just like you, I've no evidence either way.
The only agencies with the wherewithall to detect its actual presence (or absence) would be the equivalents of Roscosmos in other countries and similar alliances; NASA, EASA, CNSA, etc. Just like India is experiencing at the moment, a successful mission of this magnitude and complexity is a source of immense kudos and national prestige, both for the home-audience and abroad.
What is the logic behind Russia mounting this mission (or fake-mission) in the first place, televising its faked-launch, reporting its progress and ultimately announcing its abject failure? Why not anounce its successful completion? NASA is never going to snitch, when they are in the same business.
-
[
How do you know that it crashed on the Moon? Did you get your binos out and saw it?
You have the most cringe-worthy arguments for beliving in heliocentrism.
You're missing my point. On the basis that no lay-person can observe it, why announce it? Did it crash? Did it exist? Just like you, I've no evidence either way.
The only agencies with the wherewithall to detect its actual presence (or absence) would be the equivalents of Roscosmos in other countries and similar alliances; NASA, EASA, CNSA, etc. Just like India is experiencing at the moment, a successful mission of this magnitude and complexity is a source of immense kudos and national prestige, both for the home-audience and abroad.
What is the logic behind Russia mounting this mission (or fake-mission) in the first place, televising its faked-launch, reporting its progress and ultimately announcing its abject failure? Why not anounce its successful completion? NASA is never going to snitch, when they are in the same business.
For all I know, someone like NATO or USA could've blocked the telemetry or sabotaged it so that it looked like the thing crashed. Or it could be just another circus act by TPTB to keep you guessing and make it look "realistic" because no accidents ever would be unrealistic. And who better than Putin and his Russia to take that hit since they are already the current Hitler and his 3rd Reich in the public's eyes.
Why exactly are you dimissing hypotheses such as the ones I just mentioned if you admit there's no evidence?
-
Why exactly are you dimissing hypotheses such as the ones I just mentioned if you admit there's no evidence?
Why are you stating them with such certainty when you have no evidence?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-66613688
First footage released.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-66613688
First footage released.
(https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
It's definitely on the Moon - you just have to believe like any good religious follower believes.
Never question anything, just believe. ;D
-
They already gave the new religion consumers "Moon footage" in the 60s and now it's apparently a great achievement for India to do it in 2023. lmao
-
It's definitely on the Moon - you just have to believe like any good religious follower believes.
Never question anything, just believe. ;D
You're not questioning anything. You just blindly disbelieve anything which doesn't confirm what you want to believe.
Every mission like this and pictures and video from them are opportunities for you to examine your beliefs, but you don't.
You just blindly dismiss it, because it proves your worldview to be wrong.
That isn't questioning.
-
It's definitely on the Moon - you just have to believe like any good religious follower believes.
Never question anything, just believe. ;D
You're not questioning anything. You just blindly disbelieve anything which doesn't confirm what you want to believe.
Every mission like this and pictures and video from them are opportunities for you to examine your beliefs, but you don't.
You just blindly dismiss it, because it proves your worldview to be wrong.
That isn't questioning.
(https://i.imgur.com/XXreP86.png)
Textbook projection from the believer.
Maybe you will learn some day.
-
.Maybe you will learn some day.
Maybe. Or maybe you’ll come to understand that you’re a believer too. Just because you believe different things, that doesn’t make you special.
But if you want to educate us then maybe you could present all the very compelling evidence you’ve collected from your years of “doing your own research”. You won’t of course, because it doesn’t exist.
You sneer at people blindly believing things but ignoring that disbelieving things is still a belief - it’s a belief that something isn’t true. And it’s something you do just as unthinkingly and just as blindly as the people you sneer at.
But ok, prove me wrong. What thinking have you done to determine that this mission is fake and that video is fake. Or is it just another argument from incredulity?
-
.Maybe you will learn some day.
Maybe. Or maybe you’ll come to understand that you’re a believer too. Just because you believe different things, that doesn’t make you special.
But if you want to educate us then maybe you could present all the very compelling evidence you’ve collected from your years of “doing your own research”. You won’t of course, because it doesn’t exist.
You sneer at people blindly believing things but ignoring that disbelieving things is still a belief - it’s a belief that something isn’t true. And it’s something you do just as unthinkingly and just as blindly as the people you sneer at.
But ok, prove me wrong. What thinking have you done to determine that this mission is fake and that video is fake. Or is it just another argument from incredulity?
No, I believed the same things that you do. Nowadays I simply don't believe things - I just go by facts, not belief. That's why I'm no longer a heliocentrist believer. It's not even something cool to be because most heliocentrist believers don't even know why they believe the things they do, they just go with the crowd. It's only a minority that like you go out of their way to insist that not believing in heliocentrism is a bad thing and give palpably bad arguments for this.
I couldn't care less if some authority wants to claim "we went to the Moon". This claim only exists as a confirmation bias (well, to feed it) for people like you who are ardent believers and they want to hear about Jesus walking on water (the modern version) or derivatives of it.
You want to believe that some low-quality footage of a patch of ground is the Moon, go ahead. You want to believe that the Moon is a landable space rock that only a few can get to, go ahead. That you accuse someone who doesn't or is skeptical of "argument from incredulity" only makes you look dumb.
-
No, I believed the same things that you do. Nowadays I simply don't believe things - I just go by facts, not belief.
But how do you establish what is a fact?
I'd state with confidence that the earth is a globe, you would state the opposite equally confidently.
We both believe our positions to be factual, we cannot both be correct because we have contradictory positions.
So who is right? How do we know?
It's not even something cool to be because most heliocentrist believers don't even know why they believe the things they do, they just go with the crowd.
This is correct. Most people don't see any particular reason to question it because it doesn't make any difference to their lives. Their GPS works, their satellite TV works, if these things are really working in some different way than claimed then it doesn't actually matter. But as I noted in another thread I would say that a lot of people who believe in a FE are just following a crowd too, albeit a different one. They're not doing experiments or gathering data, they just distrust the mainstream just as unthinkingly as others trust it.
It's only a minority that like you go out of their way to insist that not believing in heliocentrism is a bad thing and give palpably bad arguments for this.
I don't know if you mean bad arguments for heliocentrism or bad arguments for why not believing in it is had.
If the former then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
If the latter then I have general concerns about the post truth world we live in. It is increasingly difficult to know what's true. Conspiracy theories proliferate on every subject. I find it worrying because on some topics like health it can cause people real harm.
You want to believe that some low-quality footage of a patch of ground is the Moon, go ahead. You want to believe that the Moon is a landable space rock that only a few can get to, go ahead. That you accuse someone who doesn't or is skeptical of "argument from incredulity" only makes you look dumb.
But all you've presented is incredulity. You've not given any counter evidence to these claims.
You haven't analysed the video footage - it contradicts what you believe so in your mind it's fake, no further response is required.
You're not questioning things. Maybe you did once. Maybe you did do your own research and experiments. They caused you to come to the incorrect conclusions in my view, but I note you're not publishing any of this research for review. You paint yourself as the one who is thinking and questioning, I don't see any evidence of that.
-
It's no wonder that you think you live in a "post-truth world" where "it is increasingly difficult to know what's true" when you are unable to discern between real and fake.
That's your problem, though.
Other than that, you have nothing - just attempting to flip the burden of proof as usual.
"Prove that unicorns are fake because most people believe in them and they can ride them in their dreams" is basically your argument. Not that most people believe in unicorns, but they do believe they live on a ball without proof, among many other things which are just as fantastical as unicorns.
It is a waste of time for me to give you a clue because you already took all the clues out of your head yourself, and now you are clueless.
I literally don't care if you believe that piece of junk is on the Moon or that some Freemasons have been there. Your life, your choices.
-
It's no wonder that you think you live in a "post-truth world" where "it is increasingly difficult to know what's true" when you are unable to discern between real and fake.
What makes you so confident that you can discern the difference? You make a lot of claims on here, you don't back them up with any evidence.
When other people provide evidence for their claims you simply call it fake without providing any evidence for that assertion.
That's your problem, though.
The fact that it's increasingly hard to discern what's true is a problem for everyone. With CGI and deepfakes, the Internet providing claims and counter claims. How do we know what is true any more?
Other than that, you have nothing - just attempting to flip the burden of proof as usual.
We've had this conversation. You have agreed that it's impossible to prove that images and video from space missions come from the sources claimed.
It's not flipping the burden of proof to ask what evidence you have for fakery though.
You bemoan people unquestioningly believing things, why is it ok to unquestioningly disbelieve them?
"Prove that unicorns are fake because most people believe in them and they can ride them in their dreams" is basically your argument.
Well, provide some evidence that these space missions are fake. Because the evidence for space missions being real is strong.
Rockets demonstrably exist - I saw a Shuttle launch back in the day.
There are multiple technologies which rely on satellites existing which demonstrably work.
There's the ISS which can be seen from the ground - with decent optics you can make out its shape.
Hundreds of people have been to space, some of whom were space tourists.
There's thousands of pictures and of hours footage from all these space missions - and even if we concede that the technology exists now to fake these things, much of this footage is from the 60s when that technology didn't exist. And that's not just my opinion, I posted a thread a couple of years back where 3 VFX artists looked at some of the footage from Apollo:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17989.0
So that's all the evidence for. And your evidence against is "it's all fake because trust me bro". Not exactly compelling.
It is a waste of time for me to give you a clue because you already took all the clues out of your head yourself, and now you are clueless.
Ah, the old "girlfriend who lives in Canada" schtick. You definitely have all this evidence from your own experiments but you can't show it because reasons.
-
What own experiments? Haven't you realized already that you're talking about SANTA CLAUS?? There's no experiment to prove or disprove Santa Claus because he doesn't exist.
You're just spewing the same garbage that you did before in other threads. Fallacy after fallacy. Talking about "rockets exist", "satellites work", "ISS can be seen" and comparing it to so-called space travel and Freemasons on the Moon.
Like, seriously?
You want to believe in Santa Claus? BY ALL MEANS DO. I don't understand what your aim is being here and telling me that I need to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist when I say he's just make-believe.
There's no way you are not a troll.
-
"Real cartoon". (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5HJP7cohvc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Atz46lyKQ
Dubay on point with this one.
Of course, this is so ridiculous that a child could debunk it lol.
-
Also, never would've guessed:
(https://i.imgur.com/vOwqgcG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MMNqaMr.png)
-
The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window. The Freemasonry connection is almost certainly a red herring, though.
-
The Freemasonry connection is almost certainly a red herring, though.
NO, IT'S NOT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyfW_3ZDdVU
-
The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window.
What does that tell you?
The earth could be flat, a cube or a sphere of sufficient size and you’d observe pretty much the same thing. Although ships and other distant objects sinking below the horizon is a bit of a clue…
-
The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window.
And the oldest and best proof of Jimmy Saville's benevolence is to watch his TV shows.
The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd.
-
The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd.
It can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view, though.
-
The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd.
It can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view, though.
OK. Where's the rest?
(https://i.ibb.co/yhM6PwY/Sunken-Ship.jpg)
Of these two stills from a timelapse video of a boat coming over the horizon
(https://i.ibb.co/Jn51vdF/Sinking-Ship.jpg)
-
OK. Where's the rest?
(https://i.ibb.co/yhM6PwY/Sunken-Ship.jpg)
How do you see a message from someone telling you to compare 2 different optical zoom levels of the same scene and think "Oooh, I know, I'll post *one* image of a scene and claim to have performed the test!!!" And why do you so consistently choose a photograph with a very visible tall wave in it? This is "hurdur erth can't be flat/round because mountains exist checkmate 😎" level of posting.
We've ruled out you being a complete idiot, and you want to not be treated like an obvious troll. So, what is it? Alcohol? Drugs? Illness? What causes you to have these extreme lapses?
You're right, though. The Sinking Ship Effect is a big hint. It's one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there. A cynic would suggest that's why you so repeatedly and consistently refuse to engage with it properly. :)
-
How do you see a message from someone telling you to compare 2 different optical zoom levels of the same scene and think "Oooh, I know, I'll post *one* image of a scene and claim to have performed the test!!!"
I responded to a post which, it seemed to me, was the old "boats don't really go over the horizon, you can restore them with optical zoom" bunk.
Now obviously you can "restore" objects which are not visible to the naked eye, if they're in full view in the first place.
So if something is this side of the horizon then sure, restore away. But my restore above is in quotation marks because you can only do that if the object is not occluded in the first place. If the object IS occluded by the horizon then you can zoom till your heart's content, you'll only see the part of it which is visible.
I have shown Dual1ty plenty of examples of this, the two pictures above, the Turning Torso video are some of them. And here he is claiming that Erf Flat because you can use a telescope/camera to bring boats gone over the curve back into view. You can't. Not if they've actually gone over the curve.
Just pretending that boats don't sink beneath the horizon is moronic and demonstrably false. That's what I was responding to.
Claiming they've actually gone behind waves is a reasonable explanation, but that's not what he's said here.
I don't think you can really tell how big the waves are in that picture by the way, but I'd concede it's not a flat calm. The Turning Torso video is better evidence for this effect
We've ruled out you being a complete idiot
That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
You're right, though. The Sinking Ship Effect is a big hint. It's one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there.
Oh yes? Do carry on. How so? That's not what I would expect to observe on a flat earth. So long as I'm above the viewer height of the waves I'd expect to see pretty much all of distant objects so long as visibility will allow. What would stop me? Refraction is obviously a factor but that typically means you can see more of an object than one would expect, not less.
-
I responded to a post which, it seemed to me, was the old "boats don't really go over the horizon, you can restore them with optical zoom"
You did. You also completely failed to address it, since that would require you to compare 2 levels of optical zoom for the same scene. This is not a novel conversation - these exact failures were pointed out to you before when you used the exact same image. The exact same URL, even! You either have it saved somewhere, or you literally grabbed it from the previous discussions, which you could have just read instead.
At some point, you really ought to start adapting to new information, instead of just repeating the same failed arguments.
I don't think you can really tell how big the waves are in that picture by the way
Sure you can. The base of the wave is roughly around here:
(https://i.imgur.com/3KhbScy.png)
-
The globe relies on cherrypicked visual "proofsies" of "boats and things gone over the curve" that can easily be debunked by doing simple observations such as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03YkuMvcGeQ
No wonder the globe cult won't touch anything to do with a physical measurement of the curve with a 10-foot pole (only to say that it's impossible or a waste of time because they already know it's a globe). They want to stay on mirage/refraction/perspective (all of which they purposefully misunderstand, by the way) la-la-land for all eternity and just dismiss any of the hundreds (if not thousands by now) of long-distance observations that match FE predictions as "light bending over the curve at its exact rate". Not to mention the fact that no curvature has ever been measured anywhere despite the fact that it should be literally everywhere if Earth is really a globe (and they've had thousands of years to do so according to their own history).
-
I agree that the picture of the sailboat shown has a wave blocking the view of the hull. It was a poor example to demonstrate the shape of the earth. For multiple decades I literally spent half my life at sea traveling worldwide on large ships, so I have some decent experience looking out over the ocean and making observations. The best one is the view of Mt. Fuji as it’s peak slowly rises out of the Pacific Ocean as we are heading towards Japan to pick up and/or deliver some cargo. We had some of the best telescopes available mounted on a stand welded to the deck of our ship. It didn’t matter how much magnification you used, you couldn’t bring back the base of the mountain that was wider, bigger, and closer than the peak. It was obviously concealed behind the earth’s curve. As we got closer to Japan Mt. Fuji would appear to rise higher and higher out of the sea until we started to see the Japanese coastline. This view was repeated countless times under many different weather conditions on multiple voyages. If we were at the top of a large wave, we could see a bit more of the mountain. Occasionally the seas would be quite smooth but that didn’t make any difference, Mt. Fuji would still be mostly hidden when we were 120 miles away. Everyone liked the view because it also meant we would be docking soon and going ashore for a while. This demonstrates the earth’s curvature and I have many other examples.
-
I responded to a post which, it seemed to me, was the old "boats don't really go over the horizon, you can restore them with optical zoom"
You did. You also completely failed to address it
I addressed it by showing examples where you CAN'T restore them with optical zoom. The second of them is from a timelapse where you can clearly see boats sinking below and emerging from the horizon. It addresses his claim that you can 'bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view'. You can't. If they've gone behind something (whether that something is the curve of the earth, waves or something else isn't relevant) then you cannot restore them with optical zoom.
The claim that distant things which you can't see with the naked eye can be seen with optical zoom isn't really controversial. Anyone who has mastered object permanence knows that they're not actually gone. I did actually do an "experiment" (not sure this really deserves that word) some time ago where I drew a "boat" with a thin hull and took photos of it from across the room without zoom and then zoomed in
(https://i.ibb.co/Lr4FgpF/Optical-Resolution.jpg)
Does that satisfy your request to "compare 2 levels of optical zoom for the same scene"?
And in the zoomed in picture the hull has been "restored". Except...I don't even think I'd used that word. It just wasn't visible from across the room, but optical zoom made it visible again. BUT...and this is the point I made in the previous thread, the hull is at the top, so that doesn't explain the sinking ship effect. All it shows is that when objects are too small to see with the naked eye but you have clear line of sight to them you can see them by zooming in. Which I don't think is an astonishing revelation to anyone. But it isn't anything to do with the sinking ship effect either.
Obviously I adapt to new information if I'm convinced that the new information is valid. We've been through examples before where I have.
You either have it saved somewhere
It's that. But fair enough it's not the best example. Will find some better ones.
The base of the wave is roughly around here
I'm not sure that everything above that line is one big wave but even if it is, or it is waves obscuring the boat (which I admit is plausible), it doesn't change the fact that that ship can't be restored with optical zoom. Whether it's hidden below the curve or a big wave isn't really that relevant. It's the claim of restoration I was addressing. I see Dual1ty is now talking about mirages - which is surely a contraction to his previous post and given the viewer height of 2 inches in his video I'm sure you can see why that's not a great argument either.
I continue to be interested by your claim that the sinking ship effect is "one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there". Especially given other FE claims that the effect doesn't exist at all. How does the effect prove FE in your view? On a FE I'd expect to be able to see over the top of any wave if my viewer height is higher than the highest wave. If my viewer height is the same as the highest wave then this would be the situation:
(https://i.ibb.co/kBbkqss/waves-b.jpg)
It would only hide as much of the building as the height of the wave. So waves aren't an explanation for the Turning Torso video where at greater distances more of the building is hidden. The viewer height looks to be above the height of any waves or swells across a pretty calm channel.
-
I addressed it by showing examples where you CAN'T restore them with optical zoom.
No, you didn't, and I already told you why. Since you chose not to read my message, I'm not reading yours beyond this point either.
-
I addressed it by showing examples where you CAN'T restore them with optical zoom.
No, you didn't, and I already told you why.
Incorrectly. His point cannot be responded to by "compar[ing]e 2 levels of optical zoom for the same scene".
All that would do is show examples of ships being "restored" when they are closer than the horizon.
When ships are truly beyond the horizon they cannot be restored, so those are the examples I used to address his point. A zoomed out view of those pictures (which I didn't take so can't show anyway) wouldn't demonstrate anything, they'd just be smaller versions of the images I used.
Since you chose not to read my message, I'm not reading yours beyond this point either.
As is your right. But I did read your message, I simply disagree with it and have responded in some detail to explain why.
-
I agree that the picture of the sailboat shown has a wave blocking the view of the hull. It was a poor example to demonstrate the shape of the earth. For multiple decades I literally spent half my life at sea traveling worldwide on large ships, so I have some decent experience looking out over the ocean and making observations. The best one is the view of Mt. Fuji as it’s peak slowly rises out of the Pacific Ocean as we are heading towards Japan to pick up and/or deliver some cargo. We had some of the best telescopes available mounted on a stand welded to the deck of our ship. It didn’t matter how much magnification you used, you couldn’t bring back the base of the mountain that was wider, bigger, and closer than the peak. It was obviously concealed behind the earth’s curve. As we got closer to Japan Mt. Fuji would appear to rise higher and higher out of the sea until we started to see the Japanese coastline. This view was repeated countless times under many different weather conditions on multiple voyages. If we were at the top of a large wave, we could see a bit more of the mountain. Occasionally the seas would be quite smooth but that didn’t make any difference, Mt. Fuji would still be mostly hidden when we were 120 miles away. Everyone liked the view because it also meant we would be docking soon and going ashore for a while. This demonstrates the earth’s curvature and I have many other examples.
Nope. No curve when you use proper instruments on a clear day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxLwaaU1aNk
-
By the way, could some mod move these last posts to the appropriate thread?
-
All that would do is show examples of ships being "restored" when they are closer than the horizon.
When ships are truly beyond the horizon they cannot be restored
You assert this with no evidence, and then insist that I accept that as a premise for further arguments. I do not.
When you're asked to prove your point, just stating it again with conviction doesn't quite cut it. Not to non-Anglos, at least.
A zoomed out view of those pictures wouldn't demonstrate anything, they'd just be smaller versions of the images I used.
Once again, you assert this without evidence. You can't just say "I'm correct, and since I'm correct, verifying my claims would just result in what I expect, so I would be correct". That's not how you do science, let alone Zeteticism.
(which I didn't take so can't show anyway)
Yes. Isn't it remarkable that every time people suggest that you perform a very simple experiment which would help clear your confusion, you refuse to do so and just post pictures you found on the Internet, usually ones that don't even pertain to the subject at hand?
-
Nope. No curve when you use proper instruments on a clear day.
Well, if you want to rely on some IR photography for evidence then consider radar. If you are familiar with the electromagnetic spectrum, then X band (or even better S band) radar would offer an even clearer picture. The earth’s curvature still hides the lower, closer, and wider parts of a mountain as you would expect on a globe earth. Yes, we did have the proper professional equipment that works the best of a clear day but will work as well as possible on days when it isn’t. That would be expected when there’s 100’s of millions of dollars of cargo at stake and the lives of the crew.
The example video by J Tolan has already been accurately debunked. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-120-mile-shot-of-san-jacinto-proves-flat-earth.10273/ (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-120-mile-shot-of-san-jacinto-proves-flat-earth.10273/) I am familar with the California coastline as I've been in and out of LA and San Diego countless times. The view of San Jacinto Mountain is familar and there's problems with the analysis that was offered in your previous post. The problems are detailed in the hyperlink I provided.
-
The example video by J Tolan has already been accurately debunked. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-120-mile-shot-of-san-jacinto-proves-flat-earth.10273/ (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-120-mile-shot-of-san-jacinto-proves-flat-earth.10273/) I am familar with the California coastline as I've been in and out of LA and San Diego countless times. The view of San Jacinto Mountain is familar and there's problems with the analysis that was offered in your previous post. The problems are detailed in the hyperlink I provided.
Please, no jokes.
Curvature of Earth would not make things SHRINK & COMPRESS TOGETHER; perspective does do that, though.
Your argument was that that all the buildings + coastline are supposed to be behind the curve along with the base of the mountain, and they clearly are not.
-
No Jokes here.
The earth’s curvature will not make things SHRINK or COMPRESS. That is true. Buildings and the coastline can go ‘behind the curve’ if the observer is too far away and at an elevation too low relative to the object observed. An object that is invisible can often be seen if the lookout can increase his elevation. This fact was known a long time ago. The old sailing ships had a ‘crows nest’. One of its functions was to allow an observer in it to see a coastline more quickly than the helms man at a much lower elevation. Land birds were also used to find land because they could circle the ship at a much higher elevation than the 'crows nest'.
-
The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window.
What if that window is on a spacecraft orbiting the moon?
(https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/styles/image_gallery_scale_960w/public/atoms/Earthrise1_Apollo8AndersWeigang_960.jpg?itok=c27B9-Dd)
-
No Jokes here.
The earth’s curvature will not make things SHRINK or COMPRESS. That is true. Buildings and the coastline can go ‘behind the curve’ if the observer is too far away and at an elevation too low relative to the object observed. An object that is invisible can often be seen if the lookout can increase his elevation. This fact was known a long time ago. The old sailing ships had a ‘crows nest’. One of its functions was to allow an observer in it to see a coastline more quickly than the helms man at a much lower elevation. Land birds were also used to find land because they could circle the ship at a much higher elevation than the 'crows nest'.
Yes, and that has nothing to do with "curvature of the Earth". You're simply raising above ground/sea level, so you can see further. Horizon rises with you also - impossible if the horizon is physical (which we know for a fact it's not).
-
The Freemasonry connection is almost certainly a red herring, though.
NO, IT'S NOT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyfW_3ZDdVU
Nah, I don't buy it. A conspiracy spanning centuries with no genuine motive in sight just isn't feasible to me, and I'd need more evidence than the fact that a number of these historical astronomers were members of a silly club to convince me otherwise.
-
Horizon rises with you also
This is incorrect, and can shown to be incorrect in multiple ways
https://flatearth.ws/c/horizon-dip
The horizon dips below eye level in a way which can be measured and demonstrated.
-
Horizon rises with you also
This is incorrect, and can shown to be incorrect in multiple ways
https://flatearth.ws/c/horizon-dip
The horizon dips below eye level in a way which can be measured and demonstrated.
I didn't say it doesn't "dip" - I said it rises with you, which is a fact.
Horizon being apparently below eye level does not debunk that fact. So as always, your "FE debunking" fails the reality test, and you fail to understand what is being said.
-
Nah, I don't buy it. A conspiracy spanning centuries with no genuine motive in sight just isn't feasible to me, and I'd need more evidence than the fact that a number of these historical astronomers were members of a silly club to convince me otherwise.
What are you talking about? Are you saying that you think heliocentrism is just a coincidence and there is no organized conspiracy associated with it?
-
Horizon rises with you also
This is incorrect, and can shown to be incorrect in multiple ways
https://flatearth.ws/c/horizon-dip
The horizon dips below eye level in a way which can be measured and demonstrated.
I didn't say it doesn't "dip" - I said it rises with you, which is a fact.
Horizon being apparently below eye level does not debunk that fact. So as always, your "FE debunking" fails the reality test, and you fail to understand what is being said.
It's a common FE claim that "horizon rises to eye level". It doesn't and that can be demonstrated in multiple ways shown in the link I provided.
I thought that's what you were asserting. If not then fine. But I'm not clear why you think this is a problem for a globe earth.
When you say it "rises with you" - the horizon is miles away even at viewer heights close to sea level. So of course when you ascend it doesn't dip noticeably. Why would it?
But I would suggest that the angle dip to the horizon and the distance to the horizon are both consistent with a globe morel. There may be FE explanations, but neither of these things are a problem for RE, it's what you'd expect to observe - you can see further over the curve with more height and the angle you look down at the horizon increases - the latter of these being hard to perceive but can be measured. Why do you think that's an issue?
-
It's a common FE claim that "horizon rises to eye level". It doesn't and that can be demonstrated in multiple ways shown in the link I provided.
I thought that's what you were asserting. If not then fine. But I'm not clear why you think this is a problem for a globe earth.
When you say it "rises with you" - the horizon is miles away even at viewer heights close to sea level. So of course when you ascend it doesn't dip noticeably. Why would it?
But I would suggest that the angle dip to the horizon and the distance to the horizon are both consistent with a globe morel. There may be FE explanations, but neither of these things are a problem for RE, it's what you'd expect to observe - you can see further over the curve with more height and the angle you look down at the horizon increases - the latter of these being hard to perceive but can be measured. Why do you think that's an issue?
No. If the horizon was the curve it would stay fixed as you rise, it would never rise with you. Not even an inch. Of course, it does not rise to eye level and I have never made that claim. But it does visibly rise as you go higher. Impossible if Earth is a ball like I said.
-
All that would do is show examples of ships being "restored" when they are closer than the horizon.
When ships are truly beyond the horizon they cannot be restored
You assert this with no evidence
No I don't. I provided examples. You may dispute the quality of that evidence, and that's fine, but to state I provided "no" evidence is incorrect.
As I've said, I accept the first picture isn't particularly good evidence, I think the second one is better and the Turning Torso video - posted elsewhere - is better still.
and then insist that I accept that as a premise for further arguments. I do not.
I'm not insisting on anything, but I'm not even clear what you're arguing here. You said previously that
"The Sinking Ship Effect is a big hint. It's one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there" - from that it doesn't sound like you dispute the sinking ship effect actually happens, so what are you arguing about? The start of this was when Dual1ty said
"It can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view, though."
He just stated that as a fact, he provided no evidence. Why aren't you picking him up on that?
Once again, you assert this without evidence.
I need to provide evidence that zooming out of a scene would make things smaller? ???
Yes. Isn't it remarkable that every time people suggest that you perform a very simple experiment which would help clear your confusion, you refuse to do so and just post pictures you found on the Internet
It isn't that remarkable. I don't live near the coast. Although I did show the results of an experiment I conducted in my front room which demonstrated that objects can be "restored" with optical zoom and demonstrated that it's nothing to do with sinking ships. While we're here, I did actually take some photos during a recent trip to the seaside of a wind farm out to sea, but the results weren't particularly conclusive - I suspect because the turbines weren't far enough away. So it's not like I've made no effort.
-
No. If the horizon was the curve it would stay fixed as you rise, it would never rise with you. Not even an inch. Of course, it does not rise to eye level and I have never made that claim. But it does visibly rise as you go higher. Impossible if Earth is a ball like I said.
I honestly don't understand why you think this is impossible. The horizon is around 3 miles away, at a normal height on a beach. There is an angle you're looking down at it, but if you're standing on a beach it's so small it's basically impossible to discern. As you ascend that angle does change but very slowly. I did some quick calculations:
2m - 0.0225°
10m - 0.0507°
100m - 0.101°
So it effectively looks like it's at the same position until you get to a significant altitude.
All you have to do to understand this is to drive somewhere and observe that while things on the side of the road whip by quickly, hills a few miles away barely seem to move. They're not moving with you, they're just far away so it takes longer for their position relative to you to change.
-
No. If the horizon was the curve it would stay fixed as you rise, it would never rise with you. Not even an inch. Of course, it does not rise to eye level and I have never made that claim. But it does visibly rise as you go higher. Impossible if Earth is a ball like I said.
I honestly don't understand why you think this is impossible. The horizon is around 3 miles away, at a normal height on a beach. There is an angle you're looking down at it, but if you're standing on a beach it's so small it's basically impossible to discern. As you ascend that angle does change but very slowly. I did some quick calculations:
2m - 0.0225°
10m - 0.0507°
100m - 0.101°
So it effectively looks like it's at the same position until you get to a significant altitude.
All you have to do to understand this is to drive somewhere and observe that while things on the side of the road whip by quickly, hills a few miles away barely seem to move. They're not moving with you, they're just far away so it takes longer for their position relative to you to change.
lol I'm not looking down at anything, I simply observe the horizon rising with me (or the optical instrument). When you get to a significant altitude such as plane cruising altitude it will appear to dip more unless you use IR. When you use IR, it's really obvious that the horizon extends much further than what is predicted by the globe model. It will still be below eye level, but nothing like what the globe model predicts. At that point the argument from the globe zealots is that it appears to curve horizontally and they ignore how far it extends and the fact that it does not match the globe model prediction (in fact it's way off).
-
lol I'm not looking down at anything
Well, you've agreed there is horizon dip. So by definition you are looking down but it's not in a way you can perceive. The horizon is, to all intents and purposes, straight in front of you. Which is what you'd expect on both a RE and a FE.
I simply observe the horizon rising with me
Well, sure. But what I'm not understanding is why you think that's an issue for RE.
As I said, observe a hill which is a few miles away from you. Then move 10m to the right. Assuming you can still see the hill has it significantly moved with respect to you? Of course it hasn't, because it's miles away. This is basic parallax.
-
The earth’s horizon is the dividing line between the land and the sky. On a totally flat plain, that line (physically) must be below your eye level because there’s some distance between your feet and your eyes. This is the dip angle. One problem on earth is the atmosphere. This is the source of some refraction. This means that the perceived angle at which the light enters your eye may not be the same as the actual dip angle. It’s very important for a celestial navigator to know his local weather conditions as well as his ‘height of eye’. On most large ships the navigator can easily be 125 to 150 feet above sea level, and this would be a significant error if this distance is ignored. The local temperature and humidity will produce some light refraction that can also cause a measurement error if not corrected for. It’s important to realize that the physical horizon will always be below your eye level, but that angle may not be perceivable due to atmospheric refraction and/or your inability to decern the differences in very small dip angles.
-
The earth’s horizon is the dividing line between the land and the sky. On a totally flat plain, that line (physically) must be below your eye level because there’s some distance between your feet and your eyes. This is the dip angle. One problem on earth is the atmosphere. This is the source of some refraction. This means that the perceived angle at which the light enters your eye may not be the same as the actual dip angle. It’s very important for a celestial navigator to know his local weather conditions as well as his ‘height of eye’. On most large ships the navigator can easily be 125 to 150 feet above sea level, and this would be a significant error if this distance is ignored. The local temperature and humidity will produce some light refraction that can also cause a measurement error if not corrected for. It’s important to realize that the physical horizon will always be below your eye level, but that angle may not be perceivable due to atmospheric refraction and/or your inability to decern the differences in very small dip angles.
What physical horizon? You are confirming that the horizon & celestial sphere are always relative to the observer's position and do not exist independently from the observer - meaning that they are a result of perspective and not physical geometry.
All those decades or centuries of heliocentrism being the world's dominating religion and they still haven't produced an ounce of proof of a geometrical ball Earth. It remains a mathematical model only. And a CGI cartoon. Because that's all it is.
-
I simply observe the horizon rising with me (or the optical instrument).
Would you care to show us an example of the horizon rising with an optical instrument? Preferably one with a reference level.
-
No I don't. I provided examples.
This is incorrect. You provided examples of two things - obstruction and limitations of camera sensors - and assert without evidence that these cases are the same as what's being discussed. In doing so, you engage in circular logic.
I can help you stop making that error, but you gotta stop "nuh uh"-ing and start engaging with the science. You know how well it goes for you when you double-down on these fuck-ups. Wanna try something else for a change?
He just stated that as a fact, he provided no evidence. Why aren't you picking him up on that?
Well, he's not exactly trying to engage in rational or empirical thought. You claim you do. It's triage. If I wasted my time on every guy that Just Do Be Saying Shit on an online forum, I'd run out of time and resources pretty quickly. :)
I'd ask you a similar question: you've got a guy that's just saying things over and over, without even attempting to appeal to logic, and you're giving him a good portion of your time. Meanwhile, fixing the flaws in your logic is something you're remarkably good at avoiding - to the point where you go months at a time of constantly repeating the same nonsense and constantly being corrected, with no acknowledgement on your end. What gives?
I need to provide evidence that zooming out of a scene would make things smaller? ???
I'm trying to be polite, or at least not immediately viscerally aggressive. Would you care to reciprocate by responding only to things I said, and not things you made up to make yourself feel better?
It isn't that remarkable. I don't live near the coast.
That's a decent excuse for not doing it immediately, in which case you have a perfectly good reason not to respond to these threads for a while. But you do respond, incessantly. In doing so, you forfeit your excuse.
That said, even with the cost of living crisis, I do find it remarkable that you haven't been able to justify the £50 expense in the literal years you've been whinging about not understanding this simple experiment, and that you haven't otherwise found yourself near a lake or sea in all that time. You must be a very busy guy, as evidenced by your posting habits here.
-
I simply observe the horizon rising with me (or the optical instrument).
Would you care to show us an example of the horizon rising with an optical instrument? Preferably one with a reference level.
(https://i.imgur.com/5NVUDuW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0vH8JUi.jpg)
Would you care to explain why things that are farther away at sea level appear higher than things that are closer if it's all exponential downward curvature of Earth?
And how did those boats appear to compress together along with the horizon when the camera was closer to the ground? Did the curve do that too?
-
Well, he's not exactly trying to engage in rational or empirical thought. You claim you do. It's triage. If I wasted my time on every guy that Just Do Be Saying Shit on an online forum, I'd run out of time and resources pretty quickly. :)
I'd ask you a similar question: you've got a guy that's just saying things over and over, without even attempting to appeal to logic, and you're giving him a good portion of your time. Meanwhile, fixing the flaws in your logic is something you're remarkably good at avoiding - to the point where you go months at a time of constantly repeating the same nonsense and constantly being corrected, with no acknowledgement on your end. What gives?
So apparently you don't agree with what I say but you don't confront anything I say directly, you just post stuff like this trying to portray me as a "guy that Just Do Be Saying Shit on an online forum". What?
I don't "appeal to logic", I appeal to facts.
-
I don't "appeal to logic", I appeal to facts.
You and I approach things very differently. I don't mind that. Putting the "fun" in "fundamental disagreements" and all that.
AATW claims to approach things in the way I do, but he fucks it up beyond all recognition. I do mind that.
-
I simply observe the horizon rising with me (or the optical instrument).
Would you care to show us an example of the horizon rising with an optical instrument? Preferably one with a reference level.
(https://i.imgur.com/5NVUDuW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0vH8JUi.jpg)
What is tilting the camera up or down supposed to prove? ??? Photographers can put the horizon anywhere they want. That's why I asked for a reference level.
Would you care to explain why things that are farther away at sea level appear higher than things that are closer if it's all exponential downward curvature of Earth?
And how did those boats appear to compress together along with the horizon when the camera was closer to the ground? Did the curve do that too?
No, perspective did that. As objects approach the vanishing point (usually on the horizon), they appear to rise closer to that vanishing point. Again, you really should review the basic rules of perspective because they do apply, even on a round earth.
-
Nah, I don't buy it. A conspiracy spanning centuries with no genuine motive in sight just isn't feasible to me, and I'd need more evidence than the fact that a number of these historical astronomers were members of a silly club to convince me otherwise.
What are you talking about? Are you saying that you think heliocentrism is just a coincidence and there is no organized conspiracy associated with it?
Heliocentrism not being a coincidence and there being no organized conspiracy associated with it are not mutually exclusive. None of the astronomers from hundreds of years ago were starting from scratch. They all believed the earth to be round, and the false conclusion of heliocentrism naturally followed from this false premise. There is no reason to suppose that they were intentionally lying rather than simply being wrong about the nature of our world, just as the vast majority of people throughout history have been wrong about the nature of our world.
-
None of the astronomers from hundreds of years ago were starting from scratch. They all believed the earth to be round, and the false conclusion of heliocentrism naturally followed from this false premise.
Incorrect. Round earth geocentrism was the natural conclusion from that premise and was the dominant model for many, many years. Heliocentrism was a radical idea that few took seriously and took quite a while to catch on because it was not an intuitive model given the sensibilities of the time.
-
What is tilting the camera up or down supposed to prove? ??? Photographers can put the horizon anywhere they want. That's why I asked for a reference level
It didn't get more tilted than what is already observable. No tilt change between those frames. It's only higher + a little farther away. I know you asked for a reference level, but you're not gonna get one.
Observations from a plane + IR already soundly debunk the globe, because they don't match globe model predictions at all like I said. So far all the globe zealots have ignored that information, including you. Why?
Would you care to explain why things that are farther away at sea level appear higher than things that are closer if it's all exponential downward curvature of Earth?
And how did those boats appear to compress together along with the horizon when the camera was closer to the ground? Did the curve do that too?
No, perspective did that. As objects approach the vanishing point (usually on the horizon), they appear to rise closer to that vanishing point. Again, you really should review the basic rules of perspective because they do apply, even on a round earth.
Thanks for confirming that the horizon is a result of perspective and not "curvature of Earth". ;D
Like I said, horizon does not exist independently from the observer and the globe cult have never proved that it does.
Thank you for playing.
-
Nah, I don't buy it. A conspiracy spanning centuries with no genuine motive in sight just isn't feasible to me, and I'd need more evidence than the fact that a number of these historical astronomers were members of a silly club to convince me otherwise.
What are you talking about? Are you saying that you think heliocentrism is just a coincidence and there is no organized conspiracy associated with it?
Heliocentrism not being a coincidence and there being no organized conspiracy associated with it are not mutually exclusive. None of the astronomers from hundreds of years ago were starting from scratch. They all believed the earth to be round, and the false conclusion of heliocentrism naturally followed from this false premise. There is no reason to suppose that they were intentionally lying rather than simply being wrong about the nature of our world, just as the vast majority of people throughout history have been wrong about the nature of our world.
Yeah, I know... I never claimed that it was a conspiracy from the beginning. Maybe Dubay did, but I did not.
But at this point it is obviously a conspiracy. The video talks about many of the Apollo astronauts being Freemasons or having Freemason dads - that's a fact.
When they claim to land on the Moon (or any of the planets) there is an obvious conspiracy going on even though most people who work for it don't know due to compartmentalization. This only happens in countries where there is a deep Freemasonic presence - that's my point.
-
I know you asked for a reference level, but you're not gonna get one.
Then those pictures don't prove anything.
Observations from a plane + IR already soundly debunk the globe, because they don't match globe model predictions at all like I said. So far all the globe zealots have ignored that information, including you. Why?
Do tell. What does the globe model predict that the pictures from a plane + IR predict that the horizon should look like?
Thanks for confirming that the horizon is a result of perspective and not "curvature of Earth". ;D
The horizon is a result of earth and sky appearing to meet in the distance and will exist regardless of the shape of the earth. The salient question is whether or not a object can move past and dip below the horizon. On a flat earth, the answer is no. On a round earth, the answer is yes.
-
Then those pictures don't prove anything.
They are evidence of FE. I posted the full video in another thread already.
But I never said they proved anything, that's not how science works.
Do tell. What does the globe model predict that the pictures from a plane + IR predict that the horizon should look like?
Globe model predicts horizon is much lower than it is in reality. JTolan has excellent examples of this. Maybe you should go to his channel and watch some videos to educate yourself.
The horizon is a result of earth and sky appearing to meet in the distance and will exist regardless of the shape of the earth. The salient question is whether or not a object can move past and dip below the horizon. On a flat earth, the answer is no. On a round earth, the answer is yes.
On a flat Earth the answer is yes; on a ball Earth the answer is much sooner & you would be able to see things gradually tilting for miles while looking down the curve. In reality we don't see that. Ever. The best proof of things tilting that the globe cult has is a Michael Jackson concert.
But no, that's not the salient question. The salient question is why have the globe cult not provided proof of a physical horizon/curvature yet if it is physically there. If I were you I would start to question why there's no proof of a geometrical ball Earth in 2023.
-
The salient question is why have the globe cult not provided proof of a physical horizon/curvature yet if it is physically there.
That's easy. It's because, as so many FE'ers have shown time and time again, there is no evidence of curvature that you will accept.
By the way, the horizon really isn't a physical thing.
-
That's easy. It's because, as so many FE'ers have shown time and time again, there is no evidence of curvature that you will accept.
I'm not asking for evidence, I'm asking for proof. Not the same thing.
By the way, the horizon really isn't a physical thing.
Ok? I know that, but if the Earth is a ball then it must be physical, no? What do you think the horizon is, then?
-
That's easy. It's because, as so many FE'ers have shown time and time again, there is no evidence of curvature that you will accept.
I'm not asking for evidence, I'm asking for proof. Not the same thing.
Okay then, what proof would you accept?
By the way, the horizon really isn't a physical thing.
Ok? I know that, but if the Earth is a ball then it must be physical, no?
No.
What do you think the horizon is, then?
I already told you. The horizon is where the sky and earth appear to meet. What do you think the horizon is?
-
That's easy. It's because, as so many FE'ers have shown time and time again, there is no evidence of curvature that you will accept.
I'm not asking for evidence, I'm asking for proof. Not the same thing.
Okay then, what proof would you accept?
A physical measurement of the ball would be swell. No need to measure the whole ball, a few miles would be enough.
By the way, the horizon really isn't a physical thing.
Ok? I know that, but if the Earth is a ball then it must be physical, no?
No.
What do you think the horizon is, then?
I already told you. The horizon is where the sky and earth appear to meet. What do you think the horizon is?
Ok lol. Yeah, I agree because it's true. ;D
-
A physical measurement of the ball would be swell. No need to measure the whole ball, a few miles would be enough.
Then I suggest you talk with a surveyor because they measure bits and pieces of the earth all the time and a few miles is far enough for them to need to account for the earth's curvature.
-
A physical measurement of the ball would be swell. No need to measure the whole ball, a few miles would be enough.
Then I suggest you talk with a surveyor because they measure bits and pieces of the earth all the time and a few miles is far enough for them to need to account for the earth's curvature.
Do you not understand that a physical (tangible) measurement is not the same thing as an optical measurement?
-
A physical measurement of the ball would be swell. No need to measure the whole ball, a few miles would be enough.
Then I suggest you talk with a surveyor because they measure bits and pieces of the earth all the time and a few miles is far enough for them to need to account for the earth's curvature.
Do you not understand that a physical (tangible) measurement is not the same thing as an optical measurement?
How would you suggest that the curvature along several miles of the earth be physically measured?
-
How would you suggest that the curvature along several miles of the earth be physically measured?
Well, I would say it's up to you (the globe cult) to figure out the details since you're the ones claiming that the curvature exists and the ones who have pretty much all the resources & money.
Or alternatively - oh well, you can keep not producing proof of curvature for all eternity for all I care.
-
How would you suggest that the curvature along several miles of the earth be physically measured?
Well, I would say it's up to you (the globe cult) to figure out the details since you're the ones claiming that the curvature exists and the ones who have pretty much all the resources & money.
Apparently none of the modern methods for measuring curvature are acceptable to you, so we seem to be at an impasse.
Or alternatively - oh well, you can keep not producing proof of curvature for all eternity for all I care.
If objects moving past and sinking below the horizon, satellite imagery or any of the other evidence posted isn't enough proof of curvature for you, then I don't know what is.
-
By the way, the horizon really isn't a physical thing.
Damn, RE light now exists outside of the realm of physics. And you say we're the ones with strange ideas about light.
-
By the way, the horizon really isn't a physical thing.
Damn, RE light now exists outside of the realm of physics.
I'm not sure where you got that from, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't say resembling that.
And you say we're the ones with strange ideas about light.
Do you have anything to add to the discussion or should I report you for low content posting?
-
I'm not sure where you got that from, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't say resembling that.
Of course you did, and I helpfully quoted you saying it. Of course, it's possible that you have a perfectly good explanation for a metaphysical horizon, but so far you chose not to provide it.
should I report you for low content posting?
I would sincerely advise against you trying to troll via the mod report function. You already have a track record of doing that.
-
Nah, I don't buy it. A conspiracy spanning centuries with no genuine motive in sight just isn't feasible to me, and I'd need more evidence than the fact that a number of these historical astronomers were members of a silly club to convince me otherwise.
What are you talking about? Are you saying that you think heliocentrism is just a coincidence and there is no organized conspiracy associated with it?
Freemasonry isn't behind any heliocentric worldview. Masons always meet on the level.
-
Freemasonry isn't behind any heliocentric worldview. Masons always meet on the level.
When you're part of a conspiracy, you know that you're selling BS to people.
It's not about Freemasonry as a whole. It never was and it never will be. I can count the Freemasons that "went to the Moon" with my fingers. But they were there... in the hangar faking it lol.
-
A physical measurement of the ball would be swell. No need to measure the whole ball, a few miles would be enough.
I have literally no idea what you mean by that. You understand that the earth isn't a perfect sphere, right?
So what would a few miles of "physical measurement of the ball" involve and what would it demonstrate?
-
Freemasonry isn't behind any heliocentric worldview. Masons always meet on the level.
When you're part of a conspiracy, you know that you're selling BS to people.
It's not about Freemasonry as a whole. It never was and it never will be. I can count the Freemasons that "went to the Moon" with my fingers. But they were there... in the hangar faking it lol.
The "Moon landing," was definitely bullshit of course. But that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
-
Freemasonry isn't behind any heliocentric worldview. Masons always meet on the level.
When you're part of a conspiracy, you know that you're selling BS to people.
It's not about Freemasonry as a whole. It never was and it never will be. I can count the Freemasons that "went to the Moon" with my fingers. But they were there... in the hangar faking it lol.
The "Moon landing," was definitely bullshit of course. But that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Yes it does.
If you meant "prior knowledge of the shape of the Earth is not necessary to fake a Moon landing", then sure. They're just working from an authoritative model of the "Solar System" that someone knows is BS but they still push it. But it doesn't really matter who it is. At the end of the day Freemasonry is just a network of people ready to do dirt for their "brothers". Plain and simple.
-
Freemasonry isn't behind any heliocentric worldview. Masons always meet on the level.
When you're part of a conspiracy, you know that you're selling BS to people.
It's not about Freemasonry as a whole. It never was and it never will be. I can count the Freemasons that "went to the Moon" with my fingers. But they were there... in the hangar faking it lol.
The "Moon landing," was definitely bullshit of course. But that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Yes it does.
If you meant "prior knowledge of the shape of the Earth is not necessary to fake a Moon landing", then sure. They're just working from a model of the "Solar System" that someone knows is BS. But it doesn't really matter who it is. At the end of the day Freemasonry is just a network of people ready to do dirt for their "brothers". Plain and simple.
Well, I certainly do not and will not do dirt for any "brother." And again, the moon landing was bullshit. And I guess, all the reporting did present a heliocentric viewpoint...
-
Well, I certainly do not and will not do dirt for any "brother." And again, the moon landing was bullshit. And I guess, all the reporting did present a heliocentric viewpoint...
Good for you. There are good and bad Freemasons. Just like there are good and bad people. It's really not hard at all to understand.
But knowing what I know now about how certain groups operate, I wouldn't be surprised if they could force you to do dirt, if you have a family they can threaten.
-
Freemasonry isn't behind any heliocentric worldview. Masons always meet on the level.
When you're part of a conspiracy, you know that you're selling BS to people.
It's not about Freemasonry as a whole. It never was and it never will be. I can count the Freemasons that "went to the Moon" with my fingers. But they were there... in the hangar faking it lol.
The "Moon landing," was definitely bullshit of course. But that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Proof?
-
Proof?
Still struggling with basic terminology, I see.
-
Well, I certainly do not and will not do dirt for any "brother." And again, the moon landing was bullshit. And I guess, all the reporting did present a heliocentric viewpoint...
Good for you. There are good and bad Freemasons. Just like there are good and bad people. It's really not hard at all to understand.
But knowing what I know now about how certain groups operate, I wouldn't be surprised if they could force you to do dirt, if you have a family they can threaten.
Masons do not go around threatening peoples' families.
Think about your basic argumentation here:
1) Masons do dirt for each other, meaning they help each other; and,
B) Masons are gonna kill their brothers if they don't do the dirt.
Sorry, those things just don't line up. Lots and lots of dissonance in the tune your singing there....
-
Masons do not go around threatening peoples' families.
Think about your basic argumentation here:
1) Masons do dirt for each other, meaning they help each other; and,
B) Masons are gonna kill their brothers if they don't do the dirt.
Sorry, those things just don't line up. Lots and lots of dissonance in the tune your singing there....
I didn't say anything about Masons doing that. It's other groups doing that to Masons. Or whoever. That said, some Masons may be involved in directing those other groups in some capacity. Or they simply put in an "order" that they pay for (or perhaps not if they are government-affiliated). I know for a fact that these groups exist.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
By the way - it's "you're", not "your".
-
You provided examples of two things - obstruction and limitations of camera sensors
I'm not sure what you mean by limitations of camera sensors. The images both showed a boat where the bottom was clearly not visible.
As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.
The context being honk saying "The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window."
Duncan replying "The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd."
And then Dual1ty saying "it can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view"
I assumed that Dual1ty was claiming that boats don't really disappear below the horizon, they just get too small to see, the bottom merges with the sea and with optical zoom you can bring them back in to view. That isn't true and it's what the images were intended to demonstrate. Those pictures are zoomed in and the bottom of the boats aren't restored, because they're occluded by something. It doesn't matter what they're obstructed by, I was providing counter-examples of the claim that you can always restore them. You can't.
I'd ask you a similar question: you've got a guy that's just saying things over and over, without even attempting to appeal to logic, and you're giving him a good portion of your time.
Fair question. As I've told you, I post here partly because it's a diversion during downtime at work and partly because I don't like to see bullshit go unchallenged.
I guess it's the same reason I've engaged with Tom a fair bit in my time here. He's obviously wrong about a load of stuff, it is frustrating to see him dig his heels in harder and harder no matter how clearly he's shown to be wrong, but it's something to do and I can't let such nonsense stand without correction.
you go months at a time of constantly repeating the same nonsense and constantly being corrected, with no acknowledgement on your end.
Well obviously I don't regard it as nonsense and therefore don't accept I've been corrected.
Let's say you're right about the image, the boat's behind a wave. In a previous thread in this area when I asked you what prevents you seeing further than the horizon you said
"Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon" (which is neither sharp, nor is it the true horizon)"
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5327.msg277324#msg277324
But now you're complaining that I'm showing photos where it's waves stopping you seeing the rest of the boat?
I would note that during that thread I came to realise that a FE horizon wouldn't be as different to an RE one as I had initially supposed, so the assertion that I don't adapt to new information is not correct...if I accept the new information as valid.
I'm struggling to see what we are arguing about here. I've seen the FE claim that boats don't really sink from the bottom first, optical zoom restores them. It isn't true. It doesn't matter whether the reason it's not true is because things disappear over the horizon/curve of the earth, or whether it's because they're occluded by waves or other physical obstruction, they do disappear and that's what I was trying to demonstrate.
Even with the cost of living crisis, I do find it remarkable that you haven't been able to justify the £50 expense in the literal years you've been whinging about not understanding this simple experiment, and that you haven't otherwise found yourself near a lake or sea in all that time.
Literally in the post you're replying to I outlined some work I did on this at a recent trip to the seaside.
BUT...it's not just about the cost of getting there, it's also about having the right optics and they aren't cheap. I have a mid-range camera and the zoom is OK, but when I was trying to do some tests I didn't get anything conclusive.
You said elsewhere I claim to "approach things in the way I do"
I'm not sure that's quite true although I don't think our approaches are a million miles apart.
I believe your philosophy is you have to check everything out for yourself. Mine is that doing that isn't possible - I either don't have the equipment, competence or knowledge to do that. I take a more evidence based approach, and I don't think the only evidence admissible is what I've personally observed.
-
As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.
Therein lies the problem. You lack the ability to distinguish your hypothesis from the proof. You think the horizon is caused by obstruction, so you take ANY obstruction (in this case, one caused by a tall wave), present it, and go "ta-da!" It does nothing to distinguish between the two hypotheses, but here you are, strutting around like a pigeon and showing the same non-sequitur over and over again.
I'm not sure what you mean by limitations of camera sensors.
This:
(https://i.ibb.co/Lr4FgpF/Optical-Resolution.jpg)
Again, same problem. You lack an understanding of what's being said, so you produce evidence that matches some keywords ("wow, zoom = restoration!") without getting even remotely close to addressing the claims actually being made. It's OK that you don't understand things yet - that's what self-study and conversation are for. But, for fuck's sake, could you spend a little more time learning the arguments you're trying to dispute, and a little less time just shouting "FAAAAAAKE" and replying with lengthy non-seqs?
That isn't true and it's what the images were intended to demonstrate. Those pictures are zoomed in and the bottom of the boats aren't restored, because they're occluded by something. It doesn't matter what they're obstructed by, I was providing counter-examples of the claim that you can always restore them. You can't.
You have not accomplished that. This discussion concerns the horizon. You have yet to post one picture of the horizon. You posted plenty of pictures of things that are not the horizon and asserted that they prove your point.
When you combine that with grandiose statements about how you're "challenging bullshit", it really looks pretty weak. You don't even understand the basic vocabulary of science, but here you are, acting like you're superior to those scientifically literate.
Let's say you're right about the image, the boat's behind a wave. In a previous thread in this area when I asked you what prevents you seeing further than the horizon you said
"Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon" (which is neither sharp, nor is it the true horizon)"
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5327.msg277324#msg277324
But now you're complaining that I'm showing photos where it's waves stopping you seeing the rest of the boat?
What I said now and what I said then is exactly the same thing. You are showing us something that you describe as a "sharp horizon", despite it not being the horizon at all. You're showing us a body obstructing your view long before the horizon would be seen. Functionally, it is identical to claiming that this picture shows the "horizon":
(https://i.imgur.com/3PfAg2w.png)
Wow, look at how sharp and defined this "horizon" is! And no matter how much I zoom in with my camera, nothing behind the stop s"horizon" is revealed!!!!! Wowie! This must mean you're right!
Realistically, you have never seen the true horizon, but you may have seen something that's close enough for demonstration purposes. Your examples, however, are not close enough.
I would note that during that thread I came to realise that a FE horizon wouldn't be as different to an RE one as I had initially supposed, so the assertion that I don't adapt to new information is not correct...if I accept the new information as valid.
Nah, sorry. You saying "ok maybe you're right about X" and then coming back to make THE EXACT SAME BUNK ARGUMENT after a few months is not proof of you adapting to new information. If anything, it shows that you lack object permanence.
It doesn't matter whether the reason it's not true is because things disappear over the horizon/curve of the earth, or whether it's because they're occluded by waves or other physical obstruction
Well, yes, if you restrict your options to 2 incorrect ones, it really doesn't matter which one you choose. It starts to matter once you consider the FE option.
You said elsewhere I claim to "approach things in the way I do"
You claim to value logic and evidence. However, you routinely demonstrate utter contempt for these things. That's why I dislike you.
-
As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.
Therein lies the problem. You lack the ability to distinguish your hypothesis from the proof. You think the horizon is caused by obstruction, so you take ANY obstruction (in this case, one caused by a tall wave), present it, and go "ta-da!" It does nothing to distinguish between the two hypotheses, but here you are, strutting around like a pigeon and showing the same non-sequitur over and over again.
Curios that this claimed wave never seems to pass, but setting that aside what about observations over land? There are plenty of posts on the net of careful observations of mountains with precisely leveled telescopes where not only does the bottom of the mountain become obscured but the top of the mountain appears lower as you move further away. All easily explained via the RE model.
-
Curios that this claimed wave never seems to pass
Fascinating - how have you established this given only the specific picture we're discussing? Were you expecting for the contents of a still photograph to change over time? Yes, friend, the wave in the still photograph does never seem to pass. That's one of the main selling points of photography.
but setting that aside what about observations over land?
Perfectly level land (or reasonably close to), sure - otherwise you're just reintroducing the same issue. Luckily, that would never happen with someone like y-
mountains
Sigh. Try again.
-
Curios that this claimed wave never seems to pass
Fascinating - how have you established this given only the specific picture we're discussing? Were you expecting for the contents of a still photograph to change over time?
I was not referring specifically to that photo but the "wave explanation" used so commonly in similar cases. Here's a video for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Mrp7QzsCI
but setting that aside what about observations over land?
Perfectly level land (or reasonably close to), sure
Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.
mountains
Sigh. Try again.
Views of mountains work well for such an exercise but distant skylines or other tall structures work as well if you don't like mountains.
-
I see that Mr. ichoosemirage has chosen to ignore what I posted before since I already anticipated such "curvature proof" (lol) would be posted.
The globe relies on cherrypicked visual "proofsies" of "boats and things gone over the curve" that can easily be debunked by doing simple observations such as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03YkuMvcGeQ
No wonder the globe cult won't touch anything to do with a physical measurement of the curve with a 10-foot pole (only to say that it's impossible or a waste of time because they already know it's a globe). They want to stay on mirage/refraction/perspective (all of which they purposefully misunderstand, by the way) la-la-land for all eternity and just dismiss any of the hundreds (if not thousands by now) of long-distance observations that match FE predictions as "light bending over the curve at its exact rate". Not to mention the fact that no curvature has ever been measured anywhere despite the fact that it should be literally everywhere if Earth is really a globe (and they've had thousands of years to do so according to their own history).
Lots of other videos on that channel as well that prove that visual phenomena have nothing to do with curvature and change depending on conditions.
Too bad for the globe defenders that the main "globe proof" can be so easily debunked.
-
I was not referring specifically to that photo
I'm very happy for you. If at any point you're ready to discuss the actual topic at hand, rather than something you chose seemingly at random, please let us know.
Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.
If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?
Views of mountains work well for such an exercise but distant skylines or other tall structures work as well if you don't like mountains.
Ah, yes, skylines, those near-perfectly representations of the horizon.
You really don't know what's being discussed here, do you?
-
Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.
If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?
The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away. But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink. Thus the earth is not flat.
-
The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.
No, it emphatically is not. Read the thread before posting again. I will not have you derail it any further.
But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.
Just asserting it again as fact is unlikely to advance your position. "I said so, duh!" just isn't a sufficient standard of evidence.
Thus the earth is not flat.
Even if we assume your assertion as true (and, naturally, we don't), this does not follow. In fact, your claim above would disprove RE and FE alike.
-
Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.
If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?
The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away. But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink. Thus the earth is not flat.
Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.
Where do these people come from!?!?
-
The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.
No, it emphatically is not. Read the thread before posting again. I will not have you derail it any further.
This thread was derailed long before I joined in, including by your own posts, but whatever.
But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.
Just asserting it again as fact is unlikely to advance your position. "I said so, duh!" just isn't a sufficient standard of evidence.
Its an easy test to perform, there are plenty of examples on the net but of course you won't accept those nor bother to do the test yourself.
Thus the earth is not flat.
Even if we assume your assertion as true (and, naturally, we don't), this does not follow. In fact, your claim above would disprove RE and FE alike.
Because you say so? How would this disprove RE?
-
Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.
If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?
The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away. But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink. Thus the earth is not flat.
Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.
I have made no such claim. The surface need not be continuously level as long as the telescope is leveled at each point of observation (not continuous observation). Nor did I give any distance which of course would depend on the height of the target object as well as being limited by visibility conditions.
-
Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.
If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?
The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away. But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink. Thus the earth is not flat.
Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.
I have made no such claim. The surface need not be continuously level as long as the telescope is leveled at each point of observation (not continuous observation). Nor did I give any distance which of course would depend on the height of the target object as well as being limited by visibility conditions.
Of course you did. You wrote that the telescope would need to be leveled. If it is already leveled once and remains on the same level ground, affixed to that point, that's your claim.
You claim the object disappears because a telescope mounted as described eventually ends up somehow pointing up.
-
Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.
If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?
The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away. But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink. Thus the earth is not flat.
Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.
I have made no such claim. The surface need not be continuously level as long as the telescope is leveled at each point of observation (not continuous observation). Nor did I give any distance which of course would depend on the height of the target object as well as being limited by visibility conditions.
Of course you did. You wrote that the telescope would need to be leveled. If it is already leveled once and remains on the same level ground, affixed to that point, that's your claim.
You claim the object disappears because a telescope mounted as described eventually ends up somehow pointing up.
The telescope needs to be leveled AT EACH OBSERVATION POINT. Level is perpendicular to the pull of gravity which makes it tangential to the surface. Since the earth is round the angle of that tangent plane changes at each observation point resulting in the telescope pointing higher relative to the target as the distance between them increases.
-
The telescope needs to be leveled AT EACH OBSERVATION POINT.
Does anybody know what he's talking about?
Are you talking about moving the telescope?
Is this some AI-generated answer? Sure seems that way when you read the rest of the text.
-
Does anybody know what he's talking about?
He didn't bother reading the discussion before responding, and he's too proud to do so now, so he's just... saying things. None of it is on topic - which is why he's ranting about multiple observation points in an experiment that only involves one. He also doesn't understand that making RE assumptions in an FE experiment works against his goal, because he does not understand propositional logic.
I already warned him and asked him to stop, so he won't be doing it much longer, one way or another.
-
Does anybody know what he's talking about?
He didn't bother reading the discussion before responding, and he's too proud to do so now, so he's just... saying things. None of it is on topic - which is why he's ranting about multiple observation points in an experiment that only involves one. He also doesn't understand that making RE assumptions in an FE experiment works against his goal, because he does not understand propositional logic.
Watching a target move away from a fixed observation point produces exactly the same effect as moving the telescope to points of increasing distance from a fixed target, nor did I make any assumptions about the shape of the earth in describing the methodology, only in what the expected result would be. But you don't wish to discuss it, so I'm done here.
-
You think the horizon is caused by obstruction
I don't know if I'd say "caused". It's the result of the earth being a globe. That means the sea slopes away from you which limits how far you can see.
It also means that as objects move away they will disappear from the bottom first as they go over that curve and eventually you won't be able to see them at all. Like an object going over a hill.
I thought what Dual1ty was saying is that this doesn't actually occur but instead if you zoom in you can "restore" the whole object. You can't. Certainly not always. That's what the photos were intended to demonstrate, as does the Turning Torso video.
You lack an understanding of what's being said
I'd invite you to consider who I was replying to. He has a habit of declaring things without explanation or evidence.
So sure, it's possible I misunderstood him. From past experience asking questions doesn't yield much of a sensible reply.
This discussion concerns the horizon.
Dual1ty didn't use the word horizon. He said
"if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view".
That's what I was originally responding to.
Nah, sorry. You saying "ok maybe you're right about X" and then coming back to make THE EXACT SAME BUNK ARGUMENT
It's not the same argument because the two discussions are about different things.
The previous one was about the differences between a RE horizon and a FE one. This is about whether ships really disappear from the bottom first.
You claim to value logic and evidence. However, you routinely demonstrate utter contempt for these things. That's why I dislike you.
I routinely come to different conclusions to you. You seem to struggle when I don't immediately come to think you are very very right about things.
When you explain things clearly and present evidence and I can see you are right - as you did in that previous thread - then sure, I change my position.
When you're vague, just tell me I'm wrong and don't answer questions then it's a more difficult conversation.
-
lol The "Turning Torso globe proofsie" is one of the most cherrypicked observations in history. It certainly is not proof of curvature. You can even clearly see how it seems to get compressed not only due to perspective but due to atmospheric conditions as well. Otherwise damn, did the curvature do that too?
If things were really following the imaginary exponential curve that globers desperately believe exists, things would gradually tilt exponentially as well along with it. There are zero observations that show any tilt whatsoever. I wonder why?
And also no observations of curvature at sea level that aren't assumptions of curvature directly in front of the observer due to visual phenomena and perspective hehe!
Not to mention that they desperately have to dimiss the many long-distance observations that match FE by saying "it's just refraction" while not undertanding that refraction would ALWAYS have to occur at the exact same rate as the rate of curvature to make a consistent image. Literally impossible in the real world. Only works with math and equations on a white board. ;D
Oh, and dismiss any of the JTolan observations because that's too high to account for with refraction equations LOL.
-
lol The "Turning Torso globe proofsie" is one of the most cherrypicked observations in history.
Cherrypicked is your get out of jail free card for any observation which doesn't match what you want to believe.
In what sense is it cherry picked? Are there lots of observations of this building from similar distances where you can see all of it?
You can even clearly see how it seems to get compressed not only due to perspective but due to atmospheric conditions as well. Otherwise damn, did the curvature do that too?
I didn't notice that but feel free to demonstrate that. But yes, the atmosphere does have an effect on observations. Certainly at the furthest distances the building is less clear because of visibility. What's your explanation for where the rest of the building has gone? Why does more of it disappear with increasing distance?
If things were really following the imaginary exponential curve that globers desperately believe exists, things would gradually tilt exponentially as well along with it. There are zero observations that show any tilt whatsoever. I wonder why?
Indeed. At the furthest distance the building would be tilted away from you. At an angle of...0.45 degrees. You're surprised that's basically impossible to discern?
Not to mention that they desperately have to dimiss the many long-distance observations that match FE
Can you provide an example?
-
What a guy. Has to constantly contort his answers and do constant quote-mining and misrepresentations to make his beliefs work (well, to pretend they work anyway). And dismiss anything that doesn't fit his beliefs.
Imagine 6400 posts of that without getting paid...
-
Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.
If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?
The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away. But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink. Thus the earth is not flat.
Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.
I have made no such claim. The surface need not be continuously level as long as the telescope is leveled at each point of observation (not continuous observation). Nor did I give any distance which of course would depend on the height of the target object as well as being limited by visibility conditions.
Of course you did. You wrote that the telescope would need to be leveled. If it is already leveled once and remains on the same level ground, affixed to that point, that's your claim.
You claim the object disappears because a telescope mounted as described eventually ends up somehow pointing up.
The telescope needs to be leveled AT EACH OBSERVATION POINT. Level is perpendicular to the pull of gravity which makes it tangential to the surface. Since the earth is round the angle of that tangent plane changes at each observation point resulting in the telescope pointing higher relative to the target as the distance between them increases.
Damn, you need to report this to the surveyors in Kansas...They got their stuff all wrong there...not.../sarcasm.
-
Also imagine this ichoosenonsense clown telling construction workers and engineers that they need to do their jobs differently and get new tools because level doesn't mean straight, it means curved because the Earth is "round".
-
How normal people measure the curve:
(https://i.imgur.com/MwwaKJn.jpg)
How globe-believing zealots measure the curve:
(https://i.imgur.com/jz1Foog.jpg)
+
(https://i.imgur.com/eqLpMx6.jpg)
-
How globe-believing zealots measure the curve:
(https://i.imgur.com/jz1Foog.jpg)
+
(https://i.imgur.com/eqLpMx6.jpg)
Hey, if you’re unprepared for debating this why do you even bother? You’re not even making a point. It’s no wonder you’re on *that* side of the debate (:
-
Also imagine this ichoosenonsense clown telling construction workers and engineers that they need to do their jobs differently and get new tools because level doesn't mean straight, it means curved because the Earth is "round".
For projects where the deviation would make a difference, like the LIGO project they DO take it into account. For smaller structures it not only would be difficult and expensive but would serve no purpose so they do not do so.
-
Also imagine this ichoosenonsense clown telling construction workers and engineers that they need to do their jobs differently and get new tools because level doesn't mean straight, it means curved because the Earth is "round".
For projects where the deviation would make a difference, like the LIGO project they DO take it into account. For smaller structures it not only would be difficult and expensive but would serve no purpose so they do not do so.
lol The "LIGO GPS curvature proofsie" card. "GPS is mapped to follow the curve, so the curve exists because we use GPS and it works!". "We accounted for curvature because the GPS says so". ;D
No, it's not just small structrue. No one accounts for curvature no matter the size of the structure. If you think so provide the blueprints as evidence. Not stories. Real blueprints that we know for a fact were used to build real things.
-
If you think so provide the blueprints as evidence. Not stories. Real blueprints that we know for a fact were used to build real things.
And how on earth could anyone do that? Even if they were presented, how would you know they were used? LIGO mention accounting for the earth's curve on their website.
Your response is a predictable "nuh-uh!".
I've said this to you before, you set the bar of proof insanely high for anything which doesn't fit your worldview. Anything which does you seem to happily accept because you saw a YouTube video which says it. It's good to question things, but you seem to do so extremely selectively.
-
LIGO mention accounting for the earth's curve on their website.
Your response is a predictable "nuh-uh!".
No, my response was what it was.
I would appreciate if you didn't tarnish the thread with your opinions.
-
Also imagine this ichoosenonsense clown telling construction workers and engineers that they need to do their jobs differently and get new tools because level doesn't mean straight, it means curved because the Earth is "round".
For projects where the deviation would make a difference, like the LIGO project they DO take it into account. For smaller structures it not only would be difficult and expensive but would serve no purpose so they do not do so.
lol The "LIGO GPS curvature proofsie" card. "GPS is mapped to follow the curve, so the curve exists because we use GPS and it works!". "We accounted for curvature because the GPS says so". ;D
No, it's not just small structrue. No one accounts for curvature no matter the size of the structure. If you think so provide the blueprints as evidence. Not stories. Real blueprints that we know for a fact were used to build real things.
Sometimes though the existing maps aren't accurate enough. Here's some details going into digging the cross-rail tunnels under London. Due to the small gap that the tunnels had to go through, between existing infrastructure and other tunnels, existing maps were found to only be accurate to 20cm per KM in a 3d space due to the curvature of the Earth. So a new co-ordinate system was produced.
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/ (https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/)
https://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf (https://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf)
The following link talks about how engineers and surveyors are attempting to display routes of long train infrastructure on a 2d plane on blueprints. You will probably be interested in figure 1 showing a simplified version of the ratio that has to be applied to convert from one to the other.
https://learninglegacy.hs2.org.uk/document/advances-in-engineering-survey-grid-transformations-for-rail-infrastructure/ (https://learninglegacy.hs2.org.uk/document/advances-in-engineering-survey-grid-transformations-for-rail-infrastructure/)
To demonstrate the reasons for using the HS2 Snake Projection, imagine a line approximating the route from London to Birmingham. Measuring the line first in British National Grid, and then measuring again in HS2 Snake Projection would reveal an apparent increase in length of 60 metres. In fact, the length of the project on the ground did not change – it is just that the British National Grid is a best-fit for the whole country which means the map distortion is far in excess of what is appropriate for precision engineering required on projects like HS2.
-
Sometimes though the existing maps aren't accurate enough. Here's some details going into digging the cross-rail tunnels under London. Due to the small gap that the tunnels had to go through, between existing infrastructure and other tunnels, existing maps were found to only be accurate to 20cm per KM in a 3d space due to the curvature of the Earth. So a new co-ordinate system was produced.
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/ (https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/)
https://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf (https://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf)
The following link talks about how engineers and surveyors are attempting to display routes of long train infrastructure on a 2d plane on blueprints. You will probably be interested in figure 1 showing a simplified version of the ratio that has to be applied to convert from one to the other.
https://learninglegacy.hs2.org.uk/document/advances-in-engineering-survey-grid-transformations-for-rail-infrastructure/ (https://learninglegacy.hs2.org.uk/document/advances-in-engineering-survey-grid-transformations-for-rail-infrastructure/)
To demonstrate the reasons for using the HS2 Snake Projection, imagine a line approximating the route from London to Birmingham. Measuring the line first in British National Grid, and then measuring again in HS2 Snake Projection would reveal an apparent increase in length of 60 metres. In fact, the length of the project on the ground did not change – it is just that the British National Grid is a best-fit for the whole country which means the map distortion is far in excess of what is appropriate for precision engineering required on projects like HS2.
You do realize that this is essentially the same thing as saying that "GPS proves the curvature" like ichoosenonsense claimed, right? It's all done on paper from a mathematical model of the ball Earth. In reality no one has measured the curvature. Ever.
-
You do realize that this is essentially the same thing as saying that "GPS proves the curvature" like ichoosenonsense claimed, right? It's all done on paper from a mathematical model of the ball Earth. In reality no one has measured the curvature. Ever.
Do you realize that a mathematical model of the ball earth can make predictions can can be verified in reality but won't work on a flat earth? It may not be possible to measure the curvature to your satisfaction, but it is possible to verify the consequences of that curvature.
-
You do realize that this is essentially the same thing as saying that "GPS proves the curvature" like ichoosenonsense claimed, right? It's all done on paper from a mathematical model of the ball Earth. In reality no one has measured the curvature. Ever.
Do you realize that a mathematical model of the ball earth can make predictions can can be verified in reality but won't work on a flat earth?
This is an unfortunate comment because it shows that you haven't looked at the material that your globe-defending friend provided.
It explains that you can project the imaginary ball's curvature onto a flat plane no problem by using the so-called "Snake Projection" method, and it is mathematically valid.
It may not be possible to measure the curvature to your satisfaction, but it is possible to verify the consequences of that curvature.
You mean that you are personally satisfied that it exists, which is different. In reality, proving things exist in nature has nothing to do with satisfying personal desires, or with opinions. If you can't understand that, you are definitely on the wrong forum.
-
You do realize that this is essentially the same thing as saying that "GPS proves the curvature" like ichoosenonsense claimed, right? It's all done on paper from a mathematical model of the ball Earth. In reality no one has measured the curvature. Ever.
Do you realize that a mathematical model of the ball earth can make predictions can can be verified in reality but won't work on a flat earth?
This is an unfortunate comment because it shows that you haven't looked at the material that your globe-defending friend provided.
It explains that you can project the imaginary ball's curvature onto a flat plane no problem by using the so-called "Snake Projection" method, and it is mathematically valid.
Please explain why projecting the image of a round earth onto a flat surface should invalidate any predictions that a round earth model would make.
It may not be possible to measure the curvature to your satisfaction, but it is possible to verify the consequences of that curvature.
You mean that you are personally satisfied that it exists, which is different.
No, I meant what I said. Personal satisfaction has nothing to do with it.