Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - model 29

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15  Next >
You still wouldn't see this much of the buildings due to their leaning away at forty five miles distance; and they also wouldn't appear straight up and down like that either.
  You really should learn how the globe works.  At 70 miles the buildings would be leaning away about 1 degree.  It would not be very noticeable.

Here is a to-scale diagram of the Earth-Moon system. There are two observers, Red and Blue. When one viewer views the Moon overhead, the other is viewing it at 45 degrees:

Not quite to scale, but close.  Also, there is a 4 day difference between what the red and blue observers see.  The moon isn't in two different locations at the same time.

Yet, in the southern U.S., Venus is visible at 45 degrees -- WAY up in the night sky, after sundown for at least two months STRAIGHT. Tonight, Venus is visible for as long FOUR HOURS after sunset. That means I can see it til ONE O'CLOCK in the morning.
Can you tell us what latitude you are at in the mid-northern latitudes, and what time sunset is for that particular latitude in March on a particular day that you claim to see Venus at 1am?

Tom, are you confused about the moon's phase appearing to not line up with the sun?  Because this has been explained before and you admitted to understanding it.

Or, are you confused about the face of the moon appearing to rotate throughout the evening?  Because this has also been explained in this thread.

Or, are you confused about both and don't know how to differentiate between the answers being given?

It is apparent that some people will be under the Moon, while others are at another angle and see it low in the sky to their left or right, and must have different perspective views. So those people must see different sides of it.
As would happen with a small local moon a couple thousand miles up, and we do not see this, which disproves flat Earth.

I see that you are saying that the Moon is too far in RET for such perspective effects to occur.
No, I am not.
That's right. The theory that perspective effects are causing the Moon Tilt Illusion is wrong.
No, it is not.

Given the distances of the moon as they pertain to the globe, how perspective works (why do you keep saying "extreme" perspective?), and how an observer's view orientation changes based on latitude on a rotating globe from moonrise to set, your question has been answered Tom.  All you have to do now is understand it.

It seems Tom, that you forgot the moon is tidally locked so the same face always faces us. 
Again, 240k miles. 
Also again, an observer's view of the moon 'tilts' (the amount and rate depends on latitude) throughout the night.  The same can be seen of the sun if using a solar filter and sunspots are visible.  Tilt a camera to the left, take a picture of a an object, tilt the camera to the right, take a picture of the same object, and compare the images.  Do you see a different face of the object, or the same face just tilted?

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 21, 2020, 08:09:15 PM »
Another question I'd like to ask of Totallackey and Somerled, when using a garden hose with a nozzle at full blast, does the nozzle push against your hand because the water pushes against the air as it comes out?

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 21, 2020, 04:54:40 PM »
If rockets use the combustion exhaust to 'push off air' in order to lift off, basically requiring a medium for the exhaust to push against, I'm curious what Totallackey and Somerled think would happen if the atmosphere were thicker.  Would rockets lift off faster?

The moon 'tilt' throughout the night is due to an observer's latitude.  For example, someone at 45n will 'tilt' from moonrise to moonset 90 degrees.  A different face will not be seen since the moon is 240k miles away and Earth's diameter is only about 7.9k miles.

Or then there's the 'perspective tilt', as demonstrated with the hallway demonstrations, which as been explained to death.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Sleepy Joe 2020
« on: March 20, 2020, 03:39:13 AM »
As Joe would say, "It's worth more if you smile, than if you're not smiling when you're walking down.  In otherwise, here untrue forth, you might be the one other than that."

Floundering? Please.
Replying with over exaggerated models and resorting to the "you're an alt" accusation.  Yep, that's floundering.

More evidence has been presented in support of Flat Earth than anything Round Earthers have EVER dreamed up.

--Polaris (North Star) never, ever, moving from its place in our sky.
--All the constellations staying exactly the same throughout all of recorded history despite the four 'alleged' and unfathomable movements of the Earth through space.
--The '50 mile long' Panama canal that is officially 'perfectly level' from end to end.
--The Bedford Level experiments.
--Countless photos and videos of horizons many miles long with zero curve.
--Crepuscular Rays indicating the close proximity and small size of the sun-disproving much of the myths about space and our solar system, etc.
--Mercury and Venus being visible in our night sky when they're 'supposedly' closer to the sun than Earth making it impossible for them to be seen when the Earth is turned 'AWAY' from the sun (i.e. night time).

The list goes on and on.
Polaris is really far away.  Learn how scale works.
The constellation do change over time.  Who said they didn't?
The Panama canal uses a series of locks to raise ships to the higher elevations of the lakes along its course, but each body of water is 'level' from one end to the other.  That's how it works on a globe.
Bedford Level.... classic example of refraction courtesy of cooler air just above the water.
With each point of the horizon an equal distance from the camera, and not being very far from the surface, left to right curvature will not be very apparent.
Crepuscular rays also indicate a very small sun right in the tops of the trees from what I've photographed in the past.  Or, maybe you should learn how perspective works.
Mercury can be visible about an hour before sunrise and an hour after sunset, and Venus visible much longer before sunrise and after sunset.  Try looking at a scale diagram of the orbits of the inner planets and draw some lines from the orbit of Venus and see just where it can intersect Earth.

Sure, the list goes on and on with all sorts of stuff flat Earthers don't understand.

Vanishing line...

The ship is on the horizon, not past it.  If it were past it, it would be obscured from the bottom up, and no amount of zooming in would restore it to full un-obscured height.

Oh, less than half a degree? Really?

I'd love to see these simple maths you boast of. Please, enlighten us.
Do you ever research anything?  Earth's circumference, 24,901 miles divided by 360 (degrees) equals 69.169 miles.  This means a building will be leaning away from you 1 degree at about 69 miles (*I'll round down instead).  You should be able to figure it out from there.

As far as I understand in the wiki they criticize Soundly's photos of Pontchartrain because, they say, if curvature was indeed *so* apparent, our planet would be quite small. I like that comment because it acknowledges the fact that you cannot just watch and see a round earth.
They say that because they don't understand the apparent foreshortening that occurs between visible features at great distances when viewed through high magnification.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: March 06, 2020, 05:44:29 AM »
Under RE the rays which hit the Earth's surface are parallel:

No Tom, seeing as the apparent size of the sun is bigger than the pupil of your eye, and the fact that shadows cast from direct sunlight are sharply defined at the object casting the shadow, but become increasingly blurred the farther one moves from the object, demonstrates that some of the light from the sun is parallel, some is convergent, and some is divergent.

Now you just need to learn how perspective works.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: March 06, 2020, 05:39:05 AM »

No one of a right mind expects to see curvature at such a low altitude. Earth is very large.

Not so large. 25,000 miles circumference, so they say. 50-60 mi from left to right in that image. That's roughly half a mile of drop on each side of that image that is strangely missing.

I guess you're saying you'd have to be insane to see it? You'd be right, because it is clearly not there.
So now that we've established the picture was taken from an elevation of around 14-15k feet, or an altitude of an airliner that just recently took off from an airport and was heading east, as stated by the easily clicked on image info, and lining up the imagery in Google Earth and seeing the view matching with a location in an area that lines up with a flight path from SeaTac airport and has no major mountains with an elevation that high, we can also verify that the amount of curvature drop from an observation elevation of that height, using any of several online curvature calculators, that Mt, Hood would easily be visible.

As as far as left to right curvature, being as there is no definitive horizon, one could improvise start at the left side of the image, drawing a straight line that aligns with the cloud layer that ends at Mt. Hood, and then move to the right side and draw some lines that are parallel with the cloud layer starting from the right, and see if they are parallel with the lines from the left.  Guess what happens...  But, seeing as how there isn't much definitive, I won't say it's conclusive.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: March 02, 2020, 07:19:28 AM »
Here's an impossible image, guys and gals.....

...yessir. Straight from Wikipedia.

Mountain in the foreground is Mt. Rainier in Washington State. Mountains in the background, from left to right, are Adams, Hood and St. Helens.

But wait!!!.....That's impossible!!

Mount Hood is almost a HUNDRED miles from Mount Rainier!!

Science tells us the earth is 25,000 miles in diameter and that the curvature drops 8 inches per mile squared!! We couldn't POSSIBLY see Mount Hood from Mount Rainier!!


Per Wikipedia: Mt. Rainier is 80 miles curve there anywhere in the image left to right AT ALL. Wiki says it's 700 miles long North to visible curve there. And Mt. St. Helens is 34 miles from Mt. Hood....that's strange.....there's absolutely NO curve between those mountains, EITHER!!!

Maybe it has something to do with where that ol' nasty ship is sitting on the horizon, or OOPS, NOT on the horizon I mean. SORRY! :o

I know what it's that dadgum red-liquid rain guage that's boogered things up so good. Drats!! Foiled again!
Pic taken from an airliner, so observer has enough elevation to see that far, and no distinguishable horizon to see any left to right curvature.  Try again.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: March 02, 2020, 05:49:53 AM »
If only the sun propagated it's light in that silly manner the drawing of umbra and penumbra of eclipse would make sense .
  It can be demonstrated with two coins, a paperclip, and sunlight.  Or, go look at shadows on a sunny day and notice that the shadows become increasingly blurred the farther one gets from the object casting it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: February 18, 2020, 04:19:57 AM »
The author goes to lengths to explain that it doesn't really matter.
The author also apparently thinks highly of Nathan Oakley according to the opening of that video.  This tells me he probably doesn't understand what he's talking about.

I would suggest finding some way to make these observations possible in RE. I have not yet seen an explanation for this.
I did a quick modeling of it on GE.  Looks ok to me.  Did they even consider the moon's 5 degree tilt of its orbital plane?  Why is the visible horizon not based on North 52?  Was Earth's axial tilt at that time of year factored into all this?

Is there even a point in explaining all this to you Tom?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: February 17, 2020, 08:20:44 PM »
How is it possible that the moon doesn’t pass in front of any stars. I kind of understand how it works on a flat Earth. But I’m curious what’s the explanation for it on a round earth. And if it does, I’ve never seen it happen.  And I have watched the moon move across the night sky many of times.
They do.  You didn't look close enough.
Just as you’ll never see a star cross over another star. They all run in perfect circles around the North Star. And that should not be if stars are at different distances from Earth.
Sit in a chair and find 2 objects one close and one far away that lines up with each other.   Spin in a circle and watch the 2 objects move apart.
Look at two mountains of varied distance miles away.  Take one step to the side.  How much difference do you see?  This is closer to the scale of Earth's movement in relation to the stars.
How can you see the moon at night when the moon is on the same side as the Sun
Are you saying we can only see half to full moon phases, and that it suddenly vanishes or appears at half moon?  Learn how the phases of the moon works, and when they are visible.

Stars rise in the east and set in then west, and in the northern hemisphere they appear to rotate CCW around a north celestial pole.  In the southern hemisphere they appear to rotate CW around a southern celestial pole.  On the equator one can see them rise straight up and set straight down if they are equatorial stars, and rotate around two opposite celestial poles on the horizon.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15  Next >