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.
Imagine calling coordinated mass murder "bad logistics".Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -- Hanlon's razor
I couldn't find the rules with a quick google but I think he needs a certain percentage in the polls to be on the primary ballot.The rules vary by state, but usually involve filing petitions with a number of signatures with the state election board.
So if he isn't a household name, few who votes in the primary is gonna vote for him.
I'm not sure where you got that from, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't say resembling that.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.Do you have anything to add to the discussion or should I report you for low content posting?
Apparently none of the modern methods for measuring curvature are acceptable to you, so we seem to be at an impasse.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.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.
How would you suggest that the curvature along several miles of the earth be physically measured?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.
Okay then, what proof would you accept?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.
No.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?I already told you. The horizon is where the sky and earth appear to meet. What do you think the horizon is?
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.
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".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.
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?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.
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?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.
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?
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.
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?
"Why is it hard to believe" is a bad argument. Maybe it's possible to do that maneuver in that exact fashion, but how would you know?Because I've taken enough pictures of things in motion to know that it isn't that hard.
I'm not one of those guys that say they fake everything.Well, you certainly do give off that impression.
Damn, what a remarkable coincidence!I agree, but stranger things have been known to happen.
How do you know it's even possible to do that maneuver in that exact fashion so that it amazingly matches the Earth going by?Photographers pan cameras to match motion all the time. Why is it so hard to believe that it could happen by accident every once in a while?
