101

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?

« on: September 02, 2023, 01:33:37 PM »

I’m confused what you’re arguing here, Dual1ty.

You previously posted some high altitude photo of a flat horizon which seemed to be your evidence that it was in fact flat. As I noted, in one of those the horizon was actually curved upwards. There’s no doubt that lenses can distort things. But only things like fisheye lenses do that. Most cameras represent things accurately. It’s not hard to demonstrate that. Just take a picture of a known straight edge and observe that the picture shows it as straight.

Point is, you dismiss curved horizon photos because of distortion or something. But then you present other photos with apparent straight horizons as evidence. You can’t have it both ways.

102

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 01, 2023, 10:44:37 AM »

ITT, Dual1ty demonstrates the absurdly low level of evidence he requires for things which fit his worldview.
Compare and contrast with the absurdly high level he requires for things which do not.

103

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 30, 2023, 09:36:17 PM »

An alarming number of your politicians really should be in care homes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66665682

104

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?

« on: August 30, 2023, 02:13:44 PM »

You can see farther by using some optical device. But the device will also be optically limited. The fact that you deny this...

What? Of course I don't deny it. The Turning Torso video demonstrates this - at the greater distances the building is noticeably fainter, there is a limit to how far we can see things through the atmosphere (the sun being a notable exception because it's so bright). So visibility is one factor and yes, the limits of the optics is another. If that building were a few hundred miles away then I doubt the zoom would be powerful enough render it visible even if there were no atmospheric limits. But...given that the zoom is good enough to show the building at all the distances in that video, why do increasing amounts of the building disappear? It's not visibility or limits of the optics - the top of the building is clearly visible. Where's the rest of it? It's pretty clear it's being occluded by something and I'd suggest the only candidate for what is occluding it is the horizon itself.

105

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?

« on: August 30, 2023, 01:49:01 PM »

You're not accounting for the curvature of the eye - that's the real problem.

I honestly wouldn't know how to and I don't believe you have to. I don't really understand the diagrams in the documents you posted.
But sure, if you want to demonstrate how to account for that in my diagram then I'll have a look.

Curvature of the eyes plus being close to the ground is also the reason why you can't see farther than you can and there is a horizon at a few miles.

Counterpoint - no it isn't. Because you CAN see further than the horizon - that's how you can see the rest of the Turning Torso building which is much further away than the horizon. You just can't see the bottom of it. Because it's hidden by something. What do you think that something is?
In your world you can see a few miiles of sea and then...there's thousands of miles more see in front of you but you can't see any of it? Why not? You can see the sun setting into the sea, which even in FE models is thousands of miles away. Where's the rest of the sea?

We all have roughly the same eye shape, BTW. Usually an oblate spheroid. Coincidence? Of course not.

It's neither coincidence nor relevant to this discussion.

106

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?

« on: August 30, 2023, 10:47:58 AM »

IT IS BIGGER. In that stupid diagram you're not accounting for ground rising up (due to perspective).

That is accounted for by the line from the viewer to the bottom of the ground floor. That line is almost straight which demonstrates that the bottom of the ground floor is almost, but not quite at eye level.

So unless you think the top floor is at ground level, you have problems.

It's the fact that the top floor is NOT at ground level which makes it appear smaller.
As things get closer they appear bigger, yes?
Which is closer to you, the ground floor or the top one?

107

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?

« on: August 30, 2023, 10:25:12 AM »

Well, actually the top floor will have a smaller angular size if you're at ground level because the top floor is further away from you than the bottom.

Nope. It's bigger.

No.

Let's imagine you're a a thousand feet away from a building. And for the sake of simplicity let's say each floor is 20 feet high and your viewer height is 10 feet. That means your view of the bottom floor forms an isosoles triangle, the base of it is 20 feet and the long sides are 1000.05 (using pythagorus, it's the hypotenuse of the right angled triangle 1000 feet long and 10 high). Using a triangle calculator the angle at the point of that triangle, in blue, is 1.146 degrees, which is your angular size.



You can also use Pythagorus to find the lengths of the sides of the triangle to the top floor. I've assumed 6 floors.
So those lines are the hypotenuses of the right angled triangles 1000 long and 90 high for the bottom line and 1000 long and 110 high for the top line. The base of that triangle is also 20 and the angle at the point of that triangle, in green, is 1.135 degrees. And that's the angular size of that floor, which is smaller.

This is obvious just be thinking about it. If you're looking up at a tall building then the higher floors appear smaller because they're further away. It's the same principle here.

108

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?

« on: August 30, 2023, 09:29:05 AM »

"Bottom of things will literally disappear. Go learn physics.

This is the fundamental point of disagreement. Let’s park all discussions around curves, refraction etc for a second and focus on this. Can you show on a diagram why this would be the case? It doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it.

I will, for the sake of normal people who might read this. Not for you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQh5Wdb-QDlo9_cNLkwLKbAm6k8hOqj8/view

"ground floors of buildings disappear first".

Why would they?
The angular size of the bottom floor is the same as the angular size of the top floor. Well, actually the top floor will have a smaller angular size if you're at ground level because the top floor is further away from you than the bottom. So why can you see the top floor but not the bottom?

109

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?

« on: August 30, 2023, 08:40:10 AM »

Yeah, if you remove the atmosphere there's no longer a "curve"

Incorrect. Refraction makes the curve appear less than the reality. But the Turning Torso video clearly shows the way distant objects disappear behind the curve of the earth.

The horizon is a result of perspective.

This is also incorrect. The horizon is the limit you can see before the earth curves away from you. That's why the distance to the horizon increases with altitude - it allows you to see further over the curve. Angular resolution clearly can't be the explanation. That does explain why you can't see things with the naked eye, but optical zoom can allow you to see them, if visibility allows. But why when zoomed in can you only see the top of the Turning Torso building? Why can't you see the rest? What's hiding it? I know the answer, do you?

110

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?

« on: August 30, 2023, 08:21:01 AM »

Yes, refraction can vary. Those photos were clearly taken in very different atmospheric conditions.
The Turning Torso observations were taken in the same weather conditions, the only difference was the distance. Where's the rest of the building?
And a point I note you ignored is that refraction generally allows us to see MORE of a distant object, not less.

Ah, I see you've made a second reply - you can just edit your posts, dude.
I was simplifying a bit with perspective, but one thing perspective absolutely can't do is make things sink below the horizon. Things have to sink behind something. If it's not the curve of the earth then what is it?

111

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?

« on: August 30, 2023, 07:31:09 AM »

Refraction + perspective = curve?

I don't know if you're talking about the Turning Torso video but
1) Refraction over water typically bends light in such a way that you can see more of an object than you would expect if we didn't have an atmosphere.
2) Perspective makes things smaller, it doesn't explain half a building being hidden by the curve of the earth - if you dispute that's what's hiding the building then what is? I've explained in '1' why it isn't refraction.

We already know that it's flat (even through observations we know that it's flat)

You keep saying that, but when challenged you never present any observations apart from highly cherry picked high altitude pictures in another thread, one of which shows the horizon bending upwards which clearly indicates some lens distortion.

112

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?

« on: August 29, 2023, 08:06:13 AM »

To this day, the globe cult you belong to has not done this experiment and refuses to even mention it. Because it's not a globe.

Not exactly clear what experiment you are proposing but large scale structures take account of the earth's curve in a way which can be measured

https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/structures.html

And this experiment shows a building increasingly disappearing with increasing distance. What's it sinking behind if it's not the earth's curve?

113

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: August 28, 2023, 09:25:27 PM »

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.

114

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?

« on: August 28, 2023, 08:57:59 PM »

If you say B, you are a reality denier.

B has been observed.

115

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 26, 2023, 03:33:16 PM »

Muscle is more dense that fat though so it’s possible to be ripped and weigh the same as a fatso of the same height.

116

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: August 26, 2023, 02:26:24 PM »

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.

117

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 26, 2023, 01:00:52 PM »

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.

And here come the meaningless cliches...

By which you of course mean patient explanation of why claiming “free speech” isn’t the silver bullet get out of jail free card you seem to imagine

118

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 26, 2023, 09:19:58 AM »

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.

119

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: August 26, 2023, 08:49:08 AM »

.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?

120

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: August 25, 2023, 10:37:17 PM »

It's definitely on the Moon - you just have to believe like any good religious follower believes.

Never question anything, just believe.

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.