If the Earth is flat, then why do ships appear to rise out of the ocean? I've always thought this was due to the curvature of the earth.Because we can't see forever by the law of perspective + lots of air blocking the ship.
This picture here (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2LWIGKnsnXY/hqdefault.jpg) shows how flat Earthers believe the sun works. According to this, the sun is shining over Western North America and Eastern Asia. Why can't Africa see the sun?Just like above, Sun is blocked by air, something about bendy light and that light can't travel forever because they will disappear.
Why do constellations and planets move around in the sky? if the earth was flat, we should be able to see the same constellations all the time; however, this is not the case. for example, around fall, you can see the constellation "Orion" in Eastern North America. As spring and summer draw nearer, Orion slowly disappears over the horizon. Please explain.Because they rotate at different rate than the Sun
BONUSBecause Earth is not a planet, just like humans and cats have legs, but snakes don't.
If you've ever looked through a telescope at other planets, the moon, or the sun, you'll notice they are all spherical. Why is earth the only exception?
IF.......You can't see the sun "because of the thickness of the 'atmoplane'" why can you see the stars after the sun sets ?
But soon after sunset we often see the moon, a planet (commonly Venus or Jupiter) or even a bright star appear in the same location that the sun was in as it was setting.IF.......You can't see the sun "because of the thickness of the 'atmoplane'" why can you see the stars after the sun sets ?
Because the stars are over you and the sun is not.
IF.......You can't see the sun "because of the thickness of the 'atmoplane'" why can you see the stars after the sun sets ?
Because the stars are over you and the sun is not.
But soon after sunset we often see the moon, a planet (commonly Venus or Jupiter) or even a bright star appear in the same location that the sun was in as it was setting.IF.......You can't see the sun "because of the thickness of the 'atmoplane'" why can you see the stars after the sun sets ?
Because the stars are over you and the sun is not.
So as was asked before, "if you can't see the sun 'because of the thickness of the atmoplane' why can you see the stars after the sun sets?"
If this "the thickness of the atmoplane" can block the intense light of the sun, how can we see the far dimmer moon, planets and stars in exactly the same location previously occupied by the sun.
But soon after sunset we often see the moon, a planet (commonly Venus or Jupiter) or even a bright star appear in the same location that the sun was in as it was setting.IF.......You can't see the sun "because of the thickness of the 'atmoplane'" why can you see the stars after the sun sets ?
Because the stars are over you and the sun is not.
So as was asked before, "if you can't see the sun 'because of the thickness of the atmoplane' why can you see the stars after the sun sets?"
If this "the thickness of the atmoplane" can block the intense light of the sun, how can we see the far dimmer moon, planets and stars in exactly the same location previously occupied by the sun.
Because they are bright enough to be seen. Next question.
Are you hacked, drunk or something? Your answer makes less sense than an average flat Earther lately.But soon after sunset we often see the moon, a planet (commonly Venus or Jupiter) or even a bright star appear in the same location that the sun was in as it was setting.IF.......You can't see the sun "because of the thickness of the 'atmoplane'" why can you see the stars after the sun sets ?
Because the stars are over you and the sun is not.
So as was asked before, "if you can't see the sun 'because of the thickness of the atmoplane' why can you see the stars after the sun sets?"
If this "the thickness of the atmoplane" can block the intense light of the sun, how can we see the far dimmer moon, planets and stars in exactly the same location previously occupied by the sun.
Because they are bright enough to be seen. Next question.
Are you hacked, drunk or something? Your answer makes less sense than an average flat Earther lately.
How could we not see the Sun which is extremely brighter than the stars and the Moon?
Are you hacked, drunk or something? Your answer makes less sense than an average flat Earther lately.
How could we not see the Sun which is extremely brighter than the stars and the Moon?
At night the far away sun is behind a wall of atmosphere built up at the horizon line and the stars and moon are more over us and not behind as much atmosphere.
Are you hacked, drunk or something? Your answer makes less sense than an average flat Earther lately.
How could we not see the Sun which is extremely brighter than the stars and the Moon?
At night the far away sun is behind a wall of atmosphere built up at the horizon line and the stars and moon are more over us and not behind as much atmosphere.
What about those Titanic survivors on lifeboats at sea level who reported seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon ?
Uh, no they don't.Are you hacked, drunk or something? Your answer makes less sense than an average flat Earther lately.
How could we not see the Sun which is extremely brighter than the stars and the Moon?
At night the far away sun is behind a wall of atmosphere built up at the horizon line and the stars and moon are more over us and not behind as much atmosphere.
What about those Titanic survivors on lifeboats at sea level who reported seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon ?
Post-traumatic memory distortion. The stars fade out to blackness before hitting the sea level horizon.
Uh, no they don't.Are you hacked, drunk or something? Your answer makes less sense than an average flat Earther lately.
How could we not see the Sun which is extremely brighter than the stars and the Moon?
At night the far away sun is behind a wall of atmosphere built up at the horizon line and the stars and moon are more over us and not behind as much atmosphere.
What about those Titanic survivors on lifeboats at sea level who reported seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon ?
Post-traumatic memory distortion. The stars fade out to blackness before hitting the sea level horizon.
That's great Tom, 3 long exposure pictures with either city lights or clouds to obscure the horizon.Uh, no they don't.Are you hacked, drunk or something? Your answer makes less sense than an average flat Earther lately.
How could we not see the Sun which is extremely brighter than the stars and the Moon?
At night the far away sun is behind a wall of atmosphere built up at the horizon line and the stars and moon are more over us and not behind as much atmosphere.
What about those Titanic survivors on lifeboats at sea level who reported seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon ?
Post-traumatic memory distortion. The stars fade out to blackness before hitting the sea level horizon.
(http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2015/03/stunning.jpg)
(http://66.media.tumblr.com/4c833b2ee7e503834fd9c8402e1a0dfa/tumblr_o79oslb9tZ1s7yqivo1_1280.jpg)
(http://www.amsmeteors.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/sky.jpg)
Are you hacked, drunk or something? Your answer makes less sense than an average flat Earther lately.
How could we not see the Sun which is extremely brighter than the stars and the Moon?
At night the far away sun is behind a wall of atmosphere built up at the horizon line and the stars and moon are more over us and not behind as much atmosphere.
What about those Titanic survivors on lifeboats at sea level who reported seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon ?
Post-traumatic memory distortion. The stars fade out to blackness before hitting the sea level horizon.
That's great Tom, 3 long exposure pictures with either city lights or clouds to obscure the horizon.Uh, no they don't.Are you hacked, drunk or something? Your answer makes less sense than an average flat Earther lately.
How could we not see the Sun which is extremely brighter than the stars and the Moon?
At night the far away sun is behind a wall of atmosphere built up at the horizon line and the stars and moon are more over us and not behind as much atmosphere.
What about those Titanic survivors on lifeboats at sea level who reported seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon ?
Post-traumatic memory distortion. The stars fade out to blackness before hitting the sea level horizon.
(http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2015/03/stunning.jpg)
(http://66.media.tumblr.com/4c833b2ee7e503834fd9c8402e1a0dfa/tumblr_o79oslb9tZ1s7yqivo1_1280.jpg)
(http://www.amsmeteors.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/sky.jpg)
You have clearly not been to sea. I don't blame you. A lot of people haven't.
How about some evidence?
How about some evidence?
How about some evidence?
How about some evidence?
A simple bing search would come up with several pictures of stars touching the horizon.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=star+rotation&FORM=HDRSC2&PC=APPM
Again, the FEer hypocrisy surrounding photo evidence. This is indisputable proof of Tom's point, but photo's of the Earth as a globe are not proof the Earth is round. It is incredibly dishonest.
Regardless, it is obvious the sun is not receding because it is the same size the entire time whereas every other object that actually recedes in to the distance gets smaller inversely proportional to the distance.
EDIT: Just to silence the feeble objection-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/17/25C1A67000000578-0-image-a-14_1424181711160.jpg)
It's photoshopped. The hard edge between the trees and the sky gives it away.
Look at the other photos in that photographer's gallery. There are daytime beach scenes photoshopped with a night sky:
It's photoshopped. The hard edge between the trees and the sky gives it away.
Look at the other photos in that photographer's gallery. There are daytime beach scenes photoshopped with a night sky:
A hard edge is exactly what we are looking for, what in the world are you talking about? Nice way to avoid the actual points I made. More disingenuousness from Mr Bishop.
The photographer makes extensive use of Photoshop in images from the same gallery. That alone is enough to debunk its usefulness in this debate to me.
Try again REers.
The photographer makes extensive use of Photoshop in images from the same gallery. That alone is enough to debunk its usefulness in this debate to me.
Try again REers.
Again ignoring the main thrust of my post. Hypocritical standards and an evidently erroneous assessment of the sun's disappearance are what you should be dealing with. I will find a different photo to post in the meantime.
The photographer makes extensive use of Photoshop in images from the same gallery. That alone is enough to debunk its usefulness in this debate to me.
Try again REers.
Again ignoring the main thrust of my post. Hypocritical standards and an evidently erroneous assessment of the sun's disappearance are what you should be dealing with. I will find a different photo to post in the meantime.
The "main thrust" of your post was that we can see stars right next to the horizon, but you haven't been able to provide any evidence to back up that statement.
Yes, the explanation for the sun sinking behind the horizon as provided by the flat earthers here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and has no evidence to back it up. But that's not what everyone was discussing. They were discussing the "stars next to the horizon" evidence.
Again, the FEer hypocrisy surrounding photo evidence. This is indisputable proof of Tom's point, but photo's of the Earth as a globe are not proof the Earth is round. It is incredibly dishonest.
Regardless, it is obvious the sun is not receding because it is the same size the entire time whereas every other object that actually recedes in to the distance gets smaller inversely proportional to the distance.
My post was not about that, the photo was an aside.
My post was not about that, the photo was an aside.
Fair enough, but it was the photo that they were responding to. And they had a point.
If you want to continue pushing the other point of your post, you need to first concede the part that you were wrong about. Otherwise, they will just keep focusing on it.
My post was not about that, the photo was an aside.
Fair enough, but it was the photo that they were responding to. And they had a point.
Which is why I asked them to stop and concentrate on my actual point.QuoteIf you want to continue pushing the other point of your post, you need to first concede the part that you were wrong about. Otherwise, they will just keep focusing on it.
I already admitted that my photo was a failure. Didn't you read my last post?
OK. The Titanic survivors were all liars
My post was not about that, the photo was an aside.
Fair enough, but it was the photo that they were responding to. And they had a point.
Which is why I asked them to stop and concentrate on my actual point.QuoteIf you want to continue pushing the other point of your post, you need to first concede the part that you were wrong about. Otherwise, they will just keep focusing on it.
I already admitted that my photo was a failure. Didn't you read my last post?
So no evidence for the claim after all, then?
OK. The Titanic survivors were all liars
You put far too much stock in anecdotal evidence for someone who is trying to sell himself as scientifically-minded. Do you have any idea how many different and conflicting eyewitness reports there were after the disaster? People were cold. They were disoriented. They were in shock and many (probably most) had just lost loved ones. But we are supposed to accept the observation of a few that they saw stars on the horizon as ironclad fact, when they couldn't even agree on whether or not the ship broke into separate pieces before it completely sank (http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/wormstedt.pdf). ???
Indeed, eyewitness evidence itself (even without extenuating circumstances such as having just taken part in one of the biggest disasters in maritime history) is notoriously unreliable (https://www.google.com/search?q=eyewitness+evidence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=eyewitness+evidence+unreliable). So please, if you can't find some real evidence, stop wasting our time, and stop whining that we refuse to accept something as evidence that it is patently ridiculous that we be expected to accept as such.
My post was not about that, the photo was an aside.
Fair enough, but it was the photo that they were responding to. And they had a point.
Which is why I asked them to stop and concentrate on my actual point.QuoteIf you want to continue pushing the other point of your post, you need to first concede the part that you were wrong about. Otherwise, they will just keep focusing on it.
I already admitted that my photo was a failure. Didn't you read my last post?
So no evidence for the claim after all, then?
I have seen plenty of photos that have stars on the horizon, but it is often 1 or 2. I want to find something that you will have to work harder to come up with a bad rebuttal for. In the meantime, feel free to deal with the other points being discussed.OK. The Titanic survivors were all liars
You put far too much stock in anecdotal evidence for someone who is trying to sell himself as scientifically-minded. Do you have any idea how many different and conflicting eyewitness reports there were after the disaster? People were cold. They were disoriented. They were in shock and many (probably most) had just lost loved ones. But we are supposed to accept the observation of a few that they saw stars on the horizon as ironclad fact, when they couldn't even agree on whether or not the ship broke into separate pieces before it completely sank (http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/wormstedt.pdf). ???
Indeed, eyewitness evidence itself (even without extenuating circumstances such as having just taken part in one of the biggest disasters in maritime history) is notoriously unreliable (https://www.google.com/search?q=eyewitness+evidence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=eyewitness+evidence+unreliable). So please, if you can't find some real evidence, stop wasting our time, and stop whining that we refuse to accept something as evidence that it is patently ridiculous that we be expected to accept as such.
Patently ridiculous? Whining? This is rhetorical drum-beating and not worth a sod.
Elsewhere, there were photos that were posted by a FEer that we are expected to accept as evidence. If that is the case, the entire catalogue of photos that show the Earth to be round utterly destroys the FE side.
I think I get the message:Elsewhere, there were photos that were posted by a FEer that we are expected to accept as evidence. If that is the case, the entire catalogue of photos that show the Earth to be round utterly destroys the FE side.
It does not. Talk about rhetorical drum-beating. ::)
I think I get the message:Elsewhere, there were photos that were posted by a FEer that we are expected to accept as evidence. If that is the case, the entire catalogue of photos that show the Earth to be round utterly destroys the FE side.
It does not. Talk about rhetorical drum-beating. ::)
- Eyewitness accounts and photos by FEers are automatically accepted as firm evidence.
- Eyewitness accounts and photos by Globe supporters are automatically discarded as lies or Photoshopped.
;D Yes, I suppose that is a good tactic. ;D
The Titanic incident was just one example. For example, we have been to Grand Canyon and Big Bend National Parks and you certainly can see more stars there than in the city and they are just as bright as those directly overhead or those on the horizon. Ask any Park Ranger unless you consider them part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy.OK. The Titanic survivors were all liars
You put far too much stock in anecdotal evidence for someone who is trying to sell himself as scientifically-minded. Do you have any idea how many different and conflicting eyewitness reports there were after the disaster? People were cold. They were disoriented. They were in shock and many (probably most) had just lost loved ones. But we are supposed to accept the observation of a few that they saw stars on the horizon as ironclad fact, when they couldn't even agree on whether or not the ship broke into separate pieces before it completely sank (http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/wormstedt.pdf). ???
Indeed, eyewitness evidence itself (even without extenuating circumstances such as having just taken part in one of the biggest disasters in maritime history) is notoriously unreliable (https://www.google.com/search?q=eyewitness+evidence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=eyewitness+evidence+unreliable). So please, if you can't find some real evidence, stop wasting our time, and stop whining that we refuse to accept something as evidence that it is patently ridiculous that we be expected to accept as such.
The Titanic incident was just one example.OK. The Titanic survivors were all liars
You put far too much stock in anecdotal evidence for someone who is trying to sell himself as scientifically-minded. Do you have any idea how many different and conflicting eyewitness reports there were after the disaster? People were cold. They were disoriented. They were in shock and many (probably most) had just lost loved ones. But we are supposed to accept the observation of a few that they saw stars on the horizon as ironclad fact, when they couldn't even agree on whether or not the ship broke into separate pieces before it completely sank (http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/wormstedt.pdf). ???
Indeed, eyewitness evidence itself (even without extenuating circumstances such as having just taken part in one of the biggest disasters in maritime history) is notoriously unreliable (https://www.google.com/search?q=eyewitness+evidence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=eyewitness+evidence+unreliable). So please, if you can't find some real evidence, stop wasting our time, and stop whining that we refuse to accept something as evidence that it is patently ridiculous that we be expected to accept as such.
I think I get the message:Elsewhere, there were photos that were posted by a FEer that we are expected to accept as evidence. If that is the case, the entire catalogue of photos that show the Earth to be round utterly destroys the FE side.
It does not. Talk about rhetorical drum-beating. ::)
- Eyewitness accounts and photos by FEers are automatically accepted as firm evidence.
- Eyewitness accounts and photos by Globe supporters are automatically discarded as lies or Photoshopped.
;D Yes, I suppose that is a good tactic. ;D
Elementary my dear Watson ! That is the modus operandi on this website.
Anythiing that is real is lies and anything that is imaginary is evidence. LOL.
FE was destroyed long ago but not the FES,