-
Only irrefutable and indubitable proof that is true only for flat or globe earth is encouraged to be posted in this topic! Of course, you can post proof that is true for both, for it might lead us to the absolute truth about earth. Good luck! Well, you can include any proofs that relate to globe and flat earth issue like the following:
1. Whether or not the earth is rotating by itself and/or revolving around the sun, or whether or not the earth is stationary lighted by a rotating/revolving sun;
2. Whether or not the distance of the sun is 93M from the earth, also that of the moon;
3. Or anything that relates to proving that the earth is flat or globe ;)
-
What would be a 50% proof? Out of curiosity.
-
What would be a 50% proof? Out of curiosity.
Well, "100% proof for globe . . . that cannot be debunked" is not possible as Tthe Flat Earth Conspiracy Society automatically deems any possible 100% proof of the Globe FAKE.
-
im thinking our reality is neither globe or flat..its something else..it wouldnt even be debatable if it was.
-
im thinking our reality is neither globe or flat..its something else..it wouldnt even be debatable if it was.
Hey, Yorki...actually the roundheads aren't debating. Their point of view is so well substantiated that their conclusions are well beyond debate. What the roundheads are doing here is being noble. They are protecting the weak minded and 'the children' by exposing the absurdity of believing that the scientific community might be wrong; or dishonest. How dare anybody not believe in the wonderfulness of modern science!
-
What would be a 50% proof? Out of curiosity.
Well, 50% proof may mean both the globe and flat earthers are right in their respective proofs, facts and/or arguments. To illustrate this, a large number "6" or "9" (depending on your position wrt such number) is printed on the floor in between two persons standing opposite to each other, one seeing the number as "6" and the other one sees it as "9". They're both right, aren't they? They argue and insist for what they see as the right number. So can you imagine their endless debate and argument of what each has seen. Unfortunately, no one wins or loses. The solution? Let a third person stand at the middle and explain to them the reality of how they both see the right thing, and also the other reality that each one of them is wrong in insisting that the other one is wrong. How I wish we're all such a third person who really knows what's going on exactly on this issue of globe and flat earth.... We'll all try to be truth seekers for the100% proof! Good luck!
-
What would be a 50% proof? Out of curiosity.
Well, "100% proof for globe . . . that cannot be debunked" is not possible as Tthe Flat Earth Conspiracy Society automatically deems any possible 100% proof of the Globe FAKE.
I think this is not a problem. It's just that the flat earthers have proofs and a point to attest and show that not all authorities or men/women behind or promoting modern science esp. on this topic, globe or flat earth, are telling the truth, e.g. moon landing?, space travels? etc. etc. Anyway, my suggestion to the globe earthers is to show proofs, as in real proofs or evidence, that such 100% proof claimed is not fake. No conspiracy theory can debunk a real scientific proof that is well explained and clearly argued with supporting facts and evidence.. c'mmon, show that 100% and let flat earthers debunk it fair and square.... of course, we will know if a conspiracy theory is already an unreasonable resort....
-
im thinking our reality is neither globe or flat..its something else..it wouldnt even be debatable if it was.
Maybe! Who knows? In fact, there's no existing map today, globe or flat, that is accurate. At least one that cannot be debunked as to its accuracy. If you have a 100% proof for an accurate map, better show it here and let it be tested and debunked. Well, this is a challenge to astronomy science to advance further, and for globe or flat earthers to settle for the sake of truth or "true science"...
-
truth seeker here..im not a globe head or flat earther..think were in the minority cel
-
What would be a 50% proof? Out of curiosity.
Well, "100% proof for globe . . . that cannot be debunked" is not possible as Tthe Flat Earth Conspiracy Society automatically deems any possible 100% proof of the Globe FAKE.
I think this is not a problem. It's just that the flat earthers have proofs and a point to attest and show that not all authorities or men/women behind or promoting modern science esp. on this topic, globe or flat earth, are telling the truth, e.g. moon landing?, space travels? etc. etc. Anyway, my suggestion to the globe earthers is to show proofs, as in real proofs or evidence, that such 100% proof claimed is not fake. No conspiracy theory can debunk a real scientific proof that is well explained and clearly argued with supporting facts and evidence.. c'mmon, show that 100% and let flat earthers debunk it fair and square.... of course, we will know if a conspiracy theory is already an unreasonable resort....
OK,
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160726%20-%20Himawari-8%2020160705120000fd_zpsbdu5jlnj.png)
Himawari-8 July 05, 2016 a 00:00 UTC
I have said little on this thread so far because I am certain of the Globe, not because of one "killer" piece of evidence, but because of the numerous simple things that all tie together.
I see so many things around me and read so many things that are not in themselves thought as evidence of the Globe, but which simply do not fit any flat earth we have been shown.
Flat earthers might have "explanations" for each one taken on its own, but looked at together they are for me overwhelming proof of a Globe.
So, you asked for it, and you got it.
-
There is no such thing as "cannot be debunked" if a person can convince themselves that Photoshop/evil NASA/Freemason explains, well, ANYTHING.
-
Only 100% proof is allowed to be posted in this topic! Good luck! ;) 8)
100% like absolute certainly? No. Human reasoning doesn't work that way.
Beyond reasonable doubt, yes.
That's not entirely relevant though. If this is an important question to you then you should take it upon yourself to verify any claims that have been made. There's a number of experiments you can perform which aren't terribly expensive. If the truth is important to you and you're skeptical of any authority attempting to dictate reality to you then your only reasonable course of action is to investigate these claims yourself.
-
There is proof for both Globe and Flat Earth So there is no 100% PROOF
-
Only 100% proof is allowed to be posted in this topic! Good luck! ;) 8)
No 100% proof of the Globe is possible to a fully indoctrinated Flat Earther!
Any proof of the Globe is immediately claimed to a fake, either Photoshopped, CGI or a product of a Freemason, or other, conspiracy, I kid you not!
Geodetic surveyors have proved that the the earth cannot be flat for centuries, but that gets all discarded.
As soon as geodetic sutveyors get mentioned we get claims it is all lies and a Masonic plot! How do you like this for rational evidence?
. . . . . . . . . . Also, geodetic surveying has been refuted as a credible source of info. No doubt they used telescopes for centuries and would have quickly seen that there is no curvature with the equation given at 8 inches × distance squared. They would have also quickly noticed that boats don't disappear behind curvature when sailing off into the horizon. Geodetic surveying is also a Masonic created. They lied about the poles and curvature. No curve means no ball.
We have thousands of photographs of the Globe from almost every possible angle, but we get told
"You can't use those", NASA and all Space agencies are frauds and conspiracy controlled!
Of course all these "Flat Earth" photos are supposedly ::) "proof" of a Flat Earth! ::)
Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories, Flat Earth Society
In 1956, Samuel Shelton founded a society that subscribed to a theory about the shape of the Earth -- namely, that it's flat. Shelton based his theory upon what he called common sense and personal observation. He called the scientific evidence for a globe-shaped Earth "dogmatic," meaning scientists were making this claim without adequate evidence. Later, when people showed him pictures of the Earth taken by satellites, Shelton claimed the photos were fake. He and the members of his society continued to support the idea that the Earth is flat and that those who disagree are part of a conspiracy to keep the truth about the Earth hidden.
From: Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories, Flat Earth Society (http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-conspiracy-theory8.htm)
The Flat Earth Society, A small extract from my book, The Joy Of Sects
The original British Flat Earth Society was founded in 1892 and kept on going strong until the early 1970s when its last active members, Samuel and Lillian Shelton, died. The pictures of the round Earth taken from space had proved to be something of a crushing blow – although the society did come up with the rather neat explanation that the entire space programme was a con, and the moon landings were scripted by none other than the mischievous Arthur C Clarke.
http://Sam Jordison, Flat Earth Society (http://samdjordison.blogspot.com.au/2008/08/flat-earth-society.html)
So there is no chance that there ever will be 100% irrefutable proof of the Globe that will satisfy dedicated Flat Earthers.
-
Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world, which relies on exactly zero outside information (thus rendering you immune to false information from a round earth shill): On a full moon night like tonight, take a good hard look at the moon's features at moonrise or soon after. REALLY look, don't just glance at it. Draw yourself a picture of the 'seas' and craters. Take a photo or two, or ten; whatever it takes to accurately remember how it looks at moonrise. Do this again at or near moonset, again taking great pains to really observe in exacting detail the face of the moon visible to you. Do this more than one night. Do this the next full moon, and the next. Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you, until you both can draw the moon's features from memory, and your drawings match each other and the observations. What you will find is that every single time you do this, you are still looking at the exact same face of the moon, the exact same seas and craters, as you saw every single time you looked. How is that? On a flat earth, this might be explained FOR ONE LOCATION if the moon is rotating at exactly the rght speed to present the same face to your location as it passes by overhead.
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world. While you two are seperated by huge distance, get on the phone and observe the moon together, at the same time; this will be near moonrise for one of you and near moonset for the other. You will STILL see the exact same face, down to the smallest identifiable crater at the edges of the observable disc. This is impossible on a flat earth with a 3000 mile away moon. It is expected on a globe earth with a moon some 239,000 miles away.
Intikam is a confirmed hard-core flat earth believer, usually located in Turkey. Perhaps an interested FE could contact him to collaborate in this experiment, untainted by RE bias.
-
Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...
Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world.
This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...
-
There is proof for both Globe and Flat Earth So there is no 100% PROOF
Of course, there are proofs, existing or yet to be discovered, as we already have science, observations, logic, reasoning, etc. at our disposal. We just have to be careful we're getting them right...without any bias whatsoever... good luck... and change your mindset or paradigm...
-
Only 100% proof is allowed to be posted in this topic! Good luck! ;) 8)
No 100% proof of the Globe is possible to a fully indoctrinated Flat Earther!
Any proof of the Globe is immediately claimed to a fake, either Photoshopped, CGI or a product of a Freemason, or other, conspiracy, I kid you not!
Geodetic surveyors have proved that the the earth cannot be flat for centuries, but that gets all discarded.
As soon as geodetic sutveyors get mentioned we get claims it is all lies and a Masonic plot! How do you like this for rational evidence?
. . . . . . . . . . Also, geodetic surveying has been refuted as a credible source of info. No doubt they used telescopes for centuries and would have quickly seen that there is no curvature with the equation given at 8 inches × distance squared. They would have also quickly noticed that boats don't disappear behind curvature when sailing off into the horizon. Geodetic surveying is also a Masonic created. They lied about the poles and curvature. No curve means no ball.
We have thousands of photographs of the Globe from almost every possible angle, but we get told
"You can't use those", NASA and all Space agencies are frauds and conspiracy controlled!
Of course all these "Flat Earth" photos are supposedly ::) "proof" of a Flat Earth! ::)
Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories, Flat Earth Society
In 1956, Samuel Shelton founded a society that subscribed to a theory about the shape of the Earth -- namely, that it's flat. Shelton based his theory upon what he called common sense and personal observation. He called the scientific evidence for a globe-shaped Earth "dogmatic," meaning scientists were making this claim without adequate evidence. Later, when people showed him pictures of the Earth taken by satellites, Shelton claimed the photos were fake. He and the members of his society continued to support the idea that the Earth is flat and that those who disagree are part of a conspiracy to keep the truth about the Earth hidden.
From: Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories, Flat Earth Society (http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-conspiracy-theory8.htm)
The Flat Earth Society, A small extract from my book, The Joy Of Sects
The original British Flat Earth Society was founded in 1892 and kept on going strong until the early 1970s when its last active members, Samuel and Lillian Shelton, died. The pictures of the round Earth taken from space had proved to be something of a crushing blow – although the society did come up with the rather neat explanation that the entire space programme was a con, and the moon landings were scripted by none other than the mischievous Arthur C Clarke.
http://Sam Jordison, Flat Earth Society (http://samdjordison.blogspot.com.au/2008/08/flat-earth-society.html)
So there is no chance that there ever will be 100% irrefutable proof of the Globe that will satisfy dedicated Flat Earthers.
Of course, there is chance of 100% irrefutable proof of the Globe or Flat earth that will satisfy each other's hunger for truth. You don't have to look at things subjectively. Well, if you can't argue with proofs that globe pictures are really authentic, maybe the flat earthers have proven that they aren't really. You know, don't make lack of counter argument and proof as a escapegoat or excuse for sweeping generalization or conclusion that what globe earthers presented like globe pictures are just considered as FAKE by flat earthers.... it's better for the globe earthers to counter argue and show further proofs that the pictures are not fake... why can't you show with proofs and sound arguments that the pictures are authentic... or does it mean that the flat earthers' proof of fake pictures really valid?
-
Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...
Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world.
I suggest that any globe or flat earther has to show evidence that all pilots have protocols to constantly adjust their direction as they fly 1/3 to 1/2 distance around the world, otherwise, they will not follow the curvature of the earth, or they will run out of fuel in going straight line or level direction. Of course, the flat earther can show proof that the pilots are not at all required to adjust their directions constantly as there isn't a need because earth is flat. Well, show us proofs then..
This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...
-
Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...
Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world.
I suggest that any globe or flat earther has to show evidence that all pilots have protocols to constantly adjust their direction as they fly 1/3 to 1/2 distance around the world, otherwise, they will not follow the curvature of the earth, or they will run out of fuel in going straight line or level direction. Of course, the flat earther can show proof that the pilots are not at all required to adjust their directions constantly as there isn't a need because earth is flat. Well, show us proofs then..
This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...
If lift pulls up the plane hard enough that it keeps flying. But lift depends, among other things, on the density of air around the plane: the higher the planes fly, the weaker lift is. So, all in all, the plane flies in a layer of air at the same pressure, which in turn follows approximately the surface of the Earth.
A plane needs to be moving at different speeds to maintain enough lift at certain altitudes. So to maintain the same amount of lift it has at a lower altitudes it needs to move faster at higher altitudes.
When a plane is put into level flight at a constant speed it will tend to self adjust as it moves through the air.
-
Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...
Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world.
I suggest that any globe or flat earther has to show evidence that all pilots have protocols to constantly adjust their direction as they fly 1/3 to 1/2 distance around the world, otherwise, they will not follow the curvature of the earth, or they will run out of fuel in going straight line or level direction. Of course, the flat earther can show proof that the pilots are not at all required to adjust their directions constantly as there isn't a need because earth is flat. Well, show us proofs then..
This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...
If lift pulls up the plane hard enough that it keeps flying. But lift depends, among other things, on the density of air around the plane: the higher the planes fly, the weaker lift is. So, all in all, the plane flies in a layer of air at the same pressure, which in turn follows approximately the surface of the Earth.
A plane needs to be moving at different speeds to maintain enough lift at certain altitudes. So to maintain the same amount of lift it has at a lower altitudes it needs to move faster at higher altitudes.
When a plane is put into level flight at a constant speed it will tend to self adjust as it moves through the air.
Hmmm, this reasoning and explanation seems to be just right for both globe and flat earth... and you argued that the plane self-adjust itself for its cruising constant speed... i think you should technically show how this happens... tnx
-
Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...
Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world.
This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...
Care to explain what you find wrong about the logic? I propose that a curious person take the steps required to satisfy their own curiosity, using a method whereby YOU can go out and get YOUR OWN proof rather than asking you to believe MY proof. I propose the very thing Zetetics claim to hold most dear: personal observation. I propose a scenario with different outcomes on flat and round earth.
I really don't know what more I could do. An honest seeker of the truth would either accept the challenge, or explain what is wrong with it.
-
If I ever had to go to court for something serious; not some internet debate crap; but, a serious issue that required a court in order to sort things out and I had to hire a lawyer; not some internet keyboard warrior; and if that lawyer ever used the word, 'debunk' : I would fire him or her in an instant. Debunking is bullshit. It is advocacy for amateurs and it means and shows nothing. It lends no weight to the credibility of any argument.
Also, the standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is not a scientific nor mathematical standard. It is a legal standard and is subject to individual interpretation as to what a 'reasonable doubt' might be. Courts and juries don't always get it right. I am sure innocent men have been hanged because the court was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. People are often wrong. It's the nature of the beast. Even the smartest and strongest among us are prone to emotional/mental problems as well as just plain stupidity.
Mathematics proves theorems and there is no doubt. Scientists either show an experiment indicates the proposition in question is indicated, or not, or that the test is non indicative, hence, moot; again, there is no doubt.
Debunking! Bah! Any idiot can debunk just about anything.
If someone has a salesman's charm, or perhaps they are a beautiful woman with feminine guile, they could make us believe a lot of stuff that we might not otherwise believe. (A smart man will let a woman make a fool out of him. Because of this philosophy I am a happy married man for over 32 yrs!) Never underestimate charm. It is the difference between being a good actor as opposed to being a movie star.
It takes a lawyer, and a good one, to go to court and present a cogent case.
I say question all authority; even the authority of one's own perception. Clearly the universe and existence is ineffable. People are so puny.
-
Indoctrination? You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?
I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day. I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.
If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it. But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated. The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk: J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.
Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii. And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake. Infer what you will. But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck. Telling lies seems to be what people do best.
-
There is proof for both Globe and Flat Earth So there is no 100% PROOF
There's 0 proofs of flat earth. Every debate on this board has refuted Flat earth proofs dozens of times.
I repeat, there's 0 proofs of flat earth. If you have any, you're an actual hero, and TFES could use one.
-
Indoctrination? You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?
I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day. I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.
If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it. But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated. The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk: J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.
Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii. And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake. Infer what you will. But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck. Telling lies seems to be what people do best.
- Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
- The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s2), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s2) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s2). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s3 - ::) big deal! ::)
And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.
::) Come off it! ::)
And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." That does seem to be very variable!
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg)
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
Most os Chicago hidden - behind what? | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png)
Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!
I suggest you try again!
-
Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...
Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world.
I suggest that any globe or flat earther has to show evidence that all pilots have protocols to constantly adjust their direction as they fly 1/3 to 1/2 distance around the world, otherwise, they will not follow the curvature of the earth, or they will run out of fuel in going straight line or level direction. Of course, the flat earther can show proof that the pilots are not at all required to adjust their directions constantly as there isn't a need because earth is flat. Well, show us proofs then..
This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...
If lift pulls up the plane hard enough that it keeps flying. But lift depends, among other things, on the density of air around the plane: the higher the planes fly, the weaker lift is. So, all in all, the plane flies in a layer of air at the same pressure, which in turn follows approximately the surface of the Earth.
A plane needs to be moving at different speeds to maintain enough lift at certain altitudes. So to maintain the same amount of lift it has at a lower altitudes it needs to move faster at higher altitudes.
When a plane is put into level flight at a constant speed it will tend to self adjust as it moves through the air.
Hmmm, this reasoning and explanation seems to be just right for both globe and flat earth... and you argued that the plane self-adjust itself for its cruising constant speed... i think you should technically show how this happens... tnx
It would be the same on FE or RE.
An experiment I can think of that is simple to do is moving you hand held at an angle through water and air. There is lots of room for error, but it will demonstrate the difference in force. Just do your best to hold your hand at the same angle and move it at the same speed. What you will notice if you are accurate enough is there will be a noticeable difference in the amount of force trying to either lift or push down your arm. There should be more force while running your hand through the water. While your hand is in the water change the speed you move it. The faster you move the more force you will feel trying to move your hand up or down. I guess the next time you go swimming or if you take a bath would be a good time.
The same thing happens with planes. In the lower more dense atmosphere more lift is generated traveling at a certain speed than would be generated at higher altitudes.
As for basically self adjusting that is just what would happen. Pilots or automatic pilots when they get to cruising altitude maintain level flight by measuring atmospheric pressure. When the control surfaces and thrust are set for level flight it is for that air speed and altitude/air pressure. So the plane will for the most part want to stay balanced and require very little to no corrections to its control surfaces and thrust. It will naturally want to stay at that air pressure which in the majority of cases results in the same altitude. Those corrections would not be noticeable.
One cause for a flight to experience turbulence is a plane flying through a change in air pressure. The air pressure changes and the plane either wants to go up or down as a result. This would likely be felt as just short up or down movements of the plane as the forces balance and not much of a change in the distance above the surface of the Earth.
-
If I ever had to go to court for something serious; not some internet debate crap; but, a serious issue that required a court in order to sort things out and I had to hire a lawyer; not some internet keyboard warrior; and if that lawyer ever used the word, 'debunk' : I would fire him or her in an instant. Debunking is bullshit. It is advocacy for amateurs and it means and shows nothing. It lends no weight to the credibility of any argument.
Also, the standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is not a scientific nor mathematical standard. It is a legal standard and is subject to individual interpretation as to what a 'reasonable doubt' might be. Courts and juries don't always get it right. I am sure innocent men have been hanged because the court was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. People are often wrong. It's the nature of the beast. Even the smartest and strongest among us are prone to emotional/mental problems as well as just plain stupidity.
Mathematics proves theorems and there is no doubt. Scientists either show an experiment indicates the proposition in question is indicated, or not, or that the test is non indicative, hence, moot; again, there is no doubt.
Debunking! Bah! Any idiot can debunk just about anything.
If someone has a salesman's charm, or perhaps they are a beautiful woman with feminine guile, they could make us believe a lot of stuff that we might not otherwise believe. (A smart man will let a woman make a fool out of him. Because of this philosophy I am a happy married man for over 32 yrs!) Never underestimate charm. It is the difference between being a good actor as opposed to being a movie star.
It takes a lawyer, and a good one, to go to court and present a cogent case.
I say question all authority; even the authority of one's own perception. Clearly the universe and existence is ineffable. People are so puny.
Well said. You have a valid point in my use of the word "debunked". I'd just borrowed it from the GE's and FE's term in their unending debate. Anyway, I intend to rephrase the question in a more positive way. Thanks for your comments... Maybe, this would be better: "Has anyone got proof(s) that isf/are TRUE ONLY for Globe OR Flat earth?" Meaning, it should be an irrefutable and indubitable proof that is true only for either the GE or FE... this is critical for truth seekers because it could be the lead towards the absolute truth of what the earth really is... :)
-
Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world, which relies on exactly zero outside information (thus rendering you immune to false information from a round earth shill): On a full moon night like tonight, take a good hard look at the moon's features at moonrise or soon after. REALLY look, don't just glance at it. Draw yourself a picture of the 'seas' and craters. Take a photo or two, or ten; whatever it takes to accurately remember how it looks at moonrise. Do this again at or near moonset, again taking great pains to really observe in exacting detail the face of the moon visible to you. Do this more than one night. Do this the next full moon, and the next. Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you, until you both can draw the moon's features from memory, and your drawings match each other and the observations. What you will find is that every single time you do this, you are still looking at the exact same face of the moon, the exact same seas and craters, as you saw every single time you looked. How is that? On a flat earth, this might be explained FOR ONE LOCATION if the moon is rotating at exactly the rght speed to present the same face to your location as it passes by overhead.
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world. While you two are seperated by huge distance, get on the phone and observe the moon together, at the same time; this will be near moonrise for one of you and near moonset for the other. You will STILL see the exact same face, down to the smallest identifiable crater at the edges of the observable disc. This is impossible on a flat earth with a 3000 mile away moon. It is expected on a globe earth with a moon some 239,000 miles away.
The rotation of the moon on its axis and the revolution of the moon around the earth that is also rotating on axis relatively much faster than the moon have not been considered. Even if the moon is 239,000 miles away, the relative rotating motions of both would result in different images from same and different observers on earth 1/3 or 1/2 miles apart from day 1 to nth day, esp. 14th day (half of moon's rotation on its axis and around earth. As for the FE's reason or proof, they based theirs on different premise: their moon is not exactly of the same form/shape as that of the globe, same is true with the distance and size relative to that of the earth. So for this moon thing, the GE and FE can really be both right in proving their respective claims... both their proofs are refutable based on their respective premises.
-
Yes, we have several as :
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole
Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...
-
Yes, we have several as :
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole
Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...
For truth seekers, all these topics have also been discussed and argued by FEs, and many of their claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts appear to be also valid just like those of GEs. That's why we have endless debates all over the world now re FE and GE issues. If GEs could not think as open minded as the truth seekers of the absolute truth, not the relative truth, they(GEs) will not see and understand the truth seekers' point. I guess GEs should also consider and analyze FEs' arguments with an open mind...And you'll end up also asking questions why.... truth seekers are mostly top-notch GEs when it comes to astronomy, math and science, only that they have inquisitive minds that they end up to be truth seekers.... try reading all FEs' proofs and arguments, and you'll end up asking some questions that FEs seems to have also a point.. don't claim yet that GE is the absolute truth. It still isn't. Remember the moon landing? this is will make you ask questions, or question why?
-
Indoctrination? You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?
I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day. I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.
If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it. But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated. The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk: J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.
Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii. And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake. Infer what you will. But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck. Telling lies seems to be what people do best.
- Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
- The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s2), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s2) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s2). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s3 - ::) big deal! ::)
And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.
::) Come off it! ::)
And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." That does seem to be very variable!
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg)
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
Most os Chicago hidden - behind what? | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png)
Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!
I suggest you try again!
On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law. I think to settle this, one has to get a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope and use it to view Chicago, or any place much farther, at sea level from Michigan, or elsewhere suitable for such viewing. Of course, the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply. This can be a reckoning point of what really the shape or form of earth, flat or globe? Is anyone here willing to perform this experiment/task to settle once and for all GEs; and FEs' debates on this issue? Whatever the resulting fact on this matter would really be a stepping stone towards the absolute truth about what earth really is... :)
-
Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...
Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world.
I suggest that any globe or flat earther has to show evidence that all pilots have protocols to constantly adjust their direction as they fly 1/3 to 1/2 distance around the world, otherwise, they will not follow the curvature of the earth, or they will run out of fuel in going straight line or level direction. Of course, the flat earther can show proof that the pilots are not at all required to adjust their directions constantly as there isn't a need because earth is flat. Well, show us proofs then..
This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...
If lift pulls up the plane hard enough that it keeps flying. But lift depends, among other things, on the density of air around the plane: the higher the planes fly, the weaker lift is. So, all in all, the plane flies in a layer of air at the same pressure, which in turn follows approximately the surface of the Earth.
A plane needs to be moving at different speeds to maintain enough lift at certain altitudes. So to maintain the same amount of lift it has at a lower altitudes it needs to move faster at higher altitudes.
When a plane is put into level flight at a constant speed it will tend to self adjust as it moves through the air.
Hmmm, this reasoning and explanation seems to be just right for both globe and flat earth... and you argued that the plane self-adjust itself for its cruising constant speed... i think you should technically show how this happens... tnx
It would be the same on FE or RE.
An experiment I can think of that is simple to do is moving you hand held at an angle through water and air. There is lots of room for error, but it will demonstrate the difference in force. Just do your best to hold your hand at the same angle and move it at the same speed. What you will notice if you are accurate enough is there will be a noticeable difference in the amount of force trying to either lift or push down your arm. There should be more force while running your hand through the water. While your hand is in the water change the speed you move it. The faster you move the more force you will feel trying to move your hand up or down. I guess the next time you go swimming or if you take a bath would be a good time.
The same thing happens with planes. In the lower more dense atmosphere more lift is generated traveling at a certain speed than would be generated at higher altitudes.
As for basically self adjusting that is just what would happen. Pilots or automatic pilots when they get to cruising altitude maintain level flight by measuring atmospheric pressure. When the control surfaces and thrust are set for level flight it is for that air speed and altitude/air pressure. So the plane will for the most part want to stay balanced and require very little to no corrections to its control surfaces and thrust. It will naturally want to stay at that air pressure which in the majority of cases results in the same altitude. Those corrections would not be noticeable.
One cause for a flight to experience turbulence is a plane flying through a change in air pressure. The air pressure changes and the plane either wants to go up or down as a result. This would likely be felt as just short up or down movements of the plane as the forces balance and not much of a change in the distance above the surface of the Earth.
Well, you have a point woody! this adjustment can be both the same for both GE and FE. Maybe more on the GE since the earth has curvature, but the earth is quite much bigger than the plane that the curvature appears to be not that prominent and abrupt, relatively...
-
Yes, we have several as :
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole
Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...
For truth seekers, all these topics have also been discussed and argued by FEs, and their claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts are appears to be also valid, but not all are well argued, just like those of GEs.
I haven't seen yet one FE "claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts that appear to be also valid". I would really like to see one.
And please, can you provide me only one "low level" subject like any I have mentionned above for which GE doesn't have any explanation?
And then, I'm sorry but I will just take one example. I have not read any information from FE related to the sun angular speed through the day. Could you explain me how the sun could be moving with a constant angular speed in a FE model?
-
Yes, we have several as :
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole
Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...
For truth seekers, all these topics have also been discussed and argued by FEs, and their claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts are appears to be also valid, but not all are well argued, just like those of GEs.
I haven't seen yet one FE "claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts that appear to be also valid". I would really like to see one.
And please, can you provide me only one "low level" subject like any I have mentionned above for which GE doesn't have any explanation?
And then, I'm sorry but I will just take one example. I have not read any information from FE related to the sun angular speed through the day. Could you explain me how the sun could be moving with a constant angular speed in a FE model?
Oopps, after enumerating all those topics in your list, you've haven't yet seen or come across any of FEs' claims and supported arguments? I don't believe it. It just couldn't be true. You had, actually, only that you didn't give any enough thinking of why they came up with such argument or claims. Didn't it come to your mind that they've also proven or observed some of their claims right? If not one made sense to you, you must be a narrow-minded GE just like all those narrow-minded hard-core FEs. Anyway, review their hundreds of posts in youtube, and ask questions yourself. Indeed, there are valid points or proofs that they are also right in their claims/propositions, meaning, both GE and FE can really be correct/right in their respective observations and proofs. Try getting into their shoes sometimes. Have an inquisitive mind, don't just believe what is fed to you, if you cannot prove it yourself using science, math, etc. Just like the law on perspective and vanishing point, this applies to both GE and FE, and if you insist that GE reasoning is only the truth in this matter, then you really did not see what we truth seekers see... both GEs and FEs can be likened to the two onlookers, one is looking at the number "6" from his position, and the other one at the opposite side is looking at the number as a number "9". They are both correct, right? If you argue that one of them is wrong, and the other is right, you're not seeing the absolute truth which is from the vantage point of one at the center. Can you imagine how these two onlookers argue and fight one another just to prove and insist what each of them sees. Better change vantage point and see the forest, and be a truth seeker... the truth about earth is out there waiting to be seen... :)
-
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg)
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
Most os Chicago hidden - behind what? | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png)
Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.
The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.
-
And if you want even more proof for a globe earth: The South Celestial Pole (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5269.0). I have yet to get an explanation for how the South Celestial Pole works on a flat earth, in either this website or the theflatearthsociety.org website.
I wouldn't call it 100% proof, any more than I would call anything 100% proof. There is always the possibility that we are floating around in some gelatinous goop, and there are a bunch of unicorns farting magic dust into our brains making us hallucinate everything we call reality.
-
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg)
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
Most os Chicago hidden - behind what? | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png)
Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.
The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.
And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.
-
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg)
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
Most os Chicago hidden - behind what? | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png)
Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.
The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.
And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.
It is strongly suggested that GEs study more of how the law of perspective and vanishing point work, for if you don't understand what it is, you're perpetuating your debates with the FEs. You both see the same result of eventually not seeing the buildings until they vanish from sight. Whether it's because of the earth's curvature as the GEs claimed or of the law of perspective and vanishing point as the FEs claimed, both their claims/reasons could have the same effect/result for the Chicago - Michigan case. So you'll really end up in useless debate if you don't understand this and insist in arguing that your reason (GE or FE) is the only one that works here. Both your reasons GEs and FEs have the same effect... wake up you people. To end this debate, it's best for someone to use a high powered camera or telescope with zooming capacity as powerful as that used in observatory and see if the buildings can still be seen at even much farther than Michigan.... well, good luck GEs and FEs.... don't fight or use foul words/comments, you don't have to... keep using reasons and supporting facts.... think, think, think.... :)
-
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg)
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
Most os Chicago hidden - behind what? | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png)
Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.
The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.
And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.
It is strongly suggested that GEs study more of how the law of perspective and vanishing point work, for if you don't understand what it is, you're perpetuating your debates with the FEs. You both see the same result of eventually not seeing the buildings until they vanish from sight. Whether it's because of the earth's curvature as the GEs claimed or of the law of perspective and vanishing point as the FEs claimed, both their claims/reasons could have the same effect/result for the Chicago - Michigan case. So you'll really end up in useless debate if you don't understand this and insist in arguing that your reason (GE or FE) is the only one that works here. Both your reasons GEs and FEs have the same effect... wake up you people. To end this debate, it's best for someone to use a high powered camera or telescope with zooming capacity as powerful as that used in observatory and see if the buildings can still be seen at even much farther than Michigan.... well, good luck GEs and FEs.... don't fight or use foul words/comments, you don't have to... keep using reasons and supporting facts.... think, think, think.... :)
I repeat: what "law of perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to?
-
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg)
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
Most os Chicago hidden - behind what? | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png)
Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.
The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.
And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.
It is strongly suggested that GEs study more of how the law of perspective and vanishing point work, for if you don't understand what it is, you're perpetuating your debates with the FEs. You both see the same result of eventually not seeing the buildings until they vanish from sight. Whether it's because of the earth's curvature as the GEs claimed or of the law of perspective and vanishing point as the FEs claimed, both their claims/reasons could have the same effect/result for the Chicago - Michigan case. So you'll really end up in useless debate if you don't understand this and insist in arguing that your reason (GE or FE) is the only one that works here. Both your reasons GEs and FEs have the same effect... wake up you people. To end this debate, it's best for someone to use a high powered camera or telescope with zooming capacity as powerful as that used in observatory and see if the buildings can still be seen at even much farther than Michigan.... well, good luck GEs and FEs.... don't fight or use foul words/comments, you don't have to... keep using reasons and supporting facts.... think, think, think.... :)
I repeat: what "law of perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to?
It seems you're really hungry of technical/scientific info, better do further research on the subject. There are lots of info on this in the internet, youtube, etc. I got one from one of the FEs, see and read this one: https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/24/17-if-a-flat-earth-why-does-the-sun-go-down/#more-515 Actually, at certain distance, regardless of whether or not the earth is flat or globe (as tiny as we are compared to earth, at some far distance, it still appears to be flat than curve if earth is really globe and has curvature), our eyes has limitation because the extent of our sight is governed by the law on perspective or vanishing point principle. Anyway, read on something about this topic. Better have some imagination to appreciate what this law means... good luck... :)
-
Indoctrination? You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?
I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day. I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.
If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it. But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated. The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk: J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.
Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii. And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake. Infer what you will. But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck. Telling lies seems to be what people do best.
- Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
- The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s2), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s2) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s2). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s3 - ::) big deal! ::)
And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.
::) Come off it! ::)
And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." That does seem to be very variable!
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg)
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
Most os Chicago hidden - behind what? | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png)
Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!
I suggest you try again!
It is the third derivative. excuse me for the typo. I would like to see you calculation concerning jerk magnitude.
-
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg)
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
Most os Chicago hidden - behind what? | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png)
Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.
The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.
And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.
It is strongly suggested that GEs study more of how the law of perspective and vanishing point work, for if you don't understand what it is, you're perpetuating your debates with the FEs. You both see the same result of eventually not seeing the buildings until they vanish from sight. Whether it's because of the earth's curvature as the GEs claimed or of the law of perspective and vanishing point as the FEs claimed, both their claims/reasons could have the same effect/result for the Chicago - Michigan case. So you'll really end up in useless debate if you don't understand this and insist in arguing that your reason (GE or FE) is the only one that works here. Both your reasons GEs and FEs have the same effect... wake up you people. To end this debate, it's best for someone to use a high powered camera or telescope with zooming capacity as powerful as that used in observatory and see if the buildings can still be seen at even much farther than Michigan.... well, good luck GEs and FEs.... don't fight or use foul words/comments, you don't have to... keep using reasons and supporting facts.... think, think, think.... :)
I repeat: what "law of perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to?
It seems you're really hungry of technical/scientific info, better do further research on the subject. There are lots of info on this in the internet, youtube, etc. I got one from one of the FEs, see and read this one: https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/24/17-if-a-flat-earth-why-does-the-sun-go-down/#more-515 Actually, at certain distance, regardless of whether or not the earth is flat or globe (as tiny as we are compared to earth, at some far distance, it still appears to be flat than curve if earth is really globe and has curvature), our eyes has limitation because the extent of our sight is governed by the law on perspective or vanishing point principle. Anyway, read on something about this topic. Better have some imagination to appreciate what this law means... good luck... :)
Yes, I am aware of Rowbotham's theory of "true perspective", which is where the law of perspective referenced by that article originates.
We see an object because our eyes detect the light coming from the object. Our eyes detect 3 things about the light:
1. Intensity
2. Direction
3. Color (irrelevant for this discussion)
There are 2 ways for an object to "disappear":
1. When the intensity of the light is too low, we can no longer detect the object. Therefore, far away stuff tends to disappear.
2. When the angular diameter gets too small, we can no longer detect the dimensions of the object. The object will appear as a zero dimensional point. In the case of a star, we are able to detect some amount of light, but the angular diameter of the star is too small for us to detect the width of the star. We can't discern any details of the star. It just appears as a zero dimensional point.
How does this relate to perspective? As an object increases in distance, it's angular diameter decreases. This causes an object to appear to become smaller the farther away it gets. The entire object will appear proportionally smaller. Any details that become smaller than what our eye can detect will be merged with the rest of the details in that area.
Rowbotham's theory of "true perspective" is based on this reasoning: if the angular diameter between an object and the horizon is smaller than what our eye can detect, then it will appear to merge with the horizon. This is perfectly reasonable on the surface. But he misapplies this reasoning.
Look at the picture of the Chicago buildings below the horizon: you can clearly see the tops of the buildings. Therefore, the angular diameter of the top portion of the building is much greater than the minimum discernible angular diameter of the camera. However, the portion of the building that is below the horizon is just as large as the portion above the horizon. The angular diameter of the bottom portion of the building should be plenty big enough to see. So why is the bottom portion gone? Rowbotham's reasoning does not apply here. "True perspective" does not apply here. The bottom portion of the building is plenty large enough to see. No amount of zooming in will cause the bottom portion to reappear. The only reasonable explanation is that the bottom portion of the building is hidden behind the water. This leaves us with two options: a massive wave is about to wipe out Chicago, or the water is curved along with the earth.
Stop assuming other people haven't thought this through.
-
Indoctrination? You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?
I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day. I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.
If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it. But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated. The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk: J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.
Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii. And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake. Infer what you will. But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck. Telling lies seems to be what people do best.
- Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
- The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s2), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s2) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s2). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s3 - ::) big deal! ::)
Pure sophistry.
And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.
::) Come off it! ::)
And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." Not just me. Lots of people can and have made the same claim. That does seem to be very variable!
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg)
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
Most os Chicago hidden - behind what? | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png)
Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
More sophistry.
So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!
I suggest you try again!
"That does seem to be very variable!" ? Did you just make a mistake with you sentence? What does very variable mean?
"So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!" No it doesn't. So, you are wrong.
I have no agenda except to entertain myself. So, you are wrong. Your comment is unfriendly, uncivil and uncalled for.
-
Proponents of the Copernicum model aren't interested in understanding. They are interested in power. Me? I am only interested in a good time and whether the Earth is flat or round makes no difference to me. But, I think it could be flat and I have seen no compelling evidence from the Roundheads to suggest otherwise. It isn't about what you know. It is about who you trust. And I wouldn't trust any of you round earth proselytes if my life depended on it. Hell with the NASA boondoggle! Roundheads are a bunch of bullies who can't stand it when others don't follow the edicts of their religion.
When the multitudes laugh at you it only means you are blessed!
-
I made the statement, " I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor." I do not have a first hand account. I didn't mean to be misleading. I was just being boneheaded. Mea Culpa! But I am convinced because of local news coverage and you tube videos that one can see Chicago from Benton Harbor. Perhaps, I am a fool given to hysteria? I don't care. And why would anybody pay attention to a poor old gullible fool like myself? And I have to be honest about what I feel and I just don't trust any institutional hierarchy. I don't claim expertise. I have no agenda except to entertain myself.
It's not that I believe the Earth is flat. It is that I don't believe the current model.
-
Indoctrination? You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?
I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day. I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.
If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it. But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated. The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk: J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.
Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii. And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake. Infer what you will. But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck. Telling lies seems to be what people do best.
- Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
- The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s2), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s2) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s2). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s3 - ::) big deal! ::)
And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.
::) Come off it! ::)
And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." That does seem to be very variable!
<< removed pictures >>
So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!
I suggest you try again!
On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law. I think to settle this, one has to get a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope and use it to view Chicago, or any place much farther, at sea level from Michigan, or elsewhere suitable for such viewing. Of course, the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply. This can be a reckoning point of what really the shape or form of earth, flat or globe? Is anyone here willing to perform this experiment/task to settle once and for all GEs; and FEs' debates on this issue? Whatever the resulting fact on this matter would really be a stepping stone towards the absolute truth about what earth really is... :)
Yes, I know, but when we had I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.
I replied showing how variable it is.
And I don't think that "a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope" will help one little bit.
Sure "the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply" but then
like it or not observations of this nature (for or against the globe) will always be bugged by that unfortunate fact of life, refraction near the horizon.
Much safer to steer clear till someone brings it up.
-
Indoctrination? You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?
I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day. I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.
If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it. But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated. The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk: J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.
Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii. And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake. Infer what you will. But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck. Telling lies seems to be what people do best.
- Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
- The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s2), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s2) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s2). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s3 - ::) big deal! ::)
And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.
::) Come off it! ::)
And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." That does seem to be very variable!
<< removed pictures >>
So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!
I suggest you try again!
On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law. I think to settle this, one has to get a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope and use it to view Chicago, or any place much farther, at sea level from Michigan, or elsewhere suitable for such viewing. Of course, the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply. This can be a reckoning point of what really the shape or form of earth, flat or globe? Is anyone here willing to perform this experiment/task to settle once and for all GEs; and FEs' debates on this issue? Whatever the resulting fact on this matter would really be a stepping stone towards the absolute truth about what earth really is... :)
Yes, I know, but when we had I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.
I replied showing how variable it is.
And I don't think that "a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope" will help one little bit.
Sure "the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply" but then
like it or not observations of this nature (for or against the globe) will always be bugged by that unfortunate fact of life, refraction near the horizon.
Much safer to steer clear till someone brings it up.
Well, there's no harm in trying. We cannot confirm any facts out there if you just slam any possible experiment that can prove something at the next level. That's how scientific method works. We can talk and talk and debate all the time defending each other's theory or belief, but this is useless and a waste of time if no valid experimental results are performed to prove one's proposition/theory. This is the only way i think can raise this matter to the next level. No one yet in this group is 100% sure or has a monopoly of the truth, the very reason why there seems to be an endless debate. Give a chance for people to make this experiment. Refrain from absolute conclusion. It does not help at this time. No one will believe in that. We cannot go on forever proving nothing by using just eye observation, without the aid of high powered telescope/camera, afterall, astronomy advances that way. Certainly, it is a fact that such gadget can significantly extend our sight capacity or the limits of perspective that governs unaided eye observation regardless of whether the earth is flat or a globe. Just be open-minded for better options as science works that way. :)
-
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg)
Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | | (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no)
Most os Chicago hidden - behind what? | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Chicago%20Part%20Hidden_zpsjnph33tb.png)
Oops, where has Chicago gone? |
On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.
The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.
And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.
It is strongly suggested that GEs study more of how the law of perspective and vanishing point work, for if you don't understand what it is, you're perpetuating your debates with the FEs. You both see the same result of eventually not seeing the buildings until they vanish from sight. Whether it's because of the earth's curvature as the GEs claimed or of the law of perspective and vanishing point as the FEs claimed, both their claims/reasons could have the same effect/result for the Chicago - Michigan case. So you'll really end up in useless debate if you don't understand this and insist in arguing that your reason (GE or FE) is the only one that works here. Both your reasons GEs and FEs have the same effect... wake up you people. To end this debate, it's best for someone to use a high powered camera or telescope with zooming capacity as powerful as that used in observatory and see if the buildings can still be seen at even much farther than Michigan.... well, good luck GEs and FEs.... don't fight or use foul words/comments, you don't have to... keep using reasons and supporting facts.... think, think, think.... :)
I repeat: what "law of perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to?
It seems you're really hungry of technical/scientific info, better do further research on the subject. There are lots of info on this in the internet, youtube, etc. I got one from one of the FEs, see and read this one: https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/24/17-if-a-flat-earth-why-does-the-sun-go-down/#more-515 Actually, at certain distance, regardless of whether or not the earth is flat or globe (as tiny as we are compared to earth, at some far distance, it still appears to be flat than curve if earth is really globe and has curvature), our eyes has limitation because the extent of our sight is governed by the law on perspective or vanishing point principle. Anyway, read on something about this topic. Better have some imagination to appreciate what this law means... good luck... :)
Yes, I am aware of Rowbotham's theory of "true perspective", which is where the law of perspective referenced by that article originates.
We see an object because our eyes detect the light coming from the object. Our eyes detect 3 things about the light:
1. Intensity
2. Direction
3. Color (irrelevant for this discussion)
There are 2 ways for an object to "disappear":
1. When the intensity of the light is too low, we can no longer detect the object. Therefore, far away stuff tends to disappear.
2. When the angular diameter gets too small, we can no longer detect the dimensions of the object. The object will appear as a zero dimensional point. In the case of a star, we are able to detect some amount of light, but the angular diameter of the star is too small for us to detect the width of the star. We can't discern any details of the star. It just appears as a zero dimensional point.
How does this relate to perspective? As an object increases in distance, it's angular diameter decreases. This causes an object to appear to become smaller the farther away it gets. The entire object will appear proportionally smaller. Any details that become smaller than what our eye can detect will be merged with the rest of the details in that area.
Rowbotham's theory of "true perspective" is based on this reasoning: if the angular diameter between an object and the horizon is smaller than what our eye can detect, then it will appear to merge with the horizon. This is perfectly reasonable on the surface. But he misapplies this reasoning.
Look at the picture of the Chicago buildings below the horizon: you can clearly see the tops of the buildings. Therefore, the angular diameter of the top portion of the building is much greater than the minimum discernible angular diameter of the camera. However, the portion of the building that is below the horizon is just as large as the portion above the horizon. The angular diameter of the bottom portion of the building should be plenty big enough to see. So why is the bottom portion gone? Rowbotham's reasoning does not apply here. "True perspective" does not apply here. The bottom portion of the building is plenty large enough to see. No amount of zooming in will cause the bottom portion to reappear. The only reasonable explanation is that the bottom portion of the building is hidden behind the water. This leaves us with two options: a massive wave is about to wipe out Chicago, or the water is curved along with the earth.
Stop assuming other people haven't thought this through.
Opps, I simply provided you with what you asked. You made me/us believe that you don't know anything about perspective, where in fact you seemed to knew it already... ?? what a deceitful gesture! Anyway, people lie.. Ohh, you've thought this through already, and yet you let people here believe that you don't know anything about perspective... well, people tend to be deceitful just to push their agenda. hehehe, :)... well, it seems that you know a lot about perspective. Thanks for your explanation. You have a point though, but not that conclusive yet, in an absolute sense, i mean. Let us put it this way. You concluded right away that there is curvature by seeing with only the "naked eye" or by "ordinary unaided observation" the upper portion of the bldgs. Wait, how about refraction effect? Remember, you're only using unaided eye observation which cannot be relied upon 100%. Ok, you can do it this way to erase all doubts esp. from the FEs. Observe, using a high powered camera or telescope recommended, the Chicago bldgs from a distance much farther, not just from Michigan, that according to curvature computation or formula the bldgs should have completely vanished already or out of sight already due to curvature, and show proof of this. This can also be done by the FEs. I challenge both FEs and GEs on this. So this can be proven once and for all. If the FE still sees the bldgs at such farther distance, well, FE is right, but if not, the GE is right, the earth is globe. So c'mmon people, do this experiment. Don't just make inadequately supported outright conclusions, that's not how scientific proving or proof works. Be a bit scientific... to end this seemingly endless debate, for now... Go and report to us the unedited and authentic verifiable result... photo,,,etc.. :)
-
Opps, I simply provided you with what you asked. You made me/us believe that you don't know anything about perspective, where in fact you seemed to knew it already... ?? what a deceitful gesture! Anyway, people lie.. Ohh, you've thought this through already, and yet you let people here believe that you don't know anything about perspective... well, people tend to be deceitful just to push their agenda. hehehe, :)...
I was not trying to be deceitful. "Law of perspective and vanishing point" is not a very technical term, so I was honestly curious about what you were referring to. There were several possibilities:
1. The normal understanding of perspective (stuff appears smaller as it gets farther away)
2. Artistic perspective drawing techniques (1 point perspective, 3 point perspective, etc)
3. Rowbotham's "true perspective"
4. Some other flat earther understanding of perspective, of which there are several
It is true that I suspected you were talking about Rowbotham's perspective, but I wanted to be sure. I'm not sure how asking you for clarification is "pushing my agenda".
well, it seems that you know a lot about perspective. Thanks for your explanation. You have a point though, but not that conclusive yet, in an absolute sense, i mean.
What about my explanation was not conclusive?
Let us put it this way. You concluded right away that there is curvature by seeing with only the "naked eye" or by "ordinary unaided observation" the upper portion of the bldgs. Wait, how about refraction effect? Remember, you're only using unaided eye observation which cannot be relied upon 100%.
No, I didn't. I was referring to the above picture of Chicago, which is obviously not the unaided eye. In fact, the picture was probably taken with a rather significant zoom. And what about the refraction effect? You can't just mumble the word "refraction" and assume that explains everything. Be specific.
Ok, you can do it this way to erase all doubts esp. from the FEs. Observe, using a high powered camera or telescope recommended, the Chicago bldgs from a distance much farther, not just from Michigan, that according to curvature computation or formula the bldgs should have completely vanished already or out of sight already due to curvature, and show proof of this. This can also be done by the FEs. I challenge both FEs and GEs on this. So this can be proven once and for all. If the FE still sees the bldgs at such farther distance, well, FE is right, but if not, the GE is right, the earth is globe. So c'mmon people, do this experiment.
No thanks. It is amusing to argue about this stuff on this website, but I am already quite confident that the earth is round. Why am I so confident? Because there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round, and absolutely zero evidence that it is flat. I am not going to waste a bunch of money proving something that has already been thoroughly proven.
Don't just make inadequately supported outright conclusions, that's not how scientific proving or proof works.
My conclusions are quite adequately supported, thank you very much.
Be a bit scientific... to end this seemingly endless debate, for now... Go and report to us the unedited and authentic verifiable result... photo,,,etc.. :)
You mean a picture of Chicago with a high powered camera/telescope? The above picture is already taken with a pretty decent zoom, although I don't know exactly what the focal length is. Why isn't that picture good enough? You can clearly see the outlines of the buildings.
-
It's not that I believe in flat earth. I simply do not know. I do not trust those in authority. If I can be fooled by hoaxers on youtube then I can be fooled by NASA or some other scientific agency. You roundheads need to learn to live with the fact that none of you are the last word. Long Live Flat Earth! Death to Scientism. I will say I am enjoying the conversations. Whether one believes in flat earth or not will have no effect on the quality of their lives.
-
This is just a sort of an addendum to an earlier post.
On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument,
I only put that in as a reply to love's claim "I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." I guess I was trying to point out more or less what you claim, sort of like "It ain't necessarily so!" And it's an observation that depends so much refraction that we get all sorts of results, as noted.
pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.
Yes, both have perspective, but only the Flat Earth has a "Law of Perspective" that claims that the "vanishing point" is always on the visual horizon. Well, this is certainly vehemently claimed by Tom Bishop. Rather than fill this post up I tried to disprove that notion in Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5346.msg103833#msg103833)
The the Flat Earth seems to use this to prove the the sun and moon reach their vanishing point at the horizon.
Perspective on the Globe is really just a drawing guide.
But, I would contend that the "vanishing point" depends entirely on the size (and brightness) of the object, and has no connection with the visible horizon.
I think to settle this, one has to get a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope and use it to view Chicago, or any place much farther, at sea level from Michigan, or elsewhere suitable for such viewing. Of course, the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply. This can be a reckoning point of what really the shape or form of earth, flat or globe? Is anyone here willing to perform this experiment/task to settle once and for all GEs; and FEs' debates on this issue? Whatever the resulting fact on this matter would really be a stepping stone towards the absolute truth about what earth really is... :)
I think I commented on this bit earlier, but I don't think anyone is going to prove anything much other than that a telescope will never bring anything back.
-
The the Flat Earth seems to use this to prove the the sun and moon reach their vanishing point at the horizon.
Perspective on the Globe is really just a drawing guide.
But, I would contend that the "vanishing point" depends entirely on the size (and brightness) of the object, and has no connection with the visible horizon.
I think I commented on this bit earlier, but I don't think anyone is going to prove anything much other than that a telescope will never bring anything back.
I think you misunderstood a bit about the law on perspective and vanishing point (LP/VP). You, being a GE, and those FEs like Tom, have all observed your respective "suns" and "moons" according to the LP/VP. NO ONE with eyes escapes this law. You are not human or simply just blind if you insist that you're not governed by this law. :) This is not just for drawing guide, as the drawing is just made right according to what the eyes have observed or seen. The LP/VP governs the sight of all persons' eyes, so everything seen especially at a distance moving towards or away from the observer, gets smaller from all sides until convergently vanishes to a point and disappears.
Since the horizon can be seen around the observer (GE OR FE), of course, it will not vanish, but two objects seen from it tend to go closer and closer to each other as the observer gets farther away from them until they merge and vanish from sight. So for GEs, this LP/VP cannot just be ignored, for doing so, makes your observation erroneous. It could be that both GEs and FEs observed distant objects, bldgs, sun and moon relative to earth's huge surface WITHIN ONLY the LP/VP limitation that governs their eyes, all observers' eyes. To end this debate, once and for all, let someone with a high-powered telescope/camera prove whether the earth is really F or G. Better be ready GEs and FEs when the time comes to have this experiment done, probably by genuine truth seekers as they don't have any political agenda and have nothing to fear or hide... what they want is plain TRUTH...:)
-
The the Flat Earth seems to use this to prove the the sun and moon reach their vanishing point at the horizon.
Perspective on the Globe is really just a drawing guide.
But, I would contend that the "vanishing point" depends entirely on the size (and brightness) of the object, and has no connection with the visible horizon.
I think I commented on this bit earlier, but I don't think anyone is going to prove anything much other than that a telescope will never bring anything back.
I think you misunderstood a bit about the law on perspective and vanishing point (LP/VP). You, being a GE, and those FEs like Tom, have all observed your respective "suns" and "moons" according to the LP/VP. NO ONE with eyes escapes this law. You are not human or simply just blind if you insist that you're not governed by this law. :) This is not just for drawing guide, as the drawing is just made right according to what the eyes have observed or seen. The LP/VP governs the sight of all persons' eyes, so everything seen especially at a distance moving towards or away from the observer, gets smaller from all sides until convergently vanishes to a point and disappears.
Since the horizon can be seen around the observer (GE OR FE), of course, it will not vanish, but two objects seen from it tend to go closer and closer to each other as the observer gets farther away from them until they merge and vanish from sight. So for GEs, this LP/VP cannot just be ignored, for doing so, makes your observation erroneous. It could be that both GEs and FEs observed distant objects, bldgs, sun and moon relative to earth's huge surface WITHIN ONLY the LP/VP limitation that governs their eyes, all observers' eyes. To end this debate, once and for all, let someone with a high-powered telescope/camera prove whether the earth is really F or G. Better be ready GEs and FEs when the time comes to have this experiment done, probably by genuine truth seekers as they don't have any political agenda and have nothing to fear or hide... what they want is plain TRUTH...:)
There is simply no way that any "Law of Perspective" can make something as large and bright as the sun (even the 32 mile FE sun) disappear at a distance of 10,000 miles or so.
Even more so is the fact that no "Law of Perspective" that can make the Flat Earth sun some 3,000 miles above appear to set behind the horizon, because it most certainly appears to rise from behind the horizon and set behind the horizon.
As in this video I "borrowed" from "the other site":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6UtIuZmlHs
Please explain how this is actually possible... you can clearly see the sun make a semicircle over the water's horizon.
It addition to the sun does not get smaller as it moves away, it stays the same size (well, within say 0.004%) all the time from rising till setting and from anywhere on earth that you observe it. The only change is a small seasonal one - it is largest it January and smallest (but only by 3% or so) in July.
This "constancy of angular size" of the sun is readily observable and no massive telescopes can prove otherwise.
<< hopefully fixed video >>
-
Since the horizon can be seen around the observer (GE OR FE), of course, it will not vanish, but two objects seen from it tend to go closer and closer to each other as the observer gets farther away from them until they merge and vanish from sight.
We all agree with the statement. The key issue is this: how far does the object have to move away before it appears to touch the horizon, and how big will it appear to be when it touches the horizon? We can find this answer easily using basic geometry. And the answers don't even come close to adding up in the flat earth model.
-
I have a wildest idea and suggestion here just to come up with real time data supporting what's really the truth out there. Imagination and calculations are ok but real time observation from all over the world is much better. CGI is not welcome in this experiment. My suggestion is why don't everybody, GEs and FEs alike join together to get to or prove what's really an undeniable fact/truth about earth. :) Quite crazy, but we're all human who want to know the real truth regarding earth issues.
Anyway, I came across this video of FEs just having fun taking real time videos for their data gathering. We can say what's the point gathering those real time videos taken to prove something like the equinox? Well, this is a modern free world, let them go for it, who knows, some questions can be answered by their results. You know, nowadays, we just cannot have a monopoly of theoretical and mathematical claims without verifiable valid empirical data taken real time. If the the gathered data are inconsistent with what we believe, theorize or calculated as mathematical fact, then that's the opportune time that we ask the question "why"? and of course, we should strive to find the correct answer as the truth is just out there waiting to be discovered by people who are genuine truth seekers... :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFnuhHhsT-U
-
Since the horizon can be seen around the observer (GE OR FE), of course, it will not vanish, but two objects seen from it tend to go closer and closer to each other as the observer gets farther away from them until they merge and vanish from sight.
We all agree with the statement. The key issue is this: how far does the object have to move away before it appears to touch the horizon, and how big will it appear to be when it touches the horizon? We can find this answer easily using basic geometry. And the answers don't even come close to adding up in the flat earth model.
Yes, we all agree with cel's basic statement.
Since the horizon can be seen around the observer (GE OR FE), of course, it will not vanish, but two objects seen from it tend to go closer and closer to each other as the observer gets farther away from them until they merge and vanish from sight.
But the big point of contention is that the FE claims everything merges on the horizon.
But in the Globe model we assert quite strongly that objects merge at a distance determined by their separation, for example, there are stars a tremendous distance away that are only a few arc minutes apart, but can be easily resolved with the naked eye.
| Alpha Capricorni - Algedi (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Astronomy/Alpha%20Capricorni%20-%20Algedi_zpsocenefdv.png)
Algedi is an optical double star at the western tip of the constellation of Capricornus. | | Algedi - enlarged (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Astronomy/Algedi%20-%20enlarged_zpsiaehiduk.png)
Algedi is fairly easy to resolve with the naked eye.
Its two components are separated by 6.3 arcminutes and are similar in moderate brightness. |
And objects disappear from sight at a distance determined by their size and contrast with the background (caused mainly by brightness).
This distance bears no connection at all with the visual horizon.
If an object is large enough and/or bright enough, it can be visible far beyond the horizon.
-
Indoctrination? You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?
I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day. I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.
If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it. But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated. The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk: J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.
Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii. And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake. Infer what you will. But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck. Telling lies seems to be what people do best.
I actually can't understand why Flat Earthers ....
1. Can't understand the difference between a bus and an Earth. The analogy is ridiculous. The better analogy would be, why don't germs fall off the surface of your skin. One would think, based on Flat Earth theory, that all one would need to do to ensure their hands are clean and free from bacteria is simply turn your hands flat out and facing down, give it a good shake. Poof, never get sick again.
2. Believe that for all of modern civilization, in every country, all over the world, even countries at war, are all in on the conspiracy that the world is flat but keep up the ruse that it is round.
3. Can't provide a real reason as to why this conspiracy is even necessary. What is the point of this ruse?
4. Have somehow convinced themselves that NASA, every scientist in the world, every government in the world, all pilots, Universities, professors, astrologists, engineers, physicists, geologists, and pretty much any profession that requires critical thinking, high intelligence, problem solving and investigative skills have not figured out this huge lie.
5. And that Flat Earthers have solved this puzzle, have provided no evidence or proof, but believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat.
One would think that out of all the flat Earthers out there, at least one, just one in the past 500 years, would have put together an expedition to provide proof of this. Expeditions have been made by man for many discoveries all over the world, but not one, not a single one, made an expedition to prove the Earth is flat, or even found out accidentally?
-
Succinctly nut shelled!
Welcome.
-
im thinking our reality is neither globe or flat..its something else..it wouldnt even be debatable if it was.
It's an irregular shape but most closely resembles a sphere.
-
It is both Spherical and Flat simultaneously.
-
im thinking our reality is neither globe or flat..its something else..it wouldnt even be debatable if it was.
It's an irregular shape but most closely resembles a sphere.
Better back up your proposition with irrefutable proof(s) that is true only to that "irregular shape" claim of yours.... :)
-
im thinking our reality is neither globe or flat..its something else..it wouldnt even be debatable if it was.
It's an irregular shape but most closely resembles a sphere.
Better back up your proposition with irrefutable proof(s) that is true only to that "irregular shape" claim of yours.... :)
As far as the irregular claim, look at your nearest mountains and/or valley. There is the proof. For proof of the claim that the earth resembles a sphere I would like to submit a couple of photos. If those don't convince you, circumnavigate the earth travelling NE, NW, SE, or SW and see if you arrive at your starting point. Another thing you can do is shine a laser two miles over a still body of water. Make sure the light is the same distance above the water at either end. (I suggest 1 foot. Less than 8 inches won't work.) Then go measure the middle. If you don't have a laser you can do the same experiment by stretching strong, neutral buoyancy fish-line tight underneath the surface of the water.Here are the photos:
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/Zah0Y.jpg)
(http://images-assets.nasa.gov/image/0202795/0202795~thumb.jpg)
-
@ Boots,
Oh c'mmon, all your GE-based arguments and proofs have been overused already. I suggest you read also ALL FE arguments and facts re such topic. Anyway, let me tell you that in those lines of arguments, both GEs and FEs have valid points, only that they don't see that, causing them to pointlessly and endlessly argue and argue without getting to the truth out there. Don't get into such trap, you might find yourself knowing nothing but shallow info. Be a truth seeker. Find out there somewhere an irrefutable and indubitable proof(s)... Thanks. :)
-
@ Boots,
Oh c'mmon, all your GE-based arguments and proofs have been overused already. I suggest you read also ALL FE arguments and facts re such topic. Anyway, let me tell you that in those lines of arguments, both GEs and FEs have valid points, only that they don't see that, causing them to pointlessly and endlessly argue and argue without getting to the truth out there. Don't get into such trap, you might find yourself knowing nothing but shallow info. Be a truth seeker. Find out there somewhere an irrefutable and indubitable proof(s)... Thanks. :)
Well, Flat Earthers claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, no matter what the elevation. Basic Perspective
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.
You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level.
This is made as a direct unsupported ststement in the Wiki.
Well, I claim that on a globe there is a measurable, though small, angle of dip to the horizon from the local horizontal. Surveying instruments can measure this from quite low elevations and much less precise levels can detect it from around 300 m elevation and higher.
I have made numerous posts on this and had little response, other than "I can't see any curvature", but I am not talking about curvature at all. Here are some of those posts (all much the same):
Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we? « Reply #18 on: September 14, 2016, 02:16:28 AM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5285.msg103597#msg103597),
Re: It shouldn't be that hard to settle whether the earth is round. « Reply #8 on: August 30, 2016, 12:53:12 PM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5271.msg102828#msg102828),
Re: eye level flat horizon at 120,000 feet « Reply #18 on: September 21, 2016, 07:16:25 AM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5311.msg103888#msg103888).
The only reason for quoting more than one is so you can read any comments or objections others have made.
But I believe that "Dip Angle to the Horizon" measurements done from a number of different high elevations (up to say 10,000 m) is enough to decide whether the earth is f;at or a globe.
-
@ Boots,
Oh c'mmon, all your GE-based arguments and proofs have been overused already. I suggest you read also ALL FE arguments and facts re such topic. Anyway, let me tell you that in those lines of arguments, both GEs and FEs have valid points, only that they don't see that, causing them to pointlessly and endlessly argue and argue without getting to the truth out there. Don't get into such trap, you might find yourself knowing nothing but shallow info. Be a truth seeker. Find out there somewhere an irrefutable and indubitable proof(s)... Thanks. :)
I confess I am not that well versed in FE arguments. The reason I like to discuss on this forum is because I prefer to learn from discussion than from reading big books or watching long, rambling videos. So I have a couple questions I would like you to answer:
- Do you believe that a string pulled tight forms a straight line or a curved line?
- Do you believe a laser beam forms a straight line, or a curved line?
[/list]
-
@ Boots,
Oh c'mmon, all your GE-based arguments and proofs have been overused already.
If I were to argue that 2+2=5 you would likely use a few arguments and proofs to show me that I was in error and that 2+2=4. If I continued to disagree would you continue to come up with new proofs and arguments? No. There is not an infinite number of proofs and arguments available. The value of a proof is not determined by the number of times it has been used.
-
A lot of 'perspective' has come up in this post. I have a question to FE'ers regarding the sun 'setting'. How far away from you must the sun be to set over the ocean? Surely if there is a law of perspective and the sun remains at the same height, there should be a set distance for this to occur.
-
Second question: Why on a clear day do you see a clear line as the horizon at the ocean? This seems intuitive on the FE model, as you can see 3 to 6 miles or so depending on where you are standing, and then if you go to the top of a nearby building the horizon is still clear, but much further away! Surely on a flat earth the horizon would only disappear due to atmospheric distortion, so whatever height you were at, the horizon should be 'fuzzy'.
-
He's gone dark and silent as a submarine, leavin us hangin like Apollo 13. ???
-
A lot of 'perspective' has come up in this post. I have a question to FE'ers regarding the sun 'setting'. How far away from you must the sun be to set over the ocean? Surely if there is a law of perspective and the sun remains at the same height, there should be a set distance for this to occur.
Still waiting!! Any takers?