The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: IwillprovetheGlobe on December 17, 2019, 11:34:29 PM

Title: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: IwillprovetheGlobe on December 17, 2019, 11:34:29 PM
Here I am to discuss the flat earth.
I am a religious, aeronautical engineer who's up for a discussion. I am hoping to convince flat earthers that this theory is wrong.

If you can't prove anymore and you're left with the globe, either ask someone for help or accept the fact that the government doesn't lie to you.
This is not a game about pride.

Many YouTube videos (of which some of you aren't proud) try to give proof of the flat earth. Many explanations contradict each other so here I am asking you guys in person.

Starting with:
How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?
Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?

If you say that there's too much air in between: the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Bikini Polaris on December 18, 2019, 12:28:00 AM
You're taking the wrong approach, anyway:

FE is a proven theory and FEs do understand that if governments are lying, is because there's a good reason for that. Perspective denies seeing what you mention. Cities are highly illuminated and that's a possible reason for the effect that you mention (but that you don't prove or provide evidence)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: IwillprovetheGlobe on December 18, 2019, 12:43:48 AM
You're taking the wrong approach, anyway:

FE is a proven theory and FEs do understand that if governments are lying, is because there's a good reason for that. Perspective denies seeing what you mention. Cities are highly illuminated and that's a possible reason for the effect that you mention (but that you don't prove or provide evidence)

You gave reason for half my question. I don't care about your opinions about the government to be clear, just the physical theories. So I'll ask the question again.
And if this us the wrong approach, explain what would be a right one.

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia?

And come on, I don't have to send you a picture to support this question do I?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: iamcpc on December 18, 2019, 02:47:55 AM
How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia?

Because there is a limit to how far light can travel through the air. That distance is above the upper limit of the number of miles that light can travel through the atmosphere.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on December 18, 2019, 05:38:56 AM
How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia?

Because there is a limit to how far light can travel through the air. That distance is above the upper limit of the number of miles that light can travel through the atmosphere.

I would argue against the notion that there is a limit, or that a limit would be reached by simply Indonesia to Nepal a mere 3000 miles +/- or so in distance. I can see Polaris on or near the horizon at night from my location. And according to common FE lore, it's a smidge more than 3000 miles away from me. The 'limit on how far light can travel' thing doesn't work.

Now there may be other explanations, but that is not one of them.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 18, 2019, 06:03:45 AM
it's a smidge more than 3000 miles away from me
Why do RE'ers keep getting the basics wrong after being here for so long? You know, things like "it's probably not safe to assume that the vacuum of space does not have the same optical properties as air and/or obstacles on the Earth"?

This isn't an FE problem, this is a "you forgot to think" problem. "I can see stars therefore visibility on the Earth is perfect" - this is nonsense regardless of which model you prefer to subscribe to.

As for the OP - pipe down. You're not the final boss of the Internet. Nobody will "dare" to debate you like making a post on our own forum would be some super spooky feat. If you have a questions, put on a big smile and ask them. You might get the answers you seek, or maybe you won't. Social interactions are a great thing.

Oh, and start with the FAQ. You won't make much headway if you don't know the first thing about how light behaves in FET.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: totallackey on December 18, 2019, 01:09:28 PM
Here I am to discuss the flat earth.

How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?
Several reasons. Primarily air quality prohibits visual acuity exceeding approximately 350 km in a straight line.
Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?
No, this is just flat out wrong.
If you say that there's too much air in between:
There is no such thing as "too much air in between."

The amount air in between is going to be the amount air in between, regardless of personal opinion.
... the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.
Again, it is strictly about air quality.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: IwillprovetheGlobe on December 18, 2019, 01:37:08 PM
How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia?

Because there is a limit to how far light can travel through the air. That distance is above the upper limit of the number of miles that light can travel through the atmosphere.

Then how can you see the moon/sun while those are also around that far away?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: IwillprovetheGlobe on December 18, 2019, 01:38:59 PM
Here I am to discuss the flat earth.

How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?
Several reasons. Primarily air quality prohibits visual acuity exceeding approximately 350 km in a straight line.
Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?
No, this is just flat out wrong.
If you say that there's too much air in between:
There is no such thing as "too much air in between."

The amount air in between is going to be the amount air in between, regardless of personal opinion.
... the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.
Again, it is strictly about air quality.

Then how can you see the moon/sun while those are also around that far away?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: totallackey on December 18, 2019, 01:59:22 PM
Here I am to discuss the flat earth.

How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?
Several reasons. Primarily air quality prohibits visual acuity exceeding approximately 350 km in a straight line.
Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?
No, this is just flat out wrong.
If you say that there's too much air in between:
There is no such thing as "too much air in between."

The amount air in between is going to be the amount air in between, regardless of personal opinion.
... the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.
Again, it is strictly about air quality.

Then how can you see the moon/sun while those are also around that far away?
You can see the moon and sun, but always?

Tonight, the air quality over my head was such that you could not see the moon.

Right now, I cannot see the Sun due to air quality.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: IwillprovetheGlobe on December 18, 2019, 02:34:42 PM
You can see the moon and sun, but always?

Tonight, the air quality over my head was such that you could not see the moon.

Right now, I cannot see the Sun due to air quality.
[/quote]

Still when it's day, the sun and moon are 3000 miles above the surface according to your theory. So please explain why we cant see mount Everest from further than ~350 miles with the same conditions, day time.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on December 18, 2019, 03:40:35 PM
You can see the moon and sun, but always?

Tonight, the air quality over my head was such that you could not see the moon.

Right now, I cannot see the Sun due to air quality.

Still when it's day, the sun and moon are 3000 miles above the surface according to your theory. So please explain why we cant see mount Everest from further than ~350 miles with the same conditions, day time.
[/quote]to be fair, on a round earth you also cant see that far horizontally on some days but can still see the sun/moon vertically. Sometimes the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 18, 2019, 03:46:22 PM
Sometimes the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth.
"Sometimes"? You're probably looking for something more along the lines of "Virtually all the time, with only rare exceptions"
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on December 18, 2019, 04:09:39 PM
Sometimes the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth.
"Sometimes"? You're probably looking for something more along the lines of "Virtually all the time, with only rare exceptions"
I mean, sure. I agree.

Sometimes sometimes means some of the times which may or may not be most or barely any of the times. Sorry for my wording but I think my point still stands;

"Most of the time the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth."

Would you disagree? I'm basically saying that because I can see the sun in the sky on a foggy day and can't see a city a mile away, I can't simply conclude the world is x shape.

That said though if the sun/moon was visible on the horizon it's a more interesting question for sure.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: IwillprovetheGlobe on December 18, 2019, 07:50:10 PM
Sometimes the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth.
"Sometimes"? You're probably looking for something more along the lines of "Virtually all the time, with only rare exceptions"
I mean, sure. I agree.

Sometimes sometimes means some of the times which may or may not be most or barely any of the times. Sorry for my wording but I think my point still stands;

"Most of the time the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth."

Would you disagree? I'm basically saying that because I can see the sun in the sky on a foggy day and can't see a city a mile away, I can't simply conclude the world is x shape.

That said though if the sun/moon was visible on the horizon it's a more interesting question for sure.

Exactly! thanks I will put your argument in my question as this debunks the travel limit of light through air.:

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

Can anyone answer?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: iamcpc on December 18, 2019, 08:15:16 PM
Then how can you see the moon/sun while those are also around that far away?


Because the atmosphere is much more dense and much more full of particulates closer to the surface of the earth. The number of air, water, dust, pollen, smoke, and other molecules that light has to travel through when looking horizontally are MUCH MUCH higher than when looking up.


Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: somerled on December 18, 2019, 08:38:50 PM

[/quote]

Exactly! thanks I will put your argument in my question as this debunks the travel limit of light through air.:

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

Can anyone answer?
[/quote]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4XFUc6175k
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 18, 2019, 09:40:13 PM
For the record: ChrisTP, we're saying the same thing, and my only objection is that you were perhaps not stressing it enough. It's a very minor disagreement as things go ;)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on December 19, 2019, 04:11:16 AM
it's a smidge more than 3000 miles away from me
Why do RE'ers keep getting the basics wrong after being here for so long? You know, things like "it's probably not safe to assume that the vacuum of space does not have the same optical properties as air and/or obstacles on the Earth"?

It's wildly unclear what the "basics" may be under the Flat Earth paradigm; they are quite varied with little agreement. For one, the concept of 'Space' seems to be quite nebulous and in many flat earth discussions is considered a realm that just doesn't exist. So it's difficult to assume the optical properties of space are different than that of nearer surface when space may or may be a part of the theory.

This isn't an FE problem, this is a "you forgot to think" problem. "I can see stars therefore visibility on the Earth is perfect" - this is nonsense regardless of which model you prefer to subscribe to.

I disagree. This is a "you forgot to think about what I wrote" problem. I never said, "I can see stars therefore visibility on the Earth is perfect". I merely stated that I can see Polaris on or near the horizon, meaning through all of the atmospheric murkiness that is near earth. And Polaris is quite a distance from me. One could argue, why can't I see other objects on or near the horizon at that considerable distance, or even less, yet still farther than actually observed.

Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: IwillprovetheGlobe on December 19, 2019, 12:01:25 PM
Then how can you see the moon/sun while those are also around that far away?


Because the atmosphere is much more dense and much more full of particulates closer to the surface of the earth. The number of air, water, dust, pollen, smoke, and other molecules that light has to travel through when looking horizontally are MUCH MUCH higher than when looking up.

Yet you can see the sun and moon set. ???
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 19, 2019, 12:37:15 PM
It's wildly unclear what the "basics" may be under the Flat Earth paradigm;
That's ok, we're not talking about FET, merely about you forgetting that air exists. It exists regardless of the shape of the Earth.

I never said, "I can see stars therefore visibility on the Earth is perfect". I merely stated that I can see Polaris on or near the horizon, meaning through all of the atmospheric murkiness that is near earth.
Remember, lying usually makes you less credible, not more.

You were not talking about any "atmospheric murkiness". You were trying to justify your claim that The 'limit on how far light can travel' thing doesn't work. But, if we keep context in mind, it blatantly does work. Because air exists, and until you attempted to ignore context, we were talking about visibility on Earth.

Yet you can see the sun and moon set. ???
Once again, you will not be able to make much headway here until you've understood the properties of light under FET. The Sun's and Moon's light go through much less atmolayer than that reflected from the far-away objects you so desire to see. Of course, even if they didn't, we haven't even started to consider EA yet. And, surprise surprise, that would also be a significant obstacle to what you propose.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on December 19, 2019, 11:21:28 PM
It's wildly unclear what the "basics" may be under the Flat Earth paradigm;
That's ok, we're not talking about FET, merely about you forgetting that air exists. It exists regardless of the shape of the Earth.

And here I was thinking we were talking about FET, being the flat earth society and all. You seem to have forgotten that there are varied ways that FET claims that light travels through air.

I never said, "I can see stars therefore visibility on the Earth is perfect". I merely stated that I can see Polaris on or near the horizon, meaning through all of the atmospheric murkiness that is near earth.

Remember, lying usually makes you less credible, not more.

Remember, accusing someone of being a liar because your perspective may be different than someone elses makes your point of view less credible, not more.

You were not talking about any "atmospheric murkiness". You were trying to justify your claim that The 'limit on how far light can travel' thing doesn't work. But, if we keep context in mind, it blatantly does work. Because air exists, and until you attempted to ignore context, we were talking about visibility on Earth.

And so we are talking about visibility on earth. And FET has varied notions on how that works. Bendy light is one. It all depends on who you ask. So it's seemingly not as straight forward as you would pretend; air on earth = X visibility.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 20, 2019, 08:00:24 AM
And here I was thinking we were talking about FET, being the flat earth society and all.
Yes, that tends to be a convenient excuse when people double down on their errors - they over-focus on unrelated factors, because they hope the other person won't spot their irrelevancy, thus gaining them some ground. "Oh, we're talking about FET so I can forget that my argument would damage both models equally." Silly stack, you know better than that.

Remember, accusing someone of being a liar because your perspective may be different than someone elses
That's okay, I offerred a refutation and backed my position with a direct quote of you saying what I claim you said. You did not provide any evidence, focusing instead on simple contradiction. That's where the credibility comes in. ;)

This is a simple issue. We have a direct quote of you saying something you're now agreeing was dumb. You either made a mistake previously (in which case you'd be retracting your claim and moving on), you misspoke and make yourself accidentally sound like you were saying the dumb thing (in which case you'd offer a simple clarification of your meaning that doesn't directly contradict the phrasing you used previously), or you're pretending that you previously did not say the thing that you're now agreeing was dumb (in which case you'd be doing, well, exactly what you're doing right now). There isn't really much scope for "perspective" in a quote like the one you've offerred.

And so we are talking about visibility on earth.
Thank you for the admission. We're finally making some progress.

And FET has varied notions on how that works
Which is why it's wondrous that the air's existence is not in any way connected to FET, as previously pointed out. You don't have to pick an FE model (or even pick between FE or RE) to know that the atmolayer/atmosphere is a thing, and that comparing the visibility of stars to the visibility of earthly objects is a stupid idea.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on December 20, 2019, 09:50:18 AM
And here I was thinking we were talking about FET, being the flat earth society and all.

Yes, that tends to be a convenient excuse when people double down on their errors - they over-focus on unrelated factors, because they hope the other person won't spot their irrelevancy, thus gaining them some ground. "Oh, we're talking about FET so I can forget that my argument would damage both models equally." Silly stack, you know better than that.

Oh silly Pete. We are talking of Flat Earth so, gosh, that overarching notion does seem at least halfway relevant. Why should I care about damage to either model, when, in fact, we're all about seeking truth, right?

Remember, accusing someone of being a liar because your perspective may be different than someone elses
That's okay, I offerred a refutation and backed my position with a direct quote of you saying what I claim you said. You did not provide any evidence, focusing instead on simple contradiction. That's where the credibility comes in. ;)

This is a simple issue. We have a direct quote of you saying something you're now agreeing was dumb.

Which was?

You either made a mistake previously (in which case you'd be retracting your claim and moving on), you misspoke and make yourself accidentally sound like you were saying the dumb thing (in which case you'd offer a simple clarification of your meaning that doesn't directly contradict the phrasing you used previously), or you're pretending that you previously did not say the thing that you're now agreeing was dumb (in which case you'd be doing, well, exactly what you're doing right now). There isn't really much scope for "perspective" in a quote like the one you've offerred.

A lot of words. Point?

And so we are talking about visibility on earth.

Thank you for the admission. We're finally making some progress.

No, thank you. It's a varied beast in the pantheon of FET.  Thank you for acknowledging that.

And FET has varied notions on how that works
Which is why it's wondrous that the air's existence is not in any way connected to FET, as previously pointed out. You don't have to pick an FE model (or even pick between FE or RE) to know that the atmolayer/atmosphere is a thing, and that comparing the visibility of stars to the visibility of earthly objects is a stupid idea.

The visibility of stars (Sun and Moon) to the visibility of earthly objects through the atmolayer/atmosphere is a 'thing'. I agree. So it's equally wondrous that much of the explanations around here regarding how things like sunsets and sunrises work on a Flat Earth are 'projections on the atmolayer' or maybe bendy EA dark energy or some such. So it's kind of hard to parse exactly where 'air' is just a thing when it comes to FET.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 20, 2019, 12:13:02 PM
We are talking of Flat Earth so, gosh, that overarching notion does seem at least halfway relevant.
Well, no. I already demonstrated that it doesn't, and why it doesn't. Simply re-asserting that you feel differently won't help here. A read of Paul Graham's "How to Disagree" (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html) may help you understand this and perform better in the future.

Why should I care about damage to either model, when, in fact, we're all about seeking truth, right?
Because if you assume that the impossible is the case, your conclusion won't be very useful for establishing any meaningful truth. Sure, you can still shuffle logical arguments within that space, but that's not really the subject of this board.

Which was?
Just scroll up. You can do it. Reading may seem hard at first, but if you apply yourself, you'll get there in no time.

A lot of words. Point?
I'm sure you can make it through them, it's only two sentences. If you really can't read that much, perhaps an online forum simply isn't a good medium for you?

But in short, the point is that I'd prefer if in the future you could avoid deliberately* misinforming newcomers in the upper fora. As long as it's not a pattern I don't mind simply exposing it, but I do need to make sure it remains not a pattern.

* - as per my previous explanation, if this wasn't deliberate on your part, you had plenty of opportunities to simply rectify your error. You chose not to, and instead you doubled down, thus establishing your intent beyond reasonable doubt.

The visibility of stars (Sun and Moon) to the visibility of earthly objects through the atmolayer/atmosphere is a 'thing'. I agree. So it's equally wondrous that much of the explanations around here regarding how things like sunsets and sunrises work on a Flat Earth are 'projections on the atmolayer' or maybe bendy EA dark energy or some such. So it's kind of hard to parse exactly where 'air' is just a thing when it comes to FET.
I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the mainstream FET model, or any alternative models you wish to discuss, prior to debating them online. If after reading our documentation (beware, it contains words) you have questions about how it works, you can start a thread to simply ask a question - you don't have to jump right into a debate with whatever assumption you made up to patch the holes in your understanding.

You really can't expect to successfully use your ignorance as an excuse for blabbering nonsense.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on December 20, 2019, 10:47:50 PM
The visibility of stars (Sun and Moon) to the visibility of earthly objects through the atmolayer/atmosphere is a 'thing'. I agree. So it's equally wondrous that much of the explanations around here regarding how things like sunsets and sunrises work on a Flat Earth are 'projections on the atmolayer' or maybe bendy EA dark energy or some such. So it's kind of hard to parse exactly where 'air' is just a thing when it comes to FET.
I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the mainstream FET model, or any alternative models you wish to discuss, prior to debating them online.

What might the mainstream FET model be? There's a dome, no dome. There's a mono-pole, bi-pole, and even an infinite model. There's an accelerating upward versus a stationary version. There's a 700 mile, 3000 mile, 6000 mile to unknown distance of the sun and moon, as well as projections on the dome or 'atmoplane'. There's EA versus perspective versus atmospheric magnification. There's scriptural versus secular. The list goes on. That's my point, FET is so varied that it seems cavalier to simply say something cannot be observed because of air. It seems far more mixed, varied, and complicated than that.

You really can't expect to successfully use your ignorance as an excuse for blabbering nonsense.

I would argue that you can't really expect to successfully use your arrogant snarkiness as the sole means for attempting to make a point.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 21, 2019, 04:45:15 PM
What might the mainstream FET model be?
My suggestion would be for you to find this out before making thousands of posts on how you vehemently disagree with that model. To me, it seems strange that you can disagree with something you can't identify, or at least that you can feel comfortable with openly admitting it.

The following suggestion was completely heartfelt and sincere, and I'm putting it out again for your consideration:

I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the mainstream FET model, or any alternative models you wish to discuss, prior to debating them online. If after reading our documentation (beware, it contains words) you have questions about how it works, you can start a thread to simply ask a question - you don't have to jump right into a debate with whatever assumption you made up to patch the holes in your understanding.

It also doesn't particularly bother me that there are other groups making claims that conflict our own, or even that you may find individuals here who don't go along with the mainstream. They're welcome to make those claims if they want to, and they might even convince the majority and become the mainstream in due time. You're also welcome to approach them directly if it's their views that you have beef with.

But you seem to expect that we'll take responsibility for every person on the Internet that claims to be a Flat Earther. I hope you can understand that, much like I don't expect you to take responsibility for RE'ers who can't tell the difference between velocity and acceleration, it would be moronic to hold us responsible for other randos on the Internet. Don't do moronic things, they don't make you look smart.

I would argue that you can't really expect to successfully use your arrogant snarkiness as the sole means for attempting to make a point.
You see snark where there isn't any (well, okay, residual amounts), and you pretending that my point hasn't been explicitly spelled out and backed up is a charade I won't spend much time worrying about. Here it is, spelled out again, just so you can continue to pretend that I'm not saying it for the nth time:

It sincerely baffles me that you'd say something dumb, and then instead of just backing off, you'd try to excuse yourself by loudly proclaiming that you have no idea what you're arguing against. If you knowingly lack background knowledge, you should sort that out before presenting an argument. That's just my take on things. Perhaps you find joy in the "hur hur other tribe dumb" level of debate. If that's the case, I strongly suggest you take it to Metabunk instead of here.

Finally, let me once again invite you to read Graham's short essay. If you take it to heart, it'll make you a much happier (and simultaneously much more useful) person!
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: BillO on December 22, 2019, 02:37:45 PM
I think the OP's question is valid and no on the FE side has said anything meaningful in response.  When the sun/moon are setting on a flat earth or round, you are seeing them through thousands of miles of atmos(whatever).  One of the issues with FET is we can never know just how many miles of atmos(whatever) we are viewing them through because the distance from the earth's surface to these objects has not been definitely determined.  Neither has the thickness of the atmos(whatever).

However, on the RE the sun's light travels through approximately 2000 miles of atmosphere at sunset.  Same can be said for the moon, Polaris or any other off-earth object viewed at the horizon.  So, 350 miles is not the limit to how far light can travel though air.  In fact, objects such as Polaris, despite the light reaching us being minuscule, can be seen very clearly to those that can see it on or close to the horizon suggesting light can probably travel much more than 2000 miles through air.

On a round earth there is an obvious reason why Everest cannot bee seen 3,000 miles away.  On the FE, it is not so obvious.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 22, 2019, 03:19:47 PM
When the sun/moon are setting on a flat earth or round, you are seeing them through thousands of miles of atmos(whatever)
This assumption continues to be incorrect, no matter how many times you lot restate it.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: BillO on December 22, 2019, 04:58:42 PM
When the sun/moon are setting on a flat earth or round, you are seeing them through thousands of miles of atmos(whatever)
This assumption continues to be incorrect, no matter how many times you lot restate it.
Well, it is certainly true for the round earth.  Would you care to elucidate for us regarding the situation on the FE?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 22, 2019, 06:25:10 PM
Well, it is certainly true for the round earth.
Really? Thousands of miles of atmosphere? Your alternative RE model must be funky.

Would you care to elucidate for us regarding the situation on the FE?
You are expected to have familiarised yourself with the basics before joining the discussion in the upper fora.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: BillO on December 22, 2019, 07:21:33 PM
Well, it is certainly true for the round earth.
Really? Thousands of miles of atmosphere? Your alternative RE model must be funky.
How so?  If we assume a significant air mass extending vertically up to 60 miles then at sea level looking towards the horizon (~90 degrees from vertical) to see a sunset you are looking through roughly 38 times that, or about 2,280 miles of atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(astronomy)#Interpolative_formulas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(astronomy)#Interpolative_formulas)

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosphere.html (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosphere.html)
Quote
... the thickness of the atmosphere is about 60 miles.


Would you care to elucidate for us regarding the situation on the FE?
You are expected to have familiarised yourself with the basics before joining the discussion in the upper fora.
I'll go look in the wiki then, seeing as how you are not willing to be helpful.

Edit:  Despite Pete's suggestion to "familiarise" myself I could find no direct information about this in the wiki.  The best I can surmise from what is there is that in the FE view the sunlight would be coming through about 120 miles of significant atmosphere at sunset.  But this is not taking into account EA and other bendy light hypotheses.  The wiki gives no way to apply these to the situation.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Bikini Polaris on December 22, 2019, 11:42:17 PM
I don't care about your opinions about the government to be clear, just the physical theories.

You first chose to put forward the "trust your government" point.

And if this us the wrong approach, explain what would be a right one.

When you prepare a talk the first thing you do is assessing your audience. If you address someone who created an entire wiki on flat earth, would you expect to just pass by, shout a low quality argument, and then to just shrug at everyone because they don't understand? You're an engineer, so I ask you to self-evaluate the effect of your post in terms of results and time to reward ratio.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 23, 2019, 06:52:23 AM
If we assume a significant air mass extending vertically up to 60 miles
Yes, hilarious. You almost had me there. Is this your new "the Universe is an isolated system" gag? Ignoring your creative geometry, you may want to read the rest of the Wikipedia page you've cited, for example the part that helpfully clarifies that Atmospheric effects on optical transmission can be modelled as if the atmosphere is concentrated in approximately the lower 9 km.

Edit:  Despite Pete's suggestion to "familiarise" myself I could find no direct information about this in the wiki.
Yes, it's largely impossible to synthesise every single scenario in which a base principle can be applied in a body of text. Sometimes, you'll be expected to think. Hopefully to a more coherent level than "40 times the air mass means 40 times the length of atmosphere crossed"
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: BillO on December 23, 2019, 09:01:54 PM
Okay Pete, you're right on this one.  I got it wrong and I concede.

However, I'm standing by the universe being a isolated system.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: YukiTheGlobeEarther on January 02, 2020, 10:07:08 PM
Here I am to discuss the flat earth.
I am a religious, aeronautical engineer who's up for a discussion. I am hoping to convince flat earthers that this theory is wrong.

If you can't prove anymore and you're left with the globe, either ask someone for help or accept the fact that the government doesn't lie to you.
This is not a game about pride.

Many YouTube videos (of which some of you aren't proud) try to give proof of the flat earth. Many explanations contradict each other so here I am asking you guys in person.

Starting with:
How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?
Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?

If you say that there's too much air in between: the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.
I mean holy crap, I'm a round earther but not even I will go to the lengths you went to.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: IwillprovetheGlobe on January 11, 2020, 04:05:00 PM
I don't care about your opinions about the government to be clear, just the physical theories.

You first chose to put forward the "trust your government" point.

And if this us the wrong approach, explain what would be a right one.

When you prepare a talk the first thing you do is assessing your audience. If you address someone who created an entire wiki on flat earth, would you expect to just pass by, shout a low quality argument, and then to just shrug at everyone because they don't understand? You're an engineer, so I ask you to self-evaluate the effect of your post in terms of results and time to reward ratio.

I didn't ask how I should ask questions. Just keep it to the core, don't deviate from the physics please.

Guys I don't see the difference between a sun setting and a building emitting light. Both seen from the same angle through the same kind of atmosphere. Yet the building vanishes. Please explain.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Groit on January 12, 2020, 01:17:14 PM
In the northern hemisphere, the star Polaris is always visible in the night sky, due to it being almost in line with the Earth's axial tilt.
Viewed from the UK Polaris is around 52 degrees from the horizon, see below:

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ee67/dale22_2007/0/0aad7067-fd6c-44fd-8f19-9599247464a0-original.png?width=590&height=370&fit=bounds)

At the same time from Dimbokro in Africa which is closer to the equator, the same star Polaris is around 7 degrees above the horizon, see below:

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ee67/dale22_2007/0/25d58776-de3b-4518-9089-cae54aca6848-original.png?width=590&height=370&fit=bounds)

So, how do you explain this on a flat Earth?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Nexius on January 12, 2020, 01:29:42 PM
You're taking the wrong approach, anyway:

FE is a proven theory and FEs do understand that if governments are lying, is because there's a good reason for that. Perspective denies seeing what you mention. Cities are highly illuminated and that's a possible reason for the effect that you mention (but that you don't prove or provide evidence)

I don't understand why everyone is talking about "perspective." It has nothing to do with visibility of objects over the horizon whatsoever. If a ship is going over the horizon and the bottom starts to disappear, it's not because of perspective, because the place where you viewing from has a way larger effect than perspective.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Nexius on January 12, 2020, 01:56:09 PM
How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia?

Because there is a limit to how far light can travel through the air. That distance is above the upper limit of the number of miles that light can travel through the atmosphere.

Do you mind linking the source of where you got that from? Because unlike other waves such as sound waves, light waves travel in a vacuum, so they cannot be interrupted by a so called "limit." If there was such a limit, then how can we see stars that are billions of miles away from us? The reason we can't see mount everest is because of curvature, as well as clouds, mist etc.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Nexius on January 12, 2020, 02:14:53 PM
it's a smidge more than 3000 miles away from me
Why do RE'ers keep getting the basics wrong after being here for so long? You know, things like "it's probably not safe to assume that the vacuum of space does not have the same optical properties as air and/or obstacles on the Earth"?

This isn't an FE problem, this is a "you forgot to think" problem. "I can see stars therefore visibility on the Earth is perfect" - this is nonsense regardless of which model you prefer to subscribe to.

As for the OP - pipe down. You're not the final boss of the Internet. Nobody will "dare" to debate you like making a post on our own forum would be some super spooky feat. If you have a questions, put on a big smile and ask them. You might get the answers you seek, or maybe you won't. Social interactions are a great thing.

Oh, and start with the FAQ. You won't make much headway if you don't know the first thing about how light behaves in FET.

You're right that vacuums have different optical properties compared to air, that's also the reason why light can travel uninterrupted through space, whereas in air light gets reflected and diffracted by dust particles and other junk in the atmosphere. In rural areas/deserts with no light pollution I can almost see the faint milky way with my naked eyes.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Hants on February 03, 2020, 10:58:56 AM
Here I am to discuss the flat earth.

How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?
Several reasons. Primarily air quality prohibits visual acuity exceeding approximately 350 km in a straight line.
Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?
No, this is just flat out wrong.
If you say that there's too much air in between:
There is no such thing as "too much air in between."

The amount air in between is going to be the amount air in between, regardless of personal opinion.
... the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.
Again, it is strictly about air quality.

So isn't the air quality bad when you want to see the Sun too and not only the Everest? Or is it the air that covers your head different from the one which makes Everest invisible from Indonesia? ;)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: totallackey on February 03, 2020, 01:29:47 PM
Here I am to discuss the flat earth.

How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?
Several reasons. Primarily air quality prohibits visual acuity exceeding approximately 350 km in a straight line.
Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?
No, this is just flat out wrong.
If you say that there's too much air in between:
There is no such thing as "too much air in between."

The amount air in between is going to be the amount air in between, regardless of personal opinion.
... the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.
Again, it is strictly about air quality.

So isn't the air quality bad when you want to see the Sun too and not only the Everest? Or is it the air that covers your head different from the one which makes Everest invisible from Indonesia? ;)
It could be.

Everest does not emit its own light, for one.

The fact of the matter is, even if you offer some object that does emit light, the lumens would not rival that of the Sun.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 12, 2020, 03:47:29 PM
I'll throw in my hat.

It's all about dimensions, distance, perspective and the limitations of the 'design' of the human eye.

The size/dimensions of the object you are trying to see, the distance that it is from your eyes, your physical perspective/position in space relative to that object (not to mention 'mental perspective': beliefs, etc.) and the limitations of the human eye.

If you look at an ant on the ground while standing upright, it looks very small and hard to make out. If you bring your eyes down closer to the ant, or the ant up to your eyes, it 'appears' larger and more detail comes into view.

Fleas have fleas. It's a fact. Just because we can't see them with the naked eye, doesn't mean they don't exist.

A hawk can see mice and insects from very high in the sky. This is because its eyes are 'designed' with a zoom/magnification capability. Nocturnal animals can see better in the night because their eyes are 'designed' with better night vision capabilities; more reflective retinas, specialized rods and cones, etc.

The human eye is limited in its capabilities when it comes to distance and light detection, etc.

The horizon is always at eye-level no matter how you orient your body or where you are in space; on/near the ground or high in the sky. This fact, alone, is one of the rock-solid proofs of Flat Earth. I have always found Flat Earth easier to grasp if imagined as a 'Plane' of existence. Forget everything you've ever imagined about space, 'planets', etc. If you imagine a 'dimension' that is Flat, endlessly extending in all directions, it helps a lot to understand how Flat Earth works.

If an object on the ground (vehicle, building) moves far enough away from you, it appears to shrink and rise to the horizon line before completely disappearing from view. This doesn't mean it actually rises or actually disappears. Same with the sunset. Any object in the sky, including stars, that move far enough from where you are located 'appear' to shrink, move downward toward the horizon and, ultimately, disappear. This accounts for the dynamics of how we perceive sunset as well as how the star Polaris appears closer to the horizon when viewed from different points on the Earth.

It has been proven many times that if you take a very powerful optic and look at the horizon you will see objects that were previously invisible to the naked eye. Objects that 'appeared' to move down behind the curvature of the Earth come into plain view, proving they were there all along.

Mt. Everest is approximately 3300 miles from the area of Indonesia that you are referring to. The portion of it that you would be able to see over all the geographic obstructions between it and Indonesia is about 3 miles wide. If you were to use a telescopic device powerful enough to see that far, you would see it. So when you consider the size of that target, its distance from the observer and the limitations of your human eyes, you have your answer.

References to the visibility of the sun and moon can be answered using this same formula. Flat Earth Theory puts those bodies at roughly 35 MILES wide, give or take. So it is clear how they are visible from that distance. Also significant is their complete lack of obstructions between them and the viewer.

{Just a little added nugget to chew on...
(The Hubble telescope technology was not designed for, nor ever intended to be used in, space. It was designed for, and has been used ever since, for surveillance of our world from very high in the sky. One of the well-guarded secrets of the Flat Earth is that it is the perfect shape for surveillance from the sky. With a powerful enough optic, like Hubble technology, you can see every single point on the Earth with incredible clarity, down to the letters on a paper document. You can then record that video feed 24/7, 365 and go back to any day/time and see any event, anywhere, from the moment you began recording forward.)}

I hope this helps a little.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: iamcpc on February 12, 2020, 04:10:11 PM
Do you mind linking the source of where you got that from?

http://gravitationalballoon.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-far-can-light-travel-in-endless.html

If there was such a limit, then how can we see stars that are billions of miles away from us?


because the light traveling between a star to my eye is traveling through like 7-8 miles of atmosphere and 2983749238749238749837 miles of vacuum. Of that 8 miles of atmosphere like 5 miles of it us upper layers of the atmosphere which are not very dense. so really it's only traveling through like 1-2 miles of the dense lower troposphere.

Light traveling between New York and mount Everest would have to be traveling through 7,500 miles of the dense lower troposphere.

The reason we can't see mount everest is because of curvature, as well as clouds, mist etc.

The reason we can't see mount everest is because of clouds, mist etc.

clouds/mist/etc. is also known at the ATMOSPHERE
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 12, 2020, 04:24:35 PM
The horizon is always at eye-level no matter how you orient your body or where you are in space; on/near the ground or high in the sky. This fact, alone, is one of the rock-solid proofs of Flat Earth.

If I stand onshore at 100m, and look out to sea, at a ship of 58m height above its waterline, then where is "eye level"?  Is it at 100m? That would place it 42m above the ship, wouldn't it? So I should see the horizon above the highest point of the ship, almost at double the height of the ship? 

Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 12, 2020, 04:45:00 PM
The horizon is always at eye-level no matter how you orient your body or where you are in space; on/near the ground or high in the sky. This fact, alone, is one of the rock-solid proofs of Flat Earth.

If I stand onshore at 100m, and look out to sea, at a ship of 58m height above its waterline, then where is "eye level"?  Is it at 100m? That would place it 42m above the ship, wouldn't it? So I should see the horizon above the highest point of the ship, almost at double the height of the ship?

Actually, no.

The whole point is that you would see that ship, 'IF' it were on the horizon, at YOUR eye-level, regardless of whether you were at 100m or 1000m. That is because you are on a 'PLANE'. Not a spherical 'planet'.

If you were on a sphere, the horizon line would appear to drop, or appear lower in YOUR view, as your altitude increased. This is NOT what happens. No matter how high you are in the sky, the horizon ALWAYS, without fail, appears at YOUR eye-level.

This is a fact that has been observed for thousands of years and taught to every art student that has ever learned how to recreate horizon line or line of delineation in a drawing or painting. It is ALWAYS, without fail, PERFECTLY FLAT and extending into infinity. Everything in your perspective moves toward that line from all angles as its distance increases until it appears to shrink and disappear from view.

Google Horizon Lines and Lines of Delineation in Art, or you could research the topic in books in the library. It is a concept that is very old and never been in debate or challenged in any way.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 12, 2020, 04:50:18 PM
The whole point is that you would see that ship, 'IF' it were on the horizon, at YOUR eye-level, regardless of whether you were at 100m or 1000m. That is because you are on a 'PLANE'. Not a spherical 'planet'.

.... but it wasn't "on" the horizon. It was far, far nearer.

If you were on a sphere, the horizon line would appear to drop, or appear lower in YOUR view, as your altitude increased. This is NOT what happens.

Yes, it is. 

No matter how high you are in the sky, the horizon ALWAYS, without fail, appears at YOUR eye-level.

No, it does not. Ready with examples if or when you want to see them.

This is a fact that has been observed for thousands of years and taught to every art student that has ever learned how to recreate horizon line or line of delineation in a drawing or painting. It is ALWAYS, without fail, PERFECTLY FLAT and extending into infinity. Everything in your perspective moves toward that line from all angles as its distance increases until it appears to shrink and disappear from view.

Yes, but you - the observer - are not obliged to look directly along those lines. You can look up, down, left or right. Again, examples ready for if or when you want to see them.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on February 12, 2020, 04:59:01 PM
Quote
This is a fact that has been observed for thousands of years and taught to every art student that has ever learned how to recreate horizon line or line of delineation in a drawing or painting. It is ALWAYS, without fail, PERFECTLY FLAT and extending into infinity. Everything in your perspective moves toward that line from all angles as its distance increases until it appears to shrink and disappear from view.

Google Horizon Lines and Lines of Delineation in Art, or you could research the topic in books in the library. It is a concept that is very old and never been in debate or challenged in any way.
Don't misunderstand artist interpretations for reality. It has nothing to do with what 'eye level' is. Horizon lines in perspective drawings can be literally anywhere on the page, doesn't even equate to standing and looking out at a perfectly level angle from 4-7 feet off the ground.

Here's a fun test, find a high up place like a cliff somewhere along a shoreline, place a toilet roll on a tripod of some kind that you can adjust, put a spirit level attached to the toilet role with tape or anything else and get the roll perfectly level, then look through the roll out to sea. Does the water line go perfectly through the middle of the view?

*you can just attach a spirit level to a telescope which would be better but if you're poor then anyone can do with a tube of some kind.

*be sure it's a clear day where you can see an obvious break between water and sky
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: iamcpc on February 12, 2020, 06:08:42 PM
The horizon is always at eye-level no matter how you orient your body or where you are in space; on/near the ground or high in the sky. This fact, alone, is one of the rock-solid proofs of Flat Earth.

If I stand onshore at 100m, and look out to sea, at a ship of 58m height above its waterline, then where is "eye level"?  Is it at 100m? That would place it 42m above the ship, wouldn't it? So I should see the horizon above the highest point of the ship, almost at double the height of the ship?

This has been largely debunked yet people still hold on to it. What really weakens the FE theories is that there is no FE idea or concept that a majority of the FE community can agree on. Even Tom Bishop has acknowledged that there are variables which can affect if the horizon is at eye level.


https://youtu.be/vj9rXJPpuUw

The famous sunk bay time lapse picture

1:32 PM at 64.7 degrees the opposite shore is visible.
1:41 PM at 64.9 degrees the opposite shore has set behind the horizon again.

this is very strong evidence that the horizon is not always at eye level.


Here is another video:
https://youtu.be/NzY5du8LMgk

you can hold your finger on the horizon and watch that the horizon is not always at "eye level"


Heres another demonstration of the horizon not being at eye level
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/wtc-lines-jpg.28259/)


and another
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/horizon-level-liquid-test-jpg.27615/)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 12, 2020, 09:08:41 PM
If I stand onshore at 100m, and look out to sea, at a ship of 58m height above its waterline, then where is "eye level"?  Is it at 100m? That would place it 42m above the ship, wouldn't it? So I should see the horizon above the highest point of the ship, almost at double the height of the ship?

Actually, no.

The whole point is that you would see that ship, 'IF' it were on the horizon, at YOUR eye-level, regardless of whether you were at 100m or 1000m.

Storm; which, if any, of these ships is "on" the horizon?

1 -
(https://i.imgur.com/2Hne8GV.jpg)


2 -
(https://i.imgur.com/EP5H9Ty.jpg)


3 -
(https://i.imgur.com/l9suu2h.jpg)


4 - (choice of 4)
(https://i.imgur.com/YKSPqMa.jpg)

Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 12, 2020, 09:38:04 PM
I'll comment once more on this particular exchange because I don't see any constructive progress taking place, here.

Tumeni, I can't see how any of the images or videos you've posted refute anything that I stated in my original post at all.
(Reply #43)

1. I was referring to looking at objects in the distance with 'the naked eye.'

2. I'm not even sure we're in agreement about what, exactly, eye-level means.

3. I never presented anything about any ships doing anything, that was your contribution. I was strictly referring to horizon and eye-level and even expounded by referencing the limitations of the human eye.

To be honest, most of those images contribute to proving 'my' point about horizon and eye-level.

If somebody can't go out and try the examples I described and make the same observations that I, and 'many' others, have, that's perfectly fine.

Some people desperately 'need' the Earth to be round. Nobody gains anything among their fellow man when they discover that the Earth is actually flat, and it all becomes an uphill battle from there on out. So nobody, in their right mind, would 'choose' to believe in the Flat Earth....just to be different.

Truth is a heavy burden and a lifelong responsibility.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 12, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
I'll comment once more on this particular exchange because I don't see any constructive progress taking place, here.

No need to be snippy. What were you expecting? That everyone would roll over and agree with you? Before you had posted four times? Really?

Tumeni, I can't see how any of the images or videos you've posted refute anything that I stated in my original post at all.
(Reply #43)

I introduced the ship scenario. You said "if the ship was ON the horizon", to which I said it was not. These examples are not a refutation of what you said, they are to establish a starting point, to establish what YOU think of as "on the horizon". If you want to stop here, that's fine, but don't take a high and mighty "nobody here is making any constructive progress" attitood.....

1. I was referring to looking at objects in the distance with 'the naked eye.'

I looked at the example I'm referring to with my naked eye, and saw exactly what I captured with my telephoto lens. I saw it through my binoculars, too.... same thing seen in all cases

2. I'm not even sure we're in agreement about what, exactly, eye-level means.

Which is why I'm trying to establish what you mean by it.

To be honest, most of those images contribute to proving 'my' point about horizon and eye-level.

How do they do that?

If somebody can't go out and try the examples I described and make the same observations that I, and 'many' others, have, that's perfectly fine.

If you can't even look at the examples which I have gathered, why should I or we "go out" and try your examples?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 12, 2020, 10:12:53 PM
I'll comment once more on this particular exchange because I don't see any constructive progress taking place, here.

It's been less than 6 hours since your first post ....
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 13, 2020, 12:11:43 AM
Here's an impossible image, guys and gals.....

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg/420px-Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg)

...yessir. Straight from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range

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

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

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

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

--------

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

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

I know what it is..........it's that dadgum red-liquid rain guage that's boogered things up so good. Drats!! Foiled again!
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 12:17:12 AM
So, you're not going to deal with what I said/asked, and you're going to log-jump to something TOTALLY different, is that it?

Gish-gallop all over. 

What height was the photo taken from? All discussion is meaningless without that.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 13, 2020, 12:25:37 AM
Now, these, here, can't possibly exist.

These are Moon-blooming flowers. Yep, they ONLY bloom in moonlight.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/yFKrIQZkNA5J-d5l-9sqrM-HcXp9iW7CSLyDRnwxhthYehDCReuxM3FpM9QK8VrY2SsnQyLmjhfQwYcScMnI_ERyYz8dmr7iUWUSuW9r06sNCfZSSs10jStaMepwDHyg)

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jzhy2CSPqpA/maxresdefault.jpg)

(https://www.diynatural.com/wp-content/uploads/Night-Blooming-Flowers-Moon-Garden-660x595.jpg)

Yeah, so what?

Well, these flowers will only bloom in moonlight and will completely close if any sunlight touches them. This proves the Biblical description that the sun and moon give their 'OWN' light. Thus, further proving the Flat Earth model of the enclosed world.

Look up these flowers online and look up these Bible verses.

Genesis 1:14-18; Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24; Isaiah 13:10;
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on February 13, 2020, 12:29:32 AM
Here's an impossible image, guys and gals.....

Not at all impossible, more than possible. Seems to be just fine on a globe not really knowing what the exact altitude of the observer is:

(https://i.imgur.com/ekA8i9U.png)

Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 12:37:34 AM
So, I ask Storm to clarify base assumptions, to find common ground to work from, based on observations, and;

Here's a picture of a mountain. Explain that.
and
Here's some flowers, explain sunlight vs. moonlight


Classic unfocused gish-gallop.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 13, 2020, 12:38:05 AM
For anybody who lives near the DFW area of Texas, downtown Fort Worth can be seen plain as day from 18 miles away at the TRE parking lot near Trinity and 360.

At that distance, all of the shortest buildings should be almost completely obscured by the curvature of the Earth,....according to science, that is.

Anybody living in that area, check it out for yourself.

And here is a shot of Dallas AND Fort Worth in the same image, almost 30 miles apart. LOOK AT ALL THAT CURVE!!

(https://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/dfw-2005.jpg)

You can also see this from Interstate 20 and Spur 408 in the Cedar Hill area.

Go look, go look! The curve is bewildering!!

That's what you call an Empirical Experiment that you can see with your own eyes and NOBODY can tell you otherwise.

See, Flat Earth is FUN!! :-B




Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on February 13, 2020, 12:38:11 AM
Now, these, here, can't possibly exist.

These are Moon-blooming flowers. Yep, they ONLY bloom in moonlight.

Incorrect, they only bloom at night, regardless of whether moonlight is present or not.

"These plants have evolved over millions of years to be timed with the night/day cycle to open only in the night. They do this because night-flying insects mostly pollinate them. One such insect is the hawk moth. The flowers are sensitive to small changes in light so that they are open when these insects are out in the evening."
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/what-are-moon-flowers-and-why-do-they-bloom-only-night
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 01:14:33 AM
Storm

One single shot that tells us that the seas are Not Flat. Shall I tell you why, or are you going to ignore it and post something else entirely different in an effort to derail the narrative?

(https://i.imgur.com/SC97J2F.jpg)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 13, 2020, 01:24:24 AM
Most people don't understand what is significant about these images of sunlight from behind clouds...

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e1/15/62/e115624b9bb9879e2bcc723cbfb96a64.jpg)

These images prove multiple 'observable' facts about our sun.

1. They show, beyond any shadow of a doubt, how close our sun is to us.

These first 3 images show the sun rays pointing right back to their undeniable source. This shows us exactly where the sun is and gives us a rough idea of its size. Believed to be approximately 35 miles in diameter.


(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/f8/94/5cf894569119440e126e97588ea812ae.jpg)

2. They show how much smaller our sun is than science would have us believe.

Don't let anybody tell you this is light refraction. Light doesn't refract uniformly like this with all rays not only lining up perfectly side by side, but also gradually spreading out perfectly like a fan. That's just not how refraction works.

(https://i.imgur.com/KfRN4I7.jpg)

3. And this image shows us that the earth and all bodies of water are 'Flat' due to the reflection of the sunlight coming right up to the observer. If the earth were curved, at all, this image would be impossible, but you can see it, here in this image, or you can observe it empirically in-person next time you are near a body of water on a sunny day.

(https://static3.bigstockphoto.com/9/7/2/large1500/279838165.jpg)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 09:31:43 AM
Yup, it's the old switcheroony.

T asks about X
S shows Y

T asks about A and B
S shows C

The title of the thread, Storm - "discuss if you dare". Simple politeness, I would have thought, dictates that since I asked first ....
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Seemom on February 13, 2020, 02:36:04 PM
Quote
If you were on a sphere, the horizon line would appear to drop, or appear lower in YOUR view, as your altitude increased.


You mean kind of like how it drops in this video? These measurements were take at Williams Reset by The Maine Surveyor, a professional geodetic surveyor. The method used was developed by Al Biruni hundreds of years ago to determine the radius of the earth by measuring the angular drop to the horizon and is still in use today.

Coordinates: 43° 37′ 26.52402″ N, 070° 12′ 37.43712″ W

Elevation: 21.986 meters

Note that there are two views, one at 90 degrees, one at 270 degrees.  These two measurements are to negate the effect of any collimation errors.  The final image has field notes and calculations from The Maine Surveyor.  A total of 20 measurements were taken, 10 for each face of the theodolite.  By averaging equal numbers of measurements from each face collimation errors are eliminated. The measured drop is 7′ 39″ with a standard deviation of +/- 3 arcseconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH2DrgstQ0U







Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 13, 2020, 05:10:14 PM
Ok, Fellow Flat Earthers. Welcome back.

Today we're discussing why Mt. Everest cannot be seen from Indonesia with the naked eye;

and we're also discussing the Pole Star (Polaris) and the constellations.

So, the Pole Star, or Polaris, (the North Star) is pretty easy to find in the night sky, especially if the Big Dipper is visible. It is the top-most star in the handle of the Little Dipper.

First locate the Big Dipper, if possible.

(https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/c/cb/Find-the-Big-Dipper-Step-4.jpg/aid1030003-v4-728px-Find-the-Big-Dipper-Step-4.jpg.webp)

Good. Now, imagine a line from the front of the ladle, or the dipper, that is roughly 5 times the length of the front of the ladle bowl, if you will.

Like this...

(https://www.nps.gov/articles/images/Drinking-Gourd.jpg?maxwidth=650&autorotate=false)

(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/JS8MhCPvM5drfbzKc4dRue-320-80.jpg)

And there you have it. The North Star.

This is the star that wayfarers have used to navigate for thousands of years. It has always been in the northern sky, it has never moved, and never, ever moves--to this very day.

Find a place in your yard, or near your home, where u can see it clearly. Use an additional landmark, like the edge, or corner, of a roof top or other stationary object (light pole, large tree branch) that will never move and stand in a position so that the landmark will be very near that star in your view. Now, remember the exact spot you are standing and repeat this observation every time you think of it for years to come. This will create an indelible understanding of the permanent position of this star in relation to the Earth. This fact is extremely important to understanding much of the Flat Earth Theory and related concepts.

How so? Well, Modern Science would have you believe that this star is not only permanently 'fastened' in space, in perfect alignment with the center axis of the Earth...

(https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/skytellers/polaris/images/fig2.jpg)

...but that it ALSO mirrors 'all' of the Earth's movements through the Solar System. As it spins on its axis,...

(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Polaris_axis_1NEW.jpg)

...as well as throughout its entire 186 MILLION mile diameter rotation around the sun.

Hmmm...."How is this possible," you say "when we've all been taught that the Big Bang sent every single body in space into an outward trajectory from the center of the original explosion, causing all planets AND stars to forever expand outwardly away from eachother?"

Well, my friend,....it is NOT possible. Not in the least.

This also doesn't take into account the 'alleged' swirling spin of our Milky Way galaxy AND our galaxie's trajectory through ENDLESS space.

(https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F08%2Fmotion_through_universe.jpg)

Absolutely impossible for the North Star (Polaris) to remain in perfect alignment with the Earth and to mirror all the Earth's movements through space with all these other dynamics taking place simultaneously.

What does this prove? At the very minimum, this proves that Science has not informed the world of the Truth of these matters. And that the traditional concepts of the Earth, and its relationship to the stars, are undeniably flawed.

Just for starters....
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: iamcpc on February 13, 2020, 05:12:27 PM
Most people don't understand what is significant about these images of sunlight from behind clouds...

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e1/15/62/e115624b9bb9879e2bcc723cbfb96a64.jpg)

These images prove multiple 'observable' facts about our sun.

1. They show, beyond any shadow of a doubt, how close our sun is to us.


I agree that this image suggests that the sun is closer to us. I would say it's evidence, not a "FACT"



2. They show how much smaller our sun is than science would have us believe.

Don't let anybody tell you this is light refraction. Light doesn't refract uniformly like this with all rays not only lining up perfectly side by side, but also gradually spreading out perfectly like a fan. That's just not how refraction works.

(https://i.imgur.com/KfRN4I7.jpg)

I agree with this. This image does present evidence that appears to suggest the sun might be small. The problem is that, in this picture, it also looks like the sun is further away than it did in the first picture. In addition you really can't see the sun because it's behind cloudds.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 05:24:53 PM
Ok, Fellow Flat Earthers. Welcome back.

Today we're discussing why Mt. Everest cannot be seen from Indonesia with the naked eye;

So are you done with yesterday's discussion, where you jumped in to try and tell everyone about how their eyes work, but gish-galloped to other stuff when I took issue with it?

Simple Yes or No, please, so's I know whether or not to try and continue from where we left off...
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 13, 2020, 05:33:54 PM
Now, let's discuss how the Constellations relate to Mt. Everest and Indonesia.

From both of those locations, you can see the Constellations in the night sky. They are as beautiful as ever.

All the Constellations have been observed in the night sky for thousands of years by men all over our Flat Earth. There is no record whatsoever of any of the Constellations changing in any way. None have lost a star, none have changed shape. All are still just as they were when they were first observed and noted in history.

(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1095/2016/11/03154746/OSC_Astro_02_01_Ecliptic.jpg)

Wait a minute......  :o

How is that possible?? I know for a FACT that I was taught in school that the Universe began with a Big Bang...

(https://www.jewishpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Fishman-102519-Big-Bang.jpg)

...sending all matter exploding outward throughout space.

(https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/11160643/big-bang-fhymk7.jpg)

 ALL bodies in the cosmos are supposed to be constantly spreading further and further from eachother, right??

If THAT were they case, how could all those perfectly situated star patterns stay EXACTLY the same for THOUSANDS of years, without changing in the least?

AND... how could they possibly look exactly the same, no matter where you are on the Earth, when you consider all of the movements of the Earth and all bodies in space??

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/6dCF_70NJe0r5YTXhhP_3vNcOVjLQahg4QuCuYtD244wZAo7H_M0PUDIy6MU8FeWIHU7JQPCv5Qs9pCo_3AcbjnNbJ1qSgk9MDkvpmSVRCG4ficiokpB7bWb0CJvalLSkDW9NsI80neJ7TAHJ74P)

Quite simply,.....they can't.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Seemom on February 13, 2020, 06:14:38 PM
Quote
AND... how could they possibly look exactly the same, no matter where you are on the Earth, when you consider all of the movements of the Earth and all bodies in space??

The stars are in constant motion.  A star's motions through space relative to the Sun is called Proper Motion and was first noted by Edmund Halley in 1718 for three bright stars: Sirius, Aldebaran, and Arcturus, by comparing his measurements of their positions to those of Hipparchus of Rhodes (300BC). In all, it took 2000 years for the motions to build up to the point that they became measurable.  The largest proper motion recorded is Barnard's Star at 10.25 arcsec/yr. Typical proper motion is ~0.1 arcsec/year, which means after 1 year, star has moved 0.1 arcsec,  10 years, star has moved 0.1x10 = 1 arcsec and after 100 years, the star has moved 0.1x100 = 10 arcsec.

Since the smallest angle the eye can discern is a few arcminutes (1 arcmin = 60 arcsec), it can take many thousands of years for the constellations to noticeably change shape.

That's how.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Bikini Polaris on February 13, 2020, 06:14:53 PM
How is that possible?? I know for a FACT that I was taught in school that the Universe began with a Big Bang...

...sending all matter exploding outward throughout space.

The Big Bang is more like a "big inflation" or also "big flash". No "matter" existed at the beginning, but it started to form when, as the space was inflating, the average temperature went down. Also, it is unknown how any matter actually exists, and scientists speculate some form of asymmetry which favors matter versus anti-matter.

The Big Bang is a theory that comes from the cosmic background radiation, this can be received also on ground by very sensitive telescopes. As usual, it's "just a theory", but it puts together many astronomical observations and is currently accepted as the only one we have about our universe.

Most people don't understand what is significant about these images of sunlight from behind clouds...

These images prove multiple 'observable' facts about our sun.

1. They show, beyond any shadow of a doubt, how close our sun is to us.


Still I cannot understand how many images of crepuscular rays show them parallel.

(https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/76000/76261/ISS029-E-031270_lrg.jpg)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 06:34:12 PM
Quite simply,.....they can't.

Says who? You?

Again, why should we take you at your word on this, when all you have to offer is textbook graphics and disbelief?

Also, the distance to the stars needs to be taken into account; if you take a piece of paper, and draw a one-inch diameter circle on it, and presume that circle to represent the Earth going around the Sun, then the Big Dipper, the constellation containing our Pole Star, is generally speaking (for the stars within are not all at the same distance from us), at that scale, would be 2000 miles above the piece of paper.  In actuality, 340,982,000,000,000 miles or so.

(https://i.imgur.com/sPvK0i6.jpg)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 07:49:22 PM
The size of the Moon is known from visual triangulation from Earth, and from 50+ years of sending craft to and around it.

We know the distance to the Moon from laser ranging, and from 50+ years of sending craft to and around it.

We know that the Sun must be farther than the Moon by virtue of solar eclipses. 
We know the Sun must be farther than Mercury and Venus when they pass between us and the Sun (when they transit the Sun)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 14, 2020, 11:19:46 PM
Sorry to go back on this material but this really deserves a response. To start, just because you don't understand something and feel like it's impossible doesn't mean that that something isn't true to reality. To help you understand reality, I've posted a picture below and a brief description of what's happening.

Essentially, the distances we are working with here are massive. it's over 300 light years to get to Polaris, and our solar system scale is on the scale of only a few billion miles. It takes 4 hours for light to hit Pluto from the sun. Mathematically, we can compare our models by measuring the rate of change of the hypotenuse that connects two legs of a triangle. The legs represent our displacement through the universe and the distance between us and Polaris. Of course Polaris moves too, but this is also a minuscule amount.

(https://i.imgur.com/k7qT9O8.png)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 15, 2020, 02:17:50 PM

I'm still waiting for ONE SINGLE Flat Earther to show up here on the 'so-called' Flat Earth Society Chat Forum.
Four pages of discussion, about a dozen different individuals chiming in, give or take; exactly ZERO Flat Earthers here besides myself. That is shameful. This Forum is a total DECOY. Just like modern mainstream churches. Attract believers, and those with a desire to learn, and then mock them and correct them relentlessly to stomp out and DASH their Faith.

Fortunately for me, I'm completely immune to all that squawk-back. You know who else was immune to nay-sayers? The brilliant Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla.

Einstein was once asked how it felt to be the smartest man alive. Einstein's reply was:

"I don't know, you'll have to ask Nikola Tesla."
(-Albert Einstein)

After failing repeatedly to prove any motion of the Earth, Einstein announced:

"I have come to believe that the motion of the earth
cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
(-Albert Einstein Kyoto University, Japan Dec.14, 1922)

His point being that the only way to prove the movement of the Earth would have to be through mathematical equations. No empirical experiment could prove it.

To which Tesla stated:

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments,
and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually
build a structure which has no relation to reality."
(-Nikola Tesla)

The concepts of the dynamics of outer space, gravity and the relations of all bodies in our solar system are largely explained, and understood, by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Tesla had something to say about that over a hundred years ago.

"Einstein's Relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb
which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying
errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant
people take for a king...its exponents are brilliant men, but they're
metaphysicists rather than scientists."
(-Nikola Tesla)

{Metaphysics definition - abstract theory with no basis in reality}

It's interesting when you note how often people have pointed out how dumb people USED TO BE when they believed the Earth was Flat.

T.S. Eliot said:

"We shall not cease from exploration...and the end of all our
exploring will be to arrive where we started, and know the place
for the first time."

I can promise you...nobody 'chooses' to believe in the Flat Earth.
They only seek to find the Truth, whatever form it may take.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 15, 2020, 04:15:05 PM
Did you know that Nikola Tesla believed in the Flat Earth?

His work proves it.

He intended to send electricity throughout the entire world, for all to use freely, by building a giant Tesla Coil that would send electricity out in all directions to the very ends of the Earth.

(https://damn-8791.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/002b.jpg)

His intentions were genuine, but the powers that be, at that time-like today, would never allow that to be. After building a 200 foot tall tower for this to begin, he was bankrupted by his investors and his tower was eventually torn down to its very foundation, in hopes that the entire idea could be destroyed and buried.

How could this be possible on a round Earth? Wouldn't the electricity, which is also radio waves, just fly off into space before it could reach the other angles of the Earth? After all, it all travels in a straight line.

Well, science claims that we can send these signals around the world by bouncing them off the ionosphere, but....then how would these work?

(https://public.nrao.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/VLAArrayNiteClouds_RGB.jpg)

Umm...yeah. These are Radio Telescopes used for the 'ALLEGED' purpose of sending Radio waves into deep space. How would all these Radio telescopes work if they just bounce off the ionosphere? And even if they DID get out into space by use of higher frequency waves and traveled out even a single light year and bounced off something solid, how could they return all that distance and still have the same intensity needed to penetrate the ionosphere and return to the dish?

Well, they CAN send signals to any part of the Earth, but not by bouncing them off the ionosphere. They're relegated to using the old Firmament that they don't want you to know about.

(https://dasg7xwmldix6.cloudfront.net/episodes/681203_AdTBmM56.jpg)

The Firmament is also responsible for reflecting the sun's rays to create these in very moist air.

(https://images.pexels.com/photos/757239/pexels-photo-757239.jpeg?auto=compress&cs=tinysrgb&dpr=1&w=500)

Ever wonder how they get their perfectly rounded shape?

By utilizing the Firmament, the notorious HAARP arrays, which are situated in multiple locations on the Earth, are capable of sending devastating energy to any point on the Earth.

(https://www.theclever.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Troubling-Facts-About-Haarp-e1500928072473.jpg)

HAARP technology was created by Tesla.

Referred to by Tesla as the Death Ray, HAARP is capable of being used as a very powerful weapon to reach any point on the Earth. Today, it is mostly utilized to control the weather. That's why we've had such strange and destructive weather for the past 30 years.

-----------------------------------

Yes, folks. Tesla knew all about the Firmament. His many experiments into the dynamics of electricity and how it traveled, how far it traveled, etc., no doubt taught him all about the shape and dimensions of the Firmament and confirmed God's wonderful creation spoken of in the Bible.

So, there you have it. Tesla knew all about the Flat Earth and how to utilize the Firmament to do great things for mankind. Unfortunately, this world belongs to those whose greed for power and control will never allow righteousness and Truth to flourish for the good of all mankind.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 15, 2020, 05:30:16 PM
Check out (54:45) and (55:58) in this video.

This is exactly what I was describing in post (Reply #43) on page 3 of this thread.


[/video]<iframe width="525" height="289" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e23FH1zVD7A" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/video]

From post (reply #43) by Storm

It has been proven many times that if you take a very powerful optic and look at the horizon you will see objects that were previously invisible to the naked eye. Objects that 'appeared' to move down behind the curvature of the Earth come into plain view, proving they were there all along.

Mt. Everest is approximately 3300 miles from the area of Indonesia that you are referring to. The portion of it that you would be able to see over all the geographic obstructions between it and Indonesia is about 3 miles wide. If you were to use a telescopic device powerful enough to see that far, you would see it. So when you consider the size of that target, its distance from the observer and the limitations of your human eyes, you have your answer.

Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 15, 2020, 05:30:52 PM
The horizon is always at eye-level no matter how you orient your body or where you are in space; on/near the ground or high in the sky. This fact, alone, is one of the rock-solid proofs of Flat Earth.

Except it’s not a fact. The horizon dips below eye level at altitude. Not a huge amount, maybe not noticeably at normal altitudes but certainly measurable:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nuRDNgGmJQQ

Quote
It has been proven many times that if you take a very powerful optic and look at the horizon you will see objects that were previously invisible to the naked eye. Objects that 'appeared' to move down behind the curvature of the Earth come into plain view, proving they were there all along.

Clearly if small things are far enough away that we can’t see them then optical zoom can make them visible again.

If something has truly gone over the curve of the earth though then no amount of zoom is going to restore it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 15, 2020, 05:38:20 PM
Most people don't understand what is significant about these images of sunlight from behind clouds...

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e1/15/62/e115624b9bb9879e2bcc723cbfb96a64.jpg)

These images prove multiple 'observable' facts about our sun.

Don't let anybody tell you this is light refraction.

I’m not going to tell you that. You’re right, it’s not refraction. It’s perspective. Here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cTPLqbl-HGY
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 15, 2020, 06:02:48 PM
The video only shows what those parallel tubes look like when in close proximity. If the camera was half a mile away from those parallel tubes they would be straight and parallel to each other.

Since we can observe the same effect in the sky miles away, with non-parallel rays, we see evidence that the rays are not parallel.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 15, 2020, 06:06:14 PM
Just a friendly suggestion to those who keep posting images of the horizon at great heights to attempt to show a dropping horizon on a 'ROUND EARTH.'

You might wanna stop posting those images. All they are doing is supporting my argument emphatically.

Do you all not realize you are showing a horizon that is many miles in length without a single hint of curvature?

Are you aware that those images should show 'SOME' very distinguishable curvature at those heights if the Earth were round? Every one of those images for the past two pages show miles and miles of perfectly FLAT HORIZON.

Yeah....might wanna delete those posts entirely.

But thanks for the support. If I can't get it from Fellow Flat Earthers, here at the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY FORUM, I'll gladly accept it from the masses of Round Earthers, here, struggling to prove that the Earth is a ball amidst a SEA of evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 15, 2020, 06:09:47 PM
I continue to be amazed at your lack of understanding of perspective, Tom. You seem to think it can explain sunset and the sinking ship effect (which it absolutely can’t) and don’t understand that it can explain crepuscular rays even when you’re shown a model proving it can.

Anyone who has seen something like train tracks going into the distance knows that perspective can make parallel lines appear not to be parallel.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 15, 2020, 06:13:38 PM
You might wanna stop posting those images. All they are doing is supporting my argument emphatically.

Your argument was that the horizon remains at eye level at altitude. The video I posted shows quite clearly that it does not.

Quote
Do you all not realize you are showing a horizon that is many miles in length without a single hint of curvature?

As would be expected on a globe the size of the earth.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 15, 2020, 06:20:33 PM
I continue to be amazed at your lack of understanding of perspective, Tom. You seem to think it can explain sunset and the sinking ship effect (which it absolutely can’t) and don’t understand that it can explain crepuscular rays even when you’re shown a model proving it can.

Anyone who has seen something like train tracks going into the distance knows that perspective can make parallel lines appear not to be parallel.

Would those parallel tubes in the 3D model be parallel if the camera were half mile away?

Yes or no?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 15, 2020, 06:25:30 PM
Would those parallel tubes in the 3D model be parallel if the camera were half mile away?

Yes or no?
It’s a meaningless question in the context of a 3D model. Double the camera distance and double the length of the rays and you’ll see the same effect.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 15, 2020, 08:07:09 PM
Would those parallel tubes in the 3D model be parallel if the camera were half mile away?

Yes or no?
It’s a meaningless question in the context of a 3D model. Double the camera distance and double the length of the rays and you’ll see the same effect.

That is not true and didn't answer my question.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on February 15, 2020, 09:36:08 PM
Did you know that Nikola Tesla believed in the Flat Earth?

I think Tesla may have disagreed with you. Quotes from Tesla's article published in 1900:

THE PROBLEM OF INCREASING HUMAN ENERGY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCES TO THE HARNESSING OF THE SUN'S ENERGY.
by Nikola Tesla
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm

This metal, it would seem, has an origin entirely different from that of the rest of the globe.
....
It is a well-known fact that the interior portions of the globe are very hot, the temperature rising, as observations show, with the approach to the center at the rate of approximately 1 degree C. for every hundred feet of depth. The difficulties of sinking shafts and placing boilers at depths of, say, twelve thousand feet, corresponding to an increase in temperature of about 120 degrees C., are not insuperable, and we could certainly avail ourselves in this way of the internal heat of the globe.
...
By realizing such a plan, we should be enabled to get at any point of the globe a continuous supply of energy, day and night
...
The observation of this wonderful phenomenon impressed me strongly that communication at any distance could be easily effected by its means, provided that apparatus could be perfected capable of producing an electric or magnetic change of state, however small, in the terrestrial globe or environing medium.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: iamcpc on February 16, 2020, 02:21:50 AM

I'm still waiting for ONE SINGLE Flat Earther to show up here on the 'so-called' Flat Earth Society Chat Forum.
Four pages of discussion, about a dozen different individuals chiming in, give or take; exactly ZERO Flat Earthers here besides myself. That is shameful. This Forum is a total DECOY. Just like modern mainstream churches. Attract believers, and those with a desire to learn, and then mock them and correct them relentlessly to stomp out and DASH their Faith.

Flat earthers have shown up but it has been demonstrated by flat earhters that the horizon does not ALWAYS rise to eye level as you have claimed.

You adhere to a FE Model in which the horizon always rises to the eye of the observer and there is a firmament.  High altitude balloons have had go pros put on them and they have never shown any sort of firmament.


Would those parallel tubes in the 3D model be parallel if the camera were half mile away?

Yes or no?
It’s a meaningless question in the context of a 3D model. Double the camera distance and double the length of the rays and you’ll see the same effect.

I disagree. I think the parallel nature of the rays does matter. Furthermore I believe that, from a for enough distance, any rays will stop being parallel.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on February 16, 2020, 06:10:31 AM
Would those parallel tubes in the 3D model be parallel if the camera were half mile away?

Yes or no?
It’s a meaningless question in the context of a 3D model. Double the camera distance and double the length of the rays and you’ll see the same effect.

I disagree. I think the parallel nature of the rays does matter. Furthermore I believe that, from a for enough distance, any rays will stop being parallel.

I thought this was a pretty accurate description of the crepuscular rays phenomena:

"The train's destination is not above the ground, but rather far away, and perspective means that the tracks appear not to be parallel but instead to converge to the vanishing point.

The same applies to the beams of light above them. The Sun is very far away and the beams are pretty much parallel, but they're pointing towards you, and perspective makes them appear to converge towards the vanishing point - which in this case is the Sun's location in the sky."

(https://i.stack.imgur.com/4tn3o.png)

As well, there are anticrepuscular rays projecting up from below the horizon. The question becomes, how is the sun projecting light up from below the horizon?

(http://i.imgur.com/xkYwUBO.jpg)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 16, 2020, 10:50:58 AM
Einstein announced: "I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
(-Albert Einstein Kyoto University, Japan Dec.14, 1922)

His point being that the only way to prove the movement of the Earth would have to be through mathematical equations. No empirical experiment could prove it.

No empirical OPTICAL experiment, Einstein said. Dontcha think he was being quite ... precise, to specify that? He strikes me as a precise person, to single out a a specific TYPE of experiment.... but not exclude other types. 

"Optical", using the optics of 1922. We've moved on since then, so quoting what Einstein felt was the be-all and end-all 98 years ago becomes less and less relevant with each passing year.



Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 16, 2020, 11:05:34 AM
Just a friendly suggestion to those who keep posting images of the horizon at great heights to attempt to show a dropping horizon on a 'ROUND EARTH.'

You might wanna stop posting those images. All they are doing is supporting my argument emphatically.

Do you all not realize you are showing a horizon that is many miles in length without a single hint of curvature?

Just a friendly suggestion - look back at my post #61 and try and explain how this observation could possibly be made on a Flat Earth - the observer was at 210m, the focal height of the lighthouse is 73m. If we presume the seas around to be flat, how could the sightline from observer to lighthouse, if continued beyond the lighthouse, miss the water? Why can't the observer, some 137m above the lighthouse, see the water beyond it? Simple geometry dictates that he should, IF the surface is flat ...

This shows the geometrical principle - non-parallel lines must meet.

https://imgur.com/dRtnc3D

This shows the situation, but with labels applicable to another observation; same principle applies

https://imgur.com/CXUvjwa


Are you aware that those images should show 'SOME' very distinguishable curvature at those heights if the Earth were round?

No, they should not. Earth too big.

Mostly, cameras zoomed in or using big telephoto. The more you zoom in, the less curve is in frame. The more you zoom out, or the further you move away from the surface, the more in frame.


Edit to correct quoted post number to 61

Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 16, 2020, 11:22:21 AM
Storm, Tom - does "eye level" form an imaginary line in space, parallel to your presumed flat plane?

i.e. if I construct a 100m tower, right on the beach, right at the edge of the sea, and I construct another, 1000m out into the sea, of exactly the same height, then do you agree a sightline between the tops of the two towers is a line in space, deemed to be parallel to the (presumed) flat plane of the sea below?

https://imgur.com/GKu4JnZ

Simple Y/N, if you could... 
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 16, 2020, 06:11:45 PM
Did you know that Nikola Tesla believed in the Flat Earth?

If he did, why was he talking about, at some point in his future, "rocket ships orbiting the globe in 5 hours or so"

http://www.teslasociety.ch/info/mechanic/Tesla_Juli_1934_6MB.pdf
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 17, 2020, 03:21:45 AM
Which of these images most closely depicts the world that you inhabit?

This one....

(https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/29cb48/0/0/0/0/1280/720?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/11/19/first-ever-flat-earth-international-conference-held-in-us-1511095441154.jpg)

...or this one?

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fb3ddd03d48efe8bb457df07b9d102c0)

Wait, that's not fair.

Ok, this one...

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b9/1a/34/b91a3473fdafae6032cb96fe3bd5e181.jpg)

...or this one?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQjiOzEVgkkB25oM19wnWH7xP-NC7H0va49XZBsC4cp7nYATKIV)

Ok, forget it. Having technical problems, here.

Let's put it this way:

Do you believe you live on the Earth...

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/NINTCHDBPICT000522134176.jpg)

...or on the Pearth?

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/0b/5d/5e/0b5d5e816b888c9959b261d5c8818b4b.jpg)

I know, I know. Very limited options, here, but these are the only two options they give us.

Pick one.

Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 17, 2020, 03:32:52 AM
This image, here, is hilarious.

(http://i.imgur.com/xkYwUBO.jpg)

That's about a photoshopped image if I've EVER seen one.

Never in ALL my life have I seen anything like that in the real world.

At least it still shows the small size and close proximity of the actual sun, though. (Edited to add: as well as a perfectly Flat Horizon.)

The light on the clouds shows clearly that the real sun is behind the camera and shining on the side of the clouds that is facing the observer. The clouds don't confirm the upward sun rays in the background or anything this image is intended to depict or prove.

Very entertaining, though.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on February 17, 2020, 05:27:30 AM
This image, here, is hilarious.

(http://i.imgur.com/xkYwUBO.jpg)

That's about a photoshopped image if I've EVER seen one.

If you say so.

Never in ALL my life have I seen anything like that in the real world.

The logic being that if you haven’t seen something before it must not exist?

At least it still shows the small size and close proximity of the actual sun, though.

The light on the clouds shows clearly that the real sun is behind the camera and shining on the side of the clouds that is facing the observer. The clouds don't confirm the upward sun rays in the background or anything this image is intended to depict or prove.

If it’s photoshopped and you believe it can’t exist because you've never seen it before why would you have an explanation for it?

Google ‘anticrepuscular’ and poke on images and let us know what you think about all of those as well.

Very entertaining, though.

Very entertaining indeed.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 17, 2020, 09:11:56 AM
That is not true and didn't answer my question.

No, I didn't answer your question because the question is meaningless. The 3D model has no scale so "half a mile" is a meaningless value.
What the model quite clearly shows - and you must understand this, again, train tracks - is that parallel lines can appear to converge at a distance depending on the angle you're viewing from. The model even shows that, as the "camera" is moved it shows that the lines are parallel if you look at them from the side - just like train tracks are parallel if you look at them from above. But look at them straight on and they appear to be emanating from a point as do train tracks if you look along them. It all depends on the viewing angle.

tl;dr crepuscular rays do not demonstrate a local sun. And while we are here, why can't you see the EA effect bending the rays?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 17, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
Never in ALL my life have I seen anything like that in the real world.

I've never seen a shark, a whale, a kangaroo. But they still exist. Your disbelief is no proof of anything.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 17, 2020, 09:24:35 AM
Which of these images most closely depicts the world that you inhabit?

Yes, we can all see that you think it's good fun to post comedic mockery in the guise of substantive analysis, but we all see right through the fact that you're glossing over the actual questions put to you, in favour of diversion to your comedic rants, and changes of subject. 

When you're ready to actually engage with other posters here, and treat the subject with some gravity ....

(see what I did there?)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 17, 2020, 02:43:28 PM
Did you know that Nikola Tesla believed in the Flat Earth?

I think Tesla may have disagreed with you. Quotes from Tesla's article published in 1900:

THE PROBLEM OF INCREASING HUMAN ENERGY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCES TO THE HARNESSING OF THE SUN'S ENERGY.
by Nikola Tesla
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm

This metal, it would seem, has an origin entirely different from that of the rest of the globe.
....
It is a well-known fact that the interior portions of the globe are very hot, the temperature rising, as observations show, with the approach to the center at the rate of approximately 1 degree C. for every hundred feet of depth. The difficulties of sinking shafts and placing boilers at depths of, say, twelve thousand feet, corresponding to an increase in temperature of about 120 degrees C., are not insuperable, and we could certainly avail ourselves in this way of the internal heat of the globe.
...
By realizing such a plan, we should be enabled to get at any point of the globe a continuous supply of energy, day and night
...
The observation of this wonderful phenomenon impressed me strongly that communication at any distance could be easily effected by its means, provided that apparatus could be perfected capable of producing an electric or magnetic change of state, however small, in the terrestrial globe or environing medium.


This article 'MAY' have actually been written at some point in history, but it was likely 'NOT' written by Tesla, AND there is absolutely NO record of it anywhere online.

My conclusion, based on 'STRONG' evidence to the contrary, is that it was written at a much later date, likely after his demise, and attributed to him for the purpose of supporting theories that he would 'NEVER' have affiliated himself with.

Here is an 'ACTUAL' quote from Tesla, completely contradicting every part of that article...

"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electro-magnetic levitation. Electromagnetic levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the firmament."
                                                                                      -Nikola Tesla


Everyone reading this can do a simple Google search for 'ANY' Tesla quotes about the 'Globe' or 'rocket ships' and find absolutely 'NOTHING.'

Tesla was all about electricity. His dreams of the future involved electricity and vehicles for land AND air that were powered thereby. To Tesla, rocket science was a primitive concept, at best, dating back to 200 BC with the accidental discovery of fireworks. He also wasn't the only inventor of his day who believed in the power of electricity to shape our world for the better.

There were others who had invented, and built, electric cars Pre-1900's, but the Oil Barrens and others would never allow these technologies into the public market; and to this very day they have 'barely' allowed those technologies to trickle out into the mainstream. The greedy Government has stolen all of Tesla's inventions to keep, and use, them for themselves; only allowing out the few creations that they could monitor and utilize for their agendas.

-------------------

I have to say: The credibility of those posting in this thread is very much in question. If you can't use factual information to debate the Flat Earth, you may as well bow out gracefully. All you are accomplishing with your desperate attempts at continued rebuttal, and failed refutation of the facts, is to make a mockery of the very argument you are contending for. That being the 'round/pear-shaped' earth.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 17, 2020, 02:51:24 PM
Everyone reading this can do a simple Google search for 'ANY' Tesla quotes about the 'Globe' or 'rocket ships' and find absolutely 'NOTHING.'
I did do that and found this very quickly

https://flatearth.ws/tesla-misquote

So it is actually your quote which is wrongly attributed, the quote is partly in this

https://archive.org/details/TeslaProblemEnergy/mode/2up

It's quite long but he definitely mentions the globe in it. I found this later, it's a searchable version:

http://teslacollection.com/tesla_articles/1900/century_magazine/nikola_tesla/the_problem_of_increasing_human_energy
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 17, 2020, 06:29:54 PM
This article 'MAY' have actually been written at some point in history, but it was likely 'NOT' written by Tesla

Says who? You? Why is it "likely"?

AND there is absolutely NO record of it anywhere online.

So what? Honestly, trying to claim that something is not online, based on simply the results from search engines, is a lost cause...

My conclusion, based on 'STRONG' evidence to the contrary, is that it was written at a much later date, likely after his demise, and attributed to him for the purpose of supporting theories that he would 'NEVER' have affiliated himself with.

WHAT evidence?

Here is an 'ACTUAL' quote from Tesla, completely contradicting every part of that article...

Oh, so it's "My quote is BETTER than yours", even though you provide no source or context to it....

I have to say: The credibility of those posting in this thread is very much in question.

Why? Because you claim that you have better quotes than everyone else?

If you can't use factual information to debate the Flat Earth, you may as well bow out gracefully.

... but you haven't proven your quote to be the factual one.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Seemom on February 17, 2020, 07:41:25 PM
Quote from: Storm on February 15, 2020, 04:15:05 PM

Quote
Did you know that Nikola Tesla believed in the Flat Earth?

Of all the absurd claims I have read on this site, that is one of the worst.  It is also the most easily disproven.

"To give you an idea, I have prepared a diagram illustrating an analogue which will clearly show how the current passes through the globe"

https://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/wardenclyffe-lab-1901-1906/connection-to-earth/


Just count how many times Tesla refers to a "globe" earth.



Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 19, 2020, 08:33:05 PM
So, I asked all of you once before (page 5 reply #93), with only a modicum of sarcasm, but I will ask again because it is very relevant and important to this discussion.

All day long, each and every day, you are all attacking and correcting 'MY' beliefs, but I think those following this thread deserve to know what 'YOUR' belief is.

So, to all of you FLAT EARTH SOCIETY 'FRAUDS', who are actually Round Earthers in the wrong place, here is the question that begs a response:

Do you believe that we all live on 'THIS'.......

(https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/0bd372/645/344/0/35/1280/717?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/11/19/first-ever-flat-earth-international-conference-held-in-us-1511095441154.jpg)

....or do you believe we all live on 'THIS'?

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lV2qsaHkDUY/hqdefault.jpg)

Simple, straighforward, no jokes intended.

THIS is what modern science, NASA, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and all other champions of 'Round/Oblate Spheroid' Earth are insisting we all exist upon. vvv

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lV2qsaHkDUY/hqdefault.jpg)

Straight up: Do you believe this or not??

You are not allowed to believe in this anymore....

(https://images.pexels.com/photos/2422/sky-earth-galaxy-universe.jpg?auto=compress&cs=tinysrgb&dpr=1&w=500)

....because THIS ^^^ has been proven to be false ad nauseum; it is not even a debate anymore.

So, once again, here are your choices.

World E:

(https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/0bd372/645/344/0/35/1280/717?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/11/19/first-ever-flat-earth-international-conference-held-in-us-1511095441154.jpg)

or...

World P:

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/0b/5d/5e/0b5d5e816b888c9959b261d5c8818b4b.jpg)

Which are you hailing from with all your refutation and rebuttal of the Flat Biblical Earth?

Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: iamcpc on February 19, 2020, 08:48:25 PM
So, to all of you FLAT EARTH SOCIETY 'FRAUDS', who are actually Round Earthers in the wrong place, here is the question that begs a response:

Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 100% chance the earth is flat.
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 50-99% chance the earth is flat
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 1-49% chance the earth is flat
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 0% chance the earth is flat

How sure you are the earth is flat is moot for many of the claims you have made.


Do you believe that we all live on 'THIS'.......

This is the FE model which most closely matches reality based on my investigations

https://www.bing.com/maps
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 19, 2020, 09:00:37 PM
Reply from iamcpc
Quote
This is the FE model which most closely matches reality based on my investigations

https://www.bing.com/maps

That model is taken from this World, where I live:
(https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/0bd372/645/344/0/35/1280/717?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/11/19/first-ever-flat-earth-international-conference-held-in-us-1511095441154.jpg)

Interesting....thanks for the response.

Anyone else...?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 19, 2020, 09:09:56 PM
First you say this:

Quote from: iamcpc

[b
Claims[/b] that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 100% chance the earth is flat.
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 50-99% chance the earth is flat
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 1-49% chance the earth is flat
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 0% chance the earth is flat

....all hung up on 'ONE' single solitary 'claim' in my 20 posts in this thread, which, I will add, has only been refuted by repeated images of horizons that are PERFECTLY FLAT for many miles.

Then you say this:

Quote
How sure you are the earth is flat is moot for many of the claims you have made.

Again, referring to 'ONE' claim, from ONE out of TWENTY posts.

And, somehow, you've magically made me irrelevant.

.....That's GOOD!
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 19, 2020, 09:32:40 PM
So, if it hasn't been answered satisfactorily yet, here is another great example of why you can't see Mt. Everest from Indonesia, with the naked eye or any conventional equipment. (Note the ridiculously FLAT horizon from one side of the shot to the other and you can skip to 44 seconds if you like.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow9GJjjJKgQ

If you had a Hubble Telescope and aimed it in the direction of the top of the mountain, you'd be able to see approximately the top 3 miles (in width) of the mountain over all the terrain in between.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Bikini Polaris on February 19, 2020, 09:35:11 PM
(Note the ridiculously FLAT horizon from one side of the shot to the other and you can skip to 44 seconds if you like.)

Note the ridiculously crisp cutting line made by the horizon, *as if* it was going to frontally dive down.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 19, 2020, 09:46:46 PM
Note the ridiculously crisp cutting line made by the horizon, *as if* it was going to frontally dive down.

I don't even know what that means....

There's no crispy cutting anything going on in that vid. And you can actually see more water 'above' the farthest waves when it's zoomed all the way in; indicating MORE waves further beyond the camera's capability to zoom and detect.

Pretty irrefutable video, but it won't stop the Pearthers.

God Bless 'em.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on February 19, 2020, 10:59:54 PM
Reply from iamcpc
Quote
This is the FE model which most closely matches reality based on my investigations

https://www.bing.com/maps

That model is taken from this World, where I live:
(https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/0bd372/645/344/0/35/1280/717?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/11/19/first-ever-flat-earth-international-conference-held-in-us-1511095441154.jpg)

Interesting....thanks for the response.

Anyone else...?

Actually, no, Bing Maps are based upon a spherical earth.

From the Microsoft developers website regarding Bing Maps:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system

"Map Projection
To make the map seamless, and to ensure that aerial images from different sources line up properly, we have to use a single projection for the entire world. We chose to use the Mercator projection...Although the Mercator projection significantly distorts scale and area (particularly near the poles), it has two important properties that outweigh the scale distortion:

1) It’s a conformal projection, which means that it preserves the shape of relatively small objects. This is especially important when showing aerial imagery, because we want to avoid distorting the shape of buildings. Square buildings should appear square, not rectangular.
2) It’s a cylindrical projection, which means that north and south are always straight up and down, and west and east are always straight left and right.

The latitude and longitude are assumed to be on the WGS 84 datum. Even though Bing Maps uses a spherical projection, it’s important to convert all geographic coordinates into a common datum, and WGS 84 was chosen to be that datum. The longitude is assumed to range from -180 to +180 degrees, and the latitude must be clipped to range from -85.05112878 to 85.05112878. This avoids a singularity at the poles, and it causes the projected map to be square.”

WGS 84 Datum reference looks like this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/WGS_84_reference_frame_%28vector_graphic%29.svg/2560px-WGS_84_reference_frame_%28vector_graphic%29.svg.png)
Caption: WGS 84 reference frame. The oblateness of the ellipsoid is exaggerated in this image.

Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on February 20, 2020, 12:16:40 PM
So, I asked all of you once before (page 5 reply #93), with only a modicum of sarcasm, but I will ask again because it is very relevant and important to this discussion.

All day long, each and every day, you are all attacking and correcting 'MY' beliefs, but I think those following this thread deserve to know what 'YOUR' belief is.

So, to all of you FLAT EARTH SOCIETY 'FRAUDS', who are actually Round Earthers in the wrong place, here is the question that begs a response:

Do you believe that we all live on 'THIS'.......

(https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/0bd372/645/344/0/35/1280/717?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/11/19/first-ever-flat-earth-international-conference-held-in-us-1511095441154.jpg)

....or do you believe we all live on 'THIS'?

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lV2qsaHkDUY/hqdefault.jpg)

Simple, straighforward, no jokes intended.

THIS is what modern science, NASA, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and all other champions of 'Round/Oblate Spheroid' Earth are insisting we all exist upon. vvv

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lV2qsaHkDUY/hqdefault.jpg)

Straight up: Do you believe this or not??

You are not allowed to believe in this anymore....

(https://images.pexels.com/photos/2422/sky-earth-galaxy-universe.jpg?auto=compress&cs=tinysrgb&dpr=1&w=500)

....because THIS ^^^ has been proven to be false ad nauseum; it is not even a debate anymore.

So, once again, here are your choices.

World E:

(https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/0bd372/645/344/0/35/1280/717?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/11/19/first-ever-flat-earth-international-conference-held-in-us-1511095441154.jpg)

or...

World P:

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/0b/5d/5e/0b5d5e816b888c9959b261d5c8818b4b.jpg)

Which are you hailing from with all your refutation and rebuttal of the Flat Biblical Earth?
Can't tell if you're just trolling but neither of those. famous science writers described the earth as pear shaped to dumb it down for people but in reality, the earth still looks almost perfectly spherical from a distance with only a slightly imperfect shape, it's not a literal space pear.

Do you believe you live on a disk where all space around it warps light to make it look like a sphere?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: iamcpc on February 20, 2020, 04:21:13 PM
....all hung up on 'ONE' single solitary 'claim' in my 20 posts in this thread, which, I will add, has only been refuted by repeated images of horizons that are PERFECTLY FLAT for many miles.
Again, referring to 'ONE' claim, from ONE out of TWENTY posts.

And, somehow, you've magically made me irrelevant.

.....That's GOOD!

First off I have not make you irrelevant.  I just want the community to come together and agree on some aspect of these models. Is there a dome? Is there a firmament? etc. etc.

When the FE community finally starts to come together and say the horizon drops with altitude and it's because of refraction and not the shape of the earth and here's why and here's evidence supporting our theories someone comes along saying the horizon rises to eye level. Discounting all progress that was made.

The thing that weakens the FE movement more than anything else is that there is no consistency.

In addition you have made posts that I agreed with. You posted an image with light going through the clouds which did make it appear the sun is very close to the earth.

Actually, no, Bing Maps are based upon a spherical earth.

From the Microsoft developers website regarding Bing Maps:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system



That's funny because when you zoom all the way out on bing maps it very very clearly represents the earth as a flat plane for one.

For two your FE model is based on a globe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

So you have your flat disk FE model and I have my rectangular FE model. According to the internet they are both based on a globe. Just because the internet claims they are based on a globe does not mean that they can't be used as FE models when they represent the earth as a flat plane.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Bikini Polaris on February 21, 2020, 09:54:41 AM
And you can actually see more water 'above' the farthest waves when it's zoomed all the way in; indicating MORE waves further beyond the camera's capability to zoom and detect.

I'm sorry but I can't, those waves are in good contrast painted against the sky, their edges are well defined. Above them there appears to be only the sky. Also, the boat doesn't get down the horizon as it's zoomed in, as I would expect if more waves in the background were coming out. But I'm not saying that's a proof of anything, I'm on the "visual proofs are useless" camp, I'm just pointing out that's not what I would expect to see in a totally flat sea surface, i.e. I would expect a repeating fractal structure.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on February 21, 2020, 01:18:44 PM
... you can actually see more water 'above' the farthest waves when it's zoomed all the way in; indicating MORE waves further beyond the camera's capability to zoom and detect.

What do you see in this one? More waves beyond the ship? Beyond the mast to the right of the ship? Beyond the lighthouse?

(https://i.imgur.com/SC97J2F.jpg)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: proponent on February 22, 2020, 03:36:46 PM


Exactly! thanks I will put your argument in my question as this debunks the travel limit of light through air.:

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

Can anyone answer?
[/quote]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4XFUc6175k
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I'm not a flat earth theorist. I just believe that the earth is flat, and have heard about the height and size and shape of the sun, and how it shines, and how high it is from the surface, from the sutras. Their data are inconsistent with those provided by the flat theory.
Back to your question, I guess there are two reasons. First of all, mount Everest is visible mainly because it is illuminated by the sun and it is not blocked from view. If it's far enough away, it won't be hard to block. If the sun flies far enough, it will be blocked by things that are not high or thick at close range. The world is huge, much bigger than published, as recorded in the sutras. So it's possible.
The first reason is maybe that things that are too far away, that are too far away, look smaller, which is something that everybody knows but is easy to overlook, and the sutras say that they become round, which you probably haven't heard of.
The second reason may be that, when the sun shines on mount Everest, the light hits the peak to generate heat, and the mountain's reflected light is already very weak, far less than the sun. You may have observed that the nearby peaks are the color of trees or rocks, but the distant peaks gradually look darker. When it's far enough away, it gets very dark.
I can't give you a more practical answer. My abilities are limited. From my point of view, the two reasons mentioned above should be part of the formation of the horizon, and another reason for the horizon should be that the layer of sky adjacent to the surface of the earth and the surface of the earth are flat. And they're part of the reason you're asking questions. But what I'm telling you, you might experience on your own, not bad, right?

[/quote]
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Smarts on February 22, 2020, 08:18:03 PM


Exactly! thanks I will put your argument in my question as this debunks the travel limit of light through air.:

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

[/quote]
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Smarts on February 22, 2020, 08:19:51 PM
It's because the curvature of the earth. The moon and sun are thousands of miles above the atmosphere.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 24, 2020, 12:14:12 AM
Now, these, here, can't possibly exist.

These are Moon-blooming flowers. Yep, they ONLY bloom in moonlight.

Incorrect, they only bloom at night, regardless of whether moonlight is present or not.



Not sure this article contradicts your rebuttal statement, per se, but it certainly indicates the very unique characteristics that moonlight has and how those characteristics affect plants that bloom without sunlight (at night time).

It also states, in no uncertain terms, that their findings indicate that it is NOT due to any tidal/gravitational effect on the moisture inside the plant's cells, etc, but that moonlight is uniquely different than sunlight. (Moonlight is NOT reflected sunlight.)

Quote
While it may not be as widely recognized yet, it is becoming more clear that the moon also affects the flow of water through plants: sap moves more vigorously during the waxing phase as the moon grows to full, and slows down as the moon wanes to a thin morning crescent.

Quote
...vigorous, sappy plants will suffer if cut, harvested, or pruned close to the full moon. ...(a phenomenon known as “lunar burn”, because it was so often noted around the full moon).

Quote
For an excellent review of the subject, see Ian Cole and Michael Balick’s review article.2 The authors... note that studies that examine lunar rhythms are still few and far between.

Quote
It is rumored that the wooden stilts upon which Venice was built all were harvested during the last few days of the moon cycle: less water and denser fibers means less susceptibility to rotting and parasites.

Quote
Ernst Zürcher...expanded on Cole and Balick’s work...  The conclusions are consistent: there is indeed a lunar effect. But he also points out that the easy explanation (a tide-like gravitational force) is most likely incorrect, as the amount of water in even the largest tree is relatively small, and a tidal force would be negligible. An intriguing hypothesis is that moonlight itself may contribute to electromagnetic effects that alter the surface tension of water, allowing for some of the microscopic effects that have been experimentally documented.

Quote
What we do know is that moonlight, while generally similar to the sunlight..., shifts a bit towards the infrared...This makes moonlight not just a less intense version of sunlight—it is somewhat qualitatively different, too.

Quote
As the old myths tell us, the moon is a powerful force, regulating the unseen, yin-like processes hidden under the surfaces of things...

https://permacultureprinciples.com/post/moonlight-affect-plant-growth/#lightbox/0/

Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: iamcpc on February 24, 2020, 05:53:53 PM

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

Can anyone answer?

This has been answered many many times. The most popular answer has to do with how many miles of dense low altitude atmosphere that light is able to pass through.

Light that is coming from outer space only has to pass through 10-20 miles of this low altitude more dense layer of the atmosphere.

Light traveling from the surface level of mount Everest to someone standing on the surface of Indonesia the light must pass through over 2,000 miles of dense low altitude air. over 100 times the distance.

By this logic someone 200 meters underwater can see the sunlight and someone  10,000 meters of water can't see the sunlight. Therefore the earth is round. This limited ability to see the sunlight happens regardless of what shape the earth is.




Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on February 25, 2020, 11:31:47 PM
Yep, it's amazing how all that works. The mysteries of our beautiful world.




(https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/29cb48/0/0/0/0/1280/720?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/11/19/first-ever-flat-earth-international-conference-held-in-us-1511095441154.jpg)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: iamcpc on February 26, 2020, 05:48:21 PM
Yep, it's amazing how all that works. The mysteries of our beautiful world.


Is that thing over the earth in your model a dome, a firmament, water, or something else?

In your model are the other stars in the sky inside or outside of that thing mentioned above?

In the "thing" mentioned above is it visible or invisible to the naked eye?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 26, 2020, 05:53:50 PM
Yep, it's amazing how all that works. The mysteries of our beautiful world.

How do the stars in the southern skies work? What would be the cause of an eclipse?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: model 29 on March 02, 2020, 07:19:28 AM
Here's an impossible image, guys and gals.....

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg/420px-Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg)

...yessir. Straight from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range

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

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

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

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

--------

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

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

I know what it is..........it's that dadgum red-liquid rain guage that's boogered things up so good. Drats!! Foiled again!
Pic taken from an airliner, so observer has enough elevation to see that far, and no distinguishable horizon to see any left to right curvature.  Try again.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 02, 2020, 09:47:57 AM
it certainly indicates the very unique characteristics that moonlight has and how those characteristics affect plants that bloom without sunlight (at night time).

The picture you originally posted calls them "night" blooming flowers. As has been explained, they have evolved to bloom at night to coincide with nocturnal insects which pollinate them. Nothing to do with moonlight.

Quote
moonlight is uniquely different than sunlight. (Moonlight is NOT reflected sunlight.)

No it isn't and yes it is. Why on earth would the moon have phases if it's self-illuminating? Phases are a characteristic of a body being illuminated as are shadows. I took this myself:

(https://i.ibb.co/SrmQ28k/moon.jpg)

I don't have a fancy camera but even on that you can see shadows of craters, it's clear the moon is being lit.

Lunar cycles do have an impact on some things but not because there is any inherent different quality about moonlight. There isn't. It may be that the amount of light the moon reflects, which varies with the moon phases, may have an impact on things.

Just to specifically respond to this part:

Quote
What we do know is that moonlight, while generally similar to the sunlight..., shifts a bit towards the infrared...This makes moonlight not just a less intense version of sunlight—it is somewhat qualitatively different, too.

Any body when reflecting light will absorb some wavelengths and reflect others. That is literally how we see colours. There is no inherent "redness" about things we perceive as red, they simply absorb other wavelengths and reflect red ones. So yes, the light coming from the moon will have a different spectrum to that coming from the sun because of the wavelengths which the moon absorbs. But moonlight doesn't "cool things down" (another claim oft repeated on here), it's just a reflection of the light from the sun, the moon phases and shadows we see on it prove this.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Groit on March 02, 2020, 10:50:10 PM


This shows us exactly where the sun is and gives us a rough idea of its size. Believed to be approximately 35 miles in diameter.


(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/f8/94/5cf894569119440e126e97588ea812ae.jpg)

2. They show how much smaller our sun is than science would have us believe.

Don't let anybody tell you this is light refraction. Light doesn't refract uniformly like this with all rays not only lining up perfectly side by side, but also gradually spreading out perfectly like a fan. That's just not how refraction works.

This laminate floor also looks like its spreading out like a fan and converging to a point, but those planks are running parallel just like the rays from the sun.

(https://www.leaderfloors.co.uk/images/exquisite-plus-8mm-harbour-grey-oak-laminate-flooring-d3572-p54195-185086_image.jpg)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on March 02, 2020, 11:30:32 PM


This shows us exactly where the sun is and gives us a rough idea of its size. Believed to be approximately 35 miles in diameter.


(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/f8/94/5cf894569119440e126e97588ea812ae.jpg)

2. They show how much smaller our sun is than science would have us believe.

Don't let anybody tell you this is light refraction. Light doesn't refract uniformly like this with all rays not only lining up perfectly side by side, but also gradually spreading out perfectly like a fan. That's just not how refraction works.

This laminate floor also looks like its spreading out like a fan and converging to a point, but those planks are running parallel just like the rays from the sun.

(https://www.leaderfloors.co.uk/images/exquisite-plus-8mm-harbour-grey-oak-laminate-flooring-d3572-p54195-185086_image.jpg)

This claim to explain away sun rays that are pointing 'UP' toward the source/sun, doesn't work at all. It's not difficult to tell the difference between parallel lines that are moving toward the vanishing point and rays of sunlight that are shining 'DOWN' out of a cloud.

That image, in particular, shows very clearly that the sun, itself, is plainly obscured by clouds between it and the viewer.

Therefore, the only possible avenue of escape for the sunlight is 'DOWN' out of the clouds and toward the ground. This is clearly evident to the eye.

Here are some perfect examples of sunlight shining 'DOWN' onto the ground and water below the clouds that are obscuring their source.

(https://charismaticplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Crepuscular-rays-at-Hakodate-Bay-Japan-1.jpg)
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/o2bfa.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pFDtpHS.jpg)
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/y3BWj.jpg)

Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on March 02, 2020, 11:42:58 PM
Here's an impossible image, guys and gals.....

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg/420px-Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg)

...yessir. Straight from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range

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

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

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

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

--------

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

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

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

Pic taken from airliner? Possibly, but no proof anywhere in that Wiki page link.

No distinguishable horizon? Fail.

No left to right curvature? Correct.

You can see plenty clearly in that image to detect if there were the amount of curvature there is supposed to be for 50-60 miles distance left to right.

There is none.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on March 03, 2020, 12:14:31 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range#/media/File:Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range#/media/File:Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg)

"no proof the picture is from an airliner" - click on the pictue in the wikipedia page to get the link above

From the above;

"Three Cascade Range mountains: Mount Rainier (foreground) as well as Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams seen poking through the cloud layer shortly after takeoff on a commercial flight from Seattle to Detroit. Despite bringing a microfiber cloth to clean the aircraft window, the poor optical quality of the window resulted in a blurry photo."


The photographer is;

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dllu (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dllu)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on March 03, 2020, 12:15:09 AM
Here's an impossible image, guys and gals.....

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg/420px-Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg)

...yessir. Straight from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range

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

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

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

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

--------

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

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

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

Pic taken from airliner? Possibly, but no proof anywhere in that Wiki page link.

"English: Three Cascade Range mountains: Mount Rainier (foreground) as well as Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams seen poking through the cloud layer shortly after takeoff on a commercial flight from Seattle to Detroit. Despite bringing a microfiber cloth to clean the aircraft window, the poor optical quality of the window resulted in a blurry photo."
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg

Research more.


No distinguishable horizon? Fail.

How so?

No left to right curvature? Correct.

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

You can see plenty clearly in that image to detect if there were the amount of curvature there is supposed to be for 50-60 miles distance left to right.

There is none.

See above.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on March 03, 2020, 12:18:04 AM
You can see plenty clearly in that image to detect if there were the amount of curvature there is supposed to be ...

Plenty of ... what?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on March 03, 2020, 12:19:53 AM


This shows us exactly where the sun is and gives us a rough idea of its size. Believed to be approximately 35 miles in diameter.


(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/f8/94/5cf894569119440e126e97588ea812ae.jpg)

2. They show how much smaller our sun is than science would have us believe.

Don't let anybody tell you this is light refraction. Light doesn't refract uniformly like this with all rays not only lining up perfectly side by side, but also gradually spreading out perfectly like a fan. That's just not how refraction works.

This laminate floor also looks like its spreading out like a fan and converging to a point, but those planks are running parallel just like the rays from the sun.

(https://www.leaderfloors.co.uk/images/exquisite-plus-8mm-harbour-grey-oak-laminate-flooring-d3572-p54195-185086_image.jpg)

This claim to explain away sun rays that are pointing 'UP' toward the source/sun, doesn't work at all. It's not difficult to tell the difference between parallel lines that are moving toward the vanishing point and rays of sunlight that are shining 'DOWN' out of a cloud.

That image, in particular, shows very clearly that the sun, itself, is plainly obscured by clouds between it and the viewer.

Therefore, the only possible avenue of escape for the sunlight is 'DOWN' out of the clouds and toward the ground. This is clearly evident to the eye.

Here are some perfect examples of sunlight shining 'DOWN' onto the ground and water below the clouds that are obscuring their source.

(https://i.imgur.com/pFDtpHS.jpg)

If the sun was just above the clouds that would make it 10k, 20k feet above earth? Seriously? Tell us more how that would work, especially on a cloudless day.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on March 03, 2020, 12:37:25 AM

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg/420px-Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg)

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


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

I guess you're saying you'd have to be insane to see it? You'd be right, because it is clearly not there.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on March 03, 2020, 12:46:49 AM

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg/420px-Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg)

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

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

I guess you're saying you'd have to be insane to see it? You'd be right, because it is clearly not there.

The red line in the inset is 50 miles long. Earth is large.

(https://i.imgur.com/EKfRyE5.jpg?1)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on March 03, 2020, 01:06:22 AM

The picture you originally posted calls them "night" blooming flowers. As has been explained, they have evolved to bloom at night to coincide with nocturnal insects which pollinate them. Nothing to do with moonlight.

Does this imply that there aren't enough diurnal insects to get the job done?

And, nothing to do with moonlight?

All of these people from the article linked would strongly disagree with you. Seeing that they are the ones who did the extensive research and published their findings:

Isabella Guerrini, at the University of Perugia in Italy
Authors Ian Cole and Michael Balick
Ernst Zurcher
Dr. Guerrini
Article author Guido Mase

Quote
Planting by the moon
While the factors that affect plant growth are complex and vary greatly, the basic concept is really quite simple. As the moon increases in light towards the full moon, sap flow is more active. Conversely, as the moon wanes, sap flow slows.
https://permacultureprinciples.com/post/moonlight-affect-plant-growth/#lightbox/0/


Quote
moonlight is uniquely different than sunlight. (Moonlight is NOT reflected sunlight.)

No it isn't and yes it is....

Oh, yes it is and no, it isn't.

The article in question clearly states:
Quote
...moonlight [is] not just a less intense version of sunlight—it is somewhat qualitatively different, too.

Just to specifically respond to this part:

Quote
What we do know is that moonlight, while generally similar to the sunlight..., shifts a bit towards the infrared...This makes moonlight not just a less intense version of sunlight—it is somewhat qualitatively different, too.

Any body when reflecting light will absorb some wavelengths and reflect others. That is literally how we see colours. There is no inherent "redness" about things we perceive as red, they simply absorb other wavelengths and reflect red ones. So yes, the light coming from the moon will have a different spectrum to that coming from the sun because of the wavelengths which the moon absorbs.

You are simply describing a less intense version of sunlight; exactly what the article specifically points out is 'not' the reason for their results. They are adamant that their findings are due to the light of the moon; not some gravitational effect, nor any less intense version of reflected sunlight.

Quote
...he also points out that the easy explanation (a tide-like gravitational force) is most likely incorrect, as the amount of water in even the largest tree is relatively small, and a tidal force would be negligible.
https://permacultureprinciples.com/post/moonlight-affect-plant-growth/#lightbox/0/
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 03, 2020, 10:41:02 AM
Not so large. 25,000 miles circumference, so they say. 50-60 mi from left to right in that image. That's roughly half a mile of drop on each side of that image that is strangely missing.

I guess you're saying you'd have to be insane to see it? You'd be right, because it is clearly not there.

The diameter of earth is 7,917 miles. So I went into Paint.NET and drew a circle 791x791 (should have been 792 really, but let's not split hairs.
Here's the top of that circle with two lines 40 pixels apart.

(https://i.ibb.co/h8KYVXz/Wheres-The-Curve.jpg)

That represents 400 miles - 10 pixels to a mile. Where's the curve?
tl;dr - the earth is really big. At normal scales and altitudes you can't see the curve left to right. You need to be very high up for that.

As for the crepuscular rays, it's explained well here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTPLqbl-HGY

If the sun was as close as implied by some of your images then planes would crash into it.

Edit. I note in your reply about moonlight you have ignored the point about phases and shadows. How are those things possible if the moon is self-illuminating?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tumeni on March 03, 2020, 10:59:59 AM
Not so large. 25,000 miles circumference, so they say. 50-60 mi from left to right in that image. That's roughly half a mile of drop on each side of that image that is strangely missing.

Drop of WHAT? It's all cloud cover and haze. No discernable horizon that could be used to determine any "drop". Not even a reasonably flat area of land, it's all "accidented" as the early explorers put it....
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 03, 2020, 06:36:02 PM
As for the crepuscular rays, it's explained well here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTPLqbl-HGY

No, it is not explained well. If the camera was half a mile away from those rays they would be parallel to each other.

We often see pictures of the crepuscular rays spreading apart from each other in the distance, showing that this explanation is insufficient.

(http://optics.kulgun.net/Rays/crep-rays-casey1.jpg)

"Crepuscular Rays over Ardery Island in the Windmill Islands"
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 03, 2020, 11:21:57 PM
No, it is not explained well.

It is. The fact that you continue to fail to understand that explanation isn't because it's poorly explained.

Quote
If the camera was half a mile away from those rays they would be parallel to each other.

You said this last time I posted the video. I pointed out then and will point out again that this a meaningless statement about a 3D model which has no scale.

Quote
We often see pictures of the crepuscular rays spreading apart from each other in the distance, showing that this explanation is insufficient.

All that photo (which is lovely by the way) shows is that the sun is at an angle such that the rays are pointing towards the viewer
I've had a go at explaining this:

(https://i.ibb.co/N2J56b1/Crepuscular.jpg)

Can you see that if the viewer is where the arrow is and looking in the direction the arrow is pointing in then the black slanting lines which in reality are parallel in 3D space will appear angled towards each other and will appear to be coming from a point? That is what is happening in the image you posted.

And you are aware of anti-crepuscular rays?

(https://i.ibb.co/Lh3q0dm/Anti-Crepuscular.jpg)

In that image the sun is behind the camera. But it's the same thing, the rays in reality in 3D space are parallel but because they are receding into the distance they look like they converge at a point which would make the sun in multiple places. Of course in reality it's just a perspective effect.

And I asked you this before, if you believe these rays are really emanating from the sun and you're seeing a lot of their path from it then why can't you see any EA bending effect in their path?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 03, 2020, 11:53:15 PM
Quote
All that photo (which is lovely by the way) shows is that the sun is at an angle such that the rays are pointing towards the viewer
I've had a go at explaining this:

(https://i.ibb.co/N2J56b1/Crepuscular.jpg)

Can you see that if the viewer is where the arrow is and looking in the direction the arrow is pointing in then the black slanting lines which in reality are parallel in 3D space will appear angled towards each other and will appear to be coming from a point? That is what is happening in the image you posted.

You are speaking about a close range perspective effect. Those parallel lines will straighten out when the observer recedes away from them. The distance does matter.

(https://i.ibb.co/phZPtPK/perspective.gif)

Notice how the lines only appear to be angled at around 80 degrees in relation to each other when the camera is up really close? How does that work when the camera is miles away like in the image of the crepuscular rays over the island which are clearly miles away?

Quote
And I asked you this before, if you believe these rays are really emanating from the sun and you're seeing a lot of their path from it then why can't you see any EA bending effect in their path?

EA occurs over hundreds and thousands of miles.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on March 04, 2020, 01:08:39 AM
Quote
All that photo (which is lovely by the way) shows is that the sun is at an angle such that the rays are pointing towards the viewer
I've had a go at explaining this:

(https://i.ibb.co/N2J56b1/Crepuscular.jpg)

Can you see that if the viewer is where the arrow is and looking in the direction the arrow is pointing in then the black slanting lines which in reality are parallel in 3D space will appear angled towards each other and will appear to be coming from a point? That is what is happening in the image you posted.

You are speaking about a close range perspective effect. Those parallel lines will straighten out when the observer recedes away from them. The distance does matter.

(https://i.ibb.co/phZPtPK/perspective.gif)

Notice how the lines only appear to be angled at around 80 degrees in relation to each other when the camera is up really close? How does that work when the camera is miles away like in the image of the crepuscular rays over the island which are clearly miles away?

Quote
And I asked you this before, if you believe these rays are really emanating from the sun and you're seeing a lot of their path from it then why can't you see any EA bending effect in their path?

EA occurs over hundreds and thousands of miles.

It would be interesting to see like a dozen parallel lines in the perspective animation you posted. Just 2 lines seems to be misleading.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 04, 2020, 09:06:28 AM
You are speaking about a close range perspective effect. Those parallel lines will straighten out when the observer recedes away from them. The distance does matter.

Yes, the distance does matter. As does the length and angle of the lines/sun rays. The angle you perceive parallel lines to be at with respect to each other depends on all these things. Sun rays are long and can be at a steep angle, even from a distance that can cause a perspective effect.
Sometimes you can get an effect in a wood where crepuscular rays can look as if they're coming from just above the trees.
Obviously in real life you know that's not where the sun is.

Quote
How does that work when the camera is miles away like in the image of the crepuscular rays over the island which are clearly miles away?
It works by the rays being long and at a steep angle towards the viewer.
If crepuscular rays are not a perspective effect then what are anti-crepuscular rays? In that phenomenon it appears there must be multiple light sources. Again, in real life you know there isn't and it's just a perspective effect as the parallel rays recede into the distance.

Quote
EA occurs over hundreds and thousands of miles.

But if those rays are coming from the sun which is thousands of miles high in your model those rays must be hundreds or thousands of miles long.
You'd surely see some effect.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 02:38:20 PM
It would be interesting to see like a dozen parallel lines in the perspective animation you posted. Just 2 lines seems to be misleading.

Rather than cry that something is misrepresented, go to TinkerCAD and spend minutes to make your own model with however many lines you want.

The parallel lines only appear close to a 80 degree angle in relation to each other when the camera is in-between them, and very close.

Quote
Yes, the distance does matter. As does the length and angle of the lines/sun rays.

No, length does not matter. If those lines were long enough to stretch off the screen in my animation they would make the same angle in relation to each other at the same distances. The lines can be any length.

The only place the parallel lines make anywhere close to a 80 degree angle in relationship to each other is when the camera is very close and in-between them. That we can observe rays from the Sun which are miles away do this shows that this perspective argument is insufficient and wrong. It is evidence that the Sun is close.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on March 04, 2020, 04:44:05 PM
Tom the rays from your position will look the same no matter how far away the origin of the ray is. Here, I made a gif for you using Blender. Here you see a sphere with it's face normals extending out. The gif shows me zooming away from the sphere constantly. See how the rays change angles? Yea me either.

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/462006443403640834/684803014959431724/helping2222.gif)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on March 04, 2020, 05:04:38 PM
I hate to counter my own brethren here but I’ll play on this one. The gif you posted seemed to have rays extending out from all directions from the “sun” but in the phenomenon were discussing, all the rays are reaching a local spot on earth. The gif wouldn’t represent the phenomenon accurately because those rays wouldn’t technically be parallel.

Unless I’m misinterpreting the point you’re trying to make...
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on March 04, 2020, 05:36:15 PM
Literally no different than the sun's rays, the object in my gif has lines pointing out perpendicular to the object's surface, much like the suns rays, the point here is the object could be 100 meters or 100,000,000,000 meters away from your position but the rays will always look the same from your position. What I mean is, you cannot use the rays as a method of working out the suns distance in photographs that have the suns origin point in, because we know the rays are coming from that point, it doesn't give us any information of how far away that point is because it'd look the same either way.

EDIT:

I hate to counter my own brethren here but I’ll play on this one
You don't need to worry about that, if you think I'm wrong by all means correct me, I'm not treating this forum as some kind of tribal war. :)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on March 04, 2020, 05:55:43 PM
Ah understood, I was mistaken.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 08:30:36 PM
Those rays in that model are not parallel to each other. We are told that the rays which hit the earth are parallel.

Non-parallel rays hitting the surface of the earth is an argument for a sun which is small and close. Thank you for verifying that for us.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on March 04, 2020, 08:43:41 PM
Those rays in that model are not parallel to each other. We are told that the rays which hit the earth are parallel.

Non-parallel rays hitting the surface of the earth is an argument for a sun which is small and close. Thank you for verifying that for us.

So based on the FE explanation for 'god rays' being a close/small sun, would simply tracing back up the rays show us where the sun is? In other words, would the FE explanation put the sun here:

(https://i.imgur.com/MxdLYB3.png)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: aga on March 04, 2020, 10:43:02 PM
Here I am to discuss the flat earth.
...
Good luck.
'Flat', as en Engineer you will appreciate, does not imply 'Straight'.

Perhaps the 'Flat' you assume requires a body to have all particles aligned 0.0000 degrees apart in a particular plane, which does not occur in Nature.

Perhaps the Flat Earth is more Domed, like part of a shell of a sphere, rather than a complete Sphere.

I think that should satisfy your OP Challenge.

Personally i have absolutely no idea what is true.

Edit:

Governments Lie all the time. It is an Essential tool for Governance.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on March 04, 2020, 11:03:43 PM
Those rays in that model are not parallel to each other. We are told that the rays which hit the earth are parallel.

Non-parallel rays hitting the surface of the earth is an argument for a sun which is small and close. Thank you for verifying that for us.
My god, Tom maybe think about what you're saying instead of parroting information without logic. The reason rays *look* parallel in some photos (like the birdseye photo above a cloud looking down showing the shadows going in one direction) is because the sun is huge and the surface emits rays across it's whole surface. Imagine my sphere in that gif, then imagine a pixel being the earth.

if I make my sphere extremely high poly (giving off more rays), each ray next to each other will look parallel. See the image below, zoomed right into the surface of the sphere after be subdivided several times. Notice the rays relative to their neighbour rays look almost like they're going in the same direction as each other?

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/462006443403640834/684898382652768258/unknown.png)

just to help you visualize, here's the object a bit more zoomed out without the rays so you can see what you're looking at in the first image.

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/462006443403640834/684899092648034322/unknown.png)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 11:19:59 PM
Some of the rays right next to each other look parallel-ish, and the ones further away are not parallel.

Yet, you are simultaneously arguing that the reason the rays are not parallel in the picture is because the Sun's rays are not parallel. That puts the Sun close to the Earth.

Under RE the rays which hit the Earth's surface are parallel:

(http://funnel.sfsu.edu/courses/gm309/labs/seasons/images/SunsRaysJuneSolstice.jpg)

If you are arguing that this:

(http://optics.kulgun.net/Rays/crep-rays-casey1.jpg)

is due to the non-parallel rays of the Sun, like in your 3D model, then you are arguing that the Sun is close to the Earth.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on March 04, 2020, 11:27:09 PM
I've shown you visual representations Tom but you simply aren't understanding. rays will emit in all directions from the suns surface. if you're looking at the sun, the reason the rays spread out that way is because they're coming from the same point. it doesnt matter the distance, rays will look like that if you're looking at the sun as shown in my first gif. Now what you're mistaking this as a side on image of the earth and sun the rays look like they hit earth parallel, you're looking at this scale difference side by side;

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/462006443403640834/684903578313162773/Capture33.PNG)

now if I show you zoomed into the earth object you can see how the lines are near enough parallel for this example (if I made that sphere much higher poly my computer may say no, but the higher poly will show neighbouring lines even more parallel);

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/462006443403640834/684904171190616066/unknown.png)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on March 04, 2020, 11:39:20 PM
just again to help visualize I did subdivide the sun and moved it further away from the earth object to show the lines will still look parallel, here's a gif.

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/462006443403640834/684907547383038050/line.gif)

basically Tom, if you're looking at a tiny earth sized section of the rays they look parallel, if you're looking at the whole sun within your view (as seen in the first gif I posted) the rays come out at all directions regardless of the distance from your position. Do you understand? Basically, god rays are exactly how we expect to see them in the globe earth.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 11:51:12 PM
If you are looking at the Sun, you are in between the rays, and it is possible for a perspective effect to occur and see the rays angled broadly towards the Sun.

If you are looking at rays coming through clouds and hitting the Earth miles away from your position, you should see parallel rays, like the parallel rays which hit the Earth according to RE. The rays are parallel at the location of the Earth, and therefore the rays we see in the distance should be parallel.

Your error is that you are attempting to conflate the two. Like the example with the cylinders in space, a perspective effect will only occur when you are close to and in-between the rays, and not when you look at them in the distance. Looking at parallel rays in the distance will be parallel.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on March 04, 2020, 11:52:18 PM
Tom, feel free to show a representation of what god rays would look like if you move the sun further away relative to your position, but I can guarantee (like I was showing in the first gif) the rays wont visually change, thus you cannot use such images to determine if it's close or far. Surely you can see with your own eyes? stand under a tree and see the god rays doing the same thing as they do behind clouds, it does not matter the distance, your vision will see the rays converging to a single point in the sky that is the sun. I don't think I can help you beyond what I've shown already, please stop and try to understand how this works.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2020, 11:54:32 PM
Quote
Tom, feel free to show a representation of what god rays would look like if you move the sun further away relative to your position

Already done. The rays did not stay at the same angle when moving away from them. They were only at a broad obtuse angle when very close, in-between the rays.

(https://i.ibb.co/phZPtPK/perspective.gif)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on March 05, 2020, 12:13:09 AM
Quote
Tom, feel free to show a representation of what god rays would look like if you move the sun further away relative to your position

Already done. The rays did not stay at the same angle when moving away from them. They were only at a broad obtuse angle when very close, in-between the rays.

(https://i.ibb.co/phZPtPK/perspective.gif)
try again with rays going out in all directions like in reality instead of two parallel lines. If you don't trust me and seemingly are willing to assume I'm wrong, maybe ask a trusted friend of yours to read through this and explain it to you so you'll understand.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2020, 12:28:34 AM
Quote
try again with rays going out in all directions like in reality instead of two parallel lines.

Why? You posted an image showing that parallel rays hit the Earth, at the Earth's location. All RE diagrams show the same. The rays which hit the Earth are parallel. The rays should be parallel when looking at them in the distance.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on March 05, 2020, 12:32:29 AM
Quote
try again with rays going out in all directions like in reality instead of two parallel lines.

Why? You posted an image showing that parallel rays hit the Earth, at the Earth's location. All RE diagrams show the same. The rays which hit the Earth are parallel. The rays should be parallel when looking at them in the distance.
Again, I can't help you understand if you don't want to try to understand. Ask a friend.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on March 05, 2020, 01:30:26 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/hz0viRS.jpg)

Unfortunately I left the circ fans off today while I was welding, but on the bright side maybe Tom can “see through the smoke” of his faulty logic. If I traced these rays back to the source in 2D space, the sun would be outside the bay door.

Also please look at ChrisTP’s gifs, they will help you with your understanding that you seem to lack, evident in your most recent post.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2020, 02:23:15 AM
 
Quote
try again with rays going out in all directions like in reality instead of two parallel lines.

Why? You posted an image showing that parallel rays hit the Earth, at the Earth's location. All RE diagrams show the same. The rays which hit the Earth are parallel. The rays should be parallel when looking at them in the distance.
Again, I can't help you understand if you don't want to try to understand. Ask a friend.

If you can't support your argument I would recommend not to post than to spam non-contributing content.

https://i.imgur.com/hz0viRS.jpg

Unfortunately I left the circ fans off today while I was welding, but on the bright side maybe Tom can “see through the smoke” of his faulty logic. If I traced these rays back to the source in 2D space, the sun would be outside the bay door.

Also please look at ChrisTP’s gifs, they will help you with your understanding that you seem to lack, evident in your most recent post.

The example you gave is of the observer being right up close to and in-between the rays - a close range perspective effect. Therefore we should expect to see the rays intersecting at a broad angle, like in the first frame of the animation I last posted.

(https://i.ibb.co/phZPtPK/perspective.gif)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: stack on March 05, 2020, 03:18:37 AM
You gave us an example of
Quote
try again with rays going out in all directions like in reality instead of two parallel lines.

Why? You posted an image showing that parallel rays hit the Earth, at the Earth's location. All RE diagrams show the same. The rays which hit the Earth are parallel. The rays should be parallel when looking at them in the distance.
Again, I can't help you understand if you don't want to try to understand. Ask a friend.

If you can't support your argument I would recommend not to post than to spam non-contributing content.

https://i.imgur.com/hz0viRS.jpg

Unfortunately I left the circ fans off today while I was welding, but on the bright side maybe Tom can “see through the smoke” of his faulty logic. If I traced these rays back to the source in 2D space, the sun would be outside the bay door.

Also please look at ChrisTP’s gifs, they will help you with your understanding that you seem to lack, evident in your most recent post.

The example you gave is of the observer being right up close to and in-between the rays - a close range perspective effect. Therefore we should expect to see the rays intersecting at a broad angle, like in the first frame of the animation I last posted.

(https://i.ibb.co/phZPtPK/perspective.gif)

Maybe to all work on common ground, how far away is the FE sun from earth and how large (or small) is it? If we knew that, we could model it appropriately.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ChrisTP on March 05, 2020, 10:18:40 AM
Tom, I'm not spamming non-content in here, you just simply aren't understanding. I think I made it as simple as I can with pretty moving pictures and all. Your gif is the fault because you're assuming those black lines that represent rays would be the same rays up close and far away. In reality as they move further away they would be replaced by other rays in your view. So if you want to properly test (since you obviously don't believe my gif for whatever reason) make your gif again showing more black lines all coming from the same point going off in all directions like reality and do the same thing.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 05, 2020, 10:37:30 AM
If you are looking at the Sun, you are in between the rays, and it is possible for a perspective effect to occur and see the rays angled broadly towards the Sun.

If you are looking at rays coming through clouds and hitting the Earth miles away from your position, you should see parallel rays, like the parallel rays which hit the Earth according to RE. The rays are parallel at the location of the Earth, and therefore the rays we see in the distance should be parallel.
No. It depends on the angle of the rays. Once again this is your inability to think in 3D space.
I took your advice and did a 3D model in TinkerCad. I drew a series of parallel lines but angled backwards from the point of view of the viewer
Here's a view from the side, you can see the lines:

(https://i.ibb.co/BGSjDNR/Crepuscular-Side.jpg)

And here's the view from the "sky" looking down at the rays so they are all level with each other so you can see that in reality they are parallel in 3D space:

(https://i.ibb.co/LNSQjJw/Crepuscular-Level.jpg)

And this is the front view from some distance away. Note that you are not "between the rays", they hit the ground some distance away. But you get a perspective effect because of the way they are angled away from you:

(https://i.ibb.co/MGn0ZdH/Crepuscular-Front.jpg)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2020, 10:56:32 PM
No, the two lines made a much broader angle when the camera positioned inbetween the lines. It was over a 90 degree angle. The angle lessens the further away from that position. And that camera is not too far from your lines.

You are also showing the zoomed in version.

Now zoom out.

Zoomed in:

(https://i.imgur.com/W1bpH9Z.png)

Zoomed out to the max:

(https://i.imgur.com/q3vyf25.png)

As expected, the lines straightened out.


How straight would straight lines be miles away? Take a guess.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: model 29 on March 06, 2020, 05:39:05 AM

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg/420px-Mount_Rainier_and_other_Cascades_mountains_poking_through_clouds.jpg)

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


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

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

As as far as left to right curvature, being as there is no definitive horizon, one could improvise start at the left side of the image, drawing a straight line that aligns with the cloud layer that ends at Mt. Hood, and then move to the right side and draw some lines that are parallel with the cloud layer starting from the right, and see if they are parallel with the lines from the left.  Guess what happens...  But, seeing as how there isn't much definitive, I won't say it's conclusive.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: model 29 on March 06, 2020, 05:44:29 AM
Under RE the rays which hit the Earth's surface are parallel:

(http://funnel.sfsu.edu/courses/gm309/labs/seasons/images/SunsRaysJuneSolstice.jpg)
No Tom, seeing as the apparent size of the sun is bigger than the pupil of your eye, and the fact that shadows cast from direct sunlight are sharply defined at the object casting the shadow, but become increasingly blurred the farther one moves from the object, demonstrates that some of the light from the sun is parallel, some is convergent, and some is divergent.

Now you just need to learn how perspective works.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 06, 2020, 10:18:46 AM
No, the two lines made a much broader angle when the camera positioned inbetween the lines.

Yes, of course. The perspective changes depending on...well, your perspective.

Quote
The angle lessens the further away from that position.

Correct, all other things being equal.

Quote
And that camera is not too far from your lines.

Isn't it? What's the scale? This is something you don't seem to understand about perspective - there isn't a scale in that tool because the scale doesn't matter. What I mean by that is if every square on the "ground" in that image was a yard on each side or if every square was a mile on each side then you'd see the exact same thing. It would simply mean the "rays" are miles long not yards long. But rays from the sun are miles long.

Quote
You are also showing the zoomed in version.

I'm showing a version which demonstrates the effect you said didn't occur. You said:

Quote
If you are looking at rays coming through clouds and hitting the Earth miles away from your position, you should see parallel rays

As I said, there's no scale because it doesn't matter but we can define one. Let's say each square in my image is quarter of a mile along each side. So on that scale those rays hit the ground about 3 and a half miles away from the camera. But there's a perspective effect because the rays are miles long - which they obviously are in real life - and they're angled towards the viewer.

I can't talk sensibly about that photo in terms of exactly how far away from the camera the rays hit the water or how steeply the rays are angled but I have demonstrated the principle than parallel rays which are angled towards the viewer can hit the ground in the distance and there be a perspective effect. You have too - there's still a perspective effect in your "zoomed out" version. The scale of the effect simply depends on the distance and angle of the rays.

Quote
How straight would straight lines be miles away? Take a guess.

The fact you are taking about the camera being "miles away" in a 3D model with no scale shows you aren't really understanding this although I'm hoping this post has helped you to. But the answer to your question is if the lines are miles long (which sun rays are) and angled steeply towards the viewer (which sun rays are in the evening - your photo looks like it was taken in the evening) then I guess they'd look pretty much like that photo.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Storm on March 07, 2020, 08:40:14 PM
Hey Tom,

Here's that image you PM'd me about.

And, I totally agree.

Answers a lot.

(https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/29cb48/0/0/0/0/1280/720?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/11/19/first-ever-flat-earth-international-conference-held-in-us-1511095441154.jpg)
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Bikini Polaris on March 09, 2020, 11:01:21 AM
Hey Tom,

Here's that image you PM'd me about.

And, I totally agree.

Answers a lot.

(https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/29cb48/0/0/0/0/1280/720?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/11/19/first-ever-flat-earth-international-conference-held-in-us-1511095441154.jpg)

What puzzles me of that model is that:

- it doesn't show how the Sun works as a lamp light on earth but yet illuminates the Moon
- it doesn't show the "shadow object" needed to explain Moon eclipses
- it shows Africa, South America and Australia as quite distorted as they actually are
- it doesn't show how Universal Accelleration should work in practice
- it doesn't show how the Moon and the Sun stay hanging on the sky
- it shows a very tiny Sun and current understanding of nuclear power cannot explain how something so small can be so powerful (and yellowish instead of purely white)
- sun rays would not arrive parallel to earth, implying that shadows of clouds should be much larger than their clouds
- how, trigonometrically speaking, could we ever see a full moon
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on March 09, 2020, 07:22:14 PM
Fusion in the sun is a problem... we know how fusion works, and that the sun must be super massive with unimaginable pressure at the core for it to make the heat and light that we know it does.

The angles are off too on that map. Not only would the sun need to be a spotlight, but the geometry of the illumination would need to be a sort of semi circle, not a full circle in order for the sun to not be shining in one regions direction at night time.

A question I’ve had yet to get answered is what is the centripetal force keeping the moon and sun revolving over the surface?
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Bikini Polaris on March 10, 2020, 07:09:25 PM
Fusion in the sun is a problem... we know how fusion works, and that the sun must be super massive with unimaginable pressure at the core for it to make the heat and light that we know it does.

Yes, on the other side it's not clear where a 32-miles diameter Sun would take it's energy from and how UV rays aren't way much stronger than they actually are, since the supposed proximity of 3000 miles. It's like really powerful nuclear bomb exploding each second at a relatively close distance (so quite a lot of them in a single day).
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on March 11, 2020, 03:52:59 PM
Perhaps I could propose some solution: the sun as we see it is actually a lense of some sort that magnifies a distant radiation source that which we cannot see. This explains why we don’t all evaporate, and also explains the spotlight affect of the sun.
Title: Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
Post by: Bikini Polaris on March 11, 2020, 08:37:21 PM
Perhaps I could propose some solution: the sun as we see it is actually a lense of some sort that magnifies a distant radiation source that which we cannot see. This explains why we don’t all evaporate, and also explains the spotlight affect of the sun.

I actually like this. It could be nearby a wormhole connecting us to a real star! It also explains why gravitation from the Sun is so small (despite its possible huge mass). Also, being massless it would give it's hanging on the sky a reason.