Why do ships start "sinking" only after they reached some distance?

https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships%20appear%20to%20sink%20as%20they%20recede%20past%20the%20horizon
Doesn't this explanation for the sinking ship illusion imply that ships start "sinking" right away? They don't. If you are at the sea level, ships start disappearing bottom first after they reached the distance of around 5 kilometers from you, not right away.

As explained here, there are rules of vanishing point.



Compare the scrub bush to the right of the track to the sign in the distance (also to the right).

I could get into it more, but then we'd be debating vs answering questions.

I started watching the video about gravity.  It seems to lack as many would say "scientific rigor".  Is this being proposed as a joke?  Or is anyone taking this seriously? 

I started watching the video about gravity.  It seems to lack as many would say "scientific rigor".  Is this being proposed as a joke?  Or is anyone taking this seriously?

Which video are we talking about?

Quote from: gnuarm on April 22, 2024, 10:45:47 PM

I started watching the video about gravity.  It seems to lack as many would say "scientific rigor".  Is this being proposed as a joke?  Or is anyone taking this seriously?

Which video are we talking about?

The video about gravity not existing. 

Oh, lol.

Yeah, I'm inclined to believe that bulma, scepti, turbo here in this forum do believe this. And many other flat earthers.

Oh, lol.

Yeah, I'm inclined to believe that bulma, scepti, turbo here in this forum do believe this. And many other flat earthers.

This is why I would like to find a comprehensive explanation of how the flat earth allegedly works.  I thought this web site might have some short papers on the matter, but I've not found them. 

It seems flat earthers spend much more time trying to debunk the globe earth, rather than explaining the flat earth. 

The main problem is that this does not explain why a ship should sink.
Instead, it would have small parts become unresolvable.
e.g. the hull should appear to shrink until it becomes too small to resolve, rather than the hull appears to gradually sink into the water.
And this should happen to any smaller part first.
And this would start immediately, but you need to have enough distance for the thing to become unresolvable.

They also claim that there have been reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at them through telescopes, but provide none.
Instead, what has been provided are ships which are entirely missing from view because they are too small to be resolved being brought back into view by a telescope/zoom lens on a camera.

As explained here, there are rules of vanishing point.

The vanishing point is infinitely far away and does not explain why things appear to sink.

It seems flat earthers spend much more time trying to debunk the globe earth, rather than explaining the flat earth.

Because that is all they really have.
They don't have a coherent model which works to describe reality. So the best they can usually do is attack the globe, typically with lies.

As explained here, there are rules of vanishing point.

You have no coherent argument.

You video was debunked here…

Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92080.0


Perspective was shown not to physically block light here. 

Horizon did not block duck from view


Takes a physical object to block light, like the sun setting behind the curvature of the earth. 
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0


This shows a flat plane doesn’t block an object from view when the viewer and the object are above the same plane.

Wanted to make this easy to find…

Quote from: turbonium2 on February 17, 2024, 12:29:37 AM

Why would you ever believe a flat surface cannot have horizons,

Ok.  Let’s see if a flat surface can have a “horizon” to block an object physically from view.

Let’s take this object and place a paper ruler on it. We will call it a stud.



Lets use a piece of sheet metal laid flat and see if it can block our object from view.



Looking out over the “horizon” of the sheet metal laying flat.



Looks like the whole length of the stud is visible?




Hmm.  Now let’s put curvature in the piece of sheet metal.  Like this.  Did have to weigh down the ends.



Looking out over the “horizon” of the curved metal sheet.



Well.  The bottom is physically blocked from view.

Curved metal sheet to produce horizon.



vs the flat sheet that couldn’t produce a “horizon” to physically block the stud from view.

Quote from: EarthIsRotund on April 22, 2024, 11:04:08 PM

Oh, lol.

Yeah, I'm inclined to believe that bulma, scepti, turbo here in this forum do believe this. And many other flat earthers.

This is why I would like to find a comprehensive explanation of how the flat earth allegedly works.  I thought this web site might have some short papers on the matter, but I've not found them. 

It seems flat earthers spend much more time trying to debunk the globe earth, rather than explaining the flat earth.

You angry globularists never really look for the information you think we don't provide https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships%20appear%20to%20sink%20as%20they%20recede%20past%20the%20horizon

They don't sink, they shrink.

This is why I would like to find a comprehensive explanation of how the flat earth allegedly works.  I thought this web site might have some short papers on the matter, but I've not found them.

I imagine that I could write 500 pages on the matter, and you'd not be remotely convinced.

I started watching the video about gravity.  It seems to lack as many would say "scientific rigor".  Is this being proposed as a joke?  Or is anyone taking this seriously?

By scientific rigor, do we mean the "peer review" process that is essentially just stooges all agreeing that something works, rather than actually subjecting it to the repeated tests it would get if there were actual scientific method? 
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems

The idea behind peer review is simple: It's supposed to weed out bad science. Peer reviewers read over promising studies that have been submitted to a journal to help gauge whether they should be published or need changes. Ideally, reviewers are experts in fields related to the studies in question. They add helpful comments, point out problems and holes, or simply reject flawed papers that shouldn't see the light of day.

The two researchers, Douglas Peters and Stephen Ceci, wanted to test how reliable and unbiased this process actually is. To do this, they selected 12 papers that had been published about two to three years earlier in extremely selective American psychology journals.

The researchers then altered the names and university affiliations on the journal manuscripts and resubmitted the papers to the same journal. In theory, these papers should have been high quality — they'd already made it into these prestigious publications. If the process worked well, the studies that were published the first time would be approved for publication again the second time around.

What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had "serious methodological flaws."

So umm, either these were flawed theories and they got through on good reputation. Or the reviewers were horribly biased. Or both! 

Meanwhile, "scientific rigor" was sorely lacking in this entire thing. Most of the people who claimed they proved Earth is round, that gravity exists, or that the Earth orbits the sun not only fails scientific rigor, as you put it, but basic logic.

1. Newton, to the best of my knowledge, never double-checked to make sure what he "discovered" wasn't in fact buoyancy or literally any other force that already existed.
2. Eratothenes literally just drew shadows with a fucking stick. Oh but then he found out that at noon, it cast a shadow in Syene but not Alexandria "proving the Earth curved." But we have no fucking idea what was around him. Syene (modern day Aswan) is near a river bank. Maybe light was refracted from the water. Since I have been in multiple areas across Earth at noon, more likely, he was in a different part of a timezone. In other words, rather than proving a curve, he simply proved that the area he thought was noon was not actually noon (ergo, he was a dumbass who could have used a sundial). More importantly, he at best proved Earth was a disc, not a sphere. 
3. The silhouette on the moon is round supposedly proving Earth is a sphere because it shows Earth's silhouette. Once again, scientific rigor? I can disprove this with a square table (representing the Earth, even though the Earth is not square), a lamp, a flashlight, and a rounded object. I can probably put the ball above (with the lamp) or below (with the flashlight) the light, and in both cases, I get a circular shadow. I do not see the silhouette of the table, unless looking at the ceiling. Hint: people on Earth do not see the Earth's silhouette, they see the moon's silhouette.


RE Heliocentric Gravitational Theory is severely lacking in logic and scientific rigor. It's a series of assumptions based on faulty reasoning.

Have you heard of lunar eclipse, perchance?

Have you heard of lunar eclipse, perchance?

This model?



Yeah uhhh, it doesn't even make any sense. Let's discuss why.

Contradiction 1: When a larger object completely blocks light from a smaller object, it doesn't simply create an umbra, there is no light passed to the smaller object.
Contradiction 2: As mentioned in my previous post, the moon's shadow ought to be reflected if there is light to be cast. But just a street lamp hitting a building cannot cast light on a man holding a coin behind said building but only cast a shadow around the man, no light should be cast on the moon.
Contradiction 3: The size of the sun is not even consistent, growing the sun much closer... because reasons.
Contradiction 4: The space of this eclipse is entirely too wide. Under the RE theory, lunar eclipses ought to happen practically every night.

Just as Phoenix Wright can correctly place a killer in a building,

I can correctly move the sun and moon to where they should be.

Not that this RE model is real. But even if it were, the placement of sun and moon ought to be more like this.

I happen to know this is the case, btw. Since I am insane, and fully willing to risk my own vision to discover things, I recorded the sun at eclipse, remember? It was overexposed to the point where I could not see the moon at all. This could only happen if the sun is directly in the path of the moon and not the other way around.


The umbra is traveling through the light. Without glasses though, you can't see the partial eclipse because the sun is too bright. Versus the moon literally blocking light from the sun, and being lit up with a reddish glow.

You know what? I'm this close to swearing right now. How in merlin's name does the sun cast a shadow on the earth? For an object to cast a shadow, there must be a light source brighter than the object. Are you telling me that the moon is brighter than the sun? Or that there is a bright source of light behind the sun along the line joining the sun and the earth?

Quote

Have you heard of lunar eclipse, perchance?

This model?



Yeah uhhh, it doesn't even make any sense. Let's discuss why.

Contradiction 1: When a larger object completely blocks light from a smaller object, it doesn't simply create an umbra, there is no light passed to the smaller object.
Contradiction 2: As mentioned in my previous post, the moon's shadow ought to be reflected if there is light to be cast. But just a street lamp hitting a building cannot cast light on a man holding a coin behind said building but only cast a shadow around the man, no light should be cast on the moon.
Contradiction 3: The size of the sun is not even consistent, growing the sun much closer... because reasons.
Contradiction 4: The space of this eclipse is entirely too wide. Under the RE theory, lunar eclipses ought to happen practically every night.

Just as Phoenix Wright can correctly place a killer in a building,

I can correctly move the sun and moon to where they should be.

Not that this RE model is real. But even if it were, the placement of sun and moon ought to be more like this.

I happen to know this is the case, btw. Since I am insane, and fully willing to risk my own vision to discover things, I recorded the sun at eclipse, remember? It was overexposed to the point where I could not see the moon at all. This could only happen if the sun is directly in the path of the moon and not the other way around.


The umbra is traveling through the light. Without glasses though, you can't see the partial eclipse because the sun is too bright. Versus the moon literally blocking light from the sun, and being lit up with a reddish glow.

Contradiction 1: is not a contradiction at all. That is not a reason, that is not a why. You're just literally telling "No!", without any explanation.

Contradiction 2: Are you even hearing yourself? "Moon's shadow ought to be reflected" like, how in merlin's name does a shadow get reflected? And the rest of the sentence, god forbid, if anyone is able to understand what you even want to convey. What is even a coin doing there anyway?

Contradiction 3: the size of the sun is consistent, your images... Not so much. Also what does "growing the sun much closer"? Do you need to repeat primary school?

Contradiction 4: both eclipses would have happened at least once every month, if and only if, the lunar orbit and the earth orbit were in the same plane, that is. But they are not! And so, we have eclipses only when the moon is on the line where the planes of two orbits intersect (probably not the most rigorous definition but should be good enough) and the sun, moon and earth is on a straight line. Partial eclipses happen when they are not perfectly aligned, but are pretty closely aligned.

Also, you need to go back and learn basic geometry.

SMH

I imagine that I could write 500 pages on the matter, and you'd not be remotely convinced.

Probably because it will be full of nonsense and lies?

By scientific rigor, do we mean the "peer review" process

No, they likely mean actually trying to understand what you are pretending to argue against, and then actually arguing against it, and using evidence.

As opposed to the dishonest BS you continually do.
For example, if you had scientific rigor, you would understand gravity and what it would predict. But instead of this, you pretend that water not sticking to your tiny balls (i.e. exactly what is expected with gravity) is magically disproof of gravity.

It also means not just entirely ignoring things, like the pressure gradient which destroys your BS regarding buoyancy.

Most of the people who claimed they proved Earth is round, that gravity exists, or that the Earth orbits the sun not only fails scientific rigor, as you put it, but basic logic.

Do they? Or do you just entirely fail to represent things accurately? Instead presenting your delusional fantasy as true.

1. Newton, to the best of my knowledge, never double-checked to make sure what he "discovered" wasn't in fact buoyancy or literally any other force that already existed.

The force was already known as weight, and buoyancy was known to be a product of it, he provided a better explanation, which also worked for other things, e.g. orbits.

2. Eratothenes literally just drew shadows with a fucking stick. Oh but then he found out that at noon, it cast a shadow in Syene but not Alexandria "proving the Earth curved."

And this is a great example of you failing to present things accurately.
Eratosthenes did NOT prove Earth is a sphere. Some ignorant fools might claim that, but he did no such thing.
Earth was already known to be round, with the sun very distant. All he did was determine the circumference.

3. The silhouette on the moon is round supposedly proving Earth is a sphere because it shows Earth's silhouette. Once again, scientific rigor? I can disprove this with a square table (representing the Earth, even though the Earth is not square), a lamp, a flashlight, and a rounded object. I can probably put the ball above (with the lamp) or below (with the flashlight) the light, and in both cases, I get a circular shadow. I do not see the silhouette of the table, unless looking at the ceiling. Hint: people on Earth do not see the Earth's silhouette, they see the moon's silhouette.

No, you can prove that you either have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, or you are intentionally lying to everyone.
The full eclipse you are appealing to is NOT Earth's shadow.
Try filming the full thing, including the moon passing into and out of the shadow, and partial eclipses, where it skirts along the edge of the shadow.

And instead of even attempting to show this, or just a basic understanding which would so easily demonstrate why your claim is pure BS, you just draw a crappy diagram which doesn't match reality at all.
Just what crap are you trying to show at the right?
Where is the light source? Where is the object casting the shadow?

RE Heliocentric Gravitational Theory is severely lacking in logic and scientific rigor. It's a series of assumptions based on faulty reasoning.

No, your pathetic attempt at a refutation is entirely lacking in logic and scientific rigor.
You make no attempt to honestly represent what you are claiming to refute, instead just spouting pure BS.

Yeah uhhh, it doesn't even make any sense. Let's discuss why.

You mean you will just assert more dishonest BS.

Contradiction 1: When a larger object completely blocks light from a smaller object, it doesn't simply create an umbra, there is no light passed to the smaller object.

When it COMPLETELY, notice that key word?
The Earth does not completely block the light.
Due to a combination of factors, it mostly blocks the light, with some red light getting through.

Contradiction 2: As mentioned in my previous post, the moon's shadow ought to be reflected if there is light to be cast.

What do you mean by this?
Where is the Moon's shadow meant to be hitting?
Do you mean the shadow of the moon on Earth during a solar eclipse? i.e. the umbra? If so, what is this meant to be reflecting on?
Why don't you try drawing a diagram showing just what you are claiming here.

Contradiction 3: The size

It is not a scale diagram.

Contradiction 4: The space of this eclipse is entirely too wide. Under the RE theory, lunar eclipses ought to happen practically every night.

Why? Here you just assert pure BS with no justification at all.

You have already had it explained why it isn't every full moon, and even you ignore that, and instead have everything perfectly aligned, it would still only occur once a lunar cycle.

I can correctly move the sun and moon to where they should be.

To produce what?
What should be a full moon at the time of a new moon, with no eclipse?
There is nothing to block the light of the sun from reaching Earth, so no solar eclipse, and nothing to stop the light of the sun reaching the moon so no lunar eclipse.

So you have just drawn crap.

Likewise, for the second diagram, it is more crap, where the region of totality should be much larger.

the placement of sun and moon ought to be more like this.

Why?
Because you hate the RE model and the fact that it works and that you cannot show a single fault with it?
That is hardly a reason.

I recorded the sun at eclipse, remember? It was overexposed to the point where I could not see the moon at all. This could only happen if the sun is directly in the path of the moon and not the other way around.

No, that can happen either way.

I don't recall you showing totality, nor repeating the experiment not during an eclipse to see if that dark patch is actually the sun overexposing the sensor causing a glitch.

So yet again, you have failed to show any problem.

All while fleeing from the issue at hand.

They don't sink, they shrink.

As explained many times, objects do have a smaller visual angle the farther away they are.

That doesn’t explain why they become physically blocked from view bottom up.

And you’re still using that stupid video throughly debunk in the below thread..

Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92080.0


bulmabriefs144.  Why in the examples and real world demonstrations provided, was a flat surface unable to block objects from view.

 I recorded the sun at eclipse, remember? It was overexposed to the point where I could not see the moon at all. This could only happen if the sun is directly in the path of the moon and not the other way around.

No.  You got called out for a suspect photo from a video you never provided where my overexposed video that I did provide never replicated your results.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 08, 2024, 02:35:56 PM

Oh, and btw, I looked after the eclipse, and this is still what I saw.

The sun has a dark center. A moving dark center, as I found out.

This is what I filmed with no filter.



Below are little gif clips I screen captured from the video I took of the eclipse with no filter over my video camera.  The video was taken in 4k.  Not sure what YouTube compressed it to. 

Pre eclipse


Going into totality.  The light was still too bright and overexposed totality.


Coming out of totality



bulmabriefs144, your suspect dot can’t be verified and is not replicated in my videos of the eclipse.

I dunno what to tell you, Data. This it what I observed during a partial solar eclipse. No edits, just saved straight to the Kindle.

For example, if you had scientific rigor, you would understand gravity and what it would predict. But instead of this, you pretend that water not sticking to your tiny balls (i.e. exactly what is expected with gravity) is magically disproof of gravity.

The word rigor means effort. To do things in order to testthe sciene. But you claim that dumbly accepting ( "understanding" ) gravity based on another's words is rigor. We should all just agree with you, because that's science!

The force was already known as weight, and buoyancy was known to be a product of it, he provided a better explanation, which also worked for other things, e.g. orbits.

Pick one. Falling or orbits. You can't have both. These are two very different behaviors.

Eratosthenes did NOT prove Earth is a sphere. Some ignorant fools might claim that, but he did no such thing.

Very good. We are in agreement. RE ppl usually first try to proof this showed Earth is round (correct, it is disc, and sundials can work on discs, but probably not on spheres), then use dodgy logic to say "therefore it is a sphere."

The full eclipse you are appealing to is NOT Earth's shadow.

 Kindly reread what I originally wrong. TheEarthIsFatso wrote stuff about eclipses. My original point was about the "wgen we look at at the moon, we see Earth's shadow, so this proves Earth is round/sphere." No, we really kinda don't . I used a simple table to show that in fact light on a square surface doesn't show a square shadow but rather whatever light we have.

No, your pathetic attempt at a refutation is entirely lacking in logic and scientific rigor.
You make no attempt to honestly represent what you are claiming to refute, instead just spouting pure BS.

You honestly don't know what I am trying to refute. You are defending something you don't understand.

The Earth does not completely block the light.
Due to a combination of factors, it mostly blocks the light, with some red light getting through.

The Earth isn't some camera filter. It's a solid object. The moon on the other hand, being backlit by a sun that is between red and yellow wavelength makes  quite a bit more sense. At night, there is a high level of what is known as far red light. Far red (unless subject to heavy amounts of light) appears black normally to the eye, unless in an area with heavy light pollution.

We're not seeing light filter away from the Earth and then magically bounce back towards our eyes. We're seeing blocked sunlight to our eyes light up the moon.

A solar eclipse is damaging precisely because we are looking directly at the sun. We can only see the moon behind it with heavy filtered glasses. The model shows it completely block light, as surely as if you put the world's tallest building between you and the sun.

What do you mean by this? Where is the Moon's shadow meant to be hitting?

Maybe you should have read my previous post.

It is not a scale diagram.

So basically, it's a theoretical model.

You have already had it explained why it isn't every full moon, and even you ignore that, and instead have everything perfectly aligned, it would still only occur once a lunar cycle.

There isn't that much to align. In a round Earth, the sun and moon only have to be on opposite sides of each other., and in full moon. Provided the sun and moon are not in position to be up at the same time, you have a fairly fixed lineup, I would say. In a FE, on the other hand, the sun and moon have to literally block each other. This is somewhat more of a challenge, consistent with the actual behavior of Earth, and how this blockage only happens over a tiny space.

What should be a full moon at the time of a new moon, with no eclipse?
There is nothing to block the light of the sun from reaching Earth, so no solar eclipse, and nothing to stop the light of the sun reaching the moon so no lunar eclipse.

The moon is casting a shadow with its darkside on the sun.  This is the new moon, not a full moon. I just xeroxed the moon because I didn't feel like digging up a new moon.

Solar eclipse happens during a new moon, lunar eclipse during the full moon.

Likewise, for the second diagram, it is more crap, where the region of totality should be much larger.

Because you "know" the sun is much bigger than the moon. But no, the model is showing the moon and ssun being mostly the same size, and the moon blocking the sun's rays. I could draw this diagram again. But you know, I don't feel like it now.

Because you hate the RE model and the fact that it works and that you cannot show a single fault with it?

 No, I think it has less to do with some imagined vendetta, and more to do with the fact that the lunar eclipse model would be no different from viewing a full moon from Tokyo on a night the sun is on the opposite side of Earth. That is, it's the same exact position as a regular full moon. This can't be the right position, because the moon here, as shown by the model is blacked out. On my model, the moon is backlit, causing a red glow.

So no, the reason it can't be there is that you just described a vanilla full moon.

Also, if I "hated" it as you say, why would I use the model to show the path of eclipse? Why not make the whole thing flat? Besides that I can't draw continents well, it's because I don't care about anything but demonstrating the model.

I don't hate RE. It is simply wrong and evil to make people believe a theory, insulting or in the case of teachers, blacklisting them. I believe you said the same thing about God? "I don't hate God, he's just an evil tyrant who doesn't exist." Should we test your own words against you?

I dunno what to tell you, Data.

You also claim a video you will not post.

Where I posted a full video with supporting gifs that in no way repeat your suspect dot that suspiciously has no noise like the dot I drew on your photo…

bulmabriefs144, still seeing dots from the last eclipse? 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 08, 2024, 05:44:51 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 08, 2024, 05:14:35 PM

Same thing.

The dot from your first photo.



Dot from second photo.


The dot I added next to your original dot.

Which has nothing to do with you using a video soundly debunked.  You’re stuck using old lies bulmabriefs144.  Then have the ignorance to act like your old lies haven’t been soundly and repeatedly been debunked. 




 

bulmabriefs144.  The video in your post is soundly debunked.  To go on using this video to justify flat earth arguments bases those arguments on lies. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 11, 2024, 07:30:12 AM

bulmabriefs144.  The video in your post is soundly debunked.  To go on using this video to justify flat earth arguments bases those arguments on lies.

I got about halfway through the video and could not take it anymore.  He must have said "perspective" a hundred times. 

This is what happens when you have people with no understanding of basic geometry, trying to explain things that don't exist.

I don't know why I thought there might be something interesting to read on this site.  So far, it's a total disappointment.  There just is no real concept of a flat earth.  The ones I really like are the ones that don't even try to explain anything.  They just say you should observe reality, and learn from that… as if no scientists have ever looked at "reality". 

I dunno what to tell you, Data. This it what I observed during a partial solar eclipse. No edits, just saved straight to the Kindle.

Quote

For example, if you had scientific rigor, you would understand gravity and what it would predict. But instead of this, you pretend that water not sticking to your tiny balls (i.e. exactly what is expected with gravity) is magically disproof of gravity.

The word rigor means effort. To do things in order to testthe sciene. But you claim that dumbly accepting ( "understanding" ) gravity based on another's words is rigor. We should all just agree with you, because that's science!

Quote

The force was already known as weight, and buoyancy was known to be a product of it, he provided a better explanation, which also worked for other things, e.g. orbits.

Pick one. Falling or orbits. You can't have both. These are two very different behaviors.

Quote

Eratosthenes did NOT prove Earth is a sphere. Some ignorant fools might claim that, but he did no such thing.

Very good. We are in agreement. RE ppl usually first try to proof this showed Earth is round (correct, it is disc, and sundials can work on discs, but probably not on spheres), then use dodgy logic to say "therefore it is a sphere."

Quote

The full eclipse you are appealing to is NOT Earth's shadow.

 Kindly reread what I originally wrong. TheEarthIsFatso wrote stuff about eclipses. My original point was about the "wgen we look at at the moon, we see Earth's shadow, so this proves Earth is round/sphere." No, we really kinda don't . I used a simple table to show that in fact light on a square surface doesn't show a square shadow but rather whatever light we have.

Quote

No, your pathetic attempt at a refutation is entirely lacking in logic and scientific rigor.
You make no attempt to honestly represent what you are claiming to refute, instead just spouting pure BS.

You honestly don't know what I am trying to refute. You are defending something you don't understand.

Quote

The Earth does not completely block the light.
Due to a combination of factors, it mostly blocks the light, with some red light getting through.

The Earth isn't some camera filter. It's a solid object. The moon on the other hand, being backlit by a sun that is between red and yellow wavelength makes  quite a bit more sense. At night, there is a high level of what is known as far red light. Far red (unless subject to heavy amounts of light) appears black normally to the eye, unless in an area with heavy light pollution.

We're not seeing light filter away from the Earth and then magically bounce back towards our eyes. We're seeing blocked sunlight to our eyes light up the moon.

A solar eclipse is damaging precisely because we are looking directly at the sun. We can only see the moon behind it with heavy filtered glasses. The model shows it completely block light, as surely as if you put the world's tallest building between you and the sun.

Quote

What do you mean by this? Where is the Moon's shadow meant to be hitting?

Maybe you should have read my previous post.

Quote

It is not a scale diagram.

So basically, it's a theoretical model.

Quote

You have already had it explained why it isn't every full moon, and even you ignore that, and instead have everything perfectly aligned, it would still only occur once a lunar cycle.

There isn't that much to align. In a round Earth, the sun and moon only have to be on opposite sides of each other., and in full moon. Provided the sun and moon are not in position to be up at the same time, you have a fairly fixed lineup, I would say. In a FE, on the other hand, the sun and moon have to literally block each other. This is somewhat more of a challenge, consistent with the actual behavior of Earth, and how this blockage only happens over a tiny space.

Quote

What should be a full moon at the time of a new moon, with no eclipse?
There is nothing to block the light of the sun from reaching Earth, so no solar eclipse, and nothing to stop the light of the sun reaching the moon so no lunar eclipse.

The moon is casting a shadow with its darkside on the sun.  This is the new moon, not a full moon. I just xeroxed the moon because I didn't feel like digging up a new moon.

Solar eclipse happens during a new moon, lunar eclipse during the full moon.

Quote

Likewise, for the second diagram, it is more crap, where the region of totality should be much larger.

Because you "know" the sun is much bigger than the moon. But no, the model is showing the moon and ssun being mostly the same size, and the moon blocking the sun's rays. I could draw this diagram again. But you know, I don't feel like it now.

Quote

Because you hate the RE model and the fact that it works and that you cannot show a single fault with it?

 No, I think it has less to do with some imagined vendetta, and more to do with the fact that the lunar eclipse model would be no different from viewing a full moon from Tokyo on a night the sun is on the opposite side of Earth. That is, it's the same exact position as a regular full moon. This can't be the right position, because the moon here, as shown by the model is blacked out. On my model, the moon is backlit, causing a red glow.

So no, the reason it can't be there is that you just described a vanilla full moon.

Also, if I "hated" it as you say, why would I use the model to show the path of eclipse? Why not make the whole thing flat? Besides that I can't draw continents well, it's because I don't care about anything but demonstrating the model.

I don't hate RE. It is simply wrong and evil to make people believe a theory, insulting or in the case of teachers, blacklisting them. I believe you said the same thing about God? "I don't hate God, he's just an evil tyrant who doesn't exist." Should we test your own words against you?

No bulma, you seem to keep forgetting what I said. Go relearn geometry. Learn about the nature of shadows. And once you do, come back and then ponder over this image

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 24, 2024, 06:30:14 AM

I dunno what to tell you, Data.

You also claim a video you will not post.

Where I posted a full video with supporting gifs that in no way repeat your suspect dot that suspiciously has no noise like the dot I drew on your photo…

The dot you drew on my photo.

The dot you drew.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/a7Fcku8LpztO/

An actual video I made the day of the eclipse (I don't have Youtube thanks to Google's stupid login rules). Instead of the dot you drew.

Which has nothing to do with you using a video soundly debunked.  You’re stuck using old lies bulmabriefs144.  Then have the ignorance to act like your old lies haven’t been soundly and repeatedly been debunked. 

And what about your lies? They were old before I was born.

I've been hearing that Flat Earth was debunked since I was a child.

Only Flat Earth has become rebunked, so to speak. Also, you're using that video, which is not the one mentioned earlier.

That would be this one.



"I added these dots to your picture, and then quoted the wrong video."

Yes, you showed me!

No bulma, you seem to keep forgetting what I said. Go relearn geometry. Learn about the nature of shadows

Maybe you should.



Here is a kid's video clip. Do you notice anything? How about the angle?


The shadow from above hits the object and casts a shadow about 90 to 110 degrees from where it hits, traveling along the ground.  Now, look at this picture again.



In the second picture, nothing at all casts light on the moon, which does a perfect reflection of shadow back to Earth to show red light. If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. In the first picture, if the moon were bigger and in the right position, this would be a lunar eclipse, not a solar eclipse. Neither one of these pictures is correct, and had you properly studied geometry, you would understand this. Further, as I mentioned before, this is not an eclipse in picture 2. It's a regular full moon.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/a7Fcku8LpztO/

An actual video I made the day of the eclipse (I don't have Youtube thanks to Google's stupid login rules). Instead of the dot you drew.

What is this abortion you posted?  With the dots having larger pixels than the back ground imaging.  That took you forever to post the video.










Where there is no such dot on my timely posted video where nobody else noticed or filmed your magic dot that has larger pixels and not the right amount of noise to match the back ground imaging.  Where the people I watched the eclipse with didn’t witness nor record any such phenomena. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 08, 2024, 02:35:56 PM

Oh, and btw, I looked after the eclipse, and this is still what I saw.

The sun has a dark center. A moving dark center, as I found out.

This is what I filmed with no filter.



Below are little gif clips I screen captured from the video I took of the eclipse with no filter over my video camera.  The video was taken in 4k.  Not sure what YouTube compressed it to. 

Pre eclipse


Going into totality.  The light was still too bright and overexposed totality.


Coming out of totality



bulmabriefs144, your suspect dot can’t be verified and is not replicated in my videos of the eclipse.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 11, 2024, 07:30:12 AM

bulmabriefs144.  The video in your post is soundly debunked.  To go on using this video to justify flat earth arguments bases those arguments on lies.

The video you posted is junk and has repeatedly and throughly been debunked. 

I dunno what to tell you, Data. This it what I observed during a partial solar eclipse.

i.e. at no point did you reach totality.
i.e. you still had a direct line of sight to part of the sun's surface.
So over exposure is still quite likely.

And again, you made no attempt to repeat a similar process by just filming the sun not during an eclipse.

The word rigor means effort. To do things in order to testthe sciene.

And that means actually putting in the effort to understand what the expected results should be of the thing you are testing.
If you don't do this, you aren't testing it.
Instead you are testing a strawman.

When you pretend gravity means water should stick to your tiny balls, you are not arguing against gravity; instead you are arguing against your imagined version of it.

If you don't take the time to understand what the expected results are, you cannot test it.

But you claim that dumbly accepting ( "understanding" ) gravity based on another's words is rigor.

No, I'm not.
I am stating that if you want to show something is false, you need to understand what you are arguing against.
I never suggested you need to blindly accept.
There is a difference between understanding and accepting.

Pick one. Falling or orbits. You can't have both. These are two very different behaviors.

No, they aren't.
Falling and orbits are both examples of acceleration towards an object.

Very good. We are in agreement. RE ppl usually first try to proof this showed Earth is round

I find this comment made far more by FEers like yourself.
As you have done here to attack the RE to pretend alleged proof of a RE is not actually proof.
I very rarely see REers using it.
But the point is this is NOT how most people who claim to have proven Earth is round claim to have proven it.

sundials can work on discs, but probably not on spheres

Notice how again you just spout pure BS, with no justification.
Hypothetically you could construct a sundial to work on any shape.
And in both cases it would be latitude dependent.
But what can't work on a disc, and can work on a sphere and does work in reality is an equatorial sundial. This is a sundial which is made to work anywhere by mounting it at an angle equal to your latitude.

Kindly reread what I originally wrong.

That wont help you.
You are still wrong, just spouting a bunch of incoherent garabge.
Do you actually understand the argument being made, or are you just spouting garbage.

My original point was about the "wgen we look at at the moon, we see Earth's shadow, so this proves Earth is round/sphere."

And when you do it properly, rather than your incoherent garbage, YOU DO!

I used a simple table to show that in fact light on a square surface doesn't show a square shadow but rather whatever light we have.

Notice what you are saying?
Light on a surface not showing the shape of that surface?
That in no way relates to the argument you are claiming to refute.
Yet again, you just spouting incoherent garbage which entirely lacks rigor.

Now, care to try it with what the argument is actually suggesting?
You have the moon, on the opposite side of Earth to the sun, almost exactly 180 degrees apart.

This means you need the light BELOW the table, with the moon ABOVE the table, and showing the moon going into the shadow. What shape is the edge of that shadow?

You honestly don't know what I am trying to refute. You are defending something you don't understand.

Quite the opposite.
I do know what you are trying to refute. I recognise you are attacking strawmen.

The Earth isn't some camera filter. It's a solid object.

So you are saying the atmosphere is solid?
So how do we walk thought it so easily?
How do we breathe it?
Why does it appear blue during the day, and red in the direction of the sun at sunset?

The solid portion of Earth blocks the vast majority of the light.
But the atmosphere, scattering light, still allows some around, with this light going around being predominately red.

The moon on the other hand, being backlit by a sun that is between red and yellow wavelength makes  quite a bit more sense.

No, it doesn't.
For starters, a lunar eclipse happens when the moon and sun are opposite each other.
That means the sun CANNOT be backlighting the moon.
So you would need to invent an entirely new magical light source which causes this.
And you still have to explain why it suddenly goes dark, to allow us to see that red instead of the normal full moon.

At best, all this explanation does is provide an alternative explanation for why it is red during a lunar eclipse. It does NOTHING to explain the lunar eclipse itself.

We're not seeing light filter away from the Earth and then magically bounce back towards our eyes.

There is nothing magic about it.

A solar eclipse is damaging precisely because we are looking directly at the sun. We can only see the moon behind it with heavy filtered glasses.

We cannot see the moon behind it.
And it is damaging because except during totality, you are still seeing the surface of the sun, and during totality you are still seeing the bright corona around the sun.

The model shows it completely block light

No, it doesn't.
It shows that during totality it blocks the view of the sun's surface.

Maybe you should have read my previous post.

Maybe you should have provided a coherent argument rather than incoherent nonsense?

So basically, it's a theoretical model.

A model, which actually explains what is observed, which you can even make into a scale model.
But your objection effectively amounts to that the drawing made for understanding isn't a scale model.

There isn't that much to align. In a round Earth, the sun and moon only have to be on opposite sides of each other., and in full moon. Provided the sun and moon are not in position to be up at the same time, you have a fairly fixed lineup, I would say.

And like many things you say, that is pure BS.

There are several key motions.
1 - The orbit of Earth around the sun, which is confined to a plane. This plane confines any line from the sun, passing through Earth to this plane, or close to it.
2 - The orbit of the moon around Earth, which is confined to a plane. This plane confines any line passing through the Earth and moon to this plane or close to it.
What you need are the 2 lines described to align.
Now, from a top down view, that is every full moon.
But from a side view, that is not.
Ignoring the entire issue of penumbra vs umbra, etc, and just projecting the Earth's shape directly back, all the way to the moon, you have a circle of radius 6371 km, at a distance of between 350 000 to 400 000 km.
Using the closer number (which is actually closer than the moon) you get an angle of 1 degree. i.e. if it is out of alignment by 1 degree, it misses.
As a comparison, the moon's orbit is inclined by 5.145 degrees.

Notice how that isn't small enough?

Here is the full math:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91511.msg2395249#msg2395249

Again, this has been explained to you before. Yet here you are playing dumb.

And notice how even then you still fail to explain why it should be every day.
Appealing to the "opposite sides of each other" only gets you every full moon, not every day.

Care to show some honesty and admit that statement of yours was pure BS?

In a FE, on the other hand, the sun and moon have to literally block each other. This is somewhat more of a challenge

You could say that.
How are the sun and moon meant to block each other when they are literally opposite each other?
It is so much more of a challenge that you can't explain it at all.
In your fantasy there is no reason for a lunar eclipse at all.

The moon is casting a shadow with its darkside on the sun.

You are drawing the moon on the far side of the sun.
That means the side of the moon closest to us would appear fully illuminated.
That is a full moon.
The dark side of the moon is facing away from us.

And as nothing is blocking the light of the sun from reaching us, there is no eclipse.

Solar eclipse happens during a new moon, lunar eclipse during the full moon.

Yes, when either the moon blocks the light from the sun going to Earth, or Earth blocks the light of the sun going to the moon.

Because you "know" the sun is much bigger than the moon.

For many reasons already explained to you.
But no, because the shadow is defined by the lines running tangent to both the sun and moon.

But no, the model is showing the moon and ssun being mostly the same size

So you tried to draw your FE fantasy, with a RE?

I could draw this diagram again.

Don't bother.
Provide the numbers instead.
What is the altitude of the sun and moon?
What is the radius of the sun and moon?
What is the distance of the sub solar point from the north pole?
What is the distance of the sub lunar point from the north pole?

No, I think it has less to do with some imagined vendetta

It isn't imagined, nor would I really call it a vendetta.
You have demonstrated you cannot accept reality, so you cling to a fantasy and lash out at reality.
But when lashing out, all you can do is repeat the same refuted BS.

the fact that the lunar eclipse model would be no different from viewing a full moon from Tokyo on a night the sun is on the opposite side of Earth. That is, it's the same exact position as a regular full moon.

No, it isn't.
Again, that has already been refuted.

Again, the inclination of the moon's orbit is over 5 degrees.
This is too great a misalignment to be in Earth's shadow ever full moon.
They are NOT the exact same position.

As a very much not to scale diagram:

If the moon is in the dark grey region, entirely, it is a total lunar eclipse.
If it is in the dark grey region partially, it is a partial lunar eclipse.
If it is in the light grey region, it is a penumbral lunar eclipse.
And if it isn't in any, it is just a full moon.

On my model, the moon is backlit, causing a red glow.

No it isn't.
On your model, it is in the position of a new moon, yet illuminated as a full moon.

Also, if I "hated" it as you say, why would I use the model to show the path of eclipse?

Because you are trying to pretend it is wrong.

I don't hate RE.

You certainly seem to.
Using whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend it is wrong, without being able to show a single fault, and repeating the same refuted lies.

I believe you said the same thing about God?

The distinction is the RE model does exist, and actually works; and you need to repeatedly lie about it.
Conversely, there is nothing to show your god exists, and I don't need to lie about it.

But no, lets not go off on yet another pathetic religious tangent of yours so you can flee from your complete inability to defend your lies about the RE.
How about instead of that pathetic tangent you own up and admit you have been lying this entire time. Or try to defend your dishonest BS.

The dot you drew on my photo.

The dot they drew to show what an edited in dot looks like, which matched the dot on yours.

And what about your lies?

What lies?
Facts you don't like are not lies.

I've been hearing that Flat Earth was debunked since I was a child.

Which isn't surprising given it was debunked thousands of years ago.
People like you desperately pretending it hasn't been debunked doesn't change that.
Especially when you literally ignore problems with the FE model you can't address.
If you want to negate that debunking, you need to address those issues rather than just ignore them.

That would be this one.

Which has also been shown to be BS.

Maybe you should.

Try learning it at a level above that of a toddler.
Shadows are simple geometry.

In the second picture, nothing at all casts light on the moon, which does a perfect reflection of shadow back to Earth to show red light.

Again, the light scattering off Earth's atmosphere casts the red light on the moon.
That is not a shadow being reflected.
That is the moon being illuminated with faint red light.

In the first picture, if the moon were bigger and in the right position, this would be a lunar eclipse, not a solar eclipse.

So if it was a completely different picture and instead like the second picture?

Neither one of these pictures is correct

They are not too scale.
And you cannot show a fault with them.

had you properly studied geometry, you would understand this.

Further, as I mentioned before, this is not an eclipse in picture 2. It's a regular full moon.

You mean as you lied before.
Again, as it is in Earth's shadow, it IS an eclipse.
A regular full moon passes to the north or south of that shadow.
Repeating the same lies wont make them true, it just shows your dishonesty.