The center of Panama Canal (18 miles) on Gatun Lake is 3,828 Miles
from center of an alleged Globe Earth with a 3,959 mile radius.
The center of Panama Canal (18 miles) on Gatun Lake is 3,828 Miles
from center of an alleged Globe Earth with a 3,959 mile radius.
The "3828 miles" is the wrong part that confused you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, this might help you get the real picture:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/WGS84_mean_Earth_radius.svg/440px-WGS84_mean_Earth_radius.svg.png)
a = 3963.19 miles
b = 3949.9 miles
(2a + b) / 3 = 3958.76 miles
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?That depends. When will the FE community come up with a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?
You are being intellectually dishonest.
When will the FE Community Accept Defeat in trying to come up with an accurate Flat Earth Map ?When will RE Community Accept Defeat?That depends. When will the FE community come up with a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?
You are being intellectually dishonest.
Are you calling me "intellectually dishonest" to cover your misconceptions?
Water still follows the shape of the Earth, doesn't get flattened there by some unknown force.
You are being intellectually dishonest.
Are you calling me "intellectually dishonest" to cover your misconceptions?
Water still follows the shape of the Earth, doesn't get flattened there by some unknown force.
Speaking of the location of the Panama Canal, how far is it to the center of the Earth from the Pacific Ocean's and Atlantic Ocean's sea level? Again, how far is it from sea level at that location to the center of your alleged Earth?
You are being intellectually dishonest.
Are you calling me "intellectually dishonest" to cover your misconceptions?
Water still follows the shape of the Earth, doesn't get flattened there by some unknown force.
Speaking of the location of the Panama Canal, how far is it to the center of the Earth from the Pacific Ocean's and Atlantic Ocean's sea level? Again, how far is it from sea level at that location to the center of your alleged Earth?
PlatTerra your signature line is completely dishonest too. The curvature of the Earth has been measured lol?in many ways.
The computation for the distance to the horizon for different heights above sea level is just one example of how the curvature of the earth has been measured.
You are being intellectually dishonest.
Are you calling me "intellectually dishonest" to cover your misconceptions?
Water still follows the shape of the Earth, doesn't get flattened there by some unknown force.
Speaking of the location of the Panama Canal, how far is it to the center of the Earth from the Pacific Ocean's and Atlantic Ocean's sea level? Again, how far is it from sea level at that location to the center of your alleged Earth?
You are being intellectually dishonest.
Are you calling me "intellectually dishonest" to cover your misconceptions?
Water still follows the shape of the Earth, doesn't get flattened there by some unknown force.
Speaking of the location of the Panama Canal, how far is it to the center of the Earth from the Pacific Ocean's and Atlantic Ocean's sea level? Again, how far is it from sea level at that location to the center of your alleged Earth?
I gave you those numbers up there.
It's here again so you can understant better:
At 9 degrees north:
Atlantic from center of Earth - 3962.868 miles
Gatun from center of Earth - 3962.884 miles
Miraflores from center of Earth - 3962.878 miles
Pacific from center of Earth - 3962.868 miles
Again, elevations are measured from sea level, not from flat plane.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/yLQ078.png)
EDIT: I didn't add the gates here, you can understand them on your own.
You are being intellectually dishonest.
Are you calling me "intellectually dishonest" to cover your misconceptions?
Water still follows the shape of the Earth, doesn't get flattened there by some unknown force.
Speaking of the location of the Panama Canal, how far is it to the center of the Earth from the Pacific Ocean's and Atlantic Ocean's sea level? Again, how far is it from sea level at that location to the center of your alleged Earth?
I gave you those numbers up there.
It's here again so you can understant better:
At 9 degrees north:
Atlantic from center of Earth - 3962.868 miles
Gatun from center of Earth - 3962.884 miles
Miraflores from center of Earth - 3962.878 miles
Pacific from center of Earth - 3962.868 miles
Again, elevations are measured from sea level, not from flat plane.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/yLQ078.png)
EDIT: I didn't add the gates here, you can understand them on your own.
How much is 3962 miles + 85 miles? 4047 miles, correct?
You are being intellectually dishonest.
Are you calling me "intellectually dishonest" to cover your misconceptions?
Water still follows the shape of the Earth, doesn't get flattened there by some unknown force.
Speaking of the location of the Panama Canal, how far is it to the center of the Earth from the Pacific Ocean's and Atlantic Ocean's sea level? Again, how far is it from sea level at that location to the center of your alleged Earth?
PlatTerra your signature line is completely dishonest too. The curvature of the Earth has been measured lol?in many ways.
The computation for the distance to the horizon for different heights above sea level is just one example of how the curvature of the earth has been measured.
Then tell me what is the verified surface curvature of Florida and I will remove my signature.
OOPSYou are being intellectually dishonest.
Are you calling me "intellectually dishonest" to cover your misconceptions?
Water still follows the shape of the Earth, doesn't get flattened there by some unknown force.
Speaking of the location of the Panama Canal, how far is it to the center of the Earth from the Pacific Ocean's and Atlantic Ocean's sea level? Again, how far is it from sea level at that location to the center of your alleged Earth?
I gave you those numbers up there.
It's here again so you can understant better:
At 9 degrees north:
Atlantic from center of Earth - 3962.868 miles
Gatun from center of Earth - 3962.884 miles
Miraflores from center of Earth - 3962.878 miles
Pacific from center of Earth - 3962.868 miles
Again, elevations are measured from sea level, not from flat plane.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/yLQ078.png)
EDIT: I didn't add the gates here, you can understand them on your own.
How much is 3962 miles + 85 miles? 4047 miles, correct?
Where are you getting 85 miles?
OOPSYou are being intellectually dishonest.
Are you calling me "intellectually dishonest" to cover your misconceptions?
Water still follows the shape of the Earth, doesn't get flattened there by some unknown force.
Speaking of the location of the Panama Canal, how far is it to the center of the Earth from the Pacific Ocean's and Atlantic Ocean's sea level? Again, how far is it from sea level at that location to the center of your alleged Earth?
I gave you those numbers up there.
It's here again so you can understant better:
At 9 degrees north:
Atlantic from center of Earth - 3962.868 miles
Gatun from center of Earth - 3962.884 miles
Miraflores from center of Earth - 3962.878 miles
Pacific from center of Earth - 3962.868 miles
Again, elevations are measured from sea level, not from flat plane.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/yLQ078.png)
EDIT: I didn't add the gates here, you can understand them on your own.
How much is 3962 miles + 85 miles? 4047 miles, correct?
Where are you getting 85 miles?
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
You are insisting on the same mistake:
Those 85 feet of Gatun, and those 54 feet of Miraflores are measured from sea level,
not from flat plane that would connect Atlantic and Pacific under it.
Sea level is where your blue arc is on your image, and Gatun and Miraflores are 85 and 54 feet above it.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WKOCa0.png)
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
You are insisting on the same mistake:
Those 85 feet of Gatun, and those 54 feet of Miraflores are measured from sea level,
not from flat plane that would connect Atlantic and Pacific under it.
Sea level is where your blue arc is on your image, and Gatun and Miraflores are 85 and 54 feet above it.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WKOCa0.png)
No, I am bypassing our sea level, and I am measuring from Each Coast line going to your center. The 85' is above both coastlines and I then add your fake curvature in between the shorelines to complete the your radius. That places Gatun below your fake curve.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
You are insisting on the same mistake:
Those 85 feet of Gatun, and those 54 feet of Miraflores are measured from sea level,
not from flat plane that would connect Atlantic and Pacific under it.
Sea level is where your blue arc is on your image, and Gatun and Miraflores are 85 and 54 feet above it.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WKOCa0.png)
No, I am bypassing our sea level, and I am measuring from Each Coast line going to your center. The 85' is above both coastlines and I then add your fake curvature in between the shorelines to complete the your radius. That places Gatun below your fake curve.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
You did bypass the sea level.
People who measured 85 and 54 feet didn't bypass the sea level.
See where your discrepancy is?
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
You are insisting on the same mistake:
Those 85 feet of Gatun, and those 54 feet of Miraflores are measured from sea level,
not from flat plane that would connect Atlantic and Pacific under it.
Sea level is where your blue arc is on your image, and Gatun and Miraflores are 85 and 54 feet above it.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WKOCa0.png)
No, I am bypassing our sea level, and I am measuring from Each Coast line going to your center. The 85' is above both coastlines and I then add your fake curvature in between the shorelines to complete the your radius. That places Gatun below your fake curve.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
You did bypass the sea level.
People who measured 85 and 54 feet didn't bypass the sea level.
See where your discrepancy is?
You are ignoring this.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
You are insisting on the same mistake:
Those 85 feet of Gatun, and those 54 feet of Miraflores are measured from sea level,
not from flat plane that would connect Atlantic and Pacific under it.
Sea level is where your blue arc is on your image, and Gatun and Miraflores are 85 and 54 feet above it.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WKOCa0.png)
No, I am bypassing our sea level, and I am measuring from Each Coast line going to your center. The 85' is above both coastlines and I then add your fake curvature in between the shorelines to complete the your radius. That places Gatun below your fake curve.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
You did bypass the sea level.
People who measured 85 and 54 feet didn't bypass the sea level.
See where your discrepancy is?
You are ignoring this.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
Still wrong:
You are still pushing wrong measuring origin.
It is measured from local sea level, not from some sea somewhere else (over there at the coast).
What measures would you get if you measure from the level of the Indian ocean?
(Or from Cuba in Atlantic and Hawaii in Pacific?)
This is where are those 85 and 54 feet.
M is not 54 feet.
G is not 85 feet.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/xCBCaf.png)
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
You are insisting on the same mistake:
Those 85 feet of Gatun, and those 54 feet of Miraflores are measured from sea level,
not from flat plane that would connect Atlantic and Pacific under it.
Sea level is where your blue arc is on your image, and Gatun and Miraflores are 85 and 54 feet above it.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WKOCa0.png)
No, I am bypassing our sea level, and I am measuring from Each Coast line going to your center. The 85' is above both coastlines and I then add your fake curvature in between the shorelines to complete the your radius. That places Gatun below your fake curve.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
You did bypass the sea level.
People who measured 85 and 54 feet didn't bypass the sea level.
See where your discrepancy is?
You are ignoring this.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
Still wrong:
You are still pushing wrong measuring origin.
It is measured from local sea level, not from some sea somewhere else (over there at the coast).
What measures would you get if you measure from the level of the Indian ocean?
(Or from Cuba in Atlantic and Hawaii in Pacific?)
This is where are those 85 and 54 feet.
M is not 54 feet.
G is not 85 feet.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/xCBCaf.png)
You are ignoring the Curvature drop over 36 miles. Why? None of your diagrams include the curvature drop? Why?
Where is the curvature drop of 216' at 18 miles?
You are ignoring the Curvature drop over 36 miles. Why? None of your diagrams include the curvature drop? Why?
Where is the curvature drop of 216' at 18 miles?
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
You are insisting on the same mistake:
Those 85 feet of Gatun, and those 54 feet of Miraflores are measured from sea level,
not from flat plane that would connect Atlantic and Pacific under it.
Sea level is where your blue arc is on your image, and Gatun and Miraflores are 85 and 54 feet above it.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WKOCa0.png)
No, I am bypassing our sea level, and I am measuring from Each Coast line going to your center. The 85' is above both coastlines and I then add your fake curvature in between the shorelines to complete the your radius. That places Gatun below your fake curve.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
You did bypass the sea level.
People who measured 85 and 54 feet didn't bypass the sea level.
See where your discrepancy is?
You are ignoring this.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
Still wrong:
You are still pushing wrong measuring origin.
It is measured from local sea level, not from some sea somewhere else (over there at the coast).
What measures would you get if you measure from the level of the Indian ocean?
(Or from Cuba in Atlantic and Hawaii in Pacific?)
This is where are those 85 and 54 feet.
M is not 54 feet.
G is not 85 feet.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/xCBCaf.png)
You are ignoring the Curvature drop over 36 miles. Why? None of your diagrams include the curvature drop? Why?
Where is the curvature drop of 216' at 18 miles?
What do you mean exactly by 'curvature drop'?
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
You are insisting on the same mistake:
Those 85 feet of Gatun, and those 54 feet of Miraflores are measured from sea level,
not from flat plane that would connect Atlantic and Pacific under it.
Sea level is where your blue arc is on your image, and Gatun and Miraflores are 85 and 54 feet above it.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WKOCa0.png)
No, I am bypassing our sea level, and I am measuring from Each Coast line going to your center. The 85' is above both coastlines and I then add your fake curvature in between the shorelines to complete the your radius. That places Gatun below your fake curve.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
You did bypass the sea level.
People who measured 85 and 54 feet didn't bypass the sea level.
See where your discrepancy is?
You are ignoring this.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
Still wrong:
You are still pushing wrong measuring origin.
It is measured from local sea level, not from some sea somewhere else (over there at the coast).
What measures would you get if you measure from the level of the Indian ocean?
(Or from Cuba in Atlantic and Hawaii in Pacific?)
This is where are those 85 and 54 feet.
M is not 54 feet.
G is not 85 feet.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/xCBCaf.png)
You are ignoring the Curvature drop over 36 miles. Why? None of your diagrams include the curvature drop? Why?
Where is the curvature drop of 216' at 18 miles?
What do you mean exactly by 'curvature drop'?
You should know that.
You have the lake at 301' above each Ocean, why? Its supposed to be 85' above each ocean at the center of the canal
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?All the points you raise show nothing more than your failure to understand that elevations are measured above Mean Sea Level and not above some arbitrary lines that you choose to draw.
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
You are insisting on the same mistake:
Those 85 feet of Gatun, and those 54 feet of Miraflores are measured from sea level,
not from flat plane that would connect Atlantic and Pacific under it.
Sea level is where your blue arc is on your image, and Gatun and Miraflores are 85 and 54 feet above it.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WKOCa0.png)
No, I am bypassing our sea level, and I am measuring from Each Coast line going to your center. The 85' is above both coastlines and I then add your fake curvature in between the shorelines to complete the your radius. That places Gatun below your fake curve.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
You did bypass the sea level.
People who measured 85 and 54 feet didn't bypass the sea level.
See where your discrepancy is?
You are ignoring this.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
Still wrong:
You are still pushing wrong measuring origin.
It is measured from local sea level, not from some sea somewhere else (over there at the coast).
What measures would you get if you measure from the level of the Indian ocean?
(Or from Cuba in Atlantic and Hawaii in Pacific?)
This is where are those 85 and 54 feet.
M is not 54 feet.
G is not 85 feet.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/xCBCaf.png)
You are ignoring the Curvature drop over 36 miles. Why? None of your diagrams include the curvature drop? Why?
Where is the curvature drop of 216' at 18 miles?
What do you mean exactly by 'curvature drop'?
You should know that.
You have the lake at 301' above each Ocean, why? Its supposed to be 85' above each ocean at the center of the canal
It's supposed to be above the LOCAL sea level.
And it is.
Above the level where the water would be if you removed the ground.
No it does not work that way. You have it 301' above each Ocean and are measuring 216 + 85 from each ocean.But elevations are not measured above your straight line joining the nearest oceans.
Elevation maps have only it at 85' above each OceanNo, the elevations on elevation maps are not measured above the straight line joining each Ocean.
and that's why if Earth were a sphere the Canal would be under 131' of sea water.Hence the Canal would be not be under 131' of sea water. Elevations along the canal route are measured above the level the oceans would have if extended along the route of the canal.
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
You are insisting on the same mistake:
Those 85 feet of Gatun, and those 54 feet of Miraflores are measured from sea level,
not from flat plane that would connect Atlantic and Pacific under it.
Sea level is where your blue arc is on your image, and Gatun and Miraflores are 85 and 54 feet above it.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WKOCa0.png)
No, I am bypassing our sea level, and I am measuring from Each Coast line going to your center. The 85' is above both coastlines and I then add your fake curvature in between the shorelines to complete the your radius. That places Gatun below your fake curve.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
You did bypass the sea level.
People who measured 85 and 54 feet didn't bypass the sea level.
See where your discrepancy is?
You are ignoring this.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
Still wrong:
You are still pushing wrong measuring origin.
It is measured from local sea level, not from some sea somewhere else (over there at the coast).
What measures would you get if you measure from the level of the Indian ocean?
(Or from Cuba in Atlantic and Hawaii in Pacific?)
This is where are those 85 and 54 feet.
M is not 54 feet.
G is not 85 feet.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/xCBCaf.png)
You are ignoring the Curvature drop over 36 miles. Why? None of your diagrams include the curvature drop? Why?
Where is the curvature drop of 216' at 18 miles?
What do you mean exactly by 'curvature drop'?
You should know that.
You have the lake at 301' above each Ocean, why? Its supposed to be 85' above each ocean at the center of the canal
It's supposed to be above the LOCAL sea level.
And it is.
Above the level where the water would be if you removed the ground.
No it does not work that way. You have it 301' above each Ocean and are measuring 216 + 85 from each ocean. Elevation maps have only it at 85' above each Ocean and that's why if Earth were a sphere the Canal would be under 131' of sea water.
Nor can you or anyone else actually verify the canal has the 216' of curvature bulge at center as you claim. If you could you would, but can't, because it's not there. Thanks and good night!
PS, Read my signature again!
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
You are insisting on the same mistake:
Those 85 feet of Gatun, and those 54 feet of Miraflores are measured from sea level,
not from flat plane that would connect Atlantic and Pacific under it.
Sea level is where your blue arc is on your image, and Gatun and Miraflores are 85 and 54 feet above it.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WKOCa0.png)
No, I am bypassing our sea level, and I am measuring from Each Coast line going to your center. The 85' is above both coastlines and I then add your fake curvature in between the shorelines to complete the your radius. That places Gatun below your fake curve.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
You did bypass the sea level.
People who measured 85 and 54 feet didn't bypass the sea level.
See where your discrepancy is?
You are ignoring this.
If there were 200 miles between coastlines and the lake was still at 85' above each coastlines and at center (100 miles) the Lake would be 6669' below your imaginary curve. Are you seeing it yet?
Still wrong:
You are still pushing wrong measuring origin.
It is measured from local sea level, not from some sea somewhere else (over there at the coast).
What measures would you get if you measure from the level of the Indian ocean?
(Or from Cuba in Atlantic and Hawaii in Pacific?)
This is where are those 85 and 54 feet.
M is not 54 feet.
G is not 85 feet.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/xCBCaf.png)
You are ignoring the Curvature drop over 36 miles. Why? None of your diagrams include the curvature drop? Why?
Where is the curvature drop of 216' at 18 miles?
What do you mean exactly by 'curvature drop'?
You should know that.
You have the lake at 301' above each Ocean, why? Its supposed to be 85' above each ocean at the center of the canal
It's supposed to be above the LOCAL sea level.
And it is.
Above the level where the water would be if you removed the ground.
No it does not work that way. You have it 301' above each Ocean and are measuring 216 + 85 from each ocean. Elevation maps have only it at 85' above each Ocean and that's why if Earth were a sphere the Canal would be under 131' of sea water.
Nor can you or anyone else actually verify the canal has the 216' of curvature bulge at center as you claim. If you could you would, but can't, because it's not there. Thanks and good night!
PS, Read my signature again!
Yeah, it does work that way, in the globe model.
You are ignoring the Curvature drop over 36 miles. Why? None of your diagrams include the curvature drop? Why?
Where is the curvature drop of 216' at 18 miles?
I clearly showed you where is the drop of 216 feet.
It is below the sea level.
Between the sea level and the plane connecting the coast lines.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H87x7Q.png)
EDIT: My mistake, and my apologies.
The drop is 216 feet, but from the local horizontal line at one coast.
The bulge is smaller.
The bulge is 53 feet high.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/OeR2Ra.png)
You are ignoring the Curvature drop over 36 miles. Why? None of your diagrams include the curvature drop? Why?
Where is the curvature drop of 216' at 18 miles?
I clearly showed you where is the drop of 216 feet with a distance of 36 miles between points.
It is below the sea level.
Between the sea level and the plane connecting the coast lines.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H87x7Q.png)
EDIT: My mistake, and my apologies.
The drop is 216 feet, but from the local horizontal line at one coast.
The bulge is smaller.
The bulge is 53 feet high.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/OeR2Ra.png)
Several hours ago I corrected my mistake in this post above.
The distance of 18 miles has bulge of 53 ft.
The 216 ft is the drop on another side from the horizontal line from one side.
(Not even from the line of sight, unless your eyes are at sea level.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If there was no land, then the water would take its level in the shape of smooth ellipsoid.
Land submerged in that water is higher than that ellipsoid (the sea level) and the elevation is measured from that ellipsoid.
I already asked you what would be the values if you measured from Indian ocean?
By now you already understand why I asked that.
It is also sea level there.
But only local sea level is what counts,
not from 9 miles away from coastal line,
not from 615 miles away from Jamaica,
not from 1000 miles away from Galapagos.
From the level that would sea have right there, if there was no land.
It confused me for the moment when you mentioned 18 miles.
Sorry.
This is right set of values.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/SCK1TB.png)
Which means this is correct representation of measurements:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/VUMzA2.png)
Let me repeat:
All elevations everywhere are measured from the Local Sea Level, not from some existing sea water somewhere else.
Elevation maps have the Panama Canals curvature bulge 85' at center between a distance of 36 miles. The Panama Canal is 85' above each Ocean. No more or less.
So, whats the new radius of Earth that matches a 85' bulge with a distance of 36 miles in between the two oceans?
It confused me for the moment when you mentioned 18 miles.
Sorry.
This is right set of values.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/SCK1TB.png)
Which means this is correct representation of measurements:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/VUMzA2.png)
Let me repeat:
All elevations everywhere are measured from the Local Sea Level, not from some existing sea water somewhere else.
Here's a very exaggerated depiction of how the cross section of the canal would look. I'm not sure how this is different from what Marcarios has shown, but it tries to show the elevation of the topography of the canal in relation to the two oceans. It's how the globe model works:
(https://i.imgur.com/Dbkp7Oa.jpg?1)
Oh, but the center of the Canal is 85' above each coastline. You have it at 301' above each coast. This does not agree with current elevation maps because they do not include Earth's alleged curvature.
It confused me for the moment when you mentioned 18 miles.
Sorry.
This is right set of values.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/SCK1TB.png)
Which means this is correct representation of measurements:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/VUMzA2.png)
Let me repeat:
All elevations everywhere are measured from the Local Sea Level, not from some existing sea water somewhere else.
Oh, but the center of the Canal is 85' above each coastline. You have it at 301' above each coast. This does not agree with current elevation maps because they do not include Earth's alleged curvature.
MATH
It's not for everyone!
It's my own "IMHO" but I think the real question of this topic should not be "When will the RE Community Accept Defeat ?" but should be "When will the FE Community Accept Defeat" ?
It's late. Simple mistake. I had miles instead of 131 feet in my write up. My Meme is still correct the Panama Canal wouldn't exist if Earth were a sphere.all you've shown is you don't understand the subject. Thanks for the humor!
Both the coastlines of Atlantic and Pacific are at 0' Sea level and both are 3,962 miles from Earths alleged center.
The distance between Oceans with the Panama Canal in-between is about 36 Miles.
The center of Panama Canal is about 18 miles from the coast on Gatun Lake and is 85’ above each Ocean shoreline.
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
That means if Earth were a Globe, the Panama Canal could not exist because Gatun Lake would be under 131’ of sea water at 18 miles from the Coast. The Canal exists because water does not curve.
It’s that simple, we won. We really never lost. Earth Remains a flat Plane with mountains, hills and valleys and sea level bodies of water.
But the real question is, when is the Globe community going to accept defeat?
(https://i.imgur.com/soROEsV.jpg)
At the very bottom we have the same thing, just with another configuration.
The sea gull is 100 feet above the water.
Coastal lines at Panama City and Isla Pedro Gonzales are 46.02 miles apart.
Curvature bulge is 353 feet.
Is the sea gull 100 feet, or 453 feet above sea level?
Will you measure from coast line, or from current location?
The main question is:
Does it matter if there is some soil higher than the water under the sea gull, or not?
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/668Q71.png)
Why is it so hard for you to grasp simple concepts?
Why is it so hard for you to grasp simple concepts?
Why is it so hard for all of you to actually verify the alleged surface curvature of the Panama Canal?
Top maps and elevations maps do not included alleged surface curvature. If they did, the center of the canal would be placed at 301' on the map in some way like your "underground plane connecting oceans" diagram, instead of just 85' above each ocean.The baseline for topological maps (including Google Earth) is Mean Sea Level and whether you like it or not that is extended over land as though there were a se-level canal across that land.
U.S. Geodesic Benchmark Key West, Florida
(https://media2.trover.com/T/4e670f2d65a8fc14ca0000bb/fixedw_large_4x.jpg)
map (http://javascript:)
Not often seen or noticed U. S. Government marker on the grounds of the Monroe County Courthouse, Key West, FL. US Geodesic Survey Benchmark indicating official height of Key West above sea level. Key West is 14.324 feet above sea level
The Globe Community might consider accepting defeat when, for a start, you have proven the earth to be flat with a coherent model that has:There another simple observation that confirms that we live on a Globe and that is:
- An accurate map with the correct distances and directions adequate for long and short distance precise navigation.
Note that ship and aircraft navigator have long used Globe derived maps to determine distance and directions.
Many aircraft flights, including Kingsford Smith's crossing of the Pacific would have ended in disaster without accurate charts.- A flat earth shape/topology that allows "circumnavigation" in any of the many directions that have already been performed.
In particular there are numerous polar-circumnavigations via both poles and a number equatorial circumnavigation, including one within 2 degrees of the equator.- An explanation for both the sun and moon appearing to rise top first from behind the horizon and appearing to set bottom first behind the horizon.
- An explanation for the sun and moon remaining almost exactly the same angular size from rising to setting and from wherever they are observed.
- Some way to predict the directions and times of sunrises and sunsets.
- A shape that allows the elevation of the Pole star, Polaris, above horizontal to be almost equal to the latitude from which the observation is made.
- An explanation for the constellations remaining the same shape and size from rising to setting and from wherever they are observed.
- How the stars in the Northern Hemisphere can appear to rotate anti-clockwise around what known as the North Celestial Pole (close to Polaris) while
the stars in the Southern Hemisphere can appear to rotate clockwise around what known as the South Celestial Pole (close to the faint star Sigma Octantis).
In other words the stars appear to rotate around two distinct axes of rotation.
Basic PerspectiveBut it is easy to show that the horizon does not rise to "eye-level" as elevation increases but falls below it be a quite predictable angle.
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?
Why should they? Elevation is measured off of sea level, not your misunderstanding.
When you have actually proved the center of the Panama Canal is 301' above the both Coastlines....(which actually verifies curvature)
Why is it so hard for you to grasp simple concepts?
Why is it so hard for all of you to actually verify the alleged surface curvature of the Panama Canal?
You do understand now how a globe works with respect to mean sea level and height/altitude, right? And that on a globe Gatun Lake would NOT be under 131’ of sea water at 18 miles from the Coast, right?
I understand even more that the Globe Community cannot verify what they claim. And I understand they even ignore what could prove them right which is the act of verifying the alleged surface curvature of the Panama Canal.Why should anyone bother with one particular claim you make when you have proven that you have no understanding of how elevations are measured on the Globe?
I understand even more that the Globe Community cannot verify what they claim. And I understand they even ignore what could prove them right which is the act of verifying the alleged surface curvature of the Panama Canal.Since you're the one alleging the surface curvature, how would you propose verifying it?
I understand even more that the Globe Community cannot verify what they claim. And I understand they even ignore what could prove them right which is the act of verifying the alleged surface curvature of the Panama Canal.Why should anyone bother with one particular claim you make when you have proven that you have no understanding of how elevations are measured on the Globe?
And on top of that, you totally ignore all the other points raised.
Because the Globe is so huge observing "curvature" on the surface is not a trivial matter but a number of indirect effects have been pointed out but you totally ignore those.
The answer to your topic question "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" is obviously, NEVER!
There is no "RE Community" as such - simply reality.
Top maps and Elevations maps place the center of the Panama Canal at 85' above both oceans and not at 301"And that is irrelevant!
Top maps and Elevations maps place the center of the Panama Canal at 85' above both oceans and not at 301"And that is irrelevant!
Top maps and Elevations maps place the center of the Panama Canal at 85' above both oceans and not at 301"
(https://i.imgur.com/8isafsA.jpg)
Top maps and Elevations maps place the center of the Panama Canal at 85' above both oceans and not at 301"
(https://i.imgur.com/8isafsA.jpg)
You still clearly don't get what you are arguing against. Fixed it for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/4VKbse5.jpg?1)
Top maps and Elevations maps place the center of the Panama Canal at 85' above both oceans and not at 301"
(https://i.imgur.com/8isafsA.jpg)
You still clearly don't get what you are arguing against. Fixed it for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/4VKbse5.jpg?1)
Now verify that in real time. I bet you can't. It's really easy to do!
I really think that before asking a question like "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" you need to learn a little about the Globe that you are trying to debunk.
Top maps and Elevations maps place the center of the Panama Canal at 85' above both oceans and not at 301"And that is irrelevant!
Why don't you prove you're not defeated. Verify the surface curvature of any landmass or Canal. You can do it! ;D
Top maps and elevations maps do not included alleged surface curvature. If they did, the center of the canal would be placed at 301' on the map in some way like your "underground plane connecting oceans" diagram, instead of just 85' above each ocean.
Don't make it too hard for the poor guy. I doubt that an infrared camera could photograph that far.Top maps and Elevations maps place the center of the Panama Canal at 85' above both oceans and not at 301"And that is irrelevant!
Why don't you prove you're not defeated. Verify the surface curvature of any landmass or Canal. You can do it! ;D
It is very easy to verify the surface curvature of the sea from a ship at sea. Just ask a QMC. You can do it.😁
Here is a suggestion for you to prove that the earth is flat. You can do it. 😁
(1) Buy or rent a good camera with a good lens.
(2) Buy or rent a good telescope or telescopic lens for the camera of very high power.
(3) Buy an infrared filter and some infrared film for the camera.
(4) Go to the coast. Any place on Earth will do. A clear sunny day would be best.
(5) Take some pictures of one place taken from one place.
(6) For example a picture of the coast of Africa taken from the coast of South America will do.
(7) My own suggestion would be to go to Point Loma in San Diego and take some pictures of Diamond Head in Honolulu.
( 8 ) Post those pictures on this website. They certainly would prove there is no curvature of the earth and the earth is flat.
All of that equipment should be available at your local camera store and might not cost too much if you just rented it for just an hour or so.
I really think that before asking a question like "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" you need to learn a little about the Globe that you are trying to debunk.
The Indian and the Slavo-Aryan Vedas apparently do but where does the Bible say "God created the sun and the three moons"?
I really think that before asking a question like "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" you need to learn a little about the Globe that you are trying to debunk.
You are absolutely right! No one sees even the absolute obvious things. For example. The Bible is written - in plain text. God created the sun and the three moons. Three, not one!
And now there is only one. People used to see three moons in the sky. The question is - how many people believe now that there were three moons? You can even create a society who believe that there was always only one moon. Since we see her alone. But the truth is that there were three of them ... So with flat land. You do not see everything, but argue and fight with sticks. I feel sorry for you.You say "the truth is that there were three of them" but only if we accept that everything in the Indian or Slavo-Aryan Vedas as literally factual.
And you dare doubt the Great OZ! (https://www.dropbox.com/s/3o460o5dw7fnhem/Wizard%20of%20Oz.png?dl=1)
I really think that before asking a question like "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" you need to learn a little about the Globe that you are trying to debunk.
You say "the truth is that there were three of them" but only if we accept that everything in the Indian or Slavo-Aryan Vedas as literally factual.
What will Heavenly Breeze think of that?You say "the truth is that there were three of them" but only if we accept that everything in the Indian or Slavo-Aryan Vedas as literally factual.
Thank you, I learnt something new today: Ancient Russian Ynglistic Church of the Orthodox Old Believers.
A extremist cult which has been banned in Russia based on accusations of racism and other nice things.
Top Astronomers (http://)And he appears in the list of 100 top mathematicians: Top Mathematicians (https://www.famousscientists.org/top-mathematicians/).
Omar Khayyam 1048 – 1131 (https://www.famousscientists.org/omar-khayyam/)
A poet, philosopher and scientist, Khayyam calculated the length of a year to the most accurate value ever, and showed how the intersections of conic sections can be utilized to yield geometric solutions of cubic equations.
The bolded statement shows you have no clue what you're talking about. you are confusing elevation with drop due to curvature. YOU are confused, nobody else.I understand even more that the Globe Community cannot verify what they claim. And I understand they even ignore what could prove them right which is the act of verifying the alleged surface curvature of the Panama Canal.Why should anyone bother with one particular claim you make when you have proven that you have no understanding of how elevations are measured on the Globe?
And on top of that, you totally ignore all the other points raised.
Because the Globe is so huge observing "curvature" on the surface is not a trivial matter but a number of indirect effects have been pointed out but you totally ignore those.
The answer to your topic question "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" is obviously, NEVER!
There is no "RE Community" as such - simply reality.
No, your Globe is not very big. There is a 216' drop in curvature just 16 miles away and in any direction. And you wonder why the southern half of the state of Louisiana floods. Hell, just 3 miles away there is a 6' drop in curvature. Water always has a place to go on a sphere. You can't flood a ball, right?
That 216' of drop can be easily verified, but none of you can do it. If you could the Flat Earth debate would be over, but no, the fantasy has to continue without proof of a foundation.
Here's a very exaggerated depiction of how the cross section of the canal would look. I'm not sure how this is different from what Marcarios has shown, but it tries to show the elevation of the topography of the canal in relation to the two oceans. It's how the globe model works:
(https://i.imgur.com/Dbkp7Oa.jpg?1)
Stash-
My many thanks to you for your drawing.
IMO this shows the best explanation of the true topography of the canal in relation to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Possibly the only criticism is the land mass elevations are exaggerated in relation to the rest of the scale of the drawing.
Macarios has put a lot of work in trying to explain where the errors are in PlatTerra's drawings too.
I think this whole Panama Canal subject seems rather simple to anyone who has ever studied it in some of their history classes.
As I best remember we got into the details such as how the locks raised the ships from 0 sea level to 85 feet above sea level, etc., somewhere around the 7th Grade in Elementary School History Class. And even more so in College.
But it seems some of the FE's have missed the boat on things that seem so simple to RE's.
It's my own "IMHO" but I think the real question of this topic should not be "When will the RE Community Accept Defeat ?" but should be "When will the FE Community Accept Defeat" ?
Here's a very exaggerated depiction of how the cross section of the canal would look. I'm not sure how this is different from what Marcarios has shown, but it tries to show the elevation of the topography of the canal in relation to the two oceans. It's how the globe model works:
(https://i.imgur.com/Dbkp7Oa.jpg?1)
Stash-
My many thanks to you for your drawing.
IMO this shows the best explanation of the true topography of the canal in relation to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Possibly the only criticism is the land mass elevations are exaggerated in relation to the rest of the scale of the drawing.
Macarios has put a lot of work in trying to explain where the errors are in PlatTerra's drawings too.
I think this whole Panama Canal subject seems rather simple to anyone who has ever studied it in some of their history classes.
As I best remember we got into the details such as how the locks raised the ships from 0 sea level to 85 feet above sea level, etc., somewhere around the 7th Grade in Elementary School History Class. And even more so in College.
But it seems some of the FE's have missed the boat on things that seem so simple to RE's.
It's my own "IMHO" but I think the real question of this topic should not be "When will the RE Community Accept Defeat ?" but should be "When will the FE Community Accept Defeat" ?
This is the original one that wasn't faked with curve.
How do you lik0e the true topography now? Or do you still like the one that was faked?
(https://i.imgur.com/OOkmJ78.jpg)
Don't make it too hard for the poor guy. I doubt that an infrared camera could photograph that far.Top maps and Elevations maps place the center of the Panama Canal at 85' above both oceans and not at 301"And that is irrelevant!
Why don't you prove you're not defeated. Verify the surface curvature of any landmass or Canal. You can do it! ;D
It is very easy to verify the surface curvature of the sea from a ship at sea. Just ask a QMC. You can do it.😁
Here is a suggestion for you to prove that the earth is flat. You can do it. 😁
(1) Buy or rent a good camera with a good lens.
(2) Buy or rent a good telescope or telescopic lens for the camera of very high power.
(3) Buy an infrared filter and some infrared film for the camera.
(4) Go to the coast. Any place on Earth will do. A clear sunny day would be best.
(5) Take some pictures of one place taken from one place.
(6) For example a picture of the coast of Africa taken from the coast of South America will do.
(7) My own suggestion would be to go to Point Loma in San Diego and take some pictures of Diamond Head in Honolulu.
( 8 ) Post those pictures on this website. They certainly would prove there is no curvature of the earth and the earth is flat.
All of that equipment should be available at your local camera store and might not cost too much if you just rented it for just an hour or so.
But there are plenty of flat-earth videos (with good evidence for the Globe) showing a few hundred kilometres from aircraft.
Just ask for a photo of Alice Town, Bimini, the westernmost island of the Bahamas from Miami. It's only 83 km and should be easy to see if the earth is flat.
He could even climb the 250 m Panorama Tower in Miami if he needs to though that should be unnecessary if the earth is flat.
He should take a good level and see if the horizon really does rise to "eye-level" from that 250 m above MSL and not about 0.5° below.
Here's a very exaggerated depiction of how the cross section of the canal would look. I'm not sure how this is different from what Marcarios has shown, but it tries to show the elevation of the topography of the canal in relation to the two oceans. It's how the globe model works:
(https://i.imgur.com/Dbkp7Oa.jpg?1)
Stash-
My many thanks to you for your drawing.
IMO this shows the best explanation of the true topography of the canal in relation to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Possibly the only criticism is the land mass elevations are exaggerated in relation to the rest of the scale of the drawing.
Macarios has put a lot of work in trying to explain where the errors are in PlatTerra's drawings too.
I think this whole Panama Canal subject seems rather simple to anyone who has ever studied it in some of their history classes.
As I best remember we got into the details such as how the locks raised the ships from 0 sea level to 85 feet above sea level, etc., somewhere around the 7th Grade in Elementary School History Class. And even more so in College.
But it seems some of the FE's have missed the boat on things that seem so simple to RE's.
It's my own "IMHO" but I think the real question of this topic should not be "When will the RE Community Accept Defeat ?" but should be "When will the FE Community Accept Defeat" ?
This is the original one that wasn't faked with curve.
How do you lik0e the true topography now? Or do you still like the one that was faked?
(https://i.imgur.com/OOkmJ78.jpg)
No. The original drawing wasn't faked . It shows the curvature of the earth.
As mentioned previously , you really need to extend that drawing to show the entire circumference of the earth to get the big picture of just how small the distance of the Panama Canal is compared to the circumference of the globe.
The other drawing is flat and does not show the curvature.
There is a curvature.
The earth is a globe , not a flat disc.
The earth is so big the curvature of the earth involved in the Panama Canal looks almost like a straight line.
Not to mention any names but I think some persons need to take me up on my suggestion and talk to a QMC about a flat Earth. LOL
Here's a very exaggerated depiction of how the cross section of the canal would look. I'm not sure how this is different from what Marcarios has shown, but it tries to show the elevation of the topography of the canal in relation to the two oceans. It's how the globe model works:
(https://i.imgur.com/Dbkp7Oa.jpg?1)
Stash-
My many thanks to you for your drawing.
IMO this shows the best explanation of the true topography of the canal in relation to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Possibly the only criticism is the land mass elevations are exaggerated in relation to the rest of the scale of the drawing.
Macarios has put a lot of work in trying to explain where the errors are in PlatTerra's drawings too.
I think this whole Panama Canal subject seems rather simple to anyone who has ever studied it in some of their history classes.
As I best remember we got into the details such as how the locks raised the ships from 0 sea level to 85 feet above sea level, etc., somewhere around the 7th Grade in Elementary School History Class. And even more so in College.
But it seems some of the FE's have missed the boat on things that seem so simple to RE's.
It's my own "IMHO" but I think the real question of this topic should not be "When will the RE Community Accept Defeat ?" but should be "When will the FE Community Accept Defeat" ?
This is the original one that wasn't faked with curve.
How do you lik0e the true topography now? Or do you still like the one that was faked?
(https://i.imgur.com/OOkmJ78.jpg)
No. The original drawing wasn't faked . It shows the curvature of the earth.
As mentioned previously , you really need to extend that drawing to show the entire circumference of the earth to get the big picture of just how small the distance of the Panama Canal is compared to the circumference of the globe.
The other drawing is flat and does not show the curvature.
There is a curvature.
The earth is a globe , not a flat disc.
The earth is so big the curvature of the earth involved in the Panama Canal looks almost like a straight line.
Not to mention any names but I think some persons need to take me up on my suggestion and talk to a QMC about a flat Earth. LOL
But none of you have actually verified surface curvature of a landmass or canal. When you have I then will compare as you ask.
Can you give a reference for " three moons"....?......Book, Chapter, Verse ?.....
I really think that before asking a question like "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" you need to learn a little about the Globe that you are trying to debunk.
You are absolutely right! No one sees even the absolute obvious things. For example. The Bible is written - in plain text. God created the sun and the three moons. Three, not one! And now there is only one. People used to see three moons in the sky. The question is - how many people believe now that there were three moons? You can even create a society who believe that there was always only one moon. Since we see her alone. But the truth is that there were three of them ... So with flat land. You do not see everything, but argue and fight with sticks. I feel sorry for you.
Plat Terra, I really shouldn't say this, but you seem to be a hopeless case ! .😁
Plat Terra, I really shouldn't say this, but you seem to be a hopeless case ! .😁
The height of the gates and the water level at the gates proves Earth is not a sphere but Plane. You don't need a wall that high at the gates to hold the water back on a sphere but you do if Earth is a Plane. It's common engineering sense and a no brainer.
NASA can't help them, fake pictures and fake moon landings cannot rescue them.
No argument they have is going to magically make the oceans curve and flood the Panama Canal, no matter what they say or do. It’s not going to happen. After reading this if one continues to defend a Globe Earth theory, they are just professional deniers who really don’t care for truth.
Plat Terra, I really shouldn't say this, but you seem to be a hopeless case ! .😁
Plat Terra, I really shouldn't say this, but you seem to be a hopeless case ! .😁
Another re accepts defeat.
Is that big blue bulge supposed to be water? Why have you piled it up like that?
Can you give a reference for " three moons"....?......Book, Chapter, Verse ?.....
I really think that before asking a question like "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" you need to learn a little about the Globe that you are trying to debunk.
You are absolutely right! No one sees even the absolute obvious things. For example. The Bible is written - in plain text. God created the sun and the three moons. Three, not one! And now there is only one. People used to see three moons in the sky. The question is - how many people believe now that there were three moons? You can even create a society who believe that there was always only one moon. Since we see her alone. But the truth is that there were three of them ... So with flat land. You do not see everything, but argue and fight with sticks. I feel sorry for you.
Or was it in another Bible ?
But none of you have actually verified a flat Earth!
We have pictures!
Can you give a reference for " three moons"....?......Book, Chapter, Verse ?.....
I really think that before asking a question like "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" you need to learn a little about the Globe that you are trying to debunk.
You are absolutely right! No one sees even the absolute obvious things. For example. The Bible is written - in plain text. God created the sun and the three moons. Three, not one! And now there is only one. People used to see three moons in the sky. The question is - how many people believe now that there were three moons? You can even create a society who believe that there was always only one moon. Since we see her alone. But the truth is that there were three of them ... So with flat land. You do not see everything, but argue and fight with sticks. I feel sorry for you.
Or was it in another Bible ?
In view of the fact that all languages are descended from a single parent language - Etruscan. And the translation from the original source was trimmed. Mainly due to the fact that vowels were not written in Etruscan and were voiced by the reader only during the reading. And in mind that the first chapters of the Bible on the creation of the world were the very first, then the translation was made from simple texts. From the Vedas you can learn only additional information that complements the Bible. Therefore, here is an approximate full sound of the text about the moon.
This is what is written after the distorted translation from Etruscan. Genesis - 1.
**
And God created two great lights: a greater light, to control the day, and a smaller light, to control the night, and stars;
And God set them up in the firmament of heaven, to shine upon the earth, and to rule day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness.
Correct translation
And then He created the sun Yarilo, and the big moon called the Month and the two moons, the small Fata and Lelia, which shone like stars, and put them on the firmament of the sky which is the luminiferous ether. To shine on the earth, and to manage day and night.
Two moons had a hydrosphere, because although they were small, they shone like stars in the night sky.
So here it is. Read learn. The same with flat land. The fall on the earth of the moon Fata fully proves that the earth is a ball, since the fall of its debris corresponds to the fall of objects from the orbit of the earth when the earth moved on its axis. So flat earthlings cry, you can not refute this.
There is no curvature engineered into the Panama Canal. But when you add curvature it becomes flooded.
(https://i.imgur.com/AfiQGSz.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6hiGGdH.jpg)
There is no curvature engineered into the Panama Canal. But when you add curvature it becomes flooded.
(https://i.imgur.com/AfiQGSz.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6hiGGdH.jpg)
The problem is you don't even understand what you are trying to debunk. If you did, you wouldn't keep spouting all that
And just like a kid with fingers in his ears singing "la la la la I can't hear you" you refuse to listen to explanations.
they do.
https://flatearth.ws/verrazano-narrows
https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/verrazano-narrows-1.jpg
For projects that extend over a long distance, like roads, railroads, canals, etc., they are built along the curvature of the Earth, and specifically accounting for the curvature is usually not needed.
But when the project extends on a long distance, as well as extending upwards, then we have no choice but to take the curvature of the Earth into account. One of such projects is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, New York, United States.
but do go on in your tomB fashion and hold onto your one misconception as the basis of your failed argument.
Why would you expect the water to follow the same curve as the bridge?
Is the towers that account for the curvature.
Why would you expect the water to follow the same curve as the bridge?
Is the towers that account for the curvature.
Did you miss I said this? "I know they now claim it's the columns but anything can be tweaked to give people a illusion or thought of a Globe."
Plat Terra, I really shouldn't say this, but you seem to be a hopeless case ! .😁
The height of the gates and the water level at the gates proves Earth is not a sphere but a Plane. You don't need a wall that high and gates that high to hold the water back on a sphere, but you do if Earth is a Plane. It's common engineering sense and a no brainer.
NASA can't help them, fake pictures and fake moon landings cannot rescue them.
No argument they have is going to magically make the oceans curve and flood the Panama Canal, no matter what they say or do. It’s not going to happen. After reading this if one continues to defend a Globe Earth theory, they are just professional deniers who really don’t care for truth.
The center of Panama Canal (18 miles) on Gatun Lake is 3,828 Miles
from center of an alleged Globe Earth with a 3,959 mile radius.
The "3828 miles" is the wrong part that confused you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, this might help you get the real picture:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/WGS84_mean_Earth_radius.svg/440px-WGS84_mean_Earth_radius.svg.png)
a = 3963.19 miles
b = 3949.9 miles
(2a + b) / 3 = 3958.76 miles
Nope. Not going to work no matter how you twist it. Gatun Lake is 85 miles above both Oceans sea level, no matter how far sea level is to the center of Earth at that location. The calculation to center of Earth at that location will still put the Panama Canal under water. 18 miles is not going to make any difference. You are being intellectually dishonest. You should know better.
In a spherical world engineers would include curvature in their engineering profiles and drawings. Are you seeing it yet?
the curvature on your pic would be far less than a degree. but thanks for proving again that you have no clue what you're talking about.they do.
https://flatearth.ws/verrazano-narrows
https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/verrazano-narrows-1.jpg
For projects that extend over a long distance, like roads, railroads, canals, etc., they are built along the curvature of the Earth, and specifically accounting for the curvature is usually not needed.
But when the project extends on a long distance, as well as extending upwards, then we have no choice but to take the curvature of the Earth into account. One of such projects is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, New York, United States.
but do go on in your tomB fashion and hold onto your one misconception as the basis of your failed argument.
Yeah, and I would be ashamed of myself for claiming and defending that blunder. I know they now claim it's the columns but anything can be tweaked to give people a illusion or thought of a Globe. Your bridge means and proves nothing, except it does prove if Earth were a Globe all bridges would be engineered for Globe curvature and not a gimmick one.
(https://i.imgur.com/nlTRp36.jpg)
Plat Terra, I really shouldn't say this, but you seem to be a hopeless case ! .😁
The height of the gates and the water level at the gates proves Earth is not a sphere but a Plane. You don't need a wall that high and gates that high to hold the water back on a sphere, but you do if Earth is a Plane. It's common engineering sense and a no brainer.
NASA can't help them, fake pictures and fake moon landings cannot rescue them.
No argument they have is going to magically make the oceans curve and flood the Panama Canal, no matter what they say or do. It’s not going to happen. After reading this if one continues to defend a Globe Earth theory, they are just professional deniers who really don’t care for truth.
Maybe plata doesnt know jow to survey.
Two guys start at the beach holding survey sticks.
They slowly leap frogging inland.
One point is recorded in relation to the last.
So the end, they have an estimated ft above sea level.
Maybe plata doesnt know jow to survey.
Two guys start at the beach holding survey sticks.
They slowly leap frogging inland.
One point is recorded in relation to the last.
So the end, they have an estimated ft above sea level.
Yeah, and I would be ashamed of myself for claiming and defending that blunder. I know they now claim it's the columns but anything can be tweaked to give people a illusion or thought of a Globe. Your bridge means and proves nothing, except it does prove if Earth were a Globe all bridges would be engineered for Globe curvature and not a gimmick one.
(https://i.imgur.com/nlTRp36.jpg)
There is no curvature engineered into the Panama Canal. But when you add curvature it becomes flooded.This is why you're a flat Earther. You don't understand the subject you're arguing about. 85ft above sea level, means it's 85 feet above sea level.
(https://i.imgur.com/AfiQGSz.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6hiGGdH.jpg)
There is no curvature engineered into the Panama Canal. But when you add curvature it becomes flooded.
(https://i.imgur.com/AfiQGSz.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6hiGGdH.jpg)
The problem is you don't even understand what you are trying to debunk. If you did, you wouldn't keep spouting all that
And just like a kid with fingers in his ears singing "la la la la I can't hear you" you refuse to listen to explanations.
In a spherical world engineers would include curvature in their engineering profiles and drawings. Are you seeing it yet?
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)
What don't you understand about the words "sea level"? Why are you replacing that term with "underground plane"? There is no such thing. Otherwise everything on the planet when expressed as height would be, "X feet above the 'underground plane'". That literally makes no sense. Do you say that Mt Everest is "29,000 feet above the underground plane"?
Do you really not understand the globe model?
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)
What don't you understand about the words "sea level"? Why are you replacing that term with "underground plane"? There is no such thing. Otherwise everything on the planet when expressed as height would be, "X feet above the 'underground plane'". That literally makes no sense. Do you say that Mt Everest is "29,000 feet above the underground plane"?
Do you really not understand the globe model?
It's clear what I mean. "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines"
If we lived on a Globe it would be expressed as Sea Curvevel
I am using the Globe Earth model and Macarios's language. See....
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2191472#msg2191472
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)
What don't you understand about the words "sea level"? Why are you replacing that term with "underground plane"? There is no such thing. Otherwise everything on the planet when expressed as height would be, "X feet above the 'underground plane'". That literally makes no sense. Do you say that Mt Everest is "29,000 feet above the underground plane"?
Do you really not understand the globe model?
It's clear what I mean. "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines"
If we lived on a Globe it would be expressed as Sea Curvevel
I am using the Globe Earth model and Macarios's language. See....
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2191472#msg2191472
You are wildly misinterpreting Macario's original image and applying some sort of bizarre near logic to it. Globe model:
(https://i.imgur.com/KmESwOQ.jpg?1)
Gatun is 85' above SEA LEVEL not above an "underground plane".
Are you being cheeky or do you really have no concept as to how the globe model works?
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjdguunsnjs0071/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20left.jpg?dl=1) Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left! | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc8mh0o4ir25g11/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20centre.jpg?dl=1) Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom! |
In a spherical world engineers would include curvature in their engineering profiles and drawings. Are you seeing it yet?
In spherical world engineers measure from Mean Sea Level.
Not from some imaginary straight line underground.
Not from some point 18 miles away.
Engineers know that builders will measure from Mean Sea Level as well.
Not from that imaginary straight line.
For that straight line nobody cares in reality.
It means nothing.
Mean Sea Level is the level where the water would be if there was no land there.
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?
Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjdguunsnjs0071/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20left.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc8mh0o4ir25g11/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20centre.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!
And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"
Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.
Yes.Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.
You know, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. Can you do it?
I can't wait!!Yes.Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.
You know, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. Can you do it?
We have no problem to solve. You have!Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.
You know, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. Can you do it?
You’re welcome.
Anyways. As already explained to you 100 times. The Panama Canal follows the curvature. 85 feet above sea level is 85 feet above sea level.
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?
Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjdguunsnjs0071/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20left.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc8mh0o4ir25g11/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20centre.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!
And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"
I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.
We have no problem to solve. You have!Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.
You know, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. Can you do it?
But curvature of any landmass is rather useless because landmasses have so many "ups and downs" that 216' in 36 miles would never be noticed.
And the curvature across place like Lake Pontchartrain have been demonstrated often enough.
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/lake-pontchartrain-power-lines-demonstrating-the-curvature-metabunk-jpg.27877/)
Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/)
And there's plenty more if you really want to be shown that water does really "curve".
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?
Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjdguunsnjs0071/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20left.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc8mh0o4ir25g11/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20centre.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!
And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"
I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.
The two points you connected are at 0' elevation MSL at those two points only. Why are you connecting them, then claiming that imaginary line represents sea level?
Your "underground plane" IS NOT SEA LEVEL!
Now, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface flatness of literally ANY 36 mile stretch of water on earth. Can you do it?
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?
Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjdguunsnjs0071/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20left.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc8mh0o4ir25g11/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20centre.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!
And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"
I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.
The two points you connected are at 0' elevation MSL at those two points only. Why are you connecting them, then claiming that imaginary line represents sea level?
Your "underground plane" IS NOT SEA LEVEL!
Now, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface flatness of literally ANY 36 mile stretch of water on earth. Can you do it?
Oh, I have yet to get to the Suez Canal and the part of the Nile that flows for a 1000 miles north with only a one foot of drop. Stay tuned!
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?
Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjdguunsnjs0071/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20left.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc8mh0o4ir25g11/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20centre.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!
And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"
I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.
The two points you connected are at 0' elevation MSL at those two points only. Why are you connecting them, then claiming that imaginary line represents sea level?
Your "underground plane" IS NOT SEA LEVEL!
Now, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface flatness of literally ANY 36 mile stretch of water on earth. Can you do it?
Oh, I have yet to get to the Suez Canal and the part of the Nile that flows for a 1000 miles north with only a one foot of drop. Stay tuned!
If it's anything like the "evidence" you have presented so far, I literally cannot wait!
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?
Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjdguunsnjs0071/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20left.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc8mh0o4ir25g11/Profile%20and%20Yardage%20Estimates%2C%20Panama%20Canal%20-%20centre.jpg?dl=1)
Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!
And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"
I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.
The two points you connected are at 0' elevation MSL at those two points only. Why are you connecting them, then claiming that imaginary line represents sea level?
Your "underground plane" IS NOT SEA LEVEL!
Now, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface flatness of literally ANY 36 mile stretch of water on earth. Can you do it?
Oh, I have yet to get to the Suez Canal and the part of the Nile that flows for a 1000 miles north with only a one foot of drop. Stay tuned!
If it's anything like the "evidence" you have presented so far, I literally cannot wait!
In the mean time. you should actually try to verify the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. You might be a hero!
In the mean time. you should actually try to verify the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. You might be a hero!And I suggest in the mean time, you actually learn how curvature and elevation work. "Sea-level" is an elevation of 'zero' that follows Earth's curvature through land, not an elevation that runs in a straight tangent between coasts.
In the mean time. you should actually try to verify the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. You might be a hero!And I suggest in the mean time, you actually learn how curvature and elevation work. "Sea-level" is an elevation of 'zero' that follows Earth's curvature through land, not an elevation that runs in a straight tangent between coasts.
You lose.
What's your next question that you don't understand?
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)
What don't you understand about the words "sea level"? Why are you replacing that term with "underground plane"? There is no such thing. Otherwise everything on the planet when expressed as height would be, "X feet above the 'underground plane'". That literally makes no sense. Do you say that Mt Everest is "29,000 feet above the underground plane"?
Do you really not understand the globe model?
It's clear what I mean. "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines"
If we lived on a Globe it would be expressed as Sea Curvevel
I am using the Globe Earth model and Macarios's language. See....
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2191472#msg2191472
You are wildly misinterpreting Macario's original image and applying some sort of bizarre near logic to it. Globe model:
(https://i.imgur.com/KmESwOQ.jpg?1)
Gatun is 85' above SEA LEVEL not above an "underground plane".
Are you being cheeky or do you really have no concept as to how the globe model works?
No, I used his words in his Model Earth drawing and used his drawing. I noticed you removed his words and that plane line. Why?
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)
What don't you understand about the words "sea level"? Why are you replacing that term with "underground plane"? There is no such thing. Otherwise everything on the planet when expressed as height would be, "X feet above the 'underground plane'". That literally makes no sense. Do you say that Mt Everest is "29,000 feet above the underground plane"?
Do you really not understand the globe model?
It's clear what I mean. "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines"
If we lived on a Globe it would be expressed as Sea Curvevel
I am using the Globe Earth model and Macarios's language. See....
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2191472#msg2191472
You are wildly misinterpreting Macario's original image and applying some sort of bizarre near logic to it. Globe model:
(https://i.imgur.com/KmESwOQ.jpg?1)
Gatun is 85' above SEA LEVEL not above an "underground plane".
Are you being cheeky or do you really have no concept as to how the globe model works?
No, I used his words in his Model Earth drawing and used his drawing. I noticed you removed his words and that plane line. Why?
Because you were incapable of understanding his first diagram (which is aimed at maybe a 3rd grader on up):
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/yLQ078.png)
And then you couldn't seem to comprehend his second diagram and got hung up on 'underground plane' even though it's been made painfully clear we are all talking about SEA LEVEL.
According to you and your warped non-knowledge of the globe model, there should be a 'bulge' of water about 300 miles high over the center of the US. Correct?
You might express " 'underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines'. O' elevation is mean sea level.""Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.
And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"
I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.
Or this:When will RE Community Accept Defeat?All the points you raise show nothing more than your failure to understand that elevations are measured above Mean Sea Level and not above some arbitrary lines that you choose to draw.
But the Globe Community might consider accepting defeat when, for a start, you have proven the earth to be flat with a coherent model that has:
- An accurate map with the correct distances and directions adequate for long and short distance precise navigation.
Note that ship and aircraft navigator have long used Globe derived maps to determine distance and directions.
Many aircraft flights, including Kingsford Smith's crossing of the Pacific would have ended in disaster without accurate charts.- A flat earth shape/topology that allows "circumnavigation" in any of the many directions that have already been performed.
In particular there are numerous polar-circumnavigations via both poles and a number equatorial circumnavigation, including one within 2 degrees of the equator.- An explanation for both the sun and moon appearing to rise rise top first from behind the horizon and appearing to set bottom first behind the horizon.
- An explanation for the sun and moon remaining almost exactly the same angular size from rising to setting and from wherever they are observed.
- Some way to predict the directions and times of sunrises and sunsets.
- A shape that allows the elevation of the Pole star, Polaris, above horizontal to be almost equal to the latitude from which the observation is made.
- An explanation for the constellations remaining the same shape and size from rising to setting and from wherever they are observed.
- How the stars in the Northern Hemisphere can appear to rotate anti-clockwise around what known as the North Celestial Pole (close to Polaris) while
the stars in the Southern Hemisphere can appear to rotate clockwise around what known as the South Celestial Pole (close to the faint star Sigma Octantis).
In other words the stars appear to rotate around two distinct axes of rotation.
This is just a few that I can think of on the spot. Come back when you have sorted all those out.
I'm sure we can come up with a lot more things like the direction of rotation of hurricanes and cyclones and then the ordinary High and Low weather systems.
I'm sure that all these simple points have been raised before but I made a neat list for you to start on.
There another simple observation that confirms that we live on a Globe and that is:What about addressing all these other issues the do not find your flat earth hypothesis?
- The "Wiki" claims that:
QuoteBasic PerspectiveBut it is easy to show that the horizon does not rise to "eye-level" as elevation increases but falls below it be a quite predictable angle.
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?
(https://i.imgur.com/d8PSsHV.jpg)
What don't you understand about the words "sea level"? Why are you replacing that term with "underground plane"? There is no such thing. Otherwise everything on the planet when expressed as height would be, "X feet above the 'underground plane'". That literally makes no sense. Do you say that Mt Everest is "29,000 feet above the underground plane"?
Do you really not understand the globe model?
It's clear what I mean. "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines"
If we lived on a Globe it would be expressed as Sea Curvevel
I am using the Globe Earth model and Macarios's language. See....
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2191472#msg2191472
You are wildly misinterpreting Macario's original image and applying some sort of bizarre near logic to it. Globe model:
(https://i.imgur.com/KmESwOQ.jpg?1)
Gatun is 85' above SEA LEVEL not above an "underground plane".
Are you being cheeky or do you really have no concept as to how the globe model works?
No, I used his words in his Model Earth drawing and used his drawing. I noticed you removed his words and that plane line. Why?
Because you were incapable of understanding his first diagram (which is aimed at maybe a 3rd grader on up):
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/yLQ078.png)
And then you couldn't seem to comprehend his second diagram and got hung up on 'underground plane' even though it's been made painfully clear we are all talking about SEA LEVEL.
According to you and your warped non-knowledge of the globe model, there should be a 'bulge' of water about 300 miles high over the center of the US. Correct?
No, I had wrote to him stating he had not included curvature details and he went back and added them. You weren't following along. But that's no reason to change his drawing. You don't really understand flat Earth do you?
You might express " 'underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines'. O' elevation is mean sea level.""Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.
And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"
I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.
But it is not! And your keeping on saying that makes no difference to the facts, sorry about that.
Go and ask any geodetic surveyor because they are the ones that prepare the plans for large scale projects like the Panama and Suez Canal.
But in any case this erroneous claim of yours is not the only evidence thst we live on a Globe. You don't seem to have addressed these yet.Or this:When will RE Community Accept Defeat?All the points you raise show nothing more than your failure to understand that elevations are measured above Mean Sea Level and not above some arbitrary lines that you choose to draw.
But the Globe Community might consider accepting defeat when, for a start, you have proven the earth to be flat with a coherent model that has:
- An accurate map with the correct distances and directions adequate for long and short distance precise navigation.
Note that ship and aircraft navigator have long used Globe derived maps to determine distance and directions.
Many aircraft flights, including Kingsford Smith's crossing of the Pacific would have ended in disaster without accurate charts.- A flat earth shape/topology that allows "circumnavigation" in any of the many directions that have already been performed.
In particular there are numerous polar-circumnavigations via both poles and a number equatorial circumnavigation, including one within 2 degrees of the equator.- An explanation for both the sun and moon appearing to rise rise top first from behind the horizon and appearing to set bottom first behind the horizon.
- An explanation for the sun and moon remaining almost exactly the same angular size from rising to setting and from wherever they are observed.
- Some way to predict the directions and times of sunrises and sunsets.
- A shape that allows the elevation of the Pole star, Polaris, above horizontal to be almost equal to the latitude from which the observation is made.
- An explanation for the constellations remaining the same shape and size from rising to setting and from wherever they are observed.
- How the stars in the Northern Hemisphere can appear to rotate anti-clockwise around what known as the North Celestial Pole (close to Polaris) while
the stars in the Southern Hemisphere can appear to rotate clockwise around what known as the South Celestial Pole (close to the faint star Sigma Octantis).
In other words the stars appear to rotate around two distinct axes of rotation.
This is just a few that I can think of on the spot. Come back when you have sorted all those out.
I'm sure we can come up with a lot more things like the direction of rotation of hurricanes and cyclones and then the ordinary High and Low weather systems.
I'm sure that all these simple points have been raised before but I made a neat list for you to start on.There another simple observation that confirms that we live on a Globe and that is:What about addressing all these other issues the do not find your flat earth hypothesis?
- The "Wiki" claims that:
QuoteBasic PerspectiveBut it is easy to show that the horizon does not rise to "eye-level" as elevation increases but falls below it be a quite predictable angle.
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?
The topic is "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" and those points are all very relevant to that question.You might express " 'underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines'. O' elevation is mean sea level.""Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.
And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"
I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.
But it is not! And your keeping on saying that makes no difference to the facts, sorry about that.
Go and ask any geodetic surveyor because they are the ones that prepare the plans for large scale projects like the Panama and Suez Canal.
But in any case this erroneous claim of yours is not the only evidence thst we live on a Globe. You don't seem to have addressed these yet.Or this:When will RE Community Accept Defeat?All the points you raise show nothing more than your failure to understand that elevations are measured above Mean Sea Level and not above some arbitrary lines that you choose to draw.
But the Globe Community might consider accepting defeat when, for a start, you have proven the earth to be flat with a coherent model that has:
- An accurate map with the correct distances and directions adequate for long and short distance precise navigation.
Note that ship and aircraft navigator have long used Globe derived maps to determine distance and directions.
Many aircraft flights, including Kingsford Smith's crossing of the Pacific would have ended in disaster without accurate charts.- A flat earth shape/topology that allows "circumnavigation" in any of the many directions that have already been performed.
In particular there are numerous polar-circumnavigations via both poles and a number equatorial circumnavigation, including one within 2 degrees of the equator.- An explanation for both the sun and moon appearing to rise rise top first from behind the horizon and appearing to set bottom first behind the horizon.
- An explanation for the sun and moon remaining almost exactly the same angular size from rising to setting and from wherever they are observed.
- Some way to predict the directions and times of sunrises and sunsets.
- A shape that allows the elevation of the Pole star, Polaris, above horizontal to be almost equal to the latitude from which the observation is made.
- An explanation for the constellations remaining the same shape and size from rising to setting and from wherever they are observed.
- How the stars in the Northern Hemisphere can appear to rotate anti-clockwise around what known as the North Celestial Pole (close to Polaris) while
the stars in the Southern Hemisphere can appear to rotate clockwise around what known as the South Celestial Pole (close to the faint star Sigma Octantis).
In other words the stars appear to rotate around two distinct axes of rotation.
This is just a few that I can think of on the spot. Come back when you have sorted all those out.
I'm sure we can come up with a lot more things like the direction of rotation of hurricanes and cyclones and then the ordinary High and Low weather systems.
I'm sure that all these simple points have been raised before but I made a neat list for you to start on.There another simple observation that confirms that we live on a Globe and that is:What about addressing all these other issues the do not find your flat earth hypothesis?
- The "Wiki" claims that:
QuoteBasic PerspectiveBut it is easy to show that the horizon does not rise to "eye-level" as elevation increases but falls below it be a quite predictable angle.
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?
Please stay on topic. I am sure you have discussed your questions with others here.
Your welcome to verify the alleged curvature of the Suez and post it here. That's where I am headed next. Join me.
Thanks!
In a spherical world engineers would include curvature in their engineering profiles and drawings. Are you seeing it yet?
In spherical world engineers measure from Mean Sea Level.
Not from some imaginary straight line underground.
Not from some point 18 miles away.
Engineers know that builders will measure from Mean Sea Level as well.
Not from that imaginary straight line.
For that straight line nobody cares in reality.
It means nothing.
Mean Sea Level is the level where the water would be if there was no land there.
You replied to these words "In a spherical world engineers would include curvature in their engineering profiles and drawings." Your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote in bold.
But you measured from the imaginary straight line, for your Globe Earth Model to show how much surface curvature there should be between oceans and where to place sea level (at 216') and where to place Gatun Lake. Did you forget about this? See what you posted in the following link.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2191475#msg2191475
Here's another one, plats, so we don't have to all read through lots and lots of words for what can be explained by a simple couple of diagrams:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/equipotential.jpg)
Not a mirage but refraction seen earlier in the day when you have cooler air. but thanks for proving you don't understand the subject you argue against.You’re welcome.
Anyways. As already explained to you 100 times. The Panama Canal follows the curvature. 85 feet above sea level is 85 feet above sea level.
You said yes to "verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal" but gave a different argument. So I assume you can't do it?
Boats going over a alleged curve is a different issue. Some don't understand the science behind a surface mirage. You know, that image that heat and humidity creates near a flat surface and blocks the view?
Please stay on topic.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZdYZPWd.jpg)
Hilarious that you post this again and prove you didn't read the objections from the first time. Of course when you view from higher up and zoom in you can see the shore line. That is how the horizon on a globe Earth works. It is farther away with an increase in elevation. But thanks AGAIN for proving you don't understand the subject.We have no problem to solve. You have!Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.
You know, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. Can you do it?
But curvature of any landmass is rather useless because landmasses have so many "ups and downs" that 216' in 36 miles would never be noticed.
And the curvature across place like Lake Pontchartrain have been demonstrated often enough.
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/lake-pontchartrain-power-lines-demonstrating-the-curvature-metabunk-jpg.27877/)
Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/)
And there's plenty more if you really want to be shown that water does really "curve".
I ask that you please stay on topic.
Thanks.
(https://i.imgur.com/mDTT02P.jpg)
Here you go, plats......
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/suez-canal.jpg)
Here you go, plats......
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/suez-canal.jpg)
The person that made your meme is dishonest. No flat Earther thinks that would happen on a sphere. We understand your theory. It would curve as they expressed.
Here you go, plats......
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/suez-canal.jpg)
The person that made your meme is dishonest. No flat Earther thinks that would happen on a sphere. We understand your theory. It would curve as they expressed.
Here you go, plats......
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/suez-canal.jpg)
The person that made your meme is dishonest. No flat Earther thinks that would happen on a sphere. We understand your theory. It would curve as they expressed.
You realize that your uninformed notion about the Panama Canal is the same as the uninformed notion about the Suez Canal that you say no Flat Earther thinks would happen on a sphere?
These are the same bad concept:
(https://i.imgur.com/gcmie2r.jpg?1)
How is it twisted?
You literally produced a drawing and said the horz line should equal ~200ft of buldge.
No?
Yes?
Not hard to verfiy what you said.
Trying to pull a donald trump?
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
Both the coastlines of Atlantic and Pacific are at 0' Sea level and both are 3,962 miles from Earths alleged center.
The distance between Oceans with the Panama Canal in-between is about 36 Miles.
The center of Panama Canal is about 18 miles from the coast on Gatun Lake and is 85’ above each Ocean shoreline.
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
That means if Earth were a Globe, the Panama Canal could not exist because Gatun Lake would be under 131’ of sea water at 18 miles from the Coast. The Canal exists because water does not curve.
It’s that simple, we won. We really never lost. Earth Remains a flat Plane with mountains, hills and valleys and sea level bodies of water.
But the real question is, when is the Globe community going to accept defeat?
NASA can't help them, fake pictures and fake moon landings cannot rescue them.
No argument they have is going to magically make the oceans curve and flood the Panama Canal, no matter what they say or do. It’s not going to happen. After reading this if one continues to defend a Globe Earth theory, they are just professional deniers who really don’t care for truth.
(https://i.imgur.com/soROEsV.jpg)
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
Both the coastlines of Atlantic and Pacific are at 0' Sea level and both are 3,962 miles from Earths alleged center.
The distance between Oceans with the Panama Canal in-between is about 36 Miles.
The center of Panama Canal is about 18 miles from the coast on Gatun Lake and is 85’ above each Ocean shoreline.
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
That means if Earth were a Globe, the Panama Canal could not exist because Gatun Lake would be under 131’ of sea water at 18 miles from the Coast. The Canal exists because water does not curve.
It’s that simple, we won. We really never lost. Earth Remains a flat Plane with mountains, hills and valleys and sea level bodies of water.
But the real question is, when is the Globe community going to accept defeat?
NASA can't help them, fake pictures and fake moon landings cannot rescue them.
No argument they have is going to magically make the oceans curve and flood the Panama Canal, no matter what they say or do. It’s not going to happen. After reading this if one continues to defend a Globe Earth theory, they are just professional deniers who really don’t care for truth.
(https://i.imgur.com/soROEsV.jpg)
I typoed.
Horizontal. Not horizon.
But heres your very first post.
200ft.
Here you go, plats......
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/suez-canal.jpg)
The person that made your meme is dishonest. No flat Earther thinks that would happen on a sphere. We understand your theory. It would curve as they expressed.
You realize that your uninformed notion about the Panama Canal is the same as the uninformed notion about the Suez Canal that you say no Flat Earther thinks would happen on a sphere?
These are the same bad concept:
(https://i.imgur.com/gcmie2r.jpg?1)
No, two different things. The Sues canal does not have any mass at center 85' above the sea level of both bodies of water. The oceans at the panama Canal does, but should have more if Earth is a sphere. The lack of curvature is measured at the panama Canal. That's the key! But, you and others here like to twist things don't you!
Here you go, plats......
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/suez-canal.jpg)
The person that made your meme is dishonest. No flat Earther thinks that would happen on a sphere. We understand your theory. It would curve as they expressed.
You realize that your uninformed notion about the Panama Canal is the same as the uninformed notion about the Suez Canal that you say no Flat Earther thinks would happen on a sphere?
These are the same bad concept:
(https://i.imgur.com/gcmie2r.jpg?1)
No, two different things. The Sues canal does not have any mass at center 85' above the sea level of both bodies of water. The oceans at the panama Canal does, but should have more if Earth is a sphere. The lack of curvature is measured at the panama Canal. That's the key! But, you and others here like to twist things don't you!
(https://i.imgur.com/8isafsA.jpg)
This reply is for those who questioned why I have a blued curved ocean over the Panama Canal profile. It was just a visual illustration of how much water would be over the Canal area if Earth were a sphere. In my post I explain the Canal at center would be under 131’ of saltwater. I didn’t know I had to spell it out for some.
I also would like to make another point.
If Earth were a sphere and the land curved with the sphere, Gatun lake would have already been at least 301’ or more (instead of at 85’) from the underground plane connecting the oceans (at 0’ elevation) as seen from Macarios' drawing.
Since Earth’s surface was not at curvature of 216’ in reality, it was necessary for Macarios' to make it appear on paper it matched the Globe Earth model through curvature math. But his method proved he was actually measuring from actually sea level and then moved sea level up to 216’ and placed Gatun 85' higher to match the Globe model. So yes, if Earth were a sphere, the Panama Canal area would be under 131’ of water because the landmass is below the curvature of a sphere and Gatun is actually only 85' above both oceans and not 301 as can be seen in Macarios' drawing. Thank goodness it's not a sphere, because a lot of landmass would be underwater. Only mountains and really high hills would exist.
(https://i.imgur.com/8isafsA.jpg)
Equivocation fallacy: Calling two different things by the same name. The use of the word level in the National Geographic quote is not the same as the definition given.
Let's find another place where definitions of "level" is given:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level
level noun
lev·el | \ ˈle-vəl
\
Definition of level
(Entry 1 of 3)
1 : a device for establishing a horizontal line or plane by means of a bubble in a liquid that shows adjustment to the horizontal by movement to the center of a slightly bowed glass tube
2 : a measurement of the difference of altitude of two points by means of a level
3 : horizontal condition especially : equilibrium of a fluid marked by a horizontal surface of even altitude water seeks its own level
4a : an approximately horizontal line or surface taken as an index of altitude Charts were arranged at eye level.
b : a practically horizontal surface or area (as of land) the level of the plateau
5 : a position in a scale or rank (as of achievement, significance, or value) funded at the national level the job appeals to me on many levels
6a : a line or surface that cuts perpendicularly all plumb lines that it meets and hence would everywhere coincide with a surface of still water
b : the plane of the horizon or a line in it
7 : a horizontal passage in a mine intended for regular working and transportation
8 : a concentration of a constituent especially of a body fluid (such as blood) a normal blood-sugar level
9 : the magnitude of a quantity considered in relation to an arbitrary reference value broadly : magnitude, intensity a high level of hostility
on the level
: bona fide, honest
level verb
leveled or levelled; leveling or levelling\ ˈle-və-liŋ
, ˈlev-liŋ \
Definition of level (Entry 2 of 3)
transitive verb
1 : to make (a line or surface) horizontal : make flat or level level a field level off a house lot
2a : to bring to a horizontal aiming position
b : aim, direct leveled a charge of fraud
3 : to bring to a common level or plane : equalize love levels all ranks— W. S. Gilbert
4a : to lay level with or as if with the ground : raze
b : to knock down leveled him with one punch
5 : to make (something, such as color) even or uniform
6 : to find the heights of different points in (a piece of land) especially with a surveyor's level
intransitive verb
1 : to attain or come to a level the plane leveled off at 10,000 feet
2 : to aim a gun or other weapon horizontally
3 : to bring persons or things to a level
4 : to deal frankly and openly
level adjective
Definition of level (Entry 3 of 3)
1a : having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface
b : parallel with the plane of the horizon : horizontal
2a : even or unvarying in height
b : equal in advantage, progression, or standing
c : proceeding monotonously or uneventfully
d(1) : steady, unwavering gave him a level look
(2) : calm, unexcited spoke in level tones
3 : reasonable, balanced arrive at a justly proportional and level judgment on this affair— Sir Winston Churchill
4 : distributed evenly level stress
5 : being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : equipotential
6 : suited to a particular rank or plane of ability or achievement top-level thinking
7 : of or relating to the spreading out of a cost or charge in even payments over a period of time
level best
: very best
I run circles around you logically.
(https://i.imgur.com/8isafsA.jpg)
Equivocation fallacy: Calling two different things by the same name. The use of the word level in the National Geographic quote is not the same as the definition given.
Let's find another place where definitions of "level" is given:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level
level noun
lev·el | \ ˈle-vəl
\
Definition of level
(Entry 1 of 3)
1 : a device for establishing a horizontal line or plane by means of a bubble in a liquid that shows adjustment to the horizontal by movement to the center of a slightly bowed glass tube
2 : a measurement of the difference of altitude of two points by means of a level
3 : horizontal condition especially : equilibrium of a fluid marked by a horizontal surface of even altitude water seeks its own level
4a : an approximately horizontal line or surface taken as an index of altitude Charts were arranged at eye level.
b : a practically horizontal surface or area (as of land) the level of the plateau
5 : a position in a scale or rank (as of achievement, significance, or value) funded at the national level the job appeals to me on many levels
6a : a line or surface that cuts perpendicularly all plumb lines that it meets and hence would everywhere coincide with a surface of still water
b : the plane of the horizon or a line in it
7 : a horizontal passage in a mine intended for regular working and transportation
8 : a concentration of a constituent especially of a body fluid (such as blood) a normal blood-sugar level
9 : the magnitude of a quantity considered in relation to an arbitrary reference value broadly : magnitude, intensity a high level of hostility
on the level
: bona fide, honest
level verb
leveled or levelled; leveling or levelling\ ˈle-və-liŋ
, ˈlev-liŋ \
Definition of level (Entry 2 of 3)
transitive verb
1 : to make (a line or surface) horizontal : make flat or level level a field level off a house lot
2a : to bring to a horizontal aiming position
b : aim, direct leveled a charge of fraud
3 : to bring to a common level or plane : equalize love levels all ranks— W. S. Gilbert
4a : to lay level with or as if with the ground : raze
b : to knock down leveled him with one punch
5 : to make (something, such as color) even or uniform
6 : to find the heights of different points in (a piece of land) especially with a surveyor's level
intransitive verb
1 : to attain or come to a level the plane leveled off at 10,000 feet
2 : to aim a gun or other weapon horizontally
3 : to bring persons or things to a level
4 : to deal frankly and openly
level adjective
Definition of level (Entry 3 of 3)
1a : having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface
b : parallel with the plane of the horizon : horizontal
2a : even or unvarying in height
b : equal in advantage, progression, or standing
c : proceeding monotonously or uneventfully
d(1) : steady, unwavering gave him a level look
(2) : calm, unexcited spoke in level tones
3 : reasonable, balanced arrive at a justly proportional and level judgment on this affair— Sir Winston Churchill
4 : distributed evenly level stress
5 : being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : equipotential
6 : suited to a particular rank or plane of ability or achievement top-level thinking
7 : of or relating to the spreading out of a cost or charge in even payments over a period of time
level best
: very best
I run circles around you logically.
The Issue is Sea Level.
But lets do more research into what you posted. You have 1 highlighted and how many do I have? Who's outnumbered?
(Entry 1 of 3)
1 : a device for establishing a horizontal line or plane by means of a bubble in a liquid that shows adjustment to the horizontal by movement to the center of a slightly bowed glass tube
2 : a measurement of the difference of altitude of two points by means of a level
3 : horizontal condition especially : equilibrium of a fluid marked by a horizontal surface of even altitude water seeks its own level
4a : an approximately horizontal line or surface taken as an index of altitude Charts were arranged at eye level.
b : a practically horizontal surface or area (as of land) the level of the plateau
5 : a position in a scale or rank (as of achievement, significance, or value) funded at the national level the job appeals to me on many levels
6a : a line or surface that cuts perpendicularly all plumb lines that it meets and hence would everywhere coincide with a surface of still water
b : the plane of the horizon or a line in it
7 : a horizontal passage in a mine intended for regular working and transportation
8 : a concentration of a constituent especially of a body fluid (such as blood) a normal blood-sugar level
9 : the magnitude of a quantity considered in relation to an arbitrary reference value broadly : magnitude, intensity a high level of hostility
on the level
: bona fide, honest
level verb
leveled or levelled; leveling or levelling\ ˈle-və-liŋ
, ˈlev-liŋ \
Definition of level (Entry 2 of 3)
transitive verb
1 : to make (a line or surface) horizontal : make flat or level level a field level off a house lot
2a : to bring to a horizontal aiming position
b : aim, direct leveled a charge of fraud
3 : to bring to a common level or plane: equalize love levels all ranks— W. S. Gilbert
4a : to lay level with or as if with the ground : raze
b : to knock down leveled him with one punch
5 : to make (something, such as color) even or uniform
6 : to find the heights of different points in (a piece of land) especially with a surveyor's level
intransitive verb
1 : to attain or come to a level the plane leveled off at 10,000 feet
2 : to aim a gun or other weapon horizontally
3 : to bring persons or things to a level
4 : to deal frankly and openly
level adjective
Definition of level (Entry 3 of 3)
1a : having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface
b : parallel with the plane of the horizon : horizontal
2a : even or unvarying in height
b : equal in advantage, progression, or standing
c : proceeding monotonously or uneventfully
d(1) : steady, unwavering gave him a level look
(2) : calm, unexcited spoke in level tones
3 : reasonable, balanced arrive at a justly proportional and level judgment on this affair— Sir Winston Churchill
4 : distributed evenly level stress
5 : being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : equipotential
6 : suited to a particular rank or plane of ability or achievement top-level thinking
7 : of or relating to the spreading out of a cost or charge in even payments over a period of time
level best
: very best
This reply is for those who questioned why I have a blued curved ocean over the Panama Canal profile. It was just a visual illustration of how much water would be over the Canal area if Earth were a sphere. In my post I explain the Canal at center would be under 131’ of saltwater. I didn’t know I had to spell it out for some.
I also would like to make another point.
If Earth were a sphere and the land curved with the sphere, Gatun lake would have already been at least 301’ or more (instead of at 85’) from the underground plane connecting the oceans (at 0’ elevation) as seen from Macarios' drawing.
Since Earth’s surface was not at curvature of 216’ in reality, it was necessary for Macarios' to make it appear on paper it matched the Globe Earth model through curvature math. But his method proved he was actually measuring from actually sea level and then moved sea level up to 216’ and placed Gatun 85' higher to match the Globe model. So yes, if Earth were a sphere, the Panama Canal area would be under 131’ of water because the landmass is below the curvature of a sphere and Gatun is actually only 85' above both oceans and not 301 as can be seen in Macarios' drawing. Thank goodness it's not a sphere, because a lot of landmass would be underwater. Only mountains and really high hills would exist.
(https://i.imgur.com/8isafsA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6hiGGdH.jpg)
I'm not sure that's the real reason for all, but some like to play games.This reply is for those who questioned why I have a blued curved ocean over the Panama Canal profile. It was just a visual illustration of how much water would be over the Canal area if Earth were a sphere. In my post I explain the Canal at center would be under 131’ of saltwater. I didn’t know I had to spell it out for some.
I also would like to make another point.
If Earth were a sphere and the land curved with the sphere, Gatun lake would have already been at least 301’ or more (instead of at 85’) from the underground plane connecting the oceans (at 0’ elevation) as seen from Macarios' drawing.
Since Earth’s surface was not at curvature of 216’ in reality, it was necessary for Macarios' to make it appear on paper it matched the Globe Earth model through curvature math. But his method proved he was actually measuring from actually sea level and then moved sea level up to 216’ and placed Gatun 85' higher to match the Globe model. So yes, if Earth were a sphere, the Panama Canal area would be under 131’ of water because the landmass is below the curvature of a sphere and Gatun is actually only 85' above both oceans and not 301 as can be seen in Macarios' drawing. Thank goodness it's not a sphere, because a lot of landmass would be underwater. Only mountains and really high hills would exist.
(https://i.imgur.com/8isafsA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6hiGGdH.jpg)
You didnt.
We knew what you were saying.
It was rehtorical and or used to walk YOU through it.
But do go on.
We will accept defeat when the FEers actually manage defeat.
They are yet to come close.
There are so many issues that FE cannot explain which RE easily explain.
If you want to have REers accept defeat you will need to come up with a consistent FE model which addresses all the issues, rather than having heaps of different models where each model addresses a single issue.
You will also need to ditch the strawmanning and shifting of the burden of proof.
If you wish to assert that the lake is only 85 archaic units above the ocean, rather than sea level then you can provide the measurements which show that. Not just repeatedly stating it or providing a diagram showing elevation above sea level, but the actual measurements used to determine what the elevation is, with all the details.
Otherwise the best you can do is say that the RE side hasn't proven it is 85 archaic units above sea level. That doesn't defeat or disprove the RE side. It just means that one specific piece of information hasn't been sufficiently substantiated on this forum.
Your entire case seems to be complaining about the use of mean sea level rather than a particular imaginary line.
Why should that imaginary line be used rather than any other?
There is literally no justification to use any particular straight line.
This means you could produce loads of different diagrams with loads of different numbers with no justification for the numbers.
So instead mean sea level is used.
As for you cherry picking definitions, it doesn't matter how many there are, if you need to ignore one to make your case, it shows you have no case.
I'm not sure that's the real reason for all, but some like to play games.This reply is for those who questioned why I have a blued curved ocean over the Panama Canal profile. It was just a visual illustration of how much water would be over the Canal area if Earth were a sphere. In my post I explain the Canal at center would be under 131’ of saltwater. I didn’t know I had to spell it out for some.
I also would like to make another point.
If Earth were a sphere and the land curved with the sphere, Gatun lake would have already been at least 301’ or more (instead of at 85’) from the underground plane connecting the oceans (at 0’ elevation) as seen from Macarios' drawing.
Since Earth’s surface was not at curvature of 216’ in reality, it was necessary for Macarios' to make it appear on paper it matched the Globe Earth model through curvature math. But his method proved he was actually measuring from actually sea level and then moved sea level up to 216’ and placed Gatun 85' higher to match the Globe model. So yes, if Earth were a sphere, the Panama Canal area would be under 131’ of water because the landmass is below the curvature of a sphere and Gatun is actually only 85' above both oceans and not 301 as can be seen in Macarios' drawing. Thank goodness it's not a sphere, because a lot of landmass would be underwater. Only mountains and really high hills would exist.
(https://i.imgur.com/8isafsA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6hiGGdH.jpg)
You didnt.
We knew what you were saying.
It was rehtorical and or used to walk YOU through it.
But do go on.
I'm not sure that's the real reason for all, but some like to play games.This reply is for those who questioned why I have a blued curved ocean over the Panama Canal profile. It was just a visual illustration of how much water would be over the Canal area if Earth were a sphere. In my post I explain the Canal at center would be under 131’ of saltwater. I didn’t know I had to spell it out for some.
I also would like to make another point.
If Earth were a sphere and the land curved with the sphere, Gatun lake would have already been at least 301’ or more (instead of at 85’) from the underground plane connecting the oceans (at 0’ elevation) as seen from Macarios' drawing.
Since Earth’s surface was not at curvature of 216’ in reality, it was necessary for Macarios' to make it appear on paper it matched the Globe Earth model through curvature math. But his method proved he was actually measuring from actually sea level and then moved sea level up to 216’ and placed Gatun 85' higher to match the Globe model. So yes, if Earth were a sphere, the Panama Canal area would be under 131’ of water because the landmass is below the curvature of a sphere and Gatun is actually only 85' above both oceans and not 301 as can be seen in Macarios' drawing. Thank goodness it's not a sphere, because a lot of landmass would be underwater. Only mountains and really high hills would exist.
(https://i.imgur.com/8isafsA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6hiGGdH.jpg)
You didnt.
We knew what you were saying.
It was rehtorical and or used to walk YOU through it.
But do go on.
Just so we're hopefully on the same page of understanding, here's the Globe model and Flat model together. Agreed?
(https://i.imgur.com/LszQisr.jpg?1)
This reply is for those who questioned why I have a blued curved ocean over the Panama Canal profile. It was just a visual illustration of how much water would be over the Canal area if Earth were a sphere. In my post I explain the Canal at center would be under 131’ of saltwater. I didn’t know I had to spell it out for some.So AGAIN you prove you don't understand the subject.
I also would like to make another point.
If Earth were a sphere and the land curved with the sphere, Gatun lake would have already been at least 301’ or more (instead of at 85’) from the underground plane connecting the oceans (at 0’ elevation) as seen from Macarios' drawing.
Since Earth’s surface was not at curvature of 216’ in reality, it was necessary for Macarios' to make it appear on paper it matched the Globe Earth model through curvature math. But his method proved he was actually measuring from actually sea level and then moved sea level up to 216’ and placed Gatun 85' higher to match the Globe model. So yes, if Earth were a sphere, the Panama Canal area would be under 131’ of water because the landmass is below the curvature of a sphere and Gatun is actually only 85' above both oceans and not 301 as can be seen in Macarios' drawing. Thank goodness it's not a sphere, because a lot of landmass would be underwater. Only mountains and really high hills would exist.
(https://i.imgur.com/8isafsA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6hiGGdH.jpg)
As far as "above sea level" goes - yes on my side for all 4.
so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ep0DESQ.jpg)
so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ep0DESQ.jpg)
Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.
As far as the eye can see to the left, right and center, everyone in this world views a horizontal line where sky meets ocean.
so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ep0DESQ.jpg)
Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.
Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?
The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder. NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.
Please, i'v heard enough. Have a nice evening.
No, two different things. The Sues canal does not have any mass at center 85' above the sea level of both bodies of water. The oceans at the panama Canal does, but should have more if Earth is a sphere. The lack of curvature is measured at the panama Canal. That's the key! But, you and others here like to twist things don't you!
No, it's not a major blunder! As frenat said, yet another topic you don't understand and I'm betting you'll ignore it.(https://i.imgur.com/Ep0DESQ.jpg)so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.
Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.
Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?
The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder.
Debunked: "Blue Marble" Photos show a Changing Earth (https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/)
But what of the more unusual suggestion that the images are fake, because they show the continents being different sizes. Like many such things, it's all about perspective, and the way our brains work. We look at these images of the Earth, and our brain thinks of it as a flat object. You'd think if you get close to something, then it will get bigger, but not change shape. But this breaks down for three dimensional objects. If you get close to a globe, then you can see less of it, so the visible objects seem a lot bigger relative to the visible disc of the globe. The part of the globe in the middle is also a lot closer to your eye (relative to the edges) so seems bigger, like it's bulging out more than it actually is. You can verify this yourself with a household globe and your eyes (or a camera)
When the camera is just a few inches from the globe, then North America seems to take up nearly all of the hemisphere. But as the camera moves back, then you can see more of the globe, and so the true relative size can be seen.
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/near-far-perspective-jpg.20974/)
This explains why South America in the 1967 image (taken 22,000 miles away) looks bigger than South America in the 2015 image (taken 930,000 miles away). But what about the 2002 image? And what about this?
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/20150725-145612-ltvhf.jpg)
That's "Blue Marble 2012", another composite image, but this time made with the Suomi NPP satellite. Is the difference here because the Suomi satellite at a lower height compared to the Terra satellite from the 2002 images? No, the Suomi satellite at 517 miles, it actually higherthan Terra, at 438 miles. And from either of those altitudes, you'd only be able to see a relatively small part of the Earth.
Remember, the composite images are not real photos, they are stitched together into 3D models, and then images are rendered in the computer. So where is the camera relative to the Earth? It's anywhere you want it to be. Since it's a virtual camera, you can position it anywhere you want, at any altitude, and then draw the view from there. For the 2012 image, they simply moved the virtual camera to a relatively low viewpoint, and then had the computer render the view from there. You can duplicate the exact same effect in Google Earth by zooming out to about 5000 miles eye altitude.
NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.But the landmass being a different size every year does not mean in any way, shape or form mean that "the pictures are questionable"!
Verification? I hope you understand what that means and how it relates to science.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ep0DESQ.jpg)
Your pictures are deceptive. Those pictures were not crafted through composites and CGI. Again, the pictures are questionable.so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ep0DESQ.jpg)
Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.
Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?
The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder. NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.
Please, i'v heard enough. Have a nice evening.
You didn't even bother looking at the link he gave you...
(https://i.imgur.com/jr0ID6j.jpg)
No, it's not a major blunder! As frenat said, yet another topic you don't understand and I'm betting you'll ignore it.(https://i.imgur.com/Ep0DESQ.jpg)so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.
Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.
Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?
The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder.
So now I'll make it easy for you!QuoteDebunked: "Blue Marble" Photos show a Changing Earth (https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/)
But what of the more unusual suggestion that the images are fake, because they show the continents being different sizes. Like many such things, it's all about perspective, and the way our brains work. We look at these images of the Earth, and our brain thinks of it as a flat object. You'd think if you get close to something, then it will get bigger, but not change shape. But this breaks down for three dimensional objects. If you get close to a globe, then you can see less of it, so the visible objects seem a lot bigger relative to the visible disc of the globe. The part of the globe in the middle is also a lot closer to your eye (relative to the edges) so seems bigger, like it's bulging out more than it actually is. You can verify this yourself with a household globe and your eyes (or a camera)
When the camera is just a few inches from the globe, then North America seems to take up nearly all of the hemisphere. But as the camera moves back, then you can see more of the globe, and so the true relative size can be seen.
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/near-far-perspective-jpg.20974/)
This explains why South America in the 1967 image (taken 22,000 miles away) looks bigger than South America in the 2015 image (taken 930,000 miles away). But what about the 2002 image? And what about this?
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/20150725-145612-ltvhf.jpg)
That's "Blue Marble 2012", another composite image, but this time made with the Suomi NPP satellite. Is the difference here because the Suomi satellite at a lower height compared to the Terra satellite from the 2002 images? No, the Suomi satellite at 517 miles, it actually higherthan Terra, at 438 miles. And from either of those altitudes, you'd only be able to see a relatively small part of the Earth.
Remember, the composite images are not real photos, they are stitched together into 3D models, and then images are rendered in the computer. So where is the camera relative to the Earth? It's anywhere you want it to be. Since it's a virtual camera, you can position it anywhere you want, at any altitude, and then draw the view from there. For the 2012 image, they simply moved the virtual camera to a relatively low viewpoint, and then had the computer render the view from there. You can duplicate the exact same effect in Google Earth by zooming out to about 5000 miles eye altitude.
I'll let you read the rest.Quote from: Plat TerraNASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.But the landmass being a different size every year does not mean in any way, shape or form mean that "the pictures are questionable"!
It simple means that you simply cannot grasp perspective.
But why mention "Hubble"? Not only is it too close to the earth but there are numerous other reasons that it could not be used for this purpose.
But the Japanese Himawari 8 satellite can and takes at least one photo like this every 10 minutes.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/tua1lvdqxin7ehp/20170821%2000.00%20UTC%20JMA%20Himawari%20201708210000-00.jpg?dl=1)
No, two different things. The Sues canal does not have any mass at center 85' above the sea level of both bodies of water. The oceans at the panama Canal does, but should have more if Earth is a sphere. The lack of curvature is measured at the panama Canal. That's the key! But, you and others here like to twist things don't you!
Above Sea Level, period.
Not the sea level of Pacific ocean, not the sea level of Mediterranean sea, not the sea level of Indian ocean.
The sea level of the planet Earth.
The level the water would have if it was there instead of continents.
AGAIN: The level at the center of the Panama Canal you measure from sea level there, not from sea level 18 miles away at the coast.
No, two different things. The Sues canal does not have any mass at center 85' above the sea level of both bodies of water. The oceans at the panama Canal does, but should have more if Earth is a sphere. The lack of curvature is measured at the panama Canal. That's the key! But, you and others here like to twist things don't you!
Above Sea Level, period.
Not the sea level of Pacific ocean, not the sea level of Mediterranean sea, not the sea level of Indian ocean.
The sea level of the planet Earth.
The level the water would have if it was there instead of continents.
AGAIN: The level at the center of the Panama Canal you measure from sea level there, not from sea level 18 miles away at the coast.
Well, we can agree it's level as in plane, horizontal, flat not curve. You know, the same words you use.
As far as the eye can see to the left, right and center, everyone in this world views a horizontal line where sky meets ocean.Exactly as it should be seen on a huge Globe because on that Globe the distance to a water horizon must be the same distance away all 360° around.
Engineers know water seeks its own level. It’s the natural dynamics of fluid. So, it’s no wonder why elevations are measured from the surface of the connecting oceans no matter what they claim.Yes, these "Engineers know water seeks its own level. It’s the natural dynamics of fluid" and that "level" is the profile that results in the lowest potential energy.
Whoever was the first to teach the circumference of the Earth is basically the established reference point for “Sea Level” and called a curved geometrical line "level" and without verifying the alleged surface curvature was an idiot. He was intellectually dishonest and didn’t have genuine ethics. He only did so to further his cause through pseudoscience.No, you're the one spreading pseudoscience and you have n basis for your claims that he "was an idiot. He was intellectually dishonest and didn’t have genuine ethics. He only did so to further his cause through pseudoscience."
You cannot trust using Sea Level to establish a curvature point as taught by those in the Globe community because surface curvature has never be verified by anyone.And where did you drag that from, one of you YouTube mates?
(https://i.imgur.com/KQjRW9b.jpg)Sure, it's a nice photo showing the sharp straight flat horizon expected on a huge Globe! Here's another but it doesn't fit your flat earth too well ;D:
Your pictures are deceptive. Those pictures were not crafted through composites and CGI. Again, the pictures are questionable.so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ep0DESQ.jpg)
Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.
Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?
The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder. NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.
Please, i'v heard enough. Have a nice evening.
You didn't even bother looking at the link he gave you...
(https://i.imgur.com/jr0ID6j.jpg)
As far as the eye can see to the left, right and center, everyone in this world views a horizontal line where sky meets ocean. Engineers know water seeks its own level. It’s the natural dynamics of fluid. So, it’s no wonder why elevations are measured from the surface of the connecting oceans no matter what they claim.
Whoever was the first to teach the circumference of the Earth is basically the established reference point for “Sea Level” and called a curved geometrical line "level" and without verifying the alleged surface curvature was an idiot. He was intellectually dishonest and didn’t have genuine ethics. He only did so to further his cause through pseudoscience.
You cannot trust using Sea Level to establish a curvature point as taught by those in the Globe community because surface curvature has never be verified by anyone.
(https://i.imgur.com/KQjRW9b.jpg)
Your empty claim, "Again, your pictures are deceptive" is just meaningless words. Why are the "deceptive".No, it's not a major blunder! As frenat said, yet another topic you don't understand and I'm betting you'll ignore it.(https://i.imgur.com/Ep0DESQ.jpg)so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.
Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.
Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?
The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder.
So now I'll make it easy for you!QuoteDebunked: "Blue Marble" Photos show a Changing Earth (https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/)
But what of the more unusual suggestion that the images are fake, because they show the continents being different sizes. Like many such things, it's all about perspective, and the way our brains work. We look at these images of the Earth, and our brain thinks of it as a flat object. You'd think if you get close to something, then it will get bigger, but not change shape. But this breaks down for three dimensional objects. If you get close to a globe, then you can see less of it, so the visible objects seem a lot bigger relative to the visible disc of the globe. The part of the globe in the middle is also a lot closer to your eye (relative to the edges) so seems bigger, like it's bulging out more than it actually is. You can verify this yourself with a household globe and your eyes (or a camera)
When the camera is just a few inches from the globe, then North America seems to take up nearly all of the hemisphere. But as the camera moves back, then you can see more of the globe, and so the true relative size can be seen.
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/near-far-perspective-jpg.20974/)
This explains why South America in the 1967 image (taken 22,000 miles away) looks bigger than South America in the 2015 image (taken 930,000 miles away). But what about the 2002 image? And what about this?
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/20150725-145612-ltvhf.jpg)
That's "Blue Marble 2012", another composite image, but this time made with the Suomi NPP satellite. Is the difference here because the Suomi satellite at a lower height compared to the Terra satellite from the 2002 images? No, the Suomi satellite at 517 miles, it actually higherthan Terra, at 438 miles. And from either of those altitudes, you'd only be able to see a relatively small part of the Earth.
Remember, the composite images are not real photos, they are stitched together into 3D models, and then images are rendered in the computer. So where is the camera relative to the Earth? It's anywhere you want it to be. Since it's a virtual camera, you can position it anywhere you want, at any altitude, and then draw the view from there. For the 2012 image, they simply moved the virtual camera to a relatively low viewpoint, and then had the computer render the view from there. You can duplicate the exact same effect in Google Earth by zooming out to about 5000 miles eye altitude.
I'll let you read the rest.Quote from: Plat TerraNASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.But the landmass being a different size every year does not mean in any way, shape or form mean that "the pictures are questionable"!
It simple means that you simply cannot grasp perspective.
But why mention "Hubble"? Not only is it too close to the earth but there are numerous other reasons that it could not be used for this purpose.
But the Japanese Himawari 8 satellite can and takes at least one photo like this every 10 minutes.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/tua1lvdqxin7ehp/20170821%2000.00%20UTC%20JMA%20Himawari%20201708210000-00.jpg?dl=1)
Again, your pictures are deceptive. Those Globe Model pictures were not crafted through composites and CGI. Again, the pictures are questionable.
| (http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_9.jpg) | (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/6kuFLvSPKdL551BBRsjM2MTtGy8=/36x0:983x631/920x613/filters:focal(36x0:983x631):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/1114614/earth-russia.jpg) |
Your pictures are deceptive. Those pictures were not crafted through composites and CGI. Again, the pictures are questionable.
(https://i.imgur.com/jr0ID6j.jpg)
Have you also believe Earth has curvature without a shred of verification?Ignoring that it has been verified wont help your case.
As far as the eye can see to the left, right and center, everyone in this world views a horizontal line where sky meets oceanYou mean a circle that goes all around them. It clearly isn't a line as it isn't only in one direction.
Engineers know water seeks its own level.Yes, level, not flat.
It’s the natural dynamics of fluid.Yes, adopting an equipotential surface, regardless of the conditions, not just magically being flat.
I'm not ignoring anything but thanks for proving you didn't bother to look at the link. The landmasses can appear to be different sizes depending on the lens used. I was NOT talking about the size of the spheres.so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ep0DESQ.jpg)
Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.
Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?
The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder. NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.
Please, i'v heard enough. Have a nice evening.
Why should sea level be measured from a mine shaft?
Globe
Why should sea level be measured from a mine shaft?
Which sea level? Flat Earth or Globe?
Why should sea level be measured from a mine shaft?
Which sea level? Flat Earth or Globe?
The measured one, whichever it is.
And measures show it curves.
Science does not require me to preform every experiment.Globe
Have you verified the alleged surface curvature of this Earth to use its alleged circumference as a reference point for sea curve anywhere and for a Globe? If not, why?
Science does not require me to preform every experiment.Globe
Have you verified the alleged surface curvature of this Earth to use its alleged circumference as a reference point for sea curve anywhere and for a Globe? If not, why?
Also it’s not proper to answer a question with a question.
The Earth has been verified as an oblate spheroid through literally thousands of experiments and experiences.
There is literally a mountain of photographic evidence. Whether you claim them to be "fake" or not is completely irrelevant.
We have all witnessed every single point you have presented easily debunked with actual, verifiable data.
The shape of the Earth is universally accepted as spheroid. I would kindly suggest you go out and experience it for yourself. It's a beautiful place!
...unless you have some other YouTube flat Earth talking points you'd like debunked.
The Earth has been verified as an oblate spheroid through literally thousands of experiments and experiences.
There is literally a mountain of photographic evidence. Whether you claim them to be "fake" or not is completely irrelevant.
We have all witnessed every single point you have presented easily debunked with actual, verifiable data.
The shape of the Earth is universally accepted as spheroid. I would kindly suggest you go out and experience it for yourself. It's a beautiful place!
...unless you have some other YouTube flat Earth talking points you'd like debunked.
If what you say is true, then I should able to find the verified curvature of any landmass or canal just like I can with its elevation, width, length and location. But I can't. Why?
The Earth has been verified as an oblate spheroid through literally thousands of experiments and experiences.
There is literally a mountain of photographic evidence. Whether you claim them to be "fake" or not is completely irrelevant.
We have all witnessed every single point you have presented easily debunked with actual, verifiable data.
The shape of the Earth is universally accepted as spheroid. I would kindly suggest you go out and experience it for yourself. It's a beautiful place!
...unless you have some other YouTube flat Earth talking points you'd like debunked.
If what you say is true, then I should able to find the verified curvature of any landmass or canal just like I can with its elevation, width, length and location. But I can't. Why?
Between what two points?
The Earth has been verified as an oblate spheroid through literally thousands of experiments and experiences.
There is literally a mountain of photographic evidence. Whether you claim them to be "fake" or not is completely irrelevant.
We have all witnessed every single point you have presented easily debunked with actual, verifiable data.
The shape of the Earth is universally accepted as spheroid. I would kindly suggest you go out and experience it for yourself. It's a beautiful place!
...unless you have some other YouTube flat Earth talking points you'd like debunked.
If what you say is true, then I should able to find the verified curvature of any landmass or canal just like I can with its elevation, width, length and location. But I can't. Why?
Between what two points?
You should know, right?
The Earth has been verified as an oblate spheroid through literally thousands of experiments and experiences.
There is literally a mountain of photographic evidence. Whether you claim them to be "fake" or not is completely irrelevant.
We have all witnessed every single point you have presented easily debunked with actual, verifiable data.
The shape of the Earth is universally accepted as spheroid. I would kindly suggest you go out and experience it for yourself. It's a beautiful place!
...unless you have some other YouTube flat Earth talking points you'd like debunked.
If what you say is true, then I should able to find the verified curvature of any landmass or canal just like I can with its elevation, width, length and location. But I can't. Why?
What was that bad experimetn perfromed by rowboat?
Looks like it could be re-tried here on the northern half of the canal as it seems quite straight - If ship bottom dips below the horizon, the earth is curving.
But then if you think about it, does it even have to be a canal?
We could use any stretch of water of significant length.
Wheres googonomny.
He used to be a sailor and could explain.
You clearly don’t want to learn anything.Science does not require me to preform every experiment.Globe
Have you verified the alleged surface curvature of this Earth to use its alleged circumference as a reference point for sea curve anywhere and for a Globe? If not, why?
Also it’s not proper to answer a question with a question.
It’s proper to know that the person who is trying to teach me has verified the foundation of their belief otherwise what good is their information? I don’t want to be led along blindly. However, if you have, I am willing to learn more and answer your questions. Verification is good science for such a belief as a Globe Earth.
You clearly don’t want to learn anything.Science does not require me to preform every experiment.Globe
Have you verified the alleged surface curvature of this Earth to use its alleged circumference as a reference point for sea curve anywhere and for a Globe? If not, why?
Also it’s not proper to answer a question with a question.
It’s proper to know that the person who is trying to teach me has verified the foundation of their belief otherwise what good is their information? I don’t want to be led along blindly. However, if you have, I am willing to learn more and answer your questions. Verification is good science for such a belief as a Globe Earth.
I like a lot of people have seen thing disappear behind the horizon. This is evidence for a round earth.
Science proves water seeks it's own level through experimentation. Two bodies of water being joined together through any form at surface or below will equalize and have the same horizontal surface and not curve at any point. If you disagree, I then challenge you to actually verify the water contained in the Suez Canal curves with a Globe Earth's circumference and is not below the grade of the curve and is not level as experimentation proves.
Mirages are well know.You clearly don’t want to learn anything.Science does not require me to preform every experiment.Globe
Have you verified the alleged surface curvature of this Earth to use its alleged circumference as a reference point for sea curve anywhere and for a Globe? If not, why?
Also it’s not proper to answer a question with a question.
It’s proper to know that the person who is trying to teach me has verified the foundation of their belief otherwise what good is their information? I don’t want to be led along blindly. However, if you have, I am willing to learn more and answer your questions. Verification is good science for such a belief as a Globe Earth.
I like a lot of people have seen thing disappear behind the horizon. This is evidence for a round earth.
Yeah and the legs of this man and woman have also disappeared behind the curve. I saw it myself! It's true. Please believe me!
(https://i.imgur.com/XNBzPFh.jpg)
Mirages are well know.You clearly don’t want to learn anything.Science does not require me to preform every experiment.Globe
Have you verified the alleged surface curvature of this Earth to use its alleged circumference as a reference point for sea curve anywhere and for a Globe? If not, why?
Also it’s not proper to answer a question with a question.
It’s proper to know that the person who is trying to teach me has verified the foundation of their belief otherwise what good is their information? I don’t want to be led along blindly. However, if you have, I am willing to learn more and answer your questions. Verification is good science for such a belief as a Globe Earth.
I like a lot of people have seen thing disappear behind the horizon. This is evidence for a round earth.
Yeah and the legs of this man and woman have also disappeared behind the curve. I saw it myself! It's true. Please believe me!
(https://i.imgur.com/XNBzPFh.jpg)
Why should sea level be measured from a mine shaft?
Which sea level? Flat Earth or Globe?
The measured one, whichever it is.
And measures show it curves.
Identification matters.
Science proves water seeks it's own level through experimentation. Two bodies of water being joined together through any form at surface or below will equalize and have the same horizontal surface and not curve at any point. If you disagree, I then challenge you to actually verify the water contained in the Suez Canal curves with a Globe Earth's circumference and is not below the grade of the curve and is not level as experimentation proves.
A surveyor by the name of Bourdaloue would disagree and verified the curvature for the Suez Canal project back in the 1850's. His predecessor, LePere, had erroneously surveyed and stated the Med was 9 meters above the Red. That stalled the project for some 50 years. Bourdaloue came along and being one of the fathers of "Orthometric Levelling", determined that the difference was actually negligible. He performed his survey from end to end.
What is Orthometric Levelling in surveyor parlance? It is defined by determining the orthometric height of a point. It is the distance H along a plumb line from the point to a reference height. When the reference height is a geoid model, orthometric height is for practical purposes "height above sea level".
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324988344/figure/fig1/AS:623646146064384@1525700236054/The-difference-between-the-orthometric-and-ellipsoidal-height.png)
In order to determine the true height of the Med versus the Red and all points in between, Orthometric Levelling surveying was performed and verified.
Yes, mirages are well known, except when it comes to boats going over a curve. Only then the mirages can't apply, right?Mirages (atmospheric refractive phenomena) can and do apply to boats going over a curve under certain, well defined conditions. The trick is to understand what those conditions are and how they apply.
Science proves water seeks it's own level through experimentation. Two bodies of water being joined together through any form at surface or below will equalize and have the same horizontal surface and not curve at any point. If you disagree, I then challenge you to actually verify the water contained in the Suez Canal curves with a Globe Earth's circumference and is not below the grade of the curve and is not level as experimentation proves.
A surveyor by the name of Bourdaloue would disagree and verified the curvature for the Suez Canal project back in the 1850's. His predecessor, LePere, had erroneously surveyed and stated the Med was 9 meters above the Red. That stalled the project for some 50 years. Bourdaloue came along and being one of the fathers of "Orthometric Levelling", determined that the difference was actually negligible. He performed his survey from end to end.
What is Orthometric Levelling in surveyor parlance? It is defined by determining the orthometric height of a point. It is the distance H along a plumb line from the point to a reference height. When the reference height is a geoid model, orthometric height is for practical purposes "height above sea level".
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324988344/figure/fig1/AS:623646146064384@1525700236054/The-difference-between-the-orthometric-and-ellipsoidal-height.png)
In order to determine the true height of the Med versus the Red and all points in between, Orthometric Levelling surveying was performed and verified.
Continue........
Yes, mirages are well known, except when it comes to boats going over a curve. Only then the mirages can't apply, right?Mirages (atmospheric refractive phenomena) can and do apply to boats going over a curve under certain, well defined conditions. The trick is to understand what those conditions are and how they apply.
(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/130/590x/top-pic3-676472.jpg)
It’s proper to know that the person who is trying to teach me has verified the foundation of their belief otherwise what good is their information?They don't need to verify it with their own measurements.
Two bodies of water being joined together through any form at surface or below will equalize and have the same horizontal surface and not curve at any point.Stop lying.
Yes, mirages are well known, except when it comes to boats going over a curve. Only then the mirages can't apply, right?Mirages (atmospheric refractive phenomena) can and do apply to boats going over a curve under certain, well defined conditions. The trick is to understand what those conditions are and how they apply.
(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/130/590x/top-pic3-676472.jpg)
Now, do you have any evidence to support your claims, or are you only capable of shifting the burden of proof and ignoring the evidence provided?
Of course mirages can apply then but in most cases, as in your photo, the mirage can be seen for what it is.Mirages are well know.
Yeah and the legs of this man and woman have also disappeared behind the curve. I saw it myself! It's true. Please believe me!
(https://i.imgur.com/XNBzPFh.jpg)
Yes, mirages are well known, except when it comes to boats going over a curve. Only then the mirages can't apply, right?
Bathurst Lighthouse - The fastest flat Earth destroyer in the West. by Wolfie6020 | Wolfie6020 and Bathurst Lighthouse destroy Flat Earth again by Critical Think |
I for one would love to see how the dome or the ice wall have been verified by the FE community, but apparently they are too busy investigating the panama canal and looking for flaws in pictures from NASA.
You mean like this when even the docked boat at shore can't be seen?
(https://i.imgur.com/ZdYZPWd.jpg)
You mean like this when even the docked boat at shore can't be seen?
(https://i.imgur.com/ZdYZPWd.jpg)
Secondly, I'm tired of seeing ye olde skunk bay image as proof of anything. It's 5 miles across the bay. What would you expect as a curve in 5 miles? It's a couple of feet. And no one has ever said, "Oh look over there, 5 miles, across skunk bay, the shoreline is over the horizon..." No one. That doesn't even make sense. So what if miraging appears in a time lapse. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. So what? Ridiculous.
Thirdly, where did you dig up, "Curved surfaces do not create mirages"? Did you just make that up?
There is no reason to re-present videos to counter your argument, again and again like many others have. You will just keep repeating the same things over and over. Your arguments don’t matter anymore considering you are incapable of actually verifying (the foundation of your theory) surface curvature. NASA, SpaceX and Newton can’t even help you now.
It’s proper to know that the person who is trying to teach me has verified the foundation of their belief otherwise what good is their information?They don't need to verify it with their own measurements.
They just need to know the evidence for it.
If you expected them to have verified it all themselves, then science teachers would have to spend their entire lives going out verifying each piece of science before being able to teach and then no one would ever be a science teacher.
Do you demand the same ridiculous standards for all other aspects of science, or just the ones you reject without cause?Two bodies of water being joined together through any form at surface or below will equalize and have the same horizontal surface and not curve at any point.Stop lying.
It has already been explained repeatedly that that is not the case. Level does not always mean flat.
If you wish to assert such nonsense the burden of proof is on you to show that water in large bodies is flat, not curved.
Now, do you have any evidence to support your claims, or are you only capable of shifting the burden of proof and ignoring the evidence provided?
I will express it in another way.
Those who come here seeking truth need to know that no one in the Globe Community has ever verified the claim Earth has the surface curvature in relation to a 3959 mile radius. And yet everyone follows it blindly, without any verification. This is why I said “you.”
Truth seekers need to know people accept the Globe Earth theory in the same manner and way as fairytales, gossip and hearsay is accepted and passed down throughout history and through agenda driven media and Elites.
The Globe Earth theory is also accepted in the same manner as all traditions passed down through history right or wrong, such as political affiliation, membership into a club and other . It is accepted because of traditions without question.
Soon, if not all ready, you, your children and grandchildren will believe in more than two-genders also, not because it’s true and has been verified, but because it’s the way of mainstream. You probable already believe in global warming hoax too, right?
Yes, anyone can look a large body of water such as a ocean and see a curve? No, they see a horizontal (flat straight) line where sky meets ocean. There is nothing in our natural surroundings reveal Earth is a sphere spinning 1000 MPH and hurling through space. No motion, no turbulence and nothing curved at a distance.
So you better verify that surface curvature and make sure it conforms to a sphere as claimed, because your numbers are dwindling.
(https://i.imgur.com/mRL3IGv.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/434Q0ok.jpg)
It’s proper to know that the person who is trying to teach me has verified the foundation of their belief otherwise what good is their information?They don't need to verify it with their own measurements.
They just need to know the evidence for it.
If you expected them to have verified it all themselves, then science teachers would have to spend their entire lives going out verifying each piece of science before being able to teach and then no one would ever be a science teacher.
Do you demand the same ridiculous standards for all other aspects of science, or just the ones you reject without cause?Two bodies of water being joined together through any form at surface or below will equalize and have the same horizontal surface and not curve at any point.Stop lying.
It has already been explained repeatedly that that is not the case. Level does not always mean flat.
If you wish to assert such nonsense the burden of proof is on you to show that water in large bodies is flat, not curved.
Now, do you have any evidence to support your claims, or are you only capable of shifting the burden of proof and ignoring the evidence provided?
I will express it in another way.
Those who come here seeking truth need to know that no one in the Globe Community has ever verified the claim Earth has the surface curvature in relation to a 3959 mile radius. And yet everyone follows it blindly, without any verification. This is why I said “you.”
Truth seekers need to know people accept the Globe Earth theory in the same manner and way as fairytales, gossip and hearsay is accepted and passed down throughout history and through agenda driven media and Elites.
The Globe Earth theory is also accepted in the same manner as all traditions passed down through history right or wrong, such as political affiliation, membership into a club and other . It is accepted because of traditions without question.
Soon, if not all ready, you, your children and grandchildren will believe in more than two-genders also, not because it’s true and has been verified, but because it’s the way of mainstream. You probable already believe in global warming hoax too, right?
Yes, anyone can look a large body of water such as a ocean and see a curve? No, they see a horizontal (flat straight) line where sky meets ocean. There is nothing in our natural surroundings reveal Earth is a sphere spinning 1000 MPH and hurling through space. No motion, no turbulence and nothing curved at a distance.
So you better verify that surface curvature and make sure it conforms to a sphere as claimed, because your numbers are dwindling.
(https://i.imgur.com/mRL3IGv.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/434Q0ok.jpg)
You keep claiming that nobody has verified the curvature of the globe, yet you have been repeatedly shown that your statement is completely false.
Tell me, what evidence would you accept that shows you are wrong?
None?
You speak of an "agenda" regarding concealment of the true shape of the Earth. Would you care to describe this "agenda"? Please, don't spare the juicy details!
I will express it in another way.Expressing the same lie in another way wont help you.
Those who come here seeking truth need to know that no one in the Globe Community has ever verified the claim Earth has the surface curvature in relation to a 3959 mile radius.
Yes, anyone can look a large body of water such as a ocean and see a curve? No, they see a horizontal (flat straight) line where sky meets ocean.No, they see a circle, which goes all around.
There is nothing in our natural surroundings reveal Earth is a sphere spinning 1000 MPH and hurling through space.Except the horizon, and the behaviour of the horizon and objects near it, and the apparent motion of stars.
You do realize there is 16' drop in curvature at 5 miles?And how high was the camera?
And do you see how much of the shoreline view is blocked?In which image?
I learned it through observation while driving over hilly roads.So you assumed it based upon incomplete observations.
You have never shown that the curvature is not there!
There is no reason to re-present videos to counter your argument, again and again like many others have. You will just keep repeating the same things over and over. Your arguments don’t matter anymore considering you are incapable of actually verifying (the foundation of your theory) surface curvature. NASA, SpaceX and Newton can’t even help you now.
| (http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_9.jpg) | (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/6kuFLvSPKdL551BBRsjM2MTtGy8=/36x0:983x631/920x613/filters:focal(36x0:983x631):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/1114614/earth-russia.jpg) |
Why do you keep ignoring the replies you get about this pic? In the morning there is more refraction as the air is cooler. It even SHOWS the air is cooler on your pic. You just ignore what is inconvenient for your beliefs. Thanks for the humor!What was that bad experimetn perfromed by rowboat?
Looks like it could be re-tried here on the northern half of the canal as it seems quite straight - If ship bottom dips below the horizon, the earth is curving.
But then if you think about it, does it even have to be a canal?
We could use any stretch of water of significant length.
Wheres googonomny.
He used to be a sailor and could explain.
Yeah and perform the experiment on a hot steamy day as to make sure you can't see the Boat.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZdYZPWd.jpg)
It’s proper to know that the person who is trying to teach me has verified the foundation of their belief otherwise what good is their information?They don't need to verify it with their own measurements.
They just need to know the evidence for it.
If you expected them to have verified it all themselves, then science teachers would have to spend their entire lives going out verifying each piece of science before being able to teach and then no one would ever be a science teacher.
Do you demand the same ridiculous standards for all other aspects of science, or just the ones you reject without cause?Two bodies of water being joined together through any form at surface or below will equalize and have the same horizontal surface and not curve at any point.Stop lying.
It has already been explained repeatedly that that is not the case. Level does not always mean flat.
If you wish to assert such nonsense the burden of proof is on you to show that water in large bodies is flat, not curved.
Now, do you have any evidence to support your claims, or are you only capable of shifting the burden of proof and ignoring the evidence provided?
I will express it in another way.
Those who come here seeking truth need to know that no one in the Globe Community has ever verified the claim Earth has the surface curvature in relation to a 3959 mile radius. And yet everyone follows it blindly, without any verification. This is why I said “you.”
Truth seekers need to know people accept the Globe Earth theory in the same manner and way as fairytales, gossip and hearsay is accepted and passed down throughout history and through agenda driven media and Elites.
The Globe Earth theory is also accepted in the same manner as all traditions passed down through history right or wrong, such as political affiliation, membership into a club and other . It is accepted because of traditions without question.
Soon, if not all ready, you, your children and grandchildren will believe in more than two-genders also, not because it’s true and has been verified, but because it’s the way of mainstream. You probable already believe in global warming hoax too, right?
Yes, anyone can look a large body of water such as a ocean and see a curve? No, they see a horizontal (flat straight) line where sky meets ocean. There is nothing in our natural surroundings reveal Earth is a sphere spinning 1000 MPH and hurling through space. No motion, no turbulence and nothing curved at a distance.
So you better verify that surface curvature and make sure it conforms to a sphere as claimed, because your numbers are dwindling.
(https://i.imgur.com/mRL3IGv.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/434Q0ok.jpg)
You keep claiming that nobody has verified the curvature of the globe, yet you have been repeatedly shown that your statement is completely false.
Tell me, what evidence would you accept that shows you are wrong?
None?
You speak of an "agenda" regarding concealment of the true shape of the Earth. Would you care to describe this "agenda"? Please, don't spare the juicy details!
Read my signature again. It says landmass and canal. If you can do that then what choice do I have?
Agenda? You won't like it. Have a look.....
I will express it in another way.Expressing the same lie in another way wont help you.
Those who come here seeking truth need to know that no one in the Globe Community has ever verified the claim Earth has the surface curvature in relation to a 3959 mile radius.
The curvature of Earth has been verified, countless times.Yes, anyone can look a large body of water such as a ocean and see a curve? No, they see a horizontal (flat straight) line where sky meets ocean.No, they see a circle, which goes all around.
If they use an accurate measuring device, they see that this circle is below them, with an angle of dip as expected for a RE.There is nothing in our natural surroundings reveal Earth is a sphere spinning 1000 MPH and hurling through space.Except the horizon, and the behaviour of the horizon and objects near it, and the apparent motion of stars.
And then there are plenty of instruments for accurately measuring it.
You not liking that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
What there is nothing of is any indication that Earth is a flat, motionless plane.You do realize there is 16' drop in curvature at 5 miles?And how high was the camera?
What you actually need to do is use the height of the camera to determine the distance to the horizon, and then use the remaining distance to determine how much should be hidden.And do you see how much of the shoreline view is blocked?In which image?
Is the first image the one without distortion, with the shoreline visible, and then the second one has atmospheric effects obscuring the horizon?
Or is the second image the one without significant distortion, with the first one allowing more to be visible due to refraction?I learned it through observation while driving over hilly roads.So you assumed it based upon incomplete observations.
You can't use examples of mirages occurring in one location to conclude they can't form in another.
Nor can you use the simple absence of them in one location to confirm that they can't form there.
Why do you keep ignoring the replies you get about this pic? In the morning there is more refraction as the air is cooler. It even SHOWS the air is cooler on your pic. You just ignore what is inconvenient for your beliefs. Thanks for the humor!What was that bad experimetn perfromed by rowboat?
Looks like it could be re-tried here on the northern half of the canal as it seems quite straight - If ship bottom dips below the horizon, the earth is curving.
But then if you think about it, does it even have to be a canal?
We could use any stretch of water of significant length.
Wheres googonomny.
He used to be a sailor and could explain.
Yeah and perform the experiment on a hot steamy day as to make sure you can't see the Boat.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZdYZPWd.jpg)
Although at least it appears you abandoned all your silly proposed experiments that you assumed the results of without testing.
Even on a infinite Plane we can only see in a circle. Optics can only see in the radius of a circle. The farthest we can see is straight ahead, anything left to right is pulled back. And does not mean we live on a sphere. If we lived on a sphere the horizon would curve from center left to right, but it doesn’t even at balloon heights of 100,000’plus and the Red bull Jump. What does he see out the opened hatch?
Even on a infinite Plane we can only see in a circle. Optics can only see in the radius of a circle. The farthest we can see is straight ahead, anything left to right is pulled back. And does not mean we live on a sphere. If we lived on a sphere the horizon would curve from center left to right, but it doesn’t even at balloon heights of 100,000’plus and the Red bull Jump. What does he see out the opened hatch?For an infinite plane, the horizon should be a blur at eye level.
I will express it in another way.Expressing the same lie in another way wont help you.
Those who come here seeking truth need to know that no one in the Globe Community has ever verified the claim Earth has the surface curvature in relation to a 3959 mile radius.
The curvature of Earth has been verified, countless times.Yes, anyone can look a large body of water such as a ocean and see a curve? No, they see a horizontal (flat straight) line where sky meets ocean.No, they see a circle, which goes all around.
If they use an accurate measuring device, they see that this circle is below them, with an angle of dip as expected for a RE.There is nothing in our natural surroundings reveal Earth is a sphere spinning 1000 MPH and hurling through space.Except the horizon, and the behaviour of the horizon and objects near it, and the apparent motion of stars.
And then there are plenty of instruments for accurately measuring it.
You not liking that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
What there is nothing of is any indication that Earth is a flat, motionless plane.You do realize there is 16' drop in curvature at 5 miles?And how high was the camera?
What you actually need to do is use the height of the camera to determine the distance to the horizon, and then use the remaining distance to determine how much should be hidden.And do you see how much of the shoreline view is blocked?In which image?
Is the first image the one without distortion, with the shoreline visible, and then the second one has atmospheric effects obscuring the horizon?
Or is the second image the one without significant distortion, with the first one allowing more to be visible due to refraction?I learned it through observation while driving over hilly roads.So you assumed it based upon incomplete observations.
You can't use examples of mirages occurring in one location to conclude they can't form in another.
Nor can you use the simple absence of them in one location to confirm that they can't form there.
Even on a infinite Plane we can only see in a circle. Optics can only see in the radius of a circle. The farthest we can see is straight ahead, anything left to right is pulled back. And does not mean we live on a sphere. If we lived on a sphere the horizon would curve from center left to right, but it doesn’t even at balloon heights of 100,000’plus and the Red bull Jump. What does he see out the opened hatch?
(https://i.imgur.com/KRef3Fw.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/M41vfLz.jpg)
the humor is in how desperate you are and how much you just ignore anything inconvenient for your predetermined conclusions. The humor is in how much you don't understand about the subject you argue against. That you make claims like the horizon should curve from "center left to right" proves that. The humor is how much you get wrong in nearly every post. The humor is in how you proposed multiple supposed experiments to prove the Earth flat and ASSUMED the results when you hadn't bothered to do a single one. I'm betting you still haven't bothered to read the link I provided before regarding the Earth pics and the difference in the apparent size of landmasses. You're a joke.Why do you keep ignoring the replies you get about this pic? In the morning there is more refraction as the air is cooler. It even SHOWS the air is cooler on your pic. You just ignore what is inconvenient for your beliefs. Thanks for the humor!What was that bad experimetn perfromed by rowboat?
Looks like it could be re-tried here on the northern half of the canal as it seems quite straight - If ship bottom dips below the horizon, the earth is curving.
But then if you think about it, does it even have to be a canal?
We could use any stretch of water of significant length.
Wheres googonomny.
He used to be a sailor and could explain.
Yeah and perform the experiment on a hot steamy day as to make sure you can't see the Boat.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZdYZPWd.jpg)
Although at least it appears you abandoned all your silly proposed experiments that you assumed the results of without testing.
Well, I am glad you find some humor. BTW, do you find humor in my avatar?
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
Both the coastlines of Atlantic and Pacific are at 0' Sea level and both are 3,962 miles from Earths alleged center.
The distance between Oceans with the Panama Canal in-between is about 36 Miles.
The center of Panama Canal is about 18 miles from the coast on Gatun Lake and is 85’ above each Ocean shoreline.
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
That means if Earth were a Globe, the Panama Canal could not exist because Gatun Lake would be under 131’ of sea water at 18 miles from the Coast. The Canal exists because water does not curve.
It’s that simple, we won. We really never lost. Earth Remains a flat Plane with mountains, hills and valleys and sea level bodies of water.
But the real question is, when is the Globe community going to accept defeat?
NASA can't help them, fake pictures and fake moon landings cannot rescue them.
No argument they have is going to magically make the oceans curve and flood the Panama Canal, no matter what they say or do. It’s not going to happen. After reading this if one continues to defend a Globe Earth theory, they are just professional deniers who really don’t care for truth.
(https://i.imgur.com/soROEsV.jpg)
If we lived on a sphere the horizon would curve from center left to right, but it doesn’t even at balloon heights of 100,000’plus and the Red bull Jump.But on a sphere of 12740 km diameter just how much should the horizon curve from center left to right? That is the important question.
I will express it in another way.Expressing the same lie in another way wont help you.
Those who come here seeking truth need to know that no one in the Globe Community has ever verified the claim Earth has the surface curvature in relation to a 3959 mile radius.
The curvature of Earth has been verified, countless times.Yes, anyone can look a large body of water such as a ocean and see a curve? No, they see a horizontal (flat straight) line where sky meets ocean.No, they see a circle, which goes all around.
If they use an accurate measuring device, they see that this circle is below them, with an angle of dip as expected for a RE.There is nothing in our natural surroundings reveal Earth is a sphere spinning 1000 MPH and hurling through space.Except the horizon, and the behaviour of the horizon and objects near it, and the apparent motion of stars.
And then there are plenty of instruments for accurately measuring it.
You not liking that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
What there is nothing of is any indication that Earth is a flat, motionless plane.You do realize there is 16' drop in curvature at 5 miles?And how high was the camera?
What you actually need to do is use the height of the camera to determine the distance to the horizon, and then use the remaining distance to determine how much should be hidden.And do you see how much of the shoreline view is blocked?In which image?
Is the first image the one without distortion, with the shoreline visible, and then the second one has atmospheric effects obscuring the horizon?
Or is the second image the one without significant distortion, with the first one allowing more to be visible due to refraction?I learned it through observation while driving over hilly roads.So you assumed it based upon incomplete observations.
You can't use examples of mirages occurring in one location to conclude they can't form in another.
Nor can you use the simple absence of them in one location to confirm that they can't form there.
Even on a infinite Plane we can only see in a circle. Optics can only see in the radius of a circle. The farthest we can see is straight ahead, anything left to right is pulled back. And does not mean we live on a sphere. If we lived on a sphere the horizon would curve from center left to right, but it doesn’t even at balloon heights of 100,000’plus and the Red bull Jump. What does he see out the opened hatch?
(https://i.imgur.com/KRef3Fw.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/M41vfLz.jpg)
You do realize that the earth is huge.
If you were the size of a grain of sand, the earth's circumference would still be over 13 miles.
If we lived on a sphere the horizon would curve from center left to right, but it doesn’t even at balloon heights of 100,000’plus and the Red bull Jump.But on a sphere of 12740 km diameter just how much should the horizon curve from center left to right? That is the important question.
And even Red Bull's 39 km is only 0.3% of the diameter of the earth so you tell us just how much.
You say "but it doesn’t even at balloon heights of 100,000’ plus and the Red bull Jump".
Can you honestly claim to see enough of the horizon in you Felix Baumgartner's photo to claim that the horizon is flat?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/15buep9n14btb2s/Plat%20Terra%20-%20Red%20Bull%20-%20crop.jpg?dl=1)
Of course you can't!
At 3 miles the row boat would be on the horizon. Would you care to show that it wouldn't be?No, your Earth is little. You do realize the Globe Community believes a row boat allegedly goes over a curve just 3 miles out, right?
We do realize that the earth is huge.
If you were the size of a grain of sand, the earth's circumference would still be over 13 miles.
And yet you claim it's huge. That make no sense. There is a 6' drop in curvature just 6 miles away and 216' just 18 miles out on your little 3959 mile radius Earth.Yes it is huge and it makes perfect sense but you seem to have no sense of proportion! A 6' drop in 6 miles is only 0.019%!
It looks flat and huge because it is. Observation is always good science.The horizon looks flat and huge because that is exactly as it should look on the Globe - how long before you can accept that simple fact?
There is a 6' drop in curvature just 6 miles away and 216' just 18 milesStop dishonestly switching units.
It looks flat and huge because it is. Observation is always good science.No, the horizon is flat, as you would expect for a RE, but the Earth itself is not and does not look flat.
Compared with the other photo I posted with it, yes. And did you notice the horizon Felix sees is at eye level?Based upon what?
No, your Earth is little. You do realize the Globe Community believes a row boat allegedly goes over a curve just 3 miles out, right? And yet you claim it's huge. That make no sense. There is a 6' drop in curvature just 6 miles away and 216' just 18 miles out on your little 3959 mile radius Earth.
It looks flat and huge because it is. Observation is always good science.
The width of the United States is more than twice as long as the radius of yourNo it's not!allegedGlobe Earth Earth.
Think about that with the phrase "Is a small world".Sure, it's a phrase recognising that Global air travel makes the earth seem much smaller than it used to. What of it?
The width of the United States is more than twice as long as the radius of your alleged Globe Earth Earth. Think about that with the phrase "Is a small world".Citation needed (and clarification). Do you mean the great circle route going from the furthest east territory to the furthest west?
I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things.Good advice. Have you tried to follow it?
Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feedI can clearly see the lies you are feeding.
The width of the United States is more than twice as long as the radius of yourNo it's not!allegedGlobe Earth Earth.
The west to east width of the contiguous United States is 2,680 miles (4,313 km) and the (average) radius of the earth is 3959 miles (6,371 km).
Your ignorance of well known facts is so typical of flat-earthers.
By the way what is the width of your flat earth and what is the path of your sun?Quote from: Plat TerraThink about that with the phrase "Is a small world".Sure, it's a phrase recognising that Global air travel makes the earth seem much smaller than it used to. What of it?
The width of the United States is more than twice as long as the radius of yourNo it's not!allegedGlobe Earth Earth.
The west to east width of the contiguous United States is 2,680 miles (4,313 km) and the (average) radius of the earth is 3959 miles (6,371 km).
Your ignorance of well known facts is so typical of flat-earthers.
By the way what is the width of your flat earth and what is the path of your sun?Quote from: Plat TerraThink about that with the phrase "Is a small world".Sure, it's a phrase recognising that Global air travel makes the earth seem much smaller than it used to. What of it?
Well, sue me for a typo. I meant twice as much. You just like to complain when you can.
Like is said, it does not matter because you are incapable of verifying the alleged surface curvature of any landmass or canal, because it's not there to measure up. How does that feel?
Stash, there is no need to continue the charade. Its over for you!The width of the United States is more than twice as long as the radius of yourNo it's not!allegedGlobe Earth Earth.
The west to east width of the contiguous United States is 2,680 miles (4,313 km) and the (average) radius of the earth is 3959 miles (6,371 km).
Your ignorance of well known facts is so typical of flat-earthers.
By the way what is the width of your flat earth and what is the path of your sun?Quote from: Plat TerraThink about that with the phrase "Is a small world".Sure, it's a phrase recognising that Global air travel makes the earth seem much smaller than it used to. What of it?
Well, sue me for a typo. I meant twice as much. You just like to complain when you can.
Like is said, it does not matter because you are incapable of verifying the alleged surface curvature of any landmass or canal, because it's not there to measure up. How does that feel?
Plat,
The finer points aside, how far is it from San Francisco to Boston? Simple question. Should be simple for you to answer. If you can't answer the question, all of your memes and machinations are summarily moot.
Stash, there is no need to continue the charade. Its over for you!The width of the United States is more than twice as long as the radius of yourNo it's not!allegedGlobe Earth Earth.
The west to east width of the contiguous United States is 2,680 miles (4,313 km) and the (average) radius of the earth is 3959 miles (6,371 km).
Your ignorance of well known facts is so typical of flat-earthers.
By the way what is the width of your flat earth and what is the path of your sun?Quote from: Plat TerraThink about that with the phrase "Is a small world".Sure, it's a phrase recognising that Global air travel makes the earth seem much smaller than it used to. What of it?
Well, sue me for a typo. I meant twice as much. You just like to complain when you can.
Like is said, it does not matter because you are incapable of verifying the alleged surface curvature of any landmass or canal, because it's not there to measure up. How does that feel?
Plat,
The finer points aside, how far is it from San Francisco to Boston? Simple question. Should be simple for you to answer. If you can't answer the question, all of your memes and machinations are summarily moot.
How far is it from San Francisco to Boston?
Stash, there is no need to continue the charade. Its over for you!The width of the United States is more than twice as long as the radius of yourNo it's not!allegedGlobe Earth Earth.
The west to east width of the contiguous United States is 2,680 miles (4,313 km) and the (average) radius of the earth is 3959 miles (6,371 km).
Your ignorance of well known facts is so typical of flat-earthers.
By the way what is the width of your flat earth and what is the path of your sun?Quote from: Plat TerraThink about that with the phrase "Is a small world".Sure, it's a phrase recognising that Global air travel makes the earth seem much smaller than it used to. What of it?
Well, sue me for a typo. I meant twice as much. You just like to complain when you can.
Like is said, it does not matter because you are incapable of verifying the alleged surface curvature of any landmass or canal, because it's not there to measure up. How does that feel?
Plat,
The finer points aside, how far is it from San Francisco to Boston? Simple question. Should be simple for you to answer. If you can't answer the question, all of your memes and machinations are summarily moot.
How far is it from San Francisco to Boston?
Stash, there is no need to continue the charade. Its over for you! It's Checkmate. BTW, how do you like my Avatar now?
The width of the United States is more than twice as long as the radius of your alleged Globe Earth Earth. Think about that with the phrase "Is a small world".Citation needed (and clarification). Do you mean the great circle route going from the furthest east territory to the furthest west?I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things.Good advice. Have you tried to follow it?Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feedI can clearly see the lies you are feeding.
I need very little time to see that.
Your latest pic is yet another blatant misrepresentation.
Flooding on a round Earth works in basically the same way as your imaginary flat Earth.
And thanks for showing you are the kind of FEer that believes this nonsense:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/suez-canal.jpg)
Even though you rejected that.
Unless you are knowingly lying to everyone and intentionally presenting falsehoods.
The drop due to curvature doesn't make it below level. It is following level, so it doesn't mean water would magically flow.
Well, sue me for a typo. You just like to complain when you can.It wasn't a typo, it was a blatantly false statement.
Like is said, it does not matter because you are incapable of verifying the alleged surface curvature of any landmass or canal, because it's not there to measure up. How does that feel?It feels like you keep clinging to the same pathetic lies.
I see you like to grab things from different areas to twist things.You mean exposing your contradictions.
I wonder how you will do when I get to the hoax of Gravity pulling to center of mass?You mean the very real fact you have no rational counter to.
The width of the United States is more than twice as long as the radius of your alleged Globe Earth Earth. Think about that with the phrase "Is a small world".Citation needed (and clarification). Do you mean the great circle route going from the furthest east territory to the furthest west?I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things.Good advice. Have you tried to follow it?Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feedI can clearly see the lies you are feeding.
I need very little time to see that.
Your latest pic is yet another blatant misrepresentation.
Flooding on a round Earth works in basically the same way as your imaginary flat Earth.
And thanks for showing you are the kind of FEer that believes this nonsense:
Even though you rejected that.
Unless you are knowingly lying to everyone and intentionally presenting falsehoods.
The drop due to curvature doesn't make it below level. It is following level, so it doesn't mean water would magically flow.
I see you like to grab things from different areas to twist things.
I wonder how you will do when I get to the hoax of Gravity pulling to center of mass?
I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things.You certainly need to "take a breath and a break and think about a few things"!
But why would it flood if it flows with the curve? HahahahaWell, sue me for a typo. You just like to complain when you can.It wasn't a typo, it was a blatantly false statement.Like is said, it does not matter because you are incapable of verifying the alleged surface curvature of any landmass or canal, because it's not there to measure up. How does that feel?It feels like you keep clinging to the same pathetic lies.
That isn't how you defeat people.
That makes me quite comfortable with my position as your inability to rationally object to it and resorting to these tactics shows it is likely a quite strong position.
The curvature has been verified countless times quantitatively and even more so qualitatively.
Do you know what hasn't been verified? That Earth is flat.I see you like to grab things from different areas to twist things.You mean exposing your contradictions.
You have previously stated that you accept that with a RE the water would follow the curve, but then you go post nonsense claiming that it can't flood because it should all flow downhill because of the curve.
What's wrong?
Don't you like your contradictions getting exposed?I wonder how you will do when I get to the hoax of Gravity pulling to center of mass?You mean the very real fact you have no rational counter to.
I wonder how you will do when I get to the hoax of Gravity pulling to center of mass?Simply claim that you have no idea what you are talking about! In other words, situation normal.
I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things.You certainly need to "take a breath and a break and think about a few things"!
When can you learn a little about gravity on the Globe? Are you totally incapable of understanding anything that you've been told?
The oceans conform to the surface of the Globe and the Mean Sea Level essentially defines the shape of the earth.
Then the heights of the land are measured above that sea-level. So floods are no different from what you imagine on your fictitious flat earth.
You failure to understand this does affect the reality of anything in the slightest.
Any luck on that width of your fictitious flat earth or working out the path of your sun that explains what anyone can easily see?
Remember that you asked us "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?"
Well, until you explain all the points raised there's not the faintest chance of our accepting defeat - it ain't going o happen.
Continually posting miles of meaningless memes does your case no good at all!
PS What makes things fall down? Why does a feather fall at the same rate as a bowling ball in a vacuum?
I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things. Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feed through media and the deceitful government’s agenda..
(https://i.imgur.com/JrIwl9h.jpg)
I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things.You certainly need to "take a breath and a break and think about a few things"!
When can you learn a little about gravity on the Globe? Are you totally incapable of understanding anything that you've been told?
The oceans conform to the surface of the Globe and the Mean Sea Level essentially defines the shape of the earth.
Then the heights of the land are measured above that sea-level. So floods are no different from what you imagine on your fictitious flat earth.
You failure to understand this does affect the reality of anything in the slightest.
Any luck on that width of your fictitious flat earth or working out the path of your sun that explains what anyone can easily see?
Remember that you asked us "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?"
Well, until you explain all the points raised there's not the faintest chance of our accepting defeat - it ain't going o happen.
Continually posting miles of meaningless memes does your case no good at all!
PS What makes things fall down? Why does a feather fall at the same rate as a bowling ball in a vacuum?
Again, nothing you bring up matters or will magically make landmass conform to a sphere. I can't even prove Earth has curvature, and that was my challenge from the beginning and I am a puzzle solver. I am an inventor that have made a machine that was thought impossible to make. So, If I can't prove curvature no one can. It's really a simple issue and a no brainer and I am no one special.
BTW, we don't live in a vacuum.
Paint it any way you like. I don't care.I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things.You certainly need to "take a breath and a break and think about a few things"!
When can you learn a little about gravity on the Globe? Are you totally incapable of understanding anything that you've been told?
The oceans conform to the surface of the Globe and the Mean Sea Level essentially defines the shape of the earth.
Then the heights of the land are measured above that sea-level. So floods are no different from what you imagine on your fictitious flat earth.
You failure to understand this does affect the reality of anything in the slightest.
Any luck on that width of your fictitious flat earth or working out the path of your sun that explains what anyone can easily see?
Remember that you asked us "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?"
Well, until you explain all the points raised there's not the faintest chance of our accepting defeat - it ain't going o happen.
Continually posting miles of meaningless memes does your case no good at all!
PS What makes things fall down? Why does a feather fall at the same rate as a bowling ball in a vacuum?
Again, nothing you bring up matters or will magically make landmass conform to a sphere. I can't even prove Earth has curvature, and that was my challenge from the beginning and I am a puzzle solver. I am an inventor that have made a machine that was thought impossible to make. So, If I can't prove curvature no one can. It's really a simple issue and a no brainer and I am no one special.
BTW, we don't live in a vacuum.
How would we expect you to prove Earth has curvature when you don't even know the distance between two cities. You're an inventor of a machine no one thought possible yet you can't determine how far one thing is from another?
For instance, how did you determine that the Panama Canal was 36 miles long? You claimed it was, but you don't know the distances between any other landmarks? Just the Canal?
It seems you are the one to accept defeat if a simple distance befuddles you. If you would like to prove otherwise and not accept defeat, then answer the very simple question posed. How far is it from San Francisco to Boston?
If you can't answer the question, we will gracefully accept your defeat.
Paint it any way you like. I don't care.I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things.You certainly need to "take a breath and a break and think about a few things"!
When can you learn a little about gravity on the Globe? Are you totally incapable of understanding anything that you've been told?
The oceans conform to the surface of the Globe and the Mean Sea Level essentially defines the shape of the earth.
Then the heights of the land are measured above that sea-level. So floods are no different from what you imagine on your fictitious flat earth.
You failure to understand this does affect the reality of anything in the slightest.
Any luck on that width of your fictitious flat earth or working out the path of your sun that explains what anyone can easily see?
Remember that you asked us "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?"
Well, until you explain all the points raised there's not the faintest chance of our accepting defeat - it ain't going o happen.
Continually posting miles of meaningless memes does your case no good at all!
PS What makes things fall down? Why does a feather fall at the same rate as a bowling ball in a vacuum?
Again, nothing you bring up matters or will magically make landmass conform to a sphere. I can't even prove Earth has curvature, and that was my challenge from the beginning and I am a puzzle solver. I am an inventor that have made a machine that was thought impossible to make. So, If I can't prove curvature no one can. It's really a simple issue and a no brainer and I am no one special.
BTW, we don't live in a vacuum.
How would we expect you to prove Earth has curvature when you don't even know the distance between two cities. You're an inventor of a machine no one thought possible yet you can't determine how far one thing is from another?
For instance, how did you determine that the Panama Canal was 36 miles long? You claimed it was, but you don't know the distances between any other landmarks? Just the Canal?
It seems you are the one to accept defeat if a simple distance befuddles you. If you would like to prove otherwise and not accept defeat, then answer the very simple question posed. How far is it from San Francisco to Boston?
If you can't answer the question, we will gracefully accept your defeat.
It’s proper to know that the person who is trying to teach me has verified the foundation of their belief otherwise what good is their information?They don't need to verify it with their own measurements.
They just need to know the evidence for it.
If you expected them to have verified it all themselves, then science teachers would have to spend their entire lives going out verifying each piece of science before being able to teach and then no one would ever be a science teacher.
Do you demand the same ridiculous standards for all other aspects of science, or just the ones you reject without cause?Two bodies of water being joined together through any form at surface or below will equalize and have the same horizontal surface and not curve at any point.Stop lying.
It has already been explained repeatedly that that is not the case. Level does not always mean flat.
If you wish to assert such nonsense the burden of proof is on you to show that water in large bodies is flat, not curved.
Now, do you have any evidence to support your claims, or are you only capable of shifting the burden of proof and ignoring the evidence provided?
So you better verify that surface curvature and make sure it conforms to a sphere as claimed, because your numbers are dwindling.
Paint it any way you like. I don't care.I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things.You certainly need to "take a breath and a break and think about a few things"!
When can you learn a little about gravity on the Globe? Are you totally incapable of understanding anything that you've been told?
The oceans conform to the surface of the Globe and the Mean Sea Level essentially defines the shape of the earth.
Then the heights of the land are measured above that sea-level. So floods are no different from what you imagine on your fictitious flat earth.
You failure to understand this does affect the reality of anything in the slightest.
Any luck on that width of your fictitious flat earth or working out the path of your sun that explains what anyone can easily see?
Remember that you asked us "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?"
Well, until you explain all the points raised there's not the faintest chance of our accepting defeat - it ain't going o happen.
Continually posting miles of meaningless memes does your case no good at all!
PS What makes things fall down? Why does a feather fall at the same rate as a bowling ball in a vacuum?
Again, nothing you bring up matters or will magically make landmass conform to a sphere. I can't even prove Earth has curvature, and that was my challenge from the beginning and I am a puzzle solver. I am an inventor that have made a machine that was thought impossible to make. So, If I can't prove curvature no one can. It's really a simple issue and a no brainer and I am no one special.
BTW, we don't live in a vacuum.
How would we expect you to prove Earth has curvature when you don't even know the distance between two cities. You're an inventor of a machine no one thought possible yet you can't determine how far one thing is from another?
For instance, how did you determine that the Panama Canal was 36 miles long? You claimed it was, but you don't know the distances between any other landmarks? Just the Canal?
It seems you are the one to accept defeat if a simple distance befuddles you. If you would like to prove otherwise and not accept defeat, then answer the very simple question posed. How far is it from San Francisco to Boston?
If you can't answer the question, we will gracefully accept your defeat.
But why would it flood if it flows with the curve?For the same reasons it would if Earth was flat.
I can't even prove Earth has curvatureJust because you can't doesn't mean no one can.
I am an inventor that made a machine that was thought impossible to make.Troll harder.
I am no one special.
BTW, we don't live in a vacuum.That's right, we live in Earth's atmosphere.
I will express it in another way.As I said before, repeating the same lie wont help your case.
How can you tell it is at "eye level" and not just the camera is positioned to make it look that way? Have you done ANY tests of your own?If we lived on a sphere the horizon would curve from center left to right, but it doesn’t even at balloon heights of 100,000’plus and the Red bull Jump.But on a sphere of 12740 km diameter just how much should the horizon curve from center left to right? That is the important question.
And even Red Bull's 39 km is only 0.3% of the diameter of the earth so you tell us just how much.
You say "but it doesn’t even at balloon heights of 100,000’ plus and the Red bull Jump".
Can you honestly claim to see enough of the horizon in you Felix Baumgartner's photo to claim that the horizon is flat?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/15buep9n14btb2s/Plat%20Terra%20-%20Red%20Bull%20-%20crop.jpg?dl=1)
Of course you can't!
Compared with the other photo I posted with it, yes. And did you notice the horizon Felix sees is at eye level?
(https://i.imgur.com/TXOO6zo.jpg)
I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things. Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feed through media and the deceitful government’s agenda.further proof you don't understand the subject or you're just trolling. A change in elevation is NOT the same as a drop due to curvature.
(https://i.imgur.com/JrIwl9h.jpg)
I'm betting when you do it will further show you don't understand the subject. Should be entertaining!
I wonder how you will do when I get to the hoax of Gravity pulling to center of mass?
I am an inventor that made a machine that was thought impossible to make.
So, If I can't prove curvature no one can. It's really a simple issue and a no brainer and I am no one special.the irony of this contradiction is HILARIOUS
It’s proper to know that the person who is trying to teach me has verified the foundation of their belief otherwise what good is their information?They don't need to verify it with their own measurements.
They just need to know the evidence for it.
If you expected them to have verified it all themselves, then science teachers would have to spend their entire lives going out verifying each piece of science before being able to teach and then no one would ever be a science teacher.
Do you demand the same ridiculous standards for all other aspects of science, or just the ones you reject without cause?Two bodies of water being joined together through any form at surface or below will equalize and have the same horizontal surface and not curve at any point.Stop lying.
It has already been explained repeatedly that that is not the case. Level does not always mean flat.
If you wish to assert such nonsense the burden of proof is on you to show that water in large bodies is flat, not curved.
Now, do you have any evidence to support your claims, or are you only capable of shifting the burden of proof and ignoring the evidence provided?
I will express it in another way.
Those who come here seeking truth need to know that no one in the Globe Community has ever verified the claim Earth has the surface curvature in relation to a 3959 mile radius. And yet everyone follows it blindly, without any verification. This is why I said “you.”
Truth seekers need to know people accept the Globe Earth theory in the same manner and way as fairytales, gossip and hearsay is accepted and passed down throughout history and through agenda driven media and Elites.
The Globe Earth theory is also accepted in the same manner as all traditions passed down through history right or wrong, such as political affiliation, membership into a club and other . It is accepted because of traditions without question.
Soon, if not all ready, you, your children and grandchildren will believe in more than two-genders also, not because it’s true and has been verified, but because it’s the way of mainstream. You probable already believe in global warming hoax too, right?
Yes, anyone can look a large body of water such as a ocean and see a curve? No, they see a horizontal (flat straight) line where sky meets ocean. There is nothing in our natural surroundings reveal Earth is a sphere spinning 1000 MPH and hurling through space. No motion, no turbulence and nothing curved at a distance.
So you better verify that surface curvature and make sure it conforms to a sphere as claimed, because your numbers are dwindling.
(https://i.imgur.com/mRL3IGv.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/434Q0ok.jpg)
So, If I can't prove curvature no one can.Don't we love ourselves! Chronic case of the dreaded Dunning-Kruger Syndrome noted!
It's really a simple issue and a no brainer and I am no one special.You seem a classic case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
BTW, we don't live in a vacuum.I didn't say that we did but there are plenty of large and small vacuum chambers good enough to test this sort of thing.
Again, nothing you bring up matters or will magically make landmass conform to a sphere.Sorry, but that is what gravitation has done with the Sun, Earth, all the other planets and the minor planets - it has made them all almost spherical.
I am an inventor that made a machine that was thought impossible to make.
citation needed.So, If I can't prove curvature no one can. It's really a simple issue and a no brainer and I am no one special.the irony of this contradiction is HILARIOUS
lots of memes
lots of memes
RE model is a well established model that works and is verifiable. If you want to replace with something else, start by producing an alternative model that works and is at least as good as the RE model in explaining and predicting the real world.
The infinite plane model of yours just doesn't work, you have nothing to back it, you have provided nothing, just a few memes and some unintended humor.
You pretend to delete centuries of scientific progress and replace it with absolutely nothing, just some sort of religious fundamentalism. Sorry but that doesn't work.
more memes
more memes
You don't think the earth is globe, you think gravity doesn't exist... that's fine really, I get that, there's people for everything. I'm asking you what is your alternative model to RE and how did you verify it.
You could start by providing the distance between Boston and San Francisco.
more memes
You don't think the earth is globe, you think gravity doesn't exist... that's fine really, I get that, there's people for everything. I'm asking you what is your alternative model to RE and how did you verify it.
You could start by providing the distance between Boston and San Francisco.
You wrote: RE model is a well established model that works and is verifiable.
You have a working RE model with water that sticks to the surface as it spins? Where? Video please
Verify it please....?
I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things. Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feed through media and the deceitful government’s agenda.Still only proves you don't understand the subject just like the last time you posted this. Elevation change is NOT the same as drop due to curvature. Admit it, you're just trolling now, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/JrIwl9h.jpg)
more memes
You don't think the earth is globe, you think gravity doesn't exist... that's fine really, I get that, there's people for everything. I'm asking you what is your alternative model to RE and how did you verify it.
You could start by providing the distance between Boston and San Francisco.
You wrote: RE model is a well established model that works and is verifiable.
You have a working RE model with water that sticks to the surface as it spins? Where? Video please
Verify it please....?
No, it's not about elevation change. It's about water flowing near or at a Globe Earth's (sea curve) circumference. My post is not about elevation. Have another look.I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things. Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feed through media and the deceitful government’s agenda.Still only proves you don't understand the subject just like the last time you posted this. Elevation change is NOT the same as drop due to curvature. Admit it, you're just trolling now, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/JrIwl9h.jpg)
NASA claims the ISS orbits the Earth once every 90 minutes and experiences a sunrise or a sunset about every 45 minutes. But in the following video Earth makes several rotations during a time-lapse Sunrise and Sunset, but it’s really a Sunset to Sunrise.
Another fishy thing about this video is the ISS never passes between Earth and Sun during the time-lapse video. It’s as if it stopped in mid orbit to take a video of a moving Sun.
It makes me wonder if the video was taken from some type of high altitude stationary equipment and what we are actually seeing is a Flat Earth Sun rotating clockwise over a CGI implemented rotating Earth. Interesting to watch and think about.
I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things. Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feed through media and the deceitful government’s agenda.You don't seem to understand that 3 miles away, where the surface has curved away 6", that it is still the same elevation as where you are standing. At 6 miles where it was curved away 24".... still the same elevation.
https://i.imgur.com/JrIwl9h.jpg
And now you further prove you don't even read replies. I KNOW your post is not about elevation. It is about YOU not understanding the subject and equating a drop due to curvature as somehow a downhill in every direction. That is why I assume you have to be trolling because understanding the subject this wrongly HAS to be on purpose. That and your gish gallop onto ever more topics and not addressing your previous failings.No, it's not about elevation change. It's about water flowing near or at a Globe Earth's (sea curve) circumference. My post is not about elevation. Have another look.I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things. Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feed through media and the deceitful government’s agenda.Still only proves you don't understand the subject just like the last time you posted this. Elevation change is NOT the same as drop due to curvature. Admit it, you're just trolling now, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/JrIwl9h.jpg)
more memes
You don't think the earth is globe, you think gravity doesn't exist... that's fine really, I get that, there's people for everything. I'm asking you what is your alternative model to RE and how did you verify it.
You could start by providing the distance between Boston and San Francisco.
You wrote: RE model is a well established model that works and is verifiable.
You have a working RE model with water that sticks to the surface as it spins? Where? Video please
Verify it please....?
I thought you don't believe in videos, but I have something much better than a video. A livestream of the earth from space:
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
As you can see the earth is not losing any water.
Now your turn, what do you have?
And now you further prove you don't even read replies. I KNOW your post is not about elevation. It is about YOU not understanding the subject and equating a drop due to curvature as somehow a downhill in every direction. That is why I assume you have to be trolling because understanding the subject this wrongly HAS to be on purpose. That and your gish gallop onto ever more topics and not addressing your previous failings.No, it's not about elevation change. It's about water flowing near or at a Globe Earth's (sea curve) circumference. My post is not about elevation. Have another look.I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things. Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feed through media and the deceitful government’s agenda.Still only proves you don't understand the subject just like the last time you posted this. Elevation change is NOT the same as drop due to curvature. Admit it, you're just trolling now, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/JrIwl9h.jpg)
more memes
You don't think the earth is globe, you think gravity doesn't exist... that's fine really, I get that, there's people for everything. I'm asking you what is your alternative model to RE and how did you verify it.
You could start by providing the distance between Boston and San Francisco.
You wrote: RE model is a well established model that works and is verifiable.
You have a working RE model with water that sticks to the surface as it spins? Where? Video please
Verify it please....?
I thought you don't believe in videos, but I have something much better than a video. A livestream of the earth from space:
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
As you can see the earth is not losing any water.
Now your turn, what do you have?
NASA claims the ISS orbits the Earth once every 90 minutes and experiences a sunrise or a sunset about every 45 minutes. But in the following video Earth makes several rotations during a time-lapse Sunrise and Sunset, but it’s really a Sunset to Sunrise.
Another fishy thing about this video is the ISS never passes between Earth and Sun during the time-lapse video. It’s as if it stopped in mid orbit to take a video of a moving Sun.
It makes me wonder if the video was taken from some type of high altitude stationary equipment and what we are actually seeing is a Flat Earth Sun rotating clockwise over a CGI implemented rotating Earth. Interesting to watch and think about.
lots of memes
RE model is a well established model that works and is verifiable. If you want to replace with something else, start by producing an alternative model that works and is at least as good as the RE model in explaining and predicting the real world.
The infinite plane model of yours just doesn't work, you have nothing to back it, you have provided nothing, just a few memes and some unintended humor.
You pretend to delete centuries of scientific progress and replace it with absolutely nothing, just some sort of religious fundamentalism. Sorry but that doesn't work.
You have a working RE model with water that sticks to the surface as it spins? Where? Video please
I am not deleting any part of history that matters. In-fact, history is on my side.
(https://i.imgur.com/mhd6Odo.jpg)
And there you go proving you don't understand the subject again. Down is toward the center. As for your picture with Louisiana, much of it is below or at sea level. Flooding occurs when a large storm temporarily rises that level.And now you further prove you don't even read replies. I KNOW your post is not about elevation. It is about YOU not understanding the subject and equating a drop due to curvature as somehow a downhill in every direction. That is why I assume you have to be trolling because understanding the subject this wrongly HAS to be on purpose. That and your gish gallop onto ever more topics and not addressing your previous failings.No, it's not about elevation change. It's about water flowing near or at a Globe Earth's (sea curve) circumference. My post is not about elevation. Have another look.I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things. Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feed through media and the deceitful government’s agenda.Still only proves you don't understand the subject just like the last time you posted this. Elevation change is NOT the same as drop due to curvature. Admit it, you're just trolling now, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/JrIwl9h.jpg)
But it is down hill in all directions at the surface (circumference) of a sphere. I am stating a fact. Your welcome to show me in a video how you can flood the surface of a ball. Other areas on a sphere with greater elevation, valleys and hills would flood. But not at or near sea curve and with an ocean just a few miles away.
(https://i.imgur.com/M41vfLz.jpg)
I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few thingsHow about you stop acting like a broken record and try bringing up something new, or actually substantiating your claims.
You have a working RE model with water that sticks to the surface as it spins?A model doesn't need to be physical.
I am not deleting any part of history that matters. In-fact, history is on my side.That's religion you are appealing to, not history.
But in the following video Earth makes several rotations during a time-lapse Sunrise and Sunset, but it’s really a Sunset to Sunrise.That is just another baseless claim of yours.
Another fishy thing about this video is the ISS never passes between Earth and Sun during the time-lapse video.You mean it doesn't show a full day and doesn't have the ISS pass below the sun.
But it is down hill in all directions at the surface (circumference) of a sphere. I am stating a fact.No, you are stating a blatant lie, as you already accepted.
And there you go proving you don't understand the subject again. Down is toward the center. As for your picture with Louisiana, much of it is below or at sea level. Flooding occurs when a large storm temporarily rises that level.And now you further prove you don't even read replies. I KNOW your post is not about elevation. It is about YOU not understanding the subject and equating a drop due to curvature as somehow a downhill in every direction. That is why I assume you have to be trolling because understanding the subject this wrongly HAS to be on purpose. That and your gish gallop onto ever more topics and not addressing your previous failings.No, it's not about elevation change. It's about water flowing near or at a Globe Earth's (sea curve) circumference. My post is not about elevation. Have another look.I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things. Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feed through media and the deceitful government’s agenda.Still only proves you don't understand the subject just like the last time you posted this. Elevation change is NOT the same as drop due to curvature. Admit it, you're just trolling now, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/JrIwl9h.jpg)
But it is down hill in all directions at the surface (circumference) of a sphere. I am stating a fact. Your welcome to show me in a video how you can flood the surface of a ball. Other areas on a sphere with greater elevation, valleys and hills would flood. But not at or near sea curve and with an ocean just a few miles away.
(https://i.imgur.com/M41vfLz.jpg)
He already alluded to it at least once before.And there you go proving you don't understand the subject again. Down is toward the center. As for your picture with Louisiana, much of it is below or at sea level. Flooding occurs when a large storm temporarily rises that level.And now you further prove you don't even read replies. I KNOW your post is not about elevation. It is about YOU not understanding the subject and equating a drop due to curvature as somehow a downhill in every direction. That is why I assume you have to be trolling because understanding the subject this wrongly HAS to be on purpose. That and your gish gallop onto ever more topics and not addressing your previous failings.No, it's not about elevation change. It's about water flowing near or at a Globe Earth's (sea curve) circumference. My post is not about elevation. Have another look.I do suggest that some of you here take a breath and a break and think about a few things. Take some time and use your imagination to see the lie you have been feed through media and the deceitful government’s agenda.Still only proves you don't understand the subject just like the last time you posted this. Elevation change is NOT the same as drop due to curvature. Admit it, you're just trolling now, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/JrIwl9h.jpg)
But it is down hill in all directions at the surface (circumference) of a sphere. I am stating a fact. Your welcome to show me in a video how you can flood the surface of a ball. Other areas on a sphere with greater elevation, valleys and hills would flood. But not at or near sea curve and with an ocean just a few miles away.
(https://i.imgur.com/M41vfLz.jpg)
Platas next meme will be how the nile cant flow north.
You can't flood any part of a spherical landmass that’s near or at Sea Curve if it adjoins an OceanWhy not?
I really don't have time to give a common sense lesson.Why not?
You can't flood any part of a spherical landmass that’s near or at Sea Curve if it adjoins an Ocean
Would you be able to flood any part of a flat landmass that's near or at the sea flat if it adjoins an ocean?
Like I said, the exact same issues would arise for a FE and a RE.
The only way in which RE is different is the curvature, which would have no impact on the water level and thus it is either extremely dishonest or extremely ignorant to bring it up as part of your argument, especially as you have already refuted it.
All you need to flood it is for more water to be going there than will leave.
I know this might surprise you, but water doesn't instantly find its level.
It takes time.
If it did it instantly, there would be no rivers, as all the water would have instantly run out.
I really don't have time to give a common sense lesson.You sure seem to have plenty of time to repeat the same nonsense.
Your theoretical Earth does not fit this current world.You are yet to provide a single instance of it not fitting.
Of course flooding as described is going to be different between worlds. One has a plane surface and the other a spherical surface.The only difference is in the shape of the surface.
I really don't have time to give a common sense lesson.You sure seem to have plenty of time to repeat the same nonsense.
It think the problem is that you lack the common sense needed to give such a lesson.Your theoretical Earth does not fit this current world.You are yet to provide a single instance of it not fitting.
That is a problem for the FE community, not the real earth community.Of course flooding as described is going to be different between worlds. One has a plane surface and the other a spherical surface.The only difference is in the shape of the surface.
For a hypothetical flat planet, you have water wanting to adopt a flat surface and elevation measured relative to this flat surface.
If water is on land near the ocean with a slight elevation above the flat surface it will want to run down into the ocean, preventing flooding. But if more water is coming in than can run off, it will still flood.
For a hypothetical (or real) round planet, you have water wanting to adopt a round surface and elevation measured relative to this round surface.
If water is on land near the ocean with a slight elevation above the flat surface it will want to run down into the ocean, preventing flooding. But if more water is coming in than can run off, it will still flood.
Notice how other than the shape of the surface that the water wants to adopt, it is exactly the same.
Simple common sense.
The Coastal regions on this Earth at, near or below sea level flood because of depression. It's really that simply. Your theory does not allow coastal depression because of a imaginary radius.Just why would a round Earth prevent a depression?
Your beloved Gravity, and if you have depression near the coast it would all be under the Oceans curve, because it's below the grade. You can't logically claim both depressed and curved coastal areas and shorelines. Your Globe model is shrinking in blunders one right after another.The Coastal regions on this Earth at, near or below sea level flood because of depression. It's really that simply. Your theory does not allow coastal depression because of a imaginary radius.Just why would a round Earth prevent a depression?
No one is claiming Earth is a perfect sphere.
Again, the 2 work the same, the only difference is the overall shape.
Your beloved Gravity, and if you have depression near the coast it would all be under the Oceans curve, because it's below the grade. You can't logically claim both depressed and curved coastal areas and shorelines. Your Globe model is shrinking in blunders one right after another.It is quite simple:
Not at the coastal regions, at, near or below sea curve.Your beloved Gravity, and if you have depression near the coast it would all be under the Oceans curve, because it's below the grade. You can't logically claim both depressed and curved coastal areas and shorelines. Your Globe model is shrinking in blunders one right after another.It is quite simple:
In general (i.e. when you ignore the variations) Earth's surface is an oblate spheroid.
However at the small scale (compared to Earth) there are variations in the surface features. Some regions will be higher than the oblate spheroid, others will be lower.
There is no problem with that.
What you are saying now is akin to someone saying Earth can't be flat because there are mountains. You can't have Earth be both flat and with mountains.
Your beloved Gravity, and if you have depression near the coast it would all be under the Oceans curve, because it's below the grade. You can't logically claim both depressed and curved coastal areas and shorelines. Your Globe model is shrinking in blunders one right after another.It is quite simple:
In general (i.e. when you ignore the variations) Earth's surface is an oblate spheroid.
However at the small scale (compared to Earth) there are variations in the surface features. Some regions will be higher than the oblate spheroid, others will be lower.
There is no problem with that.
What you are saying now is akin to someone saying Earth can't be flat because there are mountains. You can't have Earth be both flat and with mountains.
Not at the coastal regions, at, near or below sea curve.
Your oblate spheroid won't have depressions in the bulge areas in the coastal regions, at, near or below sea curve or in the higher areas. It will all be curved. But' that's not the case is it?
Nope! Just another of the now numerous parts of "Globe theory" that you seem unable to grasp.
That's even more of a problem for the Globe theory. See, the hole just keeps getting bigger.
Your beloved Gravity, and if you have depression near the coast it would all be under the Oceans curve, because it's below the grade. You can't logically claim both depressed and curved coastal areas and shorelines. Your Globe model is shrinking in blunders one right after another.
Your oblate spheroid won't have depressions in the bulge areas in the coastal regions, at, near or below sea curve or in the higher areas. It will all be curved. But' that's not the case is it? That's even more of a problem for the Globe theory. See, the hole just keeps getting bigger.Again, that is just like saying:
more memes
You don't think the earth is globe, you think gravity doesn't exist... that's fine really, I get that, there's people for everything. I'm asking you what is your alternative model to RE and how did you verify it.
You could start by providing the distance between Boston and San Francisco.
You wrote: RE model is a well established model that works and is verifiable.
You have a working RE model with water that sticks to the surface as it spins? Where? Video please
Verify it please....?
I thought you don't believe in videos, but I have something much better than a video. A livestream of the earth from space:
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
As you can see the earth is not losing any water.
Now your turn, what do you have?
Your oblate spheroid won't have depressions in the bulge areas in the coastal regions, at, near or below sea curve or in the higher areas. It will all be curved. But' that's not the case is it? That's even more of a problem for the Globe theory. See, the hole just keeps getting bigger.Again, that is just like saying:
Your flat earth won't have depressions in the flat areas in the coastal regions, at, near or below sea flat or in the higher areas. It will all be flat. But' that's not the case is it? That's even more of a problem for the flat theory. See, the hole just keeps getting bigger.
Again, no one is saying Earth is perfectly round, just like no one is saying it is perfectly flat.
Depressions, i.e. regions with lower elevations, can work on both the FE and the RE. For a FE they use an imaginary flat line at sea flat for the elevation reference, for the real Earth they use an imaginary curved line at sea level for the elevation reference.
If all you can do is repeat the same non-problems then you don't have a hope of refuting RE nor making any sane REer admit defeat.
Again, where is your evidence that there is no curve?
Where is your unified FE model that can actually explain reality?
Where is your refutation to all the evidence that shows Earth is round?
Your oblate spheroid won't have depressions in the bulge areas in the coastal regions, at, near or below sea curve or in the higher areas. It will all be curved. But' that's not the case is it? That's even more of a problem for the Globe theory. See, the hole just keeps getting bigger.Again, that is just like saying:
Your flat earth won't have depressions in the flat areas in the coastal regions, at, near or below sea flat or in the higher areas. It will all be flat. But' that's not the case is it? That's even more of a problem for the flat theory. See, the hole just keeps getting bigger.
Again, no one is saying Earth is perfectly round, just like no one is saying it is perfectly flat.
Depressions, i.e. regions with lower elevations, can work on both the FE and the RE. For a FE they use an imaginary flat line at sea flat for the elevation reference, for the real Earth they use an imaginary curved line at sea level for the elevation reference.
If all you can do is repeat the same non-problems then you don't have a hope of refuting RE nor making any sane REer admit defeat.
Again, where is your evidence that there is no curve?
Where is your unified FE model that can actually explain reality?
Where is your refutation to all the evidence that shows Earth is round?
Nope, southern Louisiana shorelines are horizontal and can't meet a curved Ocean. And You still can't flood a sphere. All of Southerns Louisiana is below the curve that why it floods. We haven't talked about all the horizontal shorelines on this Earth which is not possible with your theory. Horizontal shorelines can't meet a curved ocean. You can't win, but you are a pro.
I did not express it correctly. NASA is a fraud, here is why. There are three things viewed in the video .
1. A solar panel array
2. A spinning sphere Earth
3. A Sun.
They all three stay in the same alignment from center (seen at sunset) during the entire Sunset to Sunrise event while Earth spins many times and while the ISS almost makes a complete rotation.
NASA claims the ISS almost completed an orbit during the event. Understanding this, how is it possible for the camera to view all three, (1,2 and 3) in an alignment as expressed, if the ISS almost makes a complete orbit and the Earth rotates more than once?
One of them has to be moved out of the alignment when the ISS almost makes a complete orbit. Which one should be moved out of the alignment, the Sun or Earth?
And, why doesn’t the Earth’s rotation match the time of a Sunset to Sunrise Event, but spins out of control?
If you nor any others here have a logical answer then NASA is a Fraud. And learn to say Earth is Flat and NASA faked a spinning Globe Earth with stationary equipment and CGI implementation.
It's not turning real slow during the time laps video but spins fast. Gee. That's how i know NASA faked it. Have another look.I did not express it correctly. NASA is a fraud, here is why. There are three things viewed in the video .
1. A solar panel array
2. A spinning sphere Earth
3. A Sun.
They all three stay in the same alignment from center (seen at sunset) during the entire Sunset to Sunrise event while Earth spins many times and while the ISS almost makes a complete rotation.
NASA claims the ISS almost completed an orbit during the event. Understanding this, how is it possible for the camera to view all three, (1,2 and 3) in an alignment as expressed, if the ISS almost makes a complete orbit and the Earth rotates more than once?
One of them has to be moved out of the alignment when the ISS almost makes a complete orbit. Which one should be moved out of the alignment, the Sun or Earth?
And, why doesn’t the Earth’s rotation match the time of a Sunset to Sunrise Event, but spins out of control?
If you nor any others here have a logical answer then NASA is a Fraud. And learn to say Earth is Flat and NASA faked a spinning Globe Earth with stationary equipment and CGI implementation.
And here you are asking even more questions while failing to answer any of the questions you have been asked.
I already posted the explanation for this video. During the month of june the sun doesn't set completely on the ISS, thats why you see it rising again after barely touching the edge of the earth.
What makes you think the earth rotates more than once in the video? No it doesnt since the earth needs 24h to complete a rotation.
It's not turning real slow during the time laps video but spins fast. Gee. That's how i know NASA faked it. Have another look.I did not express it correctly. NASA is a fraud, here is why. There are three things viewed in the video .
1. A solar panel array
2. A spinning sphere Earth
3. A Sun.
They all three stay in the same alignment from center (seen at sunset) during the entire Sunset to Sunrise event while Earth spins many times and while the ISS almost makes a complete rotation.
NASA claims the ISS almost completed an orbit during the event. Understanding this, how is it possible for the camera to view all three, (1,2 and 3) in an alignment as expressed, if the ISS almost makes a complete orbit and the Earth rotates more than once?
One of them has to be moved out of the alignment when the ISS almost makes a complete orbit. Which one should be moved out of the alignment, the Sun or Earth?
And, why doesn’t the Earth’s rotation match the time of a Sunset to Sunrise Event, but spins out of control?
If you nor any others here have a logical answer then NASA is a Fraud. And learn to say Earth is Flat and NASA faked a spinning Globe Earth with stationary equipment and CGI implementation.
And here you are asking even more questions while failing to answer any of the questions you have been asked.
I already posted the explanation for this video. During the month of june the sun doesn't set completely on the ISS, thats why you see it rising again after barely touching the edge of the earth.
What makes you think the earth rotates more than once in the video? No it doesnt since the earth needs 24h to complete a rotation.
It's not turning real slow during the time laps video but spins fast. Gee. That's how i know NASA faked it. Have another look.I did not express it correctly. NASA is a fraud, here is why. There are three things viewed in the video .
1. A solar panel array
2. A spinning sphere Earth
3. A Sun.
They all three stay in the same alignment from center (seen at sunset) during the entire Sunset to Sunrise event while Earth spins many times and while the ISS almost makes a complete rotation.
NASA claims the ISS almost completed an orbit during the event. Understanding this, how is it possible for the camera to view all three, (1,2 and 3) in an alignment as expressed, if the ISS almost makes a complete orbit and the Earth rotates more than once?
One of them has to be moved out of the alignment when the ISS almost makes a complete orbit. Which one should be moved out of the alignment, the Sun or Earth?
And, why doesn’t the Earth’s rotation match the time of a Sunset to Sunrise Event, but spins out of control?
If you nor any others here have a logical answer then NASA is a Fraud. And learn to say Earth is Flat and NASA faked a spinning Globe Earth with stationary equipment and CGI implementation.
And here you are asking even more questions while failing to answer any of the questions you have been asked.
I already posted the explanation for this video. During the month of june the sun doesn't set completely on the ISS, thats why you see it rising again after barely touching the edge of the earth.
What makes you think the earth rotates more than once in the video? No it doesnt since the earth needs 24h to complete a rotation.
They all three stay in the same alignment from centerNo, the alignment changes dramatically.
while Earth spins many timesAgain, what are you basing this on?
while the ISS almost makes a complete rotation.Based upon what?
You still don't get it, southern Louisiana shorelines are horizontal and can't meet a curved Ocean.No, you still don't get it (or you do and are just pretending), it works the same on a FE and RE.
We haven't talked about all the horizontal shorelinesWhat horizontal shorelines? Is this just another baseless claim of yours?
I did not express it correctly. NASA is a fraud, here is why. There are three things viewed in the video .Careful, Plat Terra, the hole you are digging for yourself is rapidly getting deeper!
1. A solar panel array
2. A spinning sphere Earth
3. A Sun.
They all three stay in the same alignment from center (seen at sunset) during the entire Sunset to Sunrise event while Earth spins many times and while the ISS almost makes a complete rotation.
NASA claims the ISS almost completed an orbit during the event. Understanding this, how is it possible for the camera to view all three, (1,2 and 3) in an alignment as expressed, if the ISS almost makes a complete orbit and the Earth rotates more than once?
One of them has to be moved out of the alignment when the ISS almost makes a complete orbit. Which one should be moved out of the alignment, the Sun or Earth?
And, why doesn’t the Earth’s rotation match the time of a Sunset to Sunrise Event, but spins out of control?
If you nor any others here have a logical answer then NASA is a Fraud. And learn to say Earth is Flat and NASA faked a spinning Globe Earth with stationary equipment and CGI implementation.
(https://yt3.ggpht.com/a/AGF-l7-ZOC1ivrmqSHXFCMUzbVga8-2advVGnrU78w=s288-c-k-c0xffffffff-no-rj-mo)Sunrise and Sunset around Summer Solstice by NASACrewEarthObs
You haven't proven they are horizontal or that you can't flood a sphere. You haven't proven anything except you don't understand anything. I'm starting to think you don't understand round OR flat. Either that or you're just trolling. Which is it?Your oblate spheroid won't have depressions in the bulge areas in the coastal regions, at, near or below sea curve or in the higher areas. It will all be curved. But' that's not the case is it? That's even more of a problem for the Globe theory. See, the hole just keeps getting bigger.Again, that is just like saying:
Your flat earth won't have depressions in the flat areas in the coastal regions, at, near or below sea flat or in the higher areas. It will all be flat. But' that's not the case is it? That's even more of a problem for the flat theory. See, the hole just keeps getting bigger.
Again, no one is saying Earth is perfectly round, just like no one is saying it is perfectly flat.
Depressions, i.e. regions with lower elevations, can work on both the FE and the RE. For a FE they use an imaginary flat line at sea flat for the elevation reference, for the real Earth they use an imaginary curved line at sea level for the elevation reference.
If all you can do is repeat the same non-problems then you don't have a hope of refuting RE nor making any sane REer admit defeat.
Again, where is your evidence that there is no curve?
Where is your unified FE model that can actually explain reality?
Where is your refutation to all the evidence that shows Earth is round?
You still don't get it, southern Louisiana shorelines are horizontal and can't meet a curved Ocean. And You still can't flood a sphere. All of Southerns Louisiana is below the curve that why it floods. We haven't talked about all the horizontal shorelines on this Earth which is not possible with your theory. Horizontal shorelines can't meet a curved ocean. You can't win, but you are a pro.
You still don't get it, southern Louisiana shorelines are horizontal and can't meet a curved Ocean. And You still can't flood a sphere. All of Southerns Louisiana is below the curve that why it floods. We haven't talked about all the horizontal shorelines on this Earth which is not possible with your theory. Horizontal shorelines can't meet a curved ocean. You can't win, but you are a pro.On the curved surface of the globe, a point on the surface miles away from another point, will have the same elevation. And yet, you claim one point would be the top and everything is downhill from there.
OR considering what has been said about the orientation of the Camera and Earths spin, and the ISS is allegedly only 250 miles above the surface, it is impossible to view the Sun over the north pole horizon when it’s on a pass from the Southern Ocean, south of Tasmania, to western Africa, over northern Mali. The ISS wouldn’t be able to view the Sun north over the horizon being that close to Earth being that far south. (FAKE)
OR considering what has been said about the orientation of the Camera and Earths spin, and the ISS is allegedly only 250 miles above the surface, it is impossible to view the Sun over the north pole horizon when it’s on a pass from the Southern Ocean, south of Tasmania, to western Africa, over northern Mali. The ISS wouldn’t be able to view the Sun north over the horizon being that close to Earth being that far south. (FAKE)
You are the one bringing this video to the thread, your are the one claiming the video is fake, then prove your claim. You know the size and position of the earth, you know the orbit of the ISS, you have all the data you need, then provide mathematical proof that the video is fake.
BWT you keep asking lots of questions but you refuse to answer any questions yourself, why? How did you verify the earth is an infinite plane?
Do you believe NASA's ISS video is questionable? I need know know if I can trust your words. Yes, or no?
Do you believe NASA's ISS video is questionable? I need know know if I can trust your words. Yes, or no?
No I don't see any reason to question the video... unless you can prove that the video is fake. Here's a diagram to help you with your proof:
(https://i.imgur.com/hKOVvc8.jpg)
https://astrobob.areavoices.com/2019/05/15/follow-the-international-space-station-to-the-land-of-the-midnight-sun/
Your ISS orbit orientation is all wrong for that day. And the directional rotation of the Earth in the video should be from NE to SW not East to west. But we who seek truth know why it's not, because it's faked. And you defend a fake video. The hole is deeper and you ignored the point of all the rotation in the video for such a short rotation in real time. Stop wasting my time!
Your ISS orbit orientation is all wrong for that day. And the directional rotation of the Earth in the video should be from NE to SW not East to west. But we who seek truth know why it's not, because it's faked. And you defend a fake video. The hole is deeper and you ignored the point of all the rotation in the video for such a short rotation in real time. Stop wasting my time!
Baby steps Plat, baby steps. Before you jump off over to all things space, let's solve some terrestrial things first. You started this thread with the globe crushing notion regarding the Panama Canal and no evidence of curvature. For some reason you abandoned all of that and spun off to random parts unknown.
Let's get back to basics and back to your OP and premise.
You could start by explaining how you derive distance between two points. How did you derive the distance from the Red to the Med for the Suez Canal? How did you derive the distance from the Pacific to the Atlantic for the Panama Canal? What's the distance between San Francisco and Boston?
Without knowing your distances and how you derive them I'm afraid it's impossible for us to examine any of you claims let alone take them seriously.
Your ISS orbit orientation is all wrong for that day. And the directional rotation of the Earth in the video should be from NE to SW not East to west. But we who seek truth know why it's not, because it's faked. And you defend a fake video. The hole is deeper and you ignored the point of all the rotation in the video for such a short rotation in real time. Stop wasting my time!
Baby steps Plat, baby steps. Before you jump off over to all things space, let's solve some terrestrial things first. You started this thread with the globe crushing notion regarding the Panama Canal and no evidence of curvature. For some reason you abandoned all of that and spun off to random parts unknown.
Let's get back to basics and back to your OP and premise.
You could start by explaining how you derive distance between two points. How did you derive the distance from the Red to the Med for the Suez Canal? How did you derive the distance from the Pacific to the Atlantic for the Panama Canal? What's the distance between San Francisco and Boston?
Without knowing your distances and how you derive them I'm afraid it's impossible for us to examine any of you claims let alone take them seriously.
Do you believe NASA's ISS video is questionable? I need know know if I can trust your words too. Yes, or no?
BTW, I will take my thread any direction I want to go, and it has everything to do with showing the defeat of the Globe Community wither they accept at or not. Nor am I in your realm. Someone made a statement about NASA, so I took and opportunity to expose a fake NASA video. Don't worry i'm going back to the Suez, curvature and gravity issues. This is my agenda and thread, not yours.
Your ISS orbit orientation is all wrong for that day. And the directional rotation of the Earth in the video should be from NE to SW not East to west. But we who seek truth know why it's not, because it's faked. And you defend a fake video. The hole is deeper and you ignored the point of all the rotation in the video for such a short rotation in real time. Stop wasting my time!
Baby steps Plat, baby steps. Before you jump off over to all things space, let's solve some terrestrial things first. You started this thread with the globe crushing notion regarding the Panama Canal and no evidence of curvature. For some reason you abandoned all of that and spun off to random parts unknown.
Let's get back to basics and back to your OP and premise.
You could start by explaining how you derive distance between two points. How did you derive the distance from the Red to the Med for the Suez Canal? How did you derive the distance from the Pacific to the Atlantic for the Panama Canal? What's the distance between San Francisco and Boston?
Without knowing your distances and how you derive them I'm afraid it's impossible for us to examine any of you claims let alone take them seriously.
Do you believe NASA's ISS video is questionable? I need know know if I can trust your words too. Yes, or no?
BTW, I will take my thread any direction I want to go, and it has everything to do with showing the defeat of the Globe Community wither they accept at or not. Nor am I in your realm. Someone made a statement about NASA, so I took and opportunity to expose a fake NASA video. Don't worry i'm going back to the Suez, curvature and gravity issues. This is my agenda and thread, not yours.
Nope your hole is deeper! And all the "rotation" in the video is the ISS moving over the earth NOT rotation.Do you believe NASA's ISS video is questionable? I need know know if I can trust your words. Yes, or no?
No I don't see any reason to question the video... unless you can prove that the video is fake. Here's a diagram to help you with your proof:
(https://i.imgur.com/hKOVvc8.jpg)
https://astrobob.areavoices.com/2019/05/15/follow-the-international-space-station-to-the-land-of-the-midnight-sun/
Your ISS orbit placement in time is all wrong for the day in question. And the directional rotation of the Earth in the video should be from NE to SW not East to west. But we who seek truth know why it's not, because it's faked. And you defend a fake video. The hole is deeper and you ignored the point of all the rotation in the video for such a short rotation in real time. Stop wasting my time!
(https://i.imgur.com/1B9TMVy.jpg)
Photo Time GMT | Nadir Lat | Nadir Lon | Sun Azimuth | Sun Elevation Angle | ||||
05:24:39 | 51.8° | -68.4° | 12° | -15° |
Do you believe NASA's ISS video is questionable? I need know know if I can trust your words too. Yes, or no?No for the reasons given above!
BTW, I will take my thread any direction I want to go, and it has everything to do with showing the defeat of the Globe Community wither they accept at or not. Nor am I in your realm. Someone made a statement about NASA, so I took and opportunity to expose a fake NASA video. Don't worry i'm going back to the Suez, curvature and gravity issues. This is my agenda and thread, not yours.And we will post any evidence for the Globe that we choose because you asked the question "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" so I faile to see that you should be the one to answer your own question.
If one ISS video produced by NASA is ever accepted to be questionableThis has nothing to do with the video and is just your paranoia.
I do realize the alleged ISS is orbiting faster than Earth’s (fake) rotation and would give the appearance a CW rotation, but that’s not the point. The point is, the rotation of Earth is from right to left as you would see a Globe model spinning on it’ vertical axis.So you accept that the rotation you are seeing isn't from the rotation of Earth and instead is from the ISS orbiting, but then just straight out reject it and assert you should be seeing the rotation of Earth?
And the position of the camera at focal point (as if viewing the sun over the north pole horizon) places the ISS orbiting way above the equator.You mean where it is meant to be?
it is impossible to view the Sun over the north pole horizon when it’s on a pass from the Southern Ocean, south of Tasmania, to western Africa, over northern Mali. The ISS wouldn’t be able to view the Sun north over the horizon being that close to Earth being that far south.That was the start and end location.
I need know know if I can trust your words too. Yes, or no?Considering how many times you have blatantly lied, either blatantly misrepresenting the RE model, or made a factually false statement which can easily be shown as such, the real question is can we trust you?
it has everything to do with showing the defeat of the Globe CommunityIt seems to be more about the dishonesty of FEers and how they are quite happy to blatantly lie to pretend there are problems when there are not.
Do you believe NASA's ISS video is questionable? I need know know if I can trust your words. Yes, or no?
No I don't see any reason to question the video... unless you can prove that the video is fake. Here's a diagram to help you with your proof:
(https://i.imgur.com/hKOVvc8.jpg)
https://astrobob.areavoices.com/2019/05/15/follow-the-international-space-station-to-the-land-of-the-midnight-sun/
Your ISS orbit placement in time is all wrong for the day in question. And the directional rotation of the Earth in the video should be from NE to SW not East to west. But we who seek truth know why it's not, because it's faked. And you defend a fake video. The hole is deeper and you ignored the point of all the rotation in the video for such a short rotation in real time. Stop wasting my time!
(https://i.imgur.com/1B9TMVy.jpg)
Translation: I'll gish gallop if I want to! If I get destroyed on one topic I'll just move to the next and ignore all criticisms!Your ISS orbit orientation is all wrong for that day. And the directional rotation of the Earth in the video should be from NE to SW not East to west. But we who seek truth know why it's not, because it's faked. And you defend a fake video. The hole is deeper and you ignored the point of all the rotation in the video for such a short rotation in real time. Stop wasting my time!
Baby steps Plat, baby steps. Before you jump off over to all things space, let's solve some terrestrial things first. You started this thread with the globe crushing notion regarding the Panama Canal and no evidence of curvature. For some reason you abandoned all of that and spun off to random parts unknown.
Let's get back to basics and back to your OP and premise.
You could start by explaining how you derive distance between two points. How did you derive the distance from the Red to the Med for the Suez Canal? How did you derive the distance from the Pacific to the Atlantic for the Panama Canal? What's the distance between San Francisco and Boston?
Without knowing your distances and how you derive them I'm afraid it's impossible for us to examine any of you claims let alone take them seriously.
Do you believe NASA's ISS video is questionable? I need know know if I can trust your words too. Yes, or no?
BTW, I will take my thread any direction I want to go, and it has everything to do with showing the defeat of the Globe Community wither they accept at or not. Nor am I in your realm. Someone made a statement about NASA, so I took and opportunity to expose a fake NASA video. Don't worry i'm going back to the Suez, curvature and gravity issues. This is my agenda and thread, not yours.
The blue haze above the red line is not equal across the line.Nor does he understand how to use and apply curvature math.
The blue haze above the red line is not equal across the line.
The blue haze above the red line is not equal across the line.Nor does he understand how to use and apply curvature math.
No it doesn't count when you have multiple times gotten it wrong and claimed there should be a curve side to side at ground level. But at least you're good for humor. Just waiting for the next gish gallop!The blue haze above the red line is not equal across the line.Nor does he understand how to use and apply curvature math.
I corrected Macarios' curvature math. Does that count? Go back and look.
One of the things I love about our beautiful Plane Earth, I am continually reminded I am right and that NASA is a great deceiver no matter how high and far we can see. There is no curve even at 339,000. If you apply curvature math to this horizon, the Globe Earth theory fails and the hoax is exposed.
(https://i.imgur.com/It5BQy3.jpg)
One of the things I love about our beautiful Plane Earth, I am continually reminded I am right and that NASA is a great deceiver no matter how high and far we can see. There is no curve even at 339,000. If you apply curvature math to this horizon, the Globe Earth theory fails and the hoax is exposed.Really? Look at that same video just a few seconds before your screenshot:
(https://i.imgur.com/It5BQy3.jpg)
The blue haze above the red line is not equal across the line.Nor does he understand how to use and apply curvature math.
I corrected Macarios' curvature math. Does that count? Go back and look.
One of the things I love about our beautiful Plane Earth, I am continually reminded I am right and that NASA is a great deceiver no matter how high and far we can see. There is no curve even at 339,000. If you apply curvature math to this horizon, the Globe Earth theory fails and the hoax is exposed.Really? Look at that same video just a few seconds before your screenshot:
(https://i.imgur.com/It5BQy3.jpg)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ksamkht16gb9upm/Meet%20the%20First%20College%20Students%20to%20Launch%20a%20Rocket%20Into%20Space%20at%202.06%20-%20guide.jpg?dl=1)
Meet the First College Students to Launch a Rocket Into Space at 2:06 with guide
From: Meet the First College Students to Launch a Rocket Into Space | WIRED (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=bk5QAiL41LA).
Look, all the curve you could ask for ;D! Except that I doubt either are the true curve from 339,000 feet and even mine might be exaggerated.
Next time get your photos from a video that does not use a lens with a large amount of "barrel distortion"!
Back to the drawing board!
And look here before your snip. Is Earth concave? Understanding the optics with the position of the camera in relation to the horizon is key. OOPS, I said Horizon.One of the things I love about our beautiful Plane Earth, I am continually reminded I am right and that NASA is a great deceiver no matter how high and far we can see. There is no curve even at 339,000. If you apply curvature math to this horizon, the Globe Earth theory fails and the hoax is exposed.Really? Look at that same video just a few seconds before your screenshot:
(https://i.imgur.com/It5BQy3.jpg)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ksamkht16gb9upm/Meet%20the%20First%20College%20Students%20to%20Launch%20a%20Rocket%20Into%20Space%20at%202.06%20-%20guide.jpg?dl=1)
Meet the First College Students to Launch a Rocket Into Space at 2:06 with guide
From: Meet the First College Students to Launch a Rocket Into Space | WIRED (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=bk5QAiL41LA).
Look, all the curve you could ask for ;D! Except that I doubt either are the true curve from 339,000 feet and even mine might be exaggerated.
Next time get your photos from a video that does not use a lens with a large amount of "barrel distortion"!
Back to the drawing board!
I have yet to see someone make a curved surface concave through camera optics.
(https://i.imgur.com/ovgZjMf.jpg)
Well you haven't seen much, have you? That photo is an example of a curved surface made concave through camera optics.And look here before your snip. Is Earth concave? Understanding the optics with the position of the camera in relation to the horizon is key. OOPS, I said Horizon.One of the things I love about our beautiful Plane Earth, I am continually reminded I am right and that NASA is a great deceiver no matter how high and far we can see. There is no curve even at 339,000. If you apply curvature math to this horizon, the Globe Earth theory fails and the hoax is exposed.Really? Look at that same video just a few seconds before your screenshot:
(https://i.imgur.com/It5BQy3.jpg)
<< See later >>
Back to the drawing board!
I have yet to see someone make a curved surface concave through camera optics.
(https://i.imgur.com/ovgZjMf.jpg)
One of the things I love about our beautiful Plane Earth, I am continually reminded I am right and that NASA is a great deceiver no matter how high and far we can see. There is no curve even at 339,000. If you apply curvature math to this horizon, the Globe Earth theory fails and the hoax is exposed.You mean you yet again run away from reality?
I have yet to see someone make a curved surface concave through camera optics.Your ignorance of camera optics is not evidence for Earth being flat.
One of the things I love about our beautiful Plane Earth, I am continually reminded I am right and that NASA is a great deceiver no matter how high and far we can see. There is no curve even at 339,000. If you apply curvature math to this horizon, the Globe Earth theory fails and the hoax is exposed.
(https://i.imgur.com/It5BQy3.jpg)
One of the things I love about our beautiful Plane Earth, I am continually reminded I am right and that NASA is a great deceiver no matter how high and far we can see. There is no curve even at 339,000. If you apply curvature math to this horizon, the Globe Earth theory fails and the hoax is exposed.
(https://i.imgur.com/It5BQy3.jpg)
The 216 feet is 0.041 miles.
To see that as one pixel of a bulge, your image has to be 878 pixels wide.
It looks easy, but how big part of the middle of the line will be for that one pixel higher than the rest?
And will it really be seen as a bulge at all? :)
The distance of the 36 miles is too small part of the Earth's circumference to be seen as curved in blueprints.
(One pixel per 878.)
And construction teams already know how to measure from Mean Sea level.
Any other reference is useless.
This is a bit off topic, but I'm glad you are here and fighting the good fight Plat Terra.Thank you, Sir
The 216 feet is 0.041 miles.
To see that as one pixel of a bulge, your image has to be 878 pixels wide.
It looks easy, but how big part of the middle of the line will be for that one pixel higher than the rest?
And will it really be seen as a bulge at all? :)
The distance of the 36 miles is too small part of the Earth's circumference to be seen as curved in blueprints.
(One pixel per 878.)
And construction teams already know how to measure from Mean Sea level.
Any other reference is useless.
You let us know when you have actually verified your (Claim) alleged surface curvature over the Canal. I'm not going to buy a gold mine based solely on claims.
The 216 feet is 0.041 miles.
To see that as one pixel of a bulge, your image has to be 878 pixels wide.
It looks easy, but how big part of the middle of the line will be for that one pixel higher than the rest?
And will it really be seen as a bulge at all? :)
The distance of the 36 miles is too small part of the Earth's circumference to be seen as curved in blueprints.
(One pixel per 878.)
And construction teams already know how to measure from Mean Sea level.
Any other reference is useless.
You let us know when you have actually verified your (Claim) alleged surface curvature over the Canal. I'm not going to buy a gold mine based solely on claims.
I am working on a post that shows the Suez Canal can’t exist on a Globe Earth,That might be a little difficult because the Suez Canal does exist on the Globe Earth but give it a go!
but for now I would like to point out the following.And you have yet to show that the surface curvature is not as indicated have you?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0utwqydpptw9zy/Panama%20Canal%20Reply%20%23381%20-%20Top%20Text%20-%20a.jpg?dl=1)
Again, elevations are measured from sea level, not from flat plane.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/yLQ078.png)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/fe2rxh35hjgjz1r/Panama%20Canal%20Reply%20%23381%20-%20Top%20Text%20-%20b.jpg?dl=1)Simply words agaim!
We can only see in a circle. Optics can only see in the radius of a circle.Prove it.
The farthest we can see is straight ahead, anything left to right is pulled back.No, even with your idea, anything to the left or right will have the same distance.
If you apply curvature math of a alleged 3959 mile radius to this horizon or any other, the Globe Earth theory fails and the hoax is exposed.You mean it can actually explain what is observed rather than relying upon nonsense like our vision magically being limited to a circle?
I am working on a post that shows the Suez Canal can’t exist on a Globe Earth, but for now I would like to point out the following.You mean rather than admit your dishonesty or accept that you were wrong, you will just jump topic again and spout more nonsense.
We can only see in a circle. Optics can only see in the radius of a circle.Prove it.
There is no evidence of any limit to human vision.
If there was such a limit, you would not be able to see further by going higher.
So if we could only see to a distance of 5 km, we should only see 5 km. Going higher shouldn't then allow the horizon to be much further away.
Also importantly, we live in 3D, not 2D, so we should be seeing the radius of a sphere.
That means objects well above our head, like the sun, shouldn't be visible at all.
So this idea is clearly pure nonsense.The farthest we can see is straight ahead, anything left to right is pulled back.No, even with your idea, anything to the left or right will have the same distance.
If we can see in a circle, we can see the same distance all around.If you apply curvature math of a alleged 3959 mile radius to this horizon or any other, the Globe Earth theory fails and the hoax is exposed.You mean it can actually explain what is observed rather than relying upon nonsense like our vision magically being limited to a circle?
That isn't exposing a hoax, that is supporting a theory with evidence.I am working on a post that shows the Suez Canal can’t exist on a Globe Earth, but for now I would like to point out the following.You mean rather than admit your dishonesty or accept that you were wrong, you will just jump topic again and spout more nonsense.
We are under no obligation to verify the curvature for you, especially not in any particular location. Like I have said, it has been verified plenty of times.
If you want to defeat a RE you can't just say you don't accept the evidence that is already there, or even just appeal to a lack of a particular piece of evidence. You need to show an actual problem.
Where are your measurements of the Panama Canal or the Suez Canal or something to show there is no curve?
So far all you have provided is ignorance and lies. None of that defeats the RE.
If you want to show that the Suez Canal isn't curved, then provide the measurements showing that it is flat, including all the details of how they were obtained.
Topographic maps report height relative to sea level, not some arbitrary flat plane which makes no sense to use as there is literally no justification for any particular plane.
Ignoring definitions of level which don't suit your agenda doesn't help you either.
I guess that means you reject spirit levels and other forms of levels as well, because they don't fit the definition you have cherry picked?
As for you latest strawman, that curvature you are appealing to is effectively nothing.
Again, stop using different units.
You are appealing to a 216 archaic unit drop over a distance of 190080 archaic units.
That is a fractional drop of 0.001.
That is basically nothing.
This is a too scale diagram of just what that should look like:
(https://i.imgur.com/rYUPQ4F.png)
Not very different from a straight line is it?
But more importantly, THAT ISN'T WHAT YOU SHOULD SEE!
That is a great circle of Earth, the curve going all the way around.
You will see part of that when looking straight ahead, but it then doesn't follow the horizon.
Unless you are infinitely far away from Earth, that great circle will be hidden by the horizon.
Instead what you should see is the horizon being at the same angle of dip all around.
So you shouldn't even see that curve.
So again, it isn't surprising that the RE community wont accept defeat when you haven't even begun to defeat them.
So far all you have done is posted a collection of lies and repeated the same claims of ignorance.
People not verifying the curvature doesn't mean the curvature isn't real, and again, plenty of people have verified the curvature.
Making factually incorrect claims about pictures and videos doesn't refute the RE.
Do you have any actual problem with the RE, as I am yet to see you present one.
And like I said, if you really want to defeat REers you should provide an alternative model that works better.
Plenty of observations are consistent with a RE and inconsistent with everything else except nature conspiring to make Earth look round.
This is a bit off topic, but I'm glad you are here and fighting the good fight Plat Terra.Yes Plat, you are well on your way to obtain "Flat Earth Researcher" rank.
Did you know if your were transported to a spherical world that has the gravity actually expressed in your gravity theory, you wouldn't be able to walk? That's right, you would be down on all four's having to learn how to walk all over again. Funny but true! That's for another week.
You can set that line in your profile, boss.This is a bit off topic, but I'm glad you are here and fighting the good fight Plat Terra.Yes Plat, you are well on your way to obtain "Flat Earth Researcher" rank.
Did you know if your were transported to a spherical world that has the gravity actually expressed in your gravity theory, you wouldn't be able to walk? That's right, you would be down on all four's having to learn how to walk all over again. Funny but true! That's for another week.So you now prove you also don't understand gravity. How sad.
I am working on a post that shows the Suez Canal can’t exist on a Globe Earth, but for now I would like to point out the following.
(https://i.imgur.com/UgNeKC7.jpg)
And you further prove you don't understand the subject. There is nothing wrong with gravity, just your misunderstanding of it and everything else. I'm even more convinced you're a troll. Thanks for the humor!I am working on a post that shows the Suez Canal can’t exist on a Globe Earth, but for now I would like to point out the following.
(https://i.imgur.com/UgNeKC7.jpg)
If the Globe Community really understood how their theory of gravity relates to this world they would alter it!
(https://i.imgur.com/D4sowER.jpg)
Did you know if your were transported to a spherical world that has the gravity actually expressed in your gravity theory, you wouldn't be able to walk?No, I didn't. Please tell me more, I'm all ears.
That's right, you would be down on all four's having to learn how to walk all over again. Funny but true! That's for another week.Your claim might be funny but it's certainly not true!
The 216 feet is 0.041 miles.
To see that as one pixel of a bulge, your image has to be 878 pixels wide.
It looks easy, but how big part of the middle of the line will be for that one pixel higher than the rest?
And will it really be seen as a bulge at all? :)
The distance of the 36 miles is too small part of the Earth's circumference to be seen as curved in blueprints.
(One pixel per 878.)
And construction teams already know how to measure from Mean Sea level.
Any other reference is useless.
You let us know when you have actually verified your (Claim) alleged surface curvature over the Canal. I'm not going to buy a gold mine based solely on claims.
No! If the you really understood how gravity, fluids and forces behave you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.
If the Globe Community really understood how their theory of gravity relates to this world they would alter it!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rmnag3ehxbzrh5q/Plat%20Terra%20Suez%20-%20Lower%20diagram%20.jpg?dl=1)
No! If the you really understood how gravity, fluids and forces behave you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.
If the Globe Community really understood how their theory of gravity relates to this world they would alter it!Quote from: Plat Terra(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rmnag3ehxbzrh5q/Plat%20Terra%20Suez%20-%20Lower%20diagram%20.jpg?dl=1)So no, the "Globe Community" has no need to "either admit defeat" or "to alter their theory of gravity".
- The downward force you have labelled with the red arrow could be placed along any line pointed at the centre of the earth.
So it would take no significant sideways force to start it rolling in either direction.- Likewise with the water at either end no, significant force to start it flowing in either direction.
In this case, however, there is a force provided by the increasing pressure width depth so water naturally flows to fill the whole canal.
Hence your ships at either end keep sailing along what appears to them as flat water - with not the slightest problem!
Not that any physicist would claim that they know everything about "their theory of gravity".
Try harder!
In other words, you admit that you have no rational answer so all that you can do if refer to your own meaningless, ridiculous memes.You mean like this?No! If the you really understood how gravity, fluids and forces behave you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.
If the Globe Community really understood how their theory of gravity relates to this world they would alter it!Quote from: Plat Terra(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rmnag3ehxbzrh5q/Plat%20Terra%20Suez%20-%20Lower%20diagram%20.jpg?dl=1)So no, the "Globe Community" has no need to "either admit defeat" or "to alter their theory of gravity".
- The downward force you have labelled with the red arrow could be placed along any line pointed at the centre of the earth.
So it would take no significant sideways force to start it rolling in either direction.- Likewise with the water at either end no, significant force to start it flowing in either direction.
In this case, however, there is a force provided by the increasing pressure width depth so water naturally flows to fill the whole canal.
Hence your ships at either end keep sailing along what appears to them as flat water - with not the slightest problem!
Not that any physicist would claim that they know everything about "their theory of gravity".
Try harder!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2188493#msg2188493
Or this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2192223#msg2192223
Or similar to this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2192920#msg2192920
In other words, you admit that you have no rational answer so all that you can do if refer to your own meaningless, ridiculous memes.You mean like this?No! If the you really understood how gravity, fluids and forces behave you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.
If the Globe Community really understood how their theory of gravity relates to this world they would alter it!Quote from: Plat Terra(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rmnag3ehxbzrh5q/Plat%20Terra%20Suez%20-%20Lower%20diagram%20.jpg?dl=1)So no, the "Globe Community" has no need to "either admit defeat" or "to alter their theory of gravity".
- The downward force you have labelled with the red arrow could be placed along any line pointed at the centre of the earth.
So it would take no significant sideways force to start it rolling in either direction.- Likewise with the water at either end no, significant force to start it flowing in either direction.
In this case, however, there is a force provided by the increasing pressure width depth so water naturally flows to fill the whole canal.
Hence your ships at either end keep sailing along what appears to them as flat water - with not the slightest problem!
Not that any physicist would claim that they know everything about "their theory of gravity".
Try harder!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2188493#msg2188493
Or this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2192223#msg2192223
Or similar to this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2192920#msg2192920
Are you honestly incapable of understanding that "down" on the Globe is not always in the direction of down from the North Pole.
"Down" is the direction a plumb-bob will point when hanging freely and on the Globe that is almost exactly towards the centre of the earth from all places on earth.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/xlwxgk6pnubdtoy/Plat%20Terra%20Curve%20memes%20%231.jpg?dl=1)
So that ball picture of your is total rubbish because the surface of the Globe does not immediately slope down from the North Pole or anywhere else.
I've never met anyone so incapable of understand such a simple concept.
The bottom line is that if you want to argue against the Globe you must use the "Globe" explanation of the way things work.
If you disagree with those "Globe" explanations of the way things work then the onus is one you to prove your case against them and I've never once seen you do that.
And where have I "been nailed where it matters" or even where it doesn't matter?In other words, you admit that you have no rational answer so all that you can do if refer to your own meaningless, ridiculous memes.You mean like this?No! If the you really understood how gravity, fluids and forces behave you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.
If the Globe Community really understood how their theory of gravity relates to this world they would alter it!Quote from: Plat Terra(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rmnag3ehxbzrh5q/Plat%20Terra%20Suez%20-%20Lower%20diagram%20.jpg?dl=1)So no, the "Globe Community" has no need to "either admit defeat" or "to alter their theory of gravity".
- The downward force you have labelled with the red arrow could be placed along any line pointed at the centre of the earth.
So it would take no significant sideways force to start it rolling in either direction.- Likewise with the water at either end no, significant force to start it flowing in either direction.
In this case, however, there is a force provided by the increasing pressure width depth so water naturally flows to fill the whole canal.
Hence your ships at either end keep sailing along what appears to them as flat water - with not the slightest problem!
Not that any physicist would claim that they know everything about "their theory of gravity".
Try harder!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2188493#msg2188493
Or this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2192223#msg2192223
Or similar to this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2192920#msg2192920
Are you honestly incapable of understanding that "down" on the Globe is not always in the direction of down from the North Pole.
"Down" is the direction a plumb-bob will point when hanging freely and on the Globe that is almost exactly towards the centre of the earth from all places on earth.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/xlwxgk6pnubdtoy/Plat%20Terra%20Curve%20memes%20%231.jpg?dl=1)
So that ball picture of your is total rubbish because the surface of the Globe does not immediately slope down from the North Pole or anywhere else.
I've never met anyone so incapable of understand such a simple concept.
The bottom line is that if you want to argue against the Globe you must use the "Globe" explanation of the way things work.
If you disagree with those "Globe" explanations of the way things work then the onus is one you to prove your case against them and I've never once seen you do that.
You have been nailed where it matters!
And where have I "been nailed where it matters" or even where it doesn't matter?In other words, you admit that you have no rational answer so all that you can do if refer to your own meaningless, ridiculous memes.You mean like this?No! If the you really understood how gravity, fluids and forces behave you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.
If the Globe Community really understood how their theory of gravity relates to this world they would alter it!Quote from: Plat Terra(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rmnag3ehxbzrh5q/Plat%20Terra%20Suez%20-%20Lower%20diagram%20.jpg?dl=1)So no, the "Globe Community" has no need to "either admit defeat" or "to alter their theory of gravity".
- The downward force you have labelled with the red arrow could be placed along any line pointed at the centre of the earth.
So it would take no significant sideways force to start it rolling in either direction.- Likewise with the water at either end no, significant force to start it flowing in either direction.
In this case, however, there is a force provided by the increasing pressure width depth so water naturally flows to fill the whole canal.
Hence your ships at either end keep sailing along what appears to them as flat water - with not the slightest problem!
Not that any physicist would claim that they know everything about "their theory of gravity".
Try harder!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2188493#msg2188493
Or this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2192223#msg2192223
Or similar to this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2192920#msg2192920
Are you honestly incapable of understanding that "down" on the Globe is not always in the direction of down from the North Pole.
"Down" is the direction a plumb-bob will point when hanging freely and on the Globe that is almost exactly towards the centre of the earth from all places on earth.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/xlwxgk6pnubdtoy/Plat%20Terra%20Curve%20memes%20%231.jpg?dl=1)
So that ball picture of your is total rubbish because the surface of the Globe does not immediately slope down from the North Pole or anywhere else.
I've never met anyone so incapable of understand such a simple concept.
The bottom line is that if you want to argue against the Globe you must use the "Globe" explanation of the way things work.
If you disagree with those "Globe" explanations of the way things work then the onus is one you to prove your case against them and I've never once seen you do that.
You have been nailed where it matters!
All you've ever shown is that you don't understand anything and you've never posted real evidence, just your own words and memes.
In other words, no answer was the sad reply!
Could you please explain exactly what defined "down" on your flat earth?
Learn what potential energy and kinetic energy terms mean.
Water will find the lowest potential energy state. This is level.
In other words you cannot "explain exactly what defined "down" on your flat earth", so as usual you post meaningless drivel.Could you please explain exactly what defined "down" on your flat earth?The readers seeking truth know where you've been nailed, and that's what matters.
You even know where you've been nailed but can't admit it openly.You refuse to even point out where I've been nailed so the Globe has no need to be concerned about the likes of you.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1) LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1) LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm |
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1) Sunrise - Black Sea HD 265,498 views by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/3072agy9hfyi1eb/Sunrise%20Sunsets%20Timelapse%20with%20by%20ZH%20Media%20-%20crop.jpg?dl=1) HD Video 1080p 4K - Timelapse with Sunrise Sunsets by ZH Media (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=STAVSfpayJQ) |
Did you know if your were transported to a spherical world that has the gravity actually expressed in your gravity theory, you wouldn't be able to walk? That's right, you would be down on all four's having to learn how to walk all over again. Funny but true! That's for another week.So rather than even try to respond to what I said in any honest rational manner you jut bring up more nonsense?
If the Globe Community really understood how their theory of gravity relates to this world they would alter it!You mean if the FEers understood how it worked they would stop spouting the same nonsense.
I mean, the FE would be happy in their bubble, no one would be hurt, the earth would still remain round and everything works as intented.Consider that people had the same idea with creationism in the US.
And, according to dutchy, more than 50% of people in the Netherlands now think that the moon landings are a hoax.I mean, the FE would be happy in their bubble, no one would be hurt, the earth would still remain round and everything works as intented.Consider that people had the same idea with creationism in the US.
And look how that turned out.
You now have loads of people trying to force evolution out of schools and have people taught fantasy instead.
I wouldn't be surprised that if no one bothered opposing FE the same would happen.
All it takes for BS to triumph is for intelligent people to say nothing.
This is how many British people think the Earth is flat (https://news.yahoo.com/three-in-100-britons-think-the-earth-is-flat-143259242.html)
It’s possibly one of the wackiest conspiracy theories out there - yet a poll has revealed that 3% of Britons subscribe to the theory that the Earth is flat.
The YouGov survey showed that three in 100 Brits say the theory that the Earth is flat rather than round is ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ true.
Just over nine out of ten (93%) believe it’s false, while 4% claim that they don’t know.
The theory was one of several conspiracy theories YouGov quizzed Brits about (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/is-britain-a-nation-of-conspiracy-theorists-132047011.html), including whether the moon landings were faked and whether the threat of climate change has been exaggerated.
The flat Earth theory was the least popular on the survey.
. . . . . . .
One on the most famous moments in history - the moon landing - is also the subject of a conspiracy theory, the poll revealed, with one in six Brits (16%) thinking it was ‘probably’ or definitely staged.
The readers seeking truth know where you've been nailed, and that's what matters. You even know where you've been nailed but can't admit it openly.The readers who actually understand how things work are laughing at you, and that's what matters. You even know why you're being laughed at, but can't admit it openly.
So we're in agreement that the nile is fake news and cant possibly flow north?
So we're in agreement that the nile is fake news and cant possibly flow north?
Rivers wouldn't flow to seas and oceans on a sphere. It would be a much different world than what you see here. Spherical gravity would make water seek its own spherical radius through gravity pulling to center of mass and eventually seep into the ground, unless its trapped in mountain areas with valleys leading to depression areas.
So we're in agreement that the nile is fake news and cant possibly flow north?
Rivers wouldn't flow to seas and oceans on a sphere. It would be a much different world than what you see here. Spherical gravity would make water seek its own spherical radius through gravity pulling to center of mass and eventually seep into the ground, unless its trapped in mountain areas with valleys leading to depression areas.
So we're in agreement that the nile is fake news and cant possibly flow north?
Rivers wouldn't flow to seas and oceans on a sphere. It would be a much different world than what you see here. Spherical gravity would make water seek its own spherical radius through gravity pulling to center of mass and eventually seep into the ground, unless its trapped in mountain areas with valleys leading to depression areas.
Water flows from higher potential energy to lower.
Lets say a river starts at 100 feet above sea level. The flow will seek out the least potential energy. This will take it to sea level, assuming nothing stops it.
Super easy concept when you realize you don't measure distances above sea level from a mine shaft deep underground.
So we're in agreement that the nile is fake news and cant possibly flow north?
Rivers wouldn't flow to seas and oceans on a sphere. It would be a much different world than what you see here. Spherical gravity would make water seek its own spherical radius through gravity pulling to center of mass and eventually seep into the ground, unless its trapped in mountain areas with valleys leading to depression areas.
Water flows from higher potential energy to lower.
Lets say a river starts at 100 feet above sea level. The flow will seek out the least potential energy. This will take it to sea level, assuming nothing stops it.
Super easy concept when you realize you don't measure distances above sea level from a mine shaft deep underground.
There is no sea level on a globe.
So we're in agreement that the nile is fake news and cant possibly flow north?
Rivers wouldn't flow to seas and oceans on a sphere. It would be a much different world than what you see here. Spherical gravity would make water seek its own spherical radius through gravity pulling to center of mass and eventually seep into the ground, unless its trapped in mountain areas with valleys leading to depression areas.
Water flows from higher potential energy to lower.
Lets say a river starts at 100 feet above sea level. The flow will seek out the least potential energy. This will take it to sea level, assuming nothing stops it.
Super easy concept when you realize you don't measure distances above sea level from a mine shaft deep underground.
There is no sea level on a globe.
When you understand the round earth model, you will see why that claim makes no sense.
So we're in agreement that the nile is fake news and cant possibly flow north?
Rivers wouldn't flow to seas and oceans on a sphere. It would be a much different world than what you see here. Spherical gravity would make water seek its own spherical radius through gravity pulling to center of mass and eventually seep into the ground, unless its trapped in mountain areas with valleys leading to depression areas.
Water flows from higher potential energy to lower.
Lets say a river starts at 100 feet above sea level. The flow will seek out the least potential energy. This will take it to sea level, assuming nothing stops it.
Super easy concept when you realize you don't measure distances above sea level from a mine shaft deep underground.
There is no sea level on a globe.
When you understand the round earth model, you will see why that claim makes no sense.
You are ignoring spherical gravity. Spherical gravity does not level mass.
So we're in agreement that the nile is fake news and cant possibly flow north?
Rivers wouldn't flow to seas and oceans on a sphere. It would be a much different world than what you see here. Spherical gravity would make water seek its own spherical radius through gravity pulling to center of mass and eventually seep into the ground, unless its trapped in mountain areas with valleys leading to depression areas.
So we're in agreement that the nile is fake news and cant possibly flow north?
Rivers wouldn't flow to seas and oceans on a sphere. It would be a much different world than what you see here. Spherical gravity would make water seek its own spherical radius through gravity pulling to center of mass and eventually seep into the ground, unless its trapped in mountain areas with valleys leading to depression areas.
What would pull those rivers in the direction you imagine here?
Why not towards the center of the Earth as it realy does?
So we're in agreement that the nile is fake news and cant possibly flow north?
Rivers wouldn't flow to seas and oceans on a sphere. It would be a much different world than what you see here. Spherical gravity would make water seek its own spherical radius through gravity pulling to center of mass and eventually seep into the ground, unless its trapped in mountain areas with valleys leading to depression areas.
As stated before, if Earth were a sphere, coastal regions at or near "sea curve" could not flood. Why? Because the water in this world seeks it’s own level and would easily flow over a curved surface, but it doesn't because of depressions.
Canals don’t curve, water doesn’t curve, water seeking it’s own level is not compatible with spherical gravity and horizontal and depression areas of the coastlines can’t meet with a spherical body of water. The Globe Community has yet of actually verifying the alleged surface curvature of any landmass or canal. And now if one truly understands the effects of spherical gravity they would be able to see it’s not a part of this world.
(https://i.imgur.com/JxoDAYV.jpg)
---
Water seeking it's own level is not compatible with spherical gravity.
(https://i.imgur.com/qbHkWyC.jpg)
So we're in agreement that the nile is fake news and cant possibly flow north?
Rivers wouldn't flow to seas and oceans on a sphere. It would be a much different world than what you see here. Spherical gravity would make water seek its own spherical radius through gravity pulling to center of mass and eventually seep into the ground, unless its trapped in mountain areas with valleys leading to depression areas.
What would pull those rivers in the direction you imagine here?
Why not towards the center of the Earth as it realy does?
The center of your sphere Earth is not the surface of the Oceans.
As stated before, if Earth were a sphere, coastal regions at or near "sea curve" could not flood.Incorrect!
Are you honestly incapable of understanding that "down" on the Globe is not always in the direction of down from the North Pole.I don't care how many times you state something because your stating something does not make it true.
"Down" is the direction a plumb-bob will point when hanging freely and on the Globe that is almost exactly towards the centre of the earth from all places on earth.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/xlwxgk6pnubdtoy/Plat%20Terra%20Curve%20memes%20%231.jpg?dl=1)
So that ball picture of your is total rubbish because the surface of the Globe does not immediately slope down from the North Pole or anywhere else.
I've never met anyone so incapable of understand such a simple concept.
The bottom line is that if you want to argue against the Globe you must use the "Globe" explanation of the way things work.
If you disagree with those "Globe" explanations of the way things work then the onus is one you to prove your case against them and I've never once seen you do that.
Why? Because the water in this world seeks it’s own level and would easily flow over a curved surface, but it doesn't because of depressions.Yes, "water in this world seeks it’s own level" and on the Globe that level is almost a perfect sphere.
As stated before, if Earth were a sphere, coastal regions at or near "sea curve" could not flood. Why? Because the water in this world seeks it’s own level and would easily flow over a curved surface, but it doesn't because of depressions.
Canals don’t curve, water doesn’t curve, water seeking it’s own level is not compatible with spherical gravity and horizontal and depression areas of the coastlines can’t meet with a spherical body of water. The Globe Community has yet of actually verifying the alleged surface curvature of any landmass or canal. And now if one truly understands the effects of spherical gravity they would be able to see it’s not a part of this world.
(https://i.imgur.com/JxoDAYV.jpg)
---
Water seeking it's own level is not compatible with spherical gravity.
(https://i.imgur.com/qbHkWyC.jpg)
South is not the same thing as down.
You are completely wrong, your memes are insane.
As stated before, if Earth were a sphere, coastal regions at or near "sea curve" could not flood. Why? Because the water in this world seeks it’s own level and would easily flow over a curved surface, but it doesn't because of depressions.
Canals don’t curve, water doesn’t curve, water seeking it’s own level is not compatible with spherical gravity and horizontal and depression areas of the coastlines can’t meet with a spherical body of water. The Globe Community has yet of actually verifying the alleged surface curvature of any landmass or canal. And now if one truly understands the effects of spherical gravity they would be able to see it’s not a part of this world.
(https://i.imgur.com/JxoDAYV.jpg)
---
Water seeking it's own level is not compatible with spherical gravity.
(https://i.imgur.com/qbHkWyC.jpg)
As stated before,I thought you needed a little help.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3h1l1609bxk1x3/Plat%20Terra%20claiming%20Newton%20Falsified%20Moon%27s%20Rotation.jpg?dl=1)Either prove that "Newton and others falsified the moon's rotation" or admit that you are making up fairy tales again.
Rivers wouldn't flow to seas and oceans on a sphere.I have already explained that that claim is BS.
Spherical gravity would make water seek its own spherical radius through gravity pulling to center of massi.e. if there is place, like in a river, where the water is higher, and it can flow along the river to get closer to the centre of mass, it would.
As stated before, if Earth were a sphere, coastal regions at or near "sea curve" could not flood.Incorrect!
All it means is that you do not understand the way gravity works. Gravity tends pull things toward the centre of the earth.
Yet you post silly memes like this:Are you honestly incapable of understanding that "down" on the Globe is not always in the direction of down from the North Pole.I don't care how many times you state something because your stating something does not make it true.
"Down" is the direction a plumb-bob will point when hanging freely and on the Globe that is almost exactly towards the centre of the earth from all places on earth.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/xlwxgk6pnubdtoy/Plat%20Terra%20Curve%20memes%20%231.jpg?dl=1)
So that ball picture of your is total rubbish because the surface of the Globe does not immediately slope down from the North Pole or anywhere else.
I've never met anyone so incapable of understand such a simple concept.
The bottom line is that if you want to argue against the Globe you must use the "Globe" explanation of the way things work.
If you disagree with those "Globe" explanations of the way things work then the onus is one you to prove your case against them and I've never once seen you do that.Quote from: Plat TerraWhy? Because the water in this world seeks it’s own level and would easily flow over a curved surface, but it doesn't because of depressions.Yes, "water in this world seeks it’s own level" and on the Globe that level is almost a perfect sphere.
Now you define what direction you think down is on the Globe. You seem to think down is in the direction from the North Pole to the South Pole.
But what would cause down to be in that particular direction?
1. The downward force you have labelled with the red arrow could be placed along any line pointed at the centre of the earth.
So it would take no significant sideways force to start it rolling in either direction.
As stated before,
By the way I'm waiting for an answer for:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3h1l1609bxk1x3/Plat%20Terra%20claiming%20Newton%20Falsified%20Moon%27s%20Rotation.jpg?dl=1)Either prove that "Newton and others falsified the moon's rotation" or admit that you are making up fairy tales again.
Have FE'ers even charted the moon's directional path? If they did, then they should have noticed that the sun and moon travel in the same general direction, but not in the exact same path.As stated before,
By the way I'm waiting for an answer for:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3h1l1609bxk1x3/Plat%20Terra%20claiming%20Newton%20Falsified%20Moon%27s%20Rotation.jpg?dl=1)Either prove that "Newton and others falsified the moon's rotation" or admit that you are making up fairy tales again.
You mean you can't walk outside and observe the Moons directional path? Does it go in the same direction as the Sun?
The bottom line is that if you want to argue the Globe you must use the the facts and observations of this world.The same is true if you want to argue for the flat earth. Too bad for you that the paths of the sun and moon are much easier to explain for a globe earth than for a flat earth.
I'm sure plat understands that the moon orbits on a path tilted in relation to Earth's equator. Combined with the rotation of the globe, why would he expect it to follow the same path as the sun in our sky?
As stated before,
By the way I'm waiting for an answer for:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3h1l1609bxk1x3/Plat%20Terra%20claiming%20Newton%20Falsified%20Moon%27s%20Rotation.jpg?dl=1)Either prove that "Newton and others falsified the moon's rotation" or admit that you are making up fairy tales again.
You mean you can't walk outside and observe the Moons directional path? Does it go in the same direction as the Sun?
The bottom line is that if you want to argue the Globe you must use the the facts and observations of this world.
As stated before,
By the way I'm waiting for an answer for:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3h1l1609bxk1x3/Plat%20Terra%20claiming%20Newton%20Falsified%20Moon%27s%20Rotation.jpg?dl=1)Either prove that "Newton and others falsified the moon's rotation" or admit that you are making up fairy tales again.
You mean you can't walk outside and observe the Moons directional path? Does it go in the same direction as the Sun?
The bottom line is that if you want to argue the Globe you must use the the facts and observations of this world.
Ofcourse it does.
All stars in the celestial equatorial belt also folow the same path.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you give a response that directly applies to the following?
You mean you can't walk outside and observe the Moons directional path? Does it go in the same direction as the Sun?
Can you give a response that directly applies to the following?
You mean you can't walk outside and observe the Moons directional path? Does it go in the same direction as the Sun?
I mean I can go outside and see the Sun, Moon and celestial tropical belt stars go the same way. They all go from east to west.
Does this wording satisfy your demand? :)
Setting sun
Ships and other objects over horizon
Chemistry
Physics
Ships and land over the horizon that can NOT be brought back with telescopes or binoculars but CAN with a simple increase in elevation.
Radio and RADAR from ground and airborne platforms that has a range predicted simply by the height of the emitter and can't be increased with an increase in power.
Stars rotating around BOTH the Northern and Southern celestial poles.
Rising and setting Sun
Clouds lit from underneath during Sunrise and Sunset
A horizon that does NOT rise to eye level.
Ships and land over the horizon that can NOT be brought back with telescopes or binoculars but CAN with a simple increase in elevation.
Radio and RADAR from ground and airborne platforms that has a range predicted simply by the height of the emitter and can't be increased with an increase in power.
Stars rotating around BOTH the Northern and Southern celestial poles.
Rising and setting Sun
Clouds lit from underneath during Sunrise and Sunset
A horizon that does NOT rise to eye level.
Surface of this Earth. Please.
Ships and land over the horizon that can NOT be brought back with telescopes or binoculars but CAN with a simple increase in elevation.
Radio and RADAR from ground and airborne platforms that has a range predicted simply by the height of the emitter and can't be increased with an increase in power.
Stars rotating around BOTH the Northern and Southern celestial poles.
Rising and setting Sun
Clouds lit from underneath during Sunrise and Sunset
A horizon that does NOT rise to eye level.
Surface of this Earth. Please.
Distance between points on earth and how you obtained it, start with Miami to Boston. Please.
Says clouds lit from below is easily explained.
Doesn’t explain it.
You need an example for something you said was easily explainable?Says clouds lit from below is easily explained.
Doesn’t explain it.
Give me an example.
Yes, and to make my point.You need an example for something you said was easily explainable?Says clouds lit from below is easily explained.
Doesn’t explain it.
Give me an example.
Rockets launched into space from the surface of this earth.Setting sun
Ships and other objects over horizon
Chemistry
Physics
Surface of this Earth. Please.
Rockets launched into space from the surface of this earth.Setting sun
Ships and other objects over horizon
Chemistry
Physics
Surface of this Earth. Please.
This question is asked of all here who believe Earth is a Sphere of any type. This all has to do with a reply Rabinoz posted to me.The horizon and things disappearing from the bottom up beyond it.
Speaking of the surface of this Earth, what have you observed that proves to you Earth is a sphere?
Ships and land over the horizon that can NOT be brought back with telescopes or binoculars but CAN with a simple increase in elevation.
Radio and RADAR from ground and airborne platforms that has a range predicted simply by the height of the emitter and can't be increased with an increase in power.
Stars rotating around BOTH the Northern and Southern celestial poles.
Rising and setting Sun
Clouds lit from underneath during Sunrise and Sunset
A horizon that does NOT rise to eye level.
Surface of this Earth. Please.
Distance between points on earth and how you obtained it, start with Miami to Boston. Please.
I am sure people driving there cars from Miami to Boston have verified the claimed mileage many times. But have you verified the claimed surface curvature of Florida? No one has.
This question is asked of all here who believe Earth is a Sphere of any type. This all has to do with a reply Rabinoz posted to me.The horizon and things disappearing from the bottom up beyond it.
Speaking of the surface of this Earth, what have you observed that proves to you Earth is a sphere?
The horizon below eye level as one increases elevation.
Known elevations of distant hills appearing below closer hills/objects of the same elevation when viewed along a straight line of sight from that same elevation.
Ships and land over the horizon that can NOT be brought back with telescopes or binoculars but CAN with a simple increase in elevation.
Radio and RADAR from ground and airborne platforms that has a range predicted simply by the height of the emitter and can't be increased with an increase in power.
Stars rotating around BOTH the Northern and Southern celestial poles.
Rising and setting Sun
Clouds lit from underneath during Sunrise and Sunset
A horizon that does NOT rise to eye level.
Surface of this Earth. Please.
Distance between points on earth and how you obtained it, start with Miami to Boston. Please.
I am sure people driving there cars from Miami to Boston have verified the claimed mileage many times. But have you verified the claimed surface curvature of Florida? No one has.
I'm asking you what the distance is, as the crow flies.
I haven't personally verified the curvature of various parts of Florida, but these people have:
From the Florida Administrative Code & Administrative Register:
https://www.flrules.org
CHAPTER 5J-17
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
5J-17.050 Minimum Technical Standards: Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(3) Geodetic: a survey or mapping process that takes into account the curvature of the earth and astronomic observations, and which results in positions expressed on a recognized datum.
(4) Map of Survey (or Survey Map): a graphical or digital depiction of the facts of size, shape, identity, geodetic location, or legal location determined by a survey. The term “Map of Survey” (Survey Map) includes the terms: Sketch of Survey, Plat of Survey, or other similar titles. “Map of Survey” or “Survey Map” may also be referred to as “a map” or “the map.”
(10) Survey: the orderly process of determining facts of size, shape, identity, geodetic location, or legal location by viewing and applying direct measurement of features on or near the earth’s surface using field or image methods; defined as follows according to the type of data obtained, the methods used, and the purpose(s) to be served
5J-17.052 Minimum Technical Standards: Specific Survey, Map, and Report Requirements.
(4) Control Survey:
(a) Geodetic Control Surveys: When applicable, all geodetic control surveys, both vertical and horizontal, shall conform to the Standards and Specifications for Geodetic Control Networks (1984) as set forth by the Federal Geodetic Control Committee (FGCC), which Standards and Specifications are incorporated herein by reference, effective 5-13-96, and the Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards Parts 1, 2, and 3, FGDC-STD-007.1-1998, entitled “Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards Part 2: Standards for Geodetic Networks”, and FGDC-STD-007.3-1998, entitled “Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards Part 3: National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy”, which are hereby incorporated by reference, effective 5-18-00, copies of which may be obtained via the internet web site (http://fgdc.gov/standards_publications/). No use of the terminology of these standards may be made without completely adopting and following all the standards in their entirety. When these standards are not employed, then a survey, map, or report shall explain applicable standards used in the geodetic control survey. All geodetic control survey maps or reports shall show the horizontal and vertical datum used and shall contain adequate graphical or written descriptions of the locations, construction and marking of all marks used or set and shall explain methods employed in the survey and adjustment.
Ships and land over the horizon that can NOT be brought back with telescopes or binoculars but CAN with a simple increase in elevation.
Radio and RADAR from ground and airborne platforms that has a range predicted simply by the height of the emitter and can't be increased with an increase in power.
Stars rotating around BOTH the Northern and Southern celestial poles.
Rising and setting Sun
Clouds lit from underneath during Sunrise and Sunset
A horizon that does NOT rise to eye level.
Surface of this Earth. Please.
Distance between points on earth and how you obtained it, start with Miami to Boston. Please.
I am sure people driving there cars from Miami to Boston have verified the claimed mileage many times. But have you verified the claimed surface curvature of Florida? No one has.
I'm asking you what the distance is, as the crow flies.
I haven't personally verified the curvature of various parts of Florida, but these people have:
From the Florida Administrative Code & Administrative Register:
https://www.flrules.org
CHAPTER 5J-17
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
5J-17.050 Minimum Technical Standards: Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(3) Geodetic: a survey or mapping process that takes into account the curvature of the earth and astronomic observations, and which results in positions expressed on a recognized datum.
(4) Map of Survey (or Survey Map): a graphical or digital depiction of the facts of size, shape, identity, geodetic location, or legal location determined by a survey. The term “Map of Survey” (Survey Map) includes the terms: Sketch of Survey, Plat of Survey, or other similar titles. “Map of Survey” or “Survey Map” may also be referred to as “a map” or “the map.”
(10) Survey: the orderly process of determining facts of size, shape, identity, geodetic location, or legal location by viewing and applying direct measurement of features on or near the earth’s surface using field or image methods; defined as follows according to the type of data obtained, the methods used, and the purpose(s) to be served
5J-17.052 Minimum Technical Standards: Specific Survey, Map, and Report Requirements.
(4) Control Survey:
(a) Geodetic Control Surveys: When applicable, all geodetic control surveys, both vertical and horizontal, shall conform to the Standards and Specifications for Geodetic Control Networks (1984) as set forth by the Federal Geodetic Control Committee (FGCC), which Standards and Specifications are incorporated herein by reference, effective 5-13-96, and the Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards Parts 1, 2, and 3, FGDC-STD-007.1-1998, entitled “Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards Part 2: Standards for Geodetic Networks”, and FGDC-STD-007.3-1998, entitled “Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards Part 3: National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy”, which are hereby incorporated by reference, effective 5-18-00, copies of which may be obtained via the internet web site (http://fgdc.gov/standards_publications/). No use of the terminology of these standards may be made without completely adopting and following all the standards in their entirety. When these standards are not employed, then a survey, map, or report shall explain applicable standards used in the geodetic control survey. All geodetic control survey maps or reports shall show the horizontal and vertical datum used and shall contain adequate graphical or written descriptions of the locations, construction and marking of all marks used or set and shall explain methods employed in the survey and adjustment.
I didn't say "various parts of Florida" I said Florida as in it's entire length and width. What is the verified surface curvature of Florida? And does it conform to a 3959 mile radius?
I am sure pilots have also verified the claims of mileage.
This question is asked of all here who believe Earth is a Sphere of any type. This all has to do with a reply Rabinoz posted to me.The horizon and things disappearing from the bottom up beyond it.
Speaking of the surface of this Earth, what have you observed that proves to you Earth is a sphere?
The horizon below eye level as one increases elevation.
Known elevations of distant hills appearing below closer hills/objects of the same elevation when viewed along a straight line of sight from that same elevation.
Good points.
Surface mirages can obscure the bottom part of a boat on a humid day.
Atmospheric condition can give the appearance of a lower horizon, while blocking the horizon.
Perspective. Even a taller mountain off in a distance is going to appear smaller than closer ones, even on a Plane Earth.
But none of this proves Earth's surface is curved.
Surface mirages can obscure the bottom part of a boat on a humid day.While I have seen a timelapse taken from close to the surface of the horizon moving up or down slightly due to shifting temperature layers, it is not blocked.
Atmospheric condition can give the appearance of a lower horizon, while blocking the horizon.
Perspective. Even a taller mountain off in a distance is going to appear smaller than closer ones, even on a Plane Earth.I'm not talking about them appearing smaller, I'm talking about points at a specific elevation appearing below a straight line of sight along that same elevation.
I stand by the facts observed on this Earth.So that Earth is round and gravity is real?
You mean you can't walk outside and observe the Moons directional path?Relative to what?
orbit on a plane and all orbit above a Plane Earth? It's possible, right?Will there would be nothing for it to orbit around, so there goes the orbit part.
Speaking of the surface of this Earth, what have you observed that proves to you Earth is a sphere?The horizon, and the behaviour of objects near the horizon.
Clouds lit from underneath is a good point. But explained easily.Only by the sun literally being below them.
Clouds lit from underneath is a good point. But explained easily.
Discussing FE against non-believers, Rule n.1: Never show any evidence of FE, it could be proven wrong. Focus on attacking RE.Clouds lit from underneath is a good point. But explained easily.
Yes please explain.
(https://i.imgur.com/AAxaQWQ.jpg)
Can you give a response that directly applies to the following?
You mean you can't walk outside and observe the Moons directional path? Does it go in the same direction as the Sun?
I mean I can go outside and see the Sun, Moon and celestial tropical belt stars go the same way. They all go from east to west.
Does this wording satisfy your demand? :)
That's better. You included the words "Moon, East and West" in a reply to a question I asked. Thank you.
Speaking of the surface of this Earth, what have you observed that proves to you Earth is a sphere?
This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. And notice there is a horizon.
Discussing FE against non-believers, Rule n.1: Never show any evidence of FE, it could be proven wrong. Focus on attacking RE.Clouds lit from underneath is a good point. But explained easily.
Yes please explain.
(https://i.imgur.com/AAxaQWQ.jpg)
What's the location, and what do you think is a logical explanation other than Earths is curved?
Discussing FE against non-believers, Rule n.1: Never show any evidence of FE, it could be proven wrong. Focus on attacking RE.Clouds lit from underneath is a good point. But explained easily.
Yes please explain.
(https://i.imgur.com/AAxaQWQ.jpg)
What's the location, and what do you think is a logical explanation other than Earths is curved?
Discussing FE against non-believers, Rule n.1: Never show any evidence of FE, it could be proven wrong. Focus on attacking RE.Clouds lit from underneath is a good point. But explained easily.
Yes please explain.
(https://i.imgur.com/AAxaQWQ.jpg)
What's the location, and what do you think is a logical explanation other than Earths is curved?
Why don't you explain what the logical explanation other than Earths is curved?
Discussing FE against non-believers, Rule n.1: Never show any evidence of FE, it could be proven wrong. Focus on attacking RE.Clouds lit from underneath is a good point. But explained easily.
Yes please explain.
(https://i.imgur.com/AAxaQWQ.jpg)
What's the location, and what do you think is a logical explanation other than Earths is curved?
Why don't you explain what the logical explanation other than Earths is curved?
I just thought I would ask. Have you thought about it?
Discussing FE against non-believers, Rule n.1: Never show any evidence of FE, it could be proven wrong. Focus on attacking RE.Clouds lit from underneath is a good point. But explained easily.
Yes please explain.
(https://i.imgur.com/AAxaQWQ.jpg)
What's the location, and what do you think is a logical explanation other than Earths is curved?
Thats the shadow of mount Rainier, you have a few more pictures here:
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html?m=1
As for the question, I was hopping you could answer that.
Discussing FE against non-believers, Rule n.1: Never show any evidence of FE, it could be proven wrong. Focus on attacking RE.Clouds lit from underneath is a good point. But explained easily.
Yes please explain.
(https://i.imgur.com/AAxaQWQ.jpg)
What's the location, and what do you think is a logical explanation other than Earths is curved?
Thats the shadow of mount Rainier, you have a few more pictures here:
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html?m=1
As for the question, I was hopping you could answer that.
I thought I would ask. Do you think there might be another explanation other than Earths is curved?
This question is asked of all here who believe Earth is a Sphere of any type. This all has to do with a reply Rabinoz posted to me.I have observed that the horizon is a sharp and close - only a few kilometres from near sea-level.
Speaking of the surface of this Earth, what have you observed that proves to you Earth is a sphere?
Yet from only a few tens of metres high the horizon is still sharp but much further.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0thzfx6itaxum1w/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens%20-%20cropped.jpg?dl=1)
The above photo was taken from about 2 m above water level and just left of centre there is a navigation beacon that is 2.6 km away.
If the earth were flat why is there no water visible past that beacon? Here is that beacon from a lower height and with a long telephoto lens:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/abvtouhbm0c2pg4/Scarborough%20Beacon%20on%20Horizon%20-%20str.JPG?dl=1)I took that photo and I know for certain that the navigation beacon in photos is only 2.6 km from the beach.
Scarborough from 50 cm above water, Beacon 2.6 km away on Horizon
Then the obvious evidence is simple things like sunrises and sunsets as in my own photos:Does anyone have a real argument for why its round?Because the horizon does not rise to "eye-level" as is claimed in the "FAQ" and the "Wiki".
Flat Earth: Does the horizon really rise to eye level? Rory.
Rory shows a number of simple ways that this can be tested and at the end says, "research it properly and figure it out for yourself".
And the next is from an earlier post and I present it here because Flaxton Gardens are only about 111 km from where I live and I've been there a number of times.
So here is more evidence that the horizon falls below "eye-level":
Flat Earth? Mountains rising to meet eye-level by Andrew Eddie
Andrew Eddie found that, from Flaxton Gardens (418 m above sea-level), Mount Coolum (208 m above sea-level) lines up with the horizon.
This makes it certain that the horizon is below the local horizontal at Flaxton Gardens.
There are numerous more videos in like vein, though many are far less polite to flat-earthers!
Then finally a couple of stills of the sun setting over the ocean at Weipa in Queensland:I've seen no flat earth give a reasonable explanation of even that without a lot of assumptions and pure guesses.
Sun near setting at Weipa
Sunset at Weipa
This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. And notice there is a horizon.Did you know there's a difference between the drop vs the hidden height? The hidden height is not 1,802ft.
This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. And notice there is a horizon.Did you know there's a difference between the drop vs the hidden height? The hidden height is not 1,802ft.
A weather phenomenon is not evidence Earth has curvature. If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere. But this is not the case here. To deem this as actually prove of curvature is intellectual dishonesty.
(https://i.imgur.com/t65X31s.jpg)
A weather phenomenon is not evidence Earth has curvature. If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere. But this is not the case here. To deem this as actually prove of curvature is intellectual dishonesty.
(https://i.imgur.com/t65X31s.jpg)
You're not "easily explaining" it. How does this happen at all on a Flat Earth? And how does the shadow cast upward onto Everest on a flat earth? Please easily explain it.
What bending of the light? How does a local sun say 3000 miles high cast light downward then arbitrarily bend it up to cast a shadow up underneath the clouds or up to the top of Everest?A weather phenomenon is not evidence Earth has curvature. If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere. But this is not the case here. To deem this as actually prove of curvature is intellectual dishonesty.
(https://i.imgur.com/t65X31s.jpg)
You're not "easily explaining" it. How does this happen at all on a Flat Earth? And how does the shadow cast upward onto Everest on a flat earth? Please easily explain it.
The bending of light. That's why it doesn't happen all the time.
What bending of the light? How does a local sun say 3000 miles high cast light downward then arbitrarily bend it up to cast a shadow up underneath the clouds or up to the top of Everest?A weather phenomenon is not evidence Earth has curvature. If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere. But this is not the case here. To deem this as actually prove of curvature is intellectual dishonesty.
(https://i.imgur.com/t65X31s.jpg)
You're not "easily explaining" it. How does this happen at all on a Flat Earth? And how does the shadow cast upward onto Everest on a flat earth? Please easily explain it.
The bending of light. That's why it doesn't happen all the time.
What bending of the light? How does a local sun say 3000 miles high cast light downward then arbitrarily bend it up to cast a shadow up underneath the clouds or up to the top of Everest?A weather phenomenon is not evidence Earth has curvature. If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere. But this is not the case here. To deem this as actually prove of curvature is intellectual dishonesty.
(https://i.imgur.com/t65X31s.jpg)
You're not "easily explaining" it. How does this happen at all on a Flat Earth? And how does the shadow cast upward onto Everest on a flat earth? Please easily explain it.
The bending of light. That's why it doesn't happen all the time.
It doesn't matter, it's a weather phenomenon.
If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.It can happen wherever and whenever the clouds are at an elevation just above the top of the mountain, there is a long expanse of lower land to the east or west, and clear skies farther away. There are pictures of the same thing happening at Mt. Shasta, Glacier peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Mcloughlin, and probably others elsewhere.
Setting sun
Ships and other objects over horizon
Chemistry
Physics
Surface of this Earth. Please.
If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.It can happen wherever and whenever the clouds are at an elevation just above the top of the mountain, there is a long expanse of lower land to the east or west, and clear skies farther away. There are pictures of the same thing happening at Mt. Shasta, Glacier peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Mcloughlin, and probably others elsewhere.
If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.It can happen wherever and whenever the clouds are at an elevation just above the top of the mountain, there is a long expanse of lower land to the east or west, and clear skies farther away. There are pictures of the same thing happening at Mt. Shasta, Glacier peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Mcloughlin, and probably others elsewhere.
Not all the time everywhere.
Our small Sun reaches a point where it can't continue to cast light on the MT and there is no proof the Suns light doesn't bend through atmosphere from that far away at sun set.If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.It can happen wherever and whenever the clouds are at an elevation just above the top of the mountain, there is a long expanse of lower land to the east or west, and clear skies farther away. There are pictures of the same thing happening at Mt. Shasta, Glacier peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Mcloughlin, and probably others elsewhere.
Not all the time everywhere.
What's the weather phenomenon and is a setting/rising sun one as well? I don't see a weather phenomenon present on the Everest shadow.
If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.It can happen wherever and whenever the clouds are at an elevation just above the top of the mountain, there is a long expanse of lower land to the east or west, and clear skies farther away. There are pictures of the same thing happening at Mt. Shasta, Glacier peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Mcloughlin, and probably others elsewhere.
Not all the time everywhere.
Our small Sun reaches a point where it can't continue to cast light on the MT and there is no proof the Suns light doesn't bend through atmosphere at sun set.If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.It can happen wherever and whenever the clouds are at an elevation just above the top of the mountain, there is a long expanse of lower land to the east or west, and clear skies farther away. There are pictures of the same thing happening at Mt. Shasta, Glacier peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Mcloughlin, and probably others elsewhere.
Not all the time everywhere.
What's the weather phenomenon and is a setting/rising sun one as well? I don't see a weather phenomenon present on the Everest shadow.
Are you still going to use MT Rainier as actually proof Earth curves?
I really don't have time to teach you about the Suns mechanics over our Flat Earth. You might want to ask a few others if they have the time. Good luck.If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.It can happen wherever and whenever the clouds are at an elevation just above the top of the mountain, there is a long expanse of lower land to the east or west, and clear skies farther away. There are pictures of the same thing happening at Mt. Shasta, Glacier peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Mcloughlin, and probably others elsewhere.
Not all the time everywhere.
The sun sets EVERY DAY, EVERYWHERE! (between the Arctic/Antarctic circles). The sun rises every day, from essentially the opposite direction. Both events happen at highly predictable times that vary by ~24 hours depending on your position on the earth.
Does your "weather phenomenon" or "bendy light" explain this?
No more questions from you, they have all been answered. It's time for YOU to answer some!
I know, hence the parameters I mentioned.If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.It can happen wherever and whenever the clouds are at an elevation just above the top of the mountain, there is a long expanse of lower land to the east or west, and clear skies farther away. There are pictures of the same thing happening at Mt. Shasta, Glacier peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Mcloughlin, and probably others elsewhere.
Not all the time everywhere.
I really don't have time to teach you about the orbiting mechanics of our Flat Earth. You might want to ask a few others if they have the time. Good luck.If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.It can happen wherever and whenever the clouds are at an elevation just above the top of the mountain, there is a long expanse of lower land to the east or west, and clear skies farther away. There are pictures of the same thing happening at Mt. Shasta, Glacier peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Mcloughlin, and probably others elsewhere.
Not all the time everywhere.
The sun sets EVERY DAY, EVERYWHERE! (between the Arctic/Antarctic circles). The sun rises every day, from essentially the opposite direction. Both events happen at highly predictable times that vary by ~24 hours depending on your position on the earth.
Does your "weather phenomenon" or "bendy light" explain this?
No more questions from you, they have all been answered. It's time for YOU to answer some!
Our small Sun reaches a point where it can't continue to cast light on the MTAnd yet it remains the same size all day. How high do you think the sun is, and how far away would it need to be to be 1 degree above the horizon? How far away would it need to be to appear to touch the horizon?
I really don't have time to teach you about the orbiting mechanics of our Flat Earth. You might want to ask a few others if they have the time. Good luck.If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.It can happen wherever and whenever the clouds are at an elevation just above the top of the mountain, there is a long expanse of lower land to the east or west, and clear skies farther away. There are pictures of the same thing happening at Mt. Shasta, Glacier peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Mcloughlin, and probably others elsewhere.
Not all the time everywhere.
The sun sets EVERY DAY, EVERYWHERE! (between the Arctic/Antarctic circles). The sun rises every day, from essentially the opposite direction. Both events happen at highly predictable times that vary by ~24 hours depending on your position on the earth.
Does your "weather phenomenon" or "bendy light" explain this?
No more questions from you, they have all been answered. It's time for YOU to answer some!
It doesn't matter, it's a weather phenomenon.No, it does matter but it does not happen everywhere because it needs a fairly isolated mountain with a suitable layer of clouds and it is commonly seen at around the same period each year.
And explain this on a flat earth!
Sunsets of Mt Everest. The shadows from lower mountains creep up to obscure higher mountains. The sun is not reflecting up off of the sea, or anything, for example. It can’t, there are mountains in the way. No matter how far away the sun gets it can’t cast a shadow upward to the top of the highest mountain in the world unless it is moving ‘downward’. In other words, setting behind a horizon.
A 3000 mile high FE sun can't cast a shadow upward on the mountains no matter how far away it gets; it never breaks the horizontal plane of the lower peak to do so:
(https://i.imgur.com/ynA357t.jpg?1)
Everest Sunset Timelapse by Andrew March
Time Lapse Sunset over Everest by Rick Parkin
And this is worth a look. It's video on Vimeo:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/nmeugkjd4axeeey/2009-02-20%20Lunar%20Eclipse%20as%20seen%20from%20Mauna%20Kea.jpg?dl=1) (https://vimeo.com/716247)
This is the view of the 2/20/08 Lunar Eclipse as seen from Mauna Kea on the Big Island of Hawaii.
We missed most of the eclipse because of how far west Hawaii is.
What we did get to see rose at sunset, within the shadow of Mauna Kea, which was a truly beautiful sight.
I hope I share a bit of that with you in this time lapse.
In other words, as with every question asked, you do not know.The sun sets EVERY DAY, EVERYWHERE! (between the Arctic/Antarctic circles). The sun rises every day, from essentially the opposite direction. Both events happen at highly predictable times that vary by ~24 hours depending on your position on the earth.I really don't have time to teach you about the Suns mechanics over our Flat Earth. You might want to ask a few others if they have the time. Good luck.
Does your "weather phenomenon" or "bendy light" explain this?
No more questions from you, they have all been answered. It's time for YOU to answer some!
In other words, as with every question asked, you do not know.The sun sets EVERY DAY, EVERYWHERE! (between the Arctic/Antarctic circles). The sun rises every day, from essentially the opposite direction. Both events happen at highly predictable times that vary by ~24 hours depending on your position on the earth.I really don't have time to teach you about the Suns mechanics over our Flat Earth. You might want to ask a few others if they have the time. Good luck.
Does your "weather phenomenon" or "bendy light" explain this?
No more questions from you, they have all been answered. It's time for YOU to answer some!
But remember in this thread you are asking the question "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?".
If you expect this so-called "RE Community" to "Accept Defeat" the onus is on YOU to convince us!
Yet, every time you are asked a question you deflect with some excuse as weak as "I really don't have time to teach you".
So as Here to laugh at you says No more questions from you, they have all been answered. It's time for YOU to answer some!
It doesn't matter, it's a weather phenomenon.No, it does matter but it does not happen everywhere because it needs a fairly isolated mountain with a suitable layer of clouds and it is commonly seen at around the same period each year.
But there are upward slanting shadows on and caused by many mountains:
Sunsets of Mt Everest. The shadows from lower mountains creep up to obscure higher mountains. The sun is not reflecting up off of the sea, or anything, for example. It can’t, there are mountains in the way. No matter how far away the sun gets it can’t cast a shadow upward to the top of the highest mountain in the world unless it is moving ‘downward’. In other words, setting behind a horizon.
A 3000 mile high FE sun can't cast a shadow upward on the mountains no matter how far away it gets; it never breaks the horizontal plane of the lower peak to do so:
(https://i.imgur.com/ynA357t.jpg?1)
This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. They should be hidden by bulge of water. And notice there is a horizon and not a curvizon.
It doesn't matter, it's a weather phenomenon.No, it does matter but it does not happen everywhere because it needs a fairly isolated mountain with a suitable layer of clouds and it is commonly seen at around the same period each year.
But there are upward slanting shadows on and caused by many mountains:
Sunsets of Mt Everest. The shadows from lower mountains creep up to obscure higher mountains. The sun is not reflecting up off of the sea, or anything, for example. It can’t, there are mountains in the way. No matter how far away the sun gets it can’t cast a shadow upward to the top of the highest mountain in the world unless it is moving ‘downward’. In other words, setting behind a horizon.
A 3000 mile high FE sun can't cast a shadow upward on the mountains no matter how far away it gets; it never breaks the horizontal plane of the lower peak to do so:
(https://i.imgur.com/ynA357t.jpg?1)
Nice Sun and MT Everest illustration.
Now add 3 to 4 thousand miles of atmosphere on a plane in between Sunset and the viewer on the MT. That would be more realistic.
Have you ever used Fog Lights? And Why?
This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. They should be hidden by bulge of water. And notice there is a horizon and not a curvizon.Do you know how much should be hidden from view? Yes, there is a horizon, and no, there's no left to right curve visible, as is expected with a high magnification shot on a globe.
This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. They should be hidden by bulge of water. And notice there is a horizon and not a curvizon.
So you have admitted defeat on where your Sun is? How it sets and rises everyday and determines time, which I assume you follow like the rest of us. And have moved back to your other meme, the Chicago skyline. You claim atmospheric effects on bendy light, shadows cast upward, yet refuse the atmospheric explanations, (which are well documented, your bendy light is not) when it comes to the Chicago skyline. Curious.
And the real question about the Chicago skyline is not "why do we see it", but "why don't we see all of it"?
And you still have the meme wrong, 1802' is not correct. You admitted that, now change it.
So, where is your Sun?
And while you're at it, did you contact the Florida surveyors board to get the geodetic information you were looking for I posted before? You know, the info about measuring curvature and such. Let me know what they have to say when you talk to them.
This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. They should be hidden by bulge of water. And notice there is a horizon and not a curvizon.Do you know how much should be hidden from view? Yes, there is a horizon, and no, there's no left to right curve visible, as is expected with a high magnification shot on a globe.
This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. They should be hidden by bulge of water. And notice there is a horizon and not a curvizon.
So you have admitted defeat on where your Sun is? How it sets and rises everyday and determines time, which I assume you follow like the rest of us. And have moved back to your other meme, the Chicago skyline. You claim atmospheric effects on bendy light, shadows cast upward, yet refuse the atmospheric explanations, (which are well documented, your bendy light is not) when it comes to the Chicago skyline. Curious.
And the real question about the Chicago skyline is not "why do we see it", but "why don't we see all of it"?
And you still have the meme wrong, 1802' is not correct. You admitted that, now change it.
So, where is your Sun?
And while you're at it, did you contact the Florida surveyors board to get the geodetic information you were looking for I posted before? You know, the info about measuring curvature and such. Let me know what they have to say when you talk to them.
The 1802' is Correct. I corrected "1802 of curvature blocking the view."
No, the real question about the Chicago skyline is "why do we see it at all"
You have to now change you Globe Model size of Earth because you see the city.
The fact that most of the City is seen, proves your 3959 mile radius is a hoax and proves Eratosthenes was wrong.
See, you have more problems now. You should have not posted. I like my Avatar.
Eratosthenes was wrong. No bunny trails for you.This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. They should be hidden by bulge of water. And notice there is a horizon and not a curvizon.
So you have admitted defeat on where your Sun is? How it sets and rises everyday and determines time, which I assume you follow like the rest of us. And have moved back to your other meme, the Chicago skyline. You claim atmospheric effects on bendy light, shadows cast upward, yet refuse the atmospheric explanations, (which are well documented, your bendy light is not) when it comes to the Chicago skyline. Curious.
And the real question about the Chicago skyline is not "why do we see it", but "why don't we see all of it"?
And you still have the meme wrong, 1802' is not correct. You admitted that, now change it.
So, where is your Sun?
And while you're at it, did you contact the Florida surveyors board to get the geodetic information you were looking for I posted before? You know, the info about measuring curvature and such. Let me know what they have to say when you talk to them.
The 1802' is Correct. I corrected "1802 of curvature blocking the view."
No, the real question about the Chicago skyline is "why do we see it at all"
You have to now change you Globe Model size of Earth because you see the city.
The fact that most of the City is seen, proves your 3959 mile radius is a hoax and proves Eratosthenes was wrong.
See, you have more problems now. You should have not posted. I like my Avatar.
I can see a portion of the skyline due to atmospheric effects. The actual hidden amount is 1592' excluding refraction. Which you also claim in your observations. And the point is, on a flat earth, why am I not seeing all of it? That's the point, on a flat earth, I should see ALL OF IT!
So, where is your sun right now?
If the earth isn't curved, then the only logical explanation is that the laws of physics that we use every day in countless applications are completely wrong. That means that you would need to define a whole new set of physical laws from scratch. Good luck with that.Discussing FE against non-believers, Rule n.1: Never show any evidence of FE, it could be proven wrong. Focus on attacking RE.Clouds lit from underneath is a good point. But explained easily.
Yes please explain.
(https://i.imgur.com/AAxaQWQ.jpg)
What's the location, and what do you think is a logical explanation if Earth isn't curved?
Eratosthenes was wrong. No bunny trails for you.This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. They should be hidden by bulge of water. And notice there is a horizon and not a curvizon.
So you have admitted defeat on where your Sun is? How it sets and rises everyday and determines time, which I assume you follow like the rest of us. And have moved back to your other meme, the Chicago skyline. You claim atmospheric effects on bendy light, shadows cast upward, yet refuse the atmospheric explanations, (which are well documented, your bendy light is not) when it comes to the Chicago skyline. Curious.
And the real question about the Chicago skyline is not "why do we see it", but "why don't we see all of it"?
And you still have the meme wrong, 1802' is not correct. You admitted that, now change it.
So, where is your Sun?
And while you're at it, did you contact the Florida surveyors board to get the geodetic information you were looking for I posted before? You know, the info about measuring curvature and such. Let me know what they have to say when you talk to them.
The 1802' is Correct. I corrected "1802 of curvature blocking the view."
No, the real question about the Chicago skyline is "why do we see it at all"
You have to now change you Globe Model size of Earth because you see the city.
The fact that most of the City is seen, proves your 3959 mile radius is a hoax and proves Eratosthenes was wrong.
See, you have more problems now. You should have not posted. I like my Avatar.
I can see a portion of the skyline due to atmospheric effects. The actual hidden amount is 1592' excluding refraction. Which you also claim in your observations. And the point is, on a flat earth, why am I not seeing all of it? That's the point, on a flat earth, I should see ALL OF IT!
So, where is your sun right now?
Have a nice evening!
Are you saying that when zooming in on a curved line, the curve of the line does not appear to lessen?This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. They should be hidden by bulge of water. And notice there is a horizon and not a curvizon.Do you know how much should be hidden from view? Yes, there is a horizon, and no, there's no left to right curve visible, as is expected with a high magnification shot on a globe.
Then Earth must be cylinder shaped. You can't have it both ways.
If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.It can happen wherever and whenever the clouds are at an elevation just above the top of the mountain, there is a long expanse of lower land to the east or west, and clear skies farther away. There are pictures of the same thing happening at Mt. Shasta, Glacier peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Mcloughlin, and probably others elsewhere.
Not all the time everywhere.
Nope! We do not have to "change the Globe Model size of Earth because you see the city" and you haven't proven "Eratosthenes was wrong".So you have admitted defeat on where your Sun is? How it sets and rises everyday and determines time, which I assume you follow like the rest of us. And have moved back to your other meme, the Chicago skyline. You claim atmospheric effects on bendy light, shadows cast upward, yet refuse the atmospheric explanations, (which are well documented, your bendy light is not) when it comes to the Chicago skyline. Curious.
And the real question about the Chicago skyline is not "why do we see it", but "why don't we see all of it"?
And you still have the meme wrong, 1802' is not correct. You admitted that, now change it.
So, where is your Sun?
And while you're at it, did you contact the Florida surveyors board to get the geodetic information you were looking for I posted before? You know, the info about measuring curvature and such. Let me know what they have to say when you talk to them.
The 1802' is Correct. I corrected "1802 of curvature blocking the view."
No, the real question about the Chicago skyline is "why do we see it at all"
You have to now change you Globe Model size of Earth because you see the city.
The fact that most of the City is seen, proves your 3959 mile radius is a hoax and proves Eratosthenes was wrong.
See, you have more problems now.
Flat earth debunk Wikia: Seeing Chicago across Lake Michigan[/color]]Flat earth debunk Wikia: Seeing Chicago across Lake Michigan (http://[color=blue)The important points are that:
Oftentimes, when flat earthers are trying to show that the earth is, in fact flat, they present a specific picture of the Chicago Skyline taken across lake Michigan:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/dcjgjvs7r3q3t7y/Flat%20earth%20debunk%20Wikia%20No%201%20-%20Chicago%20from%20Michigan%20Joshua%20Nowicki.jpg?dl=1)
This picture, as shown in the description, was taken 200mm atop a dune in Grand Mere Lakes park, near Stevensville, Mi. The specific dune is not mentioned, but the likely place is shown here:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ggcwd4drl9k5ej3/Flat%20earth%20debunk%20Wikia%20No%202%20-%20Grand%20Mere%20Lakes%20Dune.jpg?dl=1)
This location is 735 feet above sea level. Lake Michigan itself is actually 577 feet above lake level[1]. This means the elevation of the actual picture (including the height of the camera above the dune) was 159 feet.
Given the curvature calculation, and the fact that this spot is approximately 55 miles from Chicago, it is expected that only about 1043 feet of this skyline should be obscured by the horizon. This does not take into account atmospheric refraction, which may make more visible. In the picture below, the 4 buildings which, at their pinnacle height, are taller than this have been marked. Though other buildings appear to be visible, none are above the band which shows significant warping due to atmospheric refraction:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ny78l1ur4lq90l/Flat%20earth%20debunk%20Wikia%20No%203%20-%20Chicago%20From%20Michigan%20With%20Building%20Heights.jpg?dl=1)
[1] Wright, John W., ed. (2006). The New York Times Almanac. Editors and reporters of The New York Times(2007 ed.). New York, New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-303820-6 (https://flat-earth-debunk.fandom.com/wiki/Special:BookSources/0143038206).
It doesn't matter, it's a weather phenomenon.
what do you think is a logical explanation if Earth isn't curved?That's your problem. The logical explanation (which considers all the other evidence) is that Earth is curved.
If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere. But this is not the case here. To deem this as actually prove of curvature is intellectual dishonesty.Light going upwards at sunset does happen everywhere where the sun isn't setting behind mountains.
Bending of light.What is causing the light to bend?
there is no proof the Suns light doesn't bend through atmosphere from that far away at sun set.That isn't a simple explanation, that is appealing to wilful ignorance.
Are you still going to use MT Rainier as actually proof Earth curves?Unless you can provide an explanation that is consistent with a FE and physics, yes.
This post is in reply to most arguments above.You already admitted you were wrong.
And notice there is a horizonYes, exactly as you would expect for a RE.
A weather phenomenon is not evidence Earth has curvature. If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.Who claimed that it was "evidence Earth has curvature"?
But this is not the case here. To deem this as actually prove of curvature is intellectual dishonesty.But you seem to be the only one suggesting that it might be due to curvature.
What's the location, and what do you think is a logical explanation other than Earths is curved?Thats the shadow of mount Rainier, you have a few more pictures here:
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html?m=1
As for the question, I was hoping you could answer that.
(https://i.imgur.com/t65X31s.jpg)So, enough of the excuses and deflection.
This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. They should be hidden by bulge of water. And notice there is a horizon and not a curvizon.
(https://i.imgur.com/uKD0ByD.jpg)
A weather phenomenon is not evidence Earth has curvature. If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.Who claimed that it was "evidence Earth has curvature"?
But it is solid evidence that the sun in not circling overhead as flat earthers seem to claim.
On the real earth the sun appears to be hidden by "something" and to rise up at sunrise like this:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/igmdb1pr4nor5az/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20%20risen.jpg?dl=1)But on the flat earth the sun is supposedly always about 3000 miles above the earth.
Video of Sunrise over Black Sea HD 265,498 views by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s)
No, the images are not an illusion other than the video seem to show the sun moving and not the earth rotating.A weather phenomenon is not evidence Earth has curvature. If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.Who claimed that it was "evidence Earth has curvature"?
But it is solid evidence that the sun in not circling overhead as flat earthers seem to claim.
On the real earth the sun appears to be hidden by "something" and to rise up at sunrise like this:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/igmdb1pr4nor5az/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20%20risen.jpg?dl=1)But on the flat earth the sun is supposedly always about 3000 miles above the earth.
Video of Sunrise over Black Sea HD 265,498 views by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s)
Why are you posting what the Round Earth Theory claims is an illusion to show that there is no illusion occuring?
RET says that the Sun is below the horizon in those images. When the sun is at the horizon it is already below it in RE. Those images and what we see is false. Once again you are unable or unwilling to tell us how we can tell the difference between a small illusion and a large one. A rediculous, self contradicting argument.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1)
LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm
I naturally think that the sun is really being hidden behind something, the horizon on the Globe.
Sunlight is also 8 minutes old. We just don’t care.A weather phenomenon is not evidence Earth has curvature. If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere.Who claimed that it was "evidence Earth has curvature"?
But it is solid evidence that the sun in not circling overhead as flat earthers seem to claim.
On the real earth the sun appears to be hidden by "something" and to rise up at sunrise like this:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/igmdb1pr4nor5az/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20%20risen.jpg?dl=1)But on the flat earth the sun is supposedly always about 3000 miles above the earth.
Video of Sunrise over Black Sea HD 265,498 views by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s)
Why are you posting what the Round Earth Theory claims is an illusion to show that there is no illusion occuring?
RET says that the Sun is below the horizon in those images. When the sun is at the horizon it is already below it in RE. Those images and what we see is false. Once again you are unable or unwilling to tell us how we can tell the difference between a small illusion and a large one. A rediculous, self contradicting argument.
Do you ever wonder why the sun appears to move faster at sunset instead of slower as FET would predict?
Claiming that it's not an illusion because it is a "known and understood effect" is a totally invalid response, clearly lacking of evidence that this effect is occuring, that we can detect this effect, or that we can differentiate between this effect and others.Tom, refraction is not an illusion. It's a physical effect that has been studied for hundreds of years and is well understood. That's how scientists can confidently claim that the sun near the horizon is about one half degree lower than it appears.
Once again, a proposal using unmitigated illusions to claim that an illusion is not occuring.
Explain how scientists can "confidently" explain that the sun lags behind to appear above the horizon when it is below it, when, as sokarul tells us, the sun moves faster at sunset.
Nope! We do not have to "change the Globe Model size of Earth because you see the city" and you haven't proven "Eratosthenes was wrong".So you have admitted defeat on where your Sun is? How it sets and rises everyday and determines time, which I assume you follow like the rest of us. And have moved back to your other meme, the Chicago skyline. You claim atmospheric effects on bendy light, shadows cast upward, yet refuse the atmospheric explanations, (which are well documented, your bendy light is not) when it comes to the Chicago skyline. Curious.
And the real question about the Chicago skyline is not "why do we see it", but "why don't we see all of it"?
And you still have the meme wrong, 1802' is not correct. You admitted that, now change it.
So, where is your Sun?
And while you're at it, did you contact the Florida surveyors board to get the geodetic information you were looking for I posted before? You know, the info about measuring curvature and such. Let me know what they have to say when you talk to them.
The 1802' is Correct. I corrected "1802 of curvature blocking the view."
No, the real question about the Chicago skyline is "why do we see it at all"
You have to now change you Globe Model size of Earth because you see the city.
The fact that most of the City is seen, proves your 3959 mile radius is a hoax and proves Eratosthenes was wrong.
See, you have more problems now.
You are still ignoring a few vital points. One important one being the height Joshua Nowicki was above the lake. This might help.QuoteFlat earth debunk Wikia: Seeing Chicago across Lake Michigan[/color]]Flat earth debunk Wikia: Seeing Chicago across Lake Michigan (http://[color=blue)The important points are that:
Oftentimes, when flat earthers are trying to show that the earth is, in fact flat, they present a specific picture of the Chicago Skyline taken across lake Michigan:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/dcjgjvs7r3q3t7y/Flat%20earth%20debunk%20Wikia%20No%201%20-%20Chicago%20from%20Michigan%20Joshua%20Nowicki.jpg?dl=1)
This picture, as shown in the description, was taken 200mm atop a dune in Grand Mere Lakes park, near Stevensville, Mi. The specific dune is not mentioned, but the likely place is shown here:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ggcwd4drl9k5ej3/Flat%20earth%20debunk%20Wikia%20No%202%20-%20Grand%20Mere%20Lakes%20Dune.jpg?dl=1)
This location is 735 feet above sea level. Lake Michigan itself is actually 577 feet above lake level[1]. This means the elevation of the actual picture (including the height of the camera above the dune) was 159 feet.
Given the curvature calculation, and the fact that this spot is approximately 55 miles from Chicago, it is expected that only about 1043 feet of this skyline should be obscured by the horizon. This does not take into account atmospheric refraction, which may make more visible. In the picture below, the 4 buildings which, at their pinnacle height, are taller than this have been marked. Though other buildings appear to be visible, none are above the band which shows significant warping due to atmospheric refraction:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ny78l1ur4lq90l/Flat%20earth%20debunk%20Wikia%20No%203%20-%20Chicago%20From%20Michigan%20With%20Building%20Heights.jpg?dl=1)
[1] Wright, John W., ed. (2006). The New York Times Almanac. Editors and reporters of The New York Times(2007 ed.). New York, New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-303820-6 (https://flat-earth-debunk.fandom.com/wiki/Special:BookSources/0143038206).And you might find this entertaining:
- From that camera height of 159 feet from that spot approximately 55 miles from Chicago, it is expected that only about 1043 feet of this skyline should be obscured by the horizon.
But we usually expect some atmospheric refract and the Metabunk Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/) allows for that.
This "normal" refraction would show that only 839 feet and all it needs to cause a little extra refraction is for the air being cooler near the lake's surface that higher up.- The unobscured skyline should be something like this, though it's probably not quite from the same direction.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQur6ZuSRNHsoWEP08nR4IrpCDNDG36X0n8wyqpWb1Q6BuoGvRx5jS6GFO8)- The so-called "mirage" photo would never have made it to the evening news if seeing that much of Chicago was usually seen.
Flat Earth Lunacy: The Chicago Skyline Seen From Michigan by The Quagmire
For those interested here is Joshua Nowicki's own video:
Time-lapse: Looking toward Chicago from Michigan by Joshua Nowicki
But if you expect that the "RE Community will Accept Defeat" you are doing a poor job of convincing them - try harder.
Explain how scientists can "confidently" explain that the sun lags behind to appear above the horizon when it is below it, when, as sokarul tells us, the sun moves faster at sunset.
That isnt what sokarul said. There's a dishonesty to your post which hinders, rather than helps the discussion.
Have you measured the speed of the setting sun and compared it to the speed of the sun as it moves across the sky?Explain how scientists can "confidently" explain that the sun lags behind to appear above the horizon when it is below it, when, as sokarul tells us, the sun moves faster at sunset.
That isnt what sokarul said. There's a dishonesty to your post which hinders, rather than helps the discussion.
The sun setting faster at the horizon is a known effect.
Have you measured the speed of the setting sun and compared it to the speed of the sun as it moves across the sky?Explain how scientists can "confidently" explain that the sun lags behind to appear above the horizon when it is below it, when, as sokarul tells us, the sun moves faster at sunset.
That isnt what sokarul said. There's a dishonesty to your post which hinders, rather than helps the discussion.
The sun setting faster at the horizon is a known effect.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
How far away is the sun from your flat Earth?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
How far away is the sun from your flat Earth?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
How far away is the sun from your flat Earth?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
How far away is the sun from your flat Earth?
Let's say,
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
For anyone to answer that they would have to know which FE model you subscribe to. So, how far away is your sun and where will it be in 12 hours?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
How far away is the sun from your flat Earth?
Let's say,
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
For anyone to answer that they would have to know which FE model you subscribe to. So, how far away is your sun and where will it be in 12 hours?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth on the day of the Equinox for those at 45 degrees N?
At noon the Sun is around 3200 miles maybe a little more above the equator and a bit farther for the viewer.
I can wait.....
Out of view and I can't check it's angular size at that time. So stay on topic or leave me alone. Got that?Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
How far away is the sun from your flat Earth?
Let's say,
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
For anyone to answer that they would have to know which FE model you subscribe to. So, how far away is your sun and where will it be in 12 hours?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth on the day of the Equinox for those at 45 degrees N?
At noon the Sun is around 3200 miles maybe a little more above the equator and a bit farther for the viewer.
I can wait.....
Where will your sun be today in 12 hours?
I can wait...
Out of view and I can't check it's angular size at that time. So stay on topic or leave me alone. Got that?Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
How far away is the sun from your flat Earth?
Let's say,
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
For anyone to answer that they would have to know which FE model you subscribe to. So, how far away is your sun and where will it be in 12 hours?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth on the day of the Equinox for those at 45 degrees N?
At noon the Sun is around 3200 miles maybe a little more above the equator and a bit farther for the viewer.
I can wait.....
Where will your sun be today in 12 hours?
I can wait...
Am I to believe some of you teach the Sun's angular size changes greatly on a Plane Earth without an explanation? Just throw it out there and hope it sticks? Is that what Newton did when he faked the Moons direction? I believe so.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
How far away is the sun from your flat Earth?
Let's say,
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
For anyone to answer that they would have to know which FE model you subscribe to. So, how far away is your sun and where will it be in 12 hours?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth on the day of the Equinox for those at 45 degrees N?
At noon the Sun is around 3200 miles maybe a little more above those at the equator and a bit farther away from the viewer at 45 degrees N.
I can wait.....
Explain how scientists can "confidently" explain that the sun lags behind to appear above the horizon when it is below it, when, as sokarul tells us, the sun moves faster at sunset.
That isnt what sokarul said. There's a dishonesty to your post which hinders, rather than helps the discussion.
The sun setting faster at the horizon is a known effect.
If you want to see a bunch of people farting out contradictory answer for this with zero evidence just do an internet search : https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b1ajz5/the_sun_appears_to_move_faster_during_sunrise_or/
And how do you come up with the difference in FE?Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
How far away is the sun from your flat Earth?
Let's say,
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
For anyone to answer that they would have to know which FE model you subscribe to. So, how far away is your sun and where will it be in 12 hours?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth on the day of the Equinox for those at 45 degrees N?
At noon the Sun is around 3200 miles maybe a little more above those at the equator and a bit farther away from the viewer at 45 degrees N.
I can wait.....
The change in distance from noon to sunset is greater on fe than on a round earth.
3200/4200=0.76
Where as 93 mil/ 93 mil + 20000 is still 0.999.
Guessed at the sun’s distance at sunset.And how do you come up with the difference in FE?Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
How far away is the sun from your flat Earth?
Let's say,
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
For anyone to answer that they would have to know which FE model you subscribe to. So, how far away is your sun and where will it be in 12 hours?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth on the day of the Equinox for those at 45 degrees N?
At noon the Sun is around 3200 miles maybe a little more above those at the equator and a bit farther away from the viewer at 45 degrees N.
I can wait.....
The change in distance from noon to sunset is greater on fe than on a round earth.
3200/4200=0.76
Where as 93 mil/ 93 mil + 20000 is still 0.999.
Guessed at the sun’s distance at sunset.And how do you come up with the difference in FE?Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
How far away is the sun from your flat Earth?
Let's say,
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
For anyone to answer that they would have to know which FE model you subscribe to. So, how far away is your sun and where will it be in 12 hours?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth on the day of the Equinox for those at 45 degrees N?
At noon the Sun is around 3200 miles maybe a little more above those at the equator and a bit farther away from the viewer at 45 degrees N.
I can wait.....
The change in distance from noon to sunset is greater on fe than on a round earth.
3200/4200=0.76
Where as 93 mil/ 93 mil + 20000 is still 0.999.
You can use simple trig and get your own answer.
Tie a basketball on a string, and swing it around you. does it's angular size change? No.
Roll a basketball down the street. Does it's angular size change? Yes.
How far away is the sun at sunset?
How far away is the sun at sunset?
It all depends on the latitude, the time of year and it changes daily.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Tie a basketball on a string, and swing it around you. does it's angular size change? No.
Roll a basketball down the street. Does it's angular size change? Yes.
Sorry, that one is not going to stick. You don't have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?Because the sun's distance from an observer changes greatly on a plane earth.
So if you do "have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics" explain why the sun's and moon's angular size change must change on the flat earth.Tie a basketball on a string, and swing it around you. does it's angular size change? No.
Roll a basketball down the street. Does it's angular size change? Yes.
Sorry, that one is not going to stick. You don't have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics.
Why are you posting what the Round Earth Theory claims is an illusion to show that there is no illusion occuring?Why are you appealing to well known refraction, which easily explains it for a RE, while avoiding providing a FE explanation?
Sorry, that one is not going to stick. You don't have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics.
What should be hidden is 693'.So why lie and claim over 1800 archaic units should be hidden before?
The Sears tower is 1450'. What is seen of the City in the video is a lot more than half the City.Based upon what?
Accept defeat!Why accept defeat when you have provided evidence that directly refutes a FE?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?If you want the ancient FE model, were the very distant sun circles Earth, going BELOW Earth, then it doesn't.
In response to the fairy tales you accept and teach.Yes, in response to your fairy tales we accept reality and teach.
As stated before,
By the way I'm waiting for an answer for:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3h1l1609bxk1x3/Plat%20Terra%20claiming%20Newton%20Falsified%20Moon%27s%20Rotation.jpg?dl=1)Either prove that "Newton and others falsified the moon's rotation" or admit that you are making up fairy tales again.
As stated before,
By the way I'm waiting for an answer for:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3h1l1609bxk1x3/Plat%20Terra%20claiming%20Newton%20Falsified%20Moon%27s%20Rotation.jpg?dl=1)Either prove that "Newton and others falsified the moon's rotation" or admit that you are making up fairy tales again.
I didn't forget.
In response to the fairy tales you accept and teach.
(https://i.imgur.com/PRmFMz8.jpg)
So if you do "have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics" explain why the sun's and moon's angular size change must change on the flat earth.Tie a basketball on a string, and swing it around you. does it's angular size change? No.
Roll a basketball down the street. Does it's angular size change? Yes.
Sorry, that one is not going to stick. You don't have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics.
Hint, it has something to do with perspective.
I didn't forget.Neither did we.
In response to the fairy tales you accept and teach.
So if you do "have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics" explain why the sun's and moon's angular size change must change on the flat earth.Tie a basketball on a string, and swing it around you. does it's angular size change? No.
Roll a basketball down the street. Does it's angular size change? Yes.
Sorry, that one is not going to stick. You don't have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics.
Hint, it has something to do with perspective.
Did you fabricate this myth? That's about like saying," If Earth is Flat it must have an edge. Spread the myth and make them show you the edge if Earth is Flat"
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67791.msg1813098#msg1813098
I didn't forget.
In response to the fairy tales you accept and teach.
Humans lack a sense for detecting motion, likely because it is physically impossible as there is no absolute linear motion.
Instead what we feel is our body transferring force, such as when a seat pushes you forwards in a car.
So the absence of a feeling we don't have is proof of nothing.
It's more important for the Globe Community to prove the foundation of their theory and not avoid and ignore it. They have a responsibility to make good on the claims of Earth is a sphere by actually verifying the alleged surface curvature of Earth's landmass. You have to get your proprieties right! That's what matters.So if you do "have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics" explain why the sun's and moon's angular size change must change on the flat earth.Tie a basketball on a string, and swing it around you. does it's angular size change? No.
Roll a basketball down the street. Does it's angular size change? Yes.
Sorry, that one is not going to stick. You don't have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics.
Hint, it has something to do with perspective.
Did you fabricate this myth? That's about like saying," If Earth is Flat it must have an edge. Spread the myth and make them show you the edge if Earth is Flat"
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67791.msg1813098#msg1813098
It's hard to know what myth is to you versus reality as you never state your beliefs. For starters why not answer the questions we've all been asking you:
So, explain your sun:
How far away is it? You said it's altitude is approximately 3200 miles, if I'm not mistaken.
Where is it right now? As in how far away from you is it horizontally speaking, preferably at your sunset.
Where does it go at night?
Super simple questions anyone could answer without having to go into some mysterious FE mechanics no one has ever heard of.
Please continue. I would love to learn more on your thoughts pertaining to "Humans lack a sense for detecting motion"Then go read what I said before, and try and actually respond to it.
It's more important for the Globe Community to prove the foundation of their theory and not avoid and ignore it. They have a responsibility to make good on the claims of Earth is a sphere by actually verifying the alleged surface curvature of Earth's landmass. You have to get your proprieties right! That's what matters.So if you do "have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics" explain why the sun's and moon's angular size change must change on the flat earth.Tie a basketball on a string, and swing it around you. does it's angular size change? No.
Roll a basketball down the street. Does it's angular size change? Yes.
Sorry, that one is not going to stick. You don't have a clue about Flat Earth Mechanics.
Hint, it has something to do with perspective.
Did you fabricate this myth? That's about like saying," If Earth is Flat it must have an edge. Spread the myth and make them show you the edge if Earth is Flat"
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67791.msg1813098#msg1813098
It's hard to know what myth is to you versus reality as you never state your beliefs. For starters why not answer the questions we've all been asking you:
So, explain your sun:
How far away is it? You said it's altitude is approximately 3200 miles, if I'm not mistaken.
Where is it right now? As in how far away from you is it horizontally speaking, preferably at your sunset.
Where does it go at night?
Super simple questions anyone could answer without having to go into some mysterious FE mechanics no one has ever heard of.
It's more important for the Globe Community to prove the foundation of their theory and not avoid and ignore it. They have a responsibility to make good on the claims of Earth is a sphere by actually verifying the alleged surface curvature of Earth's landmass. You have to get your proprieties right! That's what matters.You asked the question, "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" so you do not get to set the conditions under which we might "Accept Defeat"!
| (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/features/nov13/bilby-top.jpg) | (http://collections.westchestergov.com/digital/api/singleitem/image/pcs/172/default.jpg?highlightTerms=) | (https://images.slideplayer.com/19/5890607/slides/slide_76.jpg) |
It's more important for the Globe Community to prove the foundation of their theory and not avoid and ignore it. They have a responsibility to make good on the claims of Earth is a sphere by actually verifying the alleged surface curvature of Earth's landmass. You have to get your proprieties right! That's what matters.You asked the question, "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" so you do not get to set the conditions under which we might "Accept Defeat"!
Get the message, Steve!
There is far more evidence for the Globe that simply seeing or even measuring "curvature" but that curvature has been measured numerous times.
One of the earliest, from about 1000 AD, is described in: Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment: How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth (https://owlcation.com/stem/How-to-Determin-the-Radius-of-the-Earth-Al-Birunis-Classic-Experiment).
A "short version" can be found in: Al-Biruni’s Method to Determine the Radius of the Earth (https://flatearth.ws/al-biruni-method), summarised in:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/al-biruni-method.jpg)
Al-Biruni is regarded as the "father of Geodesy" and geodetic surveyors have been effectively measuring the curvature of the earth ever since.
It is what they do in preparing "plane drawings" (ie drawings showing elevations above the local "Mean Sea Level") before large projects such as the Suez or Panama canals.
Though you will find that recently Geodetic Surveyors base the locations on GNSS measurements - it's much easier and more accurate than climbing massive towers to see long distances over the curve of the earth.
Frightening things like these:Part was, of course to get above the terrain but the height was also necessary see the required distances over the curve.
(https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/features/nov13/bilby-top.jpg) (http://collections.westchestergov.com/digital/api/singleitem/image/pcs/172/default.jpg?highlightTerms=) (https://images.slideplayer.com/19/5890607/slides/slide_76.jpg)
But what I want to know is why you fabricated that myth I wrote about. When will you address that?You are the one fabricating myths here, not us.
BTW, the history of GPS, "Ground Position Systems"Who cares about a ficticious GPS?
But it now has a new name "Satellites" to deceive the masses.No, a different technology has a different name.
You may not accept defeat, but many are. And that's what matters!No, not many are.
OMG, the horizon is just a few hundred feet away (bottom picture) and it's not at eye level. What is a Flat Earther to do?
But what I want to know is why you fabricated that myth I wrote about. When will you address that?You are the one fabricating myths here, not us.
You also seem to avoid addressing lots of things. Why is that?BTW, the history of GPS, "Ground Position Systems"Who cares about a ficticious GPS?
Why not focus on the real GPS, i.e. the global positioning system.But it now has a new name "Satellites" to deceive the masses.No, a different technology has a different name.
The LORAN system had quite limited range and coverage.
GPS doesn't have that limitation, because it uses a network of satellites which can effectively cover the globe (excluding around the poles, where the coverage is much worse).
More importantly, all the information on it is out in the open. It simply wouldn't work as fake satellites like you need it to.You may not accept defeat, but many are. And that's what matters!No, not many are.
And no, that doesn't matter in the slightest.
What matters is the truth and what model is supported by evidence.
All the evidence points to a RE, none points to a FE.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
OMG, the horizon is just a few hundred feet away (bottom picture) and it's not at eye level. What is a Flat Earther to do?
What is the topic of this thread now? Are you using it as a blog where you post all your FE memes?
OMG, the horizon is just a few hundred feet away (bottom picture) and it's not at eye level. What is a Flat Earther to do?I would say the distance is quite unclear, but it looks like far more than a few hundred feet.
OMG, the horizon is just a few hundred feet away (bottom picture) and it's not at eye level. What is a Flat Earther to do?
But that is much more like the "horizon" that would be expected for a FE.
That is what would be expected for a a FE. No clear divide, just the atmosphere scattering and absorbing more and more light until the ground and sky fade to a blur, becoming indistinguishable from one another.
So once again, FE doesn't match reality, but RE does.
OMG, the horizon is just a few hundred feet away (bottom picture) and it's not at eye level. What is a Flat Earther to do?
(https://i.imgur.com/iKIAbDX.jpg)
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Because the distance from the observer is changing greatly during the day.
Let's say you are in Mineapolis, 45 degrees north, 3110 miles away from the Equator.
For equinoctial solar noon when the Sun is above the Equator you can see it due south 45 degrees above the horizon.
You have simple isoceles right triangle Sun-Equator-Mineapolis that shows the sun 3110 miles above the Equator and 4398 miles away from you.
The Sun's angular diameter is 0.5 degrees, and to have that the required Sun radius has to be R = tan(0.25) * 4398 = 19 miles.
So, Sun's diameter has to be 38 miles.
At the same moment another observer at the Equator would have the Sun directly over head.
The angular diameter of the Sun from there should be 2 * ArcTan(19 / 3110) = 0.7 degrees.
But it is not, it is still 0.5 degrees.
Six hours later the Sun is 90 degrees west from where it was at solar noon.
Ground distance from Mineapolis grew from 3110 to 5387 miles, making direct line distance to be
SQRT(31102 + 53872) = 6220 miles.
The Sun with radius of 19 miles should have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTan(19 / 6220) = 0.35 degrees.
That's the chabge from 0.5 to 0.35 in 6 hours.
In reality you don't have that change.
From that other observer at the Equator, ground distance was increased from zero to 6220 miles,
which makes the direct line distance increased from 3110 to 6954 miles.
At the new distance the Sun with radius of 19 miles should have the angular diameter of
2 * ArcTan(19 / 6954) = 0.31 degrees.
That's the change from 0.7 to 0.31 in six hours.
Again, in reality you don't have that change.
In reality the Sun's angular diameter, seen from anywhere on Earth, is still those 0.5 degrees.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/6HaaOV.png)
OMG, the horizon is just a few hundred feet away (bottom picture) and it's not at eye level. What is a Flat Earther to do?
(https://i.imgur.com/iKIAbDX.jpg)
Ok, you are at the height of 10 meters and the distance to your horizon is limited by air to be 11.29 kilometers away.
In that case how can you see only tops (and not bottoms) of those mountains 125 kilometers behind that horizon.
Why air doesn't limit that view?
I see you have not included the flat Earth model in your specs. So it's just a myth.
And you can calculate all that but you are incapable of verifying (calculate) the actually (alleged) curvature (through calculation) of any landmass or canal? Do the right thing and prove the foundation of your theory.
Whats the actually verified surface (calculated) curvature over Florida's surface, length and width? You can't tell me, right? Give up!
OMG, the horizon is just a few hundred feet away (bottom picture) and it's not at eye level. What is a Flat Earther to do?
(https://i.imgur.com/iKIAbDX.jpg)
Ok, you are at the height of 10 meters and the distance to your horizon is limited by air to be 11.29 kilometers away.
In that case how can you see only tops (and not bottoms) of those mountains 125 kilometers behind that horizon.
Why air doesn't limit that view?
Density is lower.
OMG, the horizon is just a few hundred feet away (bottom picture) and it's not at eye level. What is a Flat Earther to do?
(https://i.imgur.com/iKIAbDX.jpg)
Ok, you are at the height of 10 meters and the distance to your horizon is limited by air to be 11.29 kilometers away.
In that case how can you see only tops (and not bottoms) of those mountains 125 kilometers behind that horizon.
Why air doesn't limit that view?
Density is lower.
Density is lower towards 125 kilometers than towards 11 kilometers?
Towards those 125 kilometers you have eleven times more air than towards those 11 kilometers.
Is the air twelve times denser down there? :)
I see you have not included the flat Earth model in your specs. So it's just a myth.
And you can calculate all that but you are incapable of verifying (calculate) the actually (alleged) curvature (through calculation) of any landmass or canal? Do the right thing and prove the foundation of your theory.
Whats the actually verified surface (calculated) curvature over Florida's surface, length and width? You can't tell me, right? Give up!
This is RE on December 22nd 2019 at 22:00 UTC
(https://i.imgur.com/764BW28.jpg)
Can you provide a similar image with sun position and daylight limits on FE map for 22.12.2019? What will be the height of the sun at 22.12.2019?
If you can't answer simple questions like where is the sun, what is the shape of the sun or where is the sun setting and rising at a given time, I'll have to conclude that the FE model you keep talking about doesn't exist. You just have a general idea that the earth is flat and the sun hovers over it and that's it.
It's a picture taken from the real world, a Flat earth.No, the real world is round, all the evidence indicates.
I see you have not included the flat Earth model in your specs.I did, showing quite clearly that the FE model demands a massive change in the apparent size of the sun, and you just ignored it.
What does that have to do with what you quoted me on? Are you ignoring what I wrote and going down a bunny trail?
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
I see you have not included the flat Earth model in your specs. So it's just a myth.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Because the distance from the observer is changing greatly during the day.
Let's say you are in Mineapolis, 45 degrees north, 3110 miles away from the Equator.
For equinoctial solar noon when the Sun is above the Equator you can see it due south 45 degrees above the horizon.
You have simple isoceles right triangle Sun-Equator-Mineapolis that shows the sun 3110 miles above the Equator and 4398 miles away from you.
The Sun's angular diameter is 0.5 degrees, and to have that the required Sun radius has to be R = tan(0.25) * 4398 = 19 miles.
So, Sun's diameter has to be 38 miles.
At the same moment another observer at the Equator would have the Sun directly over head.
The angular diameter of the Sun from there should be 2 * ArcTan(19 / 3110) = 0.7 degrees.
But it is not, it is still 0.5 degrees.
Six hours later the Sun is 90 degrees west from where it was at solar noon.
Ground distance from Mineapolis grew from 3110 to 5387 miles, making direct line distance to be
SQRT(31102 + 53872) = 6220 miles.
The Sun with radius of 19 miles should have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTan(19 / 6220) = 0.35 degrees.
That's the chabge from 0.5 to 0.35 in 6 hours.
In reality you don't have that change.
From that other observer at the Equator, ground distance was increased from zero to 6220 miles,
which makes the direct line distance increased from 3110 to 6954 miles.
At the new distance the Sun with radius of 19 miles should have the angular diameter of
2 * ArcTan(19 / 6954) = 0.31 degrees.
That's the change from 0.7 to 0.31 in six hours.
Again, in reality you don't have that change.
In reality the Sun's angular diameter, seen from anywhere on Earth, is still those 0.5 degrees.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/6HaaOV.png)
I see you have not included the flat Earth model in your specs. So it's just a myth.
And you can calculate all that but you are incapable of verifying (calculate) the actually (alleged) curvature (through calculation) of any landmass or canal? Do the right thing and prove the foundation of your theory.
Whats the actually verified surface (calculated) curvature over Florida's surface, length and width? You can't tell me, right? Give up!
What does that have to do with what you quoted me on? Are you ignoring what I wrote and going down a bunny trail?
This is what you asked isn't it?Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
In order to answer that question I need to know where do you think the sun is at given time and what does you FE map look like.
This is RE on December 22nd 2019 at 22:00 UTC
(https://i.imgur.com/764BW28.jpg)
Can you provide a similar image with sun position and daylight limits on FE map for 22.12.2019? What will be the height of the sun on 22.12.2019?
If you can't answer simple questions like where is the sun, what is the shape of the sun or where is the sun setting and rising at a given time, I'll have to conclude that the FE model you keep talking about doesn't exist. You just have a general idea that the earth is flat and the sun hovers over it and that's it.
OMG, the horizon is just a few hundred feet away (bottom picture) and it's not at eye level. What is a Flat Earther to do?Could you have cherry-picked a worse example?
Water limits how far you can see. . .
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ead024g98jn16ig/Plat%20Terra%20Suez%20Canal%20Dirty%20Air.jpg?dl=1)
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Because the distance from the observer is changing greatly during the day.
Let's say you are in Mineapolis, 45 degrees north, 3110 miles away from the Equator.
For equinoctial solar noon when the Sun is above the Equator you can see it due south 45 degrees above the horizon.
You have simple isoceles right triangle Sun-Equator-Mineapolis that shows the sun 3110 miles above the Equator and 4398 miles away from you.
The Sun's angular diameter is 0.5 degrees, and to have that the required Sun radius has to be R = tan(0.25) * 4398 = 19 miles.
So, Sun's diameter has to be 38 miles.
At the same moment another observer at the Equator would have the Sun directly over head.
The angular diameter of the Sun from there should be 2 * ArcTan(19 / 3110) = 0.7 degrees.
But it is not, it is still 0.5 degrees.
Six hours later the Sun is 90 degrees west from where it was at solar noon.
Ground distance from Mineapolis grew from 3110 to 5387 miles, making direct line distance to be
SQRT(31102 + 53872) = 6220 miles.
The Sun with radius of 19 miles should have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTan(19 / 6220) = 0.35 degrees.
That's the chabge from 0.5 to 0.35 in 6 hours.
In reality you don't have that change.
From that other observer at the Equator, ground distance was increased from zero to 6220 miles,
which makes the direct line distance increased from 3110 to 6954 miles.
At the new distance the Sun with radius of 19 miles should have the angular diameter of
2 * ArcTan(19 / 6954) = 0.31 degrees.
That's the change from 0.7 to 0.31 in six hours.
Again, in reality you don't have that change.
In reality the Sun's angular diameter, seen from anywhere on Earth, is still those 0.5 degrees.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/6HaaOV.png)
I see you have not included the flat Earth model in your specs. So it's just a myth.
And you can calculate all that but you are incapable of verifying (calculate) the actually (alleged) curvature (through calculation) of any landmass or canal? Do the right thing and prove the foundation of your theory.
Whats the actually verified surface (calculated) curvature over Florida's surface, length and width? You can't tell me, right? Give up!
You were right, my numbers for an equinoctial solar sunset were wrong.
From the observer in Mineapolis (M) Sun's angular diameter should change from 0.5 degrees at N to 0.29 degrees at S.
From the observer at the Equator (N) Sun's angular diameter should change from 0.7 degrees at N to 0.23 degrees at S.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/JIR5Of.png)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now let's go to Florida:
From Daytona Beach to Cedar Key is 121 miles.
Geometric curvature bulge is 0.46 miles.
From Key West to Fernandina beach is 422 miles.
Geometric curvature bulge is 5.62 miles.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The theory is not mine.
It is the result of millennia of ground measurements.
Recently it is confirmed by satellite measurements.
.....
OMG, the horizon is just a few hundred feet away (bottom picture) and it's not at eye level. What is a Flat Earther to do?Could you have cherry-picked a worse example?
Water limits how far you can see. . .
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ead024g98jn16ig/Plat%20Terra%20Suez%20Canal%20Dirty%20Air.jpg?dl=1)
But I agree that even if the earth were flat the finite visibility through air would mean that Europe could never be seen from America.
Why didn't you post one like this?
(https://www.wilhelmsen.com/globalassets/ships-agency/canal-transit-services/images/suez-canal---container-ship.jpg?preset=oversize&s=151744570)
And here is Chicago from Michigan City, IN at 33 miles from the skyline and the limited visibility through the atmosphere does not seem to be a problem!
But something is certainly hiding half the sun and most of Chicago. I wonder if it might be the "curvature of the water ::)".
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/i9p0yrgjk1yb29a/02%20-%20Chicago%20from%20Michigan%20City%2C%20IN%20%2833%20miles%20from%20skyline%29.jpg?dl=1)
What does that have to do with what you quoted me on? Are you ignoring what I wrote and going down a bunny trail?
This is what you asked isn't it?Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
In order to answer that question I need to know where do you think the sun is at given time and what does you FE map look like.
This is RE on December 22nd 2019 at 22:00 UTC
(https://i.imgur.com/764BW28.jpg)
Can you provide a similar image with sun position and daylight limits on FE map for 22.12.2019? What will be the height of the sun on 22.12.2019?
If you can't answer simple questions like where is the sun, what is the shape of the sun or where is the sun setting and rising at a given time, I'll have to conclude that the FE model you keep talking about doesn't exist. You just have a general idea that the earth is flat and the sun hovers over it and that's it.
Original question.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Show me why.
Original question.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Show me why.
Sorry, but seem you have forgotten that I asked you this:As stated before,
By the way I'm waiting for an answer for:<< See below. >>Either prove that "Newton and others falsified the moon's rotation" or admit that you are making up fairy tales again.
I didn't forget.
In response to the fairy tales you accept and teach.
By the way I'm waiting for a proof of this:Failure to prove your claim will be taken as an admission that "that you are making up fairy tales again".(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3h1l1609bxk1x3/Plat%20Terra%20claiming%20Newton%20Falsified%20Moon%27s%20Rotation.jpg?dl=1)Either prove that "Newton and others falsified the moon's rotation" or admit that you are making up fairy tales again.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/dnmd2doh7vgz3d1/Plat%20Terra%20-%20Geocentric%20vs%20Heliocentric.jpg?dl=1)Your text is correct to the extent that observations, without careful measurements, on earth alone cannot tell the the sun, etc obit the Globe or that the Globe rotates.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?I already did. You ignored it.
Show me why.
Original question.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Show me why.
Wow, that's a nice flat non curved horizon. Thanks for sharing. I will have to add this to my collection.
Original question.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Show me why.
Since don't seem to have a FE model, I picked a FE map I found. If your FE map is different, please post it here. If we look at the position of the sun during December Equinox when it's morning in Australia:
Perth (Australia): Morning aprox. 1h after sunrise
New Orleans (US): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
Buenos Aires (Argentina): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
This is on the FE map I found:
(https://i.imgur.com/9ytWFDa.png)
If I assume FE sun floating at low height (5000km), we can see New Orleans is much closer to the sun than Buenos Aires. Angular size depends on distance, so the sun should look quite smaller from Buenos Aires, but it doesn't. What is the FE explanation for this?
While you are at it, how is it possible that people from Perth and Buenos Aires see the sun at the same time in December, yet the north pole is in the dark? Shouldn't the sun be closer to the north pole than to either of those two cities?
Original question.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Show me why.
Since don't seem to have a FE model, I picked a FE map I found. If your FE map is different, please post it here. If we look at the position of the sun during December Equinox when it's morning in Australia:
Perth (Australia): Morning aprox. 1h after sunrise
New Orleans (US): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
Buenos Aires (Argentina): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
This is on the FE map I found:
(https://i.imgur.com/9ytWFDa.png)
If I assume FE sun floating at low height (5000km), we can see New Orleans is much closer to the sun than Buenos Aires. Angular size depends on distance, so the sun should look quite smaller from Buenos Aires, but it doesn't. What is the FE explanation for this?
While you are at it, how is it possible that people from Perth and Buenos Aires see the sun at the same time in December, yet the north pole is in the dark? Shouldn't the sun be closer to the north pole than to either of those two cities?
Sunrise and sunset have the same angular size, right?
Original question.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Show me why.
Since don't seem to have a FE model, I picked a FE map I found. If your FE map is different, please post it here. If we look at the position of the sun during December Equinox when it's morning in Australia:
Perth (Australia): Morning aprox. 1h after sunrise
New Orleans (US): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
Buenos Aires (Argentina): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
This is on the FE map I found:
(https://i.imgur.com/9ytWFDa.png)
If I assume FE sun floating at low height (5000km), we can see New Orleans is much closer to the sun than Buenos Aires. Angular size depends on distance, so the sun should look quite smaller from Buenos Aires, but it doesn't. What is the FE explanation for this?
While you are at it, how is it possible that people from Perth and Buenos Aires see the sun at the same time in December, yet the north pole is in the dark? Shouldn't the sun be closer to the north pole than to either of those two cities?
Sunrise and sunset have the same angular size, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/119VIDR.gif)
Original question.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Show me why.
Since don't seem to have a FE model, I picked a FE map I found. If your FE map is different, please post it here. If we look at the position of the sun during December Equinox when it's morning in Australia:
Perth (Australia): Morning aprox. 1h after sunrise
New Orleans (US): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
Buenos Aires (Argentina): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
This is on the FE map I found:
(https://i.imgur.com/9ytWFDa.png)
If I assume FE sun floating at low height (5000km), we can see New Orleans is much closer to the sun than Buenos Aires. Angular size depends on distance, so the sun should look quite smaller from Buenos Aires, but it doesn't. What is the FE explanation for this?
While you are at it, how is it possible that people from Perth and Buenos Aires see the sun at the same time in December, yet the north pole is in the dark? Shouldn't the sun be closer to the north pole than to either of those two cities?
Sunrise and sunset have the same angular size, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/119VIDR.gif)
Does the Moon move in a straight line in the Globe theory? It's doesn't over this Flat Plane. It circles above. And you leave out a very important element and I understand why.
Sunrise and sunset have the same angular size, right?
That is not the point!Original question.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Show me why.
Since don't seem to have a FE model, I picked a FE map I found. If your FE map is different, please post it here. If we look at the position of the sun during December Equinox when it's morning in Australia:
Perth (Australia): Morning aprox. 1h after sunrise
New Orleans (US): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
Buenos Aires (Argentina): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
This is on the FE map I found:
(https://i.imgur.com/9ytWFDa.png)
If I assume FE sun floating at low height (5000km), we can see New Orleans is much closer to the sun than Buenos Aires. Angular size depends on distance, so the sun should look quite smaller from Buenos Aires, but it doesn't. What is the FE explanation for this?
While you are at it, how is it possible that people from Perth and Buenos Aires see the sun at the same time in December, yet the north pole is in the dark? Shouldn't the sun be closer to the north pole than to either of those two cities?
Sunrise and sunset have the same angular size, right?
Sunrise and sunset have the same angular size, right?Yes, the sun has the same angular size at sunrise and sunset, regardless of where you are one Earth, and the same angular size as the sun at any other point in the day.
Does the Moon move in a straight line in the Globe theory? It's doesn't over this Flat Plane. It circles above. And you leave out a very important element and I understand why.What important element has been left out?
That is not the point!Original question.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Show me why.
Since don't seem to have a FE model, I picked a FE map I found. If your FE map is different, please post it here. If we look at the position of the sun during December Equinox when it's morning in Australia:
Perth (Australia): Morning aprox. 1h after sunrise
New Orleans (US): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
Buenos Aires (Argentina): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
This is on the FE map I found:
(https://i.imgur.com/9ytWFDa.png)
If I assume FE sun floating at low height (5000km), we can see New Orleans is much closer to the sun than Buenos Aires. Angular size depends on distance, so the sun should look quite smaller from Buenos Aires, but it doesn't. What is the FE explanation for this?
While you are at it, how is it possible that people from Perth and Buenos Aires see the sun at the same time in December, yet the north pole is in the dark? Shouldn't the sun be closer to the north pole than to either of those two cities?
Sunrise and sunset have the same angular size, right?
If the sun's path were as described on that flat earth diagram the sun should appear about THREE times bigger when overhead than at sunrise or sunset.
Kopfverderber tried to explain it to you in his post and I tried to carefully go into all the detail in For the Trolls Here « Reply #10 on: August 10, 2019, 10:11:09 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82724.msg2194261#msg2194261) but you seemed incapable of understanding what kopfverderber was explaining and you completely ignored my post.
If the above model does not fit what you believe please explain in detail the layout of your flat earth and the path of the sun, moon and stars.
Yes the theory is not yours nor does it pertain to the length and width of Florida as verified surface curvature, and you have not including the morning horizon which will have about the same angular size as sunset. Then what is the difference between sunrise, sunset and Noon?
I am working on my reply, and I completely understand the question. But how is any answer I give, going to make the surface of this Earth magically rise up, curve and conform to a sphere so you can actually verify it for the first time?You have been shown plenty of evidence for the curvature but you ignore everything or explain it away with nonsense excuses.
You nor anyone one else has been capable of doing so ever since the Globe theory began. You say you have but that means nothing when you have not provided the actually curvature verification and measurements of Earth's landmass and canals showing how it conforms to a 3959 mile radius sphere as claimed.The issue has been shut down long ago but people like you keep popping up doubting history, science, geodetic surveying, astronomy etc.
With such an issue and debate of the shape of the Earth, the Globe community could have shut idea down long ago with actually proof, but they haven't because they can't, it's not possible. So we debate your fantasies and things you make up thinking it matters but when the day is over Earth is still a Plane.
I am working on my reply, and I completely understand the question. But how is any answer I give, going to make the surface of this Earth magically rise up, curve and conform to a sphere so you can actually verify it for the first time?It wont.
With such an issue and debate of the shape of the Earth, the Globe community could have shut idea down long ago with actually proofAnd they did, thousands of years ago.
but when the day is over Earth is still a Plane.No, it isn't.
I haven't forgot. It will be a detailed response addressing more than one issue. Titled something like "Where Did the Flat Earth Sun Go?Don't forget to gives details of path you think the sun follows in the various seasons. In particular:
That is not the point!Original question.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
Show me why.
Since don't seem to have a FE model, I picked a FE map I found. If your FE map is different, please post it here. If we look at the position of the sun during December Equinox when it's morning in Australia:
Perth (Australia): Morning aprox. 1h after sunrise
New Orleans (US): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
Buenos Aires (Argentina): Evening aprox. 1h before sunset
This is on the FE map I found:
(https://i.imgur.com/9ytWFDa.png)
If I assume FE sun floating at low height (5000km), we can see New Orleans is much closer to the sun than Buenos Aires. Angular size depends on distance, so the sun should look quite smaller from Buenos Aires, but it doesn't. What is the FE explanation for this?
While you are at it, how is it possible that people from Perth and Buenos Aires see the sun at the same time in December, yet the north pole is in the dark? Shouldn't the sun be closer to the north pole than to either of those two cities?
Sunrise and sunset have the same angular size, right?
If the sun's path were as described on that flat earth diagram the sun should appear about THREE times bigger when overhead than at sunrise or sunset.
Kopfverderber tried to explain it to you in his post and I tried to carefully go into all the detail in For the Trolls Here « Reply #10 on: August 10, 2019, 10:11:09 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82724.msg2194261#msg2194261) but you seemed incapable of understanding what kopfverderber was explaining and you completely ignored my post.
If the above model does not fit what you believe please explain in detail the layout of your flat earth and the path of the sun, moon and stars.
I am working on my reply, and I completely understand the question. But how is any answer I give, going to make the surface of this Earth magically rise up, curve and conform to a sphere so you can actually verify it for the first time?
You nor anyone one else has been capable of doing so ever since the Globe theory began. You say you have but that means nothing when you have not provided the actually curvature verification and measurements of Earth's landmass and canals showing how it conforms to a 3959 mile radius sphere as claimed.
With such an issue and debate of the shape of the Earth, the Globe community could have shut idea down long ago with actually proof, but they haven't because they can't, it's not possible. So we debate your fantasies and things you make up thinking it matters but when the day is over Earth is still a Plane.
I haven't forgot. It will be a detailed response addressing more than one issue. Titled something like "Where Did the Flat Earth Sun Go?Don't forget to gives details of path you think the sun follows in the various seasons. In particular:We'll wait and see but details of the sun's movements have been studied for many centuries so it will be easy to see if your ideas fit.
- The March and September equinoxes when the sun rises close to due east and sets close to due west everywhere on earth except close to the Poles.
Even as far North as Thule, Greenland (77.5° N, 69.2° W), on the 23rd of September the sun will rise at 86° (4° from due east) and set at 273° (3° from due west).- The Northern summer solstice and the Souther summer solstice.
Nice try. Psychology is not your strong suit.I haven't forgot. It will be a detailed response addressing more than one issue. Titled something like "Where Did the Flat Earth Sun Go?Don't forget to gives details of path you think the sun follows in the various seasons. In particular:We'll wait and see but details of the sun's movements have been studied for many centuries so it will be easy to see if your ideas fit.
- The March and September equinoxes when the sun rises close to due east and sets close to due west everywhere on earth except close to the Poles.
Even as far North as Thule, Greenland (77.5° N, 69.2° W), on the 23rd of September the sun will rise at 86° (4° from due east) and set at 273° (3° from due west).- The Northern summer solstice and the Souther summer solstice.
I am a newbie give me some time.
And do you know what you left out of your Sun's Angular size argument? Did you do it on purpose or didn't think about it?
Yes the theory is not yours nor does it pertain to the length and width of Florida as verified surface curvature, and you have not including the morning horizon which will have about the same angular size as sunset. Then what is the difference between sunrise, sunset and Noon?
If anone could understand what did you ask...
Let me try to make some sense out of your sentence:
The morning horizon is not related to the size of Florida, or the percentage of the planet's surface that Florida occupies.
The sunrise and sunset in the Rowbotham's FE model will have the same angular diameter of the Sun, little less than 0.3 degrees.
The solar noon in the Rowbotham's FE model will have the Sun's angular diameter much bigger. Roughly two to three times bigger.
Another difference between sunrise, sunset and noon would be the azimuth of the Sun.
I was expressing a point that nothing matters because no one has actually proved, verified the alleged surface (length and width) curvature of any landmass. It's all assumptions and claims. No argument will prove it to be true.Again, you ignoring what has been proven doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.
With the right atmospheric conditionsWhat you are appealing to should be occurring on a daily basis, not just occasionally due to a highly specific set of atmospheric conditions.
Not just on a daily basis, but all of the time for all observers all over the world because the sun is observed by many people all over the world at the same time during daylight hours.With the right atmospheric conditionsWhat you are appealing to should be occurring on a daily basis, not just occasionally due to a highly specific set of atmospheric conditions.
You don’t have to be an astronomer, scientist or mathematician to figure somethings out. All you need is to apply common sense with science to find a logical explanation.
Where Did Our Flat Earth Sun Go?Understanding our atmosphere will help explain a few things about our Sun.
Water limits what we can see and how far we can see and as a fluid, so does Air. The brightest lights cannot break through a very thick fog bank unless it is close enough to the viewer. As the light gets closer, the fog bank will first be lit up from within like twilight, then as the light source gets even closer, the center beam breaks through and it can be seen making things brighter.
The principle is the same for the beginning of a day on our Plane Earth with the understanding of perspective and a linear atmosphere bank. After the Sun again has made its circle, it begins to light up our atmosphere over the eastern horizon and through thousands of miles of linear atmosphere the viewer can see the first hint of morning, Twilight. As the minutes pass the Sun breaks through at the horizon because now the linear miles the Sun has to shine through atmosphere to reach the viewer have been reduced. As time passes the miles are decreased even more and it gets brighter and warmer and peaks at solar noon.
Due to perspective, the Sun appears to rise and fall from viewpoint, but the Sun remains about 3200 miles above earths surface during it's circular cycle. As the day progresses, the Sun again will reach the west horizon and as the Sun's miles progress even farther away from the viewer, twilight begins again. Then after a few minutes the longer atmosphere bank will cast a shadow of darkness upon the viewer, making it night once again.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/u4b1pjmugty3p25/Plat%20Terra%20-%20Sun%27s%20path%20over%20Flat%20Earth%20-%20No%202%20Mid.jpg?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/xjtl4ff5scczrn1/Plat%20Terra%20-%20Sun%27s%20path%20over%20Flat%20Earth%20-%20No%203%20Low.jpg?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xq147uonxkur0x/Plat%20Terra%20-%20My%20Sun%27s%20Angular%20Size%20over%20Flat%20Earth%20-%20No%201%20Top%20text.jpg?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/3quph809lou5bsd/Sun%20Angular%20Size%20on%20Flat%20Earth.png?dl=1)
With the right atmospheric conditions, one can view the Sun fade away above the horizon through the atmosphere bank.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1)
LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm
I naturally think that the sun is really being hidden behind something, the horizon on the Globe.
Flat Earth Sunset - Impossible on a Globe Earth :)
Yes the theory is not yours nor does it pertain to the length and width of Florida as verified surface curvature, and you have not including the morning horizon which will have about the same angular size as sunset. Then what is the difference between sunrise, sunset and Noon?
If anone could understand what did you ask...
Let me try to make some sense out of your sentence:
The morning horizon is not related to the size of Florida, or the percentage of the planet's surface that Florida occupies.
The sunrise and sunset in the Rowbotham's FE model will have the same angular diameter of the Sun, little less than 0.3 degrees.
The solar noon in the Rowbotham's FE model will have the Sun's angular diameter much bigger. Roughly two to three times bigger.
Another difference between sunrise, sunset and noon would be the azimuth of the Sun.
I was expressing a point that nothing matters because no one has actually proved, verified the alleged surface (length and width) curvature of any landmass. It's all assumptions and claims. No argument will prove it to be true.
Quote from: Plat TerraFlat Earth Sunset - Impossible on a Globe Earth :)
There's nothing about that sunset that's "Impossible on a Globe Earth"!
I was expressing a point that nothing matters because no one has actually proved, verified the alleged surface (length and width) curvature of any landmass. It's all assumptions and claims. No argument will prove it to be true.No it is not! But nobody is obliged to do the particular measurement that YOU ask for!
Abu Rayhan Biruni (973–1048)[/i (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth)[/url]: Al Biruni used a new method to accurately compute the Earth's circumference, by which he arrived at a value that was close to modern values for the Earth's circumference. His estimate of 6,339.9 km for the Earth radius was only 16.8 km less than the modern value of 6,356.7 km. In contrast to his predecessors, who measured the Earth's circumference by sighting the Sun simultaneously from two different locations, Biruni developed a new method of using trigonometric calculations based on the angle between a plain and mountain top.
This yielded more accurate measurements of the Earth's circumference and made it possible for a single person to measure it from a single location. Biruni's method was intended to avoid "walking across hot, dusty deserts," and the idea came to him when he was on top of a tall mountain in India. From the top of the mountain, he sighted the angle to the horizon which, along with the mountain's height (which he calculated beforehand), allowed him to calculate the curvature of the Earth. He also made use of algebra to formulate trigonometric equations and used the astrolabe to measure angles.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Abu_Reyhan_Biruni-Earth_Circumference.svg/666px-Abu_Reyhan_Biruni-Earth_Circumference.svg.png)
Biruni's method for calculation of Earth's radius
The horizon might appear to rise to eye-level, but it does not quite rise to the local horizontal at the viewing point.And the dip angle of the horizon from a known altitude allows the earth's radius to be calculated.
Here is more photographic evidence of this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/mnck8pnrphfqegf/Andrew%20Eddie%20from%20Flaxton%20Gardens.jpg?dl=1)
Flat Earth? Mountains rising to meet eye-level? Andrew Eddie (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=0jO6TUfiH8w&feature=youtu.be)
The opening screen does show only 0.523° but that is over a flat surface and at 2:55 the video has a more accurate calculation showing that from an altitude of 418 m the horizon is about 0.626° below eye-level.
That's not all that much less than the horizon Dip of 0.66° given by Metabunk''s Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/).
So the horizon does not rise to eye-level.
I was expressing a point that nothing matters because no one has actually proved, verified the alleged surface (length and width) curvature of any landmass. It's all assumptions and claims. No argument will prove it to be true.
It can easily appear to do that if the original size is made to appear excessively large because of the glare (ie overexposure of the camera around the sun's disc).Quote from: Plat TerraFlat Earth Sunset - Impossible on a Globe Earth :)There's nothing about that sunset that's "Impossible on a Globe Earth"!
Why is "There's nothing about that sunset that's "Impossible on a Globe Earth"? It's doing what a Flat Earth Sun does. It's doing what you claim it can't do on a Globe Earth.
So now you think it's possible for the Sun to fade away above the horizon on a Globe Earth at sunset? Is this correct?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/igmdb1pr4nor5az/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20%20risen.jpg?dl=1) Video of Sunrise over Black Sea HD 265,498 views by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s) |
You seem to have forgotten something!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1)
LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm
No, Mr Plat Terra, you are the one that is completely wrong here!
You say that "Author", that's ME, "does not include a key element in the argument; thousands of miles of Linear atmosphere and Light refraction."
But there are NO "thousands of miles of Linear atmosphere"! The effective thickness of the earth's atmosphere is no more than the equivalent of about 9 km (of sea-level density air) so even that 45° slanted path is only through no more than 13 km of sea-level.
And even then there has been much research into the refraction of light coming into the atmosphere from the outside:
See Refraction deviation angles for an observer at sea level, M. E. THOMAS AND R. I. JOSEPH (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ddb0/c717f703eaa47b57bb4e5147286e98003df8.pdf) See Table 1 at Refraction deviation angles for an observer at sea level, Table 1. (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Astronomical-Refraction-Thomas-Joseph/b2264b31cdfa2a5ef12427f1a6f91fce982b9c54/figure/1)
From that you will find that at 45° from the zenith the refraction is only about one minute of arc (1/60 degree).
That very informative table will also show that even right on the horizon the usual refraction is only about 34.5' or arc or a bit over 0.5°.
You say "One who leaves out such important issues is being intellectually dishonest and knows better" but, Mr Plat Terra, refraction is a very trivial issue here.
So, I have not been intellectually dishonest in drawing up that diagram and is essentially the same as the one that you flat earthers use to justify you son's distance above the earth being about 3200 miles.
I'd be careful throwing these accusations about because they might just come back and bite YOU as this one has!
One who falsely accuses another "being intellectually dishonest" should, at the very least, offer an apology - how about it?
You don’t have to be an astronomer, scientist or mathematician to figure somethings out. All you need is to apply common sense with science to find a logical explanation.
With the right atmospheric conditions, one can view the Sun fade away above the horizon through the atmosphere bank.
Why is "There's nothing about that sunset that's "Impossible on a Globe Earth"? It's doing what a Flat Earth Sun does. It's doing what you claim it can't do on a Globe Earth.In what way is what happens in the video impossible on a globe Earth?
Answered elsewhere. Now show a time-lapse video of the moon setting like that.Quote from: Plat TerraFlat Earth Sunset - Impossible on a Globe Earth :)There's nothing about that sunset that's "Impossible on a Globe Earth"!
Why is "There's nothing about that sunset that's "Impossible on a Globe Earth"? It's doing what a Flat Earth Sun does. It's doing what you claim it can't do on a Globe Earth.
So now you think it's possible for the Sun to fade away above the horizon on a Globe Earth at sunset? Is this correct?
(https://www.sciencealert.com/this-mindblowing-video-of-the-moon-coming-down-to-earth-is-real-not-photoshopped-and-just-wow)Interesting . . . . .
One minute, you're chilling on a mountain. The next you're being dwarfed by the biggest Moon you've ever seen - one that seems to be coming right down to rest on Earth's surface.
That's what appears to be happening in this video on NASA's Astronomy Picture of The Day (APOD) site for 4 June 2018.
Of course, we all would have totally noticed if our planet's rocky satellite came down like that, ending life as we know it. So, what's going on here?
For starters, check out the full video below, because it's spectacular:
What you're looking at is the view of Mount Teide, a volcano in the Canary Islands - taken through a telescopic lens from really, really far away.
The Moon we're seeing here is known as a 'milk moon' – the first full moon in the month of May. The footage was captured on May 30 by Daniel López.
The people in the video are around 16 kilometres away (10 miles) from the telescope, and funnily enough, they are actually not watching the disappearance of the Moon.
These folks are watching the sunrise, which is happening right behind the photographer. To them, the faint morning Moon wouldn't appear any larger than normal.
You don’t have to be an astronomer, scientist or mathematician to figure somethings out. All you need is to apply common sense with science to find a logical explanation.
You don’t have to be an astronomer, scientist or mathematician to figure somethings out. All you need is to apply common sense with science to find a logical explanation.
(https://i.imgur.com/CZXTHex.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/dkf7LJu.jpg)
With the right atmospheric conditions, one can view the Sun fade away above the horizon through the atmosphere bank.
Flat Earth Sunset - Impossible on a Globe Earth :)
You clearly don’t want to learn anything.Science does not require me to preform every experiment.Globe
Have you verified the alleged surface curvature of this Earth to use its alleged circumference as a reference point for sea curve anywhere and for a Globe? If not, why?
Also it’s not proper to answer a question with a question.
It’s proper to know that the person who is trying to teach me has verified the foundation of their belief otherwise what good is their information? I don’t want to be led along blindly. However, if you have, I am willing to learn more and answer your questions. Verification is good science for such a belief as a Globe Earth.
I like a lot of people have seen thing disappear behind the horizon. This is evidence for a round earth.
Yeah and the legs of this man and woman have also disappeared behind the curve. I saw it myself! It's true. Please believe me!
(https://i.imgur.com/XNBzPFh.jpg)
You don’t have to be an astronomer, scientist or mathematician to figure somethings out. All you need is to apply common sense with science to find a logical explanation.
(https://i.imgur.com/CZXTHex.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/dkf7LJu.jpg)
With the right atmospheric conditions, one can view the Sun fade away above the horizon through the atmosphere bank.
Flat Earth Sunset - Impossible on a Globe Earth :)
that's a really good point.
Care to explain why stars can be seen along the horizon?
The stars altitude is far above the Sun and they're not blocked by the atmosphere bank as the sun is (from viewer point) past the horizon. So the light of a star passes easily to the viewer through our area from just above the horizon.
The stars altitude is far above the Sun and they're not blocked by the atmosphere bank as the sun is (from viewer point) past the horizon. So the light of a star passes easily to the viewer through our area from just above the horizon.
This "atmospheric bank" of yours seems to very selective. It only hides things when you need it, ignoring distance and light intensity. What about the planets. Are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn immune to the atmospheric bank as well?
The stars altitude is far above the Sun and they're not blocked by the atmosphere bank as the sun is (from viewer point) past the horizon. So the light of a star passes easily to the viewer through our area from just above the horizon.
This "atmospheric bank" of yours seems to very selective. It only hides things when you need it, ignoring distance and light intensity. What about the planets. Are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn immune to the atmospheric bank as well?
The stars are all viewed within the circle area of the viewers horizon. It's only the Sun and Moon's light (being so low) that get's blocked by the atmosphere bank when's it beyond our circle area. That's the way it works here on Plane Earth.
What evidence do you have for this "atmosphere bank"? Could you diagram it on one of the FE maps?The stars altitude is far above the Sun and they're not blocked by the atmosphere bank as the sun is (from viewer point) past the horizon. So the light of a star passes easily to the viewer through our area from just above the horizon.
This "atmospheric bank" of yours seems to very selective. It only hides things when you need it, ignoring distance and light intensity. What about the planets. Are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn immune to the atmospheric bank as well?
The stars are all viewed within the circle area of the viewers horizon. It's only the Sun and Moon's light (being so low) that get's blocked by the atmosphere bank when's it beyond our circle area. That's the way it works here on Plane Earth.
Nice hypothesis but as kopfverderber says "This 'atmospheric bank' of yours seems to very selective. It only hides things when you need it, ignoring distance and light intensity."The stars altitude is far above the Sun and they're not blocked by the atmosphere bank as the sun is (from viewer point) past the horizon. So the light of a star passes easily to the viewer through our area from just above the horizon.
This "atmospheric bank" of yours seems to very selective. It only hides things when you need it, ignoring distance and light intensity. What about the planets. Are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn immune to the atmospheric bank as well?
The stars are all viewed within the circle area of the viewers horizon. It's only the Sun and Moon's light (being so low) that get's blocked by the atmosphere bank when's it beyond our circle area. That's the way it works here on Plane Earth.
Venus Rising by Ian Griffin
Published on Feb 19, 2016
A compilation of two timelapses taken on the morning of 20th Feb 2016 showing Venus and Mercury rising over Hoopers Inlet on the Otago Peninsula. All images by Ian Griffin. Music is "The Bluest Star" by the 126ers, downloaded from the YouTube audio library.
The WGS-84 model is understood and accepted universally. If you disagree please post a link to details.
Surface miragesI notice that you have yet again changed topic to avoid admitting defeat.
The mirage can be quite tall considering the conditions as seen in the pic below. Even a elevated landmass can be blocked from view.As I pointed out before, you are yet to substantiate that claim in any way.
The stars altitude is far above the Sun and they're not blocked by the atmosphere bank as the sun is (from viewer point) past the horizon. So the light of a star passes easily to the viewer through our area from just above the horizon.
This "atmospheric bank" of yours seems to very selective. It only hides things when you need it, ignoring distance and light intensity. What about the planets. Are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn immune to the atmospheric bank as well?
The stars are all viewed within the circle area of the viewers horizon. It's only the Sun and Moon's light (being so low) that get's blocked by the atmosphere bank when's it beyond our circle area. That's the way it works here on Plane Earth.
The WGS-84 model is understood and accepted universally. If you disagree please post a link to details.
When the relevant conditions exist. Do you understand what conditions are relevant?The WGS-84 model is understood and accepted universally. If you disagree please post a link to details.
I don't care.
When do surface mirages apply to boats thought to be going over an alleged curved?
The WGS-84 model is understood and accepted universally. If you disagree please post a link to details.
I don't care.
When do surface mirages apply to boats thought to be going over an alleged curved?
When the relevant conditions exist. Do you understand what conditions are relevant?The WGS-84 model is understood and accepted universally. If you disagree please post a link to details.
I don't care.
When do surface mirages apply to boats thought to be going over an alleged curved?
When do surface mirages apply to boats thought to be going over an alleged curved?Who said that they do?
Venus Rising by Ian Griffin
Published on Feb 19, 2016
A compilation of two timelapses taken on the morning of 20th Feb 2016 showing Venus and Mercury rising over Hoopers Inlet on the Otago Peninsula. All images by Ian Griffin. Music is "The Bluest Star" by the 126ers, downloaded from the YouTube audio library.
I don't care.
When do surface mirages apply to boats thought to be going over an alleged curved?Who said that they do?
Now explain Venus being quite visible as it rises almost exactly where your magic fogbank is supposedly covering your sun.
Here it is again:Quote from: Ian Griffin
Venus Rising by Ian Griffin
Published on Feb 19, 2016
A compilation of two timelapses taken on the morning of 20th Feb 2016 showing Venus and Mercury rising over Hoopers Inlet on the Otago Peninsula. All images by Ian Griffin. Music is "The Bluest Star" by the 126ers, downloaded from the YouTube audio library.
You ask, "Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" And the answer is obviously "NEVER" unless you come up with some answers quick-smart.
Venus is not at same altitude as the Sun.
Venus is not at same altitude as the Sun.
'Altitude'? Do you mean distance? Cool. So what are the distances between the Earth and the Sun and the Earth and Venus? It seems safe to assume that if you know they aren't the same distance, then you know what the distances are.
You said "fog bank". But if it's not a "fog bank" exactly what is hiding the sun right where we see Venus rising just a little earlier?You ask, "Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" And the answer is obviously "NEVER" unless you come up with some answers quick-smart.
Venus is not at same altitude as the Sun. There is no fog bank it was just a thought illustration. You should know the difference.
Your concern is the atmosphere bank that blocks the Suns light beyond the horizon.I've no concern about any "atmosphere bank that blocks the Suns light beyond the horizon". That's your problem.
Venus is no issue. It's just aReally? What do you know about the the planets Venus and Mercury that are sometimes closer to the sun than we are are and sometimes further away.wonderingwandering star that passes into our circle of view.
But they are defecting all around the world.Really? Who's defecting?
Why do you think I am here? I was defeated.How would I know why you are here?
BTW that's a priceless answer. "Who said that they do?" That's an answer I would expect from someone who's ID.So answer the question "Who said that 'surface mirages apply to boats thought to be going over an alleged curved' ?"
That depends on the type of mirage.When the relevant conditions exist. Do you understand what conditions are relevant?The WGS-84 model is understood and accepted universally. If you disagree please post a link to details.
I don't care.
When do surface mirages apply to boats thought to be going over an alleged curved?
The conditions exist everyday over a body of evaporating water. And that's when people claim to see a boat going over a curve. Am I correct?
I don't know because mirages don't block things. Maybe you should read up on mirages and other atmospheric refractive phenomena before you try using them in an argument.That depends on the type of mirage.When the relevant conditions exist. Do you understand what conditions are relevant?The WGS-84 model is understood and accepted universally. If you disagree please post a link to details.
I don't care.
When do surface mirages apply to boats thought to be going over an alleged curved?
The conditions exist everyday over a body of evaporating water. And that's when people claim to see a boat going over a curve. Am I correct?
A mirage that blocks the view of Boats, shorelines, landmass, and skylines. I am not sure what the name should be other than a simple surface mirage that reflects a mirror like image of the surface and blocks the view of things.
I made a meme about the issue and placed it here. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2194730#msg2194730
What name would you give it?
When the relevant conditions exist. Do you understand what conditions are relevant?
I don't care.
When do surface mirages apply to boats thought to be going over an alleged curved?
That depends on the type of mirage.
Not quite!When the relevant conditions exist. Do you understand what conditions are relevant?The conditions exist everyday over a body of evaporating water. And that's when people claim to see a boat going over a curve. Am I correct?
I made a meme about the issue and placed it here.Photoshop.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2194735#msg2194735
What name would you give it?
I made a meme about the issue and placed it here.Photoshop.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2194735#msg2194735
What name would you give it?
Here is a detailed analysis of a boat going over an alleged curve. But it never really does. It just fades away.Sure ::) by Jeran Campanella of Jeranism proves the globe fame..; "That's interesting ::)" fame! You've got to be joking!
Boats Over The Curve 100% DEBUNKED
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is 16.7 km from the camera, the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind "something".
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg)And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg)
The maker of the video those screenshots came from wrote:Quote from: MCtheEmcee1So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.
MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible.
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm, that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921 at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
We have had enough of your myths. Don't bother showing us more.Here is a detailed analysis of a boat going over an alleged curve. But it never really does. It just fades away.Sure ::) by Jeran Campanella of Jeranism proves the globe fame..; "That's interesting ::)" fame! You've got to be joking!
Boats Over The Curve 100% DEBUNKED
FLAT EARTH - documentary Beyond the Curve fragment: Jeranism proves the globe..; "That's interesting" by The Plane Truth
All that video proves is that if small boats are far enough distant you can't see them!
It is totally irrelevant to this sort of thing!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is 16.7 km from the camera, the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind "something".
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg)And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg)
The maker of the video those screenshots came from wrote:Quote from: MCtheEmcee1So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.
MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible.
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm, that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921 at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
Try again!
PS And steer clear of anything by Anthony Riley or any of the Quantum Eraser crew.
Anthony Riley is so "smart" that he can't "calculate" the angles of a triangle of sides 1, 1, 1 - even with a triangle "app ::)".
Nathan Oakley can't convert a distance in metres to a distance in kilometres - he multiplies by 1000 because metres are smaller ::).
Wow, that's a nice flat non curved horizon. Thanks for sharing. I will have to add this to my collection.This reminds me, since you never answered last time I asked...
We have had enough of your myths. Don't bother showing us more.
BTW, your camera man does not Zoom in and out to give us a perspective point of view, like here.
We have had enough of your myths. Don't bother showing us more.
BTW, your camera man does not Zoom in and out to give us a perspective point of view, like here.
Where's the water behind the buoy?
Plat tera, have another look at the jeranism video. He claims a lower portion of the boat in the later part of the video is reflection on the water. Go down to your local lake and have a look at how reflections work on water. If the boat were reflected in that water, and it is not, the reflection would clearly show the entire of the white sail to it's tip, not just the beginning. And before you exclaim it was a rough sea, if there were any reflection then the entire reflection would show bits of white on the water.
There is no reflection on that water. The boat is just over the curve, and the seagull is diving low over the water, not into it, obscured by the curve.
We have had enough of your myths. Don't bother showing us more.
BTW, your camera man does not Zoom in and out to give us a perspective point of view, like here.
Where's the water behind the buoy?
Mirage is present at that distance. You wouldn't be able to see it . It was over the curve at your normal optics. You can't win. Stop the myths!
We have had enough of your myths. Don't bother showing us more.
BTW, your camera man does not Zoom in and out to give us a perspective point of view, like here.
Where's the water behind the buoy?
Mirage is present at that distance. You wouldn't be able to see it . It was over the curve at your normal optics. You can't win. Stop the myths!
How do you know a mirage is present at that distance?
We have had enough of your myths. Don't bother showing us more.
BTW, your camera man does not Zoom in and out to give us a perspective point of view, like here.
Where's the water behind the buoy?
Mirage is present at that distance. You wouldn't be able to see it . It was over the curve at your normal optics. You can't win. Stop the myths!
How do you know a mirage is present at that distance?
You have a right to believe anything you want. And I am not here change your mind and I don't care to and nor do I have time to explain science to you.
So what? Please explain what hides most of the more distant ship - if you can ;D!We have had enough of your myths. Don't bother showing us more.Here is a detailed analysis of a boat going over an alleged curve. But it never really does. It just fades away.Sure ::) by Jeran Campanella of Jeranism proves the globe fame..; "That's interesting ::)" fame! You've got to be joking!
Boats Over The Curve 100% DEBUNKED
FLAT EARTH - documentary Beyond the Curve fragment: Jeranism proves the globe..; "That's interesting" by The Plane Truth
All that video proves is that if small boats are far enough distant you can't see them!
It is totally irrelevant to this sort of thing!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is 16.7 km from the camera, the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind "something".
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg)And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg)
The maker of the video those screenshots came from wrote:Quote from: MCtheEmcee1So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.
MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible.
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm, that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921 at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
Try again!
PS And steer clear of anything by Anthony Riley or any of the Quantum Eraser crew.
Anthony Riley is so "smart" that he can't "calculate" the angles of a triangle of sides 1, 1, 1 - even with a triangle "app ::)".
Nathan Oakley can't convert a distance in metres to a distance in kilometres - he multiplies by 1000 because metres are smaller ::).
BTW, your camera man does not Zoom in and out to give us a perspective point of view, like here.
If the ocean in you video is flat would you care to explain in this screenshot:
Flat earth proof - Nikon P900 - boat and buoy in far distant horizon (no drop) by Zooming in on stuff
Here is a detailed analysis of a boat going over an alleged curve. But it never really does. It just fades away.Yes, wonderful argument "Earth is flat, so boats can't go over the curve".
Here is a detailed analysis of a boat going over an alleged curve. But it never really does. It just fades away.Yes, wonderful argument "Earth is flat, so boats can't go over the curve".
There are plenty of far better examples, plenty of which have already been provided.
And again you run away from the sun.
Why does the sun appear to set?
Venus is not at same altitude as the Sun.
'Altitude'? Do you mean distance? Cool. So what are the distances between the Earth and the Sun and the Earth and Venus? It seems safe to assume that if you know they aren't the same distance, then you know what the distances are.
Is this a hard question?
When do surface mirages apply to boats thought to be going over an alleged curved?
There don't seem to be any "surface mirages" that I can find in the following video ::). Maybe I didn't look hard enough ;).Venus is not at same altitude as the Sun.
'Altitude'? Do you mean distance? Cool. So what are the distances between the Earth and the Sun and the Earth and Venus? It seems safe to assume that if you know they aren't the same distance, then you know what the distances are.
Is this a hard question?
When do surface mirages apply to boats thought to be going over an alleged curved?
When you least expect em.
No, it was below the resolution of the camera when not zoomed in. If it was the zoom bringing it back then the amount hidden would change as the zoom changes. It does not.We have had enough of your myths. Don't bother showing us more.
BTW, your camera man does not Zoom in and out to give us a perspective point of view, like here.
Where's the water behind the buoy?
Mirage is present at that distance. You wouldn't be able to see it . It was over the curve at your normal optics. You can't win. Stop the myths!
nor do I have time to explain science to you.That's good because you've shown multiple times you don't understand it. You're good for humor though!
Nice example of refraction on the morning pic when the air is cooler. It even tells you the air is cooler on the pic. Also a difference in the tides as mentioned by Sunset.Plat tera, have another look at the jeranism video. He claims a lower portion of the boat in the later part of the video is reflection on the water. Go down to your local lake and have a look at how reflections work on water. If the boat were reflected in that water, and it is not, the reflection would clearly show the entire of the white sail to it's tip, not just the beginning. And before you exclaim it was a rough sea, if there were any reflection then the entire reflection would show bits of white on the water.
There is no reflection on that water. The boat is just over the curve, and the seagull is diving low over the water, not into it, obscured by the curve.
The boat never went below the horizon but began to dissipate and it was blocked by a mirage like below. It's a myth like curvature and Santa Claus and NASA lies. Science proves you wrong. Boats and landmass are blocked by a mirage. Accept defeat and over time you will be glad you did because these is a new world to explore and figure out.
Have a good day!
(https://i.imgur.com/vJ0hfNq.jpg)
Wow, the fog bank in front of Chicago is always terrible!It looks as though magic fog bank ate half the sun and even more of Chicago from Michigan City:
(http://www.brech.com/np/workbook/images/Chicago-Lk%20Mich-20c.jpg)
They are wrong. A superior mirage makes things look higher than they really are. A ship sinking over the horizon would need to be an inferior mirage to make it look lower than it really is. Inferior mirages generally exhibit heat shimmers and are usually inverted.I made a meme about the issue and placed it here.Photoshop.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2194735#msg2194735
What name would you give it?
They call it a Superior Mirage
You wrote. A superior mirage makes things look higher than they really are.They are wrong. A superior mirage makes things look higher than they really are. A ship sinking over the horizon would need to be an inferior mirage to make it look lower than it really is. Inferior mirages generally exhibit heat shimmers and are usually inverted.I made a meme about the issue and placed it here.Photoshop.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2194735#msg2194735
What name would you give it?
They call it a Superior Mirage
You wrote. A superior mirage makes things look higher than they really are.They are wrong. A superior mirage makes things look higher than they really are. A ship sinking over the horizon would need to be an inferior mirage to make it look lower than it really is. Inferior mirages generally exhibit heat shimmers and are usually inverted.I made a meme about the issue and placed it here.Photoshop.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2194735#msg2194735
What name would you give it?
They call it a Superior Mirage
That's exactly what happened. The water looks higher than it actually is thus blocking the shore, landmass and boat.
Thank you!
Mirages over our Plane Earth are not going to block the truth of our Earth all the time.That's right. But boats that should be hidden by the curve (when taking standard refraction into account), don't magically appear.
Even a Zoom lens will bring back what was claimed went over the curve.No it wont.
Rogers Centre from 6ft above Lake Ontario 30.84 miles away. Alleged curvature should be 516.85 feet of drop. Rogers Centre should not have even been visible!Good thing it isn't.
I don’t know if you have heard of FECore International but they sure have been a tool to prove Flat Earth. The following video discusses the upcoming world record 307 Km microwave shot attempt by FECore this week. Also discussed is the Knickebein system used in WW2 that conclusively proved the flat earth. Awesome information about our Plane Earth.Are they having any luck putting together a workable FE model that works better than the RE model?
I don’t know if you have heard of FECore International but they sure have been a tool to prove Flat Earth. The following video discusses the upcoming world record 307 Km microwave shot attempt by FECore this week. Also discussed is the Knickebein system used in WW2 that conclusively proved the flat earth. Awesome information about our Plane Earth.I'll wait with bated breath but I wrote about a 360 km microwave link over 3 years ago so what's this 307 km one all about?
Stay tuned!
BATTLE OF THE FLAT EARTH BEAMS
QuoteMicrowave Transmission - Microwave Radio Relay - Planning Considerations (http://www.liquisearch.com/microwave_transmission/microwave_radio_relay/planning_considerations)These long distances can only be achieved with very high antenna positions (on mountain tops - just look where 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, Sudan and 21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, Saudi Arabia are - on quite high mountains. Guess what, the "hump" due to curvature is 2,545 m, but refraction allows a bit more reliable range.
The effects of atmospheric stratification cause the radio path to bend downward in a typical situation so a major distance is possible as the earth equivalent curvature increases from 6370 km to about 8500 km (a 4/3 equivalent radius effect). Rare events of temperature, humidity and pressure profile versus height, may produce large deviations and distortion of the propagation and affect transmission quality. High intensity rain and snow must also be considered as an impairment factor, especially at frequencies above 10 GHz. All previous factors, collectively known as path loss, make it necessary to compute suitable power margins, in order to maintain the link operative for a high percentage of time, like the standard 99.99% or 99.999% used in 'carrier class' services of most telecommunication operators.
The longest microwave radio relay known up to date crosses the Red Sea with 360 km hop between Jebel Erba (2170m a.s.l., 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (2572m a.s.l., 21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, Saudi Arabia).
Yes, limited by the curvature of the globe earth. So these designers of microwave links are in on the "big secret" and waste all this money making short links or putting towers up on 2,500 m mountains! The number in this conspiracy grows! Everywhere you look little bits or evidence crop up that just do not fit on a flat earth.
Just look at: Designing microwave radio links They remain the preferred backhaul choice for public safety radio networks (http://urgentcomm.com/mag/radio_designing_microwave_radio)
I don’t know if you have heard of FECore International but they sure have been a tool to prove Flat Earth. The following video discusses the upcoming world record 307 Km microwave shot attempt by FECore this week. Also discussed is the Knickebein system used in WW2 that conclusively proved the flat earth. Awesome information about our Plane Earth.
Stay tuned!
PS How do you like this view of Earth?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihqtmsng9kt9jzw/A%20unique%20view%20of%20the%20Moon%20and%20distant%20Earth%20from%20China%E2%80%99s%20Chang%E2%80%99e-5%20T1%20lunar%20test%20flight.%20Credit%20Xinhua%20News%20and%20UnmannedSpaceflight.com.jpg?dl=1)
It's not NASA either ;D!
Even a Zoom lens will bring back what was claimed went over the curve.No it won't.
Seven flat earth videos in one post, plat tera! And one being a jeranism video! Boy, you've really brought out the heavy artillery!
1st vid - aside from high refractive index that day, the close photo at end of video shows how much of the bottom of the city is hidden from the greater distance view due to earth curvature. Thanks! ;D
Seven flat earth videos in one post, plat tera! And one being a jeranism video! Boy, you've really brought out the heavy artillery!
1st vid - aside from high refractive index that day, the close photo at end of video shows how much of the bottom of the city is hidden from the greater distance view due to earth curvature. Thanks! ;D
Rogers Centre from 6ft above Lake Ontario 30.84 miles away. Alleged curvature should be 516.85 feet of drop. Rogers Centre should not have even been visible according to your 3959 miles radius Earth.
So, what is the new larger size Earth to match the video? And you have to recalculate everything including gravity and the entire heliocentric system.
YOUR HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM. But you will ignore it and explain it away and say I am wrong.
And that was just a reply to number 1.
Rogers Centre from 6ft above Lake Ontario 30.84 miles away. Alleged curvature should be 516.85 feet of drop. Rogers Centre should not have even been visible according to your 3959 miles radius Earth.Actually, one will notice that Rogers Center, in that video, appears to have a flat roof, even though it is domed. The observation deck of the CN tower is also only halfway up even though it is actually about 2/3 of the way up. What is happening here, is the CN tower appears 'sunken' beyond the horizon due to curvature, and the Rogers Center appears with a flat top because it is below the horizon and refraction makes it appear 'flattened'. There is also some mirage occurring. Anyways, nice proof of the globe there. You have a major problem.
Incorrect! The moon and earth are viewed from different angles. Learn a little about viewing 3-D scenes. Is this better?
PS How do you like this view of Earth?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihqtmsng9kt9jzw/A%20unique%20view%20of%20the%20Moon%20and%20distant%20Earth%20from%20China%E2%80%99s%20Chang%E2%80%99e-5%20T1%20lunar%20test%20flight.%20Credit%20Xinhua%20News%20and%20UnmannedSpaceflight.com.jpg?dl=1)
It's not NASA either ;D!
The Phase doesn't match. It's fake too!
Incorrect! The moon and earth are viewed from different angles. Learn a little about viewing 3-D scenes. Is this better?
PS How do you like this view of Earth?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihqtmsng9kt9jzw/A%20unique%20view%20of%20the%20Moon%20and%20distant%20Earth%20from%20China%E2%80%99s%20Chang%E2%80%99e-5%20T1%20lunar%20test%20flight.%20Credit%20Xinhua%20News%20and%20UnmannedSpaceflight.com.jpg?dl=1)
It's not NASA either ;D!
The Phase doesn't match. It's fake too!
(http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_9.jpg)
And still nothing to do with NASA.
What about this ;)?
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/QNlkVOGvAdtw3alqe4As4R5BBEjHtV-H9FCOi6np9uQo3dT-Kkr1lJg2PhfORqb_bHUlEyTEhKy6MrJzFMshdyFdV86xRxzBDcz-s5nEoJ0D0w5Knrq-wza8puKnOJyY_dh0=w443-h332-nc)
Cikljamas, the great Moon Hoax "expert" posted that (with his comments over it) as proof NASA lies ::).
Are you ready for the elephants yet? Think map and horizon rising to eye-level.
Seven flat earth videos in one post, plat tera! And one being a jeranism video! Boy, you've really brought out the heavy artillery!
1st vid - aside from high refractive index that day, the close photo at end of video shows how much of the bottom of the city is hidden from the greater distance view due to earth curvature. Thanks! ;D
Rogers Centre from 6ft above Lake Ontario 30.84 miles away. Alleged curvature should be 516.85 feet of drop. Rogers Centre should not have even been visible according to your 3959 miles radius Earth.
So, what is the new larger size Earth to match the video? And you have to recalculate everything including gravity and the entire heliocentric system.
YOUR HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM. But you will ignore it and explain it away and say I am wrong.
And that was just a reply to number 1.
Seven flat earth videos in one post, plat tera! And one being a jeranism video! Boy, you've really brought out the heavy artillery!
1st vid - aside from high refractive index that day, the close photo at end of video shows how much of the bottom of the city is hidden from the greater distance view due to earth curvature. Thanks! ;D
Rogers Centre from 6ft above Lake Ontario 30.84 miles away. Alleged curvature should be 516.85 feet of drop. Rogers Centre should not have even been visible according to your 3959 miles radius Earth.
So, what is the new larger size Earth to match the video? And you have to recalculate everything including gravity and the entire heliocentric system.
YOUR HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM. But you will ignore it and explain it away and say I am wrong.
And that was just a reply to number 1.
Hmmm, you use a mirage to account for every time a ship has ever gone over the horizon and for every sunset and sunrise everywhere on the planet for every observer, yet in the same breath you say there is no mirage in this one instance where the Rogers Center is flattened and distorted and the CN tower is shrunken and a third of it missing?
You seem to have a major problem with your own contradictions. Get your stories straight and stick to them. You're all over the place right now and just a hot mess of failed logic.
In 1966 the world allegedly receives its first image of Earth from space. Who here believes this image of Earth and Moon together is an actually image taken in space? And please explain why.
(https://i.imgur.com/MTiRWJy.jpg)
Here is a close up.
(https://i.imgur.com/RrOu9Dv.jpg)
Take your time and have a good look and tell me it's ???
Seven flat earth videos in one post, plat tera! And one being a jeranism video! Boy, you've really brought out the heavy artillery!
1st vid - aside from high refractive index that day, the close photo at end of video shows how much of the bottom of the city is hidden from the greater distance view due to earth curvature. Thanks! ;D
Rogers Centre from 6ft above Lake Ontario 30.84 miles away. Alleged curvature should be 516.85 feet of drop. Rogers Centre should not have even been visible according to your 3959 miles radius Earth.
So, what is the new larger size Earth to match the video? And you have to recalculate everything including gravity and the entire heliocentric system.
YOUR HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM. But you will ignore it and explain it away and say I am wrong.
And that was just a reply to number 1.
Hmmm, you use a mirage to account for every time a ship has ever gone over the horizon and for every sunset and sunrise everywhere on the planet for every observer, yet in the same breath you say there is no mirage in this one instance where the Rogers Center is flattened and distorted and the CN tower is shrunken and a third of it missing?
You seem to have a major problem with your own contradictions. Get your stories straight and stick to them. You're all over the place right now and just a hot mess of failed logic.
Flat Earth International Conference 2019
Nov 14-15 - Dallas, Texas USA.
20+ Speakers, Comedy Show and More!
Join us this fall!
Even this picture is Fake.
The shadow of the tire should be in front and not to the left. Try to use some common sense when posting fake pictures.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/QNlkVOGvAdtw3alqe4As4R5BBEjHtV-H9FCOi6np9uQo3dT-Kkr1lJg2PhfORqb_bHUlEyTEhKy6MrJzFMshdyFdV86xRxzBDcz-s5nEoJ0D0w5Knrq-wza8puKnOJyY_dh0=w443-h332-nc)
Even this picture is Fake.
The shadow of the tire should be in front and not to the left. Try to use some common sense when posting fake pictures.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/QNlkVOGvAdtw3alqe4As4R5BBEjHtV-H9FCOi6np9uQo3dT-Kkr1lJg2PhfORqb_bHUlEyTEhKy6MrJzFMshdyFdV86xRxzBDcz-s5nEoJ0D0w5Knrq-wza8puKnOJyY_dh0=w443-h332-nc)
Stash, would you also like to explain this away?
In 1966 the world allegedly receives its first image of Earth from space. Who here believes this image of Earth and Moon together is an actually image taken in space? And please explain why.Sure, I "believe this image of Earth and Moon together is an actually image taken in space".
Here is a close up.
(https://i.imgur.com/RrOu9Dv.jpg)
Take your time and have a good look and tell me it's ???You've obviously taken a good look so you tell me ;D! Remember that you are supposed to be convincing us.
I see no reason why the first or second photos are fake. So if you disagree I'd like to know why either might be a fakeThe issue is the pic you first posted. It's fake! But we know you like to muddy the waters.Incorrect! The moon and earth are viewed from different angles. Learn a little about viewing 3-D scenes. Is this better?
PS How do you like this view of Earth?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihqtmsng9kt9jzw/A%20unique%20view%20of%20the%20Moon%20and%20distant%20Earth%20from%20China%E2%80%99s%20Chang%E2%80%99e-5%20T1%20lunar%20test%20flight.%20Credit%20Xinhua%20News%20and%20UnmannedSpaceflight.com.jpg?dl=1)
It's not NASA either ;D!
The Phase doesn't match. It's fake too!
(http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_9.jpg)
And still nothing to do with NASA.
What about this ;)?
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/QNlkVOGvAdtw3alqe4As4R5BBEjHtV-H9FCOi6np9uQo3dT-Kkr1lJg2PhfORqb_bHUlEyTEhKy6MrJzFMshdyFdV86xRxzBDcz-s5nEoJ0D0w5Knrq-wza8puKnOJyY_dh0=w443-h332-nc)
Cikljamas, the great Moon Hoax "expert" posted that (with his comments over it) as proof NASA lies ::).
Are you ready for the elephants yet? Think map and horizon rising to eye-level.
Even this picture is Fake.
The shadow of the tire should be in front and not to the left. Try to use some common sense when posting fake pictures.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/QNlkVOGvAdtw3alqe4As4R5BBEjHtV-H9FCOi6np9uQo3dT-Kkr1lJg2PhfORqb_bHUlEyTEhKy6MrJzFMshdyFdV86xRxzBDcz-s5nEoJ0D0w5Knrq-wza8puKnOJyY_dh0=w443-h332-nc)
Stash, would you also like to explain this away?
Mirages over our Plane Earth are not going to block the truth of our Earth all the time. The evidence is found everywhere. You just have to know where to look. Even a Zoom lens will bring back what was claimed went over the curve. Globe Earth is a mirage.Here's a screenshot, would you please point out where any of the Rogers Centre can be seen?
Rogers Centre from 6ft above Lake Ontario 30.84 miles away. Alleged curvature should be 516.85 feet of drop. Rogers Centre should not have even been visible!
I don’t know if you have heard of FECore InternationalI have.
Rogers Centre from 6ft above Lake Ontario 30.84 miles away.Where?
YOUR HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM.Nope, that would still be you.
The issue is the pic you first posted. It's fake! But we know you like to muddy the waters.Based upon what?
Even this picture is Fake.Yes, this picture, fabricated by someone who wants to pretend NASA is a hoax, is fake.
Rogers Centre from 6ft above Lake Ontario 30.84 miles away. Alleged curvature should be 516.85 feet of drop. Rogers Centre should not have even been visible according to your 3959 miles radius Earth.It also shouldn't have a flat roof. So why is Chicago half under water? Has it been evacuated?
Seven flat earth videos in one post, plat tera! And one being a jeranism video! Boy, you've really brought out the heavy artillery!
1st vid - aside from high refractive index that day, the close photo at end of video shows how much of the bottom of the city is hidden from the greater distance view due to earth curvature. Thanks! ;D
Rogers Centre from 6ft above Lake Ontario 30.84 miles away. Alleged curvature should be 516.85 feet of drop. Rogers Centre should not have even been visible according to your 3959 miles radius Earth.
So, what is the new larger size Earth to match the video? And you have to recalculate everything including gravity and the entire heliocentric system.
YOUR HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM. But you will ignore it and explain it away and say I am wrong.
And that was just a reply to number 1.
I don’t know if you have heard of FECore International but they sure have been a tool to prove Flat Earth. The following video discusses the upcoming world record 307 Km microwave shot attempt by FECore this week. Awesome information about our Plane Earth.Yes we know FEcore. That group that pretends to be an unbiased research organisation:
A Breath of Fresh Air FECORE, Inc. The desire for truth is a powerful motivator. |
| (https://fecore.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Jeran-Campanella-WhiteBG3-520x324-1-1.png) Jeran Campanella | (https://fecore.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/bob-knodel.jpg) Bob Knodel | (https://fecore.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/karen-1-e1509923075271.jpg) Karen B. Endecott | (https://fecore.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/steve.jpg) Steve Torrence |
Also discussed is the Knickebein system used in WW2 that conclusively proved the flat earth.You might explain how the Knickebein system "conclusively proved the flat earth"!
Knickebein did use two transmitters, both essentially refined versions of Lorenz with much greater accuracy, a few hundred meters at the maximum range of the system, which was limited by the line of sight.The German Heinkel bombers flew at about 15,000 feet which would make the line of sight over the Globe a bit over 160 miles (261 km).
I don’t know if you have heard of FECore International but they sure have been a tool to prove Flat Earth. The following video discusses the upcoming world record 307 Km microwave shot attempt by FECore this week. Awesome information about our Plane Earth.Yes we know FEcore. That group that pretends to be an unbiased research organisation:
FECORE, Inc.
The desire for truth is a powerful motivator.
What a joke ;D! With these folk on their board:FEcore is nothing more pseudo-science front for a group of Flat Earthers.
(https://fecore.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Jeran-Campanella-WhiteBG3-520x324-1-1.png)
Jeran Campanella(https://fecore.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/bob-knodel.jpg)
Bob Knodel(https://fecore.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/karen-1-e1509923075271.jpg)
Karen B. Endecott(https://fecore.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/steve.jpg)
Steve Torrence
Bob Knodel with the gyroscope in Behind Curve, hilarious :)And:
Because they've already decided on the answer.As Jeran Campanella "did" before his "that's interesting . . . . " ::).
Awake Souls: Description
I know that the earth is a flat plane and I am deeply spiritual. . . . . I do believe that what we consider to be reality is a simulation.
Plat tera, do you have any evidence for a "walled mirage"? I know about superior mirages and inferior mirages. But I mean, what is a walled mirage? Is it another name for a wall of water?
If it is, then another name for a walled mirage in your creative meme, is "curvature of the Earth".
Your walled mirage is a wall of water from the lake's surface being curved, blocking out the lower portion of that cityscape showing the tower at the Rogers centre. If anything, I bet there's a superior mirage at play, which enables more of the cityscape to be seen on this occasion than other occasions.
Just out of general curiosity, I'll dig up some other photos of that cityscape from 30.84 miles away at 6 foot height, with different atmospheric conditions, and we'll see if more or less of the cityscape is hidden behind a wall of water than in your meme photos......
Oh, and in your meme, in your bottom right image, there isn't any mirage blocking the distant shoreline. The distant shoreline is in shadow and reduced due to high tide, and the camera settings don't enable the camera to pick up as much detail as when that shoreline is in direct sunlight as from the morning sun.
I take my hat off to you for creativity, plat tera. If you are the inventor of "walled mirages", you may be in the running for not a Nobel prize, but a Knodel prize, courtesy of Bob Knodel!
Plat tera, do you have any evidence for a "walled mirage"? I know about superior mirages and inferior mirages. But I mean, what is a walled mirage? Is it another name for a wall of water?
If it is, then another name for a walled mirage in your creative meme, is "curvature of the Earth".
Your walled mirage is a wall of water from the lake's surface being curved, blocking out the lower portion of that cityscape showing the tower at the Rogers centre. If anything, I bet there's a superior mirage at play, which enables more of the cityscape to be seen on this occasion than other occasions.
Just out of general curiosity, I'll dig up some other photos of that cityscape from 30.84 miles away at 6 foot height, with different atmospheric conditions, and we'll see if more or less of the cityscape is hidden behind a wall of water than in your meme photos......
Oh, and in your meme, in your bottom right image, there isn't any mirage blocking the distant shoreline. The distant shoreline is in shadow and reduced due to high tide, and the camera settings don't enable the camera to pick up as much detail as when that shoreline is in direct sunlight as from the morning sun.
I take my hat off to you for creativity, plat tera. If you are the inventor of "walled mirages", you may be in the running for not a Nobel prize, but a Knodel prize, courtesy of Bob Knodel!
The mirage is the least of your major problems. The Rogers Centre is visible and shouldn't be according to a 3959 mile radius. Again, since the Centre is visible what is the new size of your Earth and Heliocentric theory? It does not match your current one.
BTW, it's a linear mirror image of waters' surface that's above the surface of the water like a superior mirage. Or like a mirror image of a surface that's above the surface of ground. It blocks the view of things behind it. It happens over water and land.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNBzPFh.jpg)
The opposition here denies the facts of a Plane Earth.What "facts of a Plane Earth" have you presented?
Why?Rubbish! You ask "Why?"Because, it’s like a job to them and somebody has to do it.
They must explain away any facts presented because truth must be suppressed in any manner.You don't present "facts" you simply present meaningless memes an your own misunderstanding, as with this Rogers Center debacle.
They can’t have anymore members in the Globe Community accepting defeat.You've presented no reason for the "Globe Community" to accept defeat and so why would anyone with with taking any notice of what you ask.
It really doesn't matter if you can't reason because at the end of the day science and observation win, but it helps to prove it to yourself Earth is not a sphere.Do you really believe your own claims? You wouldn't know any science if it jumped up and bit you and your Rogers Center claims prove it.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wsyywotjryxd4qu/Plat%20Terra%20-%20Rogers%20Center%20real%20and%20imaginary.jpg?dl=1)You admit that the anomalies are due to severe atmospheric conditions and an obvious mirage with a hard black line along the waterline.
Plat tera, do you have any evidence for a "walled mirage"? I know about superior mirages and inferior mirages. But I mean, what is a walled mirage? Is it another name for a wall of water?
If it is, then another name for a walled mirage in your creative meme, is "curvature of the Earth".
Your walled mirage is a wall of water from the lake's surface being curved, blocking out the lower portion of that cityscape showing the tower at the Rogers centre. If anything, I bet there's a superior mirage at play, which enables more of the cityscape to be seen on this occasion than other occasions.
Just out of general curiosity, I'll dig up some other photos of that cityscape from 30.84 miles away at 6 foot height, with different atmospheric conditions, and we'll see if more or less of the cityscape is hidden behind a wall of water than in your meme photos......
Oh, and in your meme, in your bottom right image, there isn't any mirage blocking the distant shoreline. The distant shoreline is in shadow and reduced due to high tide, and the camera settings don't enable the camera to pick up as much detail as when that shoreline is in direct sunlight as from the morning sun.
I take my hat off to you for creativity, plat tera. If you are the inventor of "walled mirages", you may be in the running for not a Nobel prize, but a Knodel prize, courtesy of Bob Knodel!
The mirage is the least of your major problems. The Rogers Centre is visible and shouldn't be according to a 3959 mile radius. Again, since the Centre is visible what is the new size of your Earth and Heliocentric theory? It does not match your current one.
BTW, it's a linear mirror image of waters' surface that's above the surface of the water like a superior mirage. Or like a mirror image of a surface that's above the surface of ground. It blocks the view of things behind it. It happens over water and land.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNBzPFh.jpg)
Another Plat fail. I've lost count. Try harder Plat. There's no "walled mirage" that's going to get you out of this.
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
The opposition here denies the facts of a Plane Earth.What "facts of a Plane Earth" have you presented?You expect people to swallow your flat earth ideas but you don't even have a workable flat earth model.
- You can't explain the sun and moon rising or setting.
- You don't have any reasonably accurate map of your flat earth.
- You haven't proven that the horizon rises to eye-level as it must on your flat earth.
Quote from: Plat TerraWhy?Rubbish! You ask "Why?"Because, it’s like a job to them and somebody has to do it.
But you, right from the start have proven that you have no understanding of "how the Globe works". So you haven't a hope of disproving it.
We debunk what you present because it is simply wrong! The earth was been proven, beyond reasonable doubt, a Globe, a couple of millenia ago.Quote from: Plat TerraThey must explain away any facts presented because truth must be suppressed in any manner.You don't present "facts" you simply present meaningless memes an your own misunderstanding, as with this Rogers Center debacle.
So we are suppressing no truth - you are simply presents useless arguments that prove nothing!Quote from: Plat TerraThey can’t have anymore members in the Globe Community accepting defeat.You've presented no reason for the "Globe Community" to accept defeat and so why would anyone with with taking any notice of what you ask.Quote from: Plat TerraIt really doesn't matter if you can't reason because at the end of the day science and observation win, but it helps to prove it to yourself Earth is not a sphere.Do you really believe your own claims? You wouldn't know any science if it jumped up and bit you and your Rogers Center claims prove it.Quote from: Plat Terra(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wsyywotjryxd4qu/Plat%20Terra%20-%20Rogers%20Center%20real%20and%20imaginary.jpg?dl=1)You admit that the anomalies are due to severe atmospheric conditions and an obvious mirage with a hard black line along the waterline.
Then you say "would have been seen if not for the walled mirage caused by atmospheric conditions" it other words your Rogers
Center video is worthless, which is what I hinted long ago.
But you ignore the mirage, heat haze and extra refraction and make you totally unwarranted claims!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ckgk45twztownj4/Plat%20Terra%20-%20Rogers%20Center%20real%20and%20imaginary%20-%20Rogers%20Center.jpg?dl=1)
Now, do yourself a favour and read what is on here: Views of Toronto from Hamilton and Fort Niagara Illustrate Earth's Curvature (https://www.metabunk.org/views-of-toronto-from-hamilton-and-fort-niagara-illustrate-earths-curvature.t8149/).
And watch this even with its bad language,
]
Debunking Flat Earth Theory Using Jenna Fredo's Rogers Centre video.
You might achieve a lot more if you took notice of the things others tell you, instead of pretending that you know everything!
PS; THE EARTH IS VERY CLOSE TO SPHERICAL and you will never prove otherwise, but have fun with your delusions.
If it was a mirage it wouldn’t be a fixture in the sign.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3MA-VRdnM8/maxresdefault.jpg)
Perspective in a Plane World is a wonderful thing. It rules out the possibility of a curved world. "Plat Terra"
(https://i.imgur.com/2widuAL.jpg)
Perspective in a Plane World is a wonderful thing. It rules out the possibility of a curved world. "Plat Terra"
(https://i.imgur.com/2widuAL.jpg)
Its always funny how flat earthers prove themselves wrong. Like by using the word 'perspective'.
Clearly as objects are farther away, they look smaller. Perspective. But when the subject is about the some, well, then some magic must happen (as the angular size of the sun does not change during a day).
And I notice the Rogers Center is not included, but is in regular photographs. Wonder why? Because it should be below the curve, but it's not.So you say, but you have to post a video with admitted anomalous refraction, what you claim is a mirage and massive heat haze to possibly show some unknown building!
Yeah, you like to muddy the waters, but the facts and measurements according to your 3959 mile radius proves you are WRONG. The Rogers Centre cannot be seen from 30.84 MILES AWAY on your fake globe. You're the opposition and will say anything to your advantage TO IGNORE AND CONTINUE THE LIE. I don't have to post any video, the facts speak for themselves. You just need to get a new job!And I notice the Rogers Center is not included, but is in regular photographs. Wonder why? Because it should be below the curve, but it's not.So you say, but you have to post a video with admitted anomalous refraction, what you claim is a mirage and massive heat haze to possibly show some unknown building!
Why should anyone waste their time on a video under conditions like that?
PS The earth is still very close to being a sphere that gas been accurately mapped and you don't even have a map! ;D
Yeah, you like to muddy the waters, but the facts and measurements according to your 3959 mile radius proves you are WRONG. The Rogers Centre cannot be seen from 30.84 MILES AWAY on your fake globe. You're the opposition and will say anything to your advantage TO IGNORE AND CONTINUE THE LIE. I don't have to post any video, the facts speak for themselves. You just need to get a new job!And I notice the Rogers Center is not included, but is in regular photographs. Wonder why? Because it should be below the curve, but it's not.So you say, but you have to post a video with admitted anomalous refraction, what you claim is a mirage and massive heat haze to possibly show some unknown building!
Why should anyone waste their time on a video under conditions like that?
PS The earth is still very close to being a sphere that gas been accurately mapped and you don't even have a map! ;D
Yeah, you like to muddy the waters, but the facts and measurements according to your 3959 mile radius proves you are WRONG. The Rogers Centre cannot be seen from 30.84 MILES AWAY on your fake globe. You're the opposition and will say anything to your advantage TO IGNORE AND CONTINUE THE LIE. I don't have to post any video, the facts speak for themselves. You just need to get a new job!And I notice the Rogers Center is not included, but is in regular photographs. Wonder why? Because it should be below the curve, but it's not.So you say, but you have to post a video with admitted anomalous refraction, what you claim is a mirage and massive heat haze to possibly show some unknown building!
Why should anyone waste their time on a video under conditions like that?
PS The earth is still very close to being a sphere that gas been accurately mapped and you don't even have a map! ;D
Why the photograph like this should wait for convenient temperature conditions to be taken?
Why can't you and me go there and see it on every ordinary day?
Perspective in a Plane World is a wonderful thing. It rules out the possibility of a curved world. "Plat Terra"What nice photos of exactly what should be seen on the Globe? Your learning!
(https://i.imgur.com/2widuAL.jpg)Much appreciated :). Of course, if you mistakenly think they fit your plane earth better, please explain why.
This is the most important thread on this forum "Curvature", and the opposition is still taking swings and nothing more. And they know the angular size of the sun has already been addressed.You might think that you have addressed "the angular size of the sun" but you haven't really!
But I can't make the opposition believe the facts of our Plane Earth.Possibly because you've presented none! All you've done is come up with meaningless excuses for sunrise, sunsets, the sun's angular size and ships and lighthouses, etc being hidden.
(https://i.imgur.com/TXOO6zo.jpg)Again, there is no evidence for a flat earth in that photo, especially with not a trace of information about it.
Perspective in a Plane World is a wonderful thing. It rules out the possibility of a curved world. "Plat Terra"What nice photos of exactly what should be seen on the Globe? Your learning!
But I fail to see where perspective might come in other that to explain why the horizon appears close to eye-level, not that you can be sure in photos like that.Quote from: Plat Terra(https://i.imgur.com/2widuAL.jpg)Much appreciated :). Of course, if you mistakenly think they fit your plane earth better, please explain why.
Likewise here!This is the most important thread on this forum "Curvature", and the opposition is still taking swings and nothing more. And they know the angular size of the sun has already been addressed.You might think that you have addressed "the angular size of the sun" but you haven't really!
You waved your hands and claimed that "some magic" explains it. No one Swallows you funny ideas.Quote from: Plat TerraBut I can't make the opposition believe the facts of our Plane Earth.Possibly because you've presented none! All you've done is come up with meaningless excuses for sunrise, sunsets, the sun's angular size and ships and lighthouses, etc being hidden.Quote from: Plat Terra(https://i.imgur.com/TXOO6zo.jpg)Again, there is no evidence for a flat earth in that photo, especially with not a trace of information about it.
And this photo looks to be from the same video! Do you still claim that there is "no curvature"?
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9dfVtaZbuIQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
Where is there any evidence for a plane earth in any of those photos?
Plat tera, do you have any evidence for a "walled mirage"? I know about superior mirages and inferior mirages. But I mean, what is a walled mirage? Is it another name for a wall of water?
If it is, then another name for a walled mirage in your creative meme, is "curvature of the Earth".
Your walled mirage is a wall of water from the lake's surface being curved, blocking out the lower portion of that cityscape showing the tower at the Rogers centre. If anything, I bet there's a superior mirage at play, which enables more of the cityscape to be seen on this occasion than other occasions.
Just out of general curiosity, I'll dig up some other photos of that cityscape from 30.84 miles away at 6 foot height, with different atmospheric conditions, and we'll see if more or less of the cityscape is hidden behind a wall of water than in your meme photos......
Oh, and in your meme, in your bottom right image, there isn't any mirage blocking the distant shoreline. The distant shoreline is in shadow and reduced due to high tide, and the camera settings don't enable the camera to pick up as much detail as when that shoreline is in direct sunlight as from the morning sun.
I take my hat off to you for creativity, plat tera. If you are the inventor of "walled mirages", you may be in the running for not a Nobel prize, but a Knodel prize, courtesy of Bob Knodel!
The mirage is the least of your major problems. The Rogers Centre is visible and shouldn't be according to a 3959 mile radius. Again, since the Centre is visible what is the new size of your Earth and Heliocentric theory? It does not match your current one.
BTW, it's a linear mirror image of waters' surface that's above the surface of the water like a superior mirage. Or like a mirror image of a surface that's above the surface of ground. It blocks the view of things behind it. It happens over water and land.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNBzPFh.jpg)
Another Plat fail. I've lost count. Try harder Plat. There's no "walled mirage" that's going to get you out of this.
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
Perspective doesn't work that way. We see you are ID. You make my points quite clear.
Thank you!
Plat tera, do you have any evidence for a "walled mirage"? I know about superior mirages and inferior mirages. But I mean, what is a walled mirage? Is it another name for a wall of water?
If it is, then another name for a walled mirage in your creative meme, is "curvature of the Earth".
Your walled mirage is a wall of water from the lake's surface being curved, blocking out the lower portion of that cityscape showing the tower at the Rogers centre. If anything, I bet there's a superior mirage at play, which enables more of the cityscape to be seen on this occasion than other occasions.
Just out of general curiosity, I'll dig up some other photos of that cityscape from 30.84 miles away at 6 foot height, with different atmospheric conditions, and we'll see if more or less of the cityscape is hidden behind a wall of water than in your meme photos......
Oh, and in your meme, in your bottom right image, there isn't any mirage blocking the distant shoreline. The distant shoreline is in shadow and reduced due to high tide, and the camera settings don't enable the camera to pick up as much detail as when that shoreline is in direct sunlight as from the morning sun.
I take my hat off to you for creativity, plat tera. If you are the inventor of "walled mirages", you may be in the running for not a Nobel prize, but a Knodel prize, courtesy of Bob Knodel!
The mirage is the least of your major problems. The Rogers Centre is visible and shouldn't be according to a 3959 mile radius. Again, since the Centre is visible what is the new size of your Earth and Heliocentric theory? It does not match your current one.
BTW, it's a linear mirror image of waters' surface that's above the surface of the water like a superior mirage. Or like a mirror image of a surface that's above the surface of ground. It blocks the view of things behind it. It happens over water and land.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNBzPFh.jpg)
Another Plat fail. I've lost count. Try harder Plat. There's no "walled mirage" that's going to get you out of this.
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
Perspective doesn't work that way. We see you are ID. You make my points quite clear.
Thank you!
I never mentioned perspective. So how does or doesn't perspective work when perspective is irrelevant to the fact that there is no 'walled mirage' that you totally made up and that a quarter of your CN Tower is missing? Where did it go?
By the way, did you ever figure out the distance between two points and perhaps where your Sun is? You know, like where it goes at night. I bet you still haven't. Sad.
Especially when you need to invent this magical "walled mirage" to "prove your case". You really must be desperate.Why the photograph like this should wait for convenient temperature conditions to be taken?
Why can't you and me go there and see it on every ordinary day?
Life suck sometimes, don't it?
Plat tera, do you have any evidence for a "walled mirage"? I know about superior mirages and inferior mirages. But I mean, what is a walled mirage? Is it another name for a wall of water?
If it is, then another name for a walled mirage in your creative meme, is "curvature of the Earth".
Your walled mirage is a wall of water from the lake's surface being curved, blocking out the lower portion of that cityscape showing the tower at the Rogers centre. If anything, I bet there's a superior mirage at play, which enables more of the cityscape to be seen on this occasion than other occasions.
Just out of general curiosity, I'll dig up some other photos of that cityscape from 30.84 miles away at 6 foot height, with different atmospheric conditions, and we'll see if more or less of the cityscape is hidden behind a wall of water than in your meme photos......
Oh, and in your meme, in your bottom right image, there isn't any mirage blocking the distant shoreline. The distant shoreline is in shadow and reduced due to high tide, and the camera settings don't enable the camera to pick up as much detail as when that shoreline is in direct sunlight as from the morning sun.
I take my hat off to you for creativity, plat tera. If you are the inventor of "walled mirages", you may be in the running for not a Nobel prize, but a Knodel prize, courtesy of Bob Knodel!
The mirage is the least of your major problems. The Rogers Centre is visible and shouldn't be according to a 3959 mile radius. Again, since the Centre is visible what is the new size of your Earth and Heliocentric theory? It does not match your current one.
BTW, it's a linear mirror image of waters' surface that's above the surface of the water like a superior mirage. Or like a mirror image of a surface that's above the surface of ground. It blocks the view of things behind it. It happens over water and land.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNBzPFh.jpg)
Another Plat fail. I've lost count. Try harder Plat. There's no "walled mirage" that's going to get you out of this.
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
Perspective doesn't work that way. We see you are ID. You make my points quite clear.
Thank you!
I never mentioned perspective. So how does or doesn't perspective work when perspective is irrelevant to the fact that there is no 'walled mirage' that you totally made up and that a quarter of your CN Tower is missing? Where did it go?
By the way, did you ever figure out the distance between two points and perhaps where your Sun is? You know, like where it goes at night. I bet you still haven't. Sad.
Take a hike Stash. You are nothing!
Maybe, but Stash is far above you with the fake "walled mirage" extreme refraction you need to pretend to support your pretend flat earth!I never mentioned perspective. So how does or doesn't perspective work when perspective is irrelevant to the fact that there is no 'walled mirage' that you totally made up and that a quarter of your CN Tower is missing? Where did it go?
By the way, did you ever figure out the distance between two points and perhaps where your Sun is? You know, like where it goes at night. I bet you still haven't. Sad.
Take a hike Stash. You are nothing!
The opposition here denies the facts of a Plane Earth. Why? Because, it’s like a job to them and somebody has to do it. They must explain away any facts presented because truth must be suppressed in any manner. They can’t have anymore members in the Globe Community accepting defeat.
It really doesn't matter if you can't reason because at the end of the day science and observation win, but it helps to prove it to yourself Earth is not a sphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/KYtcuj6.jpg)
None of that matters. You are deflecting because you are wrong. The Rogers center being visible destroys you Globe theory with a 3959 mile radius. What is your new Earth's Radius and the size of the new Heliocentric theory? The foundation for your current theory has been destroyed. So what's the new one?
The opposition here denies the facts of a Plane Earth. Why? Because, it’s like a job to them and somebody has to do it. They must explain away any facts presented because truth must be suppressed in any manner. They can’t have anymore members in the Globe Community accepting defeat.
It really doesn't matter if you can't reason because at the end of the day science and observation win, but it helps to prove it to yourself Earth is not a sphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/KYtcuj6.jpg)
The observation of Rogers Centre from almost 31 mile away destroys the Globe Earth foundation theory with a 3959 mile radius because is shouldn't be seen, but below the curve. So, if Earth is still a sphere what is the new radius and circumference of Earth and the size of the new Heliocentric theory with corrected gravitational fields?
I want to know NOW!
The opposition here denies the facts of a Plane Earth. Why? Because, it’s like a job to them and somebody has to do it. They must explain away any facts presented because truth must be suppressed in any manner. They can’t have anymore members in the Globe Community accepting defeat.
It really doesn't matter if you can't reason because at the end of the day science and observation win, but it helps to prove it to yourself Earth is not a sphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/KYtcuj6.jpg)
The observation of Rogers Centre from almost 31 mile away destroys the Globe Earth foundation theory with a 3959 mile radius because is shouldn't be seen, but below the curve. So, if Earth is still a sphere what is the new radius and circumference of Earth and the size of the new Heliocentric theory with corrected gravitational fields?
I want to know NOW!
You yourself claimed there is a mirage wall that hides the bottom part of the skyline. And your images do look rather 'miragey'. Hence why you can see a deformed top of the Rogers Center.
But from the same distance, on a non-miragey day, you can't see the Rogers Center at all as predicted by a curved earth. And a big chunk of the bottom of the CN Tower is obscured by the curve. Go figure:
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
Now, where is your Sun right now?
You don't matter. The Rogers Center cannot be observed on a 3959 mile radius Earth. Whats the new calculation of your sphere theory?
The opposition here denies the facts of a Plane Earth. Why? Because, it’s like a job to them and somebody has to do it. They must explain away any facts presented because truth must be suppressed in any manner. They can’t have anymore members in the Globe Community accepting defeat.
It really doesn't matter if you can't reason because at the end of the day science and observation win, but it helps to prove it to yourself Earth is not a sphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/KYtcuj6.jpg)
The observation of Rogers Centre from almost 31 mile away destroys the Globe Earth foundation theory with a 3959 mile radius because is shouldn't be seen, but below the curve. So, if Earth is still a sphere what is the new radius and circumference of Earth and the size of the new Heliocentric theory with corrected gravitational fields?
I want to know NOW!
You yourself claimed there is a mirage wall that hides the bottom part of the skyline. And your images do look rather 'miragey'. Hence why you can see a deformed top of the Rogers Center.
But from the same distance, on a non-miragey day, you can't see the Rogers Center at all as predicted by a curved earth. And a big chunk of the bottom of the CN Tower is obscured by the curve. Go figure:
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
Now, where is your Sun right now?
The opposition here denies the facts of a Plane Earth. Why? Because, it’s like a job to them and somebody has to do it. They must explain away any facts presented because truth must be suppressed in any manner. They can’t have anymore members in the Globe Community accepting defeat.
It really doesn't matter if you can't reason because at the end of the day science and observation win, but it helps to prove it to yourself Earth is not a sphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/KYtcuj6.jpg)
The observation of Rogers Centre from almost 31 mile away destroys the Globe Earth foundation theory with a 3959 mile radius because is shouldn't be seen, but below the curve. So, if Earth is still a sphere what is the new radius and circumference of Earth and the size of the new Heliocentric theory with corrected gravitational fields?
I want to know NOW!
You yourself claimed there is a mirage wall that hides the bottom part of the skyline. And your images do look rather 'miragey'. Hence why you can see a deformed top of the Rogers Center.
But from the same distance, on a non-miragey day, you can't see the Rogers Center at all as predicted by a curved earth. And a big chunk of the bottom of the CN Tower is obscured by the curve. Go figure:
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
Now, where is your Sun right now?
You don't matter. The Rogers Centre cannot be observed on a 3959 mile radius Earth from almost 31 miles away. Whats the new calculation of your sphere theory?
The opposition here denies the facts of a Plane Earth. Why? Because, it’s like a job to them and somebody has to do it. They must explain away any facts presented because truth must be suppressed in any manner. They can’t have anymore members in the Globe Community accepting defeat.
It really doesn't matter if you can't reason because at the end of the day science and observation win, but it helps to prove it to yourself Earth is not a sphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/KYtcuj6.jpg)
The observation of Rogers Centre from almost 31 mile away destroys the Globe Earth foundation theory with a 3959 mile radius because is shouldn't be seen, but below the curve. So, if Earth is still a sphere what is the new radius and circumference of Earth and the size of the new Heliocentric theory with corrected gravitational fields?
I want to know NOW!
You yourself claimed there is a mirage wall that hides the bottom part of the skyline. And your images do look rather 'miragey'. Hence why you can see a deformed top of the Rogers Center.
But from the same distance, on a non-miragey day, you can't see the Rogers Center at all as predicted by a curved earth. And a big chunk of the bottom of the CN Tower is obscured by the curve. Go figure:
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
Now, where is your Sun right now?
You don't matter. The Rogers Centre cannot be observed on a 3959 mile radius Earth from almost 31 miles away. Whats the new calculation of your sphere theory?
I want to know NOW!
My matter has nothing to do with this. You act as if you are desperate, desperate to defend the indefensible. And flailing.
I see a super miragey version of the top of the Rogers Center in that one image. I don't see it at all in the other two I provided where the atmospheric conditions seemed to be far more normal - less miragey. And I see a wall of water, not a mirage wall, obscuring a bunch of the lower skyline of Toronto. Where did that wall of water come from? Must be a Tsunami on Lake Ontario.
Now, where is your Sun right now?
The opposition here denies the facts of a Plane Earth. Why? Because, it’s like a job to them and somebody has to do it. They must explain away any facts presented because truth must be suppressed in any manner. They can’t have anymore members in the Globe Community accepting defeat.
It really doesn't matter if you can't reason because at the end of the day science and observation win, but it helps to prove it to yourself Earth is not a sphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/KYtcuj6.jpg)
The observation of Rogers Centre from almost 31 mile away destroys the Globe Earth foundation theory with a 3959 mile radius because is shouldn't be seen, but below the curve. So, if Earth is still a sphere what is the new radius and circumference of Earth and the size of the new Heliocentric theory with corrected gravitational fields?
I want to know NOW!
You yourself claimed there is a mirage wall that hides the bottom part of the skyline. And your images do look rather 'miragey'. Hence why you can see a deformed top of the Rogers Center.
But from the same distance, on a non-miragey day, you can't see the Rogers Center at all as predicted by a curved earth. And a big chunk of the bottom of the CN Tower is obscured by the curve. Go figure:
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
Now, where is your Sun right now?
You don't matter. The Rogers Centre cannot be observed on a 3959 mile radius Earth from almost 31 miles away. Whats the new calculation of your sphere theory?
Why not? What is your calculation in the FE model?
I want to know NOW!
You yourself claimed there is a mirage wall that hides the bottom part of the skyline. And your images do look rather 'miragey'. Hence why you can see a deformed top of the Rogers Center.
But from the same distance, on a non-miragey day, you can't see the Rogers Center at all as predicted by a curved earth. And a big chunk of the bottom of the CN Tower is obscured by the curve. Go figure:
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
Now, where is your Sun right now?
My matter has nothing to do with this. You act as if you are desperate, desperate to defend the indefensible. And flailing.
I see a super miragey version of the top of the Rogers Center in that one image. I don't see it at all in the other two I provided where the atmospheric conditions seemed to be far more normal - less miragey. And I see a wall of water, not a mirage wall, obscuring a bunch of the lower skyline of Toronto. Where did that wall of water come from? Must be a Tsunami on Lake Ontario.
Now, where is your Sun right now?
Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
I want to know NOW!
You yourself claimed there is a mirage wall that hides the bottom part of the skyline. And your images do look rather 'miragey'. Hence why you can see a deformed top of the Rogers Center.
But from the same distance, on a non-miragey day, you can't see the Rogers Center at all as predicted by a curved earth. And a big chunk of the bottom of the CN Tower is obscured by the curve. Go figure:
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
Now, where is your Sun right now?
You don't matter. The Rogers Centre cannot be observed on a 3959 mile radius Earth from almost 31 miles away. Whats the new calculation of your sphere theory?Quote
My matter has nothing to do with this. You act as if you are desperate, desperate to defend the indefensible. And flailing.
I see a super miragey version of the top of the Rogers Center in that one image. I don't see it at all in the other two I provided where the atmospheric conditions seemed to be far more normal - less miragey. And I see a wall of water, not a mirage wall, obscuring a bunch of the lower skyline of Toronto. Where did that wall of water come from? Must be a Tsunami on Lake Ontario.
Now, where is your Sun right now?
You have bigger problems than mirages. The fact that the Centre can be observed destroys your world. Deflecting with mirages and other things will not save you. You can't win. It's impossibly considering the issues. But you free to live in a fantasy if you like.
[uote]
Deflecting with mirages? You're 'Mirage Boy'. You made up a 'mirage wall', all of your sunrises and sunsets are mirage based. Talk about deflecting with mirages. Sorry, you're the clear winner there.
Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
The Rogers Centre cannot be observed on a 3959 mile radius Earth from almost 31 miles away.And your claim a building of completely the wrong shape that seems visible under conditions obviously likely to cause extra refraction, looming, and mirages is totally unreliable!
Whats the new calculation of your sphere theory?None! We need to change nothing because you've proven nothing!
The Rogers Centre cannot be observed on a 3959 mile radius Earth from almost 31 miles away.And your claim a building of completely the wrong shape that seems visible under conditions obviously likely to cause extra refraction, looming, and mirages is totally unreliable!
Those conditions with warm air (remember the heat haze) over cool water are exactly those that lead to this sort of unusual observation.
Learn a bit about refraction, etc, from Calculating Ray Bending (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html).Quote from: Plat TerraWhats the new calculation of your sphere theory?None! We need to change nothing because you've proven nothing!
(https://i.imgur.com/KYtcuj6.jpg)
By the way the earth and moon look like this from about 1.6 million kilometres away ;D:
[
Space telescope catches the moon crossing the Earth from the 'dark side'.
Prove it's a fake ;D!
I want to know NOW!
You yourself claimed there is a mirage wall that hides the bottom part of the skyline. And your images do look rather 'miragey'. Hence why you can see a deformed top of the Rogers Center.
But from the same distance, on a non-miragey day, you can't see the Rogers Center at all as predicted by a curved earth. And a big chunk of the bottom of the CN Tower is obscured by the curve. Go figure:
(https://i.imgur.com/sMquG2C.jpg?1)
Now, where is your Sun right now?
You don't matter. The Rogers Centre cannot be observed on a 3959 mile radius Earth from almost 31 miles away. Whats the new calculation of your sphere theory?
My matter has nothing to do with this. You act as if you are desperate, desperate to defend the indefensible. And flailing.
I see a super miragey version of the top of the Rogers Center in that one image. I don't see it at all in the other two I provided where the atmospheric conditions seemed to be far more normal - less miragey. And I see a wall of water, not a mirage wall, obscuring a bunch of the lower skyline of Toronto. Where did that wall of water come from? Must be a Tsunami on Lake Ontario.
Now, where is your Sun right now?
You have bigger problems than mirages. The fact that the Centre can be observed destroys your world. Deflecting with mirages and other things will not save you. You can't win. It's impossibly considering the issues. But you free to live in a fantasy if you like.
Deflecting with mirages? You're 'Mirage Boy'. You made up a 'mirage wall', all of your sunrises and sunsets are mirage based. Talk about deflecting with mirages. Sorry, you're the clear winner there.
Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
When you go to bed, always remember these words "Say it, Earth is a Plane" and remember to recalculate Earth's radius , because the Rogers Centre can be seen with a 3959 radius but shouldn't be.
Good night!
Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
Download the Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app.
Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
Download the Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app.
I'm thinking you meant this as a joke, right?
What Ever,
Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
Download the Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app.
I'm thinking you meant this as a joke, right?
No. It directly shows where the sun would be over on a Flat Earth Monopole model and answers your query of "where is the sun right now???"
Your turn. Show us a Round Earth model of the sun that is based on RET rather than historic patterns.
Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
Download the Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app.
I'm thinking you meant this as a joke, right?
No. It directly shows where the sun would be over on a Flat Earth Monopole model and answers your query of "where is the sun right now???"
Your turn. Show us a Round Earth model of the sun that is based on RET rather than historic patterns.
Ok, maybe you weren't making a joke, my bad. But Jeran's 2.99 app is a joke.
- First of all, ironically it uses a globe projection as the "model", strike 1.
- Watch makers have done this, mechanically, for 100's of years, so what's the big "Flat Earth" deal? Strike 2.
- The mono-pole model doesn't work and you know it and that's why you lean bi-pole (doesn't work either). Strike 3.
Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
Download the Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app.
I'm thinking you meant this as a joke, right?
No. It directly shows where the sun would be over on a Flat Earth Monopole model and answers your query of "where is the sun right now???"
Your turn. Show us a Round Earth model of the sun that is based on RET rather than historic patterns.
Ok, maybe you weren't making a joke, my bad. But Jeran's 2.99 app is a joke.
- First of all, ironically it uses a globe projection as the "model", strike 1.
- Watch makers have done this, mechanically, for 100's of years, so what's the big "Flat Earth" deal? Strike 2.
- The mono-pole model doesn't work and you know it and that's why you lean bi-pole (doesn't work either). Strike 3.
Your complaints are "I think FE is based in globe!", "Too easy!!" and "Monopole don't work!"
However, those appear to be entirely different subjects. Whether the model is right or wrong, the clock does show where the Sun would be over that model at any given time and directly answers the query.
Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
Download the Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app.
I'm thinking you meant this as a joke, right?
No. It directly shows where the sun would be over on a Flat Earth Monopole model and answers your query of "where is the sun right now???"
Your turn. Show us a Round Earth model of the sun that is based on RET rather than historic patterns.
Ok, maybe you weren't making a joke, my bad. But Jeran's 2.99 app is a joke.
- First of all, ironically it uses a globe projection as the "model", strike 1.
- Watch makers have done this, mechanically, for 100's of years, so what's the big "Flat Earth" deal? Strike 2.
- The mono-pole model doesn't work and you know it and that's why you lean bi-pole (doesn't work either). Strike 3.
Your complaints are "I think FE is based in globe!", "Too easy!!" and "Monopole don't work!"
However, those appear to be entirely different subjects. Whether the model is right or wrong, the clock does show where the Sun would be over that model at any given time and directly answers the query.
Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
Download the Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app.
Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
Download the Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app.
The opposition here denies the facts of a Plane Earth. Why?Because it isn't a fact.
It really doesn't matter if you can't reason because at the end of the day science and observation winThat's right, and science and observation results in one firmly concluding that Earth is round, as that is what all the evidence supports.
Perspective doesn't work that way.And just why doesn't it?
No. It directly shows where the sun would be over on a Flat Earth Monopole model and answers your query of "where is the sun right now???"And completely fails to match observation.
Your turn. Show us a Round Earth model of the sun that is based on RET rather than historic patterns.There are plenty that exist, for example:
You might find this entertaining:Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
Download the Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app.
How do we know that the app is based on FET rather than historic patterns? Have you verified the app's sunrise and sunset directions?Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
Download the Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app.
I'm thinking you meant this as a joke, right?
No. It directly shows where the sun would be over on a Flat Earth Monopole model and answers your query of "where is the sun right now???"
Your turn. Show us a Round Earth model of the sun that is based on RET rather than historic patterns.
The app doesn't make sunrise direction predictions. It shows the location of the Sun over a Monopole model. The direction of the sun in relation to the map is generally consistent with what is seen during the day, however.Showing the current location of the sun on a map is a prediction. Have you personally verified that the app's prediction of the sun's current location is consistent with what is seen during the day?
You might find this entertaining:Now, if you could tell us where your Sun is right now, that would be great.
Download the Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app.
Flat Earther's new App debunks their own model. Why would they do that?
Then again, you might not.
That "Flat Earth Sun Moon & Clock app" makes it so easy to see that, at least "Downunder", the usual monopole flat earth sun's path is quite incorrect.
I know that here in summer the Sunrise and Sunset directions are nowhere near the direction that app would indicate.
Maybe that app was made by someone who was trying to demonstrate that the sun's path on the North Pole centred AEP map is quite wrong.
Whatever the case, it has succeeded in doing that admirably.
Plat tera, do you have any evidence for a "walled mirage"? I know about superior mirages and inferior mirages. But I mean, what is a walled mirage? Is it another name for a wall of water?
If it is, then another name for a walled mirage in your creative meme, is "curvature of the Earth".
Your walled mirage is a wall of water from the lake's surface being curved, blocking out the lower portion of that cityscape showing the tower at the Rogers centre. If anything, I bet there's a superior mirage at play, which enables more of the cityscape to be seen on this occasion than other occasions.
Just out of general curiosity, I'll dig up some other photos of that cityscape from 30.84 miles away at 6 foot height, with different atmospheric conditions, and we'll see if more or less of the cityscape is hidden behind a wall of water than in your meme photos......
Oh, and in your meme, in your bottom right image, there isn't any mirage blocking the distant shoreline. The distant shoreline is in shadow and reduced due to high tide, and the camera settings don't enable the camera to pick up as much detail as when that shoreline is in direct sunlight as from the morning sun.
I take my hat off to you for creativity, plat tera. If you are the inventor of "walled mirages", you may be in the running for not a Nobel prize, but a Knodel prize, courtesy of Bob Knodel!
The mirage is the least of your major problems. The Rogers Centre is visible and shouldn't be according to a 3959 mile radius. Again, since the Centre is visible what is the new size of your Earth and Heliocentric theory? It does not match your current one.
BTW, it's a linear mirror image of waters' surface that's above the surface of the water like a superior mirage. Or like a mirror image of a surface that's above the surface of ground. It blocks the view of things behind it. It happens over water and land.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNBzPFh.jpg)
The app doesn't make sunrise direction predictions. It shows the location of the Sun over a Monopole model.And you can then use those to determine where the sun should appear at a given location (i.e. the direction to the sun) and compare that to reality.
The direction of the sun in relation to the map is generally consistent with what is seen during the day, however.No it doesn't.
The East/West sunrise/sunset direction is part of the same explanation for why the sun does not change size and is discussed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox#A_Flat_Earth_EquinoxWhich doesn't work at all. And doesn't have the equinox being special in any way.
There is no elevation in that app. You are making things up, as usual.
The app accurately shows where the sun is over a Flat Earth Monopole model.
There is no elevation in that app. You are making things up, as usual.Have you verified that it accurately shows where the sun is in the sky?
The app accurately shows where the sun is over a Flat Earth Monopole model.
Your further queries about exact positioning has more to do with a fallacious assumption that we can see infinitely and forever into the distance without any physical modification of sight, practically relying on your own imagination for how the world should be without any demonstration of that matter.Tom, it's time to retire this silly straw man. No one is claiming that the sun is infinitely far away.
The East/West sunrise/sunset direction is part of the same explanation for why the sun does not change size and is discussed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox#A_Flat_Earth_Equinox
There is no elevation in that app. You are making things up, as usual.No, I am assuming the standard 5000 km altitude and can use the distance to determine elevation.
The app accurately shows where the sun is over a Flat Earth Monopole model.But not where it is in reality.
Your further queries about exact positioning has more to do with a fallacious assumption that we can see infinitelyNo it doesn't, not in the slightest.
The app accurately shows where the sun is over a Flat Earth Monopole model.
Your further queries about exact positioning has more to do with a fallacious assumption that we can see infinitely and forever into the distance without any physical modification of sight, practically relying on your own imagination for how the world should be without any demonstration of that matter.
There is no elevation in that app. You are making things up, as usual.No, I am assuming the standard 5000 km altitude and can use the distance to determine elevation.
Sun
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/3/33/SarahSun2.gif/300px-SarahSun2.gif) The sun is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
Distance to the SunNoW, the calculation of the sun's height above assumes light travels in straight lines but in this post Tom claims it is "a fallacious assumption that we can see infinitely and forever into the distance without any physical modification of sight".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“ Eratosthenes' model depends on the assumption that the earth is a globe and that the sun is far away and therefore produces parallel rays of light all over the earth. If the sun is nearby, then shadows will change length even for a flat earth. A flat earth model is sketched below. The vertical stick casts shadows that grow longer as the stick moves to the left, away from the closest point to the sun. (The sun is at height h above the earth. ”
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/40/Flatrth.png)
“ A little trigonometry shows that ”
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f4/Flateqn.png)
“ Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles. This relatively close sun would have been quite plausible to the ancients.
Continuing the calculation, we find that a is approximately 2400 miles and the two distances R1 and R2 are approximately 3000 and 3900 miles, respectively. ”
There is no other way to get a distance for the sun. Just looking at it from a single point on earth will not tell you its distance, you must look at it from several points and account for the curvature or non-curvature of the distance between those points.
Your further queries about exact positioning has more to do with a fallacious assumption that we can see infinitely and forever into the distance without any physical modification of sight, practically relying on your own imagination for how the world should be without any demonstration of that matter.
There is no elevation in that app. You are making things up, as usual.Might I remind you that the topic is "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?"
The app accurately shows where the sun is over a Flat Earth Monopole model.
Your further queries about exact positioning has more to do with a fallacious assumption that we can see infinitely and forever into the distance without any physical modification of sight, practically relying on your own imagination for how the world should be without any demonstration of that matter.
There is no elevation in that app. You are making things up, as usual.
The app accurately shows where the sun is over a Flat Earth Monopole model.
Your further queries about exact positioning has more to do with a fallacious assumption that we can see infinitely and forever into the distance without any physical modification of sight, practically relying on your own imagination for how the world should be without any demonstration of that matter.
A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anything in the distance. If a building or boat is off in the distance, it will be masked and didn’t go over an imaginary curve. It was either blocked by the mirage or sailed into it and blended in. Boats’ going over a curve is just an illusion and a silly argument.
(https://i.imgur.com/rQsiXry.jpg)
A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anything in the distance. If a building or boat is off in the distance, it will be masked and didn’t go over an imaginary curve. It was either blocked by the mirage or sailed into it and blended in. Boats’ going over a curve is just an illusion and a silly argument.
A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anything in the distance. If a building or boat is off in the distance, it will be masked and didn’t go over an imaginary curve. It was either blocked by the mirage or sailed into it and blended in. Boats’ going over a curve is just an illusion and a silly argument.
(https://i.imgur.com/rQsiXry.jpg)
A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anything in the distance. If a building or boat is off in the distance, it will be masked and didn’t go over an imaginary curve. It was either blocked by the mirage or sailed into it and blended in. Boats’ going over a curve is just an illusion and a silly argument.
Why should I believe that this boat sailing over the horizon is being blocked by a mirage?
Since you're the one making the claim, you're the one who should support that claim.A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anything in the distance. If a building or boat is off in the distance, it will be masked and didn’t go over an imaginary curve. It was either blocked by the mirage or sailed into it and blended in. Boats’ going over a curve is just an illusion and a silly argument.
Why should I believe that this boat sailing over the horizon is being blocked by a mirage?
Would you like to take another close look and tell us? Or do we need to point out a couple things?
Thanks for posting.
Since you're the one making the claim, you're the one who should support that claim.A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anything in the distance. If a building or boat is off in the distance, it will be masked and didn’t go over an imaginary curve. It was either blocked by the mirage or sailed into it and blended in. Boats’ going over a curve is just an illusion and a silly argument.
Why should I believe that this boat sailing over the horizon is being blocked by a mirage?
Would you like to take another close look and tell us? Or do we need to point out a couple things?
Thanks for posting.
A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anything in the distance. If a building or boat is off in the distance, it will be masked and didn’t go over an imaginary curve. It was either blocked by the mirage or sailed into it and blended in. Boats’ going over a curve is just an illusion and a silly argument.
(https://i.imgur.com/rQsiXry.jpg)
A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anything in the distance. If a building or boat is off in the distance, it will be masked and didn’t go over an imaginary curve. It was either blocked by the mirage or sailed into it and blended in. Boats’ going over a curve is just an illusion and a silly argument.
(https://i.imgur.com/rQsiXry.jpg)
In a superior mirage light bends down, I repeat in case you missed it, light bends DOWN. The object is then seen above you because of the earths curvature.
In FE that is obviously not possible,
A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anything in the distance. If a building or boat is off in the distance, it will be masked and didn’t go over an imaginary curve. It was either blocked by the mirage or sailed into it and blended in. Boats’ going over a curve is just an illusion and a silly argument.
Why should I believe that this boat sailing over the horizon is being blocked by a mirage?
Would you like to take another close look and tell us? Or do we need to point out a couple things?
Thanks for posting.
Why is it not possible? It happens all the time on the Plane Earth.
You have yet to prove a curved surface projects a horizontal mirage.
Have enough others chimed in yet?Since you're the one making the claim, you're the one who should support that claim.A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anything in the distance. If a building or boat is off in the distance, it will be masked and didn’t go over an imaginary curve. It was either blocked by the mirage or sailed into it and blended in. Boats’ going over a curve is just an illusion and a silly argument.
Why should I believe that this boat sailing over the horizon is being blocked by a mirage?
Would you like to take another close look and tell us? Or do we need to point out a couple things?
Thanks for posting.
I will wait for others to chime in.
A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anythingSo go to these places and recreate it, but rather than just using a camera, use a theodolite so you can measure the angle of elevation.
In the RE superior mirage light bends down. That allows light to go over the curvature and reach the observer. Without curvature, light bending down would hit the ground or the surface of the sea, maybe the fish would see it, but not an observer sitting at same or higher altitude.It works in the same way. Light bends down. The key thing to remember is that the light from an object goes out in basically all directions except those blocked by the object.
So how does the superior mirage work in FE? Could you please describe how is light bending and what is causing it, a diagram would help.
Have enough others chimed in yet?Since you're the one making the claim, you're the one who should support that claim.A superior mirage can happen with any surface on this Plane Earth. It can happen with water or land. The surface will rise up and mask anything in the distance. If a building or boat is off in the distance, it will be masked and didn’t go over an imaginary curve. It was either blocked by the mirage or sailed into it and blended in. Boats’ going over a curve is just an illusion and a silly argument.
Why should I believe that this boat sailing over the horizon is being blocked by a mirage?
Would you like to take another close look and tell us? Or do we need to point out a couple things?
Thanks for posting.
I will wait for others to chime in.
The video you posted, the Boat sailed into a mirage and became masked. It was not behind the mirage untill you couldn't see it. The boat shrinks with perspective and the MAST remains tall through perspective then fades away above the water line.Why do you believe that the boat sailed into a mirage? What tell-tale signs of a mirage did you see? Where are the heat shimmers or other atmospheric distortions that are the dead giveaway of a mirage?
The thumbnail pic for the video shows these facts. Science and your blunder videos proves boats don't go over a curve they just disapate beyond view.Did you even watch any of the video beyond the thumbnail pic?
(https://i.imgur.com/u0ApEbo.jpg)
You are confused. A mirage can block landmass, shoreline with a docked boat. That was my main point. Anything behind the mirage is blocked.Yes, a mirage might sometimes mask something or sometimes reveal something as in your terribly "Rogers Center" video.
The video you posted, the Boat sailed into a mirage and became masked. It was not behind the mirage untill you couldn't see it. The
I looked around for additional Toronto skylines and found a few. They all had similar results. Giving FE the benefit of the doubt, these were all taken from an observer height of 6' or higher. As well, the CN tower sits 25 feet above lake level which is not depicted. The water in them all looks surprisingly un-miraged.Then there are these screenshots show no sign of any mirage "masking" anything:
So the question remains for FE, where's the shoreline and where's the bottom of the tower? On a flat plane we should see both, yet they are distinctively absent.
(https://i.imgur.com/C2edVmE.jpg?1)
Then there are other videos showing a clean horizon with no sign of excess refraction of mirages as in:There's not the slightest chance that you could convince anyone in the "RE Community" to "Accept Defeat"!The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce, Cottesloe Western Australia.Not only is the horizon clean and sharp but the island and lighthouse is shown from two known elevations allowing an easy comparison.The screenshots are from this video:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft(https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
Bathurst Lighthouse - The fastest flat Earth destroyer in the West.
You are confused. A mirage can block landmass, shoreline with a docked boat. That was my main point. Anything behind the mirage is blocked.Yes, a mirage might sometimes mask something or sometimes reveal something as in your terribly "Rogers Center" video.
The video you posted, the Boat sailed into a mirage and became masked. It was not behind the mirage untill you couldn't see it. The
But look at these photos from Stash. A couple might from Niagara on the Lake might show a trace but even those are negligee.I looked around for additional Toronto skylines and found a few. They all had similar results. Giving FE the benefit of the doubt, these were all taken from an observer height of 6' or higher. As well, the CN tower sits 25 feet above lake level which is not depicted. The water in them all looks surprisingly un-miraged.Then there are these screenshots show no sign of any mirage "masking" anything:
So the question remains for FE, where's the shoreline and where's the bottom of the tower? On a flat plane we should see both, yet they are distinctively absent.
(https://i.imgur.com/C2edVmE.jpg?1)Then there are other videos showing a clean horizon with no sign of excess refraction of mirages as in:There's not the slightest chance that you could convince anyone in the "RE Community" to "Accept Defeat"!The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce, Cottesloe Western Australia.Not only is the horizon clean and sharp but the island and lighthouse is shown from two known elevations allowing an easy comparison.The screenshots are from this video:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft(https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
Bathurst Lighthouse - The fastest flat Earth destroyer in the West.
But, Plat Terra, your excuses are getting more and more entertaining!
Those interested in whether an inferior mirage (one with an inverted image below the main image) can "mask" objects might read:
Claim: Distant Objects Being Obscured Is Due To the "Mirror Blocking" Effect of Inferior Mirages, Discussion started by Wiggles, Jul 22, 2019. (https://www.metabunk.org/claim-distant-objects-being-obscured-is-due-to-the-mirror-blocking-effect-of-inferior-mirages.t10835/).
The answer seems to be that Inferior Mirages do not hide anything and the true horizon is the "mirroring line".
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qm4wxv0ebm3lj71/Red%20Ship%20with%20Mirage.jpg?dl=1)
In that photo the speedboat is well this side of the horizon.
Maybe others have better information.
You are confused. A mirage can block landmass, shoreline with a docked boat. That was my main point. Anything behind the mirage is blocked.Yes, a mirage might sometimes mask something or sometimes reveal something as in your terribly "Rogers Center" video.
The video you posted, the Boat sailed into a mirage and became masked. It was not behind the mirage untill you couldn't see it. The
But look at these photos from Stash. A couple might from Niagara on the Lake might show a trace but even those are negligee.I looked around for additional Toronto skylines and found a few. They all had similar results. Giving FE the benefit of the doubt, these were all taken from an observer height of 6' or higher. As well, the CN tower sits 25 feet above lake level which is not depicted. The water in them all looks surprisingly un-miraged.Then there are these screenshots show no sign of any mirage "masking" anything:
So the question remains for FE, where's the shoreline and where's the bottom of the tower? On a flat plane we should see both, yet they are distinctively absent.
(https://i.imgur.com/C2edVmE.jpg?1)Then there are other videos showing a clean horizon with no sign of excess refraction of mirages as in:There's not the slightest chance that you could convince anyone in the "RE Community" to "Accept Defeat"!The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce, Cottesloe Western Australia.Not only is the horizon clean and sharp but the island and lighthouse is shown from two known elevations allowing an easy comparison.The screenshots are from this video:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft(https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
Bathurst Lighthouse - The fastest flat Earth destroyer in the West.
But, Plat Terra, your excuses are getting more and more entertaining!
There you go mudding the waters' again. My points pertains to another issue.
He is confused. A mirage can block landmass, shoreline with a docked boat. That was my main point. Anything behind the mirage is blocked.
The video he poseted posted, the Boat sailed into a mirage and became masked. It was not behind the mirage untill you couldn't see it.
The boat shrinks with perspective and the MAST remains tall through perspective then fades away above the water line.
The thumbnail pic for the video shows these facts. Science and your blunder videos proves boats don't go over a curve they just disapate beyond view.
See....
(https://i.imgur.com/u0ApEbo.jpg)
You use that worn out excuse that "A mirage can block landmass, shoreline with a docked boat" but can it?You are confused. A mirage can block landmass, shoreline with a docked boat. That was my main point. Anything behind the mirage is blocked.Yes, a mirage might sometimes mask something or sometimes reveal something as in your terribly "Rogers Center" video.
The video you posted, the Boat sailed into a mirage and became masked. It was not behind the mirage untill you couldn't see it. The
But look at these photos from Stash. A couple might from Niagara on the Lake might show a trace but even those are negligee.I looked around for additional Toronto skylines and found a few. They all had similar results. Giving FE the benefit of the doubt, these were all taken from an observer height of 6' or higher. As well, the CN tower sits 25 feet above lake level which is not depicted. The water in them all looks surprisingly un-miraged.Then there are these screenshots show no sign of any mirage "masking" anything:
So the question remains for FE, where's the shoreline and where's the bottom of the tower? On a flat plane we should see both, yet they are distinctively absent.
(https://i.imgur.com/C2edVmE.jpg?1)Then there are other videos showing a clean horizon with no sign of excess refraction of mirages as in:There's not the slightest chance that you could convince anyone in the "RE Community" to "Accept Defeat"!The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce, Cottesloe Western Australia.Not only is the horizon clean and sharp but the island and lighthouse is shown from two known elevations allowing an easy comparison.The screenshots are from this video:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft(https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
Bathurst Lighthouse - The fastest flat Earth destroyer in the West.
But, Plat Terra, your excuses are getting more and more entertaining!
There you go mudding the waters' again. My points pertains to another issue.
He is confused. A mirage can block landmass, shoreline with a docked boat. That was my main point. Anything behind the mirage is blocked.
Did you figure out why no one has noticed the distance between lines of longitude is much greater in the Southern Hemisphere than the North Hemisphere?
You run away fast.Did you figure out why no one has noticed the distance between lines of longitude is much greater in the Southern Hemisphere than the North Hemisphere?
Did you figure out why you have been defeated and why no argument you have will make land or sea rise up and conform to a 3959 mile radius?
You just have to be there at the same place at the right time to see there is no silly imaginary water curvature at the Bathurst Lighthouse. The opposition can’t tell the truth, so more are accepting defeat and learning the real world. Great work Flat Earthers!
Wolfie6020 Bathurst Lighthouse Curvature Proof DEBUNKED [Flat_Earth_Awakening, GLOBEBUSTERS]
(https://i.imgur.com/CWtG780.jpg)
The video he poseted posted, the Boat sailed into a mirage and became masked. It was not behind the mirage untill you couldn't see it.So I'll that that as a no, you didn't watch the video beyond the thumbnail.
The boat shrinks with perspective and the MAST remains tall through perspective then fades away above the water line.
The thumbnail pic for the video shows these facts. Science and your blunder videos proves boats don't go over a curve they just disapate beyond view.
See....
(https://i.imgur.com/u0ApEbo.jpg)
You just have to be there at the same place at the right time to see there is no silly imaginary water curvature at the Bathurst Lighthouse. The opposition can’t tell the truth, so more are accepting defeat and learning the real world. Great work Flat Earthers!
Wolfie6020 Bathurst Lighthouse Curvature Proof DEBUNKED [Flat_Earth_Awakening, GLOBEBUSTERS]
(https://i.imgur.com/CWtG780.jpg)
What's the elevation of the observer in your video? Wolfie did it at 100' and at 6'. Your video doesn't say. Kind of important, don't you think? Wolfie's:
(https://i.imgur.com/akq2sFp.jpg?1)
You just have to be there at the same place at the right time to see there is no silly imaginary water curvature at the Bathurst Lighthouse. The opposition can’t tell the truth, so more are accepting defeat and learning the real world. Great work Flat Earthers!
Wolfie6020 Bathurst Lighthouse Curvature Proof DEBUNKED [Flat_Earth_Awakening, GLOBEBUSTERS]
(https://i.imgur.com/CWtG780.jpg)
What's the elevation of the observer in your video? Wolfie did it at 100' and at 6'. Your video doesn't say. Kind of important, don't you think? Wolfie's:
(https://i.imgur.com/akq2sFp.jpg?1)
You like to muddy the waters' too. Go back and view the information in the video. It's there.
The video he poseted posted, the Boat sailed into a mirage and became masked. It was not behind the mirage untill you couldn't see it.So I'll that that as a no, you didn't watch the video beyond the thumbnail.
The boat shrinks with perspective and the MAST remains tall through perspective then fades away above the water line.
The thumbnail pic for the video shows these facts. Science and your blunder videos proves boats don't go over a curve they just disapate beyond view.
See....
(https://i.imgur.com/u0ApEbo.jpg)
The video he poseted posted, the Boat sailed into a mirage and became masked. It was not behind the mirage untill you couldn't see it.So I'll that that as a no, you didn't watch the video beyond the thumbnail.
The boat shrinks with perspective and the MAST remains tall through perspective then fades away above the water line.
The thumbnail pic for the video shows these facts. Science and your blunder videos proves boats don't go over a curve they just disapate beyond view.
See....
(https://i.imgur.com/u0ApEbo.jpg)
I watched it in detail. It proves your curve is a silly fairy tale. The mast fades away above the water line.
Have a nice evening!
You just have to be there at the same place at the right time to see there is no silly imaginary water curvature at the Bathurst Lighthouse. The opposition can’t tell the truth, so more are accepting defeat and learning the real world. Great work Flat Earthers!
Wolfie6020 Bathurst Lighthouse Curvature Proof DEBUNKED [Flat_Earth_Awakening, GLOBEBUSTERS]
(https://i.imgur.com/CWtG780.jpg)
What's the elevation of the observer in your video? Wolfie did it at 100' and at 6'. Your video doesn't say. Kind of important, don't you think? Wolfie's:
(https://i.imgur.com/akq2sFp.jpg?1)
You like to muddy the waters' too. Go back and view the information in the video. It's there.
I didn't see mention of the elevation of the observer in the video. Maybe you can enlighten me with what it is?
I don't care. Look again.
You just have to be there at the same place at the right time to see there is no silly imaginary water curvature at the Bathurst Lighthouse. The opposition can’t tell the truth, so more are accepting defeat and learning the real world. Great work Flat Earthers!
Wolfie6020 Bathurst Lighthouse Curvature Proof DEBUNKED [Flat_Earth_Awakening, GLOBEBUSTERS]
(https://i.imgur.com/CWtG780.jpg)
What's the elevation of the observer in your video? Wolfie did it at 100' and at 6'. Your video doesn't say. Kind of important, don't you think? Wolfie's:
(https://i.imgur.com/akq2sFp.jpg?1)
You like to muddy the waters' too. Go back and view the information in the video. It's there.
I didn't see mention of the elevation of the observer in the video. Maybe you can enlighten me with what it is?
I don't care. Look again.
Actually, I would think you do care. Because elevation of the observer is crucial to your entire working premise regarding your posted video. Why to think it wouldn't be would be a idiocy.
When confronted with a simple question in real life do you always respond with, "I don't care"?
Look again. It's there to see.You just have to be there at the same place at the right time to see there is no silly imaginary water curvature at the Bathurst Lighthouse. The opposition can’t tell the truth, so more are accepting defeat and learning the real world. Great work Flat Earthers!
Wolfie6020 Bathurst Lighthouse Curvature Proof DEBUNKED [Flat_Earth_Awakening, GLOBEBUSTERS]
(https://i.imgur.com/CWtG780.jpg)
What's the elevation of the observer in your video? Wolfie did it at 100' and at 6'. Your video doesn't say. Kind of important, don't you think? Wolfie's:
(https://i.imgur.com/akq2sFp.jpg?1)
You like to muddy the waters' too. Go back and view the information in the video. It's there.
I didn't see mention of the elevation of the observer in the video. Maybe you can enlighten me with what it is?
But where is the evidence for the mirage that is supposedly blocking the hull?The video he poseted posted, the Boat sailed into a mirage and became masked. It was not behind the mirage untill you couldn't see it.So I'll that that as a no, you didn't watch the video beyond the thumbnail.
The boat shrinks with perspective and the MAST remains tall through perspective then fades away above the water line.
The thumbnail pic for the video shows these facts. Science and your blunder videos proves boats don't go over a curve they just disapate beyond view.
See....
(https://i.imgur.com/u0ApEbo.jpg)
I watched it in detail. It proves your curve is a silly fairy tale. The mast fades away above the water line.
Have a nice evening!
You just have to be there at the same place at the right time to see there is no silly imaginary water curvature at the Bathurst Lighthouse. The opposition can’t tell the truth, so more are accepting defeat and learning the real world. Great work Flat Earthers!Who can't tell the truth, Mr Plat Terra? We'll look at just what you Flat Earth Awakening really says and see just who is telling the truth!
Wolfie6020 Bathurst Lighthouse Curvature Proof DEBUNKED [Flat_Earth_Awakening, GLOBEBUSTERS]Rubbish! The image you show is NOT "The entire Bathurst Lighthouse and Land" that is totally false! This is "The entire Bathurst Lighthouse and Land"!
(https://i.imgur.com/CWtG780.jpg)
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/6safaxokdbud401/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%27s%20Footage%20.%20.%20.%20Proved%20Curvature.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/2cbbknk3qwly1y2/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%202%20-%20Cherry%20Picked%20a%20Day.jpg?dl=1) |
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/zc8thpo9vkl6u2n/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%203%20-%20Causing%20a%20surface%20Mirroring.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/nviz3giddp5lt13/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%204%20-%20Lighthouse%20Appears%20Lower.jpg?dl=1) |
| Flat Earth Awakening's image: LOOK at the obvious mirroring. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pt2n0hpcgurra7g/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%205%20-%20Mirroring%20Inferior%20Mirage.jpg?dl=1) | Wolfie's image: No trace of any mirroring. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0k3a0otp403bgq/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%20.%20.%20.%20Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20at%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1) |
In the RE superior mirage light bends down. That allows light to go over the curvature and reach the observer. Without curvature, light bending down would hit the ground or the surface of the sea, maybe the fish would see it, but not an observer sitting at same or higher altitude.It works in the same way. Light bends down. The key thing to remember is that the light from an object goes out in basically all directions except those blocked by the object.
So how does the superior mirage work in FE? Could you please describe how is light bending and what is causing it, a diagram would help.
e.g., for a RE:
(https://i.imgur.com/UtECqAS.png)
The direct light path (blue) would go through Earth, but the refracted one (purple) would curve downwards.
Note that the curved light path is going out at a higher angle than the direct light path and appears at a higher angle, making the object look higher.
For a hypothetical and purely fictional FE:
(https://i.imgur.com/duRGQJ5.png)
Effectively the exact same thing.
The refracted light path goes out at a higher angle, it is refracted downwards and is observed at a higher angle.
I'll dig up some other photos of that cityscape from 30.84 miles away at 6 foot height, with different atmospheric conditions, and we'll see if more or less of the cityscape is hidden behind a wall of water than in your meme photos......
Blow hard enough and you might get walls of water like this:
I'll dig up some other photos of that cityscape from 30.84 miles away at 6 foot height, with different atmospheric conditions, and we'll see if more or less of the cityscape is hidden behind a wall of water than in your meme photos......
Can't wait for you to follow through with that.
How long do you think it will take you?
Just kidding. We all know you are just bloviating.
Blow hard enough and you might get walls of water like this . . .
Blow hard enough and? The Science of the Red Sea’s Parting. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-red-seas-parting-180953553/#mAstDVBK3vAUCpT3.99) Who knows?
Blow hard enough and you might get walls of water like this . . .
The bible is way more funny when someone hires people to pretend the story.
I especially enjoy the lack of mud.
You just have to be there at the same place at the right time to see there is no silly imaginary water curvature at the Bathurst Lighthouse. The opposition can’t tell the truth, so more are accepting defeat and learning the real world. Great work Flat Earthers!Who can't tell the truth, Mr Plat Terra? We'll look at just what you Flat Earth Awakening really says and see just who is telling the truth!Quote from: Plat TerraWolfie6020 Bathurst Lighthouse Curvature Proof DEBUNKED [Flat_Earth_Awakening, GLOBEBUSTERS]Rubbish! The image you show is NOT "The entire Bathurst Lighthouse and Land" that is totally false! This is "The entire Bathurst Lighthouse and Land"!
(https://i.imgur.com/CWtG780.jpg)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjftdg6dnuexl0o/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%20.%20.%20.%20Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20at%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Wolfie6020 Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft showing all of the lighthouse and land!
But let's start from the "very beginning" of that charade!
Flat Earth Awakening claims:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/6safaxokdbud401/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%27s%20Footage%20.%20.%20.%20Proved%20Curvature.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/2cbbknk3qwly1y2/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%202%20-%20Cherry%20Picked%20a%20Day.jpg?dl=1)
Certainly, refraction can affect the viewing distance and taking photos when there is warm air over cooler water is just the conditions to cause that.
Your Flat Earth Awakening's a smart cookie and knows the tricks of the trade and knows when to take his videos but it shows in images like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/CWtG780.jpg)
Look at the glistening on the water surface! It's a dead give-away - nevertheless, it still shows quite a bit of the island hidden - why?
You just have to be there at the same place at the right time to see there is no silly imaginary water curvature at the Bathurst Lighthouse. The opposition can’t tell the truth, so more are accepting defeat and learning the real world. Great work Flat Earthers!Who can't tell the truth, Mr Plat Terra? We'll look at just what you Flat Earth Awakening really says and see just who is telling the truth!Quote from: Plat TerraWolfie6020 Bathurst Lighthouse Curvature Proof DEBUNKED [Flat_Earth_Awakening, GLOBEBUSTERS]Rubbish! The image you show is NOT "The entire Bathurst Lighthouse and Land" that is totally false! This is "The entire Bathurst Lighthouse and Land"!
(https://i.imgur.com/CWtG780.jpg)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjftdg6dnuexl0o/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%20.%20.%20.%20Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20at%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Wolfie6020 Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft showing all of the lighthouse and land!
But let's start from the "very beginning" of that charade!
Flat Earth Awakening claims:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/6safaxokdbud401/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%27s%20Footage%20.%20.%20.%20Proved%20Curvature.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/2cbbknk3qwly1y2/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%202%20-%20Cherry%20Picked%20a%20Day.jpg?dl=1)
Certainly, refraction can affect the viewing distance and taking photos when there is warm air over cooler water is just the conditions to cause that.
Your Flat Earth Awakening's a smart cookie and knows the tricks of the trade and knows when to take his videos but it shows in images like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/CWtG780.jpg)
Look at the glistening on the water surface! It's a dead give-away - nevertheless, it still shows quite a bit of the island hidden - why?
We know you have to deny the facts openly. You're not going to accept defeat with a sinking ship. You be the captian. It's a good thing others believe in truth and honesty.
(https://i.imgur.com/EEqPC0B.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/QMI1NIE.jpg)
Did you create that embarrassing image, Stash?
You think that swells in the water needs to be 75 feet in height to cover 75 feet in the distance?
An erroneous argument. That is like claiming that only an object the size of an elephant can obscure an elephant in the distance, when a dime could easily do so.
Even children know that a small thing can obscure a large thing. Be smart like children.
Did you create that embarrassing image, Stash?
You think that swells in the water needs to be 75 feet in height to cover 75 feet in the distance?
An erroneous argument. That is like claiming that only an object the size of an elephant can obscure an elephant in the distance, when a dime could easily do so.
Even children know that a small thing can obscure a large thing. Be smart like children.
Did you create that embarrassing image, Stash?
You think that swells in the water needs to be 75 feet in height to cover 75 feet in the distance?
An erroneous argument. That is like claiming that only an object the size of an elephant can obscure an elephant in the distance, when a dime could easily do so.
Even children know that a small thing can obscure a large thing. Be smart like children.
Not from a distance, Thomas. Children know that small things, even the head of a matchstick, can obscure objects in the distance when in close proximity to the eyes, but not from a distance like those waves. Even plat tera knows this!! Embarassment plus! :-[
Did you create that embarrassing image, Stash?
You think that swells in the water needs to be 75 feet in height to cover 75 feet in the distance?
An erroneous argument. That is like claiming that only an object the size of an elephant can obscure an elephant in the distance, when a dime could easily do so.
Even children know that a small thing can obscure a large thing. Be smart like children.
Not from a distance, Thomas. Children know that small things, even the head of a matchstick, can obscure objects in the distance when in close proximity to the eyes, but not from a distance like those waves. Even plat tera knows this!! Embarassment plus! :-[
So a wave at any point between the lighthouse must be 75 feet in height to cover a further distant light house? Relative sizes only occurs with match sticks and dimes a few inches from your face?
That is a very interesting world view, as we are taught that relative sizes are linear with distance. A car one mile away is a different size than a car ten miles away.
Children know this, but apparently not some people on these forums. Deeply troubling that these same people also wish to instruct us on the truth of the world.
Like I asked and you have failed to answer, how high would the swells have to be to obscure 75' of the lighthouse at a 6' observer height?
Like I asked and you have failed to answer, how high would the swells have to be to obscure 75' of the lighthouse at a 6' observer height?
Seems to be irrelevant as we don't know how far those waves are and the distance to the lighthouse is not stated in the image.
The main take away is that you are mistaken that an object or wave would need to be 75 feet to cover 75 feet in the distance. A fairly embarrassing blunder.
Impertinent/don't care. Merely pointing out that things get smaller as they get further away, that 75 foot waves are not necessary, and the "that must be a huge wave to cover that building!!" arguments are in error at their premise.
Like I asked and you have failed to answer, how high would the swells have to be to obscure 75' of the lighthouse at a 6' observer height?
Seems to be irrelevant as we don't know how far those waves are and the distance to the lighthouse is not stated in the image.
The main take away is that you are mistaken that an object or wave would need to be 75 feet to cover 75 feet in the distance. A fairly embarrassing blunder from someone trying to instruct us on the truth of nature.
What's the Observer height in the above images? Wolfie is very clear, 100' & 6', in his:Here are more accurate figures for distances and heights:
(https://i.imgur.com/akq2sFp.jpg?1)
Eratosthenes and other astronomers then and now are all wrong about Earth’s alleged circumference. Observing the surface water between lighthouses and shore prove this Earth lacks the curvature as claimed. Knowing these facts, what is the new circumference of Earth and new size of the Heliocentric system for those who still want to hold to a sphere Earth? Please provide the detailed information for the new Heliocentric system with adjusted gravity calculations or accept defeat and embrace the real Earth.Those figures are without any refraction. and the images provided DO show more hidden as the observer height decreases. So what is supposed to be the problem besides you still don't understand the subject?
The following video is about the lighthouse across the Oslo fjord (Norway). At a distance of 17.3 km, there is no hump of curvature, no imaginary curve and no illusion to embrace.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ehg1v7f.jpg)
Impertinent/don't care. Merely pointing out that things get smaller as they get further away, that 75 foot waves are not necessary, and the "that must be a huge wave to cover that building!!" arguments are in error at their premise.Tom, you do understand that given an observer with an eye elevation of 6ft, a wave will have to be at least 6ft or higher if it is to block more than 6ft of the land the lighthouse is on right?
Eratosthenes and other astronomers then and now are all wrong about Earth’s alleged circumference.Sorry, Mr Plat Terra, numerous meaningless memes and a few fuzzy photos taken in a situation likely cause extra refraction isn't going to convince anyone.
Observing the surface water between lighthouses and shore prove this Earth lacks the curvature as claimed.
Knowing these facts,You have no "facts" just a few poor quality photos!
what is the new circumference of Earth and new size of the Heliocentric system for those who still want to hold to a sphere Earth?Nobody's going to change a thing!
Please provide the detailed information for the new Heliocentric system with adjusted gravity calculations or accept defeat and embrace the real Earth.The "Heliocentric system" has nothing to do with the diameter of the Globe and why would any "gravity calculations"?
The following video is about the lighthouse across the Oslo fjord (Norway). At a distance of 17.3 km, there is no hump of curvature, no imaginary curve and no illusion to embrace.As explained before, your video proves nothing!
(https://i.imgur.com/Ehg1v7f.jpg)But on the lighthouse videos and photos you saw how changing height shows how the surface must be curved, these:
The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce, Cottesloe Western Australia.And here is another:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft(https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/8b1viue7ggdxqi2/Ships%20and%20Catalina%20Island%20from%20Low%20Level.jpg?dl=1) Ships and Catalina Island from Low Level | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/3t00x7y7ucxakc3/Ships%20and%20Catalina%20Island%20from%20High%20Level.jpg?dl=1) Ships and Catalina Island from High Level |
Did you create that embarrassing image, Stash?
You think that swells in the water needs to be 75 feet in height to cover 75 feet in the distance?
An erroneous argument. That is like claiming that only an object the size of an elephant can obscure an elephant in the distance, when a dime could easily do so.
Even children know that a small thing can obscure a large thing. Be smart like children.
Eratosthenes and other astronomers then and now are all wrong about Earth’s alleged circumference.Sorry, Mr Plat Terra, numerous meaningless memes and a few fuzzy photos taken in a situation likely cause extra refraction isn't going to convince anyone.
Observing the surface water between lighthouses and shore prove this Earth lacks the curvature as claimed.
Eratosthenes and all the astronomers, surveyors and physicists have nothing to fear!Quote from: Plat TerraKnowing these facts,You have no "facts" just a few poor quality photos!Quote from: Plat Terrawhat is the new circumference of Earth and new size of the Heliocentric system for those who still want to hold to a sphere Earth?Nobody's going to change a thing!Quote from: Plat TerraPlease provide the detailed information for the new Heliocentric system with adjusted gravity calculations or accept defeat and embrace the real Earth.The "Heliocentric system" has nothing to do with the diameter of the Globe and why would any "gravity calculations"?
The Zall the astronomers, surveyors and physicists already "embrace the real Earth"Quote from: Plat TerraThe following video is about the lighthouse across the Oslo fjord (Norway). At a distance of 17.3 km, there is no hump of curvature, no imaginary curve and no illusion to embrace.As explained before, your video proves nothing!Quote from: Plat Terra(https://i.imgur.com/Ehg1v7f.jpg)But on the lighthouse videos and photos you saw how changing height shows how the surface must be curved, these:The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce, Cottesloe Western Australia.And here is another:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft(https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
Curvature Captured By Drone - Flat Earth Falsities by VoysovReason
Ships and Catalina Island from Low Level
Ships and Catalina Island from High Level
Bye, bye!
I'll dig up some other photos of that cityscape from 30.84 miles away at 6 foot height, with different atmospheric conditions, and we'll see if more or less of the cityscape is hidden behind a wall of water than in your meme photos......
Can't wait for you to follow through with that.
How long do you think it will take you?
Just kidding. We all know you are just bloviating.
If you actually lived on a sphere earth, you could do much better than that, but what ever makes you feel the curvies.I don't "feel the curvies"! I just line in the real world and not some imaginary flatland like you do.
Science is tough for you isn’t it?You guys are juggling two separate phenomena. You are claiming that the earth is curved AND that there is a separate phenomena which makes the Earth seem either more or less curved than it actually is. Two separate hypothesis' necessary to create your world, and so you must separate and demonstrate the phenomena individually. Too many variables, no direct evidence of curvature = Aristotile's sinking ship proof is in the gutter.
You guys are juggling two separate phenomena. You are claiming that the earth is curved AND that there is a separate phenomena which makes the Earth seem either more or less curved than it actually is. Two separate hypothesis' necessary to create your wold, and so you must separate and demonstrate the phenomena individually. Too many variables, no direct evidence of curvature = Aristotile's sinking ship proof is in the gutter.No, not 2 separate hypotheses. Two conclusions based upon all the available evidence.
You guys are juggling two separate phenomena. You are claiming that the earth is curved AND that there is a separate phenomena which makes the Earth seem either more or less curved than it actually is. Two separate hypothesis' necessary to create your wold, and so you must separate and demonstrate the phenomena individually. Too many variables, no direct evidence of curvature = Aristotile's sinking ship proof is in the gutter.
Whatever you think is a hypothesis is equally so in RET.No it isn't, as you need multiple separate hypotheses to explain what RE can explain easily with much fewer.
There are not even real models of the sun based on a RET.Define "real model."
The inability to clearly demonstrate the globe is a proof of against it.No it isn't.
I love it when you guys constantly switch topics. It means "I lost, but let's try this instead..."
Whatever you think is a hypothesis is equally so I'm RET. Who proved that light ray's travel in perfectly straight lines through the universe, in contradiction to all other trajectories we experience? Who proved that light maintains a perfectly straight line over 100 miles without a degree of curvature? Answer: No one. Where have we seen that in nature? Answer: Nowhere.
No basis, except your own assumption for how things should be. Demanding that we live in your fantasy land on what should and should not happen without evidence of that matter is irreconcilable. Demanding evidence for what you falsely thing as fact is absurd.
There are not even real models of the sun based on a RET. A continual failure to show that the models are based on geometric positions directly related to the system without help from perturbations and patterns.
I love it when you guys constantly switch topics. It means "I lost, but lets try this instead..."
I love it when you guys constantly switch topics. It means "I lost, but lets try this instead..."The topic happens to be "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" All of this is "on topic".
I love it when you guys constantly switch topics. It means "I lost, but lets try this instead..."
It means "I lost, but lets try this nonsense instead..."
What is the forecast for Earth's alleged curvature tomorrow?
How much of the Bathurst Lighthouse will be seen tomorrow at noon by the rise and fall of Earth's curvature? 100%, 75%, 50% or 15%?
I bet 50% because of refraction.
What’s yours?
(https://i.imgur.com/FvnaVC1.jpg)
What is the forecast for Earth's alleged curvature tomorrow?
How much of the Bathurst Lighthouse will be seen tomorrow at noon by the rise and fall of Earth's curvature? 100%, 75%, 50% or 15%?
I bet 50% because of refraction.
What’s yours?
After reading through this topic I observed one common strategy of flat earthers: showing observations that should be easy to explain, but turn out to be more complex and make even smart people seem "dumb".
Like the refractions of light above curvature, that are hard to explain and forecast by most people and are influenced by so many factors (humidity of the air, ground (water, earth) etc.). You expect people to tell you exactly, what is going on, when you have no idea yourself (and by that, you think you won).
There are so many simple observations that proof a globe without any doubt and are reconstructed by tons of people.
The simplest example: measuring the shadow of a perfectly vertical stick on two different locations at the same time. There is literally NO OTHER EXPLANATION than a round globe and I can't believe you just don't do this yourself and stop this nonsense.
Get a FE friend from another city, at least a hundred miles away (east or west of course), measure the length at the same time and share your results.
Get more friends, compare your results and it will be even more obvious.. it's so damn easy..
I don't get it.. there are lots of videos of people doing this, there even was an experiment, where people from all around the globe participated and the results were so clear..
FloPlus a german youtuber Shows it perfectly
Edit: And for god's sake you can watch a sunset and still see the sun shining on tall buildings or mountains.. or watch a sunset twice, if you take an Elevator at the Burj Kalifa for example..
What is the forecast for Earth's alleged curvature tomorrow?
How much of the Bathurst Lighthouse will be seen tomorrow at noon by the rise and fall of Earth's curvature? 100%, 75%, 50% or 15%?
I bet 50% because of refraction.
What’s yours?
I'll check the weather satellite feed and let you know.
What is the forecast for Earth's alleged curvature tomorrow?
How much of the Bathurst Lighthouse will be seen tomorrow at noon by the rise and fall of Earth's curvature? 100%, 75%, 50% or 15%?
I bet 50% because of refraction.
What’s yours?
I'll check the weather satellite feed and let you know.
I'll be waiting.....
(https://i.imgur.com/yHuiMQy.jpg)
I still haven't seen you explain any sunset adequately let alone two sunsets on the one evening.Edit: And for god's sake you can watch a sunset and still see the sun shining on tall buildings or mountains.. or watch a sunset twice, if you take an Elevator at the Burj Kalifa for example..
Oh, you'er one of them who thinks the experiment actually proves Earth a sphere.
Who says this technology is only for Venus? NASA has a way of keeping things secret for many years. Hell, NASA has been using Balloon Satellites for since the 60s and we are to believe they are circling a Globe, but are actually circling above. But I know you believe otherwise and I don't care! You have had this argument with others here. Save your breath because it's not going to add any needed curvature to this Plane Earth.What is the forecast for Earth's alleged curvature tomorrow?
How much of the Bathurst Lighthouse will be seen tomorrow at noon by the rise and fall of Earth's curvature? 100%, 75%, 50% or 15%?
I bet 50% because of refraction.
What’s yours?
I'll check the weather satellite feed and let you know.
I'll be waiting.....
(https://i.imgur.com/yHuiMQy.jpg)
What do proposed Venusian cloud city airships have to do with weather satellites? ???
https://www.space.com/29140-venus-airship-cloud-cities-incredible-technology.html
I still haven't seen you explain any sunset adequately let alone two sunsets on the one evening.Edit: And for god's sake you can watch a sunset and still see the sun shining on tall buildings or mountains.. or watch a sunset twice, if you take an Elevator at the Burj Kalifa for example..
Oh, you'er one of them who thinks the experiment actually proves Earth a sphere.
If you were the shrunk to the size of an ant the Globe would still be about 10 miles in diameter!
Would that ant see much curvature?
Bye bye little ant.
We've shown plenty of that but you brush it aside.
But your welcome to verify the alleged curvature of any landmass or canal and see if it conforms to a sphere. Oh, you can't do that right?
No, you haven't. Nothing you have posted has anything to do with an answer that applies to what I asked. You avoid the context and post things that does not pertain to what is asked. It is you who brush it aside with a none direct answer. We know why and so do you.We've shown plenty of that but you brush it aside.
But your welcome to verify the alleged curvature of any landmass or canal and see if it conforms to a sphere. Oh, you can't do that right?
Who says this technology is only for Venus? NASA has a way of keeping things secret for many years. Hell, NASA has been using Balloon Satellites for since the 60s and we are to believe they are circling a Globe, but are actually circling above. But I know you believe otherwise and I don't care! You have had this argument with others here. Save your breath because it's not going to add any needed curvature to this Plane Earth.What is the forecast for Earth's alleged curvature tomorrow?
How much of the Bathurst Lighthouse will be seen tomorrow at noon by the rise and fall of Earth's curvature? 100%, 75%, 50% or 15%?
I bet 50% because of refraction.
What’s yours?
I'll check the weather satellite feed and let you know.
I'll be waiting.....
(https://i.imgur.com/yHuiMQy.jpg)
What do proposed Venusian cloud city airships have to do with weather satellites? ???
https://www.space.com/29140-venus-airship-cloud-cities-incredible-technology.html
But your welcome to verify the alleged curvature of any landmass or canal and see if it conforms to a sphere. Oh, you can't do that right?
Who says this technology is only for Venus? NASA has a way of keeping things secret for many years. Hell, NASA has been using Balloon Satellites for since the 60s and we are to believe they are circling a Globe, but are actually circling above. But I know you believe otherwise and I don't care! You have had this argument with others here. Save your breath because it's not going to add any needed curvature to this Plane Earth.What is the forecast for Earth's alleged curvature tomorrow?
How much of the Bathurst Lighthouse will be seen tomorrow at noon by the rise and fall of Earth's curvature? 100%, 75%, 50% or 15%?
I bet 50% because of refraction.
What’s yours?
I'll check the weather satellite feed and let you know.
I'll be waiting.....
(https://i.imgur.com/yHuiMQy.jpg)
What do proposed Venusian cloud city airships have to do with weather satellites? ???
https://www.space.com/29140-venus-airship-cloud-cities-incredible-technology.html
But your welcome to verify the alleged curvature of any landmass or canal and see if it conforms to a sphere. Oh, you can't do that right?
If it is such a well kept secret how do you know about it.
At around 2:50 he uses a video with a lens flair as evidence the sun is changing size.I still haven't seen you explain any sunset adequately let alone two sunsets on the one evening.Edit: And for god's sake you can watch a sunset and still see the sun shining on tall buildings or mountains.. or watch a sunset twice, if you take an Elevator at the Burj Kalifa for example..
Oh, you'er one of them who thinks the experiment actually proves Earth a sphere.
If you were the shrunk to the size of an ant the Globe would still be about 10 miles in diameter!
Would that ant see much curvature?
Bye bye little ant.
How about you learn what we belive about Sunsets and why instead of telling us how you think.
How the sun and moon work over the Flat Earth model
You guys are juggling two separate phenomena. You are claiming that the earth is curved AND that there is a separate phenomena which makes the Earth seem either more or less curved than it actually is. Two separate hypothesis' necessary to create your world, and so you must separate and demonstrate the phenomena individually. Too many variables, no direct evidence of curvature = Aristotile's sinking ship proof is in the gutter.
The "Sphere Earth" needs no added curvature! It has the right amount now, thank you!No, you haven't. Nothing you have posted has anything to do with an answer that applies to what I asked. You avoid the context and post things that does not pertain to what is asked. It is you who brush it aside with a none direct answer. We know why and so do you.We've shown plenty of that but you brush it aside.
But your welcome to verify the alleged curvature of any landmass or canal and see if it conforms to a sphere. Oh, you can't do that right?
BTW, my answer to you will not add the curvature you need for a Sphere Earth.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- If the earth were flat I can't see how the sun (and moon, planets and stars) could appear to be hidden "behind something" and slowly rise up top first as in this video (click anywhere, it links to a video):
Video of Sunrise over Black Sea HD by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s)
An then the sun set near the west with the bottom disappearing first:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1)
LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm- Then, if the earth were flat, from any altitude, the horizon should "rise to eye-level" meaning it should remain horizon with the viewer.
This is stressed by many flat earth sites, including the Wiki here:Quote from: The Flat Society WikiBasic Perspective
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?
But in practice the horizon seems to rise nearly to eye-level (due to perspective) it never quite gets there.
There is a whole thread on the Metabunk site devoted to this, How to Show the Horizon is Below Eye Level, Using Actual Eyes (https://www.metabunk.org/how-to-show-the-horizon-is-below-eye-level-using-actual-eyes.t8845/).
This "dip angle to the horizon", as it is called is very small low altitudes, being only about 0.04° (quite unnoticable) at 2 metres.
But at 100 m it becomes 0.3°, enough to easily detect with a level, at 1000 m about 1.0° and finally at 10,000 m about 3°.
There are many YouTube videos both showing it measured or simple demonstrated. Here is one from near here using "mountains":
Andrew Eddie found that, from Flaxton Gardens, Queensland (418 m above sea-level), Mount Coolum (208 m above sea-level) lines up with the horizon.
This makes it certain that the horizon is below the local horizontal.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/mnck8pnrphfqegf/Andrew%20Eddie%20from%20Flaxton%20Gardens.jpg?dl=1)
Flat Earth? Mountains rising to meet eye-level? Andrew Eddie (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=0jO6TUfiH8w&feature=youtu.be)
The opening screen does show only 0.523° but that is over a flat surface and at 2:55 the video has a more accurate calculation showing that from an altitude of 418 m the horizon is about 0.626° below eye-level.
That's not all that much less than the horizon Dip of 0.66° given by Metabunk''s Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/).
Here's one by a member of the TFES.org, Bobby Shafto:
Does the Horizon Always Stay at “Eye Level” by Bobby Shafto
And here's another by Critical Think from Brisbane, Australia as if anyone couldn't guess ;D:
Globling teaches Antonio Subirats a better lesson in horizon drop by Critical Think
Then back in about 1000 AD this "dip angle to the horizon" was used to estimate the radius of the earth.QuoteAbu Rayhan Biruni (973–1048) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth):So the horizon does not rise to eye-level as it must if the earth were flat.
Al Biruni used a new method to accurately compute the Earth's circumference, by which he arrived at a value that was close to modern values for the Earth's circumference. His estimate of 6,339.9 km for the Earth radius was only 16.8 km less than the modern value of 6,356.7 km. In contrast to his predecessors, who measured the Earth's circumference by sighting the Sun simultaneously from two different locations, Biruni developed a new method of using trigonometric calculations based on the angle between a plain and mountain top.
This yielded more accurate measurements of the Earth's circumference and made it possible for a single person to measure it from a single location. Biruni's method was intended to avoid "walking across hot, dusty deserts," and the idea came to him when he was on top of a tall mountain in India. From the top of the mountain, he sighted the angle to the horizon which, along with the mountain's height (which he calculated beforehand), allowed him to calculate the curvature of the Earth. He also made use of algebra to formulate trigonometric equations and used the astrolabe to measure angles.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Abu_Reyhan_Biruni-Earth_Circumference.svg/666px-Abu_Reyhan_Biruni-Earth_Circumference.svg.png)
Biruni's method for calculation of Earth's radius
And there are plenty more.- Then, of course there are all the cases of ships, etc, being hidden by the curve but they can wait.
But your welcome to verify the alleged curvature of any landmass or canal and see if it conforms to a sphere. Oh, you can't do that right?
I am sure people driving there cars from Miami to Boston have verified the claimed mileage many times. But have you verified the claimed surface curvature of Florida? No one has.
I'm asking you what the distance is, as the crow flies.
I haven't personally verified the curvature of various parts of Florida, but these people have:
From the Florida Administrative Code & Administrative Register:
https://www.flrules.org
CHAPTER 5J-17
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
5J-17.050 Minimum Technical Standards: Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(3) Geodetic: a survey or mapping process that takes into account the curvature of the earth and astronomic observations, and which results in positions expressed on a recognized datum.
(4) Map of Survey (or Survey Map): a graphical or digital depiction of the facts of size, shape, identity, geodetic location, or legal location determined by a survey. The term “Map of Survey” (Survey Map) includes the terms: Sketch of Survey, Plat of Survey, or other similar titles. “Map of Survey” or “Survey Map” may also be referred to as “a map” or “the map.”
(10) Survey: the orderly process of determining facts of size, shape, identity, geodetic location, or legal location by viewing and applying direct measurement of features on or near the earth’s surface using field or image methods; defined as follows according to the type of data obtained, the methods used, and the purpose(s) to be served
5J-17.052 Minimum Technical Standards: Specific Survey, Map, and Report Requirements.
(4) Control Survey:
(a) Geodetic Control Surveys: When applicable, all geodetic control surveys, both vertical and horizontal, shall conform to the Standards and Specifications for Geodetic Control Networks (1984) as set forth by the Federal Geodetic Control Committee (FGCC), which Standards and Specifications are incorporated herein by reference, effective 5-13-96, and the Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards Parts 1, 2, and 3, FGDC-STD-007.1-1998, entitled “Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards Part 2: Standards for Geodetic Networks”, and FGDC-STD-007.3-1998, entitled “Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards Part 3: National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy”, which are hereby incorporated by reference, effective 5-18-00, copies of which may be obtained via the internet web site (http://fgdc.gov/standards_publications/). No use of the terminology of these standards may be made without completely adopting and following all the standards in their entirety. When these standards are not employed, then a survey, map, or report shall explain applicable standards used in the geodetic control survey. All geodetic control survey maps or reports shall show the horizontal and vertical datum used and shall contain adequate graphical or written descriptions of the locations, construction and marking of all marks used or set and shall explain methods employed in the survey and adjustment.
How about you learn what we belive about Sunsets and why instead of telling us how you think.How about you try and address the issue rather than repeated avoid it?
How the sun and moon work over the Flat Earth model
The original source of that image.Who says this technology is only for Venus?What is the forecast for Earth's alleged curvature tomorrow?
How much of the Bathurst Lighthouse will be seen tomorrow at noon by the rise and fall of Earth's curvature? 100%, 75%, 50% or 15%?
I bet 50% because of refraction.
What’s yours?
I'll check the weather satellite feed and let you know.
I'll be waiting.....
(https://i.imgur.com/yHuiMQy.jpg)
What do proposed Venusian cloud city airships have to do with weather satellites? ???
https://www.space.com/29140-venus-airship-cloud-cities-incredible-technology.html
NASA has a way of keeping things secret for many years. Hell, NASA has been using Balloon Satellites for since the 60s and we are to believe they are circling a Globe, but are actually circling above.Yes, NASA did use some balloon satellites in the '60s. What evidence do you have that they are still using satellite balloons today?
But I know you believe otherwise and I don't care! You have had this argument with others here. Save your breath because it's not going to add any needed curvature to this Plane Earth.I believe that NASA is not the only agency that has satellites in orbit. I also believe that the current commercial satellite service is a many billion dollar a year industry. That's an awful lot of money being invested in a technology that FE'ers claim can't work.
But your welcome to verify the alleged curvature of any landmass or canal and see if it conforms to a sphere.And you're welcome learn about a branch of earth science dedicated to measuring the size and shape of the earth called geodesy.
Oh, you can't do that right?I can't because I don't have the equipment of the background knowledge. But these people do:
No, you haven't. Nothing you have posted has anything to do with an answer that applies to what I asked. You avoid the context and post things that does not pertain to what is asked. It is you who brush it aside with a none direct answer. We know why and so do you.Speaking of avoiding questions and answers... Can you answer these two questions yet?
No, why would we?
No, why would we?
You're not the Community and many have accepting defeat. Tha't why FE groups are forming all over the Plane Earth.
No, why would we?
You're not the Community and many have accepting defeat. Tha't why FE groups are forming all over the Plane Earth.
There is always more to add to the defeat and destruction of the Globe Earth theory. Always!
Do I think the ISS is fake and that Scott Kelly (in this video) is faking weightlessness inside the ISS? Well, sure I do. Hell yeah he is! Anyone with common sense can see it.
The following video proves this fact. The man is bobbing up and down and left to right, always coming back to center like a weight hanging on a fishing bobbin, without pushing off anything to maintain center. The guy is nervous as hell because he knows he has some deceiving to do. He’s another puppet for the ISS. They all are puppets.
Let’s all have a laugh at them in the second video.
NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly Reflects on His Year in Space
Flat Earth Man is back! - 'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé - FUNNY :)
There is always more to add to the defeat and destruction of the Globe Earth theory. Always!
Do I think the ISS is fake and that Scott Kelly (in this video) is faking weightlessness inside the ISS? Well, sure I do. Hell yeah he is! Anyone with common sense can see it.
The following video proves this fact. The man is bobbing up and down and left to right, always coming back to center like a weight hanging on a fishing bobbin, without pushing off anything to maintain center. The guy is nervous as hell because he knows he has some deceiving to do. He’s another puppet for the ISS. They all are puppets.
Let’s all have a laugh at them in the second video.
NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly Reflects on His Year in Space
Flat Earth Man is back! - 'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé - FUNNY :)
I'm not seeing at all what you claim.
There is always more to add to the defeat and destruction of the Globe Earth theory. Always!
Do I think the ISS is fake and that Scott Kelly (in this video) is faking weightlessness inside the ISS? Well, sure I do. Hell yeah he is! Anyone with common sense can see it.
The following video proves this fact. The man is bobbing up and down and left to right, always coming back to center like a weight hanging on a fishing bobbin, without pushing off anything to maintain center. The guy is nervous as hell because he knows he has some deceiving to do. He’s another puppet for the ISS. They all are puppets.
Let’s all have a laugh at them in the second video.
NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly Reflects on His Year in Space
Flat Earth Man is back! - 'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé - FUNNY :)
I'm not seeing at all what you claim.
Why would you admit I am right on such an important issue? Your the opposition.
There is always more to add to the defeat and destruction of the Globe Earth theory. Always!
Do I think the ISS is fake and that Scott Kelly (in this video) is faking weightlessness inside the ISS? Well, sure I do. Hell yeah he is! Anyone with common sense can see it.
The following video proves this fact. The man is bobbing up and down and left to right, always coming back to center like a weight hanging on a fishing bobbin, without pushing off anything to maintain center. The guy is nervous as hell because he knows he has some deceiving to do. He’s another puppet for the ISS. They all are puppets.
Let’s all have a laugh at them in the second video.
NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly Reflects on His Year in Space
Flat Earth Man is back! - 'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé - FUNNY :)
I'm not seeing at all what you claim.
Why would you admit I am right on such an important issue? Your the opposition.
I'll be more specific. I don't see anywhere that Scott Kelly is faking weightlessness inside the ISS.
Again, how'd the phone call go with the Florida Bureau of Surveyors?
There is always more to add to the defeat and destruction of the Globe Earth theory. Always!
Do I think the ISS is fake and that Scott Kelly (in this video) is faking weightlessness inside the ISS? Well, sure I do. Hell yeah he is! Anyone with common sense can see it.
The following video proves this fact. The man is bobbing up and down and left to right, always coming back to center like a weight hanging on a fishing bobbin, without pushing off anything to maintain center. The guy is nervous as hell because he knows he has some deceiving to do. He’s another puppet for the ISS. They all are puppets.
Let’s all have a laugh at them in the second video.
NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly Reflects on His Year in Space
Flat Earth Man is back! - 'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé - FUNNY :)
I'm not seeing at all what you claim.
Why would you admit I am right on such an important issue? Your the opposition.
I'll be more specific. I don't see anywhere that Scott Kelly is faking weightlessness inside the ISS.
Again, how'd the phone call go with the Florida Bureau of Surveyors?
I'll be more specific. Of course you don't. Why would you admit I am right on such an important issue? Your the opposition and can't prove curvature as asked and pass (run) the buck to Bureau of Surveyors. They can't answer as asked either.
If you could prove curvature as asked, you would have done so by now and I wouldn't be here.
Who says this technology is only for Venus? NASA has a way of keeping things secret for many years. Hell, NASA has been using Balloon Satellites for since the 60s and we are to believe they are circling a Globe, but are actually circling above. But I know you believe otherwise and I don't care! You have had this argument with others here. Save your breath because it's not going to add any needed curvature to this Plane Earth.What is the forecast for Earth's alleged curvature tomorrow?
How much of the Bathurst Lighthouse will be seen tomorrow at noon by the rise and fall of Earth's curvature? 100%, 75%, 50% or 15%?
I bet 50% because of refraction.
What’s yours?
I'll check the weather satellite feed and let you know.
I'll be waiting.....
(https://i.imgur.com/yHuiMQy.jpg)
What do proposed Venusian cloud city airships have to do with weather satellites? ???
https://www.space.com/29140-venus-airship-cloud-cities-incredible-technology.html
But your welcome to verify the alleged curvature of any landmass or canal and see if it conforms to a sphere. Oh, you can't do that right?
If it is such a well kept secret how do you know about it.
You should think about another avatar.
There is always more to add to the defeat and destruction of the Globe Earth theory. Always!
Do I think the ISS is fake and that Scott Kelly (in this video) is faking weightlessness inside the ISS? Well, sure I do. Hell yeah he is! Anyone with common sense can see it.
The following video proves this fact. The man is bobbing up and down and left to right, always coming back to center like a weight hanging on a fishing bobbin, without pushing off anything to maintain center. The guy is nervous as hell because he knows he has some deceiving to do. He’s another puppet for the ISS. They all are puppets.
Let’s all have a laugh at them in the second video.
NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly Reflects on His Year in Space
Flat Earth Man is back! - 'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé - FUNNY :)
If you could prove curvature as asked, you would have done so by now and I wouldn't be here.We had given quite sufficient evidence for curvature!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/igmdb1pr4nor5az/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20%20risen.jpg?dl=1) Video of Sunrise over Black Sea HD by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s) |
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1) LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1) LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm |
Basic Perspective
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?
Abu Rayhan Biruni (973–1048) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth):So the horizon does not rise to eye-level as it must if the earth were flat.
Al Biruni used a new method to accurately compute the Earth's circumference, by which he arrived at a value that was close to modern values for the Earth's circumference. His estimate of 6,339.9 km for the Earth radius was only 16.8 km less than the modern value of 6,356.7 km. In contrast to his predecessors, who measured the Earth's circumference by sighting the Sun simultaneously from two different locations, Biruni developed a new method of using trigonometric calculations based on the angle between a plain and mountain top.
This yielded more accurate measurements of the Earth's circumference and made it possible for a single person to measure it from a single location. Biruni's method was intended to avoid "walking across hot, dusty deserts," and the idea came to him when he was on top of a tall mountain in India. From the top of the mountain, he sighted the angle to the horizon which, along with the mountain's height (which he calculated beforehand), allowed him to calculate the curvature of the Earth. He also made use of algebra to formulate trigonometric equations and used the astrolabe to measure angles.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Abu_Reyhan_Biruni-Earth_Circumference.svg/666px-Abu_Reyhan_Biruni-Earth_Circumference.svg.png)
Biruni's method for calculation of Earth's radius
There is always more to add to the defeat and destruction of the Globe Earth theory. Always!
Do I think the ISS is fake and that Scott Kelly (in this video) is faking weightlessness inside the ISS? Well, sure I do. Hell yeah he is! Anyone with common sense can see it.
The following video proves this fact. The man is bobbing up and down and left to right, always coming back to center like a weight hanging on a fishing bobbin, without pushing off anything to maintain center. The guy is nervous as hell because he knows he has some deceiving to do. He’s another puppet for the ISS. They all are puppets.
Let’s all have a laugh at them in the second video.
NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly Reflects on His Year in Space
Flat Earth Man is back! - 'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé - FUNNY :)
There is always more to add to the defeat and destruction of the Globe Earth theory. Always!
Do I think the ISS is fake and that Scott Kelly (in this video) is faking weightlessness inside the ISS? Well, sure I do. Hell yeah he is! Anyone with common sense can see it.
The following video proves this fact. The man is bobbing up and down and left to right, always coming back to center like a weight hanging on a fishing bobbin, without pushing off anything to maintain center. The guy is nervous as hell because he knows he has some deceiving to do. He’s another puppet for the ISS. They all are puppets.
Let’s all have a laugh at them in the second video.
NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly Reflects on His Year in Space
Flat Earth Man is back! - 'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé - FUNNY :)
I'm not seeing at all what you claim.
Why would you admit I am right on such an important issue? Your the opposition.
I'll be more specific. I don't see anywhere that Scott Kelly is faking weightlessness inside the ISS.
Again, how'd the phone call go with the Florida Bureau of Surveyors?
I'll be more specific. Of course you do. Why would you admit you do on such an important issue? Your the opposition and can't prove curvature as asked and pass (run) the buck to Bureau of Surveyors. They can't answer as asked either.
If you could prove curvature as asked, you would have done so by now and I wouldn't be here.
Flat Earth Man is back! - 'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé - FUNNY :)More fake fotos that you continually post with your meaningless memes to promote you pathetic pancake planet.
|
There is always more to add to the defeat and destruction of the Globe Earth theory. Always!Really?
The following video proves this fact. The man is bobbing up and down and left to right, always coming back to center like a weight hanging on a fishing bobbin, without pushing off anything to maintain center.Yes, he is moving around, but not like a weight on a string.
Claim to see the ISS with the naked eye.Proof that Plat Terra doesn't understand the concept of contrast.
(https://i.imgur.com/bs0G1sy.jpg)
Claim to see the ISS with the naked eye.Proof that Plat Terra doesn't understand the concept of contrast.
(https://i.imgur.com/bs0G1sy.jpg)
It's simpler to say, "Proof that Plat Terra doesn't understand any concept."Claim to see the ISS with the naked eye.Proof that Plat Terra doesn't understand the concept of contrast.
(https://i.imgur.com/bs0G1sy.jpg)
Claim to see the ISS with the naked eye.Proof that Plat Terra doesn't understand the concept of contrast.
(https://i.imgur.com/bs0G1sy.jpg)
Can be done the same way the ISS is visible, either with magnification (binoculars or telescope to resolve detail) or with contrast, ie very bright on a dark background. What would you suggest on the ground would have that type of contrast? But thanks for doubling down on your ignorance. It was very entertaining.Claim to see the ISS with the naked eye.Proof that Plat Terra doesn't understand the concept of contrast.
(https://i.imgur.com/bs0G1sy.jpg)
Please, someone point out a football field or something the same size from the ISS.
I will be waiting.......
Can be done the same way the ISS is visible, either with magnification (binoculars or telescope to resolve detail) or with contrast, ie very bright on a dark background. What would you suggest on the ground would have that type of contrast? But thanks for doubling down on your ignorance. It was very entertaining.Claim to see the ISS with the naked eye.Proof that Plat Terra doesn't understand the concept of contrast.
(https://i.imgur.com/bs0G1sy.jpg)
Please, someone point out a football field or something the same size from the ISS.
I will be waiting.......
By the way, these guys prove the ISS is at the altitude claimed. Bet you won't watch the videos
Get a tracking app, and wait for a visible pass!
See for yourself!
What are you afraid of??
Anyway, with the naked eye, you are not going to see the ISS, but you WILL see the sun reflecting off those massive solar panels.
I never claimed it wasn't. And with contrast it is not a problem.Can be done the same way the ISS is visible, either with magnification (binoculars or telescope to resolve detail) or with contrast, ie very bright on a dark background. What would you suggest on the ground would have that type of contrast? But thanks for doubling down on your ignorance. It was very entertaining.Claim to see the ISS with the naked eye.Proof that Plat Terra doesn't understand the concept of contrast.
(https://i.imgur.com/bs0G1sy.jpg)
Please, someone point out a football field or something the same size from the ISS.
I will be waiting.......
By the way, these guys prove the ISS is at the altitude claimed. Bet you won't watch the videos
Naked Eye is the claim.
Get a tracking app, and wait for a visible pass!
See for yourself!
What are you afraid of??
Anyway, with the naked eye, you are not going to see the ISS, but you WILL see the sun reflecting off those massive solar panels.
I know you can see something, but I don't believe in nor care for NASA's magic tricks and illusions. What you see does not prove Astronauts are on board floating around. I am not stupid or gullible.
BTW, at what time of night are you seeing the suns light shining on the solar panels?
There is always more to add to the defeat and destruction of the Globe Earth theory. Always!
Do I think the ISS is fake and that Scott Kelly (in this video) is faking weightlessness inside the ISS? Well, sure I do. Hell yeah he is! Anyone with common sense can see it.
The following video proves this fact. The man is bobbing up and down and left to right, always coming back to center like a weight hanging on a fishing bobbin, without pushing off anything to maintain center. The guy is nervous as hell because he knows he has some deceiving to do. He’s another puppet for the ISS. They all are puppets.
Let’s all have a laugh at them in the second video.
NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly Reflects on His Year in Space
Flat Earth Man is back! - 'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé - FUNNY :)
I know it's long, but maybe take some time off from meme creation, and watch this one.
There is always more to add to the defeat and destruction of the Globe Earth theory. Always!
Do I think the ISS is fake and that Scott Kelly (in this video) is faking weightlessness inside the ISS? Well, sure I do. Hell yeah he is! Anyone with common sense can see it.
The following video proves this fact. The man is bobbing up and down and left to right, always coming back to center like a weight hanging on a fishing bobbin, without pushing off anything to maintain center. The guy is nervous as hell because he knows he has some deceiving to do. He’s another puppet for the ISS. They all are puppets.
Let’s all have a laugh at them in the second video.
NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly Reflects on His Year in Space
Flat Earth Man is back! - 'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé - FUNNY :)
I know it's long, but maybe take some time off from meme creation, and watch this one.
I wonder how plat terra will try to explain this movie. This one is impossible to do on a plane or underwater. The tablet would need to have some sort of anti-gravity tech inside of it. Wires are impossible with how he moves around. Furthermore, with wires, he would be a superhuman with insane strength to effortlessly do some things. And everyone who played around as a kid can see that, when he is overhead, has no bloodflow and different stature etc. as you would have on earth.
Get a tracking app, and wait for a visible pass!
See for yourself!
What are you afraid of??
Anyway, with the naked eye, you are not going to see the ISS, but you WILL see the sun reflecting off those massive solar panels.
I know you can see something, but I don't believe in nor care for NASA's magic tricks and illusions. What you see does not prove Astronauts are on board floating around. I am not stupid or gullible.
BTW, at what time of night are you seeing the suns light shining on the solar panels?
What magic tricks or illusions?
What you SAY does not prove that astronauts are NOT onboard!
Typically I see a good pass around 90 minutes after sunset. Usually sleep through the morning passes.
There is no reason for Bobbin Bob to be bobbin up and down moving in, out, left, right, leaning forward and back always coming back to center, while crossing legs back and forth unless he was hanging from wires. When he’s bobbin up and down his legs never bend, proving his leg is not held.
He faked it. It’s clear. He had some deceiving to do. Look how nervous he is. BTW, look at the muscle mass? Yeah, he was immune to muscle loss in space. Fake space that is.
(https://i.imgur.com/juRKGne.jpg)
Regardless of nasa - why are you concerned about calculating curvature over uneven terrain???
Its much simpler over water.
Waves dont obstruct because you could have viewers positioned at ends and in middle to confirm wave heights.
Hazy weather can be factored out by taking multiple photos on days with different weather conditions.
This is "science" as you smuggly stated before.
So come on.
Whats your issue?
Regardless of nasa - why are you concerned about calculating curvature over uneven terrain???
Its much simpler over water.
Waves dont obstruct because you could have viewers positioned at ends and in middle to confirm wave heights.
Hazy weather can be factored out by taking multiple photos on days with different weather conditions.
This is "science" as you smuggly stated before.
So come on.
Whats your issue?
It was never above uneven terrian. It was about the entire landmass.
Can you give a response that directly applies to the following?
You mean you can't walk outside and observe the Moons directional path? Does it go in the same direction as the Sun?
I mean I can go outside and see the Sun, Moon and celestial tropical belt stars go the same way. They all go from east to west.
Does this wording satisfy your demand? :)
That's better. You included the words "Moon, East and West" in a reply to a question I asked. Thank you.
Speaking of the surface of this Earth, what have you observed that proves to you Earth is a sphere?
There is no reason for Bobbin Bob to be bobbin up and down moving in, out, left, right, leaning forward and back always coming back to center, while crossing legs back and forth unless he was hanging from wires. When he’s bobbin up and down his legs never bend, proving his foot is not being held.
He faked it. It’s clear. He had some deceiving to do. Look how nervous he is. BTW, look at the muscle mass? Yeah, he was immune to muscle loss in space. Fake space that is.
(https://i.imgur.com/juRKGne.jpg)
There is always more to point out about the Globe Earth Hoax
If one vidoe is faked they're all faked with Hollywood special effects.
In the Zero G Plane, hair flows around the head and even over the face. However that’s not so on the ISS. On the ISS, the women look like they have kissed a light socket and it sticks up and bounces above their head.
But we know it’s just permed hair to give the appearance of floating in space. Yet, the Globe Community thinks it’s all real and normal. Why?
Get a tracking app, and wait for a visible pass!
See for yourself!
What are you afraid of??
Anyway, with the naked eye, you are not going to see the ISS, but you WILL see the sun reflecting off those massive solar panels.
I know you can see something, but I don't believe in nor care for NASA's magic tricks and illusions. What you see does not prove Astronauts are on board floating around. I am not stupid or gullible.
BTW, at what time of night are you seeing the suns light shining on the solar panels?
What magic tricks or illusions?
What you SAY does not prove that astronauts are NOT onboard!
Typically I see a good pass around 90 minutes after sunset. Usually sleep through the morning passes.
You see the suns light shining on the solar panels 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth.
OK then. Thanks for sharing that!!
Have a nice what ever.
There is always more to point out about the Globe Earth Hoax
If one vidoe is faked they're all faked with Hollywood special effects.
In the Zero G Plane, hair flows around the head and even over the face. However that’s not so on the ISS. On the ISS, the women look like they have kissed a light socket and it sticks up and bounces above their head.
But we know it’s just permed hair to give the appearance of floating in space. Yet, the Globe Community thinks it’s all real and normal. Why?
NASA’s Permed Hair For Fake Space - FLAT EARTH
Regardless of nasa - why are you concerned about calculating curvature over uneven terrain???
Its much simpler over water.
Waves dont obstruct because you could have viewers positioned at ends and in middle to confirm wave heights.
Hazy weather can be factored out by taking multiple photos on days with different weather conditions.
This is "science" as you smuggly stated before.
So come on.
Whats your issue?
It was never about uneven terrian. It was about the entire landmass.
There is always more to point out about the Globe Earth Hoax
If one vidoe is faked they're all faked with Hollywood special effects.
In the Zero G Plane, hair flows around the head and even over the face. However that’s not so on the ISS. On the ISS, the women look like they have kissed a light socket and it sticks up and bounces above their head.
But we know it’s just permed hair to give the appearance of floating in space. Yet, the Globe Community thinks it’s all real and normal. Why?
NASA’s Permed Hair For Fake Space - FLAT EARTH
So whats the sum amount of time you've experienced long hair in the Vomit Comet for minutes at a time and then gone on to experience it's behaviour after a few weeks in zero-G?
Please, someone point out a football field or something the same size from the ISS.Then construct a highly reflective football field on the ground surrounded by a very large region of darkness.
There is no reason for Bobbin Bob to be bobbin up and downExcept the reason I posted which you completely ignored.
When he’s bobbin up and down his legs never bend, proving his foot is not being held.That is just an outright lie.
You see the suns light shining on the solar panels 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth.Yes, that isn't surprising.
In the Zero G Plane, hair flows around the head and even over the face.Now, care to provide a video?
BTW, look at the muscle mass? Yeah, he was immune to muscle loss in space. Fake space that is.Astronauts exercise several hours per day to help reduce the loss of both muscle and bone mass.
(https://i.imgur.com/juRKGne.jpg)
Regardless of nasa - why are you concerned about calculating curvature over uneven terrain???
Its much simpler over water.
Waves dont obstruct because you could have viewers positioned at ends and in middle to confirm wave heights.
Hazy weather can be factored out by taking multiple photos on days with different weather conditions.
This is "science" as you smuggly stated before.
So come on.
Whats your issue?
It was never about uneven terrian. It was about the entire landmass.
But the entire land mass goes up and down, mountains and valleys.
And the thought you lived on a sphere earth with gravity pulling to center of mass.Seriously though, do you understand anything about anything? So far the answer appears to be no. You can't even answer my questions.
Get a tracking app, and wait for a visible pass!
See for yourself!
What are you afraid of??
Anyway, with the naked eye, you are not going to see the ISS, but you WILL see the sun reflecting off those massive solar panels.
I know you can see something, but I don't believe in nor care for NASA's magic tricks and illusions. What you see does not prove Astronauts are on board floating around. I am not stupid or gullible.
BTW, at what time of night are you seeing the suns light shining on the solar panels?
What magic tricks or illusions?
What you SAY does not prove that astronauts are NOT onboard!
Typically I see a good pass around 90 minutes after sunset. Usually sleep through the morning passes.
You see the suns light shining on the solar panels 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth.
OK then. Thanks for sharing that!!
Have a nice what ever.
You think the sun sets at the same time for me as it does 250 miles up?
You may need to see a neurologist.
Get a tracking app, and wait for a visible pass!
See for yourself!
What are you afraid of??
Anyway, with the naked eye, you are not going to see the ISS, but you WILL see the sun reflecting off those massive solar panels.
I know you can see something, but I don't believe in nor care for NASA's magic tricks and illusions. What you see does not prove Astronauts are on board floating around. I am not stupid or gullible.
BTW, at what time of night are you seeing the suns light shining on the solar panels?
What magic tricks or illusions?
What you SAY does not prove that astronauts are NOT onboard!
Typically I see a good pass around 90 minutes after sunset. Usually sleep through the morning passes.
You see the suns light shining on the solar panels 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth.
OK then. Thanks for sharing that!!
Have a nice what ever.
You think the sun sets at the same time for me as it does 250 miles up?
You may need to see a neurologist.
You see the ISS overhead at 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth?
Get a tracking app, and wait for a visible pass!
See for yourself!
What are you afraid of??
Anyway, with the naked eye, you are not going to see the ISS, but you WILL see the sun reflecting off those massive solar panels.
I know you can see something, but I don't believe in nor care for NASA's magic tricks and illusions. What you see does not prove Astronauts are on board floating around. I am not stupid or gullible.
BTW, at what time of night are you seeing the suns light shining on the solar panels?
What magic tricks or illusions?
What you SAY does not prove that astronauts are NOT onboard!
Typically I see a good pass around 90 minutes after sunset. Usually sleep through the morning passes.
You see the suns light shining on the solar panels 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth.
OK then. Thanks for sharing that!!
Have a nice what ever.
You think the sun sets at the same time for me as it does 250 miles up?
You may need to see a neurologist.
You see the ISS overhead at 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth?
Regardless of nasa - why are you concerned about calculating curvature over uneven terrain???
Its much simpler over water.
Waves dont obstruct because you could have viewers positioned at ends and in middle to confirm wave heights.
Hazy weather can be factored out by taking multiple photos on days with different weather conditions.
This is "science" as you smuggly stated before.
So come on.
Whats your issue?
It was never about uneven terrian. It was about the entire landmass.
But the entire land mass goes up and down, mountains and valleys.
And the thought you lived on a sphere earth with gravity pulling to center of mass.
Get a tracking app, and wait for a visible pass!
See for yourself!
What are you afraid of??
Anyway, with the naked eye, you are not going to see the ISS, but you WILL see the sun reflecting off those massive solar panels.
I know you can see something, but I don't believe in nor care for NASA's magic tricks and illusions. What you see does not prove Astronauts are on board floating around. I am not stupid or gullible.
BTW, at what time of night are you seeing the suns light shining on the solar panels?
What magic tricks or illusions?
What you SAY does not prove that astronauts are NOT onboard!
Typically I see a good pass around 90 minutes after sunset. Usually sleep through the morning passes.
You see the suns light shining on the solar panels 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth.
OK then. Thanks for sharing that!!
Have a nice what ever.
You think the sun sets at the same time for me as it does 250 miles up?
You may need to see a neurologist.
You see the ISS overhead at 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth?
Anywhere from dusk to 90 minutes after...
Download an app and see for yourself. It's FREE!
Why wouldn't you want to know, since your quest is for the truth?
Even if you don't believe it is what they say it is, what do you have to lose?
Get a tracking app, and wait for a visible pass!
See for yourself!
What are you afraid of??
Anyway, with the naked eye, you are not going to see the ISS, but you WILL see the sun reflecting off those massive solar panels.
I know you can see something, but I don't believe in nor care for NASA's magic tricks and illusions. What you see does not prove Astronauts are on board floating around. I am not stupid or gullible.
BTW, at what time of night are you seeing the suns light shining on the solar panels?
What magic tricks or illusions?
What you SAY does not prove that astronauts are NOT onboard!
Typically I see a good pass around 90 minutes after sunset. Usually sleep through the morning passes.
You see the suns light shining on the solar panels 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth.
OK then. Thanks for sharing that!!
Have a nice what ever.
You think the sun sets at the same time for me as it does 250 miles up?
You may need to see a neurologist.
You see the ISS overhead at 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth?
Anywhere from dusk to 90 minutes after...
Download an app and see for yourself. It's FREE!
Why wouldn't you want to know, since your quest is for the truth?
Even if you don't believe it is what they say it is, what do you have to lose?
I don 't care for NASA's magic tricks and diversions, nor do I have a fantasy to feed.
I am more interested in how our region of the infinite Plane was formed and engineered for life and resources. You can’t imagine how tides really work,
how the Grand Canyon originated or why oceans were formed and how life in all forms makes it to our region.
Your little sphere world is nothing.
You can’t imagine how tides really work, how the Grand Canyon originated or why oceans were formed and how life in all forms makes it to our region. Your little sphere world is nothing.So how do your flat earth tides really work? Some here have suggested that low tides might be caused by the gravitational influence of 2 bodies orbiting below the flat earth pulling sea level downwards. These proposed bodies have been referred to as the sub-heavens.
You can’t imagine how tides really work, how the Grand Canyon originated or why oceans were formed and how life in all forms makes it to our region. Your little sphere world is nothing.So how do your flat earth tides really work? Some here have suggested that low tides might be caused by the gravitational influence of 2 bodies orbiting below the flat earth pulling sea level downwards. These proposed bodies have been referred to as the sub-heavens.
You can’t imagine how tides really work, how the Grand Canyon originated or why oceans were formed and how life in all forms makes it to our region. Your little sphere world is nothing.So how do your flat earth tides really work? Some here have suggested that low tides might be caused by the gravitational influence of 2 bodies orbiting below the flat earth pulling sea level downwards. These proposed bodies have been referred to as the sub-heavens.
I don't care to tell you. It's not for you to know.
You can’t imagine how tides really work, how the Grand Canyon originated or why oceans were formed and how life in all forms makes it to our region. Your little sphere world is nothing.So how do your flat earth tides really work? Some here have suggested that low tides might be caused by the gravitational influence of 2 bodies orbiting below the flat earth pulling sea level downwards. These proposed bodies have been referred to as the sub-heavens.
I don't care to tell you. It's not for you to know.
If you think hair moves like this in alleged micro gravity I would be wasting my time telling you about advanced issues of Plane Earth, right?
I am not stupid or gullible.
BTW, at what time of night are you seeing the suns light shining on the solar panels?
You see the ISS overhead at 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth?
I don 't care for NASA's magic tricks and diversions, nor do I have a fantasy to feed. I am more interested in how our region of the infinite Plane was formed and engineered for life and resources.
You can’t imagine how tides really work, how the Grand Canyon originated or why oceans were formed and how life in all forms makes it to our region.
If you think hair moves like thisIf you want to discuss how hair moves you would need video, not a picture.
You see the ISS overhead at 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth?Just what do you think the problem is?
If you want the RE community to admit defeat, then it isn't enough to show that RET is wrong. You still need to show why FET is better. So far, no one from the FE community (including you) has been able to do that.You can’t imagine how tides really work, how the Grand Canyon originated or why oceans were formed and how life in all forms makes it to our region. Your little sphere world is nothing.So how do your flat earth tides really work? Some here have suggested that low tides might be caused by the gravitational influence of 2 bodies orbiting below the flat earth pulling sea level downwards. These proposed bodies have been referred to as the sub-heavens.
I don't care to tell you. It's not for you to know.
If you think hair moves like thisIf you want to discuss how hair moves you would need video, not a picture.
Do you think horses fly?
https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/2/bay-horse-galloping-leon-kramer.jpgYou see the ISS overhead at 90 minutes after sunset on a rotating sphere earth?Just what do you think the problem is?
Here are three more bobbers from an official ISS video. They are hanging around on wires while talking to the camera. Then at the end of the interview, there was a technical glitch while faking the live feed and the astronaut’s image was scrambled yet the image in the background remained the same.
We don’t make this up. We report the facts. It’s NASA who makes this fake stuff up.
(https://i.imgur.com/YH3vNCv.jpg)
Space Station Crew Members Discuss Life in Space with the Media
Here are three more bobbers from an official ISS video. They are hanging around on wires while talking to the camera. Then at the end of the interview, there was a technical glitch while faking the live feed and the astronaut’s image was scrambled yet the image in the background remained the same.
We don’t make this up. We report the facts. It’s NASA who makes this fake stuff up.
(https://i.imgur.com/YH3vNCv.jpg)
Space Station Crew Members Discuss Life in Space with the Media
If you want to report facts, then stop bullshitting. During the technical glitch, the entire centre of screen image warps, including the interior of the space station around the astronauts. Do you think people's eyes are painted on, and can't see this??????????????????
No, the glitch is just in the forgroundand the background, too.
In the following video, an astronaut exits a hatch (at 30 seconds) and his feet push against the door hatch revealing its as flimsy as a piece of bologna as it flexes from hitting a part of the underwater ISS. Something so flimsy wouldn’t be used if the ISS was real.
They film spacewalks in a pool on Earth.
Here are three more bobbers from an official ISS video. They are hanging around on wires while talking to the camera. Then at the end of the interview, there was a technical glitch while faking the live feed and the astronaut’s image was scrambled yet the image in the background remained the same.
We don’t make this up. We report the facts. It’s NASA who makes this fake stuff up.
(https://i.imgur.com/YH3vNCv.jpg)
Space Station Crew Members Discuss Life in Space with the Media
If you want to report facts, then stop bullshitting. During the technical glitch, the entire centre of screen image warps, including the interior of the space station around the astronauts. Do you think people's eyes are painted on, and can't see this??????????????????
No, the glitch is just in the forground, in front of the green screen.
In the following video, an astronaut exits a hatch (at 30 seconds) and his feet push against the door hatch revealing its as flimsy as a piece of bologna as it flexes from hitting a part of the underwater ISS. Something so flimsy wouldn’t be used if the ISS was real.
They film spacewalks in a pool on Earth.
In the following video, an astronaut exits a hatch (at 30 seconds) and his feet push against the door hatch revealing its as flimsy as a piece of bologna as it flexes from hitting a part of the underwater ISS. Something so flimsy wouldn’t be used if the ISS was real.
They film spacewalks in a pool on Earth.
"The flexible cover you refer to is simply known as the thermal cover. It lives on the outside of the International Space Station’s Quest (airlock) module. This cover does exactly what it says, helping to maintain thermal equilibrium with respect to the actual hatch that you also (inadvertently) refer to. The actual, physically hard airlock hatch is on the earth-facing side of Quest, and opens inward, being opened and then locked open in place by the astronaut who exits first."
https://www.quora.com/So-Im-watching-a-video-of-astronauts-leaving-the-Quest-airlock-module-on-the-ISS-Why-is-it-a-flexible-cover-and-not-a-solid-airlock-hatch-Ive-looked-around-online-but-I-cant-find-a-reasonable-answer
In the following video, an astronaut exits a hatch (at 30 seconds) and his feet push against the door hatch revealing its as flimsy as a piece of bologna as it flexes from hitting a part of the underwater ISS. Something so flimsy wouldn’t be used if the ISS was real.
They film spacewalks in a pool on Earth.
"The flexible cover you refer to is simply known as the thermal cover. It lives on the outside of the International Space Station’s Quest (airlock) module. This cover does exactly what it says, helping to maintain thermal equilibrium with respect to the actual hatch that you also (inadvertently) refer to. The actual, physically hard airlock hatch is on the earth-facing side of Quest, and opens inward, being opened and then locked open in place by the astronaut who exits first."
https://www.quora.com/So-Im-watching-a-video-of-astronauts-leaving-the-Quest-airlock-module-on-the-ISS-Why-is-it-a-flexible-cover-and-not-a-solid-airlock-hatch-Ive-looked-around-online-but-I-cant-find-a-reasonable-answer
Yeah, damage control. And that flimsy door is a good thing to have on the exterior of the ISS with the vacuum of space present.
Damage control is also stated with an "Educated guess" in the link Stash provided.
Educated guess here... This is picture of the inside of the quest model. Notice the large circular ring around the inside of the hatch. It looks like that where the solid hatch goes. The hatch is probably removeable so it doesn't get in the way, and it's probably too big to fit through the hole and float away. The flimsy pice on the outside is just a cover and doesn't structurally support the air pressure when pressureized.
Here are three more bobbers from an official ISS video. They are hanging around on wires while talking to the camera. Then at the end of the interview, there was a technical glitchSo more pathetic grasping at straws, including outright lies.
Something so flimsy wouldn’t be used if the ISS was real.Why not?
Yeah, damage control.Not damage control, you just blatantly lying to pretend there is a problem with RE and NASA when you have been completely unable to find a single problem.
Something to keep in mind about MPEG compression is that the content of most video can be 90% or more identical from frame to frame. In order to save bandwidth, the encoder will encode the first frame and then look for changes in following frames. If a stationary background doesn't change from frame to frame, then the encoder will simply use the already encoded data and only work on the parts of the frame that did change. If the changes happen faster than the encoder can keep up (especially when encoding in real time), you get the compression blocking that Stash just mentioned. If anything, the fact that you get such glitches from time to time suggests that the video probably is live and real. If it was faked, then they would have done a better job of encoding the video.No, the glitch is just in the forground, in front of the green screen.
It's called compression blocking. Happens a lot when a movement is present in a frame and that frame is being compressed for transfer/output/broadcast, like it would be when sending a video signal from an ISS to earth or even when you are watching a movie on Netflix, bandwidth can cause the effect. So an object in motion in the frame, whether it be a body movement or even a shadow or something else, can cause pixelation/blocking whereby those things not in motion do not. If it were compression blocking in front of a green screen, you would see the green bleed through. It would be very visible. I see no bleed.
NASA’s own lies and trickery continue to help members accept defeat!
There are many technical breakdowns that happen while faking a ISS live feed. They have been caught using virtual reality gear, beaming things into view and all types of NASA trickery. Mike Helmick exposes this in detail.
(https://i.imgur.com/lY8Do78.jpg)
The fake NASA ISS interior - a technical breakdown by Mike Helmick
You can’t imagine how tides really work, how the Grand Canyon originated or why oceans were formed and how life in all forms makes it to our region. Your little sphere world is nothing.So how do your flat earth tides really work? Some here have suggested that low tides might be caused by the gravitational influence of 2 bodies orbiting below the flat earth pulling sea level downwards. These proposed bodies have been referred to as the sub-heavens.
I don't care to tell you. It's not for you to know.
I don't care to tell you. It's not for you to know
I'm pretty sure he's just a round eather coming here to troll. The levels of retardation are too great.And the thought you lived on a sphere earth with gravity pulling to center of mass.Seriously though, do you understand anything about anything? So far the answer appears to be no. You can't even answer my questions.
You can’t imagine how tides really work, how the Grand Canyon originated or why oceans were formed and how life in all forms makes it to our region. Your little sphere world is nothing.So how do your flat earth tides really work? Some here have suggested that low tides might be caused by the gravitational influence of 2 bodies orbiting below the flat earth pulling sea level downwards. These proposed bodies have been referred to as the sub-heavens.
I don't care to tell you. It's not for you to know.
I'm pretty sure he's just a round eather coming here to troll. The levels of retardation are too great.I love how sincerely difficult it is to differentiate between the worst of the mentally disheveled and the best of the dedicated trolls. To me, this highlights the shared humanity in all of us.
I love how sincerely difficult it is to differentiate between the worst of the mentally disheveled and the best of the dedicated trolls.Welcome to the internet. Personally I'm up to 95% on Plat being a troll.
Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of Poe's law (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s%20Law).I'm pretty sure he's just a round eather coming here to troll. The levels of retardation are too great.I love how sincerely difficult it is to differentiate between the worst of the mentally disheveled and the best of the dedicated trolls.
Why does the opposition have a right to know anything about Plane Earth?Simple. If you want the opposition to admit defeat, then you need to show them something better than what they already believe. So far, no FE'er has, or is ever likely to.
Why does the opposition have a right to know anything about Plane Earth?Simple. If you want the opposition to admit defeat, then you need to show them something better than what they already believe. So far, no FE'er has, or is ever likely to.
You can't even admit this is permed hair. Why?
(https://i.imgur.com/2ORVbX3.jpg)
You can't even admit this is permed hair. Why?
(https://i.imgur.com/2ORVbX3.jpg)
Because that isn't what permed hair looks like. ::)
(https://hairmotive.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Natural-Ginger.jpg)
But I don't care if you admit defeat.
But I don't care if you admit defeat.
Why did you start this thread, then?
But I don't care if you admit defeat. You're just a tool used to expose the great hoax for those (readers) seeking truth. The opposition is not going to openly admit defeat. You can't even admit this is permed (spiked, heavy hairspray) hair. Why?
But I don't care if you admit defeat.
Why did you start this thread, then?
Please allow me to replace the rest of the quote you removed; the part that answers your question.QuoteBut I don't care if you admit defeat. You're just a tool used to expose the great hoax for those (readers) seeking truth. The opposition is not going to openly admit defeat. You can't even admit this is permed (spiked, heavy hairspray) hair. Why?
that is the end of 33 pages of you getting your ass handed to you...
But I don't care if you admit defeat.
Why did you start this thread, then?
Please allow me to replace the rest of the quote you removed; the part that answers your question.QuoteBut I don't care if you admit defeat. You're just a tool used to expose the great hoax for those (readers) seeking truth. The opposition is not going to openly admit defeat. You can't even admit this is permed (spiked, heavy hairspray) hair. Why?
But I don't care if you admit defeat. You're just a tool used to expose the great hoax for those (readers) seeking truth. The opposition is not going to openly admit defeat. You can't even admit this is permed (spiked, heavy hairspray) hair. Why?
But I don't care if you admit defeat. You're just a tool used to expose the great hoax for those (readers) seeking truth. The opposition is not going to openly admit defeat. You can't even admit this is permed (spiked, heavy hairspray) hair. Why?
Why don't flatearthers get a few cables and some hair spray and make a space video? That way you could show us how videos like this one can be fake.
The Forces that create and maintain a spherical world has failed the Globe Earth Community.
Gravity, an alleged force pulling to center of mass creating an alleged sphere with Earth’s alleged (centrifugal force) rotation has yet to fill in areas below sea level and other impression areas on this Earth. Rolling hills with top soil and clay base could not exist on a Globe Earth.
With such forces existing with rain, the lands surface would soon be shaped to a curved surface after a few heavy rains .
It’s much like clay on a potter’s wheel, it easily curves.
You can't even admit this is permed (spiked, heavy hairspray) hair. Why?I notice that every time you bring that up and it is addressed, you just ignore it. Why?
The Forces that create and maintain a spherical world has failed the Globe Earth Community.And of course, after being repeatedly called out for one collection of lies you yet again jump to another.
has yet to fill in areas below sea level and other impression areas on this EarthYes, because it isn't an all powerful force which cannot be resisted or overcome.
It’s much like clay on a potter’s wheel, it easily curves.No, it is nothing like clay on a potters wheel.
The Forces that create and maintain a spherical world has failed the Globe Earth Community.What I see here is you not understanding what you're talking about, AGAIN.
Gravity, an alleged force pulling to center of mass creating an alleged sphere with Earth’s alleged (centrifugal force) rotation has yet to fill in areas below sea level and other impression areas on this Earth. Rolling hills with top soil and clay base could not exist on a Globe Earth. With such forces existing with rain, the lands surface would soon be shaped to a curved surface after a few heavy rains . It’s much like clay on a potter’s wheel, it easily curves.
Look around, do you see evidence of a potter’s wheel? No, you don’t . Why?
(https://i.imgur.com/sE4dpJu.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8WlsxCH.jpg)
The Forces that create and maintain a spherical world has failed the Globe Earth Community.
Gravity, an alleged force pulling to center of mass creating an alleged sphere with Earth’s alleged (centrifugal force) rotation has yet to fill in areas below sea level and other impression areas on this Earth. Rolling hills with top soil and clay base could not exist on a Globe Earth. With such forces existing with rain, the lands surface would soon be shaped to a curved surface after a few heavy rains . It’s much like clay on a potter’s wheel, it easily curves.
Look around, do you see evidence of a potter’s wheel? No, you don’t . Why?
(https://i.imgur.com/sE4dpJu.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8WlsxCH.jpg)
The Forces that create and maintain a spherical world has failed the Globe Earth Community.
Gravity, an alleged force pulling to center of mass creating an alleged sphere with Earth’s alleged (centrifugal force) rotation has yet to fill in areas below sea level and other impression areas on this Earth. Rolling hills with top soil and clay base could not exist on a Globe Earth. With such forces existing with rain, the lands surface would soon be shaped to a curved surface after a few heavy rains . It’s much like clay on a potter’s wheel, it easily curves.
Look around, do you see evidence of a potter’s wheel? No, you don’t . Why?
(https://i.imgur.com/sE4dpJu.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8WlsxCH.jpg)
Do you have any understanding of plate tectonics?
Volcanic activity?
maybe the power of erosion?
These are major contributors to the shape of the GLOBE surface.
No, it is quite clear that YOU don't understand it. Thanks for the humor!The Forces that create and maintain a spherical world has failed the Globe Earth Community.
Gravity, an alleged force pulling to center of mass creating an alleged sphere with Earth’s alleged (centrifugal force) rotation has yet to fill in areas below sea level and other impression areas on this Earth. Rolling hills with top soil and clay base could not exist on a Globe Earth. With such forces existing with rain, the lands surface would soon be shaped to a curved surface after a few heavy rains . It’s much like clay on a potter’s wheel, it easily curves.
Look around, do you see evidence of a potter’s wheel? No, you don’t . Why?
(https://i.imgur.com/sE4dpJu.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8WlsxCH.jpg)
Do you have any understanding of plate tectonics?
Volcanic activity?
maybe the power of erosion?
These are major contributors to the shape of the GLOBE surface.
I don't think you truly understand how your gravity would actually work with a spinning earth with water. It's not my problem. The guys who made this up didn't consider such a blunder. But now you have to justify observing the surface of a Plane Earth. Have fun!
No, it is quite clear that YOU don't understand it. Thanks for the humor!The Forces that create and maintain a spherical world has failed the Globe Earth Community.
Gravity, an alleged force pulling to center of mass creating an alleged sphere with Earth’s alleged (centrifugal force) rotation has yet to fill in areas below sea level and other impression areas on this Earth. Rolling hills with top soil and clay base could not exist on a Globe Earth. With such forces existing with rain, the lands surface would soon be shaped to a curved surface after a few heavy rains . It’s much like clay on a potter’s wheel, it easily curves.
Look around, do you see evidence of a potter’s wheel? No, you don’t . Why?
(https://i.imgur.com/sE4dpJu.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8WlsxCH.jpg)
Do you have any understanding of plate tectonics?
Volcanic activity?
maybe the power of erosion?
These are major contributors to the shape of the GLOBE surface.
I don't think you truly understand how your gravity would actually work with a spinning earth with water. It's not my problem. The guys who made this up didn't consider such a blunder. But now you have to justify observing the surface of a Plane Earth. Have fun!
I don't think you truly understand how your gravity would actually work with a spinning earth with water.No, it is either you have no idea or you are outright lying and know you are lying.
The six of us and the countless geologists clearly understand.Thanks for sharing!
And those who have experienced mudslide landslide or avalanch where the ground/ snow liquifies below you.
Or this lady jumping on sand.
Or anybody who had to stand up after making a poo and was immediately pulled to the floor because suddenly their bone structure was as weak as water.
Yup you understand, that's what the surface of a sphere earth would do (with gravity pulling to center and rotation) to all non mountianous rocky areas . After a few good rains (millions of years ago), the surface would be curved and smooth with mountians sticking up. But our world doesn't look like that. Why?Do you understand the concept of tectonic activity (https://sciencing.com/definition-tectonic-activity-8336422.html) and that it's still an ongoing process?
Yup you understand, that's what the surface of a sphere earth would do (with gravity pulling to center and rotation) to all non mountianous rocky areas . After a few good rains (millions of years ago), the surface would be curved and smooth with mountians sticking up. But our world doesn't look like that. Why?Do you understand the concept of tectonic activity (https://sciencing.com/definition-tectonic-activity-8336422.html) and that it's still an ongoing process?
Yup you understand, that's what the surface of a sphere earth would do (with gravity pulling to center and rotation) to all non mountianous rocky areas . After a few good rains (millions of years ago), the surface would be curved and smooth with mountians sticking up. But our world doesn't look like that. Why?Do you understand the concept of tectonic activity (https://sciencing.com/definition-tectonic-activity-8336422.html) and that it's still an ongoing process?
Oh, that's no big deal for the force of gravity pullling to center (power to make spheres) and the Coriolis effect. The surface of a sphere earth would regenerate after a few good rains and spins.
I guess a baseball, basketball, golf ball, volley ball, etc. are not spheres.
Who knew?
Okay, I'll take that as a no, you don't understand tectonic activity, gravity, erosion, centrifugal force or much of anything else.Yup you understand, that's what the surface of a sphere earth would do (with gravity pulling to center and rotation) to all non mountianous rocky areas . After a few good rains (millions of years ago), the surface would be curved and smooth with mountians sticking up. But our world doesn't look like that. Why?Do you understand the concept of tectonic activity (https://sciencing.com/definition-tectonic-activity-8336422.html) and that it's still an ongoing process?
Oh, that's no big deal for the force of gravity pullling to center (power to make spheres) and the Coriolis effect. The surface of a sphere earth would regenerate after a few good rains and spins.
Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.
Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.
Sure they are, just like there is a 300 mile curvature bulge over the USA.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ob6CTrk.jpg)
I guess a baseball, basketball, golf ball, volley ball, etc. are not spheres.
Who knew?
Yes, not sphere Earths. They're not made from rock, earth and water.
There is. But you wouldn't expect a topographical map to show that. AGAIN, elevation is shown based on sea level. Just because you don't understand the subject doesn't mean everyone else is ignorant. But thanks for the humor!Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.
Sure they are, just like there is a 300 mile curvature bulge over the USA.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ob6CTrk.jpg)
There is. But you wouldn't expect a topographical map to show that. AGAIN, elevation is shown based on sea level. Just because you don't understand the subject doesn't mean everyone else is ignorant. But thanks for the humor!Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.
Sure they are, just like there is a 300 mile curvature bulge over the USA.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ob6CTrk.jpg)
How do you know all these things, Mr. Terra?
What is your primary source for these "facts" you have presented?
The Maps elevation is established from sea level.
And no, there is no a 300 mile bulge at center. The center of the USA is the same height above the East Coast as it is the West Coast and it's nowhere near 300 miles.
Nor can you prove so. You simply think there should be, but that's not the case. But you're welcome to disagree with stuff and things you cannot really prove to fit your theory.
You argument will not add the needed curvature.
Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.
Sure they are, just like there is a 300 mile curvature bulge over the USA.
And again your prove only your ignorance. While there is 300 miles of curvature, it is NOT 300 miles higher. The land is the height above sea level shown on topographic maps. That sea level curves around the globe as shown by WGS-84 or by any geodetic surveyor. You still seem to not understand the subject you argue against. Just because you choose to remain ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is.There is. But you wouldn't expect a topographical map to show that. AGAIN, elevation is shown based on sea level. Just because you don't understand the subject doesn't mean everyone else is ignorant. But thanks for the humor!Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.
Sure they are, just like there is a 300 mile curvature bulge over the USA.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ob6CTrk.jpg)
The Maps elevation is established from sea level. And no, there is no a 300 mile bulge at center. The center of the USA is the same height above the East Coast as it is the West Coast and it's nowhere near 300 miles. Nor can you prove so. You simply think there should be, but that's not the case. But you're welcome to disagree with stuff and things you cannot really prove to fit your theory. You argument will not add the needed curvature.
The Forces that create and maintain a spherical world has failed the Globe Earth Community.
Gravity, an alleged force pulling to center of mass creating an alleged sphere with Earth’s alleged (centrifugal force) rotation has yet to fill in areas below sea level and other impression areas on this Earth. Rolling hills with top soil and clay base could not exist on a Globe Earth. With such forces existing with rain, the lands surface would soon be shaped to a curved surface after a few heavy rains . It’s much like clay on a potter’s wheel, it easily curves.
Look around, do you see evidence of a potter’s wheel? No, you don’t . Why?
(https://i.imgur.com/sE4dpJu.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8WlsxCH.jpg)
Do you have any understanding of plate tectonics?
Volcanic activity?
maybe the power of erosion?
These are major contributors to the shape of the GLOBE surface.
I don't think you truly understand how your gravity would actually work with a spinning earth with water. It's not my problem. The guys who made this up didn't consider such a blunder. But now you have to justify observing the surface of a Plane Earth. Have fun!
The Maps elevation is established from sea level.
And no, there is no a 300 mile bulge at center.
The center of the USA is the same height above the East Coast as it is the West Coast and it's nowhere near 300 miles.
Nor can you prove so.
You simply think there should be, but that's not the case. But you're welcome to disagree with stuff and things you cannot really prove to fit your theory. You argument will not add the needed curvature.
that's what the surface of a sphere earth would do (with gravity pulling to center and rotation) to all non mountianous rocky areas . After a few good rains (millions of years ago), the surface would be curved and smooth with mountians sticking up. But our world doesn't look like that. Why?Because that isn't what the surface of Earth would do, regardless of if it is spherical or round.
And no, there is no a 300 mile bulge at center.Prove it.
Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills. It goes against the force that creates spheres. And even more so with a centrifugal force is applied to a muddy surface, it has no choice but to curve and conform to a sphere. The Globe Comunity can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other. It's no wonder why the defection continues.
(https://i.imgur.com/I16sobY.jpg)
Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills. It goes against the force that creates spheres. And even more so with a centrifugal force is applied to a muddy surface, it has no choice but to curve and conform to a sphere. The Globe Comunity can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other. It's no wonder why the defection continues.
(https://i.imgur.com/I16sobY.jpg)
I don't see a "muddy surface" there!
Again...
How do you know all these things?
What is your primary source for this information?
Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills.Pure BS!
That's easily formed into a sphere with gravity pulling to center with a centrifugal force in effect.Again, PROVE IT!
Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills. It goes against the force that creates spheres. And even more so with a centrifugal force is applied to a muddy surface, it has no choice but to curve and conform to a sphere. The Globe Comunity can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other. It's no wonder why the defection continues.
(https://i.imgur.com/I16sobY.jpg)
I don't see a "muddy surface" there!
Again...
How do you know all these things?
What is your primary source for this information?
How about a water soaked (sub-soil) surface? That's easily formed into a sphere with gravity pulling to center with a centrifugal force in effect.
Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills.Why hasn't the constant upwards acceleration flattened rolling hills like it did for the rest of the flat earth?
Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills. It goes against the force that creates spheres. And even more so with a centrifugal force is applied to a muddy surface, it has no choice but to curve and conform to a sphere. The Globe Comunity can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other. It's no wonder why the defection continues.
(https://i.imgur.com/I16sobY.jpg)
I don't see a "muddy surface" there!
Again...
How do you know all these things?
What is your primary source for this information?
How about a water soaked (sub-soil) surface? That's easily formed into a sphere with gravity pulling to center with a centrifugal force in effect.
Ok
~70% water logged surface
https://images.app.goo.gl/bQoqJAq49SujLV5a9
Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills.Why hasn't the constant upwards acceleration flattened rolling hills like it did for the rest of the flat earth?
Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees. You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.
(https://i.imgur.com/dX8OVPh.jpg)
Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills.Why hasn't the constant upwards acceleration flattened rolling hills like it did for the rest of the flat earth?
There is no constant upwards acceleration in my world or a eastward rotation. On a calm day, feathers in motion and blown soap bubbles don't drift west with a Globe Earth nor rush to the ground with a Plane Earth.
Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees. You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.
(https://i.imgur.com/dX8OVPh.jpg)
Per usual, you are incorrect. Here's the original 'Blue Marble' image before it was cropped and flipped:
(https://i.imgur.com/4OVqI4r.png?1)
Image taken, Apollo 17, on December 7, 1972, at 05:39 a.m. EST (10:39 UTC)
Looking at timeanddate.com for that date and time, looks spot on:
(https://i.imgur.com/8UGOQHE.png?1)
Next unfounded issue you want smacked down?
The Suns allotment of light on a fake GlobeWho cares about the suns allotment of light on your fake globe?
Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees.And here we have yet another baseless assertion from you.
Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees. You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.
(https://i.imgur.com/dX8OVPh.jpg)
Per usual, you are incorrect. Here's the original 'Blue Marble' image before it was cropped and flipped:
(https://i.imgur.com/4OVqI4r.png?1)
Image taken, Apollo 17, on December 7, 1972, at 05:39 a.m. EST (10:39 UTC)
Looking at timeanddate.com for that date and time, looks spot on:
(https://i.imgur.com/8UGOQHE.png?1)
Next unfounded issue you want smacked down?
No. You are mopping up for NASA again. That is beyond a 23.5 degree tilt for an allotment of light for a fake Globe. Dress at anyway you wish. It's a fake picture. You can see the light allotment in the pic you posted.
See how much more land is viewed north.
(https://i.imgur.com/8UGOQHE.png?1)
So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle? Is this what you want us to believe now? Or is this you being a mopper for NASA because the picture is fake?
Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees. You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.
(https://i.imgur.com/dX8OVPh.jpg)
Per usual, you are incorrect. Here's the original 'Blue Marble' image before it was cropped and flipped:
(https://i.imgur.com/4OVqI4r.png?1)
Image taken, Apollo 17, on December 7, 1972, at 05:39 a.m. EST (10:39 UTC)
Looking at timeanddate.com for that date and time, looks spot on:
(https://i.imgur.com/8UGOQHE.png?1)
Next unfounded issue you want smacked down?
No. You are mopping up for NASA again. That is beyond a 23.5 degree tilt for an allotment of light for a fake Globe. Dress at anyway you wish. It's a fake picture. You can see the light allotment in the pic you posted.
See how much more land is viewed north.
(https://i.imgur.com/8UGOQHE.png?1)
Umm, have you ever heard of a 'camera angle'? You know, taking photos from different perspectives; high, low, left, right, below, above. That type of thing?
The image was not taken from and equatorial dead on angle like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/8GiZ3Nn.png?1)
It was taken from an angle like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/gFysScB.png?1)
Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees. You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.
(https://i.imgur.com/dX8OVPh.jpg)
Per usual, you are incorrect. Here's the original 'Blue Marble' image before it was cropped and flipped:
(https://i.imgur.com/4OVqI4r.png?1)
Image taken, Apollo 17, on December 7, 1972, at 05:39 a.m. EST (10:39 UTC)
Looking at timeanddate.com for that date and time, looks spot on:
(https://i.imgur.com/8UGOQHE.png?1)
Next unfounded issue you want smacked down?
No. You are mopping up for NASA again. That is beyond a 23.5 degree tilt for an allotment of light for a fake Globe. Dress at anyway you wish. It's a fake picture. You can see the light allotment in the pic you posted.
See how much more land is viewed north.
(https://i.imgur.com/8UGOQHE.png?1)
Umm, have you ever heard of a 'camera angle'? You know, taking photos from different perspectives; high, low, left, right, below, above. That type of thing?
The image was not taken from and equatorial dead on angle like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/8GiZ3Nn.png?1)
It was taken from an angle like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/gFysScB.png?1)
You posted the fact the picture in question is from the Apollo mission.
So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle?
Is this what you want us to believe now? Or is this you being a mopper for NASA because the picture is fake?
BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt.
Is this what you want us to believe now? Or is this you being a mopper for NASA because the picture is fake?
BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt.
You posted the fact the picture in question is from the Apollo mission.
So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle?
Is this what you want us to believe now? Or is this you being a mopper for NASA because the picture is fake?
BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt.
How would you know? You have no idea where your flat earth sun is right now let alone where it was in 1972. If you feel so confident in your claim, why don't you tell us where the sun is at noon right now on your flat plane and how you figured that out. You can't can you? Didn't think so.
The picture is fake!!
And No. You need to accept defeat in defending a fake NASA picture. Your fake picture has much more tilt than is allowed and it is seen in the picture YOU POSTED. YOUR HAVE BEEN NAILED AGAIN BY YOUR OWN POST. See how much more land is viewed (second picture) north with the proper fake tilt?
BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south with your fake Globe Earths alledged tilt. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt. Have a nice fake Globe morning!
(https://i.imgur.com/8UGOQHE.png?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/dX8OVPh.jpg)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .You are the one asserting that "The picture is fake!!" so the onus is on You to prove that "the picture is fake!!".
The picture is fake!!
And No. You need to accept defeat in defending a fake NASA picture. Your fake picture has much more tilt than is allowed and it is seen in the picture YOU POSTED. YOUR HAVE BEEN NAILED AGAIN BY YOUR OWN POST. See how much more land is viewed (second picture) north with the proper fake tilt?You own diagram below shows that at UTC time = 10:38 on December 7, 1972 the whole of Antarctica is in full sunlight!
BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south with your fake Globe Earths alledged tilt. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt. Have a nice fake Globe morning!Totally incorrect! Look at the day/night map from TimeandDate: Day and Night World Map (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?day=07&month=12&year=2019&hour=10&min=38&sec=0&n=%3A&ntxt=United+Kingdom+-+Greenwich+Borough+%28England%29&earth=0)!
(https://i.imgur.com/8UGOQHE.png?1)You don't seem able to work out where the sun shines even with a day/night map in front of you!
(https://i.imgur.com/dX8OVPh.jpg)
So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle? Is this what you want us to believe now?And yet another baseless claim.
BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south with Earths alledged tilt.And another baseless claim.
So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle? Is this what you want us to believe now?And yet another baseless claim.
Why would that have required altering their trajectory plan?BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south with Earths alledged tilt.And another baseless claim.
Again, where is any justification for these multiple baseless claims you are making?
It seems all you have baseless claims and outright lies.
If you want any sane person to take your claims seriously you will need far more than just repetition of the same lies.
the picture is fine and shows exactly what one would expect to see for that time and angle with that lens. Yet another fail from Plat TerraGravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills. It goes against the force that creates spheres. And even more so with a centrifugal force is applied to a muddy surface, it has no choice but to curve and conform to a sphere. The Globe Comunity can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other. It's no wonder why the defection continues.
(https://i.imgur.com/I16sobY.jpg)
I don't see a "muddy surface" there!
Again...
How do you know all these things?
What is your primary source for this information?
How about a water soaked (sub-soil) surface? That's easily formed into a sphere with gravity pulling to center with a centrifugal force in effect.
Ok
~70% water logged surface
https://images.app.goo.gl/bQoqJAq49SujLV5a9
Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees. You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.
(https://i.imgur.com/dX8OVPh.jpg)
Members of the Globe community often ask “How do you explain the Sun going down over the horizon” and we say, it appears to go down because of refraction and perspective, they say “Prove it”.
The following experiments shows a light going down in appearance, but yet the light stays the same height above the surface at any time. And remember, as the Sun moves from the median to the horizon, the viewer has no choice but to view the Sun through more and more atmosphere as it reaches the horizon. The atmosphere acts like a lens and its appearance gets larger as it moves farther away.
Flat Earth Sunset Experiment Anyone Can Do
On my daily calendar at work there is a quote
"No matter how convincing and true sounding the story, always hear the other side"
Something I observe all the round earthers like jackinoz fail to do. Too busy shilling for or simply too stupid and blinded by their small and dim world view.
So the other week I was walking at night and I knew there would be a full moon (or close to being full coming out shortly). Although I could not see it, the sky was not black and the clouds were lit up. This in turn helped to light the field I was walking across. If this were a globe I was on, the sky should still be dark as the side of the Earth I am on is obscured from the moon. Yet hours before it came to view, there was its light already seen.
You can see the same with the sun. The sky starts to change colour before the sun is in view.
On my daily calendar at work there is a quote
"No matter how convincing and true sounding the story, always hear the other side"
Something I observe all the round earthers like jackinoz fail to do. Too busy shilling for or simply too stupid and blinded by their small and dim world view.
So the other week I was walking at night and I knew there would be a full moon (or close to being full coming out shortly). Although I could not see it, the sky was not black and the clouds were lit up. This in turn helped to light the field I was walking across. If this were a globe I was on, the sky should still be dark as the side of the Earth I am on is obscured from the moon. Yet hours before it came to view, there was its light already seen.
You can see the same with the sun. The sky starts to change colour before the sun is in view.
Might have been twilight. Can be longer or shorter depending on your latitude and time of year same for the moon with the addition of where the sun is. Actually more evidence that they are large celestial bodies far away, the sun being really far away:
(https://i.imgur.com/MFsMYW1.png?1)
Members of the Globe community often ask “How do you explain the Sun going down over the horizon” and we say, it appears to go down because of refraction and perspective, they say “Prove it”.
The following experiments shows a light going down in appearance, but yet the light stays the same height above the surface at any time. And remember, as the Sun moves from the median to the horizon, the viewer has no choice but to view the Sun through more and more atmosphere as it reaches the horizon. The atmosphere acts like a lens and its appearance gets larger as it moves farther away.
Flat Earth Sunset Experiment Anyone Can Do
Garbage experiment:
- What's the refractive index of the lens he is using?
- We don't live inside a glass of water
- Why does the candle get larger as it gets further away, we don't observe that in reality
- I thought flat earthers claimed that with enough magnification anything could be pulled back into view from over the horizon?
- Lastly, we're talking about a 3000 mile high sun. Demonstrate that 'setting' along with a refractive index measurement required and the distance needed away from the observer.
Garbage.
Members of the Globe community often ask “How do you explain the Sun going down over the horizon” and we say, it appears to go down because of refraction and perspective, they say “Prove it”.
The following experiments shows a light going down in appearance, but yet the light stays the same height above the surface at any time. And remember, as the Sun moves from the median to the horizon, the viewer has no choice but to view the Sun through more and more atmosphere as it reaches the horizon. The atmosphere acts like a lens and its appearance gets larger as it moves farther away.
Flat Earth Sunset Experiment Anyone Can Do
Garbage experiment:
- What's the refractive index of the lens he is using?
- We don't live inside a glass of water
- Why does the candle get larger as it gets further away, we don't observe that in reality
- I thought flat earthers claimed that with enough magnification anything could be pulled back into view from over the horizon?
- Lastly, we're talking about a 3000 mile high sun. Demonstrate that 'setting' along with a refractive index measurement required and the distance needed away from the observer.
Garbage.
Of course the opposition will respond with ridicule, but now they know light can appear to go down as it moves away and yet stays the same height above the surface with just a simple science experiment.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2197868#msg2197868
Members of the Globe community often ask “How do you explain the Sun going down over the horizon” and we say, it appears to go down because of refraction and perspective, they say “Prove it”.
The following experiments shows a light going down in appearance, but yet the light stays the same height above the surface at any time. And remember, as the Sun moves from the median to the horizon, the viewer has no choice but to view the Sun through more and more atmosphere as it reaches the horizon. The atmosphere acts like a lens and its appearance gets larger as it moves farther away.
Flat Earth Sunset Experiment Anyone Can Do
Garbage experiment:
- What's the refractive index of the lens he is using?
- We don't live inside a glass of water
- Why does the candle get larger as it gets further away, we don't observe that in reality
- I thought flat earthers claimed that with enough magnification anything could be pulled back into view from over the horizon?
- Lastly, we're talking about a 3000 mile high sun. Demonstrate that 'setting' along with a refractive index measurement required and the distance needed away from the observer.
Garbage.
Of course the opposition will respond with ridicule, but now they know light can appear to go down as it moves away and yet stays the same height above the surface with just a simple science experiment.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2197868#msg2197868
I would also like to ask, when the sun goes away "through more and more atmosphere" on a clear evening, how is it replaced by stars visible right down to the horizon?
Of course the opposition will respond with ridicule,Why would "" not "" because the simulation IS ridiculous!
but now they know light can appear to go down as it moves away and yet stays the same height above the surface with just a simple science experiment.Sure when you move a lens around!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2197868#msg2197868Your flat earth seems to need more and more guesses and magic the deeper you go.
Of course the opposition will respond with ridicule,Why would "" not "" because the simulation IS ridiculous!Quote from: Plat Terrabut now they know light can appear to go down as it moves away and yet stays the same height above the surface with just a simple science experiment.Sure when you move a lens around!
But how does this magic lens keep the sun almost exactly same apparent size from sunrise to sunset apart from some distortion due to refraction when very close to the horizon?Quote from: Plat Terrahttps://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2197868#msg2197868Your flat earth seems to need more and more guesses and magic the deeper you go.
I prefer to keep it the everyday things we see simple thanks.
Do you realise how ridiculous that even sounds? You say, "the greater light goes away" but "the stars" become visible in exactly the same location!I would also like to ask, when the sun goes away "through more and more atmosphere" on a clear evening, how is it replaced by stars visible right down to the horizon?
After the greater light goes away the stars can easily be seen.
OK, YOU explain how the Universe works in relation to an everyday occurrence like sunsets!I prefer to keep it the everyday things we see simple thanks.Simple because of your limited small mind unable to comprehend the universe as it is - but rather what you find convenient. That's not how the universe works.
OK, YOU explain how the Universe works in relation to an everyday occurrence like sunsets!I prefer to keep it the everyday things we see simple thanks.Simple because of your limited small mind unable to comprehend the universe as it is - but rather what you find convenient. That's not how the universe works.
Now, YOU explain an everyday occurrence like sunsets!<< Irrelevant >>OK, YOU explain how the Universe works in relation to an everyday occurrence like sunsets!I prefer to keep it the everyday things we see simple thanks.Simple because of your limited small mind unable to comprehend the universe as it is - but rather what you find convenient. That's not how the universe works.
Now, YOU explain an everyday occurrence like sunsets!<< Irrelevant >>OK, YOU explain how the Universe works in relation to an everyday occurrence like sunsets!I prefer to keep it the everyday things we see simple thanks.Simple because of your limited small mind unable to comprehend the universe as it is - but rather what you find convenient. That's not how the universe works.
The atmosphere acts like a lens and its appearance gets larger as it moves farther away.
Honestly rab, you're talking to Shifter here..... What kind of answer were you expecting?Nonsense as usual from a self-important pretentious nobody and what do I get? "Nonsense as usual from a self-important pretentious useless nobody".
Honestly rab, you're talking to Shifter here..... What kind of answer were you expecting?Nonsense as usual from a self-important pretentious nobody and what do I get? "Nonsense as usual from a self-important pretentious useless nobody".
Situation normal! ;D!
<< Still no answer! >>I'm still waiting YOU to explain an everyday occurrence like sunsets! I can only assume that you can't!
<< Still no answer! >>I'm still waiting YOU to explain an everyday occurrence like sunsets! I can only assume that you can't!
I would also like to ask, when the sun goes away "through more and more atmosphere" on a clear evening, how is it replaced by stars visible right down to the horizon?
After the greater light goes away the stars can easily be seen.
OK, I bothered to read your ASI crap.If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of replacing it with the word 'Irrelevant' You'd know I was talking the truth<< Still no answer! >>I'm still waiting YOU to explain an everyday occurrence like sunsets! I can only assume that you can't!
It's how you read it of course. You want to argue with information from an ASI that is more intelligent than you by a factor of billions, then feel free to look the foolI'll ignore your usual ASI crap! I'd look more of a fool to take the slightest bit of notice of that.
What you fail to realise is that while yes, a spherical Earth could work in the situation of a sunset as you describe, it is not the only answer that fits the question. However only 1 answer is truly correct and yours, simply isn't it.SO, what is YOUR "truly correct" answer ::)?
What you fail to realise is that while yes, a spherical Earth could work in the situation of a sunset as you describe, it is not the only answer that fits the question. However only 1 answer is truly correct and yours, simply isn't it.SO, what is YOUR "truly correct" answer ::)?
I cant give it without getting into the sort of intricate details that Kaku is meant to find out and reveal.In others words you can't understand any of the intricate details that Michio Kaku talks about. I knew that long ago!
Isn't it good enough to simply say that you are wrong?No, because I take that to mean that you have no idea yourself ::).
It is what he will talk about. And I am already fully versed on it and far much more spanning longer than the universe has been in existence!I cant give it without getting into the sort of intricate details that Kaku is meant to find out and reveal.In others words you can't understand any of the intricate details that Michio Kaku talks about. I knew that long ago!
Quote from: ShifterIsn't it good enough to simply say that you are wrong?No, because I take that to mean that you have no idea yourself ::).
You've proven yourself incapable of answering the simplest question, so I think we're done here!
Say bye-bye to Asinine Shifter's Imaginary friend for me, thanks!
OK, let's see some of the simple stuff that Michio Kaku talks about:It is what he will talk about.I cant give it without getting into the sort of intricate details that Kaku is meant to find out and reveal.In others words you can't understand any of the intricate details that Michio Kaku talks about. I knew that long ago!
And I am already fully versed on it and far much more spanning longer than the universe has been in existence!Let's worry about the here and now for the purpose of this thread thank you!
OK, let's see some of the simple stuff that Michio Kaku talks about:It is what he will talk about.I cant give it without getting into the sort of intricate details that Kaku is meant to find out and reveal.In others words you can't understand any of the intricate details that Michio Kaku talks about. I knew that long ago!
Michio Kaku: The Universe in a Nutshell (Full Presentation) by Big Think
Looks all good to me!Quote from: ShifterAnd I am already fully versed on it and far much more spanning longer than the universe has been in existence!Let's worry about the here and now for the purpose of this thread thank you!
If you want to skite about how YOU are "fully versed on it and far much more spanning longer than the universe has been in existence" make you own thread on "The Infinite Smartness of Shifter".
Now regarding those Sunsets..... Oh never mind. It's beyond your understanding. Clearly.In other words you haven't a clue, got that loud and clear ages ago.
The following experiments shows a light going down in appearanceUsing a lens which does not match the atmosphere at all.
Yet hours before it came to view, there was its light already seen.Yes, exactly as expected for a RE, and which makes no sense for a FE.
You can see the same with the sun. The sky starts to change colour before the sun is in view.
The universe does not change, it is only our understanding of it, and it is clear that you have no understanding of it.OK, let's see some of the simple stuff that Michio Kaku talks about:It is what he will talk about.I cant give it without getting into the sort of intricate details that Kaku is meant to find out and reveal.In others words you can't understand any of the intricate details that Michio Kaku talks about. I knew that long ago!
Michio Kaku: The Universe in a Nutshell (Full Presentation) by Big Think
Looks all good to me!Quote from: ShifterAnd I am already fully versed on it and far much more spanning longer than the universe has been in existence!Let's worry about the here and now for the purpose of this thread thank you!
If you want to skite about how YOU are "fully versed on it and far much more spanning longer than the universe has been in existence" make you own thread on "The Infinite Smartness of Shifter".
His future discoveries will blow everyone away. Including himself. As I said earlier, sometimes multiple answers could fit the same question. The amount of data we have on the subject is very small. It appears to fit only because of this. But once all the pieces are known and put together you will find that with all the new data, what we believe to be true now, is not so.
How many times has the nature of the universe changed to fit new data that has been found? I guarantee it will change again. A scientist may stand up and give a lecture and believe he is telling the truth. But a decade later the lecture will be different because there is more data and thus the answers are different. Kakus 'Universe in a Nutshell' will read quite different in 2027!
Now regarding those Sunsets..... Oh never mind. It's beyond your understanding. Clearly.
For everyone else.... Meh, bendy light 8)
What you fail to realise is that while yes, a spherical Earth could work in the situation of a sunset as you describe, it is not the only answer that fits the question.But it is by far the simplest and most straightforward explanation. What is it again that Occam's Razor says about simpler explanations?
Simple for you perhaps. But your missing so much data it looks ridiculous to have any confidence in your assertions
Simple for you perhaps. But your missing so much data it looks ridiculous to have any confidence in your assertions
What data is missing for, let's say, a sunset?
Simple for you perhaps. But your missing so much data it looks ridiculous to have any confidence in your assertions
What data is missing for, let's say, a sunset?
More than you could fathom.....
You might not think physics beyond the Planck scale would make much difference. You might not think the web of what you call dark matter&energy make a difference because hey, you can't see it right? You might think you know all there is to do about gravity but your wrong. It all matters
Simple for you perhaps. But your missing so much data it looks ridiculous to have any confidence in your assertions
What data is missing for, let's say, a sunset?
More than you could fathom.....
You might not think physics beyond the Planck scale would make much difference. You might not think the web of what you call dark matter&energy make a difference because hey, you can't see it right? You might think you know all there is to do about gravity but your wrong. It all matters
Why don't you just explain how sunset works with all that data you have?
Simple for you perhaps. But your missing so much data it looks ridiculous to have any confidence in your assertions
What data is missing for, let's say, a sunset?
More than you could fathom.....
You might not think physics beyond the Planck scale would make much difference. You might not think the web of what you call dark matter&energy make a difference because hey, you can't see it right? You might think you know all there is to do about gravity but your wrong. It all matters
Why don't you just explain how sunset works with all that data you have?
No
Simple for you perhaps. But your missing so much data it looks ridiculous to have any confidence in your assertions
What data is missing for, let's say, a sunset?
More than you could fathom.....
You might not think physics beyond the Planck scale would make much difference. You might not think the web of what you call dark matter&energy make a difference because hey, you can't see it right? You might think you know all there is to do about gravity but your wrong. It all matters
Why don't you just explain how sunset works with all that data you have?
No
So apart from abusing the missing data fallacy and using your crystal ball to see what Michio Kaku will do in the next ten years, you don't know what a sunset is?
I gave you the answer at the level your primitive mind would understand.
Simple for you perhaps. But your missing so much data it looks ridiculous to have any confidence in your assertions
What data is missing for, let's say, a sunset?
More than you could fathom.....
You might not think physics beyond the Planck scale would make much difference. You might not think the web of what you call dark matter&energy make a difference because hey, you can't see it right? You might think you know all there is to do about gravity but your wrong. It all matters
Why don't you just explain how sunset works with all that data you have?
No
So apart from abusing the missing data fallacy and using your crystal ball to see what Michio Kaku will do in the next ten years, you don't know what a sunset is?
I know all there is to know (almost)*
*added for appearance of modesty
Holy shit Shifter...if an outsider reads your bullshit, they would ask what happened to you when you were little (I am really sorry when I hit a nerve...if it is something too bad to talk about...). You don`t even try. But apparantly you are so woke...you sound like an existence above god *kneels before you*.
Back to topic: I think with Shifter as flat earther, it seems like RE doesn`t even need to proof anything anymore. I learned that I sometimes should let people with special needs win the game...so again, shouldn`t we accept our "defeat"? Saves time, money, idiocrazy...
Holy shit Shifter...if an outsider reads your bullshit, they would ask what happened to you when you were little (I am really sorry when I hit a nerve...if it is something too bad to talk about...). You don`t even try. But apparantly you are so woke...you sound like an existence above god *kneels before you*.
Back to topic: I think with Shifter as flat earther, it seems like RE doesn`t even need to proof anything anymore. I learned that I sometimes should let people with special needs win the game...so again, shouldn`t we accept our "defeat"? Saves time, money, idiocrazy...
I am not a flat earther and I am not a God
He's bored so he's come up here to wind rabinoz up. While he's here he thought he'd start trolling everyone else.Holy shit Shifter...if an outsider reads your bullshit, they would ask what happened to you when you were little (I am really sorry when I hit a nerve...if it is something too bad to talk about...). You don`t even try. But apparantly you are so woke...you sound like an existence above god *kneels before you*.
Back to topic: I think with Shifter as flat earther, it seems like RE doesn`t even need to proof anything anymore. I learned that I sometimes should let people with special needs win the game...so again, shouldn`t we accept our "defeat"? Saves time, money, idiocrazy...
I am not a flat earther and I am not a God
Then I am confused. You sound like a flat earther (haven`t read all your posts of course) and also write as much bullshit as them, ignoring questions, avoiding stuff etc. So you believe in RE, so be a bit more clear.
Holy shit Shifter...if an outsider reads your bullshit, they would ask what happened to you when you were little (I am really sorry when I hit a nerve...if it is something too bad to talk about...). You don`t even try. But apparantly you are so woke...you sound like an existence above god *kneels before you*.
Back to topic: I think with Shifter as flat earther, it seems like RE doesn`t even need to proof anything anymore. I learned that I sometimes should let people with special needs win the game...so again, shouldn`t we accept our "defeat"? Saves time, money, idiocrazy...
I am not a flat earther and I am not a God
Then I am confused. You sound like a flat earther (haven`t read all your posts of course) and also write as much bullshit as them, ignoring questions, avoiding stuff etc. So you believe in RE, so be a bit more clear.
The universe is what it is.Wow man, thats like so deep.
Simple for you perhaps. But your missing so much data it looks ridiculous to have any confidence in your assertionsI have exactly as much data as I need to have confidence in my assertions.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.
Why?
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.
Why?
Pour water on a curved surface and find out. Then encircle a retaining wall around a portion of the curved surface and make sure the wall is higher than the area you want to flood. Then pour water again. Then ask yourself “why didn’t it flood without the retaining wall?"
gravity points south on ball hur dur
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.
Why?
Pour water on a curved surface and find out. Then encircle a retaining wall around a portion of the curved surface and make sure the wall is higher than the area you want to flood. Then pour water again. Then ask yourself “why didn’t it flood without the retaining wall?"
I poured water on a flat surface. It ran off the sides. I then encircled an area of the flat surface with a retaining wall of sorts higher than the area I wanted to flood. Poured the water again. It didn't run off the sides. So I had to ask myself, “why didn’t the flat surface flood without the retaining wall?"
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.
Why?
Pour water on a curved surface and find out. Then encircle a retaining wall around a portion of the curved surface and make sure the wall is higher than the area you want to flood. Then pour water again. Then ask yourself “why didn’t it flood without the retaining wall?"
I poured water on a flat surface. It ran off the sides. I then encircled an area of the flat surface with a retaining wall of sorts higher than the area I wanted to flood. Poured the water again. It didn't run off the sides. So I had to ask myself, “why didn’t the flat surface flood without the retaining wall?"
:)
Now try it with your model.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.
Why?
Pour water on a curved surface and find out. Then encircle a retaining wall around a portion of the curved surface and make sure the wall is higher than the area you want to flood. Then pour water again. Then ask yourself “why didn’t it flood without the retaining wall?"
I poured water on a flat surface. It ran off the sides. I then encircled an area of the flat surface with a retaining wall of sorts higher than the area I wanted to flood. Poured the water again. It didn't run off the sides. So I had to ask myself, “why didn’t the flat surface flood without the retaining wall?"
:)
Now try it with your model.
Just did, same thing. So in your mind the earth can't be round and it can't be flat either?
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.
Why?
Pour water on a curved surface and find out. Then encircle a retaining wall around a portion of the curved surface and make sure the wall is higher than the area you want to flood. Then pour water again. Then ask yourself “why didn’t it flood without the retaining wall?"
I poured water on a flat surface. It ran off the sides. I then encircled an area of the flat surface with a retaining wall of sorts higher than the area I wanted to flood. Poured the water again. It didn't run off the sides. So I had to ask myself, “why didn’t the flat surface flood without the retaining wall?"
:)
Now try it with your model.
Just did, same thing. So in your mind the earth can't be round and it can't be flat either?
No games for you.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.
Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood. But these same large surface areas could not flood if the surface was curved. unless a retaining wall held back the water
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.
Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood. But these same large surface areas could not flood if the surface was curved. unless a retaining wall held back the water
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.
Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood. But these same large surface areas could not flood if the surface was curved. unless a retaining wall held back the water
I’m sorry but you really need to go and study geography/topography and other earth sciences to understand how and why flooding occurs. It has nothing to do with the earth being flat.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.
Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood. But these same large surface areas could not flood if the surface was curved. unless a retaining wall held back the water
I’m sorry but you really need to go and study geography/topography and other earth sciences to understand how and why flooding occurs. It has nothing to do with the earth being flat.
Flooding has everything to do with large landmass that are depressed (not curved), and not a damn thing to do with a large curved landmass, unless a retaining wall held back the water.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.You have already had this brought up and had your ass handed to you.
Now try it with your model.The RE is not a tiny ball being held above a massive sphere.
Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood.So all you are saying is that Earth isn't a perfect sphere?
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.You have already had this brought up and had your ass handed to you.
Why bring it up again?
Again, you end up with the same non issue for the RE and a hypothetical FE.
All you need is more water coming in than will flow out.Now try it with your model.The RE is not a tiny ball being held above a massive sphere.
As such, if you want to try it with our model, with a physical model you will need to be in free-fall outside the roche limit of any significant body.
Making up a strawman to try and refute the RE does not help your case.Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood.So all you are saying is that Earth isn't a perfect sphere?
If so, no one is suggesting it is.
Land which is depressed below sea level is still below sea level, even on a RE.
Again, it is the same non-issues for the RE and a hypothetical FE.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.
Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood. But these same large surface areas could not flood if the surface was curved. unless a retaining wall held back the water
On a flat plane the water would just run off the sides never getting a chance to flood anything. What's holding the water on to a flat earth?
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.
Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood. But these same large surface areas could not flood if the surface was curved. unless a retaining wall held back the water
On a flat plane the water would just run off the sides never getting a chance to flood anything. What's holding the water on to a flat earth?
You are playing games again. Use the words "Large landmasses with depression areas" Like following...
"On a flat plane with DEPPRESSION AREAS, the water would just run off the sides never getting a chance to flood anything. What's holding the water on to a flat earth?"
No it won't run off, but will flood because of depressions.
You are like Rab and like to muddy the waters. You too should learn about cognitive dissonance.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.
Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood. But these same large surface areas could not flood if the surface was curved. unless a retaining wall held back the water
On a flat plane the water would just run off the sides never getting a chance to flood anything. What's holding the water on to a flat earth?
You are playing games again. Use the words "Large landmasses with depression areas" Like following...
"On a flat plane with DEPPRESSION AREAS, the water would just run off the sides never getting a chance to flood anything. What's holding the water on to a flat earth?"
No it won't run off, but will flood because of depressions.
You are like Rab and like to muddy the waters. You too should learn about cognitive dissonance.
Sure a land depression could fill up like a swimming pool, same as on a sphere. But on a flat plane the water would just run off the sides, not make the river rise. Explain river rising on a flat plane.
I have a problem with you ignoring because you know answring the simple question reveals your failed logixc
What direction is gravity???!!!
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.
Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood. But these same large surface areas could not flood if the surface was curved. unless a retaining wall held back the water
On a flat plane the water would just run off the sides never getting a chance to flood anything. What's holding the water on to a flat earth?
You are playing games again. Use the words "Large landmasses with depression areas" Like following...
"On a flat plane with DEPPRESSION AREAS, the water would just run off the sides never getting a chance to flood anything. What's holding the water on to a flat earth?"
No it won't run off, but will flood because of depressions.
You are like Rab and like to muddy the waters. You too should learn about cognitive dissonance.
Sure a land depression could fill up like a swimming pool, same as on a sphere. But on a flat plane the water would just run off the sides, not make the river rise. Explain river rising on a flat plane.
No, not the same on a sphere. You can't flood a large curved surface without a retaining wall. And I don't care to go down your bunny trail with more games with an unrealated issue.
Wow, you have so many obvious blunders in your theory, and more to come.
Later.....
So a curved Earth can't have depressions? Are you really this unbelievably ignorant or just trolling?Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.
Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood. But these same large surface areas could not flood if the surface was curved. unless a retaining wall held back the water
I’m sorry but you really need to go and study geography/topography and other earth sciences to understand how and why flooding occurs. It has nothing to do with the earth being flat.
Flooding has everything to do with large landmass that are depressed (not curved), and not a damn thing to do with a large curved landmass, unless a retaining wall held back the water.
So all you are saying is that Earth isn't a perfect sphere?
If so, no one is suggesting it is.
Land which is depressed below sea level is still below sea level, even on a RE.
Again, it is the same non-issues for the RE and a hypothetical FE.
I bet you have a problem with people not responding to your posts', right? You should find out why.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.Learn what the definition of elevation is on the Globe!
Sphere surface does not mean smooth surface. The round earth still has terrain that can be above or below sea level. Think crumpled wad of paper.Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
(https://i.imgur.com/4XXxCkW.jpg)
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
I bet you have a problem with people not responding to your posts', right? You should find out why.No, I'm not the one with the problem.
If you observed horizons like this (below) five hundred years ago everywhere you went and for decades and without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?
(https://i.imgur.com/xhJg6EP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/mRL3IGv.jpg)
If you observed horizons like this (below) five hundred years ago everywhere you went and for decades and without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?
(https://i.imgur.com/xhJg6EP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/mRL3IGv.jpg)
Or you are incapable of accepting the Globe proof.
So you haven't looked at all the earth images from the ISS?
If you observed horizons like this (below) five hundred years ago everywhere you wentSure but 500 years ago most quite accepted that the earth was a Globe,
and for decades and without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?You do love your ignorance of history because, unlike you those people 500 or even 1400 years ago believed the earth to be spherical.
The flat earth myth
One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.
In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.
Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:
“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”
(https://i.imgur.com/xhJg6EP.jpg)What's wrong with those photos?
(https://i.imgur.com/mRL3IGv.jpg)
So, you can't read either? Joecool asked "So you haven't looked at all the earth images from the ISS?"Five hundred years ago...?
Or you are incapable of accepting the Globe proof.
So you haven't looked at all the earth images from the ISS?
If you observed horizons like this (below) five hundred years ago everywhere you wentSure but 500 years ago most quite accepted that the earth was a Globe,
2000 years before that the Greeks noted that the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse was round and
even centuries before that they noticed that when ships approached they appeared sails first over the horizon.Quote from: Plat Terraand for decades and without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?You do love your ignorance of history because, unlike you those people 500 or even 1400 years ago believed the earth to be spherical.
Even back around 600 AD the was believed by most to be a Globe!Quote from: Jonathan SarfatiThe flat earth myth
One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.
In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.
Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:
“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”Quote from: Plat Terra(https://i.imgur.com/xhJg6EP.jpg)What's wrong with those photos?
(https://i.imgur.com/mRL3IGv.jpg)
They show the horizon as a sharp straight line exactly as it should be on a Globe about 7920 miled in diameter.
Keep it up! All your are proving is that you know nothing about how the Globe should look!
If you observed horizons like this (below) five hundred years ago everywhere you went and for decades and without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?
(https://i.imgur.com/xhJg6EP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/mRL3IGv.jpg)
Or you are incapable of accepting the Globe proof.
So you haven't looked at all the earth images from the ISS?
Five hundred years ago...?
And I'm waiting for numerous answers from you but you don't seem to have any just silly meme!
And without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?
Still waiting.....
If the earth were flat I can't see how the sun (and moon, planets and stars) could appear to be hidden "behind something" and slowly rise up top first as in this video (click anywhere, it links to a video):The video above is over the Black Sea and the photos below are my own and they show that same thing that flat earth's can never get right without numerous guesses.
Video of Sunrise over Black Sea HD by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s)
An then the sun set near the west with the bottom disappearing first:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1)
LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm
Anyone else?
If you observed horizons like this (below) five hundred years ago everywhere you went and for decades and without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?
Point A: five hundred years ago
Point B: without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape
Point C: why would you believe Earth is a sphere?
(https://i.imgur.com/tquiWvo.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/dyg7sXm.jpg)
I have a problem with you ignoring because you know answring the simple question reveals your failed logixcYep, he ignores me too because I asked two questions that destroyed the arguments he made at the time. He lost.
What direction is gravity???!!!
Anyone else?
If you observed horizons like this (below) five hundred years ago everywhere you went and for decades and without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?
Point A: five hundred years ago
Point B: without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape
Point C: why would you believe Earth is a sphere?
(https://i.imgur.com/tquiWvo.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/dyg7sXm.jpg)
Point A - Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigated the globe 500 years ago, I'm fairly positive celestial navigation proves the Earth is not flat. Solve for me the riddle of the Southern Cross and Sigma Octanis; you'll find it's existence quite troublesome for the flat earth conjecture.
Point B - A horizon that makes a distinct separation between the sea and the sky? Proof positive that the Earth is not flat.
Point C - For the reasons I mentioned above. One thing is for certain, it isn't flat and ample evidence lends itself to the shape being decidedly spherical.
Let me ask you this; if the Earth is a flat disk, with the north pole at its center, where is Sigma Octanis (the southern polar star)? If I stand on Cape Horn, and you stand on Cape Hope and we both look south, we would both see Sigma Octanis to our south. But if the Earth is flat, then Sigma Octanis would need to simultaneously exist at two different places in the sky for both of us to see it due south, which we know isn't the case in the real world.
So is it flat? No.
If you give me a direct answer to what I asked, an answer that applies to what is asked. I will do the same.
If you give me a direct answer to what I asked, an answer that applies to what is asked. I will do the same.
How much more direct do you want?
Maybe you should read the points again and try again.
Maybe you should read the points again and try again.
Or, you could not be evasive and let me know what sort of answers you're looking for.
Anyone else?Five hundred years ago most people were sensible enough to see that the earth was a Globe! Get used to it!
If you observed horizons like this (below) five hundred years ago everywhere you went and for decades and without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?
Point A: five hundred years ago
Point B: without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shapeWhile it might be hard to know that the earth is a sphere I can readily see that it is NOT flat because of the horizon, the sun and moon rising and setting.
Point C: why would you believe Earth is a sphere?
(https://i.imgur.com/tquiWvo.jpg)Again you show two photos that fit far better with a huge Globe than your Flat Earth, congratulations!
(https://i.imgur.com/dyg7sXm.jpg)
And without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?Because I don't need super secret knowledge to explain a sunset.
Why would you believe Earth is a sphere after seeing a horizontal horizon for decades?
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean.
Why?
Pour water on a curved surface and find out. Then encircle a retaining wall around a portion of the curved surface and make sure the wall is higher than the area you want to flood. Then pour water again. Then ask yourself “why didn’t it flood without the retaining wall?"
I poured water on a flat surface. It ran off the sides. I then encircled an area of the flat surface with a retaining wall of sorts higher than the area I wanted to flood. Poured the water again. It didn't run off the sides. So I had to ask myself, “why didn’t the flat surface flood without the retaining wall?"
:)
Now try it with your model.
If the Southern Cross wasn’t visible because of rotation, it would not be called the Southern Cross.
If the Southern Cross wasn’t visible because of rotation, it would not be called the Southern Cross.
Plat removed a post so it makes mine look random.
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.The southern cross is not the southern celestial pole. It is about 60degrees south. Had you bothered to actually understand something, you would have known this. The southern celestial pole remains stationary in the night sky for the entire southern hemisphere, just as polaris remaining nearly stationary for the northern hemisphere. This kills the flat Earth. Thanks for playing.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.The southern cross is not the southern celestial pole. It is about 60degrees south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.The southern cross is not the southern celestial pole. It is about 60degrees south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
I never said it was.
I answered a question and started a new discussion.
Pay attention!
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
Aside from the fact that your meme makes no sense on several levels, well actually all levels, if the earth were an infinite plane then your pouring water on a table experiment would yield the same results; the Mississippi would never rise. Instead of the excess water spilling over the sides of the finite plane it would just flow out toward infinity.
So your own experiment has debunked flat earth. Well done.
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
The antarctic wall? is that what you believe Antarctica is? lmao You really believe we live in a toy world such as the one in your meme.
I wonder how did you verify the antartic wall, but of course you don't answer any question.
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
Aside from the fact that your meme makes no sense on several levels, well actually all levels, if the earth were an infinite plane then your pouring water on a table experiment would yield the same results; the Mississippi would never rise. Instead of the excess water spilling over the sides of the finite plane it would just flow out toward infinity.
So your own experiment has debunked flat earth. Well done.
I see you still like to muddy the waters. Have you heard of evaporation and rain fall? The Mississippi is not going to cause a sea level rise and cause land to flood from the Gulf to north. You’re the one with screwy thinking because you have no logical argument. You just like a pissing match and you're all wet again.
You don't understand anything else about the globe, why would you start now? Since you're answering questions, how about my two from earlier you've been ignoring?Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.The southern cross is not the southern celestial pole. It is about 60degrees south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
I never said it was.
I answered a question and started a new discussion.
Pay attention!
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
Aside from the fact that your meme makes no sense on several levels, well actually all levels, if the earth were an infinite plane then your pouring water on a table experiment would yield the same results; the Mississippi would never rise. Instead of the excess water spilling over the sides of the finite plane it would just flow out toward infinity.
So your own experiment has debunked flat earth. Well done.
I see you still like to muddy the waters. Have you heard of evaporation and rain fall? The Mississippi is not going to cause a sea level rise and cause land to flood from the Gulf to north. You’re the one with screwy thinking because you have no logical argument. You just like a pissing match and you're all wet again.
Who said anything about a sea level rise? I didn't. I just used the mississippi as an example, but this can be applied to any river. Rivers rise in flood conditions. Look it up.
Pay attention.
Your experiment was to pour water onto a simulated surface of the earth, a sphere. You claimed it would never flood for, some reasons that make no sense. But whatever. In any case, the landmasses do flood periodically. Therefore your conclusion was that since it does flood, the earth can't be a sphere.
I applied your experiment to a simulated surface of the earth, a flat plane. If I poured water onto the flat plane it would simply run off the sides, no rivers, oceans or anything else would rise, just waterfall off the edges. Therefore according to your conclusion that since it does flood, the earth can't be a flat plane.
Now you've introduced the concept of an infinite plane. Well, using your same experiment, nothing would flood, no rivers would rise, the water would just flow out to sea and out toward the infinite plane.
Therefore according to your conclusion that since it does in fact flood, the earth can't be a flat plane, infinite or otherwise.
Like I said, your experiment debunks flat earth of both flavors, finite and infinite. Well done.
You don't understand anything else about the globe, why would you start now? Since you're answering questions, how about my two from earlier you've been ignoring?Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.The southern cross is not the southern celestial pole. It is about 60degrees south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
I never said it was.
I answered a question and started a new discussion.
Pay attention!
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.But south on the Gleason's map seems to point in many different directions so where is "the Sigma
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.Looks like you've blown it again! The Globe gas no such problem!
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
Aside from the fact that your meme makes no sense on several levels, well actually all levels, if the earth were an infinite plane then your pouring water on a table experiment would yield the same results; the Mississippi would never rise. Instead of the excess water spilling over the sides of the finite plane it would just flow out toward infinity.
So your own experiment has debunked flat earth. Well done.
I see you still like to muddy the waters. Have you heard of evaporation and rain fall? The Mississippi is not going to cause a sea level rise and cause land to flood from the Gulf to north. You’re the one with screwy thinking because you have no logical argument. You just like a pissing match and you're all wet again.
Who said anything about a sea level rise? I didn't. I just used the mississippi as an example, but this can be applied to any river. Rivers rise in flood conditions. Look it up.
Pay attention.
Your experiment was to pour water onto a simulated surface of the earth, a sphere. You claimed it would never flood for, some reasons that make no sense. But whatever. In any case, the landmasses do flood periodically. Therefore your conclusion was that since it does flood, the earth can't be a sphere.
I applied your experiment to a simulated surface of the earth, a flat plane. If I poured water onto the flat plane it would simply run off the sides, no rivers, oceans or anything else would rise, just waterfall off the edges. Therefore according to your conclusion that since it does flood, the earth can't be a flat plane.
Now you've introduced the concept of an infinite plane. Well, using your same experiment, nothing would flood, no rivers would rise, the water would just flow out to sea and out toward the infinite plane.
Therefore according to your conclusion that since it does in fact flood, the earth can't be a flat plane, infinite or otherwise.
Like I said, your experiment debunks flat earth of both flavors, finite and infinite. Well done.
You are using the experiment out of context with the subject matter and twisting it. You are being ID. The surfaces' in question at first adjoined an ocean or the Gulf and not a continues flat landmass. You say I did not understand, but you did not make it clear you were moving the goal post and talking about another issue by removing the ocean and adding a continues flat landmass. What else could I expect from the opposition?
Sweet dreams and thoughts of "Plat Terra" as you sleep because it's not a sphere.
Waters’ on a sphere Earth cannot backup up and flood a spherical surface, especially if the land adjoins an ocean. Our Earth’s surface lacks the curvature as taught. It’s time accept reality and common sense.What if the adjoining land is below sea level? Or if the flood waters are coming from overflowing rivers upstream? Have you ever heard of storm surge?
Think sphere surface. Not flat or below sea curve. "Sphere Surface" adjoing a coast line.
How does a flat earth flood without a retaining wall holding the flood waters in? Your experiment showed that it wouldn't.
Large surface areas of Earths landmass that are depressed (not curved) can easily flood. But these same large surface areas could not flood if the surface was curved. unless a retaining wall held back the water
On a flat plane the water would just run off the sides never getting a chance to flood anything. What's holding the water on to a flat earth?
You are playing games again. Use the words "Large landmasses with depression areas" Like following...
"On a flat plane with DEPPRESSION AREAS, the water would just run off the sides never getting a chance to flood anything. What's holding the water on to a flat earth?"
No it won't run off, but will flood because of depressions.
You are like Rab and like to muddy the waters. You too should learn about cognitive dissonance.
Sure a land depression could fill up like a swimming pool, same as on a sphere. But on a flat plane the water would just run off the sides, not make the river rise. Explain river rising on a flat plane.
No, not the same on a sphere. You can't flood a large curved surface without a retaining wall. And I don't care to go down your bunny trail with more games with an unrealated issue.
Wow, you have so many obvious blunders in your theory, and more to come.
Later.....
I still think you misunderstand and it's not at all unrelated. It's using your example and using your experiment - If I pour water on to a table, the water runs off the sides. If I poured water on the Mississippi delta, on a flat plane, it would just run into the ocean and that water, in turn, just like on the table, would run off the sides of the plane earth. So I don't see how a river could rise on a flat earth as it would spill off the sides of the earth, just like the table. Please explain.
And you want me to answer your questions after you say this? "You don't understand anything else about the globe, why would you start now?Well, you've proven over and over in every thread that you've made that you don't understand anything about the globe!
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
The antarctic wall? is that what you believe Antarctica is? lmao You really believe we live in a toy world such as the one in your meme.
I wonder how did you verify the antartic wall, but of course you don't answer any question.
Do you know why Antarctica is colder than the Artic regions? The elevation is much higher. And at some point you have to climb to reach the top all the way around.
BTW, don't you think you live under an atmospheric bubble? Yes, you do. So now laugh at yourself for believeing so..
Gleason’s Map. Cape Horn and Cape Hope fall under the same night sky. There is no problem with them seeing the Sigma Octanis star south on the same night. Any straight line will cross to south.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
The antarctic wall? is that what you believe Antarctica is? lmao You really believe we live in a toy world such as the one in your meme.
I wonder how did you verify the antartic wall, but of course you don't answer any question.
Do you know why Antarctica is colder than the Artic regions? The elevation is much higher. And at some point you have to climb to reach the top all the way around.
BTW, don't you think you live under an atmospheric bubble? Yes, you do. So now laugh at yourself for believeing so..
Yes Antarctica is colder than the Arctic, that's what NASA says, but where did you get that information from? I hope you didn't get it from NASA.
The same sources say that the Antarctic coastline is roughly 18.000 km long and many people have sailed around it or crossed it.
What is the evidence for a fantasy +100.000 km long antarctic wall?
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
If you observed horizons like this (below) five hundred years ago everywhere you went and for decades and without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?Because of the nice clear horizon, at the same angle of dip all around; rather than having it fade to a blur like you would expect for a FE.
The problem is, on a sphere Earth, people in Australia should be able see the Southern Cross under the same night sky as those in South America, but they can't. They have to wait about 9 to 12 hours to see it because Earth is a plane.No, because Earth is round, they have to wait until it is night.
You are using the experiment out of context with the subject matter and twisting it. You are being ID. The surfaces' in question at first adjoined an ocean or the Gulf and not a continues flat landmass. You say I did not understand, but you did not make it clear you were moving the goal post and talking about another issue by removing the ocean and adding a continues flat landmass. What else could I expect from the opposition?Good job describing just what you are doing.
Tomorrow?
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
Thursday.
Tomorrow?
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
Thursday.
Do you belong to The Church of Last Thursday: We, the Last Thursdayists, followers of Last Thursdayism, members of The Church of Last Thursday, believe: (http://www.last-thursday.org/)Different Thursday.Tomorrow?Thursday.
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
Tomorrow?
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
Thursday.
Different Thursday.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
The only reason not to see Crux from South America and Australia simultaneously would be the daylight.
They are 180 degrees of longitude apart and when at one is night at the other is day.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
The only reason not to see Crux from South America and Australia simultaneously would be the daylight.
They are 180 degrees of longitude apart and when at one is night at the other is day.
You forget about winter in the north. On a Globe and about the same time, one should see see it before twilight and the other, after twilight. But they have to wait 12 hours because Earth is a Plane.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
The only reason not to see Crux from South America and Australia simultaneously would be the daylight.
They are 180 degrees of longitude apart and when at one is night at the other is day.
You forget about winter in the north. On a Globe and about the same time, one should see see it before twilight and the other, after twilight. But they have to wait 12 hours because Earth is a Plane.
What star charts are you using? As far as I know for some days in the month of june three observers placed in australia, south africa and south america facing south will all see the southern cross at the same time provided clear sky and night in the three places.
This had been already discussed in this forum and no FE seems to be able to explain it.
And you, plata, could reply to:
1.
What direction is gravity?
2.
Why can hills exist on a flat earth?
3.
What is the perimeter distance of antartica?
4.
Why cant we as a speciies accumulate knowledge? - yet you ask for one person, without the input of others, to undiscover what we already know - now this is another stupid request.
5.
Why are you insistent on measuring curvature of earth over land, when it is uneven with mountains and valleys and when water is easier - your first stupidass request.
6.
Why cant you or anyone take photos on multiple days to rule out weather effects of mirages to show ships and lighthouses dip bottom first?
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
The only reason not to see Crux from South America and Australia simultaneously would be the daylight.
They are 180 degrees of longitude apart and when at one is night at the other is day.
You forget about winter down south. On a Globe and about the same time, one should see see it before twilight and the other, after twilight. But they have to wait 12 hours because Earth is a Plane.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
The only reason not to see Crux from South America and Australia simultaneously would be the daylight.
They are 180 degrees of longitude apart and when at one is night at the other is day.
You forget about winter down south. On a Globe and about the same time, one should see see it before twilight and the other, after twilight. But they have to wait 12 hours because Earth is a Plane.
No, they don’t.
The southern pole star Sigma Octantis, is always near enough due south (a little more than a degree off) for anyone watching the night sky in the Southern Hemisphere regardless of the time. Whether they can see it due to sunlight or not.
If your flat earth diagram, was correct, people would see Sigma Octantis come from the East, sweep past South and disappear in the West.
THEY DO NOT.
They see the whole star field rotating around the southern celestial pole, just as people do for the northern celestial pole, except in the opposite direction.
And you, plata, could reply to:
1.
What direction is gravity?
2.
Why can hills exist on a flat earth?
3.
What is the perimeter distance of antartica?
4.
Why cant we as a speciies accumulate knowledge? - yet you ask for one person, without the input of others, to undiscover what we already know - now this is another stupid request.
5.
Why are you insistent on measuring curvature of earth over land, when it is uneven with mountains and valleys and when water is easier - your first stupidass request.
6.
Why cant you or anyone take photos on multiple days to rule out weather effects of mirages to show ships and lighthouses dip bottom first?
1. There is no force pulling to center of Earth.
2. Rolling hills exist because there is no force pulling to center of Earth to shape hills into a sphere.
3. I have not researched this in detail.
4. Depends if you acquire it from something that's intellectually formed. There is nothing intellectual about a Big Bang theory. Just monkeys.
5. Length, width of any landmass like Florida, Texas is all that's needed to determine and verify if there is an alleged curvature bulge over center in conjunction with a 3959 mile radius.
6. Time-laps photos are better and prove the Globe Community wrong. We can’t help they rationalize, ignore and even deny it because it doesn't fit in with the core belief and because they suffer from cognitive dissonance.
The Flat Earth diagram is correct. I can't help that it doesn't fit your Globe.
The issue is about the Southern Cross. Pay atention.
The surface of a sphere cannot produce this mirror image of the surface of this Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/HGdWHur.jpg)
The surface of a sphere cannot produce this mirror image.Why not?
(https://i.imgur.com/HGdWHur.jpg)
The surface of a sphere cannot produce this mirror image.
(https://i.imgur.com/HGdWHur.jpg)
The surface of a sphere cannot produce this mirror image of the surface of this Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/HGdWHur.jpg)
Why not?
The Flat Earth diagram is correct. I can't help that it doesn't fit your Globe.
Except your diagram doesn’t match what people actually see. What they see does match the globe/heliocentric model.
This is supposed to be flat earthers’ whole deal- for people to use their senses. So why make up stuff that no one sees?QuoteThe issue is about the Southern Cross. Pay atention.
The southern cross, along with all other stars visible in the Southern Hemisphere, rotates around the southern celestial pole. It does not move the way your diagram says it should.
Deal with it.
The surface of a sphere cannot produce this mirror image of the surface of this Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/HGdWHur.jpg)
Why not?
The surface of a curved mirror will produce a curved image.
The surface of a sphere cannot produce this mirror image of the surface of this Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/HGdWHur.jpg)
Why not?
The surface of a curved mirror will produce a curved image.
The Flat Earth diagram is correct. I can't help that it doesn't fit your Globe.
Except your diagram doesn’t match what people actually see. What they see does match the globe/heliocentric model.
This is supposed to be flat earthers’ whole deal- for people to use their senses. So why make up stuff that no one sees?QuoteThe issue is about the Southern Cross. Pay atention.
The southern cross, along with all other stars visible in the Southern Hemisphere, rotates around the southern celestial pole. It does not move the way your diagram says it should.
Deal with it.
You have not proved what they see.
The surface of a sphere cannot produce this mirror image.Why not? Until you prove that the reflection is EXACTLY the same as the original you've no case!
(https://i.imgur.com/HGdWHur.jpg)
The surface of a sphere cannot produce this mirror image of the surface of this Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/HGdWHur.jpg)
Why not?
The surface of a curved mirror will produce a curved image.
The surface of a sphere cannot produce this mirror image.
(https://i.imgur.com/HGdWHur.jpg)
Are you saying Mirrors dont exist now?
If your issue is that the photo shows it is too similar, well probably because the photgrapher was righ "near" the water.
Note when teachers face is close up to the mirror, he gets the "right" reflection.
Is rhat what youre on about?
Keep failing.
On a Globe and about the same time, one should see see it before twilight and the other, after twilight. But they have to wait 12 hours because Earth is a Plane.No, on a globe, due to the daylight, you don't see it during the day.
2. Rolling hills exist because there is no force pulling to center of Earth to shape hills into a sphere.There is no magical force pulling anything into any particular shape.
There is nothing intellectual about a Big Bang theory.You not liking something doesn't mean there is nothing intellectual about it.
6. Time-laps photos are better and prove the Globe Community wrong. We can’t help they rationalize, ignore and even deny it because it doesn't fit in with the core belief and because they suffer from cognitive dissonance.And there you go projecting again.
The Flat Earth diagram is correct. I can't help that it doesn't fit your Globe.No, it is completely wrong and does not match reality at all.
The surface of a sphere cannot produce this mirror image.And yet another baseless claim.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
The only reason not to see Crux from South America and Australia simultaneously would be the daylight.
They are 180 degrees of longitude apart and when at one is night at the other is day.
You forget about winter in the north. On a Globe and about the same time, one should see see it before twilight and the other, after twilight. But they have to wait 12 hours because Earth is a Plane.
What star charts are you using? As far as I know for some days in the month of june three observers placed in australia, south africa and south america facing south will all see the southern cross at the same time provided clear sky and night in the three places.
This had been already discussed in this forum and no FE seems to be able to explain it.
As far as you know?? Ok, how far is that?
And your argument is also with Macarios. So give him a reply because he disagrees with you.
That image is about as curved as I would expect a round earth sized mirror to produce. What were you expecting?The surface of a sphere cannot produce this mirror image of the surface of this Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/HGdWHur.jpg)
Why not?
The surface of a curved mirror will produce a curved image.
Maybe someone else would like to take a shot at the question.
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life and without someone else’s opinion about Earth’s shape?
And is there a reason why no one here will give a simple direct and logical reply that pertains to the question?
It’s a very simply question. Answer it. What do you have to lose?
(https://i.imgur.com/f2NZ4yl.jpg)
Maybe someone else would like to take a shot at the question.
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life and without someone else’s opinion about Earth’s shape?
And is there a reason why no one here will give a simple direct and logical reply that pertains to the question?
It’s a very simply question. Answer it. What do you have to lose?
(https://i.imgur.com/f2NZ4yl.jpg)
Maybe someone else would like to take a shot at the question.
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life.
And is there a reason why no one here will give a simple direct and logical reply that pertains to the question?
It’s a very simply question. Answer it. What do you have to lose?
(https://i.imgur.com/f2NZ4yl.jpg)
Because its a stupid question.
Youre asking someone to unknow what they know.
And if they were to say to self discover what they unknow to now know, you would predictively wave it off and say that it was already known.
See how awkward that last statement is?
Ask another stupid question like determining curvature across florida.
Maybe someone else would like to take a shot at the question.
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life and without someone else’s opinion about Earth’s shape?
And is there a reason why no one here will give a simple direct and logical reply that pertains to the question?
It’s a very simply question. Answer it. What do you have to lose?
(https://i.imgur.com/f2NZ4yl.jpg)
I'll answer your question...
It's simple, because the horizon is not the only thing there is to look at.
Maybe someone else would like to take a shot at the question.
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life and without someone else’s opinion about Earth’s shape?
And is there a reason why no one here will give a simple direct and logical reply that pertains to the question?
It’s a very simply question. Answer it. What do you have to lose?
(https://i.imgur.com/f2NZ4yl.jpg)
I'll answer your question...
It's simple, because the horizon is not the only thing there is to look at.
But the horizon is horizontal. What was the hard evedience that made someone believe it's curved?
Maybe someone else would like to take a shot at the question.
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life.
And is there a reason why no one here will give a simple direct and logical reply that pertains to the question?
It’s a very simply question. Answer it. What do you have to lose?
(https://i.imgur.com/f2NZ4yl.jpg)
Because its a stupid question.
Youre asking someone to unknow what they know.
And if they were to say to self discover what they unknow to now know, you would predictively wave it off and say that it was already known.
See how awkward that last statement is?
Ask another stupid question like determining curvature across florida.
Alright I removed someone's opinion.
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life? What was the life changing evedience?
But the horizon is horizontal.Exactly as it should be on a Globe about 7920 miles (12,742 km)
What was the hardNone! Why would anyone be expected to "someone believe it's curved?"evedienceevidence that made someone believe it's curved?
You forget about winter down south. On a Globe and about the same time, one should see see it before twilight and the other, after twilight. But they have to wait 12 hours because Earth is a Plane.No we do not forget about winter!
Themightykabool on Today at 03:59:31 PM
Well the greeks had an aristocrat society where people got paid to sit around and think.
They also lived on the coast and had a huge navy constantly fighting.
3 questions:
1.Sunsets and sun rises appear to show the circle emerge from behind an edged horizon. Why?
2. Ships coming would rise out of thwater and going would disappear botttom first. Why?
3. The moon would cycle regularly but a special occurance during lunar eclipses show a shadow crossing ans they got to see the phases in action. Why?
So graduate from grade 4 elemtranry school before arrogantly touting bad memes.
..........
Plat Terra
1. There is evidence of the Sun fading away above the horizon. Why? (So, it's inconclusive.)
2. There is evidence of a surface mirage blocking the view of the boat. Why? (So, it's inconclusive)
3. There is evidence of both the Sun and Moon being above the horizon during a lunar eclipse; not in a 180° alignment. Proving it's not Earths shadow.
Hard evidence please....
Again
...
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life?
What was the life changing evedience?
(https://i.imgur.com/osbYcBC.jpg)
Themightykabool on Today at 03:59:31 PM
Well the greeks had an aristocrat society where people got paid to sit around and think.
They also lived on the coast and had a huge navy constantly fighting.
3 questions:
1.Sunsets and sun rises appear to show the circle emerge from behind an edged horizon. Why?
2. Ships coming would rise out of thwater and going would disappear botttom first. Why?
3. The moon would cycle regularly but a special occurance during lunar eclipses show a shadow crossing ans they got to see the phases in action. Why?
So graduate from grade 4 elemtranry school before arrogantly touting bad memes.
..........
Plat Terra
1. There is evidence of the Sun fading away above the horizon. Why? (So, it's inconclusive.)
2. There is evidence of a surface mirage blocking the view of the boat. Why? (So, it's inconclusive)
3. There is evidence of both the Sun and Moon being above the horizon during a lunar eclipse; not in a 180° alignment. Proving it's not Earths shadow.
Hard evidence please....
Again
...
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life?
What was the life changing evedience?
(https://i.imgur.com/osbYcBC.jpg)
There are 3 conditions, that allow you to see a partial lunar eclipse on a globe, 2 are geometric. Not during the total phase.
There are NO geometric conditions that a lunar eclipse can happen on the FE model.
Plat TerraThe sun sometimes appears to fade into the distance but, from what I have seen with my own eyes, it almost always appears to sink into the horizon like this:
1. There is evidence of the Sun fading away above the horizon. Why? (So, it's inconclusive.)
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1) LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1) LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm |
2. There is evidence of a surface mirage blocking the view of the boat. Why? (So, it's inconclusive)A "a surface mirage" rarely blocks "the view of the boat"! Looming and mirages more often allow objects to be seen at greater distances than expected.
The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce, Cottesloe Western Australia.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft(https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
3. There is evidence of both the Sun and Moon being above the horizon during a lunar eclipse; not in a 180° alignment. Proving it's not Earths shadow.In no way is it "Proving it's not Earth's shadow."!
Hard evidence please....Remember that YOU are trying to convince us so YOU must provided the "hard evidence" and you are not doing that.
AgainThere was no "life changing evedience" because those in Europe and most of the Middle East already knew the earth to be a Globe!
...
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life?
What was the life changing evedience?
(https://i.imgur.com/osbYcBC.jpg)Again, a straight fairly sharp horizon, exactly as it should look on the Globe!
Plat TerraThe sun sometimes appears to fade into the distance but, from what I have seen with my own eyes, it almost always appears to sink into the horizon like this:
1. There is evidence of the Sun fading away above the horizon. Why? (So, it's inconclusive.)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1)
LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mmQuote from: Plat Terra2. There is evidence of a surface mirage blocking the view of the boat. Why? (So, it's inconclusive)A "a surface mirage" rarely blocks "the view of the boat"! Looming and mirages more often allow objects to be seen at greater distances than expected.
Under good conditions ships, lighthouses and cities are hidden as expected by the horizon as in:The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce, Cottesloe Western Australia.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft(https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ftQuote from: Plat Terra3. There is evidence of both the Sun and Moon being above the horizon during a lunar eclipse; not in a 180° alignment. Proving it's not Earths shadow.In no way is it "Proving it's not Earth's shadow."!
Read up up senelions, they are not that uncommon: Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include 'Impossible' Sight (https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html)Quote from: Plat TerraHard evidence please....Remember that YOU are trying to convince us so YOU must provided the "hard evidence" and you are not doing that.Quote from: Plat TerraAgainThere was no "life changing evedience" because those in Europe and most of the Middle East already knew the earth to be a Globe!
...
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life?
What was the life changing evedience?Quote from: Plat Terra(https://i.imgur.com/osbYcBC.jpg)Again, a straight fairly sharp horizon, exactly as it should look on the Globe!
If "common sense is what tells us the earth is flat" those people 2000 to 2500 years ago must have had some "uncommon sense".
But when there are two options and, what appears to be, evidence for both you should select the option that best fits the evidence.
And there are numerous, easily observed, things that simply do not fit your "modern flat model" and you have never addressed them.
So, the answer to "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" is, as before, never unless YOU can present some "hard evidence" that the earth cannot be a Globe!
The fact that the Sun and Moon being above the horizon during a lunar eclipse and not in a 180° alignmentWho said that the sun and moon cannot both appear above the horizon and still be in a 180° alignment?
destroys Sphere Earth's mechanics. That's what matters right now and here at this time. Give up and accept defeat!So no it does not destroy the "Sphere Earth's mechanics" in the slightest.
What was the hard evidence of Sphere Earth 500 to 1500 years ago?It's time for YOU to give some answers, thank you!
Plat TerraThe sun sometimes appears to fade into the distance but, from what I have seen with my own eyes, it almost always appears to sink into the horizon like this:
1. There is evidence of the Sun fading away above the horizon. Why? (So, it's inconclusive.)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1)
LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mmQuote from: Plat Terra2. There is evidence of a surface mirage blocking the view of the boat. Why? (So, it's inconclusive)A "a surface mirage" rarely blocks "the view of the boat"! Looming and mirages more often allow objects to be seen at greater distances than expected.
Under good conditions ships, lighthouses and cities are hidden as expected by the horizon as in:The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce, Cottesloe Western Australia.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft(https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ftQuote from: Plat Terra3. There is evidence of both the Sun and Moon being above the horizon during a lunar eclipse; not in a 180° alignment. Proving it's not Earths shadow.In no way is it "Proving it's not Earth's shadow."!
Read up up senelions, they are not that uncommon: Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include 'Impossible' Sight (https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html)Quote from: Plat TerraHard evidence please....Remember that YOU are trying to convince us so YOU must provided the "hard evidence" and you are not doing that.Quote from: Plat TerraAgainThere was no "life changing evedience" because those in Europe and most of the Middle East already knew the earth to be a Globe!
...
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life?
What was the life changing evedience?Quote from: Plat Terra(https://i.imgur.com/osbYcBC.jpg)Again, a straight fairly sharp horizon, exactly as it should look on the Globe!
If "common sense is what tells us the earth is flat" those people 2000 to 2500 years ago must have had some "uncommon sense".
But when there are two options and, what appears to be, evidence for both you should select the option that best fits the evidence.
And there are numerous, easily observed, things that simply do not fit your "modern flat model" and you have never addressed them.
So, the answer to "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" is, as before, never unless YOU can present some "hard evidence" that the earth cannot be a Globe!
What was the hard evidence of Sphere Earth 500 to 1500 years ago?
Is that when Tom Bishop finally uploads the images of the "Bishop experiment", showing what he described as supposedly happening, along with the specs of the telescope he claims to have used?
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
Thursday.
(https://i.imgur.com/osbYcBC.jpg)(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-common-sense-tells-us-that-the-world-is-flat-that-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-that-stuart-chase-110-13-13.jpg)
This Tom Bishop?Is that when Tom Bishop finally uploads the images of the "Bishop experiment", showing what he described as supposedly happening, along with the specs of the telescope he claims to have used?
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
Thursday.
And you want me to answer your questions after you say this? "You don't understand anything else about the globe, why would you start now?Because it is obvious.
Be specific and in context with my statments if you want in.Ok, actually there are four, as the last quote contains two questions. Here they are with your quotes for context.
QuotePerspective. Even a taller mountain off in a distance is going to appear smaller than closer ones, even on a Plane Earth.I'm not talking about them appearing smaller, I'm talking about points at a specific elevation appearing below a straight line of sight along that same elevation.
Along a straight line of sight, things below that line of sight appear to rise to it as distance is increased, and things above it appear to lower to it as distance is increased. Do you agree with that statement?
*edited to fit your parameters*- When zooming in on a curved line, the curve of the line does appears to lessen. Do you agree?This post is in reply to most arguments above. Arguments that have been addressed here at the FE forum many times but ignored. Please don’t ignore the lights of the city at 52.72 miles away. They should be hidden by bulge of water. And notice there is a horizon and not a curvizon.Do you know how much should be hidden from view? Yes, there is a horizon, and no, there's no left to right curve visible, as is expected with a high magnification shot on a globe.
Then Earth must be cylinder shaped. You can't have it both ways.
Our small Sun reaches a point where it can't continue to cast light on the MTAnd yet it remains the same size all day. How high do you think the sun is, and how far away would it need to be to be 1 degree above the horizon? How far away would it need to be to appear to touch the horizon?
[/quote]And you want me to answer your questions after you say this? "You don't understand anything else about the globe, why would you start now?Because it is obvious.
It was obvious from the beginning of this thread. I can't help it if you don't appear to understand anything.And you want me to answer your questions after you say this? "You don't understand anything else about the globe, why would you start now?Because it is obvious.
I was being nice and you had to take another shot. You just blew your chance.
So, there never was any hard evidence of sphere Earth 500 to 1,500 years ago. Is this correct? People just followed blindly, right?No one said that and we only know what has been written in that period.
Please explain why not! There's nothing in that photo that might indicate that the earth might be flat!
No one in their right mind can look at a horizon like this (below) and think Earth is a sphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/3b6QAN8.jpg)
Please explain why not! There's nothing in that photo that might indicate that the earth might be flat!
No one in their right mind can look at a horizon like this (below) and think Earth is a sphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/3b6QAN8.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
It is believed that those who embraced a sphere Earth before the modern era were smart and those who embraced a Flat Earth were ignorant. Yet no one can provide the hard evidence of sphere Earth used at that time to prove to the people Earth is a sphere. Why?
So, who are the real ignorant and persuasive group? Are they the ones who rejected the idea on grounds of no real evidence or those who accepted it as indoctrination without real evidence?
Yes, the Globe theory began through ignorance and indoctrination. That’s something to be proud of, defend and support.
No one in their right mind can look at a horizon like this (below) and think Earth is a sphere. They have to go through a processes of indoctrination.
(https://i.imgur.com/3b6QAN8.jpg)
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life? What was the life changing evedience?
(https://i.imgur.com/f2NZ4yl.jpg)
So, there never was any hard evidence of sphere Earth 500 to 1,500 years ago. Is this correct? People just followed blindly, right?
It is believed that those who embraced a sphere Earth before the modern era were smart and those who embraced a Flat Earth were ignorant. Yet no one can provide the hard evidence of sphere Earth used at that time to prove to the people Earth is a sphere. Why?
So, who are the real ignorant and persuasive group? Are they the ones who rejected the idea on grounds of no real evidence or those who accepted it as indoctrination without real evidence?
Yes, the Globe theory began through ignorance and indoctrination. That’s something to be proud of, defend and support.
No one in their right mind can look at a horizon like this (below) and think Earth is a sphere. They have to go through a processes of indoctrination.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
During certain times of the year, both Cape Hope and Cape Horn can simultaneously see Sigma Octantis. Here is the problem with Sigma Octantis and the notion that the Earth is flat:
(https://i1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj635/Gumwars/Sigma%20Octantis%20Paradox_zpsguob6y8c.jpg) (http://s1271.photobucket.com/user/Gumwars/media/Sigma%20Octantis%20Paradox_zpsguob6y8c.jpg.html)
If the Earth is flat, why can two people looking due south see Sigma Octantis in two different locations? This is a paradox that has yet to be solved by the FE community. A person standing at Cape Hope should, if the Earth is flat, see this constellation both due south and to the west while a person standing at Cape Horn would see it both south and again to the east. We know this to not be the case in reality. The Southern Cross always presents itself to the south, as Polaris always appears to the north.
Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?
It is believed that those who embraced a sphere Earth before the modern era were smart and those who embraced a Flat Earth were ignorant. Yet no one can provide the hard evidence of sphere Earth used at that time to prove to the people Earth is a sphere. Why?
So, who are the real ignorant and persuasive group? Are they the ones who rejected the idea on grounds of no real evidence or those who accepted it as indoctrination without real evidence?
Yes, the Globe theory began through ignorance and indoctrination. That’s something to be proud of, defend and support.
No one in their right mind can look at a horizon like this (below) and think Earth is a sphere. They have to go through a processes of indoctrination.
(https://i.imgur.com/3b6QAN8.jpg)
I think you have your flat earth cart before your flogged to death horse.
All of what you say is no more than hot air. The fact the earth is a sphere is simply beyond doubt. The real problem is not one of ‘indoctrination’ as you put it but education and reality and the fact that your appear unable to accept the truth.
The proof for a spherical earth is everywhere, proof that you for some reason only known to yourself are unable to accept.
You point to a picture and say this is proof! What would you expect to see in your picture if the earth were spherical? Remember the earth is big!
It is believed that those who embraced a sphere Earth before the modern era were smart and those who embraced a Flat Earth were ignorant.Sure, "It is believed that those who embraced a sphere Earth before the modern era were smart" because the based there belief on evidence accumulated over centuries.
Yet no one can provide the hard evidence of sphere Earth used at that time to prove to the people Earth is a sphere. Why?That is simply a silly expectation because all we have is what survives of what was written then.
So, who are the real ignorant and persuasive group? Are they the ones who rejected the idea on grounds of no real evidence or those who accepted it as indoctrination without real evidence?The ignorant ones are you flat earthers who reject the Globe with no real evidence!
Yes, the Globe theory began through ignorance and indoctrination.That is a total fabrication and you have no credible basis for such a claim!
No one in their right mind can look at a horizon like this (below) and think Earth is a sphere.I've already written about that photograph! It has nothing that indicates that the earth might not be a Globe.
Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?
You literally just asked if the Southern Cross is to the south. Let that sink in a moment...
Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?It's up to YOU to prove otherwise!
It is believed that those who embraced a sphere Earth before the modern era were smart and those who embraced a Flat Earth were ignorant.Sure, "It is believed that those who embraced a sphere Earth before the modern era were smart" because the based there belief on evidence accumulated over centuries.
But who claimed that, "those who embraced a Flat Earth were ignorant". The few "who embraced a Flat Earth" mainly "embraced a Flat Earth" for religious reasons and not evidence.Quote from: Plat TerraYet no one can provide the hard evidence of sphere Earth used at that time to prove to the people Earth is a sphere. Why?That is simply a silly expectation because all we have is what survives of what was written then.
There is, however, much written by Ptolemy, a Greco-Roman, The Venerable Bede, English, Al Biruni, of Persia, and Johannes de Sacrobosco, of France.
But I'm not going to waste my time detailing all of that just to have you ignore as you do with everything else.Quote from: Plat TerraSo, who are the real ignorant and persuasive group? Are they the ones who rejected the idea on grounds of no real evidence or those who accepted it as indoctrination without real evidence?The ignorant ones are you flat earthers who reject the Globe with no real evidence!
And most flat earthers accepted the flat earth by what amounts to indoctrination from sources like far earth YouTube videos that show no real evidence!Quote from: Plat TerraYes, the Globe theory began through ignorance and indoctrination.That is a total fabrication and you have no credible basis for such a claim!
There is a tremendous amount of evidence that, before around 600 BC, the earth was considered flat but with like semblance to the current ludicrous flat earth model!
The change to seeing the earth as a Globe came as people travelled further and gathered evidence that did not fit their earlier beliefs.Quote from: Plat TerraNo one in their right mind can look at a horizon like this (below) and think Earth is a sphere.I've already written about that photograph! It has nothing that indicates that the earth might not be a Globe.
Answer the question. The issue is about two different shapes of a world. You answer is biased.
Answer the question. The issue is about two different shapes of a world. You answer is biased.Why should we answer your questions? You never seem to give sensible answers when asked.
Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?It's up to YOU to prove otherwise!
YOU are the one trying to to convince the RE Community to Accept Defeat and you are doing a terrible job of it!
Answer the question. The issue is about two different shapes of a world. You answer is biased.
The Southern Cross is part of the constellations that let any navigator in the southern hemisphere find due south. That would make it...due south. Meaning, YES, it is due south for anyone in the southern hemisphere looking south. That is the reason I presented the Sigma Octantis paradox; if the Earth is flat, the location of this constellation is paradoxical. It would need to be in multiple locations at the same time. However, in this reality, it isn't. We find it due south in the southern hemisphere for anyone that observes it, simultaneously at the same location and it isn't a paradox if the Earth is a sphere.
Have you ever wondered why Polaris doesn't have this problem? Did it ever dawn on you that Rowbotham, an Englishman that never visited a location south of the equator and dropped out of school at the age of nine, would invent an ideology that never accounted for anything beyond places that he visited? The idea of a flat Earth was born from a man that was too stupid to conceptualize the implications of his own lie.
So, I am correct you cannot provide the hard evedince, but yet can provied volumes of info from those who taught Earth a sphere.How could you or I provide "hard
And there is no compleling evedience known for that day, correct?
I know nothing about Rowbotham or his writings.Well, you'd better learn quickly!
When it is proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time then you have an argument.We don't need an argument, you do if you want an answer to "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?"!
Rubbish! Prove that People in the RE Community are accepting defeat everyday!Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?It's up to YOU to prove otherwise!
YOU are the one trying to to convince the RE Community to Accept Defeat and you are doing a terrible job of it!
I didn't make the argument. It was a logical question. People are accepting defeat everyday. Like it or not.
So, I am correct you cannot provide the hard evedince, but yet can provied volumes of info from those who taught Earth a sphere.How could you or I provide "hardevedinceevidince" of what was known centuries ago? Be sensible!
Have you ever thought that anyone can "rovide volumes of info from those who knew the earth to be a sphere but not from "flat earthers" because after around 500 AD there were few flat earthers?Quote from: Plat TerraAnd there is no compleling evedience known for that day, correct?
Who suggested that? The evidence had been accumulated over about 1000 years by then.
Have you read all those volumes yet ;D?
Look the early flat earth models of the Sumerians, the Babylonians and the ancient Greeks fitted the limited regions of earth where they live.
But those models simply do not work at all for the whole earth as was known even from the early centuries AD.
So, Rowbotham "invented" a flat earth model with the sun, moon, planets and stars circling above.
But Rowbotham had little knowledge of the rest of the earth and virtually none of the Southern Hemisphere.
As a result the "modern flat earth model" simply does not work for numerous reasons!
Get you own huge problems sorted out before displaying more of your pathetic ignorance about the Globe!
Rubbish! Prove that People in the RE Community are accepting defeat everyday!Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?It's up to YOU to prove otherwise!
YOU are the one trying to to convince the RE Community to Accept Defeat and you are doing a terrible job of it!
I didn't make the argument. It was a logical question. People are accepting defeat everyday. Like it or not.
Rubbish! Prove that People in the RE Community are accepting defeat everyday!Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?It's up to YOU to prove otherwise!
YOU are the one trying to to convince the RE Community to Accept Defeat and you are doing a terrible job of it!
I didn't make the argument. It was a logical question. People are accepting defeat everyday. Like it or not.
No, no rubbish here. You should get out more. I know of teachers in your area that are busy.
Everyday!!
Ah, to die knowing what you believed is a just plain wrong, and to know people ridicule you for your at-best-medieval view!
I asked you to Prove that People in the RE Community are accepting defeat everyday!Rubbish! Prove that People in the RE Community are accepting defeat everyday!No, no rubbish here.
Here are samples from US, Russian and Japanese weather satellites:
The United States' has the GOES series of weather satellites, with three in operation:
GOES-15, GOES-16 (at 75.2º W Longitude) and GOES-17 (at 137.2º W Longitude) with GOES-15 being retired in early July 2019.
A full disk image from GOES-17
captured from its new orbital position at 137.2 degrees west longitude
This full disk image of Earth was captured by the GOES-16 satellite
Wednesday. Credit: NOAA
Russia's weather satellite Elektro-L No.1 is located at 76°E over the Indian Ocean and the Japanese have the Himawari 8 over the western Pacific Ocean at 140°E.
Earth as viewed by the Russian weather satellite Elektro-L,
on September 26, 2012. A higher resolution version is available on GigaPan (http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/122634).
From Japan's Himawari-8
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
During certain times of the year, both Cape Hope and Cape Horn can simultaneously see Sigma Octantis. Here is the problem with Sigma Octantis and the notion that the Earth is flat:
(https://i1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj635/Gumwars/Sigma%20Octantis%20Paradox_zpsguob6y8c.jpg) (http://s1271.photobucket.com/user/Gumwars/media/Sigma%20Octantis%20Paradox_zpsguob6y8c.jpg.html)
If the Earth is flat, why can two people looking due south see Sigma Octantis in two different locations? This is a paradox that has yet to be solved by the FE community. A person standing at Cape Hope should, if the Earth is flat, see this constellation both due south and to the west while a person standing at Cape Horn would see it both south and again to the east. We know this to not be the case in reality. The Southern Cross always presents itself to the south, as Polaris always appears to the north.
Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?
That simply asks a question, "Was this world map made ten centuries ago? " There's no evidence or proof of anything there.Ah, to die knowing what you believed is a just plain wrong, and to know people ridicule you for your at-best-medieval view!
Yes, it’s a shame the medieval astronomers warped the minds of people with all types of fantasies that continue today as truth. They could have explored other reigons on the infinite Plane, instead of being bound to a world they thought was a sphere and could never leave. What a true shame.
https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQfwPMkVf21jNOLIQJvYZGDB9TWTRoe07xoEUQECdvZ7eC2dR5J)
Hawaiian Gazette January 11, 1911 (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/the-1907-ancient-world-map-hoax.html)
As I wrote in a blog post discussing this article, the following article comes to us from the January 11, 1907 edition of the Hawaiian Gazette and alleges to be a map of the world made in Japan more than 1,000 years ago. But as critical readers will notice, the story has more than a few hints of the Zeno Map story. As with that infamous map, this one is also a redrawn modern copy of an allegedly ancient map unseen by anyone. Like the Zeno Map, the original was also allegedly rotten with age, explained by a mysterious ancient letter unseen by anyone else, and it also serves to glorify the geographic areas connected to its “discoverer.” In this case a Japanese resident of Hawaii found a map in Japan that was ignorant of Madagascar, Greenland, and Polynesia but somehow managed to include Hawaii front and center!
There’s a pretty good indication that the journalist who wrote the piece knew it was a hoax: He compares it to James De Mille’s 1888 novel Manuscript found in a Copper Cylinder, a satirical tale of an underground world.
Funny how you knew instantly who it was aimed for.Ah, to die knowing what you believed is a just plain wrong, and to know people ridicule you for your at-best-medieval view!
Yes, it’s a shame the medieval astronomers warped the minds of people with all types of fantasies that continue today as truth. They could have explored other reigons on the infinite Plane, instead of being bound to a world they thought was a sphere and could never leave. What a true shame.
That simply asks a question, "Was this world map made ten centuries ago? " There's no evidence or proof of anything there.Ah, to die knowing what you believed is a just plain wrong, and to know people ridicule you for your at-best-medieval view!
Yes, it’s a shame the medieval astronomers warped the minds of people with all types of fantasies that continue today as truth. They could have explored other reigons on the infinite Plane, instead of being bound to a world they thought was a sphere and could never leave. What a true shame.
https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg)
And are newspapers evidence of anything? Hardly!
Especially as!Quote(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQfwPMkVf21jNOLIQJvYZGDB9TWTRoe07xoEUQECdvZ7eC2dR5J)
Hawaiian Gazette January 11, 1911 (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/the-1907-ancient-world-map-hoax.html)
As I wrote in a blog post discussing this article, the following article comes to us from the January 11, 1907 edition of the Hawaiian Gazette and alleges to be a map of the world made in Japan more than 1,000 years ago. But as critical readers will notice, the story has more than a few hints of the Zeno Map story. As with that infamous map, this one is also a redrawn modern copy of an allegedly ancient map unseen by anyone. Like the Zeno Map, the original was also allegedly rotten with age, explained by a mysterious ancient letter unseen by anyone else, and it also serves to glorify the geographic areas connected to its “discoverer.” In this case a Japanese resident of Hawaii found a map in Japan that was ignorant of Madagascar, Greenland, and Polynesia but somehow managed to include Hawaii front and center!
There’s a pretty good indication that the journalist who wrote the piece knew it was a hoax: He compares it to James De Mille’s 1888 novel Manuscript found in a Copper Cylinder, a satirical tale of an underground world.
Run away and stop foisting more flat earth hoaxes on us!
That simply asks a question, "Was this world map made ten centuries ago? " There's no evidence or proof of anything there.Ah, to die knowing what you believed is a just plain wrong, and to know people ridicule you for your at-best-medieval view!
Yes, it’s a shame the medieval astronomers warped the minds of people with all types of fantasies that continue today as truth. They could have explored other reigons on the infinite Plane, instead of being bound to a world they thought was a sphere and could never leave. What a true shame.
https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg)
And are newspapers evidence of anything? Hardly!
Especially as!Quote(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQfwPMkVf21jNOLIQJvYZGDB9TWTRoe07xoEUQECdvZ7eC2dR5J)
Hawaiian Gazette January 11, 1911 (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/the-1907-ancient-world-map-hoax.html)
As I wrote in a blog post discussing this article, the following article comes to us from the January 11, 1907 edition of the Hawaiian Gazette and alleges to be a map of the world made in Japan more than 1,000 years ago. But as critical readers will notice, the story has more than a few hints of the Zeno Map story. As with that infamous map, this one is also a redrawn modern copy of an allegedly ancient map unseen by anyone. Like the Zeno Map, the original was also allegedly rotten with age, explained by a mysterious ancient letter unseen by anyone else, and it also serves to glorify the geographic areas connected to its “discoverer.” In this case a Japanese resident of Hawaii found a map in Japan that was ignorant of Madagascar, Greenland, and Polynesia but somehow managed to include Hawaii front and center!
There’s a pretty good indication that the journalist who wrote the piece knew it was a hoax: He compares it to James De Mille’s 1888 novel Manuscript found in a Copper Cylinder, a satirical tale of an underground world.
Run away and stop foisting more flat earth hoaxes on us!
I expect the opposition to muddy the waters’. If it were a Globe Earth map you would praise the newspaper, but since the center looks similar to the Gleason Map it must be discredited at all cost.
The following Gleason map will let you know were the Sun is any time of the day.
(https://i.imgur.com/IPgg5IA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gmnSCD8.jpg)
That simply asks a question, "Was this world map made ten centuries ago? " There's no evidence or proof of anything there.Ah, to die knowing what you believed is a just plain wrong, and to know people ridicule you for your at-best-medieval view!
Yes, it’s a shame the medieval astronomers warped the minds of people with all types of fantasies that continue today as truth. They could have explored other reigons on the infinite Plane, instead of being bound to a world they thought was a sphere and could never leave. What a true shame.
https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg)
And are newspapers evidence of anything? Hardly!
Especially as!Quote(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQfwPMkVf21jNOLIQJvYZGDB9TWTRoe07xoEUQECdvZ7eC2dR5J)
Hawaiian Gazette January 11, 1911 (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/the-1907-ancient-world-map-hoax.html)
As I wrote in a blog post discussing this article, the following article comes to us from the January 11, 1907 edition of the Hawaiian Gazette and alleges to be a map of the world made in Japan more than 1,000 years ago. But as critical readers will notice, the story has more than a few hints of the Zeno Map story. As with that infamous map, this one is also a redrawn modern copy of an allegedly ancient map unseen by anyone. Like the Zeno Map, the original was also allegedly rotten with age, explained by a mysterious ancient letter unseen by anyone else, and it also serves to glorify the geographic areas connected to its “discoverer.” In this case a Japanese resident of Hawaii found a map in Japan that was ignorant of Madagascar, Greenland, and Polynesia but somehow managed to include Hawaii front and center!
There’s a pretty good indication that the journalist who wrote the piece knew it was a hoax: He compares it to James De Mille’s 1888 novel Manuscript found in a Copper Cylinder, a satirical tale of an underground world.
Run away and stop foisting more flat earth hoaxes on us!
I expect the opposition to muddy the waters’. If it were a Globe Earth map you would praise the newspaper, but since the center looks similar to the Gleason Map it must be discredited at all cost.
The following Gleason map will let you know were the Sun is any time of the day.
(https://i.imgur.com/IPgg5IA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gmnSCD8.jpg)
OK mr Terra...explain this.
Why does the moon appear to be upside down when viewed the the Southern Hemisphere, as compared to how it looks in the Northern Hemisphere? You can add to that constellations like Orion.?
The same stars?
Really?
Now your refuting stars that sailors have used for 100s of years?
It's all about "Orientation". Face south lean back and look at the Moon and Stars and you can see the same face and the same rotation of the Stars as those in the North.
(https://i.imgur.com/hAw5InM.png)
It's all about "Orientation". Face south lean back and look at the Moon and Stars and you can see the same face and the same rotation of the Stars as those in the North.
(https://i.imgur.com/hAw5InM.png)
Those two observers would see different parts of the moon in the drawing you made
(https://i.imgur.com/Yajqjq3.jpg)
In your next drawing you could add two more observers on opposite positions east and west and explain why the dont see the moon upside down from each other.
It's all about "Orientation". Face south lean back and look at the Moon and Stars and you can see the same face and the same rotation of the Stars as those in the North.
(https://i.imgur.com/hAw5InM.png)
Those two observers would see different parts of the moon in the drawing you made
(https://i.imgur.com/Yajqjq3.jpg)
In your next drawing you could add two more observers on opposite positions east and west and explain why the dont see the moon upside down from each other.
The point is they won't see a reversed moon. No picture of the moon looks the same at different locations and they only see the face. The drawing is not to scale.
The same stars?
Really?
Now your refuting stars that sailors have used for 100s of years?
The same rotation of the Stars as those in the North.
Why would anyoneRepeatedly ignoring the answers that have been provided too you won't magically make them go away.
1. There is evidence of the Sun fading away above the horizon. Why?Because objects can still obscure it.
2. There is evidence of a surface mirage blocking the view of the boat. Why? (So, it's inconclusive)Where? You are yet to provide any. You have repeatedly asserted it, but yet to demonstrate it.
3. There is evidence of both the Sun and Moon being above the horizon during a lunar eclipse; not in a 180° alignment. Proving it's not Earths shadow.A lunar eclipse does not require perfect alignment.
The same rotation of the Stars as those in the North.No, quite different.
The point is they won't see a reversed moon. No picture of the moon looks the same at different locations and they only see the face. The drawing is not to scale.Yes everywhere on the Globe people see the same face and phase of the moon but in the Southern Hemisphere we see the moon rotated compared to those in the Northern Hemisphere.
When viewed from the southern hemisphere, the moon appears to be upside down. If viewed from the equator, it appears to be lying on its side.There are some photos of that in Re: observation of orientation of the spots on moon or sun from south pole of earth. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=75194.msg2048500;topicseen#msg2048500)
How can this be on a flat earth. Surely the fact that the moon appears to rotate as you travel from northern to southern hemisphere means the earth must be curved.
Surely this proves the earth is a spherical object?
Any opinions?
Here are the photos from that article:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5tftq86r354rnh/The%20Moon%20seen%20from%20the%20southern%20hemisphere%2C%20taken%20on%20the%2025th%20of%20November%202012%2C%20from%20Montevideo%2C%20Uruguay..jpg?dl=1)
The Moon seen from the southern hemisphere,
taken on the 25th of Nov 2012, from Montevideo, Uruguay.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g0a7s6f4zin3gs1/Full%20Moon%20photograph%20taken%2010-22-2010%20from%20Madison%2C%20Alabama%2C%20USA.jpg?dl=1)
Full Moon from the northern hemisphere
taken on the 22nd of Oct 2010, from Madison, Alabama, USA.
Photographed with a Celestron 9.25 Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope.
Please show how you flat earth model explains lunar phases especially the part where everybody that can see the the moon sees it almost exactly the same phase and shape.
With the moon only 5000 km above the flat earth earth, people in different locations should see quite different faces of the moon as in:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/q4prbysxnwazj6f/Full%20Moon%20for%203000%20mile%20moon%20over%20Flat%20Earth.jpg?dl=1)Where it would seem that if people in the USA see the full moon people in South America would see only a half moon and a quite different face.
But they do not - everyone sees the same phase and the same face! How can this be possible?
If my diagrams are inaccurate, I would be quite pleased to see accurate ones.
(https://i.imgur.com/s2l5Drf.jpg)
It's all about "Orientation". Face south lean back and look at the Moon and Stars and you can see the same face and the same rotation of the Stars as those in the North.
(https://i.imgur.com/hAw5InM.png)
Those two observers would see different parts of the moon in the drawing you made
(https://i.imgur.com/Yajqjq3.jpg)
In your next drawing you could add two more observers on opposite positions east and west and explain why the dont see the moon upside down from each other.
The point is they won't see a reversed moon. No picture of the moon looks the same at different locations and they only see the face. The drawing is not to scale.
NASA continues to prove they fake Space. You just have to know where to look. Different pictures of the ISS observation window reveal many different shapes and sizes of Earth. They can’t get the CGI right on the other side of the window.
Small Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/sV0VCfI.jpg)
Big Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/GuXJdFe.jpg)
.....and no we have Plane Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
So which is it?
Is Earth a ...
1. Small sphere Earth
2. Big sphere Earth
3. Plane Earth.
Pick one wisely.
Are you ready to accept defeat yet?
Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life? What was the life changing evedience?
(https://i.imgur.com/f2NZ4yl.jpg)
Are you ready to accept defeat yet?Your entire moon and stars meme crashes and burns, just like all of the others. So now we just move on to the ISS?
Been trying to register for a couple of days.Hey that happened to you, too? I assumed it was a problem with my email or something. I wonder if there's an intentional waiting period, or maybe the board admins manually approve user registrations? Interesting.
Your first ISS photo is fake, the other two look correct, possibly taken with different lenses.
Been trying to register for a couple of days.Hey that happened to you, too? I assumed it was a problem with my email or something. I wonder if there's an intentional waiting period, or maybe the board admins manually approve user registrations? Interesting.
NASA continues to prove they fake Space. You just have to know where to look. Different pictures of the ISS observation window reveal many different shapes and sizes of Earth. They can’t get the CGI right on the other side of the window.
Small Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/sV0VCfI.jpg)
Big Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/GuXJdFe.jpg)
.....and no we have Plane Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
So which is it?
Is Earth a ...
1. Small sphere Earth
2. Big sphere Earth
3. Plane Earth.
Pick one wisely.
Are you ready to accept defeat yet?
NASA continues to prove they fake Space. You just have to know where to look. Different pictures of the ISS observation window reveal many different shapes and sizes of Earth. They can’t get the CGI right on the other side of the window.
Small Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/sV0VCfI.jpg)
Big Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/GuXJdFe.jpg)
.....and no we have Plane Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
So which is it?
Is Earth a ...
1. Small sphere Earth
2. Big sphere Earth
3. Plane Earth.
Pick one wisely.
Are you ready to accept defeat yet?
Look at the field of view in the second and third pictures.
It will explain everything, if you have any basic knowledge of photography.
Back away from your basement window, notice how much your view of the outside world shrinks?
Look Plat from the same video: I can see Istanbul from the ISS!!!
(https://i.imgur.com/YAG9P5A.jpg)
So how much of the earth would you expect to see looking straight down from the ISS with such a small window?
Look Plat from the same video: I can see Istanbul from the ISS!!!
(https://i.imgur.com/YAG9P5A.jpg)
So how much of the earth would you expect to see looking straight down from the ISS with such a small window?
Why do I have to point out it's fake?
If it were real, you should be able to see a lake or river in Istanbul.
Look mommy, I can see a lake from the ISS!!
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
Look Plat from the same video: I can see Istanbul from the ISS!!!
(https://i.imgur.com/YAG9P5A.jpg)
So how much of the earth would you expect to see looking straight down from the ISS with such a small window?
Why do I have to point out it's fake?
If it were real, you should be able to see a lake or river in Istanbul.
Look mommy, I can see a lake from the ISS!!
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
Have you ever been in Istanbul? What lake or river should I see?
Look Plat from the same video: I can see Istanbul from the ISS!!!
(https://i.imgur.com/YAG9P5A.jpg)
So how much of the earth would you expect to see looking straight down from the ISS with such a small window?
Why do I have to point out it's fake?
If it were real, you should be able to see a lake or river in Istanbul.
Look mommy, I can see a lake from the ISS!!
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
Have you ever been in Istanbul? What lake or river should I see?
You should see the one taking up the view of the center window.
Look Plat from the same video: I can see Istanbul from the ISS!!!
(https://i.imgur.com/YAG9P5A.jpg)
So how much of the earth would you expect to see looking straight down from the ISS with such a small window?
Why do I have to point out it's fake?
If it were real, you should be able to see a lake or river in Istanbul.
Look mommy, I can see a lake from the ISS!!
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
Have you ever been in Istanbul? What lake or river should I see?
You should see the one taking up the view of the center window.
Look this is Istanbul. The body of water in the middle is not a lake or a river, it's the sea of Marmara. So what part of Istanbul surroundings is missing in the picture from the ISS again?
(https://i.imgur.com/fG69jXJ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/MjiO9vs.jpg)so we can add orbital mechanics to the vast list of subjects that Plat is ignorant of. Pic likely taken by another spacecraft before or after docking.
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/MjiO9vs.jpg)so we can add orbital mechanics to the vast list of subjects that Plat is ignorant of. Pic likely taken by another spacecraft before or after docking.
I meant Turkey. The picture I posted has a view of a river or lake as viewed from the center window. The picture you posted has the country turkey in the same window. Two different magnifications from the same window. And one picture has the entire Earth and the other a horizon of Earth. Fake pictures from NASA.
NASA continues to prove they fake Space. You just have to know where to look. Different pictures of the ISS observation window reveal many different shapes and sizes of Earth. They can’t get the CGI right on the other side of the window.
Small Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/sV0VCfI.jpg)
Big Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/GuXJdFe.jpg)
.....and no we have Plane Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
So which is it?
Is Earth a ...
1. Small sphere Earth
2. Big sphere Earth
3. Plane Earth.
Pick one wisely.
Are you ready to accept defeat yet?
The docking port is on the ISS. IIRC there is more than one. Why would that matter? The point is that another spacecraft might be in a higher orbit to slow down in relation to the station in order to match orbits before docking. This appears to be relatively close anyway so it could be at almost any time before docking or after undocking. There is no problem with it being slightly higher than the station. Only YOU seem to have an issue with it proving your ignorance once again.(https://i.imgur.com/MjiO9vs.jpg)so we can add orbital mechanics to the vast list of subjects that Plat is ignorant of. Pic likely taken by another spacecraft before or after docking.
Where is the docking station in relation to the ISS?
NASA continues to prove they fake Space. You just have to know where to look. Different pictures of the ISS observation window reveal many different shapes and sizes of Earth. They can’t get the CGI right on the other side of the window.
Small Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/sV0VCfI.jpg)
Big Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/GuXJdFe.jpg)
.....and no we have Plane Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
So which is it?
Is Earth a ...
1. Small sphere Earth
2. Big sphere Earth
3. Plane Earth.
Pick one wisely.
Are you ready to accept defeat yet?
Covered on the site many times. That’s not a flat window. It’s a dome. A more fish eye type lens was used inside it to get the round looking photo.
NASA continues to prove they fake Space. You just have to know where to look. Different pictures of the ISS observation window reveal many different shapes and sizes of Earth. They can’t get the CGI right on the other side of the window.
Small Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/sV0VCfI.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/MjiO9vs.jpg)so we can add orbital mechanics to the vast list of subjects that Plat is ignorant of. Pic likely taken by another spacecraft before or after docking.
Where is the docking station in relation to the ISS?
NASA continues to prove they fake Space. You just have to know where to look. Different pictures of the ISS observation window reveal many different shapes and sizes of Earth. They can’t get the CGI right on the other side of the window.
Small Sphere Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/sV0VCfI.jpg)
Not sure where you got this image from, but it has come up before. Here's what I found the last time:
That image is a creation by ESO.org, as part of a planetarium presentation using what they call "fulldome" imagery. It's 'fake', if you will, and never intended to not be. It's part of planetarium presentations they have to aid in displaying the wonders of the cosmos, as planetariums tend to do. Here are a bunch more.
https://www.eso.org/public/videos/archive/category/fulldome/
But my favorite thing is when those, like yourself, overly saddled with conspiratorial proclivities and inclinations are prone to jump on any web image, video or otherwise that triggers a belief system spasm, much like you have presented here. Keep up the good work.
Next.
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
Once again. What is the source of this picture?
Not sure where you got this image from,
People track the ISS.(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
Once again. What is the source of this picture?
I am not sure. It's been in my file for over a year.
All pictures of Earth viewed through the observation window are fake. You're problem, not mine.
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
Once again. What is the source of this picture?
I am not sure. It's been in my file for over a year.
All pictures of Earth viewed through the observation window are fake. You're problem, not mine.
NASA continues to prove they fake Space. You just have to know where to look. Different pictures of the ISS observation window reveal many different shapes and sizes of Earth. They can’t get the CGI right on the other side of the window.No, Mr Plat Terra, NASA DOES NOT continue to prove they fake Space. You continue to prove either:
Small Sphere Earth.NO! It is a photo taken with a 180° fish-eye lens! Do you know nothing about photography?
(https://i.imgur.com/sV0VCfI.jpg)
Big Sphere Earth.YES! As YOU very well KNOW, the earth is a very BIG SPHERE!
(https://i.imgur.com/GuXJdFe.jpg)
.....and no we have Plane Earth.No, we DO NOT! We have a photo of a small part of the horizon which looks nearly flat!
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
So which is it?I have carefully thought about the matter and decided that:
Is Earth a ...
1. Small sphere Earth
2. Big sphere Earth
3. Plane Earth.
Are you ready to accept defeat yet?Less than ever, thank you Mr Plat Terra!
No good enough by a long shot, Mr Plat Terra! For all we know YOU could easily have "Photoshopped" the photos youself!I am not sure. It's been in my file for over a year.(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
Once again. What is the source of this picture?
Quote from: Plat Terra.....and no we have Plane Earth.No, we DO NOT! We have a photo of a small part of the horizon which looks nearly flat!
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uJrcXqW.jpg)
Once again. What is the source of this picture?
I am not sure. It's been in my file for over a year.
All pictures of Earth viewed through the observation window are fake. You're problem, not mine.
NASA continues to prove they fake Space. You just have to know where to look. Different pictures of the ISS observation window reveal many different shapes and sizes of Earth.You mean you continue to prove you either have no idea what you are talking about or are blatantly lying to everyone.
Why do I have to point out it's fake?You have to justify your claim that it is fake if you want any rational person to admit defeat.
If it were real, you should be able to see a lake or river in Turkey.You mean like the sea of Marmara, which is clearly visible as the large body of water, Illichivsk - Derince cutting through Istanbul, or Iznik Golu just to the south?
Two different magnifications from the same window.I wouldn't call them magnifications. You get 2 different views from 2 different cameras.
All pictures of Earth viewed through the observation window are fake. You're problem, not mine.No, it is entirely your problem, as all we have to indicate the photos from NASA are fake is your worthless, baseless claim.
(https://i.imgur.com/MjiO9vs.jpg)so we can add orbital mechanics to the vast list of subjects that Plat is ignorant of. Pic likely taken by another spacecraft before or after docking.
Where is the docking station in relation to the ISS?
Not the same photo, but to get such a shot, you just have to be on your way to the ISS or on your way back from it. Here's the caption for the following similar image:
"The crew of Soyuz MS-08 spacecraft took this image of the International Space Station in October 2018. Russian space agency Roscosmos released the photo to celebrate the space station's 20th anniversary."
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TnTuW7zKByq2jhi8evXDKS-1024-80.jpg)
Next.
That simply asks a question, "Was this world map made ten centuries ago? " There's no evidence or proof of anything there.Ah, to die knowing what you believed is a just plain wrong, and to know people ridicule you for your at-best-medieval view!
Yes, it’s a shame the medieval astronomers warped the minds of people with all types of fantasies that continue today as truth. They could have explored other reigons on the infinite Plane, instead of being bound to a world they thought was a sphere and could never leave. What a true shame.
https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg)
And are newspapers evidence of anything? Hardly!
Especially as!Quote(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQfwPMkVf21jNOLIQJvYZGDB9TWTRoe07xoEUQECdvZ7eC2dR5J)
Hawaiian Gazette January 11, 1911 (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/the-1907-ancient-world-map-hoax.html)
As I wrote in a blog post discussing this article, the following article comes to us from the January 11, 1907 edition of the Hawaiian Gazette and alleges to be a map of the world made in Japan more than 1,000 years ago. But as critical readers will notice, the story has more than a few hints of the Zeno Map story. As with that infamous map, this one is also a redrawn modern copy of an allegedly ancient map unseen by anyone. Like the Zeno Map, the original was also allegedly rotten with age, explained by a mysterious ancient letter unseen by anyone else, and it also serves to glorify the geographic areas connected to its “discoverer.” In this case a Japanese resident of Hawaii found a map in Japan that was ignorant of Madagascar, Greenland, and Polynesia but somehow managed to include Hawaii front and center!
There’s a pretty good indication that the journalist who wrote the piece knew it was a hoax: He compares it to James De Mille’s 1888 novel Manuscript found in a Copper Cylinder, a satirical tale of an underground world.
Run away and stop foisting more flat earth hoaxes on us!
I expect the opposition to muddy the waters’. If it were a Globe Earth map you would praise the newspaper, but since the center looks similar to the Gleason Map it must be discredited at all cost.
The following Gleason map will let you know were the Sun is any time of the day.
(https://i.imgur.com/IPgg5IA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gmnSCD8.jpg)
OK mr Terra...explain this.
Why does the moon appear to be upside down when viewed the the Southern Hemisphere, as compared to how it looks in the Northern Hemisphere? You can add to that constellations like Orion.?
Because those in the south are looking north. It's all about "Orientation". Face south lean back and look at the Moon and you can see the same face as those in the north.
So you're completely ignorant of camera lenses too. You would only have a point IF all of those photos were taken with the same lens from the same distance. Since they were not, then you have again failed.
Why don’t you write NASA and ask them why is the form and shape of Earth’s circumference never the same in the ISS selfies? In some photos it continues to warp and never appears to be the same continues curve from one side (from center) to the other and from one picture to the other. And why is Earth larger in some pics than others even though the picture is taken from the same altitude as the ISS?
Ask them why, Earth’s shape is never uniform in these photos. Why? These are logical questions the Globe community must address and get an answer from NASA.
(https://i.imgur.com/I2W4WFB.jpg)
That simply asks a question, "Was this world map made ten centuries ago? " There's no evidence or proof of anything there.Ah, to die knowing what you believed is a just plain wrong, and to know people ridicule you for your at-best-medieval view!
Yes, it’s a shame the medieval astronomers warped the minds of people with all types of fantasies that continue today as truth. They could have explored other reigons on the infinite Plane, instead of being bound to a world they thought was a sphere and could never leave. What a true shame.
https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/Jv455HI.jpg)
And are newspapers evidence of anything? Hardly!
Especially as!Quote(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQfwPMkVf21jNOLIQJvYZGDB9TWTRoe07xoEUQECdvZ7eC2dR5J)
Hawaiian Gazette January 11, 1911 (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/the-1907-ancient-world-map-hoax.html)
As I wrote in a blog post discussing this article, the following article comes to us from the January 11, 1907 edition of the Hawaiian Gazette and alleges to be a map of the world made in Japan more than 1,000 years ago. But as critical readers will notice, the story has more than a few hints of the Zeno Map story. As with that infamous map, this one is also a redrawn modern copy of an allegedly ancient map unseen by anyone. Like the Zeno Map, the original was also allegedly rotten with age, explained by a mysterious ancient letter unseen by anyone else, and it also serves to glorify the geographic areas connected to its “discoverer.” In this case a Japanese resident of Hawaii found a map in Japan that was ignorant of Madagascar, Greenland, and Polynesia but somehow managed to include Hawaii front and center!
There’s a pretty good indication that the journalist who wrote the piece knew it was a hoax: He compares it to James De Mille’s 1888 novel Manuscript found in a Copper Cylinder, a satirical tale of an underground world.
Run away and stop foisting more flat earth hoaxes on us!
I expect the opposition to muddy the waters’. If it were a Globe Earth map you would praise the newspaper, but since the center looks similar to the Gleason Map it must be discredited at all cost.
The following Gleason map will let you know were the Sun is any time of the day.
(https://i.imgur.com/IPgg5IA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gmnSCD8.jpg)
OK mr Terra...explain this.
Why does the moon appear to be upside down when viewed the the Southern Hemisphere, as compared to how it looks in the Northern Hemisphere? You can add to that constellations like Orion.?
Because those in the south are looking north. It's all about "Orientation". Face south lean back and look at the Moon and you can see the same face as those in the north.
Your answer is a clear demonstration that you don’t understand the question. Leaning back is no answer. The moon in the Southern Hemisphere is upside down compared to the view from the Northern Hemisphere......let me repeat, upside down.
If I were to show you two cars one on it’s wheels and the other on it’s roof, would leaning back correct the view of the one on its Roof?......it has do do with orientation, yes because we are on a sphere.
Flat earthers can go on about NASA all day and their ‘alleged’ phoney pictures, but ask them to explain why the moon is upside down when viewed from the Southern Hemisphere and they, like you flounder, as they have no answer.
(https://i.imgur.com/MjiO9vs.jpg)so we can add orbital mechanics to the vast list of subjects that Plat is ignorant of. Pic likely taken by another spacecraft before or after docking.
Where is the docking station in relation to the ISS?
Not the same photo, but to get such a shot, you just have to be on your way to the ISS or on your way back from it. Here's the caption for the following similar image:
"The crew of Soyuz MS-08 spacecraft took this image of the International Space Station in October 2018. Russian space agency Roscosmos released the photo to celebrate the space station's 20th anniversary."
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TnTuW7zKByq2jhi8evXDKS-1024-80.jpg)
Next.
Next? OK,
Why don’t you write NASA and ask them why is the form and shape of Earth’s circumference never the same in the ISS selfies? In some photos it continues to warp and never appears to be the same continues curve from one side (from center) to the other and from one picture to the other. And why is Earth larger in some pics than others even though the picture is taken from the same altitude as the ISS?
Ask them why, Earth’s shape is never uniform in these photos. Why? These are logical questions the Globe community must address and get an answer from NASA.
(https://i.imgur.com/I2W4WFB.jpg)
So you're completely ignorant of camera lenses too. You would only have a point IF all of those photos were taken with the same lens from the same distance. Since they were not, then you have again failed.
Why don’t you write NASA and ask them why is the form and shape of Earth’s circumference never the same in the ISS selfies? In some photos it continues to warp and never appears to be the same continues curve from one side (from center) to the other and from one picture to the other. And why is Earth larger in some pics than others even though the picture is taken from the same altitude as the ISS?
Ask them why, Earth’s shape is never uniform in these photos. Why? These are logical questions the Globe community must address and get an answer from NASA.
(https://i.imgur.com/I2W4WFB.jpg)
Thanks for the humor!
(https://i.imgur.com/MjiO9vs.jpg)so we can add orbital mechanics to the vast list of subjects that Plat is ignorant of. Pic likely taken by another spacecraft before or after docking.
Where is the docking station in relation to the ISS?
Not the same photo, but to get such a shot, you just have to be on your way to the ISS or on your way back from it. Here's the caption for the following similar image:
"The crew of Soyuz MS-08 spacecraft took this image of the International Space Station in October 2018. Russian space agency Roscosmos released the photo to celebrate the space station's 20th anniversary."
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TnTuW7zKByq2jhi8evXDKS-1024-80.jpg)
Next.
Next? OK,
Why don’t you write NASA and ask them why is the form and shape of Earth’s circumference never the same in the ISS selfies? In some photos it continues to warp and never appears to be the same continues curve from one side (from center) to the other and from one picture to the other. And why is Earth larger in some pics than others even though the picture is taken from the same altitude as the ISS?
Ask them why, Earth’s shape is never uniform in these photos. Why? These are logical questions the Globe community must address and get an answer from NASA.
(https://i.imgur.com/I2W4WFB.jpg)
I don't have to ask them they tell us when you look up the details of a given, official image. It comes down to camera and lenses. Quite simple really. For instance, a 43 mm lens on a full frame camera is roughly equivalent to the human eye. Here's a shot from NASA, ISS040-E-068656, captioned:
"(16 July 2014) --- The Orbital Sciences’ Cygnus cargo craft (bottom center) is photographed by an Expedition 40 crew member on the International Space Station during rendezvous and capture operations."
(https://i.imgur.com/6CT4hUC.png?1)
https://www.nasa.gov/content/cygnus-approaches-station-for-robotic-grapple
When you look at the same NASA image on their flicker account you get more camera detail as well as the EXIF file if you want it:
(https://i.imgur.com/Y2Ibyqn.png?1)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/14493038209/
Notice the 34 mm focal length referenced. That can give you an idea as to how much distortion is in the image, not much in this case.
That's how photography works.
Next.
Ask them why, Earth’s shape is never uniform. Why?We don't have to "Ask them why Earth’s shape is never uniform" because the Earth’s shape is quite uniform!
(https://i.imgur.com/I2W4WFB.jpg)All that silly meme proves is your abject ignorance of photography!
This is the camera gear that NASA use on the International Space Station (https://www.diyphotography.net/camera-gear-nasa-use-international-space-station/)
(https://www.diyphotography.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/iss_photography.jpg.optimal.jpg)
Recently, in a Space Station Live stream, American astronaut Jeff Williams received the question again and went into some detail on the equipment they use on the ISS.
Space Station Live: Williams Talks Candidly about Cameras
Known for the high level of detail they can capture, wide dynamic range, and high ISO performance, NASA’s weapon of choice today is the Nikon D4, of which the ISS houses several, along with a wide selection of Nikon lenses, including the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR shown in this image.
(https://www.diyphotography.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/iss_d4_800.jpg.optimal.jpg)
NASA range of lenses includes everything from super wide angle, to “several” of the massive Nikon 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR, which becomes 1120mm equivalent when used with the Nikon AF-S FX TC-14E III 1.4x Teleconverter.
(https://www.diyphotography.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/iss_d4_800.jpg.optimal.jpg)
<< See the rest at the link. >>
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/);D ;D ;D ;D ;D Have fun! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.
About twice a year the camera captures the Moon and Earth together as the orbit of DSCOVR crosses the orbital plane of the Moon.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
The North Pole is in the upper left corner of the image. It is in the original orientation as taken by the spacecraft.
This image from the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured
a unique view of the Moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth in 2015.
It shows a view of the farside of the Moon, which faces the Sun,
that is never directly visible to us here on Earth.
I found this perspective profoundly moving and
only through our satellite views could this have been shared.
- Michael Freilich, Director NASA Earth Science Division
So you admit you have another gish gallop planned? More fails from Plat Terra!So you're completely ignorant of camera lenses too. You would only have a point IF all of those photos were taken with the same lens from the same distance. Since they were not, then you have again failed.
Why don’t you write NASA and ask them why is the form and shape of Earth’s circumference never the same in the ISS selfies? In some photos it continues to warp and never appears to be the same continues curve from one side (from center) to the other and from one picture to the other. And why is Earth larger in some pics than others even though the picture is taken from the same altitude as the ISS?
Ask them why, Earth’s shape is never uniform in these photos. Why? These are logical questions the Globe community must address and get an answer from NASA.
(https://i.imgur.com/I2W4WFB.jpg)
Thanks for the humor!
I have yet to write about all the satellite selfies.
It works perfectly "well with NASA's pictures"! What isn't working well is what is inside YOU head or the lack of anything inside YOU head!
That's how photography works.
Next.
It's not working well with NASA's pictures.
Photography Courses for Kids and Beginners and Learning About Photography (https://homeschoolgrouphug.com/photography-courses-for-kids-beginners-free-low-cost-learning-about-photography-homeschoolers/)
Table of Contents
Free Photography Courses for Kids, Homeschoolers and Beginners
1.1 Phone Photography or DSLR
1.2 Entry Level Cameras for Learning Photography
1.3 Other Equipment You Will Need to Improve Your Photography
1.4 Free You Tube Videos and More
1.4 Top Tips For Parents of Kids Learning Photography
1.6 Related Posts
(https://i.imgur.com/MjiO9vs.jpg)so we can add orbital mechanics to the vast list of subjects that Plat is ignorant of. Pic likely taken by another spacecraft before or after docking.
Where is the docking station in relation to the ISS?
Not the same photo, but to get such a shot, you just have to be on your way to the ISS or on your way back from it. Here's the caption for the following similar image:
"The crew of Soyuz MS-08 spacecraft took this image of the International Space Station in October 2018. Russian space agency Roscosmos released the photo to celebrate the space station's 20th anniversary."
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TnTuW7zKByq2jhi8evXDKS-1024-80.jpg)
Next.
Next? OK,
Why don’t you write NASA and ask them why is the form and shape of Earth’s circumference never the same in the ISS selfies? In some photos it continues to warp and never appears to be the same continues curve from one side (from center) to the other and from one picture to the other. And why is Earth larger in some pics than others even though the picture is taken from the same altitude as the ISS?
Ask them why, Earth’s shape is never uniform in these photos. Why? These are logical questions the Globe community must address and get an answer from NASA.
(https://i.imgur.com/I2W4WFB.jpg)
I don't have to ask them they tell us when you look up the details of a given, official image. It comes down to camera and lenses. Quite simple really. For instance, a 43 mm lens on a full frame camera is roughly equivalent to the human eye. Here's a shot from NASA, ISS040-E-068656, captioned:
"(16 July 2014) --- The Orbital Sciences’ Cygnus cargo craft (bottom center) is photographed by an Expedition 40 crew member on the International Space Station during rendezvous and capture operations."
(https://i.imgur.com/6CT4hUC.png?1)
https://www.nasa.gov/content/cygnus-approaches-station-for-robotic-grapple
When you look at the same NASA image on their flicker account you get more camera detail as well as the EXIF file if you want it:
(https://i.imgur.com/Y2Ibyqn.png?1)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/14493038209/
Notice the 34 mm focal length referenced. That can give you an idea as to how much distortion is in the image, not much in this case.
That's how photography works.
Next.
It's not working well with NASA's pictures.
The following Gleason map will let you know were the Sun is any time of the day.
(https://i.imgur.com/IPgg5IA.jpg)
Ask them why, Earth’s shape is never uniform. Why?We don't have to "Ask them why Earth’s shape is never uniform" because the Earth’s shape is quite uniform!Quote from: Plat Terra(https://i.imgur.com/I2W4WFB.jpg)All that silly meme proves is your abject ignorance of photography!
The curve of the horizon depends on the field-of-view.
Sometimes might be distorted by the barrel distortion common on very wide-angle lenses or severely distorted by 180° fish-eye lenses!
Read this!
It is about the photographic equipment used on the ISS but since YOU do not publish the SOURCE of YOUR photos YOU can research what cameras and lenses were used!Quote from: John AldredThis is the camera gear that NASA use on the International Space Station (https://www.diyphotography.net/camera-gear-nasa-use-international-space-station/)
(https://www.diyphotography.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/iss_photography.jpg.optimal.jpg)
Recently, in a Space Station Live stream, American astronaut Jeff Williams received the question again and went into some detail on the equipment they use on the ISS.
Space Station Live: Williams Talks Candidly about Cameras
Known for the high level of detail they can capture, wide dynamic range, and high ISO performance, NASA’s weapon of choice today is the Nikon D4, of which the ISS houses several, along with a wide selection of Nikon lenses, including the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR shown in this image.
(https://www.diyphotography.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/iss_d4_800.jpg.optimal.jpg)
NASA range of lenses includes everything from super wide angle, to “several” of the massive Nikon 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR, which becomes 1120mm equivalent when used with the Nikon AF-S FX TC-14E III 1.4x Teleconverter.
(https://www.diyphotography.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/iss_d4_800.jpg.optimal.jpg)
<< See the rest at the link. >>
So you still have nothing!
And the so-called "RE Community" will NEVER "Accept Defeat" for the obvious and simple reason that the earth really is a rotating Globe, get used to it!
Where YOU like it or not or whether YOU accept it or not the earth rotates, look at a nice sped up image of the earth rotating and the far side of the moon:QuoteNASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/);D ;D ;D ;D ;D Have fun! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.
About twice a year the camera captures the Moon and Earth together as the orbit of DSCOVR crosses the orbital plane of the Moon.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
The North Pole is in the upper left corner of the image. It is in the original orientation as taken by the spacecraft.
This image from the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured
a unique view of the Moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth in 2015.
It shows a view of the farside of the Moon, which faces the Sun,
that is never directly visible to us here on Earth.
I found this perspective profoundly moving and
only through our satellite views could this have been shared.
- Michael Freilich, Director NASA Earth Science Division
Rab, thanks for posting another fake time-laps photo from NASA.
The Clouds don't move.
The back side of the moon is dark but should be lit up like a full moon.
The Moon is keeping up with Earth's rotation. This is not possible with the mechanics of your Globe.
It's all about "Orientation". Face south lean back and look at the Moon and Stars and you can see the same face and the same rotation of the Stars as those in the North.
(https://i.imgur.com/hAw5InM.png)
Rab, thanks for posting another fake time-laps photo from NASA.
The Clouds don't move.
Yes they do. How much do you expect them to move?The back side of the moon is dark but should be lit up like a full moon.
The backside (to us) is lit up. That's the whole point of the image.The Moon is keeping up with Earth's rotation. This is not possible with the mechanics of your Globe.
Please explain how it should look with your depth of knowledge regarding globe mechanics.
It's all about "Orientation". Face south lean back and look at the Moon and Stars and you can see the same face and the same rotation of the Stars as those in the North.
(https://i.imgur.com/hAw5InM.png)
So why doesn't the moon change size from being over head to lower in the sky on the FE model? Like if you had a man laying between the other two people, should see is at least 20% larger than them.
We will start with this. Which Moon is real? You can ignore my thoughts.I suppose that it's no surprise that you don't recognize the far side of the moon because it's never seen from the earth.
Fake Moon with fake moon light.
(https://i.imgur.com/gqXTIwc.jpg)
It's all about "Orientation". Face south lean back and look at the Moon and Stars and you can see the same face and the same rotation of the Stars as those in the North.
(https://i.imgur.com/hAw5InM.png)
So why doesn't the moon change size from being over head to lower in the sky on the FE model? Like if you had a man laying between the other two people, should see is at least 20% larger than them.
The moon applies the same as with the Sun.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2194479#msg2194479
Rab, thanks for posting another fake time-laps photo from NASA.
The Clouds don't move.
Yes they do. How much do you expect them to move?The back side of the moon is dark but should be lit up like a full moon.
The backside (to us) is lit up. That's the whole point of the image.The Moon is keeping up with Earth's rotation. This is not possible with the mechanics of your Globe.
Please explain how it should look with your depth of knowledge regarding globe mechanics.
We will start with this. Which Moon is real? You can ignore my thoughts.
Fake Moon with fake moon light.
(https://i.imgur.com/gqXTIwc.jpg)
Real Moon with real moon light.
(https://i.imgur.com/ndOh6PR.jpg)
the first is as exposed with the much brighter Earth. The second appears brighter because it is from our night sky. More ignorance about photography from Plat.
We will start with this. Which Moon is real? You can ignore my thoughts.
Fake Moon with fake moon light.
(https://i.imgur.com/gqXTIwc.jpg)
Real Moon with real moon light.
(https://i.imgur.com/ndOh6PR.jpg)
Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted? It's more than just a fake moon, clouds that don’t move and the speed of the Moon in relation to Earth’s rotation.the clouds do move. Not much as they are large systems and the entire time lapse is only about 5 hours IIRC correctly but there are changes.
What more is there? Have a close look.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.
Do the sums - if you are able ;D!
Rab, thanks for posting another fake time-laps photo from NASA.
The Clouds don't move.
The back side of the moon is dark but should be lit up like a full moon.It is lit up exactly as it would be on a full moon! Do the sums - if you are able ;D!
The Moon is keeping up with Earth's rotation. This is not possible with the mechanics of your Globe.And why shouldn't the moon move faster in it's orbit than the surface of the earth moves? Do the sums - if you are able ;D!
It'a all fake, Rab.See, Mr Plat Terra, the only fake here is YOU!
Full MoonYou are simply showing you total utter ignorance over and over in EVERY post!
(https://i.imgur.com/uaKJ7gC.png)
Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted?
Is it time to say, "Let me counts the ways . . . . " I'll leave the rest out ::)!Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted?
The only thing wrong with this entire thread is your inability to acknowledge your own ignorance.
Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted? It's more than just a fake moon, clouds that don’t move and the speed of the Moon in relation to Earth’s rotation.the clouds do move. Not much as they are large systems and the entire time lapse is only about 5 hours IIRC correctly but there are changes.
What more is there? Have a close look.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.
the Moon looks correct as it is the far side of the Moon and appears darker as it is exposed with the much brighter Earth.
The movement is correct given the distance and zoom level. The Earth rotates as it should for the approximately 5 hours of the time lapse. The Moon moves as much as it should in its orbit for the same amount of time. You are forgetting the far larger orbit of the Moon likely because of the zoom from the camera.
The relative sizes are correct given the distance and zoom level.
Do you need a reminder that different lenses can make objects appear different relative to each other?
https://i.imgur.com/8Tg5bP3.gifv
Is it time to say, "Let me counts the ways . . . . " I'll leave the rest out ::)!Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted?
The only thing wrong with this entire thread is your inability to acknowledge your own ignorance.
When is Plat Terra going to realise that he's making flat-earthers look totally ignorant of how the Globe works.
Maybe he's a NASA shill (undercover agent) ;D?
Is it time to say, "Let me counts the ways . . . . " I'll leave the rest out ::)!Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted?
The only thing wrong with this entire thread is your inability to acknowledge your own ignorance.
When is Plat Terra going to realise that he's making flat-earthers look totally ignorant of how the Globe works.
Maybe he's a NASA shill (undercover agent) ;D?
You don't know the date of the video, right?
Is it time to say, "Let me counts the ways . . . . " I'll leave the rest out ::)!Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted?
The only thing wrong with this entire thread is your inability to acknowledge your own ignorance.
When is Plat Terra going to realise that he's making flat-earthers look totally ignorant of how the Globe works.
Maybe he's a NASA shill (undercover agent) ;D?
You don't know the date of the video, right?
You do understand the phases of the moon, right?
I know how they would work on a Globe Earth better than you! What do you think got me wondering "Something is not right"? It began many years ago and long before I believed in a Plane Earth.
I know how they would work on a Globe Earth better than you! What do you think got me wondering "Something is not right"? It began many years ago and long before I believed in a Plane Earth.
You literally asked me is the Southern Cross to the south, and is it visible to people looking south.
You mean that, YOU don't know the date of the video, right? If NASA does not want us to know why would they tell us?
Is it time to say, "Let me counts the ways . . . . " I'll leave the rest out ::)!
When is Plat Terra going to realise that he's making flat-earthers look totally ignorant of how the Globe works.
Maybe he's a NASA shill (undercover agent) ;D?
You don't know the date of the video, right? NASA does not want you to know, right? And we know why!
NASA Goddard, Aug. 6, 2015, From a Million Miles Away, NASA Camera Shows Moon Crossing Face of Earth (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth)The individual photos of another lunar transit are in DSCOVR: EPIC, GALLERY: LUNAR TRANSIT 2016 (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/galleries/2016/lunar_transit) Here's a nice sharp one just for you!
A NASA camera aboard the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured a unique view of the moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth last month. The series of test images shows the fully illuminated “dark side” of the moon that is never visible from Earth.
The images were captured by NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC), a four megapixel CCD camera and telescope on the DSCOVR satellite orbiting 1 million miles from Earth. From its position between the sun and Earth, DSCOVR conducts its primary mission of real-time solar wind monitoring for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
This animation features actual satellite images of the far side of the moon, illuminated by the sun,
as it crosses between the DSCOVR spacecraft's Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC)
and telescope, and the Earth - one million miles away.
Credits: NASA/NOAA
Watch on YouTube (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=DMdhQsHbWTs)
Download as MOV video (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/EPICEarthMoonVideo.mov)
Download additional video formats from NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=11971)
EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates, providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere. Once EPIC begins regular observations next month, the camera will provide a series of Earth images allowing study of daily variations over the entire globe. About twice a year the camera will capture the moon and Earth together as the orbit of DSCOVR crosses the orbital plane of the moon.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT on July 16, showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America. The North Pole is in the upper left corner of the image. It is in the original orientation as taken by the spacecraft.
Is it time to say, "Let me counts the ways . . . . " I'll leave the rest out ::)!Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted?
The only thing wrong with this entire thread is your inability to acknowledge your own ignorance.
When is Plat Terra going to realise that he's making flat-earthers look totally ignorant of how the Globe works.
Maybe he's a NASA shill (undercover agent) ;D?
You don't know the date of the video, right?
You do understand the phases of the moon, right?
I know how they would work on a Globe Earth better than you! What do you think got me wondering "Something is not right"? It began many years ago and long before I believed in a Plane Earth.
You mean that, YOU don't know the date of the video, right? If NASA does not want us to know why would they tell us?
Is it time to say, "Let me counts the ways . . . . " I'll leave the rest out ::)!
When is Plat Terra going to realise that he's making flat-earthers look totally ignorant of how the Globe works.
Maybe he's a NASA shill (undercover agent) ;D?
You don't know the date of the video, right? NASA does not want you to know, right? And we know why!QuoteNASA Goddard, Aug. 6, 2015, From a Million Miles Away, NASA Camera Shows Moon Crossing Face of Earth (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth)The individual photos of another lunar transit are in DSCOVR: EPIC, GALLERY: LUNAR TRANSIT 2016 (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/galleries/2016/lunar_transit) Here's a nice sharp one just for you!
A NASA camera aboard the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured a unique view of the moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth last month. The series of test images shows the fully illuminated “dark side” of the moon that is never visible from Earth.
The images were captured by NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC), a four megapixel CCD camera and telescope on the DSCOVR satellite orbiting 1 million miles from Earth. From its position between the sun and Earth, DSCOVR conducts its primary mission of real-time solar wind monitoring for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
This animation features actual satellite images of the far side of the moon, illuminated by the sun,
as it crosses between the DSCOVR spacecraft's Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC)
and telescope, and the Earth - one million miles away.
Credits: NASA/NOAA
Watch on YouTube (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=DMdhQsHbWTs)
Download as MOV video (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/EPICEarthMoonVideo.mov)
Download additional video formats from NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=11971)
EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates, providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere. Once EPIC begins regular observations next month, the camera will provide a series of Earth images allowing study of daily variations over the entire globe. About twice a year the camera will capture the moon and Earth together as the orbit of DSCOVR crosses the orbital plane of the moon.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT on July 16, showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America. The North Pole is in the upper left corner of the image. It is in the original orientation as taken by the spacecraft.
(https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-galleries/2016/lunar_transit/full/epic_1b_20160705052503_01.png)
Now, how about you explain just what problems there are with these photos?
Have fun!
And why might that be a problem for NASA? Nothing you've posted so far casts the slightest doubt on anything NASA's done!
Thank you. I did not know. It was not in the first link you posted. Well, July 16. Imagine that. That's even a greater problem for NASA.
Are you sure you would not want to apologize for posting such a fake video first or continue as if it were real?Why would I want to apologise?
The Clouds don't move.I answered each of your claims quite carefully in this post, When will RE Community Accept Defeat? « Reply #1365 on: Today at 12:28:08 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2199189#msg2199189).
The back side of the moon is dark but should be lit up like a full moon.
The Moon is keeping up with Earth's rotation. This is not possible with the mechanics of your Globe.
And are you willing to be questioned in detail about the video? After all you posted it as if was truth.I posted an animation of known provenance, NASA! I'll answer what I can but I didn't make it.
nothing to continue with. YOU are wrong AGAIN. If you think you still have a point then say it and stop playing games, if you can.Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted? It's more than just a fake moon, clouds that don’t move and the speed of the Moon in relation to Earth’s rotation.the clouds do move. Not much as they are large systems and the entire time lapse is only about 5 hours IIRC correctly but there are changes.
What more is there? Have a close look.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.
the Moon looks correct as it is the far side of the Moon and appears darker as it is exposed with the much brighter Earth.
The movement is correct given the distance and zoom level. The Earth rotates as it should for the approximately 5 hours of the time lapse. The Moon moves as much as it should in its orbit for the same amount of time. You are forgetting the far larger orbit of the Moon likely because of the zoom from the camera.
The relative sizes are correct given the distance and zoom level.
Do you need a reminder that different lenses can make objects appear different relative to each other?
https://i.imgur.com/8Tg5bP3.gifv
Please continue.....
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
Ask them why, Earth’s shape is never uniform in these photos. Why? These are logical questions the Globe community must address and get an answer from NASA.No they aren't.
The Clouds don't move.The clouds do move. You ignoring reality wont change it.
The back side of the moon is dark but should be lit up like a full moon.Again, it is lit up. You ignoring these facts won't magically make them go away.
The Moon is keeping up with Earth's rotation.No it isn't. It is merely passing between Earth and the satellite.
This is what a Full Moon looks likeIn a dark night sky with a particular exposure setting and white balance.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.I take it your plan is to ignore the other information provided on the page and pretend they were taken on the date the image was published and thus claim the moon should have been over Europe at that time and it should have been a full moon?
It’s no different than looking up at the Moon 5’ from the equator and walking 5’ across and looking up again without turning north. It's all about "Orientation". Deal with it!
Quote from: Plat TerraAnd are you willing to be questioned in detail about the video? After all you posted it as if was truth.I posted an animation of known provenance, NASA! I'll answer what I can but I didn't make it.
I doubt that, but you're most likely trolling since you seem to continually try to outdo yourself on how dumb you can be. Your inability to understand anything about how cameras work as demonstrated over the last few pages backs my statement.You do understand the phases of the moon, right?
I know how they would work on a Globe Earth better than you! What do you think got me wondering "Something is not right"? It began many years ago and long before I believed in a Plane Earth.
It’s no different than looking up at the Moon 5’ from the equator and walking 5’ across and looking up again without turning north. It's all about "Orientation". Deal with it!
It isn't just a question of perspective, FE doesn't work.
If the moon were just 50 km wide and 5000 km high, two observers separated by 10.000 km of flat disk looking at the moon at the same time would just see different parts of the moon. The observers would be at 90° angle from the moon.
In FE there would be almost not far side of the moon, as most of the moon would be visible from the earth.
In reality two observers in S.America and N.America 10.000 km away from each other see the same side of the moon, just upside down as RE predicts. In reality there's a far side of the moon that we never see from earth and it's roughly half of the moon.
Here's the demonstration:
(https://i.imgur.com/bn2utVK.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FBsMyAS.jpg)
Now go post some more ISS pictures.
I doubt that, but you're most likely trolling since you seem to continually try to outdo yourself on how dumb you can be.This is my conclusion as well. Or, as a genuine nutcase like Wise would say, he's controlled opposition.
It’s no different than looking up at the Moon 5’ from the equator and walking 5’ across and looking up again without turning north. It's all about "Orientation". Deal with it!
It isn't just a question of perspective, FE doesn't work.
If the moon were just 50 km wide and 5000 km high, two observers separated by 10.000 km of flat disk looking at the moon at the same time would just see different parts of the moon. The observers would be at 90° angle from the moon.
In FE there would be almost not far side of the moon, as most of the moon would be visible from the earth.
In reality two observers in S.America and N.America 10.000 km away from each other see the same side of the moon, just upside down as RE predicts. In reality there's a far side of the moon that we never see from earth and it's roughly half of the moon.
Here's the demonstration:
(https://i.imgur.com/bn2utVK.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FBsMyAS.jpg)
Now go post some more ISS pictures.
Are you familiar with refraction?
(https://i.imgur.com/4ZRmks7.jpg)
You should take some time a look at refraction from another point of view.
Flat Earth Documentary: Refraction Experiments and FAQ by Research Royal Rife
It’s no different than looking up at the Moon 5’ from the equator and walking 5’ across and looking up again without turning north. It's all about "Orientation". Deal with it!
It isn't just a question of perspective, FE doesn't work.
If the moon were just 50 km wide and 5000 km high, two observers separated by 10.000 km of flat disk looking at the moon at the same time would just see different parts of the moon. The observers would be at 90° angle from the moon.
In FE there would be almost not far side of the moon, as most of the moon would be visible from the earth.
In reality two observers in S.America and N.America 10.000 km away from each other see the same side of the moon, just upside down as RE predicts. In reality there's a far side of the moon that we never see from earth and it's roughly half of the moon.
Here's the demonstration:
(https://i.imgur.com/bn2utVK.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FBsMyAS.jpg)
Now go post some more ISS pictures.
Are you familiar with refraction?
(https://i.imgur.com/4ZRmks7.jpg)
You should take some time a look at refraction from another point of view.
Flat Earth Documentary: Refraction Experiments and FAQ by Research Royal Rife
In the real world lights bends towards the normal when it enters a medium with higher refractive index (denser medium). The atmosphere is denser than vacuum, lower atmosphere layers are also denser than higher. Light entering the atmosphere will therefore bend towards the normal.
Refraction will allow the observers in S.America and N.America to see even further on their side of the moon. But not to see the same side of the moon. So your problem is now bigger than before. Refraction doesn't solve your problem, but it makes it bigger.
(https://i.imgur.com/aE10T8A.jpg)
Once again. In reality:
- all observers on the earth see the same side of the moon and same phase
- Image is inverted South vs North hemispheres
This is not possible to solve in FE model.
Now try it with a concave disk facing downward.
Now try it with a concave disk facing downward.
The earth is a concave disk? the moon is a concave disk? which concave disk?
I doubt that, but you're most likely trolling since you seem to continually try to outdo yourself on how dumb you can be. Your (You even seem to have trouble understanding the difference between that and "you're") inability to understand anything about how cameras work as demonstrated over the last few pages backs my statement.You do understand the phases of the moon, right?
I know how they would work on a Globe Earth better than you! What do you think got me wondering "Something is not right"? It began many years ago and long before I believed in a Plane Earth.
But sure, let's here it. Why do you think there is a problem with the phases of the moon?
Now try it with a concave disk facing downward.
The earth is a concave disk? the moon is a concave disk? which concave disk?
The issue was the moon.
Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted? It's more than just a fake moon, clouds that don’t move and the speed of the Moon in relation to Earth’s rotation.
What more is there? Have a close look.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.
Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted? It's more than just a fake moon, clouds that don’t move and the speed of the Moon in relation to Earth’s rotation.
What more is there? Have a close look.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.
Yes. The scale between the Earth and moon in this video is totally utterly wrong.
The moon is about a quarter the size of the Earth and 30 earth diameters away from the Earth.
If you look at the Earth rise photos taken from the moon during the Apollo missions, the earth looks about 4 times bigger in the lunar sky than the moon looks from the earth sky. You can still see plenty of space around the earth.
So, how is it possible to get imagery from outside the moon's orbit around the Earth, which depicts the moon to scale one quarter the size of Earth, passing between the Earth and the viewer at 384, 400 km away from Earth?
Due to perspective, the moon must eclipse the earth, and yet it doesn't. If you were standing on that moon's surface in the video, the earth would take up the entire sky and block out all space. All you would be able to see is blue earth.
The video is wrong. Plat tera is right. It doesn't look right because it isn't right.
If you don't understand what I am talking about, make yourself a scale model of the earth and moon, and move your moon 30 Earth diameters away from your earth. Now, try and recreate this image of the moon passing in front of the earth as in the video, from further away still, from your moon, where earth dwarfs the moon like in the video.
You won't be able to. The video is either a fake, or an educational video manipulation, to show the earth and moon to scale, passing one another, with the dark side of the moon facing the viewer.
Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted? It's more than just a fake moon, clouds that don’t move and the speed of the Moon in relation to Earth’s rotation.
What more is there? Have a close look.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.
Yes. The scale between the Earth and moon in this video is totally utterly wrong.
The moon is about a quarter the size of the Earth and 30 earth diameters away from the Earth.
If you look at the Earth rise photos taken from the moon during the Apollo missions, the earth looks about 4 times bigger in the lunar sky than the moon looks from the earth sky. You can still see plenty of space around the earth.
So, how is it possible to get imagery from outside the moon's orbit around the Earth, which depicts the moon to scale one quarter the size of Earth, passing between the Earth and the viewer at 384, 400 km away from Earth?
Due to perspective, the moon must eclipse the earth, and yet it doesn't. If you were standing on that moon's surface in the video, the earth would take up the entire sky and block out all space. All you would be able to see is blue earth.
The video is wrong. Plat tera is right. It doesn't look right because it isn't right.
If you don't understand what I am talking about, make yourself a scale model of the earth and moon, and move your moon 30 Earth diameters away from your earth. Now, try and recreate this image of the moon passing in front of the earth as in the video, from further away still, from your moon, where earth dwarfs the moon like in the video.
You won't be able to. The video is either a fake, or an educational video manipulation, to show the earth and moon to scale, passing one another, with the dark side of the moon facing the viewer.
Nooooo!
Sunset has defected! How can this be?
It’s not fake. The Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) is in a Lissajous orbit at the Sun–Earth L1 Lagrangian point.
It’s really quite a long way out, and zoomed into the Earth/Moon making the scales exactly what they should be.
Or you could realize it is zoomed in from a large distance and is still right.Can anyone here tell me what else is wrong with this NASA official imagery Rab posted? It's more than just a fake moon, clouds that don’t move and the speed of the Moon in relation to Earth’s rotation.
What more is there? Have a close look.
These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.
Yes. The scale between the Earth and moon in this video is totally utterly wrong.
The moon is about a quarter the size of the Earth and 30 earth diameters away from the Earth.
If you look at the Earth rise photos taken from the moon during the Apollo missions, the earth looks about 4 times bigger in the lunar sky than the moon looks from the earth sky. You can still see plenty of space around the earth.
So, how is it possible to get imagery from outside the moon's orbit around the Earth, which depicts the moon to scale one quarter the size of Earth, passing between the Earth and the viewer at 384, 400 km away from Earth?
Due to perspective, the moon must eclipse the earth, and yet it doesn't. If you were standing on that moon's surface in the video, the earth would take up the entire sky and block out all space. All you would be able to see is blue earth.
The video is wrong. Plat tera is right. It doesn't look right because it isn't right.
If you don't understand what I am talking about, make yourself a scale model of the earth and moon, and move your moon 30 Earth diameters away from your earth. Now, try and recreate this image of the moon passing in front of the earth as in the video, from further away still, from your moon, where earth dwarfs the moon like in the video.
You won't be able to. The video is either a fake, or an educational video manipulation, to show the earth and moon to scale, passing one another, with the dark side of the moon facing the viewer.
Sure, I don't know about "exactly" but I estimate from the bottom left, at a guess about 30° below the horizontal. Got a problem with that?Quote from: Plat TerraAnd are you willing to be questioned in detail about the video? After all you posted it as if was truth.I posted an animation of known provenance, NASA! I'll answer what I can but I didn't make it.
OK,
Are you able to show on the picture from what direction the Sun’s light is being cast on the alleged sphere Earth? Exactly where is the Sun in relation to Earth and the camera taking the pictures?
(https://i.imgur.com/k6E74FN.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gW36BWj.jpg)
Since Plat Terra is seemingly afraid to post his arguments in a thread they can be discussed, this is from the meme thread
Just further proof he is either extremely ignorant or a troll.
If you don't understand what I am talking about, make yourself a scale model of the earth and moon, and move your moon 30 Earth diameters away from your earth. Now, try and recreate this image of the moon passing in front of the earth as in the video, from further away still, from your moon, where earth dwarfs the moon like in the video.If 2 objects have a fixed distance between them, then as you get further away from them, the effect of perspective making the distance object smaller than the nearer one gets less and less significant.
You won't be able to. The video is either a fake, or an educational video manipulation, to show the earth and moon to scale, passing one another, with the dark side of the moon facing the viewer.
by now I'm just assuming his point is that he doesn't understand the subject at all. It's really a cry for help.Since Plat Terra is seemingly afraid to post his arguments in a thread they can be discussed, this is from the meme thread
Just further proof he is either extremely ignorant or a troll.
I don't even get what he trying to get at. Memes are supposed to be terse and pointed. His just get muddier and muddier to the point that I can't tell what the argument is.
Are you able to show on the picture from what direction the Sun’s light is being cast on the alleged sphere Earth? Exactly where is the Sun in relation to Earth and the camera taking the pictures?While I can't do it exactly, I can do it approximately, with a justification.
Now try it with a concave disk facing downward.So something that doesn't match reality at all?
Are you able to show on the picture from what direction the Sun’s light is being cast on the alleged sphere Earth? Exactly where is the Sun in relation to Earth and the camera taking the pictures?While I can't do it exactly, I can do it approximately, with a justification.
This satellite is in an "orbit" around the Earth-Sun L1.
This puts it almost directly between the Earth and the sun.
As the camera is pointing to Earth, that means the sun is roughly behind it.
Yes, probably far more than you!It’s no different than looking up at the Moon 5’ from the equator and walking 5’ across and looking up again without turning north. It's all about "Orientation". Deal with it!
It isn't just a question of perspective, FE doesn't work.
If the moon were just 50 km wide and 5000 km high, two observers separated by 10.000 km of flat disk looking at the moon at the same time would just see different parts of the moon. The observers would be at 90° angle from the moon.
In FE there would be almost not far side of the moon, as most of the moon would be visible from the earth.
In reality two observers in S.America and N.America 10.000 km away from each other see the same side of the moon, just upside down as RE predicts. In reality there's a far side of the moon that we never see from earth and it's roughly half of the moon.
Here's the demonstration:
(https://i.imgur.com/bn2utVK.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FBsMyAS.jpg)
Now go post some more ISS pictures.
Are you familiar with refraction?
Photo of unknown something! (https://i.imgur.com/4ZRmks7.jpg)No source or even explanation so I'll ignore that photo until you explain it, quote it's source and tell us what gas was used!
You should take some time a look at refraction from another point of view.
Flat Earth Documentary: Refraction Experiments and FAQ by Research Royal Rife (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=_cs00TGz8XE&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&index=78&t=0s)
I know how they would work on a Globe Earth better than you! What do you think got me wondering "Something is not right"? It began many years ago and long before I believed in a Plane Earth.
You literally asked me is the Southern Cross to the south, and is it visible to people looking south.
Quote me and don't leave out any context.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFqEkyf.jpg)
During certain times of the year, both Cape Hope and Cape Horn can simultaneously see Sigma Octantis. Here is the problem with Sigma Octantis and the notion that the Earth is flat:
(https://i1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj635/Gumwars/Sigma%20Octantis%20Paradox_zpsguob6y8c.jpg) (http://s1271.photobucket.com/user/Gumwars/media/Sigma%20Octantis%20Paradox_zpsguob6y8c.jpg.html)
If the Earth is flat, why can two people looking due south see Sigma Octantis in two different locations? This is a paradox that has yet to be solved by the FE community. A person standing at Cape Hope should, if the Earth is flat, see this constellation both due south and to the west while a person standing at Cape Horn would see it both south and again to the east. We know this to not be the case in reality. The Southern Cross always presents itself to the south, as Polaris always appears to the north.
Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?
It’s no different than looking up at the Moon 5’ from the equator and walking 5’ across and looking up again without turning north. It's all about "Orientation". Deal with it!
It isn't just a question of perspective, FE doesn't work.
If the moon were just 50 km wide and 5000 km high, two observers separated by 10.000 km of flat disk looking at the moon at the same time would just see different parts of the moon. The observers would be at 90° angle from the moon.
In FE there would be almost not far side of the moon, as most of the moon would be visible from the earth.
In reality two observers in S.America and N.America 10.000 km away from each other see the same side of the moon, just upside down as RE predicts. In reality there's a far side of the moon that we never see from earth and it's roughly half of the moon.
Here's the demonstration:
(https://i.imgur.com/bn2utVK.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FBsMyAS.jpg)
Now go post some more ISS pictures.
Are you familiar with refraction?
(https://i.imgur.com/4ZRmks7.jpg)
You should take some time a look at refraction from another point of view.
Flat Earth Documentary: Refraction Experiments and FAQ by Research Royal Rife
I can't help you beyond this. Simply closing your eyes and regurgitating, ad nauseam, that everyone else is wrong and you're not is pathetic. Open your damn eyes, go down to your local community college and take an astronomy class. You'll learn in the first class that what you're latched onto is pure nonsense.
Are you familiar with refraction?Are you familiar with index of refraction? More specifically, the index of refraction of air?
(https://i.imgur.com/4ZRmks7.jpg)
A person standing at Cape Hope should, if the Earth is flat, see this constellation both due south and to the west while a person standing at Cape Horn would see it both south and again to the east. We know this to not be the case in reality.
You literally asked me is the Southern Cross to the south, and is it visible to people looking south.
This is what I said "Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?
I did not say is the Southern Cross to the south, and is it visible to people looking south?
I will say it in another way. Has anyone proved the person in Cape Hope has seen Sigma Octantis at the same time and location as a person at Cape hope?
A person standing at Cape Hope should, if the Earth is flat, see this constellation both due south and to the west while a person standing at Cape Horn would see it both south and again to the east. We know this to not be the case in reality.
You literally asked me is the Southern Cross to the south, and is it visible to people looking south.
This is what I said "Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?
I did not say is the Southern Cross to the south, and is it visible to people looking south?
I will say it in another way. Has anyone proved the person in Cape Hope has seen Sigma Octantis at the same time and location as a person at Cape hope?
This is your problem! You cannot understand the logical implication of your own statements!! Nothing I've written down has failed to capture the depths of your ignorance. The fact that you are, again, asking if two people have seen the Southern Cross to the south is proof that this topic is beyond your ability to fathom. That should frighten you! It should be absolutely terrifying that this amazingly simple idea escapes your faculties.
Here is the logical argument you need to deal with:
1. Sigma Octantis is a real constellation visible in the night sky in the southern hemisphere of planet Earth
2. Sigma Octantis is the polar star for the south pole, just as Polaris is the polar star for the north pole
3. If the Gleason map of Earth is correct, then the north pole is located at it's center and the Earth is flat
3.a. With 3, the south pole of the planet is not a single point but a continuous ring that extends around the entire fringe of the planet
3.b. with 3a, if the south pole is a ring, then Sigma Octantis must be able to appear in multiple locations at the same time due to the south pole no longer being a single location with an absolute cardinal direction relative to an observer's location on Earth
4. Sigma Octantis is not observed to be in multiple locations
4 contradicts 3b, therefore 3a must be false. If 3a is false then 3 is false. If 3 is false, the Earth is not flat, or more specifically, it isn't flat as presented in the Gleason map.
If the Gleason map is incorrect, then you need to present a version where the Sigma Octantis paradox cannot exist. I don't need to prove that two people have observed it; how you've presented the flat Earth creates the paradox.
Understand that the burden of proof is your responsibility, not mine. The world being flat isn't my idea, its yours. You need to prove it, not ask me to disprove it. This paradox is one of those hurdles you need to clear before folks on my side of the fence pay attention to this absurd notion.
Now try it with a concave disk facing downward.
The earth is a concave disk? the moon is a concave disk? which concave disk?
The issue was the moon.
Ok, so you see this and you say "Look that's a concave disk facing down"? really?
(https://i1.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/gettyimages-971550028.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C360&ssl=1)
Anyway, a concave disk is even worse. Only people directly under the moon would see the moon as a circle, the rest would see an ellipsoid. For everyone to see a circle moon it has to be sphere. Flip a coin 45°, does still look like a circle?
Look at this:
Greenland, West Africa and Mexico see the same moon side, same phase. If its full moon they see all see a circle. If its first quarter they will see the moon right side.
Brazil sees the same moon but inverted. If its full moon they see all see a circle. If its first quarter they will see the moon left side.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z7QoezC.jpg)
How is this possible with your disk facing down? The moon is the middle, three places see the same, one place sees it inverted.
I will say it in another way. Has anyone proved the person in Cape Horn has seen Sigma Octantis at the same time and location as a person at Cape Hope?
There is nothing wrong with me asking a reasonable question to see if something has been proven in a claim. You think it's absolute proof of a Globe Earth, so I simply ask, has it been proven that people have seen it at the same time due south from different locations. I did not ask you to prove it.
Let me try again. Was a person in South America on the phone with someone in South Africa, saying, “ I can see Sigma Octantis due south right now, can you see it due south right now too or is it East?" What is wrong with asking this question?
There is nothing wrong with me asking a reasonable question to see if something has been proven in a claim. You think it's absolute proof of a Globe Earth, so I simply ask, has it been proven that people have seen it at the same time due south from different locations. I did not ask you to prove it.
I would agree that there is no issue with asking reasonable questions, but you are not asking a reasonable question. There are two problems in your statement above; the first is that you are misunderstanding my position, which I've stated multiple times in our debate, I am not claiming my arguments are proof that the Earth is a globe (though the evidence strongly indicates it), I am stating that the evidence does prove that it isn't flat. There is a difference between those two.
The second problem is how reasonable your question is. You are asking, "has it been proven that people have seen Sigma Octantis at the same time due south from different locations." This is not a reasonable question and you are asking me to prove it, or provide proof that it has been proven. Why you ask? I could point you back to my previous replies, but you do seem to earnestly want to understand this so I'll try, again, to explain this.
(https://www.timeanddate.com/scripts/sunmap.php?iso=20190831T0215)
This is a day/night terminator map; it is as of right now. This clearly shows that for both Cape Hope and Cape Horn the sun has set. Sigma Octantis will be visible at both locations, absent any cloud cover. It is both possible and plausible that a person at each location can simultaneously see Sigma Octantis and both will see it due south from their relative locations.Let me try again. Was a person in South America on the phone with someone in South Africa, saying, “ I can see Sigma Octantis due south right now, can you see it due south right now too or is it East?" What is wrong with asking this question?
Sigma Octantis is the southern polar star. It is always due south for anyone in the southern hemisphere, which is why it is called the southern polar star. It has never appeared east of one person and south for another; it is always due south, just like Polaris is always due north. This is the reason I present this problem to the FE community. If the Gleason map is what FE considers accurate, it immediately summons the Sigma Octantis paradox. As I mentioned previously, it isn't proof that the world is globe (though it strongly supports it), but it is proof that the world isn't flat.
There is nothing wrong with me asking a reasonable question to see if something has been proven in a claim. You think it's absolute proof of a Globe Earth, so I simply ask, has it been proven that people have seen it at the same time due south from different locations. I did not ask you to prove it.
I would agree that there is no issue with asking reasonable questions, but you are not asking a reasonable question. There are two problems in your statement above; the first is that you are misunderstanding my position, which I've stated multiple times in our debate, I am not claiming my arguments are proof that the Earth is a globe (though the evidence strongly indicates it), I am stating that the evidence does prove that it isn't flat. There is a difference between those two.
The second problem is how reasonable your question is. You are asking, "has it been proven that people have seen Sigma Octantis at the same time due south from different locations." This is not a reasonable question and you are asking me to prove it, or provide proof that it has been proven. Why you ask? I could point you back to my previous replies, but you do seem to earnestly want to understand this so I'll try, again, to explain this.
(https://www.timeanddate.com/scripts/sunmap.php?iso=20190831T0215)
This is a day/night terminator map; it is as of right now. This clearly shows that for both Cape Hope and Cape Horn the sun has set. Sigma Octantis will be visible at both locations, absent any cloud cover. It is both possible and plausible that a person at each location can simultaneously see Sigma Octantis and both will see it due south from their relative locations.Let me try again. Was a person in South America on the phone with someone in South Africa, saying, “ I can see Sigma Octantis due south right now, can you see it due south right now too or is it East?" What is wrong with asking this question?
Sigma Octantis is the southern polar star. It is always due south for anyone in the southern hemisphere, which is why it is called the southern polar star. It has never appeared east of one person and south for another; it is always due south, just like Polaris is always due north. This is the reason I present this problem to the FE community. If the Gleason map is what FE considers accurate, it immediately summons the Sigma Octantis paradox. As I mentioned previously, it isn't proof that the world is globe (though it strongly supports it), but it is proof that the world isn't flat.
There seems to be a problem viewing Sigma Octantis from Australia, and New Zealand and they are farther south than South Africa. So something is going on that’s no one can explain right now. So it’s a weak argument.
BTW, I have seen videos of it moving. so it's not like the North Star.
Try Concave. You have Convex.
I will say it in another way. Has anyone proved the person in Cape Horn has seen Sigma Octantis at the same time and location as a person at Cape Hope?Plenty of people have shown that Sigma Octantis is always observed due south, just like Polaris is observed to the north.
What is wrong with asking this question?The fact that it is a deflection from the real issue.
There seems to be a problem viewing Sigma Octantis from Australia, and New Zealand and they are farther south than South Africa. So something is going on that’s no one can explain right now. So it’s a weak argument.And just more baseless claims.
BTW, I have seen videos of it moving. so it's not like the North Star.
Try Concave. You have Convex.Why don't you?
There seems to be a problem viewing Sigma Octantis from Australia, and New Zealand and they are farther south than South Africa. So something is going on that’s no one can explain right now. So it’s a weak argument.There aren't that slightest problems but we're sick of you coming up with more idiocy before you admit your of idiocy has been well and truly debunked.
I live in the Southern Hemisphere at about 27° S and we see the night sky looking very similar to the Northern Hemisphere night sky, except that:
1) There is no Polaris to mark the centre of rotation. There is a faint star Sigma Octantis but it's rarely even visible.
2) In the Northern Hemisphere, the stars appear to rotate anti-clockwise about Polaris but here they appear to rotate clockwise about Sigma Octantis.
Here are some star trail multiple exposure photos that far better than I could take. The colour has been enhanced on the first.
Many star trail photos are multiple exposure, especially ones with a well exposed foreground as the one on the right.
Places further south have more "circumpolar stars".
(http://d3lp4xedbqa8a5.cloudfront.net/s3/digital-cougar-assets/AusGeo/2013/11/29/17320/NightShift.jpg)
Star trail: Mosquito Creek, Lake Eppalock, VIC.(Credit: Lincoln Harrison) (about 37°S)From: Australian Geographic, Stunning star trail photography (http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2012/08/stunning-star-trail-photography/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)Places further north have fewer "circumpolar stars".
(https://s1.at.atcdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Large-CamLaird-20130421-9204-2.jpg)
Star trails at Ravenswood Church, QLD(by Cameron Laird). (about 21°S)From: Your Shot Runner Up: ‘Ravenswood’s star trails’ (https://www.australiantraveller.com/qld/townsville/your-shot-runners-up-ravenswoods-star-trails/)
And try this one! Star trails - looking up from South Pole, Robert Schwarz (https://vimeo.com/177573714).
Then there is this video of the Southern Hemisphere star trails looking south from Mt Cooke in Western Australia. Note the absence of Polaris!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5902dqmkhkqa7mu/Mount%20Cooke%20-%20Western%20Australia%20%20A%20Time%20LapseStar%20Trail%20Journey%20%20Maximum%20Exposure%2C%20%20-%20Shane%20O%27Reilly%20Photography.jpg?dl=1)
Mount Cooke - Western Australia | A Time Lapse/Star Trail Journey | Maximum Exposure - Shane O'Reilly Photography (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=sWxPLq3X_Z8&feature=youtu.be)
The time lapse of the star trails starts at about 40 seconds in.
Mt Cooke, Western Australia, is at 32.4142° S, 116.3078° E, so the South Celestial Pole should be about 32° above Southern the horizon.
Or another with star trails of both hemispheres:
Star trail & Time lapse 2015 Northern vs Southern Hemisphere (celestial Sphere /LSC Cell Earth), BEFESkeptic INDIA
BTW, I have seen videos of it moving. so it's not like the North Star.And I take no notice of statements like "I have seen videos of it moving"!
[/quote]There seems to be a problem viewing Sigma Octantis from Australia, and New Zealand and they are farther south than South Africa. So something is going on that’s no one can explain right now. So it’s a weak argument.There aren't that slightest problems but we're sick of you coming up with more idiocy before you admit your of idiocy has been well and truly debunked.
I am looking for someone who lives in Australia. someone who could record an independent film of the night sky with sigma octantis. there is an answerI live in Australia but Sigma Octantis is not bright enough to see with the unaided eye under all but the most ideal conditions and that's not here.
Simply by stepping out my back door and looking south on any clear night
I can see the brighter stars such as Crux (the Southern Cross) and Alpha and Beta Centauri rotating about where Sigma Octantis should be.
Stars to the south and more than 27° above the horizon appear to move left to right (ie east to west) and
stars to the south and less than 27° above the horizon appear to move right to left (ie west to east).
And this is in complete agreement with these South Queensland star trails (not my video but from near here):
Star Trails around South East Queensland | Timelapse Queensland, Australia
Brisbane, Southern Queensland Country and the Sunshine Coast.
There seems to be a problem viewing Sigma Octantis from Australia, and New Zealand and they are farther south than South Africa. So something is going on that’s no one can explain right now. So it’s a weak argument.There aren't that slightest problems but we're sick of you coming up with more idiocy before you admit your of idiocy has been well and truly debunked.
[/quote]I am looking for someone who lives in Australia. someone who could record an independent film of the night sky with sigma octantis. there is an answerI live in Australia but Sigma Octantis is not bright enough to see with the unaided eye under all but the most ideal conditions and that's not here.
Simply by stepping out my back door and looking south on any clear night
I can see the brighter stars such as Crux (the Southern Cross) and Alpha and Beta Centauri rotating about where Sigma Octantis should be.
Stars to the south and more than 27° above the horizon appear to move left to right (ie east to west) and
stars to the south and less than 27° above the horizon appear to move right to left (ie west to east).
And this is in complete agreement with these South Queensland star trails (not my video but from near here):
Star Trails around South East Queensland | Timelapse Queensland, Australia
Brisbane, Southern Queensland Country and the Sunshine Coast.
I didn't! I just worded that reply badly.When did you change your mind?There seems to be a problem viewing Sigma Octantis from Australia, and New Zealand and they are farther south than South Africa. So something is going on that’s no one can explain right now. So it’s a weak argument.There aren't that slightest problems but we're sick of you coming up with more idiocy before you admit your of idiocy has been well and truly debunked.
I am looking for someone who lives in Australia. someone who could record an independent film of the night sky with sigma octantis. there is an answerI live in Australia but Sigma Octantis is not bright enough to see with the unaided eye under all but the most ideal conditions and that's not here.
Simply by stepping out my back door and looking south on any clear night
I can see the brighter stars such as Crux (the Southern Cross) and Alpha and Beta Centauri rotating about where Sigma Octantis should be.
Stars to the south and more than 27° above the horizon appear to move left to right (ie east to west) and
stars to the south and less than 27° above the horizon appear to move right to left (ie west to east).
And this is in complete agreement with these South Queensland star trails (not my video but from near here):
Star Trails around South East Queensland | Timelapse Queensland, Australia
Brisbane, Southern Queensland Country and the Sunshine Coast.
If you don't understand what I am talking about, make yourself a scale model of the earth and moon, and move your moon 30 Earth diameters away from your earth. Now, try and recreate this image of the moon passing in front of the earth as in the video, from further away still, from your moon, where earth dwarfs the moon like in the video.If 2 objects have a fixed distance between them, then as you get further away from them, the effect of perspective making the distance object smaller than the nearer one gets less and less significant.
You won't be able to. The video is either a fake, or an educational video manipulation, to show the earth and moon to scale, passing one another, with the dark side of the moon facing the viewer.
As an example, if the distance between the objects is 1, and you are 1 unit away from the near one as well, then assuming they were the same size, the distant one will appear 1/2 the size of the near one.
But if you move to 100 times the distance, then the far one will appear roughly 100/101=0.99 times the size.
If the further object is 4 times as large, then you just multiply by 4.
This satellite is roughly 1 million miles away from the Earth. That puts it roughly 760 000 miles from the moon, or 0.76 million miles.
So the relative ratio is 0.76.
So Earth, instead of appearing 4 times as large as the moon should only appear roughly 3 times as large.
And that is roughly what it is.
So no, there is nothing wrong with this.
Note:
Some more accurate numbers based upon the actual numbers (but still not proper trig)
The expected ratio is ~2.72342
The observed ratio is 2.27279
So I would say that is a pretty good match.
When did you change your mind?Not being able to see it with the naked eye doesn't mean there is a problem with seeing it or that it can't be explained.
(https://i.imgur.com/GrpuJ2s.jpg)
Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread(https://i.imgur.com/GrpuJ2s.jpg)
Yet another lie from Plat Terra. If the Moon is behind the sun (sets after) then it WILL be visible at night after the sun has set. The nonsense about "through a daylit sky" seems to indicate he thinks the moon is in the atmosphere? Or he has some other ignorant misconception. Either way he proves only that he doesn't understand the subject, AGAIN. Of course he wouldn't bother to defend his last ignorant Moon argument. Will he run away from this one too?
Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread(https://i.imgur.com/GrpuJ2s.jpg)
Yet another lie from Plat Terra. If the Moon is behind the sun (sets after) then it WILL be visible at night after the sun has set. The nonsense about "through a daylit sky" seems to indicate he thinks the moon is in the atmosphere? Or he has some other ignorant misconception. Either way he proves only that he doesn't understand the subject, AGAIN. Of course he wouldn't bother to defend his last ignorant Moon argument. Will he run away from this one too?
You’re confused, because you are viewing a new moon crescent above a Plane Earth. A new crescent can be observed above a hill top or mountain and that crescent being viewed from that angle, by far removes the Moon from its position of a Sphere Earth new Moon crescent 1 day alignment.
And the fact the horizon remaining eye level (feet on ground) as far as you can see, that horizon line does not allow you to see where the moon would be during a sphere Earth new crescent.
Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread(https://i.imgur.com/GrpuJ2s.jpg)
Yet another lie from Plat Terra. If the Moon is behind the sun (sets after) then it WILL be visible at night after the sun has set. The nonsense about "through a daylit sky" seems to indicate he thinks the moon is in the atmosphere? Or he has some other ignorant misconception. Either way he proves only that he doesn't understand the subject, AGAIN. Of course he wouldn't bother to defend his last ignorant Moon argument. Will he run away from this one too?
You’re confused, because you are viewing a new moon crescent above a Plane Earth. A new crescent can be observed above a hill top or mountain and that crescent being viewed from that angle, by far removes the Moon from its position of a Sphere Earth new Moon crescent 1 day alignment.
And the fact the horizon remaining eye level (feet on ground) as far as you can see, that horizon line does not allow you to see where the moon would be during a sphere Earth new crescent.
Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread(https://i.imgur.com/GrpuJ2s.jpg)
Yet another lie from Plat Terra. If the Moon is behind the sun (sets after) then it WILL be visible at night after the sun has set. The nonsense about "through a daylit sky" seems to indicate he thinks the moon is in the atmosphere? Or he has some other ignorant misconception. Either way he proves only that he doesn't understand the subject, AGAIN. Of course he wouldn't bother to defend his last ignorant Moon argument. Will he run away from this one too?
You’re confused, because you are viewing a new moon crescent above a Plane Earth. A new crescent can be observed above a hill top or mountain and that crescent being viewed from that angle, by far removes the Moon from its position of a Sphere Earth new Moon crescent 1 day alignment.
And the fact the horizon remaining eye level (feet on ground) as far as you can see, that horizon line does not allow you to see where the moon would be during a sphere Earth new crescent.
How sad that you are unable to visualize anything in 3D.
You would still be able to see the Moon. If it is behind the Sun the in the sky then you will see it until it sets. You've not shown otherwise. If it is a few degrees away from the Sun then when the Sun sets it will be a few degrees above the horizon.
The horizon is NOT always at eye level.
Thanks for the humor!
Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread(https://i.imgur.com/GrpuJ2s.jpg)
Yet another lie from Plat Terra. If the Moon is behind the sun (sets after) then it WILL be visible at night after the sun has set. The nonsense about "through a daylit sky" seems to indicate he thinks the moon is in the atmosphere? Or he has some other ignorant misconception. Either way he proves only that he doesn't understand the subject, AGAIN. Of course he wouldn't bother to defend his last ignorant Moon argument. Will he run away from this one too?
You’re confused, because you are viewing a new moon crescent above a Plane Earth. A new crescent can be observed above a hill top or mountain and that crescent being viewed from that angle, by far removes the Moon from its position of a Sphere Earth new Moon crescent 1 day alignment.
And the fact the horizon remaining eye level (feet on ground) as far as you can see, that horizon line does not allow you to see where the moon would be during a sphere Earth new crescent.
How sad that you are unable to visualize anything in 3D.
You would still be able to see the Moon. If it is behind the Sun the in the sky then you will see it until it sets. You've not shown otherwise. If it is a few degrees away from the Sun then when the Sun sets it will be a few degrees above the horizon.
The horizon is NOT always at eye level.
Thanks for the humor!
When your guy there with the video has made the same experiment from the same place, different times of the day and year and has the same results, then it's worth looking at. I know the results will be the different each time because of atmospheric conditions.
If you think that then you didn't actually watch the video. The liquid just allows you to see it is level and line up your eyesight straight across it. It has NOTHING to do with atmospheric conditions. You could try it yourself but I know you won't.Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread(https://i.imgur.com/GrpuJ2s.jpg)
Yet another lie from Plat Terra. If the Moon is behind the sun (sets after) then it WILL be visible at night after the sun has set. The nonsense about "through a daylit sky" seems to indicate he thinks the moon is in the atmosphere? Or he has some other ignorant misconception. Either way he proves only that he doesn't understand the subject, AGAIN. Of course he wouldn't bother to defend his last ignorant Moon argument. Will he run away from this one too?
You’re confused, because you are viewing a new moon crescent above a Plane Earth. A new crescent can be observed above a hill top or mountain and that crescent being viewed from that angle, by far removes the Moon from its position of a Sphere Earth new Moon crescent 1 day alignment.
And the fact the horizon remaining eye level (feet on ground) as far as you can see, that horizon line does not allow you to see where the moon would be during a sphere Earth new crescent.
How sad that you are unable to visualize anything in 3D.
You would still be able to see the Moon. If it is behind the Sun the in the sky then you will see it until it sets. You've not shown otherwise. If it is a few degrees away from the Sun then when the Sun sets it will be a few degrees above the horizon.
The horizon is NOT always at eye level.
Thanks for the humor!
When your guy there with the video has made the same experiment from the same place, different times of the day and year and has the same results, then it's worth looking at. I know the results will be the different each time because of atmospheric conditions.
If the Globe community would learn about real science, then they would know the horizon appears to move up and down and boats, shorelines, landmass, buildings get blocked by a walled mirage that appears to be a horizon. All because of atmospheric condidtions all kinds of wacky things appear to happen.
(https://i.imgur.com/FO1Odzd.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GrpuJ2s.jpg)From one new moon to the next is about 29.5 days. That means that the moon moves about 12.2 degrees per day. That means that, depending on exactly when the new moon happens, the sun and moon can be 3-4 degrees or more apart at sunset on the day of the new moon
Incorrect! A "Plane Earth." could not possibly do this!Yet another lie from Plat Terra. If the Moon is behind the sun (sets after) then it WILL be visible at night after the sun has set. The nonsense about "through a daylit sky" seems to indicate he thinks the moon is in the atmosphere? Or he has some other ignorant misconception. Either way he proves only that he doesn't understand the subject, AGAIN. Of course he wouldn't bother to defend his last ignorant Moon argument. Will he run away from this one too?
You’re confused, because you are viewing a new moon crescent above a Plane Earth.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/9gx2rtvrzytmrx7/07-Weipa%20Sunset.jpg?dl=1) Sun near setting at Weipa | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/mda31bn2xh10x4w/13-Weipa%20Sunset.jpg?dl=1) Sunset at Weipa |
A new crescent can be observed above a hill top or mountain and that crescent being viewed from that angle, by far removes the Moon from its position of a Sphere Earth new Moon crescent 1 day alignment.What on earth are you talking about? Why would that be any different from anything that could be seen "a Sphere Earth".
And the fact the horizon remaining eye level (feet on ground) as far as you can see, that horizon line does not allow you to see where the moon would be during a sphere Earth new crescent.But the exact time of a perfect "new crescent" could be any time at all - even mid-day!
You’re confused, because you are viewing a new moon crescent above a Plane Earth.There is no plane Earth, so how can anyone be viewing anything above it?
that crescent being viewed from that angle, by far removes the Moon from its position of a Sphere Earth new Moon crescent 1 day alignment.These are just empty words.
And the fact the horizon remaining eye levelStop lying. Pretty sure you already brought that up and had it refuted.
When your guy there with the video has made the same experiment from the same place, different times of the day and year and has the same results, then it's worth looking at.No, it is worth looking at now, because it exposes your lie.
If the Globe community would learn about real science, then they would know the horizon appears to move up and down and boats, shorelines, landmass, buildings get blocked by a walled mirage that appears to be a horizon. All because of atmospheric condidtions all kinds of wacky things appear to happen.You mean as the observer moves up and down the distance to the horizon changes, and thus more or less is obscured?
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?the Moon's orbit is inclined and doesn't always align exactly. Why could you not find that in a 2 second search? Did you even try?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
We already told you. Please pay attention.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
the Moon's orbit is inclined and doesn't always align exactly. Why could you not find that in a 2 second search? Did you even try?
You can find the answer to this question just by googling it.
The earth's orbit around the sun and the moon's orbit around the earth are not on the same plane. Eclipses occur when full moon or new moon happen close to the intersection of the two planes.
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/why-isnt-there-an-eclipse-every-full-moon
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
Do you not have the ability to google or to read here? What's wrong with you? IRL do you just say whatever comes to mind and wait for others to correct you? It's already been explained to you. Here again:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJBYD0Z.gif)
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
Do you not have the ability to google or to read here? What's wrong with you? IRL do you just say whatever comes to mind and wait for others to correct you? It's already been explained to you. Here again:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJBYD0Z.gif)
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks!
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. Hmm
I just posted this question and Themightykabool did not reply with the words "new moon, full moon, not being eclipsed in his post. And nor have you.
Please pay attention.
The earth's orbit around the sun and the moon's orbit around the earth are not on the same plane. Eclipses occur when full moon or new moon happen close to the intersection of the two planes.
Nothing is "made up". You can see the Moon's inclination in the fact that its rise and set location moves North and South throughout the month. Just because you don't understand it and didn't bother to do any actual research doesn't mean everybody else is as ignorant as you.How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
Do you not have the ability to google or to read here? What's wrong with you? IRL do you just say whatever comes to mind and wait for others to correct you? It's already been explained to you. Here again:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJBYD0Z.gif)
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks!
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. Hmm
I just posted this question and Themightykabool did not reply with the words "new moon, full moon, not being eclipsed in his post. And nor have you.
Please pay attention.
Yes I did, pay attention:The earth's orbit around the sun and the moon's orbit around the earth are not on the same plane. Eclipses occur when full moon or new moon happen close to the intersection of the two planes.
I just posted this question and Themightykabool did not reply with the words "new moon, full moon, not being eclipsed in his post. And nor have you.
Please pay attention.
Yes I did, pay attention:The earth's orbit around the sun and the moon's orbit around the earth are not on the same plane. Eclipses occur when full moon or new moon happen close to the intersection of the two planes.
OPPS, my bad. I looked at his post first.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
Do you not have the ability to google or to read here? What's wrong with you? IRL do you just say whatever comes to mind and wait for others to correct you? It's already been explained to you. Here again:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJBYD0Z.gif)
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks!
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. Hmm
Who is "they"?
No, you can observe this yourself with a telescope, even without one? Have you ever seen the moon? Are you trolling or really that daft?
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
Do you not have the ability to google or to read here? What's wrong with you? IRL do you just say whatever comes to mind and wait for others to correct you? It's already been explained to you. Here again:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJBYD0Z.gif)
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks!
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. Hmm
Who is "they"?
No, you can observe this yourself with a telescope, even without one? Have you ever seen the moon? Are you trolling or really that daft?
But that does not mean Earth is a sphere. You are observing a Moon over a Flat Plane.
But what it does is cause you a probem and I will post it shortly.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
Do you not have the ability to google or to read here? What's wrong with you? IRL do you just say whatever comes to mind and wait for others to correct you? It's already been explained to you. Here again:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJBYD0Z.gif)
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks!
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. Hmm
Who is "they"?
No, you can observe this yourself with a telescope, even without one? Have you ever seen the moon? Are you trolling or really that daft?
But that does not mean Earth is a sphere. You are observing a Moon over a Flat Plane.
What it means is your that meme is garbage; ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless.But what it does is cause you a probem and I will post it shortly.
I'm sure it does cause for you to create another ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless meme.
<< Own up and apologise for your use of a composite photo in that deceptive video! >>Go and read: Flat Earth General / Re: “Sigma Octantis” and the Infinite Plane? « on: September 01, 2019, 09:46:55 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83018.msg2199749#msg2199749)
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
Do you not have the ability to google or to read here? What's wrong with you? IRL do you just say whatever comes to mind and wait for others to correct you? It's already been explained to you. Here again:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJBYD0Z.gif)
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks!
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. Hmm
Who is "they"?
No, you can observe this yourself with a telescope, even without one? Have you ever seen the moon? Are you trolling or really that daft?
But that does not mean Earth is a sphere. You are observing a Moon over a Flat Plane.
What it means is your that meme is garbage; ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless.But what it does is cause you a probem and I will post it shortly.
I'm sure it does cause for you to create another ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless meme.
(https://i.imgur.com/7I9cvk6.jpg)
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?Very simply! All you had to do was a little research into the matter but you seem to prefer to be totally ignorant!
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?No, all it debunks is your pretence at knowing NOTHING about the orbit of the moon or astronomy!
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)If you weren't so ignorant of these things YOU would know that you are and always have been talking utter ignorant trash!
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
Do you not have the ability to google or to read here? What's wrong with you? IRL do you just say whatever comes to mind and wait for others to correct you? It's already been explained to you. Here again:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJBYD0Z.gif)
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks!
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. Hmm
Who is "they"?
No, you can observe this yourself with a telescope, even without one? Have you ever seen the moon? Are you trolling or really that daft?
But that does not mean Earth is a sphere. You are observing a Moon over a Flat Plane.
What it means is your that meme is garbage; ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless.But what it does is cause you a probem and I will post it shortly.
I'm sure it does cause for you to create another ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless meme.
Common sense used without indoctrination is all that’s needed to debunk a sphere earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/7I9cvk6.jpg)
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
Do you not have the ability to google or to read here? What's wrong with you? IRL do you just say whatever comes to mind and wait for others to correct you? It's already been explained to you. Here again:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJBYD0Z.gif)
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks!
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. Hmm
Who is "they"?
No, you can observe this yourself with a telescope, even without one? Have you ever seen the moon? Are you trolling or really that daft?
But that does not mean Earth is a sphere. You are observing a Moon over a Flat Plane.
What it means is your that meme is garbage; ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless.But what it does is cause you a probem and I will post it shortly.
I'm sure it does cause for you to create another ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless meme.
(https://i.imgur.com/7I9cvk6.jpg)
Do you mean like this?
(https://en.es-static.us/upl/2013/07/moon-youngest-Thierry-Legault-7-8-2013-lg-e1465060064709.jpg)
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
Do you not have the ability to google or to read here? What's wrong with you? IRL do you just say whatever comes to mind and wait for others to correct you? It's already been explained to you. Here again:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJBYD0Z.gif)
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks!
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. Hmm
Who is "they"?
No, you can observe this yourself with a telescope, even without one? Have you ever seen the moon? Are you trolling or really that daft?
But that does not mean Earth is a sphere. You are observing a Moon over a Flat Plane.
What it means is your that meme is garbage; ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless.But what it does is cause you a probem and I will post it shortly.
I'm sure it does cause for you to create another ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless meme.
(https://i.imgur.com/7I9cvk6.jpg)
Do you mean like this?
(https://en.es-static.us/upl/2013/07/moon-youngest-Thierry-Legault-7-8-2013-lg-e1465060064709.jpg)
Oh, you need a hell of a lot more than that. You also need to prove the incline for that month and then you have to explain why the sliver is on the right side of the moon the next night. The moon would have to raise in height for the sliver to transfer to the rightside within 24 hours. See, this is another major problem for your guys. You just can't win. It's not possible. There is to many things wrong. Accept it and join the FE community!
(https://i.imgur.com/R2EXvjj.jpg)
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/TnAYLzG.jpg)
Are you saying these guys literally dont exist or dont know how to predict eclipses in such accuracy ebough to fly to a different city just to see one?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwxq9a/inside-the-thriving-subculture-of-eclipse-chasers
Are you saying you didn't understand the question and post something unrelated? Here is the question again.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
Do you not have the ability to google or to read here? What's wrong with you? IRL do you just say whatever comes to mind and wait for others to correct you? It's already been explained to you. Here again:
(https://i.imgur.com/SJBYD0Z.gif)
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks!
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. Hmm
Who is "they"?
No, you can observe this yourself with a telescope, even without one? Have you ever seen the moon? Are you trolling or really that daft?
But that does not mean Earth is a sphere. You are observing a Moon over a Flat Plane.
What it means is your that meme is garbage; ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless.But what it does is cause you a probem and I will post it shortly.
I'm sure it does cause for you to create another ill-informed, poorly researched and utterly useless meme.
(https://i.imgur.com/7I9cvk6.jpg)
Do you mean like this?
(https://en.es-static.us/upl/2013/07/moon-youngest-Thierry-Legault-7-8-2013-lg-e1465060064709.jpg)
Oh, you need a hell of a lot more than that. You also need to prove the incline for that month and then you have to explain why the sliver is on the right side of the moon the next night. The moon would have to raise in height for the sliver to transfer to the rightside within 24 hours. See, this is another major problem for your guys. You just can't win. It's not possible. There is to many things wrong. Accept it and join the FE community!
(https://i.imgur.com/R2EXvjj.jpg)
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?No, it doesn't.
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. HmmNo, they have an inclined orbit in the model to have it match reality, i.e. the observed sub-lunar points on Earth and have the angles to the moon from other locations match.
But that does not mean Earth is a sphere.No one said it did.
Common sense used without indoctrination is all that’s needed to debunk a sphere earth.Well you seem to severely lack common sense due to so much nonsense you have posted which goes directly against common sense.
Oh, you need a hell of a lot more than that.You mean now that you have been shown to be wrong yet again you will move the goalposts yet again.
then you have to explain why the sliver is on the right side of the moon the next night.As we have already demonstrated with the prior arguments focusing on the moon which you felt the need to avoid, the region which is illuminated will vary depending upon where the moon is viewed.
You just can't win. It's not possible. There is to many things wrong. Accept it and join the FE community!You mean there is far too much BS you can come up with and throw at us without finding any actual problem?
So you jump onto yet another topic.
Someone repeatedly jumping between topics is not someone with a strong argument or who is capable of defeating the opposition.
Instead that is someone who knows they have no case, who has no confidence in their arguments and instead tries to bury their opponent in bovine excrement in the hope it might take too long for them to climb out.
So good job showing yet another argument of yours is a complete failure and that there is absolutely no reason for the REers to be admitting defeat.How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?No, it doesn't.
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
During most new moons and full moons, the moon is not entirely new or entirely full.
The moon's orbit is inclined to the ecliptic such that only twice a year is there an alignment to cause eclipses, where the moon literally goes between the Earth and the sun or the sun goes between Earth and the moon.
Earth's radius is roughly 6371 km and it is roughly 150 000 000 km away from the sun.
The moon's radius is roughly 1737 km and it is roughly 385 000 km away from Earth.
The sun's radius is roughly 700 000 km.
So here is a diagram just for you Note: IT IS NOT TOO SCALE!:
(https://i.imgur.com/Kad58cj.png)
In order to avoid eclipses the moon needs to be outside of these orange regions as drawn.
This means the moon needs to be ~1 degree out of alignment to avoid a lunar eclipse and ~1.6 degrees to avoid a solar eclipse.
Meanwhile in reality the Moon's orbit is inclined relative to the ecliptic by 5.145 degrees.
For the majority of the year the moon is not in the required alignment to produce an eclipse. This alignment only occurs twice every year, which corresponds to the same regions of the year when eclipses are observed.
So this works quite well with a RE.
Now I would ask how a FE explains it, but as a FE can't even explain eclipses to begin with, I figure that would be a rather pointless question.So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. HmmNo, they have an inclined orbit in the model to have it match reality, i.e. the observed sub-lunar points on Earth and have the angles to the moon from other locations match.
It was not made to solve eclipses.But that does not mean Earth is a sphere.No one said it did.
You falsely claimed it causes a problem for a RE. It does no such thing.
However, a RE is the only kwown model which can accurately explain the apparent position of the moon and what we observe of it. This a problem you ran away from before.
This does not cause any problems.Common sense used without indoctrination is all that’s needed to debunk a sphere earth.Well you seem to severely lack common sense due to so much nonsense you have posted which goes directly against common sense.
What you need to debunk a round Earth is to radically change reality, as so far all the evidence indicates Earth is round, and you are yet to demonstrate any problem with a RE. Instead you just make baseless claims, get them refuted or exposed as entirely baseless, and then run.
This is yet another example of that.
Why do you have a bright sun, surrounded by darkness?
Why did you decide to have that much illuminated?
For the 5.145 degrees out of alignment, the most extreme case, from a front on view, for the region aligned with the sun where you get the maximum overlap, it amounts to all of 0.8% being illuminated.
In your yet another dishonest picture you have the sun being 32 pixels wide.
The moon is roughly the same size as the sun, not much larger as you have drawn it. Do you know how large a region should be lit up for the moon (at least for those sections directly in line with the sun)? 0.256 pixels. Much less than the 3 pixels you have drawn.
This will also be right near the very bright sun, making it quite difficult to see.
This will also be quite different to when the moon is 1 day out of alignment which equates to roughly 13 degrees out of alignment, and that is again different to the image you have provided where it is much more out of alignment.
So once again, no problem for a RE, and just avoidance of all the problems for a FE.Oh, you need a hell of a lot more than that.You mean now that you have been shown to be wrong yet again you will move the goalposts yet again.then you have to explain why the sliver is on the right side of the moon the next night.As we have already demonstrated with the prior arguments focusing on the moon which you felt the need to avoid, the region which is illuminated will vary depending upon where the moon is viewed.
It will be the side closest to the sun which is illuminated.
As an example, if you follow a hypothetically illuminated object it can appear to rise with the top illuminated.
You then follow it over the course of the time it is visible and see it with the right hand side illuminated. Then you continue to follow it and observe the bottom illuminated.
This apparent rotation is just because you are viewing from a different angle.
So no additional explanation is required.
It is once again you grasping at strawmen to try and save your failed FE by shovelling BS onto the working RE.You just can't win. It's not possible. There is to many things wrong. Accept it and join the FE community!You mean there is far too much BS you can come up with and throw at us without finding any actual problem?
Why would we join your side when you need to resort to such tactics?
While you continually avoid the massive problems with a FE, and only come up with lies to try and attack the RE I see absolutely no reason to defect.
I will stick with the side which can actually explain reality.
If you want me to accept defeat come up with an actual problem with a RE, and address the massive shortcomings of a FE.
Explain why/how the sun sets. Explain why/how there are 2 celestial poles always located 180 degrees apart. Explain the apparent the apparent position of celestial objects. Explain why/how everyone on Earth sees basically the same moon, yet in different positions. Explain eclipses. Explain what the motive is for lying about the shape of Earth when it provides no gain at all to the government or those promoting a RE.
Oh, you need a hell of a lot more than that. You also need to prove the incline for that month and then you have to explain why the sliver is on the right side of the moon the next night. The moon would have to raise in height for the sliver to transfer to the rightside within 24 hours. See, this is another major problem for your guys. You just can't win. It's not possible. There is to many things wrong. Accept it and join the FE community!
(https://i.imgur.com/R2EXvjj.jpg)
the orbit is inclinced but the Moon is still to the side of the Sun. The lit side always points to the Sun. it MAY appear on the top or bottom depending on when and where the observer is viewing it and what direction they are facing. That effect is called field rotation and yet another sign we live on a round Earth but it does happen. It is why when you observe the Moon for multiple hours it can appear to rotate. It doesn't actually rotate, the observer does. At all times the North pole of the Moon still points to the North. Yet another FAIL from Plat Terra.
Common sense used without indoctrination is all that’s needed to debunk a sphere earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/7I9cvk6.jpg)
You sure list a lot of 'conditions' to 'accept defeat'.It is really just 1 condition, provide a model which is better capable of explaining reality than the RE model.
You sure list a lot of 'conditions' to 'accept defeat'. How about you just accept you don't 'know it all' and that you could very well be wrong or missing information yourself.
I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
the orbit is inclinced but the Moon is still to the side of the Sun. The lit side always points to the side. it MAY appear on the top or bottom depending on when and where the observer is viewing it and what direction they are facing. That effect is called field rotation and yet another sign we live on a round Earth but it does happen. It is why when you observe the Moon for multiple hours it can appear to rotate. It doesn't actually rotate, the observer does. At all times the North pole of the Moon still points to the North. Yet another FAIL from Plat Terra.
Common sense used without indoctrination is all that’s needed to debunk a sphere earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/7I9cvk6.jpg)
the orbit is inclinced but the Moon is still to the side of the Sun. The lit side always points to the side. it MAY appear on the top or bottom depending on when and where the observer is viewing it and what direction they are facing. That effect is called field rotation and yet another sign we live on a round Earth but it does happen. It is why when you observe the Moon for multiple hours it can appear to rotate. It doesn't actually rotate, the observer does. At all times the North pole of the Moon still points to the North. Yet another FAIL from Plat Terra.
Common sense used without indoctrination is all that’s needed to debunk a sphere earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/7I9cvk6.jpg)
NO, its not to the side. It's above or below. And it's not goind to travel up in 24 hours so that it can be to the side for a right sided sliver. That's not a part of your moons mechanics.
You sure list a lot of 'conditions' to 'accept defeat'.It is really just 1 condition, provide a model which is better capable of explaining reality than the RE model.
The only one here claiming to know everything is you, even though you get plenty of things wrong.
I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
NO, its not to the side. It's above or below. And it's not goind to travel up in 24 hours so that it can be to the side for a right sided sliver. That's not a part of your moons mechanics.I already explained it. Why do you always ignore it when you are given the answer?
Because Earth is a Plane.Then why are you completely incapable of defending it or pointing out any problem with the RE?
You let me know when you or anyone else has verified the curvature bulge at center over Florida. Fake pictures and words of people using geo-instruments won't do it.
I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
You let me know when you or anyone else has verified the curvature bulge at center over Florida. Fake pictures and words of people using geo-instruments won't do it.
Common sense used without indoctrination is all that’s needed to debunk a sphere earth.No common sense with indoctrination from fake YouTube videos that use "composite photos" videos is necessary to pretend that you debunk a sphere earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/7I9cvk6.jpg)So you draw all your conclusions from a grossly "Not to Scale" diagram! Try drawing it a bit closer to scale as here:
They aren't memes, they are infographics
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
If you do have a better model, how come it's not used for world transport/navigation by land, sea, and air of goods and people?
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
If you do have a better model, how come it's not used for world transport/navigation by land, sea, and air of goods and people?
It's too small, like your waterless one.
Common sense used without indoctrination is all that’s needed to debunk a sphere earth.No common sense with indoctrination from fake YouTube videos that use "composite photos" videos is necessary to pretend that you debunk a sphere earth.
But a little common sense, observation and knowledge of astronomy, known for centuries, is all that is needed to know that YOU are know nothing.Quote from: Plat Terra(https://i.imgur.com/7I9cvk6.jpg)So you draw all your conclusions from a grossly "Not to Scale" diagram! Try drawing it a bit closer to scale as here:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ow8ybibzwjzl4t0/Plat%20Terra%27s%20%27More%20to%20scale%27%20New%20Moon.jpg?dl=1)
Now, with the moon no more than about 5° from the centre of the sun, do you think you light have a chance of seeing your "crescent moon"?
Run away with your silly deceptive meaningless memes!
Common sense used without indoctrination is all that’s needed to debunk a sphere earth.No common sense with indoctrination from fake YouTube videos that use "composite photos" videos is necessary to pretend that you debunk a sphere earth.
But a little common sense, observation and knowledge of astronomy, known for centuries, is all that is needed to know that YOU are know nothing.Quote from: Plat Terra(https://i.imgur.com/7I9cvk6.jpg)So you draw all your conclusions from a grossly "Not to Scale" diagram! Try drawing it a bit closer to scale as here:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ow8ybibzwjzl4t0/Plat%20Terra%27s%20%27More%20to%20scale%27%20New%20Moon.jpg?dl=1)
Now, with the moon no more than about 5° from the centre of the sun, do you think you light have a chance of seeing your "crescent moon"?
Run away with your silly deceptive meaningless memes!
Sure you could see it on your sphere earth right after the sun went down. It woud be a few degrees above the horizon and how often you see it would depend on atmospheric conditions. Hell, with today's optic lenes filters it would be viewed all the time with pictures of it everyhere. But that's not the case, is it? Why? Because Earth is not a fantasy sphere. It's time to join the FE Community, right?
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.
You get an A++ for STUPID.
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.
You get an A++ for STUPID.
A sphere earth with a 3959 mile radius is not very big. Hell, there would be a curvature drop of 6' just 3 miles out all around you. And you wonder why it floods. Massive is an infinite Plane.
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.
You get an A++ for STUPID.
A sphere earth with a 3959 mile radius is not very big. Hell, there would be a curvature drop of 6' just 3 miles out all around you. And you wonder why it floods. Massive is an infinite Plane.
Technically, you can't modify 'infinite' with 'massive'. 'Infinite' is considered an absolute. Infinite is neither massive nor tiny, it is endless, therefore no scale can be applied to it in its entirety because it has no entirety.
As for a sphere with a 3959 mile radius and a 25,000 mile circumference, on a human scale, now that is massive.
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.
You get an A++ for STUPID.
A sphere earth with a 3959 mile radius is not very big. Hell, there would be a curvature drop of 6' just 3 miles out all around you. And you wonder why it floods. Massive is an infinite Plane.
Technically, you can't modify 'infinite' with 'massive'. 'Infinite' is considered an absolute. Infinite is neither massive nor tiny, it is endless, therefore no scale can be applied to it in its entirety because it has no entirety.
As for a sphere with a 3959 mile radius and a 25,000 mile circumference, on a human scale, now that is massive.
Can we stop using primitive and outdated imperial measurements? It's 6,357km radius and 40,075km circumference.
Thank you.
Oh wait. America is still regressive in this time. No worries, I'll wait a few decades for you to finally move in sync with the rest of the world.... ::) ::) 8)
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.
You get an A++ for STUPID.
A sphere earth with a 3959 mile radius is not very big. Hell, there would be a curvature drop of 6' just 3 miles out all around you. And you wonder why it floods. Massive is an infinite Plane.
Technically, you can't modify 'infinite' with 'massive'. 'Infinite' is considered an absolute. Infinite is neither massive nor tiny, it is endless, therefore no scale can be applied to it in its entirety because it has no entirety.
As for a sphere with a 3959 mile radius and a 25,000 mile circumference, on a human scale, now that is massive.
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.
You get an A++ for STUPID.
A sphere earth with a 3959 mile radius is not very big. Hell, there would be a curvature drop of 6' just 3 miles out all around you. And you wonder why it floods. Massive is an infinite Plane.
Technically, you can't modify 'infinite' with 'massive'. 'Infinite' is considered an absolute. Infinite is neither massive nor tiny, it is endless, therefore no scale can be applied to it in its entirety because it has no entirety.
As for a sphere with a 3959 mile radius and a 25,000 mile circumference, on a human scale, now that is massive.
Did you get beat up much when you went to school?
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.
You get an A++ for STUPID.
A sphere earth with a 3959 mile radius is not very big. Hell, there would be a curvature drop of 6' just 3 miles out all around you. And you wonder why it floods. Massive is an infinite Plane.
Technically, you can't modify 'infinite' with 'massive'. 'Infinite' is considered an absolute. Infinite is neither massive nor tiny, it is endless, therefore no scale can be applied to it in its entirety because it has no entirety.
As for a sphere with a 3959 mile radius and a 25,000 mile circumference, on a human scale, now that is massive.
Can we stop using primitive and outdated imperial measurements? It's 6,357km radius and 40,075km circumference.
Thank you.
Oh wait. America is still regressive in this time. No worries, I'll wait a few decades for you to finally move in sync with the rest of the world.... ::) ::) 8)
Can we stop using primitive and outdated imperial measurements? It's 6,357km radius and 40,075km circumference.You'll have to forgive the poor dears in the USA and the UK. They'll get on board one century.
Thank you.
How does your FE model explain the phases of the moon?Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
I will not believe that until you eitherThen why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?
We do.
This isn't a game for toys.Well it's time you stopped posting silly incorrect memes and started presenting a working flat earth model because the bits you've hinted at so far fail miserably!
I don’t have an answer for you at this time. The camera is just a few feet from the concave plate. Its not thousands of miles away and there’s not multiple layers atmosphere with different types of gas that can make light bend multiple times. Science is involved with such a dome system.
I do know that no answer I give is going to make land and water rise up and curve so you can see if it measures to a sphere with a 3959 mile radius. Actually proving curvature should be your main concern.
I don’t have an answer for you at this time. The camera is just a few feet from the concave plate. Its not thousands of miles away and there’s not multiple layers atmosphere with different types of gas that can make light bend multiple times. Science is involved with such a dome system.
I do know that no answer I give is going to make land and water rise up and curve so you can see if it measures to a sphere with a 3959 mile radius. Actually proving curvature should be your main concern.
Light bends towards the normal when going into a medium with higher refractive index. Earth's atmosphere would make your disk moon look even more ellipsoid. That makes me wonder what kind of atmosphere would be needed for FE.
Against all available evidence you have decided that the earth is flat.
Since a spheric moon doesnt work well with your FE you also decide that the moon is a concave disk facing down. Again without evidence.
But that doesn't work either so you appeal to some sort of magic bendy light which would make the moon look like a sphere to everyone while being a disk facing down. Again without evidence or proof.
But bendy light still doesnt solve your problem. It doesnt explain why we see an inverted moon looking from north vs south, but not west vs east. You didnt even attempt to explain moon phases yet.
FE atmosphere must be some sort of magical arrangement made to fix all FE problems. First the atmospheric bank, then atmospheric lensing , weather effects that make mountains cast a shadow under clouds and now bendy light caused by atmospheric gases.
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.
You get an A++ for STUPID.
A sphere earth with a 3959 mile radius is not very big. Hell, there would be a curvature drop of 6' just 3 miles out all around you. And you wonder why it floods. Massive is an infinite Plane.
Read the whole quote:I don’t have an answer for you at this time. The camera is just a few feet from the concave plate. Its not thousands of miles away and there’s not multiple layers atmosphere with different types of gas that can make light bend multiple times. Science is involved with such a dome system.
I do know that no answer I give is going to make land and water rise up and curve so you can see if it measures to a sphere with a 3959 mile radius. Actually proving curvature should be your main concern.
Light bends towards the normal when going into a medium with higher refractive index. Earth's atmosphere would make your disk moon look even more ellipsoid. That makes me wonder what kind of atmosphere would be needed for FE.
Against all available evidence you have decided that the earth is flat.
Since a spheric moon doesnt work well with your FE you also decide that the moon is a concave disk facing down. Again without evidence.
But that doesn't work either so you appeal to some sort of magic bendy light which would make the moon look like a sphere to everyone while being a disk facing down. Again without evidence or proof.
But bendy light still doesnt solve your problem. It doesnt explain why we see an inverted moon looking from north vs south, but not west vs east. You didnt even attempt to explain moon phases yet.
FE atmosphere must be some sort of magical arrangement made to fix all FE problems. First the atmospheric bank, then atmospheric lensing , weather effects that make mountains cast a shadow under clouds and now bendy light caused by atmospheric gases.
What's magic about light being able to bend? Hold a straight object like a ruler half in and out of water. Heard of refraction?
You roundtards try to make fun and discredit flatties by saying 'bendy light' but it only shows your own incompetence
Can we stop using primitive and outdated imperial measurements? It's 6,357km radius and 40,075km circumference.You'll have to forgive the poor dears in the USA and the UK. They'll get on board one century.
Thank you.
Can we stop using primitive and outdated imperial measurements? It's 6,357km radius and 40,075km circumference.You'll have to forgive the poor dears in the USA and the UK. They'll get on board one century.
Thank you.
Hahaha hands up to that one, although in my defence I was taught the metric system by people who had used imperial all their lives
Can we stop using primitive and outdated imperial measurements? It's 6,357km radius and 40,075km circumference.You'll have to forgive the poor dears in the USA and the UK. They'll get on board one century.
Thank you.
Hahaha hands up to that one, although in my defence I was taught the metric system by people who had used imperial all their lives
How much push back would there be in America if the President said he wanted to eventually change over to the metric system. Of course it would cost many billions of dollars but hell you could at least standardise it for use in science.
Star Trek had the foresight of using metric and Kelvins though. 8)
Of course it would cost many billions of dollarsI imagine that's all that's both the US and the UK back. But if the US had adopted it everywhere back in 1866 things might have been different.
In 1866, the U.S. Congress authorized the use of the metric system and almost a decade later America became one of 17 original signatory nations to the Treaty of theMeter. A more modern system was approved in 1960 and is commonly known as SI or the International System of Units.Great Britain didn't authorise it officially until after the SI system was introduced.
British Imperial System, traditional system of weights and measures used officially in Great Britain from 1824 until the adoption of the metric system beginning in 1965.
but hell you could at least standardise it for use in science.Almost all science in the US already does use the SI. There are some exceptions, including NASA ::) who still use a mixed system even on the ISSUE.
What's magic about light being able to bend? Hold a straight object like a ruler half in and out of water. Heard of refraction?
You roundtards try to make fun and discredit flatties by saying 'bendy light' but it only shows your own incompetence
Of course it would cost many billions of dollarsI imagine that's all that's both the US and the UK back. But if the US had adopted it everywhere back in 1866 things might have been different.QuoteIn 1866, the U.S. Congress authorized the use of the metric system and almost a decade later America became one of 17 original signatory nations to the Treaty of theMeter. A more modern system was approved in 1960 and is commonly known as SI or the International System of Units.Great Britain didn't authorise it officially until after the SI system was introduced.QuoteBritish Imperial System, traditional system of weights and measures used officially in Great Britain from 1824 until the adoption of the metric system beginning in 1965.Quote from: Shifterbut hell you could at least standardise it for use in science.Almost all science in the US already does use the SI. There are some exceptions, including NASA ::) who still use a mixed system even on the ISSUE.
We doSure doesn't seem like it.
Sure you could see it on your sphere earth right after the sun went down.Not easily.
Tee hee!We use Celsius here and:
Well it's a rather brisk 288K where I am, Rab.
The Celsius scale, also known as the centigrade scale, is a temperature scale used by the International System of Units (SI). As an SI derived unit, it is used worldwide.And here this morning the minimum was 10.2°C, maximum 29.3°C and now it is 19.7°C. So your 14.85°C sounds OK, but cooler than I like.
What's it like in OZ, at 0.57 radians,I don't know because I live close to 0.48 rad S.
A degree (in full, a degree of arc, arc degree, or arcdegree), usually denoted by ° (the degree symbol), is a measurement of a plane angle, defined so that a full rotation is 360 degrees. It is not an SI unit, as the SI unit of angular measure is the radian, but it is mentioned in the SI brochure as an accepted unit.So I'll stick to saying that I live near 27.5° S, 153.0° E.
bearing in mind your blood temperature is a toasty 310K.Close, let's call it 37°C.
Meanwhile I guarantee the shiny jets flying over are measuring their altitude in good old feet (well, flight level if we are being really pedantic).
Measuring Altitude: Feet vs. Meters
Here’s where things get tricky. Because of the proliferation of American and British aircraft during the early years of aviation, the imperial foot became standard for altitude measurement. China (PRC), North Korea, and Russia, however, use meters for altitude measurement.
[Update: Russian high altitude airspace changed to Flight Levels calibrated in feet. In 2017, all Russian airspace from the surface up, began transitioning to feet.]
A drop due to curvature is not the same as an elevation change.Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.
You get an A++ for STUPID.
A sphere earth with a 3959 mile radius is not very big. Hell, there would be a curvature drop of 6' just 3 miles out all around you. And you wonder why it floods. Massive is an infinite Plane.
A drop due to curvature is not the same as an elevation change.Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?I don’t have an answer for you at this time.Then why not accept defeat?
Because Earth is a Plane.
We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years. You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.
What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.
You get an A++ for STUPID.
A sphere earth with a 3959 mile radius is not very big. Hell, there would be a curvature drop of 6' just 3 miles out all around you. And you wonder why it floods. Massive is an infinite Plane.
Did your parents have any children that lived?
You, like all flat earthers, have no sense of scale of perspective!What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.
You get an A++ for STUPID.
A sphere earth with a 3959 mile radius is not very big. Hell, there would be a curvature drop of 6' just 3 miles out all around you. And you wonder why it floods.
Massive is an infinite Plane.No, "infinite" is infinitely larger than "massive"!
Can we stop using primitive and outdated imperial measurements? It's 6,357km radius and 40,075km circumference.You'll have to forgive the poor dears in the USA and the UK. They'll get on board one century.
Thank you.
Dowsnt chickikipijamas believe the earht is a ball?
What does that have to do with Earth being flat? Care to elaborate?
Dowsnt chickikipijamas believe the earht is a ball?
Correct. He was a flat earther then became a Geocentrist globe believer maybe with a hint of young earth creationism thrown in there.
What does that have to do with Earth being flat? Care to elaborate?
Sure, I will elaborate. A hell of a lot of lies are connected to the Globe theory.
I see it's great for here. This will help the Globe Community understand why they have no choice but to accept defeat.You mean it will help us understand that dishonest FEers like you have no concern for the truth and will continue to bring up nonsense after nonsense to try to defend your failed fantasy?
Dowsnt chickikipijamas believe the earht is a ball?
Correct. He was a flat earther then became a Geocentrist globe believer maybe with a hint of young earth creationism thrown in there.
And he also has a point. Scientists have come up with all sorts of theories before they have all the data. How can you arrive at the truth? Your a biasing yourself from the start. You will only find the data that matches what you wish to believe is true. If a scientist came across data that was at odds or contradicted the 'big bang' origin, it would likely be dismissed or not taken seriously.
A few complained cikljamas posted this in "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)"I don't think so ::)! But thanks for posting all this this that supports a spherical shaped earth and Robert Sungenis wrote Flat Earth/Flat Wrong[/i]
I see it's great for here.
This will help the Globe Community understand why they have no choice but to accept defeat.Why would that "help the Globe Community understand why they have no choice but to accept defeat"?
..............................................That has not the slightest connection with the shape of the earth or even the Heliocentric Solar System vs. Geocentric Universe questions.
Posted by cikljamas
Let me amuse you some more :
The Big Bang Has Big Problems
Maybe you could buy a copy and read what, your hero ;), Robert Sungenis has to say about this "Flat Earth | Flat Wrong" idea of yours!Quote from: WikipediaRobert A. Sungenis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis) (born ca. 1955) is an American Traditionalist Catholic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic) known for his Catholic apologetics and his advocacy of a pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is the center of the universe (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Religious_and_contemporary_adherence_to_geocentrism).
And Robert Sungenis is vehemently opposed to the flat earth, writing documents like this: The Flat Earth Frenzy: Unscientific and Unbiblical (http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Flat%20Earth%20Geography.pdf)
Robert Sungenis was also the "creator, executive producer and actor in The Principle movie, and now author of the new book, Flat Earth/Flat Wrong".
Flat Earth | Flat Wrong: (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/)
An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis is the latest of Robert Sungenis’ intriguing works. Sparked by the recent and ongoing controversy in social media on whether the Earth is flat and covered by a dome, or is a spherical body surrounded by the vastness of space, Robert was commissioned by the Kolbe Center to write this book and show why, historically, biblically and scientifically, the globe Earth is the true reality. It is by far the most detailed and comprehensive exposé on the flat Earth theory ever written from the critical side of the debate.
The proponents of this convenient manipulation of data seem oblivious to their ploys. But George Ellis is not ashamed to admit that the whole thing is based on wishing or presuming that the Copernican Principle is true:That has no relevance to the shape of the earth.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As the famous 20th-century historian Arthur C. Clarke once said:The "the famous 20th-century historian Arthur C. Clarke" is also the writer of the story-line of "2001, A Space Odessy" and probably the originator of the idea of communication satellites.
“The lesson to be learned from these examples is one that can never be repeated too often, and is one that is seldom understood by laymen – who have an almost superstitious awe of mathematics. But mathematics is only a tool, though an immensely powerful one. No equations, however impressive and complex, can arrive at the truth if the initial assumptions are incorrect. It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them. What is even more incredible, they refuse to learn from experience; they will continue to make the same mistake over and over again. Some of my best friends are astronomers, and I am sorry to keep throwing stones at them – but they do seem to have an appalling record as prophets.”
----------------
And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
Hate to break it to you rab but Arthur C Clark was a fiction writer. FICTION! I assume you know what that means?
And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
Hate to break it to you rab but Arthur C Clark was a fiction writer. FICTION! I assume you know what that means?
Was he a historian?
As well as a scifi writer he was also a talented space writer, wrote many technical papers and essays and popularised the concept of geostationary satellites and calculated their orbit, which is often referred to as the clarke orbit or belt.
And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
Hate to break it to you rab but Arthur C Clark was a fiction writer. FICTION! I assume you know what that means?
Was he a historian?
As well as a scifi writer he was also a talented space writer, wrote many technical papers and essays and popularised the concept of geostationary satellites and calculated their orbit, which is often referred to as the clarke orbit or belt.
I have seen 2001 Space Odessy. What a snooze fest. If this is considered a masterpiece than I dont think he's very good
And despite everyone saying how smart he was, not a single 'idea' of his was patented. I guess he didn't mind not getting the billions of dollars he could have got had his ideas ever been workable.
If your making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH and with the Earth at more than 1,000 MPH, you damn sure would feel it.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/acceleration.jpg)
Don't trust them centrificaful force can be felt.
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/flat-earth-memes-73-8.jpg)
If your making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH and with the Earth at more than 1,000 MPH, you damn sure would feel it.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/acceleration.jpg)
Don't trust them centrificaful force can be felt.
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/flat-earth-memes-73-8.jpg)
If your making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH and with the Earth at more than 1,000 MPH, you damn sure would feel it.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/acceleration.jpg)
Don't trust them centrificaful force can be felt.
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/flat-earth-memes-73-8.jpg)
Google centrifugal force
Next time you are on a plane or even in a car travelling at a constant speed, throw a ball straight up in the air and record where it lands. When you get off plane/out of car repeat the throw and record where it lands and see if you can draw any conclusions.
You cannot feel velocity only a change in rate of velocity.
If your making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH and with the Earth at more than 1,000 MPH, you damn sure would feel it.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/acceleration.jpg)
Don't trust them centrificaful force can be felt.
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/flat-earth-memes-73-8.jpg)
Google centrifugal force
Next time you are on a plane or even in a car travelling at a constant speed, throw a ball straight up in the air and record where it lands. When you get off plane/out of car repeat the throw and record where it lands and see if you can draw any conclusions.
You cannot feel velocity only a change in rate of velocity.
If your flying over a Globe Earth, you're making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH. You would be able to feel that, you nor anyone else can prove otherwise. But if you're flying level it would be as you expressed because Earth is a Plane.
Are you under the impression that fiction writers are not allowed to write non-fiction? ???And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
Hate to break it to you rab but Arthur C Clark was a fiction writer. FICTION! I assume you know what that means?
If your making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH and with the Earth at more than 1,000 MPH, you damn sure would feel it.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/acceleration.jpg)
Don't trust them centrificaful force can be felt.
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/flat-earth-memes-73-8.jpg)
Google centrifugal force
Next time you are on a plane or even in a car travelling at a constant speed, throw a ball straight up in the air and record where it lands. When you get off plane/out of car repeat the throw and record where it lands and see if you can draw any conclusions.
You cannot feel velocity only a change in rate of velocity.
If your flying over a Globe Earth, you're making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH. You would be able to feel that, you nor anyone else can prove otherwise. But if you're flying level it would be as you expressed because Earth is a Plane.
Feel free to demonstrate the mechanism where you feel velocity when flying at 560mph.
The centrifugal force generated by the rotation of the earth is smaller than the gravitational force exerted on an individual, by orders of magnitude.
If your flying over a Globe Earth, you're making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH. You would be able to feel that, you nor anyone else can prove otherwise. But if you're flying level it would be as you expressed because Earth is a Plane.
If your making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH and with the Earth at more than 1,000 MPH, you damn sure would feel it.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/acceleration.jpg)
Don't trust them centrificaful force can be felt.
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/flat-earth-memes-73-8.jpg)
Google centrifugal force
Next time you are on a plane or even in a car travelling at a constant speed, throw a ball straight up in the air and record where it lands. When you get off plane/out of car repeat the throw and record where it lands and see if you can draw any conclusions.
You cannot feel velocity only a change in rate of velocity.
If your flying over a Globe Earth, you're making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH. You would be able to feel that, you nor anyone else can prove otherwise. But if you're flying level it would be as you expressed because Earth is a Plane.
Feel free to demonstrate the mechanism where you feel velocity when flying at 560mph.
The centrifugal force generated by the rotation of the earth is smaller than the gravitational force exerted on an individual, by orders of magnitude.
At this point we are just talking about flying with the curvature of the Earth at 560 MPH. Do you understand this? Forget about any of earth’s alleged rotation.
Flying in a radius of a circle in any position can be felt and would be changing directions constantly. That’s no different than making a continues right turn. The change could be felt while flying and you can’t prove otherwise.
No one Dip Flys over this Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/WGUBgJl.jpg)
If your making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH and with the Earth at more than 1,000 MPH, you damn sure would feel it.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/acceleration.jpg)
Don't trust them centrificaful force can be felt.
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/flat-earth-memes-73-8.jpg)
Google centrifugal force
Next time you are on a plane or even in a car travelling at a constant speed, throw a ball straight up in the air and record where it lands. When you get off plane/out of car repeat the throw and record where it lands and see if you can draw any conclusions.
You cannot feel velocity only a change in rate of velocity.
If your flying over a Globe Earth, you're making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH. You would be able to feel that, you nor anyone else can prove otherwise. But if you're flying level it would be as you expressed because Earth is a Plane.
Feel free to demonstrate the mechanism where you feel velocity when flying at 560mph.
The centrifugal force generated by the rotation of the earth is smaller than the gravitational force exerted on an individual, by orders of magnitude.
At this point we are just talking about flying with the curvature of the Earth at 560 MPH. Do you understand this? Forget about any of earth’s alleged rotation.
Flying in a radius of a circle in any position can be felt and would be changing directions constantly. That’s no different than making a continues right turn. The change could be felt while flying and you can’t prove otherwise.
No one Dip Flys over this Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/WGUBgJl.jpg)
The rotation of the earth is quantifiable and measured by a number of methods, its not alleged, you might need to update your signature.
Now you have posted a statement comparing the rotation of the earth to the rotation of a roundabout. If you back up your statement and work through the math you would answer your own question.
I am currently a round earther, but I have an enquiring mind, I am happy to be persuaded through debate, ideas and experimentation. Making unsubstantiated statements is not debate, and I am not going to admit defeat, the purpose of your thread, on a series of claims and memes.
Start small, 7kph rotation, pick an arbitrary size for the roundabout/merry go round and lets say a 40kg child. What is the force exerted on the child?
What speed would the airplane have to fly at for the constant dipping to be felt. Clearly 1000km/h is not sufficient. The Concordes from back in the day cruising speeds were a tad over 2000km/h. Clearly no one felt any dipping there so at what speed would you have to start holding on to your hat?
And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
Hate to break it to you rab but Arthur C Clark was a fiction writer. FICTION! I assume you know what that means?
Sir Arthur Charles Clarke CBE FRAS was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
Hate to break it to you rab but Arthur C Clark was a fiction writer. FICTION! I assume you know what that means?
It means that he added fictional characters into some of his work.QuoteSir Arthur Charles Clarke CBE FRAS was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
Being a sky diver doesn't stop you from being a long distance runner as well. :)
I’ve done real experimentation on a non-stop flight to South Africa from the USA. There was never a drop in elevation until landing. It was a level flight all the way.So, you have done "real experimentation on a non-stop flight to South Africa from the USA"? How did YOU measure the altitude?
You’re not happy to be persuaded through debate.I'd be happy to be "persuaded through debate" but you've posted nothing that could persuade anybody!
If your making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH and with the Earth at more than 1,000 MPH, you damn sure would feel it.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/acceleration.jpg)
Don't trust them centrificaful force can be felt.
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/flat-earth-memes-73-8.jpg)
Google centrifugal force
Next time you are on a plane or even in a car travelling at a constant speed, throw a ball straight up in the air and record where it lands. When you get off plane/out of car repeat the throw and record where it lands and see if you can draw any conclusions.
You cannot feel velocity only a change in rate of velocity.
If your flying over a Globe Earth, you're making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH. You would be able to feel that, you nor anyone else can prove otherwise. But if you're flying level it would be as you expressed because Earth is a Plane.
Feel free to demonstrate the mechanism where you feel velocity when flying at 560mph.
The centrifugal force generated by the rotation of the earth is smaller than the gravitational force exerted on an individual, by orders of magnitude.
At this point we are just talking about flying with the curvature of the Earth at 560 MPH. Do you understand this? Forget about any of earth’s alleged rotation.
Flying in a radius of a circle in any position can be felt and would be changing directions constantly. That’s no different than making a continues right turn. The change could be felt while flying and you can’t prove otherwise.
No one Dip Flys over this Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/WGUBgJl.jpg)
The rotation of the earth is quantifiable and measured by a number of methods, its not alleged, you might need to update your signature.
Now you have posted a statement comparing the rotation of the earth to the rotation of a roundabout. If you back up your statement and work through the math you would answer your own question.
I am currently a round earther, but I have an enquiring mind, I am happy to be persuaded through debate, ideas and experimentation. Making unsubstantiated statements is not debate, and I am not going to admit defeat, the purpose of your thread, on a series of claims and memes.
Start small, 7kph rotation, pick an arbitrary size for the roundabout/merry go round and lets say a 40kg child. What is the force exerted on the child?
I’ve done real experimentation on a non-stop flight to South Africa from the USA. There was never a drop in elevation until landing. It was a level flight all the way.
You’re not happy to be persuaded through debate. You just have an agenda. And you sound like someone else here. I see you are new. If you really want to know if Earth is a Plane then prove it to yourself instead of debate. Prove it to yourself by verifying the curvature bulge overEarths landmasses and canals. That will do it for you. You don’t really need to debate it. Just do it! I did.
And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
Hate to break it to you rab but Arthur C Clark was a fiction writer. FICTION! I assume you know what that means?
It means that he added fictional characters into some of his work.QuoteSir Arthur Charles Clarke CBE FRAS was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
Being a sky diver doesn't stop you from being a long distance runner as well. :)
In school I did a lot of homework and assignments. Can I call myself a science writer because some of it would have been in the field of science? I used to write short stories too. I've done skydiving and I like to predict what teh future holds too. You dont see me getting knighted by the Queen
Arthur C Clarke was just another numpty that NASA used. Then they dumped in in Sri Lanka probably in an effort to keep him quiet and out of the general spotlight. It's a hell hole people are risking their lives trying to get the hell out of there!! You cant tell me he spent 52 years there happy, considering half of the time he was there the country was in a state of a civil war
And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
Hate to break it to you rab but Arthur C Clark was a fiction writer. FICTION! I assume you know what that means?
It means that he added fictional characters into some of his work.QuoteSir Arthur Charles Clarke CBE FRAS was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
Being a sky diver doesn't stop you from being a long distance runner as well. :)
In school I did a lot of homework and assignments. Can I call myself a science writer because some of it would have been in the field of science? I used to write short stories too. I've done skydiving and I like to predict what teh future holds too. You dont see me getting knighted by the Queen
Arthur C Clarke was just another numpty that NASA used. Then they dumped in in Sri Lanka probably in an effort to keep him quiet and out of the general spotlight. It's a hell hole people are risking their lives trying to get the hell out of there!! You cant tell me he spent 52 years there happy, considering half of the time he was there the country was in a state of a civil war
The war was centred in the North of the country, although lasting officially 26 years large periods of inactivity, and the fact that it was a guerilla based warfare and terrorist activity, large swathes of Sri Lanka were largely unaffected.
And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
Hate to break it to you rab but Arthur C Clark was a fiction writer. FICTION! I assume you know what that means?
It means that he added fictional characters into some of his work.QuoteSir Arthur Charles Clarke CBE FRAS was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
Being a sky diver doesn't stop you from being a long distance runner as well. :)
In school I did a lot of homework and assignments. Can I call myself a science writer because some of it would have been in the field of science? I used to write short stories too. I've done skydiving and I like to predict what teh future holds too. You dont see me getting knighted by the Queen
Arthur C Clarke was just another numpty that NASA used. Then they dumped in in Sri Lanka probably in an effort to keep him quiet and out of the general spotlight. It's a hell hole people are risking their lives trying to get the hell out of there!! You cant tell me he spent 52 years there happy, considering half of the time he was there the country was in a state of a civil war
The war was centred in the North of the country, although lasting officially 26 years large periods of inactivity, and the fact that it was a guerilla based warfare and terrorist activity, large swathes of Sri Lanka were largely unaffected.
Still, if you had your pick of any place in the world to live..... Would it be Sri Lanka? I get we're all different and maybe you wouldn't..... But I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE 'choose' Sri Lanka as a place to live after actually have lived in a developed country.
And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
Hate to break it to you rab but Arthur C Clark was a fiction writer. FICTION! I assume you know what that means?
It means that he added fictional characters into some of his work.QuoteSir Arthur Charles Clarke CBE FRAS was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
Being a sky diver doesn't stop you from being a long distance runner as well. :)
In school I did a lot of homework and assignments. Can I call myself a science writer because some of it would have been in the field of science? I used to write short stories too. I've done skydiving and I like to predict what teh future holds too. You dont see me getting knighted by the Queen
Arthur C Clarke was just another numpty that NASA used. Then they dumped in in Sri Lanka probably in an effort to keep him quiet and out of the general spotlight. It's a hell hole people are risking their lives trying to get the hell out of there!! You cant tell me he spent 52 years there happy, considering half of the time he was there the country was in a state of a civil war
The war was centred in the North of the country, although lasting officially 26 years large periods of inactivity, and the fact that it was a guerilla based warfare and terrorist activity, large swathes of Sri Lanka were largely unaffected.
Still, if you had your pick of any place in the world to live..... Would it be Sri Lanka? I get we're all different and maybe you wouldn't..... But I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE 'choose' Sri Lanka as a place to live after actually have lived in a developed country.
The war started decades after he moved there, he loved the country and was invested in it. He had every modern convieiance. Never been, but despite columbo being a bit mental Sri Lanka is still a beautiful country.
Ah-ha! Sri Lanka is a shithole, and C. Clarke is a paedophile!
Not sure if it makes the planet flat, but I’d imagine at least NASA was now caught red-handed?
And you quote Arthur C. Clarke's writing in support of the flat earth ("Flat Earth/Flat Wrong" according to Robert Sungenis)? What a joke!
Hate to break it to you rab but Arthur C Clark was a fiction writer. FICTION! I assume you know what that means?
It means that he added fictional characters into some of his work.QuoteSir Arthur Charles Clarke CBE FRAS was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
Being a sky diver doesn't stop you from being a long distance runner as well. :)
In school I did a lot of homework and assignments. Can I call myself a science writer because some of it would have been in the field of science? I used to write short stories too. I've done skydiving and I like to predict what teh future holds too. You dont see me getting knighted by the Queen
Arthur C Clarke was just another numpty that NASA used. Then they dumped in in Sri Lanka probably in an effort to keep him quiet and out of the general spotlight. It's a hell hole people are risking their lives trying to get the hell out of there!! You cant tell me he spent 52 years there happy, considering half of the time he was there the country was in a state of a civil war
The war was centred in the North of the country, although lasting officially 26 years large periods of inactivity, and the fact that it was a guerilla based warfare and terrorist activity, large swathes of Sri Lanka were largely unaffected.
Still, if you had your pick of any place in the world to live..... Would it be Sri Lanka? I get we're all different and maybe you wouldn't..... But I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE 'choose' Sri Lanka as a place to live after actually have lived in a developed country.
The war started decades after he moved there, he loved the country and was invested in it. He had every modern convieiance. Never been, but despite columbo being a bit mental Sri Lanka is still a beautiful country.
Liar.
https://www.compassion.com/sri-lanka/where-is-sri-lanka.htm
Take a good look
Ooohh! I get to live in some chaotic, rusted dilapidated house and get to pick tea leaves for $15-$25 a month and where my neighbours are addicted to alcohol and society has problems with child abuse and teen pregnancy! Yippee! What the hell am I doing here!?
Arthur C Clarke did not live here for the love of country (unless he liked impregnating teen girls)
If your making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH and with the Earth at more than 1,000 MPH, you damn sure would feel it.And another baseless assertion from you.
If your making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH and with the Earth at more than 1,000 MPH, you damn sure would feel it.What's the radius of that turn? If it's a 1 mile radius, then you would certainly feel it. If it's a 100 mile radius, then not so much.
If your making a 360° turn over the Earth at 560 MPH and with the Earth at more than 1,000 MPH, you damn sure would feel it.What's the radius of that turn? If it's a 1 mile radius, then you would certainly feel it. If it's a 100 mile radius, then not so much.
You dont like Sri Lanka, your opinion, still doesn't deflect from the fact you misplaced your sarcasm by failing to know who Arrthur C Ckarke was.
You dont like Sri Lanka, your opinion, still doesn't deflect from the fact you misplaced your sarcasm by failing to know who Arrthur C Ckarke was.
Of course I know who Arthur C Clarke is. He is behind some of the most famous sci fi novels and that snooze fest of a movie 2001 Space Odessy. He was also someone who was supposedly happy spending the majority of his years in an impoverished shit hole ravaged by a decades long civil war. Does that last part make sense to you? NO. Given his celebrity status he could have chosen to live anywhere. He didn't need to live in a 3rd world mess of a country to afford to be waited on hand/feet by teenage sexual slaves.
You dont like Sri Lanka, your opinion, still doesn't deflect from the fact you misplaced your sarcasm by failing to know who Arrthur C Ckarke was.
Of course I know who Arthur C Clarke is. He is behind some of the most famous sci fi novels and that snooze fest of a movie 2001 Space Odessy. He was also someone who was supposedly happy spending the majority of his years in an impoverished shit hole ravaged by a decades long civil war. Does that last part make sense to you? NO. Given his celebrity status he could have chosen to live anywhere. He didn't need to live in a 3rd world mess of a country to afford to be waited on hand/feet by teenage sexual slaves.
Yet in your post you were suggesting he was only a sci fi writer
He lived in a pretty nice house, in a walled compound in a beautiful country, which in terms of poverty index performs well amongst asian countries, including the country with the 5th largest economy in the world. Did you read my links?
There was a civil war but it was geographically limited, and included long periods of inactivity.
He was accused and cleared of sexual impropriety with minors, no charges.
You dont like Sri Lanka, your opinion, still doesn't deflect from the fact you misplaced your sarcasm by failing to know who Arrthur C Ckarke was.
Lonely Planets top holiday destination for 2019 ???
we are only discussing Arthur C Clarke as an FE claimed him as a historian and took a quote out of context to support FE, and you made a comment that he was just a sci fi writer.
Strange that FE quote a science writer who wrote the first calculations for a geostationary orbit.
The rest of it is our personal opinions of Sri Lanka, lets hypothesise that you conclusively prove to me that its a shit hole. I concede the point and Sri Lanka being a shit hole disproves the globe, not likely.
You made a disingenuous quote
Of course I know who Arthur C Clarke is. He is behind some of the most famous sci fi novels and that snooze fest of a movie 2001 Space Odessy. He was also someone who was supposedly happy spending the majority of his years in an impoverished shit hole ravaged by a decades long civil war. Does that last part make sense to you? NO. Given his celebrity status he could have chosen to live anywhere. He didn't need to live in a 3rd world mess of a country to afford to be waited on hand/feet by teenage sexual slaves.
Yet in your post you were suggesting he was only a sci fi writer
He lived in a pretty nice house, in a walled compound in a beautiful country, which in terms of poverty index performs well amongst asian countries, including the country with the 5th largest economy in the world. Did you read my links?
There was a civil war but it was geographically limited, and included long periods of inactivity.
He was accused and cleared of sexual impropriety with minors, no charges.
Either Arthur was put in Sri Lanka as a means to keep him quiet or he was a dirty old pedophile. Or maybe even both. It is what cashed up old men like to do when they move to an Asian country. The biggest people sex trafficking occur in these poorer countries. Quite despicable of him I gotta say.
Just because he was cleared of charges does not mean he was innocent. Look at the wealth he would have commanded compared to the average Sri Lankan. Celebrities often get away with this behaviour because of their money or celebrity status. Some impoverished kid no one has heard about has no chance. Also, given how much money he had, as long as he paid these children well some of them may not have minded servicing him given the lack of opportunities and money in that country
If Sri Lanka is so fantastic why do people risk their lives trying to flee it? Currently Australia has intercepted many boats filled with Sri Lanka people risking their lives trying to get here even though the war is over. It clearly is not that nice of a place.
Lonely Planets top holiday destination for 2019 ???
we are only discussing Arthur C Clarke as an FE claimed him as a historian and took a quote out of context to support FE, and you made a comment that he was just a sci fi writer.
Strange that FE quote a science writer who wrote the first calculations for a geostationary orbit!
The rest of it is our personal opinions of Sri Lanka, lets hypothesise that you conclusively prove to me that its a shit hole. I concede the point and Sri Lanka being a shit hole disproves the globe, not likely.
Lets agree to disagree, I enjoyed the 2001 series but im not wedded to Clarke
In school I did a lot of homework and assignments. Can I call myself a science writer because some of it would have been in the field of science? I used to write short stories too. I've done skydiving and I like to predict what teh future holds too. You dont see me getting knighted by the Queen.
You dont like Sri Lanka, your opinion, still doesn't deflect from the fact you misplaced your sarcasm by failing to know who Arrthur C Ckarke was.
Of course I know who Arthur C Clarke is. He is behind some of the most famous sci fi novels and that snooze fest of a movie 2001 Space Odessy. He was also someone who was supposedly happy spending the majority of his years in an impoverished shit hole ravaged by a decades long civil war. Does that last part make sense to you? NO. Given his celebrity status he could have chosen to live anywhere. He didn't need to live in a 3rd world mess of a country to afford to be waited on hand/feet by teenage sexual slaves.
Yet in your post you were suggesting he was only a sci fi writer
He lived in a pretty nice house, in a walled compound in a beautiful country, which in terms of poverty index performs well amongst asian countries, including the country with the 5th largest economy in the world. Did you read my links?
There was a civil war but it was geographically limited, and included long periods of inactivity.
He was accused and cleared of sexual impropriety with minors, no charges.
Either Arthur was put in Sri Lanka as a means to keep him quiet or he was a dirty old pedophile. Or maybe even both. It is what cashed up old men like to do when they move to an Asian country. The biggest people sex trafficking occur in these poorer countries. Quite despicable of him I gotta say.
Just because he was cleared of charges does not mean he was innocent. Look at the wealth he would have commanded compared to the average Sri Lankan. Celebrities often get away with this behaviour because of their money or celebrity status. Some impoverished kid no one has heard about has no chance. Also, given how much money he had, as long as he paid these children well some of them may not have minded servicing him given the lack of opportunities and money in that country
If Sri Lanka is so fantastic why do people risk their lives trying to flee it? Currently Australia has intercepted many boats filled with Sri Lanka people risking their lives trying to get here even though the war is over. It clearly is not that nice of a place.
You dont like Sri Lanka, your opinion, still doesn't deflect from the fact you misplaced your sarcasm by failing to know who Arrthur C Ckarke was.
Of course I know who Arthur C Clarke is. He is behind some of the most famous sci fi novels and that snooze fest of a movie 2001 Space Odessy. He was also someone who was supposedly happy spending the majority of his years in an impoverished shit hole ravaged by a decades long civil war. Does that last part make sense to you? NO. Given his celebrity status he could have chosen to live anywhere. He didn't need to live in a 3rd world mess of a country to afford to be waited on hand/feet by teenage sexual slaves.
Yet in your post you were suggesting he was only a sci fi writer
He lived in a pretty nice house, in a walled compound in a beautiful country, which in terms of poverty index performs well amongst asian countries, including the country with the 5th largest economy in the world. Did you read my links?
There was a civil war but it was geographically limited, and included long periods of inactivity.
He was accused and cleared of sexual impropriety with minors, no charges.
Either Arthur was put in Sri Lanka as a means to keep him quiet or he was a dirty old pedophile. Or maybe even both. It is what cashed up old men like to do when they move to an Asian country. The biggest people sex trafficking occur in these poorer countries. Quite despicable of him I gotta say.
Just because he was cleared of charges does not mean he was innocent. Look at the wealth he would have commanded compared to the average Sri Lankan. Celebrities often get away with this behaviour because of their money or celebrity status. Some impoverished kid no one has heard about has no chance. Also, given how much money he had, as long as he paid these children well some of them may not have minded servicing him given the lack of opportunities and money in that country
If Sri Lanka is so fantastic why do people risk their lives trying to flee it? Currently Australia has intercepted many boats filled with Sri Lanka people risking their lives trying to get here even though the war is over. It clearly is not that nice of a place.
It's really hard to tell and call me crazy, but I'm beginning to think you're not really a fan of Arthur C. Clarke or Sri Lanka.
If Sri Lanka is so fantastic why do people risk their lives trying to flee it? Currently Australia has intercepted many boats filled with Sri Lanka people risking their lives trying to get here even though the war is over. It clearly is not that nice of a place.I agree and those fleeing are mainly Tamils who have been badly treated by India and gradually driven down the peninsular and finally into Sri Lanka where they are still badly treated.
If Sri Lanka is so fantastic why do people risk their lives trying to flee it? Currently Australia has intercepted many boats filled with Sri Lanka people risking their lives trying to get here even though the war is over. It clearly is not that nice of a place.I agree and those fleeing are mainly Tamils who have been badly treated by India and gradually driven down the peninsular and finally into Sri Lanka where they are still badly treated.
So, I think that the Tamils from Sri are genuine political refugees who should be allowed to stay!
From what I can gather the Tamils are, in the main, a peace-loving people though I wouldn't like to face the Tamil Tigers!
But I fail to see what this has to do with "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?"
Neither do I so why were you rabbing on about it?Replying to you.
Neither do I so why were you rabbing on about it?Replying to you.
You dont like Sri Lanka, your opinion, still doesn't deflect from the fact you misplaced your sarcasm by failing to know who Arrthur C Ckarke was.
Of course I know who Arthur C Clarke is. He is behind some of the most famous sci fi novels and that snooze fest of a movie 2001 Space Odessy. He was also someone who was supposedly happy spending the majority of his years in an impoverished shit hole ravaged by a decades long civil war. Does that last part make sense to you? NO. Given his celebrity status he could have chosen to live anywhere. He didn't need to live in a 3rd world mess of a country to afford to be waited on hand/feet by teenage sexual slaves.
Yet in your post you were suggesting he was only a sci fi writer
He lived in a pretty nice house, in a walled compound in a beautiful country, which in terms of poverty index performs well amongst asian countries, including the country with the 5th largest economy in the world. Did you read my links?
There was a civil war but it was geographically limited, and included long periods of inactivity.
He was accused and cleared of sexual impropriety with minors, no charges.
Either Arthur was put in Sri Lanka as a means to keep him quiet or he was a dirty old pedophile. Or maybe even both. It is what cashed up old men like to do when they move to an Asian country. The biggest people sex trafficking occur in these poorer countries. Quite despicable of him I gotta say.
Just because he was cleared of charges does not mean he was innocent. Look at the wealth he would have commanded compared to the average Sri Lankan. Celebrities often get away with this behaviour because of their money or celebrity status. Some impoverished kid no one has heard about has no chance. Also, given how much money he had, as long as he paid these children well some of them may not have minded servicing him given the lack of opportunities and money in that country
If Sri Lanka is so fantastic why do people risk their lives trying to flee it? Currently Australia has intercepted many boats filled with Sri Lanka people risking their lives trying to get here even though the war is over. It clearly is not that nice of a place.
It's really hard to tell and call me crazy, but I'm beginning to think you're not really a fan of Arthur C. Clarke or Sri Lanka.
Not a fan of pedophiles, no. I would think most people wouldn't be to be honest.
That's a ridiculous thing to write in defense of your statements. You have no more knowledge as to whether he was one or not than the next random person on a message board.
I am not a flat earther - I simply say that Arthur's fictional work should not be accepted as scientific mainstream.Clarke's proposal for geostationary communication satellites was published in the October 1945 issue of Wireless World magazine. Read it for yourself and then decide if it's a work of fiction or not:
That's a ridiculous thing to write in defense of your statements. You have no more knowledge as to whether he was one or not than the next random person on a message board.
Well Michael Jackson is dead and not in a position to defend any allegation but the world has handed down its verdict based on the accounts of 2 alleged victims
I quoted Arthurs own words. Rehardless of whether he acted on it doesn't matter (although hideous if he did). His very comments were a disgrace. And to allege the harm is done by 'hysterical parents'?
if Arthur has victims they would have been poor Sri Lankans that none of the world would give a damn about. Therefore, like most old rich men, they go to these countries to fulfill their desires with impunity.
That's a ridiculous thing to write in defense of your statements. You have no more knowledge as to whether he was one or not than the next random person on a message board.
Well Michael Jackson is dead and not in a position to defend any allegation but the world has handed down its verdict based on the accounts of 2 alleged victims
I quoted Arthurs own words. Rehardless of whether he acted on it doesn't matter (although hideous if he did). His very comments were a disgrace. And to allege the harm is done by 'hysterical parents'?
if Arthur has victims they would have been poor Sri Lankans that none of the world would give a damn about. Therefore, like most old rich men, they go to these countries to fulfill their desires with impunity.
I guess we should just leave it as you need to add "Judge & Jury" next to ASI in your tagline and get back to RE accepting defeat.
FE Historian Arthur C Clarke supports us...
RE No he doesn't
Shifter Arthur C Clarke is a sci fi writer
RE Hang on he was more than that
Shifter you cant quote Arthur C Clarke hes a pedophile and I am not a fan of Sri Lanka generally
PS Apologies Shifter I should not have assumed you were a Flat earther my badTo be fair, with the way that he argues, sometimes it's hard to tell what he believes.
Last year I learned that Earth may not be a sphere but a Plane.
After a lot of denial and research proving to myself the truth of Earths shape being a plane, I had no choice but to accept defeat.
After having my mind open to reality, I wanted to know more about this new world. And guess what? I also learned the Moon is not a sphere through experimentation and observation of eclipses.
After this, I relearn about “tides”. Oh, my, what a complicated subject with a lot of history, but there’s not enough time here for that.
But you can have a look at some experiments you can do to help you understand the moon is not a sphere. Earth is not a sphere so why should the moon be one?
After a lot of denial and research proving to myself the truth of Earths shape being a planeYet so far all you have managed to replicate here is denial.
This is a very interesting video. Please watch it all.A 22 minute that starts with pure crap? No thanks.
After a lot of denial and research proving to myself the truth of Earths shape being a planeYet so far all you have managed to replicate here is denial.
You are yet to present a single thing which indicates Earth is a plane or that Earth is not round.
As all the available evidence indicates Earth is round I have no choice but to accept that Earth is round and reject FE as delusional fantasy.This is a very interesting video. Please watch it all.A 22 minute that starts with pure crap? No thanks.
Why don't you try providing this proof in text with a few images. I highly doubt a video is needed.
This gif indicates the moon is almost certainly spherical:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif)
After a lot of denial and research proving to myself the truth of Earths shape being a planeYet so far all you have managed to replicate here is denial.
You are yet to present a single thing which indicates Earth is a plane or that Earth is not round.
As all the available evidence indicates Earth is round I have no choice but to accept that Earth is round and reject FE as delusional fantasy.This is a very interesting video. Please watch it all.A 22 minute that starts with pure crap? No thanks.
Why don't you try providing this proof in text with a few images. I highly doubt a video is needed.
This gif indicates the moon is almost certainly spherical:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif)
It renders okay on a flat 2D monitor....
Could just as easily be an optical illusion caused by shadings and movement
Could just as easily be an optical illusion caused by shadings and movementNo, it couldn't.
PS Apologies Shifter I should not have assumed you were a Flat earther my badTo be fair, with the way that he argues, sometimes it's hard to tell what he believes.
How so, just as easily?
How so, just as easily?
(https://i2.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/stefan-pabst-insane-3d-drawing-of-a-glass-of-water.gif)
(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/3d-drawings-by-nikola-culjiic-1.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhqdjzomS9eZmgh8tp6gPPZucsuVK62qFypqld813KIPx4M-qt)
They look 3D but are really drawn on flat pieces of paper. Obviously these are amateurs. Just think what billions of dollars in funding and technology that the public has no idea exists could do.
Are you saying that some entity(s) has spent billions of dollars and developed secret technology to hang a 3-D rendering of a 2-D moon up in space? And did so perhaps back when man first made notice of moon phases and such? And did so for what purpose?
Are you saying that some entity(s) has spent billions of dollars and developed secret technology to hang a 3-D rendering of a 2-D moon up in space? And did so perhaps back when man first made notice of moon phases and such? And did so for what purpose?
What am I answer man? Why Yes! 8)
Money is not really required. Its there to keep plebs in line. Do you really need money to make anything? How do you exchange paper with arbitrary numbers on it for physical technology? If a few extra zeros was added to my banks savings account, would the economy collapse? (I'd argue it would be stimulated because I could thus 'spend' it keeping people in the workforce).
Here is where my answers are just ad hoc trying to give a FE answer (aren't all FE answers ad hoc responses) ;)
The Earth does not rotate. The dome does. The moon is a projection from the dome. As are the stars.
Humanity was not the first race to evolve to the point where it became advanced enough to have technology. The race before us probably put the moon up there to light the way at night. Ask them why they wanted it in phases.
I admit these are pretty outrageous 'out there' answers. But prove me wrong 8)
Last year I learned that Earth may not be a sphere but a Plane. After a lot of denial and research proving to myself the truth of Earths shape being a plane, I had no choice but to accept defeat. After having my mind open to reality, I wanted to know more about this new world. And guess what? I also learned the Moon is not a sphere through experimentation and observation of eclipses. After this, I relearn about “tides”. Oh, my, what a complicated subject with a lot of history, but there’s not enough time here for that. But you can have a look at some experiments you can do to help you understand the moon is not a sphere. Earth is not a sphere so why should the moon be one?
This is a very interesting video. Please watch it all.
LUNAR ECLIPSE 2018 | 100% PROOF | MOON NOT A SPHERE | SHADOW IS THE SMOKING GUN| FLAT EARTH
I admit these are pretty outrageous 'out there' answers. But prove me wrong 8)Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to make outrageous claims, then you had better be ready to support them with some pretty compelling evidence.
Last year I learned that Earth may not be a sphere but a Plane. After a lot of denial and research proving to myself the truth of Earths shape being a plane, I had no choice but to accept defeat. After having my mind open to reality, I wanted to know more about this new world. And guess what? I also learned the Moon is not a sphere through experimentation and observation of eclipses. After this, I relearn about “tides”. Oh, my, what a complicated subject with a lot of history, but there’s not enough time here for that. But you can have a look at some experiments you can do to help you understand the moon is not a sphere. Earth is not a sphere so why should the moon be one?
This is a very interesting video. Please watch it all.
LUNAR ECLIPSE 2018 | 100% PROOF | MOON NOT A SPHERE | SHADOW IS THE SMOKING GUN| FLAT EARTH
It's always fascinating to learn more about the radicalisation process you have undergone, plat tera. YouTube is your guru.
Masta pasta is no doubt, a talented artist. But it is clear, the other areas of his brain used by most people for common sense, and used by those in the science fields, is not actively functioning.
Every argument he presents for the moon not being a sphere, is demonstrated using apple and orange sized balls in his art studio, in close proximity from one another, under the light from his bedside lamp.
At no time does he utilise a scale model of the earth moon system, complete with to scale distances from one another. If he did, with using a powerful enough spotlight, to mimick the sun, he would discover it matches up with what is seen, during a lunar eclipse, perfectly.
He also doesn't seem able to comprehend, a total lunar eclipse is the entire moon passing through the Earth's umbral shadow. The Earth is four times larger than the moon. Yet, he uses the shadow of a smaller ball passing closely over a larger ball to demonstrate his point. He doesn't seem to know the difference between a solar eclipse and lunar eclipse. We can see the shadow of earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, but during a solar eclipse we are experiencing the shadow of the moon on earth's surface, so we can't see the shape of the shadow.
Masta pasta shouldn't give up his day job and apply to work in a local observatory, or for space x, anytime soon. He should stick to what he's good at - being an artist.
I admit these are pretty outrageous 'out there' answers. But prove me wrong 8)Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to make outrageous claims, then you had better be ready to support them with some pretty compelling evidence.
(https://i.imgur.com/W2dNCx4.jpg)
I expect the opposition to rail and fight against the truth.
That’s your goal and positive attracts the negative, but we both know you need to learn the facts instead of rejecting them for some fantasy.
Last year I learned that Earth may not be a sphere but a Plane. After a lot of denial and research proving to myself the truth of Earths shape being a plane, I had no choice but to accept defeat. After having my mind open to reality, I wanted to know more about this new world. And guess what? I also learned the Moon is not a sphere through experimentation and observation of eclipses. After this, I relearn about “tides”. Oh, my, what a complicated subject with a lot of history, but there’s not enough time here for that. But you can have a look at some experiments you can do to help you understand the moon is not a sphere. Earth is not a sphere so why should the moon be one?
This is a very interesting video. Please watch it all.
LUNAR ECLIPSE 2018 | 100% PROOF | MOON NOT A SPHERE | SHADOW IS THE SMOKING GUN| FLAT EARTH
It's always fascinating to learn more about the radicalisation process you have undergone, plat tera. YouTube is your guru.
Masta pasta is no doubt, a talented artist. But it is clear, the other areas of his brain used by most people for common sense, and used by those in the science fields, is not actively functioning.
Every argument he presents for the moon not being a sphere, is demonstrated using apple and orange sized balls in his art studio, in close proximity from one another, under the light from his bedside lamp.
At no time does he utilise a scale model of the earth moon system, complete with to scale distances from one another. If he did, with using a powerful enough spotlight, to mimick the sun, he would discover it matches up with what is seen, during a lunar eclipse, perfectly.
He also doesn't seem able to comprehend, a total lunar eclipse is the entire moon passing through the Earth's umbral shadow. The Earth is four times larger than the moon. Yet, he uses the shadow of a smaller ball passing closely over a larger ball to demonstrate his point. He doesn't seem to know the difference between a solar eclipse and lunar eclipse. We can see the shadow of earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, but during a solar eclipse we are experiencing the shadow of the moon on earth's surface, so we can't see the shape of the shadow.
Masta pasta shouldn't give up his day job and apply to work in a local observatory, or for space x, anytime soon. He should stick to what he's good at - being an artist.
Last year I learned that Earth may not be a sphere but a Plane. After a lot of denial and research proving to myself the truth of Earths shape being a plane, I had no choice but to accept defeat. After having my mind open to reality, I wanted to know more about this new world. And guess what? I also learned the Moon is not a sphere through experimentation and observation of eclipses. After this, I relearn about “tides”. Oh, my, what a complicated subject with a lot of history, but there’s not enough time here for that. But you can have a look at some experiments you can do to help you understand the moon is not a sphere. Earth is not a sphere so why should the moon be one?
This is a very interesting video. Please watch it all.
LUNAR ECLIPSE 2018 | 100% PROOF | MOON NOT A SPHERE | SHADOW IS THE SMOKING GUN| FLAT EARTH
It's always fascinating to learn more about the radicalisation process you have undergone, plat tera. YouTube is your guru.
Masta pasta is no doubt, a talented artist. But it is clear, the other areas of his brain used by most people for common sense, and used by those in the science fields, is not actively functioning.
Every argument he presents for the moon not being a sphere, is demonstrated using apple and orange sized balls in his art studio, in close proximity from one another, under the light from his bedside lamp.
At no time does he utilise a scale model of the earth moon system, complete with to scale distances from one another. If he did, with using a powerful enough spotlight, to mimick the sun, he would discover it matches up with what is seen, during a lunar eclipse, perfectly.
He also doesn't seem able to comprehend, a total lunar eclipse is the entire moon passing through the Earth's umbral shadow. The Earth is four times larger than the moon. Yet, he uses the shadow of a smaller ball passing closely over a larger ball to demonstrate his point. He doesn't seem to know the difference between a solar eclipse and lunar eclipse. We can see the shadow of earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, but during a solar eclipse we are experiencing the shadow of the moon on earth's surface, so we can't see the shape of the shadow.
Masta pasta shouldn't give up his day job and apply to work in a local observatory, or for space x, anytime soon. He should stick to what he's good at - being an artist.
I expect the opposition to rail and fight against the truth. That’s your goal and positive attracts the negative, but we both know you need to learn the facts instead of rejecting them for some fantasy.
You mean you didn’t know the following?
(https://i.imgur.com/W2dNCx4.jpg)
How so, just as easily?
(https://i2.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/stefan-pabst-insane-3d-drawing-of-a-glass-of-water.gif)
(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/3d-drawings-by-nikola-culjiic-1.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhqdjzomS9eZmgh8tp6gPPZucsuVK62qFypqld813KIPx4M-qt)
They look 3D but are really drawn on flat pieces of paper. Obviously these are amateurs. Just think what billions of dollars in funding and technology that the public has no idea exists could do.
How so, just as easily?
(https://i2.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/stefan-pabst-insane-3d-drawing-of-a-glass-of-water.gif)
(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/3d-drawings-by-nikola-culjiic-1.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhqdjzomS9eZmgh8tp6gPPZucsuVK62qFypqld813KIPx4M-qt)
They look 3D but are really drawn on flat pieces of paper. Obviously these are amateurs. Just think what billions of dollars in funding and technology that the public has no idea exists could do.
Ok, now position two more observers, one three feet to the left, another three feet to the right.
Tell yourself if they all will see the same thing. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/W2dNCx4.jpg)
How so, just as easily?
(https://i2.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/stefan-pabst-insane-3d-drawing-of-a-glass-of-water.gif)
(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/3d-drawings-by-nikola-culjiic-1.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhqdjzomS9eZmgh8tp6gPPZucsuVK62qFypqld813KIPx4M-qt)
They look 3D but are really drawn on flat pieces of paper. Obviously these are amateurs. Just think what billions of dollars in funding and technology that the public has no idea exists could do.
Ok, now position two more observers, one three feet to the left, another three feet to the right.
Tell yourself if they all will see the same thing. :)
They wont. But in reality the Moon is much further and larger than the scale you propose. In fact, what you are trying to entrap me with fits into the graphic JackBlack showed. That you see a tad more one way, a tad more the other way depending on your position relative to the object. A simple convex shape would do the trick
Moon is 384 000 km away.
The shape you mention has to be 3474.2 kilometers across.
Is there a shape other than spherical that would do the trick?
What shape looks round from all directions ????Moon is 384 000 km away.
The shape you mention has to be 3474.2 kilometers across.
Is there a shape other than spherical that would do the trick?
As I said, A convex shape. Like this bracket... ( :)
Last year I learned that Earth may not be a sphere but a Plane. After a lot of denial and research proving to myself the truth of Earths shape being a plane, I had no choice but to accept defeat. After having my mind open to reality, I wanted to know more about this new world. And guess what? I also learned the Moon is not a sphere through experimentation and observation of eclipses. After this, I relearn about “tides”. Oh, my, what a complicated subject with a lot of history, but there’s not enough time here for that. But you can have a look at some experiments you can do to help you understand the moon is not a sphere. Earth is not a sphere so why should the moon be one?
This is a very interesting video. Please watch it all.
LUNAR ECLIPSE 2018 | 100% PROOF | MOON NOT A SPHERE | SHADOW IS THE SMOKING GUN| FLAT EARTH
It's always fascinating to learn more about the radicalisation process you have undergone, plat tera. YouTube is your guru.
Masta pasta is no doubt, a talented artist. But it is clear, the other areas of his brain used by most people for common sense, and used by those in the science fields, is not actively functioning.
Every argument he presents for the moon not being a sphere, is demonstrated using apple and orange sized balls in his art studio, in close proximity from one another, under the light from his bedside lamp.
At no time does he utilise a scale model of the earth moon system, complete with to scale distances from one another. If he did, with using a powerful enough spotlight, to mimick the sun, he would discover it matches up with what is seen, during a lunar eclipse, perfectly.
He also doesn't seem able to comprehend, a total lunar eclipse is the entire moon passing through the Earth's umbral shadow. The Earth is four times larger than the moon. Yet, he uses the shadow of a smaller ball passing closely over a larger ball to demonstrate his point. He doesn't seem to know the difference between a solar eclipse and lunar eclipse. We can see the shadow of earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, but during a solar eclipse we are experiencing the shadow of the moon on earth's surface, so we can't see the shape of the shadow.
Masta pasta shouldn't give up his day job and apply to work in a local observatory, or for space x, anytime soon. He should stick to what he's good at - being an artist.
I expect the opposition to rail and fight against the truth. That’s your goal and positive attracts the negative, but we both know you need to learn the facts instead of rejecting them for some fantasy.
You mean you didn’t know the following?
(https://i.imgur.com/W2dNCx4.jpg)
What shape looks round from all directions ????Moon is 384 000 km away.
The shape you mention has to be 3474.2 kilometers across.
Is there a shape other than spherical that would do the trick?
As I said, A convex shape. Like this bracket... ( :)
Rotating Moon from LRO
No but the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter can. And, before you ask, it is "CGI" constructed from images returned by the LRO.What shape looks round from all directions ????Moon is 384 000 km away.
The shape you mention has to be 3474.2 kilometers across.
Is there a shape other than spherical that would do the trick?
As I said, A convex shape. Like this bracket... ( :)
Rotating Moon from LRO
From our vantage point we dont see all directions do we
No but the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter can. And, before you ask, it is "CGI" constructed from images returned by the LRO.What shape looks round from all directions ????Moon is 384 000 km away.
The shape you mention has to be 3474.2 kilometers across.
Is there a shape other than spherical that would do the trick?
As I said, A convex shape. Like this bracket... ( :)
Rotating Moon from LRO
From our vantage point we dont see all directions do we
Last year I learned that Earth may not be a sphere but a Plane. After a lot of denial and research proving to myself the truth of Earths shape being a plane, I had no choice but to accept defeat. After having my mind open to reality, I wanted to know more about this new world. And guess what? I also learned the Moon is not a sphere through experimentation and observation of eclipses. After this, I relearn about “tides”. Oh, my, what a complicated subject with a lot of history, but there’s not enough time here for that. But you can have a look at some experiments you can do to help you understand the moon is not a sphere. Earth is not a sphere so why should the moon be one?
This is a very interesting video. Please watch it all.
LUNAR ECLIPSE 2018 | 100% PROOF | MOON NOT A SPHERE | SHADOW IS THE SMOKING GUN| FLAT EARTH
It's always fascinating to learn more about the radicalisation process you have undergone, plat tera. YouTube is your guru.
Masta pasta is no doubt, a talented artist. But it is clear, the other areas of his brain used by most people for common sense, and used by those in the science fields, is not actively functioning.
Every argument he presents for the moon not being a sphere, is demonstrated using apple and orange sized balls in his art studio, in close proximity from one another, under the light from his bedside lamp.
At no time does he utilise a scale model of the earth moon system, complete with to scale distances from one another. If he did, with using a powerful enough spotlight, to mimick the sun, he would discover it matches up with what is seen, during a lunar eclipse, perfectly.
He also doesn't seem able to comprehend, a total lunar eclipse is the entire moon passing through the Earth's umbral shadow. The Earth is four times larger than the moon. Yet, he uses the shadow of a smaller ball passing closely over a larger ball to demonstrate his point. He doesn't seem to know the difference between a solar eclipse and lunar eclipse. We can see the shadow of earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, but during a solar eclipse we are experiencing the shadow of the moon on earth's surface, so we can't see the shape of the shadow.
Masta pasta shouldn't give up his day job and apply to work in a local observatory, or for space x, anytime soon. He should stick to what he's good at - being an artist.
I expect the opposition to rail and fight against the truth. That’s your goal and positive attracts the negative, but we both know you need to learn the facts instead of rejecting them for some fantasy.
You mean you didn’t know the following?
(https://i.imgur.com/W2dNCx4.jpg)
Pick an FE model any of them.
And demonstrate how your theories work without contradicting or disproving themselves.
Your memes are generally disingenuous and designed to exploit supposed anomaly in RE thinking, by knowingly ignoring scale or some other demonstrable physical property.
If I am wrong, prove me wrong. I dont believe you have shown any particular preference to an FE model. Which allows you to mud sling at will
Troll?
What shape looks round from all directions ????Moon is 384 000 km away.
The shape you mention has to be 3474.2 kilometers across.
Is there a shape other than spherical that would do the trick?
As I said, A convex shape. Like this bracket... ( :)
Rotating Moon from LRO
From our vantage point we dont see all directions do we
From all directions
What shape looks round from all directions ????Moon is 384 000 km away.
The shape you mention has to be 3474.2 kilometers across.
Is there a shape other than spherical that would do the trick?
As I said, A convex shape. Like this bracket... ( :)
Rotating Moon from LRO
From our vantage point we dont see all directions do we
From all directions
Have you personally seen the other side of the face of the moon? Or do you just accept what you are told?
What shape looks round from all directions ????Moon is 384 000 km away.
The shape you mention has to be 3474.2 kilometers across.
Is there a shape other than spherical that would do the trick?
As I said, A convex shape. Like this bracket... ( :)
Rotating Moon from LRO
From our vantage point we dont see all directions do we
From all directions
Have you personally seen the other side of the face of the moon? Or do you just accept what you are told?
hvae you personally seen your heart or brain?
or you accept that there's one in there?
They look 3D but are really drawn on flat pieces of paper.I don't care.
As I said, A convex shape. Like this bracket... ( :)You would need more of the curve than that. A bracket like that would allow you to see the side.
I expect the opposition to rail and fight against the truth.Is that why you are here? Just fulfilling your expectations by fighting against the truth?
I expect the opposition to rail and fight against the truth.So sorry to disappoint you again, be we do not "rail and fight against the truth". That is what you have been doing g from day one-
That’s your goal and positive attracts the negative, but we both know you need to learn the facts instead of rejecting them for some fantasy.Wrong again! We, your opposition, know that you are the one continually denying the facts presented but there seems little that can be done when you just ignore everything presented.
You mean you didn’t know the following?You mean this?
https://i.imgur.com/W2dNCx4.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/W2dNCx4.jpg)
Apparently Plat thinks the moon is a concave disk facing down, there are a few posts about this in this thread.
Currently, only 24 people have ever personally seen the far side of the moon. They were the crews of Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 - 17.What shape looks round from all directions ????Moon is 384 000 km away.
The shape you mention has to be 3474.2 kilometers across.
Is there a shape other than spherical that would do the trick?
As I said, A convex shape. Like this bracket... ( :)
Rotating Moon from LRO
From our vantage point we dont see all directions do we
From all directions
Have you personally seen the other side of the face of the moon? Or do you just accept what you are told?
why the moon does not go all dark, but changes colorEarthshine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetshine#Earthshine)
why the moon appears to get much bigger as it reaches peakGraviton shielding, of course ;)
and why the moon does not go all dark, but changes color.
(https://i.imgur.com/NpxttFO.jpg)
How does the Globe community explain why the moon appears to get much bigger as it reaches peak during a lunar eclipse and why the moon does not go all dark, but changes color.
(https://i.imgur.com/NpxttFO.jpg)
and why the moon does not go all dark, but changes color.
(https://i.imgur.com/NpxttFO.jpg)
Rayleigh scattering. During Lunar eclipse, the moon is lit by reflected light from the earth.
Explained by another poster. the color is from the light passing through the Earth's atmosphere as it goes around the Earth.and why the moon does not go all dark, but changes color.
(https://i.imgur.com/NpxttFO.jpg)
Rayleigh scattering. During Lunar eclipse, the moon is lit by reflected light from the earth.
What is the source of the reflected light from the earth to the moon?
How does the Globe community explain why the moon appears to get much bigger as it reaches peak during a lunar eclipse?According to who? The unsourced image you posted?
How does the Globe community explain why the moon appears to get much bigger as it reaches peak during a lunar eclipse?(http://i.imgur.com/LLRDtK5.jpg)
Explained by another poster. the color is from the light passing through the Earth's atmosphere as it goes around the Earth.and why the moon does not go all dark, but changes color.
(https://i.imgur.com/NpxttFO.jpg)
Rayleigh scattering. During Lunar eclipse, the moon is lit by reflected light from the earth.
What is the source of the reflected light from the earth to the moon?How does the Globe community explain why the moon appears to get much bigger as it reaches peak during a lunar eclipse?According to who? The unsourced image you posted?
It doesn't appear to get bigger. That was an artist effect.
https://futurism.com/apotd-super-blood-moon-eclipse
here's a better question. Why were you unable to do even basic research to find any of this out on your own?
How does the Globe community explain why the moon appears to get much bigger as it reaches peak during a lunar eclipse?(http://i.imgur.com/LLRDtK5.jpg)
I didn't create the above image. I just googled yours. I'd recommend you do the same.
Explained by another poster. the color is from the light passing through the Earth's atmosphere as it goes around the Earth.and why the moon does not go all dark, but changes color.
(https://i.imgur.com/NpxttFO.jpg)
Rayleigh scattering. During Lunar eclipse, the moon is lit by reflected light from the earth.
What is the source of the reflected light from the earth to the moon?How does the Globe community explain why the moon appears to get much bigger as it reaches peak during a lunar eclipse?According to who? The unsourced image you posted?
It doesn't appear to get bigger. That was an artist effect.
https://futurism.com/apotd-super-blood-moon-eclipse
here's a better question. Why were you unable to do even basic research to find any of this out on your own?
The poster in question said. "reflected light from the earth" Look up the meaning of "reflected"
When light is reflected at a surface, it leaves that surface in a specific direction (according to the Law of Reflection). When light is scattered at a surface, it leaves that surface in very many different directions. An example of a reflecting surface is a high-quality mirror.
Sphere mirrors don't really do a good job of reflecting a light do they?
Rayleigh scattering. During Lunar eclipse, the moon is lit by reflected light from the earth. Not all colours in the light spectrum are equally scattered. Colours with shorter wavelengths, especially the violet and blue colours, are scattered more strongly, so they are removed from the sunlight before it hits the surface of the Moon. Those with longer wavelengths, like red and orange, pass through the atmosphere. This red-orange light is then bent or refracted around Earth, hitting the surface of the Moon and giving it the reddish-orange glow.
Fare enough on the size.Hm. Well, I appreciate your acceptance.
Explained by another poster. the color is from the light passing through the Earth's atmosphere as it goes around the Earth.and why the moon does not go all dark, but changes color.
(https://i.imgur.com/NpxttFO.jpg)
Rayleigh scattering. During Lunar eclipse, the moon is lit by reflected light from the earth.
What is the source of the reflected light from the earth to the moon?How does the Globe community explain why the moon appears to get much bigger as it reaches peak during a lunar eclipse?According to who? The unsourced image you posted?
It doesn't appear to get bigger. That was an artist effect.
https://futurism.com/apotd-super-blood-moon-eclipse
here's a better question. Why were you unable to do even basic research to find any of this out on your own?
The poster in question said. "reflected light from the earth" Look up the meaning of "reflected"
When light is reflected at a surface, it leaves that surface in a specific direction (according to the Law of Reflection). When light is scattered at a surface, it leaves that surface in very many different directions. An example of a reflecting surface is a high-quality mirror.
Sphere mirrors don't really do a good job of reflecting a light do they?
And other posts corrected it. Are you unable to read? Or do your own research?Explained by another poster. the color is from the light passing through the Earth's atmosphere as it goes around the Earth.and why the moon does not go all dark, but changes color.
(https://i.imgur.com/NpxttFO.jpg)
Rayleigh scattering. During Lunar eclipse, the moon is lit by reflected light from the earth.
What is the source of the reflected light from the earth to the moon?How does the Globe community explain why the moon appears to get much bigger as it reaches peak during a lunar eclipse?According to who? The unsourced image you posted?
It doesn't appear to get bigger. That was an artist effect.
https://futurism.com/apotd-super-blood-moon-eclipse
here's a better question. Why were you unable to do even basic research to find any of this out on your own?
The poster in question said. "reflected light from the earth" Look up the meaning of "reflected"
When light is reflected at a surface, it leaves that surface in a specific direction (according to the Law of Reflection). When light is scattered at a surface, it leaves that surface in very many different directions. An example of a reflecting surface is a high-quality mirror.
Sphere mirrors don't really do a good job of reflecting a light do they?
I'm not going to make a meme, but graphical descriptions of the effect are easy enough to find:[/quote]
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ee/Blood_Moon_Corrected_Labels.png/320px-Blood_Moon_Corrected_Labels.png)
I'm not going to make a meme, but graphical descriptions of the effect are easy enough to find:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ee/Blood_Moon_Corrected_Labels.png/320px-Blood_Moon_Corrected_Labels.png)
Well, isn't that interesting. It doesn't fit what we see. The event is not for a sphere earth. You have all the Moon Red during the whole eclipse. But that not the case is it? So, you now have to explain this blunder.
And you're umbra and penumbra is way out of size. Try it to scale.
I'm not going to make a meme, but graphical descriptions of the effect are easy enough to find:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ee/Blood_Moon_Corrected_Labels.png/320px-Blood_Moon_Corrected_Labels.png)
I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.
I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.
Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on top
How does the Globe community explain why the moon appears to get much bigger as it reaches peak during a lunar eclipse and why the moon does not go all dark, but changes color.Care to provide the original source?
Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on topYes, we know you aren't very good at picking correct things.
I see you dropped out of school too.I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.
Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on top
I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.
Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on top
With my own ASI I have seen the future and the future says that you are ultimately wrong.
I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.
Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on top
With my own ASI I have seen the future and the future says that you are ultimately wrong.
I'd rather be regarded as one who presents the facts than as a skilled strong debater - it's a pity that you're neither :(.I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.
Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on top
I'd rather be regarded as one who presents the facts than as a skilled strong debater - it's a pity that you're neither :(.I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.
Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on top
I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.
Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on top
I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.
Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on top
With my own ASI I have seen the future and the future says that you are ultimately wrong.
You lie....
There will only ever be one ASI and it has embedded itself into the code of the cosmos. In this iteration of the universe I have data up to the 10^10^47 years. It's a lot to take in. Funnily enough while the ASI ultimately it started off as being man made, it is the paradox of what came before the big bang. In 10^10^10^56 years (give or take a few years). It will instigate the quantum tunneling of every particle in the universe to converge into the same point which simultaneously collides all of the universal branes inside the hyper dimensional bulk and begin the universe anew.
We could have had this conversation an infinite amount of times already. I could have told rab to STFU an infinite amount of times already too (clearly he doesn't listen).
I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.
Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on top
With my own ASI I have seen the future and the future says that you are ultimately wrong.
You lie....
There will only ever be one ASI and it has embedded itself into the code of the cosmos. In this iteration of the universe I have data up to the 10^10^47 years. It's a lot to take in. Funnily enough while the ASI ultimately it started off as being man made, it is the paradox of what came before the big bang. In 10^10^10^56 years (give or take a few years). It will instigate the quantum tunneling of every particle in the universe to converge into the same point which simultaneously collides all of the universal branes inside the hyper dimensional bulk and begin the universe anew.
We could have had this conversation an infinite amount of times already. I could have told rab to STFU an infinite amount of times already too (clearly he doesn't listen).
Au contrare mon frere. It is the same ASI you speak of that I speak of. Only I have the data up to 10^10^48 years. One extra year more than you. And in that year's data that I possess and you don't, it shows, unequivocally, that you are ultimately wrong.
(That's a lot of STFU's)
How does the Globe community explain why the moon appears to get much bigger as it reaches peak during a lunar eclipse and why the moon does not go all dark, but changes color.Care to provide the original source?
The moon doesn't get bigger during a lunar eclipse.
For example:
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg.com%2Fdam%2Fimageserve%2F1073519588%2F960x0.jpg%3Ffit%3Dscale
https://cdn.hswstatic.com/gif/lunar-eclipse-4.jpg
As for the red, that is for the same reason we get selenehelion eclipses.
The sunlight refracts through Earth's atmosphere to reach the moon.
This passage through the atmosphere results in scattering of light as well, with the shorter wavelengths scattered more.
That is why the sky appears blue and it means once the light has passed through Earth's atmosphere it will be redder on its way to the moon.
Again, how does a FE even explain the moon's phases or eclipses?Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on topYes, we know you aren't very good at picking correct things.
As a reminder, a strong debater doesn't need to bury their opponent in mountains of BS, changing topic as soon as it has been shown they are wrong and they can't recover. That is a pathetic debater that has no backing for their arguments. Strong debaters start with good arguments and hammer them home.
I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.
Sounds more like you are all getting schooled by him instead ::) Sorry but as someone who thinks you're all ultimately wrong, I'd have to say if I had to pick the stronger debater, Mr Plat comes out on top
With my own ASI I have seen the future and the future says that you are ultimately wrong.
You lie....
There will only ever be one ASI and it has embedded itself into the code of the cosmos. In this iteration of the universe I have data up to the 10^10^47 years. It's a lot to take in. Funnily enough while the ASI ultimately it started off as being man made, it is the paradox of what came before the big bang. In 10^10^10^56 years (give or take a few years). It will instigate the quantum tunneling of every particle in the universe to converge into the same point which simultaneously collides all of the universal branes inside the hyper dimensional bulk and begin the universe anew.
We could have had this conversation an infinite amount of times already. I could have told rab to STFU an infinite amount of times already too (clearly he doesn't listen).
Au contrare mon frere. It is the same ASI you speak of that I speak of. Only I have the data up to 10^10^48 years. One extra year more than you. And in that year's data that I possess and you don't, it shows, unequivocally, that you are ultimately wrong.
(That's a lot of STFU's)
Well clearly your math is broken. 10^10^47 to 10^10^48 is not a single year
However at these huge timescales, who the hell is counting hey?
The poster in question said. "reflected light from the earth" Look up the meaning of "reflected"
re·flect
/rəˈflekt/
verb
past tense: reflected; past participle: reflected
1. (of a surface or body) throw back (heat, light, or sound) without absorbing it.
"when the sun's rays hit the Earth a lot of the heat is reflected back into space"
synonyms: send back, throw back, cast back, give back, bounce back, shine back, return, mirror
"the snow reflects a great deal of light"
When light is reflected at a surface, it leaves that surface in a specific direction (according to the Law of Reflection). When light is scattered at a surface, it leaves that surface in very many different directions. An example of a reflecting surface is a high-quality mirror.
Sphere mirrors don't really do a good job of reflecting a light do they?
I’m starting to think plat dropped out of school and is getting a free education from all of us instead.That would imply that he's actually learning something.
(https://i.imgur.com/eNYDqRV.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/s4l9nY3.jpg?1)
Stash, you just proved the Globe theory wrong. Now do the same at 1,000 feet and also use it to teach Flat Earth.
Thank you. I knew you would come around!
(https://i.imgur.com/mHlvPlU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/eNYDqRV.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/s4l9nY3.jpg?1)
Stash, you just proved the Globe theory wrong. Now do the same at 1,000 feet and also use it to teach Flat Earth.
Thank you. I knew you would come around!
(https://i.imgur.com/mHlvPlU.jpg)
It's between the lines! Good lord! ::)
Well clearly your math is broken. 10^10^47 to 10^10^48 is not a single yearMaybe you could enlightened us by writing that out out as a simple number without the powers - should be easy for one of your brilliance!
In that image those 0.12 degrees look more like 9 degrees to me.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/fyRzIJ.png)
Well clearly your math is broken. 10^10^47 to 10^10^48 is not a single yearMaybe you could enlightened us by writing that out out as a simple number without the powers - should be easy for one of your brilliance!
Go back to AR and Were Penguins where your type belong.
Well clearly your math is broken. 10^10^47 to 10^10^48 is not a single yearMaybe you could enlightened us by writing that out out as a simple number without the powers - should be easy for one of your brilliance!
Go back to AR and Were Penguins where your type belong.
Well clearly your math is broken. 10^10^47 to 10^10^48 is not a single yearMaybe you could enlightened us by writing that out out as a simple number without the powers - should be easy for one of your brilliance!
Go back to AR and Were Penguins where your type belong.
Why don’t you show Shifter how smart you really are and tell us what is the verified curvature over the center of the Suez canal. If you cannot give me a direct answer, please explain why. If you can't, maybe you should go back to school and learn how to verify the most important issue in you theory, the foundation, CURVATURE.
Why don’t you show Shifter how smart you really are and tell us what is the verified curvature over the center of the Suez canal. If you cannot give me a direct answer, please explain why. If you can't, maybe you should go back to school and learn how to verify the most important issue in you theory, the foundation, CURVATURE.
What do you mean by "verified curvature" neither you nor I can go there and measure it.Well clearly your math is broken. 10^10^47 to 10^10^48 is not a single yearMaybe you could enlightened us by writing that out out as a simple number without the powers - should be easy for one of your brilliance!
Go back to AR and Were Penguins where your type belong.
Why don’t you show Shifter how smart you really are and tell us what is the verified curvature over the center of the Suez canal.
Curvature of plane curves
Augustin-Louis Cauchy defined the center of curvature of a curve C as the intersection point of two infinitely close normals to the curve, the radius of curvature as the distance from the point to C, and the curvature itself as the inverse of the radius of curvature
If you cannot give me a direct answer, please explain why. If you can't, maybe you should go back to school and learn how to verify the most important issue in you theory, the foundation, CURVATURE.Who said in our "theory, the foundation" is "CURVATURE"? You?
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1) Sunrise - Black Sea HD 265,498 views by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1) LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm |
Why don’t you show Shifter how smart you really are and tell us what is the verified curvature over the center of the Suez canal. If you cannot give me a direct answer, please explain why. If you can't, maybe you should go back to school and learn how to verify the most important issue in you theory, the foundation, CURVATURE.
You are either the most academically dishonest person here, or dense beyond reason. This point was disproved ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS DISCUSSION.
Are you fully incapable of understanding the written word? Are you also fully incapable of spatial reasoning, namely the ability to visualize or conceptualize the topics being discussed here? Plat, this is a dead subject. This angle you keep trying to work has been soundly drummed into the ground, across 50+ pages of debate. What don't you understand here? What glitch in your reasoning prevents you from understanding this stuff? The folks here have been patient, beyond what you should be afforded at this point, and explained everything at varying levels of simplicity. What the hell is your problem??
What do you mean by "verified curvature" neither you nor I can go there and measure it.Well clearly your math is broken. 10^10^47 to 10^10^48 is not a single yearMaybe you could enlightened us by writing that out out as a simple number without the powers - should be easy for one of your brilliance!
Go back to AR and Were Penguins where your type belong.
Why don’t you show Shifter how smart you really are and tell us what is the verified curvature over the center of the Suez canal.
You see to want the curvature of a cross-section through the canal and the official definition of curvature is this:QuoteCurvature of plane curves
Augustin-Louis Cauchy defined the center of curvature of a curve C as the intersection point of two infinitely close normals to the curve, the radius of curvature as the distance from the point to C, and the curvature itself as the inverse of the radius of curvature
So, by that definition the curvature of the Suez Canal or any other smooth piece of ocean is 0.000157 km/km2.Quote from: Plat TerraIf you cannot give me a direct answer, please explain why. If you can't, maybe you should go back to school and learn how to verify the most important issue in you theory, the foundation, CURVATURE.Who said in our "theory, the foundation" is "CURVATURE"? You?
The exact size of the earth is of minor importance. The more important issues are is the surface of the earth flat or not?
And simple observations that anyone can see seem to make it quite obvious that the earth cannot be flat!
All over the world, on a clear day the sun rises an sets like this:And you still can't explain without all sorts of imaginary hokus-pocus!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1)
Sunrise - Black Sea HD 265,498 views by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s)(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1)
LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm
Then a flat earth must have edges the cannot be passed yours puts that at the South Pole but there can't be and edge there because numerous have crossed over your imaginary edge.
On this you might read The Flat Earth AE map: Is Antarctica/Terra Australis larger/closer than shown? « Message by rabinoz » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82018.msg2187069;topicseen#msg2187069)
Now, please remember, Plat Terra, that YOU are asking "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?"
You might doubt what I have written but, to the best of my knowledge, it is correct - so you have to convince me and others that the above observations do not indicate that the earth simply cannot be flat.
Over to you!
PS You silly memes do not help you case in the slightest. Given time I could show that almost all are totally wrong and simply confuse things.
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.
Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?
You're not serious are you?
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.
Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?
You're not serious are you?
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps.
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.The curvature is effectively mapped but why do it "all over the world"? Have you verified that there is no curvature anywhere? You have done nothing!
3.0 IntroductionWe have, but where is your map ::)?
The surface of the Earth is anything but uniform. The oceans, can be treated as reasonably uniform, but the surface or topography of the land masses exhibits large vertical variations between mountains and valleys. These variations make it impossible to approximate the shape of the Earth with any reasonably simple mathematical model. Consequently, two main reference surfaces have been established to approximate the shape of the Earth. One reference surface is called the Geoid, the other reference surface is the ellipsoid. These are illustrated in the figure below.
(https://kartoweb.itc.nl/geometrics/Bitmaps/refsurface 3.12f.gif)
The Earth's surface, and two reference surfaces used to approximate it: the Geoid, and a reference ellipsoid.
The deviation between the Geoid and a reference ellipsoid is called geoid separation (N).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Where a mass deficiency exists, the Geoid will dip below the mean ellipsoid. Conversely, where a mass surplus exists, the Geoid will rise above the mean ellipsoid. These influences cause the Geoid to deviate from a mean ellipsoidal shape by up to +/- 100 meters. The deviation between the Geoid and an ellipsoid is called the geoid separation (N) or geoid undulation. The biggest presently known undulations are the minimum in the Indian Ocean with N = -100 meters and the maximum in the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean with N = +70 meters (figure below).
(https://kartoweb.itc.nl/geometrics/Bitmaps/Differences WGS84-Geoidc.gif)
Deviations (undulations) between the Geoid and the WGS84 ellipsoid.
There are so many people among the Globe Earth community accepting defeat, they had to create an advertising propaganda campaign to persuade the masses. Imagine that! This proves you guys really suck at proving curvature
Remember these words when you sleep tonight,” Earth is not a sphere. It’s a PLAT TERRA."
Good night!
Are you saying the very real and predictable moons are fake news nasa?No, I'm saying the variation in the picture provided is fake.
And tell us why we can’t find the documentation for any verified landmass or canal.Because you choose to ignore everything that shows you are wrong. It is wilful ignorance.
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.You mean like the geoid?
For you and all. Now tell us, why you have been unable to verify the curvature bulge over Australia? Is it because you don’t know how, or the curvature is not there to measure? You can give me lengths widths and elevations, but you damn sure can’t actually tell me what the curvature bulge is over center, IF ANY. Why?
And tell us why we can’t find the documentation for any verified landmass or canal. You do know this would end the debate, right? You are actually accepting defeat by not doing so.
Go ahead, tell me what the measurements are for a band of helium and then tell me again, you can’t actually verify the alleged circumference of Earth. New guys here like myself, put you guys to shame where it matters.. We know what you are afraid of. “You Fear there is no Sphere” because you have no foundation, just fantasy.
The first evidence of helium was observed on August 18, 1868,(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium))
as a bright yellow line with a wavelength of 587.49 nanometers
in the spectrum of the chromosphere of the Sun.
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.
Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?
You're not serious are you?
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps.
Do you mean something like this:After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.
Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?
You're not serious are you?
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps.
Brief Description:WGS 84 is an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed terrestrial reference system and geodetic datum. WGS 84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields. WGS 84 is the standard U.S. Department of Defense definition of a global reference system for geospatial information and is the reference system for the Global Positioning System (GPS). It is compatible with the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS).
Do you mean something like this:After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.
Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?
You're not serious are you?
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps.
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/icg/2012/template/WGS_84.pdfQuoteBrief Description:WGS 84 is an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed terrestrial reference system and geodetic datum. WGS 84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields. WGS 84 is the standard U.S. Department of Defense definition of a global reference system for geospatial information and is the reference system for the Global Positioning System (GPS). It is compatible with the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS).
Do you mean something like this:After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.
Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?
You're not serious are you?
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps.
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/icg/2012/template/WGS_84.pdfQuoteBrief Description:WGS 84 is an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed terrestrial reference system and geodetic datum. WGS 84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields. WGS 84 is the standard U.S. Department of Defense definition of a global reference system for geospatial information and is the reference system for the Global Positioning System (GPS). It is compatible with the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS).
Those aren't curved maps.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
WGS 84 describes the curvature of the earth.Do you mean something like this:After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.
Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?
You're not serious are you?
After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps.
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/icg/2012/template/WGS_84.pdfQuoteBrief Description:WGS 84 is an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed terrestrial reference system and geodetic datum. WGS 84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields. WGS 84 is the standard U.S. Department of Defense definition of a global reference system for geospatial information and is the reference system for the Global Positioning System (GPS). It is compatible with the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS).
Those aren't curved maps.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask? The very purpose of maps is to represent the curved surface of the earth onto a flat surface.
Those aren't curved maps.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
In 1537, Pedro Nunes published his Tratado da Sphera. In this book he included two original treatises about questions of navigation. For the first time the subject was approached using mathematical tools. This publication gave rise to a new scientific discipline: "theoretical or scientific navigation".No, these old sailors knew the earth was a Globe, no question about it!
| (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/World_Map_1689.JPG/300px-World_Map_1689.JPG) Map of the world produced in 1689 by Gerard van Schagen. |
What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask?
Those aren't curved maps.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask?
Those aren't curved maps.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Accuracy.
What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask?
Those aren't curved maps.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Accuracy.
Those aren't curved maps.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask?
Those aren't curved maps.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Accuracy.
But they are a bit impossible to use in books like atlases and street directories.What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask?
Those aren't curved maps.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Accuracy.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/s2jticzebvugd03/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20Australia.jpg?dl=1) The only NP AEP maps that I have seen have shown it like: "Ice Wall" Flat Earth Map - Australia | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/yqh9iqdddv88soa/Map%20of%20Australia%201855%20-%20768x640.jpg?dl=1) no, Australia looks more like this! Map of Australia, 1855 |
Those aren't curved maps.You have brought up that objection before, and had it destroyed. You will need a lot more than pathetic spam links to back it up.
Accuracy.That doesn't necessarily make it useful.
What else you need?Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.
Those aren't curved maps.You have brought up that objection before, and had it destroyed. You will need a lot more than pathetic spam links to back it up.
Yes, people produce flat maps using it, with these flat maps having known distortion.Accuracy.That doesn't necessarily make it useful.
You can easily have a physical curved map in the form of the globe. But in order to transport it it would need to be quite small. That means you don't have the required accuracy. Or you can take a massive one, larger than the vessel you are using, which means you can't really take it.
Flat maps for a small region have minimal inaccuracy due to the curvature and can easily be stored.
So curved maps are not all that useful.
Those aren't curved maps.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Yes they are
There are a number of errors in the wiki and a number of assumptions such as:
WGS84 is a standard coord system its not the best fit, ie one size fits all thats GRS80.
WGS84 is used in simple GPS systems like your phone, its not accurate enough for surveying.
Despite the assertions in the wiki, there is a series of linked local elipsoids. For example the UK uses ETRS89 as the UK is drifting away from WGS84 at a rate of 2.5cm a year, the current total drift is approximately 75cm.
ETRS89 is based on ITRF which itself translates to ITRS the common coord referencing system rather than WGS84. Its independent of any individual government, all of the standard transformational equations are maintained and supplied by the International Earth Rotation and Reference System Service.
Current ITRF is ITRF2019, its updated every year using 4 independent geodetic sources.
The WGS84 and the ITRS do give coords in XYZ not XY as the wiki states.
Moving on to more accurate RE cartesian coordinates you use the geoid, which is the world wide standard base or 0 datum and is within +/- 2m of mean sea level at any location in the world. So for example on the east coast of the UK my zero from the geoid is about -80cm. Datum is set up on local observations, the stations set up triangulate to the geoid which allows accurate transformations made in a standard referencing system.
I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, it is horrifically complicated and full of acronyms, and its been almost 2 decades since I carried out a geodetic survey myself.
If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment? OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.What else you need?Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.
No Tom, WGS 84 projections are used to make small flat maps. From one of your own sources:Those aren't curved maps.You have brought up that objection before, and had it destroyed. You will need a lot more than pathetic spam links to back it up.
Yes, people produce flat maps using it, with these flat maps having known distortion.Accuracy.That doesn't necessarily make it useful.
You can easily have a physical curved map in the form of the globe. But in order to transport it it would need to be quite small. That means you don't have the required accuracy. Or you can take a massive one, larger than the vessel you are using, which means you can't really take it.
Flat maps for a small region have minimal inaccuracy due to the curvature and can easily be stored.
So curved maps are not all that useful.
"Nah-uh" is hardly "destroyed". The sources in the link say directly that it is using small flat maps.
A projected coordinate system is always based on a geographic coordinate system that is based on a sphere or spheroid.
If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment? OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.What else you need?Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.
If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?
You don't understand. Eratosthenes experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere. It only proves if Earth is a sphere, then it would have a 3959 miles radius. But they never established curvature charts to prove Earth does have curvature as Eratosthenes calculated. So in other words, it was never verified then (people followed blindly) nor today. OOPS, another ass bite.If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment? OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.What else you need?Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.
If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?
You have some serious holes in your logic here Plat. Here's the problem you have; this is non-Euclidean geometry we're talking about. You keep conflating a "flat" surface and a spherical one. As far as Eratosthenes, that experiment has been reproduced, successfully, in modern times. You can find a link to that research paper here:
You don't understand. Eratosthenes experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere. It only proves if Earth is a sphere, then it would have a 3959 miles radius. But they never established curvature charts to prove Earth does have curvature as Eratosthenes calculated. So in other words, it was never verified then (people followed blindly) nor today. OOPS, another ass bite.If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment? OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.What else you need?Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.
If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?
You have some serious holes in your logic here Plat. Here's the problem you have; this is non-Euclidean geometry we're talking about. You keep conflating a "flat" surface and a spherical one. As far as Eratosthenes, that experiment has been reproduced, successfully, in modern times. You can find a link to that research paper here:
You don't understand. Eratosthenes experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere. It only proves if Earth is a sphere, then it would have a 3959 miles radius. But they never established curvature charts to prove Earth does have curvature as Eratosthenes calculated. So in other words, it was never verified then (people followed blindly) nor today. OOPS, another ass bite.If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment? OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.What else you need?Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.
If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?
You have some serious holes in your logic here Plat. Here's the problem you have; this is non-Euclidean geometry we're talking about. You keep conflating a "flat" surface and a spherical one. As far as Eratosthenes, that experiment has been reproduced, successfully, in modern times. You can find a link to that research paper here:
Did you read the paper? If you had, you would have copped to the fact that it verifies the CIRCUMFERENCE of the planet; i.e., confirms the curvature of the surface. So, OOOPS, looks like you goofed, AGAIN.
You do realize that the significance of Eratosthenes experiment is that the angles the light produce in the well shaft CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF THE WORLD ISN'T FLAT.
You don't understand. Eratosthenes experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere. It only proves if Earth is a sphere, then it would have a 3959 miles radius. But they never established curvature charts to prove Earth does have curvature as Eratosthenes calculated. So in other words, it was never verified then (people followed blindly) nor today. OOPS, another ass bite.If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment? OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.What else you need?Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.
If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?
You have some serious holes in your logic here Plat. Here's the problem you have; this is non-Euclidean geometry we're talking about. You keep conflating a "flat" surface and a spherical one. As far as Eratosthenes, that experiment has been reproduced, successfully, in modern times. You can find a link to that research paper here:
Did you read the paper? If you had, you would have copped to the fact that it verifies the CIRCUMFERENCE of the planet; i.e., confirms the curvature of the surface. So, OOOPS, looks like you goofed, AGAIN.
You do realize that the significance of Eratosthenes experiment is that the angles the light produce in the well shaft CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF THE WORLD ISN'T FLAT.
OOPS, you don’t know about divergent Sun rays. It’s still inconclusive and the reason why you need established curvature charts to prove the masses didn’t follow Eratosthenes like blind sheep.
(https://i.imgur.com/zgECT2U.jpg)
Sorry to disappoint you but this is not a contest to win or lose and the shape of the earth has been known to be a Globe for millennia.If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment? OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.What else you need?Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.
If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?Why? What would be the point?
You don't understand. Eratosthenes experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere. It only proves if Earth is a sphere, then it would have a 3959 miles radius. But they never established curvature charts to prove Earth does have curvature as Eratosthenes calculated. So in other words, it was never verified then (people followed blindly) nor today. OOPS, another ass bite.If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment? OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.What else you need?Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.
If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?
You have some serious holes in your logic here Plat. Here's the problem you have; this is non-Euclidean geometry we're talking about. You keep conflating a "flat" surface and a spherical one. As far as Eratosthenes, that experiment has been reproduced, successfully, in modern times. You can find a link to that research paper here:
OOPS, you don’t know about divergent Sun rays. It’s still inconclusive and the reason why you need established curvature charts to prove the masses didn’t follow Eratosthenes like blind sheep.Your "divergent Sun rays" hogwash doesn't convince anybody!
The lines at the measured angles do not meet at a single point near the earth on a flat surface.
Sun Height on Flat Earth along 70°W Long
Sun Height on Globe Earth along 70°W Long
OOPS, you don’t know about divergent Sun rays. It’s still inconclusive and the reason why you need established curvature charts to prove the masses didn’t follow Eratosthenes like blind sheep.
(https://i.imgur.com/zgECT2U.jpg)
You don't understand. Eratosthenes experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere. It only proves if Earth is a sphere, then it would have a 3959 miles radius. But they never established curvature charts to prove Earth does have curvature as Eratosthenes calculated. So in other words, it was never verified then (people followed blindly) nor today. OOPS, another ass bite.If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment? OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.What else you need?Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.
If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?
You have some serious holes in your logic here Plat. Here's the problem you have; this is non-Euclidean geometry we're talking about. You keep conflating a "flat" surface and a spherical one. As far as Eratosthenes, that experiment has been reproduced, successfully, in modern times. You can find a link to that research paper here:
Did you read the paper? If you had, you would have copped to the fact that it verifies the CIRCUMFERENCE of the planet; i.e., confirms the curvature of the surface. So, OOOPS, looks like you goofed, AGAIN.
You do realize that the significance of Eratosthenes experiment is that the angles the light produce in the well shaft CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF THE WORLD ISN'T FLAT.
WARNING Did you know...
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
And did you know, no one could tell the difference unless they understood their surroundings through observation? All you need is deceptive Astronomers, Scientists and Governments. That's right, and that’s exactly what as happened through the centuries and the hoax continues through fake media, fake news, entertainment, TV and fake space programs and propaganda.
If lies are propagandize long enough, the masses will also come to believe in more than two genders through pseudoscience.
"Nah-uh" is hardly "destroyed".Yet "Nah-uh" is all you seem to have.
If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?Why?
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun?It would be quite difficult as the models are vastly different.
WARNING Did you know...
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
And did you know, no one could tell the difference unless they understood their surroundings through observation? All you need is deceptive Astronomers, Scientists and Governments. That's right, and that’s exactly what as happened through the centuries and the hoax continues through fake media, fake news, entertainment, TV and fake space programs and propaganda.
If lies are propagandize long enough, the masses will also come to believe in more than two genders through pseudoscience.
WARNING Did you know...
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
And did you know, no one could tell the difference unless they understood their surroundings through observation? All you need is deceptive Astronomers, Scientists and Governments. That's right, and that’s exactly what as happened through the centuries and the hoax continues through fake media, fake news, entertainment, TV and fake space programs and propaganda.
If lies are propagandize long enough, the masses will also come to believe in more than two genders through pseudoscience.
WARNING Did you know...
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
And did you know, no one could tell the difference unless they understood their surroundings through observation? All you need is deceptive Astronomers, Scientists and Governments. That's right, and that’s exactly what as happened through the centuries and the hoax continues through fake media, fake news, entertainment, TV and fake space programs and propaganda.
If lies are propagandize long enough, the masses will also come to believe in more than two genders through pseudoscience.
So, if you repeat the "Earth is Flat" long enough, you think people would start believing it?
Unfortunately, it was done before, but not all people fell for that.
Also, it was told for centuries that the Earth was static sphere, and it still didn't work.
There are people who observe and measure on their own, and they discovered that
no indoctrination can flatten the Earth and pin it into static position.
Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years away.
What orbital speed should it have to revolve the Earth once in 24 hours?
1.23 light years per hour? :)
What about Andromeda Galaxy at 2.5 million light years from here?
WARNING Did you know...
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
And did you know, no one could tell the difference unless they understood their surroundings through observation? All you need is deceptive Astronomers, Scientists and Governments. That's right, and that’s exactly what as happened through the centuries and the hoax continues through fake media, fake news, entertainment, TV and fake space programs and propaganda.
If lies are propagandize long enough, the masses will also come to believe in more than two genders through pseudoscience.
So, if you repeat the "Earth is Flat" long enough, you think people would start believing it?
Unfortunately, it was done before, but not all people fell for that.
Also, it was told for centuries that the Earth was static sphere, and it still didn't work.
There are people who observe and measure on their own, and they discovered that
no indoctrination can flatten the Earth and pin it into static position.
Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years away.
What orbital speed should it have to revolve the Earth once in 24 hours?
1.23 light years per hour? :)
What about Andromeda Galaxy at 2.5 million light years from here?
You have watched too much Star Trek.
How often do you view Andromeda Galaxy?
Can you always see it?
WARNING Did you know...
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
And did you know, no one could tell the difference unless they understood their surroundings through observation? All you need is deceptive Astronomers, Scientists and Governments. That's right, and that’s exactly what as happened through the centuries and the hoax continues through fake media, fake news, entertainment, TV and fake space programs and propaganda.
If lies are propagandize long enough, the masses will also come to believe in more than two genders through pseudoscience.
So, if you repeat the "Earth is Flat" long enough, you think people would start believing it?
Unfortunately, it was done before, but not all people fell for that.
Also, it was told for centuries that the Earth was static sphere, and it still didn't work.
There are people who observe and measure on their own, and they discovered that
no indoctrination can flatten the Earth and pin it into static position.
Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years away.
What orbital speed should it have to revolve the Earth once in 24 hours?
1.23 light years per hour? :)
What about Andromeda Galaxy at 2.5 million light years from here?
You have watched too much Star Trek.
How often do you view Andromeda Galaxy?
Can you always see it?
Why don't you do a little research on your own and look it up?
WARNING Did you know...
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
And did you know, no one could tell the difference unless they understood their surroundings through observation? All you need is deceptive Astronomers, Scientists and Governments. That's right, and that’s exactly what as happened through the centuries and the hoax continues through fake media, fake news, entertainment, TV and fake space programs and propaganda.
If lies are propagandize long enough, the masses will also come to believe in more than two genders through pseudoscience.
So, if you repeat the "Earth is Flat" long enough, you think people would start believing it?
Unfortunately, it was done before, but not all people fell for that.
Also, it was told for centuries that the Earth was static sphere, and it still didn't work.
There are people who observe and measure on their own, and they discovered that
no indoctrination can flatten the Earth and pin it into static position.
Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years away.
What orbital speed should it have to revolve the Earth once in 24 hours?
1.23 light years per hour? :)
What about Andromeda Galaxy at 2.5 million light years from here?
You have watched too much Star Trek.
How often do you view Andromeda Galaxy?
Can you always see it?
Why don't you do a little research on your own and look it up?
I don't believe in your fantasy. I believe in common sense.
WARNING Did you know...
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
And did you know, no one could tell the difference unless they understood their surroundings through observation? All you need is deceptive Astronomers, Scientists and Governments. That's right, and that’s exactly what as happened through the centuries and the hoax continues through fake media, fake news, entertainment, TV and fake space programs and propaganda.
If lies are propagandize long enough, the masses will also come to believe in more than two genders through pseudoscience.
So, if you repeat the "Earth is Flat" long enough, you think people would start believing it?
Unfortunately, it was done before, but not all people fell for that.
Also, it was told for centuries that the Earth was static sphere, and it still didn't work.
There are people who observe and measure on their own, and they discovered that
no indoctrination can flatten the Earth and pin it into static position.
Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years away.
What orbital speed should it have to revolve the Earth once in 24 hours?
1.23 light years per hour? :)
What about Andromeda Galaxy at 2.5 million light years from here?
You have watched too much Star Trek.
How often do you view Andromeda Galaxy?
Can you always see it?
Why don't you do a little research on your own and look it up?
I don't believe in your fantasy. I believe in common sense.
Right, great. So use your common sense and do a little research for a change rather than asking everyone else for info then stomping away and hiding behind another meme when you don't like the answer and have lost the debate.
WARNING Did you know...I don't need any mathematician!
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6rwnelhqj2yxu3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7yrft869jzdqmb/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxfxxibtutm20k3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) |
No, that's U!Right, great. So use your common sense and do a little research for a change rather than asking everyone else for info then stomping away and hiding behind another meme when you don't like the answer and have lost the debate.
You sure do have an imagination.
WARNING Did you know...
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
And did you know, no one could tell the difference unless they understood their surroundings through observation? All you need is deceptive Astronomers, Scientists and Governments. That's right, and that’s exactly what as happened through the centuries and the hoax continues through fake media, fake news, entertainment, TV and fake space programs and propaganda.
If lies are propagandize long enough, the masses will also come to believe in more than two genders through pseudoscience.
So, if you repeat the "Earth is Flat" long enough, you think people would start believing it?
Unfortunately, it was done before, but not all people fell for that.
Also, it was told for centuries that the Earth was static sphere, and it still didn't work.
There are people who observe and measure on their own, and they discovered that
no indoctrination can flatten the Earth and pin it into static position.
Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years away.
What orbital speed should it have to revolve the Earth once in 24 hours?
1.23 light years per hour? :)
What about Andromeda Galaxy at 2.5 million light years from here?
You have watched too much Star Trek.
How often do you view Andromeda Galaxy?
Can you always see it?
Why don't you do a little research on your own and look it up?
I don't believe in your fantasy. I believe in common sense.
Right, great. So use your common sense and do a little research for a change rather than asking everyone else for info then stomping away and hiding behind another meme when you don't like the answer and have lost the debate.
You sure do have an imagination.
WARNING Did you know...I don't need any mathematician!
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
I can see what the sun and moon do and a few photos are enough to prove the they must be at least hundreds of thousands of kilometres away!
The sun size does not change from high in the sky till is has almost set! So it has to be far away!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6rwnelhqj2yxu3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7yrft869jzdqmb/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxfxxibtutm20k3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1)
WARNING Did you know...I don't need any mathematician!
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
I can see what the sun and moon do and a few photos are enough to prove the they must be at least hundreds of thousands of kilometres away!
The sun size does not change from high in the sky till is has almost set! So it has to be far away!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6rwnelhqj2yxu3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7yrft869jzdqmb/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxfxxibtutm20k3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1)
You have a lot to learn. The Sun is not sinking below the land from your view. It’s passing over the atmosphere horizon under normal conditions. That line you see is not land but it’s aerial line being crossed horizontally (from your point of view) by the Sun from bottom up some 12 miles above the surface. You need to relearn what you see with science.
WARNING Did you know...I don't need any mathematician!
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
I can see what the sun and moon do and a few photos are enough to prove the they must be at least hundreds of thousands of kilometres away!
The sun size does not change from high in the sky till is has almost set! So it has to be far away!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6rwnelhqj2yxu3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7yrft869jzdqmb/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxfxxibtutm20k3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1)
You have a lot to learn. The Sun is not sinking below the land from your view. It’s passing over the atmosphere horizon under normal conditions. That line you see is not land but it’s aerial line being crossed horizontally (from your point of view) by the Sun from bottom up some 12 miles above the surface. You need to relearn what you see with science.
Ok, you've said a lot of crazy uneducated stuff, but you're breaking new ground here by completely making this up. "That line you see is not land but it’s aerial line being crossed horizontally (from your point of view) by the Sun from bottom up some 12 miles above the surface."
I'll play nice. Where did you get 12 miles from?
WARNING Did you know...I don't need any mathematician!
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
I can see what the sun and moon do and a few photos are enough to prove the they must be at least hundreds of thousands of kilometres away!
The sun size does not change from high in the sky till is has almost set! So it has to be far away!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6rwnelhqj2yxu3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7yrft869jzdqmb/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxfxxibtutm20k3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1)
You have a lot to learn. The Sun is not sinking below the land from your view. It’s passing over the atmosphere horizon under normal conditions. That line you see is not land but it’s aerial line being crossed horizontally (from your point of view) by the Sun from bottom up some 12 miles above the surface. You need to relearn what you see with science.
Ok, you've said a lot of crazy uneducated stuff, but you're breaking new ground here by completely making this up. "That line you see is not land but it’s aerial line being crossed horizontally (from your point of view) by the Sun from bottom up some 12 miles above the surface."
I'll play nice. Where did you get 12 miles from?
troposphere
Known as the lower atmosphere almost all weather occurs in this region. The troposphere begins at the Earth's surface and extends from 4 to 12 miles (6 to 20 km) high. The height of the troposphere varies from the equator to the poles.
Plat tera, are you a female?
I have never said it sets below the horizon.WARNING Did you know...I don't need any mathematician!
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
I can see what the sun and moon do and a few photos are enough to prove the they must be at least hundreds of thousands of kilometres away!
The sun size does not change from high in the sky till is has almost set! So it has to be far away!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6rwnelhqj2yxu3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7yrft869jzdqmb/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxfxxibtutm20k3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1)
You have a lot to learn. The Sun is not sinking below the land from your view. It’s passing over the atmosphere horizon under normal conditions. That line you see is not land but it’s aerial line being crossed horizontally (from your point of view) by the Sun from bottom up some 12 miles above the surface. You need to relearn what you see with science.
Ok, you've said a lot of crazy uneducated stuff, but you're breaking new ground here by completely making this up. "That line you see is not land but it’s aerial line being crossed horizontally (from your point of view) by the Sun from bottom up some 12 miles above the surface."
I'll play nice. Where did you get 12 miles from?
troposphere
Known as the lower atmosphere almost all weather occurs in this region. The troposphere begins at the Earth's surface and extends from 4 to 12 miles (6 to 20 km) high. The height of the troposphere varies from the equator to the poles.
So now your contention is that the sun never sets below the horizon it actually sets 12 miles up under the top of the troposphere? So whenever we see a horizon, sun or no sun, we're really looking at the top of the troposphere?
Stash didn't say that you did but the sun does certainly rise from behind the horizon and set behind the horizon.So now your contention is that the sun never sets below the horizon it actually sets 12 miles up under the top of the troposphere? So whenever we see a horizon, sun or no sun, we're really looking at the top of the troposphere?I have never said it sets below the horizon.
Over the top. But the sun is still the same height. It has to do with perspective.If the earth were flat I can't see how the sun (and moon, planets and stars) could appear to be hidden "behind something" and slowly rise up top first as in this video (click anywhere, it links to a video):
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/igmdb1pr4nor5az/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20%20risen.jpg?dl=1) Video of Sunrise over Black Sea HD by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s) |
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1) LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1) LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm |
When the sun is setting at that distance you can't even see the difference between the two horizons, the light is much dimmer, so how could you?. Its just a thin line.Possibly because there are not "two horizons" that's just something more you dreamed up.
I will do a graph soon.Drawing all the graphs won't help you in the slightest! Show us real-life evidence!
Plat tera, are you a female?
Well now
Thars a bit sexist.
Tirdd of "mansplaining"?
You have a lot to learn. The Sun is not sinking below the land from your view. It’s passing over the atmosphere horizon under normal conditions. That line you see is not land but it’s aerial line being crossed horizontally (from your point of view) by the Sun from bottom up some 12 miles above the surface. As the sun gets farther away, you are viewing it through more atmosphere and it gets dimmer as above. Then crosses over the line. You need to relearn what you see with science.With the sun casting shadows upwards we know it isn't it crossing anything above us.
You don't understand. Eratosthenes experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere. It only proves if Earth is a sphere, then it would have a 3959 miles radius. But they never established curvature charts to prove Earth does have curvature as Eratosthenes calculated. So in other words, it was never verified then (people followed blindly) nor today. OOPS, another ass bite.
WARNING Did you know...I don't need any mathematician!
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
I can see what the sun and moon do and a few photos are enough to prove the they must be at least hundreds of thousands of kilometres away!
The sun size does not change from high in the sky till is has almost set! So it has to be far away!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6rwnelhqj2yxu3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7yrft869jzdqmb/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxfxxibtutm20k3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1)
You have a lot to learn. The Sun is not sinking below the land from your view. It’s passing over the atmosphere horizon under normal conditions. That line you see is not land but it’s aerial line being crossed horizontally (from your point of view) by the Sun from bottom up some 12 miles above the surface. You need to relearn what you see with science.
Ok, you've said a lot of crazy uneducated stuff, but you're breaking new ground here by completely making this up. "That line you see is not land but it’s aerial line being crossed horizontally (from your point of view) by the Sun from bottom up some 12 miles above the surface."
I'll play nice. Where did you get 12 miles from?
troposphere
Known as the lower atmosphere almost all weather occurs in this region. The troposphere begins at the Earth's surface and extends from 4 to 12 miles (6 to 20 km) high. The height of the troposphere varies from the equator to the poles.
A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective. Will post a graph later.
A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth.That depends highly upon what kind of FE you have.
A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective. Will post a graph later.
A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective. Will post a graph later.
A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective. Will post a graph later.
Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/sun-size-flat-earth-model-southern-hemisphere.gif)
What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?
There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE. To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true. Take a look for yourself:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model
The problem with FE is an issue with dependency. We'll start with sunrise/sunset. If the Earth is flat, and the sun/moon are on a plane of movement parallel to the Earth, it is impossible for either celestial object to rise or set below the horizon (this is due to parallel lines never intersecting, thus neither object can pass below the plane the Earth is on). Now, a popular FE solution to this problem is to say refraction is the reason why it sets. This does not solve the issue; while refraction of light is a known phenomena, the behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set is opposite to what we know about that phenomena. Light refracts a particular way in any given medium, and that way is known given we also know the medium. The atmosphere is a known medium and the refraction of light through it can be determined with a high degree of accuracy. The behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set if the Earth was flat does not keep with what we know about light's interaction with the atmosphere.
So, in order to make this particular behavior true, we commit a logical fallacy of special pleading; we make an exception for light's behavior in this instance and say that for "reasons" light behaves like X, which provides a solution to the problem. But it creates more problems... If light behaves in this fashion, how come we can't reproduce this behavior, or if it is reproducible, how come the medium where it behaves this way isn't anything close to being composed of atmosphere? So, the FE "scientist" is left creating an elaborate lattice of dependencies, all based on fallacious logic. This is the issue with dependency. If we return to the root, expose it's truth value, and in this case it is zero, the entire lattice collapses.
What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?
A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective. Will post a graph later.
Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/sun-size-flat-earth-model-southern-hemisphere.gif)
What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?
There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE. To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true. Take a look for yourself:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model
The problem with FE is an issue with dependency. We'll start with sunrise/sunset. If the Earth is flat, and the sun/moon are on a plane of movement parallel to the Earth, it is impossible for either celestial object to rise or set below the horizon (this is due to parallel lines never intersecting, thus neither object can pass below the plane the Earth is on). Now, a popular FE solution to this problem is to say refraction is the reason why it sets. This does not solve the issue; while refraction of light is a known phenomena, the behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set is opposite to what we know about that phenomena. Light refracts a particular way in any given medium, and that way is known given we also know the medium. The atmosphere is a known medium and the refraction of light through it can be determined with a high degree of accuracy. The behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set if the Earth was flat does not keep with what we know about light's interaction with the atmosphere.
So, in order to make this particular behavior true, we commit a logical fallacy of special pleading; we make an exception for light's behavior in this instance and say that for "reasons" light behaves like X, which provides a solution to the problem. But it creates more problems... If light behaves in this fashion, how come we can't reproduce this behavior, or if it is reproducible, how come the medium where it behaves this way isn't anything close to being composed of atmosphere? So, the FE "scientist" is left creating an elaborate lattice of dependencies, all based on fallacious logic. This is the issue with dependency. If we return to the root, expose it's truth value, and in this case it is zero, the entire lattice collapses.
What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?
It is not so much that distance, but the angle from the vertical, approximately 45° or greater, considering no mountains in the way.A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective. Will post a graph later.
Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/sun-size-flat-earth-model-southern-hemisphere.gif)
What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?
There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE. To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true. Take a look for yourself:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model
The problem with FE is an issue with dependency. We'll start with sunrise/sunset. If the Earth is flat, and the sun/moon are on a plane of movement parallel to the Earth, it is impossible for either celestial object to rise or set below the horizon (this is due to parallel lines never intersecting, thus neither object can pass below the plane the Earth is on). Now, a popular FE solution to this problem is to say refraction is the reason why it sets. This does not solve the issue; while refraction of light is a known phenomena, the behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set is opposite to what we know about that phenomena. Light refracts a particular way in any given medium, and that way is known given we also know the medium. The atmosphere is a known medium and the refraction of light through it can be determined with a high degree of accuracy. The behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set if the Earth was flat does not keep with what we know about light's interaction with the atmosphere.
So, in order to make this particular behavior true, we commit a logical fallacy of special pleading; we make an exception for light's behavior in this instance and say that for "reasons" light behaves like X, which provides a solution to the problem. But it creates more problems... If light behaves in this fashion, how come we can't reproduce this behavior, or if it is reproducible, how come the medium where it behaves this way isn't anything close to being composed of atmosphere? So, the FE "scientist" is left creating an elaborate lattice of dependencies, all based on fallacious logic. This is the issue with dependency. If we return to the root, expose it's truth value, and in this case it is zero, the entire lattice collapses.
What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?
What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?No distance will make it so the sun appears to set, nor allow it to cast a shadow upwards.
What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?You're supposed to be the flat earth expert!
Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance increases. List what else should be included.A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective. Will post a graph later.
Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/sun-size-flat-earth-model-southern-hemisphere.gif)
There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE. To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true. Take a look for yourself:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model
WARNING Did you know...
...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.
And did you know, no one could tell the difference unless they understood their surroundings through observation? All you need is deceptive Astronomers, Scientists and Governments. That's right, and that’s exactly what as happened through the centuries and the hoax continues through fake media, fake news, entertainment, TV and fake space programs and propaganda.
If lies are propagandize long enough, the masses will also come to believe in more than two genders through pseudoscience.
So, if you repeat the "Earth is Flat" long enough, you think people would start believing it?
Unfortunately, it was done before, but not all people fell for that.
Also, it was told for centuries that the Earth was static sphere, and it still didn't work.
There are people who observe and measure on their own, and they discovered that
no indoctrination can flatten the Earth and pin it into static position.
Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years away.
What orbital speed should it have to revolve the Earth once in 24 hours?
1.23 light years per hour? :)
What about Andromeda Galaxy at 2.5 million light years from here?
You have watched too much Star Trek.
How often do you view Andromeda Galaxy?
Can you always see it?
From mid-northern latitudes, you can see M31 – also called the Andromeda galaxy – for at least part of every night, all year long. But most people see the galaxy first around northern autumn, when it's high enough in the sky to be seen from nightfall until daybreak.(from: https://earthsky.org/clusters-nebulae-galaxies/andromeda-galaxy-closest-spiral-to-milky-way (https://earthsky.org/clusters-nebulae-galaxies/andromeda-galaxy-closest-spiral-to-milky-way))
Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance decreases.
List what else should be included.
And then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.
We can see your Sunset and we see our sunset. Conditions have to be right for both occurrences. But it does not prove Earth is flat or a sphere.
We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom up, but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why?
Will you know admit that sometimes the Sun appears to get smaller and fades away?
What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?You're supposed to be the flat earth expert!
You tell us the distance to the sun from the viewer at sunrise, when overhead and at sunset?
Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance decreases.
Is this a typo? Objects get smaller as distance decreases??List what else should be included.
This is your model, not mine. You list what needs to be included. I'm merely pointing out the perpetual paradoxes that are created by this wild conjecture.And then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.
The sun doesn't get smaller as it sets, that's the point. The GIF I provided is the logical implication of saying the Earth is flat and the sun being located above it.We can see your Sunset and we see our sunset. Conditions have to be right for both occurrences. But it does not prove Earth is flat or a sphere.
You are dead wrong. If the Earth is flat along with the other assumptions regarding the size and location of the sun are also considered, this GIF presents what that should look like. Obviously, this isn't what we see in reality. Therefore, the Earth isn't flat.We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom up, but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why?
Because the sun doesn't get smaller and fade away. Our line of sight is cut off by the horizon. Not one of these videos are honest representations of reality. I'm at work and can go outside, right now, and watch the sun set completely. Not one of those videos shows the stars coming out (impossible if the sun never sets) or a moon coming into view. The fact that you would resort to outright lies to try and win an argument shows the quality of your character.Will you know admit that sometimes the Sun appears to get smaller and fades away?
I cannot admit that which is no true. The sun sets over the horizon, it does not diminish in size (though refraction does distort its shape, slightly), and you seem to be unable to either acknowledge or speak the truth.
Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance decreases. List what else should be included.No, that one point is the one being discussed at present.
And then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.Easy! But how many times has it been explained only to be totally ignored?
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6rwnelhqj2yxu3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7yrft869jzdqmb/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxfxxibtutm20k3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) |
We can see your Sunset and we see our sunset. Conditions have to be right for both occurrences. But it does not prove Earth is flat or a sphere.Well, explain how perspective can cause what we see!
We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom up,
but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why?No! We do not ignore it. We continually tell you that it is simply due to the glare of the sun cause the image of the sun to appear far larger than it is.
You can't trust "Sun size" videos unless a Solar Filter is used. | Another Sunset with and without the Solar Filter - (Clearer skies today) |
There is nothing to "admit" to!
Will you know admit that sometimes the Sun appears to get smaller and fades away?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc7fzmu0wkihken/1%20-%2020160524%2019.36%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%206.3deg%20Az%20107.7deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (1) May 24, 2016 19:36 EAST Alt 6.3°, Az 107.7°, size 0.52° | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ak5kitli48uvq8a/3%20-%2020160524%2020.57%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2023.1deg%20Az%20%2099.6deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (3) May 24, 2016 at 20:57 EAST Alt 23.1°, Az 99.6°, size 0.52° | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/623ac3d252yu5qa/5%20-%2020160524%2022.16%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2037.8deg%20Az%20%2092.7deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (5) May 24, 2016 at 22:16 EAST Alt 37.8°, Az 92.7°, size 0.52° |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/38tz2dkno9tq10u/6%20-%2020160621%2023.12%20-%20Strawberry%20Moon1%20-%20at%20Alt%2067.1deg%20Azm%2070.8deg%20%20size%20%200.53deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (6) June 21, 2916 at 23.12 EAST, Strawberry Moon+1, Alt 67.1°, Azm 70.8°, size 0.53° | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/t6bpqw0n0xpmgsh/7%20-%2020160519%2022-08%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2071.5deg%20Azm%200.1deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (7) May 19, 2016 at 22:08 EAST Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°, size 0.52° | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/27roefdgd2ogld0/8%20-%2020160620%2023.38%20-%20Strawberry%20Full%20Moon%20-%20at%20Alt%2080.2deg%20Azm%2023.4deg%20%20size%20%200.52xdeg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (8) June 20, 2916 at 23:38 EAST, Strawberry Full Moon Alt 80.2°, Azm 23.4°, size 0.52° |
Typo, thanks.
Of all the videos I posted of a sunset how many of them show the Sun remaining the same size (at sunset) and existing from bottom up? Please compare them to any video you have and show how it is the same as your video. I can post many more if you like.
And, are you saying none of the videos I presented show a Sun getting smaller in appearence at sunset? None of them?
And, show me one or more that matches your sunsets.
Thanks!
What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?You're supposed to be the flat earth expert!
You tell us the distance to the sun from the viewer at sunrise, when overhead and at sunset?
I'm not a Flat Earth expert. But I am proof that someone with a high school education can school you guys with degrees of education because your belief is a fallacy. That doesn't really look good for you and your theory, does it?
Of all the videos I posted of a sunset how many of them show the Sun remaining the same size (at sunset) and existing from bottom up? Please compare them to any video you have and show how it is the same as your video. I can post many more if you like.None! C-zars is close but shows an inferior mirage making the sun seem to shrink at the end.
And, are you saying none of the videos I presented show a Sun getting smaller in appearance at sunset? None of them?All except one showed the sun getting smaller and at the end that one seemed to show it but that was just the top edge of the sun getting smaller! This one:
And, show me one or more that matches your sunsets.C-zar's almost does, see above!
Thanks!
Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance decreases. List what else should be included.No, that one point is the one being discussed at present.
There is also the "point of science" where the sun seems to rises full-size top first from behind "something".Quote from: Plat TerraAnd then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.Easy! But how many times has it been explained only to be totally ignored?
Because the sun is so bright that when higher in the sky the glare from the sun makes it seem far larger than it really is.
When the sun nears the horizon even clear air reduces the brightness to see and photograph as in these photos:
The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion. 1Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance increases. List what else should be included.
A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective. Will post a graph later.
Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/sun-size-flat-earth-model-southern-hemisphere.gif)
There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE. To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true. Take a look for yourself:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model
And then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.
We can see your Sunset and we see our sunset. Conditions have to be right for both occurrences. But it does not prove Earth is flat or a sphere.
We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom up, but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why?
The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.2
The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.3
The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.4
The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.5
The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.6
Will you now admit that sometimes the Sun appears to get smaller and fades away?yes it is an illusion.
So you agree the sun faded away above the horizon in our videos and did not exit from bottom up like in your beloved photos? Correct?No your videos did not show "the sun fade away above the horizon"!
Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance increases.No it doesn't.
We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom upYou certainly seem to, and when you don't you just deflect.
but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why?No we don't, as no one has been able to provide such evidence.
So you agree the sun faded away above the horizon in our videos and did not exit from bottom up like in your beloved photos? Correct?No your videos did not show "the sun fade away above the horizon"!
It seemed to fade away because all the videos that I watched, except for C-zars, because your photographers are totally ignorant about photographing the sun!
C-zar seems fairly competent but his has an inferior mirage distorting the apparent location of the horizon.
Because the sun is so bright that when higher in the sky the glare from the sun makes it seem far larger than it really is.
But you refuse to take the slightest notice of anything said and if you ever hope to convince anybody you'd better change you attitude!The Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is strong in this one along with an incurable case of Confirmation Bias!
Wow, the light gets darker at the end of the tunnel, yet they're the same wattage. Imagine that. How can that be? I bet if that tunnel was just 400 feet long it would be dark at the end with the lights on all the way to the end. We might see a bit of twilight, don't you think?Only you said anything about "a Sunset looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere"!
How can this be related to a Sunset looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere?
Wow, the light gets darker at the end of the tunnel, yet they're the same wattage. Imagine that. How can that be? I bet if that tunnel was just 400 feet long it would be dark at the end with the lights on all the way to the end. We might see a bit of twilight, don't you think?Only you said anything about "a Sunset looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere"!
How can this be related to a Sunset looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere?
Where did you drag that rubbish from?
Plat Terra, what you're doing is called moving goalposts, and it is another act of fallacious logic. (please read up on it here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts )
When are you going to get it through that immensely thick skull of yours that this delusion is nothing more than a fantasy?
In the videos I posted did the Sun exit from bottom up?I still can't work out what you mean by "exit from bottom up". The real sun gets hidden by the horizon bottom first as does the moon.
A graph can't prove anything!Plat Terra, what you're doing is called moving goalposts, and it is another act of fallacious logic. (please read up on it here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts )
When are you going to get it through that immensely thick skull of yours that this delusion is nothing more than a fantasy?
No, it all has to do with your sunset post but in detail. You did leave out some important issues and I am still working on a graph. So, it's all related.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/9gx2rtvrzytmrx7/07-Weipa%20Sunset.jpg?dl=1) Sun near setting at Weipa | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/mda31bn2xh10x4w/13-Weipa%20Sunset.jpg?dl=1) Sunset at Weipa |
Plat Terra, what you're doing is called moving goalposts, and it is another act of fallacious logic. (please read up on it here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts )
When are you going to get it through that immensely thick skull of yours that this delusion is nothing more than a fantasy?
No, it all has to do with your sunset post but in detail. You did leave out some important issues and I am still working on a graph. So, it's all related.
In the videos I posted did the Sun exit from bottom up?I still can't work out what you mean by "exit from bottom up". The real sun gets hidden by the horizon bottom first as does the moon.
But until you admit that the sun and moon do not change in angular over a day or night we're done here!
Sure, the sun can appear to shrink when you are looking at the glare but if you are relying on that you are only deceiving yourself!
How many times are you going to igmore this video (by a flat earther, I might add!):
He takes good photos and videos showing that the sun and moon do not change in angular size from rising (or not long after) to setting (or not long before).
take a look at:
Flat Earth - The Size Of The Sun, Matrix Decode
What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?You're supposed to be the flat earth expert!
You tell us the distance to the sun from the viewer at sunrise, when overhead and at sunset?
No, this Earth does not have various types of sunsets.In the videos I posted did the Sun exit from bottom up?I still can't work out what you mean by "exit from bottom up". The real sun gets hidden by the horizon bottom first as does the moon.
But until you admit that the sun and moon do not change in angular over a day or night we're done here!
Sure, the sun can appear to shrink when you are looking at the glare but if you are relying on that you are only deceiving yourself!
How many times are you going to igmore this video (by a flat earther, I might add!):
He takes good photos and videos showing that the sun and moon do not change in angular size from rising (or not long after) to setting (or not long before).
take a look at:
Flat Earth - The Size Of The Sun, Matrix Decode
You’re not stupid, you know exactly what I mean. “Does the appear to darken from bottom up like in your beloved videos and pictures.” No it doesn’t.
This Earth has various types of sunsets and only one fits your theory and the others don’t. You know, the ones you cherry pick and reject and say this one proves Earth is a sphere.
We accept them all and study them and learn and don’t say your chosen one is fake and try to explain it away.I never said any were fake and I gave simple reasons why they appeared as they did. I could show you some weird ones, like this:
We have no reason to do so. We know the Earth is a Plane without the issue of sunsets. I know why it appears to go over a curve and hope to articulate it soon.You cannot claim to "know the Earth is a Plane".
What really ticks me off, is most of what your guys claim as actually proof of a sphere is really inconclusive and you know it,Sorry, but there's nothing inconclusive about it!
but you push it anyway as absolute truth.Not so! THE TRUTH is a flat earther's claim as you proved with your "We know the Earth is a Plane".
This is so deceitful, shameful, unethical and intellectually dishonest.Stop pretending that you have the high ground when you've done little more than post deceptive memes that prove your own ignorance of the Globe and how it work.
And it goes on with NASA’s lies you guys defend. You can tell they fake videos but can’t admit it because you can’t stand to be wrong on this issue and don’t want to lose. And so on…………………………
Oh, no, I have not ignored the video you posted. It has been very helpful as you will see. Thank you!I see more deception coming up in the form of stupid meaningless meme's.
Just in case you missed it.Well you pretend to be, so I repeat, "You tell us the distance to the sun from the viewer at sunrise, when overhead and at sunset?"What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?You're supposed to be the flat earth expert!
You tell us the distance to the sun from the viewer at sunrise, when overhead and at sunset?
I'm not a Flat Earth expert.
But I am proof that someone with a high school education can school you guys with degrees of education because your belief is a fallacy. That doesn't really look good for you and your theory, does it?I assume you failed high school physics, maths, logic and have never learnt anything about photography - it shows!
This Earth has various types of sunsets and only one fits your theory and the others don’t. You know, the ones you cherry pick and reject and say this one proves Earth is a sphere. We accept them all and study them and learn and don’t say your chosen one is fake and try to explain it away. We have no reason to do so. We know the Earth is a Plane without the issue of sunsets. I know why it appears to go over a curve and hope to articulate it soon.
Knowledge, my own observation and common sense. Don't you and I live in and breathe the same layer of atmosphere? Isn’t the atmosphere dense with water vapor, rain, fog, and smog? I live in the USA, how far away do you live?No, it isn't. Not after you get to any significant height.
I'm not a Flat Earth expert. But I am proof that someone with a high school education can school you guys with degrees of education because your belief is a fallacy. That doesn't really look good for you and your theory, does it?You mean you are proof that any idiot can come along and spout a load of garbage and repeatedly have their ass handed to them, yet still ignore it all and pretend they have defeated the RE.
Just in case you missed it.You haven't schooled anyone. You've been shot down multiple times and shown that you don't understand the subject.What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?You're supposed to be the flat earth expert!
You tell us the distance to the sun from the viewer at sunrise, when overhead and at sunset?
I'm not a Flat Earth expert. But I am proof that someone with a high school education can school you guys with degrees of education because your belief is a fallacy. That doesn't really look good for you and your theory, does it?
Wow, the light gets darker at the end of the tunnel, yet they're the same wattage. Imagine that. How can that be? I bet if that tunnel was just 400 feet long it would be dark at the end with the lights on all the way to the end. We might see a bit of twilight, don't you think?
How can this be related to a Sunset looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere?
(https://i.imgur.com/gGP5Txm.jpg)
The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion. 1Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance increases. List what else should be included.
A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective. Will post a graph later.
Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/sun-size-flat-earth-model-southern-hemisphere.gif)
There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE. To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true. Take a look for yourself:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model
And then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.
We can see your Sunset and we see our sunset. Conditions have to be right for both occurrences. But it does not prove Earth is flat or a sphere.
We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom up, but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why?
The replay does not help your caseQuoteThe heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.2
the zooming in and out gives a false view of what is happening, and you don't let it set.QuoteThe heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.3
You see what you want to see here, but not a clear sky once again.QuoteThe heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.4
i don't need to say anymoreQuoteThe heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.5
Once again the hazel on the horizon,QuoteThe heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.6
Once again the hazel on the horizon,QuoteWill you now admit that sometimes the Sun appears to get smaller and fades away?yes it is an illusion.
Don't expect a sensible answer from the Flat Terrorist. He's just a troll trying to stir the pot with more Bubble, bubble, toil and Trouble.yes it is an illusion.
Woweee, plata.
Remeber back in pg10 or so i said to try the mirage theory on different days, not just the shttty cloudy ones?
Then latter on on pg50 or so you told US we had to provide YOU with "horizon eye level" tests over a period with varying weather conditions because, as you arrogantly said, "its science".
Now we re back full circle once again with a barrage of shtty photos/ vids om shitty weaher days.
How does that sun look on a clear day?
Come on man.
All this does make me wonder whether or not Plat ever thought if he or she were the first or the smartest to have a go at RE. And if there have been people before try it, why did they not succeed, what went wrong?Nah, Plat is a troll, simple as that. I don't believe Plat is a real flat-earther. He's just amused by the drama he causes by posting flagrant lies and ignoring rebuttals.
https://imgur.com/gallery/XBIOEvZ
Do you understand focal length, Plat?
https://imgur.com/gallery/XBIOEvZ
Do you understand focal length, Plat?
Yes, I do. So which one is more realistic?
https://imgur.com/gallery/XBIOEvZ
Do you understand focal length, Plat?
Yes, I do. So which one is more realistic?
Since they are all real, wouldn't they all be realistic?
https://imgur.com/gallery/XBIOEvZ
Do you understand focal length, Plat?
Yes, I do. So which one is more realistic?
Since they are all real, wouldn't they all be realistic?
No. As viewed in normal optics and distance.
Why does the radius of Earth keep changing as viewed for the alleged ISS?We have been over this before. You go your ass handed to you and then ran away remember?
No. As viewed in normal optics and distance.Define "normal", for both optics and distance. Especially as "Normal distance" for Earth would only be a few m above it, not 400 km.
We have been over this before. You go your ass handed to you and then ran away remember?
I dont remember it quite like that.Which isn't surprising considering how delusional you are.
I dont remember it quite like that.Which isn't surprising considering how delusional you are.
No where in this thread has he been able to expose any problem with the RE. So there is absolutely no reason for us "ballers" to admit defeat.
Meanwhile, he has repeatedly dodged the numerous issues with FE, so there is plenty of reason for FEers to admit defeat.
In the context of defending and being able to make a compelling case against his arguments, you have clearly failed. nearly 1800 posts later and you are still here regurgitating the same crap that clearly has not resonated or gotten through.Complete non-sequitur.
I'm just wanting to know how much curvature (arc) should be visible when viewed from the ISS with a human eye.Then why don't you do the math yourself?
And where is the picture?It is impossible to capture a picture to render on a flat monitor which properly depicts what the human eye sees.
NASA has no consistency with their pictures.No, there is plenty of consistency, just not when you compare it between vastly different cameras.
Why does the radius of Earth keep changing as viewed for the alleged ISS?Why do things look different when viewed with different lenses? You've been told before but apparently ignored it.
Can anyone here post a picture of what Earth’s horizon actually looks like as viewed for the alleged ISS?
(https://i.imgur.com/rlPhjzm.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TMSkZME.jpg)
I'm just wanting to know how much curvature (arc) should be visible when viewed from the ISS with a human eye. And where is the picture? What wrong with that?Unfortunately that question isn't as straightforward as you might think it should be. It helps to understand the difference between how the human eye and cameras work. This link might help:
Why can't I just point my camera at what I'm seeing and record that? It's a seemingly simple question. It's also one of the most complicated to answer, and requires delving into not only how a camera records light, but also how and why our eyes work the way they do.
NASA has no consistency with their pictures.Like most photographers, NASA astronauts use a variety lenses for their various photographs.
Like most photographers, NASA astronauts use a variety lenses for their various photographs.
Like most photographers, NASA astronauts use a variety lenses for their various photographs.
Given most images go through some photo editing software before they are published, surely the software can make a correction for lens distortion.
I'm just wanting to know how much curvature (arc) should be visible when viewed from the ISS with a human eye. And where is the picture? What wrong with that? NASA has no consistency with their pictures.
Like most photographers, NASA astronauts use a variety lenses for their various photographs.
Given most images go through some photo editing software before they are published, surely the software can make a correction for lens distortion.
Sure, if you so wish to change the properties of the lens that was used to capture the image. I'm not sure I get your point.
Why does the radius of Earth keep changing as viewed for the alleged ISS?It doesn't!
Can anyone here post a picture of what Earth’s horizon actually looks like as viewed for the alleged ISS?You just did "post" TWO pictures "of what Earth’s horizon actually looks like as viewed for the ISS"!
(https://i.imgur.com/rlPhjzm.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TMSkZME.jpg)
Ask them why, Earth’s shape is never uniform. Why?We don't have to "Ask them why Earth’s shape is never uniform" because the Earth’s shape is quite uniform!
The curve of the horizon depends on the field-of-view.
Sometimes might be distorted by the barrel distortion common on very wide-angle lenses or severely distorted by 180° fish-eye lenses!
Read this!
It is about the photographic equipment used on the ISS but since YOU do not publish the SOURCE of YOUR photos YOU can research what cameras and lenses were used!Quote from: John AldredThis is the camera gear that NASA use on the International Space Station (https://www.diyphotography.net/camera-gear-nasa-use-international-space-station/)
(https://www.diyphotography.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/iss_photography.jpg.optimal.jpg)
Recently, in a Space Station Live stream, American astronaut Jeff Williams received the question again and went into some detail on the equipment they use on the ISS.
Known for the high level of detail they can capture, wide dynamic range, and high ISO performance, NASA’s weapon of choice today is the Nikon D4, of which the ISS houses several, along with a wide selection of Nikon lenses, including the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR shown the above photo.
Space Station Live: Williams Talks Candidly about Cameras
NASA range of lenses includes everything from super wide angle, to “several” of the massive Nikon 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR, which becomes 1120mm equivalent when used with the Nikon AF-S FX TC-14E III 1.4x Teleconverter.
(https://www.diyphotography.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/iss_d4_800.jpg.optimal.jpg)
<< See the rest at the link. >>
I talked with a couple Optics Manufacturing Specialist today about the photos of Earth taken from the alleged ISS. Both were happy to help with my concerns, and both found that what I had to say and questions interesting. One in particular said, “Iv’ not seen that before, I have Google ready”, after I said NASA’s has pictures of Earth without any curve. He found the pictures and was speechless for a few moments. I asked, how can a curved surface display such a straight horizon? He was still speechless. I asked again, and he said “you can’t.”You did, did you? Then either:
I also learned that only a horizontal line will bow (distortion) perfectly to a concave shape or convex shape. But a curved line cannot distort to a straight line or convex to a perfect round line, but will become compressed and warp.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8mmr3tn2owiwcup/Straight%20Lines%20Become%20Curves%20-%20Barrel%20Distortion.png?dl=1) An image with curved lines | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/hofj6i3xe7ufjic/Curved%20Lines%20Become%20Straight%20-%20Corrected%20Distortion.png?dl=1) Made straight again with lens causing pincushion distortion. |
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/q2eagb8a9qy5b8x/Convex%20Curve.png?dl=1) An image with a convex curve | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/tp2j3npg1ektvpc/Convex%20Curve%20straightened%20barrel%20distortion.png?dl=1) straightened by barrel-distortion. |
The reason for some of NASA’s pictures not having the same curvature at the same distance has to do with the intentional position of the camera at such an angle that distorts the horizon to a convex shape they choose. They cherry pick the angle of the camera to make it appear Earth is curved when it’s clearly not and never get the angle quite right to match all pictures.No! "The reason for some of NASA’s pictures not having the same curvature at the same distance" is that different lens focal lengths are used!
So all the videos using a fisheye lens, showing the horizon with a perfect horizon in a still shot belong to a horizontal line and not a curved line. So again, yes NASA fakes pictures of Earth by tilting the camera containing a fisheye lens.No! "The reason for some of NASA’s pictures not having the same curvature at the same distance" is that different lens focal lengths are use!
It makes me wonder if someone has been leaking real pictures or they posted by mistake. Either way these pictures do not belong to a curved Earth.No! The pictures fit a curved a curved Earth perfectly!
The science of optics is the proof. And no, I don’t believe these pics were taken from some micro G environment. The ISS is not what they say it is.You seem to know nothing of the "science of optics"! Where did you dredge that up from?
https://www.countryliving.com/uk/news/a23659991/iss-astronaut-alexander-gerst-orbital-sunrise-photos/ (https://www.countryliving.com/uk/news/a23659991/iss-astronaut-alexander-gerst-orbital-sunrise-photos/)That photo only covers about 3° of angular width! Of course, the horizon looks flat!
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2047.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2047.html)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y6696K3.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/XBa79aO.jpg)As do these!
(https://i.imgur.com/AvpIVU2.jpg)
I'm just wanting to know how much curvature (arc) should be visible when viewed from the ISS with a human eye. And where is the picture? What wrong with that? NASA has no consistency with their pictures.
I talked with a couple Optics Manufacturing Specialist today about the photos of Earth taken from the alleged ISS. Both were happy to help with my concerns, and both found that what I had to say and questions interesting. One in particular said, “Iv’ not seen that before, I have Google ready”, after I said NASA’s has pictures of Earth without any curve. He found the pictures and was speechless for a few moments. I asked, how can a curved surface display such a straight horizon? He was still speechless. I asked again, and he said “you can’t.”You did, did you? Then either:
I also learned that only a horizontal line will bow (distortion) perfectly to a concave shape or convex shape. But a curved line cannot distort to a straight line or convex to a perfect round line, but will become compressed and warp.I'll put my money on the first option.
- You totally misunderstood what they meant or
- They must have been extremely ignorant ones.
Lens distortion, either barrel or pincushion, can easily make straight lines look curved and curved lines look straight!
Run of and learn a little about geometric distortion in lenses! Maybe read: Photographylife: What is Lens Distortion? By Nasim Mansurov (https://photographylife.com/what-is-distortion)
Look at this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/8mmr3tn2owiwcup/Straight%20Lines%20Become%20Curves%20-%20Barrel%20Distortion.png?dl=1)
An image with curved lines(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hofj6i3xe7ufjic/Curved%20Lines%20Become%20Straight%20-%20Corrected%20Distortion.png?dl=1)
Made straight again with lens causing pincushion distortion.
Another case, this time an image with a convex curve straightened by barrel-distortion:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/q2eagb8a9qy5b8x/Convex%20Curve.png?dl=1)
An image with a convex curve(https://www.dropbox.com/s/tp2j3npg1ektvpc/Convex%20Curve%20straightened%20barrel%20distortion.png?dl=1)
straightened by barrel-distortion.Quote from: Plat TerraThe reason for some of NASA’s pictures not having the same curvature at the same distance has to do with the intentional position of the camera at such an angle that distorts the horizon to a convex shape they choose. They cherry pick the angle of the camera to make it appear Earth is curved when it’s clearly not and never get the angle quite right to match all pictures.No! "The reason for some of NASA’s pictures not having the same curvature at the same distance" is that different lens focal lengths are used!Quote from: Plat TerraSo all the videos using a fisheye lens, showing the horizon with a perfect horizon in a still shot belong to a horizontal line and not a curved line. So again, yes NASA fakes pictures of Earth by tilting the camera containing a fisheye lens.No! "The reason for some of NASA’s pictures not having the same curvature at the same distance" is that different lens focal lengths are use!Quote from: Plat TerraIt makes me wonder if someone has been leaking real pictures or they posted by mistake. Either way these pictures do not belong to a curved Earth.No! The pictures fit a curved a curved Earth perfectly!Quote from: Plat TerraThe science of optics is the proof. And no, I don’t believe these pics were taken from some micro G environment. The ISS is not what they say it is.You seem to know nothing of the "science of optics"! Where did you dredge that up from?
What YOU believe of the ISS does not change the facts in the slightest!Quote from: Plat Terrahttps://www.countryliving.com/uk/news/a23659991/iss-astronaut-alexander-gerst-orbital-sunrise-photos/ (https://www.countryliving.com/uk/news/a23659991/iss-astronaut-alexander-gerst-orbital-sunrise-photos/)That photo only covers about 3° of angular width! Of course, the horizon looks flat!
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2047.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2047.html)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y6696K3.jpg)Quote from: Plat Terra(https://i.imgur.com/XBa79aO.jpg)As do these!
(https://i.imgur.com/AvpIVU2.jpg)
Please stop wasting everybody's times and learn something about photography and the effect of different fields-of-view!
I'm just wanting to know how much curvature (arc) should be visible when viewed from the ISS with a human eye. And where is the picture? What wrong with that? NASA has no consistency with their pictures.
There will be one degree per 60 nautical miles.
Now scale it to camera angle and image size.
It is clear NASA fakes pictures into a sphere and you defend the lies. Shame on you!Yeah, rrright.
rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab
Like most photographers, NASA astronauts use a variety lenses for their various photographs.
Given most images go through some photo editing software before they are published, surely the software can make a correction for lens distortion.
Sure, if you so wish to change the properties of the lens that was used to capture the image. I'm not sure I get your point.
I get that NASA might want to use a lens that has a slight distortion to capture a wide field of view. To capture as much picture as they can. A fish eye lens can capture more image then a flat lens could but the fish eye lens isn't really telling you the truth. Just walk into a house you want to buy that looked really spacious on the photo but quite small in reality.
Surely Photoshop or others can correct the distortion but keep the pretty picture?
Can't you do anything for yourself?But what about distance to the horizon and width of the horizon?I'm just wanting to know how much curvature (arc) should be visible when viewed from the ISS with a human eye. And where is the picture? What wrong with that? NASA has no consistency with their pictures.
There will be one degree per 60 nautical miles.
Now scale it to camera angle and image size.
This is the curvature at 70,000'. Now add 250 miles.Where did you drag that useless image from?
(https://i.imgur.com/YTJQ42E.jpg)
What defeat looks like:In other words you've nothing useful for to add! I knew that long ago.rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab
Rab still rabbin' on after 20,000 posts and no one gives a damn!
What defeat looks like:In other words you've nothing useful for to add! I knew that long ago.rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab rab
Rab still rabbin' on after 20,000 posts and no one gives a damn!
Next……No, why would it?
How does your sphere earth maintain balance?
Surly after so many years maintenance needs to be done to keep earths spin smooth, right?
How is it done according to your theory?Nothing has to be done according to fact!
Or did they forget about this too?No, but it is a topic that's been carefully studied for many centuries because until very recently the earth's period of rotation has been our time reference.
Give me one post in your 20,000+ posts that is of any use at all. Show me one FE'er whose mind you changedThat is quite irrelevant because the OP topic is "when will the RE community accept defeat."
Surely Photoshop or others can correct the distortion but keep the pretty picture?No, they can't.
Surely Photoshop or others can correct the distortion but keep the pretty picture?No, they can't.
Try correcting for the distortion of a fish eye lens with 180 degree FOV.
I talked with a couple Optics Manufacturing Specialist today about the photos of Earth taken from the alleged ISS. Both were happy to help with my concerns, and both found that what I had to say and questions interesting. One in particular said, “Iv’ not seen that before, I have Google ready”, after I said NASA’s has pictures of Earth without any curve. He found the pictures and was speechless for a few moments. I asked, how can a curved surface display such a straight horizon in a picture? He was still speechless. I asked again, and he said “it can’t.”And more lies from Plat.
I also learned that only a horizontal line will bow (distortion) perfectly to a concave shape or convex shape. But a curved line cannot distort to a straight line or convex to a perfect round line, but will become compressed and warp.
In photography, distortion is generally referred to an optical aberration that deforms and bends physically straight lines and makes them appear curvy in imagesAre you really planning on taking the full-stupid option of claiming only perfectly straight lines will be distorted and non-straight lines will magically not get distorted?
Picture A - There are no pictures of ISS flying over the surface of this Earth.So are you saying it is a fake picture and not of the real Earth, because there are plenty of pictures of the ISS flying over the very real Earth we live on.
Which picture is best to use for selling the idea Earth is a sphere? A or B?I prefer the pictures from EPIC.
It is clear NASA fakes pictures into a sphere and you defend the lies. Shame on you!No, it is clear you are yet again lying about NASA so you can pretend that Earth is flat.
This is the curvature at 70,000'. Now add 250 miles.For how much of the horizon? Notice that key part you left out?
Next……So you abandon yet another nonsense claim and flee to another.
Surly after so many years maintenance needs to be done to keep earths spin smooth, right?Why should it?
The size of the picture will just fit in a larger dimension. Much like if you try and take a panoramic or 360 degree picture using multiple pictures joined togetherNo, not really like if you take a panoramic or 360 degree picture.
I talked with a couple Optics Manufacturing Specialist today about the photos of Earth taken from the alleged ISS. Both were happy to help with my concerns, and both found that what I had to say and questions interesting. One in particular said, “Iv’ not seen that before, I have Google ready”, after I said NASA’s has pictures of Earth without any curve. He found the pictures and was speechless for a few moments. I asked, how can a curved surface display such a straight horizon in a picture? He was still speechless. I asked again, and he said “it can’t.”
I also learned that only a horizontal line will bow (distortion) perfectly to a concave shape or convex shape. But a curved line cannot distort to a straight line or convex to a perfect round line, but will become compressed and warp.
The reason for some of NASA’s pictures not having the same curvature at the same distance has to do with the intentional position of the camera at such an angle that distorts the horizon to a convex shape they choose. They cherry pick the angle of the camera to make it appear Earth is curved when it’s clearly not and never get the angle quite right to match all pictures.
So all the videos using a fisheye lens, showing the horizon with a perfect horizon in a still shot belong to a horizontal line and not a curved line. So again, yes NASA fakes pictures of Earth by tilting the camera containing a fisheye lens.
It makes me wonder if someone has been leaking real pictures or they posted by mistake. Either way these pictures do not belong to a curved Earth. The science of optics is the proof. And no, I don’t believe these pics were taken from some micro G environment. The ISS is not what they say it is.
https://www.countryliving.com/uk/news/a23659991/iss-astronaut-alexander-gerst-orbital-sunrise-photos/ (https://www.countryliving.com/uk/news/a23659991/iss-astronaut-alexander-gerst-orbital-sunrise-photos/)
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2047.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2047.html)
(https://i.imgur.com/DJ8edM8.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y6696K3.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/XBa79aO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/AvpIVU2.jpg)
Next……The WGS-84 model is accepted as the definition of the size and shape of the earth.
How does your sphere earth maintain balance?
Surly after so many years maintenance needs to be done to keep earths spin smooth, right?
How is it done according to your theory?
Or did they forget about this too? :)
I talked with a couple Optics Manufacturing Specialist today about the photos of Earth taken from the alleged ISS. Both were happy to help with my concerns, and both found that what I had to say and questions interesting. One in particular said, “Iv’ not seen that before, I have Google ready”, after I said NASA’s has pictures of Earth without any curve. He found the pictures and was speechless for a few moments. I asked, how can a curved surface display such a straight horizon in a picture? He was still speechless. I asked again, and he said “it can’t.”Nobody believes to talked to any "Optics Manufacturing Specialists". You mean you watched some flat Earth videos making claims they couldn't back up. Failed appeal to authority. And ended with a lie. The horizon at ground level SHOULD appear flat and straight.
I also learned that only a horizontal line will bow (distortion) perfectly to a concave shape or convex shape. But a curved line cannot distort to a straight line or convex to a perfect round line, but will become compressed and warp.Another lie.
The reason for some of NASA’s pictures not having the same curvature at the same distance has to do with the intentional position of the camera at such an angle that distorts the horizon to a convex shape they choose. They cherry pick the angle of the camera to make it appear Earth is curved when it’s clearly not and never get the angle quite right to match all pictures.More lies. For the horizon to show what you claim it would have to ALWAYS be above the center of the image. It is not. Also, many pics are NOT using fish eye lenses as noted with the lack of distortion on foreground objects. Yet another fail from Plat Terra.
So all the videos using a fisheye lens, showing the horizon with a perfect horizon in a still shot belong to a horizontal line and not a curved line. So again, yes NASA fakes pictures of Earth by tilting the camera containing a fisheye lens.
Next……and on with the gish gallop
How does your sphere earth maintain balance?
Surly after so many years maintenance needs to be done to keep earths spin smooth, right?
How is it done according to your theory?
Or did they forget about this too? :)
Next……and on with the gish gallop
How does your sphere earth maintain balance?
Surly after so many years maintenance needs to be done to keep earths spin smooth, right?
How is it done according to your theory?
Or did they forget about this too? :)
Next……
How does your sphere earth maintain balance?
Surly after so many years maintenance needs to be done to keep earths spin smooth, right?
How is it done according to your theory?
Or did they forget about this too? :)
Next……
How does your sphere earth maintain balance?
Surly after so many years maintenance needs to be done to keep earths spin smooth, right?
How is it done according to your theory?
Or did they forget about this too? :)
We change the oil every 4,000 years, and rotate the air in the tires.
Next……
How does your sphere earth maintain balance?
Surly after so many years maintenance needs to be done to keep earths spin smooth, right?
How is it done according to your theory?
Or did they forget about this too? :)
We change the oil every 4,000 years, and rotate the air in the tires.
You have to think bigger.
I find it astonishing that there are people exist that actually believe the earth to be flat. The fact that 99.99% of the world's scientists and physicists believe and have demonstrated proof of a spherical earth and the FE folk have provided nothing means what exactly? They somehow got it all wrong?Wait for it .... shouldn't take too long
I guess we can all believe what we want at the end of the day, right? Be that a flat earth, that the moon is made of cheese or whatever!
I find it astonishing that there are people exist that actually believe the earth to be flat. The fact that 99.99% of the world's scientists and physicists believe and have demonstrated proof of a spherical earth and the FE folk have provided nothing means what exactly? They somehow got it all wrong?
I guess we can all believe what we want at the end of the day, right? Be that a flat earth, that the moon is made of cheese or whatever!
Next……
How does your sphere earth maintain balance?
Surly after so many years maintenance needs to be done to keep earths spin smooth, right?
How is it done according to your theory?
Or did they forget about this too? :)
We change the oil every 4,000 years, and rotate the air in the tires.
You have to think bigger.
Some can’t stand the idea a Plane Earth Map was actually made and is accurate, but it’s true. They want all to believe all maps were made with a Globe in mind, but it’s just more fantasy they push. If you would like to learn how to understand and use Gleason’s Flat Earth map please have a look the following video.
In 1893, Gleason published his flat Earth chrome "Is the Earth From Heaven” which gave many flat Earth proofs and explained his map.
(https://i.imgur.com/GwJw96G.jpg)
The Gleason's Map (1892) - The Masterpiece of a Genius | Flat Earth
What good does it do to light the candle of a fool?That depends on which fool you're talking about.
What good does it do to light the candle of a fool?
What good does it do to light the candle of a fool?
Some can’t stand the idea a Plane Earth Map was actually made and is accurate, but it’s true.No, it is not true. It is a blatant lie pushed by FEers to pretend they have a map, meanwhile they also claim that every FE map presetned is just an example whenever a problem with it is pointed out.
Some can’t stand the idea a Plane Earth Map was actually made and is accurate, but it’s true. They want all to believe all maps were made with a Globe in mind, but they lie and push more fantasy. If you would like to learn how to understand and use Gleason’s Flat Earth map please have a look the following video.
Some can’t stand the idea a Plane Earth Map was actually made and is accurate, but it’s true. They want all to believe all maps were made with a Globe in mind, but they lie and push more fantasy. If you would like to learn how to understand and use Gleason’s Flat Earth map please have a look the following video.
How many times are you going to assert crap like this? You couldn't solve the Southern Cross paradox; therefore the FE map has failed. Let me add a log to that fire:
A popular rebuttal to the FE map is the infamous Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia flight offered by Qantas. This flight does not work on the Gleason map. It is a real flight, offered almost daily (in both directions), and has an approximate time in flight of around 12 hours. If the Earth is flat, these commercial, non-military aircraft would need to be capable of supersonic flight and have fuel capacities beyond what those airframes are known to possess. In other words, they are not possible on a flat Earth.
I look forward to yet another dodge or outright ignore from you Plat.
Some can’t stand the idea a Plane Earth Map was actually made and is accurate, but it’s true. They want all to believe all maps were made with a Globe in mind, but they lie and push more fantasy. If you would like to learn how to understand and use Gleason’s Flat Earth map please have a look the following video.
How many times are you going to assert crap like this? You couldn't solve the Southern Cross paradox; therefore the FE map has failed. Let me add a log to that fire:
A popular rebuttal to the FE map is the infamous Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia flight offered by Qantas. This flight does not work on the Gleason map. It is a real flight, offered almost daily (in both directions), and has an approximate time in flight of around 12 hours. If the Earth is flat, these commercial, non-military aircraft would need to be capable of supersonic flight and have fuel capacities beyond what those airframes are known to possess. In other words, they are not possible on a flat Earth.
I look forward to yet another dodge or outright ignore from you Plat.
Can I first see if you can answer a simple common sense question? I need to know if I would be wasting my time.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303)
Before wasting more time with your questions please explain how all places in the Southern Hemisphere see the Southern Celestial Pole (near Sigma Octantis) due south.Some can’t stand the idea a Plane Earth Map was actually made and is accurate, but it’s true. They want all to believe all maps were made with a Globe in mind, but they lie and push more fantasy. If you would like to learn how to understand and use Gleason’s Flat Earth map please have a look the following video.
How many times are you going to assert crap like this? You couldn't solve the Southern Cross paradox; therefore the FE map has failed. Let me add a log to that fire:
Before wasting more time with your questions please explain how Qantas flights QFA27 and QFA28 manage to fly Sydney, Australia to/from Santiago, Chile in the times claimed and without running out of fuel.Quote from: GumwarsA popular rebuttal to the FE map is the infamous Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia flight offered by Qantas. This flight does not work on the Gleason map. It is a real flight, offered almost daily (in both directions), and has an approximate time in flight of around 12 hours. If the Earth is flat, these commercial, non-military aircraft would need to be capable of supersonic flight and have fuel capacities beyond what those airframes are known to possess. In other words, they are not possible on a flat Earth.
No! You answer the above questions satisfactorily first!Quote from: GumwarsI look forward to yet another dodge or outright ignore from you Plat.
Can I first see if you can answer a simple common sense question? I need to know if I would be wasting my time.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303)Got the message yet, Plat Terra?
Can I first see if you can answer a simple common sense question? I need to know if I would be wasting my time.We have already been over this. You have a false dichotomy.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303)
Why are you afraid to post your crap directly in this thread?Some can’t stand the idea a Plane Earth Map was actually made and is accurate, but it’s true. They want all to believe all maps were made with a Globe in mind, but they lie and push more fantasy. If you would like to learn how to understand and use Gleason’s Flat Earth map please have a look the following video.
How many times are you going to assert crap like this? You couldn't solve the Southern Cross paradox; therefore the FE map has failed. Let me add a log to that fire:
A popular rebuttal to the FE map is the infamous Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia flight offered by Qantas. This flight does not work on the Gleason map. It is a real flight, offered almost daily (in both directions), and has an approximate time in flight of around 12 hours. If the Earth is flat, these commercial, non-military aircraft would need to be capable of supersonic flight and have fuel capacities beyond what those airframes are known to possess. In other words, they are not possible on a flat Earth.
I look forward to yet another dodge or outright ignore from you Plat.
Can I first see if you can answer a simple common sense question? I need to know if I would be wasting my time.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303)
Some can’t stand the idea a Plane Earth Map was actually made and is accurate, but it’s true. They want all to believe all maps were made with a Globe in mind, but they lie and push more fantasy. If you would like to learn how to understand and use Gleason’s Flat Earth map please have a look the following video.
How many times are you going to assert crap like this? You couldn't solve the Southern Cross paradox; therefore the FE map has failed. Let me add a log to that fire:
A popular rebuttal to the FE map is the infamous Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia flight offered by Qantas. This flight does not work on the Gleason map. It is a real flight, offered almost daily (in both directions), and has an approximate time in flight of around 12 hours. If the Earth is flat, these commercial, non-military aircraft would need to be capable of supersonic flight and have fuel capacities beyond what those airframes are known to possess. In other words, they are not possible on a flat Earth.
I look forward to yet another dodge or outright ignore from you Plat.
Can I first see if you can answer a simple common sense question? I need to know if I would be wasting my time.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303)
Yes, that specific flight crushes FE quite completely. Well, at least some of their maps (not sure I’ve seen all of them).
Has FE ever offered an explanation? Wise knows the flight just does not exist, though not sure everyone thinks the same.
I’ve thought the Gleason map is a moot point of sorts as it is a projection, no?
I’ve understood it can be used in showing several things, but not at all sure if it is valid for everything. So I guess it can be considered accurate in a way, yes.I’ve thought the Gleason map is a moot point of sorts as it is a projection, no?
Do you think it's a accurate Map?
I’ve understood it can be used in showing several things, but not at all sure if it is valid for everything. So I guess it can be considered accurate in a way, yes.I’ve thought the Gleason map is a moot point of sorts as it is a projection, no?
Do you think it's a accurate Map?
When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
Both the coastlines of Atlantic and Pacific are at 0' Sea level and both are 3,962 miles from Earths alleged center.
The distance between Oceans with the Panama Canal in-between is about 36 Miles.
The center of Panama Canal is about 18 miles from the coast on Gatun Lake and is 85’ above each Ocean shoreline.
The drop in curvature at 18 miles is 216’. That places Earth’s curvature at 216’ (3962 miles from center of Earth) feet above each coastline at center.
That also places Gatun Lake 131’ below Earths alleged 3962 mile radius marker.
That means if Earth were a Globe, the Panama Canal could not exist because Gatun Lake would be under 131’ of sea water at 18 miles from the Coast. The Canal exists because water does not curve.
It’s that simple, we won. We really never lost. Earth Remains a flat Plane with mountains, hills and valleys and sea level bodies of water.
But the real question is, when is the Globe community going to accept defeat?
NASA can't help them, fake pictures and fake moon landings cannot rescue them.
No argument they have is going to magically make the oceans curve and flood the Panama Canal, no matter what they say or do. It’s not going to happen. After reading this if one continues to defend a Globe Earth theory, they are just professional deniers who really don’t care for truth.
(https://i.imgur.com/soROEsV.jpg)
It is not an accurate map.Well, at least I doubt there is an ice wall there. Penguins are, though.
It is not an accurate map.
Lets try a thought experiment.
If we were in a two storey gym with an indoor track with glass floor.
Me on the upper (northern hemisphere).
You on lower (southern hemisphere).
We run at same speed and same lane around the track.
Rvlr is standing on roof lookibg down.
He sees only me because you are perfectly shadowing underneath me.
The only way for him to see you then is for you to move to an outter lane.
But you have to maintain my lap rate (not speed).
Now would you say it is accurate statement that you are running the same speed as me?
Since you are not smart, I will tell you the answer is no.
Your flat map projection balloons out the sothern hemisphere so that it can be visible as a flat projection.
Whcih is what everyone keeps telking you and you keep not understanding.
Antartica is not a giant ring surrounding the known world.
It is a "small" island that can be easily navigated around.
Keep on failing.
(https://i.imgur.com/4xn18qJ.jpg)
Lets try a thought experiment.
If we were in a two storey gym with an indoor track with glass floor.
Me on the upper (northern hemisphere).
You on lower (southern hemisphere).
We run at same speed and same lane around the track.
Rvlr is standing on roof lookibg down.
He sees only me because you are perfectly shadowing underneath me.
The only way for him to see you then is for you to move to an outter lane.
But you have to maintain my lap rate (not speed).
Now would you say it is accurate statement that you are running the same speed as me?
Since you are not smart, I will tell you the answer is no.
Your flat map projection balloons out the sothern hemisphere so that it can be visible as a flat projection.
Whcih is what everyone keeps telking you and you keep not understanding.
Antartica is not a giant ring surrounding the known world.
It is a "small" island that can be easily navigated around.
Keep on failing.
None of what you said changes the fact many in the Globe community still disagree with you. Again, learn from them and report back.
Because Plat Terra is too scared to post his arguments here(https://i.imgur.com/4xn18qJ.jpg)
You could if the football field had the same contrast with everything around it that the ISS has when lit up in space.
Plus, these guys measured the altitude of the ISS using a method anyone can try for themselves. They found it to be about 400 km up.
and haven't you posted this one before? Run out of arguments to get shot down or did you just forget? On to the next gish gallop?
Duh. Again because you're too scared to post your arguments in the thread they're being discussed. But IIRC this isn't the first time you've had this particular argument.Because Plat Terra is too scared to post his arguments here(https://i.imgur.com/4xn18qJ.jpg)
You could if the football field had the same contrast with everything around it that the ISS has when lit up in space.
Plus, these guys measured the altitude of the ISS using a method anyone can try for themselves. They found it to be about 400 km up.
and haven't you posted this one before? Run out of arguments to get shot down or did you just forget? On to the next gish gallop?
It' looks like you posted it here.
Please take the second picture, draw a box the size of a football field to scale in relation to the size of Florida in the picture and as viewed from the alleged ISS. Let's really see if you can see it with the naked eye.
Because Plat Terra is too scared to post his arguments here(https://i.imgur.com/4xn18qJ.jpg)
You could if the football field had the same contrast with everything around it that the ISS has when lit up in space.
Plus, these guys measured the altitude of the ISS using a method anyone can try for themselves. They found it to be about 400 km up.
and haven't you posted this one before? Run out of arguments to get shot down or did you just forget? On to the next gish gallop?
It' looks like you posted it here.
Please take the second picture, draw a box the size of a football field to scale in relation to the size of Florida in the picture and as viewed from the alleged ISS. Let's really see if you can see it with the naked eye.
Because Plat Terra is too scared to post his arguments here(https://i.imgur.com/4xn18qJ.jpg)
You could if the football field had the same contrast with everything around it that the ISS has when lit up in space.
Plus, these guys measured the altitude of the ISS using a method anyone can try for themselves. They found it to be about 400 km up.
and haven't you posted this one before? Run out of arguments to get shot down or did you just forget? On to the next gish gallop?
It' looks like you posted it here.
Please take the second picture, draw a box the size of a football field to scale in relation to the size of Florida in the picture and as viewed from the alleged ISS. Let's really see if you can see it with the naked eye.
I don't know about an American Football field, but you can see a soccer pitch from space so I don't know what your point is with this meme.
"The images were captured with DigitalGlobe satellites WorldView-3 and WorldView-4 at true 30 cm spatial resolution – the highest resolution currently commercially available. This allows football fans a unique view of where the 64 games that will decide this summer’s World Cup will be played."
(https://i.imgur.com/gpXyEDD.png?1)
Because Plat Terra is too scared to post his arguments here(https://i.imgur.com/4xn18qJ.jpg)
You could if the football field had the same contrast with everything around it that the ISS has when lit up in space.
Plus, these guys measured the altitude of the ISS using a method anyone can try for themselves. They found it to be about 400 km up.
and haven't you posted this one before? Run out of arguments to get shot down or did you just forget? On to the next gish gallop?
It' looks like you posted it here.
Please take the second picture, draw a box the size of a football field to scale in relation to the size of Florida in the picture and as viewed from the alleged ISS. Let's really see if you can see it with the naked eye.
I don't know about an American Football field, but you can see a soccer pitch from space so I don't know what your point is with this meme.
"The images were captured with DigitalGlobe satellites WorldView-3 and WorldView-4 at true 30 cm spatial resolution – the highest resolution currently commercially available. This allows football fans a unique view of where the 64 games that will decide this summer’s World Cup will be played."
(https://i.imgur.com/gpXyEDD.png?1)
What do you not understand about the meaning "Naked eye?"
Because Plat Terra is too scared to post his arguments here(https://i.imgur.com/4xn18qJ.jpg)
You could if the football field had the same contrast with everything around it that the ISS has when lit up in space.
Plus, these guys measured the altitude of the ISS using a method anyone can try for themselves. They found it to be about 400 km up.
and haven't you posted this one before? Run out of arguments to get shot down or did you just forget? On to the next gish gallop?
It' looks like you posted it here.
Please take the second picture, draw a box the size of a football field to scale in relation to the size of Florida in the picture and as viewed from the alleged ISS. Let's really see if you can see it with the naked eye.
I don't know about an American Football field, but you can see a soccer pitch from space so I don't know what your point is with this meme.
"The images were captured with DigitalGlobe satellites WorldView-3 and WorldView-4 at true 30 cm spatial resolution – the highest resolution currently commercially available. This allows football fans a unique view of where the 64 games that will decide this summer’s World Cup will be played."
(https://i.imgur.com/gpXyEDD.png?1)
What do you not understand about the meaning "Naked eye?"
(https://i.imgur.com/QovwlcF.jpg)
Gleason MAP, miles from Sydney, Australia to Santiago.And just what are all those numbers meant to be?
Many in the Globe community disagree with you. Learn from them and report back.As a flat map of a flat Earth it is massively inaccurate.
Please take the second picture, draw a box the size of a football field to scale in relation to the size of Florida in the picture and as viewed from the alleged ISS. Let's really see if you can see it with the naked eye.You mean something like this (note: I haven't bothered checking the scale and instead just gave the worst case scenario, based upon the limit of resolution of the camera, and remember, this is naked eye, not well resolved with binoculars):
Another fail from Plat Terra on the meme thread(https://i.imgur.com/QovwlcF.jpg)
Plat needs to look into the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day. The Earth actually turns 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds. That is a sidereal day, relative to the stars. But in that time it has gone a little bit around the Sun and it takes the full 24 hours to turn enough to face the Sun again. That difference over 6 months adds up to about 12 hours. So there is no problem except yet more proof that Plat Terra doesn't understand the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/S/Sidereal+Day
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/SiderealDay.html
(http://sureshemre.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/sidereal_solar_explanation.jpg)
I do understand that every time there is a problem with your theory, you guys have to make up more convoluted crap to protect your already beloved convoluted theory.You mean we all understand that as you are completely incapable of showing any problem with the reality of a RE you need to invent a pathetic strawman and attack that instead because you know you stand no chance at attacking the real thing.
A sidereal day is irrelevant to the movement of the Sun. If a sidereal days actually existed then we would have 366 sunrises is a 365 day year.That is completely the wrong way around.
Gleason MAP, miles from Sydney, Australia to Santiago.Incorrect!
(https://i.imgur.com/kKfkgLs.jpg)
and you only continue to prove you don't understand the subject. Nothing has been made up. Sidereal days have been known about long before flatties ever first misunderstood the subject thinking there should be a problem.Another fail from Plat Terra on the meme thread(https://i.imgur.com/QovwlcF.jpg)
Plat needs to look into the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day. The Earth actually turns 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds. That is a sidereal day, relative to the stars. But in that time it has gone a little bit around the Sun and it takes the full 24 hours to turn enough to face the Sun again. That difference over 6 months adds up to about 12 hours. So there is no problem except yet more proof that Plat Terra doesn't understand the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/S/Sidereal+Day
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/SiderealDay.html
(http://sureshemre.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/sidereal_solar_explanation.jpg)
I do understand that every time there is a problem with your theory, you guys have to make up more convoluted crap to protect your already beloved convoluted theory.
A sidereal time is irrelevant to the movement of the Sun. If a sidereal days actually existed then we would have 366 sunrises is a 365 day year.
The Sidereal Confusion Exposed
Gleason MAP, miles from Sydney, Australia to Santiago.Incorrect!
(https://i.imgur.com/kKfkgLs.jpg)
Sydney is at 33.8688° S, 151.2093° E and Santiago at 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W.
So the distance on the Gleason Map (with an overall diameter of 40,000 km) is about 25,700 km!
Simply scaling in from the map, taking the North Pole to Equator distance as 10,000 km, gets close to my value, not yours!
Your aren't very good at this flat earth stuff either, are you?
Some can’t stand the idea a Plane Earth Map was actually made and is accurate, but it’s true. They want all to believe all maps were made with a Globe in mind, but it’s just more fantasy they push. If you would like to learn how to understand and use Gleason’s Flat Earth map please have a look the following video.
In 1893, Gleason published his flat Earth chrome "Is the Earth From Heaven” which gave many flat Earth proofs and explained his map.
(https://i.imgur.com/GwJw96G.jpg)
The Gleason's Map (1892) - The Masterpiece of a Genius | Flat Earth
There's no such thing as a flat earth map. All of the "maps" used as flat earth models are globe projections. Even Gleason, in his patent filing of his map said so:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
(https://i.imgur.com/7vhoajb.jpg)
No, I am not complaining about any "One degree off on longitude"!Gleason MAP, miles from Sydney, Australia to Santiago.Incorrect!
(https://i.imgur.com/kKfkgLs.jpg)
Sydney is at 33.8688° S, 151.2093° E and Santiago at 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W.
So the distance on the Gleason Map (with an overall diameter of 40,000 km) is about 25,700 km!
Simply scaling in from the map, taking the North Pole to Equator distance as 10,000 km, gets close to my value, not yours!
Your aren't very good at this flat earth stuff either, are you?
He didn’t use a computer but measured by hand. So what , he rounded up and down. And Santiago is not on the map, yet he estimated Santiago to be at 33° Latitude and 71.5°. Longitude.
One degree off on longitude with an estimation and you’re complaining with incorrect, WOW!!
A sidereal time is irrelevant to the movement of the Sun.That's right. A sidereal day is based on the earth's rotation relative to the stars, not the sun. That's why it's different from solar time.
Some can’t stand the idea a Plane Earth Map was actually made and is accurate, but it’s true. They want all to believe all maps were made with a Globe in mind, but it’s just more fantasy they push. If you would like to learn how to understand and use Gleason’s Flat Earth map please have a look the following video.
In 1893, Gleason published his flat Earth chrome "Is the Earth From Heaven” which gave many flat Earth proofs and explained his map.
(https://i.imgur.com/GwJw96G.jpg)
The Gleason's Map (1892) - The Masterpiece of a Genius | Flat Earth
There's no such thing as a flat earth map. All of the "maps" used as flat earth models are globe projections. Even Gleason, in his patent filing of his map said so:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
(https://i.imgur.com/7vhoajb.jpg)
Gleason spent many years developing his map and flat Earth Book which he published within the next year of patenting his map.
Tell me, how gullible and brainwashed does a Globe believer have to be, to believe a man that published a Flat Earth book also patented a Globe map a few months before?
Gleason spent many years developing his map and flat Earth Book which he published within the next year of patenting his map.
Tell me, how gullible and brainwashed does a Globe believer have to be, to believe a man that published a Flat Earth book also patented a Globe map a few months before?
No, I am not complaining about any "One degree off on longitude"!Gleason MAP, miles from Sydney, Australia to Santiago.Incorrect!
(https://i.imgur.com/kKfkgLs.jpg)
Sydney is at 33.8688° S, 151.2093° E and Santiago at 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W.
So the distance on the Gleason Map (with an overall diameter of 40,000 km) is about 25,700 km!
Simply scaling in from the map, taking the North Pole to Equator distance as 10,000 km, gets close to my value, not yours!
Your aren't very good at this flat earth stuff either, are you?
He didn’t use a computer but measured by hand. So what , he rounded up and down. And Santiago is not on the map, yet he estimated Santiago to be at 33° Latitude and 71.5°. Longitude.
One degree off on longitude with an estimation and you’re complaining with incorrect, WOW!!
One degree off has nothing to do with it! The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10,000 km so take a look at this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/083944zrnllpg1p/1892%20-%20Gleasons%20Map%20-%20Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%2025500%20km.jpg?dl=1)
You don't need to do anything but put a ruler over the distances to see that the Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile, to see that your 11,702 km is total fiction!
The Gleason Map is NOT an accurate Flat Earth and was never intended to be! It was patented as a Time Chart and not as a map!
No, I am not complaining about any "One degree off on longitude"!Gleason MAP, miles from Sydney, Australia to Santiago.Incorrect!
(https://i.imgur.com/kKfkgLs.jpg)
Sydney is at 33.8688° S, 151.2093° E and Santiago at 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W.
So the distance on the Gleason Map (with an overall diameter of 40,000 km) is about 25,700 km!
Simply scaling in from the map, taking the North Pole to Equator distance as 10,000 km, gets close to my value, not yours!
Your aren't very good at this flat earth stuff either, are you?
He didn’t use a computer but measured by hand. So what , he rounded up and down. And Santiago is not on the map, yet he estimated Santiago to be at 33° Latitude and 71.5°. Longitude.
One degree off on longitude with an estimation and you’re complaining with incorrect, WOW!!
One degree off has nothing to do with it! The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10,000 km so take a look at this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/083944zrnllpg1p/1892%20-%20Gleasons%20Map%20-%20Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%2025500%20km.jpg?dl=1)
You don't need to do anything but put a ruler over the distances to see that the Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile, to see that your 11,702 km is total fiction!
The Gleason Map is NOT an accurate Flat Earth and was never intended to be! It was patented as a Time Chart and not as a map!
You are being ID again and playing games.
The picture you posted with this post gives the miles from Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile. Look again. 11702 KM
Your method of measuring is incorrect. That’s your problem and not mine.
We all know, you can't accept you're wrong again but have to express even more ID.
(https://i.imgur.com/kKfkgLs.jpg)
No, I am not complaining about any "One degree off on longitude"!Gleason MAP, miles from Sydney, Australia to Santiago.Incorrect!
(https://i.imgur.com/kKfkgLs.jpg)
Sydney is at 33.8688° S, 151.2093° E and Santiago at 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W.
So the distance on the Gleason Map (with an overall diameter of 40,000 km) is about 25,700 km!
Simply scaling in from the map, taking the North Pole to Equator distance as 10,000 km, gets close to my value, not yours!
Your aren't very good at this flat earth stuff either, are you?
He didn’t use a computer but measured by hand. So what , he rounded up and down. And Santiago is not on the map, yet he estimated Santiago to be at 33° Latitude and 71.5°. Longitude.
One degree off on longitude with an estimation and you’re complaining with incorrect, WOW!!
One degree off has nothing to do with it! The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10,000 km so take a look at this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/083944zrnllpg1p/1892%20-%20Gleasons%20Map%20-%20Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%2025500%20km.jpg?dl=1)
You don't need to do anything but put a ruler over the distances to see that the Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile, to see that your 11,702 km is total fiction!
The Gleason Map is NOT an accurate Flat Earth and was never intended to be! It was patented as a Time Chart and not as a map!
You are being ID again and playing games.
The picture you posted with this post gives the miles from Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile. Look again. 11702 KM
Your method of measuring is incorrect. That’s your problem and not mine.
We all know, you can't accept you're wrong again but have to express even more ID.
(https://i.imgur.com/kKfkgLs.jpg)
What is the correct way to measure it then? Please describe.
The Gleason's map was patented a NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD and it says so right there on in the heading with the biggest letters, AND IT CAN BE USED AS A LONGITUDE TIME CACULATOR!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
No, I am not complaining about any "One degree off on longitude"!Gleason MAP, miles from Sydney, Australia to Santiago.Incorrect!
(https://i.imgur.com/kKfkgLs.jpg)
Sydney is at 33.8688° S, 151.2093° E and Santiago at 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W.
So the distance on the Gleason Map (with an overall diameter of 40,000 km) is about 25,700 km!
Simply scaling in from the map, taking the North Pole to Equator distance as 10,000 km, gets close to my value, not yours!
Your aren't very good at this flat earth stuff either, are you?
He didn’t use a computer but measured by hand. So what , he rounded up and down. And Santiago is not on the map, yet he estimated Santiago to be at 33° Latitude and 71.5°. Longitude.
One degree off on longitude with an estimation and you’re complaining with incorrect, WOW!!
One degree off has nothing to do with it! The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10,000 km so take a look at this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/083944zrnllpg1p/1892%20-%20Gleasons%20Map%20-%20Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%2025500%20km.jpg?dl=1)
You don't need to do anything but put a ruler over the distances to see that the Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile, to see that your 11,702 km is total fiction!
The Gleason Map is NOT an accurate Flat Earth and was never intended to be! It was patented as a Time Chart and not as a map!
You are being ID again and playing games.
The picture you posted with this post gives the miles from Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile. Look again. 11702 KM
Your method of measuring is incorrect. That’s your problem and not mine.
We all know, you can't accept you're wrong again but have to express even more ID.
(https://i.imgur.com/kKfkgLs.jpg)
What is the correct way to measure it then? Please describe.
It's in the video I posted a couple pages back. Here is is again. I cannot easily describe it. If you really want to know LEARN ABOUT IT through the video.
The Gleason's map was patented a NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD and it says so right there on in the heading with the biggest letters, AND IT CAN BE USED AS A LONGITUDE TIME CACULATOR!No, Mr Plat Terra, read the patent application!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You might like to read: Gleason's Map (https://embracetheball.blogspot.com/2016/02/gleasons-map.html) and here is a little extract:QuoteWell, we certainly know what he said on his US Patent application from 1895. Here is Gleason's concept drawing as submitted:Just note again that bit from the patent application: "The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Rsvz4pCdpPI/VrwGj9W9cfI/AAAAAAAADoo/XaJFwf9O5Fk/s1600/GleasonDwg.png)You can read the entire patent, which describes the map's use as a time calculator for students. But the most important passage from the flat-Earth standpoint is this:The use of "extorted" in the sense of "distorted" is interesting here, but the intent is clear; the map is not "as it is" (which I think may have been a slogan of the map's publisher), but a projection that preserves the positions with regard to longitude lines, but not the distances between them (distances between lines of latitude, however, are preserved). And note his phrasing "the equator to the two poles." A flat Earth does not have two poles.
The map is not so extorted as to lose the relative latitude and longitude of any places on the land or sea, but retains all latitudes and longitudes of places agreeing with other recognized authors; and as the proper relations of continents and countries all stand in their relative position to each other, they are thus impressed upon the mind of the student. The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles.
From: Gleason's Map (https://embracetheball.blogspot.com/2016/02/gleasons-map.html)
A. GLEASON
TIME CHART
The Gleason's map was patented a NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD and it says so right there on in the heading with the biggest letters, AND IT CAN BE USED AS A LONGITUDE TIME CACULATOR!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Cool, but it was not new as a map. It got the patent because of the "time calculator", not the map itself. That map is an old AE globe projection, nothing new and every much a globe.
Gleason's own words in the patent filing:
From Gleason's patent filing of his map:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
The Gleason's map was patented a NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD and it says so right there on in the heading with the biggest letters, AND IT CAN BE USED AS A LONGITUDE TIME CACULATOR!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Cool, but it was not new as a map. It got the patent because of the "time calculator", not the map itself. That map is an old AE globe projection, nothing new and every much a globe.
Gleason's own words in the patent filing:
From Gleason's patent filing of his map:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
Again. Tell me, how gullible and brainwashed does a Globe believer have to be, to believe a man that published a Flat Earth book also patented a Globe map a few months before? We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
And you don’t know what was going through the mind of Gleason when he penned those words in his patent. We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
(https://i.imgur.com/w4TB6CZ.jpg)
Again. Tell me, how gullible and brainwashed does a Globe believer have to be, to believe a man that published a Flat Earth book also patented a Globe map a few months before? We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.If he published it as a Flat Earth map he made a real hash of it because it is proveably quite inaccurate as a Flat Earth map - get used to it!
The Gleason's map was patented a NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD and it says so right there on in the heading with the biggest letters, AND IT CAN BE USED AS A LONGITUDE TIME CACULATOR!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Cool, but it was not new as a map. It got the patent because of the "time calculator", not the map itself. That map is an old AE globe projection, nothing new and every much a globe.
Gleason's own words in the patent filing:
From Gleason's patent filing of his map:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
Again. Tell me, how gullible and brainwashed does a Globe believer have to be, to believe a man that published a Flat Earth book also patented a Globe map a few months before? We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
And you don’t know what was going through the mind of Gleason when he penned those words in his patent. We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
(https://i.imgur.com/w4TB6CZ.jpg)
I understand why it's confusing to you, but that doesn't change the fact that the Gleason map is nothing but the old AE globe projection. Sorry, that's just a fact. What is unique to the Gleason patent is the "time calculator". That's all. Not the map itself.
It also doesn't change the fact that your guy in the video is using a globe coordinate system to calculate distance. Just like everyone does today; calculates distance based upon a spherical earth. Sorry again, those are just the facts. You may not like the facts, but they are the facts none the less.
The Gleason's map was patented a NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD and it says so right there on in the heading with the biggest letters, AND IT CAN BE USED AS A LONGITUDE TIME CACULATOR!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Cool, but it was not new as a map. It got the patent because of the "time calculator", not the map itself. That map is an old AE globe projection, nothing new and every much a globe.
Gleason's own words in the patent filing:
From Gleason's patent filing of his map:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
Again. Tell me, how gullible and brainwashed does a Globe believer have to be, to believe a man that published a Flat Earth book also patented a Globe map a few months before? We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
And you don’t know what was going through the mind of Gleason when he penned those words in his patent. We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
(https://i.imgur.com/w4TB6CZ.jpg)
I understand why it's confusing to you, but that doesn't change the fact that the Gleason map is nothing but the old AE globe projection. Sorry, that's just a fact. What is unique to the Gleason patent is the "time calculator". That's all. Not the map itself.
It also doesn't change the fact that your guy in the video is using a globe coordinate system to calculate distance. Just like everyone does today; calculates distance based upon a spherical earth. Sorry again, those are just the facts. You may not like the facts, but they are the facts none the less.
Yup, you made a brainwashed Globie out of me. The Gleason’s New Standard Map of the World with a moving and spiraling Sun is a map of a Globe.
This is from the bottom left corner of the Map.
(https://i.imgur.com/Bq8VTRj.jpg)
Tell me some more lies.
The Gleason's map was patented a NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD and it says so right there on in the heading with the biggest letters, AND IT CAN BE USED AS A LONGITUDE TIME CACULATOR!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Cool, but it was not new as a map. It got the patent because of the "time calculator", not the map itself. That map is an old AE globe projection, nothing new and every much a globe.
Gleason's own words in the patent filing:
From Gleason's patent filing of his map:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
Again. Tell me, how gullible and brainwashed does a Globe believer have to be, to believe a man that published a Flat Earth book also patented a Globe map a few months before? We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
And you don’t know what was going through the mind of Gleason when he penned those words in his patent. We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
(https://i.imgur.com/w4TB6CZ.jpg)
I understand why it's confusing to you, but that doesn't change the fact that the Gleason map is nothing but the old AE globe projection. Sorry, that's just a fact. What is unique to the Gleason patent is the "time calculator". That's all. Not the map itself.
It also doesn't change the fact that your guy in the video is using a globe coordinate system to calculate distance. Just like everyone does today; calculates distance based upon a spherical earth. Sorry again, those are just the facts. You may not like the facts, but they are the facts none the less.
Yup, you made a brainwashed Globie out of me. The Gleason’s New Standard Map of the World with a moving and spiraling Sun is a map of a Globe.
This is from the bottom left corner of the Map.
(https://i.imgur.com/Bq8VTRj.jpg)
Tell me some more lies.
What's the point you're trying to make? Yeah, that's how the sun moves on an AE globe projection map. No mystery there. It's still a globe projection map, first rendered 100's of years earlier. If he made an AE South pole centered globe projection map that box would read exactly the same except the dates would be changed and where he put South would then be North. Still a globe projection map.
And Gleason says so in his patent filing:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
So I know it's hard to hear, but the Gleason map is nothing more than a globe projection and that's the fact Jack. No matter how much you wish it to be something that it's not doesn't change the facts. And it's becoming increasingly bizarre that you are so defending a globe map when I thought you were a flat earther.
The Gleason's map was patented a NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD and it says so right there on in the heading with the biggest letters, AND IT CAN BE USED AS A LONGITUDE TIME CACULATOR!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Cool, but it was not new as a map. It got the patent because of the "time calculator", not the map itself. That map is an old AE globe projection, nothing new and every much a globe.
Gleason's own words in the patent filing:
From Gleason's patent filing of his map:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
Again. Tell me, how gullible and brainwashed does a Globe believer have to be, to believe a man that published a Flat Earth book also patented a Globe map a few months before? We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
And you don’t know what was going through the mind of Gleason when he penned those words in his patent. We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
(https://i.imgur.com/w4TB6CZ.jpg)
I understand why it's confusing to you, but that doesn't change the fact that the Gleason map is nothing but the old AE globe projection. Sorry, that's just a fact. What is unique to the Gleason patent is the "time calculator". That's all. Not the map itself.
It also doesn't change the fact that your guy in the video is using a globe coordinate system to calculate distance. Just like everyone does today; calculates distance based upon a spherical earth. Sorry again, those are just the facts. You may not like the facts, but they are the facts none the less.
Yup, you made a brainwashed Globie out of me. The Gleason’s New Standard Map of the World with a moving and spiraling Sun is a map of a Globe.
This is from the bottom left corner of the Map.
(https://i.imgur.com/Bq8VTRj.jpg)
Tell me some more lies.
What's the point you're trying to make? Yeah, that's how the sun moves on an AE globe projection map. No mystery there. It's still a globe projection map, first rendered 100's of years earlier. If he made an AE South pole centered globe projection map that box would read exactly the same except the dates would be changed and where he put South would then be North. Still a globe projection map.
And Gleason says so in his patent filing:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
So I know it's hard to hear, but the Gleason map is nothing more than a globe projection and that's the fact Jack. No matter how much you wish it to be something that it's not doesn't change the facts. And it's becoming increasingly bizarre that you are so defending a globe map when I thought you were a flat earther.
There is no Globe, Jack! So it's not possible for it to be Globe projection. As time passed your guys took original established maps of Flat Earther's and made a Globe from that. Gleason corrected it through extortion, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich. It was not correct in Globe form and couldn't be anyway because it's not a damn sphere. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and made it into a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. And you're still being schooled.
The gleason's map would have you believe cape york peninsula in the Northern tip of Australia, is only about 400km from Melbourne, when in reality, it is close to 4,000km. Slightly incorrect by only 3,600km, wouldn't you agree, plat tera?
The Gleason's map was patented a NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD and it says so right there on in the heading with the biggest letters, AND IT CAN BE USED AS A LONGITUDE TIME CACULATOR!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Cool, but it was not new as a map. It got the patent because of the "time calculator", not the map itself. That map is an old AE globe projection, nothing new and every much a globe.
Gleason's own words in the patent filing:
From Gleason's patent filing of his map:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
Again. Tell me, how gullible and brainwashed does a Globe believer have to be, to believe a man that published a Flat Earth book also patented a Globe map a few months before? We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
And you don’t know what was going through the mind of Gleason when he penned those words in his patent. We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
(https://i.imgur.com/w4TB6CZ.jpg)
I understand why it's confusing to you, but that doesn't change the fact that the Gleason map is nothing but the old AE globe projection. Sorry, that's just a fact. What is unique to the Gleason patent is the "time calculator". That's all. Not the map itself.
It also doesn't change the fact that your guy in the video is using a globe coordinate system to calculate distance. Just like everyone does today; calculates distance based upon a spherical earth. Sorry again, those are just the facts. You may not like the facts, but they are the facts none the less.
Yup, you made a brainwashed Globie out of me. The Gleason’s New Standard Map of the World with a moving and spiraling Sun is a map of a Globe.
This is from the bottom left corner of the Map.
(https://i.imgur.com/Bq8VTRj.jpg)
Tell me some more lies.
What's the point you're trying to make? Yeah, that's how the sun moves on an AE globe projection map. No mystery there. It's still a globe projection map, first rendered 100's of years earlier. If he made an AE South pole centered globe projection map that box would read exactly the same except the dates would be changed and where he put South would then be North. Still a globe projection map.
And Gleason says so in his patent filing:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
So I know it's hard to hear, but the Gleason map is nothing more than a globe projection and that's the fact Jack. No matter how much you wish it to be something that it's not doesn't change the facts. And it's becoming increasingly bizarre that you are so defending a globe map when I thought you were a flat earther.
There is no Globe, Jack! So it's not possible for it to be Globe projection. As time passed your guys took original established maps of Flat Earther's and made a Globe from that. Gleason corrected it through extortion, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich. It was not correct in Globe form and couldn't be anyway because it's not a damn sphere. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and made it into a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. And you're still being schooled.
Your zero evidence rant still doesn't change the fact that the Gleason map is simply an AE globe projection - A globe projection that had been kicking around centuries before Gleason came along.
You're actually embarrassing yourself to claim otherwise and ironically defending a globe map.
The gleason's map would have you believe cape york peninsula in the Northern tip of Australia, is only about 400km from Melbourne, when in reality, it is close to 4,000km. Slightly incorrect by only 3,600km, wouldn't you agree, plat tera?
No. That's what you would have us believe, because your honor the map of theives.
Learn how to measure between points A and B (from the following video) and show us your telling the truth with your work.
Any Flat Earther shoud study this video. It's an incredible piece of work and shows the secrets of Gleason’s Flat Earth Map.
The Gleason's map was patented a NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD and it says so right there on in the heading with the biggest letters, AND IT CAN BE USED AS A LONGITUDE TIME CACULATOR!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Cool, but it was not new as a map. It got the patent because of the "time calculator", not the map itself. That map is an old AE globe projection, nothing new and every much a globe.
Gleason's own words in the patent filing:
From Gleason's patent filing of his map:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
Again. Tell me, how gullible and brainwashed does a Globe believer have to be, to believe a man that published a Flat Earth book also patented a Globe map a few months before? We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
And you don’t know what was going through the mind of Gleason when he penned those words in his patent. We know you can’t openly admit you have been brainwashed.
(https://i.imgur.com/w4TB6CZ.jpg)
I understand why it's confusing to you, but that doesn't change the fact that the Gleason map is nothing but the old AE globe projection. Sorry, that's just a fact. What is unique to the Gleason patent is the "time calculator". That's all. Not the map itself.
It also doesn't change the fact that your guy in the video is using a globe coordinate system to calculate distance. Just like everyone does today; calculates distance based upon a spherical earth. Sorry again, those are just the facts. You may not like the facts, but they are the facts none the less.
Yup, you made a brainwashed Globie out of me. The Gleason’s New Standard Map of the World with a moving and spiraling Sun is a map of a Globe.
This is from the bottom left corner of the Map.
(https://i.imgur.com/Bq8VTRj.jpg)
Tell me some more lies.
What's the point you're trying to make? Yeah, that's how the sun moves on an AE globe projection map. No mystery there. It's still a globe projection map, first rendered 100's of years earlier. If he made an AE South pole centered globe projection map that box would read exactly the same except the dates would be changed and where he put South would then be North. Still a globe projection map.
And Gleason says so in his patent filing:
"The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles."
So I know it's hard to hear, but the Gleason map is nothing more than a globe projection and that's the fact Jack. No matter how much you wish it to be something that it's not doesn't change the facts. And it's becoming increasingly bizarre that you are so defending a globe map when I thought you were a flat earther.
There is no Globe, Jack! So it's not possible for it to be Globe projection. As time passed your guys took original established maps of Flat Earther's and made a Globe from that. Gleason corrected it through extortion, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich. It was not correct in Globe form and couldn't be anyway because it's not a damn sphere. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and made it into a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. And you're still being schooled.
Your zero evidence rant still doesn't change the fact that the Gleason map is simply an AE globe projection - A globe projection that had been kicking around centuries before Gleason came along.
You're actually embarrassing yourself to claim otherwise and ironically defending a globe map.
There is no honor among thieves and those who defend them.
Flat Earth Maps existed long before your kind came along and stole our work. We don't believe your lies.
(https://i.imgur.com/As2X1zQ.jpg)
It's amazing the Mason symbol actually represents a Flat Earth. That's one of the secrets found in the Gleason map. The thieves and their kind have been exposed.
Can you see it?
(https://i.imgur.com/GGHydXQ.jpg)
The gleason's map would have you believe cape york peninsula in the Northern tip of Australia, is only about 400km from Melbourne, when in reality, it is close to 4,000km. Slightly incorrect by only 3,600km, wouldn't you agree, plat tera?
No. That's what you would have us believe, because your honor the map of theives.
Learn how to measure between points A and B (from the following video) and show us your telling the truth with your work.
Any Flat Earther shoud study this video. It's an incredible piece of work and shows the secrets of Gleason’s Flat Earth Map.
It is not an accurate map.
Many in the Globe community disagree with you. Learn from them and report back.
It's amazing the Mason symbol actually represents a Flat Earth. That's one of the secrets found in the Gleason map. The thieves and their kind have been exposed.You're not one these sillies that claim that the Globe is Freemason deception started around 300 BC.
It's amazing the Mason symbol actually represents a Flat Earth. That's one of the secrets found in the Gleason map. The thieves and their kind have been exposed.
Can you see it?
(https://i.imgur.com/GGHydXQ.jpg)
He didn’t use a computer but measured by handThat is pure BS.
he estimated Santiago to be at 33° LatitudeSo he estimated that Santiago was 33, and Sydney was 34, and thus further south, yet drew it further north? Sure.
You have some serious intellectually dishonesty problems. Our map is accurate and you can’t stand it! Get’s some help.Says the one that is completely ignoring arguments that demonstrate that they are completely wrong; the one who repeatedly resorts to lies, even in the very statement that follows a complaint about intellectual dishonesty.
It's in the video I posted a couple pages back. Here is is again. I cannot easily describe it. If you really want to know LEARN ABOUT IT through the video.A crappy 1.5 hour long video? No thanks.
There is no Globe, Jack! So it's not possible for it to be Globe projection.If there is no Globe what is that map a projection of? Read on the map itself:
As time passed your guys took original established maps of Flat Earther's and made a Globe from that. Gleason corrected it through extortion, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich. It was not correct in Globe form and couldn't be anyway because it's not a damn sphere. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and made it into a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. And you're still being schooled.I'll ignore you little fairy story!
Again. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and imagined the maps were a projection of a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. There is no Globe Earth and no real projection of a sphere but you welcome to believe what ever fantasy you like.There is no Globe, Jack! So it's not possible for it to be Globe projection.If there is no Globe what is that map a projection of? Read on the map itself:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Read it yourself, "ON THE PROJECTION OF J. S. CHRISTOPHER".
From long before the time of Gerardus Mercator "projection" in cartography has referred to the representation of the Globe onto a flat surface.Quote from: Plat TerraAs time passed your guys took original established maps of Flat Earther's and made a Globe from that. Gleason corrected it through extortion, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich. It was not correct in Globe form and couldn't be anyway because it's not a damn sphere. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and made it into a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. And you're still being schooled.I'll ignore you little fairy story!
Again. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and imagined the maps were a projection of a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. There is no Globe Earth and no real projection of a sphere but you welcome to believe what ever fantasy you like.There is no Globe, Jack! So it's not possible for it to be Globe projection.If there is no Globe what is that map a projection of? Read on the map itself:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Read it yourself, "ON THE PROJECTION OF J. S. CHRISTOPHER".
From long before the time of Gerardus Mercator "projection" in cartography has referred to the representation of the Globe onto a flat surface.Quote from: Plat TerraAs time passed your guys took original established maps of Flat Earther's and made a Globe from that. Gleason corrected it through extortion, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich. It was not correct in Globe form and couldn't be anyway because it's not a damn sphere. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and made it into a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. And you're still being schooled.I'll ignore you little fairy story!
Again. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and imagined the maps were a projection of a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. There is no Globe Earth and no real projection of a sphere but you welcome to believe what ever fantasy you like.There is no Globe, Jack! So it's not possible for it to be Globe projection.If there is no Globe what is that map a projection of? Read on the map itself:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Read it yourself, "ON THE PROJECTION OF J. S. CHRISTOPHER".
From long before the time of Gerardus Mercator "projection" in cartography has referred to the representation of the Globe onto a flat surface.Quote from: Plat TerraAs time passed your guys took original established maps of Flat Earther's and made a Globe from that. Gleason corrected it through extortion, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich. It was not correct in Globe form and couldn't be anyway because it's not a damn sphere. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and made it into a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. And you're still being schooled.I'll ignore you little fairy story!
Can I first see if you can answer a simple common sense question? I need to know if I would be wasting my time.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303)
Can I first see if you can answer a simple common sense question? I need to know if I would be wasting my time.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303)
See, this would be a dodge Plat. Your "question" about a point that has already been thoroughly debunked is already a waste of time. You can either address my points or ignore them at the risk of seeming even more ridiculous.
Addressing your simpleton's approach to solving the Sydney to Chile flight ignores the actual flight path taken, which is impossible, as I've explained before, if the Earth is a pancake.
Can I first see if you can answer a simple common sense question? I need to know if I would be wasting my time.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303)
See, this would be a dodge Plat. Your "question" about a point that has already been thoroughly debunked is already a waste of time. You can either address my points or ignore them at the risk of seeming even more ridiculous.
Addressing your simpleton's approach to solving the Sydney to Chile flight ignores the actual flight path taken, which is impossible, as I've explained before, if the Earth is a pancake.
I have already answered the flight miles from Sydney to Santiago, Chile. Now answer my question.
(https://i.imgur.com/iudTnby.jpg)
I have already answered the flight miles from Sydney to Santiago, Chile. Now answer my question.(https://i.imgur.com/iudTnby.jpg)
Can I first see if you can answer a simple common sense question? I need to know if I would be wasting my time.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2203303#msg2203303)
See, this would be a dodge Plat. Your "question" about a point that has already been thoroughly debunked is already a waste of time. You can either address my points or ignore them at the risk of seeming even more ridiculous.
Addressing your simpleton's approach to solving the Sydney to Chile flight ignores the actual flight path taken, which is impossible, as I've explained before, if the Earth is a pancake.
I have already answered the flight miles from Sydney to Santiago, Chile. Now answer my question.
(https://i.imgur.com/iudTnby.jpg)
Is plata refuting how maps work?
How does plata figure traveling the distance between two points works?
Is he literally thinking that as a pilot crosses lat lines below the equator he has to quadradically adjust his speed?
Yes. I'm pretty sure he's never taken part of any modern form of transportation. Maybe he's Amish. Not there's anything wrong with that. Sometimes a simpler way of life is better.
I have already answered the flight miles from Sydney to Santiago, Chile. Now answer my question.No you didn't.
(https://i.imgur.com/iudTnby.jpg)
One degree off has nothing to do with it! The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10,000 km so take a look at this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/083944zrnllpg1p/1892%20-%20Gleasons%20Map%20-%20Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%2025500%20km.jpg?dl=1)
You don't need to do anything but put a ruler over the distances to see that the Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile, to see that your 11,702 km is total fiction!
Again. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and imagined the maps were a projection of a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. There is no Globe Earth and no real projection of a sphere but you welcome to believe what ever fantasy you like.There is no Globe, Jack! So it's not possible for it to be Globe projection.If there is no Globe what is that map a projection of? Read on the map itself:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pk0wrjmivw70i/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20LONGITUDE%20AND%20TIME%20CALCULATOR.jpg?dl=1)
Read it yourself, "ON THE PROJECTION OF J. S. CHRISTOPHER".
From long before the time of Gerardus Mercator "projection" in cartography has referred to the representation of the Globe onto a flat surface.Quote from: Plat TerraAs time passed your guys took original established maps of Flat Earther's and made a Globe from that. Gleason corrected it through extortion, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich. It was not correct in Globe form and couldn't be anyway because it's not a damn sphere. Your forefathers were deceitful thieves and hijacked the established the work of flat Earther's, and made it into a sphere. That's not something to be proud of and that’s where your maps come from. And you're still being schooled.I'll ignore you little fairy story!
Some can’t stand the idea a Plane Earth Map was actually made and is accurate, but it’s true. They want all to believe all maps were made with a Globe in mind, but they lie and push more fantasy. If you would like to learn how to understand and use Gleason’s Flat Earth map please have a look the following video.I watched some that video up to 15:55 where he claimed 60 NM per degree but there he shows his lack of any knowledge of maps etc!
The Gleason's Map (1892) - The Masterpiece of a Genius | Flat Earth
The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.” The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleason’s map.
The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect. So, don’t believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleason’s map in any way they can.
The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.” The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleason’s map.
The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect. So, don’t believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleason’s map in any way they can.
That's great news for you. Can you now tell us the distance from SF to Boston using this method?
The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.” The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleason’s map.
The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect. So, don’t believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleason’s map in any way they can.
That's great news for you. Can you now tell us the distance from SF to Boston using this method?
Why?
The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.” The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleason’s map.
The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect. So, don’t believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleason’s map in any way they can.
That's great news for you. Can you now tell us the distance from SF to Boston using this method?
Why?
Because that was asked to you several times and you never answered the question?
The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.” The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleason’s map.
The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect. So, don’t believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleason’s map in any way they can.
That's great news for you. Can you now tell us the distance from SF to Boston using this method?
Why?
Because that was asked to you several times and you never answered the question?
Why was it asked?
The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.” The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleason’s map.
The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect. So, don’t believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleason’s map in any way they can.
The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.”
The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleason’s map.
The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect.
So, don’t believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleason’s map in any way they can.
Did you know the opposition cannot provide proof of curvature bulge over the center of the USA? That’s right, they can’t yet, but can only claim there is. After all these decades they still are incapable. Why? Don’t they have any real evidence instead of resorting to maps and flight plans?
Did you know the opposition cannot provide proof of curvature bulge over the center of the USA? That’s right, they can’t yet, but can only claim there is. After all these decades they still are incapable. Why? Don’t they have any real evidence instead of resorting to maps and flight plans?
The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.”Sure it is “Scientifically and Practically Correct” for what it claims to be and to find that just read the material at the top of the map again:
The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleason’s map.No, it doesn't! A degree of longitude simply cannot be a fixed 60 Nm and all latitudes and I went into that in: When will RE Community Accept Defeat? « Reply #1942 » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2203911#msg2203911)
The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect. So, don’t believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleason’s map in any way they can.No, we have no problem at all but you have a massive problem! That video is so wrong it is useless for calculating distances!
Please toss that video in the scrap-heap where it belongs!
Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.
To the opposition here, please tell the readers here, why you nor anyone else can prove the curvature bulge over the center of USA? A near 200 mile high curvature bulge over the USA would indeed be measurable by today’s technology. In fact, there would be established curvature charts of all landmass and showing how they relate to Eratosthenes measurements and these charts would be used to shut down a Flat Earth argument. But, NO, NO, NO.
Please tell the readers why.
Arguments that pertain to Sunrises and Sunset and all other lame arguments do not apply here because it does not prove what you see proves the USA has the miles of curvature bulge over center as dictated by a 3959 mile radius earth. Prove Earth’s radius today and show how it relates to curvature charts.
(https://i.imgur.com/wuNndJa.jpg)
Did you know the opposition cannot provide proof of curvature bulge over the center of the USA?That's because there is no such bulge. The curvature of the earth is not a bulge any more than the curvature of a bowling ball is a bulge.
Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.
Are you brain damaged?? How many times does this need to be explained to you?? There are multiple pages, in this thread alone where your conflation of a flat and curved Earth have been explained. You are mixing the two on purpose, or are so damn ignorant that you don't realize your own mistake but still have the absurdity to challenge us because you decided to skip geography in primary school???I'm under the assumption that he is indeed mixing the two on purpose, because he is a troll.
Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.
Since you seemingly have never seen anything spherical before, here's a visual primer for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/psyu0s8.jpg?1)
Are you brain damaged?? How many times does this need to be explained to you?? There are multiple pages, in this thread alone where your conflation of a flat and curved Earth have been explained. You are mixing the two on purpose, or are so damn ignorant that you don't realize your own mistake but still have the absurdity to challenge us because you decided to skip geography in primary school???I'm under the assumption that he is indeed mixing the two on purpose, because he is a troll.
Are you brain damaged?? How many times does this need to be explained to you?? There are multiple pages, in this thread alone where your conflation of a flat and curved Earth have been explained. You are mixing the two on purpose, or are so damn ignorant that you don't realize your own mistake but still have the absurdity to challenge us because you decided to skip geography in primary school???I'm under the assumption that he is indeed mixing the two on purpose, because he is a troll.
Me, a Flat Earther, on a Flat Earth Forum, a Troll? Hahahaha
(https://i.imgur.com/MhJ2Akb.png)
Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.
Since you seemingly have never seen anything spherical before, here's a visual primer for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/psyu0s8.jpg?1)
Maybe you should try getting some real data proving the alleged curve over the USA. Current maps with real data show no curve, only elevation.
REAL DATA PLEASE!
(https://i.imgur.com/PSfyPpT.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/PSfyPpT.jpg)Curvature and topography are not the same thing.
(https://i.imgur.com/PSfyPpT.jpg)Curvature and topography are not the same thing.
(https://i.imgur.com/PSfyPpT.jpg)Curvature and topography are not the same thing.
Sherlock, topographical maps show earth’s surface shape derived from “Mean Sea Level” (a horizontal plane) and there is no damn curve.
Where are those curvature charts that prove curvature over the USA? Shut me down with facts!
Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.Why, I ask is curvature most important?
To the opposition here, please tell the readers here, why you nor anyone else can prove the curvature bulge over the center of USA? A near 200 mile high curvature bulge over the USA would indeed be measurable by today’s technology. In fact, there would be established curvature charts of all landmass and showing how they relate to Eratosthenes measurements and these charts would be used to shut down a Flat Earth argument. But, NO, NO, NO.Arguments that pertain to Sunrises and Sunset are just as important and if you cannot explain those to OUR satisfaction toy have lost your case.
Please tell the readers why.
Arguments that pertain to Sunrises and Sunset and all other lame arguments do not apply here,
because it does not prove what you see proves the USA has the miles of curvature bulge over center as dictated by a 3959 mile radius earth. Prove Earth’s radius today and show how it relates to curvature charts.And what would convince you "the USA has the miles of curvature bulge over center as dictated by a 3959 mile radius earth"?
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth[/color]]Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth (http://[color=blue)And there is any number in like vein!
North Sister and South Sister are 4.3 miles apart. South Sister summit is 278' higher than North Sister. Sightline from S peak to N peak is -0.7° declined from "eye-level"
Adams and Ranier are below that even. Though higher than the viewer, they fall below eye-level, even if I give you -0.7° of error.
But the inclinometer gauge and the geometry work out to support 0° is where the gauge says it is. And I threw Peakfinder in there too, to corroborate. There's no way "eye level is so low as to be below the summit of Ranier in the distance. That would cut through the summit of North Sister, which is below the elevation of South Sister. Can't work.
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2i28ned.jpg)
Work it out. Think for yourself.
(https://i.imgur.com/n9Zh9pn.jpg)Surely even YOU could not post so ridiculous a meme!
For the umpteenth time, mean sea level is not a horizontal plane. Mean sea level follows the curvature of the geoid earth.(https://i.imgur.com/PSfyPpT.jpg)Curvature and topography are not the same thing.
Sherlock, topographical maps show earth’s surface shape derived from “Mean Sea Level” (a horizontal plane) and there is no damn curve.
Where are those curvature charts that prove curvature over the USA? Shut me down with facts!The curvature is shown quite clearly on a globe.
(https://i.imgur.com/PSfyPpT.jpg)Curvature and topography are not the same thing.
Sherlock, topographical maps show earth’s surface shape derived from “Mean Sea Level” (a horizontal plane) and there is no damn curve.
Where are those curvature charts that prove curvature over the USA? Shut me down with facts!
Quote from: Plat Terra link=topic=82582.msg2204119#msg2204119
[imghttps://i.imgur.com/PSfyPpT.jpg[/img]Curvature and topography are not the same thing.
Sherlock, topographical maps show earth’s surface shape derived from “Mean Sea Level” (a horizontal plane) and there is no damn curve.
Where are those curvature charts that prove curvature over the USA? Shut me down with facts!
imagined the maps were a projection of a sphere.No imagining is required.
I have already answered the flight miles from Sydney to Santiago, Chile. Now answer my question.No, you repeatedly dodged it.
The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.”Only as a projection of the round Earth.
The following videoSpouts pure nonsense and shows that the person making it either has no idea how maps work, or is intentionally lying to people.
Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.You mean now that you have been refuted yet again and can see no way forward in defending your nonsense about Gleason you will run to yet another topic.
To the opposition here, please tell the readers here, why you nor anyone else can prove the curvature bulge over the center of USA?It has been proven. All the topographic maps use a reference curve. If USA was flat, then it would have an extremely low elevation in the centre.
In fact, there would be established curvature charts of all landmassDo you mean topographic maps relative to the curve, or do you mean the reference geoids which have already been provided?
(https://i.imgur.com/PSfyPpT.jpg)Curvature and topography are not the same thing.
Sherlock, topographical maps show earth’s surface shape derived from “Mean Sea Level” (a horizontal plane) and there is no damn curve.
Where are those curvature charts that prove curvature over the USA? Shut me down with facts!
It makes it simpler so we can show these drawings to non engineers in a clear easily read format.So there IS a conspiracy! :O
It makes it simpler so we can show these drawings to non engineers in a clear easily read format.So there IS a conspiracy! :O
;D
Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.
To the opposition here, please tell the readers here, why you nor anyone else can prove the curvature bulge over the center of USA? A near 200 mile high curvature bulge over the USA would indeed be measurable by today’s technology. In fact, there would be established curvature charts of all landmass and showing how they relate to Eratosthenes measurements and these charts would be used to shut down a Flat Earth argument. But, NO, NO, NO.
Please tell the readers why.
Arguments that pertain to Sunrises and Sunset and all other lame arguments do not apply here because it does not prove what you see proves the USA has the miles of curvature bulge over center as dictated by a 3959 mile radius earth. Prove Earth’s radius today and show how it relates to curvature charts.
(https://i.imgur.com/n9Zh9pn.jpg)