When will RE Community Accept Defeat?

Quote from: Gumwars on August 29, 2019, 09:02:38 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 29, 2019, 08:46:34 PM

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.

Quote from: Gumwars on August 28, 2019, 09:18:03 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 28, 2019, 08:02:01 AM

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:



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?

Quote from: kopfverderber on August 30, 2019, 06:26:37 AM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 29, 2019, 03:33:04 PM

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:





Now go post some more ISS pictures.

Are you familiar with refraction?



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

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 29, 2019, 09:58:01 PM

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?

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?

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 30, 2019, 05:08:38 PM

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.

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 30, 2019, 01:14:05 PM

Quote from: kopfverderber on August 30, 2019, 01:10:23 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 30, 2019, 01:06:49 PM

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?


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.



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 no such place as "Cape Hope" that you keep repeating! Try "Cape of Good Hope".
  
  
• Why should we prove things already known to be true?
  But few have seen Sigma Octantis anyway because it is such a faint star, being only magnitude 5.47 compared to, for example Alpha Centauri being -0.27.
  
  But many easily see the stars that circle clockwise around that point and that same point is due south of everywhere on earth!

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?

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 30, 2019, 06:32:19 PM

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.



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. 

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 30, 2019, 06:32:19 PM

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.

Quote from: Gumwars on August 30, 2019, 07:29:15 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 30, 2019, 06:32:19 PM

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.



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. 

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 30, 2019, 06:32:19 PM

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?

What is wrong with asking this question?

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.

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.

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". Star trail: Mosquito Creek, Lake Eppalock, VIC. (Credit: Lincoln Harrison) (about 37°S) From: Australian Geographic, Stunning star trail photography

Places further north have fewer "circumpolar stars". Star trails at Ravenswood Church, QLD (by Cameron Laird). (about 21°S) From: Your Shot Runner Up: ‘Ravenswood’s star trails’

And try this one! Star trails - looking up from South Pole, Robert Schwarz.

Then there is this video of the Southern Hemisphere star trails looking south from Mt Cooke in Western Australia. Note the absence of Polaris!

Mount Cooke - Western Australia | A Time Lapse/Star Trail Journey | Maximum Exposure - Shane O'Reilly Photography
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.

• Polaris is only about 0.73° from the North Celestial Pole and Sigma Octantis is about 1° from the South Celestial Pole.
• Polaris is far brighter than Sigma Octantis.
• The stars appear to rotate anti-clockwise about the North Celestial Pole but clockwise about the South Celestial Pole.

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 30, 2019, 09:32:04 PM

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 from: Alisson on December 23, 2018, 12:28:14 PM

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 answer

I 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 A timelapse of the night sky that is visible as you head out to the surrounding areas of Brisbane, Southern Queensland Country and the Sunshine Coast.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 30, 2019, 10:38:22 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 30, 2019, 09:32:04 PM

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 from: Alisson on December 23, 2018, 12:28:14 PM

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 answer

I 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 A timelapse of the night sky that is visible as you head out to the surrounding areas of Brisbane, Southern Queensland Country and the Sunshine Coast.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 30, 2019, 10:38:22 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 30, 2019, 09:32:04 PM

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.

When did you change your mind?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 23, 2018, 01:47:26 PM

Quote from: Alisson on December 23, 2018, 12:28:14 PM

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 answer

I 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 A timelapse of the night sky that is visible as you head out to the surrounding areas of Brisbane, Southern Queensland Country and the Sunshine Coast.

Quote from: Sunset on August 30, 2019, 02:13:59 PM

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.

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.

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?

Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 31, 2019, 01:01:49 PM

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?

Quote from: frenat on August 31, 2019, 01:56:08 PM

Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 31, 2019, 01:01:49 PM

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.

Quote from: frenat on August 31, 2019, 01:56:08 PM

Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 31, 2019, 01:01:49 PM

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.

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 31, 2019, 04:25:28 PM

Quote from: frenat on August 31, 2019, 01:56:08 PM

Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 31, 2019, 01:01:49 PM

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!

Quote from: frenat on August 31, 2019, 04:34:02 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 31, 2019, 04:25:28 PM

Quote from: frenat on August 31, 2019, 01:56:08 PM

Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 31, 2019, 01:01:49 PM

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.

Quote from: frenat on August 31, 2019, 04:34:02 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 31, 2019, 04:25:28 PM

Quote from: frenat on August 31, 2019, 01:56:08 PM

Because Plat Terra is afraid to post his argument here, here's another of his fails from the meme thread

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 31, 2019, 01:01:49 PM

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.