I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
No.
Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is best :DI have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.No.What sicko decided that a marquee tag would be a good idea???
Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is best :DI have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.
Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is best :DI have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.
Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.0)
The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.0)
This should be enough to start with.
Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is best :DI have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.
Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.0)
The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.0)
This should be enough to start with.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth cannot be a ball in that same thread as sandokhan pointed out. No proof here
Rabinoz's calculations for the circumference of the earth (The circumference can be calculated from (distance from Vaupes) * 360°/(angle difference of sun from Vaupes)) and based entirely on what I claim are fictitious globe numbers. Also I see it could be possible the sun rises and falls in elevation on a flat earth. So no proof here either.
Read this (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/17/but-it-moves-how-we-know-the-e/) article.
Solar eclipse, the Star field behind the eclipsed of the sun, is the Star field that would be seen in six months, as opposed to the Star field that is seen that night. This indicates the orbit around the sun. With a lunar eclipse there is no change with the Star field. The moon orbiting Earth and the spin of the earth.
There are three motions involved to have an eclipse.
One the orbit of earth around the sun.
Two the spin of the earth.
Three the orbit of the Moon around the earth.
When the moon intervenes with the sun a small shadow Falls on the earth, Solar eclipse.
When the moon moves into Earth shadow you have a lunar eclipse.
Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.0)
The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.0)
This should be enough to start with.
Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.0)
The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.0)
This should be enough to start with.
Are you really that lazy?
I'll do it myself, just for you.
I'll do it myself, just for you.
You must be knew here.
Solar eclipse, the Star field behind the eclipsed of the sun, is the Star field that would be seen in six months, as opposed to the Star field that is seen that night.As far as the star field, a long debate has been raised among the historians on its validity
He must really want to avoid seeing the evidence he asked for.
Also I see it could be possible the sun rises and falls in elevation on a flat earth.As you seem knowledgeable then can you please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated.
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Ground distances are measured and known.
Summer solstice, ground speed of sub-solar point along Tropic of Cancer (roughly 950 mph).
Winter solstice, same ground speed of sub-soalr point along Tropic of Capricorn (roughly 950 mph).
On Flat Earth Tropic of Cancer should be much smaller than Tropic of Capricorn,
so ground speed of sub-solar point should be much lower.
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Why do you doubt your own eyes when you can see thousands and thousands of pictures that show the Earth is round?
Seriously: why. You cannot have come up with the idea on your own that all these pictures are faked.
If you did come up with that yourself, I assume you have proof that they are faked?
If you did not come up with that yourself, the people who told you the pictures were faked showed you proof that they were faked, right?
Because if you don't have proof the pictures are wrong, why do you believe they are?
I see this is a twist on my thread, that funnily enough, you've not actually replied to..
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67745.0
if you've got ANY evidence of a flat earth, feel free to comment on my thread (yes I'm being sarcastic, if you had any proof, you would have posted on my thread)
to answer the question, yes, everyone can provide evidence of a spinning globe earth, even you, there's an ABUNDANCE of evidence for a globe earth, and absolutely none for a flat earth, only faith, you can claim most of the evidence is faked, but you cannot claim it doesn't exist at all.. the flat earth has NONE, no photos, no videos, no first hand account, nothing
as for the globe evidence
the strongest evidence is the lunar eclipse, that's OUR shadow on the moon, we know that by tracking the sun and moon's movements, very simple explanation, if we weren't a ball, the shadow wouldn't ALWAYS be circular
(absolutely NO flat earth explanation for the lunar eclipse stands up to testing, and I've heard a few, making the lunar eclipse irrefutable evidence of our shape, no ifs no buts)
the reason for my original thread is because the flat earth theory has absolutely zero actual physical evidence, only suggestions..
some FE's still use some 'proofs' that others have already accepted as fact,
there's no agreement withing the FE community, for instance
- a dome is disproven by meteors' existence
- crepuscular sun rays cannot be used as proof due to perspective
- we can't feel a spin due to us also spinning within the atmosphere
- photos of landmarks from too far away are never taken from ground level, when they are, the landmarks have gone (a large majority of videos of people trying to prove no curve, actually end up proving the opposite)
etc
so, not only have you been provided ANY evidence, but IRREFUTABLE evidence
the only way to deny the evidence is with cognitive dissonance
the earth, EVIDENTLY, is a globe
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Why do you doubt your own eyes when you can see thousands and thousands of pictures that show the Earth is round?
Seriously: why. You cannot have come up with the idea on your own that all these pictures are faked.
If you did come up with that yourself, I assume you have proof that they are faked?
If you did not come up with that yourself, the people who told you the pictures were faked showed you proof that they were faked, right?
Because if you don't have proof the pictures are wrong, why do you believe they are?
Composite images are not proof. I can make those and pass them off as real when they are not.
It can actually not be "proven" that earth is spinning. All phenomena associated with the earth spin, Coriolis and centrifugal force included, can be explained otherwise, too. If you do not believe me, please google "Lense-Thirring-Effect"
Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is best :DI have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.
Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.0)
The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.0)
This should be enough to start with.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth cannot be a ball in that same thread as sandokhan pointed out. No proof here
Are you referring to when he says "divergent path of the stars at the equator (angular distance between stars varies; this could not happen on a spherical earth)" from his panoramic photos?QuoteRabinoz's calculations for the circumference of the earth (The circumference can be calculated from (distance from Vaupes) * 360°/(angle difference of sun from Vaupes)) and based entirely on what I claim are fictitious globe numbers. Also I see it could be possible the sun rises and falls in elevation on a flat earth. So no proof here either.
As for the "fictitious globe numbers", does it ever get tiring claiming that every bit of data that disproves your theory is automatically fake? Fine, whatever. What are some distances that you don't think are fake? This calculation can be done anywhere on earth. The math is a bit more complicated if they aren't all at the same longitude, but it is doable. I'll do it myself, just for you. Just give me the locations and distances.
Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is best :DI have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.
Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.0)
The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.0)
This should be enough to start with.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth cannot be a ball in that same thread as sandokhan pointed out. No proof here
Are you referring to when he says "divergent path of the stars at the equator (angular distance between stars varies; this could not happen on a spherical earth)" from his panoramic photos?QuoteRabinoz's calculations for the circumference of the earth (The circumference can be calculated from (distance from Vaupes) * 360°/(angle difference of sun from Vaupes)) and based entirely on what I claim are fictitious globe numbers. Also I see it could be possible the sun rises and falls in elevation on a flat earth. So no proof here either.
As for the "fictitious globe numbers", does it ever get tiring claiming that every bit of data that disproves your theory is automatically fake? Fine, whatever. What are some distances that you don't think are fake? This calculation can be done anywhere on earth. The math is a bit more complicated if they aren't all at the same longitude, but it is doable. I'll do it myself, just for you. Just give me the locations and distances.
Yes, I think he has a good point about the divergent path of the stars at the equator, its photographic proof the earth is not a ball.
The fictitious globe numbers are simply the fact that he used Eratosthenes's method in assuming a globe to prove a globe. In other words he assumed a sphere to calculate the circumference of the sphere. This means nothing, there are 2 sets of numbers, one for flat earth another for globe. This may work for a globe model but it is NOT proof a globe.
Solar eclipse, the Star field behind the eclipsed of the sun, is the Star field that would be seen in six months, as opposed to the Star field that is seen that night.As far as the star field, a long debate has been raised among the historians on its validity
Debate among historians? What are you talking about? It has been known for a long time that stars are visible during an eclipse, and which ones they are. This knowledge has been used to validate general relativity (http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/), for example, way back in 1919.
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Rabinoz's calculations for the circumference of the earth (The circumference can be calculated from (distance from Vaupes) * 360°/(angle difference of sun from Vaupes)) and based entirely on what I claim are fictitious globe numbers. Also I see it could be possible the sun rises and falls in elevation on a flat earth. So no proof here either.Those angles are all at the same time.
I see this is a twist on my thread, that funnily enough, you've not actually replied to..
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67745.0
if you've got ANY evidence of a flat earth, feel free to comment on my thread (yes I'm being sarcastic, if you had any proof, you would have posted on my thread)
to answer the question, yes, everyone can provide evidence of a spinning globe earth, even you, there's an ABUNDANCE of evidence for a globe earth, and absolutely none for a flat earth, only faith, you can claim most of the evidence is faked, but you cannot claim it doesn't exist at all.. the flat earth has NONE, no photos, no videos, no first hand account, nothing
as for the globe evidence
the strongest evidence is the lunar eclipse, that's OUR shadow on the moon, we know that by tracking the sun and moon's movements, very simple explanation, if we weren't a ball, the shadow wouldn't ALWAYS be circular
(absolutely NO flat earth explanation for the lunar eclipse stands up to testing, and I've heard a few, making the lunar eclipse irrefutable evidence of our shape, no ifs no buts)
the reason for my original thread is because the flat earth theory has absolutely zero actual physical evidence, only suggestions..
some FE's still use some 'proofs' that others have already accepted as fact,
there's no agreement withing the FE community, for instance
- a dome is disproven by meteors' existence
- crepuscular sun rays cannot be used as proof due to perspective
- we can't feel a spin due to us also spinning within the atmosphere
- photos of landmarks from too far away are never taken from ground level, when they are, the landmarks have gone (a large majority of videos of people trying to prove no curve, actually end up proving the opposite)
etc
so, not only have you been provided ANY evidence, but IRREFUTABLE evidence
the only way to deny the evidence is with cognitive dissonance
the earth, EVIDENTLY, is a globe
I've addressed the lunar eclipse, (a shadow object) moving around the sun. Everything else you said: Because reasons. No proof here.
we cant be on a spinning ball pal,the sun moves around us with blue sky in front of our eyes,the sun is under the fermament same as the moon and the stars,we are gods loved ones dude,watch the stars at night then ul understand
Solar eclipse, the Star field behind the eclipsed of the sun, is the Star field that would be seen in six months, as opposed to the Star field that is seen that night.As far as the star field, a long debate has been raised among the historians on its validity
Debate among historians? What are you talking about? It has been known for a long time that stars are visible during an eclipse, and which ones they are. This knowledge has been used to validate general relativity (http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/), for example, way back in 1919.
I asked for verifiable proof we are on a spinning ball. Can you please explain to me how I can verify this for myself because there was debate about the 1919 eclipse, and the findings used to validate Einstein.
If you are truly interested in proof, and you are willing to do some work of your own to acquire it (wouldn't that be better, after all? Getting your own proof?) an opportunity presents itself in August of 2017. A total solar eclipse will occur with terrific viewing across the entire United States. I don't know where you live, but if you are in the States you should absolutely make sure to place yourself under the path of the Moon's shadow and see for yourself which stars come out.Solar eclipse, the Star field behind the eclipsed of the sun, is the Star field that would be seen in six months, as opposed to the Star field that is seen that night.As far as the star field, a long debate has been raised among the historians on its validity
Debate among historians? What are you talking about? It has been known for a long time that stars are visible during an eclipse, and which ones they are. This knowledge has been used to validate general relativity (http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/), for example, way back in 1919.
I asked for verifiable proof we are on a spinning ball. Can you please explain to me how I can verify this for myself because there was debate about the 1919 eclipse, and the findings used to validate Einstein.
I asked for verifiable proof we are on a spinning ball. Can you please explain to me how I can verify this for myself
I have debunked the ring laser gyroscope a long time ago: it simply records the vibration of the ether field (not the rotation of the Earth)
I have debunked the ring laser gyroscope a long time ago: it simply records the vibration of the ether field (not the rotation of the Earth)You "debunked the ring laser gyroscope a long time ago".Excuse me if we don't all kneel before your majesty.
If you are the answer to all the earth's scientific mysteries, what on earth are you wasting your time here for?
Why not tell the world and set all of science to rights? Oh, they won't listen either!
I have debunked the ring laser gyroscope a long time ago: it simply records the vibration of the ether field (not the rotation of the Earth).
The original ring laser gyroscope thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50860.0#.VgUGQ9Kqqko
As usual, even though my AFET is not included in the official faq, I had to save the day for the FES:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899
Rabinoz's calculations for the circumference of the earth (The circumference can be calculated from (distance from Vaupes) * 360°/(angle difference of sun from Vaupes)) and based entirely on what I claim are fictitious globe numbers. Also I see it could be possible the sun rises and falls in elevation on a flat earth. So no proof here either.So, you don't believe the distances we get from Google Earth or the sun elevations from Sun Earth Tools (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)?
Finding your Latitude and Longitude
Latitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45˚ North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.This is illustrated in this diagram from Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931:
Location | Latitude | Sun Elev | Dist from Equator | Flat Sun Ht | Calc Circum |
Kimmirut, Canada | 62.847° | 27.15° | 4,368 miles | 2,240 miles | 25,020 miles |
Bingham, Maine, USA | 45.059° | 44.94° | 3,132 miles | 3,125 miles | 25,020 miles |
Santo Domingo | 18.486° | 71.51° | 1,285 miles | 3,843 miles | 25,020 miles |
Equator | 0° | 90° | 0 miles | - - - - | - - - - |
Chupa District, Peru | -15.109° | 74.89° | 1,050 miles | 3,889 miles | 25,020 miles |
Los Tamariscos, Argentina | -45.033° | 44.97° | 3,130 miles | 3,126 miles | 25,020 miles |
Punta Arenas, Chile | -53.164° | 36.63° | 3,695 miles | 2,747miles | 25,020 miles |
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.Verifiable by whom? Over 500 astronauts have personally verified it by going into space. Countless ship and aircraft navigators have personally verified it by using round earth maps to travel all over the world.
The device in the video features a fiber optic gyroscope.Holy crap, Sandokhan left a relevant, legitimate link? Glad I'm sitting down!
https://www.asee.org/documents/sections/middle-atlantic/fall-2009/01-Evaluation-Of-Ring-Laser-And-Fiber-Optic-Gyroscope-Technology.pdf
I have debunked the ring laser gyroscope a long time ago: it simply records the vibration of the ether field (not the rotation of the Earth).Nothing you did there constitutes anything even close to 'debunking' the ring laser gyroscope. Among the many objections, you (and every flatty in that thread) refuse to answer the question about the angle of the device matching the observer's latitude.
The original ring laser gyroscope thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50860.0#.VgUGQ9Kqqko
As usual, even though my AFET is not included in the official faq, I had toThere, fixed it for you.save the day fordrop my signature wall of pseudoscience gibberish text upon the FES:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Evidence for a globe:
Sunsets and rises.
Evidence for it spinning: meteors are more frequent at a certain time when the earth is farthest from the sun. I forgot the exact time and I don't stay up to see it though.
The very fact that you brought the fiber optic gyroscope into the discussion shows your level of ignorance on the subject.
...the question about the angle of the device matching the observer's latitude.
I always take care of such details: use the search function to find out where.
The ether drift results ALWAYS are latitude dependent.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
In my debunking of the ring laser gyroscope message, I carefully establish the existence of ether using the results of the experiments carried out by two of the greatest physicists of the 20th century: Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev and Dr. Bruce DePalma.
ASPDEN GYROSCOPE EFFECT
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_4_8_1.html
The aether was detected some years earlier by Sagnac in France and is detected in modern navigation technology by the ring laser gyro. How can the speed of a laser beam traveling around a closed path inside an optical instrument detect rotation of that instrument if the beam is not keeping a fixed speed relative to something inside that instrument that does not share its rotation? That something is the aether! No amount of book learning or mathematics can avoid that simple truth, and even though the word aether is seen as something magical, it is that something that delivers free energy once we have decoded the combination of the magnetic lock which restrains its release. Note also, that the aether reveals its existence when we have rotation and we have rotation in the Adams motor.
The Allais effect demonstrates the same thing.
"During the total eclipses of the sun on June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, quite analogous deviations of the plane of oscillation of the paraconical pendulum were observed..." - Maurice Allais, 1988 Nobel autobiographical lecture.
In a marathon experiment, Maurice Allais released a Foucault pendulum every 14 minutes - for 30 days and nights -without missing a data point. He recorded the direction of rotation (in degrees) at his Paris laboratory. This energetic show of human endurance happened to overlap with the 1954 solar eclipse. During the eclipse, the pendulum took an unexpected turn, changing its angle of rotation by 13.5 degrees.
Allais' pendulum experiments earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society, and in 1959 he was made a laureate of the United States Gravity Research Foundation.
Dr. Maurice Allais: Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered?
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media10-12.htm
In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field. (page 12)
Dr. Maurice Allais report to Nasa:
http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf
Orders of magnitude incompatible with current theory
In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation, whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation (pp. 118-129 and Table VII, p. 129).
In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic support, this relation is about a hundred million (pp. 285-328).
The discrepancies discovered are enormous, and, as far as I know, unmatched in the literature.
In fact, the results of the experiments of July 1958 confirmed in an electrifying manner my previous reasoning, leading to the conclusion that, in the movement of the paraconical pendulum with anisotropic support, there are anomalies of a periodic character which are totally inexplicable in the framework of currently accepted theories.
I suggest that you do your homework before posting nonsense here.
Solar eclipse, the Star field behind the eclipsed of the sun, is the Star field that would be seen in six months, as opposed to the Star field that is seen that night.As far as the star field, a long debate has been raised among the historians on its validity
Debate among historians? What are you talking about? It has been known for a long time that stars are visible during an eclipse, and which ones they are. This knowledge has been used to validate general relativity (http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/), for example, way back in 1919.
I asked for verifiable proof we are on a spinning ball. Can you please explain to me how I can verify this for myself because there was debate about the 1919 eclipse, and the findings used to validate Einstein.
It's really easy. Go look at a ship going over the horizon and then ask yourself where it went. Then simply think. Watch the sun rise and sink. Then simply think. Then ask yourself about satellites and how they might work.
'Thinking' is all you need to do.
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.Verifiable by whom? Over 500 astronauts have personally verified it by going into space. Countless ship and aircraft navigators have personally verified it by using round earth maps to travel all over the world.
And, since you are here to learn, the Sagnac effect not only destroys the theory of relativity but proves that the light is variable, and not a constant
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Also I see it could be possible the sun rises and falls in elevation on a flat earth.As you seem knowledgeable then can you please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated.
Think about this then: If ships actually go over the horizon (which they do not, as I have seen this for myself, and any evidence shown of this is a function of limited perspective) then it would mean you can see curvature only several miles away. If that is the case then at 33 KM high how is it possible that the horizon is always flat and at eye level - which has been proven by countless balloon videos. This is impossible. The only solution is that the earth is not a globe, and in either situation there is no curvature, because you are not living on a sphere.
The only daily rotation that is picked up is that of the rotation of ether strings/waves above the surface of the Earth: results proven by Dr. Dayton Miller and Dr. Yuri Galaev.
GPS satellites cannot detect and do not detect any orbital motion, the latest and most up-to-date results:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780
You haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.
In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.
In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.
[that is, the detection of the ether waves was recorded]
Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.
http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf
GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect: the most direct proof that the Earth is stationary.
The very fact that you brought the fiber optic gyroscope into the discussion shows your level of ignorance on the subject.Just an FYI, ether drift, if real, supports a round earth orbiting the sun better than a stationary flat earth.
...the question about the angle of the device matching the observer's latitude.
I always take care of such details: use the search function to find out where.
The ether drift results ALWAYS are latitude dependent.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
Observation is not science. Repeated experimentation is.
It is actually okay to have a worldview that the earth is still, and everything revolves around it, but that makes calculations a hell of a lot more complicated and tedious.
The only daily rotation that is picked up is that of the rotation of ether strings/waves above the surface of the Earth: results proven by Dr. Dayton Miller and Dr. Yuri Galaev.
GPS satellites cannot detect and do not detect any orbital motion, the latest and most up-to-date results:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780
You haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.
In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.
In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.
[that is, the detection of the ether waves was recorded]
Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.
http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf
GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect: the most direct proof that the Earth is stationary.
Are you overlooking something GPS satellites are in orbit around the globe, the USA geostationary satellite is a relay in orbit around the globe earth.
Sattelites are FAKE.Where is your proof, because thousands of people have seen them. Are you saying every amateur astronomer is lying?
Where is the 'sattelite phone' promised from the 1980s and 1990s?Ebay, Amazon, your pick. They are about 1000$ a pop, which is why most people pick the cheaper version which uses towers.
Sattelites exist in your collective imagination... those sketchy images of scientists (ie actors) wearing all white lab-coats fondling a satellite in a NASA hanger... the CGI images of sattelites in space...They also exist in space above us, as anybody can go outside on certain nights and see the ISS. Are you saying that the sky is a giant television or something? How would the Government CGI the sky?
Take a hike to the tallest moutain in the wilderness and let me know how the reception (to ANYTHING) is... 'sattelites' dont seem to work too good now do they...Well, cell phones won't work because there are no cell towers, but Satellite phones would. (see above, you can buy one for about 1000$)
Tesla confused alot of people trying to 'bounce electrical signals' off of the ionoshpere... seems like lunacy on a ROUND earth model... but is simple REFLECTION on a FLAT earth model... Point a signal at the FLAT ionosphere and it reflects the signal just like reflecting a flashlight off of a flat mirroed ceiling to another spot on the 'floor'/earth... china, india.. wherever... just bounce the signal... again makes no sense on a round earth model... you gotta play with all this 'bending of light' nonsense.. makes perfect sense on a FE model however...Funny how it only works when you "bounce" it off of the exact place where there happens to be a satellite. Try angling your Satellite TV dish and see how good of reception you get.
How come the southern hemisphere sees different stars than the northern hemisphere?
How come the moon is flipped in the southern hemisphere?
How come the stars rotate around an axis on BOTH hemispheres?
Why is the moon full at it's southern limit and new at it's most northern limit?
How come the planets have retrograde motion?
How come stars can have a measurable parallax?
How come the sun sets, then somehow rises on the other side?
How come ships disappear over the horizon?
I could keep on going, but if predictions are easier, you should have no problem coming up with answers that the ancient greeks figured out.
Sattelites are FAKE.Where is your proof, because thousands of people have seen them. Are you saying every amateur astronomer is lying?Where is the 'sattelite phone' promised from the 1980s and 1990s?Ebay, Amazon, your pick. They are about 1000$ a pop, which is why most people pick the cheaper version which uses towers.Sattelites exist in your collective imagination... those sketchy images of scientists (ie actors) wearing all white lab-coats fondling a satellite in a NASA hanger... the CGI images of sattelites in space...They also exist in space above us, as anybody can go outside on certain nights and see the ISS. Are you saying that the sky is a giant television or something? How would the Government CGI the sky?Take a hike to the tallest moutain in the wilderness and let me know how the reception (to ANYTHING) is... 'sattelites' dont seem to work too good now do they...Well, cell phones won't work because there are no cell towers, but Satellite phones would. (see above, you can buy one for about 1000$)Tesla confused alot of people trying to 'bounce electrical signals' off of the ionoshpere... seems like lunacy on a ROUND earth model... but is simple REFLECTION on a FLAT earth model... Point a signal at the FLAT ionosphere and it reflects the signal just like reflecting a flashlight off of a flat mirroed ceiling to another spot on the 'floor'/earth... china, india.. wherever... just bounce the signal... again makes no sense on a round earth model... you gotta play with all this 'bending of light' nonsense.. makes perfect sense on a FE model however...Funny how it only works when you "bounce" it off of the exact place where there happens to be a satellite. Try angling your Satellite TV dish and see how good of reception you get.
How come the southern hemisphere sees different stars than the northern hemisphere?No, they are not.
- the stars are the same in both hemispheres, the orientations are different
How come the moon is flipped in the southern hemisphere?Made a quick sketch in MS Paint to show you how stupid this is. Notice how people in different parts of the southern hemisphere would see radically different orientations. This does not happen in real life. Unless you think everybody in the southern hemisphere is lying.
- Put a smiley-face on the ceiling in a room, have a pal sit opposite of you... YOU will see a smiley-face, your pal will see a 'frowny-face'... in the USA the moon never gets more north of the nation.. south of the equator it does..
How come the stars rotate around an axis on BOTH hemispheres?Because a flat earth would be IMPOSSIBLE for stars to rotate around the southern pole, which they do.
- What does this have to do with the SHAPE of the Earth?
Why is the moon full at it's southern limit and new at it's most northern limit?First of all, the moon's phases are cause by sunlight. The moon can be full in the southern hemisphere and new in the northern hemisphere. There is ABSOLUTELY no correlation between latitude and lunar phase.
- I have no idea! And neither do round-earthers!
How come the planets have retrograde motion?Regardless, I'd like to see you answer, or see if you even know what these two things are.
How come stars can have a measurable parallax?
- This has NOTHING to do with the SHAPE of the earth...
How come the sun sets, then somehow rises on the other side?I asked how the sun sets and rises. Not how seasons work. But while we are on that topic, how does antarctica have 4 months of complete sunlight?
- Because the sun hovers above the earth moving in a CLOCKWISE circle that slowly spirals northward, then southward in 1 full year. Each day the sun ARRIVES/rises in the east and DEPARTS/sets in the west... this circle gets slightly 'bigger' each day until the summer solstice, then it gets 'smaller' each day until the winter solstice... this is how you get seasons..
Not gonna argue the existence of sattelites with you because there is no argument. You CANNOT see a Boeing 747 with the naked eye at cruising altitude on a pitch-black night with its lights flashing!You can't see a boeing at night because it is dark, but you can see satellites because of the sun's reflection off of them. Irridium flares are really cool. Nothing else in the sky can cause them. Here is a video of one:
IT IS TOO HIGH TO SEE (ie vanishing point..)... now ANYONE who claims to have seen something 10x SMALLER at 30X HIGHER is simply WRONG!Strange, because I can see jupiter through a telescope, even though it is 588,000,000X as far away and only 4,000,000X as big (diameter).
THE END!
Any child would say they live on a FLAT and stable suface with the sun and moon moving overhead.
That same child will be waiting a l0000ng time for the spinny, roundness part to happen... fact is ALL OF YOU wake up each day to a FLAT and STILL surface. Period. Go outside. Stand up straight. And observe how you are on a flat surface. The spinning part only happens in your programmed imagination. You imagine it, dream it, 'been told it was so', but each and every day when a round-earther goes to his slave-cubicle to repay his debt, his cubicle is still, stable, and flat... then ONLY thing that moves above him is the sun and the moon...
The FE/RE debate is too polarized to be truly productive. One camp goes outside stands perfectly still on a flat surface and SWEARS it is spinning at a zillion miles per hour and is indeed round. The other camp goes outside and reports what it observes (ie science) flat, stable, round.. stuff above moving like clockwork...
Where is the proof of a round earth. Poll any unmolested person from the old-world who has never heard of NASA and they will ALL tell you the world is flat. Poll an unwashed westerner and, dispite thier own eyes, its round and spinning. Ask for proof and they will show you some CGI from the 1970s..lol...
Thus the debate is pointless.. the RE's belong at thier 9-5 slaving, day in and day out... segregated from the truly free people (FE's) who live BY natures laws and reality....
Fun fact: A RE'r is mot likley to be your typical 9-5 debt-slave caught in the matrix. A FE'r likey works for himself, has no debt, and UTILIZES his days rather than simply trying to 'get through them' like a RE'r...
Bee well..
-- hives
Sure the earth looks pretty flat, so would a 5 mile diameter ball to an ant!
Any child would say they live on a FLAT and stable suface with the sun and moon moving overhead.
That same child will be waiting a l0000ng time for the spinny, roundness part to happen... fact is ALL OF YOU wake up each day to a FLAT and STILL surface. Period. Go outside. Stand up straight. And observe how you are on a flat surface.
The spinning part only happens in your programmed imagination. You imagine it, dream it, 'been told it was so', but each and every day when a round-earther goes to his slave-cubicle to repay his debt, his cubicle is still, stable, and flat... then ONLY thing that moves above him is the sun and the moon...and the stars?
The FE/RE debate is too polarized to be truly productive. One camp goes outside stands perfectly still on a flat surface and SWEARS it is spinning at a zillion miles per hour and is indeed round.What are you on? Nobody has ever claimed "spinning at a zillion miles per hour", rotating at one revolution per day might be a bit more realistic.
The other camp goes outside and reports what it observes (ie science) flat, stable, round.. stuff above moving like clockwork..."Poll an unwashed westerner and, dispite thier own eyes, its round and spinning." apart from anything else this "unwashed westerner" might be able to spell better!
Where is the proof of a round earth. Poll any unmolested person from the old-world who has never heard of NASA and they will ALL tell you the world is flat. Poll an unwashed westerner and, dispite thier own eyes, its round and spinning. Ask for proof and they will show you some CGI from the 1970s..lol...
Thus the debate is pointless.. the RE's belong at thier 9-5 slaving, day in and day out... segregated from the truly free people (FE's) who live BY natures laws and reality....Really? You seem to be the one with the imagination here, with your "your programmed imagination" and "spinning at a zillion miles per hour".
Fun fact: A RE'r is mot likley to be your typical 9-5 debt-slave caught in the matrix. A FE'r likey works for himself, has no debt, and UTILIZES his days rather than simply trying to 'get through them' like a RE'r...
Bee well..
-- hives
Sattelites are FAKE.Where is your proof, because thousands of people have seen them. Are you saying every amateur astronomer is lying?Where is the 'sattelite phone' promised from the 1980s and 1990s?Ebay, Amazon, your pick. They are about 1000$ a pop, which is why most people pick the cheaper version which uses towers.Sattelites exist in your collective imagination... those sketchy images of scientists (ie actors) wearing all white lab-coats fondling a satellite in a NASA hanger... the CGI images of sattelites in space...They also exist in space above us, as anybody can go outside on certain nights and see the ISS. Are you saying that the sky is a giant television or something? How would the Government CGI the sky?Take a hike to the tallest moutain in the wilderness and let me know how the reception (to ANYTHING) is... 'sattelites' dont seem to work too good now do they...Well, cell phones won't work because there are no cell towers, but Satellite phones would. (see above, you can buy one for about 1000$)Tesla confused alot of people trying to 'bounce electrical signals' off of the ionoshpere... seems like lunacy on a ROUND earth model... but is simple REFLECTION on a FLAT earth model... Point a signal at the FLAT ionosphere and it reflects the signal just like reflecting a flashlight off of a flat mirroed ceiling to another spot on the 'floor'/earth... china, india.. wherever... just bounce the signal... again makes no sense on a round earth model... you gotta play with all this 'bending of light' nonsense.. makes perfect sense on a FE model however...Funny how it only works when you "bounce" it off of the exact place where there happens to be a satellite. Try angling your Satellite TV dish and see how good of reception you get.
Not gonna argue the existence of sattelites with you because there is no argument. You CANNOT see a Boeing 747 with the naked eye at cruising altitude on a pitch-black night with its lights flashing... IT IS TOO HIGH TO SEE (ie vanishing point..)... now ANYONE who claims to have seen something 10x SMALLER at 30X HIGHER is simply WRONG! Period. End of discussion. YOU CANNOT SEE TINY SATTELITES FLOATING IN SPACE when YOU CANT even see a GIANTIC 747 at night at crusing altitude!
THE END!
-- hives
The more sandokahn feels cornered, the longer his walls of text become.
I understand why.
He feels unrest when his assertions are proved to be incorrect. But by typing he feels like he is gaining control again. He is reshaping the facts in his head and feels satisfied by the effort.
Inetersting from a psychological perspective.
Earth still a spheroid.
Think about this then: If ships actually go over the horizon (which they do not, as I have seen this for myself, and any evidence shown of this is a function of limited perspective) then it would mean you can see curvature only several miles away. If that is the case then at 33 KM high how is it possible that the horizon is always flat and at eye level - which has been proven by countless balloon videos. This is impossible. The only solution is that the earth is not a globe, and in either situation there is no curvature, because you are not living on a sphere.
Whatever your height the horizon is the same distance from you all the way round, so it looks the same height all the way around, soit looks flat!What does change is the dip angle to the horizon. Ask anyone who has done any celestial navigation about that.
The "dip angle to the horizon" is just your(eye height above the horizon) divided by (the distance to the horizon), converted to degrees.If you are standing right at sea level, say an eye height of 1.5 m, the horizon is about 4.4 km away making the dip angle 0.04°, quite invisible.
Even in an aircraft at say 10,000 m, the horizon is about 360 km away making the dip angle 3.2°, quite measurable, but not easy to pick without a reference.
At your 30 km, the horizon is about 620 km away making the dip angle 5.6°.
Now where have you any examples of anyone actually measuring the "dip angle to the horizon" from 30 km up? People just say "it looks level", or "that's just a fish-eye lens"
Remember 30 km is still only 0.2% of the earth's diameter!
This video Debunked: The Horizon Always at Eye Level (http://) gives some measurements (only on a smart phone) of the "dip angle".
By the way, I had calculated that dip angle of 3.2° from an aircraft at 10,000 m months before finding that video - maybe there's something in these sums!
Yes, the horizon seems to rise to eye-level, but only because of perspective, that is the relatively small distance from eye-level to the horizon (compared to the size of the earth) seems very small over the large distance the horizon if from the observer.I wish more people would out some effort into this measurement, as it is quite definitive!Below 1000 m of so you do need surveying equipment, a surveyors level or theodolite, for reliable results.
The more sandokahn feels cornered, the longer his walls of text become.
I understand why.
He feels unrest when his assertions are proved to be incorrect. But by typing he feels like he is gaining control again. He is reshaping the facts in his head and feels satisfied by the effort.
Inetersting from a psychological perspective.
Earth still a spheroid.
You have nothing else to say about anything so you result to these comments. You're so butt hurt and its hilarious, keep em' coming.
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
My personal favourite's weather prediction.
Even if we assume all the data comes strictly from ground-based sources, meteorology is based on certain equations, and those equations take into account the Coriolis force as a key factor. Without the Coriolis term in the equation, you'd primarily get motion to and from the equator. With the Coriolis term included, you get what's called geostrophic flow. This essentially means when wind flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low, it gets deflected (in a different direction depending on hemisphere).
This behaviour is key, and visible on publicly available weather maps. Nothing's behind closed doors here, all the numbers and resources can easily be found by anyone.
Round Earth Theory successfully predicts the future in a verifiable fashion, daily.
You're welcome to use the same maps to try to do the same assuming there's no Coriolis force, and so no geostrophic flow. You can of course verify the maps if you're willing to put in a little effort, coordinating with others online, but if you don't want to do that it's still pretty clear they must be accurate as the maps are the same wherever you are. if you look up the weather in, say, Britain, and then use a proxy to change your IP so it seems like you're looking from somewhere else, you'd get the same answer.
So, if weather maps are accurate for the present, how do they predict the future if the assumptions they're founded upon are false?
Omit the effect of the Coriolis force, it doesn't work. Assume the Earth's rotating so there's a force in one direction, it still wouldn't work.
(Side note: this is primarily about shorter-term weather prediction. Knowing the direction pressure systems will move, and the subsequent wind direction etc, are all impressive feats to get right when the justification is apparently guesswork or a lie, according to FET. For the longer term, it tends to be less accurate because the PDEs governing weather systems are incredibly complex, and typically solutions can only be approximated. Still, they're often right more than you'd expect if it was chance alone).
Of course prediction is not impossible on a globe modelIt should be, that's the whole point. If the key underlying factor to the calculations is non-existent, how on earth is a prediction meant to be made?
@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him. Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?
Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him. Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?
Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset
THE LATEST VIEWPOINT in cosmology today is this: MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).
THIS IS THE LAST STAND of the RE scientists.
Of course prediction is not impossible on a globe modelIt should be, that's the whole point. If the key underlying factor to the calculations is non-existent, how on earth is a prediction meant to be made?
Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him. Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?
Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset
I don't quite want to prove anything. Its just that in round earth model it is explained very simply but no one has ever given any simple explanation in flat earth model. It just happens and no one ever thinks about it. But I really would like to see how it works on flat earth model and if I even can somehow observe it with things in hand. Like lamp and table and some clouds made of cotton. I am quite frustrated with my inablity to imagine this thing.Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him. Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?
Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset
I really don't know where to start with this, light and our perception, in a situation as you have shown in this picture with no frame of reference, is so convoluted how does this prove anything
Is it 100% accurate. Would you consider the Coriolis frequency to be the root of all equations in which you are speaking about.It's not 100% accurate because the equations in question can't be properly solved with currently knowledge. (Seriously, you can get a million dollars for proving they even have a unique solution, they're advanced). The approximations made, however, are remarkable accurate in the short term before the error adds up.
You have no idea what you are talking about: how many times do you want me to prove you wrong?
The Sagnac effect DESTROYS relativity, no doubt about that.
You have already been given the references which detail the orbital Sagnac effect, it is greater, of course, than the rotational Sagnac effect.
It is completely missing from the GPS satellites recordings.
I always bring to everybody's attention the BEST bibliographical references.
Do you understand where you are and what is being discussed here?
You lack the most basic knowledge of astrophysaoeuoeuoblahblahblahorbitalsagnaceffectblah...
Do you understand basic English and basic physics?
If you want to live in a universe of your own making, a fantasy world, then go ahead and do so.
If you want to live in a universe of your own making, a fantasy world, then go ahead and do so.
holy irony batman!
the flat earth is an imaginary fantasy world, with no physical evidence whatsoever, only assumptions and cognitive dissonance to ignore the physical visual irrefutable evidence absolutely proving our shape
It is not irony if it is expected. That would kind of be the opposite of irony, am i right?
It is not irony if it is expected. That would kind of be the opposite of irony, am i right?
Okay this made me chuckle.
Nothing yet? Very simple thing but absolutely no ideas how it may work in FE model.I don't quite want to prove anything. Its just that in round earth model it is explained very simply but no one has ever given any simple explanation in flat earth model. It just happens and no one ever thinks about it. But I really would like to see how it works on flat earth model and if I even can somehow observe it with things in hand. Like lamp and table and some clouds made of cotton. I am quite frustrated with my inablity to imagine this thing.Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him. Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?
Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset
I really don't know where to start with this, light and our perception, in a situation as you have shown in this picture with no frame of reference, is so convoluted how does this prove anything
Nothing yet? Very simple thing but absolutely no ideas how it may work in FE model.I don't quite want to prove anything. Its just that in round earth model it is explained very simply but no one has ever given any simple explanation in flat earth model. It just happens and no one ever thinks about it. But I really would like to see how it works on flat earth model and if I even can somehow observe it with things in hand. Like lamp and table and some clouds made of cotton. I am quite frustrated with my inablity to imagine this thing.Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him. Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?
Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset
I really don't know where to start with this, light and our perception, in a situation as you have shown in this picture with no frame of reference, is so convoluted how does this prove anything
How come the sun stays the same size and shape throughout the day then? If it truly was receding, it should get smaller, and no martter how far away it went, it would never go underneath the horizon.
Car lights do not appear larger. Two headlights will seem to merge into one if the car is far enough away.
All the properly done videos show the sun as the same size. Do you have any properly done videos showing the %500 change so I can claim a Nobel Prize?
Their position moves. It's a well known property of waves. Sound waves can do it too.
And it cannot apply to the sun since there is only one sun.
Like I said proper videos don't show a change other than what is expected.
Why do people over 5,000 miles from each other see the exact same face of the sun?
That is a pretty crappy solar filter. Notice how the actual sun stays the same size, but the glare gets smaller because the atmosphere filters it out. So tell me, how does the sun stay the same size?Their position moves. It's a well known property of waves. Sound waves can do it too.
And it cannot apply to the sun since there is only one sun.
The sun is not 92.96 million miles away
That is a pretty crappy solar filter. Notice how the actual sun stays the same size, but the glare gets smaller because the atmosphere filters it out. So tell me, how does the sun stay the same size?Their position moves. It's a well known property of waves. Sound waves can do it too.
And it cannot apply to the sun since there is only one sun.
The sun is not 92.96 million miles away
"The disc is very clearly defined"
No it is not. Take a look at those pictures. The disk is not clearly defined.
What time in the video shows the sun shrinking to 1/4th it's size?That is a pretty crappy solar filter. Notice how the actual sun stays the same size, but the glare gets smaller because the atmosphere filters it out. So tell me, how does the sun stay the same size?Their position moves. It's a well known property of waves. Sound waves can do it too.
And it cannot apply to the sun since there is only one sun.
The sun is not 92.96 million miles away
Deny it all you want but the sun does not stay the same size. A solar filter was used, disc is clearly defined, and a comparison is shown very clearly. So tell me how does it feel knowing the sun is not 92.96 million miles away?
A real solar filter would make the sun look like this:"The disc is very clearly defined"
No it is not. Take a look at those pictures. The disk is not clearly defined.
Yes they are get your eyes checked.
Is this a joke? Do people still seriously believe we live on a ball?
So, you are unable to draw simple picture for demonstration purposes how light moves from sun to the place where observer is so that it makes sense? To the underside of the clouds or to the upper part of clouds. Or some demonstration video... table, lamp, cotton clouds? You can make even the dumbest person to understand when you use visualization and not just some vague explanations like - different phenomena. Which doesn't say or explain anything.Nothing yet? Very simple thing but absolutely no ideas how it may work in FE model.I don't quite want to prove anything. Its just that in round earth model it is explained very simply but no one has ever given any simple explanation in flat earth model. It just happens and no one ever thinks about it. But I really would like to see how it works on flat earth model and if I even can somehow observe it with things in hand. Like lamp and table and some clouds made of cotton. I am quite frustrated with my inablity to imagine this thing.Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him. Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?
Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset
I really don't know where to start with this, light and our perception, in a situation as you have shown in this picture with no frame of reference, is so convoluted how does this prove anything
The sun is close, somewhere around 3k miles away from the earth and rotates around in a circle of the motionless earth beneath your feet. As the sun moves away from you it recedes into the distance (sunset) and appears to converge with the horizon at the apex of your perspective, different phenomena occur such as the sun's colors, size, and effects of light due to many factors in the increased density of air, humidity, gases, etc close to the earths surface. Very simple.
A real solar filter would make the sun look like this:"The disc is very clearly defined"
No it is not. Take a look at those pictures. The disk is not clearly defined.
Yes they are get your eyes checked.
Is this a joke? Do people still seriously believe we live on a ball?
(https://starizona.com/acb/basics/images/sunspots.jpg)
come back with a real solar filter.
So, you are unable to draw simple picture for demonstration purposes how light moves from sun to the place where observer is so that it makes sense? To the underside of the clouds or to the upper part of clouds. Or some demonstration video... table, lamp, cotton clouds? You can make even the dumbest person to understand when you use visualization and not just some vague explanations like - different phenomena. Which doesn't say or explain anything.Nothing yet? Very simple thing but absolutely no ideas how it may work in FE model.I don't quite want to prove anything. Its just that in round earth model it is explained very simply but no one has ever given any simple explanation in flat earth model. It just happens and no one ever thinks about it. But I really would like to see how it works on flat earth model and if I even can somehow observe it with things in hand. Like lamp and table and some clouds made of cotton. I am quite frustrated with my inablity to imagine this thing.Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him. Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?
Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset
I really don't know where to start with this, light and our perception, in a situation as you have shown in this picture with no frame of reference, is so convoluted how does this prove anything
The sun is close, somewhere around 3k miles away from the earth and rotates around in a circle of the motionless earth beneath your feet. As the sun moves away from you it recedes into the distance (sunset) and appears to converge with the horizon at the apex of your perspective, different phenomena occur such as the sun's colors, size, and effects of light due to many factors in the increased density of air, humidity, gases, etc close to the earths surface. Very simple.
Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is best :DI have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.
Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.0)
The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.0)
This should be enough to start with.
Unwilling. If you want to know more information about how light can work in the atmosphere on a FE I can point you to about a dozen threads here debating the topic to nausium. Do you have any verifiable evidence to prove we live on a globe?Debating... but no one can figure such a simple thing like out how light moves during sunset. Why? Take a pen and paper. Draw sun to some far corner of the paper and start drawing. Can't even do that? First step is to visualize how things are outside and then we can look at it and start thinking. Hmm, how is this kind of situation possible? And sure, I have verifiable evidence that we live on a globe and all of them are discussed in this forum so I point you(like you pointed) some hundreds of threads here where they are/were discussed.
The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
You can never see a full moon during the day. Only a waxing or waning gibbous. Check you facts first. Here is a farmers almanac article about it:
link (http://farmersalmanac.com/astronomy/2013/07/08/a-daytime-full-moon/)
I assume you don't think that every farmer in the world is lying, so hopefully you will take their word for it.
You can never see a full moon during the day. Only a waxing or waning gibbous. Check you facts first. Here is a farmers almanac article about it:
link (http://farmersalmanac.com/astronomy/2013/07/08/a-daytime-full-moon/)
I assume you don't think that every farmer in the world is lying, so hopefully you will take their word for it.
I have seen a full moon during the day, and so have many others. If you say it's not full only 99% so what, I want you to draw me a picture of how a 99% full moon appears during the day.
Your link doesn't talk about the issue but links to another page. Let me post this complete bullshit for you:
"It’s only as the Moon gets close to its quarter phases that the conditions are ideal for it to be seen during the day. That is, it is bright enough, far enough away from the Sun to be seen, and rises or sets during daylight hours. When all of these conditions come together, and when the sky is clear enough, the Moon becomes visible during the daytime."
Only if you ignore angle of incidence.Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is best :DI have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.
Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.0)
The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.0)
This should be enough to start with.
If the sun were 93 million miiles away, there would be no fluctuation in temperature during the daytime.
Well, I did the math, and the moon would need to be 1.05 degrees away from a full moon for someone to see it in the day. So it would be 179/180ths of a full moon. Or 99.5% of a full moon. Illustration down below (NOT TO SCALE)
(https://44159919-198113350668198683.preview.editmysite.com/uploads/4/4/1/5/44159919/full-moon-daytime_orig.png)
Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is best :DI have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.
Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.0)
The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.0)
This should be enough to start with.
If the sun were 93 million miiles away, there would be no fluctuation in temperature during the daytime.
Its not actually full moon but sure, internet is full of explanations and you can find thousands of pictures about them. For example in this thread (https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-see-a-full-moon-during-the-day-while-the-sun-is-still-in-the-sky) . But I fail to find even one for my question. So how about it? Or I just drop my question and accept that you are a failure and your FE model is BS because you totally fail to visualize one simple aspect of it.The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works
I even made a visualization a few posts ago ;DIts not actually full moon but sure, internet is full of explanations and you can find thousands of pictures about them. For example in this thread (https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-see-a-full-moon-during-the-day-while-the-sun-is-still-in-the-sky) . But I fail to find even one for my question. So how about it? Or I just drop my question and accept that you are a failure and your FE model is BS because you totally fail to visualize one simple aspect of it.The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works
I saw and it was very nice. It clearly shows how easy it is to visualize round earth but how impossible hard it is to visualize falt one.I even made a visualization a few posts ago ;DIts not actually full moon but sure, internet is full of explanations and you can find thousands of pictures about them. For example in this thread (https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-see-a-full-moon-during-the-day-while-the-sun-is-still-in-the-sky) . But I fail to find even one for my question. So how about it? Or I just drop my question and accept that you are a failure and your FE model is BS because you totally fail to visualize one simple aspect of it.The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works
"The disc is very clearly defined"
No it is not. Take a look at those pictures. The disk is not clearly defined.
Yes they are get your eyes checked.
Is this a joke? Do people still seriously believe we live on a ball?
Their position moves. It's a well known property of waves. Sound waves can do it too.
And it cannot apply to the sun since there is only one sun.
The sun is not 92.96 million miles away
You can never see a full moon during the day. Only a waxing or waning gibbous. Check you facts first. Here is a farmers almanac article about it:
link (http://farmersalmanac.com/astronomy/2013/07/08/a-daytime-full-moon/)
I assume you don't think that every farmer in the world is lying, so hopefully you will take their word for it.
I have seen a full moon during the day, and so have many others. If you say it's not full only 99% so what, I want you to draw me a picture of how a 99% full moon appears during the day.
Your link doesn't talk about the issue but links to another page. Let me post this complete bullshit for you:
"It’s only as the Moon gets close to its quarter phases that the conditions are ideal for it to be seen during the day. That is, it is bright enough, far enough away from the Sun to be seen, and rises or sets during daylight hours. When all of these conditions come together, and when the sky is clear enough, the Moon becomes visible during the daytime."
When is there a full moon during the day?The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works
The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works
(https://44159919-198113350668198683.preview.editmysite.com/uploads/4/4/1/5/44159919/full-moon-daytime_1_orig.png)
Never, unless you are on a high mountain right as the sun is setting maybe.When is there a full moon during the day?The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works
Never, unless you are on a high mountain right as the sun is setting maybe.When is there a full moon during the day?The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works
I find it cute you think you found a problem that no one else found in the last 10,000 years.
I find it cute you think you found a problem that no one else found in the last 10,000 years.
I never said that. There are 1000's of problems with the globe earth model which is why this forum exists. Anyway, here is the [not new] problem I have with the moon and the globe earth.
I've seen this for myself where the moon is full (99%) and is at least 20degrees above the horizon during the day. Look at this photo, and there are many more like it, which from what I understand, should be impossible, because the moon should never appear to the observer at any point as even close to being full.
But it does exist...
http://www.overlandingfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Salar-de-Uyuni-the-moon-at-sunrise-2.jpg
Here is a little diagram showing why
(https://s22.postimg.org/chw1pxuz5/nofullmoon.jpg)
(https://postimg.org/image/dwxmenw25/)
Right at the time of a full moon, both the moon and the sun can be seen for a few minutes at sunset or sunrise.When is there a full moon during the day?The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works
Right at the time of a full moon, both the moon and the sun can be seen for a few minutes at sunset or sunrise.When is there a full moon during the day?The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works
As well as that, one day either side of the full moon, to many people it looks "near enough" to being full, so an "almost full" moon can be seen for about 40 minutes before sunset or about 40 minutes after sunrise.
In the latter case, the moon is, of course, not really full, it just looks "near enough".
It should be realised that we never see a perfect full moon as that would imply perfect alignment of the sun, earth and moon, giving us a total lunar eclipse.
I'm aware of that. Thanks though. I'm looking for the days where there is a full moon at noon.Right at the time of a full moon, both the moon and the sun can be seen for a few minutes at sunset or sunrise.When is there a full moon during the day?The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works
As well as that, one day either side of the full moon, to many people it looks "near enough" to being full, so an "almost full" moon can be seen for about 40 minutes before sunset or about 40 minutes after sunrise.
In the latter case, the moon is, of course, not really full, it just looks "near enough".
It should be realised that we never see a perfect full moon as that would imply perfect alignment of the sun, earth and moon, giving us a total lunar eclipse.
Did my best with MS Paint, but here is a circle on top.
(https://44159919-198113350668198683.preview.editmysite.com/uploads/4/4/1/5/44159919/full-moon_orig.jpg)
As you can see, it is not a full moon. Also, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the dark side is facing towards the horizon, exactly as we would expect on a near-full moon during dusk.
If that is in fact a 188x188 pixel square then that is NOT a circle as it does not touch the top and bottom of the square while it does touch the sides. That makes it an ellipse and NOT full.Did my best with MS Paint, but here is a circle on top.
(https://44159919-198113350668198683.preview.editmysite.com/uploads/4/4/1/5/44159919/full-moon_orig.jpg)
As you can see, it is not a full moon. Also, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the dark side is facing towards the horizon, exactly as we would expect on a near-full moon during dusk.
I think your circle tool is broken....Again this is impossible on a globe earth.
(https://s13.postimg.org/bevjq4it3/moon.jpg)
If that is in fact a 188x188 pixel square then that is NOT a circle as it does not touch the top and bottom of the square while it does touch the sides. That makes it an ellipse and NOT full.Did my best with MS Paint, but here is a circle on top.
(https://44159919-198113350668198683.preview.editmysite.com/uploads/4/4/1/5/44159919/full-moon_orig.jpg)
As you can see, it is not a full moon. Also, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the dark side is facing towards the horizon, exactly as we would expect on a near-full moon during dusk.
I think your circle tool is broken....Again this is impossible on a globe earth.
(https://s13.postimg.org/bevjq4it3/moon.jpg)
his circle doesn't follow the moon because it IS NOT FULL. Your "circle" does not fit the square because it is not a circle.If that is in fact a 188x188 pixel square then that is NOT a circle as it does not touch the top and bottom of the square while it does touch the sides. That makes it an ellipse and NOT full.Did my best with MS Paint, but here is a circle on top.
(https://44159919-198113350668198683.preview.editmysite.com/uploads/4/4/1/5/44159919/full-moon_orig.jpg)
As you can see, it is not a full moon. Also, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the dark side is facing towards the horizon, exactly as we would expect on a near-full moon during dusk.
I think your circle tool is broken....Again this is impossible on a globe earth.
(https://s13.postimg.org/bevjq4it3/moon.jpg)
That is interesting, but if you notice origamiscienceguy's circle doesn't follow the moon, and the circle does not fit in the square at all. I don't think the moon is a perfect sphere. Its a little squishier at the poles and a little chubbier along the mid section...oh wait, what am I saying??
It's a 99.8% full moon buddy.
his circle doesn't follow the moon because it IS NOT FULL. Your "circle" does not fit the square because it is not a circle.If that is in fact a 188x188 pixel square then that is NOT a circle as it does not touch the top and bottom of the square while it does touch the sides. That makes it an ellipse and NOT full.Did my best with MS Paint, but here is a circle on top.
As you can see, it is not a full moon. Also, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the dark side is facing towards the horizon, exactly as we would expect on a near-full moon during dusk.
I think your circle tool is broken....Again this is impossible on a globe earth.
That is interesting, but if you notice origamiscienceguy's circle doesn't follow the moon, and the circle does not fit in the square at all. I don't think the moon is a perfect sphere. Its a little squishier at the poles and a little chubbier along the mid section...oh wait, what am I saying??
It's a 99.8% full moon buddy.
The Moon has an equatorial radius of 1,738.1 km and a polar radius of 1,736.0 km so it is not a perfect sphere but not by enough to tell in a picture of this size or by the naked eye.
You are still wrong and the moon in the pic is still not full (your own drawing proves it and origamiscienceguy's drawing proved it) and not 99.8% full either. But thanks for proving the old adage that most statistics are made up on the spot.
You've altered it somehow. As already mentioned, I measured before and top to bottom was 182 pixels. So the question now becomes why you feel the need to be deceptive, first by claiming an obvious non-circle is a circle and then by altering the image. I zoomed in on this one and measured and while it is 187 top to bottom, it is 183 side to side. You altered it and screwed up. Just can't admit when you're wrong, can you?his circle doesn't follow the moon because it IS NOT FULL. Your "circle" does not fit the square because it is not a circle.If that is in fact a 188x188 pixel square then that is NOT a circle as it does not touch the top and bottom of the square while it does touch the sides. That makes it an ellipse and NOT full.Did my best with MS Paint, but here is a circle on top.
As you can see, it is not a full moon. Also, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the dark side is facing towards the horizon, exactly as we would expect on a near-full moon during dusk.
I think your circle tool is broken....Again this is impossible on a globe earth.
That is interesting, but if you notice origamiscienceguy's circle doesn't follow the moon, and the circle does not fit in the square at all. I don't think the moon is a perfect sphere. Its a little squishier at the poles and a little chubbier along the mid section...oh wait, what am I saying??
It's a 99.8% full moon buddy.
The Moon has an equatorial radius of 1,738.1 km and a polar radius of 1,736.0 km so it is not a perfect sphere but not by enough to tell in a picture of this size or by the naked eye.
You are still wrong and the moon in the pic is still not full (your own drawing proves it and origamiscienceguy's drawing proved it) and not 99.8% full either. But thanks for proving the old adage that most statistics are made up on the spot.
Its fixed. looks to me like its a 100% full moon. Where is your excuse now?
(https://s9.postimg.org/4rgryd9bj/moon3.jpg)
You've altered it somehow. As already mentioned, I measured before and top to bottom was 182 pixels. So the question now becomes why you feel the need to be deceptive, first by claiming an obvious non-circle is a circle and then by altering the image. I zoomed in on this one and measured and while it is 187 top to bottom, it is 183 side to side. You altered it and screwed up. Just can't admit when you're wrong, can you?his circle doesn't follow the moon because it IS NOT FULL. Your "circle" does not fit the square because it is not a circle.If that is in fact a 188x188 pixel square then that is NOT a circle as it does not touch the top and bottom of the square while it does touch the sides. That makes it an ellipse and NOT full.Did my best with MS Paint, but here is a circle on top.
As you can see, it is not a full moon. Also, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the dark side is facing towards the horizon, exactly as we would expect on a near-full moon during dusk.
I think your circle tool is broken....Again this is impossible on a globe earth.
That is interesting, but if you notice origamiscienceguy's circle doesn't follow the moon, and the circle does not fit in the square at all. I don't think the moon is a perfect sphere. Its a little squishier at the poles and a little chubbier along the mid section...oh wait, what am I saying??
It's a 99.8% full moon buddy.
The Moon has an equatorial radius of 1,738.1 km and a polar radius of 1,736.0 km so it is not a perfect sphere but not by enough to tell in a picture of this size or by the naked eye.
You are still wrong and the moon in the pic is still not full (your own drawing proves it and origamiscienceguy's drawing proved it) and not 99.8% full either. But thanks for proving the old adage that most statistics are made up on the spot.
Its fixed. looks to me like its a 100% full moon. Where is your excuse now?
How about you don't CHANGE THE SHAPE in your next picture. Here is the original picture on top of your drawing:
I left a bit of the outline on, so you can clearly see where he stretched the moon.
I'm not being deceptive.
I changed the square from 188x188 to 187x187 and made the line thinner. I drew another circle holding shift as suggested by someone above.
Anyone can download this picture and do the same thing and get the same result. I know this, so everyone try it and you will see it works.
100% full moon, 100% busted.
Download this picture:The argue about this photo is astonishing.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2858/11466597746_e680994ed0_b.jpg)
Maybe this nonsense works for most people but according to your own globe earth model the below image should be impossible.
Damn, silicon, that must hurt!
Two times you tried to fake the facts so they fit in your view of the world, two times instant exposed as a liar.
You tried to "disprove" flat earth with an invalid argument - instant getting destroyed.
I start to feel sorry for you.
Maybe this nonsense works for most people but according to your own globe earth model the below image should be impossible.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2858/11466597746_e680994ed0_b.jpg)
Why should the moon appear a pefect circle when your own roundly scientists agree it is not a perfect sphere?
Why should the moon appear a pefect circle when your own roundly scientists agree it is not a perfect sphere?
Something to do with the way the human brain works. We overlook the way it appears to be a pefect circle and imagine it is a perfect circle.
It can actually not be "proven" that earth is spinning. All phenomena associated with the earth spin, Coriolis and centrifugal force included, can be explained otherwise, too. If you do not believe me, please google "Lense-Thirring-Effect"
Why should the moon appear a pefect circle when your own roundly scientists agree it is not a perfect sphere?Bullshit.
Why should the moon appear a pefect circle when your own roundly scientists agree it is not a perfect sphere?
Something to do with the way the human brain works. We overlook the way it appears to be a pefect circle and imagine it is a perfect circle.
Then, why are all the roundies going on about the picture not being perfect?
Why should the moon appear a pefect circle when your own roundly scientists agree it is not a perfect sphere?Bullshit.
It has been stated how much the difference in height and width would be. Read it again.
It has been proven that there were 2 times used fake "evidence" to prove a wrong point.
Why should the moon appear a pefect circle when your own roundly scientists agree it is not a perfect sphere?Bullshit.
It has been stated how much the difference in height and width would be. Read it again.
It has been proven that there were 2 times used fake "evidence" to prove a wrong point.
Photo enhancing = fake now? Perhaps you should inform NASA?
Again, the original was 182 pixels top to bottom and it was wider side to side. In you supposed 187x187 it is now 183 side to side. Not 100% full and never was.You've altered it somehow. As already mentioned, I measured before and top to bottom was 182 pixels. So the question now becomes why you feel the need to be deceptive, first by claiming an obvious non-circle is a circle and then by altering the image. I zoomed in on this one and measured and while it is 187 top to bottom, it is 183 side to side. You altered it and screwed up. Just can't admit when you're wrong, can you?his circle doesn't follow the moon because it IS NOT FULL. Your "circle" does not fit the square because it is not a circle.If that is in fact a 188x188 pixel square then that is NOT a circle as it does not touch the top and bottom of the square while it does touch the sides. That makes it an ellipse and NOT full.Did my best with MS Paint, but here is a circle on top.
As you can see, it is not a full moon. Also, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the dark side is facing towards the horizon, exactly as we would expect on a near-full moon during dusk.
I think your circle tool is broken....Again this is impossible on a globe earth.
That is interesting, but if you notice origamiscienceguy's circle doesn't follow the moon, and the circle does not fit in the square at all. I don't think the moon is a perfect sphere. Its a little squishier at the poles and a little chubbier along the mid section...oh wait, what am I saying??
It's a 99.8% full moon buddy.
The Moon has an equatorial radius of 1,738.1 km and a polar radius of 1,736.0 km so it is not a perfect sphere but not by enough to tell in a picture of this size or by the naked eye.
You are still wrong and the moon in the pic is still not full (your own drawing proves it and origamiscienceguy's drawing proved it) and not 99.8% full either. But thanks for proving the old adage that most statistics are made up on the spot.
Its fixed. looks to me like its a 100% full moon. Where is your excuse now?
I'm not being deceptive.
I changed the square from 188x188 to 187x187 and made the line thinner. I drew another circle holding shift as suggested by someone above.
Anyone can download this picture and do the same thing and get the same result. I know this, so everyone try it and you will see it works.
100% full moon, 100% busted.
Why should the moon appear a pefect circle when your own roundly scientists agree it is not a perfect sphere?Bullshit.
It has been stated how much the difference in height and width would be. Read it again.
It has been proven that there were 2 times used fake "evidence" to prove a wrong point.
Photo enhancing = fake now? Perhaps you should inform NASA?
Using photoshop to change a picture = not fake now?
Perhaps you should use your brain?
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
Why should the moon appear a pefect circle when your own roundly scientists agree it is not a perfect sphere?Bullshit.
It has been stated how much the difference in height and width would be. Read it again.
It has been proven that there were 2 times used fake "evidence" to prove a wrong point.
Photo enhancing = fake now? Perhaps you should inform NASA?
Using photoshop to change a picture = not fake now?
Perhaps you should use your brain?
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
Enhance =!= changing to prove an invalid point.
Why should the moon appear a pefect circle when your own roundly scientists agree it is not a perfect sphere?
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
Enhance =!= changing to prove an invalid point.
You mean, like when NASA stiches a bunch of pics into a circular shape and you people jump around proclaiming proof of a ball?
Why should the moon appear a pefect circle when your own roundly scientists agree it is not a perfect sphere?
Just possibly because "the equatorial diameter of the Moon is 3,476.28 km" and "the polar diameter of the Moon is 3,471.94 km" or about 0.1% off spherical.
Are you really going to notice 1 part in 1,000 out of round?
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
Enhance =!= changing to prove an invalid point.
You mean, like when NASA stiches a bunch of pics into a circular shape and you people jump around proclaiming proof of a ball?
Nasa does not use it as a proof for a round earth.
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
This is absurd.
Now you use the fact that one nutter changes the shape of the moon to prove that the earth is flat, as evidence that all pictures ever taken from the Earth are faked.
This is totally absurd. Even for FE this is absurd.
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
This is absurd.
Now you use the fact that one nutter changes the shape of the moon to prove that the earth is flat, as evidence that all pictures ever taken from the Earth are faked.
This is totally absurd. Even for FE this is absurd.
I never said it was evidence. I simply questioned the double standard.
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
Enhance =!= changing to prove an invalid point.
You mean, like when NASA stiches a bunch of pics into a circular shape and you people jump around proclaiming proof of a ball?
Nasa does not use it as a proof for a round earth.
They don't need to prove something that most people believe anyway.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?Its not wrong and why do you post here pictures of almost full moon, not full full moon? Do you have problems with your eyes?
So no pictures of a full moon at noon?
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity. I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
(http://www.overlandingfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Salar-de-Uyuni-the-moon-at-sunrise-2.jpg)
So no pictures of a full moon at noon?
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity. I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
He is deperate.
He would like to force everyone to believe what Flatties say,
and disregard wat people see around in reality.
He would love to forbid people going to Moon again,
just to prevent any further proof that they were already there.
With so many ongoing projects by space agencies all around the world
space colonization is just a matter of time.
We could let flatties dream while they can, (if they wouldn't drag more naive, vulnerable kids into it).
It won't last long.
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
This is absurd.
Now you use the fact that one nutter changes the shape of the moon to prove that the earth is flat, as evidence that all pictures ever taken from the Earth are faked.
This is totally absurd. Even for FE this is absurd.
I never said it was evidence. I simply questioned the double standard.
HOW IS THIS A DOUBLE STANDARD?
Guy on FE forum fakes a picture. Unmasked within minutes.
One million pictures of the Earth, live satellite feeds, pictures taken from probes, space ships, the surface of the moon...
All that. Not a shred of evidence that ANY of it is faked.
But somehow this one little petty man on the FE forum with his bad MS pain skills just proves that all those real pictures should be considered fake?
ARE YOU INSANE?
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
Enhance =!= changing to prove an invalid point.
You mean, like when NASA stiches a bunch of pics into a circular shape and you people jump around proclaiming proof of a ball?
Nasa does not use it as a proof for a round earth.
They don't need to prove something that most people believe anyway.
Then why would you blame people for using it as a prove if it doesn't need to be proven in the first place?
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
Enhance =!= changing to prove an invalid point.
You mean, like when NASA stiches a bunch of pics into a circular shape and you people jump around proclaiming proof of a ball?
Nasa does not use it as a proof for a round earth.
They don't need to prove something that most people believe anyway.
Then why would you blame people for using it as a prove if it doesn't need to be proven in the first place?
You seem to be missing the part where you are the ones trying to prove a point. ::)
Double standard means that you do not hold one person to the same standards as another. I am sorry your Google is broke and will try to do all of your internet searches for you from here on out.
So, we can all finally agree that NASA fakes their images? This is a glorious day!
NASA?
Picture was changed by Silicon.
NASA never enhaces photos?
Enhance =!= changing to prove an invalid point.
You mean, like when NASA stiches a bunch of pics into a circular shape and you people jump around proclaiming proof of a ball?
Nasa does not use it as a proof for a round earth.
They don't need to prove something that most people believe anyway.
Then why would you blame people for using it as a prove if it doesn't need to be proven in the first place?
You seem to be missing the part where you are the ones trying to prove a point. ::)
We did not manipulate a picture to prove a point. That was the flatties.
Double standard means that you do not hold one person to the same standards as another. I am sorry your Google is broke and will try to do all of your internet searches for you from here on out.
But the flat head was the one doctoring his picture to provide fake evidence! Badly, I might add!
Are you saying you have evidence that all our pictures taken from space are faked?
I said it before, I have a journalist of the New York Times on speed-dial.
Double standard means that you do not hold one person to the same standards as another. I am sorry your Google is broke and will try to do all of your internet searches for you from here on out.
But the flat head was the one doctoring his picture to provide fake evidence! Badly, I might add!
Are you saying you have evidence that all our pictures taken from space are faked?
I said it before, I have a journalist of the New York Times on speed-dial.
How many faked pictures would shut you up? I have a little time this afternoon.
Double standard means that you do not hold one person to the same standards as another. I am sorry your Google is broke and will try to do all of your internet searches for you from here on out.
But the flat head was the one doctoring his picture to provide fake evidence! Badly, I might add!
Are you saying you have evidence that all our pictures taken from space are faked?
I said it before, I have a journalist of the New York Times on speed-dial.
How many faked pictures would shut you up? I have a little time this afternoon.
Strange, I thought all full moons would make it over 20 degrees.So no pictures of a full moon at noon?
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity. I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
None (so far). I think this full moon at 20+ degrees above the horizon will do
Only one? Well, this will be easy.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--SFMQ-NP7--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18lteal38ethjjpg.jpg)
Strange, I thought all full moons would make it over 20 degrees.So no pictures of a full moon at noon?
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity. I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
None (so far). I think this full moon at 20+ degrees above the horizon will do
Only one? Well, this will be easy.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--SFMQ-NP7--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18lteal38ethjjpg.jpg)
Source? What is the context of this picture? Where is it from? Who did the over exposure?
CONTEXT
Only one? Well, this will be easy.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--SFMQ-NP7--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18lteal38ethjjpg.jpg)
Source? What is the context of this picture? Where is it from? Who did the over exposure?
CONTEXT
Did you not know you can right click and do an image search?
Next image.
I could do this all day long, but you said one image.Technically they only said to 'start' with one. You've started with one, now you get to continue.
Next image.
I could do this all day long, but you said one image. If I give you another, you will simply ask for another. Who has that much time on their hands?
No. You didn't say anything about time of day.Strange, I thought all full moons would make it over 20 degrees.So no pictures of a full moon at noon?
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity. I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
None (so far). I think this full moon at 20+ degrees above the horizon will do
During the daytime?
Next image.
I could do this all day long, but you said one image. If I give you another, you will simply ask for another. Who has that much time on their hands?
You said you could prove nasa fakes evidence. Now you're saying you can't prove it?
Next image.
I could do this all day long, but you said one image. If I give you another, you will simply ask for another. Who has that much time on their hands?
You said you could prove nasa fakes evidence. Now you're saying you can't prove it?
I said I could do it all day long, not that I want to do it all day long. Funny how words work, right?
So, it is too difficult to prove NASA images are fake. The only one you sent so far was not by NASA. So good job there. How about you give one fake image from NASA.Next image.
I could do this all day long, but you said one image. If I give you another, you will simply ask for another. Who has that much time on their hands?
You said you could prove nasa fakes evidence. Now you're saying you can't prove it?
I said I could do it all day long, not that I want to do it all day long. Funny how words work, right?
No. You didn't say anything about time of day.Strange, I thought all full moons would make it over 20 degrees.So no pictures of a full moon at noon?
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity. I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
None (so far). I think this full moon at 20+ degrees above the horizon will do
During the daytime?
One would think you learned your lesson about lying. Guess not.No. You didn't say anything about time of day.Strange, I thought all full moons would make it over 20 degrees.So no pictures of a full moon at noon?
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity. I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
None (so far). I think this full moon at 20+ degrees above the horizon will do
During the daytime?
Now I see why you asked me that. Apparently the image in question was taken at 12:00PM on 8/11/2014
One would think you learned your lesson about lying. Guess not.No. You didn't say anything about time of day.Strange, I thought all full moons would make it over 20 degrees.So no pictures of a full moon at noon?
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity. I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
None (so far). I think this full moon at 20+ degrees above the horizon will do
During the daytime?
Now I see why you asked me that. Apparently the image in question was taken at 12:00PM on 8/11/2014
The picture you posted of the moon was not taken at noon.One would think you learned your lesson about lying. Guess not.No. You didn't say anything about time of day.Strange, I thought all full moons would make it over 20 degrees.So no pictures of a full moon at noon?
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity. I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
None (so far). I think this full moon at 20+ degrees above the horizon will do
During the daytime?
Now I see why you asked me that. Apparently the image in question was taken at 12:00PM on 8/11/2014
What does this have to do with lying?
@Jroa
I showed that it is no fake so I insist on a fake picture. You have promised a fake picture.
The picture you posted of the moon was not taken at noon.One would think you learned your lesson about lying. Guess not.No. You didn't say anything about time of day.Strange, I thought all full moons would make it over 20 degrees.So no pictures of a full moon at noon?
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity. I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
None (so far). I think this full moon at 20+ degrees above the horizon will do
During the daytime?
Now I see why you asked me that. Apparently the image in question was taken at 12:00PM on 8/11/2014
What does this have to do with lying?
@Jroa
I showed that it is no fake so I insist on a fake picture. You have promised a fake picture.
Your people are the ones claiming that photo manipulation = faking. Perhaps you should all huddle together and get your stories straight?
Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
@Jroa
I showed that it is no fake so I insist on a fake picture. You have promised a fake picture.
Your people are the ones claiming that photo manipulation = faking. Perhaps you should all huddle together and get your stories straight?
The photo has not been faked, it's a compositon of different wavelenght photographs. It has never been claimed it wasn't post-processed.
Next photo, please.
Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
@Jroa
I showed that it is no fake so I insist on a fake picture. You have promised a fake picture.
Your people are the ones claiming that photo manipulation = faking. Perhaps you should all huddle together and get your stories straight?
Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
@Jroa
I showed that it is no fake so I insist on a fake picture. You have promised a fake picture.
Your people are the ones claiming that photo manipulation = faking. Perhaps you should all huddle together and get your stories straight?
Moving the goal post much?
And a straw man argument.
That little dweeb altered his picture to prove his point. He faked evidence.
Altering a picture to make it look better is not faking evidence.
What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.
@Jroa
I showed that it is no fake so I insist on a fake picture. You have promised a fake picture.
Your people are the ones claiming that photo manipulation = faking. Perhaps you should all huddle together and get your stories straight?
Moving the goal post much?
And a straw man argument.
That little dweeb altered his picture to prove his point. He faked evidence.
Altering a picture to make it look better is not faking evidence.
So, let me get the story straight. NASA photo manipulation = making it better. Anyone else photo manipulation = fake. Is this right?
@Jroa
I showed that it is no fake so I insist on a fake picture. You have promised a fake picture.
Your people are the ones claiming that photo manipulation = faking. Perhaps you should all huddle together and get your stories straight?
Moving the goal post much?
And a straw man argument.
That little dweeb altered his picture to prove his point. He faked evidence.
Altering a picture to make it look better is not faking evidence.
So, let me get the story straight. NASA photo manipulation = making it better. Anyone else photo manipulation = fake. Is this right?
What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.
So twilight, dusk, and camera settings don't exist?What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.
There are shadows in the mountains
@Jroa
I showed that it is no fake so I insist on a fake picture. You have promised a fake picture.
Your people are the ones claiming that photo manipulation = faking. Perhaps you should all huddle together and get your stories straight?
Moving the goal post much?
And a straw man argument.
That little dweeb altered his picture to prove his point. He faked evidence.
Altering a picture to make it look better is not faking evidence.
So, let me get the story straight. NASA photo manipulation = making it better. Anyone else photo manipulation = fake. Is this right?
No. It's faking evidence if you, you know, fake evidence.
If I have a great picture of the Earth and it would look even better on the cover of a magazine if I enhance the color, I am not tricking people in believing something that is not true.
Altering a picture of the Moon to make it look like it is full when it really is not, to prove that the earth is flat, is faking evidence.
But you known all this.
Well, it appears that you people will plug your ears and sing, "la la la, I can't hear you," to any photographic evidence. Why do you keep asking for it, then?
I don't believe they could combine to form that imageSo twilight, dusk, and camera settings don't exist?What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.
There are shadows in the mountains
They all can but as already explained, the atmosphere already allows for the sun and full moon to be seen at same time. It's always either at sun rise or sun set. You will never see a full moon at noon.I don't believe they could combine to form that imageSo twilight, dusk, and camera settings don't exist?What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.
There are shadows in the mountains
They all can but as already explained, the atmosphere already allows for the sun and full moon to be seen at same time. It's always either at sun rise or sun set. You will never see a full moon at noon.I don't believe they could combine to form that imageSo twilight, dusk, and camera settings don't exist?What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.
There are shadows in the mountains
Try this video.
They all can but as already explained, the atmosphere already allows for the sun and full moon to be seen at same time. It's always either at sun rise or sun set. You will never see a full moon at noon.I don't believe they could combine to form that imageSo twilight, dusk, and camera settings don't exist?What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.
There are shadows in the mountains
Try this video.
Haven't seen anything yet that resolves the following question: How can a full moon be above the horizon at an angle of 20 + degrees when the sun is also above the horizon after sunrise or before sunset?
Haven't seen anything yet that resolves the following question: How can a full moon be above the horizon at an angle of 20 + degrees when the sun is also above the horizon after sunrise or before sunset?
And the title said sunrise.Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
If it was full. It does not appear to be completely full.Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.
They all can but as already explained, the atmosphere already allows for the sun and full moon to be seen at same time. It's always either at sun rise or sun set. You will never see a full moon at noon.I don't believe they could combine to form that imageSo twilight, dusk, and camera settings don't exist?What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.
There are shadows in the mountains
Try this video.
Haven't seen anything yet that resolves the following question: How can a full moon be above the horizon at an angle of 20 + degrees when the sun is also above the horizon after sunrise or before sunset?
Why ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers?
You seem to think you found some sort of 'gotcha', while there are in fact perfectly valid and testable answers to you questions. Stop behaving like a fool and listen.
Not pear shaped. Spheroid. Ever so slightly flattened at the top and bottom.They all can but as already explained, the atmosphere already allows for the sun and full moon to be seen at same time. It's always either at sun rise or sun set. You will never see a full moon at noon.I don't believe they could combine to form that imageSo twilight, dusk, and camera settings don't exist?What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.
There are shadows in the mountains
Try this video.
Haven't seen anything yet that resolves the following question: How can a full moon be above the horizon at an angle of 20 + degrees when the sun is also above the horizon after sunrise or before sunset?
Why ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers?
You seem to think you found some sort of 'gotcha', while there are in fact perfectly valid and testable answers to you questions. Stop behaving like a fool and listen.
haha, I've been listening to all kinds of nonsense. If you have any legitimate verifiable proofs the earth is a spinning pear shaped oblate spheroid, please share them.
Not pear shaped. Spheroid. Ever so slightly flattened at the top and bottom.They all can but as already explained, the atmosphere already allows for the sun and full moon to be seen at same time. It's always either at sun rise or sun set. You will never see a full moon at noon.I don't believe they could combine to form that imageSo twilight, dusk, and camera settings don't exist?What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.
I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.
Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.
I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.
There are shadows in the mountains
Try this video.
Haven't seen anything yet that resolves the following question: How can a full moon be above the horizon at an angle of 20 + degrees when the sun is also above the horizon after sunrise or before sunset?
Why ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers?
You seem to think you found some sort of 'gotcha', while there are in fact perfectly valid and testable answers to you questions. Stop behaving like a fool and listen.
haha, I've been listening to all kinds of nonsense. If you have any legitimate verifiable proofs the earth is a spinning pear shaped oblate spheroid, please share them.
As for evidence the Earth is round:
Watch a ship disappear behind the horizon.
Watch the sunset.
See how the stars seem to rotate around Polaris
See how the stars are different above and below the equator
See how the moon is 'flipped' when watched above or below the equator
Oh yeah, and of course the millions of pictures.
1. Please show us a ship dissapearing behind a horizon, then being brought back into focus when viewed through a telescope.
2. Show us a video of a sunset with an actual solar filter.
3. Why is that worst for globe model?
4. It is not a problem for globe earth at all. And what is the moon then? Because it is definately a sphere.
5. how about the millions of pictures that aren't composites what about them?
1. Please show us a ship dissapearing behind a horizon, then being brought back into focus when viewed through a telescope.
2. Show us a video of a sunset with an actual solar filter.
3. Why is that worst for globe model?
4. It is not a problem for globe earth at all. And what is the moon then? Because it is definately a sphere.
5. how about the millions of pictures that aren't composites what about them?
It is a truly unbreakable debating technique. Simply deny anything you dont like. You can't lose! Of course, your entire life is probably a loss, but you sure cant lose a debate when you make or break any and all rules.
I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.YES PAL but only sexually,my balls drive me crazy when i see a birds ass,i go nuts,takecare
all the stars we see with the naked eye are not only within our galaxy but within a relatively small part of our galaxy that is moving with us so the movement of the galaxy itself is irrelevant. The distances involved are still far enough that the movement around the sun is not noticeable.
3. The earth is revolving, then revolving around the sun, which is revolving around the galaxy, which is revolving around a supper-massive black hole. The speed and distances at which this is all supposedly happening is just appalling. However polaris is stuck aligned at the north pole for centuries. Just no.
He is deperate.
He would like to force everyone to believe what Flatties say,
and disregard wat people see around in reality.
He would love to forbid people going to Moon again,
just to prevent any further proof that they were already there.
With so many ongoing projects by space agencies all around the world
space colonization is just a matter of time.
We could let flatties dream while they can, (if they wouldn't drag more naive, vulnerable kids into it).
It won't last long.
Sounds like someone trying to not look like a loser. Keep it up, and maybe you will convince someone.
What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
(http://www.overlandingfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Salar-de-Uyuni-the-moon-at-sunrise-2.jpg)
"Watch a ship disappear behind the horizon." Doesn't happen as has been demonstrated in countless threads here, and in this one as well.
"Watch the sunset." Earlier in this thread I posted a video showing how the sun's diameter changes
"See how the stars seem to rotate around Polaris" - This is really worse for the globe model
"See how the moon is 'flipped' when watched above or below the equator" This is a problem for the globe as well, plus its assumed the moon is a floating rock in space
"Oh yeah, and of course the millions of pictures." All openly manipulated "composites"
Anything else?
What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
(http://www.overlandingfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Salar-de-Uyuni-the-moon-at-sunrise-2.jpg)
First, let's try to estimate how high above the horizon the moon is in this image. From the image meta-data:
Camera: Sony DSLR-A100
Focal Length: 135mm
Date: 2014-08-11 12:00:53 (Based on the shadows, this was clearly not taken at noon or midnight. Probably a timezone issue.)
Google search reveals that the DSLR-A100 has a sensor size of 23.6mm x 15.8mm. This allows us to calculate the maximum angular size of the image:
2*arctan((23.6/2)/135) = 10 degrees
10 degrees is the maximum angular width of the photo in the vertical direction. We can now get a rough approximation of the elevation of the moon. I measured 1227 pixels between the moon and the horizon:
10 degrees * (1227 px / 3872 px) = 3.2 degrees
This is a far cry from your estimated 20 degrees. Now, let's calculate the maximum width of the moon assuming the sun is on the horizon:
(1+cos(3.2 degrees))/2 = 0.9992
That's a 0.08% decrease in width. This corresponds to 0.2 pixels in the above image. So no, this image does not constitute evidence against the earth being round. Also, once again, you can clearly see the bottom left edge of the moon is more blurry than the other edges.
@Silicon: In the future, you should probably go through this same process to see if your images actually constitute valid evidence, rather than just guessing.
@Omega: There is no evidence that Silicon altered the image of the moon. Stop accusing him of such. He merely tried to pass off his overlay as more fitting than it actually was.
QuoteFirst, let's try to estimate how high above the horizon the moon is in this image. From the image meta-data:
Camera: Sony DSLR-A100
Focal Length: 135mm
Date: 2014-08-11 12:00:53 (Based on the shadows, this was clearly not taken at noon or midnight. Probably a timezone issue.)
Google search reveals that the DSLR-A100 has a sensor size of 23.6mm x 15.8mm. This allows us to calculate the maximum angular size of the image:
2*arctan((23.6/2)/135) = 10 degrees
10 degrees is the maximum angular width of the photo in the vertical direction. We can now get a rough approximation of the elevation of the moon. I measured 1227 pixels between the moon and the horizon:
10 degrees * (1227 px / 3872 px) = 3.2 degrees
You are wrong.
If the Moon has angular diameter of 0.5 degrees,
and below Moon we can fit four more until horizon,
then we have 4 X 0.5 + 0.25 = 2.25.
Your 3.2 is too much.
What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?
(http://www.overlandingfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Salar-de-Uyuni-the-moon-at-sunrise-2.jpg)
First, let's try to estimate how high above the horizon the moon is in this image. From the image meta-data:
Camera: Sony DSLR-A100
Focal Length: 135mm
Date: 2014-08-11 12:00:53 (Based on the shadows, this was clearly not taken at noon or midnight. Probably a timezone issue.)
Google search reveals that the DSLR-A100 has a sensor size of 23.6mm x 15.8mm. This allows us to calculate the maximum angular size of the image:
2*arctan((23.6/2)/135) = 10 degrees
10 degrees is the maximum angular width of the photo in the vertical direction. We can now get a rough approximation of the elevation of the moon. I measured 1227 pixels between the moon and the horizon:
10 degrees * (1227 px / 3872 px) = 3.2 degrees
This is a far cry from your estimated 20 degrees. Now, let's calculate the maximum width of the moon assuming the sun is on the horizon:
(1+cos(3.2 degrees))/2 = 0.9992
That's a 0.08% decrease in width. This corresponds to 0.2 pixels in the above image. So no, this image does not constitute evidence against the earth being round. Also, once again, you can clearly see the bottom left edge of the moon is more blurry than the other edges.
@Silicon: In the future, you should probably go through this same process to see if your images actually constitute valid evidence, rather than just guessing.
@Omega: There is no evidence that Silicon altered the image of the moon. Stop accusing him of such. He merely tried to pass off his overlay as more fitting than it actually was.
But just fyi most spec sheets give a angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438940-REG/Sony_DSLRA100K_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html
But just fyi most spec sheets give a angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438940-REG/Sony_DSLRA100K_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html
That probably assumes you are zoomed out. The field of view will change depending on the focal length. The metadata reports 135mm focal length, which means there is some significant zoom happening. Also, see Spjunk's post at an alternative method of estimating the angular distance which doesn't rely on focal length. He got an even smaller angle than me.
But just fyi most spec sheets give a angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438940-REG/Sony_DSLRA100K_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html
That probably assumes you are zoomed out. The field of view will change depending on the focal length. The metadata reports 135mm focal length, which means there is some significant zoom happening. Also, see Spjunk's post at an alternative method of estimating the angular distance which doesn't rely on focal length. He got an even smaller angle than me.
Also also, they are probably calculating the diagonal field of view, not the vertical field of view. The site reports minimum focal length of 18mm for standard lens.
sqrt(23.62 + 15.82) = 28.4 mm (diagonal sensor size)
2*arctan((28.4mm/2)/18mm) = 76.5 degrees field of view
Math checks out. Sorry bud. 76 degrees is the zoomed out FOV. The FOV in the image you posted was only 10 degrees in the vertical direction.
But just fyi most spec sheets give a angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438940-REG/Sony_DSLRA100K_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html
That probably assumes you are zoomed out. The field of view will change depending on the focal length. The metadata reports 135mm focal length, which means there is some significant zoom happening. Also, see Spjunk's post at an alternative method of estimating the angular distance which doesn't rely on focal length. He got an even smaller angle than me.
Also also, they are probably calculating the diagonal field of view, not the vertical field of view. The site reports minimum focal length of 18mm for standard lens.
sqrt(23.62 + 15.82) = 28.4 mm (diagonal sensor size)
2*arctan((28.4mm/2)/18mm) = 76.5 degrees field of view
Math checks out. Sorry bud. 76 degrees is the zoomed out FOV. The FOV in the image you posted was only 10 degrees in the vertical direction.
Right, thats why I edited the post saying whoops, looking for the correct one and its 18 degrees for that zoom. Anyway, I will check the rest of your proof, and get back to you.
You claim it is about 20 degrees over the horizon. It isn't.
(http://www.overlandingfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Salar-de-Uyuni-the-moon-at-sunrise-2.jpg)
Did you notice how you didn't actually explain the colors, size etc? You just said due to many factors. Also the sun doesn't get smaller and converge with the horizon, which is what it would do in your model, it stays the same size and shape, if it were physically moving away it would not do this. Then it moves under the horizon, still staying the same size and shape. It's light, now blocked by the horizon still reaches the tops of mountains and underside of clouds, until it eventually moves beyond even that. These things would not be possible with your model it think. And this is easily demonstrated. You can do it yourself with a ball and flashlight. Show me exactly how that would work in your model.Nothing yet? Very simple thing but absolutely no ideas how it may work in FE model.I don't quite want to prove anything. Its just that in round earth model it is explained very simply but no one has ever given any simple explanation in flat earth model. It just happens and no one ever thinks about it. But I really would like to see how it works on flat earth model and if I even can somehow observe it with things in hand. Like lamp and table and some clouds made of cotton. I am quite frustrated with my inablity to imagine this thing.Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him. Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?
Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset
I really don't know where to start with this, light and our perception, in a situation as you have shown in this picture with no frame of reference, is so convoluted how does this prove anything
The sun is close, somewhere around 3k miles away from the earth and rotates around in a circle of the motionless earth beneath your feet. As the sun moves away from you it recedes into the distance (sunset) and appears to converge with the horizon at the apex of your perspective, different phenomena occur such as the sun's colors, size, and effects of light due to many factors in the increased density of air, humidity, gases, etc close to the earths surface. Very simple.
Interesting. Notice how it doesn't get smaller as it moves towards the horizon, like you would expect it to. Notice how it drops below the horizon, with line of the horizon clearly visible as it goes beyond it? It wouldn't do that I'd the earth was flat. Thanks, your video clearly shows what would happen at sunset on a round earth.Their position moves. It's a well known property of waves. Sound waves can do it too.
And it cannot apply to the sun since there is only one sun.
The sun is not 92.96 million miles away
Did you notice how you didn't actually explain the colors, size etc? You just said due to many factors. Also the sun doesn't get smaller and converge with the horizon, which is what it would do in your model, it stays the same size and shape, if it were physically moving away it would not do this. Then it moves under the horizon, still staying the same size and shape. It's light, now blocked by the horizon still reaches the tops of mountains and underside of clouds, until it eventually moves beyond even that. These things would not be possible with your model it think. And this is easily demonstrated. You can do it yourself with a ball and flashlight. Show me exactly how that would work in your model.Nothing yet? Very simple thing but absolutely no ideas how it may work in FE model.I don't quite want to prove anything. Its just that in round earth model it is explained very simply but no one has ever given any simple explanation in flat earth model. It just happens and no one ever thinks about it. But I really would like to see how it works on flat earth model and if I even can somehow observe it with things in hand. Like lamp and table and some clouds made of cotton. I am quite frustrated with my inablity to imagine this thing.Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him. Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?
Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset
I really don't know where to start with this, light and our perception, in a situation as you have shown in this picture with no frame of reference, is so convoluted how does this prove anything
The sun is close, somewhere around 3k miles away from the earth and rotates around in a circle of the motionless earth beneath your feet. As the sun moves away from you it recedes into the distance (sunset) and appears to converge with the horizon at the apex of your perspective, different phenomena occur such as the sun's colors, size, and effects of light due to many factors in the increased density of air, humidity, gases, etc close to the earths surface. Very simple.
Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates.
You claim it is about 20 degrees over the horizon. It isn't.
5 more moons will fit between the real position and the horizon. Taking small errors to account plus the fact the Moon is only ~32' in diameter, that gives no more than 4 degrees above the horizon. The visibility of such Moon at such angle is perfectly consistent with the globe.
QuoteAir density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates.
So, "perspective is lagging", and eats sun from below, slowly, layer by layer?
Meanwhile Sun keeps width unchanged?
"Lensing" keeps the size of Sun constant all day, but doesn't keep the size of gap below the Sun?
Why, if the Sun and the gap are together, at the very same place?
How refraction operates is clear:
Sun sinks behind horizon.
QuoteAir density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates.
So, "perspective is lagging", and eats sun from below, slowly, layer by layer?
Meanwhile Sun keeps width unchanged?
"Lensing" keeps the size of Sun constant all day, but doesn't keep the size of gap below the Sun?
Why, if the Sun and the gap are together, at the very same place?
How refraction operates is clear:
Sun sinks behind horizon.
Use a proper solar filter next time
Bring a sound argument next time.QuoteAir density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates.
So, "perspective is lagging", and eats sun from below, slowly, layer by layer?
Meanwhile Sun keeps width unchanged?
"Lensing" keeps the size of Sun constant all day, but doesn't keep the size of gap below the Sun?
Why, if the Sun and the gap are together, at the very same place?
How refraction operates is clear:
Sun sinks behind horizon.
Use a proper solar filter next time
I'll use that line on your RE buddy next time.Bring a sound argument next time.QuoteAir density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates.
So, "perspective is lagging", and eats sun from below, slowly, layer by layer?
Meanwhile Sun keeps width unchanged?
"Lensing" keeps the size of Sun constant all day, but doesn't keep the size of gap below the Sun?
Why, if the Sun and the gap are together, at the very same place?
How refraction operates is clear:
Sun sinks behind horizon.
Use a proper solar filter next time
Bring a sound argument next time.I'll use that line on your RE buddy next time.
You claim it is about 20 degrees over the horizon. It isn't.
5 more moons will fit between the real position and the horizon. Taking small errors to account plus the fact the Moon is only ~32' in diameter, that gives no more than 4 degrees above the horizon. The visibility of such Moon at such angle is perfectly consistent with the globe.
Thats nice. I have a question. If I could prove Stellarium was wrong (beyond any reasonable doubt) in a similar situation, would it matter? Do you believe Stellarium is a perfect representation of the globe model? If it were wrong by say 5 degrees of suns position below.near.above the horizon at a specific time would it matter? How much would it matter? What would that mean?
I don't see you proving anything.
Why don't you just do it.
What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?Quite simple, really. If you ever check out a moonrise, moonset calculator, you may notice that as a general rule of thumb, the full moon generally rises sometime around 6:00 PM local time and generally sets sometime around 6:00 AM local time. Depending on the time of year, it's perfectly reasonable to expect to see a full moon during early morning or late evening daylight hours.
(http://www.overlandingfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Salar-de-Uyuni-the-moon-at-sunrise-2.jpg)
Hey guys do you want me to cure cancer? JK, I would have to use my own chemistry set so I'm not going to.
Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates. This has been shown dozens of times here.
On youtube there are many of videos showing very simply how this operates using ball and flashlight type objects.
Do you have any proof we live on a ball? Didn't think so. Move along now
You claim it is about 20 degrees over the horizon. It isn't.
5 more moons will fit between the real position and the horizon. Taking small errors to account plus the fact the Moon is only ~32' in diameter, that gives no more than 4 degrees above the horizon. The visibility of such Moon at such angle is perfectly consistent with the globe.
Thats nice. I have a question. If I could prove Stellarium was wrong (beyond any reasonable doubt) in a similar situation, would it matter? Do you believe Stellarium is a perfect representation of the globe model? If it were wrong by say 5 degrees of suns position below.near.above the horizon at a specific time would it matter? How much would it matter? What would that mean?
I've never used Stellarium so I have no idea how acccurate it is.You claim it is about 20 degrees over the horizon. It isn't.
5 more moons will fit between the real position and the horizon. Taking small errors to account plus the fact the Moon is only ~32' in diameter, that gives no more than 4 degrees above the horizon. The visibility of such Moon at such angle is perfectly consistent with the globe.
Thats nice. I have a question. If I could prove Stellarium was wrong (beyond any reasonable doubt) in a similar situation, would it matter? Do you believe Stellarium is a perfect representation of the globe model? If it were wrong by say 5 degrees of suns position below.near.above the horizon at a specific time would it matter? How much would it matter? What would that mean?
Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates. This has been shown dozens of times here. On youtube there are many of videos showing very simply how this operates using ball and flashlight type objects.
Do you have any proof we live on a ball? Didn't think so. Move along now
Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates. This has been shown dozens of times here. On youtube there are many of videos showing very simply how this operates using ball and flashlight type objects.There is exactly zero video on youtube which demonstrate how sunlight moves at sunset as observed outside. Zero. And you really have to be more specific how these effects affect how the sun operates not just throw these words around. You have failed multiple times to explain this very simple phenomenon. Whats the problem?
frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.
Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity. I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.
I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever. In fact we're going to the next image. What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?(http://www.overlandingfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Salar-de-Uyuni-the-moon-at-sunrise-2.jpg)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/moon-toa40d-20090904_zpseyjpmy7w.jpg) moon-toa40d-20090904, Date: Sep 04, 2009 Full: Sep 05, 2009 | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/6%20-%2020160621%2023.12%20-%20Strawberry%20Moon1%20-%20at%20Alt%2067.1deg%20Azm%2070.8deg%20%20size%20%200.53deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpslc6ljuso.jpg) Strawberry Moon+1, Date: June 21, 2016 Full: June 20, 2016 | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/Silicon%20Full%20Moon_zpstfkk9uyn.png) Silicon 'Full Moon', Date: Aug 11, 2014 (I think) Full: Aug 10, 2014 |
The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.
With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.
I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.
Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works
@Jroa
I showed that it is no fake so I insist on a fake picture. You have promised a fake picture.
Your people are the ones claiming that photo manipulation = faking. Perhaps you should all huddle together and get your stories straight?
The photo has not been faked, it's a compositon of different wavelenght photographs. It has never been claimed it wasn't post-processed.
Next photo, please.
I would say the same thing, if I was trying to pass a faked photo off as being real.
LolHey guys do you want me to cure cancer? JK, I would have to use my own chemistry set so I'm not going to.Are you comparing the globe earth to cancer? I think we finally agree on something lol
Tons of proof, you just seem to ignore it. The fact is whether you're watching from a mountain top or at sea level. Regardless of the atmospheric conditions the sun, seen as a circle, does not converge with the horizon, as you said, it visibly sinks below it, never changing its shape. This is really only possible on a round earth. I suppose you could,argue the sun is orbiting around us if you want, but still shows the earth to be round.Did you notice how you didn't actually explain the colors, size etc? You just said due to many factors. Also the sun doesn't get smaller and converge with the horizon, which is what it would do in your model, it stays the same size and shape, if it were physically moving away it would not do this. Then it moves under the horizon, still staying the same size and shape. It's light, now blocked by the horizon still reaches the tops of mountains and underside of clouds, until it eventually moves beyond even that. These things would not be possible with your model it think. And this is easily demonstrated. You can do it yourself with a ball and flashlight. Show me exactly how that would work in your model.Nothing yet? Very simple thing but absolutely no ideas how it may work in FE model.I don't quite want to prove anything. Its just that in round earth model it is explained very simply but no one has ever given any simple explanation in flat earth model. It just happens and no one ever thinks about it. But I really would like to see how it works on flat earth model and if I even can somehow observe it with things in hand. Like lamp and table and some clouds made of cotton. I am quite frustrated with my inablity to imagine this thing.Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him. Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?
Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset
I really don't know where to start with this, light and our perception, in a situation as you have shown in this picture with no frame of reference, is so convoluted how does this prove anything
The sun is close, somewhere around 3k miles away from the earth and rotates around in a circle of the motionless earth beneath your feet. As the sun moves away from you it recedes into the distance (sunset) and appears to converge with the horizon at the apex of your perspective, different phenomena occur such as the sun's colors, size, and effects of light due to many factors in the increased density of air, humidity, gases, etc close to the earths surface. Very simple.
Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates. This has been shown dozens of times here. On youtube there are many of videos showing very simply how this operates using ball and flashlight type objects.
Do you have any proof we live on a ball? Didn't think so. Move along now
What is your excuse for this full moon during the day?(http://www.overlandingfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Salar-de-Uyuni-the-moon-at-sunrise-2.jpg)
First, let's try to estimate how high above the horizon the moon is in this image. From the image meta-data:
Camera: Sony DSLR-A100
Focal Length: 135mm
Date: 2014-08-11 12:00:53 (Based on the shadows, this was clearly not taken at noon or midnight. Probably a timezone issue.)
Google search reveals that the DSLR-A100 has a sensor size of 23.6mm x 15.8mm. This allows us to calculate the maximum angular size of the image:
2*arctan((23.6/2)/135) = 10 degrees
10 degrees is the maximum angular width of the photo in the vertical direction. We can now get a rough approximation of the elevation of the moon. I measured 1227 pixels between the moon and the horizon:
10 degrees * (1227 px / 3872 px) = 3.2 degrees
This is a far cry from your estimated 20 degrees. Now, let's calculate the maximum width of the moon assuming the sun is on the horizon:
(1+cos(3.2 degrees))/2 = 0.9992
That's a 0.08% decrease in width. This corresponds to 0.2 pixels in the above image. So no, this image does not constitute evidence against the earth being round. Also, once again, you can clearly see the bottom left edge of the moon is more blurry than the other edges.
@Silicon: In the future, you should probably go through this same process to see if your images actually constitute valid evidence, rather than just guessing.
@Omega: There is no evidence that Silicon altered the image of the moon. Stop accusing him of such. He merely tried to pass off his overlay as more fitting than it actually was.
Look, I appreciate the effort and you gave some great ideas to generate proofs, I will do this next time. You were also honest about that image which is good. You sir are a top 1 percenter.
But just fyi most spec sheets give a angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438940-REG/Sony_DSLRA100K_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html
Edit: Whoops wrong one
Well no, not 76 degrees!
Well Mr Silicon, while you are fixing tour mistakes, you claim the "angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees", sure but at what focal length?
That is a DSLR with interchangeable lenses, so what lens? Do YOU know?
Well, it is easy to find out because the original photo has the jpeg EXIF data in it and that picture was taken at a focal length of 202 mm!This makes the field of view about 6.8°(horiz on picture) x 9.9° (vert on picture).So, care to revise your figures?
Have you found out exactly when (time AND date) that picture was taken yet? As I said before it matters a lot.But please! Everything on that photo fits the globe, except for the uncertainty about whether it was taken one day after the full moon, because yo simply cannot tell just by looking.
I haven't seen or don't remember that anyone mentioned such person as Giovanni Battista Guglielmini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Guglielmini). Its interesting to know if there is exlpanation for results in his experiment and other similar experiment later (some of them are mentioned in https://books.google.com/books?id=VpFPDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531#v=onepage&q&f=false ) on FE model. In short, balls were dropped straight down and most of them (as you can't totally eliminate balls own movement) landed not straight down but were deviated eastward. If the earth is still and doesn't rotate then balls dropping straight down should drop straight down not deviate to the east.
Did you read the excerpt from the book? Its because base of the tower or place nearest to earth center moves slower than place farthest. The ball dropped at the top of tower retains its velocity and should drop some distance at east of the drop site. Train is moving constantly with its entirety but tall object on spinnig ball doesn't. Its top moves faster.I haven't seen or don't remember that anyone mentioned such person as Giovanni Battista Guglielmini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Guglielmini). Its interesting to know if there is exlpanation for results in his experiment and other similar experiment later (some of them are mentioned in https://books.google.com/books?id=VpFPDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531#v=onepage&q&f=false ) on FE model. In short, balls were dropped straight down and most of them (as you can't totally eliminate balls own movement) landed not straight down but were deviated eastward. If the earth is still and doesn't rotate then balls dropping straight down should drop straight down not deviate to the east.
On the face of it that does not make any sense. If you let go of a ball it is already moving westwards with the rotation of the earth.
It's, again, like dropping a ball in a train moving at constant speed. It will drop straigh down relative to the observer in the train. For someone outside the train the ball appears to follow a diagonal path to the floor.
Did you read the excerpt from the book? Its because base of the tower or place nearest to earth center moves slower than place farthest. The ball dropped at the top of tower retains its velocity and should drop some distance at east of the drop site. Train is moving constantly with its entirety but tall object on spinnig ball doesn't. Its top moves faster.I haven't seen or don't remember that anyone mentioned such person as Giovanni Battista Guglielmini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Guglielmini). Its interesting to know if there is exlpanation for results in his experiment and other similar experiment later (some of them are mentioned in https://books.google.com/books?id=VpFPDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531#v=onepage&q&f=false ) on FE model. In short, balls were dropped straight down and most of them (as you can't totally eliminate balls own movement) landed not straight down but were deviated eastward. If the earth is still and doesn't rotate then balls dropping straight down should drop straight down not deviate to the east.
On the face of it that does not make any sense. If you let go of a ball it is already moving westwards with the rotation of the earth.
It's, again, like dropping a ball in a train moving at constant speed. It will drop straigh down relative to the observer in the train. For someone outside the train the ball appears to follow a diagonal path to the floor.
What was that? Like 4 posts.. I see in the language you use that your mind is set. Onone, nowhere can change your mind. You have already made up your mind that there is no proof. So why do you keep asking. Logic suggests all FE are trolls. And honestly, I do find really funny dialogues here. Thats why I return. Not thinking I will convert someone.Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is best :DI have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.
Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.0)
The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.0)
This should be enough to start with.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth cannot be a ball in that same thread as sandokhan pointed out. No proof here
Rabinoz's calculations for the circumference of the earth (The circumference can be calculated from (distance from Vaupes) * 360°/(angle difference of sun from Vaupes)) and based entirely on what I claim are fictitious globe numbers. Also I see it could be possible the sun rises and falls in elevation on a flat earth. So no proof here either.
Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates. This has been shown dozens of times here.
Yes, all those things "have to do with light". Luckily, we know pretty much exactly how they affect the path of light.
Reflection: Straightforward. Light bounces off stuff at a specific angle.
Elevation: Straightforward. Less stuff can get in the way if you are higher up.
Refraction: Little more complicated. Stuff like density and temperature can cause light to bend slightly.
Given these tools, give us a diagram of how light moves between the sun and our eyes as it sets. You can even make the light bend a little if you can give a plausible explanation as to why it bends. If this is as simple as you say, it should be easy! I have NEVER seen anyone explain this in my entire time on this site. (I have been lurking a lot longer than I have had an account.)QuoteOn youtube there are many of videos showing very simply how this operates using ball and flashlight type objects.
Feel free to post one of those videos demonstrating how it works. Fair warning: if they have the camera UNDERNEATH the table that they slide the ball across, like this one (http://), I will roll my eyes quite vigorously.QuoteDo you have any proof we live on a ball? Didn't think so. Move along now
Yes. TONS. Have you not paid attention to this thread? Goodness.
Here is a demonstration of how it works. Do you understand what is being said here?
I thought Silicon was looking for evidence of rotation.
I gave some in Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball? « Reply #309 on: September 03, 2016, 12:47:47 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67788.msg1817712#msg1817712)
asking him to look up Re: Laser level. « Reply #50 on: July 03, 2016, 05:04:24 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66974.msg1796108#msg1796108)
Gyro-Theodolites are real and used in long tunnels and mining when GPS or celestial fixes are not possible.
Here is a demonstration of how it works. Do you understand what is being said here?
YEs, we do understand.
Do you?
HINT:
Look at the angles at 5:11.
They are all wrong.
Sun is going 15 degrees per hour.
Wrong angles at 13:44 again.See above
Protractor at 19:11 measures something from aside, instead from observer.I think you're missing the point.
And claiming it is "observed angle". LOL
And more such "measure what looks convenient" shortly before and after 19:11.
Serious question:
Do you Really understand what a mess this guy tries to sell as "experiment" ?
Will you accept to be his victim?
You don't see! So Mr Silicon is now the expert on underground surveying.I thought Silicon was looking for evidence of rotation.
I gave some in Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball? « Reply #309 on: September 03, 2016, 12:47:47 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67788.msg1817712#msg1817712)
asking him to look up Re: Laser level. « Reply #50 on: July 03, 2016, 05:04:24 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66974.msg1796108#msg1796108)
Gyro-Theodolites are real and used in long tunnels and mining when GPS or celestial fixes are not possible.
Really? Gyro-Theodolites are riddled with geographic restrictions, setup problems, and numerous errors they seem to have trouble counter acting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrotheodolite
I would believe the above ground communication version with gps etc is used but I don't see how this below ground only one would ever be reliable.
Limitations
Although a gyro-theodolite functions at the equator and in both the northern and southern hemispheres, it cannot be used at either the North Pole or South Pole, where the Earth's axis is precisely perpendicular to the horizontal axis of the spinner and the meridian is undefined. Gyro-theodolites are not normally used within about 15 degrees of the pole because the east-west component of the Earth’s rotation is insufficient to obtain reliable results.
Unlike an artificial horizon or inertial navigation system, a gyro-theodolite cannot be relocated while it is operating. It must be restarted again at each site.
When available, astronomical star sights are able to give the meridian bearing to better than one hundred times the accuracy of the gyro-theodolite. Where this extra precision is not required, the gyro-theodolite is able to produce a result quickly without the need for night observations.
...
Have you measured the speed of the sun across the sky towards dusk? Can you share your measurements with us?
...
Can't you share a little more with poor Silicon. I think he is not so mathematically challenged that he can't understand simple explanation. That sun speed is constant and it makes full circle (360 degree) in 24 hours and that makes its movement per hour -> 360/24 = 15 . Although it seems that he is unable to figure out so simple thing by himself......
Have you measured the speed of the sun across the sky towards dusk? Can you share your measurements with us?
...
It is 15 degrees per hour.
Can't you share a little more with poor Silicon. I think he is not so mathematically challenged that he can't understand simple explanation. That sun speed is constant and it makes full circle (360 degree) in 24 hours and that makes its movement per hour -> 360/24 = 15 . Although it seems that he is unable to figure out so simple thing by himself......
Have you measured the speed of the sun across the sky towards dusk? Can you share your measurements with us?
...
It is 15 degrees per hour.
timeanddate is not wrong. Guy who interprets this data is wrong.Can't you share a little more with poor Silicon. I think he is not so mathematically challenged that he can't understand simple explanation. That sun speed is constant and it makes full circle (360 degree) in 24 hours and that makes its movement per hour -> 360/24 = 15 . Although it seems that he is unable to figure out so simple thing by himself......
Have you measured the speed of the sun across the sky towards dusk? Can you share your measurements with us?
...
It is 15 degrees per hour.
At 5:25 the guy in the video shares exactly how he gets his angles. Are you saying timeanddate.com is wrong?
You don't see! So Mr Silicon is now the expert on underground surveying.I thought Silicon was looking for evidence of rotation.
I gave some in Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball? « Reply #309 on: September 03, 2016, 12:47:47 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67788.msg1817712#msg1817712)
asking him to look up Re: Laser level. « Reply #50 on: July 03, 2016, 05:04:24 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66974.msg1796108#msg1796108)
Gyro-Theodolites are real and used in long tunnels and mining when GPS or celestial fixes are not possible.
Really? Gyro-Theodolites are riddled with geographic restrictions, setup problems, and numerous errors they seem to have trouble counter acting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrotheodolite
I would believe the above ground communication version with gps etc is used but I don't see how this below ground only one would ever be reliable.
You claim that "Gyro-Theodolites are riddled with geographic restrictions, setup problems, and numerous errors they seem to have trouble counter acting."
Then quote Wikipedia, Gyrotheodolite. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrotheodolite)
Where is this evidence of "riddled with geographic restrictions" and "numerous errors they seem to have trouble counter acting"?
Your reference has this to sayQuoteLimitations
Although a gyro-theodolite functions at the equator and in both the northern and southern hemispheres, it cannot be used at either the North Pole or South Pole, where the Earth's axis is precisely perpendicular to the horizontal axis of the spinner and the meridian is undefined. Gyro-theodolites are not normally used within about 15 degrees of the pole because the east-west component of the Earth’s rotation is insufficient to obtain reliable results.
Unlike an artificial horizon or inertial navigation system, a gyro-theodolite cannot be relocated while it is operating. It must be restarted again at each site.
When available, astronomical star sights are able to give the meridian bearing to better than one hundred times the accuracy of the gyro-theodolite. Where this extra precision is not required, the gyro-theodolite is able to produce a result quickly without the need for night observations.
Sure, they are "not normally used within about 15 degrees of the pole", but that's not a major limitation.
And of course "astronomical star sights are able to give the meridian bearing to better than one hundred times the accuracy of the gyro-theodolite."
But, neither "astronomical star sights" nor GPS can be used underground.
Whatever its limitations, the gyro-theodolite is real and is in use.So, both the gyro-theodolite and mains gyro-compass are very strong evidence the the earth does actually rotate.
Here is a demonstration of how it works. Do you understand what is being said here?
I haven't seen or don't remember that anyone mentioned such person as Giovanni Battista Guglielmini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Guglielmini). Its interesting to know if there is exlpanation for results in his experiment and other similar experiment later (some of them are mentioned in https://books.google.com/books?id=VpFPDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531#v=onepage&q&f=false ) on FE model. In short, balls were dropped straight down and most of them (as you can't totally eliminate balls own movement) landed not straight down but were deviated eastward. If the earth is still and doesn't rotate then balls dropping straight down should drop straight down not deviate to the east.Other things aside, does anyone really have no comments about it. Debunking it or finding other explanations than its because we live on a spinning ball.
EDIT: I thought that its useful to add reason why balls deviate. Its because place nearest to earth center moves slower than place farthest. The ball dropped at some high place (the top of tower or deep shaft) retains its velocity and should drop some distance at east of the drop site as lower place moves slower.