I feel as if something is missing from this. So tell us what cost you $20?
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)
Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.
You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)
Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.
You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.
You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all.
This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)
Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.
You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
Or the sun rising under the clouds
I thought that your sun was at 5,000 km, not 5,000 metres!
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)
Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.
You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)
Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.
You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
A novel experiment! from the same mind that brought us Nazi designer lunchbox penguins.
How does he do it?
I am . . . . . the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)
Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.
You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
A novel experiment! from the same mind that brought us Nazi designer lunchbox penguins.
How does he do it?
Easily!I am . . . . . the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.
I'll leave it up to you to decide if it was tongue in cheek or not,but you must realise that we have that on the authority of none other than: "the leading Zetetic scientist of our time".
They normally don't allow just anybody to wander around
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment; Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)
Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.
You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
I enjoyed the victorian style of the prose. It makes us travel to the docklands with sailships docked at Harbour Exchange and I guess this was nicked from some old book that nobody takes for serious.
But 10 points for the style!
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment; Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.
Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment; Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.
Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment; Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.
Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)i live under a mountain and every time i went from night shift in the city thats that sits on a flat ground i culd see the sunrise and when i came home under the mountain it was still dawn...
Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.
You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
Snake oil, anyone?
Incorrect.Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment; Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.
Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?
Nobody wants flatties flattened out! Without flatties this site would be dull and boring and dull and boring as a dead parrot.
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
Incorrect.Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment; Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.
Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?
Nobody wants flatties flattened out! Without flatties this site would be dull and boring and dull and boring as a dead parrot.
What do mean by "Incorrect"? Do you want "flatties flattened out"? That would be cruel!Incorrect.Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment; Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.
Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?
Nobody wants flatties flattened out! Without flatties this site would be dull and boring and dull and boring as a dead parrot.
Speaking as a Former Naval Person (ET2 who just missed it by a few months of making it to ET1, USN) :It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
Have you ever met any sailors?
We find it a great source of humour that there are some people that think the Earth is flat.
- Our charts are Mercator projections of the globe.
- We use the rising/dipping distances of lighthouses to determine distance off when position fixing.
- We use celestial navigation techniques.
None of the above could work on a flat earth.
Keep up the comedy :-)
Stick close to your close to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society
Look out your window and see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society
Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never go to sea !
If you look closely at the aforementioned photographs dear lad, you will notice two things. Firstly, they come from a certain industry known as the "stock photograph" industry. You may as well hand me an oil painting of a dinosaur and thus claim that dragons once flew the land! Secondly, andlikely of far more import, any man knows that light shines downwards towards and outwards to the floor from a window, not on the ceiling!
Perhaps a few of these posters may have been right - save the twenty dollars and simply view your kitchen floor.
Secondly, andlikely of far more import, any man knows that light shines downwards towards and outwards to the floor from a window, not on the ceiling!
Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise.
Have you actually tried this yourself? It sounds like you haven't.
Perhaps a few of these posters may have been right - save the twenty dollars and simply view your kitchen floor.
Secondly, andlikely of far more import, any man knows that light shines downwards towards and outwards to the floor from a window, not on the ceiling!
Perhaps a few of these posters may have been right - save the twenty dollars and simply view your kitchen floor.
Oh boy. so many navs in this lot. The sailors and engineers I met, knew in their heart of hearts - its plane. Some of the tale you hear, they shake the mind.
Oh boy. so many navs in this lot. The sailors and engineers I met, knew in their heart of hearts - its plane. Some of the tale you hear, they shake the mind.
You don't interact with many living people, don't you?
I hope the sailors you pretend to know have no navigation responsibilities, otherwise they will get lost!
Oh boy. so many navs in this lot. The sailors and engineers I met, knew in their heart of hearts - its plane. Some of the tale you hear, they shake the mind.
You don't interact with many living people, don't you?
I hope the sailors you pretend to know have no navigation responsibilities, otherwise they will get lost!
Sailors have had no difficulty using the technique known as 'plane sailing' to navigation the world at great distances.
Really! Maybe Gumby's right. This is only Wikipedia's entry but still, it's obvious enough!Oh boy. so many navs in this lot. The sailors and engineers I met, knew in their heart of hearts - its plane. Some of the tale you hear, they shake the mind.
You don't interact with many living people, don't you?
I hope the sailors you pretend to know have no navigation responsibilities, otherwise they will get lost!
Sailors have had no difficulty using the technique known as 'plane sailing' to navigation the world at great distances.
Plane sailing
Plane sailing (also, colloquially and historically, spelled plain sailing) is an approximate method of navigation over small ranges of latitude and longitude. With the course and distance known, the difference in latitude ΔφAB between A and B can be found, as well as the departure, the distance made good east or west. The difference in longitude ΔλAB is unknown and has to be calculated using meridional parts as in Mercator Sailing.
Both spellings ("plane" and "plain") have been in use for several centuries,
Plane sailing is based on the assumption that the meridian through the point of departure, the parallel through the destination, and the course line form a right triangle in a plane, called the "plane sailing triangle".
The expressions "plane sailing" (or more commonly "plain sailing") has, by analogy, taken on a more general meaning of any activity that is relatively straightforward.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Plane_sailing.svg/240px-Plane_sailing.svg.png)
Departure p and the difference in latitude ΔφAB can be worked out with simple trigonometry.
Oh boy. so many navs in this lot. The sailors and engineers I met, knew in their heart of hearts - its plane. Some of the tale you hear, they shake the mind.
You don't interact with many living people, don't you?
I hope the sailors you pretend to know have no navigation responsibilities, otherwise they will get lost!
Sailors have had no difficulty using the technique known as 'plane sailing' to navigation the world at great distances.
Alpha, thank you kindly for the photograph demonstrating my claim that light from the sun shines downwards towards the floor, not upwards to the ceiling during sunrise or sunset.
Half an hour before sunset would put the centre of the sun roughly 5° above horizontal where I imagine you live. Is that about right?Alpha, thank you kindly for the photograph demonstrating my claim that light from the sun shines downwards towards the floor, not upwards to the ceiling during sunrise or sunset.
Thank you for acknowledging my post and the photo. Did you miss the part that said this was about one half hour before sunset, not during sunset?
I believe you are familiar with my model, which explains this well; in short, space is curved, the earth is flat, and Newton's Laws of Motion Hold.Half an hour before sunset would put the centre of the sun roughly 5° above horizontal where I imagine you live. Is that about right?Alpha, thank you kindly for the photograph demonstrating my claim that light from the sun shines downwards towards the floor, not upwards to the ceiling during sunrise or sunset.
Thank you for acknowledging my post and the photo. Did you miss the part that said this was about one half hour before sunset, not during sunset?
Maybe John Davis could tell how his flat earth sun could down to even 5°, let alone below the horizon.
Tell that to Easter Island. Or the Norse. Portolan maps which are by necessity on a flat earth, also were incrediably accurate examples of plane sailing. So powerful, they were long considered state secrets.Where does Easter Island come into it?
:P :P Your model! ::) ::) In a dream (sorry, thought experiment) you come up with a hypothesis that space bends enough to make a flat earth look like a sphere. Mind you, I have seen no evidence that there is the slightest justification for thisI believe you are familiar with my model, which explains this well; in short, space is curved, the earth is flat, and Newton's Laws of Motion Hold.Half an hour before sunset would put the centre of the sun roughly 5° above horizontal where I imagine you live. Is that about right?Alpha, thank you kindly for the photograph demonstrating my claim that light from the sun shines downwards towards the floor, not upwards to the ceiling during sunrise or sunset.
Thank you for acknowledging my post and the photo. Did you miss the part that said this was about one half hour before sunset, not during sunset?
Maybe John Davis could tell how his flat earth sun could down to even 5°, let alone below the horizon.
However, this can be answered even with the most kosher and accepted of flat earth models: Rowbotham's. In fact, any interested student of nature can see this in affect by watching a large enough formation of migrating fowl. As they recede away from the viewer, the first avian at the tip of the vanguard will eventually appear to dip below the others, and then the next two and so on until eventually they appear to meet the horizon - in spite of being at a constant height the entire time.
You could well do the same experiment if you happen to live near an airport so long as you take care to note when a plane reaches cruising altitude. For those who frequent urban centers more than natural ones, take note of the tops of buildings or street lanterns.
The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am? This seems in opposition to fact.I've been trying all to work out what that means for hours.
The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?
Please note the sunlight through the west windows illuminates the east wall, not the floor.
This seems in opposition to fact.
Secondly, andlikely of far more import, any man knows that light shines downwards towards and outwards to the floor from a window, not on the ceiling!
Perhaps a few of these posters may have been right - save the twenty dollars and simply view your kitchen floor.
Your confusion is understandable, and likely my words are at fault or my own misunderstanding of the original statement. It is in accordance with observation that I say the sun sets during the entire period after solar noon until the end of day. Thirty minutes before sunset, then, would be 11:30 am judging our clocks by natural standards such as the sun alone.The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am? This seems in opposition to fact.I've been trying all to work out what that means for hours.
Am I to assume that you refer to the photograph in this post The Shipping Crate Experiment « Reply #35 on: January 30, 2017, 02:44:51 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69068.msg1864782#msg1864782)?
As I've said a number of times, I do wish you would either Quote posts you refer to or at least include a link. If I guessed correctly there are about 14 intervening posts.
But if that's the post you are referring to, you comment makes no sense.
That post says "As the sun sets, the shadow of the sill rises. Unfortunately, the horizon to the west is obscured by a house and trees, so this is about as close to actual sunset as I can reasonably get."
And yet you make the statement "The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?"
Surely "as close to actual sunset as I can reasonably get" is quite unambiguous. Sunset is at a particular time and is readily predictable, at least on the real earth!
What would make you say "this picture was at ~11:30am"?
Alpha2Omega did later say "this was about one-half hour before sunset", which to me (with a bit of help from the "LunaSolCal" app) meant that the centre of the sun would be roughly 5° above horizontal.
So, just what did you mean by "The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?"
I am afraid to me the definition of the time of sunset is the time the top edge of the sun just disappears.
If you are observing the sunset over an unobstructed horizon that is a very weel defined and quite predictable time, only changed much by unusual refraction events - mirages etc.
Somtimes I get the feeling that most flat earthers have never seen a sunrise or sunset.
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?As you know it depends on location, height, direction etc.
Your confusion is understandable, and likely my words are at fault or my own misunderstanding of the original statement. It is in accordance with observation that I say the sun sets during the entire period after solar noon until the end of day. Thirty minutes before sunset, then, would be 11:30 am judging our clocks by natural standards such as the sun alone.The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am? This seems in opposition to fact.I've been trying all to work out what that means for hours.
Am I to assume that you refer to the photograph in this post The Shipping Crate Experiment « Reply #35 on: January 30, 2017, 02:44:51 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69068.msg1864782#msg1864782)?
As I've said a number of times, I do wish you would either Quote posts you refer to or at least include a link. If I guessed correctly there are about 14 intervening posts.
But if that's the post you are referring to, you comment makes no sense.
That post says "As the sun sets, the shadow of the sill rises. Unfortunately, the horizon to the west is obscured by a house and trees, so this is about as close to actual sunset as I can reasonably get."
And yet you make the statement "The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?"
Surely "as close to actual sunset as I can reasonably get" is quite unambiguous. Sunset is at a particular time and is readily predictable, at least on the real earth!
What would make you say "this picture was at ~11:30am"?
Alpha2Omega did later say "this was about one-half hour before sunset", which to me (with a bit of help from the "LunaSolCal" app) meant that the centre of the sun would be roughly 5° above horizontal.
So, just what did you mean by "The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?"
I am afraid to me the definition of the time of sunset is the time the top edge of the sun just disappears.
If you are observing the sunset over an unobstructed horizon that is a very weel defined and quite predictable time, only changed much by unusual refraction events - mirages etc.
Somtimes I get the feeling that most flat earthers have never seen a sunrise or sunset.
We now remedy this mistake by assuming he meant 30 temporal minutes before the sun breaches the horizon; if the earth was round - we would expect a light to be shining upwards at this point.
This is in disagreement with fact as we can see in the above picture that the sun is clearly illuminating downwards as the base of its sunlit square projected from the window parallel to the one shown is below the window!
Of course, these windows as pictured are assumed to be level with the opposite portal that is allowing the projection of light onto it. The light is projected downward, and not upwards to the ceiling! Not even at sunset will we see our ceilings brightened by the warm glow of the sun.
This is yet another way the common man with eyes open knows the TRUTH - the earth is a plane, to globularist shame.
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?
You are most correct - the shipping container is far a more ideal location for such an experiment. However, those without a twenty might find themselves glad to observe this every day from their own house. As you and a previous poster pointed out, yes, they would have to have a reasonable orientated house.What is the point of this when the angle of the sun is known and can be measured from multiple locations and at different times, proving a round earth?
You must be mistaken.Please provide links to measurements taken recently that support a flat earth. Do you agree that published sunset and sunrise times are correct?
This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models, they also overwhelming support flat earth models.
If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not. Now, this may lead the ball earther to state silly things - the earth is still round, but we need to adjust this small bit of it. Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?
He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!
We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses. There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.
You must be mistaken.
This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models
they also overwhelming support flat earth models.
If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.
Now, this may lead the ball earther to state silly things - the earth is still round, but we need to adjust this small bit of it.
Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?QuoteHe would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!
Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.
We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.
There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?Every day I can watch the sunlight receding up the mountain nearby until only the top is lit, and then only the bottom sides of the clouds. I can also see the sun, whose size does not change, dip by degrees below the horizon, never shrinking away but dipping below a hard line.
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?And what angle to the horizontal would you claim the light from a rising sun should be?
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?And what angle to the horizontal would you claim the light from a rising sun should be?
I would claim that, if you were 50 ft above a sea horizon, when the very first rays show the light could not be shining "upwards" by more than about 0.1°and less than a minute later the sun's rays would be above the horizontal, so your whole premise has always been quite ridiculous!
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?And what angle to the horizontal would you claim the light from a rising sun should be?
I would claim that, if you were 50 ft above a sea horizon, when the very first rays show the light could not be shining "upwards" by more than about 0.1°and less than a minute later the sun's rays would be above the horizontal, so your whole premise has always been quite ridiculous!
I'm still waiting for that answer and it looks like we're in for a very long wait. It's as though he thinks the horizon should be something like 5° or more below level when viewed from just a little above the seashore, when it obviously isn't and shouldn't be expected to be, if the earth were a sphere the size it's known to be.
It seems like Mr. Davis doesn't know how to do high school trig, doesn't know how to apply it to actual real-world problems, or is intentionally throwing out misinformation hoping to fool someone for some strange reason I can't fathom. I can see why Rowbotham did that - he sold seats at "lectures" where the wilder his claims an pronouncements, the more money he made from those who fell for them. Maybe Mr. Davis wants to follow in his footsteps and recognized an opportunity to monetize ignorance.
We can hope he will reply with something relevant and insightful that we never thought of, but it doesn't look good.
This is completely coherent with my model. Above this, it was explained in other models as well, albeit less elegantly. Rowbotham, I believe, dedicates a section of his book to this. In it, he uses the analogy of a stick with a circle on it. As you recede away from it, you will note that the bottom half of the circle appears to disappear until eventually it will appear as if the bottom is completely gone. This is much like the sun.You must be mistaken.
This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models
Indeed they do. Thank you. Given the nature of proof in science (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof), "proof" is a non-issue.Quotethey also overwhelming support flat earth models.
Do you really think so? Why? If the earth were flat, how could the sun even be on the horizon at one place on earth and be directly above another place on earth a finite distance away at the same time? This is easy using the spherical earth and distant sun model. What do you have?
Except we don't see it in the experiment above, and we don't see it other easily replicable experiments such as Foucault Pendulums, aeroplane rides, and even the gravitational measurements of the planet (see gravitational anomaly maps.) There's a reason there are so many flatists about now clamouring for someone to "show them the curve." Its because they've looked for it and can't find it.QuoteIf the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.
Actually, we do, time and time again. Without fail. Maybe you don't see it, probably because you don't want to.
The problem is what you claim we should expect to see in these experiments seems to be different from what the real spherical-earth model predicts. IOW, that's a strawman argument.Are you saying that the spherical earth model predicts that light would magically bend downwards?!
Can you explain what you expect the shipping container experiment would show if the earth were a globe with a radius of about 6400 km, and how it differs from what it does show (or what you think it would would show if you actually performed it)? If you use math, please show and clearly explain your work.I would expect the shipping crate to be lit starting upwards, and moving downwards throughout the day. This is in my original post. My math is "up is up, and down is down."
I've asked for this before. You seem reluctant to provide it. You're making a claim you refuse to back up. Why?
The fact of the matter is you haven't read the appropriate literature and have no legs to stand on when you say it is ridiculous hyperbole that the globe is false. Whether true or not, you don't have a counter-argument here because you have made yourself purposely ignorant to the truth - like a child singing a song and plugging his ears to avoid being told he has to eat his broccoli. Instead you rely upon me to read these books to you via forum post. A citation is not needed, you simply need to do your own research and stop relying upon me to explain every single stumbling step you have.
Such as? How significant is the adjustment? What is the justification given for the adjustment?
Are you attacking the idea a simple spherical model works well enough for a large number of problems, but a much more complex (but more accurate) ellipsoidal model is necessary when higher precision is needed, and an even more complex, but more accurate still, geoid is necessary to explain very small effects? Each has its own realm where it is most suitable, and the reasons for the differences between them are known.
QuoteOh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?QuoteHe would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!
Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.
It sounds like you're referring to Eratosthenes. Shipping crates are tiny compared to the distances necessary to determine the radius of the spherical earth, using shadow lengths and basic equipment, with reasonable accuracy. The distance between them (hundreds of miles in Eratosthenes' case) is much more significant than the length of the whatever is casting the shadow.
Apparently it still stings. A Greek dude was getting better answers more than 2000 years ago, with a simpler model, using very simple measurements, than you can do today.QuoteWe have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.
Citation needed. One clear and unambiguous example would be a start. Otherwise, this is yet another baseless bluster.QuoteThere can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.
"Hanging from our feet." Lol.
The speeds are what they are; you call them ridiculous, but you're making inappropriate comparisons to human scale activities on earth. What is ridiculous is the sort of hyperbole you think has "shown the globe to be false". It's just words.
As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me. Obviously, I know high school trigonometry. Your ignorance of my theories regarding the flat earth does not change this. Why I continue to answer insolent children like you is beyond me. Yet here I am.You have yet to explain the sunrise on the mountain, this is essentially your shipping crate experiment but on a scale large enough to actually see.
Trig is not necessary here. Common sense alone is necessary. If the sun is at some point below the roof of the shipping crate, which there is no doubt that this is the case in a globular model, it will be illuminated upwards. This is not the case in reality. I will not waste my time 'checking your work', as I am not your high school mathematics teacher. In fact, I won't bother reading it, as it is in opposition to fact.
I find it odd I have to explain this:
(https://image.ibb.co/hZ4vTv/Screen_Shot_2017_02_13_at_9_07_10_AM.png)
Now, you may argue that the angle is too small to be seen. Fine. You may then say, well that house was below sea-level; ok, then my shipping crate experiment still shows the results we want.This is completely coherent with my model. Above this, it was explained in other models as well, albeit less elegantly. Rowbotham, I believe, dedicates a section of his book to this. In it, he uses the analogy of a stick with a circle on it. As you recede away from it, you will note that the bottom half of the circle appears to disappear until eventually it will appear as if the bottom is completely gone. This is much like the sun.You must be mistaken.
This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models
Indeed they do. Thank you. Given the nature of proof in science (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof), "proof" is a non-issue.Quotethey also overwhelming support flat earth models.
Do you really think so? Why? If the earth were flat, how could the sun even be on the horizon at one place on earth and be directly above another place on earth a finite distance away at the same time? This is easy using the spherical earth and distant sun model. What do you have?QuoteExcept we don't see it in the experiment above, and we don't see it other easily replicable experiments such as Foucault Pendulums, aeroplane rides, and even the gravitational measurements of the planet (see gravitational anomaly maps.) There's a reason there are so many flatists about now clamouring for someone to "show them the curve." Its because they've looked for it and can't find it.QuoteIf the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.
Actually, we do, time and time again. Without fail. Maybe you don't see it, probably because you don't want to.QuoteThe problem is what you claim we should expect to see in these experiments seems to be different from what the real spherical-earth model predicts. IOW, that's a strawman argument.Are you saying that the spherical earth model predicts that light would magically bend downwards?!QuoteCan you explain what you expect the shipping container experiment would show if the earth were a globe with a radius of about 6400 km, and how it differs from what it does show (or what you think it would would show if you actually performed it)? If you use math, please show and clearly explain your work.I would expect the shipping crate to be lit starting upwards, and moving downwards throughout the day. This is in my original post. My math is "up is up, and down is down."
I've asked for this before. You seem reluctant to provide it. You're making a claim you refuse to back up. Why?
'If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.'
It is irrelevant how much of this top would be illuminated. This will differ based on the supposed size of the magical globe earth.QuoteThe fact of the matter is you haven't read the appropriate literature and have no legs to stand on when you say it is ridiculous hyperbole that the globe is false. Whether true or not, you don't have a counter-argument here because you have made yourself purposely ignorant to the truth - like a child singing a song and plugging his ears to avoid being told he has to eat his broccoli. Instead you rely upon me to read these books to you via forum post. A citation is not needed, you simply need to do your own research and stop relying upon me to explain every single stumbling step you have.
Such as? How significant is the adjustment? What is the justification given for the adjustment?
Are you attacking the idea a simple spherical model works well enough for a large number of problems, but a much more complex (but more accurate) ellipsoidal model is necessary when higher precision is needed, and an even more complex, but more accurate still, geoid is necessary to explain very small effects? Each has its own realm where it is most suitable, and the reasons for the differences between them are known.
QuoteOh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?QuoteHe would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!
Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.
It sounds like you're referring to Eratosthenes. Shipping crates are tiny compared to the distances necessary to determine the radius of the spherical earth, using shadow lengths and basic equipment, with reasonable accuracy. The distance between them (hundreds of miles in Eratosthenes' case) is much more significant than the length of the whatever is casting the shadow.
Apparently it still stings. A Greek dude was getting better answers more than 2000 years ago, with a simpler model, using very simple measurements, than you can do today.QuoteWe have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.
Citation needed. One clear and unambiguous example would be a start. Otherwise, this is yet another baseless bluster.QuoteThere can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.
"Hanging from our feet." Lol.
The speeds are what they are; you call them ridiculous, but you're making inappropriate comparisons to human scale activities on earth. What is ridiculous is the sort of hyperbole you think has "shown the globe to be false". It's just words.
Eratosthenes did nothing but assume the earth was round. In fact, he stole his work from the far earlier Taoist scientists that used the exact same experiment to show the earth was flat by not taking this assumption first. Additionally, this experiment has been repeated both by modern flatists as well as Rowbotham. The details to his experiment I believe are outlined within his work.
Now, you can quibble about angles all you want, but the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate.
Do not expect me to post in this thread again; I will not be party to these silly attacks.
As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me. Obviously, I know high school trigonometry.
Your ignorance of my theories regarding the flat earth does not change this.
Why I continue to answer insolent children like you is beyond me. Yet here I am.
Trig is not necessary here. Common sense alone is necessary. If the sun is at some point below the roof of the shipping crate, which there is no doubt that this is the case in a globular model, it will be illuminated upwards.
This is not the case in reality.
I will not waste my time 'checking your work', as I am not your high school mathematics teacher.
In fact, I won't bother reading it, as it is in opposition to fact.
I find it odd I have to explain this:[Image above has been resized; annotated copy below is original size]
(https://image.ibb.co/hZ4vTv/Screen_Shot_2017_02_13_at_9_07_10_AM.png)
Now, you may argue that the angle is too small to be seen.
Fine. You may then say, well that house was below sea-level; ok, then my shipping crate experiment still shows the results we want.
Basically, the sun would shine of the roof of the container if it was not for the earth being in the way.You want the sun's rays shining upwards. You got the sun's rise shining upwards!
This is completely coherent with my model. Above this, it was explained in other models as well, albeit less elegantly.You must be mistaken.
This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models
Indeed they do. Thank you. Given the nature of proof in science (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof), "proof" is a non-issue.Quotethey also overwhelming support flat earth models.
Do you really think so? Why? If the earth were flat, how could the sun even be on the horizon at one place on earth and be directly above another place on earth a finite distance away at the same time? This is easy using the spherical earth and distant sun model. What do you have?
Rowbotham, I believe, dedicates a section of his book to this. In it, he uses the analogy of a stick with a circle on it. As you recede away from it, you will note that the bottom half of the circle appears to disappear until eventually it will appear as if the bottom is completely gone. This is much like the sun.If you can provide a real reference instead of a vague "I think it's somewhere. Maybe." I'll look for it. Using simple geometry, however, there is no reason to believe an immobile circle on a stick would disappear from the bottom up as you recede from it on a plane. It's easy to see why it would on the surface of a sphere, however.
QuoteExcept we don't see it in the experiment above, and we don't see it other easily replicable experiments such as Foucault Pendulums, aeroplane rides, and even the gravitational measurements of the planet (see gravitational anomaly maps.) There's a reason there are so many flatists about now clamouring for someone to "show them the curve." Its because they've looked for it and can't find it.QuoteIf the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.
Actually, we do, time and time again. Without fail. Maybe you don't see it, probably because you don't want to.QuoteThe problem is what you claim we should expect to see in these experiments seems to be different from what the real spherical-earth model predicts. IOW, that's a strawman argument.Are you saying that the spherical earth model predicts that light would magically bend downwards?!
QuoteCan you explain what you expect the shipping container experiment would show if the earth were a globe with a radius of about 6400 km, and how it differs from what it does show (or what you think it would would show if you actually performed it)? If you use math, please show and clearly explain your work.I would expect the shipping crate to be lit starting upwards, and moving downwards throughout the day. This is in my original post. My math is "up is up, and down is down."
I've asked for this before. You seem reluctant to provide it. You're making a claim you refuse to back up. Why?
'If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.'
It is irrelevant how much of this top would be illuminated. This will differ based on the supposed size of the magical globe earth.
QuoteThe fact of the matter is you haven't read the appropriate literature and have no legs to stand on when you say it is ridiculous hyperbole that the globe is false.
Such as? How significant is the adjustment? What is the justification given for the adjustment?
Are you attacking the idea a simple spherical model works well enough for a large number of problems, but a much more complex (but more accurate) ellipsoidal model is necessary when higher precision is needed, and an even more complex, but more accurate still, geoid is necessary to explain very small effects? Each has its own realm where it is most suitable, and the reasons for the differences between them are known.
QuoteOh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?QuoteHe would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!
Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.
It sounds like you're referring to Eratosthenes. Shipping crates are tiny compared to the distances necessary to determine the radius of the spherical earth, using shadow lengths and basic equipment, with reasonable accuracy. The distance between them (hundreds of miles in Eratosthenes' case) is much more significant than the length of the whatever is casting the shadow.
Apparently it still stings. A Greek dude was getting better answers more than 2000 years ago, with a simpler model, using very simple measurements, than you can do today.QuoteWe have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.
Citation needed. One clear and unambiguous example would be a start. Otherwise, this is yet another baseless bluster.QuoteThere can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.
"Hanging from our feet." Lol.
The speeds are what they are; you call them ridiculous, but you're making inappropriate comparisons to human scale activities on earth. What is ridiculous is the sort of hyperbole you think has "shown the globe to be false". It's just words.
Whether true or not, you don't have a counter-argument here because you have made yourself purposely ignorant to the truth - like a child singing a song and plugging his ears to avoid being told he has to eat his broccoli. [I like broccoli; always did if it wasn't overcooked. When lightly steamed, then tossed with melted butter and a little salt (optional) it's delicious, but don't let it cook too long - maybe 3 minutes for the tops and 5 minutes for the stems (peel the thickest part of the stems and cut into 1" sections before cooking)! My kids loved it this way when they were little, too, and they still do. You should try it if you think broccoli is icky!][Thanks... now I'm hungry!] Instead you rely upon me to read these books to you via forum post. A citation is not needed, you simply need to do your own research and stop relying upon me to explain every single stumbling step you have.
Eratosthenes did nothing but assume the earth was round.
In fact, he stole his work from the far earlier Taoist scientists that used the exact same experiment to show the earth was flat by not taking this assumption first. Additionally, this experiment has been repeated both by modern flatists as well as Rowbotham. The details to his experiment I believe are outlined within his work.
Now, you can quibble about angles all you want, but the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate.
Do not expect me to post in this thread again;
I will not be party to these silly attacks.
As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me. Obviously, I know high school trigonometry. Your ignorance of my theories regarding the flat earth does not change this. Why I continue to answer insolent children like you is beyond me. Yet here I am.Yes John, "the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate " by a whole 0.1° or one part in 500!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Now, you can quibble about angles all you want, but the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate.
Do not expect me to post in this thread again; I will not be party to these silly attacks.
Basically, the sun would shine of the roof of the container if it was not for the earth being in the way.You want the sun's rays shining upwards. You got the sun's rise shining upwards!(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Sunrise%20from%2045000%20ft%20-%20Upward%20Slanting%20suns%20Rays_zpsaxew6ref.png)This point shows upward slanting shadows, as John Davis seems to demand,
Upward Slanting sun's Rays (http://)
but you need to click it and watch the video to see where it is taken from - it's only 3:11 long.
By the way the Metabunk Curve Calculator (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/) puts the dip to the horizon as 3.8°.Gee, maybe the earth really is a Globe. Who'd have thought it?
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
Oh dear! I just saw the underside of an airplane light by sunshine!
And the sun has set a couple of minutes ago!
It can't be true!
This is impossible!
The obstruction is the earth, as that location, has rotated away from facing the sun.Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
If "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent."Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earth's shadow? I think it is.It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it. This is why in many flat earth models the sun acts like a spotlight.Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
Air isn't transparent? Well that explains why I don't see anything anywhere.
Wait a minute....
This here statement proobes my belief that John Davis (and Tom Bishop by the way) do not really believe a flat earth. They are just trying to argue in favour of it.
Your image links seem to come up broken to me.If "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent."Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earth's shadow? I think it is.It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
What is obstructing the light in these photos?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:02 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:29 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/cyd7gg5jriln73b/LHG-0698%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.57%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:57 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.
The sun seems to go from just under the "top half" visible to being entirely obscured in a matter of 55 seconds.
Hence in this case, it does not seem to be "due to the fact that air is not transparent".
Any ideas?
This here statement proobes my belief that John Davis (and Tom Bishop by the way) do not really believe a flat earth. They are just trying to argue in favour of it.No shit, Sherlock.
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
Your image links seem to come up broken to me.It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.If "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent."
What is obstructing the light in these photos?
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/JIA5RP.jpg)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:02 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/deLz9c.jpg)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:29 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/CUSN9c.jpg)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:57 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.
The sun seems to go from just under the "top half" visible to being entirely obscured in a matter of 55 seconds.
Hence in this case, it does not seem to be "due to the fact that air is not transparent".
Any ideas?
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere, I would think that it would be safe to say that it satisfies any reasonable definition of the word "transparent". Since you're the one trying to make a point, perhaps you're the one who should find a better word.
Stop presenting strawman. I said nothing of the sort.The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
... So air becomes opaque enough to block sunlight, then shortly thereafter returns to transparent for us to see stars on the horizon?
Got it.
We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere, I would think that it would be safe to say that it satisfies any reasonable definition of the word "transparent". Since you're the one trying to make a point, perhaps you're the one who should find a better word.
We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.
Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?
At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight.
I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.
Its an assumption to say the earth is a sphere, and that poisons any idea of an atmo"sphere".We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.
That's a wild assumption.
So why can't I see stars during the day?Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?
And your evidence is what exactly? Have you considered any implications an absurd idea like that might portend? Why is the air near the sun more dense? Again, my question that you have yet to answer, at what point does air become non-transparent? At what density or distance?
It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat. The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight.
Except running with that insane idea generates a number of paradoxical outcomes John. A man of your intellect can easily arrive at those explainable conclusions without much assistance. Do you need someone to list them so you can try to explain why those phenomena are not observed?
Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.
Because it isn't reasonable. Making a baseless assertion that air density/distance is a factor in why we see the sunrise or set as we do or why certain objects are visible or not, without any factual evidence supporting it is why the discussion has arrived here. If the FE Sun is 3000 miles away, then it seems logical that if we can see the Sun at that distance, then we should be able to see other objects that are at the same distance or closer without issue. Especially when we have examples of the Sun being visible at the horizon and completely visible, then it should be no issue for us to view other objects distances of less than 3000 miles with little difficulty. However, when I stand on the beach in Laguna Niguel and look west on a clear day, I cannot see Avalon on Catalina Island. That is only 32 miles away. I can see the island, but I cannot see the port of Avalon at the shore to that island.
Why is that John?
Its an assumption to say the earth is a sphere, and that poisons any idea of an atmo"sphere".
So why can't I see stars during the day?
It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat. The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.
Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.
No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.Its an assumption to say the earth is a sphere, and that poisons any idea of an atmo"sphere".
Okay. If the term is that toxic to you, whatever.So why can't I see stars during the day?
The gigantic ball of burning hydrogen tends to drown out weaker lights.
You are incorrect. A telescope will bring it back into view. See the peer reviewed results of the Bishop Experiment.It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat. The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.
To the first point, no, it is far from clear that the Earth is flat. In fact, it requires some very complicated mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion. Now, if you are a simpleton, and don't need much by way of logic, then it is a very easy thing to accept. But like Weezer's Sweater all I need to do is hold this string as you walk away; it unravels under its own motion.
To the second point, stop lying. No really. STOP LYING. You shame REAL scientists across a spread of disciplines that are actually doing work to make the world a better place by claiming FE has anything published. It was funny for about a minute, now its just showing your ass.Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.
Aided or unaided, the Port of Avalon is not visible from the shore at Laguna Niguel. No amount of magnification will bring it back into view. This is a rhetorical question John. I'm well aware of why it isn't visible but merely wanted to point out one of the several problems with your air density rubbish. 32 miles is nearly a factor of 100 less than what you claim the Earth's distance is to the Sun, yet Avalon is not visible. Should it be? According to your notion, yes. In reality it isn't. Care to advise as to what phenomena you believe is at work on this situation?
No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.
Its call Rayleigh scattering bud.
You are incorrect. A telescope will bring it back into view. See the peer reviewed results of the Bishop Experiment.
Air not being transparent causes rayleigh scattering. How is your ignorance me being dishonest? Please cease your baseless attacks against me as they are against the rules and I'm not above enforcing them.No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.
Its call Rayleigh scattering bud.
Yet another example of you being dishonest. What causes Rayleigh scattering "bud"? Oh, that's right, the gigantic ball of burning hydrogen.
Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name. You sure are keen on inventing the history of the flat earth society while at the same time knowing nothing of it.You are incorrect. A telescope will bring it back into view. See the peer reviewed results of the Bishop Experiment.
Appealing to the echo chamber, eh John? Tom Bishop's failed experiment in Monterrey does little to convince, seeing how he made the same mistake Rowbotham did and, shocker here, arrived at the same incorrect conclusion. By the way, simply adding "Peer reviewed" to anything doesn't actually make it peer reviewed. Care to provide a link to the peer review?
Stop presenting strawman. I said nothing of the sort.The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
... So air becomes opaque enough to block sunlight, then shortly thereafter returns to transparent for us to see stars on the horizon?
Got it.
Let's change markjo's "Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere"Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere, I would think that it would be safe to say that it satisfies any reasonable definition of the word "transparent". Since you're the one trying to make a point, perhaps you're the one who should find a better word.We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.
Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?
much discussion.
| The full moon can be easily seen when a little above the horizon as in: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7zdd4wfaapdbehe/P607%20-%20Full%20Moon%2C%2020190121%2019.11.37%2C%20Alt%203.5%C2%B0%20Az%2065%C2%B0.JPG?dl=1) Full Moon, January 21, 2019 at 19:11:37 EAST, Altitude 3.5° Azimuth 65° | And can be easily seen when just above the horizon as in: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/yuw9rrsqjhctlap/SUPER%20MOON%20CRUISE%21%21%21%20TUESDAY%2C%20FEBRUARY%2019th%20at%207.30%20PM.jpg?dl=1) SUPER MOON CRUISE!!! TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19th at 7.30 PM This is not my photo but I'm sure we've all seen this sort of full moon rising. |
At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight. I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.So "its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight" is it? The 'Wiki" claims:
Spotlight effectBut, as seen below the Sun's area of light is never circular.
The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite circular area around it.
So why can't I see stars during the day?Because the much brighter light from the sun scatters through the atmosphere washing out the much fainter stars.
It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat.Quite the opposite.
The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.By "peer reviewed research" do you mean wild claims spouted by FEers, or actual research?
Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.The sheer difference between just before and just after sunrise is far too great for the atmosphere to be a cause.
Which is not what you said I said.
No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.How far does one need to see through a medium for it to fit your definition of transparent?
Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name.To be fair, Tom never provided enough documentation to adequately prove that he ever performed the Bishop experiment either.
Air not being transparent causes rayleigh scattering. How is your ignorance me being dishonest? Please cease your baseless attacks against me as they are against the rules and I'm not above enforcing them.
Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name. You sure are keen on inventing the history of the flat earth society while at the same time knowing nothing of it.
I recall him doing so beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps your reasonable doubt is higher than mine, but given my skepticism of a great many things and people here, I doubt it.Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name.To be fair, Tom never provided enough documentation to adequately prove that he ever performed the Bishop experiment either.
Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?Air not being transparent causes rayleigh scattering. How is your ignorance me being dishonest? Please cease your baseless attacks against me as they are against the rules and I'm not above enforcing them.
Don't threaten me with a good time.Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name. You sure are keen on inventing the history of the flat earth society while at the same time knowing nothing of it.
The Bishop experiment was carried out in Monterrey, CA, and attempted to prove the Earth is flat by using a telescope to see the lighthouse across the bay in Santa Cruz, CA. IT IS THE SAME EXPERIMENT. The only difference is the distance and location. The same flaw in Rowbotham's experiment was not accounted for in Bishop's, calculating for refraction, and both claimed victory without understanding all of the variables involved.
Mr. Davis, I'm well aware of your nonsense.
I recall him doing so beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps your reasonable doubt is higher than mine, but given my skepticism of a great many things and people here, I doubt it.Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name.To be fair, Tom never provided enough documentation to adequately prove that he ever performed the Bishop experiment either.
Do you feel its fair to Bishop to make such a judgement? To myself?
I recall him doing so beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps your reasonable doubt is higher than mine, but given my skepticism of a great many things and people here, I doubt it.If that was the case you would be quite sceptical of him as well.
If you've never seen his results, then clearly it is not a fair judgement.
Also his experiment has nothing to do with refraction and it's not even relevant.Anyone who understands how atmospheric refractive phenomena work knows why refraction is very relevant.
We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.Depends on how you define 'air'. If you are referring to the gas cocktail that surrounds Earth, then no. Because that would be impossible. However, if you are referring to an atmosphere, then Yes, the Sun has one and it is much less dense than Earth's atmosphere.
Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?
At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight. I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.It's not known because it's not a fact. It's also impossible. Due to the amount of energy the Sun releases, 'Spotlight Sun' would eventually become 'Rocket Sun'.
Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?
Because I'm aware of the experiment in question.
Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?
Why would it add or remove refraction? Better question is why do you think it would add or remove refraction?
If you are referring to either the Bedford Level experiment or the Bishop experiment I would say that refraction was highly important and a telescope would neither add or remove refraction.Because I'm aware of the experiment in question.
Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?
Why would it add or remove refraction? Better question is why do you think it would add or remove refraction?
Because I'm aware of the experiment in question.
Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?
Why would it add or remove refraction? Better question is why do you think it would add or remove refraction?
Because I'm aware of the experiment in question.
Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?
Why would it add or remove refraction? Better question is why do you think it would add or remove refraction?
John, do you ever or have you ever actually answered a question? You respond a-plenty but you rarely if ever actually answer. I feel like I'm interacting with a slightly more sophisticated Eliza program...
John, do you ever or have you ever actually answered a question? You respond a-plenty but you rarely if ever actually answer. I feel like I'm interacting with a slightly more sophisticated Eliza program...
Is that like Alexa? Does it have different names in different countries?
Satan goes by many names...
Edit: Ah crap. Forgot which thread I was on.
John, do you ever or have you ever actually answered a question? You respond a-plenty but you rarely if ever actually answer. I feel like I'm interacting with a slightly more sophisticated Eliza program...
Is that like Alexa? Does it have different names in different countries?
Satan goes by many names...
Edit: Ah crap. Forgot which thread I was on.
Lol, I think my age is showing...
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/ELIZA
John, do you ever or have you ever actually answered a question? You respond a-plenty but you rarely if ever actually answer. I feel like I'm interacting with a slightly more sophisticated Eliza program...
Is that like Alexa? Does it have different names in different countries?
Satan goes by many names...
Edit: Ah crap. Forgot which thread I was on.
Lol, I think my age is showing...
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/ELIZA
Yay! Before my time.
Does that make me cool and down with the kids again? I was starting to think I’d lost it, so thanks.
The way that can be named, is not the Way.
A fool. He is a fool. Show me the good man, and I'll give you an answer. Likewise for the bad man...The way that can be named, is not the Way.
What is a good man, but a bad man's teacher.
A fool. He is a fool. Show me the good man, and I'll give you an answer. Likewise for the bad man...The way that can be named, is not the Way.
What is a good man, but a bad man's teacher.
I'm sorry, it just can't be named. I have tried.A fool. He is a fool. Show me the good man, and I'll give you an answer. Likewise for the bad man...The way that can be named, is not the Way.
What is a good man, but a bad man's teacher.
I don't recall that in Lao Tze's teachings. Nor do I believe your quote from the Tao Te Ching keeping with his intent. Show me a anyone that is willing to recognize his own failings, all of them in a row, and I'll say he is not a fool, but a man.
This exercise here isn't to make order out of nonsense. It's the opposite. You don't work to find order; you are an agent of chaos. You claim all the trappings of a man born of logic and wisdom yet this entire voyage is an affront to it.
You may have good works in the real world John Davis, but not here. Here is a room full of the jester and his lot.
Have you not played the part well...oh my, fru fru, fra fra.
Glad to see the reflective, introspective you is equally devoid of substance.
Have you not played the part well...oh my, fru fru, fra fra.
Glad to see the reflective, introspective you is equally devoid of substance.
The substance you define to facts might be better served as evidence.
Heiwa is closer to being ELIZA. He's been accused of it multiple times in the past.
John, do you ever or have you ever actually answered a question? You respond a-plenty but you rarely if ever actually answer. I feel like I'm interacting with a slightly more sophisticated Eliza program...
Is that like Alexa? Does it have different names in different countries?
Satan goes by many names...
Edit: Ah crap. Forgot which thread I was on.
Lol, I think my age is showing...
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/ELIZA