Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Curious Squirrel

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Come on, this is just a statistics aim to determine the number of flat earth believers with compared to the beliefs as religions. We may put any other thing instead of beliefs. The result doesn't change. It doesn't make a sence that compared to the beliefs to be religions or anything else. If you'll get convinced, we may do it by compared to the search term by NASA, will it make the term scientific?
Nope, won't make it anymore scientific, because the method is flawed at it's core. You're not getting useful data here.

2
I respectfully call BS so long as you are in accordance with his full statement. The important part to your reply is highlighted. If you are speaking of a time other than during an eclipse, thick clouds, or within a building etc. (thus meaning the sun is no longer within line of sight) I would love to hear about it, but until you provide some form of evidence of such a claim I state you are lying.
You should learn the difference between terms "line of sight," and, "unobstructed view," or, "sight line."

The last two are synonymous.

Even a luminous object can be within your line of sight and an obstruction can still be hindering or completely preventing you from seeing it.

And his statement overtly claimed a more luminescent object was required to prevent the objects' viewing and implies that light will travel infinitely.

That statement is nothing more than an assumption on both accounts.
Line of sight: "A straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision."

It helps if you actually know what a phrase or statement means BEFORE you attempt to claim it means something else. Once again, the important part has been highlighted for your convenience.

I will grant you his statement could use some work/clarification, but yours is an out and out lie when taken in the context of his full statement. The sun would not be within your line of sight during those times of 'nearly black as night' unless you are experiencing something heretofore unknown, because your line of sight to the sun is being obstructed by something.
A sightline (also sight line) or visual axis is a normally unobstructed line of sight
Is that Wikipedia? Because no dictionary defines sightline using line of sight in the definition. Personally I'll take dictionary over Wikipedia. Not to mention this says nothing about what the phrase "line of sight" means. I posted the dictionary definition, which clearly states the visual line is unobstructed.

3
Mars n other 'planets' are stars, something illuminates, heavily spinning.
No, "Mars n other 'planets' are" not stars. That difference has been known for thousands of years.
The word "planet" came from Greek and Latin and meant "wanderer" as to the early astronomers they seemed to wander among the "fixed stars".

Skip definition for a while.
Stick to the nature of the object/body itself.
'Planets' are lumminous, this is different from just 'bright'.
'Planets' emit lights, not just reflect lights as earth does.
They are not the same as earth.
It's impossible to go there.

Instead, why not searching celestial place like earth: non luminescent, non heavily spinning places.

Try again.
Planets do not emit their own light. They only reflect it, just like Earth does.

4
I respectfully call BS so long as you are in accordance with his full statement. The important part to your reply is highlighted. If you are speaking of a time other than during an eclipse, thick clouds, or within a building etc. (thus meaning the sun is no longer within line of sight) I would love to hear about it, but until you provide some form of evidence of such a claim I state you are lying.
You should learn the difference between terms "line of sight," and, "unobstructed view," or, "sight line."

The last two are synonymous.

Even a luminous object can be within your line of sight and an obstruction can still be hindering or completely preventing you from seeing it.

And his statement overtly claimed a more luminescent object was required to prevent the objects' viewing and implies that light will travel infinitely.

That statement is nothing more than an assumption on both accounts.
Line of sight: "A straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision."

It helps if you actually know what a phrase or statement means BEFORE you attempt to claim it means something else. Once again, the important part has been highlighted for your convenience.

I will grant you his statement could use some work/clarification, but yours is an out and out lie when taken in the context of his full statement. The sun would not be within your line of sight during those times of 'nearly black as night' unless you are experiencing something heretofore unknown, because your line of sight to the sun is being obstructed by something.

5
Luminescent objects are visible within line of sight given the absence of a greater light source. Do you require proof of that or can we agree on that being axiomatic in this exercise?
I have been in conditions nearly dark as night with the Sun directly above my head, so no.

I disagree with your statement. 
I respectfully call BS so long as you are in accordance with his full statement. The important part to your reply is highlighted. If you are speaking of a time other than during an eclipse, thick clouds, or within a building etc. (thus meaning the sun is no longer within line of sight) I would love to hear about it, but until you provide some form of evidence of such a claim I state you are lying.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 08, 2017, 11:43:12 AM »
I am asking you why you think the equator is the appropriate location to measure from? You are assuming the location of the sun as above this to calculate its height. This is incorrect and discordant with flat earth theory.

Further, you are not using actual data, but calculating the angles based on the round earth model. Are you not worried about circularly justifying your own claim? Wouldn't real data be the correct choice here? Why don't you supply us with the sources you used to verify, or am I just to guess? I'm not going to source your arguments for you, you have to support your own argument with more than "Well, that's the angle that the round earth model says it should be, so its right."
So the sun ISN'T 90 degrees above the equator in the FE hypothesis on the equinox? So we can just throw it out since it doesn't represent reality at this point can we not? That's the point of using the equator on the equinox after all, is the handy 90 degree elevation on that date when viewed from the equator. A well known fact.

ItsRoundIPromise has noted the data correlates with observational data. So the angles are correct. If you wish to dispute the distances I'm all ears, but first you must show the difference that would exist between a round Earth km and a flat Earth km. To my knowledge the differences would be well within normal margins of error and thus irrelevant.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 08, 2017, 10:49:12 AM »
I have already supplied you with a list.

Are you saying you came up with your data points by calculating them assuming a round earth?

Why would you be measuring based off the distance to the equator? This would be wrong.
I'm saying calculating the distance to the equator using the normal distribution of lines of longitude agrees with the distances given. If you disagree, please tell me how a flat km differs from a round km so I may adjust the calculations.

What would be wrong about using ASA trigonometry to find the height of the sun using the side as the distance from the point to the equator, which would have an angle of 90 degrees up to the sun on the equinox?

Also, are you referring to this?
Yes, the distance of the sun changes depending on the time of year. This is in our FAQ.

What is the source of this data?

The suns elevation, as labelled is incorrect. The angles as reported are incorrect. The distances as labelled are incorrect. What is this trash? Did you find it on the back of a box of cereal? Also, these locations do not lie along a straight line as you seem to claim they do.
Correct, the suns elevation cannot be correct because each locations angle demands it be in a different location.
The angles are correct according to every source I can locate, and all sources are correct when checked against my location. If you believe the angles to be incorrect, supply the correct ones and your source.
The distances are correct based upon simple lines of latitude and the regular distance between them. Once again, describe the difference between a km upon a round Earth and one upon a flat Earth and I will happily run things again using those corrected distances.
Those locations lie upon a nearly straight line, as the longitude of them suggest. This is easily verified by plotting them out upon a map. The slight difference does not introduce enough error to account for the issues in the final numbers.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 08, 2017, 10:19:03 AM »
So you can't supply the data? My problem is that the data is incorrect and you refuse to source it so we can find out why.
You claim it's incorrect. The angles are correct as checked at https://www.suncalc.org and the distances to the equator are correct as checked using https://sciencing.com/distance-city-equator-7484864.html the calculation for said distance. I do not know the original source, but both of those agree (within acceptable margin of error) with the data given in his diagram. As well a look at them upon a map shows them to indeed be upon the same line of longitude as their coordinates indicate.

So please, explain what is incorrect.

9
If you're just going to be calling us liars, how can we truly have an honest debate?
You haven't been debating honestly from the start, why worry about it now?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 08, 2017, 09:04:56 AM »
Yes, the distance of the sun changes depending on the time of year. This is in our FAQ.
This is not having the distance of the sun changing depending upon time of year.
This is having it change depending on the location you are at, so at the same time, it has a different height. That is impossible.

The suns elevation, as labelled is incorrect. The angles as reported are incorrect. The distances as labelled are incorrect.
So that's your excuse? Just ignore the data that contradicts your view.

How about you address the massive lie in the image you provided?
So there is no data or sources backing up your little picture? I ask you to supply them, and you come back and retort 'you are ignoring them!'

How can I ignore what has not been given?

You are correct, there are two misspellings on that poster. Its unfortunate I had the plates made before recognizing that.
All data can be found on any site such as timeanddate that offers elevations. Checking those locations shows elevations to be correct on that day at the listed time. A search also shows the distances shown to be accurate using any map of the globe. The proposed sun heights are easy to determine using simple trig once these two facts are known. So what exactly is your problem with this image, beyond showing the impossibility of a single sun for a FE?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 07, 2017, 02:12:56 PM »
I have never seen a sun 'drop below the horizon'
Then you've clearly never watched a sunset where you can see the horizon while the sun sets.

12
It's a simple test you can do yourself, but instead you assume a round earth and assert the measurements it predicts. Look at the round-earther subverting the test, as usual.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
He's not subverting the test. He's telling you the RE predictions of the angle differences. You should be starting with those if you're attempting this in good faith. Calling them 'subverting the test' simply shows you have decided the outcome before you began. But I'm about 90% you're just a very poor troll at this point.

13
That fails at "point light source" since the sun isn't one. Do you have any more questions?

Not at the cosmic distances RET suggests. This criticism would also apply to pinhole cameras, which work just fine.
It also requires a 'perfectly circular occluder' for the focusing. The moon is quite irregular around the 'edges' as it were.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Flight Sydney to Santiago
« on: December 05, 2017, 07:04:12 AM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And one of my main points is that the modern flat earth bears no relation to the flat earth believed by the ancient civilisations.
Their's fitted fairly well with their local observations, but the modern flat earth does not fit observations even from one locality.
So you have to plead ignorance to so many things that don't fit.
Horse hockey.

Every map made of the Earth is flat.
Incorrect! This one doesn't look flat.
The reason it does not look flat you moran is because it is a fucking globe.

It is not a fucking map.[/url]
It's no less a map for being a globe.
Map: a diagrammatic representation of an area of land or sea showing physical features.

Quote from: totallackey
I do not know of any map that is not flat and every modern map I know of is accurate.
No flat map can be precisely accurate over its full coverage for the simple reason that the earth is not flat.
If the earth were flat, flat maps could easily be made with equal accuracy over the whole map, it's simple!
And they are.

And you are incapable of demonstrating they are not.
Show me a flat map with zero distortions across it's entire surface. I'll wait.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Flight Sydney to Santiago
« on: December 04, 2017, 06:48:18 AM »

Strangely enough, I disagree with that. Those early Sumerians and Babylonians were certainly capable of logical thought and many modern ideas of astronomy and mathematics stem from them.

And they would have found modern flat earth "models" laughable.  Like everyone else they had seen sunsets and sunrises and presumed the sun set and rose from below the disc.  I'm sure they would have found the suggestion that the sun just circles above the earth pretty silly, as it doesn't even fit the most basic of observations.
Actually, the fact the Sun is observed moving above the Earth every day for most people of the Earth and exactly matches the definition of the term, "most basic of observations." It takes a great deal of imagination and hocus pocus explanations/observations/theorizing/postulations/dead end reasoning to support RE-tards.
So you DON'T see the sun appear to go below the horizon, or rise from below the horizon every night/morning when watching it? Fascinating, tell me more! Because that's clearly what's being referenced here. The FE model relies on hocus pocus to explain how this is possible.

I'm entirely aware that the Earth being a sphere has been the mainstream belief since people have been capable of logical thought.
Strangely enough, I disagree with that. Those early Sumerians and Babylonians were certainly capable of logical thought and many modern ideas of astronomy and mathematics stem from them.
What they lacked was widespread travel and modern measuring techniques.

But it seems to me that partly the internet and partly modern teaching methods have robbed many people of the capability of logical thought.
As a result some are turning to many illogical beliefs, the flat earth myth being just a fringe one.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0
Everything you've just posted seems to contradict the fact that you said moments ago that there should be a map because the idea has existed for thousands of years.
By your own admission, people applying rational logical scientific thought to the concept has only been happening more recently.

So which is it?
So among your other failings you have forgotten how to read!

I said moments ago that there should be a map because flat earthers like gotham claim the idea has existed for thousands of years.

I made no claim that I believed such rubbish!

According to gotham and many others the flat earth predates the Globe.
So are we expected to believe that it's been around for thousands of years, yet there are no accurate flat earth maps?

And one of my main points is that the modern flat earth bears no relation to the flat earth believed by the ancient civilisations.
Their's fitted fairly well with their local observations, but the modern flat earth does not fit observations even from one locality.
So you have to plead ignorance to so many things that don't fit.
Horse hockey.

Every map made of the Earth is flat.

I do not know of any map that is not flat and every modern map I know of is accurate.

On the other hand, the most reliable producer of "globes," starts with a FLAT EARTH MAP DEPICTED ON FLAT PAPER (because that is the true reality), cuts the paper into oblong shapes, and carefully lays them out on the surface of the globe. The rest is filled in with coloring and the veracity/accuracy of spaces left in between at the tops and bottoms of the cut lay outs goes unchallenged because it is largely uninhabited.
Every single 'flat map' has an inaccuracy when used outside of it's designated purpose. If you don't grasp that I'm not sure there's much to discuss.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rethinking Perspective
« on: November 29, 2017, 08:51:01 AM »
Ok, so to get back to the point of the thread, it would appear that there is currently no known and understood explanation for why the sun does not get smaller as it moves towards sunset in FE.
I mean, Rowbotham claims it's due to the "Well known magnification of bright lights by the atmoplane" and lamp posts are frequently cited as evidence. This becomes somewhat problematic when one brings in glare reduction, but it's the only explanation I've ever seen.

17

Evidence? Seen it myself through a modern Theodelite.
No problem. You stick to your stance.
I'm not here to convert you I'm here to put my points across and for those who have an interest and a questioning mind to look over if they wish.

I can't expect you to change and nor can I expect you to accept anything I say.
When the time's right for you to question your global model you'll do it or maybe you'll never do it.
So you have zero evidence for a claim that there is no dip angle to the horizon other than to attack me and deflect to a different unrelated issue? Gotcha.
There's no attack.
Enjoy your dip angle that makes no sense at all.
You not understanding something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I'm sorry you can't understand why the horizon isn't actually exactly at eye level on the globe Earth.

18

Evidence? Seen it myself through a modern Theodelite.
No problem. You stick to your stance.
I'm not here to convert you I'm here to put my points across and for those who have an interest and a questioning mind to look over if they wish.

I can't expect you to change and nor can I expect you to accept anything I say.
When the time's right for you to question your global model you'll do it or maybe you'll never do it.
So you have zero evidence for a claim that there is no dip angle to the horizon other than to attack me and deflect to a different unrelated issue? Gotcha.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: It's an orb
« on: November 28, 2017, 10:45:09 AM »
And I think your “reading comprehension fail” act is bullshit.  Everyone reading this understood it.  Why would he fly across the continent?  Because his job only consumed two hours a day, and he wanted something to fill the time.  (Emphasis added to the original post, to point out the answer to your question.  The answer you pretend not to understand)
What "reading comprehension fail?"

If you believe there are any flights taking place encompassing the distance of a supposed Antarctic continent and any outside visitor would be allowed on those flights, then you too are fucking delusional.

Any bases being operated anywhere on the plane of the Earth have a purpose and that purpose is restricted to that purpose. Operations taking place on the base suit the purpose of operation and taking a supposed transcontinental flight of the most hostile place on the plane of the Earth would be a highly restricted flight, limited only to personnel deemed necessary to make the flight. Not some visiting contractor who only wants to sight see.
Any evidence? The bases in Antarctica are scientific in nature, and multinational. Flights between the bases doesn't seem unreasonable (if for nothing else than supply movement) and it being a "highly restricted flight" seems like complete conjecture without supporting evidence.

20

I'll try once again to point out that you are neglecting the dip angle to the horizon that changes as you go up. As such your diagram is correct, presuming the telescope is stationary. But if you go up in height, the horizon point will change, and the horizon line will drop. As shown here (angles and distances are exaggerated to help show the effect and NOT to scale):


As you can see here, the person higher up can indeed see not only further along the curve, but lower in relation to the horizon line of the person lower down. Thus when the lower sight line can no longer see the sun, the higher sight line still can.
That makes no rational sense when you think on it.
It's merely looking at the ground as if your eyes are looking down instead of forward.

What I'm saying is, if you have a level scope at the bottom and at the top and lose your sun at the bottom then someone at the top sees the sun again with their level scope, it kills the globe.
And that's exactly what happens.
There's no need to look down. It's all set up and level.
Yes, and being level you will notice the dip angle to the horizon if you look for it with an instrument that supplies that amount of definition. The 'level scope' higher up might not even be able to see the horizon because of this in fact. The sun will not appear in the scope, but the scope will still be bathed in sunlight. This part of course depends upon the magnification of the scope in question.

For clarity:
IF two scopes are set up at different heights, and both can still see the horizon when looking through them
THEN the higher scope will see the sun after it has vanished from the lower scope, but at a lower angle.

IF two scopes are set up at different heights, but their field of vision is narrowed in the same manner such that the bottom just sees the horizon, and the upper one no longer can
THEN the sun will vanish at the same time.

In both of these scenarios the scopes can be 100% level with the ground. The dip angle will simply be greater for the higher scope, thus making the horizon lower than 0 degrees, and lower than the angle it's at for the lower scope.
There is no dip angle.
Evidence? Seen it myself through a modern Theodelite.

21

I'll try once again to point out that you are neglecting the dip angle to the horizon that changes as you go up. As such your diagram is correct, presuming the telescope is stationary. But if you go up in height, the horizon point will change, and the horizon line will drop. As shown here (angles and distances are exaggerated to help show the effect and NOT to scale):


As you can see here, the person higher up can indeed see not only further along the curve, but lower in relation to the horizon line of the person lower down. Thus when the lower sight line can no longer see the sun, the higher sight line still can.
That makes no rational sense when you think on it.
It's merely looking at the ground as if your eyes are looking down instead of forward.

What I'm saying is, if you have a level scope at the bottom and at the top and lose your sun at the bottom then someone at the top sees the sun again with their level scope, it kills the globe.
And that's exactly what happens.
There's no need to look down. It's all set up and level.
Yes, and being level you will notice the dip angle to the horizon if you look for it with an instrument that supplies that amount of definition. The 'level scope' higher up might not even be able to see the horizon because of this in fact. The sun will not appear in the scope, but the scope will still be bathed in sunlight. This part of course depends upon the magnification of the scope in question.

For clarity:
IF two scopes are set up at different heights, and both can still see the horizon when looking through them
THEN the higher scope will see the sun after it has vanished from the lower scope, but at a lower angle.

IF two scopes are set up at different heights, but their field of vision is narrowed in the same manner such that the bottom just sees the horizon, and the upper one no longer can
THEN the sun will vanish at the same time.

In both of these scenarios the scopes can be 100% level with the ground. The dip angle will simply be greater for the higher scope, thus making the horizon lower than 0 degrees, and lower than the angle it's at for the lower scope.

22
So let's say we're at the top of a skyscraper with a telescope and we set it to look at the horizon. Then the horizon would move from the telescope's view if the earth turned? Is that what you're saying?

No.
I'll try again.



I'm being generous giving you the first horizon on your fictional globe but after that any attempt to argue a point for going higher to see a sunset again is well and truly wiped out.
It doesn't matter about the scale because if it's a curve then it's the same scenario where you simply cannot see over the curve whilst also turning away from the sun.


It's like someone stood at eye height with a football whilst you're stood upright looking direct at it and then with your eyes fixed you start to fall back in a stiff motion as if you were a solid stick. The football (sun) disappears and no amount of height gain at the falling angle is going to help you see the ball again.


Globe Earth game totally and absolutely over.
But notice how when you stand up you can see more of the ball?
Try it.  Tape a small ball to your larger one.  Now, at eye level with the large ball, turn it until the small ball just disappears.
Now stand up and you can see it again.
Of course if you keep turning it the small ball will go out of view.  Just like the sun will eventually go out of view of the telescope.
But from a greater height you can see more of the ball.  Exactly like what happens on earth.
The diagram tells you different but you stick with the globe and you're welcome to it.
I know 100% that the Earth is not a globe and certainly not spinning, either.

I also know the waters are as flat as can be.
I'll try once again to point out that you are neglecting the dip angle to the horizon that changes as you go up. As such your diagram is correct, presuming the telescope is stationary. But if you go up in height, the horizon point will change, and the horizon line will drop. As shown here (angles and distances are exaggerated to help show the effect and NOT to scale):


As you can see here, the person higher up can indeed see not only further along the curve, but lower in relation to the horizon line of the person lower down. Thus when the lower sight line can no longer see the sun, the higher sight line still can.

23
So let's say we're at the top of a skyscraper with a telescope and we set it to look at the horizon. Then the horizon would move from the telescope's view if the earth turned? Is that what you're saying?

No.
I'll try again.



I'm being generous giving you the first horizon on your fictional globe but after that any attempt to argue a point for going higher to see a sunset again is well and truly wiped out.
It doesn't matter about the scale because if it's a curve then it's the same scenario where you simply cannot see over the curve whilst also turning away from the sun.


It's like someone stood at eye height with a football whilst you're stood upright looking direct at it and then with your eyes fixed you start to fall back in a stiff motion as if you were a solid stick. The football (sun) disappears and no amount of height gain at the falling angle is going to help you see the ball again.


Globe Earth game totally and absolutely over.
Ah, I see. You don't understand that the green horizon point in your drawing will shift when you go up in height. This is pretty basic RE information, how do you not understand it? The horizon is in fact, not level/0 degrees. As I pointed out to you in the post you skipped. This is why the sun comes back when you stand up. You are in fact changing your angle to look 'down' more. How can you claim RE is incorrect when you don't seem to grasp basics like this?

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The sun on the plane.
« on: November 28, 2017, 07:00:14 AM »
Hi everyone.

New to the forum here, so forgive me if this question has already been covered ( I couldn't find a 'search' function).

On a flat plane; if I can see the sun, then every one in the world should be able to see the sun too. The angle might be different, depending on your location on the plane. But it should be visible to everyone. Also, the sun should drop below the horizon at the exact same time for everyone in the world.

I live in Denmark. If I call a friend in Tokyo at 15:00 (my time), the sun will be up and visible at my location. But my friend in Tokyo would insist that the sun went down under the horizon several hours ago.

How does the flat earth theory account for the fact that I can see the sun clearly, while my friend cannot (let's say I'm on the phone with him during our test)?
Why would you think the Sun should always be visible to everyone on the Earth?
Because basic trig puts it above 0 degrees (actually don't think it can even get to 10) for all feasible distances to it on Earth. But this is Q&A and I shall refrain from going further into it than that.

Googleotomy has posted on answer, the other one I see cited often enough is that it sets due to perspective. I'll admit I'm still trying to wrap my head around the odd idea of this, as it appears to use perspective in a different manner than the word is normally/traditionally used. But what I gather is that perspective causes things to merge/vanish far sooner than is currently thought when that object is at great distances. The sun sort of shrinks as it moves away from you, but due to a "well known magnification effect" of the atmoplane it keeps it's apparent size until it's moved far enough away that perspective causes it to vanish.

25
You see, if you set your telescope perfectly level on the beach or wherever and watch the sun go down as your Earth is supposedly spinning away from that sun then so would your telescope.
You would immediately start to lose your horizon line and start to look into your space/sky because your telescope would be tilted back towards you with the eye piece angling down to the beach and the large scope angling up as the sun appears to fall below.

Are you claiming that if a telescope was fixed to look at the horizon, then if the earth was turning it would move the horizon out of view of the telescope?
Nope, I'm saying that a level scope would immediately see you lose your horizon line, because on a supposed spinning globe your horizon line cannot ever be level.

How is that different? From a beach, say, a telescope pointed at the horizon would be level, or close enough. If the telescope is fixed relative to the earth, why would the horizon move from view?
Height.

You'd never have any horizon on your globe but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt for sea level.

I can't allow it for any higher up with the level telescope because the horizon disappears and so would the setting sun which would never be able to be brought back into view.

Globe is stone dead.
A flat sea is the only reality that can show what we actually see because it's the only one that actually makes any logical sense.

A globe not only doesn't make any logical sense, it shouldn't ever be taught unless it's under the words "science fiction."
I know this is going to be hard for you to grasp Scepti, due to your flat Earth indoctrination and all, but the horizon isn't actually exactly at level. It's nearly imperceptably below it. http://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/dip.html The naked eye cannot tell the difference, but surveying equipment can. This means as you go up in height you are in fact looking just a little bit lower in order to see the horizon. Welcome to the dip angle, a well known and used phenomenon.

Although it is fascinating watching you claim something is impossible when you don't seem to understand the very basics of how it works, at least based upon your groundless claims, and strange statements.

26
If the earth is really flat, then why does the globe model match real world observations so well?
It absolutely 100% simply doesn't.
Incorrect, the globe model absolutely 100% simply does match real world observations very well.

If you disagree, please present your evidence!
The globe model matches what you're told it matches and nothing more than that.

You are simply reliant on what you are schooled into and you have absolutely no physical proof to back any of it up.

Ahhh... the classic "indoctrination" deflection!

Do you not realize that this argument carries absolutely NO weight, whatsoever?
It carries the same weight as the stuff you people come out with, including this post of yours.
You're claiming it doesn't match what is observed in some way. When asked to back up that claim you deflect. Lay it out. What part of the model that is reliant upon a globe Earth, doesn't match what is observed? Your claim carries no weight when you present no evidence.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Genuine Question...
« on: November 27, 2017, 08:59:36 AM »
This may sound a bit wierd, but I really am curious:

  What are some of your proofs that theEarth is Flat?


Thank You in advance!
I deal with evidence.

Proof?

No one has proof of anything.

Evidence?

Yes.

The strongest evidence = "The Earth looks flat."

Kansas.

The Bonneville Salt Flats.

Salya de Uyuni.
Yet the fact the sun sets is very strong evidence the Earth cannot be flat.

"The Earth looks flat" is pretty weak evidence to boot, so if that's the strongest you've got it doesn't seem like you have a very good case.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rethinking Perspective
« on: November 27, 2017, 08:15:56 AM »
Jroa, you need to answer the question posed by the thread. If you cannot, then just say, “I don’t know.” Yes, there is a frontier of science where things are fuzzy. However, you FE folks pretend that all known science can be chucked and reinvented. Yet here we are all playing with quantum mechanics (computers).

Your own roundy scientists can not even agree on what gravity is, or why the galaxies and universe do not follow Newtonian physics, yet, somehow, you people claim that our theories cannot possibly be correct unless we can fully explain every detail that you demand of use.  You people will lap what ever the prevailing roundy theory is of the month, yet mock us for theorizing without absolute proof for this or that.  You people are hypocrites.
But you can't even present proof that your overarching idea works. You claim "The sun sets because of perspective" yet that claim has no basis in the math behind perspective, no basis in trigonometry, and no basis in any known/cataloged effects. Cavendish shows there is attraction between masses. The overarching idea behind gravity is sound in that evidence. The basic equation even works the majority of the time. FE however is claiming basic math breaks down for no given reason in order to make the sun set. Where is the evidence for this?

29
I'm saying that the density and the volume is why denpressure works and also why you cannot have the same volume and a different density for two objects.
But they do, for a certain amount of space, the weight of an object will can vary, even by taking the same amount of space, this is why there is such a concept as 'density'.

Anyways, I am pretty sure it was the more dense objects being less porous, displacing less and so pushing back less in Denspressure, so mass per unit volume decides the how porous it is.
Name me two objects with the same volume but different mass in my denpressure theory.

Would a litre of water and a litre of mercury have the same mass in denpressure theory?
What is mass?

I assumed you knew since you used the term in the post above. It's whatever you meant by it there.
To me mass is a visual external view of an object.

Just like a litre of milk and a litre of water in the same bottle will... by eye, have the same mass.
The water and mercury will appear the same.


The density of that mass is a different matter and also what internally makes up that mass.
This is my favorite part of Scepti's idea. That he's come up with completely different definitions for all the words, so he can pretend to talk about something and be talking about something completely different than what everyone assumes he's talking about.

Hold on now though. Because those two have the same volume. Now you're saying they have the same mass too? Because mass=volume by this definition. Or do you define volume differently? What's the density of the two liters of liquid?

30
Flat Earth General / Re: List Of Things That Don't Exist To Round Earthers
« on: November 21, 2017, 07:16:46 AM »
I recently went on vacation to the beach. The ships disappeared as they faded into the distance. However, we have several working theories on why ships disappear mast first. There is the non-euclidean theory. There is the fact that nearby waves appear larger than the distant in actuality larger ship. There is perspective as described by Rowbotham. There is what some opponents have called 'bendy light' or the electromagnetic accelerator. There is simple refraction. The list goes on.

To me, it sounds like you are ignorant to our beliefs and have come here to stomp about, call us foolish and unemployed. In reality, I do work in a field of work in the real (flat) world. I am a software engineer. I was trained in Mathematics and Computer Science.
RE-tards have zero explanation as to why I can stand on a shore at the south tip of Lake Michigan, looking north at a ship sailing away directly to north, disappears from my sight.

They all chime in..."It is disappearing from sight because it is going under the horizon..."

When confronted with the fact that same ship traveling to the east or west of my position along the shoreline of Lake Michigan will remain well in my view for many miles longer than it did when traveling to the north, there is the sound of fucking RE-tard crickets...

And you can't see how this shows you stand on a very very large (with respect to you) sphere?
A sphere would be a sphere regardless of the direction I face Copernicus...

What a moran...
And a horizon formed because of the limits of perspective would leave it vanishing at exactly the same point regardless of which direction it was going on a flat Earth. Although I suppose you've done that hip and trendy new thing of coming up with your own idea for why the horizon exists or the sun sets huh?
And "bendy water," would be "bendy water," over the "curve," at the exact same distance from the observer to the East/West/North.

But the ship remains in view to the East or West from the observer in my example...
I see I'll have to be less subtle next time. I call bullshit. See: Frenat's post, although my observations are upon Superior.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6