31

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high

« on: May 12, 2019, 01:32:05 PM »

Ok sorry, I didn't see that. 

32

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 12, 2019, 01:23:20 PM »

If you capture a 3d world, the video is stored more or less in a 2d projection, but the captured world remains 3d. You can walk around and above objects, feel and see them from all sides... That wouldn't be possible in 2d

33

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 12, 2019, 04:42:54 AM »

You should consider transient 3D, this will make the match easier. Btw, who is funding your research? 

Give the right of consider factors to my own, please. Good question. Anybody did not ask this question earlier. I think I gave some hints about it, like something gov. That's all I can say. Actually I've talked more. I hope secret service will not visit me for this. gov can be everything, right? 

That's the first time I see a happy smiley from you, wise. Seems we are making some progress at least 

But I fear we cannot continue debating as long as you didn't explain "1+1+1 = 2" or agree to "= 3".

https://www.google.com/search?q=dimensions+definition&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2u7mN_5XiAhVPLVAKHSF8D3MQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=853

34

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sky colors

« on: May 11, 2019, 07:33:37 PM »

You guys are confusing spectral content with color (yes I know, they are related). 

Color exists only in the mind's eye.  The relative intensity of light impinging the three different type of sensors in the retina is processed by the brain to provide the color one sees.

You will never "see" a glass of blue water or a blue raindrop. While technically there may be a tiny variation in the intensities of various portions of the spectrum of light hitting the retina when viewing a glass of water illuminated by diffuse "white" light, you won't see blue water.

The water will appear colorless. And how it appears, defines the "color". So, certainly in the sense that Wise is using the term, water is colorless.

We define colors also via wavelengths, which can be measured by sensors also.
And, if you line up enough water-filled glasses, you will also see the blue color.

35

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 11, 2019, 02:33:42 PM »

You should consider transient 3D, this will make the match easier. Btw, who is funding your research? 

36

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 11, 2019, 01:39:28 PM »

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

The light source from doing the flashlight effect. Is the moonlight like that? Is it just along a line? I do not think so. This is no way connected to the real moonlight, but BS. This visual is total a BS.

It is connected: This image visualizes the "incident = reflection angle" part of my explanation. Did you notice that you avoid my simple questions? I wonder why, are they too simple to be worth for a reply? I invite you to kindly to be less in confrontation mode. 

Ok here is the next one. A candle, so a spherical light source, and we see also here a line of reflection on the table:

I am sure you saw something similar like this in reality before, didn't you? 

And thus, why shouldn't the water surface act the same? 

Also no simulation, right? (just answer with "yes/no" please, it won't hurt). 

Or here, another scene and instead of an photo with long exposure time, as video:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vC13F967Xtc 

You've gave perfect example of why this earth is a two dimentional simulation.

the fact that light continues along a line, in fact it should be spread out to four sides, is proof that it is not real, it is simulation.

Thank you for proved the earth's being a simulation.

Did you really just wrote, that our 3 spatial dimensions, we daily live in, are completely 2D-simulated? Saying something like that doesn't help with your credibility, wise

I am not saying this for the first time.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2137912#msg2137912

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2155823#msg2155823

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2157752#msg2157752

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2137669#msg2137669

I think wise already has the crediblity of wise with simulation theory.

wow.. you have been busy with this, that is for sure 
But whether simulation or not, it is 3D per definition. 2D is only in one plane
.... now "flat earth" written by you gets a completely new meaning 

37

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 11, 2019, 11:29:26 AM »

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

The light source from doing the flashlight effect. Is the moonlight like that? Is it just along a line? I do not think so. This is no way connected to the real moonlight, but BS. This visual is total a BS.

It is connected: This image visualizes the "incident = reflection angle" part of my explanation. Did you notice that you avoid my simple questions? I wonder why, are they too simple to be worth for a reply? I invite you to kindly to be less in confrontation mode. 

Ok here is the next one. A candle, so a spherical light source, and we see also here a line of reflection on the table:

I am sure you saw something similar like this in reality before, didn't you? 

And thus, why shouldn't the water surface act the same? 

Also no simulation, right? (just answer with "yes/no" please, it won't hurt). 

Or here, another scene and instead of an photo with long exposure time, as video:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vC13F967Xtc 

You've gave perfect example of why this earth is a two dimentional simulation.

the fact that light continues along a line, in fact it should be spread out to four sides, is proof that it is not real, it is simulation.

Thank you for proved the earth's being a simulation.

Did you really just wrote, that our 3 spatial dimensions, we daily live in, are completely 2D-simulated? Saying something like that doesn't help with your credibility, wise

38

Flat Earth General / Re: The disappearing island

« on: May 11, 2019, 10:10:10 AM »

The link above is quite interesting, but unfortunately does not address the issue of "my" island. It clearly demonstrates that our ability to resolve small details decreases with distance. This is both intuitively correct and mathematically correct: A fly on a wall disappears as we move farther and farther away from it. The link shows mathematically why this happens, though we already knew it happens.

The problem is that the author gives numerous examples where the smaller detail, which disappears first due to its small size, is placed at the bottom of the object, giving the mistaken impression that the bottom part of an object will always disappear first as you move away from it. But note that, in the first example, the white segment would also disappear even if it was placed on top. The lamps remain while the posts disappear, not because the posts are below the lamps, but because they are narrower.

But my island is largest at the bottom and smallest at the top. Understanding the perspective arguments in the link correctly: That smaller details disappear before larger details, we should actually lose sight of the (smaller) humps on top of the island before losing sight of the much larger base of the island.

So my question remains unanswered, and since it was a round-Earther who offered the link, I'm still waiting for one of my fellow flat-Earthers to give me the true explanation. I know that such an explanation exists, because I can see that the Earth is flat (relatively, with bumps). Even at sea I can see that the Earth is flat. As a matter of fact, it's even more evident at sea than on land, where mountains and valleys (i.e. bumps) obscure the view. At sea you can see as far as you can see, and it's all flat. (As before, with waves, i.e., more bumps.) So I know there's an explanation.

Have pity on a seeker after truth and help me out.

I think you missed quite how bonkers Rowbotham’s ideas on perspective were.

There’s a lot more to it than the resolution of small details, and it does go on to “explain” why objects seem to disappear over the horizon.

Read again from fig. 75.

The idea is that the angular resolution of the eye somehow determines the angle of parallel lines seeming to converge at the vanishing point.  He claims the  vanishing point is not at infinite distance as in real perspective, but a specific distances.  Also that the further a parallel line is from eye level (usually higher), the further away its vanishing point will be.

That means the allegedly flat earth can somehow rise up to a vanishing point closer than tall objects with a more distant vanishing point, literally obscuring the view of the bottom.

It’s really quite mad, but as he was pretty much the Godfather of modern flat eartherism, this seems to be the basis of a lot of very wrong flat earther perspective ideas.

"angle of parallel lines"?

And I wonder why this effect should happen only horizontally? If it is caused by human "round" eyes or round lenses (with telescope it is said that the vanishing point is further away), then why doesn't happen this also vertically? If it is really connected to viewing distance, it should happen radially in all directions, or not? 

39

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 11, 2019, 07:44:01 AM »

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

The light source from doing the flashlight effect. Is the moonlight like that? Is it just along a line? I do not think so. This is no way connected to the real moonlight, but BS. This visual is total a BS.

It is connected: This image visualizes the "incident = reflection angle" part of my explanation. Did you notice that you avoid my simple questions? I wonder why, are they too simple to be worth for a reply? I invite you to kindly to be less in confrontation mode. 

Ok here is the next one. A candle, so a spherically illuminating light source, and we see also here a line of reflection on the table:

I am sure you saw something similar like this in reality before, didn't you? 

And thus, why shouldn't the water surface act the same? 

Also no simulation, right? (just answer with "yes/no" please, it won't hurt). 

Or here, another scene and instead of an photo with long exposure time, as video:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vC13F967Xtc 

PS: btw inside of the flash light is also a spherically illuminating light source, which is then reflected out to one side for higher intensity.

40

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high

« on: May 11, 2019, 02:03:47 AM »

Infinite plane Earth is a subject which is in the FAQ, the Wiki, and topics here. An infinite plane can be shown to have a finite gravitational force that is perpendicular to the plane with no tangential component, and does not require an answer to your continuous tiring pestering question of "what keeps the air in?" For one.

I agree to that, but you find it easier to believe in an infinite plane earth than in a globe?
And how does infinite plane earth work together with the dome, which seems to be the most accepted FET?

41

Flat Earth General / Re: Objects Weighing Slightly More at the Poles

« on: May 11, 2019, 01:50:18 AM »

The RE ass-patting is happening I see. Differences in the measured acceleration due to Gravity has been discussed before, which I realize may come as a surprise so BRACE YO'SELF! This is where some people that subscribe to UA would make mention of celestial gravitation, thereby allowing that some form of attraction between masses does exist, but its to a lesser degree than what is generally accepted in modern physics.

How can there be a difference in measured gravitational acceleration if the Earth is accelerating at precisely 9.8m/s/s anywhere on Earth?

I won't do the explanation the justice it deserves, so forgive me. The jist of it is that the Earth accelerates upwards at something slightly different than the 9.8m/s², and things like the sun, moon, and stars have an additional gravitational effect.

By way of an analogy that another member shared with me before. Imagine an elevator that exists in what would otherwise be a vacuum, and imagine it is accelerating upwards at some rate x. This elevator has a block of wood and a block of steel of equal mass, each sitting on a scale that itself is sitting on the elevator floor. And this elevator has a very strong electromagnet at the top. When the electromagnet is off, the scales under both blocks read the same - mass*acceleration of the elevator. The the electromagnet is on, the scale under the steel block suddenly reads a lower value. Yet both items are still sitting at the bottom of the elevator that continues to accelerate upwards constantly.

The elevator analogy somehow doesn't help since on earth the weight difference can be observed using an identical weight and identical scales by just changing the degree of latitude. Furthermore there is no significant influence on this by night/day or season (< 2e-5 %, ref.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force).

And finally, the weight differences are not random, they match extremely well to a rotating globe, where the weight force (measured by the scales = m*a) is lowered by the centrifugal force:

F_centrifugal = m*v^2 / r
r = distance between the mass center to the rotation axis
source: https://www.engineersedge.com/physics/centrifugal_force.htm
and for our earth:
v = velocity =  2*pi*r/[~1day]
where r can be calculated via the degree of latitude

42

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 11, 2019, 12:37:49 AM »

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

The term "always" may be a pretentious word for it but "naturally" it should be so.

Ok good, understood
Then let's go on: what do you know about light reflection?

Ahaha. What are you trying to do, a test?

I am interested in what you think about light reflection. Would you say it is real? And wouldn't you agree that a water surface can reflect light quite well, which we can see especially well when it is dark below the surface?

I think you are trying to lead me with this question. I have already some works on light reflection and what it causes. You can reach them by searching in this forum.

I tried: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2
but it's all from this thread.

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

43

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sky colors

« on: May 10, 2019, 11:40:03 PM »

Water is not colorless, it is blue.

"Scientist" Wise sets a new record for saying the dumbest thing.

Actually this one is true. And also not dumb, since water in a glass appears colorless.


"This absorption spectrum of water (red light absorbs 100 times more than blue light), together with the five-times greater scattering of blue light over red light, contributes to the blue color of lake, river and ocean waters."

Source: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html

And even sky is partly blue because of water, but not because water is blue.
(I'm not trolling.)

44

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sky colors

« on: May 10, 2019, 01:12:43 PM »

When the sun is in different positions as compared to you on the globe, the sun hits different water droplets in the atmosphere differently, causing the refraction of light and therefore the appearance of different colors of light, making a sunset. This is the explanation used for all schools of thought, I don't see why it would differ.

Is in FET the sun light travel distance through the atmosphere comparable to RET? Thought it might be shorter. So, is it long enough to scatter the red part of the sun light spectrum in a large enough fraction? But I admit there are more obvious debunks.

45

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 10, 2019, 12:22:34 PM »

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

The term "always" may be a pretentious word for it but "naturally" it should be so.

Ok good, understood
Then let's go on: what do you know about light reflection?

Ahaha. What are you trying to do, a test?

I am interested in what you think about light reflection. Would you say it is real? And wouldn't you agree that a water surface can reflect light quite well, which we can see especially well when it is dark below the surface?

46

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 10, 2019, 12:14:41 PM »

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

The term "always" may be a pretentious word for it but "naturally" it should be so.

Ok good, understood
Then let's go on: what do you know about light reflection?

47

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 10, 2019, 08:38:23 AM »

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

48

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 09, 2019, 02:55:35 AM »

humans can change their behavior if they got convinced

49

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity isn't constant

« on: May 08, 2019, 10:44:02 PM »

Sorry if that already written,
but if gravity would be upwards acceleration of the ground and varies locally, we can calculate the resulting height differences after certain time steps.

50

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 08, 2019, 01:35:51 PM »

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

51

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 08, 2019, 01:09:30 PM »

Rabinoz and jackblack your are doing it again ... Ok never mind.. 

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

When you light a flashlight in the dark, say on a camping trip - does it extend forever? Or does it fade away?

Hello John, thanks for joining the debate. It fades away. Please go on!

The sun light also is scattered and will not indefinitely through a medium.

Did you mean "not go infenitely"?
If so: The question was, why do we still see the sun, and not, why we don't..

52

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Community Map

« on: May 08, 2019, 12:25:48 PM »

All FEB have to admit that Antarctica looks awkwardly stretched on a FE map.

53

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 08, 2019, 11:56:51 AM »

For the ice wall, I would like to ask you to make a new thread.
And rabinoz and blackjack please hold back for a while. You are overhelming wise. I would like to talk with wise here for a while 1on1. No offensive, but that would just be very kind, thanks.

A lot of light related issues are Optical illusion. I have many workings about this issue but want to shortify it for you.



In this photo, you see the object (which object?) on your way to the moon are clearly seen as brightly, and the remain areas are in darkness. This is because the earth's being 2D simulation and fake. Because if you move to any direction to right or left, then the past (?) brightly area turns to darkness and another dar area turns to brightly (?). This is nothing but the nonsence of this weak system.

This system only tries to prevent smart people like me. But when issue (?) comes to create its own components (?), then it turns a cheap computer program. the system fights against intelligent people to hide their mistakes and weaknesses. and so the retards manage the world. This is not related the issue but related the jackblack and other angry globularists here. I hope you'll not turn an angry globularists here.

Sorry, but I have problems in understanding your writing.

But you seem to have the believe, if I understood correctly, that it is an illusion that the sun is behind the horizon during rising and setting, because it has to be higher according to FET.
Thus, are you basically thinking:
"reality does not fit to FET, therefore, it has to be a cheap computer program with errors"?
so, to nail your logic down: "false" = "false" is true?

This object:



You have completly missunderstand me. If you try to get my thinking you can not do that.

If you really want to get my thinking and want to give up kiding as how you did, I can reply it. But by this wording you can't get a sincere answer. I recommend you give up to be an angry globularist logic, and be a man, normal man. Otherwise you can unable to get me.

Wise,
I was and am not angry and also not kidding. This was a misunderstanding because you cannot hear my tone by reading written text. If we would talk you would hear my tone to be friendly, calm and interested. Maybe you can read it again with this just described tone in mind.

Ok, let us try again. Please try to write in simple logic, so I can understand.

Something like
"In reality strange phenomena can be observed" → ... → "RE wrong and FE true".

What exactly is bothering you with the moon pictures? Please use short and clear sentences.

I did not see an angry globularist accept himself being an angry globularist. Anyways, I'll pre agree your not being angry globularist, till you show an evidence again you are so.



Under moon light, you are clearly seing the object A.

In darkside, you almost can not see any detail of ship B.

So much so that, you can zoom men on object A and see men are fishing. But you can not see any details in ship B.

The problem here, the light on the ship is "IMAGINARY". Because the light on the ship is relevant with the position of observer, inother say, you see the ship A because it is under the moon according to your point of view. If you move right to get moon upside of SHIP B, then you'll see all details in SHIP B and then OBJECT A will go in darkness.

So that, moon light on the ship is imaginary, not real. It is because there is a program, and the simulation allows you to see OBJECT A when it stays under the position of the moon according to your point of view.

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

54

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sky colors

« on: May 08, 2019, 11:03:02 AM »

<crap deleted>

<shit deleted>

I told you mister rabinoz, or jackblack, you clone sisters.

Wait to your line; adults are talking here. Or you can bark till forever to yourself, no body will reply you, because there is nobody respect you here. If you want to see a recpect here, so wait to your line, ie end of adults talk here.

If the sky is water, why aren't I drowning right now?

Also, what are the seas? Concentrated water?

Oh, sky is water; air isn't.  Sky, is the thing we define as "dome".

Sea is water, simple water. You can see even pool water as blue many times. The water in h20 format is "about colorless". Actually it has a ver few blue color because of oxygen, but we can not aware it. But temperature, other elements, and other reasons, water is not only in h2o format. it generally contains free oxygen, ozone and free hydrogen.

Main colour of oxygen is blue when it in liquid format. Inother say, free oxygen gives its color to water which has not color as main shape. And water has slightly blue because of Oxygen in H2O. Both Oxygen in water and free oxygen give their color; blue to the water.

Where did you gain all your science knowledge from? I learned the things you speak of to be differently (and more plausible, to be honest).
Do you have a public reference for anything, that you posted in this thread? Or is it all based on your own studies?

55

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sky colors

« on: May 07, 2019, 11:13:20 PM »

You are in many topics so I will reply them when I find enough time.

Sky is water and blue is the color of water. Repeating; blue is the colour of water. Water is not colorless, it is blue. That's all about blue sky.

Sun is yellow and it has a circle represent its coming or going. This is a halo has red color. Other colors happen by chemical reaction when suns colour meet downside air. If the yellow light of the sun is combined with blue, green color may occur. and red color halos and other colors can be combined to create any color.

Sky is water? What is about clouds? (And their color)

56

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 07, 2019, 10:52:50 PM »

Rabinoz and jackblack your are doing it again ... Ok never mind.. 

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

When you light a flashlight in the dark, say on a camping trip - does it extend forever? Or does it fade away?

Hello John, thanks for joining the debate. It fades away. Please go on!

57

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice wall thousands of km high

« on: May 07, 2019, 10:19:26 PM »

Ok, so no high ice wall, ok. But then, how is the air kept in given that the ground accelerate with 1g upwards? Is the dome made of some kind of glass? And why is Antarctica so awkwardly stretched on FE map, doesn't this bother you?

Btw, FEB, you can travel to the south pole, read the video description:

Maybe you do croud funding and sent someone to it?

58

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 07, 2019, 12:45:40 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=227&v=5tDbDhfK8rQ

In the FET sun set explanation the radius of the sun gets smaller (because it is moving away).
But in reality the radius of the sun does not change.

59

Flat Earth Debate / Sky colors

« on: May 07, 2019, 12:40:18 PM »

I would like to know the FET explanation for the blue sky, and how it is getting slightly green, yellow, orange and red during sun rise and sun set. 
Especially with the sun spot light from top being within the dome.

60

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the 'look out the window'-"proof" that planet earth is flat

« on: May 07, 2019, 12:36:19 PM »

Can you create the image without a computer?  NO.

Ergo, CGI.     

Actually the first spy satellites dropped film.

Can you create the image without a computer?  YES. Has Mr All Bull Winkle ever heard of film cameras?

Some spacecraft returned to earth with real film:

SOVIET LUNAR PHOTOS
Zond-5
On September 18, 1968, Zond-5 became the first spacecraft to circle the Moon and return to land on Earth. .. . . . . It photographed the Earth from a distance of 90,000 km:

Zond-7
Zond-7 photographed the Earth on August 9 and performed two photo sessions at the Moon on August 11, 1969.
It shot 35 pictures with the SKD camera and 300 mm objective, on 5.6 × 5.6 cm frames of color and panchromatic film:

From: Larry Gerstman, SOVIET LUNAR PHOTOS

Nice proof. Now we only need an FEB to get hands on the films and to do radiocarbon dating on it ...