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.
I wasn't talking about the horizon, but the bulging look of the buildings. I thought you were implying it was curvature of the earth's surface. My apologies if I was mistaken in this regard.
In what way is this unilluminated?You tell me. You're the one who says the astronauts can't see that part, only the sunlit part. Not only that, but they can see stars on the covered spot. Are city lights at night not real? Is that part of the conspiracy too? Now, think carefully now: you seem to advocate that there is no conspiracy.
You mean oblate spheroid? Oblate meaning wider at the equator (prolate would be wider at the poles) due to Earth's spinning (oh hey, there's another distortion on your map), and spheroid meaning almost a sphere. Ellipsoid is just nonsense. That's, like, an oval sphere.They landed on the moon and observed the illuminated portion of the Earth in all its majesty. Duh.In my opinion, not very majestic, but that's me. Also, they didn't see the unilluminated portion of the Earth? Why not? We RE'ers can.
Just the sort of counter I would expect from an advocate of the absurd ellipsoid earth theory.
This is annoying. If there are quite a few photos that show the curvature of the Earth exactly like a sphere would, but also FE, then there should be quite a few more that show it in a way that can be undeniably FE.Likewise a sphere is always curved in three dimensions. the picture isn't "looking down" it is looking across.
The scene is easily interpreted as looking down at a circle in FET.
And looking across in RET... therefore the picture is meaningless
So you admit that using these sort of "photo" to prove the shape of the Earth is pointless? I am ok with this.
They landed on the moon and observed the illuminated portion of the Earth in all its majesty. Duh.In my opinion, not very majestic, but that's me. Also, they didn't see the unilluminated portion of the Earth? Why not? We RE'ers can.
If the Earth were flat, it would look the same? So, light DOESN'T bend? So the existence of a horizon once again becomes proof of round Earth? Well then, problem solved.Now, when you say flat, you mean round, right?
View from the highest building in the world, the Burj Khalifa. You can't see the horizon, but it certainly seems to me like the places closer are sort of bulging out at the viewer. Probably because, um, they are.
This is a wide angle lens view and the bulging that appears is due to that, not the curve of the earth. If the earth was flat, this photo would still look the same.
I was being facetious. Making fun of the FE argument.If the human eye, our only method of seeing things, isn't reliable proof, then nothing is.Please review this thread, started by one of the more logical Round Earthers to understand your mistake. Please note that it was not written by myself, and that I even disputed it at first, but after some clarification admitted that he was right:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51439.0This is a wide angle lens view and the bulging that appears is due to that, not the curve of the earth. If the earth was flat, this photo would still look the same.Give it up. Every time we try this, they tell us we've made it up and that wide-angle lenses don't work like that. Most people here just don't listen.
Exactly. It doesn't matter. So stop talking about it.It is not rationalism. Darwin and others in his time chose the word "Evolution" instead of creating a new word, and they had the right to do so. They created a new concept and pretty much overtook the word.Oh, come now, that's not what he means. I think what he's trying to say is that life is based on DNA which is based on chemistry and physics. Celestial motion acts by the same laws. You're the worst kind of rationalist. To you, there is no in-between and all reason based on something that isn't reason itself is not valid at all. What Spock's dad didn't understand was that marrying a human to understand their species better is not rational at all. It's just silly.Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).
Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.
Playing with the various definitions of one word as if they were just one is exactly what I have been saying: useless word games. No special powers are transferred from one meaning to the other just because the same word is used for both.
You may find a sense of beauty and a sense of purpose on any random occurrence. You can see the Virgin Mary on a stained wall if you want. But this does not transfer any purpose to the wall. Darwinian Evolution is not the same as "things evolve from a state I like less to a state I like more". It is a huge lot more than that.
And Physics and Chemistry are everywhere, but that does not mean anything either. There is Physics and Chemistry in my brain and in a computer, but that does not mean I think like a computer.
It's proof! Look at the picture. Round. If the human eye, our only method of seeing things, isn't reliable proof, then nothing is.Yep. I can't back it up at all. How incompetent I am, right? Obviously I am wrong, because my only proof that the Earth is round is that it looks round. So silly.No, RE'ers are rather saying that the Earth is round because we have a gigantic amount of evidence and of science telling us that it is a sphere.
No, El Cid is saying it's round because it looks round. Sadly, he cannot back this up any further.
That's not even proof. If you have no other scientific evidence to back up your claims you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone. On a science based forum such as this, I'd say that's pretty incompetent.
The eye is fooled by many things. Haven't you ever seen a magic show? Are magicians simply illusionists or proof that magic exists?
It's proof! Look at the picture. Round. If the human eye, our only method of seeing things, isn't reliable proof, then nothing is.Yep. I can't back it up at all. How incompetent I am, right? Obviously I am wrong, because my only proof that the Earth is round is that it looks round. So silly.No, RE'ers are rather saying that the Earth is round because we have a gigantic amount of evidence and of science telling us that it is a sphere.
No, El Cid is saying it's round because it looks round. Sadly, he cannot back this up any further.
That's not even proof. If you have no other scientific evidence to back up your claims you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone. On a science based forum such as this, I'd say that's pretty incompetent.
Yep. I can't back it up at all. How incompetent I am, right? Obviously I am wrong, because my only proof that the Earth is round is that it looks round. So silly.No, RE'ers are rather saying that the Earth is round because we have a gigantic amount of evidence and of science telling us that it is a sphere.
No, El Cid is saying it's round because it looks round. Sadly, he cannot back this up any further.
Partially. Let's not forget that very crucial issue. Try placing a debit card very close to a carpet. Do you see a reflection of the debit card in the carpet? I hope you don't. If you do, I cannot help you.Still, near an ocean, which is reflective, we'd see some pretty interesting things. It would have been noticed long ago.
Yeah, yeah, I know all about bendy light. My point is, it looks round to me.On a flat Earth, objects far away would simply get smaller and never disappear under the horizon.
Only if light is following straight lines. The bendy light hypothesis explains wery well why distant objects seem to disappear behind the horizon: The light rays coming from these objects can't reach the observer.
Any similarity with images by a certain Round-Earther is pure coincidence.
Now, when you say flat, you mean round, right?If you look out the window, you will see, quite likely, if you live in the suburbs like me, houses and trees and such. But if you're in a vacation home or something, and when you look out, you can see the horizon, then congrats! You proved that there is a horizon. On a flat Earth, objects far away would simply get smaller and never disappear under the horizon. Horizon only exists because light goes straight and can't curve along with the Earth.
There's your proof of a round Earth. Want to know if the Earth is round? Just look out the window.
Through a window, from a rooftop, across the mighty expanse of the great planes, from cliffs overlooking the magnificent oceans, from the tops of the most highest majestic mountains, and from the highest flying craft, it always appears flat. thank you for this insightful, yet banal thread Mr. Cid
Exactly. See the original:I've always wanted to do this.Congratulations on your first Incorrect; now you just need a few Irrelevants and you'll feel right at home.Incorrect.If you are travelling in an east/west direction on a flat earth, you NEED to be travelling in a curve to left or right to maintain the same latitude.This is also true on RE.
However, you happen to be wrong, as already explained by jraffield1.Hello,
INS also includes gyroscopes, which do not care which direction gravity it is, they maintain their position in space despite external movement. If you were to walk along a line of longitude on a FE the INS would register that you were walking in a line. On a RE, the same path would result in the INS showing that you walked along a curved path.
True, forgot about gyroscopes. I work a lot with accelerometers. Either way, it still supports both theories.
If you were traveling to the East or to the West, INS on a FE or a RE will tell you the same thing. However...
On a flat Earth, if you go south the INS will tell you you're traveling in a line. On a round Earth, if you go south the INS will tell you you're traveling along a curve. In this case, INS behaves differently on a FE than on a RE.
Sorry, the emboldened part is in error. INS on both a FE and RE would register that you are moving along a curve, however, on a FE the curve would occur in the North/South - East/West plane and on a RE the curve would occur in the Up/Down direction.
I've always wanted to do this.Incorrect.If you are travelling in an east/west direction on a flat earth, you NEED to be travelling in a curve to left or right to maintain the same latitude.This is also true on RE.
I've always wanted to do this.Congratulations on your first Incorrect; now you just need a few Irrelevants and you'll feel right at home.Incorrect.If you are travelling in an east/west direction on a flat earth, you NEED to be travelling in a curve to left or right to maintain the same latitude.This is also true on RE.
However, you happen to be wrong, as already explained by jraffield1.
Hello,
INS also includes gyroscopes, which do not care which direction gravity it is, they maintain their position in space despite external movement. If you were to walk along a line of longitude on a FE the INS would register that you were walking in a line. On a RE, the same path would result in the INS showing that you walked along a curved path.
True, forgot about gyroscopes. I work a lot with accelerometers. Either way, it still supports both theories.
If you were traveling to the East or to the West, INS on a FE or a RE will tell you the same thing. However...
On a flat Earth, if you go south the INS will tell you you're traveling in a line. On a round Earth, if you go south the INS will tell you you're traveling along a curve. In this case, INS behaves differently on a FE than on a RE.
Coordinate systems generally have straight lines.
What about spherical coordinates?
We can't accidentally curve to a side, without knowing it. If we, being duped by NASA, think that the Earth is a globe and we only have to follow the line straight ahead and never waver, then we will go ahead and do that. If we do that, then we will not go around the world. We will head to the edge. We will go straight. You can't curve accidentally.
Who said anything about curving accidently. If you are on a round earth, you have to travel on a curve to go around the earth.
This doesn't even need INS. We can just use a good ol' map and compass, things that have been in use long after the belief of a round Earth was widely accepted. Columbus used a map and compass. Nobody had any idea what would be over there. Colombus' records say, he went basically due west. But, if he did this on a flat Earth, not being duped by NASA and their fancy GPS and INS, it seems he would probably end up in South America, but he didn't. He ended up in the Caribbean, like we would expect if on a globe.
"...basically due west." Bad example.
Incorrect.If you are travelling in an east/west direction on a flat earth, you NEED to be travelling in a curve to left or right to maintain the same latitude.This is also true on RE.
Oh, come now, that's not what he means. I think what he's trying to say is that life is based on DNA which is based on chemistry and physics. Celestial motion acts by the same laws. You're the worst kind of rationalist. To you, there is no in-between and all reason based on something that isn't reason itself is not valid at all. What Spock's dad didn't understand was that marrying a human to understand their species better is not rational at all. It's just silly.Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).
Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.
advantage?Evolution shows us that man cannot be separated from the universe. That we are a part of the universe, and we are something that the universe is doing, is making, every moment, physics and chemistry keep us alive, the same as everything else, that we are not just some freak of nature, a terrible accident, or something silly like that.
to remove GOD from this world you retard
that is the main objective
same with evolution
Let's say you die today. After you die, you end up in a funny little place, and God makes a couple of flaming hoops and says, "Jump through these hoops, or you will suffer eternal torment! If you succeed, you will get your salvation!"I know FEers dispute Space Flight images as part of the conspiracy, but here's something anyone can do with a bit of money: . The video clearly displays an Earth quite different from the FE model (yes, I know the lense is curved), and, at 90,000 ft, I see no spotlight Sun. Anyone can repeat this experiment for more conclusive results. I dare a FEer to get a picture of the edge of the Earth, or of the spotlight Sun.
Distortion. Also, BTW, we get a couple of these every week.
