movement over = distance from

  • 12 Replies
  • 1263 Views
?

burt

  • 849
movement over = distance from
« on: August 24, 2007, 09:59:53 PM »
It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

this statement is clearly ridiculous, how come the sun starts at one end (i'm not trying disprove or prove the flat-earth theory, i don't care) and then travels over, you see this happening throughout the day, finally it sinks down. it doesn't get smaller. it clearly starts being covered by the earth, i have photos taken by me, that show the sun half blocked by the earth, and not
"smaller"

"it looks like it disappears" this is a major assumption, it never looked to me like it just disappeard, it looked to me like it was slowly being obscured by the earth.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 10:17:58 PM by burt »

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2007, 10:19:48 PM »
Looks can be deceiving. Although, I do agree that a much better explanation needs to be developed.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

burt

  • 849
Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2007, 10:42:24 PM »
"looks can be deceivng" nice mantra you've got there. that statement is universal. are you lookng for truth or trying to prove a belief?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2007, 10:48:00 PM »
"looks can be deceivng" nice mantra you've got there. that statement is universal. are you lookng for truth or trying to prove a belief?

No, just outlining a truth. What you see isn't always the actuality of reality. If we operated off the opposite assumption, we'd have a whole lot more Criss Angel believers.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

burt

  • 849
Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2007, 11:04:54 PM »
outlining a truth, that, by your own admssion, cannot be proven, because any proof gets surpressed by the "conspiracy."  you yourself cannot know anything as truth, all their is is belief, i'm not saying your wrong, i'm saying know the difference between truth and belief. (by the way i did not see you outline anything)

?

burt

  • 849
Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2007, 11:08:31 PM »
truth or what you claim to be so, is just how the world looks to you, and by your mantra looks can be decieving

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2007, 10:05:20 AM »
outlining a truth, that, by your own admssion, cannot be proven, because any proof gets surpressed by the "conspiracy."

What?

you yourself cannot know anything as truth, all their is is belief, i'm not saying your wrong, i'm saying know the difference between truth and belief.

If you could tell philosophers you know the difference, I think they'd be very interested.

(by the way i did not see you outline anything)

"What you see isn't always the actuality of reality" - Trying to argue the nature of the Sun based off of what you perceive isn't a sound argument by itself.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

burt

  • 849
Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2007, 11:08:57 AM »
o.k, sorry. i admit that wasn't very clear.

you claim that you know the earth "is" flat, now, the operative word here, "is", to me seems to be very ignorant, like you are claiming it IS truth, (i would say also that the word truth , is like the word god- its a phantom of language, truth does not exist), you can only say "it appeas to me" instead of "is". you say looks can be decieving, the word "looks" is a very ambiguos word, now i would like to make this word more specific. with your agreement i would like to change it to "my personal interpratation of what i see or have been told" may appear decieving.

so now, my personal opinion is this,"there seems to be "proof" for both theories, so i'll never regard either one as the "truth," but i will remain open minded, and keep looking at both sides of the argument"
this is called model agnosticsm

at the moment though, the "proof" of how the sun appears to move, or what i have been taught, fits my observation of it, so i am inclined to hold the model "the earth spins while revolving around the sun, makng the sun appear to rise and set, at opposite ends of the earth" but in either case (whether the earth is flat or spherical[!- not round]) the suns apparent movement doesnt prove or disprove either.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2007, 11:13:16 AM »
"Is", "is." "is" the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment. -robert anton wilson

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2007, 06:17:08 PM »
you claim that you know the earth "is" flat, now, the operative word here, "is", to me seems to be very ignorant, like you are claiming it IS truth

I don't believe in a flat Earth though.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

burt

  • 849
Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2007, 05:03:13 AM »
uh... oh, sorry, it was only generally pointed at you, because you're the one that answered, i was meaning to actually converse with some real flat earthers althought the stuff that seemed directed at you was a general statement to the forum and a general expression of a philosophy i'm interested in. sorry to have misunderstood you playing devils advocate.

also, i do not beleive either way, but the proof i've seen generally tips me to the side of a sphericle earth.

 one question about this forum, what is the general need for a flat earth theory, other than the "conspiracy" and the search for an apparent truth, what discrepencies are their in the sphericle earth model, to lead people to this theory? all i have heard so far is the extrapolation of sphericle earth theories in explaination of the flat earth theory.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 05:51:30 AM by burt »

Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2007, 10:10:49 PM »
It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

Have non of you ever been SkyDiving?

I reckon all of you flat Earth believer's take a little ride in the elevator in Sears Tower to check out the Observation Deck. 

You will undoubtedly see the curvature of the Earth.  And if that's not proof enough.

Try jumping out of a plane at 10,000 feet.  FE theory is complete non sense...
Try not to get dizzy as you spin in circles trying to explain a theory that is based on complete stupidity and ZERO FACTS.

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: movement over = distance from
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2007, 10:16:24 PM »
It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

Have non of you ever been SkyDiving?

I reckon all of you flat Earth believer's take a little ride in the elevator in Sears Tower to check out the Observation Deck. 

You will undoubtedly see the curvature of the Earth.  And if that's not proof enough.

Try jumping out of a plane at 10,000 feet.  FE theory is complete non sense...
We have a pilot here who has claimed to never see the curvature. Skeptical Scientist has even performed an experiment where he placed a ruler on the horizon and saw no curvature and concluded that curvature was an illusion.
FE theory is much more plausible if you poke around a little longer. Someone said a long time ago you'll come here like this  :o, but leave like this  8).