How far could you see?

Quote from: Don Quichotte on November 07, 2013, 09:08:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2013, 09:01:15 AM

Quote from: InquiringMind on November 07, 2013, 08:54:14 AM

Quote

It's a reflection of earth. Don;t get mixed up like others do and think I mean it's a reflection of earth that we live on, as in reflections of street lights and what not.
I mean it's a reflection of a weaker earth sun through earth crystal which would be abundant at the real centre of earths circle, the one we are told is the north pole and has been navigated, which in my opinion is a massive misdirection of the truth.

When viewing the moon through a high powered telescope you can see the texture of it's surface. I find it hard to believe we are looking at a reflection.

Have you ever seen the texture of your face in a mirror?
Is that hard to believe it's a reflection?

Try this:
Get a big mirror and a decent torch. Put some patterned wallpaper opposite the mirror and shine a light on the paper. Do this in the dark, so that your torch reflection rebounds back to the mirror and tell me what you see.

You're really of the chart, aren't you? Whenever I look in the mirror I see myself in clear details. It ressembles me. Although I can't be sure of my face, it does show the clothes I wear, etc. You're saying the moon is a reflection of the earth. I've never seen the amount of craters on earth which I see on the surface of the moon. The moon is all grey, while whenever I look at the earth it's blue and green mostly. It's just plain stupidity if you think it's the earth's reflection.

Is the Sahara desert blue and green?
What about ice covered land?
What about the oceans?

You've only seen what you can afford or are allowed to see, or is as close as you'll ever see without threatening your existence due to massive atmospheric change.
It's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.

Is the Sahara desert grey?
Is ice covered land grey?
Are oceans grey?

No
No
No

Moon = not a reflection of the earth. Plain stupidity.

Quote from: InquiringMind on November 07, 2013, 09:18:02 AM

Quote

It's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.

It's ridiculous to think the moon could be a reflection of the earth.

Completely defies logic.

I'll tell you what defies logic. A rotating earth and yet a moon that shows one face to us.
Ask yourself why it only shows one face.

I can explain in words, but this video tells more than 1000 words. Only takes 2 minutes to watch. Pretty simple, uh? 
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Why only one side of the moon is visible

Quote from: Googleotomy on November 07, 2013, 08:09:14 AM

Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?

That is right. I am still waiting. Get the sense he promised a diagram he can't make...but let's not grow too impatient. I will remind him if he doesn't keep his promise. As for the reply. 11cookeaw1 quoted Jroa's reply, which is no longer there. I responded to that deleted message.

What?  It is still there.  Just click on the link of that quote.

Or, click here.  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774

Why Do We Only See One Side of the Moon?
You may have heard references made to the "dark side" of the Moon. This popular, although somewhat inaccurate term refers to the fact that only one face of the Moon, the "near side", is visible to us. The dark side or far side is permanently rotated away from our planet.

Why is this the case? We all know that the Earth rotates on its own axis, so theoretically, the Moon should also do the same, allowing us to get a full picture of the planetoid. Why are we limited to seeing only 50 percent? It turns out that the speed at which the Moon rotates has led to this particular phenomenon. Millions of years ago, the Moon spun at a much faster pace than it does now. However, the gravitational influence of the Earth has gradually acted upon the Moon to slow its rotation down, in the same way that the much smaller gravitational influence of the Moon acts upon the Earth to create tides. This influence slowed the rotational period of the Moon to match that of its orbit – about 29.5 days – and it is now "locked in" to this period.

If the Moon didn't spin at all, then eventually it would show its far side to the Earth while moving around our planet in orbit. However, since the rotational period is exactly the same as the orbital period, the same portion of the Moon's sphere is always facing the Earth.

Another interesting fact is that actually a little bit more than half of the Moon's surface is observable from Earth. Since the Moon's orbit is elliptical, and not circular, the speed of its orbital travel increases and decreases depending on how close it is to our planet. The rotational speed of the Moon is constant however – and this difference between orbital speed and rotational speed means that when the Moon is farthest from the Earth, its orbital speed slows down just enough to allow its rotational speed to overtake it, giving observers a small glimpse of the usually hidden area. The term for this "rocking" motion of the Moon is called libration and it allows for 59 percent of the Moon to be seen in total (over time).

Finally, the reason that the far side of the Moon is frequently referred to as the "dark side" is because many people mistakenly think that it never sees any light from the sun. This notion results from a misinterpretation of the fact that it is never illuminated so that it can be observed from Earth. In fact, since the Moon is constantly rotating on its own axis, there is no area of the planetoid which is in permanent darkness, and the far side of the Moon is only completely devoid of sunlight during a Full Moon – when the Sun is facing the Moon with the Earth in between.

If you believe all that, then nothing is ever going to change your mind. I'll deck out of this with you as your goal here is to push the rotating globe, not question it.

If you believe all that, then nothing is ever going to change your mind. I'll deck out of this with you as your goal here is to push the rotating globe, not question it.

I don't see a logical reason to question it. Nor do I see anything factual that disputes it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2013, 09:19:33 AM

Quote from: InquiringMind on November 07, 2013, 09:18:02 AM

Quote

It's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.

It's ridiculous to think the moon could be a reflection of the earth.

Completely defies logic.

I'll tell you what defies logic. A rotating earth and yet a moon that shows one face to us.
Ask yourself why it only shows one face.

I can explain in words, but this video tells more than 1000 words. Only takes 2 minutes to watch. Pretty simple, uh? 
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Why only one side of the moon is visible

I'm well aware of how they say it works. The question should be...why the hell people accept it. It makes no logical sense for the moon to do this. None whatsoever.
The reason is obvious. It's because it was made to fit, just like every other coincidence.

Quote from: Don Quichotte on November 07, 2013, 09:11:32 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on November 07, 2013, 08:09:14 AM

Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?

That is right. I am still waiting. Get the sense he promised a diagram he can't make...but let's not grow too impatient. I will remind him if he doesn't keep his promise. As for the reply. 11cookeaw1 quoted Jroa's reply, which is no longer there. I responded to that deleted message.

What?  It is still there.  Just click on the link of that quote.

Or, click here.  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774

There is no diagram Jroa to show how this could be possible. If you talk nonsense about making a diagram which you don't make.....what other nonsense might you be telling?

Quote

If you believe all that, then nothing is ever going to change your mind. I'll deck out of this with you as your goal here is to push the rotating globe, not question it.

I don't see a logical reason to question it. Nor do I see anything factual that disputes it.

Fine, no problem here. You're not alone. There's many on here that absolutely refuse to question what's been put into their heads.
You carry on with the way you are going though, because all you will learn is exactly what you have already learned, which in my honest opinion, is bull crap.

Quote from: jroa on November 07, 2013, 09:32:21 AM

Quote from: Don Quichotte on November 07, 2013, 09:11:32 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on November 07, 2013, 08:09:14 AM

Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?

That is right. I am still waiting. Get the sense he promised a diagram he can't make...but let's not grow too impatient. I will remind him if he doesn't keep his promise. As for the reply. 11cookeaw1 quoted Jroa's reply, which is no longer there. I responded to that deleted message.

What?  It is still there.  Just click on the link of that quote.

Or, click here.  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774

There is no diagram Jroa to show how this could be possible. If you talk nonsense about making a diagram which you don't make.....what other nonsense might you be telling?

Here.  Note that this is not to scale.



Can you not see that the light has to pass through a lot more air when it is at an angle?

Don Quichotte, please stop making stuff up.

On a flat Earth, when the sun, or other celestial object, is directly overhead, it's light is only traveling through a few miles of atmoplane.  When it is at a significant angle, the light must pass through thousands of miles of atmoplane.  Do you need for me to draw you a diagram?  Can you really not understand this?

Quote from: Don Quichotte on November 07, 2013, 09:37:32 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 07, 2013, 09:32:21 AM

Quote from: Don Quichotte on November 07, 2013, 09:11:32 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on November 07, 2013, 08:09:14 AM

Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?

That is right. I am still waiting. Get the sense he promised a diagram he can't make...but let's not grow too impatient. I will remind him if he doesn't keep his promise. As for the reply. 11cookeaw1 quoted Jroa's reply, which is no longer there. I responded to that deleted message.

What?  It is still there.  Just click on the link of that quote.

Or, click here.  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774

There is no diagram Jroa to show how this could be possible. If you talk nonsense about making a diagram which you don't make.....what other nonsense might you be telling?

Here.  Note that this is not to scale.



Can you not see that the light has to pass through a lot more air when it is at an angle?

Jroa, then why do I observe the sun just above the horizon? Exactly as you say. On a flat earth I wouldn't be able to see the sun near the horizon. It would be completely fogged in. Yet I can see the sun, the stars, the moon just above the horizon. Makes me wonder why I can't see other objects...

Here's my diagram..

Light refracts as it passes through different density layers.  This causes the illusion that the sun is closer to the horizon than it is.

Light refracts as it passes through different density layers.  This causes the illusion that the sun is closer to the horizon than it is.

How did you determine that?

Light refracts as it passes through different density layers.  This causes the illusion that the sun is closer to the horizon than it is.

It's the other way around. Refraction makes the sun appearing higher above the horizon than it is (and stars as well).



Mind you, this works on a flat earth and on a round earth either.

Quote from: jroa on November 07, 2013, 10:12:15 AM

Light refracts as it passes through different density layers.  This causes the illusion that the sun is closer to the horizon than it is.

It's the other way around. Refraction makes the sun appearing higher above the horizon than it is (and stars as well).



Mind you, this works on a flat earth and on a round earth either.

Either way it still does not explain the things we observe. Jroa needs to come up with an answer...

Fine, no problem here. You're not alone. There's many on here that absolutely refuse to question what's been put into their heads.
You carry on with the way you are going though, because all you will learn is exactly what you have already learned, which in my honest opinion, is bull crap.

When you say all I will learn is what I have already learned..................that is completely false.

We learn new things in the field of science constantly. Do you think the same theories that exist now were exactly the same 50 years ago? There is always something new to learn.

You are trying to say I'm close minded...........and all you're doing is successfully showing how stubborn and close minded you are yourself.

I don't see how you equate making up things like an ice dome and saying the moon is a reflection of the earth (downright ridiculous) into being an example of having an open mind and questioning things.

Quote

Fine, no problem here. You're not alone. There's many on here that absolutely refuse to question what's been put into their heads.
You carry on with the way you are going though, because all you will learn is exactly what you have already learned, which in my honest opinion, is bull crap.

When you say all I will learn is what I have already learned..................that is completely false.

We learn new things in the field of science constantly. Do you think the same theories that exist now were exactly the same 50 years ago? There is always something new to learn.

You are trying to say I'm close minded...........and all you're doing is successfully showing how stubborn and close minded you are yourself.

I don't see how you equate making up things like an ice dome and saying the moon is a reflection of the earth (downright ridiculous) into being an example of having an open mind and questioning things.

I've been there and questioned them all to come to where I am. What have you done, other than to simply, accept what science books tell you?
If I was closed minded, I would stick rigidly to one thing, like you're doing, yet I'm still open to correction on my thoughts, to a certain extent.
What I'm not open to, is having my mind changed from an ice dome, because I'm certain in my own mind that we do live under one.
I'm also 1 million per cent certain that the earth is not a Rotating ball in a vacuum of what we are told, space is.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

I've been there and questioned them all to come to where I am. What have you done, other than to simply, accept what science books tell you?

Why do you automatically assume I accept what science books tell me?

Wouldn't someone with an open mind not make such assumptions?

If I was closed minded, I would stick rigidly to one thing, like you're doing, yet I'm still open to correction on my thoughts, to a certain extent.

You mean like rigidly rejecting mainstream science..........saying there is nothing in space but blackness...........and saying man has never been to space?

Would those be examples of being rigid and close minded?

What I'm not open to, is having my mind changed from an ice dome, because I'm certain in my own mind that we do live under one.

There is nothing to suggest your idea is true.

Absolutely nothing.

I'm also 1 million per cent certain that the earth is not a Rotating ball in a vacuum of what we are told, space is.

Yet you are clearly open minded.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

I don't actually. To be truthful.

I have no idea, outside of just wanting to be different, how someone would come up with the ideas you have.

Quote

I've been there and questioned them all to come to where I am. What have you done, other than to simply, accept what science books tell you?

Why do you automatically assume I accept what science books tell me?

Wouldn't someone with an open mind not make such assumptions?

Quote

If I was closed minded, I would stick rigidly to one thing, like you're doing, yet I'm still open to correction on my thoughts, to a certain extent.

You mean like rigidly rejecting mainstream science..........saying there is nothing in space but blackness...........and saying man has never been to space?

Would those be examples of being rigid and close minded?

Quote

What I'm not open to, is having my mind changed from an ice dome, because I'm certain in my own mind that we do live under one.

There is nothing to suggest your idea is true.

Absolutely nothing.

Quote

I'm also 1 million per cent certain that the earth is not a Rotating ball in a vacuum of what we are told, space is.

Yet you are clearly open minded.

Quote

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

I don't actually. To be truthful.

I have no idea, outside of just wanting to be different, how someone would come up with the ideas you have.

If I keep telling you I have a Labrador but you have never witnessed it for yourself, yet you see me buying a few large tins of dog meat that happen to have a Labradors face on the label and a massive bag of mixer that also has a Labradors face on the packaging, it will go a long way into making your mind up that I have a Labrador.
If I then go on to buying the largest dog basket in the store, then you will see enough information that convinces you that I do actually have a Labrador.

If someone comes up to you and tells you that my dog is a Yorkshire terrier, then you are going to tell that person that he's dead wrong, because you have seen the evidence that my dog is indeed a Labrador or at least a large breed of dog.

This is what's happening to you people when you get shown pictures of earth and get told it's a ball that is rotating.
When someone tells you it's not, you say you have enough evidence to convince you.

If I keep telling you I have a Labrador but you have never witnessed it for yourself, yet you see me buying a few large tins of dog meat that happen to have a Labradors face on the label and a massive bag of mixer that also has a Labradors face on the packaging, it will go a long way into making your mind up that I have a Labrador.
If I then go on to buying the largest dog basket in the store, then you will see enough information that convinces you that I do actually have a Labrador.

If someone comes up to you and tells you that my dog is a Yorkshire terrier, then you are going to tell that person that he's dead wrong, because you have seen the evidence that my dog is indeed a Labrador or at least a large breed of dog.

Great story.

Completely pointless, however.

Because in this story........would literally billions of people have the chance to question whether or not you actually had a dog at all? No.

Yet all of us can take it upon ourselves to study science and see where flaws may lie.

There are a ton of scientist in the world. And not all of them work for government agencies. I'd pay you any amount of money to find that that believes in an ice dome or flat earth.

This is what's happening to you people when you get shown pictures of earth and get told it's a ball that is rotating.
When someone tells you it's not, you say you have enough evidence to convince you.

Yeah I guess I should just reject good sound evidence and instead make my own stuff up instead. Because that makes far more sense.

You don't have an open mind. You just think you do.

Quote from: InquiringMind on November 07, 2013, 09:18:02 AM

Quote

It's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.

It's ridiculous to think the moon could be a reflection of the earth.

Completely defies logic.

I'll tell you what defies logic. A rotating earth and yet a moon that shows one face to us.
Ask yourself why it only shows one face.

Because it takes the same amount of time to rotate as it does to orbit.

Quote from: Don Quichotte on November 07, 2013, 09:27:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 07, 2013, 09:19:33 AM

Quote from: InquiringMind on November 07, 2013, 09:18:02 AM

Quote

It's naive to think that you've seen all there is to see.

It's ridiculous to think the moon could be a reflection of the earth.

Completely defies logic.

I'll tell you what defies logic. A rotating earth and yet a moon that shows one face to us.
Ask yourself why it only shows one face.

I can explain in words, but this video tells more than 1000 words. Only takes 2 minutes to watch. Pretty simple, uh? 
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Why only one side of the moon is visible

I'm well aware of how they say it works. The question should be...why the hell people accept it. It makes no logical sense for the moon to do this. None whatsoever.
The reason is obvious. It's because it was made to fit, just like every other coincidence.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. You can say it's wrong all day but it won't change the fact that you don't have any evidence that it's wrong and have no evidence your ideas are correct. Why have you not done any experiments to test you ideas? How can you be so sure of them otherwise.

RE has evidence like this, which all you have done is ignore.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 28, 2013, 05:52:02 PM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 25, 2013, 09:42:11 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60071.0.html
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.0.html

Okay just answer these two links. You haven't even responded yo these two yet.

Okay let me make this easier for you Sceptimatic by telling you what these are. The first is the Estov effect. An effect where objects travelling in the same direction as the earth rotates weighing less then objects travelling in the opposite direction due to centrifugal forces.
The second one is where someone DOES AN EXPERIMENT finds that they are able to see less of a mountain at further distances due to the earth's curvature.

Quote from: Don Quichotte on November 07, 2013, 09:37:32 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 07, 2013, 09:32:21 AM

Quote from: Don Quichotte on November 07, 2013, 09:11:32 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on November 07, 2013, 08:09:14 AM

Don Quichotte , I thought you were waiting for a reply from jroa to "make you look not so good" ? Did I miss something ? I haven't seen a reply from jroa on my computer ?

That is right. I am still waiting. Get the sense he promised a diagram he can't make...but let's not grow too impatient. I will remind him if he doesn't keep his promise. As for the reply. 11cookeaw1 quoted Jroa's reply, which is no longer there. I responded to that deleted message.

What?  It is still there.  Just click on the link of that quote.

Or, click here.  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60382.msg1561774.html#msg1561774

There is no diagram Jroa to show how this could be possible. If you talk nonsense about making a diagram which you don't make.....what other nonsense might you be telling?

Here.  Note that this is not to scale.



Can you not see that the light has to pass through a lot more air when it is at an angle?

Quote from: jroa on November 06, 2013, 10:36:55 AM

Don Quichotte, please stop making stuff up.

On a flat Earth, when the sun, or other celestial object, is directly overhead, it's light is only traveling through a few miles of atmoplane.  When it is at a significant angle, the light must pass through thousands of miles of atmoplane.  Do you need for me to draw you a diagram?  Can you really not understand this?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59073.60 here we have 100 miles or 160 kilometres of view at sea level. When it's right above the sunlight has to travel through the equivalent of approximately 8 kilometres of 5 miles of sea level air. Going by the FE sun distance of 3000 miles, to travel through the equivalent of 100 miles or 160 kilometres of sea level air the horizontal distance have have to be approximately 60000 miles, this many times further then it ever gets.

Jroa, you still haven't shown a diagram that works.

Place a cloud behind the observer. Then explain how that lit up at sun rise before you see the sun. Place the cloud so the observer is in the middle. I have my own idea how this can work. I'm just throwing it out there.

You could see as far as history goes back, to the 'Cosmic Dawn'

This is a picture of stars (galaxies, actually) that are 13.5 billion light years away.  A terrestrial telescope is able to see it, too. Chile telescope, hawaii telescope and a couple of non-terrestrial NASA telescopes: spitzer and hubble.



So why does the sun disappear while at the same time stars are visible on the horizon?  Why aren't foggy days shorter?

You could see as far as history goes back, to the 'Cosmic Dawn'

This is a picture of stars (galaxies, actually) that are 13.5 billion light years away.  A terrestrial telescope is able to see it, too. Chile telescope, hawaii telescope and a couple of non-terrestrial NASA telescopes: spitzer and hubble.



So why does the sun disappear while at the same time stars are visible on the horizon?  Why aren't foggy days shorter?

I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.

Well when you think about it, it means its really really far away. So far you cant measure it in miles. The most reasonable way to measure it is to use a measurement based on the distance light travels in 1 year.
Well I thought about it and my mind is blown 

Have a think on it. How anything be that far away with an invisible ice dome no one has ever seen and no one actually believes in being up in the sky?

Quote from: FlatOrange on November 22, 2013, 10:55:03 PM

You could see as far as history goes back, to the 'Cosmic Dawn'

This is a picture of stars (galaxies, actually) that are 13.5 billion light years away.  A terrestrial telescope is able to see it, too. Chile telescope, hawaii telescope and a couple of non-terrestrial NASA telescopes: spitzer and hubble.



So why does the sun disappear while at the same time stars are visible on the horizon?  Why aren't foggy days shorter?

I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.

To an ant, a person is impossibly large. But we still exist.

I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.

Don't understand the concept of a light year, or can't comprehend the distance?