Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball?

Quote from: Brouwer on September 01, 2016, 09:57:04 PM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 06:27:02 AM

You claim it is about 20 degrees over the horizon. It isn't.

5 more moons will fit between the real position and the horizon. Taking small errors to account plus the fact the Moon is only ~32' in diameter, that gives no more than 4 degrees above the horizon. The visibility of such Moon at such angle is perfectly consistent with the globe.

Thats nice.  I have a question. If I could prove Stellarium was wrong (beyond any reasonable doubt) in a similar situation, would it matter? Do you believe Stellarium is a perfect representation of the globe model? If it were wrong by say 5 degrees of suns position below.near.above the horizon at a specific time would it matter?  How much would it matter? What would that mean?

Bueller....Bueller....Bueller

I don't see you proving anything.

Why don't you just do it.

I don't see you proving anything.

Why don't you just do it.

I'd have to use my own pictures

Hey guys do you want me to cure cancer?  JK, I would have to use my own chemistry set so I'm not going to.

What is your excuse for this full moon during the day? 

Quite simple, really.  If you ever check out a moonrise, moonset calculator, you may notice that as a general rule of thumb, the full moon generally rises sometime around 6:00 PM local time and generally sets sometime around 6:00 AM local time.  Depending on the time of year, it's perfectly reasonable to expect to see a full moon during early morning or late evening daylight hours.

Hey guys do you want me to cure cancer?  JK, I would have to use my own chemistry set so I'm not going to.

Are you comparing the globe earth to cancer? I think we finally agree on something lol

Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates. This has been shown dozens of times here. 

Yes, all those things "have to do with light". Luckily, we know pretty much exactly how they affect the path of light.

Reflection: Straightforward. Light bounces off stuff at a specific angle.
Elevation: Straightforward. Less stuff can get in the way if you are higher up.
Refraction: Little more complicated. Stuff like density and temperature can cause light to bend slightly.

Given these tools, give us a diagram of how light moves between the sun and our eyes as it sets. You can even make the light bend a little if you can give a plausible explanation as to why it bends. If this is as simple as you say, it should be easy! I have NEVER seen anyone explain this in my entire time on this site. (I have been lurking a lot longer than I have had an account.)

On youtube there are many of videos showing very simply how this operates using ball and flashlight type objects.

Feel free to post one of those videos demonstrating how it works. Fair warning: if they have the camera UNDERNEATH the table that they slide the ball across, " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">like this one, I will roll my eyes quite vigorously.

Do you have any proof we live on a ball?  Didn't think so. Move along now

Yes. TONS. Have you not paid attention to this thread? Goodness.

Quote from: Brouwer on September 01, 2016, 09:57:04 PM

You claim it is about 20 degrees over the horizon. It isn't.

5 more moons will fit between the real position and the horizon. Taking small errors to account plus the fact the Moon is only ~32' in diameter, that gives no more than 4 degrees above the horizon. The visibility of such Moon at such angle is perfectly consistent with the globe.

Thats nice.  I have a question. If I could prove Stellarium was wrong (beyond any reasonable doubt) in a similar situation, would it matter? Do you believe Stellarium is a perfect representation of the globe model? If it were wrong by say 5 degrees of suns position below.near.above the horizon at a specific time would it matter?  How much would it matter? What would that mean?

Of course Stellarium is not a perfect representation of the globe. Like any model, it makes certain assumptions. For example, it can't simulate refraction perfectly, since it can't possibly know the exact weather conditions. It is generally very, very close though, depending on how accurate your input is.

If Stellarium was wrong by 5 degrees, that would certainly be interesting. I would be curious as to what the cause is. Bug? Bad input? Ridiculously wacky weather conditions? The earth is flat after all? Considering the gigantic preponderance of evidence that the earth, isn't flat, I highly doubt the latter.

Quote from: Brouwer on September 01, 2016, 09:57:04 PM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 06:27:02 AM

You claim it is about 20 degrees over the horizon. It isn't.

5 more moons will fit between the real position and the horizon. Taking small errors to account plus the fact the Moon is only ~32' in diameter, that gives no more than 4 degrees above the horizon. The visibility of such Moon at such angle is perfectly consistent with the globe.

Thats nice.  I have a question. If I could prove Stellarium was wrong (beyond any reasonable doubt) in a similar situation, would it matter? Do you believe Stellarium is a perfect representation of the globe model? If it were wrong by say 5 degrees of suns position below.near.above the horizon at a specific time would it matter?  How much would it matter? What would that mean?

I've never used Stellarium so I have no idea how acccurate it is.

But such a program making 5 degree error sounds ridicuous and unacceptable for such a "simple" motion. Why? Because 5 degrees in difference can change early sunset to dark sky in vice versa.

Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates. This has been shown dozens of times here.  On youtube there are many of videos showing very simply how this operates using ball and flashlight type objects. 

Do you have any proof we live on a ball?  Didn't think so. Move along now

"Air density" variation is simply the cause of "refraction".
But refraction down to 15° is quite small, enough to bother an astronomer, but you would never see it.
Even within a few degrees of the horizon refraction normally makes objects appear a little higher (typically about 0.6°).

Of course, occasionally there are both superior (objects appear higher) and inferior mirages (objects appear lower), but these are by means the norm.

There is no way refraction can explain normal sunset.

As to proof of a rotation earth,

Have a look at: Re: Laser level. « Reply #50 on: July 03, 2016, 05:04:24 PM »

Gyro-Theodolites are real and used in long tunnels and mining when GPS or celestial fixes are not possible.

Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates. This has been shown dozens of times here.  On youtube there are many of videos showing very simply how this operates using ball and flashlight type objects. 

  There is exactly zero video on youtube which demonstrate how sunlight moves at sunset as observed outside. Zero. And you really have to be more specific how these effects affect how the sun operates not just throw these words around. You have failed multiple times to explain this very simple phenomenon. Whats the problem?

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 31, 2016, 10:00:57 PM

frenat and origamiscience: I see no evidence of him stretching or otherwise altering the image, except for the outline he overlayed on top. Be careful about false accusations.

Omega, and others, at least one of your round earth counterparts has some dignity.  I would advise that you stop claiming that I faked anything and do some work on your own for a chance, and see for yourself.

I know it hurts when the globe model is wrong and you have to resort to these tactics, but they don't work forever.  In fact we're going to the next image.  What is your excuse for this full moon during the day? 

Before we talk about excuses, I would like proof that you photo is really of a full moon.

Look at these. Are they full?

A photo one day before or after a full moon is hard to tell apart from a true full moon.
So you need to tell us exactly when that photo was taken (getting time zones sorted out), it matters a lot!

if the earth was flat the "sun mirage" would not exist Because gravity and  the atmosphere bends the light.
which also proves how gravity is real.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 30, 2016, 02:30:32 PM

The predictability of eclipses is evidence of a spinning ball.

With our current understanding of the Moon's orbit, we can predict where and when a solar eclipse will be visible. The fact that our model can be used with such accuracy is evidence enough of roundness.

I have yet to see any FE MODEL that can predict when and where a solar eclipse will be visible.

Can your model explain a full moon during the day time? Maybe Zork can draw us a picture of how that works

all you need to do is actually LOOK at those photos, they fact there's no solid edge all around is all you need, its clearly NOT a full moon in any of the pics, the one above the sand is the closest, but that has already been fully explained (even though you're choosing to ignore the explanations, doesn't make them any less valid)

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 09:48:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 01, 2016, 09:46:43 AM

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 09:40:41 AM

@Jroa
I showed that it is no fake so I insist on a fake picture. You have promised a fake picture.

Your people are the ones claiming that photo manipulation = faking.  Perhaps you should all huddle together and get your stories straight?

The photo has not been faked, it's a compositon of different wavelenght photographs. It has never been claimed it wasn't post-processed.
Next photo, please.

I would say the same thing, if I was trying to pass a faked photo off as being real.

who's done that? nasa certainly haven't

Quote from: sokarul on September 02, 2016, 08:39:13 PM

Hey guys do you want me to cure cancer?  JK, I would have to use my own chemistry set so I'm not going to.

Are you comparing the globe earth to cancer? I think we finally agree on something lol

Lol

I was of course making fun of your stupid comments. 

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 02, 2016, 11:13:23 AM

Quote from: Silicon on August 30, 2016, 07:41:21 AM

Quote from: zork on August 30, 2016, 01:33:57 AM

Quote from: zork on August 27, 2016, 02:28:19 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 27, 2016, 02:22:21 PM

Quote from: zork on August 27, 2016, 01:42:09 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 27, 2016, 01:23:55 PM

Quote from: zork on August 27, 2016, 01:20:24 PM

@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him.  Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?

Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset

Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg

I really don't know where to start with this, light and our perception, in a situation as you have shown in this picture with no frame of reference, is so convoluted how does this prove anything

I don't quite want to prove anything. Its just that in round earth model it is explained very simply but no one has ever given any simple explanation in flat earth model. It just happens and no one ever thinks about it. But I really would like to see how it works on flat earth model and if I even can somehow observe it with things in hand. Like lamp and table and some clouds made of cotton. I am quite frustrated with my inablity to imagine this thing.

Nothing yet? Very simple thing but absolutely no ideas how it may work in FE model.

The sun is close, somewhere around 3k miles away from the earth and rotates around in a circle of the motionless earth beneath your feet.  As the sun moves away from you it recedes into the distance (sunset)  and appears to converge with the horizon at the apex of your perspective, different phenomena  occur such as the sun's colors, size, and effects of light due to many factors in the increased density of air, humidity, gases, etc  close to the earths surface. Very simple.

Did you notice how you didn't actually explain the colors, size etc?  You just said due to many factors.  Also the sun doesn't get smaller and converge with the horizon, which is what it would do in your model, it stays the same size and shape, if it were physically moving away it would not do this.  Then it moves under the horizon, still staying the same size and shape.  It's light, now blocked by the horizon still reaches the tops of mountains and underside of clouds, until it eventually moves beyond even that.  These things would not be possible with your model it think.  And this is easily demonstrated.  You can do it yourself with a ball and flashlight.  Show me exactly how that would work in your model.

Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates. This has been shown dozens of times here.  On youtube there are many of videos showing very simply how this operates using ball and flashlight type objects. 

Do you have any proof we live on a ball?  Didn't think so. Move along now

Tons of proof, you just seem to ignore it.  The fact is whether you're watching from a mountain top or at sea level.  Regardless of the atmospheric conditions the sun, seen as a circle, does not converge with the horizon, as you said, it visibly sinks below it, never changing its shape.  This is really only possible on a round earth.  I suppose you could,argue the sun is orbiting around us if you want, but still shows the earth to be round.

When the sun is converging with the horizon at sunset call someone 500 miles to the west and ask them what they see it doing.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 01, 2016, 07:19:20 PM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 06:27:02 AM

What is your excuse for this full moon during the day? 

First, let's try to estimate how high above the horizon the moon is in this image. From the image meta-data:

Camera: Sony DSLR-A100
Focal Length: 135mm
Date: 2014-08-11 12:00:53 (Based on the shadows, this was clearly not taken at noon or midnight. Probably a timezone issue.)

Google search reveals that the DSLR-A100 has a sensor size of 23.6mm x 15.8mm. This allows us to calculate the maximum angular size of the image:

2*arctan((23.6/2)/135) = 10 degrees

10 degrees is the maximum angular width of the photo in the vertical direction. We can now get a rough approximation of the elevation of the moon. I measured 1227 pixels between the moon and the horizon:

10 degrees * (1227 px / 3872 px) = 3.2 degrees

This is a far cry from your estimated 20 degrees. Now, let's calculate the maximum width of the moon assuming the sun is on the horizon:

(1+cos(3.2 degrees))/2 = 0.9992

That's a 0.08% decrease in width. This corresponds to 0.2 pixels in the above image. So no, this image does not constitute evidence against the earth being round. Also, once again, you can clearly see the bottom left edge of the moon is more blurry than the other edges.

@Silicon: In the future, you should probably go through this same process to see if your images actually constitute valid evidence, rather than just guessing.

@Omega: There is no evidence that Silicon altered the image of the moon. Stop accusing him of such. He merely tried to pass off his overlay as more fitting than it actually was.

Look, I appreciate the effort and you gave some great ideas to generate proofs,  I will do this next time.  You were also honest about that image which is good.  You sir are a top 1 percenter.

But just fyi most spec sheets give a angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438940-REG/Sony_DSLRA100K_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html

Edit: Whoops wrong one

Well no, not 76 degrees!

Well Mr Silicon, while you are fixing tour mistakes, you claim the "angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees", sure but at what focal length?

That is a DSLR with interchangeable lenses, so what lens? Do YOU know?

Well, it is easy to find out because the original photo has the jpeg EXIF data in it and that picture was taken at a focal length of 202 mm!
So, care to revise your figures?

Have you found out exactly when (time AND date) that picture was taken yet? As I said before it matters a lot.

Well no, not 76 degrees!

Well Mr Silicon, while you are fixing tour mistakes, you claim the "angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees", sure but at what focal length?

That is a DSLR with interchangeable lenses, so what lens? Do YOU know?

Well, it is easy to find out because the original photo has the jpeg EXIF data in it and that picture was taken at a focal length of 202 mm!

This makes the field of view about 6.8°(horiz on picture) x 9.9° (vert on picture).

So, care to revise your figures?

Have you found out exactly when (time AND date) that picture was taken yet? As I said before it matters a lot.

But please! Everything on that photo fits the globe, except for the uncertainty about whether it was taken one day after the full moon, because yo simply cannot tell just by looking.

Dude, we are WAY past this. He already admitted it wasn't 76 degrees.

Also, to clarify any confusion for others reading this, the 202mm focal length you used was the 35mm-equivalent focal length. You seemed to take that into account though, so no worries.

I thought Silicon was looking for evidence of rotation.

I gave some in Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball? « Reply #309 on: September 03, 2016, 12:47:47 AM »

asking him to look up Re: Laser level. « Reply #50 on: July 03, 2016, 05:04:24 PM »

Gyro-Theodolites are real and used in long tunnels and mining when GPS or celestial fixes are not possible.

I haven't seen or don't remember that anyone mentioned such person as Giovanni Battista Guglielmini. Its interesting to know if there is exlpanation for results in his experiment and other similar experiment later (some of them are mentioned in https://books.google.com/books?id=VpFPDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531#v=onepage&q&f=false ) on FE model. In short, balls were dropped straight down and most of them (as you can't totally eliminate balls own movement) landed not straight down but were deviated eastward. If the earth is still and doesn't rotate then balls dropping straight down should drop straight down not deviate to the east.
 EDIT: I thought that its useful to add reason why balls deviate. Its because place nearest to earth center moves slower than place farthest. The ball dropped at some high place (the top of tower or deep shaft) retains its velocity and should drop some distance at east of the drop site as lower place moves slower.

I haven't seen or don't remember that anyone mentioned such person as Giovanni Battista Guglielmini. Its interesting to know if there is exlpanation for results in his experiment and other similar experiment later (some of them are mentioned in https://books.google.com/books?id=VpFPDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531#v=onepage&q&f=false ) on FE model. In short, balls were dropped straight down and most of them (as you can't totally eliminate balls own movement) landed not straight down but were deviated eastward. If the earth is still and doesn't rotate then balls dropping straight down should drop straight down not deviate to the east.

On the face of it that does not make any sense. If you let go of a ball it is already moving westwards with the rotation of the earth.

It's, again, like dropping a ball in a train moving at constant speed. It will drop straigh down relative to the observer in the train. For someone outside the train the ball appears to follow a diagonal path to the floor.

Quote from: zork on September 04, 2016, 11:15:57 AM

I haven't seen or don't remember that anyone mentioned such person as Giovanni Battista Guglielmini. Its interesting to know if there is exlpanation for results in his experiment and other similar experiment later (some of them are mentioned in https://books.google.com/books?id=VpFPDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531#v=onepage&q&f=false ) on FE model. In short, balls were dropped straight down and most of them (as you can't totally eliminate balls own movement) landed not straight down but were deviated eastward. If the earth is still and doesn't rotate then balls dropping straight down should drop straight down not deviate to the east.

On the face of it that does not make any sense. If you let go of a ball it is already moving westwards with the rotation of the earth.

It's, again, like dropping a ball in a train moving at constant speed. It will drop straigh down relative to the observer in the train. For someone outside the train the ball appears to follow a diagonal path to the floor.

Did you read the excerpt from the book? Its because base of the tower or place nearest to earth center moves slower than place farthest. The ball dropped at the top of tower retains its velocity and should drop some distance at east of the drop site. Train is moving constantly with its entirety but tall object on spinnig ball doesn't. Its top moves faster.

Quote from: Omega on September 04, 2016, 11:26:02 AM

Quote from: zork on September 04, 2016, 11:15:57 AM

I haven't seen or don't remember that anyone mentioned such person as Giovanni Battista Guglielmini. Its interesting to know if there is exlpanation for results in his experiment and other similar experiment later (some of them are mentioned in https://books.google.com/books?id=VpFPDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531#v=onepage&q&f=false ) on FE model. In short, balls were dropped straight down and most of them (as you can't totally eliminate balls own movement) landed not straight down but were deviated eastward. If the earth is still and doesn't rotate then balls dropping straight down should drop straight down not deviate to the east.

On the face of it that does not make any sense. If you let go of a ball it is already moving westwards with the rotation of the earth.

It's, again, like dropping a ball in a train moving at constant speed. It will drop straigh down relative to the observer in the train. For someone outside the train the ball appears to follow a diagonal path to the floor.

Did you read the excerpt from the book? Its because base of the tower or place nearest to earth center moves slower than place farthest. The ball dropped at the top of tower retains its velocity and should drop some distance at east of the drop site. Train is moving constantly with its entirety but tall object on spinnig ball doesn't. Its top moves faster.

*facepalm* yes that is right! You are correct, I see that now.

I was still stuck on the image of a gun firing upwards. The upward bullet moves sideways at the same speed as the gunman.

But when you drop something from a tower, the top of the tower moves faster than the base of the tower.

Cool! Learned something 😃

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 24, 2016, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 24, 2016, 03:22:02 PM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 24, 2016, 03:19:37 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 24, 2016, 02:56:46 PM

I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.

Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.

Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is best 

Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.

The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round.

The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away.

This should be enough to start with.

The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth cannot be a ball in that same thread as sandokhan pointed out.  No proof here

Rabinoz's calculations for the circumference of the earth (The circumference can be calculated from (distance from Vaupes) * 360°/(angle difference of sun from Vaupes))  and based entirely on what I claim are fictitious globe numbers.  Also I see it could be possible the sun rises and falls in elevation on a flat earth. So no proof here either.

What was that? Like 4 posts.. I see in the language you use that your mind is set. Onone, nowhere can change your mind. You have already made up your mind that there is no proof. So why do you keep asking. Logic suggests all FE are trolls. And honestly, I do find really funny dialogues here. Thats why I return. Not thinking I will convert someone.

You just do it for fun and RE tag along for some hilarious threads and thats fine with me

Quote from: Silicon on September 02, 2016, 05:37:07 PM

Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates. This has been shown dozens of times here. 

Yes, all those things "have to do with light". Luckily, we know pretty much exactly how they affect the path of light.

Reflection: Straightforward. Light bounces off stuff at a specific angle.
Elevation: Straightforward. Less stuff can get in the way if you are higher up.
Refraction: Little more complicated. Stuff like density and temperature can cause light to bend slightly.

Given these tools, give us a diagram of how light moves between the sun and our eyes as it sets. You can even make the light bend a little if you can give a plausible explanation as to why it bends. If this is as simple as you say, it should be easy! I have NEVER seen anyone explain this in my entire time on this site. (I have been lurking a lot longer than I have had an account.)

Quote

On youtube there are many of videos showing very simply how this operates using ball and flashlight type objects.

Feel free to post one of those videos demonstrating how it works. Fair warning: if they have the camera UNDERNEATH the table that they slide the ball across, " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">like this one, I will roll my eyes quite vigorously.

Quote

Do you have any proof we live on a ball?  Didn't think so. Move along now

Yes. TONS. Have you not paid attention to this thread? Goodness.

Here is a demonstration of how it works.  Do you understand what is being said here?

Here is a demonstration of how it works.  Do you understand what is being said here?

YEs, we do understand.
Do you?

HINT:
Look at the angles at 5:11.
They are all wrong.
Sun is going 15 degrees per hour.

Wrong angles at 13:44 again.

Protractor at 19:11 measures something from aside, instead from observer.
And claiming it is "observed angle". LOL
And more such "measure what looks convenient" shortly before and after 19:11.

Serious question:
Do you Really understand what a mess this guy tries to sell as "experiment" ?
Will you accept to be his victim?

I thought Silicon was looking for evidence of rotation.

I gave some in Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball? « Reply #309 on: September 03, 2016, 12:47:47 AM »

asking him to look up Re: Laser level. « Reply #50 on: July 03, 2016, 05:04:24 PM »

Gyro-Theodolites are real and used in long tunnels and mining when GPS or celestial fixes are not possible.

Really?  Gyro-Theodolites are riddled with geographic restrictions, setup problems, and numerous errors they seem to have trouble counter acting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrotheodolite

I would believe the above ground communication version with gps etc is used but I don't see how this below ground only one would ever be reliable.

Quote from: Silicon on September 05, 2016, 09:29:02 PM

Here is a demonstration of how it works.  Do you understand what is being said here?

YEs, we do understand.
Do you?

HINT:
Look at the angles at 5:11.
They are all wrong.
Sun is going 15 degrees per hour.

Have you measured the speed of the sun across the sky towards dusk? Can you share your measurements with us?

Wrong angles at 13:44 again.

See above

Protractor at 19:11 measures something from aside, instead from observer.
And claiming it is "observed angle". LOL
And more such "measure what looks convenient" shortly before and after 19:11.

I think you're missing the point.

Serious question:
Do you Really understand what a mess this guy tries to sell as "experiment" ?
Will you accept to be his victim?

I think he makes a valid point, and illustrates it fairly.  Is there a way you could do it better?