Evidences Of The Flat Earth (On Going @142)

THE MYTHICAL CURVE

• Find the curve! You can't. Every experience we have says it's flat - from the beach to Mount Everest to a plane.
• Lack of Curvature in Planes
• Curvature has not been seen at heights of 38,000 ft+
• The only evidence showing curvature is from Big Science.
• Weather balloons routinely show a  flat earth unless distorted by the lens - often we'll see this happen as it appears concave/convex/ and flat alternating.  There is no law of optics that would allow a body to appear flat if it was indeed round.
• You can see Rotspitze, Collalto, GroBglockner, Rote Spitze, Sass De Putia and Sass Rigais from the same spot with no curvature. Also Rauchkofel.
• Shots of Blue Origin from space and from earth show that curvature is seen at ground level the same as from low earth orbit. This proves curvature seen from space is determined by how it was filmed.
• We are too small to see curvature yet boats can be seen to dip below a hill of water?!

1.) This isn't evidence, just ignorance. Not many humans have the chance to visually observe the curve, but there are numerous methods to measure it.

2.) The Earth is so big and we are so small in comparison, do you really think we would be able to see curvature at ground level?

3.) And it shouldn't be seen at those heights anyways, lol fail.

4.) Wrong, numerous geodists and astronomers proved a sphere earth hundreds of years ago before NASA and mainstream science.

5.) Show me the video with a weather balloon without distortion.

6.) What?

7.) What pictures?

8.) Perspective

A site that generates the angle of the sun given globular model would be correct on an non-euclidean flat earth.

You keep saying that your non-Euclidean flat earth does everything, so here is your chance to show one thing it can (or can't) do.

Would you care to prove that by calculating the apparent elevation angles of the sun from various latitudes?

Even say extending Voliva's 45° elevation at latitude 45°N to other latitudes at solar noon at the time of an equinox would be a start.
Say, show the sun's elevation from latitudes 5°N, 15°N, 30°N, 60°N, 75°N and 90°N - even "the Wiki" states how to do this.

If not, show us where we might learn enough of your non-Euclidean flat earth model to do these calculations.

Quote from: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 10:06:11 AM

A site that generates the angle of the sun given globular model would be correct on an non-euclidean flat earth.

You keep saying that your non-Euclidean flat earth does everything, so here is your chance to show one thing it can (or can't) do.

Would you care to prove that by calculating the apparent elevation angles of the sun from various latitudes?

Even say extending Voliva's 45° elevation at latitude 45°N to other latitudes at solar noon at the time of an equinox would be a start.
Say, show the sun's elevation from latitudes 5°N, 15°N, 30°N, 60°N, 75°N and 90°N - even "the Wiki" states how to do this.

If not, show us where we might learn enough of your non-Euclidean flat earth model to do these calculations.

Do I?

There is no need for calculation. It is equivalent|irreconcilable from the globular|flat hypothesis|fact.

Quote from: John Davis on September 03, 2016, 10:09:00 PM

THE MYTHICAL CURVE

• Find the curve! You can't. Every experience we have says it's flat - from the beach to Mount Everest to a plane.
• Lack of Curvature in Planes
• Curvature has not been seen at heights of 38,000 ft+
• The only evidence showing curvature is from Big Science.
• Weather balloons routinely show a  flat earth unless distorted by the lens - often we'll see this happen as it appears concave/convex/ and flat alternating.  There is no law of optics that would allow a body to appear flat if it was indeed round.
• You can see Rotspitze, Collalto, GroBglockner, Rote Spitze, Sass De Putia and Sass Rigais from the same spot with no curvature. Also Rauchkofel.
• Shots of Blue Origin from space and from earth show that curvature is seen at ground level the same as from low earth orbit. This proves curvature seen from space is determined by how it was filmed.
• We are too small to see curvature yet boats can be seen to dip below a hill of water?!

1.) This isn't evidence, just ignorance. Not many humans have the chance to visually observe the curve, but there are numerous methods to measure it.

A valid argument. Without knowing from first hand experience though, it should not be introduced into fact. As Einstein tells us, if you can't explain something simply, it likely is not of truth.

2.) The Earth is so big and we are so small in comparison, do you really think we would be able to see curvature at ground level?

No, But I could phrase the argument in another realm like this:
Fairies are so magical, and we are so not in comparison. Do you really think we would be able to see them? I don't know about you - but I'd love to see them if I were to believe in them.

3.) And it shouldn't be seen at those heights anyways, lol fail.

Lynch provides ample justification for this.

4.) Wrong, numerous geodists and astronomers proved a sphere earth hundreds of years ago before NASA and mainstream science.

Never mentioned NASA. I can't talk more of the popularity of err though.

5.) Show me the video with a weather balloon without distortion.

I'd love to see it too!

6.) What?

Huh?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 20, 2018, 01:50:11 PM

Quote from: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 10:06:11 AM

A site that generates the angle of the sun given globular model would be correct on an non-euclidean flat earth.

You keep saying that your non-Euclidean flat earth does everything, so here is your chance to show one thing it can (or can't) do.

Would you care to prove that by calculating the apparent elevation angles of the sun from various latitudes?

Even say extending Voliva's 45° elevation at latitude 45°N to other latitudes at solar noon at the time of an equinox would be a start.
Say, show the sun's elevation from latitudes 5°N, 15°N, 30°N, 60°N, 75°N and 90°N - even "the Wiki" states how to do this.

If not, show us where we might learn enough of your non-Euclidean flat earth model to do these calculations.

Do I?

There is no need for calculation. It is equivalent|irreconcilable from the globular|flat hypothesis|fact.

The angles prove a round earth.  Did you explain tv dish angles?

I can't turn on DirectTv without it failing. But hey, I'm sure you've had better luck. Its failing so hard they have moved to piggy backing off internet service providers. Oh boy.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 20, 2018, 01:50:11 PM

Quote from: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 10:06:11 AM

A site that generates the angle of the sun given globular model would be correct on an non-euclidean flat earth.

You keep saying that your non-Euclidean flat earth does everything, so here is your chance to show one thing it can (or can't) do.

Would you care to prove that by calculating the apparent elevation angles of the sun from various latitudes?

Even say extending Voliva's 45° elevation at latitude 45°N to other latitudes at solar noon at the time of an equinox would be a start.
Say, show the sun's elevation from latitudes 5°N, 15°N, 30°N, 60°N, 75°N and 90°N - even "the Wiki" states how to do this.

If not, show us where we might learn enough of your non-Euclidean flat earth model to do these calculations.

Do I?

There is no need for calculation. It is equivalent|irreconcilable from the globular|flat hypothesis|fact.

In other words you have no idea!

Yes you do! The is no non-Euclidean earth.
All I have ever seen is a thought-experiment that explains nothing and has no theoretical or physical backing.

If you claim that there is an adequate definition and justification for your thought-experiment, why do you refuse to reveal it.

I can't turn on DirectTv without it failing. But hey, I'm sure you've had better luck. Its failing so hard they have moved to piggy backing off internet service providers. Oh boy.

Not our problem if you can't set up your DBS Satellite TV system - get a professional to do it!
I guess a theoretician doesn't have any idea how to do practical things, but don't bitch about it to us!

Funny, when millions of others point their dishes at some magic location in the sky and voila, get some trashy TV show they'd be better without!

For receivers almost on the equator these dishes point almost straight UP! As in:
Here, you can even see the satellites up there! What now? « Reply #31 on: April 21, 2016, 07:08:05 AM ».
Yes, those satellites are only tiny, almost stationary, points of light but they are approximately 35,786 km (22,236 miles) above mean sea level.

Ridicule all you like, but Appeal to Ridicule (reductio ad ridiculum) is a very poor argument.
It is usually used when the responder (you) has run out of rational evidence.

Quote from: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 02:12:43 PM

I can't turn on DirectTv without it failing. But hey, I'm sure you've had better luck. Its failing so hard they have moved to piggy backing off internet service providers. Oh boy.

Not our problem if you can't set up your DBS Satellite TV system - get a professional to do it!
I guess a theoretician doesn't have any idea how to do practical things, but don't bitch about it to us!

Funny, when millions of others point their dishes at some magic location in the sky and voila, get some trashy TV show they'd be better without!

For receivers almost on the equator these dishes point almost straight UP! As in:

Satellite TV Receiving Dishes

Here, you can even see the satellites up there! What now? « Reply #31 on: April 21, 2016, 07:08:05 AM ».
Yes, those satellites are only tiny, almost stationary, points of light but they are approximately 35,786 km (22,236 miles) above mean sea level.

Ridicule all you like, but Appeal to Ridicule (reductio ad ridiculum) is a very poor argument.
It is usually used when the responder (you) has run out of rational evidence.

I never tried to set it up. Unfortunately, the 'professionals' are just in the dark as I am. Of course, other peoples millage may vary, so I'll let this one stand by itself. Surely I could be wrong, as I was when I visited the Antarctic.

I never tried to set it up. Unfortunately, the 'professionals' are just in the dark as I am. Of course, other peoples millage may vary, so I'll let this one stand by itself. Surely I could be wrong, as I was when I visited the Antarctic.

But you seem so fond of bringing up these little issues, which later turn out to be quite irrelevant.

We have thousands of caravanners around Australia setting up their own satellite TV dishes according to instructions and getting them to work, so I don't put much weight on what you say on the issue.

But, what's your problem with satellite TV? You claimed:

Its not a lie. Satellites and ISS are completely consistent with my work. Of course, much of round earth theory wants us to believe instead that a magical force defies most of Newtons Laws - we instead realize our naive view of space.

Really, my only problem with it is that it's shit. Even satellite internet is the balls. Anyone who has used either of these knows they are shit.

Like GPS too. But yeah guys. They continue to be good points.

Really, my only problem with it is that it's shit. Even satellite internet is the balls. Anyone who has used either of these knows they are shit.

Rubbish! Even if your satellite TV is poor quality and your experience with satellite internet is the pits, that's no evidence against their reality.
Have you ever used satellite phones in remote areas? I have.
Have you ever used GPS receivers in remote areas, in ships far from land and even in aircraft in remote areas and far from land? I have.

As always, just the empty words of John Davis, while many thousands use satellite TV and satellite internet in Australia.
Go and get your own installed: Sky Muster™ Satellite Internet, for less.

But I repeat, what's your problem with satellite TV? You claimed:

Its not a lie. Satellites and ISS are completely consistent with my work. Of course, much of round earth theory wants us to believe instead that a magical force defies most of Newtons Laws - we instead realize our naive view of space.

All you ever do is ridicule, rarely bothering to post anything of value with decent evidence. As witnessed by this post:

Like GPS too. But yeah guys. They continue to be good points.

If you think the earth is flat, you prove it! Don't rely simple lists of unsubstantiated claims by all and sundry.

Rubbish! Even if your satellite TV is poor quality and your experience with satellite internet is the pits, that's no evidence against their reality.

What do you consider evidence, if not first hand experience?

Quote

Rubbish! Even if your satellite TV is poor quality and your experience with satellite internet is the pits, that's no evidence against their reality.

What do you consider evidence, if not first hand experience?

Lying flat on the floor not seeing the curvature?

What if you were offered the possibility to fly high up to witness the curvature yourself? Would you accept it?

Quote

Rubbish! Even if your satellite TV is poor quality and your experience with satellite internet is the pits, that's no evidence against their reality.

What do you consider evidence, if not first hand experience?

From more than one person is a start. GPS works and uses satellites as documented.  Again, satellite tv dish angles prove the  shape of the earth.

Quote

Rubbish! Even if your satellite TV is poor quality and your experience with satellite internet is the pits, that's no evidence against their reality.

What do you consider evidence, if not first hand experience?

How is your poor quality satellite TV evidence against the reality of satellites? It's simply evidence that you get poor quality satellite TV.

Yeah, good point. Satellite Tele is of poor quality. Why is that again?

Look guys, we have lots of floors to mop you with. If you'd like, I can mop the floors with all of you.

Look guys, we have lots of floors to mop you with. If you'd like, I can mop the floors with all of you.

Please explain how you believe GPS works.

What experimentation has Mr Davis done? You seem to quote books by others a lot.

Wanted to know as the FE M.O. reminds me of other cases in which the opposition did not exactly know a lot, and hid that fact very cleverly turning discussion into "Well, if you wanted to ask that, why did you not ask!" and others of the sort instead of actually answering any questions.

Yeah, good point. Satellite Tele is of poor quality. Why is that again?

No, your Satellite Tele is of poor quality. Why is that again?
Other people seem to do fine. So maybe your TV's got a thing against satellite skeptics.
But,  I ask again,  why do you doubt the existence of satellites, when you wrote:

Its not a lie. Satellites and ISS are completely consistent with my work.

Look guys, we have lots of floors to mop you with. If you'd like, I can mop the floors with all of you.

Yes, you probably could out-class me in a debate any day, so what,  but that would that prove nothing about the shape of the earth!

But that's all you're concerned about, big-noting John Davis, what about making some believable points for the flat earth.

Look guys, we have lots of floors to mop you with. If you'd like, I can mop the floors with all of you.

You better get busy, before your supervisor slips on that spilled grease trap!

Look guys, we have lots of floors to mop you with. If you'd like, I can mop the floors with all of you.

Please try and use me to mop the floor, and see how well that ends for you. Bring it on, ponce.

What experimentation has Mr Davis done? You seem to quote books by others a lot.

But he keeps it fair by having 1940 as the cut off point for how recent his references are allowed to be. You'll note this thread refers back to 1908 in the OP.

Look guys, we have lots of floors to mop you with. If you'd like, I can mop the floors with all of you.

Why don't you let your janitor do it?
I understood you work as programmer there.

Quote from: John Davis on January 21, 2018, 01:34:20 AM

Look guys, we have lots of floors to mop you with. If you'd like, I can mop the floors with all of you.

Why don't you let your janitor do it?
I understood you work as programmer there.

I suspect he is the janitor.

1.) This isn't evidence, just ignorance. Not many humans have the chance to visually observe the curve, but there are numerous methods to measure it.

2.) The Earth is so big and we are so small in comparison, do you really think we would be able to see curvature at ground level?

3.) And it shouldn't be seen at those heights anyways, lol fail.

4.) Wrong, numerous geodists and astronomers proved a sphere earth hundreds of years ago before NASA and mainstream science.

5.) Show me the video with a weather balloon without distortion.

6.) What?

7.) What pictures?

8.) Perspective

So, the fact that millions of humans travel 35,000+ feet above the ground does not allow them to observe the curvature?! Nor, can they observe it from the ground?! But, hey they can see boats sail "round the curve". And it can be MEASURED!!

Did you. (And by you I mean all of "you" who worship pseudo-science (astronomy, astrophysics, evolutionary biology, etc)  because it was pounded into your skulls from childhood. Just like all of "us". We just woke up.) Did you stand in the mirror and while staring at yourself. Repeat the ideas above. Which are. It cannot be observed but it can be measured or calculated.

The conditioning we have received has dumb us down to accept blind calculations that cannot be proven. Which happens to be the absolute opposite of the primary tenet of science. Science proves and validates via direct observation. And those observations must be repeatable by any party. Not just NASA, the Royal Society, National Geographic, certain experts, etc.

Repeating the assumptions that people have proven the curvature of the earth hundreds of years ago will only stand with the non-Good Will Hunting crowd. Some of us actually read the works and maintain copies of the books. We cross reference them and we research the authors and their sources.

We was written by "Geodists" and those who attempted to support them is not what you think it is. Start reading. Start requiring observable proof. Start opening your mind. You already believe one way. If you genuinely, with an open mind, investigate another point of view it will not harm you. Learning the truth is the worse that can happen. You might be right but you might be wrong too. Its not about clever statements. Its about the truth.

Learning the truth is the worse that can happen. You might be right but you might be wrong too. Its not about clever statements. Its about the truth.

Exactly.
Experimenting and measuring for yourself will eliminate any possibility of being deceived.

----------------------------------------

For example:
Make sure you know your latitude.
Poke (or find) in level ground straight vertical stick / pole, as big as you can measure. Make sure it is really vertical.
Each day for solar noon measure stick and shadow.
Altitude of the Sun (angle above horizon) will be ARCTAN(STICK / SHADOW).
Compare value with selected web site. ( I use SunCalc.org )
Ask trustworthy people at few other latitudes to do the same measurements.
Compare with SunCalc.org or other site of your choice (for example timeanddate.org).

Another "level of security" would be the fact that "people live there".
If there were errors they would gladly expose them.

Once you verified data, your web site is your online calculator for Sun.

For Equinox (March 21 or September 22), when the Sun is directly above Equator, Sun altitude A = 90 - L (L is latitude).
Check on SunCalc (or whichever you have chosen), if for March 21st altitude of Sun for solar noon is "90 minus latitude".
On March 21 you can also measure for yourself, just to be sure.

Now you have easy tool for Sun investigations.
You can also use Sun for on-ground measurements.

My latitude in 2008 in Belgrade was 44.765 north.
My "stick" was side pole of swing for kids, 205.5 cm tall.
Shadow for Sep 22 was 204 cm.
I didn't ask others to verify at their locations, but I used the "public scrutiny" rule to decide if SunCalc.org can be trusted.

-------------------------------------------

Another example:
If you don't know about radio ask in nearest radio club.
Using amateur radio at 432 MHz and paired helicoidal antennae you can send pulses to Moon and measure time of reflection.
It was done many times.
Radio waves travel at speed of light.
To go to Moon and back radio signal takes about 2.6 seconds.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 20, 2018, 12:47:46 AM

Quote from: John Davis on January 19, 2018, 04:45:47 PM

Quote from: ER22 on January 19, 2018, 03:31:59 PM

Hey JD,
Are you pretending to care about science again?
You know that science doesn't work well with your core belief.

You can't say on one thread that god can stop the sun in the sky,
And on another thread, discuss the validity of some part of science.

If you believe god can stop the sun,
That's it, the conversation is done as far as you are concerned.

Nothing will change your mind.
So don't pretend science matters.

Incorrect, as William James points out in Varieties of Religious Experience, it is illogical to tie the worth of a proposition to the supposed worth of its source.

Furthermore, historically, at many times the religious have been the curators of knowledge and science.

Finally, can I take this to assume you will throw out every single scientific advance by a religious man? Because you'd have almost nothing left over.

I am more than open to changing my mind when shown my view is incorrect. I have done so many times in my history here.

Just consider measured distances and the angle of the sun to prove a round earth.  Is timeanddate.com correct for your location?

A site that generates the angle off the sun given globular model would be correct on an non-euclidean flat earth.

Quote from: Denspressure on January 20, 2018, 01:36:16 AM

Where is your evidence the moon is transparent?

I believe accounts for the moon being transparent are cited in Rowbotham's Earth Not A Globe. IIRC, stars have been accounted as having been seen 'through' the moon.

Do provide such an image or video, preferable with camera, lens specifications and settings.

It is well known, and predictable, that the moon blocks stars and heavenly bodies in the sky.

So far I have been unable to see stars through the moon.

Fuji X-A1
CANON FD 300MM f5.6