Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality

  • 122 Replies
  • 10888 Views
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #60 on: October 13, 2016, 12:52:10 PM »
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

Magnification that increases linearly with distance is not the controversial point. I'm pretty sure most microscopes have that property within a limited range of focus. (Might be wrong about that. My knowledge of optics is a bit fuzzy... hehe.)

The controversial point is being able to produce the appropriate magnification and focus for anyone on earth from any angle and distance regardless of weather. That's the kicker.

To be clear, I don't expect you to go out and do an experiment that proves/disproves your theory in a single day. That is no small task. However, I think you are jumping the gun a bit. You expect others to "take into account atmoplanic lensing" before it has even been shown to be possible. We don't even know how it would work. How on earth can we take it into account?

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2016, 02:34:43 PM »
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

Magnification that increases linearly with distance is not the controversial point. I'm pretty sure most microscopes have that property within a limited range of focus. (Might be wrong about that. My knowledge of optics is a bit fuzzy... hehe.)

The controversial point is being able to produce the appropriate magnification and focus for anyone on earth from any angle and distance regardless of weather. That's the kicker.

To be clear, I don't expect you to go out and do an experiment that proves/disproves your theory in a single day. That is no small task. However, I think you are jumping the gun a bit. You expect others to "take into account atmoplanic lensing" before it has even been shown to be possible. We don't even know how it would work. How on earth can we take it into account?
Thank you for making that more clear.  I did a pretty poor job of explaining the problem I had with whole lense is a sun system.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #62 on: October 13, 2016, 04:26:16 PM »
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

Magnification that increases linearly with distance is not the controversial point. I'm pretty sure most microscopes have that property within a limited range of focus. (Might be wrong about that. My knowledge of optics is a bit fuzzy... hehe.)

The controversial point is being able to produce the appropriate magnification and focus for anyone on earth from any angle and distance regardless of weather. That's the kicker.

To be clear, I don't expect you to go out and do an experiment that proves/disproves your theory in a single day. That is no small task. However, I think you are jumping the gun a bit. You expect others to "take into account atmoplanic lensing" before it has even been shown to be possible. We don't even know how it would work. How on earth can we take it into account?

Well, your major objection to the proposed model was simply, "Nah uh, lenses don't work like that."  So, I conducted a rudimentary experiment to see if lenses do, in fact, work like that.  The results of the experiment seem to lean towards the "Yeah huh, lenses do in fact act like that" side. 

You can easily recreate this experiment yourself!  Oh, I forget that you people do not actually perform science, you simply read it out of a book and regurgitate it all over my computer screen.  My bad.  For a moment, I thought I was conversing with adults.   :-\

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #63 on: October 13, 2016, 04:31:46 PM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Except that it isn't anywhere close to observing the sun as it moves across the sky.

First of all, a magnifying glass is a convex lens, the atmoplane is flat.

Secondly, as the sun moves across the sky, the angle to the observer constantly changes.  Your "experiment" did not include that.

Thirdly, I have a hard time believing that the text didn't go in and out of focus as you moved the paper away from the magnifying glass.

I was specifically asked to explain how a lens could possibly act in the manner in which the theory describes.  I conducted an experiment and found that the single lens that I used did, in fact, act in the manner that the model describes.  Don't be so butt hurt about it.  If you think I am lying, do the experiment yourself.  The lens I used was a 2X.  Don't cry to me when you won't even get out of your armchair to recreate an experiment that costs less than $2. 

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2016, 04:39:55 PM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Interesting.  I put on reading glasses, which I believe are essentially magnifying lenses.  Held paper fairly close to my face, also holding a bit of wire which I bent to be the height of the letters.  I then moved the paper away to arms length and, sure enough, the text had appeared to shrink considerably.
Isn't that basically what you did?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #65 on: October 13, 2016, 04:44:49 PM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Interesting.  I put on reading glasses, which I believe are essentially magnifying lenses.  Held paper fairly close to my face, also holding a bit of wire which I bent to be the height of the letters.  I then moved the paper away to arms length and, sure enough, the text had appeared to shrink considerably.
Isn't that basically what you did?

Yes, basically.  Try holding the glasses approximately 0.25 m away and try it again.  I am curious to see if others get the same results I got. 

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #66 on: October 13, 2016, 04:47:26 PM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Interesting.  I put on reading glasses, which I believe are essentially magnifying lenses.  Held paper fairly close to my face, also holding a bit of wire which I bent to be the height of the letters.  I then moved the paper away to arms length and, sure enough, the text had appeared to shrink considerably.
Isn't that basically what you did?

Yes, basically.  Try holding the glasses approximately 0.25 m away and try it again.  I am curious to see if others get the same results I got.
Same thing.  Text shrinks quite a bit

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #67 on: October 13, 2016, 04:53:41 PM »
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

Magnification that increases linearly with distance is not the controversial point. I'm pretty sure most microscopes have that property within a limited range of focus. (Might be wrong about that. My knowledge of optics is a bit fuzzy... hehe.)

The controversial point is being able to produce the appropriate magnification and focus for anyone on earth from any angle and distance regardless of weather. That's the kicker.

To be clear, I don't expect you to go out and do an experiment that proves/disproves your theory in a single day. That is no small task. However, I think you are jumping the gun a bit. You expect others to "take into account atmoplanic lensing" before it has even been shown to be possible. We don't even know how it would work. How on earth can we take it into account?

Well, your major objection to the proposed model was simply, "Nah uh, lenses don't work like that."  So, I conducted a rudimentary experiment to see if lenses do, in fact, work like that.  The results of the experiment seem to lean towards the "Yeah huh, lenses do in fact act like that" side. 

My first reply was a bit vague, but I later clarified the requirements for such a phenomenon. Points 2 and 3 are just as important as point 1.

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.


Quote
You can easily recreate this experiment yourself!  Oh, I forget that you people do not actually perform science, you simply read it out of a book and regurgitate it all over my computer screen.  My bad.  For a moment, I thought I was conversing with adults.   :-\

First of all, I actually did the exact same thing you did. I took out a magnifying glass that happened to be sitting in my desk and looked at stuff from varying distances. Rough observation seemed to indicate that stuff got bigger at a nonlinear rate with distance (keeping eye-lens distance the same), before going out of focus. However, I originally didn't bring this up for 2 reasons:

1. I didn't test a wide range of distances, nor did I measure with much accuracy. Also, my magnifying glass is incredibly smudged. :(
2. I am aware there are a wide range of lens shapes, and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

But by all means, keep calling me childish for expecting at least a minimum level of competency.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #68 on: October 13, 2016, 05:24:24 PM »
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

Magnification that increases linearly with distance is not the controversial point. I'm pretty sure most microscopes have that property within a limited range of focus. (Might be wrong about that. My knowledge of optics is a bit fuzzy... hehe.)

The controversial point is being able to produce the appropriate magnification and focus for anyone on earth from any angle and distance regardless of weather. That's the kicker.

To be clear, I don't expect you to go out and do an experiment that proves/disproves your theory in a single day. That is no small task. However, I think you are jumping the gun a bit. You expect others to "take into account atmoplanic lensing" before it has even been shown to be possible. We don't even know how it would work. How on earth can we take it into account?

Well, your major objection to the proposed model was simply, "Nah uh, lenses don't work like that."  So, I conducted a rudimentary experiment to see if lenses do, in fact, work like that.  The results of the experiment seem to lean towards the "Yeah huh, lenses do in fact act like that" side. 

My first reply was a bit vague, but I later clarified the requirements for such a phenomenon. Points 2 and 3 are just as important as point 1.

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.


Quote
You can easily recreate this experiment yourself!  Oh, I forget that you people do not actually perform science, you simply read it out of a book and regurgitate it all over my computer screen.  My bad.  For a moment, I thought I was conversing with adults.   :-\

First of all, I actually did the exact same thing you did. I took out a magnifying glass that happened to be sitting in my desk and looked at stuff from varying distances. Rough observation seemed to indicate that stuff got bigger at a nonlinear rate with distance (keeping eye-lens distance the same), before going out of focus. However, I originally didn't bring this up for 2 reasons:

1. I didn't test a wide range of distances, nor did I measure with much accuracy. Also, my magnifying glass is incredibly smudged. :(
2. I am aware there are a wide range of lens shapes, and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

But by all means, keep calling me childish for expecting at least a minimum level of competency.

Well, for me, the text stayed the same with distance; for Badxtoss, the text shrank; and for you the text got bigger.  I think the only thing that we can conclude from these results is that we can no longer make blanket statements about how optics works. 

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #69 on: October 13, 2016, 06:11:27 PM »
Yes, basically.  Try holding the glasses approximately 0.25 m away and try it again.  I am curious to see if others get the same results I got.

Lenses require curved surfaces or at least curved interfaces between your atmoplanic layers.

You have not yet explained how you would ever get these curved surfaces on a plane earth.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #70 on: October 13, 2016, 06:18:45 PM »
Yes, basically.  Try holding the glasses approximately 0.25 m away and try it again.  I am curious to see if others get the same results I got.

Lenses require curved surfaces or at least curved interfaces between your atmoplanic layers.

You have not yet explained how you would ever get these curved surfaces on a plane earth.

Pancakes, despite being known for being flat, are actually quit curved.  I can't believe that I have to explain to you how pancakes work, rab.  Perhaps I can tutor you on basic algebra next? 

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41939
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #71 on: October 13, 2016, 09:38:10 PM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Except that it isn't anywhere close to observing the sun as it moves across the sky.

First of all, a magnifying glass is a convex lens, the atmoplane is flat.

Secondly, as the sun moves across the sky, the angle to the observer constantly changes.  Your "experiment" did not include that.

Thirdly, I have a hard time believing that the text didn't go in and out of focus as you moved the paper away from the magnifying glass.

I was specifically asked to explain how a lens could possibly act in the manner in which the theory describes.  I conducted an experiment and found that the single lens that I used did, in fact, act in the manner that the model describes.  Don't be so butt hurt about it.  If you think I am lying, do the experiment yourself.  The lens I used was a 2X.  Don't cry to me when you won't even get out of your armchair to recreate an experiment that costs less than $2.
Actually, your theory says that "The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses."  Your "experiment" did not take into account the viewing angle changing as the text moves across the lens. 

Protip: If you want to do "science", then at least try to make sure that your "experiment" is actually relevant to the theory that you're testing.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #72 on: October 13, 2016, 11:06:38 PM »
Yes, basically.  Try holding the glasses approximately 0.25 m away and try it again.  I am curious to see if others get the same results I got.

Lenses require curved surfaces or at least curved interfaces between your atmoplanic layers.

You have not yet explained how you would ever get these curved surfaces on a plane earth.

Pancakes, despite being known for being flat, are actually quit curved.  I can't believe that I have to explain to you how pancakes work, rab.  Perhaps I can tutor you on basic algebra next?

What has the curvature of pancakes got to do with your atmoplanes.
Next you'll be comparing the atmosphere to a stack of pancakes - I want mine with maple syrup, but hold the bacon an eggs - yes, I've tried that too.

But, are you one claiming now that your flat earth is curved? How much?

And, no you cannot "tutor" me "on basic algebra". Where on esrth would "basic algebra" come into the curvature of your atmoplanes?

Have your used your basic algebra to prove that the apparent size of the sun will remain constant all day from sunrise to sunset?

In doing your calculations,  remember that
          the refractive index of air (near sea-level) is only 1.000277,
          the effective thickness of the atmosphere is less than 10 km[1] and
          your "lens" has to cover the whole earth.
Mind you, I don't know how it's going get on near the Antarctic circle where the sun can rise due South in summer.

That's your problem. I guess you can just deny that it happens.

[1] If it helps, the atmosphere is a little thinner over the pole, especially the South Pole.

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #73 on: October 14, 2016, 12:58:50 PM »
Well, for me, the text stayed the same with distance; for Badxtoss, the text shrank; and for you the text got bigger.  I think the only thing that we can conclude from these results is that we can no longer make blanket statements about how optics works.

Yes, there are many different types of lens. You can make a lot of crazy things happen with them if you are creative. That still doesn't bring us any closer to knowing whether "atmoplanic lensing" is possible or how it works. I am not claiming that "atmoplanic lensing" is completely 100% impossible. I just think it is extremely unlikely based on points 2 and 3 that I listed above. And until such a time as it has been shown to be physically possible, it is unreasonable of you to expect people to take it seriously.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #74 on: October 14, 2016, 02:34:13 PM »
Well, for me, the text stayed the same with distance; for Badxtoss, the text shrank; and for you the text got bigger.  I think the only thing that we can conclude from these results is that we can no longer make blanket statements about how optics works.

Yes, there are many different types of lens. You can make a lot of crazy things happen with them if you are creative. That still doesn't bring us any closer to knowing whether "atmoplanic lensing" is possible or how it works. I am not claiming that "atmoplanic lensing" is completely 100% impossible. I just think it is extremely unlikely based on points 2 and 3 that I listed above. And until such a time as it has been shown to be physically possible, it is unreasonable of you to expect people to take it seriously.

At the risk of being accused of copying Ski, I would like to point out that your most educated roundly scientists can not explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is or how it works; only that it must exist in order for their model of the universe to mathmatically work.  I don't see you accusing them of lying simply because they have no other evidence.  Why are we held to a different standard?

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #75 on: October 14, 2016, 03:57:54 PM »
Well, for me, the text stayed the same with distance; for Badxtoss, the text shrank; and for you the text got bigger.  I think the only thing that we can conclude from these results is that we can no longer make blanket statements about how optics works.

Yes, there are many different types of lens. You can make a lot of crazy things happen with them if you are creative. That still doesn't bring us any closer to knowing whether "atmoplanic lensing" is possible or how it works. I am not claiming that "atmoplanic lensing" is completely 100% impossible. I just think it is extremely unlikely based on points 2 and 3 that I listed above. And until such a time as it has been shown to be physically possible, it is unreasonable of you to expect people to take it seriously.

At the risk of being accused of copying Ski, I would like to point out that your most educated roundly scientists can not explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is or how it works; only that it must exist in order for their model of the universe to mathmatically work.  I don't see you accusing them of lying simply because they have no other evidence.  Why are we held to a different standard?

First of all, I did not accuse you of lying. Second of all, I constantly see flat earthers complain about modern scientists being incompetent, unethical, etc... so why are you using what you perceive to be their low standards as an excuse for your own? If you want to make a point, take the high road. Don't make excuses.

But anyway, what is the difference between the theories of dark matter and atmoplanic lensing? (I'll focus on dark matter specifically, so we don't get dark matter/energy tangled up. They are two different things.)

First, the similarities:

1. Both are proposed solutions to explain observations that don't seem to agree with a theory.
2. Neither have much (if any) direct physical evidence to support them.
3. We don't know exactly what dark matter or the atmoplanic lens is made of. We know that dark matter contains mass, which affects gravity, and we know the atmoplanic lens must be made of some refractory material, which affects the trajectory of light.
4. I don't think anyone is claiming either as 100% fact. There are alternative theories to dark matter being pursued.

Next, the major differences:

1. Scientists propose very specific distributions of dark matter that would allow observations to make sense. Yes, these proposed distributions are very ad hoc, but that's not the point. The point is that we can test whether or not these distributions would actually satisfy observations. This shows that the theory is possible, if not plausible. On the other hand, you have proposed no such arrangement of refractory material that would mathematically result in our observations. The most specific description I have seen is "atmoplanic layers". That doesn't help us much. You need to give us a specific configuration of refractory material that we can use to make specific calculations. How can we possibly test whether the theory is correct if we don't have anything to test???

2. Dark matter is an explanation of a phenomenon we have observed from across the universe. As much as we know about the universe, there is just as much we don't know. It's not like we can stroll across the universe and take a look. It is perfectly reasonable to expect some observations to be difficult to explain. Given the massive number of phenomenon that general relativity DOES explain, dark matter is a rather small exception to the rule. On the other hand, the theory of the flat earth needs a different dark-matter-like theory to explain practically every single observation. Atmoplanic lensing, celestial gravitation, shadow object, alternative theories of perspective... and the list goes on and on. The ONLY observation that flat earth theory correctly explains without the need of some "dark-matter-like" theory is that the horizon looks flat from ground level. If general relativity only predicted ONE correct observation, and needed "dark-matter-like" theories to explain everything else, it would be abandoned at the drop of a hat.

So no, I am not holding you to a different standard. If anything, I do my best to hold other peoples' arguments to a lower standard than my own. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. You aren't making it easy though.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2016, 04:05:05 PM by TotesReptilian »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #76 on: October 14, 2016, 06:53:58 PM »
At the risk of being accused of copying Ski, I would like to point out that your most educated roundly scientists can not explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is or how it works; only that it must exist in order for their model of the universe to mathmatically work.  I don't see you accusing them of lying simply because they have no other evidence.  Why are we held to a different standard?

Simply because the Heliocentric Globe Earth does not in any way depend on "Dark Energy or Dark Matter". Whether or not "Dark Energy or Dark Matter" would have no discernable effect within the Solar System.

In fact, the Globe was well accepted over 2,000 years ago, the Heliocentric Globe some 300-400 years ago, long long before "Dark Energy or Dark Matter" were of.
And even now "Dark Energy or Dark Matter" are still hypotheses and other possibilities are being considered.

So, that is why you are held to a higher standard, your whole model comes to a halt without something to power this Universal Acceleration.
Then having proposed this "Dark Energy" you have to explain how the celestial objects remain precisely in there places.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #77 on: October 14, 2016, 07:00:06 PM »
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

No, it demonstrated nothing about "atmoplanic lensing".

All it showed is that glass or plastic lenses can produce a virtual image whose size increases with distance, well we all knew that.

You have never demonstrated how plane layers of air of varying refractive indices can magnify.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #78 on: October 16, 2016, 02:47:43 AM »
You people always get so upset when evidence is presented that crushes your view of the shape of the.Earth. 

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #79 on: October 16, 2016, 03:15:05 AM »
has atmoplane lensing been used in the past to prove anything?

has it itself been proven?

I'm not dismissing, I've just never heard of it before the flat earth faith

if it's made up, it can't really be used to disprove anything, like sandokhan's imaginary slightly transparent extra celestial body causing the lunar eclipse, it's never been witnessed, never been proven, the evidence proving alternative reasons work perfectly under testing and have been documented many times

making something up is NOT providing evidence, just saying

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #80 on: October 16, 2016, 03:17:32 AM »
You people always get so upset when evidence is presented that crushes your view of the shape of the.Earth.

FYI the shape of the earth has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a globe, WITHOUT citing nasa

no flat earth 'proofs' come close to proving anything without being coupled with huge amounts of cognitive dissonance

your claim is baseless

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #81 on: October 16, 2016, 03:21:07 AM »
So butt-hurt

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #82 on: October 16, 2016, 03:49:58 AM »
So butt-hurt

So lacking in substance

at no point has ANY evidence been presented that crushes the globe

yet there's plenty IRREFUTABLY disproving the flat earth faith

lunar eclipses (I've explained to you previously) prove our shape 100%

sunsets/sunrises also prove it (yeah yeah, you made up atmoplane lensing but as it's made up, how can you expect us to take it serious?)

the north star disappearing below the horizon once you get so far south is also IRREFUTABLE


so come on genius, for once, how about a little SUBSTANCE (I'm not holding my breath)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #83 on: October 16, 2016, 04:15:30 AM »
You people always get so upset when evidence is presented that crushes your view of the shape of the.Earth.
I haven't seen any "evidence ...  presented that crushes" my "view of the shape of the.Earth" that even dents my view the slightest.

 :P Atmoplanar  :P sure isn't going to.

The whole flat earth idea seems to "the earth looks flat, so it must be flat", then having to invent explanations for all the observations that fit simply into heliocentric globe theory. It would have been much more logical to defer the decision on the Earth's shape till more evidence was in. Of course this is what happened over the history that lead to the heliocentric globe model.

Still I'll grant you we do see some imaginative ideas crop up. Pity they don't have any evidence to support them.

I find it hard to decide whether you atmoplanic lensing is more or less illogical than:
From Chapter 10 of the book Earth Not a Globe we read:
Quote:
"IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour.
"
- Samuel Birley Rowbotham

What you and Rowbotham seem to have ignored is the simple fact that we see every day the sun keeping the same almost precisely the same size, gradually increasing to a maximum in January, then gradually reducing to a minimum in July, with an overall change of about 4%.

All quite predictable and explainable and not dependent in any way on variable conditions, other than distortions near the horizon at sunset and sunrise.

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #84 on: October 16, 2016, 04:27:06 AM »
I STAND CORRECTED!!!

Jroa - yes, once, a picture WAS posted that absolutely 100% crushed the globe











..when rabinoz posted a picture of a crushed globe ;)

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #85 on: October 16, 2016, 05:00:56 AM »
You people always get so upset when evidence is presented that crushes your view of the shape of the.Earth.
I don't think that's a fair statement since I can't honestly say I've ever seen that happen.  I've seen flat eatherers come up with some very interesting theories to explain things but I've never seen them come up with anything that wasn't more simply explained with a round earth.

*

Globetrotter

  • 181
  • Open-minded: receptive to arguments or ideas
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #86 on: October 16, 2016, 05:05:15 AM »
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.

Which sentence is true?
"If you insist it is a spinning globe, then why are you here?" - Simple. To counter the misinformation you are spreading to uneducated, and gullible people. It is the duty of every thinking person to oppose those who would spread lies.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #87 on: October 16, 2016, 05:09:11 AM »
I STAND CORRECTED!!!

Jroa - yes, once, a picture WAS posted that absolutely 100% crushed the globe

..when rabinoz posted a picture of a crushed globe ;)

I'd forgotten about that  ;) You've a better memory than me, Gunga Din  ;)
                                                                                   With apologies to Rudyard Kipling

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #88 on: October 16, 2016, 05:13:28 AM »
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.

Which sentence is true?

If "narcberry" wrote it my money's on neither being true.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41939
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #89 on: October 16, 2016, 10:34:06 AM »
You people always get so upset when evidence is presented that crushes your view of the shape of the.Earth.
Well, we might if anyone should present such evidence.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.