When will RE Community Accept Defeat?

  • 1981 Replies
  • 36820 Views
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #180 on: August 01, 2019, 03:56:12 PM »




Equivocation fallacy: Calling two different things by the same name. The use of the word level in the National Geographic quote is not the same as the definition given.

Let's find another place where definitions of "level" is given:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level

level noun
lev·​el | \ ˈle-vəl
\
Definition of level

 (Entry 1 of 3)
1 : a device for establishing a horizontal line or plane by means of a bubble in a liquid that shows adjustment to the horizontal by movement to the center of a slightly bowed glass tube
2 : a measurement of the difference of altitude of two points by means of a level
3 : horizontal condition especially : equilibrium of a fluid marked by a horizontal surface of even altitude water seeks its own level
4a : an approximately horizontal line or surface taken as an index of altitude Charts were arranged at eye level.
b : a practically horizontal surface or area (as of land) the level of the plateau
5 : a position in a scale or rank (as of achievement, significance, or value) funded at the national level the job appeals to me on many levels
6a : a line or surface that cuts perpendicularly all plumb lines that it meets and hence would everywhere coincide with a surface of still water
b : the plane of the horizon or a line in it
7 : a horizontal passage in a mine intended for regular working and transportation
8 : a concentration of a constituent especially of a body fluid (such as blood) a normal blood-sugar level
9 : the magnitude of a quantity considered in relation to an arbitrary reference value broadly : magnitude, intensity a high level of hostility
on the level
: bona fide, honest

level verb
leveled or levelled; leveling or levelling\ ˈle-​və-​liŋ
, ˈlev-​liŋ \

Definition of level (Entry 2 of 3)

transitive verb
1 : to make (a line or surface) horizontal : make flat or level level a field level off a house lot
2a : to bring to a horizontal aiming position
b : aim, direct leveled a charge of fraud
3 : to bring to a common level or plane : equalize love levels all ranks— W. S. Gilbert
4a : to lay level with or as if with the ground : raze
b : to knock down leveled him with one punch
5 : to make (something, such as color) even or uniform
6 : to find the heights of different points in (a piece of land) especially with a surveyor's level

intransitive verb
1 : to attain or come to a level the plane leveled off at 10,000 feet
2 : to aim a gun or other weapon horizontally
3 : to bring persons or things to a level
4 : to deal frankly and openly

level adjective

Definition of level (Entry 3 of 3)
1a : having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface
b : parallel with the plane of the horizon : horizontal
2a : even or unvarying in height
b : equal in advantage, progression, or standing
c : proceeding monotonously or uneventfully
d(1) : steady, unwavering gave him a level look
(2) : calm, unexcited spoke in level tones
3 : reasonable, balanced arrive at a justly proportional and level judgment on this affair— Sir Winston Churchill
4 : distributed evenly level stress
5 : being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : equipotential
6 : suited to a particular rank or plane of ability or achievement top-level thinking
7 : of or relating to the spreading out of a cost or charge in even payments over a period of time
level best
: very best

I run circles around you logically.

The Issue is Sea Level.

But lets do more research into what you posted. You have 1 highlighted and how many do I have?  Who's outnumbered? 

 (Entry 1 of 3)
1 : a device for establishing a horizontal line or plane by means of a bubble in a liquid that shows adjustment to the horizontal by movement to the center of a slightly bowed glass tube
2 : a measurement of the difference of altitude of two points by means of a level
3 : horizontal condition especially : equilibrium of a fluid marked by a horizontal surface of even altitude water seeks its own level
4a : an approximately horizontal line or surface taken as an index of altitude Charts were arranged at eye level.
b : a practically horizontal surface or area (as of land) the level of the plateau
5 : a position in a scale or rank (as of achievement, significance, or value) funded at the national level the job appeals to me on many levels
6a : a line or surface that cuts perpendicularly all plumb lines that it meets and hence would everywhere coincide with a surface of still water
b : the plane of the horizon or a line in it
7 : a horizontal passage in a mine intended for regular working and transportation
8 : a concentration of a constituent especially of a body fluid (such as blood) a normal blood-sugar level
9 : the magnitude of a quantity considered in relation to an arbitrary reference value broadly : magnitude, intensity a high level of hostility
on the level
: bona fide, honest

level verb
leveled or levelled; leveling or levelling\ ˈle-​və-​liŋ
, ˈlev-​liŋ \

Definition of level (Entry 2 of 3)

transitive verb
1 : to make (a line or surface) horizontal : make flat or level level a field level off a house lot
2a : to bring to a horizontal aiming position
b : aim, direct leveled a charge of fraud
3 : to bring to a common level or plane: equalize love levels all ranks— W. S. Gilbert
4a : to lay level with or as if with the ground : raze
b : to knock down leveled him with one punch
5 : to make (something, such as color) even or uniform
6 : to find the heights of different points in (a piece of land) especially with a surveyor's level

intransitive verb
1 : to attain or come to a level the plane leveled off at 10,000 feet
2 : to aim a gun or other weapon horizontally
3 : to bring persons or things to a level
4 : to deal frankly and openly

level adjective

Definition of level (Entry 3 of 3)
1a : having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface
b : parallel with the plane of the horizon : horizontal
2a : even or unvarying in height
b : equal in advantage, progression, or standing
c : proceeding monotonously or uneventfully
d(1) : steady, unwavering gave him a level look
(2) : calm, unexcited spoke in level tones
3 : reasonable, balanced arrive at a justly proportional and level judgment on this affair— Sir Winston Churchill
4 : distributed evenly level stress
5 : being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : equipotential
6 : suited to a particular rank or plane of ability or achievement top-level thinking
7 : of or relating to the spreading out of a cost or charge in even payments over a period of time
level best
: very best

All "outnumbering" means is that you are using a dozen inappropriate definitions instead of one appropriate one.

Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #181 on: August 01, 2019, 04:11:04 PM »
We will accept defeat when the FEers actually manage defeat.
They are yet to come close.

There are so many issues that FE cannot explain which RE easily explain.
If you want to have REers accept defeat you will need to come up with a consistent FE model which addresses all the issues, rather than having heaps of different models where each model addresses a single issue.
You will also need to ditch the strawmanning and shifting of the burden of proof.

If you wish to assert that the lake is only 85 archaic units above the ocean, rather than sea level then you can provide the measurements which show that. Not just repeatedly stating it or providing a diagram showing elevation above sea level, but the actual measurements used to determine what the elevation is, with all the details.

Otherwise the best you can do is say that the RE side hasn't proven it is 85 archaic units above sea level. That doesn't defeat or disprove the RE side. It just means that one specific piece of information hasn't been sufficiently substantiated on this forum.

Your entire case seems to be complaining about the use of mean sea level rather than a particular imaginary line.
Why should that imaginary line be used rather than any other?
There is literally no justification to use any particular straight line.
This means you could produce loads of different diagrams with loads of different numbers with no justification for the numbers.
So instead mean sea level is used.

As for you cherry picking definitions, it doesn't matter how many there are, if you need to ignore one to make your case, it shows you have no case.

Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #182 on: August 01, 2019, 04:44:55 PM »
This reply is for those who questioned why I have a blued curved ocean over the Panama Canal profile. It was just a visual illustration of how much water would be over the Canal area if Earth were a sphere. In my post I explain the Canal at center would be under 131’ of saltwater.  I didn’t know I had to spell it out for some.

I also would like to  make another point.

If Earth were a sphere and the land curved with the sphere, Gatun lake would have already been at least 301’ or more (instead of at 85’) from the underground plane connecting the oceans (at 0’ elevation) as seen from Macarios' drawing.

Since Earth’s surface was not at curvature of 216’ in reality, it was necessary for Macarios' to make it appear on paper it matched the Globe Earth model through curvature math.  But his method proved he was actually measuring from actually sea level and then moved sea level up to 216’ and placed Gatun 85' higher to match the Globe model.  So yes, if Earth were a sphere, the Panama Canal area would be under 131’ of water because the landmass is below the curvature of a sphere and Gatun is actually only 85' above both oceans and not 301 as can be seen in Macarios' drawing.  Thank goodness it's not a sphere, because a lot of landmass would be underwater. Only mountains and really high hills would exist.




You didnt.
We knew what you were saying.
It was rehtorical and or used to walk YOU through it.
But do go on.

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #183 on: August 01, 2019, 04:48:22 PM »
This reply is for those who questioned why I have a blued curved ocean over the Panama Canal profile. It was just a visual illustration of how much water would be over the Canal area if Earth were a sphere. In my post I explain the Canal at center would be under 131’ of saltwater.  I didn’t know I had to spell it out for some.

I also would like to  make another point.

If Earth were a sphere and the land curved with the sphere, Gatun lake would have already been at least 301’ or more (instead of at 85’) from the underground plane connecting the oceans (at 0’ elevation) as seen from Macarios' drawing.

Since Earth’s surface was not at curvature of 216’ in reality, it was necessary for Macarios' to make it appear on paper it matched the Globe Earth model through curvature math.  But his method proved he was actually measuring from actually sea level and then moved sea level up to 216’ and placed Gatun 85' higher to match the Globe model.  So yes, if Earth were a sphere, the Panama Canal area would be under 131’ of water because the landmass is below the curvature of a sphere and Gatun is actually only 85' above both oceans and not 301 as can be seen in Macarios' drawing.  Thank goodness it's not a sphere, because a lot of landmass would be underwater. Only mountains and really high hills would exist.




You didnt.
We knew what you were saying.
It was rehtorical and or used to walk YOU through it.
But do go on.
I'm not sure that's the real reason for all, but some like to play games.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 04:55:00 PM by Plat Terra »
The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #184 on: August 01, 2019, 05:10:33 PM »
In ref to your post two posts ago - Land is not "level".
Thats why they are shown in ft or m above sea level.
The earth is not a perfectly smooth balloid.
If you want curvature over land it would have to take into accounts hills and valleys and mountains and gorges.
Think a little bit of what youre asking in relation to the actual question your asking.
Are you asking the community to - Use a non uniform surface to determine an average uniform shape.

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #185 on: August 01, 2019, 05:21:47 PM »
We will accept defeat when the FEers actually manage defeat.
They are yet to come close.

There are so many issues that FE cannot explain which RE easily explain.
If you want to have REers accept defeat you will need to come up with a consistent FE model which addresses all the issues, rather than having heaps of different models where each model addresses a single issue.
You will also need to ditch the strawmanning and shifting of the burden of proof.

If you wish to assert that the lake is only 85 archaic units above the ocean, rather than sea level then you can provide the measurements which show that. Not just repeatedly stating it or providing a diagram showing elevation above sea level, but the actual measurements used to determine what the elevation is, with all the details.

Otherwise the best you can do is say that the RE side hasn't proven it is 85 archaic units above sea level. That doesn't defeat or disprove the RE side. It just means that one specific piece of information hasn't been sufficiently substantiated on this forum.

Your entire case seems to be complaining about the use of mean sea level rather than a particular imaginary line.
Why should that imaginary line be used rather than any other?
There is literally no justification to use any particular straight line.
This means you could produce loads of different diagrams with loads of different numbers with no justification for the numbers.
So instead mean sea level is used.

As for you cherry picking definitions, it doesn't matter how many there are, if you need to ignore one to make your case, it shows you have no case.

Have you also believe Earth has curvature without a shred of verification? I did, and boy I did not want to accept defeat. I believed what I was told from a child. I was told what to learn, and test on it and accept it because everybody does with no questions asked. Just a few months back I realized nothing in my natural surrounding indicated I lived on a spinning planet hurling through space.  No curvizon, no motion, nothing made me think I lived on a sphere. I said surely someone can verify the flat areas I have been to (Florida) have the curvature as dictated.  You know what I learned? No one has verified the alleged surface curvature anywhere.  They just accepted it as fact without verification.  And here you are talking like my school teacher without any verification of curvature. No thank you. I am not a sheep anymore and don't follow a Global path with ideas of Global warming too.

The Flat Earth movement is expanding rapidly. The Globe Earth community is going to have to come up with some hard facts to keep their followers. Questionable space missions and pictures aren't going to do it anymore. You and they need to prove the foundation of the Globe theory with actually verification of Earth's alleged surface curvature.

Verification?  I hope you understand what that means and how it relates to science.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 06:37:16 PM by Plat Terra »
The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

*

Stash

  • 3501
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #186 on: August 01, 2019, 07:06:58 PM »
This reply is for those who questioned why I have a blued curved ocean over the Panama Canal profile. It was just a visual illustration of how much water would be over the Canal area if Earth were a sphere. In my post I explain the Canal at center would be under 131’ of saltwater.  I didn’t know I had to spell it out for some.

I also would like to  make another point.

If Earth were a sphere and the land curved with the sphere, Gatun lake would have already been at least 301’ or more (instead of at 85’) from the underground plane connecting the oceans (at 0’ elevation) as seen from Macarios' drawing.

Since Earth’s surface was not at curvature of 216’ in reality, it was necessary for Macarios' to make it appear on paper it matched the Globe Earth model through curvature math.  But his method proved he was actually measuring from actually sea level and then moved sea level up to 216’ and placed Gatun 85' higher to match the Globe model.  So yes, if Earth were a sphere, the Panama Canal area would be under 131’ of water because the landmass is below the curvature of a sphere and Gatun is actually only 85' above both oceans and not 301 as can be seen in Macarios' drawing.  Thank goodness it's not a sphere, because a lot of landmass would be underwater. Only mountains and really high hills would exist.




You didnt.
We knew what you were saying.
It was rehtorical and or used to walk YOU through it.
But do go on.
I'm not sure that's the real reason for all, but some like to play games.

Just so we're hopefully on the same page of understanding, here's the Globe model and Flat model together. Agreed?


Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #187 on: August 01, 2019, 07:12:33 PM »
As far as "above sea level" goes - yes on my side for all 4.

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #188 on: August 01, 2019, 07:15:45 PM »
This reply is for those who questioned why I have a blued curved ocean over the Panama Canal profile. It was just a visual illustration of how much water would be over the Canal area if Earth were a sphere. In my post I explain the Canal at center would be under 131’ of saltwater.  I didn’t know I had to spell it out for some.

I also would like to  make another point.

If Earth were a sphere and the land curved with the sphere, Gatun lake would have already been at least 301’ or more (instead of at 85’) from the underground plane connecting the oceans (at 0’ elevation) as seen from Macarios' drawing.

Since Earth’s surface was not at curvature of 216’ in reality, it was necessary for Macarios' to make it appear on paper it matched the Globe Earth model through curvature math.  But his method proved he was actually measuring from actually sea level and then moved sea level up to 216’ and placed Gatun 85' higher to match the Globe model.  So yes, if Earth were a sphere, the Panama Canal area would be under 131’ of water because the landmass is below the curvature of a sphere and Gatun is actually only 85' above both oceans and not 301 as can be seen in Macarios' drawing.  Thank goodness it's not a sphere, because a lot of landmass would be underwater. Only mountains and really high hills would exist.




You didnt.
We knew what you were saying.
It was rehtorical and or used to walk YOU through it.
But do go on.
I'm not sure that's the real reason for all, but some like to play games.

Just so we're hopefully on the same page of understanding, here's the Globe model and Flat model together. Agreed?



No, I don't agree. You need to include the curvature and elevation details for the panama Canal like Macarios and I did. And it's Sea curve for you. Use the right geometrical word to describe the line for your theory.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 07:32:01 PM by Plat Terra »
The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

?

frenat

  • 3456
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #189 on: August 01, 2019, 07:40:02 PM »
This reply is for those who questioned why I have a blued curved ocean over the Panama Canal profile. It was just a visual illustration of how much water would be over the Canal area if Earth were a sphere. In my post I explain the Canal at center would be under 131’ of saltwater.  I didn’t know I had to spell it out for some.

I also would like to  make another point.

If Earth were a sphere and the land curved with the sphere, Gatun lake would have already been at least 301’ or more (instead of at 85’) from the underground plane connecting the oceans (at 0’ elevation) as seen from Macarios' drawing.

Since Earth’s surface was not at curvature of 216’ in reality, it was necessary for Macarios' to make it appear on paper it matched the Globe Earth model through curvature math.  But his method proved he was actually measuring from actually sea level and then moved sea level up to 216’ and placed Gatun 85' higher to match the Globe model.  So yes, if Earth were a sphere, the Panama Canal area would be under 131’ of water because the landmass is below the curvature of a sphere and Gatun is actually only 85' above both oceans and not 301 as can be seen in Macarios' drawing.  Thank goodness it's not a sphere, because a lot of landmass would be underwater. Only mountains and really high hills would exist.



So AGAIN you prove you don't understand the subject.

Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #190 on: August 01, 2019, 07:45:27 PM »
As far as "above sea level" goes - yes on my side for all 4.

Fine
As far as "above sea curve" goes - yes on my side for all 4.

How about you get off the terminology, as yoy choose to use  uncommon terms, and instead just focus on the diagrams in of themsevles.

And those simplfied diagrams remove the clutter of details and focus in on the fact that you seem to not comprehend - top two show round earth will NOT have a 200ft deep bulge of water.
There is land under the canal.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 07:48:25 PM by Themightykabool »

?

frenat

  • 3456
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #191 on: August 01, 2019, 07:46:38 PM »


so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.

Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.


*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #192 on: August 01, 2019, 08:07:04 PM »


so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.

Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.

Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?

The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder. NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.

Please, i'v heard enough. Have a nice evening.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 08:12:19 PM by Plat Terra »
The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 5136
  • I abuse wise
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #193 on: August 01, 2019, 09:40:56 PM »
As far as the eye can see to the left, right and center, everyone in this world views a horizontal line where sky meets ocean.

If the earth was flat there wouldn't be a sharp line, it would be a haze.

You also don't see curvature from left to right by eyesight when you are standing on the surface of the earth.  For example, if you take a basketball and hold it in your hand close to your face, you will see still see the curvature of the ball.  This is because the ball is small compared to you.  If you scaled yourself down to the size of a 1mm grain of sand, the earth would still have the circumference of roughly 13 miles.  Scale that further down so earth is the size of a basketball and you being on its surface, you would be so small you wouldn't see the curvature.  Everything would appear flat.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #194 on: August 01, 2019, 10:06:19 PM »


so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.

Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.

Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?

The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder. NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.

Please, i'v heard enough. Have a nice evening.

You didn't even bother looking at the link he gave you...

You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

Macarios

  • 1798
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #195 on: August 01, 2019, 10:11:15 PM »
No, two different things. The Sues canal does not have any mass at center 85' above the sea level of both bodies of water. The oceans at the panama Canal does, but should have more if Earth is a sphere. The  lack of curvature is measured at the panama Canal. That's the key! But, you and others here  like to twist things don't you!

Above Sea Level, period.
Not the sea level of Pacific ocean, not the sea level of Mediterranean sea, not the sea level of Indian ocean.

The sea level of the planet Earth.
The level the water would have if it was there instead of continents.

AGAIN: The level at the center of the Panama Canal you measure from sea level there, not from sea level 18 miles away at the coast.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

rabinoz

  • 22985
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #196 on: August 01, 2019, 10:14:57 PM »

so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.

Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.

Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?
The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder.
No, it's not a major blunder! As frenat said, yet another topic you don't understand and I'm betting you'll ignore it.
So now I'll make it easy for you!
Quote
Debunked: "Blue Marble" Photos show a Changing Earth
But what of the more unusual suggestion that the images are fake, because they show the continents being different sizes. Like many such things, it's all about perspective, and the way our brains work. We look at these images of the Earth, and our brain thinks of it as a flat object. You'd think if you get close to something, then it will get bigger, but not change shape. But this breaks down for three dimensional objects. If you get close to a globe, then you can see less of it, so the visible objects seem a lot bigger relative to the visible disc of the globe. The part of the globe in the middle is also a lot closer to your eye (relative to the edges) so seems bigger, like it's bulging out more than it actually is. You can verify this yourself with a household globe and your eyes (or a camera)

When the camera is just a few inches from the globe, then North America seems to take up nearly all of the hemisphere. But as the camera moves back, then you can see more of the globe, and so the true relative size can be seen.



This explains why South America in the 1967 image (taken 22,000 miles away) looks bigger than South America in the 2015 image (taken 930,000 miles away). But what about the 2002 image? And what about this?



That's "Blue Marble 2012", another composite image, but this time made with the Suomi NPP satellite. Is the difference here because the Suomi satellite at a lower height compared to the Terra satellite from the 2002 images? No, the Suomi satellite at 517 miles, it actually higherthan Terra, at 438 miles. And from either of those altitudes, you'd only be able to see a relatively small part of the Earth.

Remember, the composite images are not real photos, they are stitched together into 3D models, and then images are rendered in the computer. So where is the camera relative to the Earth? It's anywhere you want it to be. Since it's a virtual camera, you can position it anywhere you want, at any altitude, and then draw the view from there. For the 2012 image, they simply moved the virtual camera to a relatively low viewpoint, and then had the computer render the view from there. You can duplicate the exact same effect in Google Earth by zooming out to about 5000 miles eye altitude.

I'll let you read the rest.

Quote from: Plat Terra
NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.
But the landmass being a different size every year does not mean in any way, shape or form mean that "the pictures are questionable"!
It simple means that you simply cannot grasp perspective.

But why mention "Hubble"? Not only is it too close to the earth but there are numerous other reasons that it could not be used for this purpose.

But the Japanese Himawari 8 satellite can and takes at least one photo like this every 10 minutes.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 10:17:29 PM by rabinoz »

*

Macarios

  • 1798
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #197 on: August 01, 2019, 10:18:23 PM »
Verification?  I hope you understand what that means and how it relates to science.



I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #198 on: August 01, 2019, 10:22:09 PM »


so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.

Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.

Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?

The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder. NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.

Please, i'v heard enough. Have a nice evening.

You didn't even bother looking at the link he gave you...

Your pictures are deceptive. Those pictures were not crafted through composites and CGI. Again, the pictures are questionable.
The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #199 on: August 01, 2019, 10:26:11 PM »

so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.

Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.

Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?
The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder.
No, it's not a major blunder! As frenat said, yet another topic you don't understand and I'm betting you'll ignore it.
So now I'll make it easy for you!
Quote
Debunked: "Blue Marble" Photos show a Changing Earth
But what of the more unusual suggestion that the images are fake, because they show the continents being different sizes. Like many such things, it's all about perspective, and the way our brains work. We look at these images of the Earth, and our brain thinks of it as a flat object. You'd think if you get close to something, then it will get bigger, but not change shape. But this breaks down for three dimensional objects. If you get close to a globe, then you can see less of it, so the visible objects seem a lot bigger relative to the visible disc of the globe. The part of the globe in the middle is also a lot closer to your eye (relative to the edges) so seems bigger, like it's bulging out more than it actually is. You can verify this yourself with a household globe and your eyes (or a camera)

When the camera is just a few inches from the globe, then North America seems to take up nearly all of the hemisphere. But as the camera moves back, then you can see more of the globe, and so the true relative size can be seen.



This explains why South America in the 1967 image (taken 22,000 miles away) looks bigger than South America in the 2015 image (taken 930,000 miles away). But what about the 2002 image? And what about this?



That's "Blue Marble 2012", another composite image, but this time made with the Suomi NPP satellite. Is the difference here because the Suomi satellite at a lower height compared to the Terra satellite from the 2002 images? No, the Suomi satellite at 517 miles, it actually higherthan Terra, at 438 miles. And from either of those altitudes, you'd only be able to see a relatively small part of the Earth.

Remember, the composite images are not real photos, they are stitched together into 3D models, and then images are rendered in the computer. So where is the camera relative to the Earth? It's anywhere you want it to be. Since it's a virtual camera, you can position it anywhere you want, at any altitude, and then draw the view from there. For the 2012 image, they simply moved the virtual camera to a relatively low viewpoint, and then had the computer render the view from there. You can duplicate the exact same effect in Google Earth by zooming out to about 5000 miles eye altitude.

I'll let you read the rest.

Quote from: Plat Terra
NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.
But the landmass being a different size every year does not mean in any way, shape or form mean that "the pictures are questionable"!
It simple means that you simply cannot grasp perspective.

But why mention "Hubble"? Not only is it too close to the earth but there are numerous other reasons that it could not be used for this purpose.

But the Japanese Himawari 8 satellite can and takes at least one photo like this every 10 minutes.


Again, your pictures are deceptive. Those Globe Model pictures were not crafted through composites and CGI. Again, the pictures are questionable.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 10:34:09 PM by Plat Terra »
The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #200 on: August 01, 2019, 10:30:01 PM »
No, two different things. The Sues canal does not have any mass at center 85' above the sea level of both bodies of water. The oceans at the panama Canal does, but should have more if Earth is a sphere. The  lack of curvature is measured at the panama Canal. That's the key! But, you and others here  like to twist things don't you!

Above Sea Level, period.
Not the sea level of Pacific ocean, not the sea level of Mediterranean sea, not the sea level of Indian ocean.

The sea level of the planet Earth.
The level the water would have if it was there instead of continents.

AGAIN: The level at the center of the Panama Canal you measure from sea level there, not from sea level 18 miles away at the coast.

Well, we can agree it's level as in plane, horizontal, flat not curve. You know, the same words you use. 
The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

*

Macarios

  • 1798
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #201 on: August 01, 2019, 10:35:00 PM »
No, two different things. The Sues canal does not have any mass at center 85' above the sea level of both bodies of water. The oceans at the panama Canal does, but should have more if Earth is a sphere. The  lack of curvature is measured at the panama Canal. That's the key! But, you and others here  like to twist things don't you!

Above Sea Level, period.
Not the sea level of Pacific ocean, not the sea level of Mediterranean sea, not the sea level of Indian ocean.

The sea level of the planet Earth.
The level the water would have if it was there instead of continents.

AGAIN: The level at the center of the Panama Canal you measure from sea level there, not from sea level 18 miles away at the coast.

Well, we can agree it's level as in plane, horizontal, flat not curve. You know, the same words you use.

No, not like in "plane".
The words "level" and "flat" are only occasionally interchageable, but not here.

No semantics will change that.
Semantics you can only use to convince people who don't know enough, not to replace facts.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #202 on: August 01, 2019, 10:36:31 PM »
As far as the eye can see to the left, right and center, everyone in this world views a horizontal line where sky meets ocean.  Engineers know water seeks its own level.  It’s the natural dynamics of fluid. So, it’s no wonder why elevations are measured from the surface of the connecting oceans no matter what they claim.

Whoever was the first to teach the circumference of the Earth is basically the established reference point for “Sea Level”  and called a curved geometrical line "level" and without verifying the alleged surface curvature was an idiot. He was intellectually dishonest and didn’t have genuine ethics. He only did so to further his cause through pseudoscience.

You cannot trust using Sea Level to establish a curvature point as taught by those in the Globe community because surface curvature has never be verified by anyone.


The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

*

rabinoz

  • 22985
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #203 on: August 01, 2019, 10:43:52 PM »
As far as the eye can see to the left, right and center, everyone in this world views a horizontal line where sky meets ocean.
Exactly as it should be seen on a huge Globe because on that Globe the distance to a water horizon must be the same distance away all 360° around.

And that circle is being viewed almost edge on so it looks straight.

Quote from: Plat Terra
Engineers know water seeks its own level.  It’s the natural dynamics of fluid. So, it’s no wonder why elevations are measured from the surface of the connecting oceans no matter what they claim.
Yes, these "Engineers know water seeks its own level.  It’s the natural dynamics of fluid" and that "level" is the profile that results in the lowest potential energy.

And that is something else that we Engineers know that you seem quite ignorant of.

That "profile that results in the lowest potential energy." is known as the geoid and is within a hundred metres or so of being a perfect ellipsoid.

And for simple explanations that ellipsoid is near enough to a sphere and so the water conforms to almost a perfect sphere.

Quote from: Plat Terra
Whoever was the first to teach the circumference of the Earth is basically the established reference point for “Sea Level”  and called a curved geometrical line "level" and without verifying the alleged surface curvature was an idiot. He was intellectually dishonest and didn’t have genuine ethics. He only did so to further his cause through pseudoscience.
No, you're the one spreading pseudoscience and you have n basis for your claims that he "was an idiot. He was intellectually dishonest and didn’t have genuine ethics. He only did so to further his cause through pseudoscience."

You've so far demonstrated no real understanding of anything let alone evidence for the earth's being a Globe.

Quote from: Plat Terra
You cannot trust using Sea Level to establish a curvature point as taught by those in the Globe community because surface curvature has never be verified by anyone.
And where did you drag that from, one of you YouTube mates?

The evidence for the Globe, both direct and indirect, has accumulated for over 2000 years. Don't imagine that one such as yourself can hope to overturn it.

There's far more than "curvature" to worry about but everything from an accurate map to the apparent motions of the Sun, moon, planets and stars to get right!

Quote from: Plat Terra

Sure, it's a nice photo showing the sharp straight flat horizon expected on a huge Globe! Here's another but it doesn't fit your flat earth too well ;D:



*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #204 on: August 01, 2019, 10:48:23 PM »


so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.

Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.

Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?

The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder. NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.

Please, i'v heard enough. Have a nice evening.

You didn't even bother looking at the link he gave you...

Your pictures are deceptive. Those pictures were not crafted through composites and CGI. Again, the pictures are questionable.

You can question nasa pictures all you want, but it has been demonstrated to you how taking pictures of a globe from different distances makes the continents size look different, therefore the comment you made with the yellow circles is pointless.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

Stash

  • 3501
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #205 on: August 01, 2019, 10:55:13 PM »
As far as the eye can see to the left, right and center, everyone in this world views a horizontal line where sky meets ocean.  Engineers know water seeks its own level.  It’s the natural dynamics of fluid. So, it’s no wonder why elevations are measured from the surface of the connecting oceans no matter what they claim.

Whoever was the first to teach the circumference of the Earth is basically the established reference point for “Sea Level”  and called a curved geometrical line "level" and without verifying the alleged surface curvature was an idiot. He was intellectually dishonest and didn’t have genuine ethics. He only did so to further his cause through pseudoscience.

You cannot trust using Sea Level to establish a curvature point as taught by those in the Globe community because surface curvature has never be verified by anyone.



Curvature has been measured by surveyors for centuries. As a more modern example, you might want to take the issue up with CalTech & MIT. They constructed a massive marvel of engineering called LIGO:

LIGO - A Gravitational-Wave Interferometer
LIGO currently consists of two interferometers, each with two 4 km (2.5 mile) long arms arranged in the shape of an “L”. These instruments act as 'antennae' to detect gravitational waves.



According to them, the precision in construction was of the utmost importance. So much so that ‘level’ would not work, they had to account for earth’s curvature:

"Beam Tube Installation

LIGO's arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth itself was a complicating factor when installing the vacuum tubes. It wasn’t enough for LIGO’s civil engineers to smooth a  level path and assemble each arm’s tubes in a straight line. To ensure a perfectly level beam path, the Earth’s curvature (more than a vertical meter over the length of each arm) was countered by GPS-assisted earth-moving and high-precision concrete work."

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vacuum

*

rabinoz

  • 22985
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #206 on: August 01, 2019, 11:14:43 PM »

so yet another topic you don't understand. Different cameras with different lenses will see different amounts of a sphere. You could recreate the effect yourself with a globe and camera with interchangeable lenses but I'm betting you won't.

Described in detail here
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
but I'm betting you'll ignore it.

Those spheres are about the same size and that's not a problem. What are you ignoring? What's inside the yellow circles?
The scale of the landmass in relation to the sphere is the major blunder.
No, it's not a major blunder! As frenat said, yet another topic you don't understand and I'm betting you'll ignore it.
So now I'll make it easy for you!
Quote
Debunked: "Blue Marble" Photos show a Changing Earth
But what of the more unusual suggestion that the images are fake, because they show the continents being different sizes. Like many such things, it's all about perspective, and the way our brains work. We look at these images of the Earth, and our brain thinks of it as a flat object. You'd think if you get close to something, then it will get bigger, but not change shape. But this breaks down for three dimensional objects. If you get close to a globe, then you can see less of it, so the visible objects seem a lot bigger relative to the visible disc of the globe. The part of the globe in the middle is also a lot closer to your eye (relative to the edges) so seems bigger, like it's bulging out more than it actually is. You can verify this yourself with a household globe and your eyes (or a camera)

When the camera is just a few inches from the globe, then North America seems to take up nearly all of the hemisphere. But as the camera moves back, then you can see more of the globe, and so the true relative size can be seen.



This explains why South America in the 1967 image (taken 22,000 miles away) looks bigger than South America in the 2015 image (taken 930,000 miles away). But what about the 2002 image? And what about this?



That's "Blue Marble 2012", another composite image, but this time made with the Suomi NPP satellite. Is the difference here because the Suomi satellite at a lower height compared to the Terra satellite from the 2002 images? No, the Suomi satellite at 517 miles, it actually higherthan Terra, at 438 miles. And from either of those altitudes, you'd only be able to see a relatively small part of the Earth.

Remember, the composite images are not real photos, they are stitched together into 3D models, and then images are rendered in the computer. So where is the camera relative to the Earth? It's anywhere you want it to be. Since it's a virtual camera, you can position it anywhere you want, at any altitude, and then draw the view from there. For the 2012 image, they simply moved the virtual camera to a relatively low viewpoint, and then had the computer render the view from there. You can duplicate the exact same effect in Google Earth by zooming out to about 5000 miles eye altitude.

I'll let you read the rest.

Quote from: Plat Terra
NASA get's billions of dollars and the landmass are a different size every year and they allegedly have Hubble. Just as I said, the pictures are questionable.
But the landmass being a different size every year does not mean in any way, shape or form mean that "the pictures are questionable"!
It simple means that you simply cannot grasp perspective.

But why mention "Hubble"? Not only is it too close to the earth but there are numerous other reasons that it could not be used for this purpose.

But the Japanese Himawari 8 satellite can and takes at least one photo like this every 10 minutes.


Again, your pictures are deceptive. Those Globe Model pictures were not crafted through composites and CGI. Again, the pictures are questionable.

Your empty claim, "Again, your pictures are deceptive" is just meaningless words. Why are the "deceptive".
NASA explains the source of each one so where is the deception?

But NASA is by no means the only source of such photos:
         

Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #207 on: August 01, 2019, 11:41:24 PM »





Your pictures are deceptive. Those pictures were not crafted through composites and CGI. Again, the pictures are questionable.





Are you seriously refuting an easily and i mean EASILY reproducible experiment?
the model globe pictures are "questionalbe"?
ok, go to the store hobby store that sells globes.
i assume you have a phone-camera and take some pictures.
would require going outside.
good luck!
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 11:43:37 PM by Themightykabool »

*

Sunset

  • 725
Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #208 on: August 02, 2019, 01:34:44 AM »
Plats, spend the dollars, buy yourself a globe of the earth, get your camera ready, and put on your detective cap. There is nothing questionable about either those photos of the earth or of those globes where north america appears different sizes in those photos.

Your flat earth gurus would have you believe that all planes that fly east, are curving to the left, while all planes that fly west, are curving to the right. Bullshit.

Name one plane which got blown off course and flew off the edge of the earth? Name one person who lost their life to falling off the edge of the earth? Go for it, plats....

 

Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« Reply #209 on: August 02, 2019, 01:43:36 AM »
Have you also believe Earth has curvature without a shred of verification?
Ignoring that it has been verified wont help your case.
The curvature of Earth has been varied in so many ways it isn't funny.
You rejecting them all as fake wont help your case.

All you are really saying is that YOU haven't verified the curvature of Earth.

As for your image, good job showing you have no idea how photograph works, and how when you take a picture of a ball, the amount of the ball you can see will vary depending upon your distance from it. That means that a visible object will appear to take up a different portion of the total "circle" depending upon how far away you are.

You have already been given a link to an example showing that:
https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg

And no, appealing to CGI or composites wont help you. The images which actually are composites were presented as such, and there are plenty of non-composite images.
And the process of making a composite image of a round surface like that of Earth is to make a model, stitch the images together on the model, and then use a virtual camera to take a virtual photo of that model.

So the fact that what you are complaining about happens in reality and can easily be verified shows your argument is pure garbage.
The fact that you seem to cling to it shows your position is indefensible.

If FE is going to gain credibility it will need top stop with these pathetic arguments, stop trying to refute the globe, and starting working on a unified model which can actually explain reality.

Now care to address what I have said?

As far as the eye can see to the left, right and center, everyone in this world views a horizontal line where sky meets ocean
You mean a circle that goes all around them. It clearly isn't a line as it isn't only in one direction.

Engineers know water seeks its own level.
Yes, level, not flat.
No one (at least no one that I know of) says that water seeks its own flat.

It’s the natural dynamics of fluid.
Yes, adopting an equipotential surface, regardless of the conditions, not just magically being flat.
The effects of surface tension and interaction with other surfaces can result in it being concave or convex.
Motion can also effect it.

Water doesn't magically find its own flat. All it does is adopt an equipotential surface.
If the surface wasn't equipotential, then the high energy section will move towards the low energy section to lose energy.