Text Book Science Completeness

  • 51 Replies
  • 1352 Views
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2020, 11:43:51 PM »
i think this is the picture
It isn't clear enough to tell exactly what is being seen here with 100% confidence.
It appears that you have a near "horizon" from the top of the hill, with the land below going out further to the normal horizon.
Then above that there are some dark clouds making lines across the photo.

I cant find the most definitive pictures right now, but I don't think the horizon is that far normally.
Normally you aren't standing on the top of a hill/cliff looking out over the below ground.
So the questions raised with that is where was the photo taken? Especially what elevation?
How far away is the horizon, and what is its elevation?

*

JJA

  • 3277
  • Math is math!
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2020, 05:22:34 AM »
As opposed to burrying the evidence that you can see flat along thesurface of earth and the curvature isn't there. I worded that kindof awkwardly.

Also, of course there is likely the issue of being taught to see things a certain way.

This always confuses me.  I've driven and flown all around the world and it's anything but flat.  I can look out my windows now and what do I see?  Hills and curves of the land, it's not flat at all.  Parts of the USA are very flat, but even those have hills in places.  Then I see pictures of the Earth from space or high altitude and it looks VERY round.  I don't understand why one, single, narrow, simplified viewpoint is all you accept and everything else is lies and fake and cgi.

As for being taught, I was taught to evaluate evidence. I was taught science is a process. I know many theories we have now will be overturned with new and better ones.  I don't think science knows everything.  Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two theories that work amazing, but will be overturned with better versions, or a combined one eventually.

Us non-flat earth believers are not the close minded ones here.  I'm also curious why you believe what you do. "It looks flat" is just not a very convincing argument, when it's also does not look flat at all.
Evaluate evidence yes, but the evidence for flat earth is suppressed. Just look at my "those seacrh engines" thread. I looked up mathematical proof of globe earht and finally found a cache of flat earth videos.

I've lived on the hills of three oceans and two large lakes, I've done plenty of observations with zoom lenses and telescopes.

Everything has always matched what the math says.  I go higher, I see farther.  Ships always sink below the horizon bottom first.  I can see stuff from the top of tall hills that I can't on the beach.

If you want to believe in a conspiracy feel free, but no conspiracy is faking what I see with my own eyes, and what thousands, if not millions of people and photos and videos show.

You find no evidence for what you want to believe, and your conclusion is it must be suppressed. That's close-minded thinking.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11667
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2020, 12:17:38 PM »
As opposed to burrying the evidence that you can see flat along thesurface of earth and the curvature isn't there. I worded that kindof awkwardly.

Also, of course there is likely the issue of being taught to see things a certain way.

This always confuses me.  I've driven and flown all around the world and it's anything but flat.  I can look out my windows now and what do I see?  Hills and curves of the land, it's not flat at all.  Parts of the USA are very flat, but even those have hills in places.  Then I see pictures of the Earth from space or high altitude and it looks VERY round.  I don't understand why one, single, narrow, simplified viewpoint is all you accept and everything else is lies and fake and cgi.

As for being taught, I was taught to evaluate evidence. I was taught science is a process. I know many theories we have now will be overturned with new and better ones.  I don't think science knows everything.  Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two theories that work amazing, but will be overturned with better versions, or a combined one eventually.

Us non-flat earth believers are not the close minded ones here.  I'm also curious why you believe what you do. "It looks flat" is just not a very convincing argument, when it's also does not look flat at all.
Evaluate evidence yes, but the evidence for flat earth is suppressed. Just look at my "those seacrh engines" thread. I looked up mathematical proof of globe earht and finally found a cache of flat earth videos.

I've lived on the hills of three oceans and two large lakes, I've done plenty of observations with zoom lenses and telescopes.

Everything has always matched what the math says.  I go higher, I see farther.  Ships always sink below the horizon bottom first.  I can see stuff from the top of tall hills that I can't on the beach.

If you want to believe in a conspiracy feel free, but no conspiracy is faking what I see with my own eyes, and what thousands, if not millions of people and photos and videos show.

You find no evidence for what you want to believe, and your conclusion is it must be suppressed. That's close-minded thinking.
I didn't realize you are so wealthy with all the oceanfront villas. This confirms my suspicion that you are in the conspiracy.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

Stash

  • 6615
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2020, 12:27:44 PM »
As opposed to burrying the evidence that you can see flat along thesurface of earth and the curvature isn't there. I worded that kindof awkwardly.

Also, of course there is likely the issue of being taught to see things a certain way.

This always confuses me.  I've driven and flown all around the world and it's anything but flat.  I can look out my windows now and what do I see?  Hills and curves of the land, it's not flat at all.  Parts of the USA are very flat, but even those have hills in places.  Then I see pictures of the Earth from space or high altitude and it looks VERY round.  I don't understand why one, single, narrow, simplified viewpoint is all you accept and everything else is lies and fake and cgi.

As for being taught, I was taught to evaluate evidence. I was taught science is a process. I know many theories we have now will be overturned with new and better ones.  I don't think science knows everything.  Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two theories that work amazing, but will be overturned with better versions, or a combined one eventually.

Us non-flat earth believers are not the close minded ones here.  I'm also curious why you believe what you do. "It looks flat" is just not a very convincing argument, when it's also does not look flat at all.
Evaluate evidence yes, but the evidence for flat earth is suppressed. Just look at my "those seacrh engines" thread. I looked up mathematical proof of globe earht and finally found a cache of flat earth videos.

I've lived on the hills of three oceans and two large lakes, I've done plenty of observations with zoom lenses and telescopes.

Everything has always matched what the math says.  I go higher, I see farther.  Ships always sink below the horizon bottom first.  I can see stuff from the top of tall hills that I can't on the beach.

If you want to believe in a conspiracy feel free, but no conspiracy is faking what I see with my own eyes, and what thousands, if not millions of people and photos and videos show.

You find no evidence for what you want to believe, and your conclusion is it must be suppressed. That's close-minded thinking.
I didn't realize you are so wealthy with all the oceanfront villas. This confirms my suspicion that you are in the conspiracy.

The conspiracy doesn't pay that great. It's at the bottom of the Fed G1 Tier III City payscale quartile sector. Similar to that of an entry level TSA bin sanitation/metal detector wand maintenance engineer (battery changer).

*

faded mike

  • 1691
  • new world tattoo drill scar
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2020, 02:00:32 PM »
The fact that you guys don't acknowledge the long range photos really makes me scratch my head. You are not bots?
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2020, 02:23:36 PM »
The fact that you guys don't acknowledge the long range photos really makes me scratch my head. You are not bots?
They were acknowledged. It was just pointed out that the ones we know about don't support a FE.

If you have one that you think does, feel free to provide it.

Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2020, 02:41:13 PM »
Quote
I cant find the most definitive pictures right now, but I don't think the horizon is that far normally.

The distance of the horizon increases with altitude as you'd expect.  So it entirely depends on what height these long range photos were taken from.  But since you can't find any at the moment we don't have much to go on.

Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #37 on: November 25, 2020, 02:52:53 PM »
I beleive in God

*

Stash

  • 6615
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2020, 03:13:57 PM »
The fact that you guys don't acknowledge the long range photos really makes me scratch my head. You are not bots?

You've been kicking around here long enough to know that if you have something you find questionable, present it, but do so with as much information as possible. Like the image, but also height of the observer, height of the objects in the distance, the distance to said object(s) and any more data like the location, etc., you can rustle up.

Just saying we don't acknowledge long range photos and dishing up a just photo with ZERO information is pointless. If you actually have a point, make it by being clear and thorough with what the issue is. Your persistent vagueness and seeming helplessness is tiresome.

*

JJA

  • 3277
  • Math is math!
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #39 on: November 25, 2020, 06:13:31 PM »
As opposed to burrying the evidence that you can see flat along thesurface of earth and the curvature isn't there. I worded that kindof awkwardly.

Also, of course there is likely the issue of being taught to see things a certain way.

This always confuses me.  I've driven and flown all around the world and it's anything but flat.  I can look out my windows now and what do I see?  Hills and curves of the land, it's not flat at all.  Parts of the USA are very flat, but even those have hills in places.  Then I see pictures of the Earth from space or high altitude and it looks VERY round.  I don't understand why one, single, narrow, simplified viewpoint is all you accept and everything else is lies and fake and cgi.

As for being taught, I was taught to evaluate evidence. I was taught science is a process. I know many theories we have now will be overturned with new and better ones.  I don't think science knows everything.  Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two theories that work amazing, but will be overturned with better versions, or a combined one eventually.

Us non-flat earth believers are not the close minded ones here.  I'm also curious why you believe what you do. "It looks flat" is just not a very convincing argument, when it's also does not look flat at all.
Evaluate evidence yes, but the evidence for flat earth is suppressed. Just look at my "those seacrh engines" thread. I looked up mathematical proof of globe earht and finally found a cache of flat earth videos.

I've lived on the hills of three oceans and two large lakes, I've done plenty of observations with zoom lenses and telescopes.

Everything has always matched what the math says.  I go higher, I see farther.  Ships always sink below the horizon bottom first.  I can see stuff from the top of tall hills that I can't on the beach.

If you want to believe in a conspiracy feel free, but no conspiracy is faking what I see with my own eyes, and what thousands, if not millions of people and photos and videos show.

You find no evidence for what you want to believe, and your conclusion is it must be suppressed. That's close-minded thinking.
I didn't realize you are so wealthy with all the oceanfront villas. This confirms my suspicion that you are in the conspiracy.

Even Trolls get hungry, here, have have a snack.  :)

You haven't experienced much of the world if you think any land with a view of water is expensive, or even desirable.  Where I grew up, the stretch of houses along the lake were slums.  Mainly due to that being where they dumped all the sewage and industrial waste.  Better these days, but still plenty of spots that are either too remote or too polluted for anyone to WANT to live there.

Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #40 on: November 25, 2020, 11:04:50 PM »
The fact that you guys don't acknowledge the long range photos really makes me scratch my head. You are not bots?

Refraction. What about you guys   not acknowledging entire fields such as:

Geology
Meteorology
Astronomy
Cosmology
Optics
Lots of basic physics

And entire industries including:
Surveying
Telecommunications
Navigation
Travel
Shipping


*

faded mike

  • 1691
  • new world tattoo drill scar
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #41 on: November 26, 2020, 02:39:18 PM »
Have you guys looked at the infrared picture from an airplane? Reportedly showing 1500 km of ground into the distance? What is your explanation. Rob Skiba made a vid bout it. Pretty hard to find though.
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19442
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #42 on: November 26, 2020, 03:21:55 PM »
Have you guys looked at the infrared picture from an airplane? Reportedly showing 1500 km of ground into the distance? What is your explanation. Rob Skiba made a vid bout it. Pretty hard to find though.

One time I farted in the shower.

*

sokarul

  • 18306
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #43 on: November 26, 2020, 03:25:56 PM »
Have you guys looked at the infrared picture from an airplane? Reportedly showing 1500 km of ground into the distance? What is your explanation. Rob Skiba made a vid bout it. Pretty hard to find though.
No itís hard to find so I did not see it. Do you have the picture?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Stash

  • 6615
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #44 on: November 26, 2020, 03:55:03 PM »
Have you guys looked at the infrared picture from an airplane? Reportedly showing 1500 km of ground into the distance? What is your explanation. Rob Skiba made a vid bout it. Pretty hard to find though.

J Tolan Media is the king of Infrared Flat Earth stuff. That's where Skiba got it from is my guess. Tolan's stuff has been discussed a lot, but mostly at the other site.

Just search: 'infrared' 'flat earth' in Youtube. You can find a Tolan vid about 6-7 down the list. Go to Tolan's channel, you can find them all. Tolan was actually a part of a discussion on the other site last year sometime. He was hit with some clarifying questions that he couldn't really answer. Which brought some of his stuff into question as to how he skews some calculations and observations. I would take his stuff with a grain of salt.

Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2020, 12:31:42 AM »
Have you guys looked at the infrared picture from an airplane? Reportedly showing 1500 km of ground into the distance? What is your explanation. Rob Skiba made a vid bout it. Pretty hard to find though.
And yet again, you just produce a vague claim with no backing.

The closest I could find was
And that is yet again, entirely consistent with the RE. You can see a few hundred km away, just like you would expect if you were 10 km high.

*

faded mike

  • 1691
  • new world tattoo drill scar
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2020, 05:08:37 PM »
curvataure in inche =8 x [(distance in miles) ^ squared] , distance squared x .6666 = feet of drop from parallel at said distance.
So 30 000 feet (airplane height) gives you approx.  200 miles view before the horizon (at the same altitude for those just tuning in)
« Last Edit: November 27, 2020, 05:11:34 PM by faded mike »
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

*

faded mike

  • 1691
  • new world tattoo drill scar
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2020, 05:13:08 PM »
Was the occupy movement democrat or republican?
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

*

faded mike

  • 1691
  • new world tattoo drill scar
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2020, 05:15:39 PM »
Have you guys looked at the infrared picture from an airplane? Reportedly showing 1500 km of ground into the distance? What is your explanation. Rob Skiba made a vid bout it. Pretty hard to find though.
And yet again, you just produce a vague claim with no backing.

The closest I could find was
And that is yet again, entirely consistent with the RE. You can see a few hundred km away, just like you would expect if you were 10 km high.
"And yet again" do you kiss your momma with that filthy keester.
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

*

sokarul

  • 18306
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2020, 05:17:37 PM »
Why donít you explain the RE problem now that there is a video?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #50 on: November 27, 2020, 08:14:54 PM »
Have you guys looked at the infrared picture from an airplane? Reportedly showing 1500 km of ground into the distance? What is your explanation. Rob Skiba made a vid bout it. Pretty hard to find though.
And yet again, you just produce a vague claim with no backing.

The closest I could find was
And that is yet again, entirely consistent with the RE. You can see a few hundred km away, just like you would expect if you were 10 km high.
"And yet again" do you kiss your momma with that filthy keester.
Just what do you find wrong with what I have said?
This seems to be your MO.
You object to a RE and only provide a vague claim with 0 backing.

Whenever I put in the effort to try to verify those claims, I find that they have been grosly misstated and that there is no problem at all for the RE.
This was just another example of that.

You claim there is a video of seeing 1500 km from a plane. Yet the best I could find is that video. That video only has them seeing the tops of mountains 200 miles away.
As you have already pointed out, there is nothing wrong with that for RE.
(Also note that them being mountains means you could see them even further away, depending on their height, but that isn't needed here).

So do you have any evidence at all that you can see the ground 1500 km away from an airplane?
Or is it just wild speculation you use to pretend there is a problem for the RE?

*

Stash

  • 6615
Re: Text Book Science Completeness
« Reply #51 on: November 27, 2020, 08:49:09 PM »
Have you guys looked at the infrared picture from an airplane? Reportedly showing 1500 km of ground into the distance? What is your explanation. Rob Skiba made a vid bout it. Pretty hard to find though.
And yet again, you just produce a vague claim with no backing.

The closest I could find was
And that is yet again, entirely consistent with the RE. You can see a few hundred km away, just like you would expect if you were 10 km high.
"And yet again" do you kiss your momma with that filthy keester.

Would you at least put a little effort in?