The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[Clete]

Please answer the contradiction.

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

Do you see the contradict in these two pics? Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an up right image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air.

Irrelevant and already answered.

If the image isn't inverted, it isn't a reflection but rather a refraction of the light.

NO ONE BUT FLAT EARTHERS PROPOSE REFLECTIVE MIRAGES AS AN EXPLANATION FOR WAY WE SEE CITY SKY LIKES (OR ANY OTHER UPRIGHT IMAGE) FROM 50 MILES AWAY!!!!!

It's a trick, David! How can you not see it? It is a lie based on a half truth. Sure, mirages are caused by reflection but not everything you see near the horizon is explained by reflective mirages.

Equations are not answers, they presuppose a curved earth.

--Dave

Equation absolutely are answers and they presuppose no such thing. Light does refract through the atmosphere, David. It has nothing to do with whether the Earth is flat.

You will never come out of this delusion unless you start thinking clearly. Not every argument against you PRESUPPOSES a round Earth. In fact, almost none of them do. The refraction index of air has exactly nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. Which is not to say that there aren't equations that are used to calculate the curvature of the Earth, or the distance between an object and the observer on a curved Earth. Those equations do exist but that isn't the point. The equations are about the refraction of light, not propagating a conspiracy. The evidence, of course, is that the equations work! They aren't perfect because the atmosphere is a chaotic system where all the variables cannot be determined with precision but the equations do work and they do explain why it is possible to occasionally see things from further away than would be possible on an airless Earth.

Now that's just the facts of reality, David. I fully understand that you aren't interested in allowing the facts to get in your way on your quest to give credence to the stupidest cosmology that has been considered by any human mind in the last 100 years but they are the facts, nonetheless.



Move on, David. Unless you have a SPECIFIC argument to make in rebuttal to a SPECIFIC thing I've said, I'm not discussing mirages any longer. One can only stand so much stupidity on a particular subject. I'm not kidding and I'm not trying to be gratuitously insulting. If you want to discuss this nonsense then you're going to have to be sensitive to the fact that you're driving me into the nut house with this and that I only have so much patience with it. Move on.


Clete

 

[Clete]

I want you work on those answers and stop regurgitating the same old answers with your emotional crap.

You can do better.

One single more syllable from you along these lines will land you permanently on my ignore list.

Not only have I spent an ungodly number of hours presenting argument after argument that YOU ignored completely but you've totally lost any right to talk to me about "doing better"!

You can kiss me right on the cheek and I'll move right along with my life and never give you another second of my time if you ever think to say something like this to me ever again.

DO NOT TEST ME ON THIS!

I'm working on FE answers to make them better understood. I'm studying what I have not yet answered. And this time I'm working on arguments and not just putting out videos which takes more time.

--Dave

If you had such an attitude a year ago when I and everyone else on this thread was BEGGING you to make the argument and stop with all the ridiculous videos, you'd not be having to deal with my attitude now. You've made your bed now lay in it or do what is necessary to regain the respect you decided to destroy.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

We've been told the Chicago Skyline is hidden below the curvature of the earth 50 miles away.

Who is WE? The ones that told you that are probably the ones that told you that the earth is flat.

When we see it we have been told it's a mirage, so I looked into mirages.

More or less of the skyline is visible depending on conditions.

The fact that the Rocky Mountains are NOT visible from Chicago is good evidence against a flat earth.

Then I was told it was a refraction not a mirage. So I looked up refractions.

You said it was looming: "How can you watch the Chicago skyline 'rise up' from behind the horizon, constantly shimmering and flickering through all kinds of different refraction and mirage effects and deny that you're seeing the effects of atmospheric refraction?" --Flat Earth Insanity

Refraction is simply light bending.

So, looming is a refraction as well. Regardless what we call it the fact remains that refraction occurs when warm air passes over much colder air.

So, here again is my argument about refraction.

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

Do you see the contradict in these two pics? Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an upright image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air. Right?

The FE argument is, "If we see the actual city of Chicago 50 miles away then it's not hidden behind a curved earth".

--Dave

The FE argument is wrong. You NEVER see ALL of the city of Chicago from 50 miles away. Under NORMAL conditions (clear with no significant refraction) you only see the VERY TOPS of some of the TALLEST buildings in the world. THAT is strong evidence AGAINST the FE "model".

It would be great if you would stop trying to use SPECIAL CASES to "prove" your FE. That's something that dishonest people do.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, that's because it is.

If you had actually done what you say you would have learned in your "research" mirages are caused by the refraction of light. You're either a liar or lack the cognitive ability to understand FE is just a version of "the big lie" you've been gullible enough to have been duped by.

Did you even read the link you gave or did you read it just enough to quote mine something you imagine to be some sort of "gotcha"? Had you read and understood it instead of relying on FE websites you wouldn't be so confused. Heck, even
Wikipedia would give you a clearer explanation than one of the FE sites.

Supra.

Using such superior logic as this it's no wonder you're so confused since you actually DO see Chicago BECAUSE OF the mirage effect.

Explanations are not proofs.

"Proofs", as used in mathematics, ARE explanations. How would you expect to understand a complex proof (concept) unless someone explained it to you?

We have a contradiction that so far no one has addressed.

YOU have a contradiction YOU cannot rationalize with FE. The "contradiction" has been explained (proved) to you numerous times; it is even explained in the Flat Earth Insanity you posted but failed to comprehend if you even bothered read it.

Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an upright image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air. Right?

Supra.

Next we'll look at the skyline as a "Fata Morgana".

This looks as though you'd rather everyone play "Whack-a-Mole" than admit your cognitive failure(s).

 

[chair]

...
The FE argument is, "If we see the actual city of Chicago 50 miles away then it's not hidden behind a curved earth".

--Dave

Dave, if the reason you can sometimes see Chicago at a distance was because the earth is flat then:
You should always be able to see objects at a great distance. But we can't. Why?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Based on this and other short-sighted answers, I have come to the conclusion that you are not interested in listening to reason or science.
I have no idea why. A globe earth does no violence to the scriptures.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that you enjoy being contrary.
That being so, I will end here.

You asked for an undeniable proof of a globe earth.
I gave it and you will not, or cannot, comment on it.

Here it is again:
The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.

When you care to advance a solution to this simple, but fatal, flaw in your flat earth theory, let me know.

This post pretty much sums up the entirety of this thread.

Well stated.

 

[intojoy]

I’ll say this again. Flat earthing is a satanic doctrine and it’s goal is to deny the holocaust and deny the Jewish people of their national identity. It could become one of the ways that the Antichrist will use to discredit the God of Israel and places himself on the throne as god. I see no other reason for such an asinine movement other than the spiritual wickedness that operate in the world to hide the truth from DAVE I mean man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DFT_Dave]

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

We have a contradiction.
We are told we can get both an upside down image from warm air over colder and an upright image?

Calling an upside down image a superior mirage and a right side up image a refraction does not change the fact that we are dealing with the same atmospheric conditions for both.

Regardless what you call it, even if you call it looming or supra, on the curved earth model the city of Chicago is below the horizon and an image must be refracted up and over the actual city in order for us to see it.

In other words, from 50 or more miles away we are not seeing the actual city.

Chicago, Illinois / Mirage - April 17, 2016

Right divider provided this clip of a short time lapse video that shows the city scape, according to the author of it, rising up from behind the curvature of the earth.

"How can you watch the Chicago skyline 'rise up' from behind the horizon, constantly shimmering and flickering through all kinds of different refraction and mirage effects and deny that you seeing the effects of atmospheric refraction?"--Flat Earth Insanity

--Dave

 

[Clete]

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

We have a contradiction.
We are told we can get both an upside down image from warm air over colder and an upright image?

No, we aren't told that by anyone other than flat earthers wanting to have something to argue against.

Calling an upside down image a superior mirage and a right side up image a refraction does not change the fact that we are dealing with the same atmospheric conditions for both.

No, not both.

Regardless what you call it, even if you call it looming or supra, on the curved earth model the city of Chicago is below the horizon and an image must be refracted up and over the actual city in order for us to see it.

That's complete asinine stupidity. No other response is warranted.

In other words, from 50 or more miles away we are not seeing the actual city.

What are you seeing? A make believe city? What else would you be seeing? Just because the light is refracted doesn't mean its coming from something other than the thing you're seeing.

Chicago, Illinois / Mirage - April 17, 2016

Right divider provided this clip of a short time lapse video that shows the city scape, according to the author of it, rising up from behind the curvature of the earth.

"How can you watch the Chicago skyline 'rise up' from behind the horizon, constantly shimmering and flickering through all kinds of different refraction and mirage effects and deny that you seeing the effects of atmospheric refraction?"--Flat Earth Insanity

--Dave

Huh?

This sounds like it should be my line, not yours.

What else would you be seeing besides the effects of atmospheric refraction?

Clete

 

[intojoy]

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

We have a contradiction.
We are told we can get both an upside down image from warm air over colder and an upright image?

Calling an upside down image a superior mirage and a right side up image a refraction does not change the fact that we are dealing with the same atmospheric conditions for both.

Regardless what you call it, even if you call it looming or supra, on the curved earth model the city of Chicago is below the horizon and an image must be refracted up and over the actual city in order for us to see it.

In other words, from 50 or more miles away we are not seeing the actual city.

Chicago, Illinois / Mirage - April 17, 2016

Right divider provided this clip of a short time lapse video that shows the city scape, according to the author of it, rising up from behind the curvature of the earth.

"How can you watch the Chicago skyline 'rise up' from behind the horizon, constantly shimmering and flickering through all kinds of different refraction and mirage effects and deny that you seeing the effects of atmospheric refraction?"--Flat Earth Insanity

--Dave

Gobbledygook


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

We've been told the Chicago Skyline is hidden below the curvature of the earth 50 miles away.

When we see it we have been told it's a mirage, so I looked into mirages.

Then I was told it was a refraction not a mirage. So I looked up refractions.

You said it was looming: "How can you watch the Chicago skyline 'rise up' from behind the horizon, constantly shimmering and flickering through all kinds of different refraction and mirage effects and deny that you're seeing the effects of atmospheric refraction?" --Flat Earth Insanity

So, looming is a refraction as well. Regardless what we call it the fact remains that refraction occurs when warm air passes over much colder air.

So, here again is my argument about refraction.

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

Do you see the contradict in these two pics? Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an upright image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air. Right?

The FE argument is, "If we see the actual city of Chicago 50 miles away then it's not hidden behind a curved earth".

--Dave

Well, that's because it is.

If you had actually done what you say you would have learned in your "research" mirages are caused by the refraction of light. You're either a liar or lack the cognitive ability to understand FE is just a version of "the big lie" you've been gullible enough to have been duped by.

Did you even read the link you gave or did you read it just enough to quote mine something you imagine to be some sort of "gotcha"? Had you read and understood it instead of relying on FE websites you wouldn't be so confused. Heck, even
Wikipedia would give you a clearer explanation than one of the FE sites.

Supra.

Using such superior logic as this it's no wonder you're so confused since you actually DO see Chicago BECAUSE OF the mirage effect.

Explanations are not proofs.

We have a contradiction that so far no one has addressed.

Do we get an upside down image from warm air over colder or an upright image? You can't get both an upside down image and a right side up image from warm air over cold air. Right?

Next we'll look at the skyline as a "Fata Morgana".

--Dave

"Proofs", as used in mathematics, ARE explanations. How would you expect to understand a complex proof (concept) unless someone explained it to you?

YOU have a contradiction YOU cannot rationalize with FE. The "contradiction" has been explained (proved) to you numerous times; it is even explained in the Flat Earth Insanity you posted but failed to comprehend if you even bothered read it.

Supra.

This looks as though you'd rather everyone play "Whack-a-Mole" than admit your cognitive failure(s).

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

We have a contradiction.
We are told we can get both an upside down image from warm air over colder and an upright image?

Calling an upside down image a superior mirage and a right side up image a refraction does not change the fact that we are dealing with the same atmospheric conditions for both.

And here you go again, ignoring responses by me and other posters as if your "contradiction" was never addressed. If you're going to have a "debate" at least do so honestly.

Regardless what you call it, even if you call it looming or Supra., on the curved earth model the city of Chicago is below the horizon and an image must be refracted up and over the actual city in order for us to see it.

Supra? Do you even know what the word means in context as I've used it twice previously (that was a hint to its meaning btw)?

In other words, from 50 or more miles away we are not seeing the actual city.

Since when?

 

[Right Divider]

Right divider provided this clip of a short time lapse video that shows the city scape, according to the author of it, rising up from behind the curvature of the earth.

"How can you watch the Chicago skyline 'rise up' from behind the horizon, constantly shimmering and flickering through all kinds of different refraction and mirage effects and deny that you seeing the effects of atmospheric refraction?"--Flat Earth Insanity

--Dave

Dave, QUIT with the SPECIAL CASES and discuss the NORMAL conditions where ONLY the TOPS of some of the TALLEST buildings in the WORLD can be seen from across the lake.

 

[Right Divider]

Dave, QUIT with the SPECIAL CASES and discuss the NORMAL conditions where ONLY the TOPS of some of the TALLEST buildings in the WORLD can be seen from across the lake.

Why can't we see the Adler Planetarium?

 

[DFT_Dave]

And here you go again, ignoring responses by me and other posters as if your "contradiction" was never addressed. If you're going to have a "debate" at least do so honestly.

Supra? Do you even know what the word means in context as I've used it twice previously (that was a hint to its meaning btw)?

"Originally Posted by DFT_Dave
In other words, from 50 or more miles away we are not seeing the actual city.

Since when?

View attachment 26489 View attachment 26490

When anything (ship or city) is hidden behind the curvature of the earth, and an image of it is lifted upward from behind the curvature so that we can see what was before hidden from view, as the two illustrations show, we have a refracted image of it. We are not seeing the actual ship or city, because it's still located behind the curved earth hidden from view.

This is from the globe earth model, not from a flat earth one and the illustrations are from globe earth view not a flat earth one.

The problem is, the cause of an upside down image is the same for a right side up image. Warm air over colder air, as you can see from the illustrations.

Chicago Skyline seen from Michigan

This is a great video for globe earth from the news man from Chicago. It's a follow up from the report before this that the Chicago skyline was a mirage. He interviews the original photographer and a someone who explains the science.

When the science guy explains "looming" it sounds like horizon magnification. And he makes no distinction between the conditions that produce an upside down mirage and a right side up refraction.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

As I'm coming to understand atmospheric conditions there is one that is always left out that has to be factored in. There's molecules of water that are continuously rising up from water/lakes/oceans, that on very hot days increases rapidly putting more moisture in the air, especially close the the water than normal. This means warm air at the surface of the water with high amounts of moisture in it. That would be evaporation.

Is it possible that a high amount of evaporating water at the surface of the water produces a density that would look like water that has been raised up. Maybe it's the water/lake that is miraged and hides the lower part of the city skyline in the distance.

This time lapse video showing the water rising and falling during the day, not the land area across the bay. Could the same be said of the Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan?

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

As I'm coming to understand atmospheric conditions there is one that is always left out that has to be factored in. There's molecules of water that are continuously rising up from water/lakes/oceans, that on very hot days increases rapidly putting more moisture in the air, especially close the the water than normal. This means warm air at the surface of the water with high amounts of moisture in it. That would be evaporation.

Is it possible that a high amount of evaporating water at the surface of the water produces a density that would look like water that has been raised up. Maybe it's the water/lake that is miraged and hides the lower part of the city skyline in the distance.

This time lapse video showing the water rising and falling during the day, not the land area across the bay. Could the same be said of the Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan?

--Dave

Tides are another area where flat earth fails and the global earth makes sense.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Tides are another area where flat earth fails and the global earth makes sense.

The up and down pattern in the Bay video is occuring within too short a time frame to be the tide coming in and going out, then in and out, again.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Happy Fathers Day

Too all you great Dad's on TOL :salute:

--Dave

 

[Yorzhik]

I want you work on those answers and stop regurgitating the same old answers with your emotional crap.

You can do better.

--Dave

I had been posting answers and asking questions in an unemotional and honest matter. But you stopped responding. Is it because if the questions and answers make too much sense against the FE model that you want to have a victim/abuse/opposition-outburst excuse at the ready in order to disengage?

I noticed you did this with Knight, as well.

And just to get things started again, is there a relatively accurate map of the world in existence? Do you have access to it?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I had been posting answers and asking questions in an unemotional and honest matter. But you stopped responding. Is it because if the questions and answers make too much sense against the FE model that you want to have a victim/abuse/opposition-outburst excuse at the ready in order to disengage?

I noticed you did this with Knight, as well.

And just to get things started again, is there a relatively accurate map of the world in existence? Do you have access to it?

I have made it clear that I personally find good arguments for both FE and GE. I have acknowledged that there are globe model arguments that I cannot refute, at this time. They may never be refutable and be the ones that win the day.

That said, that means I have not avoided globe arguments, I simply, at this time, agree with them.

There are globe arguments I don't agree with and will argue against.

What I'm tired of is any disagreement with globe earth means I've lost my mind, being dishonest, etc. Personal attacks prove nothing.

When I see a good argument for globe earth I then research FE arguments in response to them. Saying I have seen good arguments for FE does not mean I'am Flat Earth. I'm researching both sides of this debate but representing FE.

Mapping is a aspect of the debate. It's been talked about before and I will gladly go back to it, but right now I want to continue with refraction. I like this aspect of the debate because it deals with what we all can visually test.

--Dave