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

[1Mind1Spirit]

I know you're just being funny...

Post Number 2002 (or "5248068" if using the post quoting function).

I'd be as out of my mind as he is if I had been" discussing FE nonsense with him for this long (16+ years).

I know you been trippin' on it for at least 5 years, so what's the exact cutoff for you to be out of YOUR mind.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I know you're just being funny...

Post Number 2002 (or "5248068" if using the post quoting function).

I'd be as out of my mind as he is if I had been" discussing FE nonsense with him for this long (16+ years).

I know you been trippin' on it for at least 5 years, so what's the exact cutoff for you to be out of YOUR mind.

What are YOU talking about... :idunno:

 

[intojoy]

I fired Isaac because he believes in flat earth. Couldn’t take it anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yorzhik]

Is the weather man able to predict in advance when it is likely to happen?

If so, is he also able to say how strong the effect will be (i.e. how much of the skyline you'll be able to see)?

No, it is mentioned in the office before we hear about it on the radio. As far as I know it is completely unpredictable.

 

[Tambora]

Wait... what??? Are you saying you and Dave were discussing this in 2002??? Flat earth theory or just light reflection kinda stuff?

Post #2002, not the year 2002.

 

[Clete]

No, it is mentioned in the office before we hear about it on the radio. As far as I know it is completely unpredictable.

Interesting.

That is not what I expected you to say. Being a weather related phenomenon, I expected it to be quite predictable. They know the air temperature, humidity and pressure pretty well so it must be the water temperature that they don't have sufficient data on to make the prediction.

In any case, it sounds like it occurs less than 5% of the time. If the Earth were flat, you'd be able to see across that lake on every clear day. Chicago gets, on average, 73 days of precipitation and has 189 days of sunshine per year. The numbers where you live will be similar. That means you guys have sufficiently clear conditions at least half the time but can only see Chicago 5% of the time at most. That's one day out of ten, if we're being generous. The FET needs to explain the other nine days as well as why it's usually only the very tops of the highest buildings that are visible.

 

[DFT_Dave]

David,

So just how is this discussion about refraction arguing for a flat Earth anyway?

As I've said, no one denies that light is refracted by the atmosphere. When light travels from a medium of lesser density into a medium of higher density (or vise versa), it refracts. The amount it refracts depends on the amount of difference between the densities of the two mediums (and other factors such as the angle of incidence), the bigger the difference in density, the more the light is refracted. Light refracted due to temperature inversions would bend toward the surface because light refracts toward the denser medium. If the Earth were flat, this would SHORTEN the distance from which a city skyline or other large object is visible. If, on the other hand, the Earth is round, the light would bend around the surface rather than shooting off into space causing the object to be seen from much further away than would otherwise be possible due to the horizon getting in the way, which just happens to nicely explain both why we see what we see and when we see it.

In any case, light refraction seems to argue against FET.

The alternative for you is to say that what we are seeing is not due to refraction (or some other form of mirage) but that what is being seen is the actual straight line of sight view of the city or ship or whatever. If that is your contention then it is on you to explain why seeing cities from 50 miles away is not the norm. Why is it so rare and why is the visibility of distant objects dependent (primarily) on temperature inversions?

Clete

Thank you so much Clete, great answer, clearly stated.

First, I don't how often the city is seen from over 50 miles away. The photographer, Joshua Nowicki, would probably be a good source for that. But the amount of times it occurs is not the issue to me, or to flat earth arguments. Here is how the FE argument goes.

Seeing anything at distances we are not supposed to see them at, because of the curvature of the earth, is at the heart of the flat earth movement.

When one sees a right side up image that should not be visible it's evidence/proof the earth is flat and not curved.

Globe Earth Answer: What we are seeing is not the real thing but only an image of it because of refraction. A refraction happens when warm air passes over colder air. The image is projected over the actual thing, as illustrated below.

View attachment 26496

Flat Earth Objection: But then what are we seeing when we see an upside down image over an upright image of what is actually hidden behind the earth's curvature, as illustrated below?

View attachment 26497

Globe Earth Answer: That's a mirage, a reflection of the what you cannot actually see. It's also produced when warm air passes over colder air.

Flat Earth Question: How come we get two different effects from the same atmospheric condition, warm air over colder air?

Please explain.

The answers from globe earth, as I see it, involve the fallacies of circular reasoning and equivocation. When one word, refraction in this case, can be used to mean more than one thing, we will not get a coherent answer when we object to a contradiction in an argument being made that in incoherent.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The image above is not displaying refraction but rather reflection and would result in an upside down image of the ship as in the picture below...

View attachment 26493

If the image is due to refraction, it will be upright...

View attachment 26494

(There is actually some of both refraction and reflection occurring in that last image. (i.e. The bottoms of the buildings seem to be inverted.))

Clete

Now explain the atmospheric conditions that produce both a refraction and a reflection at the same time in the same location of what is actually hidden behind the curved earth.

--Dave

 

[chair]

Thank you so much Clete, great answer, clearly stated.

First, I don't how often the city is seen from over 50 miles away. The photographer, Joshua Nowicki, would probably be a good source for that. But the amount of times it occurs is not the issue to me, or to flat earth arguments. Here is how the FE argument goes.

Seeing anything at distances we are not supposed to see them at, because of the curvature of the earth, is at the heart of the flat earth movement.

When one sees a right side up image that should not be visible it's evidence/proof the earth is flat and not curved.

Globe Earth Answer: What we are seeing is not the real thing but only an image of it because of refraction. A refraction happens when warm air passes over colder air. The image is projected over the actual thing, as illustrated below.

View attachment 26496

Flat Earth Objection: But then what are we seeing when we see an upside down image over an upright image of what is actually hidden behind the earth's curvature, as illustrated below?

View attachment 26497

Globe Earth Answer: That's a mirage, a reflection of the what you cannot actually see. It's also produced when warm air passes over colder air.

Flat Earth Question: How come we get two different effects from the same atmospheric condition, warm air over colder air?

Please explain.

The answers from globe earth, as I see it, involve the fallacies of circular reasoning and equivocation. When one word, refraction in this case, can be used to mean more than one thing, we will not get a coherent answer when we object to a contradiction in an argument being made that in incoherent.

--Dave

Dave, the question you keep ignoring is: If the earth is flat, why don't we see far objects all the time?

 

[DFT_Dave]

So, according to your "theory" the nature of light and refraction is/was taught incorrectly in 5th grade?

The real question is, "Why are you?".

ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING you see is "quite clearly" NOT the actual thing. What we "see" is light reflected off of or emitted from/by an object. We never "see" the actual object... ever. The light we see from the object is affected by a variety of mostly uncontrollable conditions (the atmosphere, water, the physical limitation of our eyes, etc.) and a few controllable conditions (man-made lenses, such as telescopes, glasses, etc.)

Clete explains this clearly above, "... no one denies that light is refracted by the atmosphere. When light travels from a medium of lesser density into a medium of higher density (or vise versa), it refracts. The amount it refracts depends on the amount of difference between the densities of the two mediums (and other factors such as the angle of incidence), the bigger the difference in density, the more the light is refracted".

Effectively, the light reflected off of and emitted from the Chicago skyline is "bent around" the curvature of the Earth ("lifted upward"?) by refraction of the light by the atmosphere between Chicago and our (your) eye(s).

Whack-a-Mole time? Instead of looking at just the pictures, did you bother to read the article?

As I said above, we NEVER EVER see the actual object, we see light reflected off of or emitted from the object. The light we see then is our perception of the object and that light is affected (refracted) by a variety of mediums, the atmosphere being the primary medium refracting the light from objects far away and "parallel" to the Earth's surface. My fellow amateur astronomer, Clete, and I have both explained how light is refracted by the atmosphere such that the Chicago skyline is visible from "50 miles" away despite the curvature of the Earth. That you're still questioning this phenomena is confusing to us who aren't allowing cognitive dissonance to cloud our judgement.

Thanks, good questions.

I'm not questioning the basics of refraction. I'm questioning how it's applied in relation to atmospheric conditions, how can the same atmospheric condition be said to produce two different effects, both upside down and right side up images?

If an image of Chicago is "reflected" off the layer of warmer air then we would see it upside down not right side up.

If we see it right side up then we are not seeing a reflection, we are seeing the actual city. Flat earth argues that atmospheric conditions are causing the water to appear to go up and down, when it actually is not. I believe the time lapse video of Chicago from Michigan compared with the time lapse video over Skunk Bay demonstrates this.

"We NEVER EVER see the actual object, we see light reflected off of or emitted from the object."

But that does not mean the actual object does not exist exactly where we see it. Right?

The speed of light. How it affects what we see and where we see it is at the heart of Einstein's special relativity. This also makes us question what we are really seeing. I digress, but Einstein was a pantheist and he mixed his philosophy with science and gives us an irrational universe that does not distinguish time from space, what is and is not moving through space.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

That you're still questioning this phenomena is confusing to us who aren't allowing cognitive dissonance to cloud our judgement.

Rational thought is driving my doubts about Globe earth arguments. Your appeal to "cognitive dissonance" is an ad hominem attempt to discredit arguments you can't answer. Atheist's could argue that belief in God is due to cognitive dissonance, and vise versa.

There is no way you can explain the existence of a mirage over a refraction over the actual city hidden by the curved earth of Chicago from across Lake Michigan without circular reasoning, equivocation, and contradiction.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Which ones?

So your answer is "no, we aren't sure there is a relatively accurate map of the flat earth" and that's fine.

I happen to work near enough to Lake Michigan across from Chicago that I can look for Chicago any day I like. When Chicago can be seen, it's a big enough deal that it is mentioned at the office when it happens. So I probably hear more reports about the Chicago skyline more than anyone else on TOL. And the bottom line is that it is very variable what is seen when the skyline shows up or doesn't show up. So it isn't going to do much good to discuss it in relation to the globe or flat earth model. Reflection and refraction can always be used as a reason why something is seen or not seen by someone on either side of the argument, but there is no way to check the air densities or humidities to verify that any particular sighting (or non sighting) is affected by those factors.

Therefore, I think discussing reflection and refraction in air is fruitless for you to pursue. The globe model says that is why you can see things over the horizon, but there is no way for you to personally verify whether it is true or not. Sure, you can check for internal consistency of an argument, but that doesn't take as long as you have been discussing the topic.

That we are not seeing the actual city of Chicago but an image of it and over it but that this is not reflection is a contradictory statement because any image of anything that not the actual thing is a "reflection" of it.

The inconsistency of this argument is clear and causes doubts about globe earth to the rationally minded.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I was sort of ignoring this point just because I understand what he's getting at but I'm glad someone mentioned it. It is important to point out as many flaws in the Flat Earth thinking process as possible.

In actual fact, we are seeing the real city or ship or whatever. The light has bounced off of the object (or been emitted from it) and found it's way into our eye. We see it just like we see everything else we see. The only difference between seeing it from over the horizon and seeing it straight on is the path the light took to get to our eye. David's wording implies that we're seeing something unreal, which is not the case. We see ourselves in a mirror every day and what we see is really us. The fact that the light has been reflected in a mirror doesn't change the fact that it bounced off us first.

No, no. The real us is not the mirrored image.

The real city is below the curved earth not located at the horizon where we see it.

You can use a mirror to cause another person to see two of you and not know which one is the real you vs your reflection. Magicians use mirrors in many of their tricks to make us see things that are not really where they actually are.

I hope you see your error.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

That we are not seeing the actual city of Chicago but an image of it and over it but that this is not reflection is a contradictory statement because any image of anything that not the actual thing is a "reflection" of it.

The inconsistency of this argument is clear and causes doubts about globe earth to the rationally minded.

--Dave

I'm still having a hard time believing that you cannot understand this stuff. But you don't.

Go learn about light and vision and come back when you understand the basics.

 

[chair]

Rational thought is driving my doubts about Globe earth arguments. Your appeal to "cognitive dissonance" is an ad hominem attempt to discredit arguments you can't answer....
--Dave

Dave, How can one tell when another person is being irrational in his arguments?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Because I'm bored to death with this treadmill discussion about refraction, I'm going to jump to a different treadmill discussion...

Dave,

You occasionally reject arguments on the basis that they presuppose that the Earth is round. I wonder if you've given any consideration to how a round Earth helps to resolve what had been perplexing problems that can be resolved in no other way?

Take, for example, solar and lunar eclipses. The occurrence of eclipses was relegated entirely to the realm of mysticism and divine interventions until we figured out that the Earth was not flat, that the Moon orbited the Earth and that the Earth/Moon system orbited around the Sun. Indeed, these facts are so well known and understood that we can know down to the minute precisely when an eclipse will occur and from where it will be visible. The calculations used to ACCURATELY PREDICT eclipses hundreds of years into the future are definitively based on not just that the Earth is an oblate spheroid but that the Sun is tens of millions of miles away.

If FET is a valid cosmology, then why aren't they able to make such predictions or even to mathematically describe how such prediction might be made given a flat geometry and why am I able to pull up the exact date of the next eclipse on my PC with software that is clearly predicated on the Earth being round?

Solar and Lunar Eclipses Worldwide – Next 10 Years

List of solar eclipses in the 21st century

Clete

You have committed a fundamental error, a contradiction, by making an image of you in a mirror to be both the real you and not the real you. By definition an image of something is not the real or actual thing.

When we move to other aspects of proofs for globe vs flat earth I will look for contradicts from both sides as well.

The flat earth argument is that we see the actual, not a refracted or reflected image, city of Chicago from Michigan and so far I see no flaw in that argument. It's does not deny refraction nor reflections but explains how those are working on the flat plane of earth and not a curved earth. Atmospheric conditions can also make water appear to rise up and hide what is in the distance as shown in the Skunk Bay time lapse video. Which is why the Chicago skyline can be hidden at the bottom but still visible exactly where it is on a flat earth.

The flat earth model also is consistent with basic physics that water levels itself and does not bulge or curve over distance.

That the sun, moon, and stars can refute flat earth is not been proven to me as yet. But flat earth must also reasonably explain sun, moon, and stars or it will defeat itself.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is a fantastic question. I hope Dave gives it a response worthy of the intent of the question. :up:

I never addresses flat here earth until I started this thread. I never even considered flat earth as having good arguments until about two years ago. And even then I only began to explored it because I realized there was a resurgence of it happening on You Tube and I wanted to know why. I knew this would be a great debate. There's a depth of information and a history of conflicting views that are very debatable.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

You have committed a fundamental error, a contradiction, by making an image of you in a mirror to be both the real you and not the real you. By definition an image of something is not the real or actual thing.

Scared of his own image in the mirror, it seems...

When we move to other aspects of proofs for globe vs flat earth I will look for contradicts from both sides as well.

Right, because you've been able to identify the flaws in the FE model already. :mock:

The flat earth argument is that we see the actual, not a refracted or reflected image, city of Chicago from Michigan and so far I see no flaw in that argument.

You don't see the flaw in arguing that the exception is the rule?

If the earth was flat, it would be possible to see Chicago from Michigan ALL THE TIME.

However, it's not possible to see Chicago from Michigan all the time, in fact, it's so rare that it's a big deal when it is visible.

It's does not deny refraction nor reflections but explains how those are working on the flat plane of earth and not a curved earth. Atmospheric conditions can also make water appear to rise up and hide what is in the distance as shown in the Skunk Bay time lapse video. Which is why the Chicago skyline can be hidden at the bottom but still visible exactly where it is on a flat earth.

The flat earth model also is consistent with basic physics that water levels itself and does not bulge or curve over distance.

We've been over this Dave.

Water levels out on a globe as well, it's just not a flat surface, because the "level" point is oriented towards the CENTER of the globe, in a sphere around the center of gravity.

That the sun, moon, and stars can refute flat earth is not been proven to me as yet. But flat earth must also reasonably explain sun, moon, and stars or it will defeat itself.

--Dave

:noid:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, the question you keep ignoring is: If the earth is flat, why don't we see far objects all the time?

That's the next best step to take and try to answer.

We can begin where I think the heart of this issue begins.

Do we look straight ahead and see the horizon at eye level or are we actually looking slightly down at it?

--Dave

P.S. Can you answer my post or not?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'm still having a hard time believing that you cannot understand this stuff. But you don't.

Go learn about light and vision and come back when you understand the basics.

Come back with an answer to my objections.

--Dave