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

[JudgeRightly]

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

I've given you a way to determine that a while back, Dave.

Here it is, works best with a camera or some sort of lens system to look through.

Take a camera that can be mounted on some sort of pivot point, say, a tripod.

Ensure that the pivot point is completely level.

Look through the camera (or other device), and rotate it 360 degrees.

If the center of the camera is below the horizon, you're altitude is too low, move to a higher elevation; Or if part of the horizon is below, but the other part is above or if the distance from the center of the camera to the horizon is not equidistant, your pivot point is not level, and needs to be adjusted.

If the center of the camera is on the horizon, but not above, throughout the entire 360 degrees, then our eyes are looking out parallel to the ground at the horizon.

If the center of the camera is above the horizon all the way around the 360 degrees, then the horizon is dropping away the farther away it is, and when we look at the horizon, we are looking down at it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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).

Buwuhahahaha!!!

I totally misread that post. My bad. My mind excluded the word "Post". :rotfl:

 

[DFT_Dave]

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

I just demonstrated the irrational argument that an "atmospheric condition", warm are over colder air, can produce both a right side up image at one time and an upside down image at another. That we can have "either or" from the same atmospheric condition breaks the rule of the excluded middle.

Try to debunk my arguments. Show me any fallacy in them. Show me any false premise or false conclusion in any of them.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Come back with an answer to my objections.

--Dave

Your objections are based on a complete lack of understanding light and vision.

 

[DFT_Dave]

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

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

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.

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.

:noid:

No we would not see Chicago all the time over a flat earth.

Fog, mist, rapid evaporation, and conditions that cause the water to appear to rise and block what is behind it as per time lapse video from Skunk Bay would keep the skyline everyday view.

Then we also have the effect of perspective. I'll be reviewing that next.

Water levels out on a globe is an irrational statement.

To be level means to be flat. Saying "water levels out on a globe but it's just not flat" is an obvious clear contradiction.

A word and its definition should be able to be substituted and still retain its meaning and not contradict it. For example in your statement.

"Water levels out on a globe as well, it's just not a flat surface"

When we replace the word level with definition of level your comment is this:

"Water flattens out on a globe as well, it's just not a flat surface"

The only rational statement one can make about water on a globe is that it is never level, never flat.

So we have a contradiction between basic physics and a globed earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I've given you a way to determine that a while back, Dave.

Here it is, works best with a camera or some sort of lens system to look through.

Take a camera that can be mounted on some sort of pivot point, say, a tripod.

Ensure that the pivot point is completely level.

Look through the camera (or other device), and rotate it 360 degrees.

If the center of the camera is below the horizon, you're altitude is too low, move to a higher elevation; Or if part of the horizon is below, but the other part is above or if the distance from the center of the camera to the horizon is not equidistant, your pivot point is not level, and needs to be adjusted.

If the center of the camera is on the horizon, but not above, throughout the entire 360 degrees, then our eyes are looking out parallel to the ground at the horizon.

If the center of the camera is above the horizon all the way around the 360 degrees, then the horizon is dropping away the farther away it is, and when we look at the horizon, we are looking down at it.

I have a better idea go out and look at the horizon and determine if it hits you right between the eye's or not.

I've looked out over the ocean from Brooklyn millions of times and I know where the horizon hits me.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Your objections are based on a complete lack of understanding light and vision.

All arguments in favor of any view on any subject must follow a logical construction.

Saying I don't understand of light and vision does not address my arguments. This is another form of the ad hominem fallacy.

I have pointed out a fallacy in the argument that the upright image of Chicago is a refraction and not the actual city and not a mirage.

No one as yet has tried to answer this objection.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

No we would not see Chicago all the time over a flat earth.

Fog, mist, rapid evaporation, and conditions that cause the water to appear to rise and block what is behind it as per time lapse video from Skunk Bay would keep the skyline everyday view.

Then we also have the effect of perspective. I'll be reviewing that next.

Water levels out on a globe is an irrational statement.

To be level means to be flat. Saying "water levels out on a globe but it's just not flat" is an obvious clear contradiction.

A word and its definition should be able to be substituted and still retain its meaning and not contradict it. For example in your statement.

"Water levels out on a globe as well, it's just not a flat surface"

When we replace the word level with definition of level your comment is this:

"Water flattens out on a globe as well, it's just not a flat surface"

The only rational statement one can make about water on a globe is that it is never level, never flat.

So we have a contradiction between basic physics and a globed earth.

--Dave

lev·el ˈlevəl/Submit noun 1. a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point. 2. a position on a real or imaginary scale of amount, quantity, extent, or quality. "a high level of unemployment" synonyms:quantity, amount, extent, measure, degree, volume, size, magnitude, intensity, proportion "a high level of unemployment" adjective 1. having a flat and even surface without slopes or bumps. "we had reached level ground" synonyms:flat, smooth, even, uniform, plane, flush, plumb "a smooth and level surface" 2. at the same height as someone or something else. "his eyes were level with hers" synonyms:aligned with, on the same level as, on a level with, at the same height as, in line with "his eyes were level with hers"

It doesn't mean just "flat," Dave.

It means "a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point."

It means "having a flat and even surface without slopes or bumps."

It means "at the same height as someone or something else."

Flat Earth:
The water's surface would be on a horizontal plane with respect to the distance above a certain point? Not really, as there's no singular point where the water is equidistant from.

The water's surface would be flat and even without slopes or bumps? Yes.

The water's surface would be at the same height as other water? Yes.

Score: 2/3.

Globe Earth:

The water's surface would be on a horizontal plane with respect to the distance above a certain point? Yes, as the surface of the water is "level" above the earth's center of gravity.

The water's surface would be flat and even without slopes or bumps? Yes.

The water's surface would be at the same height as other water? Yes, in relation to differing densities of mass below the earth's surface.

Score: 3/3

I have a better idea go out and look at the horizon and determine if it hits you right between the eye's or not.

That's not an empirical method, Dave.

Overruled.

Try the method I suggested, and if you can think of any way to improve it, please explain here:

___________________________________________
___________________________________________

I've looked out over the ocean from Brooklyn millions of times and I know where the horizon hits me.

--Dave

Anecdotal evidence is not valid here, Dave. You should know better.

 

[Yorzhik]

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.

Right. In the FE model we should be seeing the Chicago skyline a lot more.

 

[chair]

No we would not see Chicago all the time over a flat earth.

Fog, mist, rapid evaporation, and conditions that cause the water to appear to rise and block what is behind it as per time lapse video from Skunk Bay would keep the skyline everyday view.

Then we also have the effect of perspective. I'll be reviewing that next.
...

Dave, One generally cannot see Chicago from such a distance. Even on clear days. I can never see Acre across the bay from the beach here. Never. I've never heard of anybody seeing that. Even on clear days. Why?

On the other hand, from up on the mountain here I can see Acre easily. How does that work with a flat earth?

The answer is- it doesn't.

 

[chair]

I just demonstrated the irrational argument that an "atmospheric condition", warm are over colder air, can produce both a right side up image at one time and an upside down image at another. That we can have "either or" from the same atmospheric condition breaks the rule of the excluded middle.

Try to debunk my arguments. Show me any fallacy in them. Show me any false premise or false conclusion in any of them.

--Dave

Dave, you have had most of your arguments debunked a hundred times in this thread, but to no avail.

The "seeing Chicago from far" issue is about some odd optics effects, and is not really relevant to the flat earth issue. It is a convenient point to hide behind, and a way to show one's knowledge (or lack thereof) , but it is not an argument for a flat earth. If the earth was flat, one would see distant objects at any distance, weather permitting.

 

[Right Divider]

All arguments in favor of any view on any subject must follow a logical construction.

Duh.

Saying I don't understand of light and vision does not address my arguments. This is another form of the ad hominem fallacy.

Once again Dave, you focus on ABNORMAL conditions when you should instead focus on the NORMAL conditions. Your distraction here is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

On a NORMAL day, Chicago is not visible across the lake.... why not? Because the earth is NOT FLAT.... that's why.

I have pointed out a fallacy in the argument that the upright image of Chicago is a refraction and not the actual city and not a mirage.

No one as yet has tried to answer this objection.

--Dave

Once AGAIN, you do NOT understand light and vision and using special cases does not prove anything.

 

[DFT_Dave]

lev·el ˈlevəl/Submit noun 1. a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point. 2. a position on a real or imaginary scale of amount, quantity, extent, or quality. "a high level of unemployment" synonyms:quantity, amount, extent, measure, degree, volume, size, magnitude, intensity, proportion "a high level of unemployment" adjective 1. having a flat and even surface without slopes or bumps. "we had reached level ground" synonyms:flat, smooth, even, uniform, plane, flush, plumb "a smooth and level surface" 2. at the same height as someone or something else. "his eyes were level with hers" synonyms:aligned with, on the same level as, on a level with, at the same height as, in line with "his eyes were level with hers"

It doesn't mean just "flat," Dave.

It means "a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point."

It means "having a flat and even surface without slopes or bumps."

It means "at the same height as someone or something else."

Flat Earth:
The water's surface would be on a horizontal plane with respect to the distance above a certain point? Not really, as there's no singular point where the water is equidistant from.

The water's surface would be flat and even without slopes or bumps? Yes.

The water's surface would be at the same height as other water? Yes.

Score: 2/3.

Globe Earth:

The water's surface would be on a horizontal plane with respect to the distance above a certain point? Yes, as the surface of the water is "level" above the earth's center of gravity.

The water's surface would be flat and even without slopes or bumps? Yes.

The water's surface would be at the same height as other water? Yes, in relation to differing densities of mass below the earth's surface.

Score: 3/3



That's not an empirical method, Dave.

Overruled.

Try the method I suggested, and if you can think of any way to improve it, please explain here:

___________________________________________
___________________________________________



Anecdotal evidence is not valid here, Dave. You should know better.

Sorry, this is not a rational answer let alone an answer.

No matter how you say it the fact remains waters are not level/flat/straight on a globe over any distance.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Duh.

Once again Dave, you focus on ABNORMAL conditions when you should instead focus on the NORMAL conditions. Your distraction here is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

On a NORMAL day, Chicago is not visible across the lake.... why not? Because the earth is NOT FLAT.... that's why.

Once AGAIN, you do NOT understand light and vision and using special cases does not prove anything.

Again, no answer to my argument.

--Dave

 

[chair]

Again, no answer to my argument.

--Dave

Dave, Dave, Dave. It is an answer. Just saying it isn't doesn't constitute a logical response. You are simply ignoring the GE side, while pretending that you are being logical and considering all the facts etc. And then you act surprised and self-righteous when you're accused of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[chair]

Dave, One generally cannot see Chicago from such a distance. Even on clear days. I can never see Acre across the bay from the beach here. Never. I've never heard of anybody seeing that. Even on clear days. Why?

On the other hand, from up on the mountain here I can see Acre easily. How does that work with a flat earth?

The answer is- it doesn't.

Dave- you are consistently ignoring this point. It has been raised by others as well.

 

[Right Divider]

Sorry, this is not a rational answer let alone an answer.

No matter how you say it the fact remains waters are not level/flat/straight on a globe over any distance.

--Dave

Of course the water is not "flat" on the globe as if it was a perfect plane.

Water conforms to ALL of the forces that are applied to it, as you've been told MANY times before.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, you have had most of your arguments debunked a hundred times in this thread, but to no avail.

The "seeing Chicago from far" issue is about some odd optics effects, and is not really relevant to the flat earth issue. It is a convenient point to hide behind, and a way to show one's knowledge (or lack thereof) , but it is not an argument for a flat earth. If the earth was flat, one would see distant objects at any distance, weather permitting.

How do we test for perspective?

Before I give the answer I yield the floor to you all first to explain perspective.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Again, no answer to my argument.

--Dave

Sure Dave, just plug your ears and believe what you want.

 

[chair]

...

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

You digress, and you are also ignorant of modern physics. Like it or not, Einstein was right.