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

[DFT_Dave]

Well hey.... at least you gave me an answer. I appreciate that. It's insane.... but at least it's an answer.

Dave you are not looking for the truth. Admit it. This isn't just a mental exploration for you as you claimed it was. You are willing to go flow blown nut-job to maintain this theory. Electromagnetic propulsion (for space craft) is still a conceptual idea that could theoretically help guide and point a ship already in orbit or traveling through space. Making the jump to think they could use it to keep a spacecraft the size and shape of ISS hovering is not possible. Let alone to think they did that back in 1997 when the ISS was launched or way back in the 50's when the first satellites were sent into orbit.

Dave.... electromagnetic propulsion is not keeping the ISS circling above us.

I think you would be far better off and taken more seriously if you just admitted.... none of the flat earth stuff makes any sense but you like to believe it anyway. It's a hobby. No one will think any less of you for having a strange hobby as long as you acknowledge it as such.

A discussion about how a flat earth works under a dome would be about "electromagnetism". Tesla had much to say about the matter and he opposed Einstein's special relativity. But I doubt that you know very much about the subject and is why I don't want to go there.

Thanks to Area 21 and our military's Top Secret Classification of all things it does not want us to know, the pursuit of proving a globe because we have aircraft that could not stay up long enough over a flat earth is not knowable.

Given that the idea and possibility of electromagnetic propulsion has been with us since Tesla proposed it I suspect we already have it. But I can't prove it.

Electromagnetism is why we don't fly of into space according to Tesla and is what holds everything together, not gravity as proposed by Einstein. Let my know when this gets to deep for you if it's not already.

The globe makes no sense in many ways, as I have argued. That you think you have debunked my arguments amuses me. But I'm not sure yet if flat earth can survive all objects to it either. The globe has, to my thinking good arguments as well and I'm wrestling with those. You doubt my doubts. It only seems it's being honest to confess doubt, yet I have been called a liar, why? For faking honesty?

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then we could argued that different lens create different curves, and that the true horizon is actually flat and not curved at all.

--Dave

We could also just as well argue that different lenses create different curves, and that the true horizon is actually curved and not flat at all.

See how that works, Dave?

There's more variables that your not taking into consideration every time you try to assert something as proof of flat earth.

Ok, so Hitler's military rocket personal at the end of WWII are captured by our military and brought to the US and incorporated into our military to produce rockets for our offensive and defensive weapons was not military?

Sure :nuke:

--Dave

That's a non-sequitur, Dave, and not even worth responding to.

NASA is a civilian organization.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA /ˈnæsə/) is an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States federal government responsible for the civilian space program, as well as aeronautics and aerospace research.

-Wikipedia, "NASA"

The Air Force, on the other hand, DOES send rockets up into space, but that's a branch of the US military.

Flat earth view

These rays are not seen from the perspective of the viewer. These rays are coming downward from a singular source. We are not standing under them.

These rays are not coming from a vanishing point, they are coming from the sun. If we triangulate these rays the distance of the sun is very close and the sun is very small compared to the globe model.

Globe earth view problems

It's said that the rays of the sun hit the earth with parallel rays, but I would say a singular beam, and these rays of light are, or this beam of light is, refracted. But if that's the case then how could a singular beam of light, or many rays of light, that covers the whole sky look as though it's being refracted from a small area at a singular location--the sun?

If the sun is millions of miles away and casts a beam of light that covers half of the globe...and if that beam, or rays, of light hits our atmosphere and is refracted in "all" directions...why do we see any sun at all? Wouldn't we just have diffused light?

--Dave

Dave, according to your logic, the following image shows the rays coming from not just one sun, but many. That, or perspective is giving the illusion of the sun being close, when it is actually very far away.

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] might be able to do this, but this site has plenty of photos of crepuscular rays from other angles. I'm sure that the angle formed by the rays and the ground could be calculated, and in turn, so could the distance of the sun from the earth.

http://keyboardandrudder.blogspot.com/2015/11/crepuscular-rays-on-thanksgiving-day.html?m=1

 

[Clete]

Flat earth view

These rays are not seen from the perspective of the viewer. These rays are coming downward from a singular source. We are not standing under them.

You are truly stupid.

The photo was taken by a camera. One camera from one location.

These rays are not coming from a vanishing point, they are coming from the sun. If we triangulate these rays the distance of the sun is very close and the sun is very small compared to the globe model.

Globe earth view problems

It's said that the rays of the sun hit the earth with parallel rays, but I would say a singular beam, and these rays of light are, or this beam of light is, refracted. But if that's the case then how could a singular beam of light, or many rays of light, that covers the whole sky look as though it's being refracted from a small area at a singular location--the sun?

If the sun is millions of miles away and casts a beam of light that covers half of the globe...and if that beam, or rays, of light hits our atmosphere and is refracted in "all" directions...why do we see any sun at all? Wouldn't we just have diffused light?

--Dave

Like I said, whenever its convenient for you, you ignore perspective. It's because you're a mix of liar and idiot.

The rays you are seeing in the photo look like they are shooting down but the angle is much flatter than it seems. The rays hitting the ground are much closer to you than those nearer the Sun's position in the sky. The rays are, in fact, almost perfectly parallel. Imagine the rays as extremely wide gauge railroad tracks that are ramping up into the sky as they move away from you and you'll understand what is happening here.

Another way to think of such photos is as shadows rather than rays. The shadows that are being cast by the clouds are being cast toward you, not straight down toward the ground, as the flat Earth lying morons want to think. In other words, their drooley-mouthed logic only works if it's high noon at the location of the clouds that are casting the shadows. If the shadows are being cast at a flatter angle toward the observer, then when the shadows reaches the ground, it's as much larger from your perspective as the cloud itself would be from that distance. If the point at which the shadow touches the ground is half the distance from you as the cloud itself is then the shadow will appear to be twice as big as the cloud.

That's how perspective works and it is NOT any sort of problem for anyone except the flat each nincompoops who ignore perspective, along with the rest of reality, whenever it suits their purposes to do so.

 

[DFT_Dave]

View attachment 26514

Clete, I found this and I think it illustrates what you were getting at in your triangulation test.

The sun would still be visible 3000 mile above earth from a distance of 10,000 thousand miles and this destroys the flat earth model.

It will take more than one shot for me to wrap my head around this but I want to start to answer your test and this triangulation from a flat earth point of view. This is one of two globe earth arguments that I have said were good and indeed capable of ending flat earth theory.

Please remember just because I'm playing the devil's advocate does not make me the devil or his partner in crime/deception. That I see good arguments for both sides does not make me dishonest and everything else you said in your last post.

If the sun is 3000 miles directly above us, we agree, it is still 3000 miles above us no matter how far away it moves away from us.

But we also know that as the sun moves away from us it appears to get closer and closer to the ground even though we know it's still 3000 miles in the sky.

If this is the case, and tell me if it's not, then the sun should appear to hit, or merge into, the horizon at some point and yet still be 3000 miles above the flat earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

We could also just as well argue that different lenses create different curves, and that the true horizon is actually curved and not flat at all.

See how that works, Dave?

There's more variables that your not taking into consideration every time you try to assert something as proof of flat earth.

That's a non-sequitur, Dave, and not even worth responding to.

NASA is a civilian organization.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA /ˈnæsə/) is an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States federal government responsible for the civilian space program, as well as aeronautics and aerospace research.

-Wikipedia, "NASA"

The Air Force, on the other hand, DOES send rockets up into space, but that's a branch of the US military.

Dave, according to your logic, the following image shows the rays coming from not just one sun, but many. That, or perspective is giving the illusion of the sun being close, when it is actually very far away.

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] might be able to do this, but this site has plenty of photos of crepuscular rays from other angles. I'm sure that the angle formed by the rays and the ground could be calculated, and in turn, so could the distance of the sun from the earth.

http://keyboardandrudder.blogspot.com/2015/11/crepuscular-rays-on-thanksgiving-day.html?m=1

And a straight horizon is what we see from all high altitude balloons. The cameras do bounce and spin around a lot and a fisheye GoPro lens will bend horizons up and down, but once centered in the GoPro, and once the camera stops bouncing around, the horizon is alway straight/flat never curved.

Rays from the sun all point back to a singular location, they are not parallel, parallel rays means each ray has it's own point of origin.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You are truly stupid.

The photo was taken by a camera. One camera from one location.

Like I said, whenever its convenient for you, you ignore perspective. It's because you're a mix of liar and idiot.

The rays you are seeing in the photo look like they are shooting down but the angle is much flatter than it seems. The rays hitting the ground are much closer to you than those nearer the Sun's position in the sky. The rays are, in fact, almost perfectly parallel. Imagine the rays as extremely wide gauge railroad tracks that are ramping up into the sky as they move away from you and you'll understand what is happening here.

Another way to think of such photos is as shadows rather than rays. The shadows that are being cast by the clouds are being cast toward you, not straight down toward the ground, as the flat Earth lying morons want to think. In other words, their drooley-mouthed logic only works if it's high noon at the location of the clouds that are casting the shadows. If the shadows are being cast at a flatter angle toward the observer, then when the shadows reaches the ground, it's as much larger from your perspective as the cloud itself would be from that distance. If the point at which the shadow touches the ground is half the distance from you as the cloud itself is then the shadow will appear to be twice as big as the cloud.

That's how perspective works and it is NOT any sort of problem for anyone except the flat each nincompoops who ignore perspective, along with the rest of reality, whenever it suits their purposes to do so.

Rays from the sun all point back to a singular location, a singular point of origin, they are not parallel. Parallel rays means each ray has its own point of origin that's equal in distance apart from where we see it to where they originate from.

And you call me stupid? :rotfl:

--Dave

P.S. Parallel lines/rays never meet. The rays from the sun all meet at the center of the sun.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And a straight horizon is what we see from all high altitude balloons.

Because it seems you missed it:

ISS altitude: 254 miles

Highest balloon height: 32.9 miles

I'll let you think about that for a moment.

The cameras do bounce and spin around a lot and a fisheye GoPro lens will bend horizons up and down, but once centered in the GoPro, and once the camera stops bouncing around, the horizon is always straight/flat never curved.

Rays from the sun all point back to a singular location, they are not parallel, parallel rays means each ray has it's own point of origin.

--Dave

Dave, is the sun in the sky a point of light? or does it look like a disk?

If light is coming from all points on that disk, then it can be said that rays of light are parallel.

Overlooking some things and exaggerating other smaller issues can certainly distort one's perspective on reality.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Because it seems you missed it:

Dave, is the sun in the sky a point of light? or does it look like a disk?

If light is coming from all points on that disk, then it can be said that rays of light are parallel.

Overlooking some things and exaggerating other smaller issues can certainly distort one's perspective on reality.

No, the sun is not a disk it's a sphere. And all light rays coming from the sun spread out in all directions and from all possible points out there meet all other rays at a point in the center of the sun/sphere. There is a center, a point where all lines/rays originate from, which mean they are not parallel. Parallel lines/rays never meet at the same point of origin or destination.

Arguing the sun is a disk comes from flat earth model, not the globe model.

Then it would be a very small very close disk.

But I don't think that's what you are suggesting.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, the sun is not a disk it's a sphere.

Is this coming from the flat earth side? Because you apparently ignored what I just asked: "DOES IT LOOK like a disk?"

And all light rays coming from the sun spread out in all directions and from all possible points out there meet all other rays at a point in the center of the sun/sphere.

Dave, if from all points on the sphere, light is being emitted in all directions, then is it possible that some light is being emitted in directions parallel to light emitted from other points?

There is a center, a point where all lines/rays originate from, which mean they are not parallel. Parallel lines/rays never meet at the same point of origin or destination.

So is the light being emitted from a point or from the surface of the sphere?

Arguing the sun is a disk comes from flat earth model, not the globe model.

Then it would be a very small very close disk.

But I don't think that's what you are suggesting.

--Dave

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, since you're "arguing for flat earth", I'm addressing the Flat earth on it's terms.

That's why I said disk, because that's the typical sun model for the FE.

But if you want to assert that the FE sun is a sphere, by all means, we can discuss it as if it were a sphere.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly

ISS altitude: 254 miles

Highest balloon height: 32.9 miles

I'll let you think about that for a moment.

I have no reason to doubt the altitude of the balloons.

The similarities between the size of clouds and land areas in both the ISS and balloon videos suggest the ISS is not 254 miles above us.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Is this coming from the flat earth side? Because you apparently ignored what I just asked: "DOES IT LOOK like a disk?"

Dave, if from all points on the sphere, light is being emitted in all directions, then is it possible that some light is being emitted in directions parallel to light emitted from other points?

So is the light being emitted from a point or from the surface of the sphere?

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, since you're "arguing for flat earth", I'm addressing the Flat earth on it's terms.

That's why I said disk, because that's the typical sun model for the FE.

But if you want to assert that the FE sun is a sphere, by all means, we can discuss it as if it were a sphere.

Not all flat earthers believe the sun is a disk.

The surface of the sun is not the center of the sun and a line that continues past the sun's surface is where the rays of the sun all meet which is why they are not parallel.

I know you will not yield on this point and that if I believe the earth is flat I must accept the sun is a disk. And since I won't do that save your breath/time, I won't respond to this point again.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have no reason to doubt the altitude of the balloons.

The similarities between the size of clouds and land areas in both the ISS and balloon videos suggest the ISS is not 254 miles above us.

--Dave

So you're rejecting the reason the balloon photos look different than the ISS photos, that the ISS is at least 220 miles above the highest ever balloon, because... Why? "Because the clouds look the same"? I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to reject the reason why photos of the horizon from ISS and balloons are different.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not all flat earthers believe the sun is a disk.

You haven't been too forthright with the flat earth model you support, Dave. Pardon me if I argue against something you don't believe in.

The surface of the sun is not the center of the sun and a line that continues past the sun's surface is where the rays of the sun all meet which is why they are not parallel.

Dave, is the sun a point of light surrounded by a clear spherical surface (like a glass (not saying it's glass) covering such as on a lightbulb)? or is it a sphere of light?

I know you will not yield on this point and that if I believe the earth is flat I must accept the sun is a disk. And since I won't do that save your breath/time, I won't respond to this point again.

--Dave

Wow, that is totally not where I was going with this.

Here I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and look at reality from the FE perspective, and you're cutting off the conversation?

 

[DFT_Dave]

So you're rejecting the reason the balloon photos look different than the ISS photos, that the ISS is at least 220 miles above the highest ever balloon, because... Why? "Because the clouds look the same"? I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to reject the reason why photos of the horizon from ISS and balloons are different.

That why we look at the videos from both the ISS and balloons to see for ourselves.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You haven't been too forthright with the flat earth model you support, Dave. Pardon me if I argue against something you don't believe in.

Dave, is the sun a point of light surrounded by a clear spherical surface (like a glass (not saying it's glass) covering such as on a lightbulb)? or is it a sphere of light?

Wow, that is totally not where I was going with this.

Here I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and look at reality from the FE perspective, and you're cutting off the conversation?

Not being a flat earther per sa, I have to keep researching their arguments to make sure I understand them properly before I can present them. Not all of them agree in every detail. There's a lot of info out there from a number of sources so It's a long slow process.

The sun itself, what its made of is not much of a factor and I've not come across anything yet about it's make up. The key and agreed opinion is that the sun is close to the earth and very small in comparison to it. Rays that come from it confirm this if indeed the rays are not parallel. There's no way I would consider rays from a sphere as being parallel from any distance regardless of the size of the sphere. As I have already argued. And again, the sun is a disk is not key and not agreed on, but suggested only by a few.

I want to stay with what I think is the major argument for flat earth and not minor ones.

--Dave

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Dave just curious..... why do you believe that ISS is real? I mean you don't believe the images that it relays to earth are real and you don't have a good theory as to how the ISS remains hovering above us so why even believe in it all?? Maybe the whole thing is a scam? :idunno:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave just curious..... why do you believe that ISS is real? I mean you don't believe the images that it relays to earth are real and you don't have a good theory as to how the ISS remains hovering above us so why even believe in it all?? Maybe the whole thing is a scam? :idunno:

There are videos that show the ISS in space, or what looks like it. I cannot confirm or deny what is up there, how it stays up there, or for how long. Could data be received from a satellite hung below a balloon and we don't know it?

Here we have very interesting footage of a balloon carrying a satellite into the stratosphere. I wonder just how many balloons are keeping other types of satellites in space???

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Wow, balloons saves money. Who knew???

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Recover satellite then send it off again. Great plan NASA. This would work on a flat earth too. Right?

--Dave

 

[chair]

Logical Discussion

Logical Discussion

Dave, I think you will agree with me that even one clear observation that contradicts what a theory predicts disproves that theory. So, for example, if you point out that on a globe, Chicago should not be visible from across Lake Michigan, yet it is- then it is a serious challenge to the globe theory. Anybody who thinks the Earth is a globe better have a really good explanation of how that can happen- right?

Now this holds true for the flat earth theory as well. If we point out observations that contradict the flat earth theory, then the theory is disproven, unless you have a really good explanation for that observation that fits the flat earth theory.

I hope you will agree with me up to this point.

So, if somebody says, for example: "Perspective cannot make you see a HALF A SUN during a sunset.", then you need a really good explanation- or else the flat earth theory is dead.

This is true for all observations that contradict either of the theories.

So to use the half-sun observation, you understood that if there isn't an explanation- flat earth is dead- right. So here is your explanation:

"Refraction/looming plus the horizon line at eye level causes the half sun to appear on a flat earth. This explanation is reasonable and coherent."​

The problem I have here is that the explanation is neither reasonable nor coherent. Refraction can shift where one sees an object- it doesn't hide half an object. I don't know what "looming" is supposed to mean here. And the horizon being at 'eye-level', besides being poorly defined, doesn't fit a flat earth at all. In fact, any horizon at all doesn't fit a flat earth.

It is possible that I am just not understanding how refraction, looming and horizon together work here to make only half a sun appear. So please explain this. A drawing would be useful. I won't watch a video- sorry.