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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Silent Hunter

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
DFT_Dave said:
For the sake of my argument I will agree with the argument made in this video that the scale of how far we can see compared to the size of the earth means the earth is "virtually flat" regardless of the model we use. But, in the flat earth model the ground beneath our feet to as far as we can see, even with a telephoto lens, is "actually flat". In the globe model the ground beneath our feet is gradually dropping away from us and is not actually flat.

If the earth is virtually flat then it would follow that we see the horizon at virtual eye level. This would mean that the horizon is seen for both flat earth and globe earth at about the same place in our eye. But in FE it's said we see the horizon actually at eye level. In GE the horizon is not actually at eye level even though it seems to be but we are actually looking slightly down at the horizon of a curved earth.

Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, and Drop
On the Metabunk website is a drawing that illustrates the location of the horizon "bulge" in relation to eye level, and surface level. Eye level is looking straight forward parallel to the ground as if the surface level is flat and not curved. The bulge of the earth is below the surface level of the curved earth. For a viewer with his eye at 6 feet above the ground the horizon is 3 miles away. At the three mile distance to the horizon, eye level remains 6 feet above the flat surface level. The flat surface level is 6 feet above the horizon bulge level of the curved earth. So, the horizon from eye level to the actual curved level, the horizon bulge, is a 12 foot drop.

1. Eye level-----------------6 foot above surface level
2. Surface level-----------0
3. Horizon bulge---------6 foot below surface level

So, though it may seem that we are looking straight ahead at the horizon we are actually looking down on a curved earth with a 6 foot drop from surface level and a 12 foot drop from eye level. But ironically the change in "vertical height" from where we stand at 6 feet on a beach looking three miles to the horizon bulge is only 1.5 feet.

How can there be a vertical rise of 1.5 feet when there is an actual drop of 6 feet from surface level and a 12 foot drop from eye level? The bulge is a rise from a line drawn under the earth from where we stand equal to the distance from the opposite direction it's not a bulge that rises above the actual surface. A three mile distance to the bulge at 6 feet up is equal to a three mile distance at a 6 foot view from the opposite direction. A straight line connecting the two points would be a little less than six miles long and the bulge would be in the middle. Again, looking down from 6 feet up at a horizon bulge three miles away is not a 1.5 foot rise in the actual surface--ground or water, it's a bulge from a point at the surface drawn under the surface of a curved earth 6 miles away to another point on the surface of a curved earth.

A bulge that's 1.5 feet in height above the ground we are standing on is much lower than a horizon that "virtually" appears at eye level--6 feet, above the ground we are standing on. This distance discrepancy is not "too slight" to be noticed or imagined. This is where I see the failure of the globe model in respect to the horizon.
Click to expand...
This makes absolutely no sense... even with a picture, which is so badly out of scale it misrepresents how the horizon actually appears.

DFT_Dave said:
Don't call me names, just show me the money / errors you think you see in my argument. I have used the Metabunk website as the basis for it. The author of the video made his case against FE and I have made my case against his. Both of us were respectful of each other and not a single ad hominem was used.
Click to expand...
Your "argument" is nonsense disguised in meaningless rhetoric.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Hey, [MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION].

I want to ask you, was the following image taken on the surface of a sphere or a flat plane?

View attachment 26533
 
C

chair

Well-known member
MennoSota said:
Purely out of curiosity...what does this thread have to do with theology?
Click to expand...

Though Dave won't say so out loud, it seems that he is convinced that the Bible says the Earth if flat. Therefore, if he admits that the earth is a globe, his entire religious structure will come tumbling down.

But hey- let's ask Dave.

Dave?
 
Idolater

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
chair said:
Dave?
Click to expand...
What if the minor miracle here, is that in spite of the earth being a globe, a sphere, spinning, and in perpetual freefall (orbiting) around the sun, it looks to us FLAT, and it still looks flat, even atop mountains and in airplanes? Maybe when God created, He specked out what He wanted, which was 'Day' and 'Night' Genesis 1:5 KJV, and then 'reverse engineered' the universe to perpetually provide it. That He was able to create a truly astronomically massive and huge universe, just to get 'Day' and 'Night,' is a miracle.

God wants it to look flat, and it does look flat. We have to do some pretty astounding things technologically in order to reveal the spherical reality, so I'd say He succeeded in creating what He wanted. Even though we know it's a globe, that fact doesn't change any decision making or procedure day-to-day for most us = to us, the world IS flat.

An apocryphal story has it that the philosopher Wittgenstein once asked a question: Why did we think for so long that the sun revolved around the earth? Someone answered, Because it looks that way. To which Wittgenstein said, How would it look if the earth is spinning and orbiting the sun?

His point is that how a thing looks, is ambiguous. It depends upon other things, how we see the thing.

I think. :eek:
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
DFT_Dave said:
Respect is shown and comes from one who chooses not to demean others.
Click to expand...
Respect is earned. You had my respect and chose to intentionally squander it. If you want it back, as I said before, you're fixing to learn that it's much harder to earn a thing than it is to squander it.

Trust is earned and comes when someone is found worthy of getting it.
Click to expand...
I'd say that the sort of trust you are referring to is basically synonymous with respect. And even if there is a meaningful distinction, there no way to have one without the other.

Respect is not trust, I'm not asking you to trust me I'm asking you to respect me.
Click to expand...
I don't respect idiots, David.

Idiots are defined by the stupidity that they allow to escape their lips and which they permit to occupy places in their minds that ought to reserved for the rational and intelligent. Only idiots refuse to permit the strength of sound reason to persuade their minds. Only idiots are stubbornly loyal to stupidity.

When you stop being an idiot, I'll stop calling you one and will begin to treat you with whatever respect you've earned. Not before.

One can show respect to someone even when that person is not trusted.
Click to expand...
I do not distrust you. I don't think you're lying. I don't believe you capable of intentionally harming others. You're not a criminal or a con artist (same thing). You're just displaying the most profound stupidity and naivety that I can imagine, that's all.

That I, along with many others, have "honest" doubts about globe earth should not be cause for contemptuous ridicule.
Click to expand...
Nor was it.

How long will you keep repeating this same exact point as though I have not repeatedly responded to it by pointing out that this is NOT a new discussion and that the stupidity that is the flat earth theory has been so thoroughly debunked by me and several others that there is no longer any excuse for anyone who has read these posts to have any doubts whatsoever, much less "honest" ones.

Unless, of course, they're an idiot!

I see flaws in the globe earth model and no one in my opinion has dealt with them or answered them.
Click to expand...
WHAT?

Impossible! You're either blind or an idiot or both.

The person in the video I posted is dealing with the arguments made by FL and he shows that he understands them and even agrees in part about the horizon before he explains where and why he thinks they are wrong, respectfully.

I just posted a rebuttal to his horizon argument. If you can without attacking me, refute my rebuttal.

--Dave
Click to expand...
Whether I respond will depend on it's substance and if I respond, I'll respond to it the way I wish. Whether you like it or not is, unfortunately, no longer a factor for me.

Clete
 
Silent Hunter

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Clete said:
Respect is earned. You had my respect and chose to intentionally squander it. If you want it back, as I said before, you're fixing to learn that it's much harder to earn a thing than it is to squander it.


I'd say that the sort of trust you are referring to is basically synonymous with respect. And even if there is a meaningful distinction, there no way to have one without the other.


I don't respect idiots, David.

Idiots are defined by the stupidity that they allow to escape their lips and which they permit to occupy places in their minds that ought to reserved for the rational and intelligent. Only idiots refuse to permit the strength of sound reason to persuade their minds. Only idiots are stubbornly loyal to stupidity.

When you stop being an idiot, I'll stop calling you one and will begin to treat you with whatever respect you've earned. Not before.


I do not distrust you. I don't think you're lying. I don't believe you capable of intentionally harming others. You're not a criminal or a con artist (same thing). You're just displaying the most profound stupidity and naivety that I can imagine, that's all.


Nor was it.

How long will you keep repeating this same exact point as though I have not repeatedly responded to it by pointing out that this is NOT a new discussion and that the stupidity that is the flat earth theory has been so thoroughly debunked by me and several others that there is no longer any excuse for anyone who has read these posts to have any doubts whatsoever, much less "honest" ones.

Unless, of course, they're an idiot!


WHAT?

Impossible! You're either blind or an idiot or both.


Whether I respond will depend on it's substance and if I respond, I'll respond to it the way I wish. Whether you like it or not is, unfortunately, no longer a factor for me.

Clete
Click to expand...
:BRAVO:
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
DFT_Dave said:

The amount of view time for this video dealing with the horizon begins at 2:05 and ends at 6:13 which is only 4:08 minutes. I will address more of his video in another post.

For the sake of my argument I will agree with the argument made in this video that the scale of how far we can see compared to the size of the earth means the earth is "virtually flat" regardless of the model we use. But, in the flat earth model the ground beneath our feet to as far as we can see, even with a telephoto lens, is "actually flat". In the globe model the ground beneath our feet is gradually dropping away from us and is not actually flat.

If the earth is virtually flat then it would follow that we see the horizon at virtual eye level. This would mean that the horizon is seen for both flat earth and globe earth at about the same place in our eye. But in FE it's said we see the horizon actually at eye level. In GE the horizon is not actually at eye level even though it seems to be but we are actually looking slightly down at the horizon of a curved earth.

Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, and Drop
On the Metabunk website is a drawing that illustrates the location of the horizon "bulge" in relation to eye level, and surface level. Eye level is looking straight forward parallel to the ground as if the surface level is flat and not curved. The bulge of the earth is below the surface level of the curved earth. For a viewer with his eye at 6 feet above the ground the horizon is 3 miles away. At the three mile distance to the horizon, eye level remains 6 feet above the flat surface level. The flat surface level is 6 feet above the horizon bulge level of the curved earth. So, the horizon from eye level to the actual curved level, the horizon bulge, is a 12 foot drop.

1. Eye level-----------------6 foot above surface level
2. Surface level-----------0
3. Horizon bulge---------6 foot below surface level

So, though it may seem that we are looking straight ahead at the horizon we are actually looking down on a curved earth with a 6 foot drop from surface level and a 12 foot drop from eye level. But ironically the change in "vertical height" from where we stand at 6 feet on a beach looking three miles to the horizon bulge is only 1.5 feet.

How can there be a vertical rise of 1.5 feet when there is an actual drop of 6 feet from surface level and a 12 foot drop from eye level? The bulge is a rise from a line drawn under the earth from where we stand equal to the distance from the opposite direction it's not a bulge that rises above the actual surface. A three mile distance to the bulge at 6 feet up is equal to a three mile distance at a 6 foot view from the opposite direction. A straight line connecting the two points would be a little less than six miles long and the bulge would be in the middle. Again, looking down from 6 feet up at a horizon bulge three miles away is not a 1.5 foot rise in the actual surface--ground or water, it's a bulge from a point at the surface drawn under the surface of a curved earth 6 miles away to another point on the surface of a curved earth.

A bulge that's 1.5 feet in height above the ground we are standing on is much lower than a horizon that "virtually" appears at eye level--6 feet, above the ground we are standing on. This distance discrepancy is not "too slight" to be noticed or imagined. This is where I see the failure of the globe model in respect to the horizon.

Don't call me names, just show me the money / errors you think you see in my argument. I have used the Metabunk website as the basis for it. The author of the video made his case against FE and I have made my case against his. Both of us were respectful of each other and not a single ad hominem was used.

--Dave
Click to expand...

There is no bulge! :bang:

You just simply cannot be this stupid!

The surface of the Earth drops 6 feet in three miles.

If we convert miles to feet then three miles is 15840 feet. If you plug in those numbers here you find that the angle that you're look down at the horizon at is a whopping .0217°!

Someone with good vision cannot typically resolve anything less than about .3° which is more than 13 times as much as .0217°

So, yes, as far as we can visually see, the horizon is dead straight in front of our eyes, even though, in actual fact, it is VERY SLIGHTLY below our line of sight.



Now David, stop for a minute. Just stop and think. What I just posted completely refutes everything you said in three or four sentences. And I do mean that literally! It DOES refute it - utterly! If you do not see it then you need to just stop everything and refuse to take one single more step in this investigation of yours until you do. If you cannot see it then you are a walking blind man, groping your way along attempting to understand rainbows in the dark.

Clete
 
Last edited:
Nathon Detroit

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Clete said:
There is no bulge! :bang:

You just simply cannot be this stupid!

The surface of the Earth drops 6 feet in three miles.

If we convert miles to feet then three miles is 15840 feet. If you plug in those numbers here you find that the angle that you're look down at the horizon at is a whopping .0217°!

Someone with good vision cannot typically resolve anything less than about .3° which is more than 13 times as much as .0217°

So, yes, as far as we can visually see, the horizon is dead straight in front of our eyes, even though in actually fact it is VERY SLIGHTLY below our line of sight.

Now David, stop for a minute. Just stop and think. What I just posted completely refutes everything you said in three or four sentences. And I do mean that literally! It DOES refute it - utterly! If you do not see it then you need to just stop everything and refuse to take one single more step in this investigation of yours until you do. If you cannot see it then you are a walking blind man, groping your way along attempting to understand rainbows in the dark.

Clete
Click to expand...
Game, set, match.
 
Silent Hunter

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Clete said:
There is no bulge! :bang:

You just simply cannot be this stupid!

The surface of the Earth drops 6 feet in three miles.

If we convert miles to feet then three miles is 15840 feet. If you plug in those numbers here you find that the angle that you're look down at the horizon at is a whopping .0217°!

Someone with good vision cannot typically resolve anything less than about .3° which is more than 13 times as much as .0217°

So, yes, as far as we can visually see, the horizon is dead straight in front of our eyes, even though in actually fact it is VERY SLIGHTLY below our line of sight.



Now David, stop for a minute. Just stop and think. What I just posted completely refutes everything you said in three or four sentences. And I do mean that literally! It DOES refute it - utterly! If you do not see it then you need to just stop everything and refuse to take one single more step in this investigation of yours until you do. If you cannot see it then you are a walking blind man, groping your way along attempting to understand rainbows in the dark.

Clete
Click to expand...
:bravo:
:bravo:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top