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

[DFT_Dave]

No Dave, this is not proof. Proof is for you to go get a piece of welding glass and mark with width of the sun on the glass every hour for a day. Proof is doing this one day per month for a year. Proof is taking pictures of your markings and the sun that clearly show the sun changes size according to the laws of perspective. Quit posting videos and go outside and DO something!

Sorry, but these videos are valid evidence.

I know they don't work for globe earth which is why everyone ignores them.

On one is even in this debate if they don't look at the videos and debunk them if they can.

I'm still working on Clete's triangulation argument so it's not that I discount it. I just don't think it's absolutely fool proof and not subject to presupposing an aspect of it that would negate it as a one punch, case closed, knock out of flat earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Perspective is not relevant to the argument and it is 1000% total proof that the Earth CANNOT be flat - period.

There are two and only two avenues of attack against the argument.

You can challenge the veracity of the data we (i.e. people participating in this thread) collected.

You can challenge the veracity of the Pythagorean Theorem.

Until that is done, any arguments about the idea that the Bible teaches a flat Earth is an argument that the Bible is false.

I'll take the third option: I just don't think it's absolutely fool proof and not subject to presupposing an aspect of it that would negate it as a one punch, case closed, knock out of flat earth.

Perspective and the videos I've shown are valid if you like it or not.

You're to late, Heliocentrism has already been used to nullify the Bible for many.

I'm still looking at your argument, I have not discounted it.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Dave,

I need to clarify something. When I said the distance to the Sun was not relevant, that was slightly incorrect. It is relevant to each individual calculation in my proof that the Earth cannot be flat but it is not relevant in the refutation of the argument because...

Based on the data we collected last spring, if the Earth were flat the Sun would have been at high noon somewhere on Earth 1.72 million miles from my house in Houston, Texas and 40 seconds later it would have been high noon 14,700 miles west of Denver Colorado.

1. The Earth isn't big enough to account for either distance

2. The Sun cannot be in two places at once. (Or, the Sun would have had to travel East not West at about 22% of the speed of light during the 40 seconds that elapse between the two photos.)

The distance to the Sun would be relevant to point one, but not point two.

In other words, if you want to propose a different distance to the Sun, I'll redo the calculations and it'll still prove that the Earth cannot be flat because there's no number you can substitute for the 3000 that won't put the Sun in two places at once. In fact, the bigger the number you put in there, the worse it gets for you. So, as I said, I don't care how far away you think the Sun is. It will not help you. No matter what, your flat Earth goose is cooked. The Earth is not flat and the Bible, being a book of truth, does not teach otherwise.

Clete

 

[Stripe]

It's silly to argue with math. :chuckle:

Or Clete. :Clete:

 

[Clete]

I'll take the third option: I just don't think it's absolutely fool proof and not subject to presupposing an aspect of it that would negate it as a one punch, case closed, knock out of flat earth.

That would qualify as a presupposition that I am making a presupposition.

That is not a rational argument, David!

If I have made a question begging error then tell me what it is. I wrote the post. I made the argument and I know what went into making it. I didn't assume anything other than the numbers that are specfically listed in the post and the veracity of the Pythagorean Theorem.

If you think I've done otherwise then the burden in on you to show it, not on me to prove that it isn't there.

Perspective and the videos I've shown are valid if you like it or not.

Saying it doesn't make it so, David.

Perspective, even by your irrationally convoluted use of it, only affects the APPARENT SIZE of an object, not it's position in the sky. The angle above the horizon is not affected by perspective but only by its elevation above the ground and its distance from the observer.

You're to late, Heliocentrism has already been used to nullify the Bible for many.

"For many" is not a rational argument. The bible is either falsified by a globe Earth or it isn't, regardless of how many agree with it.

I'm still looking at your argument, I have not discounted it.

--Dave

What's there to look at?

My children could fully understand the argument after a single reading.

Clete

 

[CabinetMaker]

Sorry, but these videos are valid evidence.

I know they don't work for globe earth which is why everyone ignores them.

On one is even in this debate if they don't look at the videos and debunk them if they can.

I'm still working on Clete's triangulation argument so it's not that I discount it. I just don't think it's absolutely fool proof and not subject to presupposing an aspect of it that would negate it as a one punch, case closed, knock out of flat earth.

--Dave

The video's are not valid evidence. Most of the videos do not account for the flaring that happens when a camera looks into an extremely bright light. You claim that this flaring proves that the sun gets smaller as it sets. If you want to use a video then you must use one that accounts for the optical effects caused by the photographic equipment used to create the video.

None of the videos you have posted have ever shown the sun shrinking to a point at the vanishing point (horizon), not even close. Why can't you post a video showing the sun shrinking to a dot? Why have you never posted an explanation of why the sun does not behave as perspective dictates it must?

 

[DFT_Dave]

That would qualify as a presupposition that I am making a presupposition.

That is not a rational argument, David!

If I have made a question begging error then tell me what it is. I wrote the post. I made the argument and I know what went into making it. I didn't assume anything other than the numbers that are specfically listed in the post and the veracity of the Pythagorean Theorem.

If you think I've done otherwise then the burden in on you to show it, not on me to prove that it isn't there.


Saying it doesn't make it so, David.

Perspective, even by your irrationally convoluted use of it, only affects the APPARENT SIZE of an object, not it's position in the sky. The angle above the horizon is not affected by perspective but only by its elevation above the ground and its distance from the observer.


"For many" is not a rational argument. The bible is either falsified by a globe Earth or it isn't, regardless of how many agree with it.


What's there to look at?

My children could fully understand the argument after a single reading.

Clete

Perspective deals with how far we can see into the distance across a plane and it is relevant. Saying it isn't doesn't make it so. Perspective does not just deal with size, it states that things that move beyond the horizon line will disappear from our sight because they merge into the horizon.

The angle of the sun, in itself, does not tell us how far away the sun is from the earth. But I grant you that the calculations you have made need to be studied along with other calculations that have been made to prove the globe earth.

God has allowed us to be mistaken about many things about His word, His nature, and the world, just not about His Son.

Saying the Bible favors FE over the GE is not an absolute statement. The earth is flat and stationary from earth and as high as we can see from 20 miles above it. The video's from high altitude all agree with flat earth as I have shown and you have ignored.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The video's are not valid evidence. Most of the videos do not account for the flaring that happens when a camera looks into an extremely bright light. You claim that this flaring proves that the sun gets smaller as it sets. If you want to use a video then you must use one that accounts for the optical effects caused by the photographic equipment used to create the video.

None of the videos you have posted have ever shown the sun shrinking to a point at the vanishing point (horizon), not even close. Why can't you post a video showing the sun shrinking to a dot? Why have you never posted an explanation of why the sun does not behave as perspective dictates it must?

There a number of factors that cause the sun not to shrink perfectly at the horizon.

1. Horizon atmospheric density

2. Horizon atmospheric refraction and diffraction

3. Horizon magnification or lensing

4. Land mass elevation above horizon line

But without doubt video has proven the sun does shrink at the horizon as per the last three or four videos that I posted from high altitude.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Perspective deals with how far we can see into the distance across a plane and it is relevant. Saying it isn't doesn't make it so. Perspective does not just deal with size, it states that things that move beyond the horizon line will disappear from our sight because they merge into the horizon.

How long will you keep telling these lies?

Perspective does NOT "deal with how far we can see into the distance across a plane". That is just some nonsense that you made up or picked up from some other confused person.

Perspective as it is being discussed here is simply the relationship of the apparent size of an object based on its distance from the observer. It has NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to do with anything "merging into the horizon".

The angle of the sun, in itself, does not tell us how far away the sun is from the earth. But I grant you that the calculations you have made need to be studied along with other calculations that have been made to prove the globe earth.

View attachment 26624
In YOUR model, the Sun is WELL above the horizon even at its FARTHEST possible distance from the observer.

God has allowed us to be mistaken about many things about His word, His nature, and the world, just not about His Son.

Well, la de da. Start another thread.

Saying the Bible favors FE over the GE is not an absolute statement. The earth is flat and stationary from earth and as high as we can see from 20 miles above it. The video's from high altitude all agree with flat earth as I have shown and you have ignored.

Only if you disallow the videos and pictures that you assume are wrong or "fake".

Your selection of which ones are "real" and which ones are "fake" is completely arbitrary to suit your preference.

 

[Right Divider]

There a number of factors that cause the sun not to shrink perfectly at the horizon.

1. Horizon atmospheric density

2. Horizon atmospheric refraction and diffraction

3. Horizon magnification or lensing

4. Land mass elevation above horizon line

But without doubt video has proven the sun does shrink at the horizon as per the last three or four videos that I posted from high altitude.

--Dave

Here we go AGAIN.... AGAIN the Sun both SHRINKS and DOESN'T SHRINK.

 

[everready]

This flat earth is it a rectangle or a cube.. Is it like a football field or is it box shaped? If we drill down to the center of the earth we end up with 3,949.9 miles then you need to go another 3,958.8 miles to reach the opposite side.. According to..

https://www.universetoday.com/65230/how-many-miles-to-the-center-of-the-earth/#

everready

 

[DFT_Dave]

How long will you keep telling these lies?

Perspective does NOT "deal with how far we can see into the distance across a plane". That is just some nonsense that you made up or picked up from some other confused person.

Perspective as it is being discussed here is simply the relationship of the apparent size of an object based on its distance from the observer. It has NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to do with anything "merging into the horizon".

In YOUR model, the Sun is WELL above the horizon even at its FARTHEST possible distance from the observer.

Well, la de da. Start another thread.

Only if you disallow the videos and pictures that you assume are wrong or "fake".

Your selection of which ones are "real" and which ones are "fake" is completely arbitrary to suit your preference.

View attachment 26624

We never see the sun like this.

View attachment 26625

This is how we see it, putting it backwards is being deceptive.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Here we go AGAIN.... AGAIN the Sun both SHRINKS and DOESN'T SHRINK.

No, it shrinks, but the degree of that shrinkage is affected by the horizon factors.

--Dave

 

[CabinetMaker]

There a number of factors that cause the sun not to shrink perfectly at the horizon.

1. Horizon atmospheric density

2. Horizon atmospheric refraction and diffraction

3. Horizon magnification or lensing

4. Land mass elevation above horizon line

But without doubt video has proven the sun does shrink at the horizon as per the last three or four videos that I posted from high altitude.

--Dave

Your theory of perspective REQUIRES that the sun shrink to a dot at the horizon. This does not ever happen in any of the videos you have posted. Atmospheric density will not alter the size of the sun though it can filter solar flare resulting in a more accurate view of the solar disk. Atmospheric refraction and diffraction will not significantly alter the size of the sun. I would find it extremely odd that lensing at the horizon only effects the size of the sun. Why doesn't it make other objects larger by the same factor? Land mass above the horizon line does nothing to explain what we see over the ocean, or the great salt flats or the rolling plains of Kansas. And you, nor anybody else defending flat Earth, has ever offered any explanation for this.

Look at this picture. There are no special effects here, just a picture taken by an average person. Note that the railroad tracks converge to the vanishing point yet the moon does not. In fact, part of the moon is obscured at the horizon. How can this be? Your first claim will be that it is CGI but here is the link to many similar pictures.

 

[Right Divider]

View attachment 26624

We never see the sun like this.

View attachment 26625

This is how we see it, putting it backwards is being deceptive.

--Dave

You're a complete dork, Dave.

I'm NOT attempted to show a 3D view ... I'm showing you the SIMPLE GEOMETRY that DEFIES the flat earth "model".

Once AGAIN, you are attempting to mix apples and orange. Enjoy your completely CONFUSED fruit salad!

 

[Right Divider]

No, it shrinks, but the degree of that shrinkage is affected by the horizon factors.

--Dave

And YET any LEGITIMATE imagery (video or pictures) that makes sure NOT TO OVER-SATURATE the imagery shows that the Sun does NOT CHANGE SIZE EVER (to the naked eye) .... PERIOD.

 

[Clete]

Perspective deals with how far we can see into the distance across a plane and it is relevant.

It IS NOT relevant to the argument I have made!

No one has denied the ability to see all the way to the Sun in both those photos and so how is "how far we can see into the distance across a plane" relevant to the argument?

All we did is measure the angle from the horizon to the Sun at near simultaneous moments from two different locations. We could both see the Sun perfectly well as is evident in the photos. There were no clouds in the way, it wasn't hazy, it wasn't over a big body of water where there would be any weird temperature inversions. It was just two photos of the Sun taken at the same time from two different locations with the angle measured up from the horizon.

All I did from there was to plug in the numbers into the Pythagorean Theorem. Numbers that no one disputes with the exception of the altitude of the Sun above the Earth's surface which I intentionally used the Flat Earther's number of 3000 miles. And, as I've said before, if you want to use a different number then tell me what number you want to use and we'll use it.

Saying it isn't doesn't make it so.

THE ARGUMENT IS THERE FOR EVERYONE TO READ YOU COMPLETE BLITHERING IDIOT!!!!

I'm not merely making an unsupported claim. The argument is laid out in totally plain English that any middle schooler could easily follow and totally understand.

Perspective does not just deal with size, it states that things that move beyond the horizon line will disappear from our sight because they merge into the horizon.

That's utter stupidity but okay fine! How in Hell is that at all relevant to my argument?

How does the idea the Sun melts into the horizon (in direct contradiction to everyone's every day experience of watching the Sunset with their own eyes) speak to even one single point in my argument?

Be specific! Which point of the argument is touched in any respect by this retarded idea.

The angle of the sun, in itself, does not tell us how far away the sun is from the earth. But I grant you that the calculations you have made need to be studied along with other calculations that have been made to prove the globe earth.

No one has suggested that the angle, in itself, tells us how far away it is. It doesn't matter how far way it is. The number I used for how far away it is from the Earth is the Flat-Earther's own number - YOUR OWN NUMBER!

But it doesn't matter. If you don't like 3000 miles, what number do you like?

300?

30,000?

300,000?

3,000,000,000?

Pick one! I do not care which because it IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT!

Don't believe me? Then pick one and I'll do the calculations again and no matter what number you pick, my argument still flatly falsifies the Flat Earth model.

God has allowed us to be mistaken about many things about His word, His nature, and the world, just not about His Son.

Saying the Bible favors FE over the GE is not an absolute statement. The earth is flat and stationary from earth and as high as we can see from 20 miles above it. The video's from high altitude all agree with flat earth as I have shown and you have ignored.

I didn't ignore them when this thing got started, David. I spent hours refuting these asinine videos and you systematically ignored every syllable of what I wrote, so let's not be a hypocrite by bitching about me ignoring your videos which I only began ignoring after having repeatedly begged you to make the argument yourself, which you also refused to do for what felt like forever and still mostly don't do now.

As for what the Earth seems like to us on or near the surface, the fact that is appears flat is precisely why it is not wrong for people to talk about the Earth in those terms. It is not wrong to discuss the Sun rising and setting even though it's actually the Earth rotating on it's axis and the Sun only appears to us to be rising and setting. It isn't wrong to discuss something in terms that are consistent with people's general ideas about the way things are, especially when the details about the reality of things are both irrelevant to the point being made and sufficiently outside the audience's paradigm as to be impossible for them to understand or accept.

Imagine if, instead of stating that God made the Sun stand still in the sky for a day, Joshua had instead said that God stopped the Earth from spinning. How would that have made any sense to the people he was speaking too or the people who read the book of Joshua? Everyone, including people today, who know that the Earth orbits the Sun, know intuitively what it meant. It made total sense when it was said, it made total sense when it was written and it still makes total sense all the way to today. Why? Because whether the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth orbits the Sun, it would LOOK the same to us down here on the surface. Same exact point goes for discussing how the Earth seems flat. The point being simply that the Bible is not science text book and there is no need nor requirement for it to discuss things in terms that are outside of paradigm of every day experience.

Science, on the other hand, MUST discuss things outside the context of every day experience. That's what science is for. If the truth of reality were always conveyed accurately by our senses then there would be no need for the scientific method. Observation plays an important role in science but it is merely one step in the scientific method which is intended to find the objective truth by the application of sound reason to carefully collected data.

"The Earth seems flat, therefore it is flat." Is not a scientific statement and that is the essence of basically every flat-earth argument.

Clete

 

[Clete]

View attachment 26624

We never see the sun like this.

View attachment 26625

This is how we see it, putting it backwards is being deceptive.

--Dave

How is it backwards? You're thinking of the wrong triangle. Read the following very carefully...

It isn't backwards. And the argument isn't dependent on which direction the triangle is drawn anyway. Draw it the other way around if you want. The difference is equivalent to one being a sunrise and the other a sunset or the difference between watching the sunset in June vs December.

The triangle doesn't care which way it's drawn. The short side of the triangle is created by the sun being directly over head on some point on the Earth (the subsolar point) and represents the distance from the Earth to the Sun while the longer side, at 90° to the short side, is the distance along the surface of a flat earth between the sub-solar point and any observer at any other point on a flat Earth.

It doesn't make any difference which way you draw the triangle. It can represent an east to west direction or a west to east direction. It doesn't matter one bit. The Pythagorean Theorem dictates everything about any right triangle no matter it's orientation.

 

[Right Divider]

How is it backwards?

It isn't backwards. And the argument is dependent on which direction the triangle is drawn anyway. Draw it the other way around if you want. The difference is equivalent to one being a sunrise and the other a sunset or the difference between watching the sunset in June vs December.

The triangle doesn't care which way it's drawn. The short side is created by the sun being directly over head on some point on the Earth (the sub-solar point) while the longer side at 90° to the short side is the distance on a flat earth between the sub-solar point and any observer at any other point on a flat Earth.

It doesn't make any difference which way you draw the triangle. It can represent a east to west direction or a west to east direction. It doesn't matter one bit. The Pythagorean Theorem dictates everything about any right triangle.

It appears that Dave never got past the second grade.

 

[Yorzhik]

I have been back to work lately and not had time to post as much as I would like so I have to focus on one argument, or the line of argument, that focuses on the horizon.

--Dave

Right. And I focused on the horizon. Don't you think it's rational for someone to question your seriousness when they agree to your parameters of debate and you still ignore them?