Great post Dave !!!
:mock: nasa
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
:mock: nasa
If you want, just skip most of this post and read everything below the dashed line...
The surface of a body of water 1/4 of a mile in length would be less than half an inch, which is far less than you can detect with the naked eye and any distance shorter than that gets really hard to measure. The curvature of the Earth over the length of a football field (300 feet), for example, comes to something like 1/10th of an inch.
It's flat enough to call it level, Dave.
Your implication is that the biblical cosmology is flat earth because it doesn't contradict the ancient Hebrews.
That is a classic argument from silence.
I will not debate the existence of gravity with you. There's enough stupidity happening here already.
The mechanism holding the atmosphere to the planet is the same as that holding you to the planet. And the same mechanism that must be overcome for birds and planes to fly through the atmosphere or for you to jump a centimeter off the ground or to pick something up. Rational people call it gravity but if you want to be stupid you can call it whipped cheese if you like.
What you've mostly done is ignore sound arguments allowing them to bounce off your mind as if stupidity has formed a force field around your brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I propose. Since I really do not want to turn you into an enemy over something so ridiculous, I suggest we don't debate it any further. Instead, how about if I just prove the Earth isn't flat myself?
This is a very busy time of year for me but as soon as I get a few things together and have the time to spend a few hours doing it, I intend to physically measure the curvature of the Earth with my own equipment. But before I commit to doing it, I want a commitment from you. I want an endorsement from you as to my proposed method and a commitment from you that you will abide by the result.
Here is what I intend to do....
There is a pond in a neighborhood a few miles from where I live. It is situated in such a way that I have a direct line of sight from one end to the other than is approximately 1.3 miles in distance. If the Earth is a sphere that is 24901 miles in circumference then in 1.3 miles the surface of that pond should drop away 1.3 feet or 13.56 inches. See http://earthcurvature.com/ for the math.
I have a 8" Schmidt-Gassegrain telescope that has plenty enough focal length (magnifying power) to see a target 1.3 miles away and I have a mount for the scope that I can set up so that the scope is nice and level (i.e. pointing at 90° to a line connecting the scope with the center of the Earth).
My plan is to simply set up a target, place it quite close to the scope and take a photo of the target nice and centered in the field of view. The view finder in my camera has nice small aiming points that will allow me to make quite accurate adjustments to the height of the target. Then I'll have someone take the target to the other end of the pond and if the Earth is flat, my scope should still be pointed at the same point on the target. If it's a globe then the scope should be aimed at a point about a foot above the where it was pointed for the closer photo.
Now, there is a margin of error. My equipment isn't poor but it isn't what I would call high precision either. I do however expect that my margin of error should be well within the 13.56 inches of expected drop from one end of the pond to the other. Also, there is the complication of waves to consider. I haven't fully worked out a system that will give me a consistent measurement above the water's surface but, once again, I should be able to work out something that still gets me well within a 13.56 inch margin of error. I know that I'll need to wait for a day when there is very little wind so as to minimize the target moving due to wave action.
Finally, I'm not a videographer. Chances are you'll have to settle for photographic evidence. In any event, I'll document as thoroughly as possible every step of the experiment including all the set up of the mount and scope as well as GPS coordinates of my location as well as each target location (I intend to take measurements from at least two or three locations at various distances.) Also, I will be relying on Google Earth to give me distances. As there are several variables that will effect the accuracy of my measurement, it seems distances to within .1 of a mile should be sufficient. (.1 of a mile translates to approximately .12 of an inch in target drop.)
So that's the gist of my experiment. Do you have any questions? Is there anything that you see that would constitute a fundamental problem with the propose method? Are there any suggestions that you have to improve on what I've suggested? Anything you care to contribute would be helpful. It's too bad you're not in Houston. We could do it together.
Clete
What?
The surface of a body of water 1/4 of a mile in length would be less than half an inch, which is far less than you can detect with the naked eye and any distance shorter than that gets really hard to measure. The curvature of the Earth over the length of a football field (300 feet), for example, comes to something like 1/10th of an inch.
It's flat enough to call it level, Dave.
It is an argument from silence. Your argument is that since the Bible doesn't say so explicitly and since ancient Hebrews believed the Earth is flat, therefore the biblical cosmology is flat earth.
Your implication is that the biblical cosmology is flat earth because it doesn't contradict the ancient Hebrews.
That is a classic argument from silence.
It's actually precisely the same in this context. You only think its different because you'd be able to feel the air moving past you if you were outside the car, otherwise it would be exactly the same in every respect.
If you consider the atmosphere to be part of the planet, which everyone does then you are indeed about six miles inside the planet. Whether you consider the atmosphere to be part of the planet or not, the fact is that you are inside the atmosphere which is also moving along with the planet just as the air inside your car is.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say.
I will not debate the existence of gravity with you. There's enough stupidity happening here already.
The mechanism holding the atmosphere to the planet is the same as that holding you to the planet. And the same mechanism that must be overcome for birds and planes to fly through the atmosphere or for you to jump a centimeter off the ground or to pick something up. Rational people call it gravity but if you want to be stupid you can call it whipped cheese if you like.
That's because I haven't been the one saying idiotic things.
Barely.
What you've mostly done is ignore sound arguments allowing them to bounce off your mind as if stupidity has formed a force field around your brain.
I know! That's why this is so infuriating to me. You have no excuse for this insanity.
Don't tempt me, David. If you think I haven't considered leaving this debate and simply putting you on ignore like I do everyone else that stubbornly sticks to ridiculously stupid things, you'd better think again. The ONLY reason you're not on my ignore list is because I think you're worth rescuing from this lunacy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I propose. Since I really do not want to turn you into an enemy over something so ridiculous, I suggest we don't debate it any further. Instead, how about if I just prove the Earth isn't flat myself?
This is a very busy time of year for me but as soon as I get a few things together and have the time to spend a few hours doing it, I intend to physically measure the curvature of the Earth with my own equipment. But before I commit to doing it, I want a commitment from you. I want an endorsement from you as to my proposed method and a commitment from you that you will abide by the result.
Here is what I intend to do....
There is a pond in a neighborhood a few miles from where I live. It is situated in such a way that I have a direct line of sight from one end to the other than is approximately 1.3 miles in distance. If the Earth is a sphere that is 24901 miles in circumference then in 1.3 miles the surface of that pond should drop away 1.3 feet or 13.56 inches. See http://earthcurvature.com/ for the math.
I have a 8" Schmidt-Gassegrain telescope that has plenty enough focal length (magnifying power) to see a target 1.3 miles away and I have a mount for the scope that I can set up so that the scope is nice and level (i.e. pointing at 90° to a line connecting the scope with the center of the Earth).
My plan is to simply set up a target, place it quite close to the scope and take a photo of the target nice and centered in the field of view. The view finder in my camera has nice small aiming points that will allow me to make quite accurate adjustments to the height of the target. Then I'll have someone take the target to the other end of the pond and if the Earth is flat, my scope should still be pointed at the same point on the target. If it's a globe then the scope should be aimed at a point about a foot above the where it was pointed for the closer photo.
Now, there is a margin of error. My equipment isn't poor but it isn't what I would call high precision either. I do however expect that my margin of error should be well within the 13.56 inches of expected drop from one end of the pond to the other. Also, there is the complication of waves to consider. I haven't fully worked out a system that will give me a consistent measurement above the water's surface but, once again, I should be able to work out something that still gets me well within a 13.56 inch margin of error. I know that I'll need to wait for a day when there is very little wind so as to minimize the target moving due to wave action.
Finally, I'm not a videographer. Chances are you'll have to settle for photographic evidence. In any event, I'll document as thoroughly as possible every step of the experiment including all the set up of the mount and scope as well as GPS coordinates of my location as well as each target location (I intend to take measurements from at least two or three locations at various distances.) Also, I will be relying on Google Earth to give me distances. As there are several variables that will effect the accuracy of my measurement, it seems distances to within .1 of a mile should be sufficient. (.1 of a mile translates to approximately .12 of an inch in target drop.)
So that's the gist of my experiment. Do you have any questions? Is there anything that you see that would constitute a fundamental problem with the propose method? Are there any suggestions that you have to improve on what I've suggested? Anything you care to contribute would be helpful. It's too bad you're not in Houston. We could do it together.
Clete
The truth is Stuu, the so called brainiac orchestrating this test took the standard curvature amount of 24 feet at six miles but forgot to adjust for the height of observer/telescope.
So there is no way this test was done honestly or correctly.
--Dave
No. Your ilk just rejects all facts that disprove your theory, and pretend that they are "debating" and "proving".
You lie to yourself and others. And you are wasting everybody's time, including your own.
It sounds to me like the brainiac narrating it was Stephen Hawking, one of the most serious braniacs of the 20th Century.
Maybe NASA paid for his wheelchair and so he stayed quiet about the conspiracy.
Stuart
Kepler's Under Pressure..??? [Flat Earth / NASA Fakery]
From Video : So last night I was reading a "news" article about how NASA's Kepler telescope/satellite has apparently gone into "emergency mode", and NASA's scientists and imagineers are working to see if they can salvage the expensive piece of equipment which has already "discovered over a thousand exo-planets".... Here are a few interesting tidbits I then gleaned regarding things such as the concept of "radiation pressure" (i.e., solar pressure, same difference..) and the specific way that images from Kepler have been used to "discover planets".
From Video : So last night I was reading a "news" article about how NASA's Kepler telescope/satellite has apparently gone into "emergency mode", and NASA's scientists and imagineers are working to see if they can salvage the expensive piece of equipment which has already "discovered over a thousand exo-planets".... Here are a few interesting tidbits I then gleaned regarding things such as the concept of "radiation pressure" (i.e., solar pressure, same difference..) and the specific way that images from Kepler have been used to "discover planets".
I see simple, everyday evidence that the earth is a globe.
I live near a bay, on top of a mountain. From my house, I can see a place that is about 30 km away. When I go down to the seashore- I can't even see a location that is only 12 km away. Why? (if you want to know where I live that this is the case- send me a personal message)
In the morning I see the sun rise from my house. At first I see the top edge of it, then half, then whole. Why?
DFT's approach to such things is to say one or a few of the following:
1. "you are lying"
2. If I send photos "they are doctored"
3. "just watch this youtube video, then you will see..."
4. "I'll research this further, and someday I will judge and come to a conclusion"
5. "The sun just looks small when it rises, then gets larger as the day goes on" - even though this is NOT what I observe.
He is dishonest with himself and others.
I live near a bay, on top of a mountain. From my house, I can see a place that is about 30 km away. When I go down to the seashore- I can't even see a location that is only 12 km away. Why? (if you want to know where I live that this is the case- send me a personal message)
In the morning I see the sun rise from my house. At first I see the top edge of it, then half, then whole. Why?
DFT's approach to such things is to say one or a few of the following:
1. "you are lying"
2. If I send photos "they are doctored"
3. "just watch this youtube video, then you will see..."
4. "I'll research this further, and someday I will judge and come to a conclusion"
5. "The sun just looks small when it rises, then gets larger as the day goes on" - even though this is NOT what I observe.
He is dishonest with himself and others.
You can't test according to the curvature of the earth and then forget to factor the height of the observer. No one would do that willingly unless they had a ulterior motive.
You should know that and acknowledge it. It doesn't matter who the narrator is, the test was done incorrectly by someone who didn't know better or who knew better and lied about the result.
This is one very good example of why I take flat earth seriously as a conspiracy.
--Dave
You should know full well that the identity of the narrator alters the rate of drop with distance. How could you have made such an amateur mistake with this?
With Hawking narrating, it's about 5 feet per nautical mile. That's an important difference. I think you should come clean about this, because someone was actually taking you seriously three pages ago.
Stuart
Can a fisheye lens explain this image? This was taken by the Suomi NPP satellite.
View attachment 26334
DTP... please tell me you are not a flat earther.
Wow. You believe CGI is real? You must have loved Star Wars.
The reason, as stated many times, is the perspective of how we see causes a horizon that limits how far we can see into the distance. The closer to the ground we are the less we see into the distance and the higher we are the further we see into the distance.
The ground beneath us rises up to our eye level, not actually rises, but to our perception of it. It's basic geometry that this rising perspective of our perception happens on a flat plane. On a sphere the ground would drop away not rise up.
The sun, moon, and stars are not the primary source for telling us about the shape of the earth. The earth tells us about itself, no help required. And the earth is flat and stationary with large bodies of water that are level. The sun, moon, and stars are lights that move across the skies and have no bodies of water and no life on them, which makes them totally different than the earth.
--Dave
Sorry but you don't get to simply write off evidence as fake.
Prove to me this is a faked or CGI generated image.
Watch the video again. When they see the helicopter appear it's six miles away and 24 feet above the ground. But the telescope is about three feet above the ground and at six miles the helicopter would be visible at 10 feet above the ground not 24 feet. I provided the link to prove my case.
Earth curvature calculator
--Dave
P.S. They were not using nautical miles in the test.
View attachment 26335
Just look at the clouds along the left side edge of the continent. A number of them end just at the edge of the continent. Clearly the person doing the artwork wanted to get a good enough definition of the shape of it so we would know it was Africa but that sharp an edge/line exposes it as photoshopped.
--Dave
Dave now you are just grasping at straws. Regardless of the less than precise measurements... the helicopter disappears from bottom to top as it lowers beneath the line of sight. This could not be possible without the curvature of the earth.
The clouds don't just end. Clouds are of varying density and thickness. Some parts of clouds are more opaque than others.
You admittedly know nothing about photography, computer graphics, and pretty much anything else... yet you are sure this image is faked??
At what cost will you hold on to this flat earth theory?? Is it really worth your entire reputation as an honest and reasonable person?
Dave... you now rank as one of the most ignorant people to ever post on this forum. Congratulations.
- Status