I understand triangulation and your argument for a globed earth. I also understand perspective and mirages that indicate a flat earth. I'm sorry you don't see my dilemma as legitimate.
--Dave
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
I understand triangulation and your argument for a globed earth. I also understand perspective and mirages that indicate a flat earth. I'm sorry you don't see my dilemma as legitimate.
--Dave
This isn't a trial in a court system, you're not a witness in a trial, and I'm just trying to get you to think outside your flat box for a moment.
Answer the question, Dave:
When you look at the concave side of a spoon, what does your reflection look like? Is it upside down, or right side up?
I'm not going to respond to your questioning, it's leading the witness regardless if it's a trial or not.
Address my commentary about mirages by making your point, I'm not going to make it for you.
--Dave
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
It's a fact that the Chicago skyline is PARTIALLY visible across Lake Michigan.
On the RARE occasions when the Chicago skyline is MOSTLY visible, it is due to SPECIAL atmospheric conditions that BEND the light to make MORE of the Chicago skyline visible than would normally be visible AROUND the curvature of the earth.
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Although interesting, this is more information than required to tell us why the Chicago skyline can be seen in the picture you provided from Michigan or Indiana, or wherever it was.
The skyline is below the horizon due to the earth's curvature. How then can it be seen?
The answer is atmospheric refraction. That which is just out of sight because of the earth's curvature can sometimes be visible because the light is bending due to local atmospheric conditions. The particular one you gave is called a superior mirage; it's a simple refraction with a reflection of that refraction off of a temperature inversion.
The reason anything can be visible below the horizon is because of the prismatic bending of light. The inverted image on top of it is a reflection of the bent image off of a defined temperature inversion line above the surface of the water.
The point here is that seeing something below the curvature of the earth is not uncommon and does not prove a flat earth.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Here it is:
The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.
The other side of the coin is that not being able to see something below the curvature of the earth under normal conditions proves that the earth is not flat.
I appreciate that, Dave. I really do. I like you as well. That's the only reason I keep pressing this.
Are you sure you understand it?
Because the argument isn't for a globed Earth. It does not prove that the Earth is round, it proves that the Earth cannot be flat.
Do you understand the difference?
I'm sorry that you do!
I'm sorry that you won't make the argument.
I'm sorry that you won't make any attempt to rebut ANY argument whether for or against FET, not even for your own sake.
As for mirages, that topic has been discussed to death. No one denies that light bends and reflects in all sort of ways. It's only you who seem to think that it somehow argues that the Earth is flat. It made no sense when this whole topic was brought up and it still makes no sense. If anything, such bending and reflecting of light offers a totally reasonable explanation as to why certain conditions cause things to be visible from further away than would otherwise be possible.
In any case, the fact that light bends and reflects has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the fact that a Sun that is only a few thousand miles above the surface would have to be BOTH only tens of thousands of miles away (which is still too far) and over a million miles away at the same time in order to account for what people on this thread have observed with their own eyes and recorded within seconds of each other with identical equipment.
At best, and I mean at the very very best, your mirage "argument" is evidence. I don't think it even rises nearly to that level but it certainly cannot be presented as any sort of proof. The math, on the other hand, cannot be refuted. It does prove that the Earth cannot be flat. The resolution of whatever dilemma you believe exists is therefore easy! Evidence does not trump proof, especially if that evidence doesn't make any sense in the first place.
Clete
Although interesting, this is more information than required to tell us why the Chicago skyline can be seen in the picture you provided from Michigan or Indiana, or wherever it was.
The skyline is below the horizon due to the earth's curvature. How then can it be seen?
The answer is atmospheric refraction. That which is just out of sight because of the earth's curvature can sometimes be visible because the light is bending due to local atmospheric conditions. The particular one you gave is called a superior mirage; it's a simple refraction with a reflection of that refraction off of a temperature inversion.
The reason anything can be visible below the horizon is because of the prismatic bending of light. The inverted image on top of it is a reflection of the bent image off of a defined temperature inversion line above the surface of the water.
The point here is that seeing something below the curvature of the earth is not uncommon and does not prove a flat earth.
So we have a belief that the Chicago skyline is below a curved earth and the only reason we can see the skyline is because of atmospheric refraction that produces a mirage of the city skyline.
We have a counter belief that we see the actual Chicago skyline and that it's not a mirage.
Which view is correct?
1. An explanation is not a proof.
2. That it's a mirage is assumed because of a belief the earth is curved and not the result of a test for verification.
3. How do we test or validate the existence of a mirage. In other words how do know we are seeing a real or actual skyline and not one that is a reflection of the real skyline?
I have posted several pics that demonstrate that the actual object above a mirage is the actual object and not a reflection in what is called an inferior mirage.
Superior Mirages
View attachment 26483
All superior mirages are above the object it reflects like a mirror. A reflection of the object appears upside down. In this pic the right side up ship is real and visible directly under it's reflected upside down image.
View attachment 26484
Here we see an actual island with an upside down reflected image of it directly over it.
A layer of air beneath an object can produce a reflection of the sky above it making it look like water over land in an inferior mirage. The appearance of water, that looks like a small lake, is the mirage not the object that is above it.
View attachment 26486
A layer of air beneath an object, like a ship, over water can also produce a reflection of the sky above it. The layer of water that looks like the sky is the mirage and "not" the ship that is above it. Ships over a mirage that reflects the sky will make the horizon line disappear as it blends right into it being the same color. The ship will look like it's floating in air.
When a layer of reflective air is above a ship an image of the ship will always be upside down. When a layer of reflective air is below the ship a reflected image will appear under the ship or their will be no reflected image only a ship that looks like it's floating in air.
View attachment 26485
Here we see an upright Chicago skyline with an upside down reflected image directly over it.
If the upright skyline in this pic is not the actual skyline we have two superior mirages. But any reflected image above an object, ship or land, will be upside down not right side up. This is an absolute fact. So we must conclude that the actual upright Chicago skyline is visible and cannot be a mirage. Nature cannot produce two superior mirages in the same location at the same time under the same conditions with reflections of and object one upright and the other upside down.
--Dave
Last edited:
I understand your argument is based on a plane/flat earth model and not a globe. I understand triangulation I just didn't know it was also called the Pythagorean theorem. I though his theorem involved much more than just basic triangulation.
I have not ignored your argument. I've acknowledged it as, along with the path of stars as seen in the southern hemisphere as good arguments for the globe. My challenge on these points is to flat earth researchers, not to you, as to how they can answerer those facts. If I have not answered as yet it's only because I'm still studying it and have not reached a conclusion or found a way to explain it. I'm working on forming arguments and not just showing videos as we have agreed that this forum is not just about video vs video.
For the shape of the earth from earth I see a different story. I see in perspective, superior mirages do not reflect actual objects right side up, and things we should not be able to see have been seen over distances that the curved earth should keep from view. Despite all the good people who worked for NASA over the years I don't believe we went to the moon. I don't believe we had the technology to do it virtually flawlessly without the loss of craft and lives six times. I'm challenging the status quo arguments for the curvature as seen from earth and just repeating those argument proves nothing, such as claiming mirages exist when we see things in the distance we are not supposed to see.
For me, at this time, I have a genuine dilemma. That I'm being dishonest about this is not the case. I have been and will continue to present the flat earth side to the debate as I explore and compare the arguments and evidence from both sides, not just one.
I have the highest regard for the integrity of everyone who participates on this website. There are Atheists, Calvinists, and Pantheists who I have debated here. I don't recall ever accusing any of them as being what I have been called in this debate over FE vs GE. The only good arguments are those that stick to the issue and don't address either side in a personal way.
--Dave
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
What I am trying to get you to see is that only the upside down image is the superior mirage.
The right-side-up image of the skyline is the actual skyline.
The actual skyline is visible because of atmospheric refraction.
Same idea as placing a mirror so you can see around a corner.
Then that image is reflected off of a temperature inversion barrier to produce the superior image.
Just as the inverted image is not actually in the place you see it, so also the right-side-up image of the skyline is not in the place you see it. It is down below the horizon.
The right-side-up image is not a mirage.
Last edited:
What is a mirage? A mirage is an optical illusion caused by atmospheric conditions, especially the appearance of a sheet of water in a desert or on a hot road caused by the "refraction of light" from the sky by heated air.
If the Chicago Skyline is actually hidden beneath the curvature of the earth then what we see is the reflection of the city and not the actual city. Any reflection that is above the actual city would be a superior mirage.
A refraction in which we see the actual city is not what we are told the chicago skyline is when we see it.
Mirage of Chicago skyline seen from Michigan shoreline
"Under normal conditions, even when extremely clear, this should not be visible, due to the curvature of the earth. The Chicago skyline is physically below the horizon form that vantage point, but the image of the skyline can be seen above it." --ABC News
A refraction of the city that is still the actual city would cause horizon magnification, which is what flat earth argues is the reason why we the top of the city and not the very bottom of it from 50 miles away.
Can I conclude from your post that you are a flat earther?
--Dave
The Pythagorean Theorem has only to do with right triangles. That is, triangles with a 90° angle in it. It basic means that since you know that one angle is 90° then all you need to know is either the length of two sides or the length of one side and the angle of one of the other two corners and you'll have everything you need in order to calculate everything about the whole triangle.
I wish I could understand how the argument isn't sufficient to persuade your mind.
How much stronger of an argument could there be?
It is not invalid to explain phenomena by citing their cause, David.
It isn't merely a claim to state that we can seen things past the horizon due to atmospheric refraction. That is the reason. Every time it happens, it does so because the light is being bent around the curvature of the Earth due to atmospheric conditions. If you want to claim some other reason then it's on you to demonstrate why some other reason is needed and on what basis you think that an alternative explanation is valid.
As it is, every time you look in a mirror, you see an image of yourself because light reflects off the surface of the mirror. There is no secondary cause. There is no alternative. There is no need for an alternative. It happens the same way, for the same reason, every single time. Same goes for seeing thing 50 miles in the distance. It happens because of one sort or another of mirage.
Okay fine. I'll take your word for it. But it's like I said, I cannot image a stronger argument and I cannot fathom why or how it could fail to persuade anyone who is thinking clearly.
I tried that, David. Both this and the first thread are all still here for everyone to read. I tried and tried and tried and you stubbornly ignored every argument and every refutation. Responding only with more and more and more videos and repeats of the exact same arguments that I had already offered multiple rebuttals of. I've done nothing but respond to your own actions (or lack thereof). I only became hostile after having literally begged you to respond to the arguments. I BEGGED YOU! REPEATEDLY! And you refused. What other conclusion am I to come too other than that you are doing something other than being the honest searcher of truth that you claim to be? You accept as valid every idiotic argument that the FET puts forward, seemingly without question and iron clad, solid as rocks arguments that cannot be refuted bounce off you like bee bees off a battleship.
The fact is that you ought to have been convinced that the FET is stupidity by the very first FET video you ever watched. They are all uniformly asinine.
Clete
David,
Do some real research of your own.
Go HERE and HERE and experiment with it.
Plug in whatever numbers you want and see if you can make a flat Earth work.
Hint: Don't make the mistake of only doing calculations from the surface of a flat earth. Do calculation as though the 90° angle is at the center of a globe as well. You'll need to be able to picture the triangle in your mind in order to plug the numbers into the right places but you're a smart guy, I know you can do it.
Note that the sites I've linked too don't have anything to do with the shape of the Earth. They're just there to do the math for people who are working with triangles.
Clete
Do some real research of your own.
Go HERE and HERE and experiment with it.
Plug in whatever numbers you want and see if you can make a flat Earth work.
Hint: Don't make the mistake of only doing calculations from the surface of a flat earth. Do calculation as though the 90° angle is at the center of a globe as well. You'll need to be able to picture the triangle in your mind in order to plug the numbers into the right places but you're a smart guy, I know you can do it.
Note that the sites I've linked too don't have anything to do with the shape of the Earth. They're just there to do the math for people who are working with triangles.
Clete
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
The question, indeed, is "What is a mirage?". All mirages are the result of different types of refraction. But not all refractions result in a mirage. We do not talk about a rainbow as a mirage; yet it is a refraction of photons prismatically, as is the apparent bending of a straw in a glass of water.
A mirage has the added component of fooling our brains into thinking it is something it is not. Such as water in the desert. Or a ship or city upside down or stacked.
No, a reflection is a simple direct bounce of photons in a straight line (like a mirror). Refraction occurs when light is bent or follows a curved path. In the glass picture above, we are looking at the straw above and below the surface. It appears to be in a different location than we would expect it to be, but it is the actual straw. The same is true of a skyline below the horizon. We are looking at the actual skyline, just with the benefit of curved vision due to atmospheric refraction. The mirage is the upside-down part above it.
Just because people use confusing terminology does not mean they are right. Similarly, just because ABC decides to titillate their audience, does not mean we should take them literally.
There is, indeed, a magnification due to lens effect. A city, a sun, a moon, will appear larger at the horizon due to the lens effect. This is also a type of refraction. Many factors often combine to produce different phenomena.
Seeing only the top part or the whole thing is simply a function of distance, curvature, and atmospheric conditions. Obviously Hong Kong is not visible because the curvature and distance are too great.
I have not used ridicule or any form of response that would be objectionable to you as some others have. So I don't know where this comment is coming from. I will take it as simple humour.
And I again challenge you to consider the silver bullet I gave you earlier.
Here it is:
The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.
The question, indeed, is "What is a mirage?". All mirages are the result of different types of refraction. But not all refractions result in a mirage. We do not talk about a rainbow as a mirage; yet it is a refraction of photons prismatically, as is the apparent bending of a straw in a glass of water.
A mirage has the added component of fooling our brains into thinking it is something it is not. Such as water in the desert. Or a ship or city upside down or stacked.
No, a reflection is a simple direct bounce of photons in a straight line (like a mirror). Refraction occurs when light is bent or follows a curved path. In the glass picture above, we are looking at the straw above and below the surface. It appears to be in a different location than we would expect it to be, but it is the actual straw. The same is true of a skyline below the horizon. We are looking at the actual skyline, just with the benefit of curved vision due to atmospheric refraction. The mirage is the upside-down part above it.
Just because people use confusing terminology does not mean they are right. Similarly, just because ABC decides to titillate their audience, does not mean we should take them literally.
There is, indeed, a magnification due to lens effect. A city, a sun, a moon, will appear larger at the horizon due to the lens effect. This is also a type of refraction. Many factors often combine to produce different phenomena.
Seeing only the top part or the whole thing is simply a function of distance, curvature, and atmospheric conditions. Obviously Hong Kong is not visible because the curvature and distance are too great.
I have not used ridicule or any form of response that would be objectionable to you as some others have. So I don't know where this comment is coming from. I will take it as simple humour.
And I again challenge you to consider the silver bullet I gave you earlier.
Here it is:
The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.
View attachment 26487
Here is a fish in water that we know is not where we actually see it from outside of the water.
But if we are in the water we will see the fish exactly where it is.
A city refracted over a curved earth is "not" at all like seeing a fish (or straw) that is in water from outside of the water.
We are not seeing the city through an atmosphere that we are outside of either. We are simply not seeing the city because it's behind a wall of water, no different than trying to see through a brick wall.
If the earth were curved the only way we could see the city skyline hidden behind and below it would be if there was a "reflection" of it, and above it, aka, a superior mirage.
Even if the cityscape was a refraction, we would have to believe that the same atmospheric conditions that produce the refraction could also at the same time, and in the same place, produce a superior mirage, which is not possible.
Again, the existence of an upside down superior mirage over the right side up cityscape of Chicago from 50 miles away over lake Michigan proves the right side up image is not a mirage or a refraction of the city, but is the actual city located exactly where we see it.
--Dave
Saying I'm not thinking clearly is what atheists, pantheists, evolutionists, liberals, timelessness theists, etc., say about you and me.
I'm simply not taking for granted the standard arguments for a globed earth and arguing FE arguments to compare them.
--Dave
Broken clocks
Yeah, except there's no comparison between the two!
It's equivalent to comparing the arguments for the existence of DNA (something you have no way of confirming first hand) and the existence of Sasquatch.
People who try to convince others that Sasquatch exists are lunatics, David. They are all lying - all of them. People who believe them are gullible, weak minded, followers.
FET is on par with Pyramid Power, Ancient Aliens and the belief that Mary Magdalene was the Holy Grail. Putting FET on equal footing with anything scientific is not to elevate FET but to degrade science. It is an insult to reason and antithetical to clear thinking. It is a fantasy propagated by liars for the express purpose of seeing how many gullible people they can fool into believing it. There is not one single good argument for it. Not one.
Clete
- Status