The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[ok doser]

That's almost got it. It isn't "those who measured Antarctica" it's "those who claim to have measured Antarctica". In other words, they deny that any such measurement has ever been made or even that it could be made.

Poe's Law is truly in full effect here.

quick thought experiment - if you positioned any number of ships equidistantly around the round earth model of Antarctica and communicated via directed radio waves between them - over the continent - you should be able to use radio directional finders to triangulate each ship as being directly (or obliquely, as the case may be) across Antarctica

in the flat earth model, they'd be beaming their signals out into the void beyond the edge


you could do this with planes and lasers too, i suppose

 

[DFT_Dave]

Who are these scientists? How did they refute it? Can their experiments be repeated?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

I have already posted those scientists who have refuted globe earth in the past. I will do so again, but, clearly you're not reading the globe earth side or reading what I have said about it. By ignoring the answers I have already given and asking multiple questions that are more rhetorical than probative is evidence that you are not here for debate. You're here just to be deliberately annoying. You're being very disingenuous by not being genuine about debating this. You need not be here to continuously express what is absolutely true in your mind. Don't be upset when I don't answer any more of your posts. I don't mind the questions I just don't care for your motive.

--Dave

 

[ok doser]

found a cool site with interactive globe models: https://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/physics/solarSystem/InteractiveEarth/interactiveEarth.html

 

[Clete]

In regards to the size of Antarctica on the flat Earth vs a globe, the flat earth folks might get away with suggesting that no measurement of Antarctica has been made. They can call any such measurements fraudulent or whatever because no one who discusses this (virtually) has been to Antarctica and certainly no one lives there.

BUT!

The exact same argument can be made from where it cannot be denied that we know with very great precision just exactly how big each piece of land is. If the flat earth map was accurate, then only the land masses closest to the equator would be close to being accurate in size. Land masses would measure larger than they actually do the further south you go from the equator and would measure smaller than they actually do the further north you go from the equator. The only way that Greenland can be 836,300 square miles AND Australia can be 2.97 million square miles is if the Earth is a globe. There is no way to account for the relative sizes of both land masses on a flat Earth. If the Earth is flat Greenland should be much smaller it actually is and Australia much bigger.

Of course, since none of us have the resources to do the measurements ourselves, the reported size of every country in the world could theoretically have been filtered through the Flat-Earth Conspiracy Control Board and modified to be consistent with a spherical Earth model so as to keep the Earth's flatness a secret!

 

[Clete]

quick thought experiment - if you positioned any number of ships equidistantly around the round earth model of Antarctica and communicated via directed radio waves between them - over the continent - you should be able to use radio directional finders to triangulate each ship as being directly (or obliquely, as the case may be) across Antarctica

in the flat earth model, they'd be beaming their signals out into the void beyond the edge


you could do this with planes and lasers too, i suppose

It wouldn't even be that complicated. If the flat earth model is accurate then the coast of Antarctica should curve around in one direction relative to the ship while on a spherical Earth it would curve around in the opposite direction.

So, if a ship has the coast of Antarctica to its Port side (left side) then, for him to circumnavigate the land mass on a sphere, the coast will curve around to Port whereas if the Earth is flat and Antarctica is not a land mass but rather an ice wall then "circumnavigating" it would require course corrections to Starboard (to the right).

 

[ok doser]

It wouldn't even be that complicated. If the flat earth model is accurate then the coast of Antarctica should curve around in one direction relative to the ship while on a spherical Earth it would curve around in the opposite direction.

So, if a ship has the coast of Antarctica to its Port side (left side) then, for him to circumnavigate the land mass on a sphere, the coast will curve around to Port whereas if the Earth is flat and Antarctica is not a land mass but rather an ice wall then "circumnavigating" it would require course corrections to Starboard (to the right).

brilliant!

has dave presented his model of Antarctica?

 

[DFT_Dave]

While I haven't yet confirmed this, I really think that atmospheric refraction has to be accounted for, which the video does not do.

Also, the video sort of testifies against its own premise. If the Earth was flat, shouldn't he have been able to video the entire bridge pillar all the way to the ground?
When he zooms way in, the waves at the edge of the horizon are in better focus than the bridge is and there is a section of the bridge hidden behind the horizon. In other words, you can see the bridge but you cannot see the surface of the lake all the way between the camera and the other bridge.

So, presuming that there is some optical effect happening due to atmospheric refraction to account for the otherwise unexpectedly large amount of the bridge that can be seen from that distance, I'd say that the video is pretty good evidence that the Earth is round.

According to curved earth he should have not seen any of the structure under the bridge. The little bit you cannot see is distance or waves that could hide the base only. If he had a stronger lens the base may have been shown, even telephoto lens have a limit of what they can reveal in the distance. Atmospheric conditions can also be why the base is not seen. To argue mirage is the "go to" when distance over water is shown to be flat not curved. As you say, you must "presume" what you see is not real, it's a refraction, in order to justify curved water. A refraction from a visible object would be distorted in comparison and there is no distortion of the supports of the bridge.

Nice try, but to argue that any evidence that objects can be seen beyond the so called curvature to be all mirages is to argue that there is no evidence that can negate curvature. That is also circular reasoning that "presumes curved earth" in order to reject evidence of flat earth.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

quick thought experiment - if you positioned any number of ships equidistantly around the round earth model of Antarctica and communicated via directed radio waves between them - over the continent - you should be able to use radio directional finders to triangulate each ship as being directly (or obliquely, as the case may be) across Antarctica

in the flat earth model, they'd be beaming their signals out into the void beyond the edge


you could do this with planes and lasers too, i suppose

Another method would be to place 3 omnidirectional transmitters equidistant around the perimeter of Antarctica, then triangulate where the center of the triangle formed by it would be. If it's at or near the north pole, then we know the earth is flat. But if the earth is round, they either should not be able to detect one another, OR the triangulated center would be near the south pole, almost directly south of the transmitters, instead of slightly north.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

i'm afraid this is impossible to explain - the measured diameter of antarctica just does not accommodate a flat earth model

I did in a response about the voyage of Captain James Cook. Did you see it?

--Dave

 

[ok doser]

I did in a response about the voyage of Captain James Cook. Did you see it?

--Dave

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-to-the-moon&p=4918560&viewfull=1#post4918560

i'll give it a look :thumb:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Actually, many claim that gravity is a form of energy deforming the space-time continuum. The extent to which gravity pushes the space-time continuum is related to the mass of the object causing the deformation.

For example, gravity is less on the moon than on earth.

Funny how we have accepted a "space time continuum" as if that were a rational concept, which it is not.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well, it didn't take long for me to confirm that atmospheric refraction does indeed play a very significant role when performing such experiments...

Effect of atmospheric refraction
If the Earth were an airless world like the Moon, the above calculations would be accurate. However, Earth has an atmosphere of air, whose density and refractive index vary considerably depending on the temperature and pressure. This makes the air refract light to varying extents, affecting the appearance of the horizon. Usually, the density of the air just above the surface of the Earth is greater than its density at greater altitudes. This makes its refractive index greater near the surface than higher, which causes light that is travelling roughly horizontally to be refracted downward. This makes the actual distance to the horizon greater than the distance calculated with geometrical formulas. With standard atmospheric conditions, the difference is about 8%. This changes the factor of 3.57, in the metric formulas used above, to about 3.86. This correction can be, and often is, applied as a fairly good approximation when conditions are close to standard. When conditions are unusual, this approximation fails. Refraction is strongly affected by temperature gradients, which can vary considerably from day to day, especially over water. In extreme cases, usually in springtime, when warm air overlies cold water, refraction can allow light to follow the Earth's surface for hundreds of kilometres. Opposite conditions occur, for example, in deserts, where the surface is very hot, so hot, low-density air is below cooler air. This causes light to be refracted upward, causing mirage effects that make the concept of the horizon somewhat meaningless. Calculated values for the effects of refraction under unusual conditions are therefore only approximate.[5] Nevertheless, attempts have been made to calculate them more accurately than the simple approximation described above. Horizon - Wikipedia Emphasis added​

The article is packed full of mathematical formulas. If anyone is interested enough to do the math, my bet is that the bridge video show EXACTLY what one would expect to see on a globe with a thick atmosphere.

Mirage vs reflection

A reflection and a mirage, both superior and inferior, are mirrored images of an object not the actual object itself. The video of the boat is above the horizon line and it is the actual object with a "reflection" of it directly under it. This boat is not a mirrored image of one that is below the horizon line, and actually out of sight, because of the curvature of the earth. If this were a mirage it would be a double mirrored image which would be impossible. A mirrored image of a boat would not have it's mirrored reflected image directly under it. A mirrored image with a mirrored image is never seen.

A reflection is a mirrored image that is upside down and under what is being reflected.
View attachment 25223

Here is a superior mirage of an actual ship. The mirrored image is upside down above the ship. The actual ship is not below the horizon line of a curved earth. If that were the case we would have another impossible double mirage, a mirage of the ship and it's mirage above it.
View attachment 25222

Here we have an inferior mirage under the object being mirrored. There is no question that the object of the mirage is actual and not a mirage itself. The mirage is right side up and not a true reflection which is upside down of the object it reflects.
View attachment 25220

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-to-the-moon&p=4918560&viewfull=1#post4918560

i'll give it a look :thumb:

From the article presented, it seems as if Cook believed the earth was round.

Quote (From Cook himself, no less):

"It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the Pole, or perhaps joins to some land to which it has been fixed since creation."

So not only did Cook believe that the earth is a sphere, he was a creationist, believing that God created the earth.

Dave, do you not even try to read the articles you present?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Is Kansas flat as a pancake?
"Three geographers compared the flatness of Kansas to the flatness of a pancake. They used topographic data from a digital scale model prepared by the US Geological Survey, and they purchased a pancake from the International House of Pancakes. If perfect flatness were a value of 1.00, they reported, the calculated flatness of a pancake would be 0.957 "which is pretty flat, but far from perfectly flat". Kansas's flatness however turned out to be 0.997, which they said might be described, mathematically, as 'damn flat'." --The Guardian (link from title)

View attachment 25212 View attachment 25213

"Mathematically, a value of 1.000 would indicate perfect, platonic flatness. The state is so flat that the off-the-shelf software produced a flatness value for it of 1. This value was, as they say, too good to be true, so we did a more complex analysis, and after many hours of programming work, we were able to estimate that Kansas’s flatness is approximately 0.9997. --Improbable Research

Kansas is 400 miles of perfectly flat level earth, with no curvature.

No one can refute this one

--Dave

 

[jamie]

Funny how we have accepted a "space time continuum" as if that were a rational concept, which it is not.

Good point, Dave. It may well be that only those who believe God created space and time would believe in gravity.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If perfect flatness were a value of 1.00, they reported, the calculated flatness of a pancake would be 0.957 "which is pretty flat, but far from perfectly flat". Kansas's flatness however turned out to be 0.997, which they said might be described, mathematically, as 'damn flat'."

"Mathematically, a value of 1.000 would indicate perfect, platonic flatness. The state is so flat that the off-the-shelf software produced a flatness value for it of 1. This value was, as they say, too good to be true, so we did a more complex analysis, and after many hours of programming work, we were able to estimate that Kansas’s flatness is approximately 0.9997.

Meaning that it's flat, but not perfectly flat (value of 1.0000).

Kansas is 400 miles of perfectly flat level earth, with no curvature.

No one can refute this one

By their own standards (calculating out to the 4th decimal place), Kansas is not "Perfectly flat" (a value of 1.0000).

0.9997 =/= 1.0000

Your statement that "Kansas is 400 miles of perfectly flat level earth, with no curvature" is false, based on what they said.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

In regards to the size of Antarctica on the flat Earth vs a globe, the flat earth folks might get away with suggesting that no measurement of Antarctica has been made. They can call any such measurements fraudulent or whatever because no one who discusses this (virtually) has been to Antarctica and certainly no one lives there.

BUT!

The exact same argument can be made from where it cannot be denied that we know with very great precision just exactly how big each piece of land is. If the flat earth map was accurate, then only the land masses closest to the equator would be close to being accurate in size. Land masses would measure larger than they actually do the further south you go from the equator and would measure smaller than they actually do the further north you go from the equator. The only way that Greenland can be 836,300 square miles AND Australia can be 2.97 million square miles is if the Earth is a globe. There is no way to account for the relative sizes of both land masses on a flat Earth. If the Earth is flat Greenland should be much smaller it actually is and Australia much bigger.

Of course, since none of us have the resources to do the measurements ourselves, the reported size of every country in the world could theoretically have been filtered through the Flat-Earth Conspiracy Control Board and modified to be consistent with a spherical Earth model so as to keep the Earth's flatness a secret!

The voyage of Captain James Cook.
The earth is a globe with a circumference of 24,874 miles at the equator. The South Pole is located at the bottom with a much smaller Arctic Circle around it. Captain James Cook sailed presumably around the arctic circle, never seeing Antarctica but not far from it, and he traveled over 60,000 miles in three years. That's much closer to the circumference of flat earth than to globe earth. Did he travel 2 and a half times around the globed earth, or did he sail once around the flat earth surrounded by an ice wall? His 60,000 mile journey is way too much for it to be around the Arctic circle.

View attachment 25224

Map of Cooks voyage around the arctic circle.

--Dave

 

[glassjester]

Captain James Cook sailed almost around the arctic circle, never seeing Antarctica but not far from it, and he traveled over 60,000 miles in three years. That's much closer to the circumference of flat earth than to globe earth. Did he travel 2 and a half times around the globed earth, or did he sail once around the flat earth surrounded by an ice wall?

--Dave

I put over 200,000 miles on my first car, and I never saw Antarctica either.

All that means is I didn't drive to Antarctica. So what?

 

[DFT_Dave]

From the article presented, it seems as if Cook believed the earth was round.

Quote (From Cook himself, no less):

"It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the Pole, or perhaps joins to some land to which it has been fixed since creation."

So not only did Cook believe that the earth is a sphere, he was a creationist, believing that God created the earth.

Dave, do you not even try to read the articles you present?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

I never said he believed the earth was flat. I know he believed it was round. But his 60,000 mile is much to great a distance for a journey around the arctic circle, 60,000 miles is 2 and a half times around the earth at the equator. He obviously made a much much larger circle than the supposed circle around Antarctica. Read what I has said and think about it so you misrepresent it next time. That distance is close to flat earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Good point, Dave. It may well be that only those who believe God created space and time would believe in gravity.

Space and time are not things so they were not created. Gravity is not in the Bible, and is not needed if God created a flat earth covered by a dome.

--Dave