Is the moon farther from America than Nepal in your model? Note, I never said how far away the moon is, I only noted that is farther away than the other continents. Do you agree?
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
I don't agree with your assessment of "flat" versus "curvature". You are changing a definition to suit your own purpose which is inherently dishonest.
I also note that I did not say that Kansas is relatively flat because of gravity. That is you once again twisting what people say to fit your own purposes. Kansas is described as flat because it has little difference in elevation. Your article doesn't discuss curvature at all.
View attachment 25234
You are avoiding the "fact" that, for example, the Chicago sky line should not be visible across Lake Michigan, not any of it. A 60 mile distance is a 2,400 drop. The Sears/Willis building is 1,450 feet tall. The "fact" that any of it can be seen at a distance of 59 miles "proves" the supposed curvature does not exist. A local news man, in Chicago, showed a picture some one had sent him and he explained that it is not possible to see the sky line from across the lake because it is far below the horizon due to the curvature of the earth. He said that the picture was a superior mirage. He explained how atmospheric conditions created it. But the sky line can be seen all day and all night every day and every night, except for fog, etc.
Seeing the Chicago Sky line from across Lake Michigan Link to pictures
There are plenty of pictures of Chicago sky line from across Lake Michigan. They are not mirages.
View attachment 25235
Why the Chicago sky line was seen upside down from Michigan Link to Nova article
Now here is a superior mirage. It is upside down from a visible right side up Chicago sky line.
View attachment 25236
Why are distant objects cut off at the bottom, as they get smaller and get further way before they disappear? I's because ground rises from below us and intersects at our eye level creating a horizon (horizontal) line. That line of maximum visual distance for a 6 foot person is three miles away. Anything we can see beyond that distance and is still on a level plain will appear to be just below our horizon.
Eye level-------------------- ______________________Ground level
Ground level gradually
rises up to our eye level
3 miles away and creates
our horizon line
Anything small will disappear from us beyond our visual limit. Anything large or tall enough that is visible beyond our horizon line is cut off at the bottom of our horizon line even though the object is on the same ground level that we ourselves are standing on.
Michigan shore------------------ ___________________Chicago sky line
Ground level gradually
rises up to our eye level
3 miles away and creates
our horizon line
--Dave
Dave, did you ever watch that SpaceX landing video I linked here?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Kansas is as flat as a pancake means it is flat and level from end to end. Elevation has nothing to do with what people mean by flat and nothing to do with what the study was about. You're projecting.
--Dave
Yes I have seen them and will see more of it then comment on what we see from rockets. I think I did this before but I will do it again with Space X included this time.
But I want to finish up on what we see from earth first.
--Dave
Which brings me back to an earlier question. Is there any possible evidence that would convince you that you are wrong? Anything at all?
I'm compiling evidence for one side while you are compiling it for the other. By comparing both sides every one can decide for themselves which side is the most compelling and more accurate in their mind. The question you ask presumes there is evidence that flat earth is obviously wrong to any one with any mind at all and that globe earth is an absolute fact. My answer to your question is that I don't think globe earth is an absolute fact in my mind. I see many inconsistencies with it that you will clear up with evidence you believe I don't understand or am not familiar with. Keep producing your arguments and I will respond from the other side because there is evidence and arguments from flat earth that you don't understand and are not familiar with. We will see how it turns out. At some time I will produce my comparisons and summary.
--Dave
The reason I ask is that you deflect a lot of information by simply saying "it is fake". So I wonder if there is any evidence that you will seriously consider. It sounds like you are the one making presumptions here.
You're back to not responding to arguments, Dave. Repeating your position doesn't count as a substantive response.
I am not avoiding anything! Remember this...
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. Nevertheless, attempts have been made to calculate them more accurately than the simple approximation described above. Horizon - Wikipedia Emphasis added
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. Nevertheless, attempts have been made to calculate them more accurately than the simple approximation described above. Horizon - Wikipedia Emphasis added
So the fact that we can see it from 60 miles does not prove of a flat Earth, in fact it is quite entirely the opposite. All the rest of your post was nonsense. On a flat Earth, the only reason anything would vanish on the horizon at all is because of the resolution of our eyes. It would be purely a function of distance. There would be no reason that the bottom half of a building would disapear faster than the top half. The only way for that to happen is if something is blocking our view of the bottom half of the building. What could that possibly be across 60 miles of water? On a flat Earth the horizon line comes up to our eye level but that doesn't mean the ground isn't the horizon! It doesn't mean that anything sitting on the ground would sink below ground level! All it would do is simply get further and further away, getting smaller and smaller in our field of view until it was below our eyes resolution at which point we would need lenses of some sort to see it. And something as large as a nation or continent would never become so small that we couldn't resolve it until is was many times further away than even flat Earth folks believe the Earth to be.
Lastly, I notice that you're claiming that all the footage we have of space and related things are all faked. That isn't possible, Dave. They didn't have digital SGI and other hi-fidelity special FX technologies in the sixties and seventies. The movies that got Oscar Awards for best special FX didn't come close to the detail and realism that we see in the rocket launches and Sky Lab footage and other Nasa films. Not even remotely close.
Clete
Dave, my point is that no matter what proof I or anybody else brings, you will say it is fake. So there is no space for logical discussion, despite your posturing as a reasonable person.
What will it take to convince you? A ticket to the international space station? Or will you explain it away: teh flight was faked. Everything was virtual reality....etc...
Dave, I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
I am also wondering why we can see the moon if it is greater than 3 miles away. You have said that three miles is all we can see in one direction. Logically, this must be true whether I am looking straight at the horizon or straight up. How can we see the moon if it is more than three miles away from us?
I imagine that post is in the same folder my question about the Flood is.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
:deadhorse:
When I have found that "thing" that makes me say I believe in globe or flat I will let you know.
--Dave
Last edited:
We all can see beyond 3 miles but there is a limit as to how far we can see across the landscape. If there is a car travelling down the road it will no longer be visible to us at about 3 miles. A car gets pretty small at 3 miles away, If we see any thing at ground level beyond 3 miles it's because it's large enough for that to be possible but it will be below the hozinon line of our three mile limit, not over a supposed curvature of earth.
Distance to the Horizon Calculator See link
The moon is large enough for us to see it at a great distance because it's in the sky. We don't see the stars if they are billions of miles away, we only see the light that has reached us after it has traveled though space. So if we can actually see them then it makes me wonder how that is possible.
The horizon line and vanishing point vs curvature is an important issue for me. I want to know how to test this so that one theory can be proven over the other and with out assuming one is true and the other is not. I have an art background so when the protest that the horizon line and not curvature was responsible for why we see things that hide the bottom of ships, buildings in the distance, etc. a said to myself that they might have a valid point. I am not just answering questions about flat earth I am also studying it. I have always been globe guy so I am familiar with the basics but now I am going more in depth on that as well.
--Dave
- Status