Do you mean to suggest that you(flat earthers) believe that satelites (weather, GPS, communication, etc) are being flown in a circle?
If so, what are they flying in? Airplane fly through the air, using pressure differencials above and below the wing to create sufficient lift to conteract the force pulling them toward the ground (gravity). Satelites are well above the atmosphere and even if they weren't, they have no wings nor means of propultion (i.e. engines of any sort). Just what do flat earthers believe is holding satelites in orbit?
On most days, that mirage would not be present and all you'd see in your camera is the empty horizon. All arguments based on what you see in that video are thereby refuted.
Not necessarily Dave, an elliptical orbit works just fine.An orbit is a circle. :beanboy:
Because of inertia. It's simple physics Dave. I'm really surprised that you don't know about these things, especially since you seem to want to be a teacher of just such things.No one has ever seen a satellite do a complete circle around the globe. We have only NASA to believe that this is happening. Just what does propel them? Once up there why don't they just come right back down and what keeps them on an exact course?
How does GPS work Dave?--Dave
Yet you claim that it is visible evidence that convinces you (flat-earthers) that the Earth is stationary and that the whole universe revolves around it once a day.
Long distance shooters do have to adjust for it, it's the explanation as to why that isn't correct. It isn't that the bullet suddenly loses the momentum it already had by virtue of having been in motion along with the surface of the Earth. It's a common misunderstanding of the Coriolis effect. It has to do with the preservation of momentum (angular), not the magical loss of it. In either case, the Coriolos effect is absolute proof positive that the Earth is spinning (i.e. not stationary).
Your video shows cherry-picked examples of atmospheric lensing whereas the one I posted explains why cherry picking is irrational and demonstrates such by showing counter-examples. In other words, the videos you posted present arguments that are dependent upon a phenomenon that often isn't present and that would have to be present every single time for the argument to be valid.
No, it isn't. That's the equivalent of you suggesting that my thinking that 2 + 2 = 4 is a matter of opinion.
The arguments have either been debunked or they haven't - no opinions are necessary.
As for the videos you've presented making arguments predicated on atmospheric lensing. The counter-examples showing very clear images of ships disappearing over the horizon from the bottom up without the atmospheric lensing seen in your videos REFUTE the argument made in the videos you posted by proving the major premise of the video's argument false.
What else does it mean for an argument to be refuted? What more could be done to refute it? Nothing! The argument is either refuted or it's unfalsifiable. In either case, clinging to it is irrational.
The last video I posted directly refutes many of the arguments flat earthers make and does so in several different ways. There are two other videos in that three part series that refute several more arguments. And I do mean that the arguments have been rationally REFUTED. Clinging to them after watching that video is a matter of belief, not science and not intellectual honesty.
It isn't just the opposite. What you see is not in contradiction to a large spherical Earth.
It simply a matter of scale. It works in both directions.
The fact that you can't see germs doesn't mean they don't exist. You have no more reason to believe in atoms, molecules, and bacteria than you have to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Why do you accept the one and not the other?
In fact, that question can be asked about anything that you haven't discovered to be true by your own personal investigation. Your objections to a round Earth are based on a premise that undermines your ability to know or understand much of anything. Society as a whole can progress to higher and higher feats of discovery and accomplishment because each successive generation is not required to independently verify the knowledge of previous generations. We are all allowed to stand on the shoulders of giants. It's called multiple source, independent verification. All investigation is predicated on it. 2 Corinthians 13:1
Clete
I can see the earth, unlike your examples, from the ground and from an air plane I can view it over many miles of what should be obvious curvature, and "all" visual evidence is that the earth is flat and stationary.
To say we can't see the curve because the earth is too large and then say we can see ships going over the curve is a clear contradiction.
--Dave
I didn't make an argument, I asked you a question: Why do two objects with the same density have different weights? I am trying to understand how gravity works in your flat Earth model.This is not a class and I'm not your student so make an argument. If you have a point to make, make it.
--Dave
I asked you a question: Why can two objects with the same density have different weights? I want to understand how gravity works in a flat Earth model.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
This is simply not true. The Dunes are about 250 ft. higher than the lake. And the bluff a little farther north along the coast is a little more than 100 ft above the lake. And, BTW, the dunes are less than 60 miles from Chicago.Yes, swells can hide things in the distance on the ocean.
But the skyline from 60 miles away should "never" be visible "ever" if the earth is curved.
--Dave
We have a whole hell of a lot more than NASA. You think that every satellite in orbit is owned and operated by the United States government?An orbit is a circle. :beanboy:
No one has ever seen a satellite do a complete circle around the globe. We have only NASA to believe that this is happening. Just what does propel them? Once up there why don't they just come right back down and what keeps them on an exact course?
--Dave
That's an opinion.
--Dave
This thread is over 1700 posts long at this point. There have been mutilple examples of visual evidence of the curvature of the Earth. You're in denial and need to wake up.I can see the earth, unlike your examples, from the ground and from an air plane I can view it over many miles of what should be obvious curvature, and "all" visual evidence is that the earth is flat and stationary.
This is the single stupidest thing you've said in this entire thread, David.To say we can't see the curve because the earth is too large and then say we can see ships going over the curve is a clear contradiction.
--Dave
We have a whole hell of a lot more than NASA. You think that every satellite in orbit is owned and operated by the United States government?
You know better. You knew better when you wrote this. Was this just you being the Devil's advocate, repeating some mindless argument you saw on a flat eath website or was this DFT Dave making statements he knew were false when he made them?
Multiple thousands of people would have to be in on the conspiracy to pull off keeping one single satellite in orbit over a flat Earth, Dave. Multiple thousands of people from scores of different organizations and entirely different walks of life. That is so far away from being possible that it is literal insanity to believe it.
And no, the would not all be circular! If the Earth is flat and laid out anything similar to the United Nations flag, which all flat earthers seem to agree on, there is no way to make a satellite go over (or near) both the north pole and what everyone has been tricked into believing is the south pole and have the orbit be anywhere near circular. It is not physically possible.
Not only that, but the satellite would have to dramatically speed up and slow down, covering 90% of the orbital distance in 10% of the orbital time and visa-versa. Utter lunatic, fantasy-land, nonsensical stupidity! That breaks every law of physics that exists. If the Earth is flat, there are no satellites in circumpolar orbits - period. The fact that there are satellites in circumpolar orbits (a whole lot of them) is proof that the Earth cannot be flat. Proof, Dave. If it isn't proof then the whole notion of a flat Earth is unfalsifible.
And the fact is that satellites do fall right back down. That's precisely what Newton figured out is happening with not just apples but the Moon and everything else that orbits anything. It's called the inverse square law and it is one of the most tested and firmly established ideas in all of science. The reason a satellite or moon doesn't crash into the ground is because it is moving vertically across the surface of the planet at a speed such that the curvature of the planet's surface moves away from the falling object at the same speed at which it is falling. That's what makes orbits happen, that's what makes them possible. No such orbit is at all possible on a flat Earth - period.
Clete
This thread is over 1700 posts long at this point. There have been mutilple examples of visual evidence of the curvature of the Earth. You're in denial and need to wake up.
This is the single stupidest thing you've said in this entire thread, David.
The ship has to be several miles away from you before it even starts to look like its going over the horizon and even then you need to augment your visual abilities in order to see it, not to mention the fact that it shouldn't disappear over the horizon in the first place if the Earth is flat!
Here is a short list of observable proofs for a flat earth:
1. There is no visible curvature.
2. All bodies of water are absolutely level.
3. All aircraft move over a stationary flat plain.
Arguments against these facts contradict sensory perception.
--Dave
I don't see GPS or satellites as a proof of any thing. The fact remains that you and I and 99.9% of the rest of the world don't "see" satellites circling a globed earth.
NASA controls space regardless of who owns whatever goes there.
--Dave
This is a claim that has already be repeatedly refuted. Distance does not cause something to vanish from the bottom up. If it was distance, it would just keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller. If that were the case, it would simply be a matter of our eyes limited resolution that created the horizon and that telescopes would allow us to see things as far into the distance as the resolution of the telescope would permit. But that is NOT the case. No telescope, no matter how big, can see Europe from New York or even half that distance.Ships disappear on flat earth because of distance, not curvature.
--Dave