The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Clete]

I didn't say, nor did the video say, that the sun "dropped down" into the clouds.

We look at these videos and try to determine if they are authentic.

Put down your reasons for why they are fake, if that's what you think

--Dave

Yes, the video did say precisely that, David! Who are you trying to kid here?


What exactly was the video attempting to say if not that the Sun had clouds both in front of and behind the Sun? How could that happen if the Sun wasn't at the same elevation as the clouds? If the Sun wasn't changing elevation then were the clouds? If neither, are they suggesting that both the clouds and the Sun were setting together and that they are always at the same elevation?

I was just on an airplane and know by first-hand, experiential knowledge that there are no clouds at the same elevation as the Sun above the surface of the Earth. So how would the Sun get clouds behind it unless it was changing elevation, dropping down to their elevation?

If the Sun does not do that and you acknowledge that, then what was the point of posting the video?
If the Sun does not do that and the people who made the video acknowledge that then what was the point of their having made the video in the first place?

The fact is that they DO NOT acknowledge that and the video was made precisely because they wanted to trick some youtube watching moron that their video is proof that the Earth is flat because the Sun was setting down into the clouds!

Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

There was a story about the Flat Earth movement in Colorado in my local paper today.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/07/colorado-earth-flat-gravity-hoax/

 

[Clete]

There was a story about the Flat Earth movement in Colorado in my local paper today.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/07/colorado-earth-flat-gravity-hoax/

I wonder how the powers that be, who created and perpetuate the globe-earth propaganda machine, slipped up and allowed the Denver Post to publish such a story or, for that matter, how, after centuries and centuries of successfully fooling everyone from kings to pessants the world over, managed to allow something as silly as an American company like Google, who owns YouTube, to crack the armor of their super super secret? (I love compound sentenses!)

I predict a sudden shake-up in the management of the Denver Post and a rash of tragic "accidents" befalling all these YouTube videographers!

 

[The Berean]

I'm amazed this thread is still going on. :chuckle: I was offered a job ( I declined the job) to build a large fleet of 600+ low Earth orbit satellites for Internet service.

 

[Derf]

Spoiler

Are you sure you want to go there? We have a fairly good handle on how high clouds get to be. Most are below 20,000 ft, a fair amount below the altitude airplanes routinely fly. Some are a little higher, maybe reaching over 50,000 feet. That's about 10 or so miles. Are you saying the sun is below the highest clouds, and likely below some of the lower ones--the ones we can and usually do fly over in commercial jets? Even 50,000 ft is below the Concorde's flight altitude, when it was flying. I can't recall anyone ever releasing pictures of the sun with the earth behind it, but let us know if you find some.

Let's do some math. If the sun at 93,000,000 miles distance has to be 875,000 miles in diameter to appear the size it appears to be, the sun at only 10 miles (52,800 ft) would only be 497 feet in diameter. Just for comparison, the Airbus 380 is 239 ft long. An airbus flying just under the sun, which you seem to think is possible, would cast a sizeable shadow over the whole day-time earth.

Despite how improbable it seems, though, I think we can back up this height with a look at sun-beams. I was driving into Colorado Springs yesterday about 7pm, and there was a beautiful example of crepuscular rays shining down on the city. I apologize for not snapping a photo, but I was driving, after all. Here are some photos that are similar, and you can get some idea of distance in them.

The rays I saw were hitting the ground at angles ranging from 90 deg (as measured from the ground, directly under the sun no doubt) out to maybe 30 deg, similar to the photos above. Since 45 degrees is in that range, I started thinking about the geometry of the rays, and remembered that the two short legs of a 45 deg right triangle, the ones opposite the 45 degree angles, are the same length. Here's a picture of such a triangle, with the short sides normalized to "1":

The rays I could see did not reach beyond the city limits, and since the total length of Colorado Springs that I could view was less than 20 miles, the half distance is 10 miles, which gives us a maximum for the length of the short sides of the 45 deg right triangle.

As you can see in the triangle image, that would equal the height of the sun from Co Springs. Co Springs is some 6000 feet above sea level, or just over a mile. That puts the sun right at 58,000 ft, or 11 miles above sea level.

Of course, this height is much lower than the distance given in most flat earth models. I wonder why that is?


The other interesting thing about your crepuscular sun beam arguments is that if the sun can actually illuminate clouds from below, as shown in your figure (below), then it once more gives evidence that the sun is much lower than flat earth models say. Low enough that we could fly over the sun.

[MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION], I wanted to continue with the thoughts on crepuscular rays, so I'm responding to my own post, while mentioning you. As I was pointing out in my previous post, the angles seen in the two photos of crepuscular rays hitting the earth (reproduced here for convenience)

Show that angles don't make sense for either the flat earth or the globular earth for a directly overhead sun, since the sun is obviously higher than our aircraft can fly over. I saw your thanks, Dave, so I assume you're still following, and since you haven't countered, I'll assume you agree. (Please correct my assumption, if needed.)

But it brought another thought to my mind. The flat earth (FE) sun and the globular earth (GE) sun are both representations of the sun we actually see, which is the source of the light for the crepuscular rays. I saw this video (I think you posted it or I saw it somewhere else. The video is saying that the sunbeams going through holes in cardboard don't splay out, but it actually DOES show them spreading wider than the holes. This is also seen quite well when observing a solar eclipse through a pin hole--the image is definitely bigger than the hole it goes through, just as the video shows.

The proximity of the sun is not enough to explain the splayed out sun beams, because the size of the sun in both models is sufficient to account for the appearance of size we experience. What I mean by that is that the FE sun at ~3000 miles and the GE sun at ~93,000,000 miles are the same size in our sky. Therefore, whichever is the case, the rays of the sun will still cause the same phenomena when directly overhead.

Therefore, for both models we would need to come up with a reason why we would see the crepuscular rays as we do, at the angles we observe.

Here's the GE model's solution:
The sun, as it sets, actually DOES reach an altitude where the crepuscular rays appear to emanate from about 58,000 miles. And it reaches altitudes that are lower, too, where it can appear to be behind (but not in) low-lying clouds. Looking at it face-on, the sun appears low in the sky, and the crepuscular rays emanate from it. If you were to look at the crepuscular rays edge-on, they would show much shallower angles, like those that appear to the sides of the face-on view (to the farther right on the pictures above). But viewing from the side, the angles get very small (measured from the ground)--these are the rays that hit your eyes when looking at crepuscular rays--the shiny spots of direct sunlight in one of the photos above.

So there are really 2 angles at issue--1 from the sun to the ground in a plane perpendicular to your line-of-sight, and one that is invisible from your point of view--the one in the plane that you share with the sun. These are going to be much smaller angles (measured from the ground).

And when I say "measured from the ground" it means from the tangent of the globe at the ground where the ray hits.

For the FE model, I'm not the preferred advocate--you should be doing this. But I haven't seen a lot of real math or logical thought, so I'll attempt it.

First, the angles do get smaller when dealing with the closer sun that always hovers over the earth, but they don't get close to zero without an extremely long baseline--the sun at 3000 miles high would have to be at 3000 miles distance along the ground to achieve a 45 deg angle of crepuscular rays that reach my eyes (this is along the invisible angle I mentioned earlier). This is approximately the angle of the sun as I viewed it at about 7 pm.

That's not too bad--it's somewhere over the Pacific Ocean, compared to my Colorado location. That means, of course, that it would be noon at that location over the Pacific Ocean--the sun would be directly overhead. Again, that's not a problem, except that it means that it is noon a the Hawaiian longitude. But we know that's not true, as Hawaiian time is only 3 hours different from Colorado time--so it would be 4 pm there. (Actually it would be 3 pm without Daylight savings time.) So the FE model is off in its timing by 3 hours.

This timing is different for different angles of the sunlight. If the angle from the ground is 30 degrees, the distance to where the sun is directly overhead in order to appear at 58000 feet is 5100 miles away--somewhere near Japan. But Japan is really at 9 am, not noon.

Let's try 15 degrees. The distance to "noon" (sun directly overhead) for a 3000 mile altitude is 11,196 miles away. That's more than half the distance around the world at Latitude 39 (Colorado), so the sun should not even still be shining, but it is at 15 degrees above the horizon. Even better, since it is more than halfway around the world, the sun is already coming up in the eastern sky in Colorado, but it hasn't set yet in the west. The sun would be visible on both horizons!!

 

[Clete]

[MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION], I wanted to continue with the thoughts on crepuscular rays, so I'm responding to my own post, while mentioning you. As I was pointing out in my previous post, the angles seen in the two photos of crepuscular rays hitting the earth (reproduced here for convenience)

Show that angles don't make sense for either the flat earth or the globular earth for a directly overhead sun, since the sun is obviously higher than our aircraft can fly over. I saw your thanks, Dave, so I assume you're still following, and since you haven't countered, I'll assume you agree. (Please correct my assumption, if needed.)

But it brought another thought to my mind. The flat earth (FE) sun and the globular earth (GE) sun are both representations of the sun we actually see, which is the source of the light for the crepuscular rays. I saw this video (I think you posted it or I saw it somewhere else. The video is saying that the sunbeams going through holes in cardboard don't splay out, but it actually DOES show them spreading wider than the holes. This is also seen quite well when observing a solar eclipse through a pin hole--the image is definitely bigger than the hole it goes through, just as the video shows.

The proximity of the sun is not enough to explain the splayed out sun beams, because the size of the sun in both models is sufficient to account for the appearance of size we experience. What I mean by that is that the FE sun at ~3000 miles and the GE sun at ~93,000,000 miles are the same size in our sky. Therefore, whichever is the case, the rays of the sun will still cause the same phenomena when directly overhead.

Therefore, for both models we would need to come up with a reason why we would see the crepuscular rays as we do, at the angles we observe.

Here's the GE model's solution:
The sun, as it sets, actually DOES reach an altitude where the crepuscular rays appear to emanate from about 58,000 miles. And it reaches altitudes that are lower, too, where it can appear to be behind (but not in) low-lying clouds. Looking at it face-on, the sun appears low in the sky, and the crepuscular rays emanate from it. If you were to look at the crepuscular rays edge-on, they would show much shallower angles, like those that appear to the sides of the face-on view (to the farther right on the pictures above). But viewing from the side, the angles get very small (measured from the ground)--these are the rays that hit your eyes when looking at crepuscular rays--the shiny spots of direct sunlight in one of the photos above.

So there are really 2 angles at issue--1 from the sun to the ground in a plane perpendicular to your line-of-sight, and one that is invisible from your point of view--the one in the plane that you share with the sun. These are going to be much smaller angles (measured from the ground).

And when I say "measured from the ground" it means from the tangent of the globe at the ground where the ray hits.

For the FE model, I'm not the preferred advocate--you should be doing this. But I haven't seen a lot of real math or logical thought, so I'll attempt it.

First, the angles do get smaller when dealing with the closer sun that always hovers over the earth, but they don't get close to zero without an extremely long baseline--the sun at 3000 miles high would have to be at 3000 miles distance along the ground to achieve a 45 deg angle of crepuscular rays that reach my eyes (this is along the invisible angle I mentioned earlier). This is approximately the angle of the sun as I viewed it at about 7 pm.

That's not too bad--it's somewhere over the Pacific Ocean, compared to my Colorado location. That means, of course, that it would be noon at that location over the Pacific Ocean--the sun would be directly overhead. Again, that's not a problem, except that it means that it is noon a the Hawaiian longitude. But we know that's not true, as Hawaiian time is only 3 hours different from Colorado time--so it would be 4 pm there. (Actually it would be 3 pm without Daylight savings time.) So the FE model is off in its timing by 3 hours.

This timing is different for different angles of the sunlight. If the angle from the ground is 30 degrees, the distance to where the sun is directly overhead in order to appear at 58000 feet is 5100 miles away--somewhere near Japan. But Japan is really at 9 am, not noon.

Let's try 15 degrees. The distance to "noon" (sun directly overhead) for a 3000 mile altitude is 11,196 miles away. That's more than half the distance around the world at Latitude 39 (Colorado), so the sun should not even still be shining, but it is at 15 degrees above the horizon. Even better, since it is more than halfway around the world, the sun is already coming up in the eastern sky in Colorado, but it hasn't set yet in the west. The sun would be visible on both horizons!!

Excellent post!

The distances you mentioned are, I assume, based purely on the apparant angle of the rays and do not take perspective into account. In fact, that would have to be the case or else your distances would work out to be many millions of miles and not a few thousand. I'm going to do some digging around and see if I can find anything about the rate at which parallel lines seem to converge due to perspective.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm amazed this thread is still going on. :chuckle: I was offered a job ( I declined the job) to build a large fleet of 600+ low Earth orbit satellites for Internet service.

Welcome back to the thread. Haven't seen you in a while. How have you been?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

DERF fantastic post.

I have one question...

...the sun at 3000 miles high...

What made you say the sun is 3,000 miles high in the FE model? I realize you are arguing on their behalf in that section of your post. I've seen folks say 300 miles high. And I've now seen folks say the sun sets into clouds putting the sun at around 3 miles high. I'm really hoping to find some type of consensus on how high the sun is in the FE model.

 

[Derf]

DERF fantastic post.

I have one question...


What made you say the sun is 3,000 miles high in the FE model? I realize you are arguing on their behalf in that section of your post. I've seen folks say 300 miles high. And I've now seen folks say the sun sets into clouds putting the sun at around 3 miles high. I'm really hoping to find some type of consensus on how high the sun is in the FE model.

Consensus on anything in the flat earth model will kill it, and the purveyors know it, at least most do. That's why they won't grant it.

But "3000 miles" is what I've seen to explain the difference between the shadow lengths that helped the Greek Eratosthanes calc the size of the earth 2500 years ago, assuming sun rays are parallel. See here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Dave I'm watching the moon rise up over the horizon tonight. It looks absolutely MASSIVE. Awesome sight.

 

[patrick jane]

Dave I'm watching the moon rise up over the horizon tonight. It looks absolutely MASSIVE. Awesome sight.

Is the moon flat too?

 

[Clete]

I'm amazed this thread is still going on. :chuckle: I was offered a job ( I declined the job) to build a large fleet of 600+ low Earth orbit satellites for Internet service.

Who would pay for such a thing?

That is to say, satellites are expensive to both launch and to maintain; who foots the bill for providing the infrastructure that makes fast internet service available to everyone?

 

[Right Divider]

DERF fantastic post.

I have one question...

What made you say the sun is 3,000 miles high in the FE model? I realize you are arguing on their behalf in that section of your post. I've seen folks say 300 miles high. And I've now seen folks say the sun sets into clouds putting the sun at around 3 miles high. I'm really hoping to find some type of consensus on how high the sun is in the FE model.

The FE model seems a lot like the "theory of evolution".
All bluff and bluster with no real substance.

 

[Derf]

The FE model seems a lot like the "theory of evolution".
All bluff and bluster with no real substance.

At least evolutionist have a holy book (Origin of the Species) that can be studied and refuted, But they both evade facts presented to them by shifting focus onto something else. A standard Jehovah Witness tactic.

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Nick M]

Is the moon flat too?

I'll be highly disappointed if it isn't made of cheese.

 

[Nick M]

This is a lie, David. You ought to repent and apologize.

I am the one who, FOR MONTHS, not only responded to virutally every point made in the assinine videos you presented but defended your reputation that was being damaged for having even posted them!



David, you need to stop.

Clete

What are you waiting for? What would Saul of Tarsus, called Paul in the Bible say to Dave after being shown the truth and reasoning?

Sweep the leg.

 

[Derf]

Excellent post!

The distances you mentioned are, I assume, based purely on the apparent angle of the rays and do not take perspective into account. In fact, that would have to be the case or else your distances would work out to be many millions of miles and not a few thousand. I'm going to do some digging around and see if I can find anything about the rate at which parallel lines seem to converge due to perspective.

Actually, no. The distances are based on real angles. What I did was first to point out that the angles of the closer sun would have to be the same as the angles of the further sun, just as the apparent size of the closer sun is the exact same as the apparent size of the further sun. Thus, the splaying of the sun rays would look the same in both cases. This is intuitive once you think it through--both models base their size calculations based on the apparent size coupled with the distance.

That's why the video linked here: [video]http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?122230-The-earth-is-flat-and-we-never-went-to-the-moon&p=5057992&viewfull=1#post5057992[/video] about the splayed beams showing a closer sun is garbage--the apparent size of the sun is the exact same in both cases, and if one doesn't have splayed beams, the other won't either. I know you already refuted it, but I didn't see your refutation. My apologies for stepping on toes here.

The reason for the appearance of the splayed beams IN BOTH MODELS is perspective, as you mentioned, from a light source that is shining directly or almost directly, at the observer, just as the train tracks that widen as they come closer are coming directly or almost directly at the observer.. Thus, if the proximity of the sun matters not for the splayed beams, and perspective is the cause of the splayed beams, we can discount the splayed beams as a proof for flat earth.

But perspective for those beams does not dictate the angles involved in getting the light to the angle that we view the splayed beams--the left/right angles are affected by perspective, but the vertical angles are not--just like the video about perspective shows. The point is that the normal splayed beams come from a source that is in front of and above, but not directly overhead, the observer.

I'm not saying there can't be splayed beams from an overhead sun. Any light source can showed splayed beams except those too tight to show on both sides of the observer's head (like a laser). And a one-sided splaying is also possible, if the light shines mainly to one side of the observer. But the light beams need to pass near the observer, and reflect off dust in the sky to allow the observer to see the beams.

So, despite the perspective that creates the splaying effect, the actual path of the light needs to be coming from the source along the line of sight from the source to the observer. Therefore the angle of the sunlight from the ground is a valid angle to use in determining distance, which is what I've done, hopefully accurately.

By the way, the crepuscular rays are often seen shining apparently upward. If the downward-splayed beams are showing a close sun, then upward-splayed beams show a sun that shines UPWARD, not taking into account perspective. The flat earth model doesn't allow for the sun to ever shine upward, except where they discredit themselves even more than normal by saying the sun is below cloud level.

Finally, @<a href="http://theologyonline.com/member.php?u=4980" target="_blank">DFT_Dave</a> also linked (here) to the video giving the reason for the opposite spin of the southern "hemisphere" star field as akin to the anti-crepuscular rays. These are the rays of the sun that converge toward the opposite horizon where the sun is going down, and are explained by the same perspective that explains crepuscular rays. It's a rather entertaining video, one more that shows the author is giving these explanations from a knowledge of the truth of the globular earth, but pretending to support a flat earth. The obvious refutation of his anti-crepuscular ray explanation is that the star light from northern stars is not going to light a backdrop in the southern hemisphere, as if the southern stars there are only images of the northern stars. But that's what he's saying they are. If they were, then they would have the same constellations in the south, only reversed.

 

[musterion]

“There is an ice wall that they have been guarding since 1961.

“I have not personally been there, but I have heard people have been turned around at gunpoint for trying to investigate the ice wall independently.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3984980/flat-earthers-rapper-b-o-b-tila-tequila-world-sphere-nasa/

He goes on to say you're a psychopath if you disagree with him.

 

[Clete]

Actually, no. The distances are based on real angles. What I did was first to point out that the angles of the closer sun would have to be the same as the angles of the further sun, just as the apparent size of the closer sun is the exact same as the apparent size of the further sun. Thus, the splaying of the sun rays would look the same in both cases. This is intuitive once you think it through--both models base their size calculations based on the apparent size coupled with the distance.

That's why the video linked here: [video]http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?122230-The-earth-is-flat-and-we-never-went-to-the-moon&p=5057992&viewfull=1#post5057992[/video] about the splayed beams showing a closer sun is garbage--the apparent size of the sun is the exact same in both cases, and if one doesn't have splayed beams, the other won't either. I know you already refuted it, but I didn't see your refutation. My apologies for stepping on toes here.

The reason for the appearance of the splayed beams IN BOTH MODELS is perspective, as you mentioned, from a light source that is shining directly or almost directly, at the observer, just as the train tracks that widen as they come closer are coming directly or almost directly at the observer.. Thus, if the proximity of the sun matters not for the splayed beams, and perspective is the cause of the splayed beams, we can discount the splayed beams as a proof for flat earth.

But perspective for those beams does not dictate the angles involved in getting the light to the angle that we view the splayed beams--the left/right angles are affected by perspective, but the vertical angles are not--just like the video about perspective shows. The point is that the normal splayed beams come from a source that is in front of and above, but not directly overhead, the observer.

I'm not saying there can't be splayed beams from an overhead sun. Any light source can showed splayed beams except those too tight to show on both sides of the observer's head (like a laser). And a one-sided splaying is also possible, if the light shines mainly to one side of the observer. But the light beams need to pass near the observer, and reflect off dust in the sky to allow the observer to see the beams.

So, despite the perspective that creates the splaying effect, the actual path of the light needs to be coming from the source along the line of sight from the source to the observer. Therefore the angle of the sunlight from the ground is a valid angle to use in determining distance, which is what I've done, hopefully accurately.

By the way, the crepuscular rays are often seen shining apparently upward. If the downward-splayed beams are showing a close sun, then upward-splayed beams show a sun that shines UPWARD, not taking into account perspective. The flat earth model doesn't allow for the sun to ever shine upward, except where they discredit themselves even more than normal by saying the sun is below cloud level.

Finally, @<a href="http://theologyonline.com/member.php?u=4980" target="_blank">DFT_Dave</a> also linked (here) to the video giving the reason for the opposite spin of the southern "hemisphere" star field as akin to the anti-crepuscular rays. These are the rays of the sun that converge toward the opposite horizon where the sun is going down, and are explained by the same perspective that explains crepuscular rays. It's a rather entertaining video, one more that shows the author is giving these explanations from a knowledge of the truth of the globular earth, but pretending to support a flat earth. The obvious refutation of his anti-crepuscular ray explanation is that the star light from northern stars is not going to light a backdrop in the southern hemisphere, as if the southern stars there are only images of the northern stars. But that's what he's saying they are. If they were, then they would have the same constellations in the south, only reversed.

All true except that what I was suggesting, but failing to communicate, was that even in the flat earth model that wants to say that sun rays spread out the way they do because the sun is close, it isn't so close that the apparent angles involved would not be at least partially due to perspective rather than a real difference in the direction of the ray, which would effect the distance calculation. So, for example, take two rays that form a 30° aparent angle. The real angle is going to be somewhat different than that because the effects of perspective will put a squeeze on the rays making them appear closer together than they really are. Thus a calculation based solely on the apparent angle wouldn't give you the right distance - in either model. This is complicated by the fact that the angle created by perspective will change with the observers position relative to the shadows that are being cast by the sun. This is why the distance to the sun was never calculated by using crepuscular rays but rather with the different apparent position of the sun itself in the sky from various locations on the globe.

And you've not stepped on my toes. Anyone is free to post a response to any other post any time they like. A good argument is a good argument regardless of who makes it.

Clete

 

[Nick M]

Dave I'm watching the moon rise up over the horizon tonight. It looks absolutely MASSIVE. Awesome sight.

I wonder what it looks like on the edge of the earth, at Antarctica. It must be even bigger.