Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash  (Read 3698 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aryzia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 366
  • Reputation: +110/-157
  • Gender: Female
Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2018, 02:33:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Any reasonable person knows that I have already proved this many times over.  You are going to keep claiming "but that's not proof" no matter what I say and those who are open to reason already know.  The Ptolemaic model (which includes a spherical earth) was the consensus view of Catholics from around 700 to 1800.  This position existed before then (including among Church Fathers) but alongside other views.
    You have proven nothing. Even wiki disagrees with this. And they're on your side.

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2820
    • Reputation: +1309/-722
    • Gender: Female
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #31 on: May 10, 2018, 02:44:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You have proven nothing. Even wiki disagrees with this. And they're on your side.
    Can you provide a quote from Wikipedia which disagrees with what I wrote?
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is


    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1127
    • Reputation: +452/-1357
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #32 on: May 10, 2018, 03:07:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have not noticed any difference in the amount of emotionally charged language used by the two sides of this issue.  Few people of any position discusses it calmly and rationally.  So this characeristic does not seem like something that will be any help in determining which side is correct.

    I have noticed that lately you only seem to point out illogical or otherwise flawed posts when they support the globe earth position.  This suggests that, rather than objectively seeking out the more logical position, you have emotionally chosen a position and are guilty of confirmation bias.
    Calmness has nothing to do with facts.
    It is flat or it is not. Fact.
    Here's another fact I will calmly present:
    The One World Religion of the Prince of this world is called globalism.
    FACT.
    One belief of the globalists' religion is that the earth is literally a globe.
    The religion of the globalists is false and the enemy of the Church. Their leader is the Father of Lies who is the enemy of God the Father. 
    The One True religion and God's Word describes a Creation that is the opposite of the lying globalists.

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1127
    • Reputation: +452/-1357
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #33 on: May 10, 2018, 03:12:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The fact that the Dogmatic Flatearthers consider it a necessary Dogma of the Church with no proof whatsoever and considering those who disagree as non-Catholics proves it's diabolical. It's at least Schismatic.
    The fact that you dismiss the Biblical roots of flat earth is diabolical. 

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1127
    • Reputation: +452/-1357
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #34 on: May 10, 2018, 03:15:29 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Virtually every claim you have made in regard to history and theology supporting flat earth has been incorrect and has been conclusively shown to be incorrect with copious amounts of credible references.  You dismiss all this evidence on the flimsiest of excuses or ignore it altogether and continue to make the same false claims.

    I am not going to waste my time posting the same overwhelming evidence over and over again, but it has all been presented on this forum.  You are wrong and have been proven to be wrong.  You do not have a "cohesive and well-founded argument" and this is obvious to any objective observer.

    Science is not an area in which I feel qualified to evaluate your statements, but you have so completely destroyed your credibility by your egregious errors in areas in which I am knowledgeable that I find it unlikely that you know what you are talking about in that area either.
    Every word you wrote in this post is a total lie.


    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17313
    • Reputation: +8054/-584
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #35 on: May 10, 2018, 06:55:32 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Virtually every claim you have made in regard to history and theology supporting flat earth has been incorrect and has been conclusively shown to be incorrect with copious amounts of credible references.  You dismiss all this evidence on the flimsiest of excuses or ignore it altogether and continue to make the same false claims.

    I am not going to waste my time posting the same overwhelming evidence over and over again, but it has all been presented on this forum.  You are wrong and have been proven to be wrong.  You do not have a "cohesive and well-founded argument" and this is obvious to any objective observer.

    Science is not an area in which I feel qualified to evaluate your statements, but you have so completely destroyed your credibility by your egregious errors in areas in which I am knowledgeable that I find it unlikely that you know what you are talking about in that area either.
    .
    It's too bad one must resort to being so blatant and fundamental, but if you try to be nice flat-earthers ignore what you have to say since it is so terribly inconvenient for their agenda, all the while they accuse you of ignoring their "proofs" when they haven't provided any.
    .
    You're doing a fine job, Jaynek, defending the truth against a malicious and egregious opponent.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17313
    • Reputation: +8054/-584
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #36 on: May 10, 2018, 07:30:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • We're not talking about vanishing point.  I've seen demonstrations of how a visual convergence happens between the plane and the object well before it reaches its vanishing point.

    An article like this I give little credibility to because it's emotionally charged, repeatedly referring to flat earth "deception", "deception techniques", attempting to win over "the gullible into their cult".

    I've seen pictures where JUST THE BOTTOM of the ship disappears, i.e. it's not reached its vanishing point, and then when you zoom in you can see the entire ship again, including the bottom.  So the fact that this article makes it about "vanishing point" ... well, it's creating a false straw man argument.  Consequently, it's the author of this article who's guilty of deception.
    .
    Your emotionally charged outbursts discredit everything you say, Ladislaus.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17313
    • Reputation: +8054/-584
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #37 on: May 10, 2018, 07:56:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Since no one has managed to respond to the OP after 3 pages (while pretending to have responded) I'll post it again, with more material:
    .
    .
    Anybody who gives the flat earth idea the slightest amount of critical examination will realize that it's complete balderdash.  
    .
    Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense: a sight line 6 feet above the water would meet the top of another 6-foot pole at 6 miles' distance if the earth were "flat."
    .
    Here is a video of a large ship quite clearly going over and behind the curvature of the sea:
    .

    The meme-like caption in the title frame shown asks you to consider this:
    IF the earth were "flat" the top of the container ship being magnified here with a telephoto lens located above the water's "flat" surface would certainly be higher than the top of the smaller boat located part way in between the camera and the container ship.
    While this discrepancy does not "prove" anything, it most certainly does not support the claim that the water surface is "flat" because the VERY TALL container ship superstructure is well BELOW the top of the much shorter boat.
    Furthermore, we can see the small boat's hull entirely but the ship's hull is completely out of sight below the water's surface, where no amount of magnification can bring it into view, only ascending to higher ground for a viewpoint of higher elevation will enable the camera to see the ship's hull.
    .
    The ship does not become more visible in its parts when the telephoto zooms in for a magnified view.
    The hull disappears without question behind the water surface in the foreground, that is, the surface on which smaller boats traverse right there for you to see. You can see the hull of the smaller boat but not the hull of the container ship.
    As it goes along gradually the containers on deck disappear as well below the water surface as if the ship were sinking.
    Nobody can make the containers and the hull re-appear by zooming in through a telephoto lens.
    One thing that is NOT shown in this one-position video is what this ship looks like from a higher vantage point, like from a nearby bluff.
    There are other videos that show that, but flat-earthers are terrified of them so they refuse to acknowledge them, or, at best, accuse them of being fake.
    .
    The container ship starts quite visible with most of its hull in view, but sailing away for an hour appears to sink gradually into the sea.
    Eventually the containers on deck and the ship's superstructure are all hidden behind the apparently rising water level of the sea.
    The smaller boats in between the container ship and camera are not rising and falling over huge waves, so the swells are quite small, about 2 feet.
    Can you refute this simple evidence?
    .
    The website page below compares views of Polaris from various latitudes on a "flat" earth vs. a spherodial earth.
    The angle of sight from earth to Polaris is identical to the viewer's latitude on earth!
    All viewers are seeing the sun at the same time, so the sun must be located in the same place, consequently all viewers must be looking in the same direction to see the sun there.
    .
    I find it quite telling that nobody has seen fit to comment on this concept.
    If you measure the angle from the horizon to Polaris it's always the same as the latitude where you're standing.
    Sailors at sea have been using this trick for hundreds of years.
    That's how anyone can know their latitude with one simple measurement, that is, so long as they can see Polaris.
    Furthermore, it makes no difference what time of night it is, Polaris is always in the same place in the sky.
    The further north you are the higher it gets until at the north pole it's directly overhead.
    And in the southern hemisphere, the same feature (but no star) exists where the star tracks circle and you can measure your latitude south of the equator with the same technique.
    So how does the "flat" earth map explain this?
    .
    This is a very powerful indicator that a "flat" earth concept is useless, since as the diagram shows, observers in various latitudes have to look in different directions to see the same thing.
    Furthermore, viewers south of the equator can't see Polaris at all.
    There have been some flat-earthers who have tried to be clever or something by claiming that people up to 20 degrees south of the equator can see Polaris, but they haven't managed to provide any evidence of that. When I replied, "They must have been at the ridge line of the Andes Mountains" nobody responded. I wasn't supposed to know their secret!
    .
    Does this support flat-earthism or is it rather supportive of a spheroidial earth?
    .
    http://i.imgur.com/CPU63Tm.jpg

    .
    Another highly problematic reality for flat-earthers :
    .
    How can we measure the relative distance of the earth-to-moon vs. earth-to-sun?
    You don't need any fancy equipment for this.
    Just a rectangular block of white styrofoam or a pizza box (after you've eaten the pizza!) will work just fine.
    Or, you can eat the pizza WHILE you take the measurements. I did that and it was great. Very pleasant afternoon!
    .
    Can you refute this evidence that the sun is much further away from earth than the moon is?  
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVgx0Eio2Mg
    .
    An excellent response to flat earth nonsense.
    Numbers and simple math disproves all their childish yammering.
    The childish agnosticism of Ladislaus notwithstanding.
    .
    Another H-U-G-E problem for flat-earthers:
    .
    It's painfully obvious that the sun doesn't twirl around above the earth the way flat-earthers claim.
    How would Antarctica get 24 hour sun if it did?
    .
    https://vimeo.com/136977957

    And no, Polaris has not always been the Pole star in the past, nor will it be in the future.
    .
    Essentially, belief in the silly idea the earth is "flat" relies entirely on ignorance.
    .
    For at least some, their ignorance is willful and impudent, therefore quite repulsive.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline aryzia

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 366
    • Reputation: +110/-157
    • Gender: Female
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #38 on: May 10, 2018, 08:17:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Since no one has managed to respond to the OP after 3 pages (while pretending to have responded) I'll post it again, with more material:
    .
    .
    Anybody who gives the flat earth idea the slightest amount of critical examination will realize that it's complete balderdash.  
    .
    Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense: a sight line 6 feet above the water would meet the top of another 6-foot pole at 6 miles' distance if the earth were "flat."
    .
    Here is a video of a large ship quite clearly going over and behind the curvature of the sea:
    .

    The meme-like caption in the title frame shown asks you to consider this:
    IF the earth were "flat" the top of the container ship being magnified here with a telephoto lens located above the water's "flat" surface would certainly be higher than the top of the smaller boat located part way in between the camera and the container ship.
    While this discrepancy does not "prove" anything, it most certainly does not support the claim that the water surface is "flat" because the VERY TALL container ship superstructure is well BELOW the top of the much shorter boat.
    Furthermore, we can see the small boat's hull entirely but the ship's hull is completely out of sight below the water's surface, where no amount of magnification can bring it into view, only ascending to higher ground for a viewpoint of higher elevation will enable the camera to see the ship's hull.
    .
    The ship does not become more visible in its parts when the telephoto zooms in for a magnified view.
    The hull disappears without question behind the water surface in the foreground, that is, the surface on which smaller boats traverse right there for you to see. You can see the hull of the smaller boat but not the hull of the container ship.
    As it goes along gradually the containers on deck disappear as well below the water surface as if the ship were sinking.
    Nobody can make the containers and the hull re-appear by zooming in through a telephoto lens.
    One thing that is NOT shown in this one-position video is what this ship looks like from a higher vantage point, like from a nearby bluff.
    There are other videos that show that, but flat-earthers are terrified of them so they refuse to acknowledge them, or, at best, accuse them of being fake.
    .
    The container ship starts quite visible with most of its hull in view, but sailing away for an hour appears to sink gradually into the sea.
    Eventually the containers on deck and the ship's superstructure are all hidden behind the apparently rising water level of the sea.
    The smaller boats in between the container ship and camera are not rising and falling over huge waves, so the swells are quite small, about 2 feet.
    Can you refute this simple evidence?
    .
    The website page below compares views of Polaris from various latitudes on a "flat" earth vs. a spherodial earth.
    The angle of sight from earth to Polaris is identical to the viewer's latitude on earth!
    All viewers are seeing the sun at the same time, so the sun must be located in the same place, consequently all viewers must be looking in the same direction to see the sun there.
    .
    I find it quite telling that nobody has seen fit to comment on this concept.
    If you measure the angle from the horizon to Polaris it's always the same as the latitude where you're standing.
    Sailors at sea have been using this trick for hundreds of years.
    That's how anyone can know their latitude with one simple measurement, that is, so long as they can see Polaris.
    Furthermore, it makes no difference what time of night it is, Polaris is always in the same place in the sky.
    The further north you are the higher it gets until at the north pole it's directly overhead.
    And in the southern hemisphere, the same feature (but no star) exists where the star tracks circle and you can measure your latitude south of the equator with the same technique.
    So how does the "flat" earth map explain this?
    .
    This is a very powerful indicator that a "flat" earth concept is useless, since as the diagram shows, observers in various latitudes have to look in different directions to see the same thing.
    Furthermore, viewers south of the equator can't see Polaris at all.
    There have been some flat-earthers who have tried to be clever or something by claiming that people up to 20 degrees south of the equator can see Polaris, but they haven't managed to provide any evidence of that. When I replied, "They must have been at the ridge line of the Andes Mountains" nobody responded. I wasn't supposed to know their secret!
    .
    Does this support flat-earthism or is it rather supportive of a spheroidial earth?
    .
    http://i.imgur.com/CPU63Tm.jpg

    .
    Another highly problematic reality for flat-earthers :
    .
    How can we measure the relative distance of the earth-to-moon vs. earth-to-sun?
    You don't need any fancy equipment for this.
    Just a rectangular block of white styrofoam or a pizza box (after you've eaten the pizza!) will work just fine.
    Or, you can eat the pizza WHILE you take the measurements. I did that and it was great. Very pleasant afternoon!
    .
    Can you refute this evidence that the sun is much further away from earth than the moon is?  
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVgx0Eio2Mg
    .
    An excellent response to flat earth nonsense.
    Numbers and simple math disproves all their childish yammering.
    The childish agnosticism of Ladislaus notwithstanding.
    .
    Another H-U-G-E problem for flat-earthers:
    .
    It's painfully obvious that the sun doesn't twirl around above the earth the way flat-earthers claim.
    How would Antarctica get 24 hour sun if it did?
    .
    https://vimeo.com/136977957

    And no, Polaris has not always been the Pole star in the past, nor will it be in the future.
    .
    Essentially, belief in the silly idea the earth is "flat" relies entirely on ignorance.
    .
    For at least some, their ignorance is willful and impudent, therefore quite repulsive.
    .
    Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense:
    What a stupid thing to say. The math formula for a 25,000 mi circumference sphere is a fact. One minute you globers say it's curved, the next you deny it.

    Offline aryzia

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 366
    • Reputation: +110/-157
    • Gender: Female
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #39 on: May 10, 2018, 09:32:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can you provide a quote from Wikipedia which disagrees with what I wrote?
    Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it

    The Copernican Revolution of the 16th century led to reconsideration of these matters. In 1554, John Calvin proposed that "firmament" be interpreted as clouds.[12] "He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere," wrote Calvin.[12] "As it became a theologian, [Moses] had to respect us rather than the stars," Calvin wrote. Calvin's doctrine of accommodation allowed Protestants to accept the findings of science without rejecting the authority of scripture.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament


    In 1584, Giordano Bruno proposed a cosmology without firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems.[16] After Galileo began using a telescope to examine the sky, it became harder to argue that the heavens were perfect, as Aristotelian philosophy required. By 1630, the concept of solid orbs was no longer dominant.[17]

    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17313
    • Reputation: +8054/-584
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #40 on: May 11, 2018, 12:51:22 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Below is the basis for the argument. Seems pretty sound to me. Don't be troubled. Explain how this is mischaracterizing the optical phenomenon. Again, I don't care too much but let me know how I'm being duped by this article. Don't really want to argue. Unlike my enemies in this subforum, I'm not dogmatic about this so I'm not using too much brain power on it.


    The Vanishing Point
    The vanishing point of an object is when the object is so far away from you it seems to disappear. Objects will disappear at different distances from you depending upon their size, your vision, and potentially atmospheric conditions. But the smaller the object, the closer to you it will reach it's vanishing point, and the contrary is true as well; the larger an object, the further away from you it will seem to vanish.

    Versus over the Horizon
    ...When you get a large object, such as the container ship in the video below, you'll see that part or all of the ship is obscured by the horizon before it reaches it's vanishing point. The portion obscured by the horizon, it can be easily seen, cannot be zoomed back in with the zoom lens, and the rest of the boat is obviously visible, so it is clearly not an issue of the bottom being too small to see. It's simply obscured by the curvature of the earth!
    ...
    In this case, many have realized that these objects simply cannot be brought back with a telescope, so they now claim that objects disappearing by 'perspective' just disappear bottom first, when it's clear to anyone who has watched small objects disappear into the distance, like these batteries on colored paper prove, this is simply not true. We can still see the furthest away colored paper on the floor, just as we'd expect to see.
    .
    This reference to "the vanishing point" is slightly off the mark strictly speaking. 
    But it's well intended, perhaps an attempt to keep the description simple.
    .
    The vanishing point of an object has the SIDE EFFECT of it seeming to disappear. But that isn't the essence of what constitutes the vanishing point.
    .
    In simple perspective, a straight row of same-sized objects gets smaller in the distance, when the lines of their extremities converge, and it is this convergence of the lines of perspective when merging into one point that is the vanishing point.
    .
    Applying this to the horizon, flat-earthers are wont to confuse a level line of sight with the horizon.
    .
    Without any sure means to establish where the level line of sight goes as it approaches the horizon, it's far too easy to presume that they are one and the same, thus their erroneous claim that the horizon "rises to eye level," when in fact the horizon doesn't rise anywhere, nor does it fall. The horizon stays right where it is.
    .
    Rather it is the eye of the viewer without any device or guide to indicate where level is, that drifts down to meet the horizon, and so it is the eye that descends to the horizon and not the horizon rising to eye level.
    .
    Some of the links that I posted above demonstrate this, the first of which does so very well using mathematics, where the formula used by flat-earthers is derived and the consequences of mistaken application are described in detail by the derivation of the formula.
    .
    Walter Bislin's blog - http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?blog=list&tag=FlatEarth
    .
    Walter Bislin apparently speaks primarily German so that might explain why he spells "blog" as "bloge."
    .
    But his mathematical derivation is very impressive. There is no higher math there, just algebra and Euclidean geometry. 
    .
    Other forums have pointed out that flat-earthers in the past 6 months have backed away from claiming "perspective" as the explanation of why objects such as large ships recede downward over the horizon with the hull disappearing first, then the deck line, and finally the superstructure as they move further away from the viewer.
    .
    There are numerous diagrams available online that demonstrate why perspective is no good for explaining away this effect of earth's curvature.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17313
    • Reputation: +8054/-584
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #41 on: May 11, 2018, 12:53:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense:
    What a stupid thing to say. The math formula for a 25,000 mi circumference sphere is a fact. One minute you globers say it's curved, the next you deny it.
    .
    "The math formula" is not applied correctly by flat-earthers. That's the point.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17313
    • Reputation: +8054/-584
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #42 on: May 11, 2018, 01:12:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Take a row of telephone poles or electrical power towers as an example.
    .
    Presuming that they are lined up on a flat plane, it would be true that a level line of sight somewhere near their bottom (such poles are a lot taller than the man standing next to them) would merge along with the perspective lines of the poles (or towers) to become one at the vanishing point in the distance.
    .
    But it is a mistake to superimpose this presumption onto an unknown situation, in an attempt to "prove" there is no curvature on the earth.
    .
    If the curvature is not known, nor is the levelness of the plane known, a level-finding instrument is required to determine where the level line of sight is. 
    .
    Consider the row of poles (or towers) could be on an inclined pane, either rising or falling in the distance. If the plane is flat but inclined upwards as it proceeds away from you, your line of sight could merge at the vanishing point all right, but it would be an INCLINED line of sight, since you have no reliable device to inform you otherwise.
    .
    Similarly, if the row of poles (or towers) recedes downhill in the distance, your line of sight would also recede along with them, and you would be unable to say with certainty whether the horizon line where the vanishing point is, is at the same level as your eye observing it.
    .
    Anyone with surveying experience knows this intuitively, since working with a dumpy level or theodolite gives innumerable situations where there is utterly no way to know where "level" is on a Philadelphia rod unless you have an instrument to look through and it is calibrated, adjusted, and verified for shooting a level line. Calibration is done in the factory. Adjustment is done in the field and verification is simply a process of leveling the instrument and reversing it 180 degrees to see that the gauges indicating level read the same way in both directions. A verified instrument reads "0" in all directions, and this must be done before any readings are taken.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14992
    • Reputation: +7940/-2488
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #43 on: May 11, 2018, 06:03:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is exactly the opposite of what he's saying and what I would assume would be easy to verify if true or false. Certain objects of large enough size do not reappear when zoomed in on because it is behind the horizon and not to the vanishing point yet.
    I haven't done this experiment and I wonder if you have. I guess until I have the motivation to see which one is correct, it's all one side's word against the other. We all know that if one side can use CGI and video tricks, so can the other.

    I have not yet seen credible evidence demonstrating this that ruled out optical phenomena.  Globe earthers constantly talk about how it's clear to simple observation, based on how ships disappear from view bottom up, that there's globe earth.  My point is that this does not PROVE globe earth.  Well after something disappears bottom-up on the horizon, you can still zoom in and see the entire ship.  So this visual observation is an optical illusion and doesn't prove anything.  And at some point it gets far enough away so that the phenomenon recurs even when zoomed in, due to the limitation against the artificial optics.  So this kind of "visual" proof doesn't suffice.

    I have seen flat earthers produce measurements using lasers, directed sound beams, and GPS devices that seem to prove their theory.  I have not yet seen a globe earther produce an experiment where you put GPS at the tops and bottoms of two buildings a certain distance apart and show that the tops are farther apart than the bottoms (which would be the case in globe earth).  Something like that would be REAL PROOF.  But the flat earthers produced videos of experiments that show the opposite, that the tops and bottoms are the same distance apart.  Again, unless these are completely faked, and I cannot rule that out entirely, the weight of proof in my mind leans in favor of flat earth.

    At the end of the day, I want to know the truth about this matter, but instead of real experiments that prove their thesis, you get a lot of rhetoric and false evidence (interpreted to support their theory due to simple confirmation bias).  Perhaps the globe earthers don't go out of their way to prove this because they assume that it's true and doesn't need proof.  So they do a lot of "it's just clear to anyone who has eyes" type of stuff ... that I find decidedly unconvincing.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14992
    • Reputation: +7940/-2488
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #44 on: May 11, 2018, 06:06:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • .
    Your emotionally charged outbursts discredit everything you say, Ladislaus.

    While I certainly get irritated about various theological subjects, when errors are being promoted, I have been decidedly UNemotional about this particular issue.  You're the one who constantly goes into 10-paragraph emotional jags and insults and mockery.  And the evidence you have posted so far (once I have found it having had to wade through your posts) is mostly unconvincing.  I have not had the time to study some of the mathematical things you've posted, but you keep posting the visual stuff about the bottoms of ships disappearing at a distance, and that's not convincing to me.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16