Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash  (Read 3823 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Theosist

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • Reputation: +58/-138
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
« Reply #135 on: May 15, 2018, 11:45:59 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • I just said.  Various optical phenomena could explain that.  It's not solid proof.  Do you think that cameras have infinite zoom capability?  At some point their limitations catch up with devices too.
    There is no optical phenomenon whereby part of an object obscured becomes visible upon zooming in on it. None. That is a priori absurd. Why? Because part of an otherwise visible object becomes obscured when light from that part is somehow blocked from reaching ones eye; but if that light cannot reach ones eye, then it cannot reach a telescopic lense at ones position. This isn’t magic. If I can see PART of it FULLY, then the problem is not the problem of distance which makes it too small for the human eye to see; but if that is not the problem, then a telescope is not going to fix it.
    Stop being stupid. It’s beneath you.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #136 on: May 15, 2018, 11:54:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • There is no optical phenomenon whereby part of an object obscured becomes visible upon zooming in on it. None. That is a priori absurd. Why? Because part of an otherwise visible object becomes obscured when light from that part is somehow blocked from reaching ones eye; but if that light cannot reach ones eye, then it cannot reach a telescopic lense at ones position. This isn’t magic. If I can see PART of it FULLY, then the problem is not the problem of distance which makes it too small for the human eye to see; but if that is not the problem, then a telescope is not going to fix it.
    Stop being stupid. It’s beneath you.

    You're extremely ignorant about this subject.  Said optical phenomena have been well demonstrated and are well known.

    You are the one who's being stupid.  Lots of things can happen to light and its relationship with how the eye perceives it.

    In fact you can find many videos demonstrating exactly that which you bluster about being impossible.  You see the bottom part of boats seemingly vanish, only to reappear when zoomed in on.

    It would be one thing if you were just a simple idiot, but you're an arrogant idiot who blusters about claiming that your ignorance is actually truth.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #137 on: May 15, 2018, 11:59:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Honestly if you want solid, indisputable proof, go look further into the stuff Neil posted about the position of the sun in the sky (some video with a bunch of rays that didn't intersect right). 

    You really don't understand what constitutes proof, do you?  I've addressed this one already.  It's based on nothing more than the suggestion of mathematical neatness.  That might be suggestive, but it's in no way "solid, indisputable proof".

    Offline noOneImportant

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 223
    • Reputation: +136/-168
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #138 on: May 15, 2018, 05:13:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • There's a difference between neatness and impossibility. The math for a flat earth simply does not work. It's not that it's messy. It's impossible. The neatness argument applies when talking about things like geo vs helio centricism, because they both can be made to work mathematically. But if you assume the earth is flat, do the geometry, and find a contradiction (i.e. the sun in many different places at the same time), then it absolutely does constitute proof (by contradiction. One of the oldest well established forms of proof around).

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #139 on: May 15, 2018, 07:07:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • There's a difference between neatness and impossibility. The math for a flat earth simply does not work. It's not that it's messy. It's impossible.

    I don't think that's proven by any stretch.


    Offline noOneImportant

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 223
    • Reputation: +136/-168
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #140 on: May 15, 2018, 07:21:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am not sure how the image below (taken from that video Neil posted a few days back) can in any way be reconciled with reality. The sun would need to be in a million different places at once.


    Offline Truth is Eternal

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1768
    • Reputation: +774/-1987
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #141 on: May 15, 2018, 09:12:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • I am not sure how the image below (taken from that video Neil posted a few days back) can in any way be reconciled with reality. The sun would need to be in a million different places at once.


    I like this simple diagram much better. ;D


    "I Think it is Time Cathinfo Has a Public Profession of Belief." "Thank you for publicly affirming the necessity of believing, without innovations, all Infallibly Defined Dogmas of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #142 on: May 16, 2018, 01:15:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I am not sure how the image below (taken from that video Neil posted a few days back) can in any way be reconciled with reality. The sun would need to be in a million different places at once.

    Well, Neil understood my point even if you didn't.  If you terminate the lines before they cross over one another and then point out to space, the vast majority of the lines coalesce at some point not too far from the earth, at the top of a conical structure.  And that is where flat earthers would put the sun, relatively close to the earth.


    Offline noOneImportant

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 223
    • Reputation: +136/-168
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #143 on: May 16, 2018, 09:33:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • That works for some of them, yes. Are we just ignoring all the ones that shoot off in completely different directions?

    On an unrelated note, still curious what you make of the camera thing from the other thread btw. Hopefully my mspaint mockups made sense.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #144 on: May 16, 2018, 10:06:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • That works for some of them, yes. Are we just ignoring all the ones that shoot off in completely different directions?

    And, if there's a solid dome, reflection off the dome might account for those strays around the perimeter.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #145 on: May 16, 2018, 10:07:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • On an unrelated note, still curious what you make of the camera thing from the other thread btw. Hopefully my mspaint mockups made sense.

    Do you have a link to the message/post?  I admit that I'm getting lost among all these concurrent flat earth threads.


    Offline AlligatorDicax

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 710
    • Reputation: +286/-41
    • Gender: Male
    "Zoom" magic?/Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #146 on: May 16, 2018, 02:00:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • There is no optical phenomenon whereby part of an object obscured becomes visible upon zooming in on it. None. That is a priori absurd. Why? Because part of an otherwise visible object becomes obscured when light from that part is somehow blocked from reaching ones eye; but if that light cannot reach ones eye, then it cannot reach a telescopic lense at ones position.  This isn’t magic.

    Theosist is entirely correct in this instance.

    People posting in this topic are, in effect, attributing optical magic to "zoom" lenses.  Which is a technical term that just about everyone posting herein is using incorrectly.

    Each lens under discussion is refracting whatever light rays enter that lens, having already been reflected (whether from near or far) toward the lens and the human eyes behind it.  No "zoom" lens, um, unblocks any light ray that is reflected-but-blocked by physical obstructions far out in the distance, where an "obstruction" includes telephoto-foreshortened seawater.


    You're extremely ignorant about this subject. [....] You are the one who's being stupid.  Lots of things can happen to light and its relationship with how the eye perceives it.

    This is not an issue of perception by the human eye; the light rays reflected from the distant object are either able to enter a lens--or not.  It makes no difference whether that lens is a "zoom"--especially because it's a term that just about everyone herein is using incorrectly.


    Said optical phenomena have been well demonstrated and are well known. [....] In fact you can find many videos demonstrating exactly that which you bluster about being impossible.  You see the bottom part of boats seemingly vanish, only to reappear when zoomed in on.

    Why do you seem to have ruled out that possibility that those "many videos" claiming magical "zoom" lenses are frauds?

    E.g., close coördination between 2 photographers: 1 stationed at sea-level, and the 2nd at an elevation high enough to look over-&-past the "hump" of ocean curvature that obscures--i.e.: blocks--the distant ocean surface from viewers at sea-level, plus more-or-less competent video editing, could be all that's needed to produce such a fraudulent video.


    It would be one thing if you were just a simple idiot, but you're an arrogant idiot who blusters about claiming that your ignorance is actually truth.

    Really, now?
    My 50th anniversary of serious photography [] arrives in 2018 (if not already passed in 2017).  I've typically applied an engineering mind-set to the tools of the art & trade, which of course includes the technical characteristics of lenses.  So altho' I'm making an appeal to authority--my own--I'm well positioned to call "seabird [guano! ] on magical "zoom" lenses.

    -------
    Note : Serious enough about photography to have started self-taught for a high school annual, including push-processing for my own film (there's quite a narrow margin for error in photographing football games by available light at night), and printing some of it esp. in my college years.  From time-to-time being paid for my fieldwork in photojournalism, and later, commercial film processing in a darkroom (dip-n-dunk: no autoeverything processors).

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17627
    • Reputation: +8113/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #147 on: May 16, 2018, 03:15:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Quote
    The Sun heats up the atmosphere and it expands (locally, since it's a small Sun), while The Moon cools it (again, locally).  

    .
    So the sun heats up the atmosphere and the moon cools it............ Okay.............

    Then why is the daytime temperature during a new moon the same as during a full moon?

    The new moon in the sky at the same time as the sun should take away all the sun's heat that day.

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17627
    • Reputation: +8113/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #148 on: May 16, 2018, 03:24:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, Neil understood my point even if you didn't.  If you terminate the lines before they cross over one another and then point out to space, the vast majority of the lines coalesce at some point not too far from the earth, at the top of a conical structure.  And that is where flat earthers would put the sun, relatively close to the earth.
    .
    Your premise is 100% false, again.
    The "vast majority of the lines" do NOT "coalesce" or "cross over one another" anywhere near each other.
    You're only looking at one view of the model when many views in a moving image are provided for clarity.
    Clarity which you ignore repeatedly.
    .
    The arrows that APPEAR to be close to each other here IN THIS VIEW ALONE are separated from each other near to far.
    There are only a VERY FEW like less than 10 that come close to crossing each other AT ALL, and not very close at that.
    Most pairs of these arrows don't come close to each other at all. 
    Most of these arrows don't touch ANY OTHER ARROW.
    So knock it off with your gibberish fantasy, Ladislaus. Unless you enjoy making yourself look stupid.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline noOneImportant

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 223
    • Reputation: +136/-168
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
    « Reply #149 on: May 16, 2018, 08:54:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you have a link to the message/post?  I admit that I'm getting lost among all these concurrent flat earth threads.
    Last post in this thread.

    And, if there's a solid dome, reflection off the dome might account for those strays around the perimeter.
    If the sunlight has enough reach to reflect off the dome and reach the areas south of New Zealand (in my screenshot above, far left), then wouldn't it also illuminate NZ itself directly? Also if there were a dome reflective enough for people that far away to see the sun with the same brightness as it they were viewing it directly, I think you'd end up seeing multiple "suns" in the sky at many point (once viewed directly, plus reflections).
    I think you're also being misled by the fact that the arrows are more spaced out along the perimeter. They aren't really "strays". You could draw just as many of those as the ones that sort of converge.

     

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