Author Topic: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash (Read 10212 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #180 on:** August 18, 2018, 06:32:52 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on August 18, 2018, 09:50:54 AM

The 120m tall object 60 km away would appear twice as tall (40m) compared to the 20m tall object 20 km away.

Thanks. I tried to boil down the argument in the video to a simple case with simple numbers.
I really hope Ladislaus comes back to explain why this wouldn't be the case. This is important, because Ladislaus dismissed the argument in the video as being "utterly idiotic" and discrediting "globe earthism".

.
It's a fake accusation for him to say a video showing amazing power zoom is "utterly idiotic" -- because for him, using a zoom improperly (without a solar filter) is his idea of showing that the sun can be made to "rise" from the horizon by increased power of zoom. Ladislaus defends the utterly idiotic while falsely accusing accurate analysis of the same. He's got it backwards!
.
Ladislaus is not going to answer your well-thought-out question because he is not capable of thinking logically in regards to geometrical perspective. He has no idea what you're talking about. To prove my point, if he ever does reply he will continue with a series of inquiries that imply your negligence to consider other factors such as barrel distortion, humidity, refraction, temperature, time of day, type of surface (water or hard earth), heat differential and the like. He will attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill because he denies the whole point of your question. It cannot be simple for him and his ilk, it must be far more complicated such that no correct answer is possible.
.
He weakly and ignorantly buys the flat-earth nonsense and deceptions eagerly and without any objective inquiry, all the while claiming that he has a "great talent for shredding bad arguments."
More like, he has a great talent for sticking his own foot in his own mouth.

.

"Flat" Earth is Complete Balderdash!

.

And it generates foot-in-mouth syndrome.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #181 on:** August 18, 2018, 07:01:36 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on August 16, 2018, 06:20:33 PM

Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective.
Here's the question, then. In a flat earth world, for an observer at the same level as their bases, can you say which of these should appear taller: a 20m tall object that is 20 km away, or a 120m tall object that is 60 km away?
If that's not enough information to decide, what other factors would you need to know?

.

I can offer a subsidiary problem that takes this one step higher:

.

In the same flat earth world, with the same observer facing the two distant objects and standing at the same elevation as the bases of the two objects, how far forward would the observer have to move in order for him to see the tops of the two distant objects appear to be the same height?

.

Take (40K + x) over

120 all times 20 = x;

20K - x is the answer

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #182 on:** August 19, 2018, 09:19:26 PM »

.
A more general form that covers both versions could go as follows:
.
On a fair, clear day, a man on a hypothetically "flat" earth is standing on flat ground, facing a clear view of two distant objects, also on flat ground, the closest of which is 20 kilometers away from him; there it stands 20 meters tall. In nearly the same direction the man sees a second object at 60 Km away, standing 120 m tall.
- A) Which direction does the man have to walk: toward the objects, further away from them, or not at all -- such that when he lies on the ground to look at them, the two distant objects would appear to be the same height, and
- B) How far must he walk (toward, away or zero) to arrive at this position (where the objects would seem to be equally tall)?
- For extra credit, by what magnitude and in which direction does this (B) distance change if the man had from the start viewed the two distant objects from the prone position, instead of standing?
.
The original question, "...which of these should appear taller...?" would be redundant since it is displaced by part (A) in the general form, above. Additionally, anyone attempting to solve the problem who complains, that which object from the start appears taller has nothing to do with which way the man would have to walk in order to see them appear the same height, does not understand the problem at all, or is ignorant of how perspective works. IOW it exhibits nescience typical of flat-earthers.

Stanley N · « **Reply #183 on:** August 20, 2018, 06:16:39 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on August 16, 2018, 06:20:33 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 16, 2018, 02:46:25 PM

Utterly idiotic. It's optics/perspective 101 that things appear smaller as they get farther away from the observer. It's this kind of thing that discredits globe earthism, when globe earthers present this a "proof".
Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective.
Here's the question, then. In a flat earth world, for an observer at the same level as their bases, can you say which of these should appear taller: a 20m tall object that is 20 km away, or a 120m tall object that is 60 km away?
If that's not enough information to decide, what other factors would you need to know?

OK, it has been long enough.
Ladislaus condemned the argument in the video as idiotic. I would like an explanation why as outlined above.
This is a serious matter, because this is a Catholic forum representing traditional Catholicism, and anything someone says here (even anonymously) has moral consequences if it misleads anyone about the Church, or worse, drives someone away from the Church.
The math for the FE model is usually within the range of high school geometry and algebra. Making mistakes on something simple - that a LOT of people can understand - harms credibility not just on FE topics but on every other topic here. It makes us look like gullible fools and undermines traditional Catholicism.

happenby · « **Reply #184 on:** August 22, 2018, 10:41:58 AM »

Try to focus, it is not a difficult question to comprehend:
Can you provide a practical evidential example of a body of water conforming to the exterior of a shape

Stanley N · « **Reply #185 on:** August 22, 2018, 04:34:02 PM »

Quote from: happenby on August 22, 2018, 10:41:58 AM

Try to focus, it is not a difficult question to comprehend:
Can you provide a practical evidential example of a body of water conforming to the exterior of a shape

Every body of water on earth.
Also water in zero G.

(This video doesn't look like it has a cut from 0:52 to 1:45, a little long for a zero G airplane. but that's a different topic.)
Goldfish in a water bubble in a zero-G elevator

You can find several images of insects inside drops of water without zero G, too.

happenby · « **Reply #186 on:** August 22, 2018, 09:19:28 PM »

Oh boy. This is going to be a long haul. For now, besides begging the question with NASA nonsense, have you ever seen water gather around and stick to the outside of a ball? Have you ever seen water surface in a glass or a pool curve?

Stanley N · « **Reply #187 on:** August 22, 2018, 09:38:03 PM »

Quote from: happenby on August 22, 2018, 09:19:28 PM

Oh boy. This is going to be a long haul. For now, besides begging the question with NASA nonsense, have you ever seen water gather around and stick to the outside of a ball? Have you ever seen water surface in a glass or a pool curve?

Yes. Every large lake or body of water on earth.
You can get a water bulge over a glass (such as a cylinder, or a slide), though that is from a different force.

And if you were fast you could see the same thing as the NASA video in an airplane in zero G maneuver.

hismajesty · « **Reply #188 on:** August 23, 2018, 06:29:31 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on August 22, 2018, 09:38:03 PM

Yes. Every large lake or body of water on earth.
You can get a water bulge over a glass (such as a cylinder, or a slide), though that is from a different force.

And if you were fast you could see the same thing as the NASA video in an airplane in zero G maneuver.

Your first remark presumes the earth is round which is a circular logic.

There is only minor bulges in water in real life. Nothing on a big scale.

Stanley N · « **Reply #189 on:** August 23, 2018, 08:11:21 AM »

Quote from: hismajesty on August 23, 2018, 06:29:31 AM

Your first remark presumes the earth is round which is a circular logic.

The curve of a body of water is something you can measure.
But I suppose you would reject as invalid any observation that disagrees with your FE notions.

hismajesty · « **Reply #190 on:** August 23, 2018, 12:11:32 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on August 23, 2018, 08:11:21 AM

The curve of a body of water is something you can measure.
But I suppose you would reject as invalid any observation that disagrees with your FE notions.

Not at all. It is precisely because I don't have preconceived notions that I am flat earth.

Did you look at the links I provided you in the other thread?

happenby · « **Reply #191 on:** August 23, 2018, 11:08:03 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on August 23, 2018, 08:11:21 AM

The curve of a body of water is something you can measure.
But I suppose you would reject as invalid any observation that disagrees with your FE notions.

This is hilarious. Who told you such a thing? Water surface ALWAYS settles flat. Aside from FE, curving surface of water is a farce. There is no empirical proof settled water surface curves or maintains curvature of any type. Water settles flat in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house, and as described, in the glassy seas.

Stanley N · « **Reply #192 on:** August 23, 2018, 11:24:46 PM »

Quote from: hismajesty on August 23, 2018, 12:11:32 PM

Not at all. It is precisely because I don't have preconceived notions that I am flat earth.

Did you look at the links I provided you in the other thread?

Yes. Why don't you come up with one piece of "evidence" that in your view most clearly shows the earth is flat.

Stanley N · « **Reply #193 on:** August 24, 2018, 12:05:23 AM »

Quote from: happenby on August 23, 2018, 11:08:03 PM

This is hilarious. Who told you such a thing? Water surface ALWAYS settles flat. Aside from FE, curving surface of water is a farce. There is no empirical proof settled water surface curves or maintains curvature of any type. Water settles flat in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house, and as described, in the glassy seas.

Have you measured this over a reasonably large distance?
Relative to gravity, water "settles" to an equal gravitational potential. That is only "flat" as an approximation for small distances.

hismajesty · « **Reply #194 on:** August 24, 2018, 09:56:17 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on August 23, 2018, 11:24:46 PM

Yes. Why don't you come up with one piece of "evidence" that in your view most clearly shows the earth is flat.

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs

Author Topic: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash (Read 10212 times)

Neil Obstat

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

Neil Obstat

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

Neil Obstat

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

Stanley N

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash - calling Ladislaus

happenby

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

Stanley N

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

happenby

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

Stanley N

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

hismajesty

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

Stanley N

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

hismajesty

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

happenby

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

Stanley N

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

Stanley N

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash

hismajesty

Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash