Author Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 93236 times)

mw2016 · « **Reply #510 on:** April 04, 2017, 10:40:49 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on April 03, 2017, 11:26:25 PM

.
The sun traverses the sky faster than the moon does. So every hour or two, the moon moves some number of degrees further away from the sun after the new moon and before the full moon.

After the full moon, the sun starts to catch up to the moon and its approach makes the angle between their respective lines of sight from earth to get smaller, until at the moment of new moon, they are both in the same location in the sky, from the reference point of earth with the north star behind the viewer.

Now that I have done this once, I see that it's a good idea to check the angle between the sun and moon the day BEFORE the quarter moon, noting the clock time when checking the angle. Then if you can again check the angle the following day at the same number of minutes after the Almanac shows the time of the quarter moon as your previous day's measurement time was BEFORE the same Almanac time, then you can estimate what the angle would have been if you had checked it at precisely the Almanac time.

There will be times when measuring this angle at the moment of the Almanac time will not be possible, such as it was today. If you had to wait until two or three hours after moonrise, the sun was then in the afternoon sky, since it was about 3 or 4 o'clock P.M.

The last quarter of April will be in 2 weeks, which will occur at 3:00 am on April 19th:

Old Farmer's Almanac moon phases for month of April from Santa Monica

Well, obviously, you won't be able to see the moon at 3 o'clock in the morning. Nor will you be able to see the sun, since it will be night time.

The first quarter moon follows the sun, and the second quarter moon leads the sun.

The best plan is to look for a time when the moon and sun will both be visible in the sky at the moment of the quarter moon according to the Almanac. For the first quarter, look for a time from 1 pm to 7:30 pm (daylight savings time), a span of 6 or 7 hours. For the last quarter, look for an Almanac time from 6 am to 4 pm. Therefore, this measurement is more easily made during the last quarter, when the moon leads the sun across the sky, because you'll be able to see both of them from sunrise until the moon sets 10 hours later. But you'll have to do it in the first hours of daylight until mid-afternoon. If you can better find the time in the early evening, you should shoot for a first quarter moon viewing.

The last quarter moon of this past January was at 2:14 pm, which would have been a good time, since the moon would be close to the western horizon but still visible.

You should have posted this before yesterday, if you wanted me to look at it and measure the angle between the moon and sun.
I can do it today because the moonrise time is only a few moments later.
But, you still have not explained what is the point of this experiment? Just get to the point. What is it you think can be shown by measuring the angle between moon's position at rise and where the sun is in relation to it at that moment?

mw2016 · « **Reply #511 on:** April 04, 2017, 10:52:47 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on April 04, 2017, 01:23:17 AM

"the dome" (which has never been found to exist by the way)

Furthermore, if you are wont to claim that there is not variation in air pressure, perhaps you can pronounce for all to see, your description of the operation of a barometer. What does "millibar" mean, for example. Is it part of the worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth?

So, it seems you openly disagree with the Book of Genesis and its multiple verses describing the Firmament.
How do you square your disbelief of the Bible, with your Catholicism?
Also, I have never ever heard a FE'er say they do not believe in air pressure changing with altitude, so I'm not sure what your point is.
The "dome" or Firmament exists because the Bible tells us so. The Bible tells us it is hard, like brass or glass, and that it holds back the waters above. We have not seen Heaven, either, but we believe on faith that it is there - just like the "dome."

happenby · « **Reply #512 on:** April 04, 2017, 04:52:11 PM »

Quote from: mw2016 on April 04, 2017, 10:52:47 AM

So, it seems you openly disagree with the Book of Genesis and its multiple verses describing the Firmament.
How do you square your disbelief of the Bible, with your Catholicism?
Also, I have never ever heard a FE'er say they do not believe in air pressure changing with altitude, so I'm not sure what your point is.
The "dome" or Firmament exists because the Bible tells us so. The Bible tells us it is hard, like brass or glass, and that it holds back the waters above. We have not seen Heaven, either, but we believe on faith that it is there - just like the "dome."

It seems, according to scripture, that the firmament may actually be visible, at times, and/or in certain places. Psalm 19:1 "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." Although not certain, it may be that thunder resounds against it and echos. Rainbows, northern lights and sundogs appear to reflect aspects of the dome as well. The Primum Mobil was long considered to be the outer orbit of stars just below the firmament. Wiki: "The total number of celestial spheres was not fixed. In this 16th-century illustration, the firmament (sphere of fixed stars) is eighth, a "crystalline" sphere (posited to account for the reference to "waters . . . above the firmament" in Genesis 1:7) is ninth, and the Primum Mobile is tenth. Outside all is the Empyrean, the "habitation of God and all the elect." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_Mobile There is plenty to consider and research with regards to the firmament.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #513 on:** April 04, 2017, 05:32:57 PM »

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 04, 2017, 06:59:24 AM

Neil,
you are becoming quite pedantic at this point.

- you have not answered Mw's question about the experiment. What is it meant to prove?

-Flat Earth trads website never claims nor even implies that Bishop Williamson is flat earth.

-The horizon is suppose to descend on a ball earth as you ascend. Common sense tells us that. But you wish to deny that.
[you are privy to my intentions??]

- "tuning in" was in reference to cathinfo and not flatearthtrads

- for nearly the 20th time, you were shown up wrong
[No, I wasn't]
by not answering where hudnreds of feet came from on the mountain in a video which has been shown multiple times on this and other threads. There are other examples but that is the most important, because it is the base of the flat earth proof.
[There is no such proof.]

- Perspective is simply a description of the reality.
[What reality? The one in your imagination?]
It doesn't even need to be proven.
[Perspective can be proven, but not by you, because you're too busy complaining.]
Because we know the earth to be flat,
[False premise, dude]
and yet objects to be there,
[grammar error?]
the way we explain it is by perspective.
[And you are not using perspective but your erroneous interpretation of the data.]
It doesn't make sense to you because you believe the earth to be round.
[You start at the conclusion, a false one, and work in reverse, which is deception and fallacy.]
I use BELIEVE in the true sense because you have no evidence for it.
We see the earth to be flat.
[And I have seen it to have a viewable curvature, which I have described, but you apparently can't understand or don't want to understand.]

.
It's always the same attitude problem with you FEI, ain't it. Talk about pedantic. Why don't you do something constructive for once?
.

I answered Mw's question about the experiment. Maybe you didn't bother to read it. Take the measurement, if you can. But you can't, no? I mean, if you could, you would, but you don't, so you can't -- for whatever reason. But it seems to me you simply don't WANT to be involved. You only want to sit in the peanut gallery and whine and moan like a woman. Same old same old.
.

Whine, whine, whine. Take a real measurement and can the rest, along with your bad grammar and spelling. But now you'll have to be patient and wait for at least 2 weeks until the next quarter moon.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #514 on:** April 04, 2017, 06:22:39 PM »

Quote from: mw2016 on April 04, 2017, 10:40:49 AM

You should have posted this before yesterday, if you wanted me to look at it and measure the angle between the moon and sun.
I can do it today because the moonrise time is only a few moments later.
But, you still have not explained what is the point of this experiment? Just get to the point. What is it you think can be shown by measuring the angle between moon's position at rise and where the sun is in relation to it at that moment?

.
It's not moon's position at rise. You keep saying that and I have no idea where you got it.
We're not concerned with moonrise, UNLESS that is the moment when the first or last quarter moon occurs that day. I have given you links to the Almanac website that displays the times for each quarter moon but maybe you think that's part of the great conspiracy or whatever. You're going to have to get OVER that prejudice if you want to observe the facts without prejudice.
.
I know, I should have posted it before yesterday. But what is, what is. Now we'll have to wait for the next opportunity. A measurement can be taken on May 1st in the evening, and two more on May 2nd in the morning and in the evening. The first quarter happens at 7:48 pm which is 9 minutes after sunset (7:39 pm). So the sun will be very low in the sky, and the moon will be somewhere overhead. --- Can you predict about where in the sky the moon will be on May 2nd when the sun is setting?
.
The sun, moon and planets make regular motions in the sky, which allow us to predict where they will be, even many years in advance. Can you explain how that would be possible with a "flat" earth model? Are there any astronomical charts and tables written by flat-earthers? For example, if a viewer in California measures the angle between the moon and sun as 93 degrees like I did, and another viewer in Hawaii sees the same 93 degrees and another viewer in Quito, Equador and another in Calgary, Alberta, Canada sees 93 degrees and another in Houston TX also sees 93 degrees, all of them at the same hour (5:00 PDT, or UTC -7), how would you explain that set of data using a flat-earth model? But in any case, there is a lot more to this process, but it would only bog down the topic at this point. Go watch the video if you want the whole process.
.
Measurements taken today are not of no use, but they are unable to show the key picture that we need for the next phase. We need to see what the angle is between the moon and the sun as viewed from earth at the moment of the quarter moon. And that moment has passed for this phase. The next quarter will be the LAST quarter moon, on April 19th. Remember, during the last quarter, the moon leads the sun, so the moon will be about 6 hours ahead of the sun. The last quarter occurs at 3:00 am, therefore the moon will be around the 9 o'clock position of a 24-hour clock, which is 10:30 on a 12-hour clock. Since the sun moves faster than the moon, the sun will be catching up to the moon that morning on Wednesday the 19th of April. If we get a chance to measure the angle between them as the sun rises, it is going to be a smaller angle than it was at 3:00 am, but how much smaller is another question.
.
Today the area of the illuminated moon has increased 11% from yesterday, from 50% to 61%. So we can see that the angle of the sun to the moon is significantly changing. This has many implications.
.
The point of the experiment is to complete the picture of the relative positions of the earth, moon and sun at the moment of the first or last quarter moon each month. This position occurs 24 times each year, so the data is very available for those who want to know what reality has to show us. I already posted a video that goes through the whole process if you want to watch that again -- or, perhaps for the first time, if you have not yet watched the videos I've posted.
.
I make it a point to watch the F-E-er's videos all right, but they don't bother to watch mine, apparently. Because if they had watched them they wouldn't be asking these questions over and over again. Maybe it's too much work to spend 20 minutes every few days or whatever.
.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #515 on:** April 04, 2017, 06:28:50 PM »

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 04, 2017, 07:05:28 AM

This is how Neil explains how curve appears, and gravity works....

So now you're presuming to speak for me? And you can't manage to speak for yourself?
You know, it's a sin against the 4th commandment to ridicule your teacher. Shame on you.

.

Why don't you go post at flatards where nobody else is posting? I'm sure they'd appreciate your help. You can go there and make 100% of the posts for the whole day! You can be KING of the flatards.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #516 on:** April 04, 2017, 06:33:29 PM »

Quote from: Binechi on April 03, 2017, 04:56:12 PM

Try this one out

The earth is fixed

Was the earth broken?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #517 on:** April 04, 2017, 07:27:18 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on April 02, 2017, 06:30:48 PM

Therefore, provided that you are willing to at least entertain for the moment that it's the SUN shining on the MOON and us looking at the MOON from EARTH that's the reason that we see a quarter moon -- that is, the moon as a globe, or spherical object, with light shining on its right side, while being almost entirely dark on its left side (in the northern hemisphere, obviously, USA or Canada), with the line separating the light side and dark side going somewhat vertically from the top of the moon to the bottom -- then we can move on to the next aspect of this observation, which is: measurement of the angle between two different lines -- our line of sight toward the sun and our line of sight toward the moon.

The link I provided above gives the time of day from the Los Angeles area as 11:40 am, when the first quarter moon will occur. That is the preferred time to make the observation I will describe below. It is of no great consequence if the observation is made in my area later in the day, for example one or two o'clock in the afternoon, or even until sunset, which occurs here at 7:16 pm. The time of the observation should be noted, however, so it can be used in the analysis that follows.

.
The first quarter on April 3rd was at 11:40 am. That put the moon below the horizon where we can't see it yet, but it was moving upwards. Maybe that's where you got the idea of "moonrise", mw.
.
The next opportunity on April 19th will be at 3:00 am and it will be the last quarter, which means the moon will lead the sun. The moon will already be high in the sky (can you predict how high??) when the sun rises in the eastern horizon. People in the eastern USA will be able to see the moon at that time because the last quarter moon optimum time will occur at 6:00 am there (which is objectively the same time as 3:00 am PDT), with sunrise at 16 minutes later, at 6:16 am. So they'll be able to measure the sun-moon angle less than a half-hour after the optimum viewing time. Even though it is a few minutes late when they'll have the ability to measure the sun-moon angle, it will be a better time to get this angle, than our time will be on the west coast, when the sun rises 3 hours later. For us, we'll be over 3 hours late, but in the Carolinas, they'll only be 16 minutes late.

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #518 on:** April 05, 2017, 11:29:10 AM »

Still no answer from Neil as to what this experiment has to do with whether the earth is round or flat.

You my teacher? I'm almost getting worried about your sanity Neil.

Here is the famous video that Neil has no coherent explanation for. He can only haggle over a few feet of the viewer which makes no essential difference.

deutschcath · « **Reply #519 on:** April 05, 2017, 11:31:12 AM »

yes appears Mr Obstat is declining. He is writing a lot but not really producing much.

mw2016 · « **Reply #520 on:** April 05, 2017, 02:08:07 PM »

Neil,

There is no claim anywhere on that FE Trad website that Bp. Williamson is a flat earther.

I have never heard Bp. Williamson mention FE, but I wouldn't mind if someone asked him about it.

The website's statement says they are "supporters" of Bp. Williamson.

So what?

Also, why don't you answer my question about the Bible's description of the Firmament? Still waiting....

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #521 on:** April 06, 2017, 05:27:39 AM »

Hey guys,
Here is something I posted over on "the" forum. Hope you find it convincing.
Here is a pretty good example of something we should not see.
It is from the village hermanville in north France to le Havre, a well known port village, and the mountains above it.
The pictures I got from google maps street view and from heywhatsthat.com, a website for viewing the contours of land at any given spot.

Here first map view of the place in question

It is from the pink X to the black X. It is this side profile which is shown below

For the earth curve calculator we are going to take 40 miles. You can see the elevation from the above image. It is just over 400 feet approximately.

We have given an allowance of 14 feet height for the camera from sea level. Pretty generous. Giving a few more feet will not alter our results significantly or detract from the point of the experiment as you will see.

Here is what we see

Here is what the earth curve calculator gives me. A whopping 836 feet. That's nearly 400 feet below the horizon. This would be impossible on a round earth.

Now the first objection usually given is refraction. That is why we took images from a sunny (warmer day) and a cooler cloudy day. There would be a variance in temperature and humidity, important factors in creating refraction and/or superior mirages.

Here are the results

A cloudy day

The first image was a sunny day.

Here are the two side by side, in case anyone thinks we are cheating with the different points at which the photo was taken

noOneImportant · « **Reply #522 on:** April 06, 2017, 06:44:42 PM »

Cute, and deliberately misleading. Why are you measuring the distance to a point 15 miles into the plateau (or hill or whatever it is)? The cliff's edge is ~25 miles away. So you should expect to see 1-200 feet of cliff above the horizon (depending on the actual height above sea level of the camera, which we can't know exactly).

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #523 on:** April 06, 2017, 07:40:45 PM »

https://imgflip.com/i/1mtoaf

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #524 on:** April 07, 2017, 05:14:00 AM »

Quote from: noOneImportant on April 06, 2017, 06:44:42 PM

Cute, and deliberately misleading. Why are you measuring the distance to a point 15 miles into the plateau (or hill or whatever it is)? The cliff's edge is ~25 miles away. So you should expect to see 1-200 feet of cliff above the horizon (depending on the actual height above sea level of the camera, which we can't know exactly).

Actually, its only misleading if you are not paying attention.

And, as a matter of fact it is now you who is being misleading.

I'll explain how for people of good will (not you)...

Misleading, because you can look up the google street vie truck and see that it about this height. Also, you can see how close the camera is to the sea, and that it is pretty much at sea level.

Misleading, because at 25 miles there should be 278 feet below the horizon, according to the calculator. (the link is there for anyone who wants to verify it- and I encourage that) Now look again at the profile view and you see that at 25 miles, that is nearly all of the mountain! Q.E.D.

Now the reason I chose 40 miles is because it was a high point. But you have now given an excellent opportunity for the truth to shine even more.

Man, I love being right.

So, since you have nothing productive to say, would you like to admit your error?

Author Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 93236 times)

mw2016

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

mw2016

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

happenby

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Neil Obstat

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Neil Obstat

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Neil Obstat

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Neil Obstat

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Neil Obstat

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

FlatEarthInquisitor

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

deutschcath

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

mw2016

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

FlatEarthInquisitor

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

noOneImportant

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Croix de Fer

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

FlatEarthInquisitor

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat