Author Topic: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations (Read 21014 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** February 15, 2022, 04:56:59 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist on February 15, 2022, 09:54:01 AM

Big budget is completely unnecessary. You needn't search very long to find people who have spent seasons in Antarctica and in the Arctic circle.
(I know one who did a 9-month stint at South Pole Station, and several techs from the now decommissioned White Alice network).
They will tell you about the midnight summer sun WHICH OCCURS AT BOTH POLES BUT AT DIFFERENT TIMES, half year apart during respective seasons for northern and southern hemispheres, and also about the sunless winter days. Now, try to fit that into the ludicrous FE "terrarium" models those pathetic frauds keep ginning up.

Nonsense. Two known videos of the Antarctic midnight sun are proven frauds. Why the fraud if such a thing exists?

There's so much fraud and lying on the part of the globeheads that something along these lines would in fact be necessary. If NASA and the government had proven themselves reliable and not pathological liars, then it's posible that no such experiment would be necessary. They have made it necessary.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** February 15, 2022, 04:58:28 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist on February 15, 2022, 01:35:48 PM

Actually, it's diffraction, and it is caused by the graded density of air,

... ridiculous. Dr. John D (a specialist in spectrometry) explains why its nonsense and conducted a two-way laser experiment which ruled out any diffraction. We had a very lengthy and thorough discussion of the subject and you think you can come here and pontificate it away with the wave or your hand and a gratuitous statement.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** February 15, 2022, 05:02:40 PM »

Quote from: Marion on February 15, 2022, 01:47:23 PM

Since I couldn't really figure out what that text is supposed to mean, I looked it up.

I see that you spent a lot of time trying to distract from the fact that you're a liar who pulls stuff out of his rear end when it suits your fancy.

First you claim that Dubay is a disinfo agent in response without a shred of proof and then later asserted that Dubay invented the flat earth model which has the sun and moon rotating above the earth ... again without a shred of proof and from a position of total ignorance. But these things sound good to you, so you go with it.

Do you have some unnatural fascination with Dubay that you are so fixated on him?

Besides that, it's total nonsense that FE was invented in 2015, so get lost with your stupidity.

Dankward · « **Reply #43 on:** February 15, 2022, 05:14:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 15, 2022, 08:02:20 AM

But I simply cannot buy that this magical refraction is responsible for all the "see too far" phenomena. I laid out both sides of the issue, and the odds are so small that this refraction can consistently and repeatably make light bend perfectly around the curve, are almost zero. And the odds that as we're hurtling through space at millions of miles per hour, not just the planet, but the entire solar system, and then the galaxy, and that the angle of our north pole towarad Polaris hasn't budged, and that the moon rotates at the same rate as it revolves around the earth ... to the second, those odds are so preposterously small that it would be like my claiming that complex organisms just evolved randomly out of nothing.

I would be more inclined to believe some evidence that "gravity" causes light to bend around the curve. At least that would result in a repeatable and consistent result. But nobody argues that because they realize that gravity does not have that effect on light.

Then please look up terrestrial refraction, how it works, how to calculate it, and then make an informed decision if it can be used as an explanation for bent lines of sight.

Here is a good calculator, as an example I chose the 273 miles world record line of sight distance and it's parameters, which gives you a k value for refraction, which you can put into the terrestrial refraction formulas that I posted earlier and that you can look up everywhere.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator&state=--22743.2-9439350.91-9-31760.6569-40.41974412-10.034081287-9-9-2#App

Because the other explanation of so called atmospheric lensing is a baseless, unscientific claim with no evidence for it's existence. Even if it did exist, it's behavior would be highly inconsistent and definitely looks much more like a human ad-hoc explanation.

That is looking at the issue from both sides then I guess?

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #44 on:** February 15, 2022, 06:39:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 15, 2022, 04:56:59 PM

Nonsense. Two known videos of the Antarctic midnight sun are proven frauds. Why the fraud if such a thing exists?

There's so much fraud and lying on the part of the globeheads that something along these lines would in fact be necessary. If NASA and the government had proven themselves reliable and not pathological liars, then it's posible that no such experiment would be necessary. They have made it necessary.

As already noted, my source is an eyewitness former colleague who spent 9 months at Amundsen-Scott Station. He was an engineer taking care of the instruments, not a researcher. So he had no "investment" in data which might be twisted to support uniformitarianism. But, so as not to disappoint, here's some stuff for your amusement, especially the time-lapse footage. Sure you'll decide it's a few 100K frames of boring doctored CGI before even looking, but watch it anyway, you might learn something for a change: https://gml.noaa.gov/obop/spo/livecamera.html

As for your Dr. D(imbulb), may I suggest checking his creds very carefully before quoting him further. Most assuredly, lengthy discussions with him are as much wasted intervals of your life. If I sound snarky, it's because he would not the first "specialist in spectrometry" just for knowing the operating sequence on-zeroize-sample on a fully automatic mass spectrometer.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations (Read 21014 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Ladislaus

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Ladislaus

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

Dankward

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations

ultrarigorist

Re: Debunk of a Flat Earth without using science but only empirical observations