Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Gray2023 on August 16, 2024, 08:31:36 AM
-
Using geometry.
If the earth is 3000 miles above a flat earth then how far away can I be standing to see the light of the sun.
At sunset let's assume that I am only looking up 5 degrees to see the sun. So the spot directly below the sun, me (in Maryland) and the sun make a triangle. The angles involve are (90, 85, 5). The equation used to calculate the distance from me to the spot below the sun is as follows. Tan(85)*(3000 miles) = 34290 miles. This means that I can see that sun when I look 5 degrees up 34290 miles away. If that is the case then when that sun is over Australia (10000 miles away) I could still see the sun.
For it to be twilight in Australia, when it is noon in Maryland the sun would have to be how far above the earth?
Again we are using the angles (90 degrees sun straight up over Maryland, 5 degrees from looking in Maryland, and 85). The equation 10000 miles/tan(85)= 874 miles.
Please just ponder these equations for a minute.
-
Here's a question: Why can a human look directly into the rising/setting sun, (and even the morning/evening sun) but not look directly into the midday sun? Why does the sun's light/heat diminish in brightness when it rises/sets? This makes no sense on a global/helio model. Because the sun is so far away, its brightness and heat intensity should be constant as either it revolves around earth (geocentrism) or the earth revolves around it (heliocentrism). There's nothing in either of these models that explains why the sun's intensity changes.
For FE however, the sun is not some huge ball of fire which is millions of light years away, but a smaller light source, which gives off light and heat in the same way as a flashlight, style lamp does. One can see the brightness of a flashlight from the side, but the light is not focused towards you, therefore the brightness of the light is less intense to the eyes. However, when the flashlight is shown directly towards you, it is impossible to look directly into it.
From a heat perspective, the analogy is that of standing directly in front of a fireplace fire vs standing to the side of it. The heat given off by the fireplace is constant, but it's focused towards the front opening. You can still experience the heat from the side, but it's not as intense.
The same thing happens with the FE sun. It rotates above the flat-land, and moves in a circular pattern above the earth. And as it moves away from a continent, and towards another continent, it also directs its light/brightness towards the 2nd continent and away from the 1st. Thus, from the perspective of the 1st continent, the sun seems to "set" (i.e. disappear over the horizon, like a boat that sails off too far into the ocean) and one can easily look at the sun because it's powers are directed in the opposite direction of the 1st continent.
But on a global geo or helio model, from the moment the sun rises til the moment the sun sets, the heat and light given off from it should be constant, since the sun's powers do not depend on the earth and are constant. The only thing that changes in these models is the degree/angle of the earth's view of the sun.
Much like a hot dog which rotates on a grilling machine or like a person who rotates a marshmello over an open fire, as soon as the hot dog or mashmello is rotated, it immediately is heated with full intensity. This is how the earth should be heated/lit from the sun as either it/or the earth rotates. Neither Helio/Geo account for the changes in light/heat from the sun.
-
Using geometry.
If the earth is 3000 miles above a flat earth then how far away can I be standing to see the light of the sun.
I'm not sure, but I don't think it's a straight geometry question. In addition to its dependency on the magnitude of the light emitted, there are factors such as the atmosphere, possible obstructions from geography (e.g. mountains), etc. Also, in the hypothetical/working FE model, I believe most hold that the sun is approximately 32 miles in diameter, so it would obviously shrink the farther it got away from you, and the intensity of its light would diminish, not to mention that it would begin converging with the horizon, which also would obstruct the light. If you had a hypothetical perfectly flat plane, with no atmosphere whatsoever, I believe that one would be able to see the sun from one end of the earth to the other with the right optics/magnification, since I'm not sure how big an object would appear from, say, 10,000 miles away if it's 32 miles in diameter. That's one of the problems I have with the allegation that many stars that we can see at night are actually billions of light years away. That is such a staggering distance that there's no way the light would still be visible (we'd probably get maybe a couple photons of light across the entire surface of the earth) ... and the odds that there's nothing in between us and the star would be astronomically small, pun intended.
-
Here's a question: Why can a human look directly into the rising/setting sun, (and even the morning/evening sun) but not look directly into the midday sun? Why does the sun's light/heat diminish in brightness when it rises/sets? This makes no sense on a global/helio model. Because the sun is so far away, its brightness and heat intensity should be constant as either it revolves around earth (geocentrism) or the earth revolves around it (heliocentrism). There's nothing in either of these models that explains why the sun's intensity changes.
Maybe because above our heads the sun has less atmosphere to go through so we have more exposure to the sun. On setting and rising it is coming at us from across the terrain.
For FE however, the sun is not some huge ball of fire which is millions of light years away, but a smaller light source, which gives off light and heat in the same way as a flashlight, style lamp does. One can see the brightness of a flashlight from the side, but the light is not focused towards you, therefore the brightness of the light is less intense to the eyes. However, when the flashlight is shown directly towards you, it is impossible to look directly into it.
I am really not good at explaining the things I see in my head. I am not technical enough to draw a picture and post it here on the forum. So please bear with me.
For your example I see a flashlight shining at a flat earth and then the flash light moving around. For my example I see a stationary sun (flashlight) shining on the earth (ball), the ball is turning. Both pictures actually gives the same result of the object being hotter in the center and cooler on the edges.
From a heat perspective, the analogy is that of standing directly in front of a fireplace fire vs standing to the side of it. The heat given off by the fireplace is constant, but it's focused towards the front opening. You can still experience the heat from the side, but it's not as intense.
The same thing happens with the FE sun. It rotates above the flat-land, and moves in a circular pattern above the earth. And as it moves away from a continent, and towards another continent, it also directs its light/brightness towards the 2nd continent and away from the 1st. Thus, from the perspective of the 1st continent, the sun seems to "set" (i.e. disappear over the horizon, like a boat that sails off too far into the ocean) and one can easily look at the sun because it's powers are directed in the opposite direction of the 1st continent.
But on a global geo or helio model, from the moment the sun rises til the moment the sun sets, the heat and light given off from it should be constant, since the sun's powers do not depend on the earth and are constant. The only thing that changes in these models is the degree/angle of the earth's view of the sun.
Much like a hot dog which rotates on a grilling machine or like a person who rotates a marshmello over an open fire, as soon as the hot dog or mashmello is rotated, it immediately is heated with full intensity. This is how the earth should be heated/lit from the sun as either it/or the earth rotates. Neither Helio/Geo account for the changes in light/heat from the sun.
Even with a marshmallow or hot dog, I think the edges of the item cook more slowly than the part of the object that is right over the heat source.
I am really trying to think through this logically. And the math part of all of this is why I have a hard time.
-
I am really trying to think through this logically. And the math part of all of this is why I have a hard time.
But, as I said, the question you pose isn't a pure math problem.
In fact, it's precisely math that opens people up to the possibility of FE. When you can see objects from hundreds of miles away that should be hidden by miles of curvature ... according to the MATH, that's a problem for the globe. And of all the debates I've had with globe earthers here on CI, not a single one has addressed that core problem, and it is THE core problem for the globe.
Could you please address how/why is it that myriad experiments, as well as long-distance-record photographs taken by non-FEs, and certified by various photography organizations, defy the math of how far they should be visible on a globe?
-
I'm not sure, but I don't think it's a straight geometry question. In addition to its dependency on the magnitude of the light emitted, there are factors such as the atmosphere, possible obstructions from geography (e.g. mountains), etc. Also, in the hypothetical/working FE model, I believe most hold that the sun is approximately 32 miles in diameter, so it would obviously shrink the farther it got away from you, and the intensity of its light would diminish, not to mention that it would begin converging with the horizon, which also would obstruct the light. If you had a hypothetical perfectly flat plane, with no atmosphere whatsoever, I believe that one would be able to see the sun from one end of the earth to the other with the right optics/magnification, since I'm not sure how big an object would appear from, say, 10,000 miles away if it's 32 miles in diameter. That's one of the problems I have with the allegation that many stars that we can see at night are actually billions of light years away. That is such a staggering distance that there's no way the light would still be visible (we'd probably get maybe a couple photons of light across the entire surface of the earth) ... and the odds that there's nothing in between us and the star would be astronomically small, pun intended.
So the math is the same for a 32 diameter sun, 3000 miles from the earth and a NASA said 864000 diameter sun 93000000 miles from the earth. How it looks to us would be the same mathematically.
Lets try the converging point of land and sun as it moves away from you. Assuming that the sun is parallel to the flat earth at 3000 miles away. It would look to us that the sun cam down 1500 miles and the land when up 1500 miles. If you start with a 90 45 45 triangle then the distance of the earth meeting the sun would be 1500 miles. So this implies that at sunset I will see the sun 1500 miles away. Wouldn't this then mean that I should be able to stand on the top of a mountain with no obstructions in the way and see land for 1500 miles. I might not be able to make out details, but I should see a light that far away.
The 90 45 45 triangle doesn't really give you an accurate geometric perspective. A better example would be using a 90 85 5 triangle. Which would calculate to 17000 miles. The distance from Maryland to England to Japan back to Maryland is about 20000 miles.
I really don't know what to think about the stars, but I am not sure they are relevant to the geometry of the sun and the earth and how far it should be seen.
I know what I wrote might be confusing. I am just trying to use my simple understanding of geometry and try to apply them to the Flat Earth concept. When I don't understand things I try to go back to simpler things and see if that makes sense.
None of the videos I have seen on here talk about the math. If you can give me one to view, I will.
-
But, as I said, the question you pose isn't a pure math problem.
In fact, it's precisely math that opens people up to the possibility of FE. When you can see objects from hundreds of miles away that should be hidden by miles of curvature ... according to the MATH, that's a problem for the globe. And of all the debates I've had with globe earthers here on CI, not a single one has addressed that core problem, and it is THE core problem for the globe.
Could you please address how/why is it that myriad experiments, as well as long-distance-record photographs taken by non-FEs, and certified by various photography organizations, defy the math of how far they should be visible on a globe?
So I am not an expert on optical allusions. Those get a lot more complicated.
Pick one, so we can discuss it. I know there are many out there. Please don't be upset with me, but you know exactly what experiments convinced you that the earth is flat. I am new here and a mother, so if I don't respond right away, I will when I can.
-
So I am not an expert on optical allusions. Those get a lot more complicated.
Pick one, so we can discuss it. I know there are many out there. Please don't be upset with me, but you know exactly what experiments convinced you that the earth is flat. I am new here and a mother, so if I don't respond right away, I will when I can.
There are hundreds of observations and experiments that show objects that should not be visible given the sheer math/geometry involved.
What I infer to be your answer here is that they are all optical illusions of some kind. I find that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate which such illusion is responsible for the phenomena. I'll help you out here. Most globers use throw the word "refraction" out there. Indeed, if it were the question of a single such observation, I might give "refraction" some thought, but the fact that there are hundreds and thousands of observations, most of them repeatable, with properties inconsistent with refraction, and the fact that two-way laser experiments rule it out completely ... refraction is absolutely unconvincing as an explanation for the observed phenomena.
-
There are hundreds of observations and experiments that show objects that should not be visible given the sheer math/geometry involved.
What I infer to be your answer here is that they are all optical illusions of some kind. I find that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate which such illusion is responsible for the phenomena. I'll help you out here. Most globers use throw the word "refraction" out there. Indeed, if it were the question of a single such observation, I might give "refraction" some thought, but the fact that there are hundreds and thousands of observations, most of them repeatable, with properties inconsistent with refraction, and the fact that two-way laser experiments rule it out completely ... refraction is absolutely unconvincing as an explanation for the observed phenomena.
Please do not infer anything from what I write. I just want one example to discus in a polite discussion. I need to see data and numbers. I need to do the math and then think of why the results turned out differently. I can't just presume anything or make wide generalities. I am a different kind of person than most. I don't have a firm bias, but I do need numbers to add up.
-
Hi Gray,
FE is being heavily censored, so I had to use Firefox to go to Yandex to find this for you. Hope it helps.
https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/sun-moon-yin-yang/
The distance of the sun can be measured with much precision, the same way as a tree or a house, or church steeple is measured, by plane triangulation. It is the principle on which a house is built, a table made or a man-of-war constructed … The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeeze itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only? But look at the distance, say the professors! We have already done that and not one of the wise men we have so often challenged, has ever attempted to refute the principle on which we measure the sun’s distance … If the navigator neglects to apply the sun’s semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun’s diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. Let him disprove this who can. If ever disproof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (114-120)
(https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2424a-sextant.png?w=525)Measuring with sextants and calculating with plane trigonometry both the Sun and Moon figure to be only about 32 miles in diameter and approximately 3,000 miles away.
“The results of recent research prove that the heavenly luminaries are not Worlds, but lights, and should cause all men who have been led to accept as proven Copernicus’ theory of the motions of the Earth, to reconsider this subject.” -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (3)
-
Hi Gray,
FE is being heavily censored, so I had to use Firefox to go to Yandex to find this for you. Hope it helps.
https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/sun-moon-yin-yang/
The distance of the sun can be measured with much precision, the same way as a tree or a house, or church steeple is measured, by plane triangulation. It is the principle on which a house is built, a table made or a man-of-war constructed … The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeeze itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only? But look at the distance, say the professors! We have already done that and not one of the wise men we have so often challenged, has ever attempted to refute the principle on which we measure the sun’s distance … If the navigator neglects to apply the sun’s semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun’s diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. Let him disprove this who can. If ever disproof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (114-120)
(https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2424a-sextant.png?w=525)Measuring with sextants and calculating with plane trigonometry both the Sun and Moon figure to be only about 32 miles in diameter and approximately 3,000 miles away.
“The results of recent research prove that the heavenly luminaries are not Worlds, but lights, and should cause all men who have been led to accept as proven Copernicus’ theory of the motions of the Earth, to reconsider this subject.” -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (3)
Cera, thank you for finding, but that wasn't really helpful. How the sun looks with math gives the same result. A 3000 mile away sun that has a diameter of 32 miles across will look the same as a 93000000 miles away sun with a diameter of 864000 miles. the perspective is the same on earth which is why they made guesses to how far and what size. It doesn't mean the data was arbitary just that perspective is limited from our spot on the earth.
The rest of the video added the moon and the spin and other things, that I am not researching right now.
Are you able to find a video that shows the experiments that were done in regards to seeing things that we shouldn't have seen because they dropped below the curvature of the earth, but we can see them.
Also, please take note of what was said in the video.
Quote: "It is obvious to any child and sovereign-minded adult that the Sun, Moon, stars and planets, every light in the sky above, revolves around the motionless Earth beneath our feet. It is also plain to see that the Sun and Moon are both approximately the same size and situated relatively close to Earth, not 400 times divergent and millions upon millions of miles away. To abandon your senses and every day experience in favor of such unfounded science-fiction fantasies is a fallacy of appeal to authority so extreme that it leaves the brain-washed believer impotent to trust his own natural instincts and forever thereafter chained to the fantastical explanations of astronomical charlatans."
I don't need someone belittling me that is trying to teach me. If I spoke that way to you, would you listen?
This wasn't the only time the person talked this way.
-
Please do not infer anything from what I write.
I had no choice because you didn't actually say anything, just threw out there this vague notion of optical "allusions" [sic].
Burden of proof is on you. If the math does not work for things that can be seen too far, you propose the explanation. We have the phenomena, which if take at face values suggests that the earth is flat rather than a globe. Consequently, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate and propose some condition that could explain this, not on us. This is highly dishonest where you're demanding that I produce an explanation for why the earth is still a globe despite the evidence of flatness, when I don't believe it to be the case.
So if you don't want ME to infer anything, then YOU propose an explanation for why things can be seen "too far".
This was an obvious dodge to refuse to answer the question, but somehow placing the onus on me to answer it.
So please answer the question, or stop posting about this subject. I asked you this question before, and you responded by saying, basically, "you tell me".
-
But, as I said, the question you pose isn't a pure math problem.
In fact, it's precisely math that opens people up to the possibility of FE. When you can see objects from hundreds of miles away that should be hidden by miles of curvature ... according to the MATH, that's a problem for the globe. And of all the debates I've had with globe earthers here on CI, not a single one has addressed that core problem, and it is THE core problem for the globe.
Could you please address how/why is it that myriad experiments, as well as long-distance-record photographs taken by non-FEs, and certified by various photography organizations, defy the math of how far they should be visible on a globe?
I can't answer this question. You haven't given me any facts. I don't know what the experiments are. I don't know what these long-distance photos are. I don't know what photography organizations have certified said photographs. I don't even have anything to google. There are no details to work with in this question.
Please provide the details. I am not asking you to prove anything.
-
I had no choice because you didn't actually say anything, just threw out there this vague notion of optical "allusions" [sic].
Burden of proof is on you. If the math does not work for things that can be seen too far, you propose the explanation. We have the phenomena, which if take at face values suggests that the earth is flat rather than a globe. Consequently, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate and propose some condition that could explain this, not on us. This is highly dishonest where you're demanding that I produce an explanation for why the earth is still a globe despite the evidence of flatness, when I don't believe it to be the case.
So if you don't want ME to infer anything, then YOU propose an explanation for why things can be seen "too far".
This was an obvious dodge to refuse to answer the question, but somehow placing the onus on me to answer it.
So please answer the question, or stop posting about this subject. I asked you this question before, and you responded by saying, basically, "you tell me".
I don't work well with hypotheticals. Please see my answer to your question.
-
:facepalm:
-
:facepalm:
So who is shutting down the conversation?
-
Cera, thank you for finding, but that wasn't really helpful. How the sun looks with math gives the same result. A 3000 mile away sun that has a diameter of 32 miles across will look the same as a 93000000 miles away sun with a diameter of 864000 miles. the perspective is the same on earth which is why they made guesses to how far and what size. It doesn't mean the data was arbitary just that perspective is limited from our spot on the earth.
The rest of the video added the moon and the spin and other things, that I am not researching right now.
Are you able to find a video that shows the experiments that were done in regards to seeing things that we shouldn't have seen because they dropped below the curvature of the earth, but we can see them.
Also, please take note of what was said in the video.
Quote: "It is obvious to any child and sovereign-minded adult that the Sun, Moon, stars and planets, every light in the sky above, revolves around the motionless Earth beneath our feet. It is also plain to see that the Sun and Moon are both approximately the same size and situated relatively close to Earth, not 400 times divergent and millions upon millions of miles away. To abandon your senses and every day experience in favor of such unfounded science-fiction fantasies is a fallacy of appeal to authority so extreme that it leaves the brain-washed believer impotent to trust his own natural instincts and forever thereafter chained to the fantastical explanations of astronomical charlatans."
I don't need someone belittling me that is trying to teach me. If I spoke that way to you, would you listen?
This wasn't the only time the person talked this way.
I am trying to understand how the words from the video which you put in red were belittling. My take on it is that he is asking us to have an open mind and as he says "trust our own instincts."
You asked for infomation related to math or geometry, which I took time away from my family in order to post for you. Now you have changed your mind and are saying
Are you able to find a video that shows the experiments that were done in regards to seeing things that we shouldn't have seen because they dropped below the curvature of the earth, but we can see them.
Many many such experiments have been previously posted on CI.
-
I am trying to understand how the words from the video which you put in red were belittling. My take on it is that he is asking us to have an open mind and as he says "trust our own instincts."
You asked for infomation related to math or geometry, which I took time away from my family in order to post for you. Now you have changed your mind and are saying
Are you able to find a video that shows the experiments that were done in regards to seeing things that we shouldn't have seen because they dropped below the curvature of the earth, but we can see them.
Many many such experiments have been previously posted on CI.
Read the quote again. It says believe me or you are stupid.
Your video wasn't what I was asking for. Read Ladislaus' question to me. I can't answer his question because it didn't give a specific example.
I also take time away from my family to have these discussions, it my choice, just like it is your choice.
If you really want to help, please link one of these many discussions to this thread. This is what I am asking for. If you do not want to that is fine, I will do it at some point, when I have time.
No hard feelings, this is a forum.
Prayers for all.
-
You asked for infomation related to math or geometry, which I took time away from my family in order to post for you. Now you have changed your mind and are saying
Are you able to find a video that shows the experiments that were done in regards to seeing things that we shouldn't have seen because they dropped below the curvature of the earth, but we can see them.
Many many such experiments have been previously posted on CI.
Indeed, "see too far" is at the core of the FE problem and why many have been ultimately convinced of FE. It's really basic math. Now, the response is typically just to claim (or rather just throw out the word) "refraction", as some kind of deus ex machina that actually addresses anything. It's only effective if you've already begged the question that the earth is a globe and are grasping for any straw that might salvage the globe in light of these findings. But refraction does not suffice and has been debunked by two-way laser experiments performed by Dr. John D. In addition, for refraction to operate over hundreds of miles without any significant distortion, you'd have to have a constant rate of refraction not only for the entire 200+ miles between the object and the observer, but also for anything behind the object; otherwise even slightly different refraction rates would cause objects to blur over one another and would cause massive distoration, and the odds of a consistent rate of refraction over 200+ miles is next to 0. There's no refutation for this given current science. Now, if someone wanted to claim that the earth's magnetic field or the flow of the ether cause light to bend at a consistent rate around the globe, that might be more plausible, but I know of no such theory. As far as anyone knows, light bends only very slightly due to such forces, we're talking millimeters over the scale of millions of miles. But any such theory would be more plausible than "refraction".
-
If you really want to help, please link one of these many discussions to this thread. This is what I am asking for. If you do not want to that is fine, I will do it at some point, when I have time.
God helps those who help themselves.
-
God helps those who help themselves.
That is a priceless response.
I am the ignorant on this topic, so actually I am giving you a chance to do a spiritual act of mercy.
Instruct the ignorant.
-
I haven't looked back on this thread yet but did come across another line-of-site globe killer video worth checking out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2r6hFMBaKE&pp=ygUQdGFib28gY29uc3BpcmFjeQ%3D%3D
-
I am the ignorant on this topic, so actually I am giving you a chance to do a spiritual act of mercy.
Instruct the ignorant.
I'm just jumping around here but it sounds like you're not sure where to look? For me, I've found Taboo Conspiracy on youtube posts numerous vids showing repeatable experiments. P-brane also does some interesting vids on perspective.
Here's a vid I like, partly because I lived in Santa Barbara for ten years and know this location. What's great is that the horizon is way behind the oil rigs. Very interesting stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmJ7-hVeNPY&list=PLltxIX4B8_UT4qSV8ENCnqPvReRKt3FmF&index=1&pp=iAQB
-
I'm just jumping around here but it sounds like you're not sure where to look? For me, I've found Taboo Conspiracy on youtube posts numerous vids showing repeatable experiments. P-brane also does some interesting vids on perspective.
Here's a vid I like, partly because I lived in Santa Barbara for ten years and know this location. What's great is that the horizon is way behind the oil rigs. Very interesting stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmJ7-hVeNPY&list=PLltxIX4B8_UT4qSV8ENCnqPvReRKt3FmF&index=1&pp=iAQB
Simple, place two dots on a tennis ball (or larger globe object preferably) and look across it from one point and between them is an incline before the horizon. That's why there is water behind the rigs before the horizon.
In fact, I don't even have to check the map or his calculations because the water behind the rigs is nonsensical for a flat Earth so he has proved the globe Earth. Thanks for this video, I'll use that, it's a great proof for the Globe Earth IMO.
God Bless
-
I'm just jumping around here but it sounds like you're not sure where to look? For me, I've found Taboo Conspiracy on youtube posts numerous vids showing repeatable experiments. P-brane also does some interesting vids on perspective.
Here's a vid I like, partly because I lived in Santa Barbara for ten years and know this location. What's great is that the horizon is way behind the oil rigs. Very interesting stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmJ7-hVeNPY&list=PLltxIX4B8_UT4qSV8ENCnqPvReRKt3FmF&index=1&pp=iAQB
I can't edit my post, but forgot to add, the answer to his question is that he has got his calculations wrong somewhere, pretty cool that with the camera technology today we can see such things personally, because it's irrefutable proof given that the water at the horizon is raised from that at the oil rigs... an incline, which is impossible for a flat Earth but makes total sense for a globe Earth given that there is an incline before disappearing over the horizon.
This really is a great video to prove the Globe Earth IMO... Thank you!
Note: He is also on a raised platform taking the shot, so that would also mess with his calculations as he isn't looking down at the sea level.
God Bless
-
That's why there is water behind the rigs before the horizon.
The water behind the rigs is the horizon. You should check his calculations actually because, according to any Curvature Calculator you'll find online (that I'm sure you'd trust), the oil rigs would be obstructed by the earth curvature. There is no obstruction. This is easily reproduced in numerous experiments. Feel free to pass around the video though, by all means.
-
The water behind the rigs is the horizon. You should check his calculations actually because, according to any Curvature Calculator you'll find online (that I'm sure you'd trust), the oil rigs would be obstructed by the earth curvature. There is no obstruction. This is easily reproduced in numerous experiments. Feel free to pass around the video though, by all means.
Yes, the water behind the rigs is leading up to the horizon, why is it higher than Platform C? Then Habitat is higher again with the water at the Horizon higher again (much higher than the base of Platform C or Habitat and at such a distance).
Now I don't know where he got it wrong in his calculations, it's not my area of expertise so I can't really check his work... but I don't need to because this proves the Earth's curvature as it's nonsensical to see that if the Earth were flat, it's the curvature that makes it incline until the horizon.
Yea, I will use that video and thank you for sharing it, as I needed something using modern technology that's reproducible and observable for most people so we aren't stuck arguing like we are in the 1500's and given the sources bias is hostile to a globe Earth it's the best source for it IMO. I'd also add that if you get a telescope you can see the Moon and a couple Planets and see that everything around us is also a globe.
God Bless
-
His calculations are based on an earth curvature calculator. You should check them out.
The water is 'higher' because that the same vanishing point you were taught in art class when you were a lot younger.
You didn't check the Taboo Conspiracy line-of-site technology that destroys the idea of a globe?
-
The water is 'higher' because that the same vanishing point you were taught in art class when you were a lot younger.
Vanishing point absolutely cannot explain that away. I can clearly see the incline until the Horizon and beyond the Horizon he would observe what he claims is missing with those rigs, like I said, I don't know where his calculations or the 'calculator' is wrong, but it doesn't matter because this incline is clearly visible IMO and remember, it's sea level... a body of water, it doesn't incline like a hill.
God Bless
-
Now I don't know where he got it wrong in his calculations, it's not my area of expertise so I can't really check his work... but I don't need to because this proves the Earth's curvature as it's nonsensical to see that if the Earth were flat, it's the curvature that makes it incline until the horizon.
You clearly don't understand the 'lack of curvature' problem for globeism. You have it completely and utterly backwards. :facepalm:
-
You clearly don't understand the 'lack of curvature' problem for globeism. You have it completely and utterly backwards. :facepalm:
How? At sea level and a body of water does not incline like a hill (think of a river, dam or bowl of water)... Yet we clearly see the water inclining like a hill and the base of Habitat higher than Platform C too... This defies logic for a flat Earth... This can only occur if the Earth is curved as it inclines before reaching the horizon and then falling away.
God Bless
-
Again, you have it backwards. The oil rig which is furthest away, is 10 miles from the camera. Based on the curvature of the earth, (which is easily calculated using various online tools), this rig should be hidden by the curve of the earth, and the horizon should be blocking the lower part of this rig.
But, with camera tech, this oil rig can be seen, and is not hidden by the horizon. Ergo, there is no curve of the earth. Ergo, FE.
-
The oil rig which is furthest away, is 10 miles from the camera. Based on the curvature of the earth, (which is easily calculated using various online tools), this rig should be hidden by the curve of the earth, and the horizon should be blocking the lower part of this rig.
But, with camera tech, this oil rig can be seen, and is not hidden by the horizon. Ergo, there is no curve of the earth. Ergo, FE.
So what? This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I said... all it says is that whatever calculator and maths your using is wrong... that's what we need to look into, but it's still irrefutable proof of the curvature of the Earth... if he got his maths right then it's also proof that their horizon calculator is wrong lol... but it has no bearing on the observable reality that the Earth is curved.
God Bless
-
all it says is that whatever calculator and maths your using is wrong
:facepalm: The curvature math is not wrong. You can go check it yourself. A distance of 10 miles has how much curvature? Go check yourself.
-
The below picture shows the globe curvature and how, over a great distance, that a boat or an oil rig should be partially obstructed by the horizon, due to the curvature.
If you use the 'eyeball test' then yes, it appears that you cannot see the full oil rig. But that is a deficiency of the eye, not reality. Using a powerful camera, one can see the full oil rig, which should not be possible on a globe earth, at a distance of 10 miles.
(https://i.imgur.com/sTUz8ki.jpeg)
-
:facepalm: The curvature math is not wrong. You can go check it yourself. A distance of 10 miles has how much curvature? Go check yourself.
Well it's not my area of expertise so I can't check his maths and the calculators too... the point is that I don't need to because the water tells the whole story and is irrefutable. Water does not rise like a hill, neither do those two platforms which should be on the same level when sitting in the same body of water if the Earth were flat.
In terms of the image with the ship, just put two oil rigs before the top of the curve and that's exactly what you are seeing. I don't know where the maths had gone wrong for him... but I do know about water lol
God Bless
-
Well it's not my area of expertise so I can't check his maths and the calculators too
You most certainly can. There are all kinds of calculators on the web, put out by NASA and gov agencies. Very simple to use. Go check.
This guy in the video (and others like it) aren't calculating anything on their own. They are using the curvature calcs that SCIENCE agencies/experts put forth as accurate.
If you're not going to put in this simple amount of effort, then you have no business in this discussion.
-
Water does not rise like a hill,
The horizon was higher than these two platforms, precisely because the earth is flat. You can only see this with a powerful camera.
neither do those two platforms which should be on the same level when sitting in the same body of water if the Earth were flat.
These 2 platforms were a mile or so apart, not right next to each other.
-
They are using the curvature calcs that SCIENCE agencies/experts put forth as accurate.
The same 'experts' that you yourself would deny? So who's making appeals to authority now? lol
God Bless
-
The same 'experts' that you yourself would deny?
You're lazy. Thanks for confirming.
Science is based on facts. Either the curvature calcs are right or they're not. We don't "trust the science" we trust facts. All scientific facts should be re-verifiable and re-confirmable.
What is the curvature at 10 miles? Does water boil at 212 degrees? These are basic, 5th grade level, school-children experiments.
-
No rocket science needed. Anyone traveling frequently to different latitudes can verify the facts in the attachment that cannot be explained in a FE scenario. XV century's Portuguese sea travelers were the first to verify this in modern times and the theory of the universe composed of several spheres was developed.
-
No, we're not changing the subject, which is the curvature of the earth. One topic at a time.
-
I'm just jumping around here but it sounds like you're not sure where to look? For me, I've found Taboo Conspiracy on youtube posts numerous vids showing repeatable experiments. P-brane also does some interesting vids on perspective.
Here's a vid I like, partly because I lived in Santa Barbara for ten years and know this location. What's great is that the horizon is way behind the oil rigs. Very interesting stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmJ7-hVeNPY&list=PLltxIX4B8_UT4qSV8ENCnqPvReRKt3FmF&index=1&pp=iAQB
Thank you. I will look at this soon. I am trying to set up a new homeshool year.
-
The below picture shows the globe curvature and how, over a great distance, that a boat or an oil rig should be partially obstructed by the horizon, due to the curvature.
If you use the 'eyeball test' then yes, it appears that you cannot see the full oil rig. But that is a deficiency of the eye, not reality. Using a powerful camera, one can see the full oil rig, which should not be possible on a globe earth, at a distance of 10 miles.
(https://i.imgur.com/sTUz8ki.jpeg)
Haven't watched the video yet. Just a quick question when I am standing on the earth, shouldn't I be at the top of the curve? So in every direction I am looking down on objects? So then couldn't I see more of something because I have the higher ground?
In the picture above should the person be at the top of the curve?
-
Yes, tn the picture, you could move the person to the "top" of the curve (the picture is not perfect). But then, you'd have to move the ship the same distance to the right/down.
So then couldn't I see more of something because I have the higher ground?
No, because the curve would block your view.
Imagine you're on a rollercoaster, and you're sitting in the BACK of the ride. As you get to near the top of the main hill, the FRONT of the ride disappears, because it's already gone over the hill, and your view is obstructed by the "curvature" of the track. Even though you are higher, that doesn't help if the curve is large enough.
Same with long distances. At the distance of 10 miles, the curvature of the earth would block your view IF YOU ARE AT THE SAME HEIGHT (i.e. sea level) of the object.
If you view something from a high vantage point (i.e. top of a building) then obviously, you can see farther.
-
The below picture shows the globe curvature and how, over a great distance, that a boat or an oil rig should be partially obstructed by the horizon, due to the curvature.
If you use the 'eyeball test' then yes, it appears that you cannot see the full oil rig. But that is a deficiency of the eye, not reality. Using a powerful camera, one can see the full oil rig, which should not be possible on a globe earth, at a distance of 10 miles.
(https://i.imgur.com/sTUz8ki.jpeg)
Regardless of the reality of globe vs flat earth, the very specific idea in bold above (that you can make an object said to be partially "below" the "horizon" such as a ship or oil rig rise completely visible "above" the "horizon" with magnification alone) is incorrect and easily disproven.
After many years working at sea, and using a range of optical equipment (binoculars, scopes, and DSLR cameras with powerful zoom lenses), I can say the only result increased magnification provides is to make the image larger. If a motionless/anchored ship (confirmed by AIS), skyscraper, or other structure is seen in the distance to be halfway "above" the "horizon" of the ocean with the naked eye or low-power binos, all you get with a high powered camera is a bigger image of the ship still at the halfway point. You can even make out that it is the same exact "halfway" point if the ship has a complex superstructure with easily chosen "landmarks". Every time and in every location.
For anyone doubting please try it yourself; it is easily demonstrated if you are near water.
-
After many years working at sea, and using a range of optical equipment (binoculars, scopes, and DSLR cameras with powerful zoom lenses), I can say the only result increased magnification provides is to make the image larger. If a motionless/anchored ship (confirmed by AIS), skyscraper, or other structure is seen in the distance to be halfway "above" the "horizon" of the ocean with the naked eye or low-power binos, all you get with a high powered camera is a bigger image of the ship still at the halfway point.
The example you are describing may be true, but generally speaking, your contention is not true for all situations.
Certain objects, when viewed by the naked eye, *appear* to disappear as they get farther away. Using magnification devices, these objects reappear because the reality is they were always there, but our eyes are deficient at long distances.
The same scenario plays out with any optical equipment (i.e. less powerful zoom vs more powerful zoom)...the object appears to disappear, until a more powerful zoom shows it's still there.
**Disclaimer: When using the ocean as an example, some objects can be obscured due to weather, storms, etc. Not always the greatest playing field when doing scientific studies and such changes must be taken into account.**
This is why the best "curvature" experiments are of mountains/buildings, which don't move, are much bigger and typically aren't as affected by weather, as opposed to boats.
-
The example you are describing may be true, but generally speaking, your contention is not true for all situations.
Certain objects, when viewed by the naked eye, *appear* to disappear as they get farther away. Using magnification devices, these objects reappear because the reality is they were always there, but our eyes are deficient at long distances.
The same scenario plays out with any optical equipment (i.e. less powerful zoom vs more powerful zoom)...the object appears to disappear, until a more powerful zoom shows it's still there.
With regard to the bolded text, and with full respect, according to first-hand observation, this doesn't happen. A number of times I was on a vessel that navigated offshore from a coastline that had a very prominent set of skyscrapers near the beachfront. Basically, we were moving directly away from them into the open ocean. As a result they got smaller, and eventually appeared to "sink" below the "horizon". Basically, for all intents and purposes, they were gone visually. Once they had "disappeared" to the naked eye, no matter how much you scanned the exact location where they had disappeared in with high-powered binoculars or high power zoom lenses, it was impossible to make them come back. It just revealed a blank "horizon" where sky seemed to meet water. I've seen the same while we were cruising away from anchored ships as well.
**Disclaimer: When using the ocean as an example, some objects can be obscured due to weather, storms, etc. Not always the greatest playing field when doing scientific studies and such changes must be taken into account.**
This is why the best "curvature" experiments are of mountains/buildings, which don't move, are much bigger and typically aren't as affected by weather, as opposed to boats.
Once again with respect, not necessarily. Sea conditions can be reliably assessed and are coded by mariners. For example, the observations I made were during conditions with low wind speed, a sea height/swell height of less than or equal to the 2'-4' bracket, and clear visibility without precipitation. If there were storms/heavy weather you would know it, as you can very clearly see the clouds/rain curtains from miles away. Radar reveals weather patterns even further away. You can also detect temperature gradients between water and air very easily, and the vessels have thermometers to measure water temperature and eliminate thermal "illusions". AIS/radio can confirm if an anchored vessel has or has not moved. If anything, I think it could be argued that terrestrial "seeing" is subject to more variables, as dust can blow up in the air, buildings create unnatural thermal effects, etc.
I would give the friendly recommendation that next time you are on a ferry, on a charter fishing boat, or otherwise on the coast, pick an object on the horizon and see what happens as you move away from it.
-
Once again with respect, not necessarily.
But still possible.
Sea conditions can be reliably assessed and are coded by mariners. For example, the observations I made were during conditions with low wind speed, a sea height/swell height of less than or equal to the 2'-4' bracket, and clear visibility without precipitation. If there were storms/heavy weather you would know it, as you can very clearly see the clouds/rain curtains from miles away.
Yes, of course, one can see the weather conditions within miles. But we're talking about 10+ miles distance. The weather around YOU might be clear. The weather within 8 miles might be clear. But what about the other 2 miles, closer to shore? If the waves get bigger and rain is dense, then this screws with the line of sight, which is a big thing, when you're talking 10+ miles.
But really, we're losing focus here.
Let's refocus on the experiment/video at hand. The 2 oil rigs, at sea level, 10+ miles away, and the horizon which is NOT hiding them.
-
Regardless of the reality of globe vs flat earth, the very specific idea in bold above (that you can make an object said to be partially "below" the "horizon" such as a ship or oil rig rise completely visible "above" the "horizon" with magnification alone) is incorrect and easily disproven.
After many years working at sea, and using a range of optical equipment (binoculars, scopes, and DSLR cameras with powerful zoom lenses), I can say the only result increased magnification provides is to make the image larger. If a motionless/anchored ship (confirmed by AIS), skyscraper, or other structure is seen in the distance to be halfway "above" the "horizon" of the ocean with the naked eye or low-power binos, all you get with a high powered camera is a bigger image of the ship still at the halfway point. You can even make out that it is the same exact "halfway" point if the ship has a complex superstructure with easily chosen "landmarks". Every time and in every location.
For anyone doubting please try it yourself; it is easily demonstrated if you are near water.
Thank you for bringing some semblance of sanity back to the forum. Warning, be prepared to be ridiculed because your first hand experience and honest testimony carries no weight with the FEers when compared to online videos of unknown origin!
-
Thank you for bringing some semblance of sanity back to the forum. Warning, be prepared to be ridiculed because your first hand experience has no weight when compared to online videos of unknown origin!
I will not ridicule Hansel at all. I'm interested in the truth. If FE is proven false, then fine. I really don't care. But I've yet to see/hear a valid explanation for the lack of globe curvature. And I would like his expertise in explaining the video, from his point of view.
What he said in his ocean travels could be 100% correct, and I could've butchered/botched my explanation/words. But the problem remains...why is the curvature not there? So let's discuss the video.
-
I will not ridicule Hansel at all. I'm interested in the truth. If FE is proven false, then fine. I really don't care. But I've yet to see/hear a valid explanation for the lack of globe curvature. And I would like his expertise in explaining the video, from his point of view.
What he said in his ocean travels could be 100% correct, and I could've butchered/botched my explanation/words. But the problem remains...why is the curvature not there? So let's discuss the video.
I respect that, at least you are being honest.
-
I respect that, at least you are being honest.
I don't respect that you think I wasn't.
-
I don't respect that you think I wasn't.
I wasn’t necessarily pointing my finger at you.
-
I will not ridicule Hansel at all. I'm interested in the truth. If FE is proven false, then fine. I really don't care. But I've yet to see/hear a valid explanation for the lack of globe curvature. And I would like his expertise in explaining the video, from his point of view.
What he said in his ocean travels could be 100% correct, and I could've butchered/botched my explanation/words. But the problem remains...why is the curvature not there? So let's discuss the video.
For what it is worth, with regard to natural phenomena, as a matter of principle I believe can only comment definitively on that which I have observed directly myself a significant number of times, such as the examples already given. "Levels of certainty", if you will. That is the reason why I very specifically covered/targeted only the detail of the ships over the horizon/magnification subject, rather than the whole flat earth/globe earth subject in general. It is one thing I have seen first-hand, so I commented on it. My overall intent for my few posts in this part of the forum is to provide only what I know with the greatest level of certainty through my own work, even if it is a tidbit, so others can make their own independent conclusions based upon that or replicate it for themselves. And I am open to input from a wide range of viewpoints.
Basically, the video referred to above indicates that we are seeing too far, since we can visualize the oil platforms and we see an apparent horizon line beyond rather than in front of them, particularly the further one. If what we see in the video was in fact true and accurate, and there are no other "variables" (atmospheric/weather etc. interfering as you said earlier), than that would in fact be a remarkable finding. I don't have oil platforms in my region, and as a result I don't have the ability to exactly replicate this specific video, put it through its paces etc. However, I can make the general statements/observations based upon experience at sea:
1. At 1:12 and about 2:40 in the video, there are short clips of actual video footage. Notice how both platforms appear to "shimmer" or "boil" at high magnification. It is evident that the images of both are experiencing some kind of turbulence due to a temperature gradient, or different temperatures between two different regions, whether air or water. I've seen this at sea whenever there is a large difference in temperature between the ocean and the atmospheric air, or between different bodies of water such as an ocean and a bay. Mariners don't rely on images seen in these gradients as definitive descriptions, as they distort images, change the shapes/apparent size of ships, stack multiple images of the same ship on top of one another, and/or make objects appear taller than they are. Sometimes, they even make it harder to find the true horizon itself. However, it is temporary. On clear days, you see a much clearer image all the way to the horizon, and you don't see the "boiling".
2. The water shows an unusual line near the horizon, which coincides with the base/lower limit of the platform Habitat (see blue arrows in the image below). This further suggests that something strange is going on. Notice in the video at 1:12 and 3:20 that you see obvious wave patterns moving before this apparent line, but not many beyond it. In truly clear conditions, you see the waves out to the very end of the horizon, and even on it. Here we have a smeared relatively featureless band that the furthest platform (Habitat) appears to sit on.
So, what I can say in general about this video from an at-sea perspective is that there are obvious variables in the sea and sky in this footage, and these could be affecting the image. This contrasts with observations I've made myself in which the sea conditions were fairly constant between the point of observation and the object observed (determined visually and by radar). The conditions in the video are actually not a perfectly clear atmospheric situation. In my own at-sea observations, I certainly wouldn't record anything seen in that boiling mess as definitive or swear on it as definitively true or quantifiable. My suggestions to prove whether the observation in the video is "real" or not would be to do the following:
1. Repeat video with better atmospheric conditions at horizon at same or similar location for several days or even weeks.
2. Run several replicates of the above video over several days (prove beyond a doubt that it is repeatable in this specific location)
3. Take photographs of each of the two specific platforms up-close (in other words, from a vessel near them), not only to prove that these really are the platforms in question, but also to see if the image changed at all between that and the footage.
4. More strongly docuмent a starting point that proves where the point of observation is. We do see part of a balcony in the zoomed-out footage, but it is impossible to prove that this is really the stated location or not.
Unfortunately, most of these YouTube videos do not supply this kind of rigorous proof/ground-truthing. And the origin of such videos is often hard to find. Hence why overall, I think they are highly subject to manipulation either way, and the best way to figure out questions is to do things oneself...
(https://i.imgur.com/Al2xXYp.png)
-
For what it is worth, with regard to natural phenomena, as a matter of principle I believe can only comment definitively on that which I have observed directly myself a significant number of times, such as the examples already given. "Levels of certainty", if you will. That is the reason why I very specifically covered/targeted only the detail of the ships over the horizon/magnification subject, rather than the whole flat earth/globe earth subject in general. It is one thing I have seen first-hand, so I commented on it. My overall intent for my few posts in this part of the forum is to provide only what I know with the greatest level of certainty through my own work, even if it is a tidbit, so others can make their own independent conclusions based upon that or replicate it for themselves. And I am open to input from a wide range of viewpoints.
Basically, the video referred to above indicates that we are seeing too far, since we can visualize the oil platforms and we see an apparent horizon line beyond rather than in front of them, particularly the further one. If what we see in the video was in fact true and accurate, and there are no other "variables" (atmospheric/weather etc. interfering as you said earlier), than that would in fact be a remarkable finding. I don't have oil platforms in my region, and as a result I don't have the ability to exactly replicate this specific video, put it through its paces etc. However, I can make the general statements/observations based upon experience at sea:
1. At 1:12 and about 2:40 in the video, there are short clips of actual video footage. Notice how both platforms appear to "shimmer" or "boil" at high magnification. It is evident that the images of both are experiencing some kind of turbulence due to a temperature gradient, or different temperatures between two different regions, whether air or water. I've seen this at sea whenever there is a large difference in temperature between the ocean and the atmospheric air, or between different bodies of water such as an ocean and a bay. Mariners don't rely on images seen in these gradients as definitive descriptions, as they distort images, change the shapes/apparent size of ships, stack multiple images of the same ship on top of one another, and/or make objects appear taller than they are. Sometimes, they even make it harder to find the true horizon itself. However, it is temporary. On clear days, you see a much clearer image all the way to the horizon, and you don't see the "boiling".
2. The water shows an unusual line near the horizon, which coincides with the base/lower limit of the platform Habitat (see blue arrows in the image below). This further suggests that something strange is going on. Notice in the video at 1:12 and 3:20 that you see obvious wave patterns moving before this apparent line, but not many beyond it. In truly clear conditions, you see the waves out to the very end of the horizon, and even on it. Here we have a smeared relatively featureless band that the furthest platform (Habitat) appears to sit on.
So, what I can say in general about this video from an at-sea perspective is that there are obvious variables in the sea and sky in this footage, and these could be affecting the image. This contrasts with observations I've made myself in which the sea conditions were fairly constant between the point of observation and the object observed (determined visually and by radar). The conditions in the video are actually not a perfectly clear atmospheric situation. In my own at-sea observations, I certainly wouldn't record anything seen in that boiling mess as definitive or swear on it as definitively true or quantifiable. My suggestions to prove whether the observation in the video is "real" or not would be to do the following:
1. Repeat video with better atmospheric conditions at horizon at same or similar location for several days or even weeks.
2. Run several replicates of the above video over several days (prove beyond a doubt that it is repeatable in this specific location)
3. Take photographs of each of the two specific platforms up-close (in other words, from a vessel near them), not only to prove that these really are the platforms in question, but also to see if the image changed at all between that and the footage.
4. More strongly docuмent a starting point that proves where the point of observation is. We do see part of a balcony in the zoomed-out footage, but it is impossible to prove that this is really the stated location or not.
Unfortunately, most of these YouTube videos do not supply this kind of rigorous proof/ground-truthing. And the origin of such videos is often hard to find. Hence why overall, I think they are highly subject to manipulation either way, and the best way to figure out questions is to do things oneself...
(https://i.imgur.com/Al2xXYp.png)
Great post! Very sensible and reasonable. I especially like what you said here: “Unfortunately, most of these YouTube videos do not supply this kind of rigorous proof/ground-truthing. And the origin of such videos is often hard to find. Hence why overall, I think they are highly subject to manipulation either way, and the best way to figure out questions is to do things oneself... ”
-
For what it is worth, with regard to natural phenomena, as a matter of principle I believe can only comment definitively on that which I have observed directly myself a significant number of times, such as the examples already given. "Levels of certainty", if you will. That is the reason why I very specifically covered/targeted only the detail of the ships over the horizon/magnification subject, rather than the whole flat earth/globe earth subject in general. It is one thing I have seen first-hand, so I commented on it. My overall intent for my few posts in this part of the forum is to provide only what I know with the greatest level of certainty through my own work, even if it is a tidbit, so others can make their own independent conclusions based upon that or replicate it for themselves. And I am open to input from a wide range of viewpoints.
Basically, the video referred to above indicates that we are seeing too far, since we can visualize the oil platforms and we see an apparent horizon line beyond rather than in front of them, particularly the further one. If what we see in the video was in fact true and accurate, and there are no other "variables" (atmospheric/weather etc. interfering as you said earlier), than that would in fact be a remarkable finding. I don't have oil platforms in my region, and as a result I don't have the ability to exactly replicate this specific video, put it through its paces etc. However, I can make the general statements/observations based upon experience at sea:
1. At 1:12 and about 2:40 in the video, there are short clips of actual video footage. Notice how both platforms appear to "shimmer" or "boil" at high magnification. It is evident that the images of both are experiencing some kind of turbulence due to a temperature gradient, or different temperatures between two different regions, whether air or water. I've seen this at sea whenever there is a large difference in temperature between the ocean and the atmospheric air, or between different bodies of water such as an ocean and a bay. Mariners don't rely on images seen in these gradients as definitive descriptions, as they distort images, change the shapes/apparent size of ships, stack multiple images of the same ship on top of one another, and/or make objects appear taller than they are. Sometimes, they even make it harder to find the true horizon itself. However, it is temporary. On clear days, you see a much clearer image all the way to the horizon, and you don't see the "boiling".
2. The water shows an unusual line near the horizon, which coincides with the base/lower limit of the platform Habitat (see blue arrows in the image below). This further suggests that something strange is going on. Notice in the video at 1:12 and 3:20 that you see obvious wave patterns moving before this apparent line, but not many beyond it. In truly clear conditions, you see the waves out to the very end of the horizon, and even on it. Here we have a smeared relatively featureless band that the furthest platform (Habitat) appears to sit on.
So, what I can say in general about this video from an at-sea perspective is that there are obvious variables in the sea and sky in this footage, and these could be affecting the image. This contrasts with observations I've made myself in which the sea conditions were fairly constant between the point of observation and the object observed (determined visually and by radar). The conditions in the video are actually not a perfectly clear atmospheric situation. In my own at-sea observations, I certainly wouldn't record anything seen in that boiling mess as definitive or swear on it as definitively true or quantifiable. My suggestions to prove whether the observation in the video is "real" or not would be to do the following:
1. Repeat video with better atmospheric conditions at horizon at same or similar location for several days or even weeks.
2. Run several replicates of the above video over several days (prove beyond a doubt that it is repeatable in this specific location)
3. Take photographs of each of the two specific platforms up-close (in other words, from a vessel near them), not only to prove that these really are the platforms in question, but also to see if the image changed at all between that and the footage.
4. More strongly docuмent a starting point that proves where the point of observation is. We do see part of a balcony in the zoomed-out footage, but it is impossible to prove that this is really the stated location or not.
Unfortunately, most of these YouTube videos do not supply this kind of rigorous proof/ground-truthing. And the origin of such videos is often hard to find. Hence why overall, I think they are highly subject to manipulation either way, and the best way to figure out questions is to do things oneself...
(https://i.imgur.com/Al2xXYp.png)
Below is a picture of Platform Habitat, which is the farther platform. Look how much is missing in the above photograph.
(https://i.imgur.com/MpfYUZS.jpeg)
It seems that the water might be causing some sort of mirage. The structure is said to be 290 ft high.
Ref: https://www.independent.com/2022/01/19/so-long-offshore-platforms/
-
Hence why overall, I think they are highly subject to manipulation either way, and the best way to figure out questions is to do things oneself...
For myself and no doubt many others, this is simply not practical and thus possible.
It's interesting when talking about the further one zooms the further the 'half way' point becomes before the horizon... I've never looked into this before so can't say one way or the other... In any case, this logic can only go so far IMO, as it has to disappear below the horizon at some point no matter how powerful the camera is (and it does because if the Earth were flat you'd see more than just those oil rigs when zooming in and we don't know the base of Habitat either as the poster above mentions).
I think the water tells the whole story and is irrefutable... As a body of water sits flat (like a river, dam or bowl of water) so how can the water at the horizon be higher than Habitat with the base of Habitat sitting in the same body of water being higher than Platform C too... not by a small amount either and at such a large distance the platform he is standing on can't account for that... Only a globe Earth can account for that.
Then I can also practically observe first hand that the Moon and other Planets are all a globe... that we are surrounded by globes, especially when observing the Moon which any cheap telescope even binoculars can do. There are several others too such as Time Zones and the fact that the Earth is fully mapped out... every world 2D map is warped somewhere whether it's 2D Google Maps or other 2D maps of the world... Only Google's 3D Earth is accurate which is why I like using it, I just wish I could enable the live night time and day time view on it again as it was great, but I think you have to login for that now.
There are other 3D Earth maps that do, but they aren't as good as Google Earth ( e.g. https://www.nightearth.com/ but it's not as good quality, still can get the job done though)... I can clearly see what time of day it is in all locations and the location of the sun and it's accurate... With the Internet and all of us from around the world you can test it in real time and know it's accurate.
IMO we need practical examples using modern technology, so that 1) We're not stuck arguing like it's the 1500's and 2) So that it's practically observable and reproducible for the average person.
These are a couple things that are easily accessible to me and I can easily see and observe which convinces me well beyond reasonable doubt.
God Bless
-
Below is a picture of Platform Habitat, which is the farther platform. Look how much is missing in the above photograph.
(https://i.imgur.com/MpfYUZS.jpeg)
It seems that the water might be causing some sort of mirage. The structure is said to be 290 ft high.
Ref: https://www.independent.com/2022/01/19/so-long-offshore-platforms/
This is a very good point, as it is very possible that Habitat is already disappearing slightly below the horizon because there is no baseline measurement, we also see the base is shorter than Platform C, so if all things are equal, then that would imply that the base is already disappearing slightly over the horizon.
In any case, I think the water rising like a hill is irrefutable proof, with Habitat higher than Platform C in the same body of water... water sits flat... only a curved Earth can account for that.
God Bless
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Al2xXYp.png)
Also very interesting. I don't know how to explain what we are seeing beyond Habitat if the horizon is in that location... nevertheless, there is a difference between the water at that point.
The base of Habitat is also shorter... but we don't have a baseline anyway.
But the different heights in the same body of water and the water itself rising the further you go... this cannot be explained away IMO, this can only occur with a curved Earth... perhaps one could point to the platform he is taking the shot on, however, that cannot explain away such massive height difference with both platforms and the water and furthermore, if he took that camera onto the beach and tried to get as level as possible to the sea, his results would be even more pronounced and it would be even more clear IMO.
God Bless
-
Below is a picture of Platform Habitat, which is the farther platform. Look how much is missing in the above photograph.
(https://i.imgur.com/MpfYUZS.jpeg)
It seems that the water might be causing some sort of mirage. The structure is said to be 290 ft high.
Ref: https://www.independent.com/2022/01/19/so-long-offshore-platforms/
Another thought, if there is no curvature, then wouldn't the structure behind appear taller than the structure in front. These oil rigs are on stilts and then have 3 levels. The habitat structure you can only see the top level and platform c you can only see 2 levels.
-
“Unfortunately, most of these YouTube videos do not supply this kind of rigorous proof/ground-truthing.
Not true. One can look at a map and verify the distance from the beach to the oil rig and then use the earth curvature calcs to find the feet that should be hidden.
And the origin of such videos is often hard to find. Hence why overall, I think they are highly subject to manipulation either way, and the best way to figure out questions is to do things oneself... ”
One could replicate a similar experiment in one's home area, using long distances, googlemaps and some long-range target.
-
These are a couple things that are easily accessible to me and I can easily see and observe which convinces me well beyond reasonable doubt.
One cannot use the 'eye ball test' in matters of miles and distance. The eyes simply aren't designed as long-distance viewing devices.
Also, you continue to ignore the blatant LIE of modern science, related to the curvature (and lack thereof). The 2nd oil rig should be barely viewable, due to the curve.
-
One cannot use the 'eye ball test' in matters of miles and distance. The eyes simply aren't designed as long-distance viewing devices.
Also, you continue to ignore the blatant LIE of modern science, related to the curvature (and lack thereof). The 2nd oil rig should be barely viewable, due to the curve.
The 'eye ball test' was in relation to looking at the moon through a telescope or binoculars, can also find some planets with the telescope and you can very clearly see that we are surrounded by globes.
I don't have to argue with you about the maths, I don't know about the maths, but I know about water, and water sits flat. In any case, I thought by using a hostile video to make my point it would help convince you but it's clearly not enough, I'd need to know what tools are available to you in which we can find ways for you to know for sure.
Binoculars or Telescope are something you could easily get, there are apps to show you when and where certain close planets will be for a telescope, then you can have a look at the Moon and Planets yourself and see that they are most certainly a globe and that we are surrounded by globes, it's rather cool too looking at the moon through a telescope... I didn't see the US flag there though lol.
God Bless
-
One cannot use the 'eye ball test' in matters of miles and distance. The eyes simply aren't designed as long-distance viewing devices.
Also, you continue to ignore the blatant LIE of modern science, related to the curvature (and lack thereof). The 2nd oil rig should be barely viewable, due to the curve.
The second rig is missing its stilts and 2 floors. The first rig is missing the stilts and 1 floor. Doesn't that show something is blocking part of the rigs?
-
One cannot use the 'eye ball test' in matters of miles and distance. The eyes simply aren't designed as long-distance viewing devices.
Also, you continue to ignore the blatant LIE of modern science, related to the curvature (and lack thereof). The 2nd oil rig should be barely viewable, due to the curve.
This is confirmation bias at work. Poster has already concluded that the earth is a ball, so when she finds a picture where something appears to be cut off, "see, proof of globe". Globers when posting such pictures never post the data: location of viewer and target object, elevation of both above sea level, temperature, humidity, water conditions, etc. There are many reasons something can appear to be cut off, from atmospheric conditions to waves to sheer distance (convergence with the horizon). But when FEs produce pictures showing things that aren't cut off from 150 miles away when they absolutely should be hidden by miles of curvature, it's always "refraction". So if something is not hidden when it should be, then "must be atmospheric conditions causing refraction" whereas if something appears to be cut off or partially hidden, magically there's no such thing as atmospheric conditions anymore or the possibility of refraction causing the problem. Refraction ceases to exist in those cases but only manifests itself when there's a picture that contradicts the globe model. This is how confirmation bias works and why I'm posting less and less. It's a huge waste of time to argue with those who have already made up their minds on this issue. Those who keep an open mind and go investigate almost invariably become FEs ... and even some who went to investigate the claims of FE in order to debunk it have become "converts". Those cases speak volumes, where someone had an agenda going in to debunk but then came away convinced that FE was true. But it's a waste of time to keep posting in response to individual who have clearly made up their minds and won't even honestly investigate the FE evidence with an open mind.
-
The 'eye ball test' was in relation to looking at the moon through a telescope or binoculars, can also find some planets with the telescope and you can very clearly see that we are surrounded by globes.
The earth is a globe, with flat land. See picture of the ancient Israelite earth (and this picture is confirmed by many, many ancient/pagan cultures, who were offshoots from Noah). They learned all this directly from Noah, who learned from Adam's descendants. So are you going to trust ancient Israelites, who loved the True God? Or are you going to trust atheistic, anti-catholic "science"?
(https://i.imgur.com/I6cACvU.jpeg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/kPNIMJG.png)
-
Below is a picture of Platform Habitat, which is the farther platform. Look how much is missing in the above photograph.
Please discuss the video, which focuses on a 10 mile difference and the curvature calculator. This photograph is irrelevant to the discussion.
-
Unfortunately, most of these YouTube videos do not supply this kind of rigorous proof/ground-truthing.
Not true. One can look at a map and verify the distance from the beach to the oil rig and then use the earth curvature calcs to find the feet that should be hidden.
Yes, you can use the map to look at distances and run calculations. This was done in part for the video in question. However, these were not the "ground-truthing/proofing methods I was referring to; I'm afraid you've taken my quote out of context. And ideally, you want a lot more than just google maps /other map measurements and calculations, regardless of the observer's point of view or opinion on this topic. You also need to eliminate known or possible variables (as well as establish beyond a shadow of a doubt your initial location, whether by landmarks in the same video "take" or otherwise). See full quote below with regard to what I was referring to. The video did not do any of these....
1. Repeat video with better atmospheric conditions at horizon at same or similar location for several days or even weeks.
2. Run several replicates of the above video over several days (prove beyond a doubt that it is repeatable in this specific location)
3. Take photographs of each of the two specific platforms up-close (in other words, from a vessel near them), not only to prove that these really are the platforms in question, but also to see if the image changed at all between that and the footage.
4. More strongly docuмent a starting point that proves where the point of observation is. We do see part of a balcony in the zoomed-out footage, but it is impossible to prove that this is really the stated location or not.
Unfortunately, most of these YouTube videos do not supply this kind of rigorous proof/ground-truthing. And the origin of such videos is often hard to find. Hence why overall, I think they are highly subject to manipulation either way, and the best way to figure out questions is to do things oneself...
This was intended as constructive criticism for anyone making observational videos or planning to do so, regardless of their starting viewpoint.
One could replicate a similar experiment in one's home area, using long distances, googlemaps and some long-range target.
Yes, I think we would all agree that running experiments or observations (if one can) is a worthwhile activity, provided that the observer docuмents what they are doing appropriately.
-
Getting back to the point....in the video posted...where is the curvature? Why can we see so much of the 2nd oil rig, which is 10 miles away?
Most of you have not answered this question and your comments show you don't really understand curvature and how it works.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/I6cACvU.jpeg)
Where is Australia on this map? Can I practically use this map anywhere in reality? Sorry but this is crazy and entirely nonsensical... I think I'll just say a pray for you and call it a day.
God Bless
-
Where is Australia on this map? Can I practically use this map anywhere in reality? Sorry but this is crazy and entirely nonsensical... I think I'll just say a pray for you and call it a day.
God Bless
It's obviously meant to be conceptual and not an actual map, dummy. This "crazy and nonsensical" world is precisely what the Sacred Scriptures describe ... so take it up with the Holy Ghost.
-
I don't know about the maths, but I know about water, and water sits flat.
True indeed. Ever check out the (various) vids of lights/laser beams being seen across lakes at 10+ miles? Water sits flat and no curvature is detected.
-
I don't know about the maths, but I know about water, and water sits flat.
Right. Another proof of FE.
-
Where is Australia on this map? Can I practically use this map anywhere in reality? Sorry but this is crazy and entirely nonsensical... I think I'll just say a pray for you and call it a day.
Let's turn around your "logic" and apply it towards the "globe". Now picture the "earth globe model" and ask the following same questions:
Where is [the firmament] on a [globe earth]? Can I [as a catholic] use this map anywhere in [Scripture]? Sorry but this is [heretical] and entirely [anti-catholic]... I think I'll just say a pray for you and call it a day.
-
Please discuss the video, which focuses on a 10 mile difference and the curvature calculator. This photograph is irrelevant to the discussion.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ff99vdb.png)
This is the picture from the video. Look at the rig in the background 10 miles away which is the Habitat platform. See the blue arrows that is pointing to the actual horizon the water image passed that is a mirage.
(https://i.imgur.com/C9KfrVs.jpeg)
This picture is relevant because it is the same structure. Why does it appear that 29 ft of the structure is missing when comparing the 2 pictures?
If every thing is flat on the water then you would see the stilts from the bottom of Platform C and Platform Habitat nothing would disappear the objects would just get smaller.
-
This is the picture from the video. Look at the rig in the background 10 miles away which is the Habitat platform. See the blue arrows that is pointing to the actual horizon the water image passed that is a mirage.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Either way, you're still missing the point. Based on the earth curvature, you shouldn't even be ABLE to see the bottom of the rig. It's too far. At 10 miles, the earth's curve would block the bottom portion of the rig from one's view, because the rig would be slowly curving DOWNWARDS away from the viewer.
-
See the blue arrows that is pointing to the actual horizon the water image passed that is a mirage.
No, the blue arrows are pointing to the water, as it is hitting the oil rig. The horizon is above/behind the oil rig because the.water.keeps.going.on.a.flat.surface. It does not curve downwards and away, as it should. It's not a mirage. :laugh2:
Why does it appear that 29 ft of the structure is missing when comparing the 2 pictures?
:laugh2: Right, because YOU can tell that 29ft is missing. I can see the bottom piers in both the video and the picture. Nothing is missing. The curve isn't there.
-
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Either way, you're still missing the point. Based on the earth curvature, you shouldn't even be ABLE to see the bottom of the rig. It's too far. At 10 miles, the earth's curve would block the bottom portion of the rig from one's view, because the rig would be slowly curving DOWNWARDS away from the viewer.
Exactly you can't see the bottom of the rig in the video pictures. That means there is a curve, because the bottom of the rig is missing.
-
I see nothing that is missing
-
I see nothing that is missing
Actually, looking more carefully at this there is something missing. See the figure below. In the daytime shot of Platform Habitat provided by Gray2023, you can see that the support legs extend below the horizontal "tie rods" or support beams between the vertical legs that support the platform. We will call this "A". There are also diagonal tie rods that run from the bottom of the structure to the horizontal supports. In a screenshot from your video of Platform Habitat, the segment of the leg that extends below the horizontal tie rods (A) is missing, and the tie rods are either not visible or just above the water. The entire structure does look slightly sunken into the water.
(https://i.imgur.com/2FnD9FE.jpeg)
-
I see nothing that is missing
Looking at the back rig in the video the square box on the right side of the image is the helicopter pad, below that is only one level, then water line.
Looking at the picture look at the helicopter pad, below that is two levels and pillars that the oil rig stands on and then another platform close to the water. The pillars, platform close to the water and the first level from the water up are all missing in the video picture.
-
Actually, looking more carefully at this there is something missing. See the figure below. In the daytime shot of Platform Habitat provided by Gray2023, you can see that the support legs extend below the horizontal "tie rods" or support beams between the vertical legs that support the platform. We will call this "A". There are also diagonal tie rods that run from the bottom of the structure to the horizontal supports. In a screenshot from your video of Platform Habitat, the segment of the leg that extends below the horizontal tie rods (A) is missing, and the tie rods are either not visible or just above the water. The entire structure does look slightly sunken into the water.
(https://i.imgur.com/2FnD9FE.jpeg)
I don't know how to label pictures like that. I believe that square box is the helicopter pad, the highest platform on the rig. My other picture is looking from the other direction.
-
I found this to give an idea of how high an oil rig is above the water level.
"How high are oil rigs off the water? - Quora. The lower decks will be 60+ feet off the water to prevent large storms from swamping the decks. THere are then multiple decks probably 5 or 6 above the lowest one. On the top deck there may be books and cranes as well as a drilling derrick so that adds 100 feet or more."
-
I believe that square box is the helicopter pad, the highest platform on the rig. My other picture is looking from the other direction.
You are correct; for the sake of cross-comparison, here is the YouTube screenshot, but this time with a still shot stock photo from a similar direction as the camera of the YouTube video. Overall, the lowermost parts of the vertical support legs extending below the horizontal tie rods (and possibly even the horizontal tie rods themselves) are not visible in the YouTube video. Part of one of the diagonal tie rods appears to remain in the YouTube video. Since "A" (the segment of the vertical support leg between the water below the horizontal tie rods) is missing in the YouTube video, (even though several other upper features are present), the YouTube video appears to show the platform as partially "sunk" in the water; the platform legs (bottom portion of the platform overall) are not fully visible in the YouTube video.
(https://i.imgur.com/fvIpsh4.jpeg)
-
So the pictures show about 3 feet missing ("A"?) :facepalm:
Maybe, maybe not, as there appears to be vertical compression of the entire image (probably due to atmospheric factors), but 3 feet could be ANYthing, including some choppy waves that day.
You guys don't even try. It's pathetic and why I've stopped wasting my time on you people.
See the pictures taken by FEs where up to 11 miles out there's absolutely nothing missing from the bottom, or the photographs (by none FEs, certified by agencies) of a lighthouse that rises 150 feet above sea level from 230+ miles away, where it should be hidden but miles of curvature by nevertheless remains fully visible.
This is utterly pathetic to behold.
-
I see nothing that is missing
If you squint really hard, you may be able to see 2-3 feet "missing" if you discount the obvious vertical compression of the picture and pretend that there are now water surges for any reason (wind, waves, etc.). Let me know next time the wave forecast from the weather agency shows 0 feet of wave height.
-
So the pictures show about 3 feet missing ("A"?) :facepalm:
Maybe, maybe not, as there appears to be vertical compression of the entire image (probably due to atmospheric factors), but 3 feet could be ANYthing, including some choppy waves that day.
You guys don't even try. It's pathetic and why I've stopped wasting my time on you people.
See the pictures taken by FEs where up to 11 miles out there's absolutely nothing missing from the bottom, or the photographs (by none FEs, certified by agencies) of a lighthouse that rises 150 feet above sea level from 230+ miles away, where it should be hidden but miles of curvature by nevertheless remains fully visible.
This is utterly pathetic to behold.
It is 60 ft from the water to the bottom of the first platform, see post above. I only see half of those stilts. So that is 30ft. Curvature is a loss of 29ft.
Ok you switched to a different picture.
Prayers for you Ladislaus.
-
So the pictures show about 3 feet missing ("A"?) :facepalm:
Maybe, maybe not, as there appears to be vertical compression of the entire image (probably due to atmospheric factors), but 3 feet could be ANYthing, including some choppy waves that day.
You guys don't even try. It's pathetic and why I've stopped wasting my time on you people.
This is utterly pathetic to behold.
Hi Ladislaus, I'm not sure why you are responding in such an emotional manner. You yourself have stated in previous posts in the past that you are a virtual "Vulcan", in a good sense of the word (i.e., logic driven etc.), which I would respect if true. This behavior does not appear to be consistent with that. I never attacked you, and you have no cause to do so to me.
I was helping a fellow Cathinfo member depict visually what they was being described verbally. And I would be the first to say that the next step on your side of the fence would be to quantify whether the "part" missing is enough for what you would expect considering the curve. I'd be fine with seeing you working to try and execute that test.
However, I will ask you the following:
1. Why do you think that the part "missing" is only 3 ft.? If you were asked in a court of law whether the part "missing" was only 3 ft., would you swear on a bible that it was so? What method of measurement are you using? As Gray2023 has pointed out in the previous post, it is most likely a lot more than 3' due to the overall size of the structure.
2. The part of the structure "missing" or "sunk" isn't due to "waves", as you can see the sea/swell moving in the footage of the video. The average sea/swell relative height visible in the video footage clips (before the YouTuber shows the still screenshots) isn't high enough. You can see the movement of the crests and troughs, and they aren't obscuring that part of the structure. If they were big enough, you would see the horizontal tie rods re-appear, then disappear, between the crests and troughs, and we don't see that. Have you spent any time on the ocean? I'd recommend doing so and experimenting with looking at sea height/swell height.
3. I'm not referring to compression, which would "squash" the overall image. Gray2023 and myself noticed that an entire portion of the vertical leg, as determined by a visible fixed landmark (the horizontal tie beams) is missing. Do you see what we are referring to with that tie beam? If it was just compression, you should still see the "gap" between the horizontal tie beam and the water, but we don't see it in the YouTube Video.
4. And lastly, if the YouTube video is flawed, what is the point of getting upset over one flawed video? From your own perspective, if you have videos that aren't flawed that support Flat Earth, wouldn't you want to weed out the ones that ARE flawed to keep only the best arguments? (Much the same as in theology). There is nothing "utterly pathetic" about that.
-
So the pictures show about 3 feet missing ("A"?) :facepalm:
Maybe, maybe not, as there appears to be vertical compression of the entire image (probably due to atmospheric factors), but 3 feet could be ANYthing, including some choppy waves that day.
You guys don't even try. It's pathetic and why I've stopped wasting my time on you people.
See the pictures taken by FEs where up to 11 miles out there's absolutely nothing missing from the bottom, or the photographs (by none FEs, certified by agencies) of a lighthouse that rises 150 feet above sea level from 230+ miles away, where it should be hidden but miles of curvature by nevertheless remains fully visible.
This is utterly pathetic to behold.
What is the name of the lighthouse and who took the picture? Trying to find it, but had no luck. All I have found is the above vague reference in different CathInfo posts.
-
Let's turn around your "logic" and apply it towards the "globe". Now picture the "earth globe model" and ask the following same questions:
Where is [the firmament] on a [globe earth]? Can I [as a catholic] use this map anywhere in [Scripture]? Sorry but this is [heretical] and entirely [anti-catholic]... I think I'll just say a pray for you and call it a day.
Have you used any 2D map before? Lets say your in the US, is there any 2D map of your surroundings that you agree with?
Now you have one piece of the puzzle, I am from Australia and have my own 2D maps of where I am that I can know are accurate.
When we start piecing these together we start to get an accurate picture... Now if you use 2D Google Maps, then that will work fine for a flat Earth until you get to the North Pole (Which even the flat Earth posters agree on as they've already posted some very early 2D maps of the North Pole from 1595 for example) now if you take one of these 2D maps of the North Pole and work outwards for a flat and circular Earth... then that'll work okay for a little while but when you get to Australia (Southern Hemisphere) it will be massively warped as I can see and know very clearly myself.
The only way these 2D maps can all fit together is with a globe Earth.
Then you take your telescope and see the Moon and Planets first hand around us and see that we are surrounded by globes. These are just some ways we can work this out first hand and know for sure... It just depends where you are and what tools you have at your disposal... but the globe Earth is not as controversial as some posters are trying to make it out to be IMO.
God Bless
-
the globe Earth is not as controversial as some posters are trying to make it out to be IMO.
I agree that the theory of globe earth is not contoversial. Why is that so?
This is where we disagree. I think the reason the globe earth heliocentric theory is not controversial is that we have all been brainwashed since early childhood to believe that there two theories are fact.
You and the vast majority of the population, who (like all of us) have been taught from childhood that those who reject the theories of globe earth and heliocentricism are crackpots. Also taught from childhood is the notion that these theories are scientific fact.
In reality, science is based on observation and (as we see here on CI in microcosm) both sides (or all three sides if we include geocentricism) produce observations to support their respective theories.
Fauchi lied when he said "the science is settled" just as he lied when he said "I AM science." Run away from anyone who puts forth the lie that "the science is settled." In science, nothing is settled until the hypothesis or theory is proven. This has not been done with the theories of globe earth, flat earth, heliocentricism or geocentricism. The theory with the best proof may be geocentricism, not due to provable scientific fact, but due to the overwhelming proof that the theory of heliocentricism is well-docuмented as occult and anti-God.
-
This is where we disagree. I think the reason the globe earth heliocentric theory is not controversial is that we have all been brainwashed since early childhood to believe that there two theories are fact.
I do recall being uncomfortable with the thought of living on the side of a ball when the concept was first introduced to me, and I couldn't quite buy it on one level, but over time I overcame the initial hesitation through the forced indoctrination. My wife also said she felt the same way. Similarly, when sitting still and closing your eyes, everything appears very still, and the thought that we're flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour seems preposterous on the face of it ... except, again, we decided to believe it after the indoctrination. I think it's precisely because the indoctrination was so forced contrary to our common sense perceptions that it's so difficult for people to unwind it. It did great violence to our instincts.
-
I do recall being uncomfortable with the thought of living on the side of a ball when the concept was first introduced to me, and I couldn't quite buy it on one level, but over time I overcame the initial hesitation through the forced indoctrination. My wife also said she felt the same way. Similarly, when sitting still and closing your eyes, everything appears very still, and the though that we're flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour seems preposterous on the face of it ... except, again, we decided to believe it after the indoctrination. I think it's precisely because the indoctrination was so forced contrary to our common sense perceptions that it's so difficult for people to unwind it. It did great violence to our instincts.
Your post inspired random questions.
Why do tectonic plates shift if the earth is stagnant? What causes volcanos to push through the ground? I guess to me I can imagine a ball being squished and such things happening, bur not a pancake.
I don't know about how fast things are moving in space. I do think the Earth (globe) is spinning and the sun and planets move around the earth (geocentric). I think some force keeps us and the water on the planet, but I don't know how that works.
I am fine with people believing what they want. I am not fine with people calling me brainwashed, or not trying, or throwing any negative statement at me and claiming it's obvious, when it is not.
What I do know is that this discussion, though interesting, actually has no bearing on whether I am trying to be a good Catholic or not.
Prayers for everyone reading this.
-
The earth is not a pancake, but the land is. Volcanos and earthquakes happen due to changes in the earth's core, which is far, far below the flat land mass.
(https://i.imgur.com/Gcbx33D.png)
-
The earth is not a pancake, but the land is. Volcanos and earthquakes happen due to changes in the earth's core, which is far, far below the flat land mass.
(https://i.imgur.com/Gcbx33D.png)
Pax, please explain how the Sun is not seen at all times on all places of your Earth model.
-
Because the sun is much, much, MUCH smaller than the current story. And it shines like a spotlight, with more focused light/heat, than the current story.
-
Crepuscular rays support that idea, kind of like a street light at night.
(https://i.imgur.com/dOD5Xsg.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/jjsVYu0.jpeg)
-
Because the sun is much, much, MUCH smaller than the current story. And it shines like a spotlight, with more focused light/heat, than the current story.
So when the Sun sets or rises, why do we see it as being round and approximately the same size and not as a disk that gets smaller as it’s setting or larger when it’s rising? How is it that the Sun appears on the Eastern horizon incrementally appearing from top to bottom and disappearing on the Western horizon from bottom to top?
-
Crepuscular rays support that idea, kind of like a street light at night.
(https://i.imgur.com/dOD5Xsg.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/jjsVYu0.jpeg)
Take that spotlight and use a diameter of 32 miles. Put it 3000 miles in the air aboce the earth and calculate what diameter is covered by the light off that spotlight. I am not in a place where I can do the math right now, so I will try to show the answer hopefully by tomorrow.
-
Crepuscular rays support that idea, kind of like a street light at night.
(https://i.imgur.com/dOD5Xsg.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/jjsVYu0.jpeg)
Crepuscular rays are actually parallel, it is just perspective.
Here is a picture of anti crepuscular rays:
-
Crepuscular rays are actually parallel, it is just perspective.
:facepalm: :laugh2: Your guys' view of the value of perspective changes a lot. Sometimes you say "trust your eyeballs" and other times you say (because Science told you) "perspective is wrong".
-
So when the Sun sets or rises, why do we see it as being round and approximately the same size and not as a disk that gets smaller as it’s setting or larger when it’s rising?
It would be the same size as it rises/sets because it would be the same distance at that time/ or the same intensity of its focus.
The sun is different sizes in the summer/winter because it's closer/further away.
-
:facepalm: :laugh2: Your guys' view of the value of perspective changes a lot. Sometimes you say "trust your eyeballs" and other times you say (because Science told you) "perspective is wrong".
(https://i.imgur.com/ykBw0nA.jpeg)
Then you need to explain anti crepuscular rays. The short video below explains why you are mistaken:
https://youtu.be/cTPLqbl-HGY?si=ycN74fvPmJdizbAc
-
It would be the same size as it rises/sets because it would be the same distance at that time/ or the same intensity of its focus.
The sun is different sizes in the summer/winter because it's closer/further away.
That doesn’t explain why it wouldn’t appear disc shape (if it was actually a “spotlight”) as it moves away from or toward the observer. It also doesn’t explain why the Sun actually looks smaller and is more intense at high noon and usually appears larger and less intense upon rising and setting.
-
It also doesn’t explain why the Sun actually looks smaller and is more intense at high noon and usually appears larger and less intense upon rising and setting.
There's no rational explanation for this on a globe either.
-
This video on C. Rays is longer so it must be right. lol Actually, he also runs an interesting experiment on a localized light source versus one that is further away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-ugvHlUSpM
Or maybe it's this one. I think they're basically the same, however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ppPXChyTo
-
There's no rational explanation for this on a globe either.
Yes there is. This in no way answers my question. You can’t explain it if the Sun is in fact a “spotlight” type of light source.
I know the conventional explanation is that it just appears larger because upon rising and setting the Sun is seen around smaller objects like trees and buildings that make it appear larger. However, I’m not opposed to the idea that the Sun is just closer to the Earth at certain times rather than what scientists would have us believe.
-
I know the conventional explanation is that it just appears larger because upon rising and setting the Sun is seen around smaller objects like trees and buildings that make it appear larger.
Another example of perspective bias.
However, I’m not opposed to the idea that the Sun is just closer to the Earth at certain times rather than what scientists would have us believe.
Of course, this makes no sense, nor would it be possible, because the earth is always spinning (and so is the sun). So how can the sun be "closer" to the EST time zone as it rises? Wouldn't that mean it was farther away from another time zone?
That would mean the sun both rotates around the earth, and bobs up/down (continuously) in order to appear closer/farther away, depending upon each time zone. And it would have to do this every hour or so (as each new time zone starts the day).
So if the Sun "bobs down" closer to earth in California, for it's sunrise...how do we (on the east coast) not see this "bob down"? Because in the East, the sun is already 3 hours in the sky and it continues to move up in the sky.
No, the globe earth/sun movements make no sense either.
-
This video on C. Rays is longer so it must be right. lol Actually, he also runs an interesting experiment on a localized light source versus one that is further away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-ugvHlUSpM
Or maybe it's this one. I think they're basically the same, however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ppPXChyTo
At the 2:10 mark in the second video he admitted he used CGI for the beams of light. That is why you can’t see the light beams in the video when he’s doing his experiment. He wants you to believe that they’re crepuscular rays and that is why he used the CGI to draw in the divergent beams.
Also, just think about this: Some FEers hold the the Sun is around 3000 to 5000 miles above the Earth. The highest cuмulus cuмulonimbus clouds are roughly 10 miles high. That means the Sun is actually still an extremely huge distance above the clouds rendering the crepuscular ray argument impossible. Do you understand?
-
Another example of perspective bias.
Of course, this makes no sense, nor would it be possible, because the earth is always spinning (and so is the sun). So how can the sun be "closer" to the EST time zone as it rises? Wouldn't that mean it was farther away from another time zone?
That would mean the sun both rotates around the earth, and bobs up/down (continuously) in order to appear closer/farther away, depending upon each time zone. And it would have to do this every hour or so (as each new time zone starts the day).
So if the Sun "bobs down" closer to earth in California, for it's sunrise...how do we (on the east coast) not see this "bob down"? Because in the East, the sun is already 3 hours in the sky and it continues to move up in the sky.
No, the globe earth/sun movements make no sense either.
So then the conventional explanation makes the most sense.
-
So when the Sun sets or rises, why do we see it as being round and approximately the same size and not as a disk that gets smaller as it’s setting or larger when it’s rising?
Yet another begging of the question. This is not actually the case. Now, the sun (or moon) can be magnified closer to the horizon due to the fact that you're looking through more moisture in the atmosphere, but there's nothing that would explain it shrinking as it closes in on the horizon and sets ... and yet we have video showing exactly this, in the dry desert of Afghanistan, taken by a US serviceman over there, where the sun noticeably shrinks as it "sets" and gets closer to the horizon. There's no explanation for it shrinking on the horizon. In cases where it doesn't shrink and even gets larger in size, that's due to the moisture in the air (absent in the deserts of Afghanistan).
But you're constantly begging the question and making assumptions such as in your queston above that the sun remains the same size as it sets or as it rises. In point of fact, there's a great variation in the perceived size of the sun due to atmospheric conditions. There's actually even an optical illusion where the moon looks to be huge at the horizion (but apparently if you look at it upside down, it returns to normal size). But there's no factor that would explain the video where it does in fact get noticeably smaller as it sets.
-
So then the conventional explanation makes the most sense.
:laugh2: Riiiight. The sun "bobs down" in california to "rise" at 6am, while in New York, we don't see the "bob down" because the sun has been in the sky for 3 hours, continuously rising.
Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.
-
:laugh2: Riiiight. The sun "bobs down" in california to "rise" at 6am, while in New York, we don't see the "bob down" because the sun has been in the sky for 3 hours, continuously rising.
Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.
You people have seriously lost your collective minds! Just the fact alone that you think that the Sun is some sort of spotlight makes you look mentally imbalanced. :facepalm:
-
You people have seriously lost your collective minds! Just the fact alone that you think that the Sun is some sort of spotlight makes you look mentally imbalanced. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif)
It's more mentally unbalanced to think the sun "bobs down" in california, meanwhile it's rising in NY.
Unless that's another "false perspective" thing, which the "science gods" tell us that our eyes deceive us. :facepalm:
-
You people have seriously lost your collective minds! Just the fact alone that you think that the Sun is some sort of spotlight makes you look mentally imbalanced. :facepalm:
I thought something similar at first... but this is more us IMO and how taken aback we are by it... and at the end of the day insults aren't really an argument... just an expression of frustration.
At the beginning I was thinking like 2D Google Maps and that they were crazy... but then another poster put up an early 2D image of the North Pole which I didn't recognise what it was at first because it was such an old map... nevertheless, from that perspective a lot of the arguments such as the rotation of the sun actually breaks down, because after all, a circle is not far off from a globe from such a top down perspective (there was also no need to deny my time lapse YouTube video of the North Pole as another poster did because it make sense from that perspective of a flat Earth).. then I realized that some of the arguments they are coming up with, while I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they are incorrect here... they are certainly clever some of them IMO.
So in terms of the 2D map of the North Pole (2D Google Maps is clearly wrong here for obvious reasons, as you can't show the entire globe accurately in 2D which is why no such 2D world map exists) then if you play that out as a circular flat Earth, then while some globe arguments break down... other arguments are amplified... such as the Southern Hemisphere like Australia, and such 2D maps of Australia cannot fit into such a model unless the Earth is a globe.
Then like I said above, if we take a telescope we can see first hand that we are surrounded by globes.
God Bless
-
and the thought that we're flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour seems preposterous on the face of it ...
In terms of this, just think about being on an airplane, the atmosphere acts as the cabin and furthermore, unlike a plane flying through the air the Earth is in space with no resistance thus it needs no propulsion.
God Bless
-
I agree that the theory of globe earth is not contoversial. Why is that so?
This is where we disagree. I think the reason the globe earth heliocentric theory is not controversial is that we have all been brainwashed since early childhood to believe that there two theories are fact.
You and the vast majority of the population, who (like all of us) have been taught from childhood that those who reject the theories of globe earth and heliocentricism are crackpots. Also taught from childhood is the notion that these theories are scientific fact.
In reality, science is based on observation and (as we see here on CI in microcosm) both sides (or all three sides if we include geocentricism) produce observations to support their respective theories.
Fauchi lied when he said "the science is settled" just as he lied when he said "I AM science." Run away from anyone who puts forth the lie that "the science is settled." In science, nothing is settled until the hypothesis or theory is proven. This has not been done with the theories of globe earth, flat earth, heliocentricism or geocentricism. The theory with the best proof may be geocentricism, not due to provable scientific fact, but due to the overwhelming proof that the theory of heliocentricism is well-docuмented as occult and anti-God.
Remember, because it's taught in schools means that a lot of people can repeat it but that does not mean they can all fully comprehend and explain it in their own words IMO... It doesn't answer the question one way or the other and you should be careful not to be bias in the other direction IMO... Just because we have been lied to so badly for so long doesn't mean that everything is a lie IMO. Some early Christians were taught by Judas when Christ sent the disciples out.
Now heliocentrism is a tricky one, because while I think it is logical that the Earth rotates around the Sun with it's gravitational pull... Without clear defined boundaries of the universe one cannot declare the center of it yet.
Yes, science is based on observation... the difficult part about debunking the flat Earth is that for the average person to know for sure we need to use tools that they have at their disposal personally, there are others who deal with the globe Earth on a daily basis so there is no question for them but for the average person the tools they use are not available... given we are not in the 1500's or so anymore... we have more tools than our ancestors had so we should not be locked into the same disputes that our ancestors had in the 1500's or so.
God Bless
-
In terms of this, just think about being on an airplane, the atmosphere acts as the cabin and furthermore, unlike a plane flying through the air the Earth is in space with no resistance thus it needs no propulsion.
God Bless
Not only is there a difference between flying a few hundred miles per hour and flying a few hundred thousand miles per hour, but you feel the turbulence/movement of an airplane. That's also a huge issue with the heliocentric model (this consideration doesn't pertain to FE per se, but more to geocentrism) because you would certainly feel (big time) the changes in speed allegedly encountered by the earth due to the multiple vectors of motion. When you're on the side of the earth rotating WITH its revolution around the sun, you're moving the speed of the earth's rotation + 1000 MPH (at equator), but then when you flip around and are rotating contrary to the earth's revolution, you're at the earth's revolution - 1000MPH. You'd feel effects similar to those carnival teacup rides that spin in place in addition to revolving around the track. You don't feel steady speeds (though 600K+ MPH is absurd), but you most certainly feel changes in speed and changes in direction, and the effects on the earth's weather would be catastrophic. Again, not an FE issue per se, but pertains to geocentrism. Nevertheless, the point was to illustrate that man, without "knowledge" of space, left to his own devices, naturally concludes that we are at rest and on a flat plane. It's CONTRARY to our natural common sense and sensibilities to assert that we life on the side or even bottom of a ball and that we're flying through space at 100s of 1000s of MPH (more if you take into account the alleged movement of the galaxy through the universe). Thus when children are initially told they live on a ball flying though space at breakneck speeds, it does violence to their psyche and to their sensibilities, and that is why this programming is so difficult to unravel, since their minds cling artificially to these notions when ever fiber of their being tells them the opposite is true.
-
You people have seriously lost your collective minds! Just the fact alone that you think that the Sun is some sort of spotlight makes you look mentally imbalanced. :facepalm:
THIS ^^^ is the level of "thought" we're dealing with here. Idiotic and also pathetic. You're mentally crippled by your programming and just sitting there with drool running from your mouth as you regurgitate your cosmology. This shows you what "open mind"s we're dealing with in these types of morons.
-
Now heliocentrism is a tricky one, because while I think it is logical that the Earth rotates around the Sun with it's gravitational pull... Without clear defined boundaries of the universe one cannot declare the center of it yet.
But it has been shown with the COBE probe, Planck Satellite and the WMAP that the entire universe is tied directly to the earth's location, and that the special location occupies the center (or very near center) of the universe. Max Tegmark created the print out showing the Cosmic Background Radiation and when it became unavoidably obvious to everyone what the implications were it became known as the 'Axis of Evil'. Even atheist, loudmouth and general hothead, Lawrence Krauss admitted as much but you have to do the digging to find this stuff out. It's definitely out there but no one going to spoon feed it to you like they do with the ' spinning ball in the middle of nowhere, 'you're nothing special' but regurgitated cosmic space dust made from exploding stars', point of view.
-
Not only is there a difference between flying a few hundred miles per hour and flying a few hundred thousand miles per hour, but you feel the turbulence/movement of an airplane. That's also a huge issue with the heliocentric model (this consideration doesn't pertain to FE per se, but more to geocentrism) because you would certainly feel (big time) the changes in speed allegedly encountered by the earth due to the multiple vectors of motion. When you're on the side of the earth rotating WITH its revolution around the sun, you're moving the speed of the earth's rotation + 1000 MPH (at equator), but then when you flip around and are rotating contrary to the earth's revolution, you're at the earth's revolution - 1000MPH. You'd feel effects similar to those carnival teacup rides that spin in place in addition to revolving around the track. You don't feel steady speeds (though 600K+ MPH is absurd), but you most certainly feel changes in speed and changes in direction, and the effects on the earth's weather would be catastrophic. Again, not an FE issue per se, but pertains to geocentrism. Nevertheless, the point was to illustrate that man, without "knowledge" of space, left to his own devices, naturally concludes that we are at rest and on a flat plane. It's CONTRARY to our natural common sense and sensibilities to assert that we life on the side or even bottom of a ball and that we're flying through space at 100s of 1000s of MPH (more if you take into account the alleged movement of the galaxy through the universe). Thus when children are initially told they live on a ball flying though space at breakneck speeds, it does violence to their psyche and to their sensibilities, and that is why this programming is so difficult to unravel, since their minds cling artificially to these notions when ever fiber of their being tells them the opposite is true.
In terms of the airplane, that's because it's moving through something... the air and weather events also impact it, plus it's own propulsion system etc. Planes don't fly in vacuums with no propulsion. In space it's a vacuum so there should be no resistance at all and therefore how could you get any turbulence or feeling? No propulsion to feel and in a vacuum.
Furthermore, with the gravitational pull, Jupitar acts as a shield protecting the Earth from comets and asteroids... I mean, the more I learn about it the more stunned I am and how crazy the atheists appear that they could believe in such a perfect chance assembly of events which is absolutely impossible for a blind evolutionary process to account for (I reject Darwinian Evolution btw but that's a long topic for another thread).
Also, with the Northern and Southern Hemisphere... nothing is 'flipped' it's simply a slight wobble in spinning. Another proof of design because if a wobble can cause such extreme changes in weather then the chances of the Earth being where it is in relation to the sun for life at all is astronomically impossible to be by some blind chance events... there are an unbelievable amount of blind chance events to take place in perfect succession which in terms of probabilities is a total non starter but unfortunately it's not something that's easy to explain to people IMO. The atheist simply says 'I am therefore it happened' well yeah... but aren't you even a little suspicious?
Again, with the teacup carnival ride... it's not in a vacuum, the Earth isn't stopping and starting or changing speeds either, the only inconsistency is the wobbling which accounts for the seasons with the northern and southern hemispheres and why they are inverted.
Man without 'knowledge' of space would conclude a flat Earth... but we do have knowledge of it and in fact, man without 'knowledge' of space already guessed it in many prior periods of history due to the Moon and shadows on it... It was just a theory though so no proof at such points.
That's very interesting that last part about doing violence on their psyche and sensibilities (I don't know if 'violence' is the right word but radical shock perhaps)... your right but you know what else does that... Christ! That's why it is such an emotive topic for non-believers... So just because something is radical to our understanding of the world does not mean it is false. It's also difficult to convert between religions for this very reason... but people do so based on evidence and reasoning etc.
You know what else is radical? Breaking the sound barrier at supersonic speeds and having the controls inverted lol now that's radical! Especially if you experienced it for the first time or aileron reversal for example. A lot of wild unexpected stuff was found out when designing and testing new aircraft. The USSR were ahead of the US when it came to the swept wing for early jet aircraft for example.
God Bless
-
You know what else is radical? Breaking the sound barrier at supersonic speeds and having the controls inverted lol now that's radical!
Small correction, apparently the inverted controls thing is sort of a myth... yes and no... depends on the aircraft and situation... but if you look it up there are all kinds of radical phenomenon that occurred when designing and testing new aircraft including when breaking the sound barrier etc and were radical especially for those who encountered them for the first time.
God Bless
-
In fact, the one thing in my life that did the most 'violence' to my psyche and sensibilities... is the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ... precisely why the Romans perfected it to keep their subjects in line and it worked... until it didn't.
God Bless
-
.
Also, one more thing.
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jєωs indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:" - 1 Corinthians 1:23
This is not the default position for those evaluating their surroundings, in fact, this is -
"I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature." - Adolf Hitler
Now because Hitler believed in Darwinian Evolution, this is entirely logical, as it's the cruel forces of nature that drive the process of survival of the fittest according to the Darwinian Evolutionists... thus prolonging the existence of so called 'inferior' 'animals' or suffering 'animals' is counterproductive, euthanasia and eugenics is then considered a deeply sick and twisted 'mercy' or 'good'... also why the German Atheist Philosopher of his time Friedrich Nietzsche would say "Hope is the greatest of all evils for it prolongs the torments of man."
"And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity." - 1 Corinthians 13:13
We are the radical and crazy ones preaching Christ crucified... but we are also right in doing so. Everything in life has a certain contradiction about it and is not what we would otherwise expect on face value.
God Bless
-
Take that spotlight and use a diameter of 32 miles. Put it 3000 miles in the air aboce the earth and calculate what diameter is covered by the light off that spotlight. I am not in a place where I can do the math right now, so I will try to show the answer hopefully by tomorrow.
Ok so I tried the calculation and you would have to guess at what angle the light is leaving the spotlight sun. I picked 30 degrees which would cover an area with a 3000 mile diameter. That is the distance from California to New York and Mexico to part of Canada. That spotlight did not light up anything in the Southern Hemisphere. I pulled the flashlight away to cover everything in the same timezone and the result was similar to how the sun would light up half the globe at a time. This means that the spotlight sun on a flat map and a orb sun on a globe would look the same to people on earth.
There are two questions this brings up as exceptions.
1) How are there long days in the southern hemisphere? The sun travels at a constant pace across the sky and so days can be up to 24 hours in the Southern Hemisphers. We have to trust others for this, so I am just going to let it be.
2) If the sun were a spotlight then why wouldn't the circle we see at high noon not turn into a squished oval by the time it sets? Why do we see the circle of the sun the entire time throughout the day?
-
Ok so I tried the calculation and you would have to guess at what angle the light is leaving the spotlight sun. I picked 30 degrees which would cover an area with a 3000 mile diameter. That is the distance from California to New York and Mexico to part of Canada. That spotlight did not light up anything in the Southern Hemisphere. I pulled the flashlight away to cover everything in the same timezone and the result was similar to how the sun would light up half the globe at a time. This means that the spotlight sun on a flat map and a orb sun on a globe would look the same to people on earth.
There are two questions this brings up as exceptions.
1) How are there long days in the southern hemisphere? The sun travels at a constant pace across the sky and so days can be up to 24 hours in the Southern Hemisphers. We have to trust others for this, so I am just going to let it be.
2) If the sun were a spotlight then why wouldn't the circle we see at high noon not turn into a squished oval by the time it sets? Why do we see the circle of the sun the entire time throughout the day?
I appreciate your efforts Grey! Unfortunately it’s not a YouTube video of dubious origin and expertise, thus it will just be dismissed as idiocy. You see, only the “experts” on YouTube can be trusted! I was considering buying a Nikon p1000 camera to show proof of my own observations, but it will likely be dismissed out of hand.
-
I was considering buying a Nikon p1000 camera to show proof of my own observations, but it will likely be dismissed out of hand.
If you're going to do some experiments, definitely post them. Would like to see what you come up with. What were some of your ideas?
-
I appreciate your efforts Grey! Unfortunately it’s not a YouTube video of dubious origin and expertise, thus it will just be dismissed as idiocy. You see, only the “experts” on YouTube can be trusted! I was considering buying a Nikon p1000 camera to show proof of my own observations, but it will likely be dismissed out of hand.
To be fair though, wouldn't you do the exact same thing to any video they put up? Presume dubious origin and expertise? I know I did, until I watched one that I actually think is accurate they just reached an incorrect conclusion IMO. As long as they aren't excessively long videos I'm fine to consider them.
I wouldn't worry about the camera because at the end of the day it needs to be with tools at the persons disposal who doubts it. I've provided some which I think are very convincing and they can see for themselves first hand and they don't require appeals to authority and I think if they ponder those it might work.
God Bless
-
To be fair though, wouldn't you do the exact same thing to any video they put up? Presume dubious origin and expertise?
Of course he would.
-
To be fair though, wouldn't you do the exact same thing to any video they put up? Presume dubious origin and expertise? I know I did, until I watched one that I actually think is accurate they just reached an incorrect conclusion IMO. As long as they aren't excessively long videos I'm fine to consider them.
I wouldn't worry about the camera because at the end of the day it needs to be with tools at the persons disposal who doubts it. I've provided some which I think are very convincing and they can see for themselves first hand and they don't require appeals to authority and I think if they ponder those it might work.
God Bless
Their own video and experiments? No, they would get the benefit of the doubt, with one notable exception, as they are traditional Catholics and I presume they weren’t lying. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t scrutinize it at all. God bless you too, Josh.
-
Their own video and experiments? No, they would get the benefit of the doubt, with one notable exception, as they are traditional Catholics and I presume they weren’t lying. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t scrutinize it at all. God bless you too, Josh.
Personally for me it would depend on what it was, for example, the short video discussed earlier in this thread doesn't look to be AI or any trickery involved, so I think it's likely, also a hostile source so it helps a lot IMO but I could never know for sure unless I did it myself... That being said I think there are several proofs in it for a globe earth but also some interesting questions (would've been even better if he took a second shot from closer to the sea level instead of on the platform for a cross comparison).
I also have to be aware of my own capabilities, so when they tried to use the maths and Earth curvature calculator, that's an argument that isn't going to help IMO, so I think we need to come up with things using modern technology that is accessible to the average person, that they can do themselves.
Personally I think the best arguments for myself are the two I've already mentioned
1) The fact that there is no such thing as an accurate 2D map of the world... as 2D Google Maps works fine for most of it but is totally broken for the North Pole for example and 2D maps of the North Pole can work fine for a while until you get to the Southern Hemisphere where the whole thing totally breaks down as it's massively warped (as I can know very clearly myself being in the Southern Hemisphere).
2) Then with a telescope we can see the Moon and some Planets and see that we are surrounded by Globes.
I'm sure there are some more too but I'd have to think of them and it depends where the person who believes in the flat Earth is at, I don't even know what the majority are thinking in terms of a flat Earth as there is no real world map picture of it in my head and I don't know what consensus if any there exists among this community, as there are certain things we should be able to rule out first as we progress the discussion IMO. Depending on what the flat Earth person is thinking, will dictate what arguments will work and what arguments will not work, otherwise I fear I'll just be knocking down straw men half the time.
God Bless
-
I have a 2012 Ford Fusion that is 56.9" tall according to their specs, or 4.74 feet tall.
Plugging in 'earth curve calculator' to google and using the Omni Calculator I'd expect to see from my 5'8" vantage point the Fusion completely blocked/obscured by earth curvature at 5.7 miles. I've considered buying a P900 but I never take photos so for one day of usage it seems a little pointless. If anyone else has a similar set up with a camera and can video the experiment from start to finish, I'd be really interested in seeing it.
(https://i.imgur.com/8D7l9MZ.png)
-
I have a 2012 Ford Fusion that is 56.9" tall according to their specs, or 4.74 feet tall.
Plugging in 'earth curve calculator' to google and using the Omni Calculator I'd expect to see from my 5'8" vantage point the Fusion completely blocked/obscured by earth curvature at 5.7 miles. I've considered buying a P900 but I never take photos so for one day of usage it seems a little pointless. If anyone else has a similar set up with a camera and can video the experiment from start to finish, I'd be really interested in seeing it.
Well, the trick is that to do something like that you'd have to find a place that's PERFECTLY flat. If the thing were on a bit of a hill or down in a bit of a dip, the results would be invalid. I wonder if we could find some place like that, where it's perfectly level for miles. Most of the time people try to perform these experiments over the water, which is generally going to be level, but even then you might have issues with waves compromising its perfect level-ness. That's why the focus is on larger objects, say, viewing a building or mountain from miles away, since it would take miles for the curvature to cover something bigger than that. Then the problem withing being miles away is that people will claim "refraction" or "mirage" or something due to the atmospheric conditions in between.
So your experiment is definitely worth doing ... IF one can find a place that's perfectly flat/level the entire way. I've seen people use frozen lakes to conduct some experiments.
-
No, they would get the benefit of the doubt, with one notable exception, as they are traditional Catholics and I presume they weren’t lying.
QVD said the above...yet continues to call FE people "liars". :facepalm:
-
Personally for me it would depend on what it was, for example, the short video discussed earlier in this thread doesn't look to be AI or any trickery involved, so I think it's likely, also a hostile source so it helps a lot IMO but I could never know for sure unless I did it myself... That being said I think there are several proofs in it for a globe earth but also some interesting questions.
I also have to be aware of my own capabilities, so when they tried to use the maths and Earth curvature calculator, that's an argument that isn't going to help IMO, so I think we need to come up with things using modern technology that is accessible to the average person, that they can do themselves.
Personally I think the best arguments for myself are the two I've already mentioned
1) The fact that there is no such thing as an accurate 2D map of the world... as 2D Google Maps works fine for most of it but is totally broken for the North Pole for example and 2D maps of the North Pole can work fine for a while until you get to the Southern Hemisphere where the whole thing totally breaks down as it's massively warped (as I can know very clearly myself being in the Southern Hemisphere) if working outwards from the North Pole in 2D.
2) Then with a telescope we can see the Moon and some Planets and see that we are surrounded by Globes.
I'm sure there are some more too but I'd have to think of them and it depends where the person who believes in the flat Earth is at, I don't even know what the majority are thinking in terms of a flat Earth as there is no real world map picture of it in my head and I don't know what consensus if any there exists among this community, as there are certain things we should be able to rule out first as we progress the discussion IMO.
God Bless
Yes, I think you make good points. A few of my arguments are:
1) Actually seeing for myself the disappearance of objects over a large body of water when looking through a telescope. That is why no one should opine on this subject until and unless they have actually used a telescope.
2) The rising and setting of the Sun, which can’t logically be explained without the Earth being a globe, unless you want to believe in the fairytale “spotlight”. Anyone with eyes to see and is honest would recognize that truth.
3) The great accuracy of predicting solar and lunar eclipses and cycles using a global model, which cannot be replicated by any FE model as far as I know.
4) The perfect accuracy of measurements of oceans and land masses on a global Earth and the enormous inaccuracy of those measurements, which is glaringly obvious, on any FE model.
-
QVD said the above...yet continues to call FE people "liars". :facepalm:
I called a certain poster on this forum a liar, but I don’t believe I called “FE people” liars. I’d appreciate if would point out when I did so.
-
Yes, I think you make good points. A few of my arguments are:
1) Actually seeing for myself the disappearance of objects over a large body of water when looking through a telescope. That is why no one should opine on this subject until and unless they have actually used a telescope.
2) The rising and setting of the Sun, which can’t logically be explained without the Earth being a globe, unless you want to believe in the fairytale “spotlight”. Anyone with eyes to see and is honest would recognize that truth.
3) The great accuracy of predicting solar and lunar eclipses and cycles using a global model, which cannot be replicated by any FE model as far as I know.
4) The perfect accuracy of measurements of oceans and land masses on a global Earth and the enormous inaccuracy of those measurements, which is glaringly obvious, on any FE model.
1) That would be a problem for myself, as this is something I simply do not have realistic access to. In terms of using a telescope to look at the moon etc, I think this is a good start so at least we can rule out some things for a good starting point that the Moon and nearby Planets are all a globe which we can see first hand ourselves... telescopes shouldn't be that expensive and it's fun too... worth the money.
2) This one can actually be partially explained away by those using a 2D map of the North Pole and working outwards... because after all, a top down view of a circle and a globe isn't that dissimilar at first glance... but it totally breaks down in the southern hemisphere with how wrapped it is.
3) That's a good one IMO, but it wouldn't be a slam dunk if I were in their shoes IMO.
4) I agree, mainly that there is no such 2D map of the entire world that exists, as it always breaks down somewhere when attempting to use 2D, Google Maps for example breaks down at the North and South Poles... Only Google Earth works because it's 3D.
I also think Time Zones are another good one, but I'd still need to formulate it in my own words IMO and it depends what their thinking as 2) comes into play again IMO.
God Bless
-
Adding to 2), FE models can't explain the hours of daytime and the position of the sun. For instance, at noon, the sun is at zenith these days at 10-11* latitudes (e.g. Costa Rica) with 12:25 Hrs. daylight, yet Houston has 13 Hrs., and Boston 13:33 Hrs. If the sun is closer to Costa Rica, how come Boston has more daylight in spring-summer time?
-
Well, the trick is that to do something like that you'd have to find a place that's PERFECTLY flat. If the thing were on a bit of a hill or down in a bit of a dip, the results would be invalid. I wonder if we could find some place like that, where it's perfectly level for miles. Most of the time people try to perform these experiments over the water, which is generally going to be level, but even then you might have issues with waves compromising its perfect level-ness. That's why the focus is on larger objects, say, viewing a building or mountain from miles away, since it would take miles for the curvature to cover something bigger than that. Then the problem withing being miles away is that people will claim "refraction" or "mirage" or something due to the atmospheric conditions in between.
So your experiment is definitely worth doing ... IF one can find a place that's perfectly flat/level the entire way. I've seen people use frozen lakes to conduct some experiments.
My husband and I were reading up on refraction and light curves towards cold, so a frozen lake wouldn't help because the light would bend toward the ice and away from the warm air above (This is true for lasers as well). I am not sure how that really effects things. I have to do more study.
While I was trying to find the video my husband showed me last night. I came across this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ookTfBP5sUU
Please just view with an open mind. Thank you.
-
Adding to 2), FE models can't explain the hours of daytime and the position of the sun.
False. This demonstrates again that you haven't looked into the matter.
-
Please just view with an open mind. Thank you.
Sure, though you won't look with an open mind at FE. I've already gone through and debunked this video. It's junk.
-
Sure, though you won't look with an open mind at FE. I've already gone through and debunked this video. It's junk.
Show me the CathInfo post where you debunked it.
Oh wait! You are going to say go find it yourself.
-
Show me the CathInfo post where you debunked it.
Oh wait! You are going to say go find it yourself.
I think you’re catching on to his MO! Gaslighting and intimidation.
-
My husband and I were reading up on refraction and light curves towards cold, so a frozen lake wouldn't help because the light would bend toward the ice and away from the warm air above (This is true for lasers as well). I am not sure how that really effects things. I have to do more study.
While I was trying to find the video my husband showed me last night. I came across this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ookTfBP5sUU
Please just view with an open mind. Thank you.
Great video BTW.
-
I think you’re catching on to his MO! Gaslighting and intimidation.
Nah, you're just liars and accuse me of doing that which you do. I've spent hours debunking some of these garbage videos here on CI and it's not worth my time to do it over and over again for jackasses like yourself. It's you who's gasslighting, idiot. I could find it for you or if I can't find it, debunk it again, but it's an absolute waste of my time, since neither of you care or intend to actually pay attention to what I post.
Both you and Gray are just flat-out liars, posing as if you're actually examining this issue with objectivity or an open mind.
Go pound salt, you losers. Stop wasting your time with these idiots, Pax. I regret coming back here to deal with such idiots. I'm gone for good this time.
-
Pax, you need to stop arguing with these dishonest, lying morons; they're just wasting your time and everyone else's.
-
False. This demonstrates again that you haven't looked into the matter.
I'm speaking of my own experience, living at different latitudes throughout my life. Another effect that usually is overlooked is the fact that the sun's path throughout the day is not parallel when you compare different latitudes. For instance, in summer if you live in NY you see the sun rising in the NE following an elliptical path, getting more hours of day-light even though the sun is never at zenith north of the Tropic of Cancer. If the next day you travel south towards de equator, e.g. Costa Rica, the path becomes less elliptical, more circular, where you can see the sun rising closer to the East, with less hours of day light. At noon, the sun in Costa Rica will always be closer to zenith than in NY. From that perspective, the path of the sun for both cities "crosses" twice during the day. At the Equator, with just a few minute difference, day and night last 12 hrs each no matter the time of the year.
-
Nah, you're just liars and accuse me of doing that which you do. I've spent hours debunking some of these garbage videos here on CI and it's not worth my time to do it over and over again for jackasses like yourself. It's you who's gasslighting, idiot. I could find it for you or if I can't find it, debunk it again, but it's an absolute waste of my time, since neither of you care or intend to actually pay attention to what I post.
Both you and Gray are just flat-out liars, posing as if you're actually examining this issue with objectivity or an open mind.
Go pound salt, you losers. Stop wasting your time with these idiots, Pax. I regret coming back here to deal with such idiots. I'm gone for good this time.
If y'all wanna talk about what's really botherin' ya sometime, Mr. Ladislaus, I'd be right happy ta listen.
-
I think you’re catching on to his MO! Gaslighting and intimidation.
I am sad. QVD, I wish you hadn't engaged in the emotional battle that this degraded into.
When people start calling names it is best to walk away.
I am sad to see Ladislaus go. I am sad that on top of a feminist and a Karen. I will now be known as a liar. I always give people the benefit of the doubt. I always try to see the best in people, even when I disagree.
I. have begun to just see each person here on CathInfo for their strengths and weaknesses, as real people I pay attention to their strengths. I try not to get so upset over their weaknesses. I make mistakes.
When people disappear, it bothers me. Most people who know me in real life say I care too much.
SeanJohnson left in December
TheReal McCoy hasn't posted since May
Mark 79 and Simeon left on 8/14.
Ladislaus says he is gone again.
I am sure i am missing others.....
Sorry melancholic spiral.
May God bless you and keep you.
-
I am sad. QVD, I wish you hadn't engaged in the emotional battle that this degraded into.
When people start calling names it is best to walk away.
I am sad to see Ladislaus go. I am sad that on top of a feminist and a Karen. I will now be known as a liar. I always give people the benefit of the doubt. I always try to see the best in people, even when I disagree.
I. have begun to just see each person here on CathInfo for their strengths and weaknesses, as real people I pay attention to their strengths. I try not to get so upset over their weaknesses. I make mistakes.
When people disappear, it bothers me. Most people who know me in real life say I care too much.
SeanJohnson left in December
TheReal McCoy hasn't posted since May
Mark 79 and Simeon left on 8/14.
Ladislaus says he is gone again.
I am sure i am missing others.....
Sorry melancholic spiral.
May God bless you and keep you.
I wouldn’t feel too bad about it, but I understand your sadness and I’m sorry I contributed to it. I and any honest person reading this forum knows the truth, you are certainly not a liar. I will say a pray for you.
God bless you!
-
I wouldn’t feel too bad about it, but I understand your sadness and I’m sorry I contributed to it. I and any honest person reading this forum knows the truth, you are certainly not a liar. I will say a pray for you.
God bless you!
Thank you.
-
Please just view with an open mind. Thank you.
It's an interesting video IMO but he massively shot himself in the foot with the title. You can't be objective and neutral with such titles as 'nonsense', he needed to take the emotion out IMO and just stick to the facts (Emotion can't and shouldn't be taken out of everything, but this one it should be IMO). At the end of the day too, while I thought it was interesting and talked about some things I had not read before... like he said, using taller vantage points and larger distances would be better but that's just not practical for the vast majority of people to see first hand for themselves IMO.
God Bless
-
May God bless you and keep you.
My only critique would be when you said "Oh wait! You are going to say go find it yourself."
Because you didn't give him a chance to provide or share it first.
I'm reminded of a really good quote I read somewhere -
"Being taught to avoid talking about politics and religion has led to a lack of understanding of politics and religion. What we should have been taught was how to have a civil conversation about a difficult topic."
I like this quote and think it's very accurate but I do concede it has it's limits, such as in times of war and dealing with truly heinous crimes against humanity.
God Bless
-
My only critique would be when you said "Oh wait! You are going to say go find it yourself."
Because you didn't give him a chance to provide or share it first.
I'm reminded of a really good quote I read somewhere -
"Being taught to avoid talking about politics and religion has led to a lack of understanding of politics and religion. What we should have been taught was how to have a civil conversation about a difficult topic."
I like this quote and think it's very accurate but I do concede it has it's limits, such as in times of war and dealing with truly heinous crimes against humanity.
God Bless
Yes that was a moment of weakness.
-
SeanJohnson left in December
TheReal McCoy hasn't posted since May
Mark 79 and Simeon left on 8/14.
Ladislaus says he is gone again.
I am sure i am missing others.....
Just wanted to say that Simeon has not left. She is merely taking a break. I am not sure what happened with Mark 79. He too may have just decided to take a break given his last interactions here regarding fake nukes.
-
Just wanted to say that Simeon has not left. She is merely taking a break. I am not sure what happened with Mark 79. He too may have just decided to take a break given his last interactions here regarding fake nukes.
Thank you
-
Just wanted to say that Simeon has not left. She is merely taking a break. I am not sure what happened with Mark 79. He too may have just decided to take a break given his last interactions here regarding fake nukes.
Didn't Mark79 say that he was traveling to Asia? He is probably nuking somewhere else.
-
I regret coming back here to deal with such idiots. I'm gone for good this time.
Don't leave, man. The enemy wants you gone. Just ignore the incorrigible.