Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: poenitens on November 12, 2023, 01:25:02 PM
-
Ave María purísima:
I am undecided on the FE vs. GE question. I would like FE to be true but there are many facts that cannot be simply swept under the rug.
However, I checked the memes from another thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-memes) and a couple called my attention a little bit. I have some objections to them but I am open to refutations.
(https://i.imgur.com/VgImCus.jpg)
This is a good one but it ignores the fact that the radius that a point on the surface of the Earth describes is much larger than the radius one kid would describe when riding the merry-go-round.
The centrifugal acceleration is v^2/R, where v is the velocity and R is the radius of the circle. Assuming R = 1m = 0.001km for the merry-go-round we get:
6^2/0.001=36,000km/hr^2 = 2.78m/s^2.
Now plugging the Earth's data in the formula (R = 6400km) we get:
1600^2/6400 = 400km/hr^2 = 0.03m/s^2
which is significantly smaller than the acceleration of the merry-go-round.
This does not necessarily neutralize the argument, the question is: how noticeable should be the effects of a 0.03m/s^2 centrifugal acceleration? Probably not much, considering that that's 300x smaller than the acceleration of gravity g = 9.8m/s^2 which is relatively low.
(https://i.imgur.com/TiD3woy.jpg)
More than an objection to this one is only a question: How does the man disappearing behind the ground can be explained by perspective? Maybe I'm missing something...
I would expect that by perspective the level at which the feet of the man appear raises in photo 2 with respect to photo 1 and in 3 with respect to 2. Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Qls9DA7.jpg)
The level of the feet of the second kid looks like it is above the level of the feet of the kid in the gray sweater.
I think that the man disappearing behind the grass can only be explained by a crease in the terrain or the observer being below the ground level, both causes are tantamount to curvature in the case of the ship. Am I missing something?
-
Ave María purísima:
I am undecided on the FE vs. GE question. I would like FE to be true but there are many facts that cannot be simply swept under the rug.
However, I checked the memes from another thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-memes) and a couple called my attention a little bit. I have some objections to them but I am open to refutations.
(https://i.imgur.com/VgImCus.jpg)
This is a good one but it ignores the fact that the radius that a point on the surface of the Earth describes is much larger than the radius one kid would describe when riding the merry-go-round.
The centrifugal acceleration is v^2/R, where v is the velocity and R is the radius of the circle. Assuming R = 1m = 0.001km for the merry-go-round we get:
6^2/0.001=36,000km/hr^2 = 2.78m/s^2.
Now plugging the Earth's data in the formula (R = 6400km) we get:
1600^2/6400 = 400km/hr^2 = 0.03m/s^2
which is significantly smaller than the acceleration of the merry-go-round.
This does not necessarily neutralize the argument, the question is: how noticeable should be the effects of a 0.03m/s^2 centrifugal acceleration? Probably not much, considering that that's 300x smaller than the acceleration of gravity g = 9.8m/s^2 which is relatively low.
(https://i.imgur.com/TiD3woy.jpg)
More than an objection to this one is only a question: How does the man disappearing behind the ground can be explained by perspective? Maybe I'm missing something...
I would expect that by perspective the level at which the feet of the man appear raises in photo 2 with respect to photo 1 and in 3 with respect to 2. Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Qls9DA7.jpg)
The level of the feet of the second kid looks like it is above the level of the feet of the kid in the gray sweater.
I think that the man disappearing behind the grass can only be explained by a crease in the terrain or the observer being below the ground level, both causes are tantamount to curvature in the case of the ship. Am I missing something?
Your questions are very good and highlight the “slight of hand” *some* FEers on the internet use to confuse those not too acquainted with science and are somewhat gullible. The guy walking on the football field is obviously ridiculous, but there are people who fall for it.
-
What is sad is that all those who pontificate about the Earth supposedly being flat, will not take a single hour of their time to investigate, observe, and test the veracity of the videos they submit as evidence and spend countless hours watching.
-
Your questions are very good and highlight the “slight of hand” *some* FEers on the internet use to confuse those not too acquainted with science and are somewhat gullible. The guy walking on the football field is obviously ridiculous, but there are people who fall for it.
Does all that math apply to the entire earth? Because the effects at the poles is not what it is at the equator.
(https://i.imgur.com/ytcdZs8.png)
-
Ave María purísima:
I am undecided on the FE vs. GE question. I would like FE to be true but there are many facts that cannot be simply swept under the rug.
However, I checked the memes from another thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earth-memes) and a couple called my attention a little bit. I have some objections to them but I am open to refutations.
(https://i.imgur.com/VgImCus.jpg)
This is a good one but it ignores the fact that the radius that a point on the surface of the Earth describes is much larger than the radius one kid would describe when riding the merry-go-round.
The centrifugal acceleration is v^2/R, where v is the velocity and R is the radius of the circle. Assuming R = 1m = 0.001km for the merry-go-round we get:
6^2/0.001=36,000km/hr^2 = 2.78m/s^2.
Now plugging the Earth's data in the formula (R = 6400km) we get:
1600^2/6400 = 400km/hr^2 = 0.03m/s^2
which is significantly smaller than the acceleration of the merry-go-round.
This does not necessarily neutralize the argument, the question is: how noticeable should be the effects of a 0.03m/s^2 centrifugal acceleration? Probably not much, considering that that's 300x smaller than the acceleration of gravity g = 9.8m/s^2 which is relatively low.
More than an objection to this one is only a question: How does the man disappearing behind the ground can be explained by perspective? Maybe I'm missing something...
I would expect that by perspective the level at which the feet of the man appear raises in photo 2 with respect to photo 1 and in 3 with respect to 2. Like this:
The level of the feet of the second kid looks like it is above the level of the feet of the kid in the gray sweater.
I think that the man disappearing behind the grass can only be explained by a crease in the terrain or the observer being below the ground level, both causes are tantamount to curvature in the case of the ship. Am I missing something?
I meant to answer your post directly and accidentally responded to the response.
(https://i.imgur.com/dUofPnF.png)
-
Does all that math apply to the entire earth? Because the effects at the poles is not what it is at the equator.
(https://i.imgur.com/ytcdZs8.png)
I thought about clarifying this after I could no longer edit the OP.
This becomes clearer if instead of thinking about it in terms of linear velocity (distance per unit time), you consider angular velocity (angle swept per unit time) which is v/R. The 1600km/h refer to linear velocity at the equator, at other latitudes it would be less because the radius and hence, the circuмference of the circle described in one revolution, is smaller. The angular velocity at any latitude would be the same (about 7.2x10^(-5) radians/s).
The formula for the acceleration in terms of the angular velocity w=v/R would be w^2*R. That is the square of the angular velocity times the radius. So at higher latitudes (smaller R) the acceleration, which is what you sense not velocity, would be less, not more. The 0.03m/s^2 is for the equator and hence, an upper bound for that acceleration.
Again, this only refutes the impression that the meme may cause. It does not prove anything directly against FE because I'm presupposing GE.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/TiD3woy.jpg)
More than an objection to this one is only a question: How does the man disappearing behind the ground can be explained by perspective? Maybe I'm missing something...
I would expect that by perspective the level at which the feet of the man appear raises in photo 2 with respect to photo 1 and in 3 with respect to 2. Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Qls9DA7.jpg)
The level of the feet of the second kid looks like it is above the level of the feet of the kid in the gray sweater.
I think that the man disappearing behind the grass can only be explained by a crease in the terrain or the observer being below the ground level, both causes are tantamount to curvature in the case of the ship. Am I missing something?
With the football field photo the camera was on the ground.
With the classroom hallway photo the camera was at the level of a standing person.
The horizon line will always be at eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/HHagj23.png)
In this illustration, the horizon line is where the blue sky meets the brown street.
Perhaps in the left hand drawing the viewer is sitting on the sidewalk, so the horizon line is low. In the right hand drawing the viewer is standing on the roof of a building, therefor the horizon line is higher.
https://graphicdesign2013.blogs.kpbsd.k12.ak.us/2013/03/06/perspective-scene/
The above shows how the vanishing point is close when viewed from near to the ground. In the picture on the left, the vanishing point is at the end of the building.
Then the vanishing point is further away when viewed from a higher elevation. In the picture on the right, the vanishing point is far beyond the building and the trees.
(https://i.imgur.com/RR0MrJK.png)
Are the trees in the distance in this photo really shorter than the trees in the foreground?
They look like they are half the size.
Did they go over the curve?
(https://i.imgur.com/RceDK7k.png)
Look how short the trunks of these trees appear the further away they are. Did they go over the curve?
(https://i.imgur.com/yUIsXBz.png)
If you put the camera on the ground and took the photo, the vanishing point of the horizon will be much closer.
If you went up in a bucket truck and took the photo the vanishing point of the horizon would be much further away.
The trees would still appear to get shorter in the distance but it would be at a more gradual rate.
It wouldn't have anything to do with the trees going over a curve or hiding behind a curve. :)
-
What is sad is that all those who pontificate about the Earth supposedly being flat, will not take a single hour of their time to investigate, observe, and test the veracity of the videos they submit as evidence and spend countless hours watching.
You don't give us enough credit. We HAVE thought about them, weighed the evidence, etc. and absorbed only that which was true.
For example, I can definitely vouch for this one:
I have wondered that since I was a kid. If we have a "moon" or spherical ball orbiting our earth, why isn't it a cool 3-d sphere looking thing? It's always 2-D illuminating some part of itself. But the sun can't be illuminating a sphere moon, or it would still look like a sphere. When you place a ruler on a sphere, how much of the ruler ACTUALLY TOUCHES the sphere? Only a mere point of it. The same with light. The brightest light would only hit ONE point, and it would diffuse out from there, being darker at the edges. The whole thing would look 3-D like a big sphere in the sky. But it doesn't.
And "standard science" says the moon is lit by the sun. But think about a Full Moon at night: it's 100% uniform lighting from the center all the way to the edges of the moon. There is ZERO 3-D element to it. Unless the earth were the Sun itself, super bright AND close, how could this even be possible? At NIGHT seeing a FULL MOON illuminated by the SUN -- shining on the back (day) side of the Earth? The earth should be casting a *shadow* on the Full Moon, never allowing any light onto it.
The same goes for many other Flat Earth proofs/memes. I can tell you that some of these are simply a case of "Wow -- I never thought about that! But you're absolutely right! Dang it, the earth IS flat! Ugh, I'm a Flat Earther now, which is about as good for you as waking up one morning as Adolf Hitler, but what can I do? deny reality and common sense?"
-
And the "ships disappearing over the curve" they are 100% wrong about. Just get a zoom camera, and the ship "comes back" clearly NOT lost over any "curve".
I can't believe Bill Nye teaches that crap with a straight face. I'm embarrassed for him.
I don't know if the Globers have any truly difficult questions for Flat Earth, but I have a question for them: Why use this lame piece of "evidence" which is not evidence at all? Are they *desperate* for evidence or something? It sure would seem so. If I were a Glober, I'd certainly drop THAT lame standby for the sake of truth and intellectual honesty.
It's like telling a kid to be good because otherwise the monster under the bed will eat him. Yes, we should encourage our kids to be good and I'm all for that, but why use a FALSE argument if you don't have to?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/oggAcgj.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/D9HvWUX.png)
Here above is the answer to a one speed stars rotating around the Earth. The next time you pass through a rotating door, watch its parts all turning together, all rotating simultaneously. Are they rotating at different speeds or the same speed as they complete their turn in the same time? Such a universe would also account for a one universal time-clock.
The same reasoning can be applied to the parts of a global Earth itself. For geocentrists, with the universe turning around the Earth, there is a difference in that the Coriolis effect which goes like this below. I don't know if FEs can explain this effect on a flat Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/tC3SUid.png)
-
You don't give us enough credit. We HAVE thought about them, weighed the evidence, etc. and absorbed only that which was true.
For example, I can definitely vouch for this one:
I have wondered that since I was a kid. If we have a "moon" or spherical ball orbiting our earth, why isn't it a cool 3-d sphere looking thing? It's always 2-D illuminating some part of itself. But the sun can't be illuminating a sphere moon, or it would still look like a sphere. When you place a ruler on a sphere, how much of the ruler ACTUALLY TOUCHES the sphere? Only a mere point of it. The same with light. The brightest light would only hit ONE point, and it would diffuse out from there, being darker at the edges. The whole thing would look 3-D like a big sphere in the sky. But it doesn't.
And "standard science" says the moon is lit by the sun. But think about a Full Moon at night: it's 100% uniform lighting from the center all the way to the edges of the moon. There is ZERO 3-D element to it. Unless the earth were the Sun itself, super bright AND close, how could this even be possible? At NIGHT seeing a FULL MOON illuminated by the SUN -- shining on the back (day) side of the Earth? The earth should be casting a *shadow* on the Full Moon, never allowing any light onto it.
The same goes for many other Flat Earth proofs/memes. I can tell you that some of these are simply a case of "Wow -- I never thought about that! But you're absolutely right! Dang it, the earth IS flat! Ugh, I'm a Flat Earther now, which is about as good for you as waking up one morning as Adolf Hitler, but what can I do? deny reality and common sense?"
Go get a telescope and look at the moon at different phases and you will see that it’s obviously 3 dimensional.
-
And the "ships disappearing over the curve" they are 100% wrong about. Just get a zoom camera, and the ship "comes back" clearly NOT lost over any "curve".
I can't believe Bill Nye teaches that crap with a straight face. I'm embarrassed for him.
I don't know if the Globers have any truly difficult questions for Flat Earth, but I have a question for them: Why use this lame piece of "evidence" which is not evidence at all? Are they *desperate* for evidence or something? It sure would seem so. If I were a Glober, I'd certainly drop THAT lame standby for the sake of truth and intellectual honesty.
It's like telling a kid to be good because otherwise the monster under the bed will eat him. Yes, we should encourage our kids to be good and I'm all for that, but why use a FALSE argument if you don't have to?
Did you look at the ships yourself with a telescope or a zoom camera? If you do, you will see that what you believe to be true is not correct.
-
You don't give us enough credit. We HAVE thought about them, weighed the evidence, etc. and absorbed only that which was true.
For example, I can definitely vouch for this one:
I have wondered that since I was a kid. If we have a "moon" or spherical ball orbiting our earth, why isn't it a cool 3-d sphere looking thing? It's always 2-D illuminating some part of itself. But the sun can't be illuminating a sphere moon, or it would still look like a sphere. When you place a ruler on a sphere, how much of the ruler ACTUALLY TOUCHES the sphere? Only a mere point of it. The same with light. The brightest light would only hit ONE point, and it would diffuse out from there, being darker at the edges. The whole thing would look 3-D like a big sphere in the sky. But it doesn't.
And "standard science" says the moon is lit by the sun. But think about a Full Moon at night: it's 100% uniform lighting from the center all the way to the edges of the moon. There is ZERO 3-D element to it. Unless the earth were the Sun itself, super bright AND close, how could this even be possible? At NIGHT seeing a FULL MOON illuminated by the SUN -- shining on the back (day) side of the Earth? The earth should be casting a *shadow* on the Full Moon, never allowing any light onto it.
The same goes for many other Flat Earth proofs/memes. I can tell you that some of these are simply a case of "Wow -- I never thought about that! But you're absolutely right! Dang it, the earth IS flat! Ugh, I'm a Flat Earther now, which is about as good for you as waking up one morning as Adolf Hitler, but what can I do? deny reality and common sense?"
Also, as I’ve asked in the past, you need to explain how moon phases work on an FE. I can easily explain them using a GE model. This is not a fact that you can just brush aside, it needs to be addressed since *everyone* observes this on a near daily basis.
-
Just to be clear, those of you who think that I’m totally opposed to the FE theory are wrong. I have no problem accepting it, it’s just not *yet* demonstrable. Supposed “evidence” from YouTube videos are of little value as video’s are easily manipulated and are almost completely untrustworthy.
Both sides explain away things that are, admittedly, hard to understand or comprehend, but the elephant in the room is that FE has no model and can’t explain the most basic daily observations such as moon phases, “sunsets”, “sunrises”, and measurable distances between oceans and continents. Frankly, I don’t think it can ever be done, so right now GE is the only possible solution.
-
Just to be clear, those of you who think that I’m totally opposed to the FE theory are wrong. I have no problem accepting it, it’s just not *yet* demonstrable. Supposed “evidence” from YouTube videos are of little value as video’s are easily manipulated and are almost completely untrustworthy.
OK, if you want to dismiss all the media out there demonstrating FE, what of the world-record long-distance photographs (verified by the agencies that verify such things and not made by Flat Earthers) that indicate the same thing. With some of the videos, particularly those of Dr. John D, he pre-announces his experiments, invites observes, and then live-streams them. Many others would be nearly impossible to simulate by CGI or other such means. In addition, there's other independent evidence, like the world-record line of sight microwave broadband transmission across the Mediterranean over 200 miles (where line of sight would not be possible on a globe), and the UHF transmissions. So there's a significant body of independent evidence out there, and the claim that all of the FE videos are faked is an extreme stretch from someone who appears to be in denial.
-
... but the elephant in the room is that FE has no model ...
This false assertion has been debunked 100 times but you still cling to it with white knuckles. Not having a contrary model does not prevent the globe model from being falsified. Once the globe model is falsified, you are free to propose your own model, make a hypothesis and then test it. So, for instance, once the 24,000-mile-circuмference has been falsified by evidence, you're free to propose that the earth is a globe that's 500,000 miles in circuмference. Once the evidence falsifies a hypothesis, one moves on to another one. That's how science works. But lacking a 100%-perfect explanation for everything is not a logical requirement for falsifying a different hypothesis. This logical error on your part is so blatant and has been so thoroughly debunked so many times now that it's clear that you're not intellectually honest, despite your pretentions to the contrary with this last post, where you feign an objectivity that clearly does not exist. There are many more problems with the globe model than there are with the FE model. FE model is a working model and would be refined over time with additional experiments, or even falsified. If the lack of a working model disqualifies the possibility of FE (which it does not), then the globe has been disqualified 100 times over, because the globe model has been show to fail miserably. In fact, that's the bulk of FE evidence, falsification of the curve. But you simply ignore this and continue to beg the question that the globe model is satisfactory and true.
-
I don't know if the Globers have any truly difficult questions for Flat Earth, but I have a question for them: Why use this lame piece of "evidence" which is not evidence at all? Are they *desperate* for evidence or something?
This is the surest sign of intellectual dishonesty, to keep re-using evidence that's been clearly debunked. You STILL have globers out there claiming that the curvature of the earth can be seen from commercial aircraft, despite the fact that their guru Neil de Grasse Tyson says that there would be no curvature visible from even 120,000 feet. They cling to contradictory evidence. They cling to ANY evidence they find that MAY support their agenda, which is to save the globe at all costs.
One of the most blatant displays of this intellectual dishonesty is when globers see evidence for FE, they just shout "refraction," as if that word by itself suffices to win the debate. On the other hand, when they find a picture where things appear to be cut off at the bottom, suddenly that's PROOF of Globe Earth. So what happened to the possibility of refraction and other atmospheric phenomena? Such things ONLY come into play when the evidence runs counter to their globe, but disappear when evidence seems to point to a globe. That is absolutely pathetic but is in fact their general modus operandi.
-
This false assertion has been debunked 100 times
You gratuitously keep asserting this falsehood over and over. You have no reasonable working model, period! End of story!
You NEED a reasonable working model to give any credibility to your theory. You have done absolutely no experiments yourself under the guise of not having the time. Hogwash! If you have the time to write nearly 40,000 posts, you have a few hours to do experiments on something you hold nearly as high as dogma.
-
Here's the thing about FE. No Flat Earther started out as a Flat Earther, while all Globe Earthers started out as Globe Earthers, having been programmed, propagandized, and brainwashed into it from an early age.
I was very skeptical in the beginning, and it took me two years of considering and weighing the evidence to become an FE. And it wasn't because the evidence was unconvincing. Instead, I kept telling myself that I must be missing something that could be used to explain it. No one is excited by the prospect of being derided and ridiculed for being an FE.
Matthew wasn't particularly open to FE, as he relegated FE to a semi-hidden sub-forum.
Several prominent FEs got started by attempting to debunk it, thinking it was a psy-op from the government to discredit those who questioned the moon landings and felt that FE was discrediting them.
As I said, I was very skeptical at first, but from time to time I would take a look in the FE sub-forum to see what it was all about. There was much there that got me thinking and questioning things that I had never questioned before. I've had a very open mind pretty much since 9/11, after which time I came to realize that if the government's lips were moving, they were lying. So I certainly did not rule out a conspiracy or a pack of lies from the "establishment". But the programming was strong in me, and it took me about 2 years to completely shake it. There was something always nagging in the back of my mind preventing me from completely accepting FE. I would post that I "lean FE", but that's about as far as I would go for 2 years. So, despite being open minded, this psychological programming was always there tugging at the back of my brain. In addition, there's the prospect of being derided, mocked, and ridiculed. Between these two, I got to a point where unless I was 110% sure, I wasn't going to commit. Well, I eventually got to that point, where I sat down and objectively considered that the globe was absolutely untenable.
Whenever I'm considering a topic, I try to take the "devil's advocate" approach. I perform a kind of mind experiment, where I pretend that I am an adherent of the opposite position and then pretend to be debating an opponent with the opposite views. In this state of mind, if I can't come up with anything remotely convincing, this validates the opposite position. It's not unlike the scholastic approach of considering the contrary opinions. I've tried pretending that I'm a Globe earther debating and attempting to refute a Flat Earther. I've got nothing that's convincing, unless I'm being dishonest. I could say, "Muh NASA". But that would be dishonest, and I would throw that out there only if I was being intellectually dishonest, since NASA is a load of crap. I could throw the word "refraction" out there, but I would know that it's BS when I had nothing else. I can honestly not come up with anything that I could convincingly use to argue for Globe Earth.
I still remain open to some theory where the earth's electro-magnetic field somehow causes light to bend perfectly around the globe ... but no such theory has ever been proposed, and modern science denies that light can bend except possibly a tiny amount (that's insufficient to explain curving around the globe) next to massive objects like the sun. They claim that they detected a tiny amount of light bending as it passes the sun (which they claim to be some massive body), but otherwise, light does not bend due to gravity or electromagnetism, except in tiny amounts next to incredibly massive objects. Also, if one were to revive the notion of "ether," one could propose a theory that there's a flow of ether going around the globe that causes light to move around the globe. So I remain open to new theories ... but the current theories to explain the bending of light around the globe are total crap.
-
Did you look at the ships yourself with a telescope or a zoom camera? If you do, you will see that what you believe to be true is not correct.
It's not just one or two guys, it's also the Media showing a Chicago city skyline a couple hundred miles away and the newsman says, "It's a mirage! A superior mirage!" but it's clearly not. It's not even inverted. Nor distorted and wavy.
And as Ladislaus says, if it's a ship that appears to be disappearing due to atmosphere over the lake, waves, humidity, etc. they won't talk about refraction, perspective, and other reasonable explanations, but will jump right to "Curve! Curve! See, it's the Curve!"
Yes, the Media lies, but they aren't lying when they show a city skyline picture from across a huge lake. That clip made it into many FE videos. Why would that local news station lie? To prove Flat Earth? How about "No." So I guess you might say the Media doesn't LITERALLY ALWAYS lie. They do tell the truth about some things, especially when it gives them zero benefit to lie. The Mainstream Media has many agendas which cause them to distort, ignore, redirect, and even bald-faced lie: but Flat Earth isn't one of those agendas!
See, that's called logic and reasoning. I don't need to do every experiment myself personally.
Especially since the "you can see too far away" phenomenon has been observed hundreds of times by different individuals all over the world. They can't all be lying or faking it. Especially when a bunch of them aren't even pushing Flat Earth. And their experiments are easy to reproduce.
But if you want to buy me a Nikon P100 camera or even a $100 telescope, I won't refuse the gift. But I can't promise to visit any particular place in Europe with my new camera -- that would be an additional expense.
-
I just thought of something --
Quo Vadis, YOU are the one who is disturbed by the truth of Flat Earth. Why don't YOU go do these experiments? Ladislaus and I are both already convinced the earth is not a globe. Why would we spend big money and/or time proving something we already know to be true?
But let's say we did, because we love you.
Would you believe us? Would you believe our testimony? After all, you don't believe countless evidence others have done, despite rigorous methodology (announcing beforehand, docuмentation, giving all details of the experiment so other true scientists can verify the findings). So you're all the sudden going to believe various members of CI if one of US were to do these same experiments?
I leave you with Luke chapter 16, because it's the perfect analogy for this situation:
27 And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren, 28 That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. 29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.
31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead
-
You gratuitously keep asserting this falsehood over and over. You have no reasonable working model, period! End of story!
:facepalm: This has been debunked to you by Matthew, myself, and many others 100 times over. It's basic logic.
Evidently it's necessary to use an example that even a first grade student can understand.
Let's assume a two-dimensional earth. Scientists have concluded that the earth is circular in shape. But I'm travelling around here and suddenly run into a right angle. This falsifies the theory that the earth is a circle. Now, I do not know from the one right angle exactly what the correct shape is, but this does not preclude my ruling out that it's a circle on the single right angle alone. One right angle doesn't prove that it's a square. It could be a rectangle, or right triangle, or some other shape. Until I obtain more evidence, I can perhaps start with a hypothesis and go searching for evidence either for it or evidence that falsifies it. I might posit that it's a square, but then I find that after I turn the corner of that right angle, the next side is longer than the first side. So then this falsifies square. I then posit that it's a rectangle. Then I find evidence, that there's an acute angle, which then falsifies rectangle. I then posit that it's a right triangle. But then I might find other angles that indicate that it's some other type of polygon. But once you encounter that first right angle, there's no going back to circle. Circle was falsified with that initial discovery, even if some of the subsequent theories (such as the square) are also later falsified.
This is such an absurd logical error on your parts that it completely exposes your dishonesty.
Finally, you gratuitously assert that the FE model is not "reasonable". That's absolute hogwash and just shows you imposing your bias onto the debate. You've concluded that it's not reasonable. I find that it's perfectly reasonable and reject your gratuitous assertion. I invite you to propose another model that's more reasonable, but none of that prevents the globe from being falsified. Go ahead and propose that the earth is a ball that's 500,000 miles in circuмference. Go ahead and propose hollow earth. Propose whatever you want. But if the globe is falsified, it's falsified, and there's no going back to it.
You can argue that the globe is falsified, but you really have to stop with this "model" stupidity ... as it doesn't speak well to your intellectual capabilities.
On top of that, you simply assume that if you can dismiss the working FE model (yes, it's a working model being refined based on evidence), that means the globe model is valid. This is also the error of a false dichotomy, where you assume non datur terium. But the entire point of all the FE evidence is that it falsifies the globe model. If you don't like the FE model, I invite you to propose another.
-
It's not just one or two guys, it's also the Media showing a Chicago city skyline a couple hundred miles away and the newsman says, "It's a mirage! A superior mirage!" but it's clearly not. It's not even inverted. Nor distorted and wavy.
This is a perfect example, the only reasonable explanation is that it is a mirage because the human eye cannot see that far.
But if you want to buy me a Nikon P100 camera or even a $100 telescope, I won't refuse the gift. But I can't promise to visit any particular place in Europe with my new camera -- that would be an additional expense.
Not the camera, but I’m considering the telescope. 😄
-
This is a perfect example, the only reasonable explanation is that it is a mirage because the human eye cannot see that far.
That's Begging the Question. "Matthew is a woman because Matthew is female, and female is a synonym for woman."
So the human eye can't see a mountain 200 miles away, but it can see the same mountain 200 miles away, after being sucked over miles of curvature by "refraction"?
And how far away is the Moon in the Globe model? We can clearly see that...
You don't understand how perspective works.
Are you being confused by normal human visibility at ground level? I know there's a minimum resolution, some fraction of 1 degree that the human eye is capable of discerning, basically our eyeball's Megapixel count.
The ultimate limit of how far we can see is caused by the atmosphere. It's not 100% transparent. It's translucent. It obscures SOME light. Which means that over many miles, it has a cuмulative effect, until it's completely opaque.
But if an object is tall enough (skyscraper, mountain) it goes way up into the sky, which has thinner air, less pollution, etc. and even though it's a bit hazy, you can definitely see it and make out the main features.
-
I just thought of something --
Quo Vadis, YOU are the one who is disturbed by the truth of Flat Earth. Why don't YOU go do these experiments? Ladislaus and I are both already convinced the earth is not a globe. Why would we spend big money and/or time proving something we already know to be true?
I did do some experiments and Ladislaus dismissed them out of hand. Search my old posts for them.
But let's say we did, because we love you.
Would you believe us? Would you believe our testimony? Yes, I would believe you, but I would have some questions. After all, you don't believe countless evidence others have done, despite rigorous methodology (announcing beforehand, docuмentation, giving all details of the experiment so other true scientists can verify the findings). So you're all the sudden going to believe various members of CI if one of US were to do these same experiments?
I leave you with Luke chapter 16, because it's the perfect analogy for this situation:
-
Your calling a mirage the only "reasonable" explanation further typifies your mentality. You do realize, right, that the pictures were captured with photographic equipment and are not a direct reflection of what the human eye saw? On top of that, there could be some magnification that doesn't necessarily translate into "mirage", since moisture in the air can (and usually does) magnify things. But that is different from a "mirage". "Mirages" are not a "reasonable" explanation because mirages are nearly always inverted and are always distorted and never as clear as what was seen there. How about Tycho's crater on the moon, which can be seen with the naked eye, is claimed to be 250,000 miles away and yet is said to be 70 miles in diameter. Something that's 70 miles in diameter cannot be seen with the naked eye from 250,000 miles away.
-
You did no such thing. You posted a couple of pictures that you claimed were evidence of something but proved nothing. You provided no data (which all the FEs do in their experiments), and I clearly explained why your picture proved nothing. I even struggled to understand what you were trying to prove in the first place, since I saw nothing in those pictures which was evidence of anything.
-
That's Begging the Question. "Matthew is a woman because Matthew is female, and female is a synonym for woman."
So the human eye can't see a mountain 200 miles away, but it can see the same mountain 200 miles away, after being sucked over miles of curvature by "refraction"?
And how far away is the Moon in the Globe model? We can clearly see that...
You don't understand how perspective works.
Are you being confused by normal human visibility at ground level? I know there's a minimum resolution, some fraction of 1 degree that the human eye is capable of discerning, basically our eyeball's Megapixel count.
The ultimate limit of how far we can see is caused by the atmosphere. It's not 100% transparent. It's translucent. It obscures SOME light. Which means that over many miles, it has a cuмulative effect, until it's completely opaque.
But if an object is tall enough (skyscraper, mountain) it goes way up into the sky, which has thinner air, less pollution, etc. and even though it's a bit hazy, you can definitely see it and make out the main features.
Obviously, I thought it was understood that size comes into play. Larger objects can be seen from greater distances. The Chicago skyline is extremely small compared to the moon.
I’m not opposed to believing in alternative theories like Ladislaus suggested: “I still remain open to some theory where the earth's electro-magnetic field somehow causes light to bend perfectly around the globe” but, as I’ve stated before, the FE theory has more holes than a colander.
-
You did no such thing. You posted a couple of pictures that you claimed were evidence of something but proved nothing. You provided no data (which all the FEs do in their experiments), and I clearly explained why your picture proved nothing. I even struggled to understand what you were trying to prove in the first place, since I saw nothing in those pictures which was evidence of anything.
That is a blatant lie. I wasted my time doing a ridiculous experiment with magnifying glasses that supposedly showed how water droplets magnified the sun as it was setting. It proved the video you posted was a fake. You rejected that out of hand. You also rejected my first hand observations of using two different telescopes that showed the horizon obscured a bridge on the other side of a 20 mile long lake.
-
Your calling a mirage the only "reasonable" explanation further typifies your mentality. You do realize, right, that the pictures were captured with photographic equipment and are not a direct reflection of what the human eye saw? On top of that, there could be some magnification that doesn't necessarily translate into "mirage", since moisture in the air can (and usually does) magnify things. But that is different from a "mirage". "Mirages" are not a "reasonable" explanation because mirages are nearly always inverted and are always distorted and never as clear as what was seen there. How about Tycho's crater on the moon, which can be seen with the naked eye, is claimed to be 250,000 miles away and yet is said to be 70 miles in diameter. Something that's 70 miles in diameter cannot be seen with the naked eye from 250,000 miles away.
😂😂😂 So, on a flat Earth, you can see the Chicago Skyline from Michigan??? And this nonsense typifies your mentality.
-
That is a blatant lie. I wasted my time doing a ridiculous experiment with magnifying glasses that supposedly showed how water droplets magnified the sun as it was setting. It proved the video you posted was a fake. You rejected that out of hand. You also rejected my first hand observations of using two different telescopes that showed the horizon obscured a bridge on the other side of a 20 mile long lake.
It proved nothing of the sort, just that your experiment was junk. Water in the atmosphere is admitted even by mainstream science to have a magnifying effect.
And you absolutely did not prove that the "horizon" was obscuring a bridge, as objects can be obscured by many things, from waves, to atmospheric conditions, to everything else. Prove that it was the "horizon" obscuring a bridge. On the contrary, it's a geometrical fact that the horizon must obscure things, and there are hundreds of pictures, including from non-FEs, that show the horizon not obscuring things that should be obscured, a world-record photograph (again not a "fake" FE photograph) of the Alps from 700 miles away when the should be hidden by 85 miles by the geometrical "horizon", and one showing a lighthouse that stands 150 feet above sea level from 230+ miles away (also not "fake" picture taken by an FE, but a professional photographer with no agenda). This you ignore and dismiss. You can try to pretend that all the hundreds of FE videos are "fake", but you're just lying ... to yourself and then to everyone else. But you can't dismiss the ones taken by independent photographers and verified (for record purposes) as legitimate photos. You'll just ignore those.
This typifies your dishonesty, as I detailed above:
Obscured Object: Proof of Globe (no other possible explanation due to atmospheric conditions)
Unobscured Object (that should be obscured): Must be due to atmospheric phenomena such as mirages and refraction
This borders on the absurd.
In point of fact, it's the opposite. Obscured objects can be explained by many reasons, atmospheric conditions, waves, the limits of your optics, etc. There are videos out there (again, from non FEs) that show a person's legs disappearing due to heat / haze / humidity as he walks down a flat road surface. On the other hand, there's only been one "explanation" thrown out there for objects that are visible when they should be obscured by the actual horizon ... refraction, a word tossed out there in desperation as a deus ex machina to salvage the globe. In point of fact, however, several experiments have completely debunked the possibility of refraction.
-
It proved nothing of the sort, just that your experiment was junk. Water in the atmosphere is admitted even by mainstream science to have a magnifying effect.
This shows me all I needed to know. :facepalm:
-
This shows me all I needed to know. :facepalm:
You've shown me all I've needed to know from the beginning, that you've clearly made up your mind beforehand on the issue and are incapable of objectivity.
You makes posts like this but are incapable of following basic logic, like how your assertion that a perfect (or even reasonable or decent) FE model is required before the globe can be falsified, that objects that can't be seen fully can only be obstructed by the horizon, where waves, atmospheric phenomena and other factors only exist when objects are in full view that should be obstructed by the geometric horizon.
I welcome you to actually rebut these refutations of your position, but you won't and you can't. Then, instead of realizing the flaw in your analysis, you'll ignore it for a while and then re-paste the same thing about the "model".
Start with answering this question, yes or no:
Does it follow from the fact that there's no reasonable FE model (granted for the sake of argument, but not conceded) that the globe model cannot be falsified?
If you answer the only way that can be answered correctly, then you need to stop posting as your go-to "slam dunk" argument the contention that there's no good FE model. This only exposes the fact that you assume the globe model is correct right out of the gate.
-
You've shown me all I've needed to know from the beginning, that you've clearly made up your mind beforehand on the issue and are incapable of objectivity.
You makes posts like this but are incapable of following basic logic, like how your assertion that a perfect (or even reasonable or decent) FE model is required before the globe can be falsified, that objects that can't be seen fully can only be obstructed by the horizon, where waves, atmospheric phenomena and other factors only exist when objects are in full view that should be obstructed by the geometric horizon.
I welcome you to actually rebut these refutations of your position, but you won't and you can't. Then, instead of realizing the flaw in your analysis, you'll ignore it for a while and then re-paste the same thing about the "model".
Start with answering this question, yes or no:
Does it follow from the fact that there's no reasonable FE model (granted for the sake of argument, but not conceded) that the globe model cannot be falsified?
If you answer the only way that can be answered correctly, then you need to stop posting as your go-to "slam dunk" argument the contention that there's no good FE model. This only exposes the fact that you assume the globe model is correct right out of the gate.
You've shown me all I've needed to know from the beginning, that you've clearly made up your mind beforehand on the issue and are incapable of objectivity.
You makes posts like this but are incapable of following basic logic, like how your assertion that a perfect (or even reasonable or decent) FE model is required before the globe can be falsified, that objects that can't be seen fully can only be obstructed by the horizon, where waves, atmospheric phenomena and other factors only exist when objects are in full view that should be obstructed by the geometric horizon.
Projection much?
I welcome you to actually rebut these refutations of your position, but you won't and you can't. Then, instead of realizing the flaw in your analysis, you'll ignore it for a while and then re-paste the same thing about the "model".
Start with answering this question, yes or no:
Does it follow from the fact that there's no reasonable FE model (granted for the sake of argument, but not conceded) that the globe model cannot be falsified?
Of course it’s possible, but it’s in the same realm of possibility that we actually went to the moon in 1969. Highly, highly unlikely.
If you answer the only way that can be answered correctly, then you need to stop posting as your go-to "slam dunk" argument the contention that there's no good FE model. This only exposes the fact that you assume the globe model is correct right out of the gate.
Now, for the umpteenth time, please explain in your own words (no YouTube videos) how Lunar phases work, according to the FE theory? Explain how Lunar and Solar eclipses work and can be predicted accurately with the FE theory? Demonstrate how the Sun “rises” and “sets” according to the FE theory? Demonstrate how measurable *known* distances between continents and oceans are reconciled according to the FE theory?
If you can’t answer all of them in a reasonable manner, you must admit that the GE theory explains all of these questions succinctly, thoroughly, and reasonably while the FE theory does not. Thus this leaves you with a theory that can’t explain the most observable phenomena that nearly everyone is capable of seeing almost on a daily basis.
Remnder: please don’t argue that the “setting” Sun is due to it hiding behind mountains or that the moisture in the atmosphere gives the effect of magnification since this is nonsensical and has been debunked in previous threads.