Author Topic: Space is fake and gαy (Read 23258 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** March 20, 2022, 12:37:38 PM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on March 19, 2022, 10:51:25 PM

Here's a question for you.

Topaka, KS is about 950' above sea level. The rocky Mountains, which are about 600 miles away, have peaks of over 14,000'. If the Earth is flat, why can't the Rocky Mountains be seen from Topeka, KS, using a telescope?

Don't know that you can't, nor do I know enough about the topography and what's in between them. And there are limitations on how far you can see in general due to just the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, the world's record long-distance photograph is of an island that goes about 80 feet above see level with a 100-foot lighthouse on top ... from 230 miles, which should have been hidden behind several miles of curvature. One Flat Earther has used infrared photography to see for a couple thousand miles, which would have been impossible on a ball earth.

I should have figured you'd be on the wrong side of this issue too, the one who thinks there's nothing wrong with Vatican II or the New Mass or Bergoglio.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** March 20, 2022, 12:59:13 PM »

I just looked it up. You can see them from Nebraska (on a clear day), which is about an equal distance away. But between Kansas and the Rockies you'll find Denver, the "mile high city". Both topography and atmospheric conditions make a difference. There could be a thousand foot mountain 10 miles away, but if I have a 100-foot tall building 50 feet away in between me and the mountain, I won't see it. It has to be asceratined, based on what's in between, whether there should be a line of sight. And then even with a direct line of sight there are limits to how far you can see through the atmosphere.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #32 on:** March 20, 2022, 03:21:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2022, 12:59:13 PM

I just looked it up. You can see them from Nebraska (on a clear day), which is about an equal distance away.

Are you referring to Panorama Point, Nebraska? If so, nice try, but that is not equivalent. Not only is the distance not the same, but it sits at the high point of a gradual sloping plane at 5425 above sea level. Between there and the Rocky's, the surface level of the terrain is bowl shape, which allows for a further view.

Quote

But between Kansas and the Rockies you'll find Denver, the "mile high city". Both topography and atmospheric conditions make a difference. There could be a thousand foot mountain 10 miles away, but if I have a 100-foot tall building 50 feet away in between me and the mountain, I won't see it.

That's why no one would stand directly behind (50 feet behind) a 100 foot building if they were trying to see it. If there was nothing directly in front of you at a relatively close distance, and if the Earth were flat, there would be a direct line of site from a point at 950 above sea level, to the peak of mountains that are over 14000 feet above sea level

Quote

It has to be asceratined, based on what's in between, whether there should be a line of sight. And then even with a direct line of sight there are limits to how far you can see through the atmosphere.

We can see the moon, and it is over 200,000 miles away. Topeka, KS, is only 600 miles away from the Rocky's.

So my stands: If the Earth is Flat, why can you see the Rocky's from Topeka, KS, using a telescope?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** March 20, 2022, 04:00:48 PM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on March 20, 2022, 03:21:42 PM

We can see the moon, and it is over 200,000 miles away. Topeka, KS, is only 600 miles away from the Rocky's.

So my stands: If the Earth is Flat, why can you see the Rocky's from Topeka, KS, using a telescope?

You're a bit late to this debate. No, the moon is not 260,000 miles away (as is claimed). There are lots of reasons for that, but that's been discussed before.

IF there were no atmosphere and you can prove that there should be a line of site (given the topography BETWEEN the two points), then there may be some proof there.

Even if we grant for the sake of argument that the moon is 260,000 miles away, #1) we clearly have a line of sight to it, and #2) it's enormous ... so it's impossible to miss. Occasionally I see an interesting moon that super huge in the sky and a different color, as I'm driving around, and I remember being upset because I lose line of sight to it (because it was still relatively low) due to trees, buildings, or other obstructions.

So for your example to prove anything you'd have to prove that we should have line of sight to it given the topography.

#2, there are limits to what you can pick up with photography/telescopy. Using the same types of optics that telescopes use, the world record for long distance photography is about 230+ miles (if I recall), and even the mountains that are picked up are barely visible and extremely blurry due to the atmosphere in between. Westernmost part of Kansas to the Rocky Mountains is about 800 miles (looking at Google maps). So to be able to see it would be to quadruple the world record for long distance photography, which just BARELY picked up stuff from about 230+ miles away (due to an atmosphere). And those long range photos are rare ... because we have something called an atmosphere.

Now, you could claim. Well, we can see the moon through the atmosphere #1, it's absolutely enormous compared to a mountain, #2, it's a very bright and luminous body (unlike a mountain), and #3 we dispute that it's 260,000 miles away.

In sum, if you could get rid of the atmosphere and we could prove that there should be line of sight based on the intervening topography, then your point might have some probative value. As it is, it does not.

In the meantime, FEs have produced literally hundreds if not thousands of images and videos showing objects that should not be visible if the earth had the curvature that's claimed. And "see too far" is just a tiny piece of the puzzle where it comes to Flat Earth.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** March 20, 2022, 04:05:00 PM »

Nevertheless, FE is a bit off topic. We're speaking here about the reality of space and/or our ability to get there.

There's no way an atmosphere could exist adjacent to (basically) an infinite vacuum. That defies the laws of physics. Much less, if there were a space, has NASA demonstrated an ability to get people there ... as evidenced by the massive amounts of fraudulent videos from NASA.

Bonaventure · « **Reply #35 on:** March 20, 2022, 04:41:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2022, 04:05:00 PM

Nevertheless, FE is a bit off topic. We're speaking here about the reality of space and/or our ability to get there.

There's no way an atmosphere could exist adjacent to (basically) an infinite vacuum. That defies the laws of physics. Much less, if there were a space, has NASA demonstrated an ability to get people there ... as evidenced by the massive amounts of fraudulent videos from NASA.

Recently watched “Apollo 11.” If the moon landings were faked, boy did they do a heckuva job to make it look real, as well as fool thousands of workers on the Apollo project alone, and hundreds of millions worldwide. More important, that level of deception would not only be diabolical but of such epic proportions that it would have to be orchestrated by Satan himself, with the U.S. government being the most evil entity to ever exist.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #36 on:** March 20, 2022, 04:55:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2022, 04:00:48 PM

Westernmost part of Kansas to the Rocky Mountains is about 800 miles (looking at Google maps). So to be able to see it would be to quadruple the world record for long distance photography, which just BARELY picked up stuff from about 230+ miles away.

You're way off. Goodland, KS (located in west KS), is only 193 miles from Pike's Peak. Topeka (far east KS), is only 523 miles from Pikes Peak.

Quote

Now, you could claim. Well, we can see the moon through the atmosphere #1, it's absolutely enormous compared to a mountain,

If the Rocky Mountains are big enough to be seen from Panorama Point, Nebraska, with an unaided eye, they are big enough to be seen from twice the distance away using a telescope.

Quote

#2, it's a very bright and luminous body (unlike a mountain), and #3 we dispute that it's 260,000 miles away.

The moon doesn't give off its own light. The reason it is a luminous body (sometimes) is because the sun is shining on it and lighting it up. The same sun lights up the moon, also lights up the Rocky Mountains during the day. Light is not a factor that would prevent the Mountains from being seen (during the day) from a great distance.

Quote

and #3 we dispute that it's 260,000 miles away.

How far away do you think the moon is from Earth?

Quote

In sum, if you could get rid of the atmosphere...

The atmosphere is not a factor, as evidenced by the clarity with which the Rocky's can be seen from Panorama Point, Nebraska (369 miles away?).

Quote

and we could prove that there should be line of sight based on the intervening topography,

Not hard to do.

Quote

then your point might have some probative value.

It has more than probative value. If you are truly honest about your theory, you should have no problem applying the same reasoning I just used to see through the Flat Earth error. For example, if you are 100 miles off shore, why do you only see water in all direction? If the Earth were flat, you would at least see and Mountains, if not tall buildings. What you definitely would not see is the sky meeting up with the water, at the level of the horizon, in all directions.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** March 20, 2022, 05:07:26 PM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on March 20, 2022, 04:55:42 PM

Not hard to do.

Then prove it. Nothing but gratuitous assertion. I'm not simply going to take your word for it that the topography allows line of sight from Kansas to the Rocky mountains or that atmospheric conditions would allow it nor even, for that matter, that you can't see it with the right equipment (telescope, infrared photography, something). I've seen no research that I can find done on the matter. If you wanted to approach this scientifically then lay out all the evidence, the numbers, demonstrate the topography, etc. I've seen countless FEs do all that work, and never seen a glober do it. They simply make gratuitous assertions as you do.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** March 20, 2022, 05:09:16 PM »

Quote from: Bonaventure on March 20, 2022, 04:41:02 PM

Recently watched “Apollo 11.” If the moon landings were faked, boy did they do a heckuva job to make it look real, as well as fool thousands of workers on the Apollo project alone, and hundreds of millions worldwide. More important, that level of deception would not only be diabolical but of such epic proportions that it would have to be orchestrated by Satan himself, with the U.S. government being the most evil entity to ever exist.

Nonsense. There's tons of footage exposing the fakery beyond a shadow of a doubt. I worked at NASA for several years, and everybody is entirely compartmentalized. You'll have an entire team dedicated to working on a piece of equipment the size of a microwave oven. There are only a tiny handful of people who see the big picture.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** March 20, 2022, 05:13:53 PM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on March 20, 2022, 04:55:42 PM

If you are truly honest about your theory, you should have no problem applying the same reasoning I just used to see through the Flat Earth error.

You're the one who's clearly dishonest, simply begging the question as "Flat Earth error" and then applying your confirmation bias to your preconceived conclusions, pretending that you have a single smoking gun proof. You clearly haven't studied the issue in any depth. I've studied the question for about two years now, and the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is flat. I started off a skeptic (rejecting it as ridiculous) but then looked at the evidence with an open mind and arrived at my conclusion. You clearly have not done so, nor have you bothered to try. It's the same with these other clowns on here, for whom it's obvious that they're starting from a pre-conceived conclusion or conviction in search of evidence for it.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #40 on:** March 20, 2022, 05:40:46 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2022, 05:13:53 PM

You're the one who's clearly dishonest, simply begging the question as "Flat Earth error" and then applying your confirmation bias to your preconceived conclusions, pretending that you have a single smoking gun proof.

Here's a few more smoking gun proofs. If the Earth is flat, and if the sun circles around above the earth 24/7, as the Flat Earth model I just saw claims, why is it ever dark on the surface of the Earth? If the sun was always above a flat Earth, everyone on the surface of the Earth would be able to see the sun 24/7, and, conversely, the sun would always be shining on the surface of the Earth, which means it would never be dark.

If the sun is always circling above the Flat Earth, why do we see it rise up from below the horizon in the morning, and then dip down below the horizon in the evening? That would never happen if the sun was always circling above the Earth. And why do the people in each of the 24 time zones, see the sun rise one hour apart - exactly one hour for each time zone to the west? None of that makes any sense if the sun is always circling over head.

Quote

You clearly haven't studied the issue in any depth. I've studied the question for about two years now...

Then you should have no problem answering the points I just made.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** March 20, 2022, 05:49:49 PM »

Another problem is that after a certain distance, objects become too far to see. Long Range photography at about 230+ miles had the mountains looking real small.

Here's an answer from another forum about a hypothetical question of, if the earth were flat but had an atmosphere exactly like ours, how far could you see.

Quote

Originally Answered: How much far could we see if earth was flat, but it had a atmosphere exactly like ours. I know that it is impossible, but in a fantasy world. How could it work?

That would all depend on obstruction and other disruptions. Air is naturally clear to our visual spectrum. In a thunderstorm, vision can be reduced to a few feet. Dust, insects, clouds and mountains… but barring that, forever.

The problem is eventually no object will be large enough to see. You could see terrain and large bodies of water.

Eventually, you would not be able to distinguish anything as the height of objects would not be enough.

Also, the mirage effect caused from heat on the ground within the few miles close to you would blur the pyramids hundreds of miles from you.

Now, if you were on a ringworld, which is like a hula hoop around a star, the star is always straight up, but you could look at objects on the curve up from you… You would need a telescope to see stuff. It would be farther away than our moon if you looked up just a few degrees.

So for you to have proof, you have to do the actual work and prove that ...

1) you can't see it with high-power equipment from that distance
2) you SHOULD be able to see it with high-power equipment at that distance

To prove #2, you'd have to demonstrate that the topography allows for it to be seen from your location and that your equipment has the necessary power to be able to pick it up as distinguishable from convergence into the horizon at that distance.

Even then you'd have to eliminate atmospheric conditions.

So come back with actual evidence, and you may have something. But until then you're just pulling something out of your rear end that sounds good to you.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** March 20, 2022, 05:56:48 PM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on March 20, 2022, 05:40:46 PM

Here's a few more smoking gun proofs. If the Earth is flat, and if the sun circles around above the earth 24/7, as the Flat Earth model I just saw claims, why is it ever dark on the surface of the Earth?

This has been addressed a hundred times by FEs, and it's clear that you've done zero research into the claims of the FE side. I'm not going to spend hundreds of hours of my time rehashing it just to rebut another globe shill who's already made up his mind that the earth is a globe and FE an "error". Your assumption is that the sun is a sphere that casts light equally in all directions and is super far away. Simply take a small flashlight over a table in a dark room and go around in a circle parallel above the table. It does not light up the entire table. Your assumption is that you have the sun is like a light bulb and emits light all around itself in all directions. But when light is "directional" then that doesn't happen. In addition, it depends on the strength of the light source and its ability to penetrate the atmosphere, to determine how far the light can actually travel. Finally, if you shine a light from outside a glass dome (as has been modeled by FEs), the direction from which it hits the glass determines how much of the flat surface beneath it gets illuminated. We believe that there's a solid firmament dome above the flat surface of the earth. So there are many possible explanations for this. All of these are hypotheses that would need to be properly studied by scientific organizations that had the financial wherewithal to do so.

You have "just" seen an FE model and you've already declared FE to be an error. You declare these "smoking gun" proofs while barely having done a lick of investigation into the question, and I really don't have time for this.

If you're sincerely intersted in studying the question with an open mind, I can send you a bunch of links to investigate but I don't have the time to go through it all (there's hundreds of hours of material) if I'm just wasting my time and you refuse to be convinced.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** March 20, 2022, 06:06:12 PM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on March 20, 2022, 05:40:46 PM

If the sun is always circling above the Flat Earth, why do we see it rise up from below the horizon in the morning, and then dip down below the horizon in the evening? That would never happen if the sun was always circling above the Earth. And why do the people in each of the 24 time zones, see the sun rise one hour apart - exactly one hour for each time zone to the west? None of that makes any sense if the sun is always circling over head.

Combination of perspective and atmosphere. I can send you links on this issue also if you're HONESTLY interested, but I'm not going to continue this debate here for months if you're not going to give the FE side a fair hearing.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** March 21, 2022, 07:32:52 AM »

This is one of the funniest things I've seen. Not sure if it's the accent, but can anybody with two functioning brain cells believe that this thing went to the moon?

He's not wrong about his comment regarding smart people not being able to change a light bulb. My brother majored in Mechanical Engineering, and they had a senior project where teams had to build something pretty substantial. He found out that most of his fellow engineers could not use simple hand tools like hammer, wrenches, and screw drivers. They spent three years studying math and equations, but then couldn't wield a hammer or attach some screws and fasteners. He basically had to do the entire project himself.

Author Topic: Space is fake and gαy (Read 23258 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

RomanTheo

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Bonaventure

Re: Space is fake and gαy

RomanTheo

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

RomanTheo

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy

Ladislaus

Re: Space is fake and gαy