The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[1Mind1Spirit]

@Clete and @daqq - Did you two get a chance to watch this and debunk it yet?

I especially like the part where the sun hooks into the pocket.

The only thing better would be if the footage was known to be shot south of the equator.

 

[daqq]

Scared?

Why should I be scared of anything you have presented when you have no answer for the very simple things that have already been presented herein? Your answer was to post the same guy, playing with an azimuthal map of the globe, and moving the tropic of capricorn out to the supposed ice wall, which is ridiculous because the two tropics are the same circumference: he does not even realize he is playing around with a flat map of the globe. I have seen two videos from him already, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and there is nothing he says that would or could scare me as far as the topic at hand.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to find someone who at least seems as if he or she is actually serious rather than continuing to post videos from a talking chipmunk. It really is annoying trying to listen to the fake chipmunk voice. You cannot find someone else to present your case for you other than a talking chipmunk? And you ask me if I'm scared just because I do not wish to hear his annoying rantings anymore? Is this truly the only why that you believe you can "win" your argument? You do not "win" by posting annoying videos that nobody wants to watch because they cannot stand the lunatic rantings of a guy who is pretending to be a chipmunk: you would do much better to actually engage the arguments being presented and perhaps give a legitimate answer for questions, such as, Why does the sun rise tomorrow ESE of the southern tip of New Zealand, yes, that is east south east of New Zealand. How in the world can the sun rise anywhere south of New Zealand tomorrow morning according to your supposed flat earth map?
http://suncalc.net/#/-46.6738,169.0013,8/2018.03.14/11:39

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Why should I be scared of anything you have presented when you have no answer for the very simple things that have already been presented herein? Your answer was to post the same guy, playing with an azimuthal map of the globe, and moving the tropic of capricorn out to the supposed ice wall, which is ridiculous because the two tropics are the same circumference: he does not even realize he is playing around with a flat map of the globe. I have seen two videos from him already, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and there is nothing he says that would or could scare me as far as the topic at hand.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to find someone who at least seems as if he or she is actually serious rather than continuing to post videos from a talking chipmunk. It really is annoying trying to listen to the fake chipmunk voice. You cannot find someone else to present your case for you other than a talking chipmunk? And you ask me if I'm scared just because I do not wish to hear his annoying rantings anymore? Is this truly the only why that you believe you can "win" your argument? You do not "win" by posting annoying videos that nobody wants to watch because they cannot stand the lunatic rantings of a guy who is pretending to be a chipmunk: you would do much better to actually engage the arguments being presented and perhaps give a legitimate answer for questions, such as, Why does the sun rise tomorrow ESE of the southern tip of New Zealand, yes, that is east south east of New Zealand. How in the world can the sun rise anywhere south of New Zealand tomorrow morning according to your supposed flat earth map?
http://suncalc.net/#/-46.6738,169.0013,8/2018.03.14/11:39

The guy you're calling a lunatic already did the work.

I see you didn't watch the video about the map either.
He has Gleason's book and patent and went into way more detail than you did.

In all seriousness daqq, I'm sorry for laughing at you.

I don't know if you've seen my prior post but I imagine you posted this before reading it.

The video about Perth is excellently done and could give you a chance to see for yourself whether those graphs you've been posting are accurate.

Try out his method and if you can use his method and find out you're right, I would gladly invite you to my house and you show me on my computer how you did it.

I still love yuh brother and agree with you a lot of the time.

Peace.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Why does the sun rise tomorrow ESE of the southern tip of New Zealand, yes, that is east south east of New Zealand. How in the world can the sun rise anywhere south of New Zealand tomorrow morning according to your supposed flat earth map?
http://suncalc.net/#/-46.6738,169.0013,8/2018.03.14/11:39

I know Chippy can be an irritating little rat but that was a possible reason for moving the tropic lines.

I shouldn't have posted that video first, my bad.

You would have needed more time researching flat earth to see the connection I saw.

Give the Perth video a look, it can't hurt.

 

[daqq]

The guy you're calling a lunatic already did the work.

I see you didn't watch the video about the map either.
He has Gleason's book and patent and went into way more detail than you did.

In all seriousness daqq, I'm sorry for laughing at you.

I don't know if you've seen my prior post but I imagine you posted this before reading it.

The video about Perth is excellently done and could give you a chance to see for yourself whether those graphs you've been posting are accurate.

Try out his method and if you can use his method and find out you're right, I would gladly invite you to my house and you show me on my computer how you did it.

I still love yuh brother and agree with you a lot of the time.

Peace.

As expected: a non-answer.

Flat Earth: three locations, three people, three suns, (lol).

 

[patrick jane]

PJ, Please show how none of the objects in your second image work on a round earth, instead of making a "just so" argument. And stop spamming the same images over and over again.
@Sherman

@Sherman - JR, stop telling me what to do. Please show proof for every one of your assertions. Actually, first prove the assertion made by two rabid anti-FE posters here in this thread, the false claim that a sundial CANNOT work on FE, that's what prompted my "spam" as YOU define it. Likely because the "spam" destroys you favorite "planet". Better yet, PROVE THE GLOBE.

If you don't possess the wherewithal to understand how a lighthouse works on the flat open sea, a periscope, and the gyroscope and sundial , that's not my problem. A 5 year old could comprehend. They were posts to different people, get over yourself, you're acting extremely pompous and self righteous.

Go cry to to the mod, typical. I can post any non-profane image I want as many times as I want, stop posting SPAMMING the same WORDS over and over and over and over and over and over.:allsmile:

 

[daqq]

What do ya think a reverse arc does?
:rotfl:

Yeah but I still said nothing about counter clockwise and last time you tried to pin a false accusation on me about saying I said the sun rises in the WEST in the southern hemisphere. Do you not remember that exchange? It is your own fault that you have made me overly cautious of you because of your own dirty tactics.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Yeah but I still said nothing about counter clockwise and last time you tried to pin a false accusation on me about saying I said the sun rises in the WEST in the southern hemisphere. Do you not remember that exchange? It is your own fault that you have made me overly cautious of you because of your own dirty tactics.

I'll own that.

I was dismissing your info out of hand.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

As expected: a non-answer.

Flat Earth: three locations, three people, three suns, (lol).

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, I have done that. I have also plotted the changes in position of the setting sun over several months.

It's a globe.

Stuart

Show me how you did that? Saying it does not prove it.

Show me a pictures of your equipment. You have a camera don't you?

I'm not saying you didn't, but I hope you understand this needs verification.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The only option you have at this point, Dave, is to go the same path which 1-M-1-S has gone, which appears to be where you are headed, but I hope not: for that is to say that everyone living in the southern hemisphere does not actually see what they claim to see, and that all of the sun path geometry apps online are part of a giant conspiracy hoax put forth by NASA, and now Google Earth. We know that the paths of the sun are indeed verifiable. You've lost the argument at this point, Dave, and simply do not yet know it. This is why I said to Patrick earlier in this thread that this is the end of the thread for me: not that I would not post herein anymore, but that this point is the flat-earth death knell, (and we have still not yet even ventured into sundials and how and why they can only work on a globe).

I'm going over the information you gave me with the time I have. I still work everyday, but i'm retiring and will have a lot more time for this in a month.

Your claim that everything your saying is absolutely truth, end of story, is not a debate.

I haven't heard from "everyone living in the southern hemisphere" so I don't know what they "all" see.

Have you nothing to say about my objections other than I've lost the argument?

Assuming the earth is flat in order to get the angle of the sun contradicts the earth is a globe.

It's these funny contradictions that keep me from accepting globe earth heliocentrism. It seems contradiction don't bother you and many others.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Please explain. What research are you doing, specifically?


Each video has a theme. The first was basically about the map issue, another has to do with the night sky, etc. Have you watched any of the others?

There is no need to respond to every point he makes individually. Besides, as I've said before, the only correct response to any of those videos would be, "Oh! Okay then, the Earth isn't flat after all."
The man does more than make great arguments, he proves flat earthers are wrong. You're playing a very dangerous game associating this flat-earth stupidity with Christianity.


My advise to you is to avoid forcing those of us who are still somewhat willing to engage the issue from having to spend very much more time than we already do.
I'll attempt to respond to the arguments you make but I'm not going to read every post. If there is something you want me to see, you need to mention me specifically or else there's a good chance I'll miss it.


Don't get judgmental on me here, David. You need to count yourself lucky I'm willing to discuss this with you at all. I spent six whole months debatingthis with you, without ridicule or name calling, to exactly no avail whatsoever. It was like pulling teeth to get you to respond in even the simplest of ways to a single argument I had made.

Additionally, I don't give away respect for nothing. Flat earthism is flat out stupidity. You'll see that eventually or prove yourself to be stupid. Spades are spades, David.


I'm not the least bit interested in what you "feel". When have I ever made such an argument? If I have at all its been in frustration at the fact that you won't respond to any of the dozens of substantive arguments that I've spent hours and hours typing up. Maybe you ought to go back and reread the first few hundred posts of the original thread before continuing here.


Bull! Go back and reread your original thread< David. That thread would have died a year ago if not for the arguments that I made.


A good debate has far less to do with the topic than it has to do with whether the people participating substantively respond to the argument made by the opposing side, which I have done until I am literally blue in the face and now you're telling me you're not even going to bother responding to the videos I've posted after having posting 10,000 hours of your own which I personally have spent God only knows how many hours responding to directly - point by point.


Nope! You blew off all the respect I had for you in regards to this topic on the other thread when you ignored, and I mean ignored, argument after argument after argument after argument. If you want it back, you'll have to earn it. You can start by responding in some sort of substantive manner to those videos which flat out prove your position to be false, not to mention down right silly and deserving of every ounce of ridicule he dishes out against it.

Clete

Never said I would never respond, just taking the time I have to study the arguments. I'm just not take the side of globe earth for this debate.

--Dave

 

[patrick jane]

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because the moon isn't close, and the sun is even farther and much, much bigger than you're even attempting to comprehend. That's how.

The moon is 238,900 miles away (on average) from the earth, and is 2,159 miles in diameter and the sun is 92,960,000 miles away (on average), and 864,576 miles in diameter, almost 400 times farther away, and almost 400 times larger than the moon. By comparison, the earth is 7,918 miles in diameter.

In terms of scale, the ratio of the sun's, the earth's, and the moon's size, is

864,576 miles to 7918 miles to 2159 miles

Or

864576:7918:2159
Sun:Earth:Moon

(The ratio ends up being around 422:4:1.)

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Because the moon isn't close, and the sun is even farther and much, much bigger than you're even attempting to comprehend. That's how.

The moon is 238,900 miles away (on average) from the earth, and is 2,159 miles in diameter and the sun is 92,960,000 miles away (on average), and 864,576 miles in diameter, almost 400 times farther away, and almost 400 times larger than the moon. By comparison, the earth is 7,918 miles in diameter.

In terms of scale, the ratio of the sun's, the earth's, and the moon's size, is

864,576 miles to 7918 miles to 2159 miles

Or

864576:7918:2159
Sun:Earth:Moon

(The ratio ends up being around 422:4:1.)

The size of the light source makes no difference.

The size of the back drop makes no difference other than it has to be bigger than the object (moon) between it and the light source. (the earth is big enough to show the whole shadow)

Also no matter how close or far away from the light source or back drop the object (moon) is, it can never cast a shadow smaller than itself.

If the moon's ratio is 2,159 miles it could never cast a 100 mile wide shadow.

Never, period.

So what are you talkin' about?

Seems to me your best bet would be to attack the credibility of the shadow itself.

:idunno:

 

[DFT_Dave]

To everyone

There have been good arguments made for globe earth.

There have been good arguments made for flat earth.

I personally will judge all arguments from both sides for logical/rational integrity. I have done this with every topic I have studied. For me the existence of God wins this way, freewill wins this way, openview wins this way, creationism wins this way. For many of you, globe earth heliocentrism wins this way for others flat earth wins this way, but I have not made up my mind on this because there are arguments from flat earth that make me doubt the heliocentrism I once never questioned.

What is the horizon?

Globe earth has a different meaning for the word than flat earth. The scales are not important, the illustrations below make their point. We can't make arguments that make sense to the opposing view if we are using the same word differently so lets understand this difference and the problem it produces.

Is the horizon the bulge of the curved earth we look slightly down at in the distance?

View attachment 26275 View attachment 26276

Or is the horizon the farthest we see in the distance as the flat earth rises to our eye level?

View attachment 26277

Is the globe position a rejection that a flat plane will rises to our eye level?

I want to hear from the heliocentrics about this before I make a conclusion.

--Dave

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Is the globe position a rejection that a flat plane will rises to our eye level?

--Dave

Beddie, beddie, interesting.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The size of the light source makes no difference.

Uh, 1M1S, yes it does. Take a chandelier, turn it on, put your fist next to it, and tell me how big the shadow of your fist is, and how focused is the shadow. (It should be a few times the size of your hand, but not very focused.)

Then, with the light still on, move your hand away from the chandelier, towards the wall. What happens to the shadow? It gets smaller, to the point where the shadow of your fist is smaller than your fist, yes? And the shadow cast by your fist becomes more defined.

Here is your (and seemingly, all flat earthers') problem. You can't seem to grasp the scale of the solar system, the distances involved, how big things truly are. How empty space really is.

Imagine a ball, 1 inch in diameter, floating outside your home, and 116 inches away, there is another ball, 4 inches in diameter, floating about the same height. The 1 inch ball is orbiting the 4 inch ball at a speed of once per lunar month. Now, imagine that 45,391 inches away, there is another ball 422 inches in diameter floating at the same height, and that the 4 inch ball is orbiting the 422 inch ball at a speed of once per year. The 1 inch ball is the moon, the 4 inch ball is the earth, and the 422 inch ball is the sun. Oh, and the "sun" ball isn't next to your home. Care to guess how far away it is?

Having a hard time imagining the distances?

The 1 inch ball is 9 feet 8 inches away from the 4 inch ball, which is 3,782 feet 7 inches away from the 422 inch ball, or if you prefer miles, it's 0.716 miles away.

Those balls are roughly 1:2048 scale. (2^11)

The size of the back drop makes no difference other than it has to be bigger than the object (moon) between it and the light source. (the earth is big enough to show the whole shadow)

Duh...

Also no matter how close or far away from the light source or back drop the object (moon) is, it can never cast a shadow smaller than itself.

You're thinking about a light source that is the same size as the object that's casting a shadow. Try comprehending a light source that's about 422 times bigger than the object.

If the moon's ratio is 2,159 miles

You mean diameter?

it could never cast a 100 mile wide shadow.

Never, period.

So what are you talkin' about?

Seems to me your best bet would be to attack the credibility of the shadow itself.

:chuckle:

Here, try this on for size (no pun intended):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sZ4rEJ8BK1CBy9C5aJ57mTpMmEy0EnX6/view?usp=drivesdk

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Uh, 1M1S, yes it does. Take a chandelier, turn it on, put your fist next to it, and tell me how big the shadow of your fist is, and how focused is the shadow. (It should be a few times the size of your hand, but not very focused.)

Then, with the light still on, move your hand away from the chandelier, towards the wall. What happens to the shadow? It gets smaller, to the point where the shadow of your fist is smaller than your fist, yes? And the shadow cast by your fist becomes more defined.

I just tried it, I must be wasted cause that aint what I see.

You mean diameter?

Sure.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I just tried it, I must be wasted cause that aint what I see.

No.

It was you that said ratio.

Yes, ratio... Of the diameters of the sun, the moon and the earth! Please pay attention!