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

[Clete]

Math does not explain that things farther away appear larger the closer they get and appear smaller the farther away they get from the viewer.

Yes it does, David

Your eye is one point of a triangle and the actual diameter of the object is the base of that triangle. The distance between your eye and the object is a line the bisects that triangle into two right triangles. A little application of the Pythagorean Theorem and you can calculate all sorts of things to your heart's content.

https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/angular-diameter.php

And the sun does get closer to viewer on a spinning globe until it's over our head and farther away from us as it sets. Can you do the math on that?

I'd bet JR can and I know for certain that I can.

Radius of Earth ~3959mi

Average distance from earth to sun ~92.96 million mi

3,959mi/92,960,000mi = 0.0000641

So, assuming you were on the equator, the change of your distance to the sun from sunrise to noon is only about 0.00641% of the total distance. If you're not on the equator, the difference is even less than that. in any case, it is not at all noticeable.

 

[DFT_Dave]

He thinks NASA is his enemy. lain:

The conversation is a waste of time solely because Dave declares himself a non-believer in the flat-Earth myth.

It's bizarre because he then defends their ideas without a hint of irony.

If this were a serious scientific debate, we would look at the fundamentals.

For normal people, the fundamental question is easy to answer and understanding flows from it:

Why is the Earth round?

For flat-Earthers, the fundamental question is destructive to a rational explanation of the universe:

Why is the Earth flat?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Why the earth is flat is stated in the original intro to the debate.

The debate is not the earth is a globe and we went to the moon because it's the arguments for flat earth that has to be questioned for me. Many of you don't get this. I already know why we all believe the earth is a globe. So the question is why are so many today becoming flat earther's?

I have been exploring their story, their arguments. Why are they wrong? For me just saying they are nuts is not an answer. Just reaffirming the reasons we believe it's a spinning globe is also no answer because we already know why we believe that.

The horizon is a major if not the most important argument for flat earth, "show me the curve" is their mantra.

They make their case with visible evidence with a Nikon P900, the most powerful and affordable camera made. They use plane geometry with perspective. So far I have seen no argument for perspective and the globe. A video for perspective and the setting sun and ships as both move past the horizon has been made and are persuasive. If those who are defending the globe are not even willing to look at the video then that's a surrender. You can't argue against an argument or evidence for an argument you won't even consider it worth you time to evaluate.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

If those who are defending the globe are not even willing to look at the video then that's a surrender.

And there it is, claiming victory because no one wants to listen to stupidity.

 

[DFT_Dave]

But this is a big part of the problem. Dave actually thinks that he is defending the FE "model" by repeating the same old worn out and completely disproved "ideas" that he has found on the Internet (like the silliness that the sun does actually get smaller from midday to sunset).

I didn't say it actually gets smaller, it appears smaller because of perspective, and that would be because it's farther away from the viewer at sun rise than it is when it's overhead.

Misrepresenting what I say only makes you look deceptive.

--Dave

 

[Stripe]

Why are so many today becoming flat earther's?

Pass.

The number of people who believe a thing really is irrelevant, not to mention boring beyond belief.

I have been exploring their story, their arguments. Why are they wrong? For me just saying they are nuts is not an answer. Just reaffirming the reasons we believe it's a spinning globe is also no answer because we already know why we believe that.

Ask them. You seem to think they're everywhere. The only one I can find is you. :idunno:

The horizon is a major if not the most important argument for flat earth, "show me the curve" is their mantra.

But pictures from NASA don't count, because... reasons. :idunno:

They make their case with visible evidence with a Nikon P900, the most powerful and affordable camera made. They use plane geometry with perspective. So far I have seen no argument for perspective and the globe. A video for perspective and the setting sun and ships as both move past the horizon has been made and are persuasive. If those who are defending the globe are not even willing to look at the video then that's a surrender. You can't argue against an argument or evidence for an argument you won't even consider it worth you time to evaluate.--Dave

No, it's not worth any time. As I said, the fundamentals — which you seem to have ignored — work for sphericity. I can answer the base question: Why is the Earth round?

Can you answer the base question for your side? Why is the Earth flat?

Hint: An answer is not attempted in OP.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[DFT_Dave]

You can't because you're stupid.

I have no such problem.

I can refute it and did exactly that.

You mean like when train track go up a hill, getting apparently narrower and narrower as they go up and away from you?

Here's a pic of some people standing at the top of a hill. Notice how the poeple look smaller than they would if they were closer? That's due to perspective!

View attachment 26570

And here's a pic of a train coming down a hill. Notice how the engine looks larger than the back of the train? That's because the engine is closer and therefore takes a large percentage of the field of view (i.e. perspective).

View attachment 26571

The point is that whether the ground comes up and forshortens the distance to the horizon or not, if the Sun were getting appreciably further away, it would shrink into the distance just like everything else in existence does. But it does not do that! This is, by itself, PROOF that the Earth CANNOT be flat - period. The sunrise and sunset would look altogether different than they do, as would the Sun throughout the day for that matter. It would be very noticably larger at noon and way way way smaller in the morning and evening. (Never mind explaining what happens to it at night!)

It does get smaller/larger depending on where we are in the orbit. The Earth's orbit is almost circular but not quite. The Earth is 147,098,074 km from the Sun at perihelion (closest) to 152,097,701 km at aphelion (most distant). That a total difference of 4,999,627 km. That's a difference of about 3.2%. This is the reason why total Solar eclipses don't always cover the disc of the Sun the same way.

If you want to physically see the difference, take two tennis balls and place one 25 feet from you and the other 25 ft and 9 inches away and see if you can discern the difference with your naked eye. At that distance the tennis balls will be pretty close to the same apparent size as the Sun. Now, assuming that you can discern a difference in the apparent size of the two tennis balls, imagine taking one ball and rolling it the nine extra inches away over a period of six months.

Clete

Thanks Clete, good response. Yes an orbit that's not circular would make the sun appear smaller and larger. But what about from sunrise to overhead than to sun set, wouldn't the sun appear larger over head because of the distance to viewer?

Your pictures deal with the ground in perspective not the sky in perspective.

We can see farther into the sky above us than we can over the ground beneath us. So, show or explain to me how perspective works in relation in the sun and sky since that's where the sun is.

The argument being made is that the sun can be seen until it vanishes beyond the horizon line of our viewing limitations because of perspective not because of the curvature of the earth, the sun being small compared to the earth and close. Over the ocean video is presented that is said to show the sun merging and shrinking into the horizon and not going over the curve. Over land we cannot see this because of the elevation of land. The sun being above us could still be seen beyond the landscape and would appear to set from top to bottom and not merge into the horizon because the horizon is blocked by the elevated land mass in front of it. Seascapes are where we can see farther into the distance.

I hope this makes sense. That does not mean it's true. But flat earth and globe earth must make sense first before either can to believed to be true. You, and others, will argue that nothing about flat earth makes sense. I will argue that there is much about a spinning globe rotating around the sun that makes no sense either.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes it does, David

Your eye is one point of a triangle and the actual diameter of the object is the base of that triangle. The distance between your eye and the object is a line the bisects that triangle into two right triangles. A little application of the Pythagorean Theorem and you can calculate all sorts of things to your heart's content.

https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/angular-diameter.php

I'd bet JR can and I know for certain that I can.

Radius of Earth ~3959mi

Average distance from earth to sun ~92.96 million mi

3,959mi/92,960,000mi = 0.0000641

So, assuming you were on the equator, the change of your distance to the sun from sunrise to noon is only about 0.00641% of the total distance. If you're not on the equator, the difference is even less than that. in any case, it is not at all noticeable.

I always answer posts from the bottom up and some of what I asked you in my last post I see you have answered in this post. Thanks.

So we can calculate a difference that we cannot see, hmmm.

I'm definitely going to study that site, thanks.

I notice one thing immediately, View attachment 26572

This illustration seems to be the opposite of how we see the world in perspective. I'm not sure that is the case but I will study this.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

And there it is, claiming victory because no one wants to listen to stupidity.

Seems it's more stupid to engage in a debate you don't consider worth debating?

I'm not saying you're stupid, I saying this is worth debating.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Pass.

The number of people who believe a thing really is irrelevant, not to mention boring beyond belief.

Ask them. You seem to think they're everywhere. The only one I can find is you. :idunno:

But pictures from NASA don't count, because... reasons. :idunno:

No, it's not worth any time. As I said, the fundamentals — which you seem to have ignored — work for sphericity. I can answer the base question: Why is the Earth round?

Can you answer the base question for your side? Why is the Earth flat?

Hint: An answer is not attempted in OP.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

And the major networks could not find enough voters for Trump to win. The reason why is because most of them would not say they were a Trump supporter knowing they would be called stupid idiots.

The number of flat earth sites and followers of those sites on you-tube is large and is growing. These sites represent the tip of an iceberg in my opinion.

Pictures from NASA do not match pictures from high altitude balloon flights. Pictures from the ISS look no different in altitude than the balloon pictures when land an clouds are compared. NASA without a doubt uses cutting edge CGI to show us what they do in space is no different than what they do in their large underwater practice pool.

View attachment 26573

All horizons at high altitude are at eye level and flat, and the earth is absolutely motionless. Fish eye lenses distort the horizon and make it bent up and down but they still reveal a straight horizon.

If we really went to the moon with the low tech of the 60's and early 70's we certainly would have gone back by now with the high tech we have today. If we never went to the moon then we have never been in outer space.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Seems it's more stupid to engage in a debate you don't consider worth debating?

I'm not saying you're stupid, I saying this is worth debating.

--Dave

Even more stupid to (continue to) defend something that has already been refuted a thousand times over by me and others on this and the original thread.

And God says two or three witnesses shall establish a matter...

Size of Australia, measured distance of sun from earth when sun is .1 degree above the horizon, laser aimed at boat on lake, that's 3, not including the hundreds of other witnesses presented on both of these threads.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And the major networks could not find enough voters for Trump to win. The reason why is because most of them would not say they were a Trump supporter knowing they would be called stupid idiots.

Let's keep politics out of this, shall we?

Stay on topic.

The number of flat earth sites and followers of those sites on you-tube is large and is growing. These sites represent the tip of an iceberg in my opinion.

Appeal to popularity.

Pictures from NASA do not match pictures from high altitude balloon flights. Pictures from the ISS look no different in altitude than the balloon pictures when land an clouds are compared. NASA without a doubt uses cutting edge CGI to show us what they do in space is no different than what they do in their large underwater practice pool.

Then the onus is on you to show how it's CGI.

View attachment 26573

All horizons at high altitude are at eye level and flat, and the earth is absolutely motionless. Fish eye lenses distort the horizon and make it bent up and down but they still reveal a straight horizon.

If we really went to the moon with the low tech of the 60's and early 70's we certainly would have gone back by now with the high tech we have today. If we never went to the moon then we have never been in outer space.

--Dave

ALL proof by (repeated) assertion. You keep making blanket statements without backing them up, and then when called out on it, you ignore the responses.

As far as going back to the moon is concerned, you're not accounting for economic factors such as inflation. Plus, there's no real need to go there, sort of a "been there, done that" thing.

Horizons do not raise to eye level no matter what altitude. We just talked about this dave, and here you are again making the same assertion.

 

[Stripe]

Trump.

Who?

I notice that twice now you have refused to engage regarding the fundamentals.

I know the answer to the base question on our side. What is the answer on yours?

Why is the Earth flat?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Right Divider]

I didn't say it actually gets smaller, it appears smaller because of perspective, and that would be because it's farther away from the viewer at sun rise than it is when it's overhead.

Misrepresenting what I say only makes you look deceptive.

--Dave

You have said BOTH.... I'm not deceptive.... you're CONFUSED.

You have said BOTH that the sun really does appear smaller (which is DOES NOT) and that it does NOT appear smaller due to some magical magnification near the horizon.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Even more stupid to (continue to) defend something that has already been refuted a thousand times over by me and others on this and the original thread.

And God says two or three witnesses shall establish a matter...

Size of Australia, measured distance of sun from earth when sun is .1 degree above the horizon, laser aimed at boat on lake, that's 3, not including the hundreds of other witnesses presented on both of these threads.

One side vs another side in what happens at the horizon, lasers used to prove FE as well, size of continents, we'll see.

--Dave

 

[God's Truth]

What does science have to do with being saved?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Let's keep politics out of this, shall we?

Stay on topic.

Appeal to popularity.

Then the onus is on you to show how it's CGI.

ALL proof by (repeated) assertion. You keep making blanket statements without backing them up, and then when called out on it, you ignore the responses.

As far as going back to the moon is concerned, you're not accounting for economic factors such as inflation. Plus, there's no real need to go there, sort of a "been there, done that" thing.

Horizons do not raise to eye level no matter what altitude. We just talked about this dave, and here you are again making the same assertion.

Most FE arguments backed up by visual video evidence you and others refuse to see.

That we look down at a horizon but it's so slight that we can't notice it is the argument from GE and is absolutely hilarious.

Just asserting your GE position over and over again does not answer FE claims.

CGI has been admitted in creating pictures from space of earth by NASA. Wires connected to the waste line of astronauts have been seen as they attempt back flips in supposed weightless space. But you, and no one else, will ever know that if you don't watch the videos that expose it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Who?

I notice that twice now you have refused to engage regarding the fundamentals.

I know the answer to the base question on our side. What is the answer on yours?

Why is the Earth flat?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Reasons already stated.

--Dave

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I agree with you that there is a danger of some videos getting dumped in with the bad. This is why it is, in my opinion, wiser for them to not make any such attempts to filter out conspiracies.

YouTube is, however, as you are already aware, a privately owned website and no one has "the right" to post anything on their website. They, on the other hand, have the absolute right to put whatever limits and restriction they want on the content that they provide a platform for. The thing that'll keep it just about right, over the long term, is the fact that no one is required to visit their site or to use their platform. If they go to far, which is likely, it'll spawn more viable competition than what currently exists and, in the end, the internet will be better. I trust the free market to produce the best product at the best price.

Clete

I wasn't saying Google/You Tube didn't have the right to filter content.... I was just saying I hope they don't.

 

[JudgeRightly]

One side vs another side in what happens at the horizon, lasers used to prove FE as well, size of continents, we'll see.

--Dave

Dave, have you ever seen Bob Enyart's "The Planets, Stars, and the Bible" video? If ever there was a final nail in the coffin of this ridiculous conspiracy theory, this would be it (at least for those who believe the Bible).

In it, he talks about the constellations. He talks about the stars themselves. And he talks about how they represent the story of the Bible.

He then uses a program called "Dance of the Planets" (which is still available for purchase) to show what the star of Bethlehem was, an alignment of the star Regulus and the planet Jupiter, NOT ONCE BUT TWICE, both times being recorded in the Bible, the first time when Jesus was born, which the Magi followed, and then the second time some months after Jesus was born.

There is no model that the flat earth provides (that I'm aware of, and I'm willing to be proven wrong) that explains the movement of any of the celestial bodies. The movement IS explained, however, by the Heliocentric model of the Solar System. Jupiter lines up with Regulus (the root word of which is where we get our words "regal", meaning royal) the first time in 3 B.C., and again in 2 B.C., which is when the Magi would have arrived in Bethlehem.

The night sky itself is evidence against the earth being flat, Dave.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You have said BOTH.... I'm not deceptive.... you're CONFUSED.

You have said BOTH that the sun really does appear smaller (which is DOES NOT) and that it does NOT appear smaller due to some magical magnification near the horizon.

I have posted video's that clearly show through time lapse video that the sun changes size, in appearance.

I have said that there are times when horizon magnification can take place. That this is always the case I don't know. But my argument was that if the earth is a spinning globe then we should see a change, in appearance, of size would occur. The only answer so far is that this is true but the change is to slight to be noticed.

Horizon magnification has been said of the moon: "The Moon illusion is an optical illusion which causes the Moon to appear larger near the horizon than it does higher up in the sky. It has been known since ancient times and recorded by various cultures."--Wiki

If the moon than why not the sun?

The horizon magnification would not make the sun appear larger it would keep it from appearing smaller as it would due to perspective. That would not effect it from looking larger overhead than at the horizon it would only keep it from looking as small at the horizon as one would image.

--Dave