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

[DFT_Dave]

"Obviously" is the wrong choice of words. The sun is either very close and very small or it is very far away and very large. If it is very far away, from our point of view, perspective will make it appear small. You cannot rely only on your eyes to determine what is going on. You must do the science to confirm your observations.

Your hypothesis is that the sun is near and small. What experiment will you set up to confirm this?
Your hypothesis is that the sun traces a circle in a plane above and parallel to the surface of a flat Earth. What experiment will you do to confirm this?
Your hypothesis is that a sun that traces a circle in a plane above and parallel to the surface of a flat Earth will sink below a horizon. What experiment will you do to confirm this?

You have made many claims and created a few sketches but these are not scientific investigations. What experiments will you do to confirm that your sketches are accurate representations of what you actually see?

To merge into the horizon is not the same as to sink below it.

But other than that every thing else you say is correct to me and there needs to be confirmation of these other factors.

As I have said flat earth has more to prove but without a viable horizon model it would die right here.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You want to know why you get attacked personally?

It's because you're an ___! (fill in the blank)

We discussed this eye level BS to death and established without any doubt whatsoever that the horizon is NOT always at your eye level. Even on a flat disc earth you'd eventually be high enough to see it's curvature.

And here you are pretending like we never discussed it at all.

Saying doesn't make it so, David. This too has been discussed to death. Nothing would ever be hidden behind a flat Earth.

Refuted by every single human being's own personal experience nearly every single day of their entire lives.

This amounts to an intentional lie.

No, it wouldn't do any such thing. Unless you live on a flat earth with no atmosphere.

Completely and utterly irrelevant.

Look, this stupidity is beneath me. I'm done discussing the horizon.

Clete

The graph speaks for itself and is correct about what the flat earth model is.

I don't see the need to defend it.

--Dave

 

[CabinetMaker]

To merge into the horizon is not the same as to sink below it.

When you watch the sunset, does the sun shrink to a dot at the horizon or does it disappear from the bottom up? Perspective says it should shrink to a dot yet this is not what you actually see. Why is that? Why does the sun disappear from the bottom up? Why does it rise from the top down instead of appearing as a dot that gets bigger at sunrise?

One other question that I have not seen. In your perspective view, exactly how far away is the horizon from a viewer?

 

[chair]

Dave, a thought experiment:

Imagine a perfectly straight tunnel, 1 mile long. Will you be able to see the lit end at the end of the tunnel? Yes- of course. It would look like a white disc.

Now if the tunnel was 2 miles long, would you still see the lit end? Sure- but the disc would look smaller. Do you agree?

How about a 3 mile long tunnel? sure- But the disc would be even smaller
Or a 20 mile long tunnel? sure- But the disc would be even smaller. Do you agree?
Or a hundred mile tunnel? Think about this. I am quite certain that you would see the light, but it would be just a pinpoint of light. With a telescope you would be able to see that is in fact a disc of light. What doo you think?
How about 1,000 miles?

Chair

 

[JudgeRightly]

Dave, a thought experiment:

Imagine a perfectly straight tunnel, 1 mile long. Will you be able to see the lit end at the end of the tunnel? Yes- of course. It would look like a white disc.

Now if the tunnel was 2 miles long, would you still see the lit end? Sure- but the disc would look smaller. Do you agree?

How about a 3 mile long tunnel? sure- But the disc would be even smaller
Or a 20 mile long tunnel? sure- But the disc would be even smaller. Do you agree?
Or a hundred mile tunnel? Think about this. I am quite certain that you would see the light, but it would be just a pinpoint of light. With a telescope you would be able to see that is in fact a disc of light. What doo you think?
How about 1,000 miles?

Chair

Haven't you heard? Dave doesn't answer "leading questions"... :mock:

 

[DFT_Dave]

When you watch the sunset, does the sun shrink to a dot at the horizon or does it disappear from the bottom up? Perspective says it should shrink to a dot yet this is not what you actually see. Why is that? Why does the sun disappear from the bottom up? Why does it rise from the top down instead of appearing as a dot that gets bigger at sunrise?

One other question that I have not seen. In your perspective view, exactly how far away is the horizon from a viewer?

No, the sun will not just shrink to a dot on the flat earth perspective model. The space between the sun and the earth disappears before the sun itself disappears which is probably why it appears to be from the bottom up.

There is one video I posted that shows that almost happening though.

You can go to 7:50 on the video to see the point.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

No, the sun will not just shrink to a dot on the flat earth perspective model. The space between the sun and the earth disappears before the sun itself disappears which is probably why it appears to be from the bottom up.

There is one video I posted that shows that almost happening though.

You can go to 7:50 on the video to see the point.

--Dave

That is one of the most idiotic videos that you've posted.

The guy does not have a clue about what is actually happening.

 

[chair]

Dave, a thought experiment:

Imagine a perfectly straight tunnel, 1 mile long. Will you be able to see the lit end at the end of the tunnel? Yes- of course. It would look like a white disc.

Now if the tunnel was 2 miles long, would you still see the lit end? Sure- but the disc would look smaller. Do you agree?

How about a 3 mile long tunnel? sure- But the disc would be even smaller
Or a 20 mile long tunnel? sure- But the disc would be even smaller. Do you agree?
Or a hundred mile tunnel? Think about this. I am quite certain that you would see the light, but it would be just a pinpoint of light. With a telescope you would be able to see that is in fact a disc of light. What doo you think?
How about 1,000 miles?

Chair

This isn't a "leading question". It is a "thought experiment". Here's what the point is, so you don't think I am leading you into a trap:

One of your (Dave's) ideas is that things disappear in the distance due to "perspective". I am quite certain that this is not true, and that you are confusing an artistic technique with physical reality.

In this tunnel example, in your view of "perspective", eventually the tunnel will get so long that the light at the end of the tunnel will become invisible. In physical reality, that is not what will happen. The spot of light will get smaller and fainter as we move away, but not disappear.

 

[Clete]

The graph speaks for itself and is correct about what the flat earth model is.

I don't see the need to defend it.

--Dave

You are a fool, David.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You cannot possibly be serious.


This is literally insane stupidity. Anyone who falls for such nonsense, which will be next to no one, deserves what they get.



Clete

Do you recall what Reagan said, on video, regarding an alien invasion?
It would unite the entire world as one.

Is this not exactly what the anti Christ will initially do?

Flat earthers will not fall for an 'alien invasion'. They know better.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No, the sun will not just shrink to a dot on the flat earth perspective model. The space between the sun and the earth disappears before the sun itself disappears which is probably why it appears to be from the bottom up.

There is one video I posted that shows that almost happening though.

You can go to 7:50 on the video to see the point.

--Dave

As soon as you said "almost" you destroyed your own argument. Science never accepts almost. Your theory must accurately explaine observed data every single time.

you just claimed that "the space between the sun and the Earth disappears before the sun itself disappears." You need to support this claim. Show us the space between the sun and the Earth can disappear before the sun does. Show us how far away the vanishing point is on a flat Earth.

Remember, almost destroyes your argument so you must be exact. Your explanation must e plain all observed data every single time.

 

[Yorzhik]

I will move on to eclipses but in the past we were jumping to quickly from one aspect of this debate to another. And it was video vs video which I agree was not what this website was really intended for.

I have decided to take the slower route and try to put as much as I can in written arguments and stay focused on one aspect of this at a time.

I liked the video that debunks flat earth in a step by step way so I have been following that pattern in order to keep us all from jumping around to much.

You mention the eclipse, something I didn't mention at all except as a time reference, and you don't mention checking the size of the sun sans lens-flare?

Did you realize my post was about lens flare and not the eclipse?

You are the one that brought up lens flare.

Can you re-respond to my post, but ignore the fact that I mentioned the eclipse?

The horizon is the first a most important aspect of flat earth according to this video and I agree with that.

Here is the video I'm trying to use a pattern and trying to answer from the flat earth perspective.

--Dave

Yes, my post is about the horizon. What is the size of the sun as it reaches the horizon? It should be smaller as it reaches the horizon in the FE model, and barring lens effects by the atmosphere, about the same size in the GE model as it reaches the horizon.

The problem is the sun is very bright, and that effects how we see it; hence lens-flare. Therefore a simple filter can be used to avoid this effect. Can you try this simple experiment? Do you need help to try it?

 

[CabinetMaker]

No, the sun will not just shrink to a dot on the flat earth perspective model. The space between the sun and the earth disappears before the sun itself disappears which is probably why it appears to be from the bottom up.

There is one video I posted that shows that almost happening though.

You can go to 7:50 on the video to see the point.

--Dave

He uses words link sinks into. If the sun is moving in in a parallel path above a disk, what does it sink into? When the sun sets over land there is no reflection for it to sink into. What is happening when the sets over land.

 

[DFT_Dave]

This isn't a "leading question". It is a "thought experiment". Here's what the point is, so you don't think I am leading you into a trap:

One of your (Dave's) ideas is that things disappear in the distance due to "perspective". I am quite certain that this is not true, and that you are confusing an artistic technique with physical reality.

In this tunnel example, in your view of "perspective", eventually the tunnel will get so long that the light at the end of the tunnel will become invisible. In physical reality, that is not what will happen. The spot of light will get smaller and fainter as we move away, but not disappear.

The laws of perspective in drawing are based on geometry not speculation. Plane (not simple) geometry informs us how to draw things accurately. Plane geometry in perspective is drawing the world as we see it, accurately and realistically.

Plane geometry in perspective
We have vanishing points along a vanishing horizon line in reality not in theory. Flat earth model is consistent with the geometry of perspective, globe earth says we see the edge of a curved earth and dismisses plane geometry as art theory. The problem with that is plane geometry works. How can that which works not be a reality?

A small low sun as it meets the horizon line at a vanishing point to the viewer will disappear from sight as do clouds. The distance in elevation will disappear first, obviously, then bottom to top and sides. You all want to image the space in elevation between sun and earth to always be maintained and is why you think the sun should disappear as a round dot. The sun blends into the horizon line it does not stay above it.

We also have land masses that rise above the horizon and are the reason we see the sun more distinctly set bottom first over land. But as my graph shows, we never see the sun hit the horizon line over land anyway.

View attachment 26586

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

As soon as you said "almost" you destroyed your own argument. Science never accepts almost. Your theory must accurately explaine observed data every single time.

you just claimed that "the space between the sun and the Earth disappears before the sun itself disappears." You need to support this claim. Show us the space between the sun and the Earth can disappear before the sun does. Show us how far away the vanishing point is on a flat Earth.

Remember, almost destroyes your argument so you must be exact. Your explanation must e plain all observed data every single time.

Your right, I should not have said almost. The video I posted shows this happening. Thanks.

A sun moving over a flat earth appears to move downward until it hits the horizon line. That means the sun gradually descends which means the space between earth and sun gets smaller and smaller until there is no longer any space at all.

For globe earth it's the earth spinning in front a motionless sun that causes this effect. On a flat earth the effect is the same but the sun is moving parallel to the earth and hits the horizon and moves beyond our ability to see it and is consistent with the laws of perspective because we see everything in perspective.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

He uses words link sinks into. If the sun is moving in in a parallel path above a disk, what does it sink into? When the sun sets over land there is no reflection for it to sink into. What is happening when the sets over land.

As shown in my graph, the sun over land mass, land that is above sea level, blocks the horizon line.

--Dave

 

[CabinetMaker]

As shown in my graph, the sun over land mass, land that is above sea level, blocks the horizon line.

--Dave

Land masses NEVER block the horizon line - they are part of the horizon.

 

[Eeset]

Land masses NEVER block the horizon line - they are part of the horizon.

You obviously have never been trained in celestial navigation.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your right, I should not have said almost. The video I posted shows this happening. Thanks.

A sun moving over a flat earth appears to move downward until it hits the horizon line. That means the sun gradually descends which means the space between earth and sun gets smaller and smaller until there is no longer any space at all.

For globe earth it's the earth spinning in front a motionless sun that causes this effect. On a flat earth the effect is the same but the sun is moving parallel to the earth and hits the horizon and moves beyond our ability to see it and is consistent with the laws of perspective because we see everything in perspective.

--Dave

You have avoided the question regarding the horizon. On a flat Earth model, how far away is the horizon? What limits the eye from seeing past the horizon?

How far can the human eye see? Keep in mind that the human eye that the human eye responds to light, not distance. Here is a brief article about the human eye. You might take a look at it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You obviously have never been trained in celestial navigation.

No. I was technically referring to the visible horizon. Where I live, the visible horizon can be up to 146 miles away.