Youtube comments of Flook D (@flookd5516).
-
774
-
212
-
99
-
89
-
88
-
82
-
62
-
51
-
44
-
41
-
37
-
33
-
29
-
28
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
1a: Explain why you think 1970 technology, materials, computers etc are compatible with those of 2020.
1b: Explain why you think the Mars Rovers would require human life support.
2a. Because the stars are distant, generally in the 10-1000 light years away, and moving in the same direction as the sun.
2b. Explain why you think 10,000 years worth of change would be apparent from day to day.
3. Explain why parallel train tracks shouldn't appear to diverge as they approach you.
4a. For the stated purpose of avoiding military competition in an inhospitable climate.
4b. It's readily downloadable. Specify which clause supposedly forbids travel to Antarctica.
5a. By dividing circumference by time as anybody can do.
5b. Explain where you think arithmetic should change with time.
6. It isn't and they don't.
7a. Explain how you think a prominent white grid on said screen would not interfere with it being a blue screen.
7b. If you it wouldn't, then explain why studios all use blue-only screens.
8a. Blue Marble (1972) and Earthrise were taken in single frame shots on an analogue camera.
8b. Himawari-8, Elektro-L and EPIC collectively produce multiple full hemisphere shots per hour. Explain why you think they would need to use a wide angle shots from their orbital distances.
9. How much curvature would you expect to see from a globe on the inside camera at that altitude and why?
10. The atmosphere alters the light as it enters it; it's how we get a blue sky during the day time.
11a. Provide an example of such editing.
11b. Explain why you you think video compression errors wouldn't occur.
12. Free-fall, lasting about 30 sec. Explain how you think it is possible to shoot a 30min video in 30 sec.
13a. The rocket slowed and stopped when the engines shut off as programmed.
13b. Explain why you think a camera impacting a dome at a few hundred miles an hour wouldn't even be jarred.
14a. It's the International Space Station, not National. That is why it is referred to as the ISS, not the NSS.
14b. Explain where you saw a can of tuna on the ISS.
These are the obvious questions that FE'es are never able to answer. Prove me wrong.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Harpazoed There are two propossd FE explanations for the sun. One camp has it orbiting vertically, above & below the FE but they never explain why there isn’t a universal rise & set rather than tome zones. The currently favoured suggestion is a horizontal motion where the FE sun stays up for no reason at a height that is immeasurable for no reason, moves for no reason, moves in & out for no reason, changes speed for no reason, illuminates a limited area for no reason, produces long southern hemisphere days somehow, rises & sets without coming within 20 degrees of the horizon, grows & shrinks in apparent while maintaining a constant apparent size and somehow maintains a constant angular velocity for every observer in total disregard for the perspective they talk about so much.
A solar system has every planet moving in regular and predictable orbit with no occasional backwards movement for no apparent reason. Using that maths we have been able to accurately send probes through the solar system.
The distance to the sun is measurable and measured through several approaches.
The stars ate extremely distant and moving in the same general direction of the sun as the galaxy rotates. Change in position would require 10,000s year to be apparent to the unaided eye (the FE favoured method) as altered constellations but the small changes from year to year are measurable & measured. Star charts need to be updated every 10 years or so.
A parallax effect is observable with the nearest stars, indicating that the Earth is in motion, in an orbit around the sun.
FEers prefer a disc shape or an infinite plane, generally ignoring the concept of four corners. None have done anything to check Antarctica, ice wall or dome.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@StephenJelinek "refraction bends the subject image around the curve into our view"
It bends the light coming form the object.
Refraction occurs with atmospheric density decreasing with altitude. Mirages arise when there are abrupt change in density between different layers, ie., the weather a cold wet layer in. How a mirage appears depends on the exact layering at that moment; since there is movement of air in the atmosphere (winds) the image wobbles.
"5 x 5 =25 x .6667 = 16.6667' of curvature"
It really passed you by, didn't it?
Quote:
How far you can see is determined by curvature, elevation & refraction. All factors have to be accounted for in calculations. You can't ignore factors and expect to be using the right equation. You can't ignore elevation & refraction and expect to get an accurate prediction of where the horizon is. "I'm only interested in curvature" is not going to magically nullify the effects of elevation & refraction. Making a prediction requires that you use all relevant factors. Devising an experiment means you need to take into account all factors. You can't make testable predictions by ignoring key factors. If you want to test how gar you cases then you need to make accurate calculations for your predictions. Elevation & refraction have to be included - is that clear? Do I need to say it again and in how many different ways?
"Go ahead trust NASA and all the CGI they feed us"
NASA is not the only space agency. Blue Marble (1972) was shot on a single frame of film, long before CGI; just how difficult is it for you to check that? None of you seem to understand what CGI actually is and none of you have been able to say what your technique is for identifying. Why don't you try?
"If the earth spins at 1000 mph?"
Measurably so.
"Orbits the sun at 66,000 mph?"
Measurably so.
"speeds that are beyond our comprehension"
Certainly yours....
"we do not experience a single one of these motions"
Because the body is sensitive to acceleration, not motion. We deduce motion from what we observe around us, not directly sense it.
"You think we could hang a plumb bob over a mark on the floor, put a 24/7 camera on it and measure some kind of motion."
Foucult's pendulum. Not surprisingly, you underestimate that factors need to be taken into account.
You are not a Great Witness. Your thoughts & observations are not the definitive factors determining reality, just your self-centredness.
Why would an omnipotent Dei require a Servus exactly?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@joshuaseabrook9835 You can see the effect of curvature of objects passing over the horizon, e.g., the sun rising & setting every day and only mountain tops being visible from a significant distance. Smaller objects can pass beyond the limit of your visual acuity long before they reach the horizon which is why FE'ers talk about zooming a boat back into view but never try it with sun & mountains.
How far you can see depends on curvature, elevation (observer & object) and atmospheric refraction, not curvature alone. The equation you refer to is a rule of thumb for geometric drop, much beloved by FE'ers because it is simple, possess only one variable and gives the wrong answers. That it is a parabolic equation and is never going to describe a circle doesn't faze them nor the fact that it doesn't take into account elevation & refraction, hence the wrong answers. The actual calculations are not simple; see separate comment in case YT takes exception to website names.
I would note that the ancient Greeks deduced the Earth's shape from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and solar eclipses always having a circular shadow; all verifiable by anybody, all indicative of a sphere, all disproving the earth is flat and all unexplained by FE'ers.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@homelesszaya6711 Do you understand what percentage means?
If you're looking at a picture of an object 7,900 miles across then a 10 mile oblation at the pole would be less than 1 pixel difference. Just because you think 10 miles is a long way does not mean it remains prominent regardless of the scale of the object being considered. Did you learn about ratios and scale in school?
WGS84 (World Geodetic System) is the measured shape of Earth down to about a cubic metre. The GPS system uses WGS84 for calculating the co-ordinates & distance it sends you. Land surveyors made the earlier model from the the 19th century onwards. Since space flight was developed, satellite geodesy has become the norm, relying on radio communications and radar to measure distances.
"if a walls out if plum u can see it"
Only when the distortion reaches the point where your eye can distinguish it and your eyes are not very sensitive when it comes to gauging distances. Not being able to readily observe something with your eyes does not mean it doesn't exist. It's why we rely on instruments for accurate measurements, not eyeballing.
Ian was essentially asking if you understood the concept of shape. Regardless of what something is made of, a sphere is a sphere. It doesn't matter whether the sphere is Earth, basketball, golf ball or pool ball, it's a sphere. That you can't see the distortion of a basketball sitting on the ground does not mean there is no distortion; the distortion is not automatically gross enough for you to perceive. That is true for all spheres.
Tyson referred to pear-shaped while talking about the slight bulge of the southern hemisphere. The distortion is even less than the polar oblation. He did not literally mean it resembles a pear, just used the term to convey where the distortion was.
"I'm skeptical of all I learned as a child in school . Its all just regurgitating what u have been taught"
Scepticism is wanting to know the basis for an assertion, not blowing it off as "regurgitation". The science you learn in school is the very basics; it's so long established that it can be taught as simple facts with demonstrations for your benefit. Only when you reach university level does it become important to know the exact basis for something.
"I see far to many indescrepincies in the "science" "
You not knowing or understanding something means precisely that; it is not a profound revelation that nobody knows or understands something or that there has been a colossal screw-up that nobody has noticed.
"it's all just insult and banter"
Everybody has pointed out the scale of the oblation relative to the Earth's radius. That you miss the point does not mean people are failing to answer your question, just that you aren't understanding what is said. Do remember that you are telling us that 10 is a large proportion of 3900.
If you have questions then ask (politely) but be prepared to listen to the answers. If you don't understand something then say just that and ask for clarification; don't start telling other people that they don't know what they are talking about.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Van Allan radiation belts"
With adequate shielding and passing through the weak periphery at speed; the astronauts radiation exposure was the equivalent to a couple of X-rays.
"the immensely low pressures of space"
"How did the space craft not get ripped apart due to the low pressure of space"
The difference between 1 atm pressure and vacuum is 1 atm pressure, a paltry amount; planes handle about 20% that and gas cylinders contain about 100 atm pressure. Not a problem .
"How did they land on the moon without causing a massive crater"
The bulk of the deceleration was done at high altitude, the landing modules ran at about 1/4 power until prior to landing and shut off immediately prior to touchdown. You're assuming the reverse of a Saturn V take-off that starts from stationary and has to produce the power to accelerate a huge mass upwards against Earth's gravity. The landing modules were already moving slowly, had very little mass compared to a Saturn V and were in lunar gravity.
"what battery technology did they have to run their life support systems"
Hydrogen fuel cells for most things, silver oxide-zinc batteries for the Landing Module.
"How did they cause the camera film not to be destroyed by radiation."
Lead-lined containers.
"earths curvature can not be measured, observed or detected"
And yet is routinely measured, observed and detected. That FE'ers turn a blind eye to how this is done does not magically make it impossible.
"no mathematical equations are conducted to facilitate for earth’s curvature"
A 25,000 mile circumference means 360/25000 = 0.0144 degrees/mile. Each individual section is set for level at that locality; the angle difference between sections is less than the corrections needed for the terrain.
"The 8 miles ^2 by the distance is totally disregarded"
Given that it is not for calculating curvature one would hope it is ignored.
"Please look into this further. "
Why don't you? None of the above answers are secret or rely on arcane mystical knowledge so why don't you know them?
"one always observes the same Stella Constellation throughout the year"
No, one does not. That is how the zodiac system comes to have 12 constellations that indicate how their presence changes.
"want is occurring is due to electromagnetism, pressure and buoyancy."
A Faraday cage has no effect so it isn't EM, buoyancy is dependent on gravity so it isn't that and air pressure is due to gravity, i.e., no gravity, no pressure difference.
"second law of thermodynamics explains a pressurised system cannot be next to a vacuum without a Barrier"
No, it does not. A pressure gradient can be maintained by a force countering the expansion due to pressure, e.g., gravity. FE'ers have yet to explain why there is decreasing pressure with increasing altitude when they're claiming equal pressure throughout their dome (of which they have no evidence itself).
Why don't you try learning something instead of ignorantly parroting stuff?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@yestervue4697 "Then I was shown transcontinental flight maps/routes, all these curves in odd directions seeming to avoid the ocean"
You're prepared to believe in a millenia-long, extremely expensive and totally pointless conspiracy but it didn't cross your mind that someone could cherry-pick flights for their demonstration? Direct flights between the southern continents cross Pacific & Atlantic oceans (and, no, the existence of indirect routes does not preclude the existence of direct routes not does the current limitations due to Covid mean the direct flights never existed). Also, what would be a straight line on a globe appears as a curve when projected onto a flat surface.
"They are straight on there!"
Somebody draws a straight line between two points, tells you that's where the plane goes and you believe because you are gullible. Doesn't occur to you that they cherry-pick the locations and flights? You don't ask what about the flights in the southern hemisphere that would be beyond the flight range of aircraft on a FE map?
"I investigated MUCH deeper for a year and found no proof for globe earth"
Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles: you can check all for yourself. Try actually doing it rather than listening to FE ignorance & incredulity. The curvature is measurable with a land surveyor's theodolite though I imagine you will claim they are rigged by the <insert bogeymen>. I know you will deny photographs, preferring to believe single-frame shots taken with an analogue must have been done with CGI several decades before CGI existed, and will ignore the ISS passing over head, preferring to believe it a balloon that has somehow remained aloft for 20 years while unaffected by ambient weather. So, be novel and try explaining how the FE fits to observations: how does the sun a constant angular diameter and angular velocity when the FE predicts they vary; how does the sun rise & set; why is there a horizon when the FE predicts several hundred miles vision that disappears in a haze; how are there two celestials poles when FE says there is only one; why are different constellations visible in the southern hemisphere; why does the angle to Polaris disagree with that predicted by the FE; why can't any of you produce accurate maps when you now accurate distance?
The moon does not have to outrun the Earth's rotation for a solar eclipse to work. You're thinking the of the change in angle when the key is the speed with which the moon moves out of alignment. Do you really think that only FE'ers think about these things?
"the model failures in action"
That is the inability of the author to get his head around diagrams. Given the relative sizes sun, moon & Earth and the distances separating them it isn't practical to produce a to scale model: distance to the sun 93 million miles, umbra 166 miles.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Myyoutubemymy4118 "By hotspot I really meant light beneath, not temperature, so my point stands, the sun is way above the clouds"
Which would require the sun to be a very narrow spotlight, which could not appear as a sphere.
"In globe model all sun rays should be perpendicular."
I assume by hotspot you refer to a particular picture in which there is a yellow patch on the cloud with the sun apparently just above it. Essentially there is a lake beneath the clouds; the sun is near the horizon with a clear path to the lake; blue light is absorbed by the water, the rest reflected back upwards giving the appearance of a yellow patch.
"If the radius gets bigger or smaller,the velocity may vary throughout seasons"
We're talking about the predictable change size & velocity that would occur in the course of a day; why is the FE sun magically immune from perspective? Why can't one of you just answer the question if you all have it figured out?
"Funny, wish I had more proof but somehow theres no clean rocket or satellite footage from high orbit, how convenient"
Our current launch rockets only go to low orbit, even which shows you that the Earth is a sphere. High orbit satellites are released there then onboard rockets propel them out to high orbit; the process takes days, not minutes. Himawari-8 & Elektro-L satellite are in geostationary orbit (high orbit) while EPIC is at the L1 point, collectively returning several pictures per hour.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@imjustanant Key points of any science experiment is falsifiability and reproducibility. You make a prediction according to your hypothesis then perform tests that would not work if your hypothesis is incorrect. Your prediction is that Chicago would be visible from a certain location only if your hypothesis of a FE is correct. A shot from a mile down the coast would demonstrate nothing; if can be accounted for by the existing model then you haven't demonstrated that your model is more accurate. The conditions during repeated tests need to be as close as possible to identical.
How far you should be able to see is dependent on curvature, elevation and atmospheric refraction; all three have to be accounted for, not just one (the usual FE screw-up) and correctly accounted for (the other usual FE screw-up; 8"/mile^2 is not the correct formula). (If you want to test a battery-powered torch (flashlight) then you need a battery that is charged, inserted and correctly oriented; all three criteria have to be met for you to be testing the torch and a 9V is not interchangeable with a D). If you want to shoot from the top of a 6ft dune with a 4ft tripod that extra 10ft has to be included in the calculations (plus however far up the beach the dune is). The atmospheric fraction has to be as close as possible to constant; the simplest would be to go with an approximate average for Xft above water.
In terms of distance you need a location that will test your hypothesis. With all criteria accounted for it needs to be impossible (for real) on a globe but possible with a FE.
In terms of reproducibility, conditions have to be near identical on multiple occasions. The pictures need to be taken with the same camera, using the same lens and same tripod height from exactly the same location (top of a specific dune) in near as identical weather/atmospheric conditions. A mirage is not a typical condition and would render that test useless unless your hypothesis is specifically about what is visible during a mirage. Taking several shots in the course of 1hr tests nothing; if there is something unusual occurring at the time (known or unknown, e.g., mirage) then that could explain your results rather than any veracity of your hypothesis. The least you need to do is being there every day at a similar time for a week in similar weather conditions. In making any reports you need to specify what the conditions were and what you did to meet all the necessary criteria.
The results you obtain will be evidence, not proof. If you find evidence of a FE then, even correctly done, there is a still an element of the unknown involved. It needs to be reproduced by other people, not simply there but in other places to account for anything unusual that may exist at Lake Michigan at that time (e.g., deviation from a perfect sphere, unusually high humidity). If, and only if, the same can be readily reproduced in all or nearly all locations do you have a case. If you can't find evidence of a FE then it won't disprove the hypothesis but will indicate you're barking up the wrong tree.
There's nothing fussy about this; it's just basic science.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Poweruser75 Your thoughts are seriously limited; you seem to be hooked on different = right. All you have come up with is the usual ignorance & incredulity and inability to consider numbers.
1. Zooming into a ship before it reaches the horizon says sweet FA about what happens when it reaches the horizon. I have no idea why FE'ers find that so is difficult to comprehend. We are still waiting on the FE evidence of zooming a partially obscured ship back in to full view or, even better, bringing the fully set sun back into view. If you want to claim it is all perspective then fine, but back it with the explanation for how perspective would make anything disappear from the bottom in contradiction to perspective.
2. Your argument for lunar eclipses is "it just gotta be something else"? The argument against photographic evidence is "it just gotta be CGI"? Why the FE'er conviction that "just gotta be" is an ironclad argument?
3. One of you needs to explain how you determine whether a photograph is CGI, how CGI was achieved before CGI was invented. Simple enough questions but none of you can explain - do you want to try? You all have a similar obsession with NASA as if it was the only or even the first space agency; what make you think it is the one & only source of photographs?
4. You need to use a telescope not a camera and you need to focus it. The "electricity flowing all over it in bright colors of yellow, blue, green ect" is the faint light activating different receptors within each pixel of your camera, not a true rendition of what is there. Galileo built his own telescopes centuries before NASA & television existed; you need to explain how the "bad guys" are affecting his telescope.
5a. Video compression error.
5b. You can see the ISS passing overhead on schedule. Still waiting on FE'ers to come up with a plausible explanation.
5c. That amount of magnification & resolution required for that is possible which is why you keep demanding it. Why can none of you figure that out if you are so enlightened? Just frightened of numbers?
5d. When down is towards the centre of the globe, there is no flying upside down.
5e. Low orbit spy cameras don't have the magnification & resolution necessary to photograph individuals, much less read a sign they're holding.
6. You haven't refuted what she said, just denied it.
7a. Same as 3.
7b. Photograph a 3D object from different angles and different distances using cameras with different wavelength sensitivities and the pictures will look different. Simple spatial and deductive reasoning, not a mystery.
8. If you wish a debate then it would be nice of you to come up with correct information and logical thought rather than ignorance & incredulity.
9. Then why are you so eager to perpetuate FE lies?
10. FE reasoning & logical having gaping holes & errors like ignoring numbers and confounding factors. Why not try fixing your own errors before spitting at other people?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EdgeOfEntropy17 Scientific theory: a comprehensive explanation of a natural phenomenon that is well-substantiated by extensive experimentation & observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory.
Scientific method is an iterative procedure: make initial observations, formulate a hypothesis for the mechanism, use the hypothesis to make a prediction, test the prediction through more observation or experimentation, reject the hypothesis or build upon it. The whole cycle keeps going with data and successful hypotheses accumulating with time, eventually giving rise to theories (scientific, not vernacular) that are accurately descriptive, consistently predictive and have no valid alternatives. Each will be accepted indefinitely until somebody comes up with data that isn't explained or predicted by the theory (and, no, "I don;'t see how..." is not data). Something is not lightly accepted as a scientific theory; the evidence in favour needs to be overwhelming.
"you can test and retest electromagnetism and get the same results"
Because the theory is accurately predictive.
I brought up televisions because you were saying scientific research in 1859, 1909 and 2022 were contemporary; you had no grasp of what changes in science with time. Televisions are mundane to you; you have seen the improvements in them in the course of your life time and would not (I hope) perceive a 425 line, black & white, 8" CRT screen as identical to a modern television.
Scientific theory is not something totally divorced from your world, just not obviously apparent; every appliance around you is dependent on scientific theory for their for their design & function, theories that have been built up for centuries by scientific research. That you don't know and don't need to know how combustion theory works for your car to run does not mean it doesn't involve combustion theory.
"at the end of the day, it is all guesswork"
Like hell it is. Ignorance is not knowledge; that you don't know how something works does not mean that you know it doesn't work. A subject being largely a mystery to you does not imbue you with wondrous insight. You thought carbon dating was the only form of radiometric dating and it don't occur to ask why a technique was being used for determining millions of years if it was limited to thousands. Televisions are mundane for you; radiometric dating is mundane for others. The same is true for other branches of sciences. Bear that in mind.
"we can never EVER watch as an ape...."
That's your limited thinking; you are not limited to what you personally can see. You haven't seen the Creator or seen the Creator do anything or able to produce any evidence of the Creator's existence other than assumption but you are quite happy with your lack of reasoning. That is double standards, not profound insight.
There is abundant evidence for evolution; that you are unaware of it and wish to remain unaware of it does not undermine it.
"I can show you how humans share DNA with snails and bananas"
Numbers confuse you? Why doesn't that surprise me. When all life comes for the same primordial cells then of course you would expect some similar sequences between different kingdoms. That does not magically preclude observation on what proportion similarity there is between different species or tracking how additions, deletions & substitutions have accumulated with evolution. Camelid species (camels & llamas) are possess an extra antibody, the result of a partial duplication of the IgG gene in their (single) ancestral species. You can determine the order in which the intermediate species formed and branched off (with time estimates) from looking at the accumulated changes in that gene. That somewhere in the genome some sequence has resemblance to that found in a banana does not change that.
"You take the words of men you perceive to be much smarter than you and I"
Smarter than you; I am one of the men you're criticising. If you wish to criticise science then take the trouble to learn it first; don't just wave a Bible and complain we're upsetting your worldview.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@clintonhart2652 I know where it comes from and what it can be used for; I'm curious if you know or you are just assuming that it will accurately calculate curvature and how far you can see. Evidently you are just quoting it as another FE canard.
Lake Baikal is crescent shaped and surrounded by sheer mountains; nobody can see the length of it. (You did say "do the research", remember?)
Salt Flats lack variation in elevation, not in curvature. Conflating elevation & curvature is another FE canard, essentially because your minds can't think beyond a flat baseline as a starting point.
That you can see the ground that is close to you at the Salt Flats and can see the mountains at the edge of the Flats does not mean you can see all the Flats between you & the mountains. We are discussing a 25,000 mile circumference, not the 25-250 miles that you are envisaging; you will be able to see ground for far further than you think on a 25,000 mile circumference sphere.
Motion of the sun, horizons, two celestial poles, angle to Polaris matching latitude (below the horizon when in the southern hemisphere), constellations changing with latitude; all indicative of a globe, all testable by any Tom, Dick or Harry, all incompatible with a FE. Still waiting on any FE'er to explain how they could be compatible with a FE (you refused to answer, remember?).
If I take a picture of a basketball, does the basketball appearing round mean I must be using a fisheye lens?
Does the existence of NASA preclude the existence of other space agencies?
Does the ability to fake a photo mean all photos are fake? What's your technique for identifying fake photos?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@robertfish4734 Explain how you conclude that the length of your air passage is the same distance as the that from ground to space (not a minor point). I just pointed out to you that gravity has to counter the drop in pressure over a set distance, that your air passage is short and that your inhalation produces a steeper drop in pressure over distance than the slow decline in pressure from ground to space.
"'Boyle's law always works and never fails, ever, every time these conditions occur."
Unless the factors change, e.g., a force present and there is not container.
The reason we have a higher pressure at sea level and a low pressure at higher levels happens exactly because we have an atmosphere"
You mean the Law of Just Does? That nothing actually causes it, that's just how it is? You are also saying that Boyles Law would cause an even distribution of pressure so why the exception for atmosphere (not a minor point)?
"Water weighs .578 ounces per square inch"
How do you think water (mass) has weight when you claim there is no gravity to give it weight (not a minor point)? Where does this weight come from? We need to as certain this before we continue.
"if you can prove Boyle's law to be in anyway inconsistent,"
Boyles Law is specific to the behaviour of an ideal gas in an ideal container. An atmosphere has neither container nor ideal conditions; you still haven't provided any evidence of your dome (not a minor point) nor explained what forces are acting on the gas and how (not a minor point). If you thikn there isn't another factor involved then you need to explain how Boyles Law leads to a pressure gradient in your container (not a minor point), an explanation that is more convincing that the Law of Just Does.
You're the one making the claims; you need to provide the evidence. Just gotta be and just does are not evidence. Produce your evidence of the dome, of electrostatic attraction of uncharged matter, that density acts as a force, how you get a pressure gradient in a container in contradiction of Boyle's Law etc
You provide the evidence of a 250mph network of crosswinds (not a minor point) and then I'll continue watching the videos. "They just gotta exist" is not evidence.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 "reducing would prevent the light from reaching the observer "
Only if the object was below the horizon (geometric hidden drop); that you can see the lights tells you it isn't reduced to zero.
"It doesn't need to be eliminated, reduction is enough"
Not in science; all factors have to be accounted for, not arbitrarily dismissed because they are inconvenient.
"Lensing is from the water vapor."
Which would lead to dispersion, not lensing. Try again.
"Planarity tests can't be done over land, because land can have contour and gradual slope"
You're still confusing curvature with elevation. You can't start with an arbitrary horizontal line to test a model when such a line does not exist in the model. Is that clear? You need to find either an area of land in which there is no variation in elevation, then look for curvature, or use elevated targets that have equal elevation.
"say refraction is enough to allow us to see lights? "
I said that if all the lights are visible then that would indicate there is sufficient refraction & elevation for them to be seen over the curvature. You're the one claiming the refraction is zero; you need to demonstrate that, not arbitrarily dismiss it.
"their refraction & their elevation"
But not for 1ft above water, where it becomes far greater, and the figure you quoted was for geometric drop, showing you ignored refraction & elevation in your calculations.
"Observer height is about 7 inches"
You said 12" earlier.
"The lights are each 12 inches"
Not a believable figure for what you are claiming, which is why the onus is on you to produce the evidence, not simply say you did it.
"we can calculate that one light at 2 miles alone would be enough to hide the light"
I'm getting tired of saying this but you still need to factor in elevation & refraction whether you like it or not. Quoting geometric drop is not a magic number when it is not the only factor involved.
"Why do boats disappearing over curve happen at 3 miles get trotted out as proof of the globes curve"
It isn't; FE'ers keep claiming that because it is because you think you can get away with ignoring refraction & elevation.
"but we see a shorter light, from further away, looking flat"
Because of elevation & refraction.
"those boats can be brought back to view,"
Only the ones that have yet to reach the horizon. We are still waiting on FE'ers to produce videos of a "half-sunk" ship being brought back fully into view(as opposed to ones that have simply past beyond the range of your visual acuity) or, better, still, zooming the set sun back into view.
"bottom up disappearance has been demonstrated on a flat surface
Only where the surface is cambered, there is a drop between camera & object or the camera has been set below the surface. Unlike you we stop and think when watching such videos.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brentwebster3751
Serah Lewin's article on Space website:
"those precise eclipse shapes only made sense if he scaled up the sun's radius by a few hundred kilometers"
Daisy Dunne's article in Daily Mail (largely copied from the above):
"only if he scaled by the sun's radius by a few hundred kilometres"
Neither articles says anything of 250 times larger or further away, just a modest increase in measurement of the radius.
"how far the atmosphere goes"
The minute traces of hydrogen & helium as distant as the moon were found to be a few particles higher per volume; there's no breathable atmosphere out there.
"how rockets work in space"
The same way they have always worked: Third Law of Motion. Only ignormi have ever claimed that you need at atmosphere to push off.
"the shape of the earth from ball to oblate spheriod"
That you hadn't heard of the <0.1% oblation does not make it new or immense.
"pear shaped"
A deviation even smaller than the oblation.
How high you need to be to see a curved horizon depends on how wide an angle of view you have. An airplane cockpit can have nearly 180 degrees, a camera <50 degrees.
Kaku's actual quote:
"In cosmology, the cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density (the small value of the cosmological constant) and theoretical large value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory.
Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the discrepancy is as high as 120 orders of magnitude, a state of affairs described by physicists as "the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of science" and "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."
"Michio Kaku "i don't know anyone who even uses the scientific method.""
An incomplete and out of context quote that changes the meaning of what he said. He was referring specifically to string theory, which is his field, that is totally mathematically based.
"Which they can't even measure [lightyears] correctly"
Example?
With regards to Eratosthenes, since the Earth was already known to be spherical he only used two locations to estimate the size of Earth. Take in isolation, two locations would not distinguish between sphere and flat earth; at least three locations are required, something which has been done repeatedly with the same results - the Earth is a sphere.
You realise that there is no obligation to post videos on Youtube? Since Google bought YT you need a YT account to pass comments and that account comes with a channel whether you wish to use it or not.
2
-
2
-
@brentwebster3751 "nothing i have posted has been a lie"
That you believe it does not make it true nor mean the person who told you wasn't lying.
The P900 does not have infinite powers. Trying to film a planet is beyond its operating range in terms of required magnification & light intensity. Your camera's limitations are why the images look different to those from telescope-mounted cameras. You realise that anybody can use a telescope? That people have been looking at the surface feature son Mars for centuries?
The parachute was deployed after Perseverance had been slowed, not before.
"A star on orions belt stays on the equator all 365 days of the year"
None of them do.
Einstein was specifically referring to relativity and the effect on light hence his explicit use of "optical" in his statement. He was not saying it was impossble to demonstrate motion.
The Michaelson-Morley experiment was using the known motion of the Earth to look for evidence of the entirely hypothetical luminiferous aether. They found no evidence of aether. Difficult as it is for some people to comprehend, no evidence does not equal proof. Only if aether existed would the absence of motion through it be evidence that Earth was stationary.
They had calendars back then. 1 year is long enough to travel 500 stadia. It is also quite possible for there to be more than observer but I know FE'ers cant comprehend the notion. As the sun moves the length of the shadow would change; it would be shortest at noon when the sun would be highest so a series of measurements arond that time would determine the shortest length.
The moonlight you're reading by is reflected from the full facing surface of the moon, not just the tiny area the Apollo craft landed on. The visors in the spacesuits were heavily shaded.
Nobody taking correct measurements and using the correct maths has found any sign of missing curvature.
"All amature Ballon footage of 100,000 feet or more shows a flat eart"
Anything that actually reaches that altitude would see a curve though you would need to apply a ruler to the image for it to be apparent to the eye. People need to provide evidence the balloon was indeed that high and that the shot was taken at that altitude; a shot with the altimeter reading 60,000ft is not a shot taken at 100,000ft even if the balloon subsequently reached there.
The Red Bull jump was from 120,000ft and neither camera was suitable for determining curvature of the horizon.
Scale, a really difficult concept for FE'ers. The stars are very, very distant and moving in the same general direction of the sun; it would take 10,000's of years for changes in position to be readily apparent to the eye, not a few days. As it is star charts still need adjusting periodically for the tiny changes that are measurable.
What a mystery. Just why would a pioneer in space exploration have a quote about stars on his grave? What possible connection could there be?
And yet the tide prediction is infallibly accurate....
Multiple forces can act simultaneously, another concept FE'ers have great difficulty grasping.
Everything you've posted is wrong and reliant on personal ignorance & incredulity. Do you not think to actually check anything before regurgitating it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@EdenCultures As I understand it there are just two vaccines that make use of fetal cells in generating antigens. Neither is the HepB vaccine.
Your argument is that the serial purification processes fails to filter out all the DNA from ruptured cells, that the DNA is injected into the bloodstream, manages to make it out of the bloodstream, manages to disperse through the body, reaching the stem cells that give rise to ova & sperm, manages to penetrate the cell, manages embed itself in the genome without initiating self-destruct, coincidentally be able express a viable mRNA (that would create a human protein that you already possess) and this somehow produces a point mutation in a gene that would then be heritable by offspring who would possess it in all their cells. Or have I misunderstood and you're arguing that contaminating DNA manages to transfect stem cells throughout your body and inducing a common point mutation in all?
I'm sorry to hear that you are hypersensitive to vaccinations. However, simply because you are is not a case for vaccines not being used on anybody; few people have such hypersensitivity. Assuming there was fetal DNA contamination in the vaccine shot you received, it would not lead to you or your kids having a point mutation in one or all body cells.
"they are free of chronic illness, have fully functioning immune systems"
One would hope they would be healthy since that applies to the great majority of people. How does that tie into not having been vaccinated?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SuperMoshady "where does the closed ecosystem part end and the open system part begin? "
You can't still can't figure out the difference between system and ecosystem?
"If there is no surface for the gas particles to collide with, then there is no pressure"
And yet a pressure gauge will indicate that there is.
"as there is nothing for the gas particles to press upon"
So? Lack of a pressure gauge is not going to change the concentration of the particles.
"So, we agree gas goes up, good"
It also goes down, sideways and round & round.
"Wherever there is gas concentration, there is also gas pressure"
For any concentration of gas there is only pressure if you provide a surface (like that on a pressure gauge). The concentration of gas declines with increasing altitude and a pressure gauge will detect declining pressure.
"space cannot exist as there is no surface at the top of the atmosohere"
You're presuming the need for a physical barrier; gravity is sufficient.
"Which means we must logically conclude"
There's no logic to your conclusion, just wishful thinking.
"because if not, the gas would fill the space vacuum"
Unless held back by a force, e.g., gravity.
"I think we are getting somewhere"
Not really. You won't acknowledge that gravity exists and insist that there must be an unnecessary, undetectable barrier. You can't or won't understand what is being said to you but regard yourself as superlative thinker. This is a pointless conversation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jenarcana Density is mass per volume; weight is the action of gravity on mass.
In a constant gravitational field all objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum. When there is an atmosphere there is resistance directly related to the area interacting with the atmosphere; the resistance is buoyant force, the strength of that force being directly related to gravity. While the interacting area is dependent on the object's shape & orientation, the object's density also affects how much surface area is interacting with the atmosphere. A polystyrene ball can have the same mass as ball bearing but will meet more resistance as it passes through the atmosphere. You and a mouse have similar densities but the mouse has a greater ratio of surface area to volume than you; if both of you jumped down a mine shaft the mouse would be sufficiently slowed to be able to walk away at the bottom. Most objects have sufficiently high density that the difference is negligible.
However if an object is less dense than the medium it is passing through then the buoyant force will be greater than gravity and it will rise, since the medium is also being pulled downwards.
Weight is the action of gravity on mass and the two are directly proportional. You have considerably more mass than a gnat and and hence weigh considerably more. The gnat only has to lift its own weight, not yours. The assertion you are repeating assumes that a constant gravitational field means everything has the same weight, something that is obviously not true.
Gravity was demonstrated to exist by the Cavendish experiment, reproduced countless times with similar results, that measured the horizontal attraction between masses. The subsequent Schiehallion experiment used a similar approach. Gravitational waves are changes in the distortion of space-time brought about by the motion & interaction of two very large masses (exactly how is beyond my knowledge of the subject); they were demonstrated to exist 5 years ago.
That density exists is obvious; it is the ratio of mass to volume. There is no evidence that it act as a force. According to Dubay's principle, a phone lying flat in your hand is pressed against your hand by the difference in density of hand & air. This predicts that when you turn your hand over the phone will continue to be pressed against your hand but instead it falls down at 9.8m/s^2. It predicts that placing it flat against a wall leads to the phone being held there but instead it falls down at 9.8m/s^2. It predicts that if you let go of your phone in mid-air then the equal density of the air surrounding it means your phone will just float but instead it falls down at 9.8m/s^2. Predictions are important in science; whether an idea makes correct predictions is indicative of its accuracy. Dubay's density does not work which is why he never talks about such experiments.
NASA was established in 1958 AD; the ancient Greeks determined the Earth was a sphere around 500BC using reasoning and the methods I described earlier. Still waiting on any explanation for how NASA managed to influence them. No explanation has ever been provided as to how governments manage to control all information, apparently controlling all correspondence & speech and manipulating shadows & stars, nor has any explanation been forthcoming as to how & why nearly 200 different countries have collaborated so faultlessly and completely for over 2 millenia, even through two world wars. As I said, they are invoked as bogeymen by people who are trying to dodge providing explanations.
The education you have received may only have been while is school; that does not mean school is the be all and end all of information. Most people have not been taught beyond school nor had any hand in increasing the information humans have; FE'ers rely on that to persuade you that schools are the only source of information (except, for reasons always unexplained, Youtube). While governments set the syllabus for state schools (and only schools), they do not determine who can know what generally. Many of us work in advancing knowledge which means hands on experimentation & verification, not sitting in classrooms.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kylemc0254 "there isnt 1 picture unedited"
So FE'ers keep claiming though they never explain how they identify alterations other "it doesn't look flat" or "I don't know what to expect but it isn't that". The ISS ran a live video stream for years as did DishTV and that didn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons". The US, Russia & Japan all have websites with real-time full hemisphere pictures of Earth and that doesn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons". Tesla had live cameras onboard its car and that didn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons". SpaceX has live cameras onboard its launches and (unsurprisingly) that doesn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons".
"i think science is a language designed by freemasons"
Science isn't a language and there is no requirement to be a freemason to be a scientist. That you don't understand something does not mean it is not understandable to others.
I said flight paths make sense on a globe (a 3D shape) but not when projected onto a 2D surface. You have to think beyond 2D projections.
"there straight lines on a flat gleesons map"
They aren't. Pick a few select ones in the upper northern latitudes and they seem to be which is what you have been shown. The further south you go then the greater the distortion of the actual dimensions and the dumbness of the claim becomes readily apparent. Try tracking the flight path between Melbourne, Australia and Santiago, Chile and consider how that would make sense on a Gleason map. Then look at it on a globe (in actual 3D, not a projection) and you will see a direct line.
"there crazy stop points on a globe"
Direct flights don't have stop points except for the final destination; that is why they are called direct flights. Indirect flights make use of the more heavily used routes to provide a series of economically conservative flights which is why some indirect flights are cheaper than the direct flights. Example, there's considerably more travel between North America & Europe and Europe & Far East than there is from North America to the Far East directly so it is more economical to run two separate flights for most passengers. A direct flight from Atlanta to Bombay is a mixture of American & Indian passengers; Atlanta to Amsterdam is mostly American & Dutch passengers with Amsterdam to Bombay a combination of Indian & Asian passengers.
"do you think the apollo missions between 1969 and 1972 were all legit"
Traceable signals to, on & from the moon, detectable equipment left there, verifiable material brought back and the landing sites recently confirmed by satellite pictures. "But, but, but they've just gotta be fake" and "I don't see how..." do not explain any of that, nor does the absence of lead in the Apollo capsules, fictitious claims the Van Allen belts are impassable and a posthumous interview with Stanley Kubrick. No, the data was not lost; the tapes the data was originally stored on went the same way as floppies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MrRobertGaston The plane's trim is set to maintain level flight, i.e., to stay with a constant air pressure where the lift achieved balances the effect of gravity. Since the atmosphere curves with the Earth the plane follows the curve.
8" per mile squared is a rule of thumb that was used by land surveyors; it assumes no atmospheric refraction and no change in elevation between observer & object and thus is good only for a few miles. It isn't going to accurately calculate drop or how far you can see. If you want accurate calculations then you need to use the correct maths and account for all factors.
The record for long distance photography is about 200 miles and is a picture taken from a mountain top of another mountain top (and only the top) poking above the horizon. FE predicts a view of the whole mountain from several hundred miles away. When taking into account curvature, elevation and atmospheric refraction (the key factors in determining how far you can see) the picture is in agreement with the globe.
"I still have zero proof of a globe"
The ancient Greeks figured it from the motion of the sun, the existence of horizons and lunar eclipses. They measured it with sticks & shadows, something that you can do for yourself with travel; using more than two sticks you can confirm curvature. With some travel you can also observe that the angle to Polaris matches latitude, that there are two celestial poles and that constellations change with latitude. All are consistent with a globe, all inconsistent with a FE, all verifiable by anybody & everybody. The travel of course will require accurate maps, something that the globe provides and the FE doesn't.
"you can't have fire in a vacuum (sun)."
The sun works on fusion, not combustion. Yes, it is possible to have more than one way of generating heat & light.
"luminaries of equal proportions"
In the same ball park, not equal.
"in an ever expanding universe?"
Scale. The sun & earth are approximately 8.5 light minutes apart. Average distances between galaxies is 1,000,000 light years. The effect is measurable on the intergalactic scale and would not be apparent in something as small as a solar system.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@glennholmes724 "I already guided you towards Ben and linked his channel Taboo Conspiracy"
A. There's no link in your posts, no mention of him before now and it's taken me four requests before you acknowledged I asked.
B. He's the epitome of the crap work.
Nice word salad that boils down to "they just gotta be the same thing".
This is hardly metaphysics. You've made it clear that there is no evidence that you would accept, which is not the same as saying there is no evidence. There is abundant evidence but you have grossly dual standards, being prepared to act crap as proof while dismissing evidence on the grounds you prefer a millenia conspiracy actively involving millions of people that somehow is recognised by the people generating crap.
"My guess is you believe in quantum mechanics without even realizing it doesn't mesh with Einsteins theories"
I had no idea the conflict was supposed to be secret; you really do like seeing conspiracies everywhere, don't you? They do not disprove each other as you infer, but they apply on different scales though I realise scale is a difficult concept for FE'ers to grasp. As with Newtonian physics being a subset of general relativity, both relativity & quantum mechanics will be subsets of something larger.
"it was to test for the aether which they did find"
No, they didn't. The Sagnac effect can be explained by both luminiferous aether and relativity while MGP indicated aether didn't exist (and did demonstrate the Earth rotated); neither disproved relativity, special or general. Given both the Sagnac and MGP experiments were conducted after special relativity was proposed it can not be said special relativity was a consequence. It would be true in 1920 to say there was no evidence of relativity, special or general, but this is 2020; catch up.
Scientific consensus requires abundant evidence; refusing to acknowledge it because you prefer conspiracy theories does not invalidite the evidence. Consensus means that something is accepted as working fact until demonstrated otherwise. And, no, incredulity on your part does not change the matter.
"There are plenty of technologies proving the aether, and by its exsistence general relativity is proven wrong"
Name some. Provide evidence that the Earth's electrical field is due to the existence of aether, bearing in mind that (unlike 1920) we have satellites and space travel.
"they all knew the aether to exsist"
They believed aether to exist. You seem to show great confusion between belief and fact.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 As with refraction, reducing the elevation does not eliminate it unless the elevation is 0". Assuming that <12" won't have a significant effect is an assumption.
With lights at 12" and the observer at 6" and assuming only geometric drop (no refraction), the difference between lights at 1 mile (63360 inches) and 8 miles (506880 inches) is approximately 0.0009 degrees. The limit of visual acuity in humans is approximately 0.002 degrees. Put four lights in a row and they would be difficult to distinguish as separate lights even before you consider the dispersion increasing their apparent size (glare effect).
"I am not quoting geometric drop"
You quoted 512" drop at 8 miles which is the figure calculated from geometric drop. You may not have used the term explicitly but that is what you are referring to.
"Refraction can't explain up and down bent light reaching the same observer height"
You're the one claiming light is bent both up & down so you need to demonstrate that such occurs on the globe, not assume it and ask me to explain it.
"It's claimed to by physical curve by globe proponents, yet we can zoom in and return a boat to our field of view"
FE'ers insist on using the 8"/mile squared rule of thumb and ignoring elevation & refraction, a calculation that places the horizon much closer than in actuality. That leaves you with a significant distance between your inaccurate estimate and the actual horizon. Zooming a boat back into view while it is in that zone tells you sweet FA about what happens when it reaches the horizon. That is why we insist you try zooming a "half-sunk" ship back into view or better still zooming the set sun back into view. Still waiting on either, just video after video of boats in the error zone.
"We are taught when a boat disappears from our eyes physical visual capability, at about 3 miles out, that is the boat disappearing behind physical curve"
No, you are told that an average human standing in an area of equal elevation would see the horizon at 3 miles (a combination of elevation, curvature & refraction). Once you start factoring in extra elevation (even just standing up the beach puts you several more feet above sea-level) and extra refraction (higher humidity above water) the horizon gets further and further away. You can't arbitrarily declare the horizon to be 3 miles away under all circumstances.
"The zoom shows it's not physical curve"
The zoom highlights the error of your assumptions & miscalculations. Have you considered the plausibility of every land surveying measurement taken with ranging instruments (since about 1800) being wrong with nobody noticing? How willing are you to consider that you just might be making significant errors? Clue: I've pointed out the fundamental errors to you repeatedly and you're still insisting you're right.
"The boat disappearing bottom up has been demonstrated on a flat surface"
As I said earlier, that is done using a cambered surface, a drop between camera & object or the camera being placed slightly below the surface. It never works when those errors are avoided.
"There is more water you look through, meaning the magnification intensifies the more you zoom"
You have yet to demonstrate such magnification exists or provide a workable hypothesis for how it could happen. All you have referred to are micro-droplets mystically behaving as if they were one solid object. How the light is reflected or refracted by each micro-droplet is dependent on where on the micro-droplet surface each individual photon strikes. If you think the light will only a certain way for each micro-droplet and in such a fashion that act as a unified lens for the benefit of specifically located observer then you need to explain how that could happen.
"magnification intensifies the more you zoom, cutting off bottom up, be it boat or building"
How would magnification do that exactly?
"The bottom up disappearance was shown with a camera set on the ground"
There's two I think I can think of. In the first the camera is placed on one side of a cambered surface with the guy walking over the camber. The second films a guy walking over a surface that includes a shallow step. If you wish to demonstrate something on a flat surface then you need to use a surface that is flat and continuous.
2
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 "His model of the globe places the moon in the northern hemisphere in the northern sky,"
The moon's orbit is inclined 5 degrees relative to the sun's orbital plane and the Earth's axis by 23.4 degrees. The moon is not orbiting the Earth's equator. Your assumption is that it is.
Experiment design depends on accounting for all confounding factors. You need a design that explicitly does that. Reviewing any experiment includes critiquing the methodology which needs to include details on the principal components used. Any underlying assumptions need to be stated with reasoning.
"Falsifying an idea, by inability to recreate an experiment with given instruction, discards a hypothesis"
Only for your own results. When reproducing other people's it indicates a need to contact the paper's authors to discuss the minor differences in how labs conduct the same experiment, e.g., what equipment is being used for each step, the sources of reagents, exact breed of animal, how many people are involved (process efficiency) etc. There are a myriad of minor details any of which can be the confounding factor that changes the end results, e.g., the exact speed of a slow setting on two different stirrers was a seemingly trivial factor that turned out to be significant.
"Repeating a hypothesis affirms it, and can move a hypothesis to a theory or a law"
Nothing so simple. Reproducing results indicates there may be validity to the hypothesis; you are failing to disprove it, not demonstrating it is correct. It needs to be tested in other ways and if it still hasn't been disproved then you're on a slightly surer footing and is worth building on. A myriad of hypotheses by different people get tested in multiple labs and those with some validity gradually become incorporated in to wider & wider hypotheses in an iterative cycle. You end up with hypothetical models for a particular system that continue to be tested, modified and corrected until ultimately you are left with one comprehensive hypothesis, which undergoes more experimentation and, if continues to stand with no further modification made may eventually by accepted as a theory. A law is entirely different; that is just a description of a phenomenon, essentially describing the mathematical relationship between key factors (e.g. F = ma) and says nothing of why it should be so.
2
-
2
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 "idk if we could remove refraction entirely"
You can't; I've said that repeatedly in our conversation. That leaves you with the necessity of factoring it in, not treating it as if it was zero.
Again, atmospheric refraction is due to the decreasing air pressure with increasing altitude. The more distant & oblique the angle of the light the more the light travels through decreasing density and becomes more downward angled. Heat can alter the density of air (different layer temperatures is how mirages occur) but that is not what we are discussing. It is not immediately relevant to your experiment.
FE'ers seem to have a problem comprehending how atmospheric refraction alters the direction the light travels. Atmospheric refraction (mirages aside) will only bend the light downwards. Because the source of a distant light is at a different angle to the observer, the light will already be angled "upwards" RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER. I capitalise that to make it clear we are not talking about a light pointing into the sky AT THE LIGHT"S LOCATION, but a light that starts horizontal at the light's location and would (without refraction) be travelling over the observer's head. Atmospheric refraction does not bend the light up and then down again; up is due to the difference in angle of curvature between two locations, down is due to atmospheric refraction. It is very much necessary to bear in mind the difference in relative orientation between pertinent locations on a sphere, not visualise curvature as a hill on a horizontal plane with observer & object on the plane. This is what I mean earlier when I talked about not inserting arbitrary horizontal lines into a model that doesn't have them.
"it's really lensing"
I've already told you twice what the fundamental misconceptions of lensing are. I'm not going to explain a third time. What you are going to do is explain the following:
A. How does do disordered micro-droplets form and maintain order?
B. Why would they form this order for the benefit of a remote observer?
C. How would this order alter the effect of parallel photon's striking different parts of a sphere?
"there is certainly a perspective horizon. Sky and ground collide"
On a FE there would be no horizon; everything would just disappear into a gradual haze as dust & vapour gradually increase the light dispersion to the point where you can't distinguish the original object. The distance would vary according to the atmospheric conditions between observer & object but potentially you would still be able to distinguish a large object at 600-700 miles. (World record photo is only 250 miles and shows a mountain tip peeking above a horizon; don't try quoting as evidence of what I just told you since it blatantly differs from what I described.)
"The globe even says your horizon when at a body of water is about 3 miles"
Again, no, it does not. Please pay attention to what I write since we will progress much faster without the need for me to keep repeating myself. The three miles assumes a 6ft observer looking across a sphere with equal elevation and no refraction; the example exists to make visualisation of the scale easier.
The FE model predicts you should be able to see the same distance regardless of altitude, other than the view being blocked by higher elevated ground.
"You cant do tests over land because land can warp"
Third time - you need to find an area of land with minimal variation in elevation and conduct the line of sight at sufficient to overcome what variation there is. FE'er are forever quoting Kansas and Salt Flats as part of your evidence so why the difficulty recalling their existence when you need ground with minimal variation in elevation?
"Refraction over a lake is actually I think more difficult to measure than you might think"
No, it isn't more difficult than I think. Your chemistry professor told you why. You can obtain an approximate average through measuring the exact physical dimensions you are working with, predicting what we observed over long distance without refraction and comparing that what is actually observed. Try your physics professor if you don't believe me.
2
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 "I am not saying refraction is eliminated"
You are starting on the assumption of zero refraction and were telling me it was done in the cold to remove refraction.
"It can't bend up in cold and in heat"
As I pointed out, you are incorrectly envisaging curvature as a hill on a flat plane. The light does not need to bend up. See my explanation in the other comment.
"You would notice a light disappearing behind something it's physically shorter than. We are seeing out from the surface to a point that is dropping away"
And you are looking only within a distance where refraction can be sufficient to keep it in sight. If you wish to falsify something then you need to include conditions that would distinguish between the two explanations. You can't ignore refraction; it has to be taken into account.
"light does bend up or down. In lab the refractive index changes depending on temperature. "
The heat generally increases an object's size but not its mass; the density decreases with increasing heat. Refraction occurs when light passes between different densities; it is not refracted within a constant density. Atmospheric refraction is due to the change in density with increasing altitude, mostly due to decreasing air pressure but, as in your experiment, also the difference in water vapour at different altitude. Again, your experiment was carried out just above the water surface to maximise the drop with increasing altitude.
"Heat and cold affect light oppositely, yet both need to bend light up to an observer"
As I explained in my other comment, there is no need for light to be bent upwards. That is your misconception because you are trying to visualise curvature as a hill on a flat plane, not a continuous curved surface. See my other comment for the explanation.
"temperature difference over flat surface can "hide bottom up" objects"
Example?
"If a boat has its bottom hidden by temperature inversion"
That's a very big if because you need to explain how this temperature inversion occurs everywhere regardless of the actual conditions required for temperature inversion.
"If the temp stabilized, the boats bottom would return to full view"
It is usually is stable and objects still disappear over the horizon. Essentially you are trying to use the unusual as the explanation for the general.
"3 miles horizon over water is what we are told a 6ft person sees for distance"
The example is a 6ft person on a sphere with even elevation and no refraction. Waves aside, the water would have equal elevation but the person would need to be standing with their feet in the surf and (magically) with no refraction occurring. The example is for you to visualise the scale.
"Surveying is done in land and in small increments. "
Overlapping increments.
"A very gradual slope of land would prevent planar detection"
Not when the increments are collated. They will only come together accurately when the according to the underlying shape.
"The bottom up disappearing is shown while above surface, not below it at 0 inch observer height"
Third time - the effect occurs when the surface is cambered, when there is a drop in elevation or the camera placed below the syrface level. I specified THREE possible conditions, not one. Stop quoting me as giving only one condition.
"magnification does exist, it's admitted by both models"
Not on the globe model.
"It was used to help globe explain the Chicago skyline from Michigan"
Which was due to a mirage not magnification. Yes, mirages do occur. FE'ers usually claim the skyline is always visible (weather aside).
"Magnification cuts things off... Other things need to exit FoV for this object to increase "
Quite: it's not the magnification that cuts things off; it's the limited viewing angle of the instrument you're using. Point the telescope, camera, whatever down slightly and the bottom will be in view as long as there is nothing physically blocking the line of sight, e.g., curvature.
"I have video of bottom up disappearing shown on a flat surface from above the ground."
What was done to verify the surface was flat. Note conditions 1 & 2 of the three conditions that I described.
2
-
2
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Your friend declared it to be minimised and treated the value as zero thereafter; that is ignoring it. I have said this multiple times but you seem to have great difficulty understanding it. As I said, this is getting very repetitive. You're only interested in hearing what supports your religious beliefs and screw reality.
Complete condensation would require absolute zero; that's not a condition you are going to find occurring naturally on Earth. There will always be evaporation & condensation occurring, producing high humidity above the liquid surface. That is why your fried set the lights & camera so low; to maximise the refraction.
The light will only get bent down; by how much it gets bent down varies according to density. You're making the usual error of presuming a flat surface when discussing a curve; you're so hooked on flat your mind can't even handle a simple diagram.
"'The experiment was done in a condition which removes as much water as naturally possible"
He placed the lights & camera where the humidity would be the highest. That is not removing refraction; it is lying about it.
" do view curve as a continuous surface, not a hill on a plane when discussing the globe"
I'm sure that you think you are but it's evident that you're not.
"I have a video on my channel showing a object disappearing with temperature variation alone"
Let me guess - you've heated the surface? You're making the usual error of assuming an effect would have only a single cause.
"It is the globe side that originally said the boats disappear over curve at 3 miles roughly, refraction and all included"
Yet again dingus, the three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
Am I saying it enough times?
"Id still like to see a demonstration of a curved surface that can refract light to exactly straight for 4 lights making them all in line, planar, flat and parallel with the horizon"
The experiment that you are describing.
The experiment that you are describing.
The experiment that you are describing.
The experiment that you are describing.
The experiment that you are describing.
The experiment that you are describing.
The experiment that you are describing.
The experiment that you are describing.
Am I saying it enough times?
"Show this can happen if it's our world's true reality"
I've explained how refraction works repeatedly. Repeatedly.
"Water is measured flat is a completely logical interpretation otherwise"
Again, you haven't tried it for greater than 8 miles; refraction was sufficient to compensate for that amount of curvature. If you want to distinguish between curved & flat then you need to conduct an experiment that can actually distinguish between the two, not run one where both would give a positive result. It's a simple principle of science but one that evades FE'ers.
"refraction bending to flat sounds more magical than no refraction"
That's your interpretation of refraction, not what I described, so of course it sounds magical to you.
"over water though this is where both models claim true level"
And over water you will get the refraction.
And over water you will get the refraction.
And over water you will get the refraction.
And over water you will get the refraction.
And over water you will get the refraction.
And over water you will get the refraction.
And over water you will get the refraction.
And over water you will get the refraction.
And over water you will get the refraction.
Am I saying it enough times?
"Even Kansas is not entirely flat."
Much of Kansas lacks variation in elevation; it is not flat. The two are not synonymous.
Yet again, dingus, a video making objects disappear from the bottom rely on ONE of THREE conditions:
1. Cambered surface
2. An in apparent drop in elevation
3. The camera being set below the set level
You seem to be having problems grasping the principle of more than one cause, something which is typical of FE'ers.
"Yes the globe model says magnification"
No it doesn't. The sun measurably maintains a constant angular diameter through the course of the day. FE'ers just can't be arsed to actually measure something, just rely on eyeballing and ignoring complicating factors like perception.
"Looking at something in the distance with a zoom apparatus will not only be cut off by physical curve, it can be cut off by magnification"
Yet again, dingus, tilt the camera down.
"Legal codes in construction ensure a flat floor?"
In a building. Why is it so difficult for FE'er to divide 360 degrees by 25,000 miles? Why do you always assume there just gotta be humungous amounts of curvature across 100ft? Are you not aware of maths & arithmetic or doe s it just never occur to you to make use of them?
I'm tired of repeating myself. Other than the last item, you have said all that before and I have answered it all before, multiple times with the same answers. You ignore the answers is not going to change that. I don't care how religious you wish to be but reality is not going to change to suit you. Unless you are prepared to move on from an obsession with FE'er, this is goin to go nowhere but around in circles. You aren't making a case, just endlessly coming out with just does & just gotta be.This is why people stop replying to you.
2
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 "And yes the entropy is increasing, which is violated by claiming galaxy formations"
There's a NET increase in entropy. The word NET always passes the deniers by. That you can start life as an single undifferentiated cells and grow into an organism with 100 trillion cells acting in unison should be a clue that it is not impossible for complexity to increase but, heck no, you just assume nobody has noticed the apparent contradiction and you don't bother querying it.
"as abiogenesis is impossible"
Entropy does not make it impossible; it merely requires a balancing act between order & disorder. A cell develops at the cost of increasing disorder in its environment.
"Not maximize refraction, minimize it,"
If somebody wishes to minimise refraction then they would not place the cameras where the position maximises refraction. Like or or not, your friend was deceiving you. That he is one of your FE buddies does not alter that. No amount of protestation on your part is going to alter the refraction.
"0.12° of curve converted to inches, feet, etc is more feasible,"
And nonsensical. Curvature is measured in degrees as a change in orientation. You're making the usual FE'er mistake of assuming curvature & geometric drop to be the same thing.
"I want to see a recreation of a scaled down curved surface being bent to flat planar and parallel to a flattened horizon"
You mean you haven't thought through the practicalities of replicating a planet in a lab. For the requisite replication of the atmosphere you need a planetary mass and somehow to switch off the existing gravity of Earth. You come up with the means by which those could be achieved and we might have something to work with. Meanwhile we can carry out experiments such as the one you are advocating and observer how four light line up despite the underlying curvature.
"Hot and cold are different conditions and do alter refractive index in lab"
Again, by altering the density of the medium. Temperature itself does not cause refraction; it is the change in density of the media through which the light travels. Heat makes an object swell. Same mass in a larger volume means lower density.
"light that would t bend down far enough with refraction"
What do you expect to see the sunlight do when the sun is well up in the sky and why? What refraction do you expect to occur?
A. I asked you how disordered micro-droplets would form an ordered structure. Telling me what an ordered structure is does not answer the question.
Yet again, the picture of the upper part of the Chicago skyline (and I stress upper part - the lower half is clearly missing) was an unusual event arising from a mirage. It is not a mundane view as you claim. Nobody is usually seeing Chicago across Lake Michigan, something that can be confirmed for yourself by actually looking. Wanting it to be mundane is not going to alter the fact it isn't mundane. Reality does not dance to your tune.
"Globe curve should hide it'
It does; that's why it isn't a mundane sight.
"to zoom in on the atmos effects"
And you have still to answer my question: why would disordered micro-droplets form an ordered structure?
B. Yet again, atmospheric refraction bends the light downwards, not upwards. You're persisting on visualising the lights as standing perpendicular to a horizontal line when they are set perpendicular to the ground at that point on the curve; that places them at different angles relative to each other.
"We never get lights appearing to be above our horizon or anything"
You mean mirages?
"that's not at all what I am saying"
It is what you are saying; you just haven't thought it through. And you still haven't answered my question.
And you still haven't answered my third question either.
"Sun light isn't parallel"
There's about 0.5 degrees divergence from completely parallel due to the angular diameter of the sun.
"we can see crepuscular sun rays show angle"
In the same way railway lines diverge as they approach you and merge after they pass you.
"Horizon distance of 3 miles is the globe claim."
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
The three mile example assumes no elevation other than the observer's height and no refraction.
Have I said it enough times?
"Sun moves it's circle above earth"
Which predicts a variable angular diameter & velocity and not coming within 20 degrees of the horizon; we observe a constant angular diameter & velocity and it rises & sets. You need to explain that.
"Polaris is the pole Star"
Currently. Thuban was the northern pole star at the time the ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a globe. The Southern Cross is a little off-centre but is the essentially the pole constellation below the equator. You need to explain all that.
"Where you are on the ground determine the sky above you on both models."
FE predicts everybody sees the same constellations regardless of their location but we see constellations changing with latitude, the angle to Polaris matching latitude (which puts it below the horizon when south of the equator) and two celestial poles, not one. You need to explain all that .
"Two star poles could be a star tunnel."
What is a star tunnel supposed to be?
"Lunar eclipse the moon is its own light source."
It's not a perpetually full moon so you need to explain how phases occur and how everybody on a FE sees the same phase regardless of the angle they are observing the moon from. You're another who professes to know the answers - surely one of you can divulge them? It would be far more convincing if you did.
"All maps are flat"
Globes aren't flat. You mean globe projections into a flat surface.
"When you use GPS, you're zoomed in and on a flat surface"
Because your screen is flat. Do you expect the screen to bow in & out depending on how wide an area you are looking at?
"The Gleason also claims to be accurate,"
FE'ers claim the Gleason projection to be an accurate FE map but none of you are willing to explain why the distances aren't correct. For the rest of us, we are well aware of the distortion from the azimuthal projection. The shape of Australia on teh Gleason projection demonstrates the distortion quite nicely.
"Flat earth does not claim you can only ever see so far, no matter what elevation"
And yet FE'ers are constantly telling me that the eye can only see a certain distance. Would you care to explain how the eye can simultaneously have a limited but potentially infinite viewing distance? Does the distance magically change depending on what point you are arguing?
"This is refuted by laying with your head turned to the side on the floor, closing your top eye only, then opening the top eye and closing the bottom, and you can see farther"
You can see the same distance in both. You mean you can see more of the floor.
"A) objects near you shrink because you're moving away from them, this allows more ground visual to enter the eye."
You mean how much of field of view is blocked by an object decreases as it recedes. A receding object does not change your eye's ability to see.
"perspective suits observe because it's how our eye works"
That's not how the eye works. An object's apparent size decreases with increasing distance from the observer; perspective is not going to cut the bottom off anything, it is not going to work differently depending on direction and it is not going to produce a horizon.
"the observers at different elevations will have that levels elevation of compression along the ground, the higher up, the more compression"
The apparent size is proportional to the distance from the observer; it has nothing to do with the observer's elevation.
"we see water is level flat after experiment, not level curved"
And as I have pointed out multiple times, your experiment was limited to 8 miles, a very limited distance that would not distinguish between the two. Meanwhile we are still waiting on the FE'er explanation for why lighthouses have such a limited range when you claim they should be visible hundreds of miles away. Do you want to try or will you just ignore it like all other FE'ers?
2
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 "Refraction minimized is what I claim"
And I have explained to you repeatedly how he as acted to INCREASE it. Of you're not interested in answers then don't ask the questions.
I have explained multiple times that refraction is dependent on density, not temperature.
I have explained multiple times the role temperature plays in altering density.
I have explained multiple times why the proximity of water increases refraction.
I have explained multiple times that people "see too far" because of the errors in their predictions.
I have explained multiple times what the those errors are.
"I am not considering a flat earth when speculating a globe."
I said that you were using a horizontal line as a baseline where none exists. In this particular case you have the lights standing perpendicular to that horizontal line, not perpendicular to their location on the curve, hence your talk about refraction having to bend light upwards & downwards.
"He didn't place where there would be high humidity"
I have explained multiple times why he did.
"They used humidity from heat to give them the best conditions."
I doubt it since the refractive index is accounted for in the calculations.
"A single cause can give the desired affect"
And it does not follow that an effect will have a single desired cause. You can't assume it will have a single desired cause.
"Any other variables would alter it more or less if at all."
Which is why you CAN'T ignore them.
"Please, No need to name-call"
You think? I'm endlessly repeating myself to someone who can't shift from his fundamental misconceptions and keeps asking the same questions even though he has been answered multiple times already. You're incapable of perceiving my answers provided either because you are dumb or have Morton's demon.
"I agree the globe claims the 3 miles to horizon is someone standing at the coast line, looking out, so only observer height, no elevation, and I think the refraction is accounted for as well"
I've told you multiple times that refraction is NOT accounted for in that estimate.
The coastline rapidly elevates; the observe needs to be at the water's edge. Every foot of elevation makes considerable difference.
"3 miles a boat goes over the curve, which we see disappear bottom up"
I have explained multiple times that the 3 miles is to give you some conception as to the size of the globe.
I have explained multiple time it is not a predictor of where the horizon is.
What is taught is the effect of something passing over the horizon; we are still waiting for FE'ers to zoom a "half-sunk" ship or the set sun back into full view.
"they didn't consider other variable, like temperature inversion."
I have explained multiple times that mirages are uncommon, not mundane. They don't have to be accounted for in mundane observations.
"The flat surface can show bottom up disappearing, as has been demonstrated many times,"
I have explained multiple times how that effect is fallaciously achieved.
I have explained multiple times that there are multiple fallacious ways to achieve it.
"There is no evading scientific principles. He did an 8 mile test because that was the body of water he had"
I have explained to you multiple times what he did wrong.
I have explained to you multiple times that 8 miles is an insufficient distance for his experiment.
I've told you multiple times what he should have done.
"Lacking change in elevation would be flat if we live on a flat surface, and would be equal distance from the center of the earth if a globe, but you don't just get to presume one or the other"
Context is important and it's never stopped FE'ers presuming one from the other. I've already pointed out that flat and level are not synonymous.
"I'm not ignoring anything about your 3 conditions. I've shown you a video where none of those things are happening"
No weblink appeared in your comment.
"The globe doesn't claim magnification?? Have you never seen a sunset where the sun is appearing massive in the sky? How about a moonrise? "
Which is down to how your brain processes what your eye perceives, not magnification in the atmosphere. When either is up in the sky without a reference point they seem smaller; at the horizon you have some surface feature to compare them to and they ten dot appear larger. It's why measurement is important not eyeballing. Incidentally, FE'er usually claim that they appear smaller close to the horizon because you consider them to be further away from the observer.
"It's not downward tilt to camera"
I said that you NEED to tilt the camera down. You can't see the bottom of the object because of the telescope's limited field of view, not because magnification squashes the bottom.
"Flat earthers do tests over miles of distance,"
While ignoring key factors such elevation & refraction, just as your friend did. Lasers over water is popular with FE'ers because you get to ignore elevation, refraction, levelling error and beam dispersion.
"I am answering your questions too and explaining. You don't answer back, you go to your explanation"
When your questions are based on fundamental misconceptions then explanations of those errors is answering your questions. I have said multiple times that reality does not dance to your tune. Questions built on misconceptions have no validity. Any direct answers I provide have to be based on reality, not what you would like reality to be.
As Mark says, all you are doing is repeating the same scientific illiteracy.
2
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 "you're assuming galaxy can spawn in a system where things are getting more random, scattered, and should be homogenized"
The key word in net entropy is the word net. Look up the meaning.
"You can assume a cell develops at the cost of increasing disorder, but it's just an idea"
That's how entropy works. Nothing stops order appearing but it does so at the cost of increased disorder within the system as a whole.
"Say we both drop all bias"
It would be very helpful if you would appreciate you don't understand science anywhere as well as you think.
"Evolution, that nonlife created life"
Evolution is how lifeforms change over time. The original appearance of life is abiogenesis.
"I am skeptical this is possible, as it defies 100% of every observation we have ever made in the natural world"
I requires time (100 million years) and multiple possibilities in parallel; it's not something that happened overnight.
"Can you show me your observation goes against the only thing we have ever seen"
I can't put the weblink in - it's seen as spam and the comment deleted - but look up abiogenesis on the biological research database. I'll try putting the link in a separate comment.
"Refraction is minimized in cold, max in hot, or max in cold, min in hot"
It's reduced when the change in refractive index between media is minimised. Temperature is just one factor; lowering the temperature alters the density but does not dictate the refraction that occurs. I have explain that to you multiple times. You can't look at one factor to the exception of others.
You're also visualising what you learned and/are shown in school, i.e., light passing between two distinct media resulting in the the light being bent at the interface, e.g., a straw inserted into water. We are talking about a curved atmosphere with density decreasing with increasing altitude. The result is curvature of the light not a single abrupt change.
"We aren't looking at a whole earth, but what is within our eyes field of vision"
Refraction will only enable to you see so a limited distance beyond the geometric horizon, not all the way around the Earth.
"Oh so we can't recreate a curved surface being bent up exactly to appear flat then? "
To be exact, you can't recreate the atmosphere with density declining with increasing altitude; you need the gravity of planetary mass and sufficient distance. To replicate it on the bench top would require sufficient gravity to crush the lab.
"Flat surface has no issue showing bottom up disappearance using lensing"
None of you have yet demonstrated lensing occurs; you can't point at something and say "that just gotta be lensing".
"Heat changes the number of particles the light passes through"
By reducing the density of the medium; increased humidity increases the density of the medium. You need to think beyond temperature.
" it is what is reflecting the sunlight"
The lights are light sources; that is why they are called lights, not reflectors.
A. I'm asking you HOW disordered particles would form an ordered structure. Just declaring there is an ordered structure does not explain HOW it would form from disorder.
B1. I said that you are automatically drawing in a horizontal line when considering the curve. You appear to have the lights standing perpendicular to that horizontal line, not the curved surface at each location, which is why you keep referring to the necessity of refraction to bend the light upwards.
B2. By recreating your friend's experiment over a level surface in places like Kansas.
B3. They appear to diverge as they approach and converge after they have passed you, just like railway tracks. You do realise that none of you have calculated the elevation of the FE sun?
B4. The higher the elevation of the FE sun, the further it is above the horizon at its lowest point. No rising & setting.
B5. "sun keeps a 15° per hour cover while making bigger and smaller circles" which would only give 15 deg/hr if you were standing at the rotational axis.
B6. It would never get far enough away from you on a FE to appear to rise & set.
"2,000 years ago it was Polaris. It would change by now if it changed"
And it is changing; you're just assuming any change has to be humonguous and thus readily apparent to the unaided eye over a short time period. The Earth's wobble has a 20,000 year cycle, sufficient for measurable change year to year and for Thuban to be the pole star 2000 years ago.
"FE doesn't predict we all see the same stars."
You usually describe the stars as being on a hemispherical "star dome" above a FE; in what way do you think different people would see different stars?
"Star tunnel would be like if you stand in the middle of a tunnel"
A cylindrical star dome. Explain how that would lead to people below the equator on a FE seeing different stars to those above it? Ho wis this cylinder inclined exactly?
"The moon charges and discharges"
Charges & discharges what exactly and what has been done to ascertain this?
"We see the same moon because the moon is up high, meaning reduced apparent size and shape change"
Only oif you are standing on the rotational axis; it size, velocity and observable face would vary across the FE. Explain how it works. As with the FE sun, the higher it is then the further the distance from the horizon at its lowest point.
"Maps we use are flat maps"
The globe is not a flat map. Projections onto a flat surface are useful because they conveniently roll & fold and you dont have to worry about the right amount of curvature according to whatever scale you are working to. The price of the convenience is distortion. The Gleason azimuthal projection was intended for time zones; the longitudinal distance are accurate, the latitudinal are not and it does clearly state that on the projection.
"The eye can't see forever because perspective"
Your eyes are passive receptors; they detect whatever light reaches them regardless of the distance it has travelled. Why do FE'ers never factor in the size of the observed object when talking about perspective?
"Yes we see more floor with the top eye, while laying on the floor"
Nothing gets compressed. You mean the viewing angle of each eye differs.
"receding object doesn't affect sight, but is effected by sight, and subject to it"
As I said, your eyes are passive receptors. They are not goin to block the bottom of something merely because it is receding from you. If you think they do then explain the mechanism.
"The experiment is limited because it is done on a lake with that much distance"
Quite. It was carried out at an insufficient distance to distinguish the difference between curved & flat.
"Lighthouses are limited by refraction over the water surfaces they cover."
When the light is moving horizontally through a constant density then there is no refraction. There has to be a change in density for refraction to occur. On a FE the light ought to be seen for hundreds of miles.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 "the constant we are observing is the 15° per hour"
On a FE it would only appear constant if the sun was always equidistant to the observer, ie., the observer was standing at the north pole. It's unlikely that anybody is standing at the NP and it certainly isn't possible that 8 billion people are. Anywhere else in the FE world the FE sun will be at a varying distance to the observer through the course of the day. Moving a constant speed and varying distance means the angular velocity will vary. You need to explain how everybody on FE observes the sun maintaining a constant angular diameter.
No explanation for the constant angular diameter?
"your eyes create a level line across the center"
Your eyes are passive receptors; they are not going to add information to what you see or draw in extra lines.
"The higher up you go the further out you see"
Why? You've said that before but you haven't explained why. Without an explanation it's only a "just can" statement.
You're describing the vanishing point as a distance, ie., a set distance that you can discern everything before it and nothing after it. You need to explain why you can't see a grain of rice across a room if it within this vanishing point.
" if you go up to the top of a tall building after just standing at the bottom and watching a sunset, you will get to watch another sunset"
Why would that be so on a FE?
"You won't always see Polaris because every degree you go out from Polaris, it drops a degree in the sky accordingly"
You're repeating yourself, not explaining.
"the observer is creating an angle to the corner creating a hypotenuse to Polaris"
I thought so obvious that it went without saying. If Polaris is directly above the north pole then the right angle is formed from its axis being perpendicular to the FE. If Polaris is a a fixed height "h" above the FE then the observer's viewing angle "x" from a given distance "d" from the North Pole is calculated from tan(x) = h/d.
Where h = 1 & d = 1, atan(1) = 45 degrees.
Where h = 1 & d = 2, atan(1) = 26.5 degrees.
Where h = 1 & d = 3, atan(1) = 18.4 degrees.
Where h = 1 & d = 4, atan(1) = 14.0 degrees.
Where h = 1 & d = 5, atan(1) = 11.3 degrees.
The angle would not have a linear decline on a FE; you need to explain why it would. You need to explain why it isn't visible from south of the equator.
"They change depending where you are because your vision looking up is a cone"
Your view of the sky is not a cone; it is panoramic. People can move their eyes & turn their heads; we aren't limited to a narrow field of view in only one direction. You need to explain (realistically) how people wouldn't see the panoramic view of stars from every location on a FE.
"If you stand in the center of a long tunnel"
That's a big if; you ned to explain how these tunnels would exist, and why everybody would have a personal one and how the tunnels can arch over someone's head while they are in it.
You're also describing people as being able to see both celestial poles regardless of where they are. That is only possible at the equator; all other locations are limited to directly viewing one celestial pole.
"Moon is its own light"
A statement that does not explain what the moon's light source is. Light bulbs heat up a filament or diodes, the sun is plasma - how does the moon generate light? Wy can we see shadows on the surface if it is a light?
"The lens maybe etc"
You can't presume the existence of atmospheric lensing; you need to explain HOW the lens would form (not make a statement of WHAT you think they are) and HOW & WHY there would be lenses of just the right size. A description of a glass lens does not answers those questions. "Just do" is not an explanation.
"God isn't fiddling"
You were describing divine intervention as the reason the world appears to be a globe; now you're saying it isn't. Which is it?
2
-
2
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 "as long as the 15° heading is kept, that is observed"
I stated that the observer needed to be standing at the north pole to observe and why that was so (equidistance). Simply repeating that it would work is a just does argument, not an explanation. When you are driving towards it a distant object hardly appears to move until it is close, apparently shoots past you at high speed and apparently slows down again afterwards; all the same speed but varying distance to the observer. That is how an observer anywhere but the north pole would observe the FE sun moving. You need to explain why we don't see that.
"Low on the horizon it can look massive"
But measures exactly the same size. Eyeballing is not an accurate form of measurement; your brain is too easily fooled.
"There is also video of the sun shrinking a little bit,"
The clouds on the horizon reduce the amount of glare; you would need to use a solar filter to determine if the sun had actually changed in apparent size. The FE sun would shrink far more than a little bit and FE'ers usually claim that it shrinks away to nothing. You need to reconcile all those claims.
"the eye doesn't add information, the change in elevation does."
Explain how you think a change in elevation would add a horizontal line to what you view. Don't make such statements unless you can back them; doing so is a just does argument.
"I've give the laying on the floor example which anyone can do which shows increase in ground you can see opening the top eye"
You haven't demonstrated that either can see more than the other. The difference in angle means that each eye can see just as much of the surface and it would occupy a wider angle in the upper eye. You need to explain why that isn't the case and why you would be able to see more of a flat surface from a few inches more elevation, not just state that it is so (a just does argument).
"You cant see the rice because..."
Explain how you think the elevation of the object would alter its apparent size. Simply stating that it has such an effect is a just does argument.
"Polaris drops 1° in the sky for each degree of ground you move out from under it"
I gave you the maths showing you why that wouldn't happen. You can't just ignore it; that is being close-minded. If you think the maths is wrong then you need to explain how.
"90° is max height of it's above you,"
Degrees measure angles, not heights.
"so you can only go 90° away, which is the equator"
On a globe. You're claiming the Earth is flat in which case there is nothing blocking your view. Use the maths I gave you or refute it.
"Though I think some have seen Polaris from a little south"
With sufficient elevation if still close enough to the equator. It is visible from the top of Mount Kilimanjaro (3 degrees south of the equator and an elevation of 19,000ft). At sea level you can't see it from anywhere south of the equator.
"The cone was a visual representation"
And as I said, people can turn their heads. Short of having their head in a vice nobody is restricted to a narrow field of view. The stars are a panorama; you need to explain why everybody on Earth can't see the same stars when there is nothing blocking the view.
"Idk the exact working of the sky, it's a frontier and we don't quite know yet"
Says who?
"Nothing wrong with not knowing, so long as we can predict with it, like Neil says about gravity"
You don't need to know how gravity works to use the maths; it does not mean that you can make up the maths or handwave gravity away. If you don't know how something works then you should not be running around telling people you know it doesn't work.
"the sky has no bearing on the flat measured water on the ground"
The "don't look up" argument. Angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles - three of the observations from which the ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a globe. No explanations yet from FE'ers how they are supposed to work on a FE. You're denying the maths for the first, ignoring the second and postulating inexplicable star tunnels for the third. The easier task is dividing 360 degrees by 25,000 miles, something most FE'ers can't think of, to consider how much curvature you are looking for. You were looking for observable curvature over 8 miles that would have a curvature of 0.12 degrees.
"Idk how the moon does, it just is said to be its own light"
Rather the point - none of you know, none of you can say but you're all quite sure it is a fact because it just gotta be. If someone makes claims then they have to be able back it. One of the questions I asked you is how everybody on FE sees the same face when looking at it from different angles; try answering that one (and "they just do" is not an explanation).
"We can't get into the firmament to physically test it."
You can see the ISS passing overhead on schedule. Still waiting on plausible FE'er explanations for what you are seeing. So far the favourite seems to be a balloon that has somehow remained aloft for 20+ years, somehow moves of its own accord and is somehow totally unaffected by weather. Do you want to try explaining?
"Lensing is admitted and shown on a globe too"
Referring to refraction due to curvature of the atmosphere (an effect that you deny), not chaotic micro-droplets forming ordered structures with just the right properties & orientation. You have not yet explained how any of that is possible; you just keep stating they exist, ie., a just does argument.
"It makes the moon larger on the horizon"
Where it has measurably the same size as when it is at its zenith. As with the size of the sun, eyeballing is not an accurate form of measurement.
"its not divine intervention it's intelligent design. Our Designer is marvelous"
All you need to do is demonstrate the existence of a Designer, demonstrate that it is the Designer you are claiming it is and demonstrate that the universe is designed. Just gotta be and "I don't see how..." are not valid arguments.
I am once again repeating myself on some of these points. You haven't actually refuted what I said, just ignored it or made just does statements. You need to back your claims. We resumed this conversation because you said you could do that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jonelliott4985 Punctuation is there for clarity, not ornamentation.
FE'ers accept there is 24hr sunshine in the Arctic Circle because they can think they can explain it on a FE. They deny it occurs in the Antarctic Circle because they can't explain it (or even longer days in summer) and claim Antarctica is sealed off to prevent people finding out there isn't 24hr summer sun there. You can go to the southern tip of South America (Ushaia) and observe a 19hr day.
The radius of the globe is 3,900 miles. Mt Everest is 5.5 miles high. That is about 0.14% of the Earth's radius. Mountains don't contribute significantly to the shape of the Earth.
The deviation from a perfect sphere, e.g., polar oblation, is similarly minute on a planetary scale.
The Antarctica Treaty prevents military bases and requires visitors to adhere strict regulations for avoiding contamination of the environment there. It does not prevent anybody actually going to Antarctica. There is a booming tourist trade and various people have traipsed across it.
The tallest Antarctic mountains are about 16,000ft (about 3 miles) high.
The atmosphere is free-floating gases; there's no part of the atmosphere that doesn't have free-floating gases. No gas, no atmosphere.
Gravitational attraction is proportional to the squared distance from the object's centre of mass. Earth's radius is 3,900 miles; the gravity on Mt Everest's summit is about 99.7% that at sea-level.
Gases move according to whichever forces are acting upon them. They don't go looking for higher temperatures.
There is no flat part of a sphere; the Earth is a sphere and orbits the sun. It rotates on its axis every 24 hours while doing so. The axial wobble has a period of 24,000 years. There is no substantial orbital decay at present.
A vacuum is devoid of all matter including gases; it does not cause gases to liquify or freeze. Low temperatures do cause liquification which is probably what you're thinking of.
No, you do not need to personally go into space to determine that the Earth is a sphere. The ancient Greeks deduced it from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow.
There is nothing banning you from travelling around the world.
Observe the moon for long enough and you will see about 60% of it over time; while tidal locking keeps the same face pointed at it the interaction of sun, Earth & moon means there is a slight jiggle. With a high enough resolution you can also observe the shadow of lunar mountains and how they change with lunar orbit. It's clearly not a disk.
Light does not decay.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hershelpogue1745 "Not my concern."
It is when you're underlying presumptions (whether you acknowledge them or not) affect your conclusions.
A shadow is caused by the occlusion of light. A shadow is always directly away from the light source that is being occluded. The end of the shadow and the top of the object are always in line with the sun. If you have evidence otherwise then produce it.
"the shadow from said object to shift opposite of placement of your pole"
What is that supposed to mean?
"By all accounts our sun shouldn't be over our head, according to the solar system charts in existence."
Unless you are between the tropics of Cancer & Capricorn, the sun never is over your head. This what I mean about you presuming a shape to the Earth; you are assuming longitude to be perpendicular to the direction of the sun.
"according to the solar system charts in existence. None show an above view of our sun,"
You referring to 2D representations of a 3D layout. You need to acknowledge the existence of 3D representations showing Earth's inclined axis and the declined orbit of the moon.
"All angles times and positions speed changes"
What speed changes? Both the sun & moon have constant angular velocities.
"Their range an distance varies. "
How would you calculate that from one observation point?
"The sun the moon within each other earth proximity "
Only in your imagination; eyeballing is not an accurate form of measurement.
"uniquely different arrangements happening at the same time"
Again, only in your imagination.
"Where our earth hosting two celestial objects in the day sky, and the moon remains at night."
The sun & moon can be up to 180 degrees apart in teh day time sky; why the hell would you think they would set together?
"Moving extremely slow"
The Earth rotates once per day; how fast do you think it should be going?
" and can be seen 90 miles away."
The moon is 239,000 miles way (measurable & measured) and hte sun is 93,000,000 miles away (measurable & measured).
"Of course the angles depending on altitude."
Latitude and that is what you expect from Earth being a sphere with an inclined axis, the moon orbiting the Earth in a declined orbit and the Earth orbiting the sun, ie., the current model works just fine for predicting their motion.
"No one yet has ever explain anything that I consider conclusive. "
What would you consider conclusive when you can't get your head around the existing model?
"Even if it's full of flaws."
Such as what because you have yet to describe any?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@FrenchFryKayak "whats the longest distance photo taken? "
About 200 miles. With clear weather on a FE you should be able to see several hundred with the view disappearing in to a gradual haze. No weher woudl there be a horizon.
"how did you give me means to find curvature?"
Motion of the sun (observable & measurable), horizons (directly observable), angle to Polaris changing with altitude (observable & measurable), two celestial poles (directly observable) and constellations changing with latitude (directly observable). On a FE the motion of the sun would be variable, on a sphere a constant 15 degrees per hour. The angle to Polaris would triangulate to multiple points on a FE, one location on a sphere; Polaris is out of sight below the equator, which contradicts the FE star dome. When travelling towards a mountain the tip can be observed to appear from below the horizon, the remainder of the mountain gradually appearing from the top down; consistent with curvature while FE predict the mountain would always be completely visible, gradually appearing from the haze at a far greater observational distance. The stars can be observed to rotate anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere, clockwise in the southern hemisphere (directly east to west around the equator), consistent with a sphere, contradictory to the one celestial pole claimed by FE. Which constellations are visible at night changes with latitude as would be expected on a sphere, contradictory to FE.
"I also know that curvature isnt a factor,"
Your assumption is that Earth is a tiny sphere or it is flat. You haven't considered what you would see on a large sphere, just assumed that all sphere must be about the same size for...reasons....
If something is not directly observable then not seeing it tells you nothing of whether it exists. It is to be noticed that FE'ers have no problem using radio waves on TV's and phone or being X-rayed or using IR scanners while loudly proclaiming that what you can't see doesn't exist.
Perspective does not magically preclude your view being directly blocked.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles: all verifiable by any Tom, Dick or Harry, all indicative of the Earth being a globe, all disprove a FE and we are still waiting on for FE'ers explanations for how they could work on a FE. How difficult is it for the people who claim to have it all figured to actually say what they have figured out?
"a great deal of CGI and very little photographic evidence"
Still waiting on any FE'er to explain their technique for identifying CGI or fake photos, their explanation for how Photoshop & CGI were used before Photoshop & CGI existed, how real-time CGI is possible.
Still waiting on the evidence for a see-through moon.
What exactly would be gained from going back to the moon? Manned expeditions are highly expensive compared to unmanned ones and putting two men on the moon for a few hours is not going to get a moonbase built. Why continue running moon landings every year?
"solar system and Big Bang relativity model is both scientifically and historically questionable"
Still waiting on rational arguments for that.
"I say belief belief is the dangerous bit"
You personally can deduce the shape of the Earth easily. You can measure the curvature with as little as sticks & shadows. It has been fully mapped, fully measured and (whether you like it or not) extensively photographed. It's an object; all objects have a physical, measurable shape. Its shape is a fact, not a belief. FE'er failing to produce any evidence to back their claims does not make a FE a fact.
"a little bit more open minded"
Open minded means the willingness to listen to and consider alternatives; consideration means you can be told exactly why your FE beliefs are crap.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ALightOn FE'ers favour "I don't see how", "just gotta be" & "just does", feel that maths, measurements, scale, multiple factors, 3D etc are there to confuse people and that it is not necessary for explanations of observable reality to be in agreement with observable reality.
The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere around 500BC from the existence of horizons, the motion of the sun (constant angular velocity, rising & setting), lunar eclipses always having a circular shadow (only one shape has a circular cross-section from every angle), lunar phases, the stars changing with altitude. With some travel you can observe that we have two celestial poles, that the stars change as you move southwards and that the angle Polaris declines with altitude, becoming below the horizon south of the equator. Using a telescope equipped with a solar filter you can ascertain that he sun maintains a constant angular diameter through the course of the day, passes below the horizon and can't be zoomed back into view. With some phone calls you ascertain that everybody around the world sees the same lunar phase. With some travel or collaboration you can measure the angle to the sun at different locations with sticks & shadows and measure the curvature over the area covered. You can watch the ISS passing overhead on schedule unaffected (clouds aside) by the weather. You can get on a plane on one continent and fly direct to an airport on another continent, something achievable only with accurate maps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thomasspeed3390 Both Matuse & I score 4 on this subject; most FE'ers fall into 2 while professing 4.
"Your naked eye CANNOT see the earth's arc"
You can see the effect of the arc, e.g., the sun rising & setting. According to FE predictions it won't come within 10-20 degrees of the horizon, would show highly variable size through the course of the day and would always be visible. A globe predicts a constant angular diameter & velocity and rising & setting which is what we observe. FE'ers claim clouds reducing glare is the sun shrinking though they can't explain why it only happens when the sun passes behind clouds. They claim perspective mysteriously squashes objects at the horizon and only at the horizon though they can't explain how this would be or how the FE sun would get near the horizon. The FE sun would never be far enough away to be not seen and there is no evidence that light spontaneously stops at any distance, never mind the highly variable one claimed by FE'ers. FE'ers keep claiming they have the knowledge to explain it all but none are willing to divulge it (not even their gurus) despite apparently wanting everybody to be persuaded by it. This is what we mean about their ignorance & stupidity.
"the bend is not significant but it is there"
It gets increasingly significant with distance, the sunlight having to travel through an increasing amount of curvature in the atmosphere between the source (emitted or reflected) & observer. It has to be taken into account when calculating where the observer's horizon will be. It would not give the illusion of the Earth being flat.
"Your steadfast approach to given knowledge..."
As I pointed out earlier, it isn't possible for someone to test everything personally. When similar data is collected by multiple sources it is unlikely I would get something different if I did try; I can accept the conclusions made by others as accurate. In this instance, a massive and totally pointless conspiracy running undiscovered for 2500 years is not a plausible alternative.
Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles & constellations changing with latitude indicate the Earth is a globe; that they can be observed disproves a FE. The curvature can be measured with as little as sticks & shadows. The ISS passes overhead on a rigid schedule; with a good telescope its outline is clearly visible. You can get on a plane on one continent and fly to directly to an airport on another; that isn't possible without accurate maps. We all see the same face of the moon, not the different angles predicted by FE.
You're making a philosophical argument that the limit of current knowledge leaves alternative open. However that only means you can't prove something absolutely; it doesn't prevent something from being disproven. When FE claims don't match observable reality then they are not and never will be a valid explanation for that observable reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere from the motion of the sun, horizons, angles to Polaris, two celestial poles and the constellations changing with latitude. Since then we have developed navigation & cartography and have the world fully mapped; the data fits only a sphere. We have put satellites & spacecraft into orbit and observed a sphere; we use satellites for GPS & TV and can observe the ISS passing overhead unfailingly on schedule. We currently have several satellites collectively taking several full hemisphere shots every hour, instantly viewable due to satellite transmissions & the web.
FE'er can't explain the sun's motion, can't explain why they can't see several hundred miles in the absence of horizons, can't explain why Polaris is only visible in the northern hemisphere, can't explain two celestial poles, can't explain constellations changing with latitude, can't produce even a crude map, can't explanation how navigation would work, can't explain plane flights in the southern hemisphere, can't explain the ISS's visibility, GPS being available across oceans, can't produce the Real Model they all claim to possess, can't produce the Real Map they all claim to possess, can't produce the Real Evidence they all claim to possess, can't engage their supposed knowledge, insights & profound understanding of reality to explain anything and are totally unable to comprehend concepts such as maths, measurements, more than one variable or that their senses are very limited. Such is their depth of reasoning, Kangen here believes it is possible to use a P900 to zoom into one person from 22,000 miles away.
What evidence do you think FE'ers can bring to a discussion?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"are established falsehoods, and dangerous ones at that"
Research doesn't stand still; something wasn't realised to be dangerous at the time rather than people were misled.
Milk is healthy for most people, fluoride in low doses is good for you, how dangerous hexachlorophene is depends on the dosage, DDT is not safe as an aerosol but topical contact is OK, triethyl lead does improve the combustion process but the resulting aerosol product was found not to be safe, CFCs were good refrigerants but their eventual release in to the environment wasn't, lung cancer from smoking was not apparent when people were dying much earlier in their lives to begin with, no evidence yet that GMO's are dangerous, Trump is not a scientist or a product of science, mercury fulminate is an explosive not an insecticide (do you mean mercury bromide?), dark matter is regarded as hypothetical not factual.
"we don't actually know how something as obvious as gravity really works"
You don't need to know how gravity works to be aware that it exists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bathin813 There was a traceable signal to, on and from the moon, detectable equipment left on the moon and verifiable material brought back. The reflectors are regularly used, the materials have been distributed worldwide. An arm-waving "nobody's analysing it" and "no clear evidence" is BS.
The Apollo missions were 50 years ago; technology has moved on in that time. Materials, fuels, computers, manufacturing practices have all changed in that time. The people with the hands-on experience of designing & building the craft are retired & dead. The blueprints still exist but many changes were made during construction; the people's notes still exist but you would need to piece it all together and you would still be using 50 year old technology. Much of the stuff was made by outside contractors who subsequently repurposed the workshops, the people with the hands-on experience ultimately retired & died and paper records were eventually trashed. Assuming it could all be reconstructed you would have a craft built with 50 year old technology incompatible with today's and a design that is incompatible with current needs.
One set of tapes went astray. One set. The footage was for PR purposes, not scientific.
"They have been landing things on mars and moon for along time."
Things, not people. Manned missions require taking people, supplies and life support all of which takes mass that has to be launched, equipment that has to be purposely designed & built and which strictly limits the mission time. Unmanned missions are far more economical. There was no point in wasting money sending a few people to the moon to do a few hours work in the surface every year just to to satisfy some people that it is possible to.
"They even admitted that they photo shopped the blue marble"
Blue Marble was shot on film in 1973 as Apollo 17 returned to Earth. Blue Marble 2 (aka Blue Marble 2012) was a composite made from LEO satellite shots in 2012. Two different pictures obtained in two different ways. Since then we have put cameras into high orbit; Himawari-8, EPIC and Elektro-L are collectively taking several shots per hour, all immediately downloadable.
"All cgi or photoshop stuff"
The funny thing is, the people who can apparently identify CGI at a glance can never explain what tells them it is CGI. They just assume it. Most of them don't even know what CGI is.
"when it comes to a bit further nothing real"
Space X has external cameras on every launch.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EdenCultures The excipient list covers all possible content in a vaccine, not just routine ingredients. They do clearly state "Others are residual trace amounts of materials that were used during the manufacturing process and removed"; this covers all the cell culture materials that may have made it through purification, e.g., cells, protein, DNA.
I want to see evidence of Deisher's claims of a whole genome found, DNA outweighing antigen content and antigen being absent.
Lack of liability exists in the US; the US is not the only country manufacturing vaccines.
I commented on which stem cells would be affected because it wasn't clear how you thought all your cells became mutated. Either you think DNA has penetrated every stem cell in your body and had exactly the same affect or you think one of your parent had mutated sperm or ova.
There is a huge difference between a mutagen and DNA contamination. The former can penetrate the cell without getting digested by the cell; it would be small enough to penetrate the nucleus and can either inflict damage on the DNA or affect the repair mechanisms; the damage would be limited to small changes in the coding. You're suggesting fragments of DNA are making it into the cell, through to the nucleus and inserting themselves like a virus DNA into a chromosome. That would produce an insertion mutation, not a point mutation. There would not be the change to a single codon that you have but whole inserted sequence.
Stem cell therapy means isolating stem cells, "swapping out" genes and reintroducing them into the body.
Viruses inject their DNA/RNA by a specific mechanism, binding to the cell membrane and injecting the DNA/RNA into the cell. The presence of a viral antigen, or even a whole virus, is not going to replicate that effect. Viruses can only be used as a carrier if the target gene sequence has been inserted in their DNA/RNA i.e., we are using a modified virus.
If a single cell starts expressing a non-self protein then the immune system destroys it; that happens routinely in the body with no symptoms apparent to the human. Despite the high efficiency of DNA repair nothing is perfect in replication and mutations do occur. They usually result the cell's self-destruction and few are going to be competent long enough to expression a non-self protein. Only if the cells can also expression an "all clear" signal for the immune system will it survive.
"The similarity of the genes from the human DNA make it MORE likely to insert into whichever cell."
To be accurate it makes sequence swapping easier, not sequence insertion. DNA is DNA; there is no difference between different sources other than the actual coding within it. The source makes no difference on penetrating the cell.
The numbers vary due to the way numbers are collated, which vaccines are being looked at and by what criteria a reaction is categorised. Very few people have a severe reaction; more have mild fever & headache. Norm covers the average effects, not a specific genome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cartoonkidzy3405 When the FE predicts that the sun doesn't rise & set and you can observe it every day what validity do you think the idea as?
The ancient Greeks deduced the Earth was a sphere around 500BC from the existence of horizons, the motion of the sun (constant angular velocity, rising & setting), lunar eclipses always having a circular shadow (only one shape has a circular cross-section from every angle), lunar phases, the stars changing with altitude. With some travel you can observe that we have two celestial poles, that the stars change as you move southwards and that the angle Polaris declines with altitude, becoming below the horizon south of the equator. Using a telescope equipped with a solar filter you can ascertain that he sun maintains a constant angular diameter through the course of the day, passes below the horizon and can't be zoomed back into view. With some phone calls you ascertain that everybody around the world sees the same lunar phase. With some travel or collaboration you can measure the angle to the sun at different locations with sticks & shadows and measure the curvature over the area covered. You can watch the ISS passing overhead on schedule unaffected (clouds aside) by the weather. You can get on a plane on one continent and fly direct to an airport on another continent, something achievable only with accurate maps.
NASA was formed in 1958AD. No FE'er has explained how they think NASA is influencing the ancient Greeks.
Pictures from orbit (Himwari-8, Elektro-L and EPIC are currently downloading several per hour) are the icing on the cake for soemthign that was proven millenia ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KangenAlec Curiously my critique has been removed....
None of you have ever gone to check Antarctica but you think you know better than those who have?
There's a boat race that circumnavigates Antarctica; the distance around Antarctica is repeatedly confirmed, corresponds to the globe and definitely disagrees with your far longer, unsupported claim.
The Gleason map is a projection of the accurate globe map; the video does say "azimuthal equidistant projection". Being a projection of a 3D surface onto a 2D surface it is inevitably distorted; the only accurate distances on it are those that run exactly north-south, hence the lack of a scale. The further south you go on the Gleason projection, the greater the divergence of distances from reality.
"Scientifically & practically accurate' is wishful thinking on Gleason's part, not evidence.
USGS uses WGS84, ie., the globe. Nobody uses the Gleason projection as an "official map" except flatearthers.
The UN logo is intended to depict the member countries; it's not a secret message.
Globes didn't appear until recent centuries for the simple reason it is only in recent centuries that we have fully mapped the globe. Prior to then there would be large areas marked "here there be dragons".
When the earliest globe map was in 1492 and the Gleason projection was made in 1892, it is reasonable to conclude that the later was derived from the former, not vice versa with time travel.
The edge of the Antarctic glacial shelf is not evidence of a unsurmountable ice-wall, and certainly not evidence of an ice-wall 200 miles inland.
"logically assume more land is being hidden" on what basis exactly?
Byrd is referring to the then unexplored region of Antarctica, which lay on the far side of the south pole relative to his expedition. He comments on the size of the area, not claims there is another continent.
And that is just the FE crap in the first question....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rickusmaximus2435 "research heliocentrism vs geocentrism Which one seems like science fiction??"
Geocentrism was based on the presumption that humans just had to be at the centre of the universe. Do you have anything to back that presumption?
"research heliocentrism vs geocentrism Which one seems like science fiction??"
A heliocentric system is consistent with every observation that smaller bodies orbit larger ones. Why would Earth be an exception?
"a spinning tilted wobbling orbiting rotating hurling space rock"
The Earth rotates (not spins) once per day, a motion that is detectable with Foucault pendulums and laser gyroscopes. What's your explanation for their motion?
"a spinning tilted wobbling orbiting rotating hurling space rock"
Earth's orbit is measurable through the parallax changes in the nearest stars. Do you have an explanation how the stars would jiggle around and why to give the impression that the Earth wa sin an orbit?
"a spinning tilted wobbling orbiting rotating hurling space rock"
When a planet's rotational axis is not perpendicular to the orbital plane then it is tilted, something that is observable with every other planet. Why would Earth be the exception?
"a spinning tilted wobbling orbiting rotating hurling space rock"
There is abundant evidence that the surface of the Earth is rock. What do you think it is?
"in a space vacuum"
Air pressure decreases with increasing altitude; what reason do you have for thinking the decrease wouldn't reach zero?
"moving at 2 million mph forever and ever"
We aren't moving at 2,000,000mph. Orbital speed is about 66,000mph, galactic orbital speed about 514,000mph.
"moving at 2 million mph forever and ever"
What do you think would stop the Earth moving forever and ever?
"there would be no consistent star patterns"
When stars are distant and moving in the same general direction as the sun (galactic rotation) there is no reason to expect rapid changes in stars patterns; change requires 10,000's of years. Some of the nearest stars do measurably move from year to year.
"Flat fixed earth where heavens rotate above us for us never moving"
If the stars were fixed then we wouldn't see change in which constellations are visible through the course of the year. If Earth was flat then you would see the same stars regardless of where you were but they observably do change with location. Do you have an explanation for that?
"a spinning tilted wobbling orbiting rotating hurling space rock"
The axial wobble has a period of about 20,000 years; you wouldn't expect to see a readily observable change overnight or even from year to year. Polaris has been the pole star for only about 1500 years, preceded by Thuban with several centuries of no pole star; that is the result of axial wobble. Do you have an explanation for why pole stars would change if they are fixed?
"Flat fixed earth where heavens rotate above us for us never moving"
The heliocentric system is based on observation, the geocentric on egotistical presumption; why do you find the latter more plausible?
"Flat fixed earth where heavens rotate above us for us never moving"
What does heliocentric v. geocentric have to do with whether the Earth is flat?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jenarcana Yes, I have looked into it: I find nothing but ignorance & incredulity. Dubay says things fall because of density but provides no explanation as to how density could act as a force or why objects fall in a consistent direction at the same speed regardless of the strength & direction of his "density force"; I was automatically kicked off his YT group because I asked that (politely). None of the people professing a good understanding of the subject can answer me. Similarly he quotes 8"/mile^2 as calculating distance to the horizon, ignores how it is actually calculated (curvature, elevation, refraction) and then wants to know why he gets the wrong answer; gullible people take him at his word that he using the right maths. He can't figure out how birds fly and oceans don't (portraying gravity to be an irresistible force) when it doesn't take much thought to realise that birds have wings & muscles; they fly for the same reason you can lift your foot off the floor. I suggest you look at Professor Dave's channel, particularly the "10 Things All Flatearthers Say" and "10 Challenges for Flatearthers"; still waiting on any FE'er to explain where he is wrong or answer any of the challenges. He now has three more videos explaining why a FE doesn't match observable reality and still no explanations from the FE experts how it is supposed to work. Notably, "do the research" is one of the things all FE'ers say; they can never explain for themselves.
"The earth is more than the government and the scientists of nasa are saying it is"
NASA & governments have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth; they are just invoked as bogeymen by those who want you to think there is no way to verify it for yourself. It will take some travel or long distance contacts but you can do it with sticks & shadows, noting the positions of stars and observing the motion of the sun. All FE'ers can come up with is zooming in on ships because they don't realise that the limits of visual acuity does not disprove a horizon (an object can pass beyond your acuity well before it reaches the horizon; you need to wait until has actually gone over the horizon before zooming it back into view; obvious target is the sun and we are still waiting on any FE'er to demonstrate that they can zoom a set sun back into view), shining lasers across a lake with no thought given to factors & measurements or incredulous claims of "how can see that far" while standing on a mountain. Still waiting on any evidence of a dome, edge or ice-wall, just moaning about a clause in the Antarctic Treaty that all claim to have read but none can give a reference to (the document is downloadable, readable and lacking in such clause).
"Gravity is barely hanging on as acceptable science"
Gravity is well established, long since proven to exist and totally predictable. The "problems" arise from people who don't understand what they are talking about, e.g., assuming that near constant gravitational attraction equals irresistible attraction or working on the assumption that only one force can act at a time., though they can never explain why.
If you have any questions then I would be happy to answer them.
1
-
@jenarcana Rotation generates centrifugal force, an apparent force arising from the combination of rotational force & inertia. Centrifugal force at the equator is about 0.5% that of Earth's gravity, requiring the recalibration of balances with changing latitudes.
That gravity is not understood by some students does not make gravity doubtful or wrong; that is ignorance and lack of understanding on the students' part.
Newtonian physics expresses gravity as a direct force between two objects; relativity expresses as space-time curvature caused by an object's gravitational field that in turn affects the path of a moving object. Unless there are extremely large masses or high speeds involved the latter can be readily visualised as the former; it is an apparent force like centrifugal force. That it exists is not disputed.
Globebusters raised $20k to buy a laser gyroscope. Mad Mike raised $8000 to fund his rocketry attempts. Funding for Antarctic trip is not prohibitive. A cheaper alternative would be a plane ticket to Ushaia, Argentina during the southern summer solstice; lying close to the Antarctic Circle it has 23hrs sunlight, 1 hr dusk at the solstice as predicted by the globe and denied by FE. Alternatively a good quality telescope would enable you to triangulate the positions of Polaris & the sun, something we are still waiting for FE'ers to do. You could include a solar filter and further measure the size & movement of the sun (again still waiting from FE'ers) and satisfy yourself that the planets are real and not "wandering luminaries". You could also indulge in a theodolite and actually try measuring curvature; similarly we are still waiting for FE'ers to do it.
There is a Antarctic circumnavigational yacht race; the distance around Antarctica is well established by numerous people, not an unknown. You do not need to explore the continent itself to be able to circumnavigate it. The distance is always about 13,5000 miles, not 60,000 miles. It is not difficult to distinguish the difference which is why FE'ers never mention the race.
Numerous people have now crossed Antarctica, leaving one side and appearing on the other. Other than the proposed Pacman effect or the assertion they have walked 30,000 miles rather than 900 miles without noticing we are still waiting on a FE'er explanation for this.
Oblation is the ratio of major and minor axes on an ellipsoid cross-section. A frisbee's oblation is about 80%. The Earth's oblateness is about 0.3%, not something discernible to the eye. For most intents and purposes the Earth is a near perfect sphere. Numbers are important when describing something which is one reason FE'ers tend to skip them.
Jennifer, all you have done is regurgitate inane FE'er assertions that can be readily shot down with a modicum of knowledge and the will to think. Data and methodology are crucial in science; FE'ers dodge proving each, relying on plausible sounding phrasing and the hope the audience doesn't think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Vaiyasaki Das So you have no idea what we do in labs, you just believe you do because you think you know how grants are awarded.
In academia the are funding agencies, private & government, who have a block of money they can use for assigning grants. Grant applications, laying out the aims and work anticipated, are written by the scientists and submitted to agencies covering the appropriate fields. Review committees within each agency, usually staffed by other scientists from outside the agency, select the grants they think are likely to be the most productive. The applications selected receive funding, the obligation being that the bulk of the money is spent on the research described in the grant; there is no obligation to arrive at specific results. There is no master plan dictating what can be funded or looked at. It is accepted that a small proportion of most grants will be spent on other lines of research; since applications require preliminary results to back the reasoning, that is accepted by the funding agencies.
Companies do it differently, the money being entirely internal. Ultimately they need information that can be used to make marketable products. To be be marketable they need to work, not fulfil someone’s idea of how they would like the universe to work.
A fundamental part of an experiment is the control, something which may not have been made clear to you in school. That is the part that will produce a known result based on what is already established to be correct. Your argument is that nobody is noticing the controls are producing the wrong results.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eyestoseefe7618 "If you walk an a moving Surface yes, you must move at the speed of the Surface"
You would move at the speed of the surface simply by standing still; an escalator demonstrates that. The bionic man running at 60mph on a treadmill was moving at 60mph relative to the surface, 0 mph relative the mechanism as a whole.
"You say relative to the Earth as if that means anything"
It's called frame of reference. If you are driving a car and the odometer says 30mph then you are moving at 30mph relative to the ground but also 0mph relative to the car, 20mph relative to the cyclist you overtook and -50mph relative to the sports car that overtook you. You're trying to declare Earth as providing an absolute frame of reference, which it isn't.
"why doesn't this exert force on you?"
If gravity didn't exert force then I wouldn't remain attached to the surface. The force is towards the centre of the Earth, not in any compass direction; it's not going to move me eastwards, westwards, northwards or southwards, just pull me towards the centre of the Earth. In the absence of any force trying to move me eastwards, westwards, northwards or southwards, inertia means I continue move according to the speed & direction of my momentum; that is conservation of momentum.
"it spins 1000mph under your feet"
If it was spinning under my feet then I would be moving westwards relative to the Earth, not stationary relative to the Earth. Since me, Earth & the atmosphere are all moving eastwards at the same speed then the Earth does not appear to move under my feet nor does wind blow my head off.
"walking East and West miraculously takes the same amount of steps or the same mph to travel the same distance in any direction"
When my momentum carries me eastwards at the same speed as Earth & atmosphere, my walking simply modifies that momentum slightly so that I move a little slower or faster than Earth.
"The ground acts as if a surface that's Stationary because it is Stationary "
It appears stationary because you, me, the atmosphere and everything on the ground is moving eastwards at a similar speed.
As I said, you are having a problem understanding frames of reference. There is no absolute frame of reference; tryign to declare the Earth has an absolute frame will not make it so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yankeedoodle3355 Questions for a critical thinker:
1. When a 60,000 mile journey begins in Britain, the Captain is killed in Hawaii and the Antarctic coast is never sighted, how much of the journey is spent around Antarctica?
2. When there are multiple research sites, a booming tourist trade and people trekking across Antarctic, are there people going to Antarctica?
3. When nobody can produce a document, national or international law, that bans travel to Antarctica what document would be referred to in court?
4. When there are no quotes in a magazine article that is written by a reporter, does anybody but the reporter make statements in the article?
5. When somebody gives you a quote, how do you know that it accurate?
6. When a document concerning aircraft design makes a series of assumptions for the specific purpose of minimising the maths to airflow over the wings, what is the stated purpose of the simplifications?
7. If a series of nuclear explosions are executed at a series of altitudes ranging from 20 miles to 200 miles above the same location, are they exploding at the same altitude?
8. When static discharges are readily observable and producible, is there any evidence that they exist?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raybritzel1719 I was referring to energy.
"your atheism"
Presumptive. Arguing against double standards does not make me atheist.
"The proof (proof being a complete set of evidence) for God's existence, is that without God you cannot prove anything"
Which is a bald statement, not evidence or proof. Reiterating does not provide any evidence or proof. Believe it if you wish but don't quote it as an absolute truth unless you are willing to back it with evidence.
"There is no basic error in the reasoning I have given you"
The error is assuming it to be true as your evidence that it is true.
With inductive reasoning you will never reach absolute proof, which is why you are demanding it for anything that doesn't fit with your worldview. Science is actually a combination of various forms of reasoning, consensus being where the evidence is regarded as sufficiently extensive to accept something as a working truth, i.e., a scientific theory. Religion is undisprovable and is seen as outside science; in science you need to provide evidence and a potential means to test said evidence, not make repeated statements about how right you must be.
The supernatural is outside the natural, not encompassing it. You need to demonstrate its existence, not expect other people to be convinced by unsupported statements.
The reliability of evidence is measurable by its quality & reproducibility, not the religious affiliation of the scientist. You do realise that science is a collaborative endeavour? That the great bulk of evidence is due to the combined efforts of people with varying religious affiliations or lack thereof?
"At no point have I ever appealed to instinct as the source of thought."
You did argue to the effect that brain having evolved would limit you to what is described as instinctive thought.
The whole point of my replies is to point out the double standards exhibited by many when it comes to reconciling their opinions (religious or otherwise) with evidence. You arguments largely consist of assertions about how right your worldview is, not providing any evidence to support it. Don't demand evidence & proof from other people when you aren't prepared to meet that standard for your own claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kc29291 "Can't be done over a curved surface."
Why can't you have a straight horizon tangential line and straight line of sight from view to horizon when the Earth's surface is curved? What prevents either and how?
"the distance to your geometric horizon based on viewer height"
Viewer ELEVATION not height.
"you have to claim that geometric location is changing"
The boat won't start disappearing until it reaches the refracted horizon. And, no, nobody is saying a physical location is refracted. Atmospheric refraction means the light from immediately beyond the geometric horizon is refracted and enables a viewer to see a little beyond the geometric horizon; the viewer apparent horizon is called the refracted horizon.
The distance to the refracted horizons varies with atmospheric conditions; the greater the refractive properties from ambient humidity and air layering then the further way the refracted horizon. That has been explained over and over and over and over.
"The horizon is seen beyond platform Habitat which is at 9.7 miles"
The refracted horizons, not the geometric horizon.
"he max limit of the geometric horizon at the viewer's height is 2.7 miles"
Only if the viewer's feet are in the surf. The photo in question was taken from a hill top. They key factor is viewer *ELEVATION*. And, as is being repeatedly pointed out to you, refraction enables you to see a little beyond the geometric horizon.
"Again, is your horizon a geometric location as you keep claiming suns and boats go behind it? Or is it a refracted, purely optical position?"
The viewer apparent horizon is the refracted horizon, the net result of curvature, elevation AND atmospheric refraction. Only in the absence of an atmosphere and with no variation in elevation across the Earth's surface would the horizon be due solely to curvature & viewer height.
"It cannot be subject to refraction or else it is not physical"
Nobody is claiming that it is. There are just FE'ers who find multiple factors difficult to grasp. It's not a paradox that we can see beyond the geometric horizon; it's taking into account ALL relevant factors, not just the geometric ones.
"If the Earth was spinning and the stars were motionless, why would I assume the opposite when using such phenomena to calculate positioning?"
Relative motion. You're interested in the motion of the stars relative to you; it doesn't matter whether it is the Earth, stars or both which are moving, only that there is relative motion between them. It is easier to visualise of you assume you (and thus Earth) are stationary but it is not an absolute statement, just a relative one.
"If Earth was rotating, that would necessitate drift with an inertial reference frame"
Measurably 15 degrees per hour. Denying it does not make it go away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kc29291 "Because you claim to be measuring a straight line to an exact, non-refracted point that represents the visual, geometric horizon"
It's a line of sight from viewer to refracted horizon; it's not to the geocentric horizon, it's not a measurement. The distance to the refracted horizon can be calculated from elevation, curvature & refraction; it can be confirmed from observation of what is visible.
"The fact that it changes based on angular compression and atmospheric effects proves precisely that it isn't a real location"
You mean it isn't a fixed location. When you can see objects on the horizon where do you think they are if it isn't real?
"It is called the GEOMETRIC HORIZON - NOT REFRACTED"
As you seem unable to grasp, the geometric horizon is calculated purely from curvature & elevation while the refracted (apparent) horizon is calculated from curvature, elevation & atmospheric refraction. That you can't understand that refraction can affect how far you can see means nothing.
"Too bad we don't observe 15 degrees an hour Earth-based rotation"
Relative to what? Are you saying that you would expect to see the Earth rotating while you are standing on it, rotating with it?
"When I said height, I was referring to "height" above sea level"
And you went on to describe the view of Black Swan from the top of a hill as being 5-6ft elevation.
"We only have 1 horizon, and its apparent"
Only the refracted horizon is apparent to the eye since the eye detects light.
"The photo in the right shows it disappearing bottom up due to simply lowering the camera (30m vs 2m viewing height)"
You mean there was a change in elevation and since distance to the horizon is determined in part by the viewer's elevation the distance to the apparent horizon decreased as the elevation decreased. What do you expect to happen?
"Yes it is. Again, the geometric horizon is defined as the visual and physical location where the sea meets the sky"
No, "horizon" is defined as where sea meets sky; there is no specification that it is the geometric horizon rather than the refracted (apparent) horizon.
"You claim to draw a straight line to use to use as your baseline to triangulate, when you ignore the fact that SEA LEVEL IS USED, NOT A TANGENT LINE"
Sea-level isn't used in the calculations with a sextant; they sight on the horizon applying a correction to approximate for viewer elevation above sea-level. The drop is below the tangential line at the viewer's location.
You seem to have the usual FE'er limitation of being unable to grasp multiple factors simultaneously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"earth shape, is what's in question"
The ancient Greeks deduce it was a sphere from the motion of the sun, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having circular shadows - all verifiable by anybody & everybody, all indicative the Earth is a globe, all contradictory to FE and all unexplained by the FE'ers claiming to have the explanations. Do you wan tto divulge your explanations?
"the earth being flat is objective, measured, and empirical"
All that FE'ers have to do is produce their evidence. Why is it taking so long?
"Globe tilt at 66.6°"
23.4 degrees.
"orbit the sun at 66,600mph"
Approximately 66,000mph.
"0.666ft of curve per mile of earth"
8/12 is 0.667 and that is an approximation for geometric drop; the curve would actually be in degrees, not inches.
"All lies as the Bible talks about who's number 666"
Hence the predilection for some people to read 666 into anything & everything, regardless of whether it is actually there. Do you think imperial system was adopted to advertise a secret satanic cult?
"science just happen to discover this with experimentation and data analysis, data says no"
The data produces an unequivocal yes. We are still awaiting the data for a young flat earth; do you want to produce it or remain with the FE sheep bleating that you have it?
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 Firstly, there is no Law of Just Does in science. All effects have a cause, energy is neither created nor destroyed, net entropy always increases. Nothing can be blown off as "it just does"; the person claiming something happens has to explain how and produce the evidence.
Secondly, "just gotta be" and variants thereof is not a valid argument. The reasoning for the conclusion has to be supplied and the mechanisms explained or at least hypothesised.
Once again, arbitrarily declaring refraction to be zero is not refraction taking into account; it is dismissing it. Dismissing it when you have selected conditions to maximise the refraction is dishonest.
"It's not enough to pull all the lines straight"
The curvature over 8 miles is approximately 0.12 degrees; it is not a humongous amount and quite feasible by atmospheric refraction.
"unless you can recreate a demonstration of a curved surface being pulled to exactly flat and planar using refraction"
You mean like the experiment we are talking about? The land area is fully mapped and measured; the curvature exists. The lights are almost totally lined up.
"refraction takes place any time light goes through a different medium"
Because of the different densities of the two media, the degree of refraction being proportional to the relative difference between the two.
"Refraction is happening on a micro level through each water vapor drop"
As is reflection, the combination of both resulting in light dispersion as the photons encountering micro-droplets are diverted.
"The curvature tests are done with lasers as well as mirrors"
Which are light and light reflectors respectively, ie., you're still using light for the measurement and light is always refractable.
"These are not the same as light source emission"
In what way does light differ from light?
"the distant object relative location is not relative to the observation we are making from our observation point"
It's very relevant when you are using light to observe the object since light is refractable.
"If you are looking at something in the distance reflecting sunlight as well, you are looking at something that has a definite position"
Sun light is light and doesn't cease to be light when it is reflected and all light is refractable.
"Isn't it something that refraction, despite working the same in different conditions, then bend to look exactly flat?"
It doesn't work the same under different conditions; you are just assuming the conditions are different and ignoring that all require light to travel from object to observer.
"If the earth was a globe as I used to believe, that would be quite a coincidence"
No, just distance. Refraction enable you to see a little beyond the geometric horizon, not indefinitely beyond it. The ever increasing curvature becomes too great for refraction to correct. That's how we have the refracted horizon.
A. Which doesn't answer my question: how do the disordered micro-droplets form and maintain order? You're falling back on the Law of Just Does to avoid supplying an explanation. You need to the answer the question.
Again, mirages are not lensing. They occur when you get the layering of different temperature air (and thus differing densities) and the refraction is temporarily increased. The upper part of the Chicago skyline is occasionally visible at that distance; that it's newsworthy should be an obvious clue that it is not mundane. We are still waiting on FE'ers to zoom Chicago back into sight with P900 cameras etc. You all reckon it's easy so why don't any of you do it?
B. You're arguing that the micro-droplets are in on the globe conspiracy and are deliberately forming multiple personal lens around in each person just to fool us into thinking the Earth is a globe. Does that really sound plausible to you? Are you really that hooked on the idea that the world is flat that you are prepared to believe that inanimate substances are part of the scheming?
C. If they have travelled from a distant light source then the photons reaching the micro-droplets will be moving nearly in parallel. The diameter of the micro-droplets compared to the distance to the light source is too small an angle for there to be substantial deviation from parallel. For simplicity sake, rather than consider the tiny fraction of a degree spread consider them parallel and answer the question.
"Horizon wouldn't disappear on a flat earth"
Since there is nothing to form a horizon then it will absent on a FE.
"Perspective is literally taught to artists using a flat earth representation"
The key word is artist. Perspective is an artistic concept.
"The boat still is claimed to disappear over physical curve at 3 miles though"
For the third or fourth time, the distance to the horizon is dependent on curvature, elevation & refraction. The example of 3 miles assumes no elevation (other than the observer's height) and no atmospheric refraction. It is not a magic rule for where the horizon is. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
"That's "globe scientists" again saying so."
No, it isn't. It's just FE'ers failing to understand simple examples even when repeatedly explained to you.
"It's how they "knew" the earth was a sphere millennia ago"
That there is a horizon was one factor in deducing it; they also noted the motion of the sun, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses always having a circular shadow. We are still waiting on FE'ers to explain any of that. You do understand what deduction is?
"with refraction, curvature, apparent sizes etc all taken into account apparently"
Without the means to make accurate long distance measurements they deduced it from observable phenomenon (see the above list). Only into the 18th century did world mapping become feasible; the measurements are consistent only with a globe. We are still waiting on FE'ers to produce your fabled map.
"Both models claim the higher up you go, the more ground you will see further out"
The FE model predicts you can always see the same distance, elevation merely enabling you to see over lower elevations that might be blocking your line of sight. Since FE'er also usually like to claim that human eyes a can only a see a limited distance then you increasing elevation would actually reduce the distance you can see on a FE.
"it's just that the ground you saw at a lower elevation needs to compress the higher up you go to make room for more ground visuals to fit into the horizon"
A. How exactly does ground compress?
B. Why would it compress itself to suit a particular observer?
C. How does it have more than one compression to suit multiple observers at differing elevations?
"You do tests over water because both models claim water is level, yet different levels, on flat level, one equidistant from center level"
That sentence doesn't make sense. Try again.
"We test over water to determine which level"
FE['ers test over water to maximise the refraction; that is what the whole of this discussion has been about and it still hasn't penetrated your head.
"Over ground even a slight pitch could result in number, large or small this could then be claimed to be curve, when it's really a slope."
You realise that land surveyors don't stop at one measurement? They find the same change in all directions and proportional to distance from an arbitrary point, i.e., they find curvature.
As I said earlier, this is very, very, very repetitive. I can say with some certainty that the moon discussion you referred to earlier ended because the guy was tired of repeating himself, not because he was flummoxed by your erudition. I realise you are desperate to validate your religious beliefs but when you ask people questions you have to be prepared to listen to the answers. Reality does not dance to your tune. It doesn't matter how sincere your faith is, reality is not going to mould itself to suit your beliefs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ephesianarmorytchannel6838 ""you see the sun moving 15° per hour no matter where you are standing"
We're talking at cross-purposes. You're referring to the angular motion of the FE sun relative to its centre of rotation (hence my references to the north pole). I am referring to the angular velocity relative the observer's position, ie., the change in position in the sky as the FE sun crosses it. Since the distance from observer to FE sun varies on a FE, the constant orbital velocity means the FE sun will have a variable angular velocity relative to the observer. I used the example of your car passing something to illustrate that point; the speed of the car & object never vary but there is a change in the angular velocity of the object relative to the car. FE'ers need to explain how the FE sun crosses the sky at a constant 15 degrees per hour relative to the observer regardless of where the observer is standing.
"What do you mean by measuring the sun at horizon?"
Using either a camera directly equipped with a scale (superimposing it on photos) or physically measuring the diameter of the sun on a series of photos as to crosses the sky.
"You can see that it appears bigger"
Your eyes are not made for measuring anything. Your brain makes comparisons with other objects and gives you a relative impression of size; while it is well up in the sky there is nothing to directly compare to the sun so the sun appears small but when it approaches the horizon there is something to compare it with and so it appears larger. The key word is appear; your brain takes a lot of short cuts in processing what your eyes see and what you think you see is not necessarily what is there. That you can buy books filled with optical illusions is indicative of how fallible your eyes are. Do note that the FE predicts that the sun would be unmistakably smaller when lower in the sky, shrinking down to about half its diameter and never approaching within 10-20 degrees of the horizon. You need to reconcile that with what you actually see.
"the light is passing through more atmo at that angle"
Which, clouds & refraction aside, is not going to make any difference. You have still to demonstrate your lenses exist, remember?
"I don't outright claim a shrinking sun,....Mostly it keeps it's consistent shape"
Which contradicts the perspective that FE'ers so much love, ie., an object getting smaller with increasing distance. Most of you claim it shrinks away to an infinitesimally small dot.
"It is already there and is made at the center of your view from what is above level and what is below level meeting"
And I'm asking you to explain how it comes to be there. You keep saying that it is just there but offer no plausible explanation where it would come from. "Just is" is not an explanation. You said you had explanations for all these things.
"It's very easy to demonstrate laying on the ground and closing the eye closest to the ground,"
And as I said, both eyes see the same amount of surface, the upper eye merely seeing the same amount of surface over a wider angle. You have not explained why the upper eye would be able to see more than the lower when there is nothing blocking the view of either eye. "They just do" is not an explanation.
"Elevation and far away an object has to cover a lot more distance to move a equal unit of measure towards the horizon than an object closer to the ground and closer to you"
Which is why I am asking you how the sun moves at a consistent 15 degrees per hour relative to the observer when the sun is at varying distance to the observer.
"The maths you provide aren't accurate with reality. Math doesnt instantly have to corelate with reality"
Maths is descriptive; it has to correlate with reality. We are talking about a simple right-angle triangle; the FE is one flat side, the perpendicular line to Polaris is the right angle to that line and your viewing distance to Polaris is the hypotenuse. Sine, cosine & tangent are going to work the same way on every triangle, regardless of whether the triangle is drawn on paper or between objects in the real world.
"Polaris dropping 1° per 69 miles is observed"
In contradiction to what is predicted for a FE. You have to reconcile that, not handwave the maths as being different in reality. You need to explain why the maths would differ and in what way. Ideally you need to provide working equations to fit your reality.
"It's perspective and the way out eyes work"
Perspective does not have a linear effect.
"Polaris doesn't move at all, for thousands of years"
Thuban was the pole star a 5000 years ago; Polaris has been the pole star for about 1500 years. Polaris has a measurable drift away from the celestial pole. No amount of denial is going to change that.
"We don't see the same stars because where you move on the earth determines what section of sky is overhead"
FE'ers typically portray the stars as being part of a hemispherical dome above a FE, covering all 180 degrees across the sky. Hills & valleys aside, no point on the FE is going to be limited to only a portion of that dome, much less is that portion going to spread itself over 180 degrees. The ground occupies the other 180 degrees; is not going to occupy more than 180 degrees. You need to explain how you think that would work.
"Many knock the Fe for inability to predict, but it can just fine"
I've been running through the FE predictions that don't work e.g., the angle to Polaris. I haven't gotten any plausible answers.
"Actually NASA still uses the saros cycle, made by geocentric planar earth walkers"
The ancient civilisations noticed that eclipses appeared to happen in cycles though they could not explain why or why the cycles changed over time, much less give accurate predictions for the day & time and path for an eclipses. Using the globe maths (as NASA does) we can predict the exact time & location for observing eclipses; you can plan to stand in the path of a solar eclipse. Meanwhile FE'ers can't provide an explanation for why eclipses occur, solar or lunar. Do you want to try?
"It's logical to say the sky has no relevance to the ground"
No, that's the "don't look up" fallacy. I explained to you why it is relevant and you're telling me I shouldn't look up. You're not explaining why you conclude the apparent location & motion of sun, moon & stars aren't relevant to the shape of the Earth.
"Polaris setting is explainable as it goes with perspective"
Except perspective is not going to give you a linear decline in angle or explain how it passes below the horizon without coming within 10-20 degrees of it. You need to explain how that would work on a FE, not say it just does.
"And a tunnel is possible for stars"
How can they be possible? Why would there be personal star tunnels? How can an observer be both inside & outside their personal star tunnel simultaneously? You can't make unsupported statements that they would just work.
"Everyone sees the same face because we are looking up at a spotlight for the moon'
In which case why does the moon not typically appear oval and why does variation enable us to see about 190 degrees of the surface over time?
"ISS is military tech. Probably aloft with quantum locking, a levitation"
You need to provide evidence, explanation of those terms and how they are supposed to work and you still need to explain how it moves on schedule and where it is relative to the FE.
"I have explained how water lenses"
No, you just keep saying they exist. You still haven't explained HOW chaotic micro-droplets form ordered structures, HOW they woudl be just the right power & orientation and WHY the relative aridity of the atmosphere doesn't stop them forming. You need to answer questions, not keep asserting that they just exist and just work.
"it's literally your "accredited globe scientists" who spoke about atmo lensing"
As I said, that is reference to refraction due to atmospheric curvature, which you deny. You can either use the term as we do or deny it is possible but you can't do both.
"We see the moon appear much larger on the horizon occasionally"
Same as with the sun near the horizon. You need to actually measure it, not just eyeball it.
I'm having to repeat answers again. I'm having to repeatedly explain WHY you are not providing explanations, only just does statements. You need to provide evidence & explanations, not make blase statements.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joshuamclean4588 "I didn’t mention the big bang"
When somebody makes the statement "I would argue that it’s impossible that everything came from nothing" it is pretty certain that they are referring to the big bang.
"They also agree That if something had a beginning, something had to begin it"
Nothing can be proven absolutely in science since that would require observation of an infinite number of events. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation for a phenomenon that is well-substantiated by extensive evidence and observation. That something can't be proven absolutely does not mean it is probably incorrect or that there is no sounds basis for the theory or that people are wrong in accepting it as true when expanding knowledge.
"They also agree That if something had a beginning, something had to begin it"
You mean cause and effect; it doesn't require than an omnipotent entity had to be the cause or that the cause being unknown means the effect can't have occurred.
"it does not scientifically explain how life came to be"
Abiogenesis is a separate, unrelated matter.
"what they are saying is that everything was infjnitely dense"
The evidence supports a model that runs from an instant after the big bang, indicating expansion from a single point; what caused or preceded it remains hypothetical.
"and exploded and after milkions of years of lava flowing down life suddenly formed"
For Earth that would be about 10 billions years later, would not a direct effect of the Big Bang and life would have formed over the course of at least millions of years, not spontaneously.
"Do you know how likely it is that even a single proton necessary for life could have formed?"
Near certainty.
"Let alone everything in just the perfect order for there to be life?"
Nobody is proposing some short and tidy progression for abiogenesis. It does seem a common misconception that life must have instantly or near instantly formed by unrelated matter spontaneously coalescing into a full functioning organism; it's known as Hoyle's fallacy.
"if the evidence points to a creator then why can’t you accept it?"
You need to provide such evidence. Concluding there must have been such an entity because you don't see how else it have occurred is not evidence.
"I have to bring that up all the time with people trying to tell me everything is random"
Chaotic rather than random; it's a complexity of ordered events giving an apparently random effect. Chaos doesn't preclude order occurring. Order can arise spontaneously in a locality at the expense of increased entropy in the system as a whole.
"It is not a 100% proven theory that is beyond any form of scrutiny"
There is scrutiny and there is ignorance & incredulity. "I don't see how..." is not evidence or a valid argument; someone needs to demonstrate that there is an error.
"It has become a religion for atheists, but they don’t want to admit it’s a religion"
It's a conclusion drawn from the evidence and is open to change if contrary evidence arises. Accepting an evidence-based conclusion as a valid explanation is not religion; it's sound reasoning. That you don't know the evidence & reasoning is not a valid counter-argument. Religion usually requires a deity and is based on dogma that disregards all evidence to the contrary.
"what point can the big bang be traced to?"
There is no absolute co-ordinate system, only relative co-ordinates.
"because they have been expanding doesnt mean they have expanded from a single jnfinitely dense point over trillions of years"
If you think the model is incorrect then you need to demonstrate that.
"why does the year keep changing?"
Approximately 13.5 billion years ago; on those time scales you can't expect to get an exact date.
"Smart people, looking at real facts, but when u leave our God there are always holes"
You are assuming the existence of God is a fact. You are using that assumption as an explanation for what you don't know. You aren't providing any evidence for omnipotent entity's existence or involvement, just circular reasoning that the each proves the other. You need to demonstrate the existence of such an entity, not just assume it as a convenient explanation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tanelkagan The burden of evidence lies on the person making the assertion, whether they are asserting there is or that there isn't a god. In science conclusive evidence has to meet the criterion of falsifiability, ie., the test has to be able to demonstrate if the assertion is false. (Since the possibility of other unknown causes always exist no test can conclusively prove an effect is due to one particular cause, just indicate that the asserted cause is probably true.) However when you are testing for the existence of an omnipotent entity, that entity can manipulate the test to make it appear negative; you can never meet the criterion of falsifiability. Even that assumes that merely constructing such a test is possible; how would you go about testing for the existence of an apparently undetectable entity? The discussion belongs in philosophy rather than science.
"Because they have (or think they have) explanations for everything they can perceive, as well as for many things they cannot, they simply dismiss and say "your evidence isn't evidence at all"."
Such explanations are based on verifiable fact and logical deductions; that nothing can be proved absolutely in science does not mean there is lack of sound basis or that the theory is probably wrong, simply that the possibility will always remain that there is an alternative cause. If the suggested alternative cause requires the inclusion of an undetectable omnipotent entity then Occam's Razor advocates sticking with the scientific explanation. I would note that "your evidence isn't evidence at all" is usually an accurate criticism; all the evidence put to me consisted of cherry-picking and selective interpretation requiring a predetermined conclusion, i.e., circular reasoning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dankennerson2080 Some would dismiss your bridge-building as part of the indoctrination; to them verification means deducing the principles by yourself, not just putting into practice what is in a textbook. Others will insist that your model's design was determined by the teacher so it apparently for what was taught. Anything but acknowledge it has been repeatedly verified.
I really do mean that they believe that each one of us should personally verify every last bit of knowledge, not just what we work with. It's partly a failure to understand how much is known, partly a get out clause so they can make dismissive comments rather than support their claims. There are 1000's of papers published on PubMed weekly; I don't have the time to verify everything published, just take it with a pinch of salt and watch how a particular line of research develops. If I can incorporate something into my own work then, yes, I need to verify both that it works and that I can get it to work but I don't try verifying the whole paper. Right now, I have to prepare material to take for LC-MS/MS analysis; I have a limited knowledge of how that works but I can be reasonably sure the people in the facility know what they are doing. It isn't necessary of me to develop the knowledge & technology then design, build & operate my own but that is what some of them demand.
I don't have the background to be familiar with, say, cosmology but I can be sure that other people do. I can go to arXiv and locate a stack of papers from people confirming, say, that the CMB exists. Being verified by relative experts I can take it as read that it exists, that it's not the untested postulate of one guy. They won't accept that though they are satisfied by a YT videos of people screwing up measurements on how far they can see.
I realise I failed to mention that they think we don't conduct any experiments; they seem to believe we send our time looking at a blackboard and musing. I've asked repeatedly what they think we have labs for; the only answer I have ever received is someone who thought all labs were used for teaching, apaprently based on the fact that a teaching lab was the only one he had set foot in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WesD92422 "Wrong."
Either you didn't read what I wrote or you didn't understand it.
"The surrounding air rushes to fill the available space in the vacuum."
How do you propose to get the vacuum chamber door open?
"I can provide evidence and facts of what I'm claiming in regards to gas pressure"
Then why not do so? All you've done so far is make oblique reference to an ideal container, which don't refer to physical containment. I did ask you if you thought water in a sealed container proved that water can only exist in a container; why not answer?
"All you can do is divert to the pressure gradient. Which is nothing to do with the question"
You like the gas laws & thermodynamics; surely you understand that gas in a sealed container would be evenly distributed? How can we have a pressure gradient when your contained atmosphere is evenly dispersed? Why not try answering?
"How is the pressure there in the first place?"
Release of volcanic gases in Earth's infancy. When there is gas then there is gas pressure.
"The pressure should have rushed to fill the available space"
Unless there is something acting upon it to counter that expansion, e.g., gravity.
"hence why you people invoke gravity"
Which can be observed to exist. We are still waiting on FE'ers to explain how the Cavendish experiment works. You've avoided answering. Why not try doing it?
"PROVIDING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE YOU CAN HAVE GAS PRESSURE WITHOUT A PHYSICAL CONTAINER"
Look through a telescope at the neighbouring planets. We've been doing it for centuries. You don't even have to build your own telescope these days. What do you find so difficult?
"Gravity doesn't do anything to gas AT THE SURFACE WHERE IT IS STRONGEST"
Why are FE'ers obsessed with perceiving gravity as an irresistible force? It's proportional to mass & distance; Earth is not a black hole. Gas molecules have mass; they will be acted upon, the gravity balancing with other forces acting upon it, not magically nullifying them Do you think gas molecules don't have mass? Do you think multiple factors acting simultaneously is impossible?
"AND IS NOT PHYSICAL."
So what is it then - God's telekinesis? I assume you actually mean non-tangible. You can't hold a magnetic field either, or radio waves. Do you deny they exist?
"no amount of facts or logic will change that"
Just gotta be, just does, just is, just doesn't, don't look, not important etc are not facts & logic. I'm asking you relevant questions, providing the relevant evidence and relevant explanations and I'm not going much in return. Your entire evidence of a dome is "it just gotta be". Your explanation for requiring a container is "it just does". Your explanation for planets are "just gotta be fake". Your thoughts on telescopes are "don't look". Your explanation for demonstrations of gravitational attraction is <crickets>. Your explanation for a pressure gradient is "just exists". You think gravity doesn't affect a gas because it "just doesn't". What am I supposed to be amazed by?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexanderka1956 "right outright declined that information as legit"
Quite rightly so. The documents in questions refer to some experimental aircraft design where, to keep the maths solely focussed on the airflow over the wings, they assumed various factors to be zero, e.g., no flexibility in the airframe, no weight loss as fuel is burned off, no atmospheric turbulence and no curvature. No secret admission that the Earth is really flat, just some people unwilling to read a whole sentence and seizing upon isolated words. Nothing untrustworthy, just some simplified maths.
"that doesn't prove they are right, but on the contrary it proves that they are not sure"
It means that science is open to new information; while what we currently accept is well-founded, nothing can be proven absolutely. Don;t confuse lack of absolute proof with ignorance.
"science is for the most part theory and assumptions which either are or aren't supported by evidence"
What do you think we do in labs?
"NASA claiming that they somehow don't have the technology anymore"
The Apollo craft and Saturn V's were single use and have been used; they can be reused. All the one's built were used; there are none sitting in storage waiting to be used. The technology is 50 years old and is largely incompatible with today's. WHile NASA retains the blueprints & notes of those that assembled them, the manufacturing techniques are 50 years old. Much of the original components were designed & manufactured on contract; those companies have not had reason to hang onto 50 year old records & technology. Even if new Apollo craft & Saturn V were built with retro-engineering they wouldn't meet today's requirements; a moon base ifs not going to be built by two men in a few hours with a very limited cargo load. It is irrelevant that they were the pinnacle of space travel in 1971; this is 2021, the technology is dated and they wouldn't fulfill the functions of the desired missions. Is that clear?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertnixon6548 The people with the hands-on experience are retired or dead. Though the blueprints exist there were many ad hoc changes made during the assembly process; you would need to search through accumulated handwritten notes too. While the the assembly was done at NASA facilities the components were made by outside contractors; they have had no reason to preserve the workshops they used and the paperwork will have been trashed over the course of time. Manufacturing processes have become more automated, the materials have changed and (like NASA) the people with the hands-on knowledge are retired or dead. Even if you could manage to resurrect all the manufacturing & assembly required you would be left with an antiquated craft built from (now) substandard materials, possessing no electronic equipment to speak of and the capability limited to transporting only 3 people for only 2 weeks, once and once only. Existing spacecraft are built from modern materials, electronic throughout and reusable; resurrecting Apollo simply because they could leave orbit ignores what is required in today's spacecraft.
It's more akin to recreating a Model T Ford than a bow (bows are at least still made). You'd have to start from what records exist, rebuild hand assembly plants, lay your hands on antiquated material and at the end of the day you would have a car that didn't meet basic requirements. It would be far more practical to use the accumulated knowledge (moving assembly lines, physics & engineering behind combustion engines, what details are essential in the design) to build an entirely new car.
I don't know what you are referring to by "spacestation x". The ISS is a spacestation and has been in orbit for 20 years. SpaceX is one of the companies building & developing spacecraft; their Dragon craft have been running cargo trips to the ISS and recently carried astronauts too.
I can't see any particular military advantage to a lunar colony; missiles launched from there would take a week to get to Earth and could be readily intercepted. While the Enterprise's phasers may be accurate at that range, a moon-based laser would be too diffuse by the time it reached Earth. I don't find space travel & a potential lunar colony a waste; I noted the impracticality of using Apollo craft to build such a colony, essentially spending a billion dollars to put two men on the moon to carry out a few hours work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vrcristian "there isnt a "common disappearing" distance that works on all objects, it varies"
Then why claims that the horizon is this "vanishing line"?
"I never claimed its an example of a precise testing method but it serves the purpose."
And I told you why it doesn't serve the purpose.
"Disappearing from bottom up doesnt start after a certain distance, again, it varies."
What is the variable that determines that distance?
"In most of the observations you can see the horizon line behind the assumed water curve which supposedly obstructs the bottom of the object."
An uncommon sight in actuality with no question being asked as to what else could be causing the obstruction. Do note that you haven't answered.
"Are you claiming perspective doesnt exists?"
No, I'm asking you for details on the FE interpretation of perspective.
"2 plans intersect in a line. 2 lines in a point"
All lines meeting at a single point in the infinite distance. Since nothing is infinitely large all objects appear to merge into a single point at an infinite distance. I'm asking how the vanishing point would give a vanishing line and why objects disappear according to FE perspective when their angular diameter is well within human visual acuity.
"It has to have means to make decision to behave in a certain way?"
If water is to literally level itself (independently of all else) then it would require means to observe its environment, make decisions and move itself. "Just does" is not a viable explanation.
"These forces then that act upon the water what means they have to make decisions?"
Acting upon it does not require any decision; the water is not being singled out for attention.
"And which are these forces?"
For what we are talking about, gravity. Yes, it has been proved to exist and, no, density is not going to move anything.
"What means has a tree to grow up straight?'
Gravity influencing the flow of water in statocytes.
"What means has an orange to be round?'
Genetics.
"A meniscus in a container is a strawman"
It disproves the assertion that the surface of water can't bend. It clearly can, in response to forces acting upon it.
"That bending is caused by surface tension"
Quite; a force causes the water surface to bend. It is not unbendable. Curvature can't be dismissed solely by declaring that water can't have a curved surface.
"'Are you claiming large bodies of water display convexion due to surface tension of the container? "
No, I'm pointing out that a force can bend the surface of water; the surface is not unbendable.
"What prevents water to display convexion? Doh, the very own nature of water"
Which brings us back to water requiring means to observe its environment, make decisions and move itself. If you mean by being a liquid then that is because liquids respond to the forces acting upon them, not an inherent property of liquids to level themselves.
"my friend you seem to be lost deeply in this ilusion"
Really? So what am I getting wrong exactly? All you've demonstrated from the diatribe is that you didn't understand what I was saying. You haven't actually countered anything I've said, just failed to understand it.
"I have entertained you and replied"
But not informatively though I suspect you believe you were so. You haven't actually provided an explanation for anything; you've simply stated "do X and Y will happen" with no explanation of how & why Y would happen. "Just does" is not an explanation. You did bring up visual acuity but you haven't explained why in FE perspective the actual size of the object is an irrelevant factor.
"it gets exhausting to try reason with someone who wants to believe a fantasy"
A fantasy that you should ask pertinent questions and understand a concept rather than unquestioningly believing something?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adrianmoore3118 "The laser test proved no curve"
The laser test failed to mention beam dispersion, levelling error and refraction, the factors that negate the experiment's claims. Why do you think they didn't mention something so important?
"as well as the sound wave test"
You mean sonar? Fails to mention that sound reflects from surfaces, including the surface of the water.
"flying at 30.000feet I agree that you can't see the curve" etc
How difficult is it for FE'ers to comprehend dividing 360 degrees by 25,000 miles?
120,000ft is about 23 miles. The ISS is at 200 miles. 23=/=200. Not a difficult concept.
"it's all CGI and the illusion "
Do you have evidence or is it just incredulity?
"Take away NASA and you try and prove your own theory to be true"
Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow. That's what the Greeks used to deduce Earth's shape 2500 years before NASA existed.
1. Explain how you think NASA was influencing the ancient Greeks.
2. Explain how all those work on a FE in contradiction of your predictions.
"you are saying that the earth rotates at 1.000mph"
One revolution per day. 1000mph is a linear velocity and nothing rotates in a straight line.
"but we feel no movement"
The body is insensitive to motion, just acceleration. We deduce motion from observing the environment, not through sensing it. What do you think you should feel?
1
-
@adrianmoore3118 "how do you work that one out"
Geometry.
"they showed us the curve although it was fake but they say you can see the curve from that height"
Think that through, slowly.
When you talk abut "seeing the curve" are you referring to the curve of the Earth's surface or curvature of the horizon? I assume the latter. At the height of the Red Bull jump (and the balloon footage) the horizon would be curved but not profoundly so and you would need a wide angle shot for it to be readily apparent. You can see the horizon on the internal cameras over Baumgartner's shoulder as he opens the door; the viewing angle is too limited to perceive curvature in the horizon.
"We show evidence of what we say and you see it"
And we repeatedly point out your errors and misconceptions in said "evidence" but you won't listen, none of you have refuted the content of my last comment, just keep complaining you can't see curvature associated with a sphere the fraction of the size of Earth.
"You think that we rotate at 1.000 mph"
Mph is a linear velocity and nothing rotates in a straight line, seemingly a very difficult concept for FE'ers to understand. The Earth revolves once per day, half the speed of a clock's hour hand. Why do you expect that speed to make you dizzy?
"going through space at 66.600 mph and we travel at 18 miles per second in the milky way and we feel nothing"
67,000mph; the 666 is FE'er invention. What exactly do you expect to feel and why? The body is sensitive to CHANGES in motion, not motion per se; a constant velocity does not have changes for the body to sense.
"I went out to prove them wrong and I couldn't"
Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles, constellations changing with latitude, lunar eclipses, phases of the moon, accurate world map and geodesy. It's not difficult to demonstrate FE idiocy BEFORE making reference to millions of photos. If you think FE'es have solid explanations then be novel and provide them.
Why does it never occur to FE'ers that we have checked your ideas? We're telling you how & why those claims are wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FEers don't have a model per se and can't agree on anything other than it is flat, e.g., it does/doesn't have an edge, there is/isn't a dome, is/isn't an icewall, there's one/two poles, the sun & moon are inside/outside/embedded in the dome that does/doesn't exist. "Density force" has largely displaced upwards acceleration (which in turn displaced upwards motion) but none of them can explain how density can have a vector nor why there should be a universal down. Some favour magnetism as a cause though they decline to explain why there should be attraction regardless of material or the lack of repulsion. Most favour the sun & moon moving in a horizontal circle above the FE though some still support the above & below approach; none can explain how their ideas could match what we observe.
Are they stupid? Most seem to be lacking intelligence and all seem willfully ignorant. They generally have poor spatial reasoning (can't understand the relevance of which stars are visible according to where you are on a globe), insist of using a horizontal baseline (eg, elevation & curvature are the same thing) though seem unaware that they are doing so, are easily confused by large numbers, can't envisage more than two relevant factors (many only one factor), don't see any need for consistency between explanations, can't grasp the necessity of prediction, place greatly prefer intuitive thinking over contemplative and general view maths as a distraction. I really would like to know how they handle money.
Some are reasonably intelligent but seem to be quite selective in what they are prepared to actually consider; they have to reach a predetermined conclusion. Granted it's something that everybody can be prone to but generally most don't contradict what is readily observable.
Hossenfelder is saying that asking questions and attempting to reason something for yourself is not stupid even though you can be wrong. Unfortunately we're talking about people who start on the premise that the consensus must be wrong are unwilling to ask questions that would challenge that presumption.
"either model leads to the same observational results"
The ancient Greeks deduced it from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow - FE'ers can't produce any explanation for each phenomena.
"unless you're appealing to space agencies"
FEers see eyeballing as the only form of measurement (or at least in this context - I can't get anybody to say if they know what the markings on a ruler are for); they can't figure out the shape is quite determinable & measurable at ground level. They have an obsession with Nasa and many seem unaware that it is neither the first nor only space agency in the world.
Blue Marble 2012 is a composite of LEO shots. The original Blue Marble (1972) was a single-frame shot on film. Currently Himwari-8, Elektro-L & EPIC are collectively taking multiple single-frame shots every hour.
Nasa did not destroy anything. The Saturn V & Apollo were single-use and used. Some tapes were re-used once the data had been processed; the data remains in paper/pdf form. Tapes were eventually replaced as they wore out or the equipment itself became outdated; that's the origin of the assertion for Nasa destroying tapes. Much of the work was done by contractors; with the cancellation of the Apollo programme workshops were repurposed for the next contract and eventually decades-old records were slung out. In both Nasa & contractors, people with first-hand experience aged, retired & died while technology became outdated. Nasa's information & data were all retained.
"the proponents were making legitimate arguments that weren't things that could be brushed aside"
Such as? FEers keep alluding to this Real Evidence but never produce it. All they do produce are the same smoke & mirrors from their gurus that rely on their ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevem437 The greater the size of the conspiracy and the longer it runs then the greater the probability that somebody will spill the beans. To claim a realistic probability that millions have been colluding for 2500 years with secrecy being compromised is farcical. When the claim also includes successfully hiding what anybody can observe for themselves by looking up it becomes fantastical.
What level of proof are you after: legal, scientific, philosophical or denialist?
A FE would have no horizons; the ship can't drop behind anything. When there are no horizons, nothing can drop below the horizon. That we can observe objects dropping behind a horizons disproves a notion that predicts no horizons. Everyday everybody can observe the sun rising from behind a horizon and setting below a horizon.
You could assert that every eye witness is lying and all photos are fake but you need evidence that back that assertion, preferably with a plausible motive. Given the scale & detail of the conspiracy you would be asserting that evidence would be clearly demonstrative, not speculative. Tyson's point is that the people who are claiming such a conspiracy are not producing any evidence to back that; without such evidence then there is no debate to be had. Do note that total absence of evidence is not evidence of a perfect conspiracy, which incidentally is what you suggesting in your first sentence.
The ancient Greeks deduced it from horizons, the motion of the sun (constant angular velocity, rising & setting), constellations changing with season, that the stars (think Polaris) decline in angle equal to latitude (Phoenician sailors were using the change in angle to estimate north-south distance) and lunar eclipses always exhibiting a circular cross-shadow. Anybody can observe these things, some without the need to travel; the notion that everybody could be lying to them doesn't hold water. Since then we have developed navigational instruments like the sextant that, with travel, means anybody can use personally to take the measurements for themselves; if somebody wishes to claim that all instruments are secretly designed by the conspirators to give the wrong results or simply eschew the notion of measurement then the onus is on them to prove that.
1
-
1
-
1a: Explain why you think 1970 technology, materials, computers etc are compatible with those of 2020.
1b: Explain why you think the Mars Rovers would require human life support.
2a. Because the stars are distant, generally in the 10-1000 light years away, and moving in the same direction as the sun.
2b. Explain why you think 10,000 years worth of change would be apparent from day to day.
3. Explain why parallel train tracks shouldn't appear to diverge as they approach you.
4a. For the stated purpose of avoiding military competition in an inhospitable climate.
4b. It's readily downloadable. Specify which clause supposedly forbids travel to Antarctica.
5a. By dividing circumference by time as anybody can do.
5b. Explain where you think arithmetic should change with time.
6. It isn't and they don't.
7a. Explain how you think a prominent white grid on said screen would not interfere with it being a blue screen.
7b. If you it wouldn't, then explain why studios all use blue-only screens.
8a. Blue Marble (1972) and Earthrise were taken in single frame shots on an analogue camera.
8b. Himawari-8, Elektro-L and EPIC collectively produce multiple full hemisphere shots per hour. Explain why you think they would need to use a wide angle shots from their orbital distances.
9. How much curvature would you expect to see from a globe on the inside camera at that altitude and why?
10. The atmosphere alters the light as it enters it; it's how we get a blue sky during the day time.
11a. Provide an example of such editing.
11b. Explain why you you think video compression errors wouldn't occur.
12. Free-fall, lasting about 30 sec. Explain how you think it is possible to shoot a 30min video in 30 sec.
13a. The rocket slowed and stopped when the engines shut off as programmed.
13b. Explain why you think a camera impacting a dome at a few hundred miles an hour wouldn't even be jarred.
14a. It's the International Space Station, not National. That is why it is referred to as the ISS, not the NSS.
14b. Explain where you saw a can of tuna on the ISS.
These are the obvious questions that FE'es are never able to answer. Prove me wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WesD92422 "If the sun and moon are both above the horizon, and the moon is eclipsed, the Earth is not causing the obstruction."
I've already told you twice that the sun is trackable; do you have difficulty with the concept of measurement? A series of shots of the sun moving across the sky repeatedly & consistently indicate that the sun moves at a constant 0.25 degrees/min following a calculable arc path with any deviation. What can be observed as it approaches the horizon is an apparent deviation from the path, a deviation that is not observed from locations further westwards where the sun would be higher in the sky. (I'm assuming you have no problem with the concept of multiple observers; you do realise that in a world of 7 billion plus people that you are not the one and only person?). The amount of deviation observed at the horizon varies according to atmospheric conditions. That is the effect of atmospheric refraction and denying it occurs means you need to explain how the sun can follow two different paths simultaneously. Do that.
"There is no reason people in the Southern hemisphere wouldn't see stars."
You earlier said that the folks in the Southern Hemisphere don't see Polaris because it is too far away. Now you're saying there no reason that can't see it. Which is it? Make your mind up.
"'I just stick to what we know"
You mean what you know. You need to understand that you don't know everything that everybody else knows. You think yourself capable of knowing something that other people don't; that applies to everybody. you need to open your mind to the concept of other people knowing something you don't.
"Mercator and Gall-Peters aren't accurate."
Mercator projection is designed for nautical navigation, Gall-Peters projection for land area comparison, Gleason projection worldwide map to look cool. Each projection has its own inaccuracies, which (for the third time) is a consequence of projected a curved surface (the accurate globe map) onto a flat surface (a foldable & rollable map). That the projections have inaccuracies does not mean the globe map is inaccurate; it means projection to a differently shaped surface generates inaccuracies, somebody that should be bloody obvious with a little thought.
I'm dependent on other people taking & reporting accurate measurements as they are on the measurements I take & report. When multiple people obtain the same values for the similar measurements it isn't plausible that everybody is doing to incorrectly or are out to fool each other. Unlike you, I am not locked into the mentality of believing I'm the only person capable of taking measurements.
"The container is for gas pressure"
Not the weight of the air? You haven't explained why a container is necessary to generate any atmospheric pressure at all or how a container would generate pressure. We've already determined that the atmospheric pressure declines to a vacuum so why would a container wall separating vacuum from vacuum generate any pressure? If it is the weight of the air generating the 15 psi at ground level then where does this container contribute? What is acting on the air to give it weight? The container it isn't in contact with? You think you have an idea how it all works; you need to explain how you think it works, not just keep repeating "it needs a container".
"I do not know the makeup of a distant star by looking at it"
The key word in that sentence being "I". As I said earlier, you need to open your mind to the concept that other people can know something you don't. Other people have looked at the "wandering stars" with telescopes and observe that they are not lights; that you haven't looked means bugger all. Other people use the properties of light to deduce the components of the light source or the substances between the source & observer; that you don't know how means bugger all.
1
-
@WesD92422 I wrote about the apparent deviation in the trackable path of the sun & moon as they approach the horizon that is caused by atmospheric refraction. An selenelion eclipse is where sun & moon are both close to and apparently above the horizon, atmospheric refraction making them appear a little higher than they actually are, ie, they appear to have deviated from their trackable paths. If you can't see the connection that's your lack of brainpower.
You need to learn to think. If Polaris is too far way to be seen on a FE then stars that are even further away should also be too far away to be seen. To anybody in the FE southern hemisphere there will be a region of sky that is further away than Polaris; if Polaris is too far away to be seen then the stars in that region would be too far away to be seen and hence the observers would see a region that is devoid of stars. I pointed that out and you told me that they there's no reason they wouldn't see stars. You need to explain how you think those stars can be too far away to be seen and yet seen.
"the 2 globe maps have purpose"
They are globe projections, not globe maps. You need to grasp the difference.
"the flat map is just to look cool"
I said the Gleason projection specifically was to look cool. An azimuthal projection has its uses for local mapping but is useless on a world scale. It just looks cool mounted on the wall.
Incidentally, I note that you keep talking about inaccuracies in the projections but never mention the lack of inaccuracy in the globe map even though I have brought it up. Criticising projections is a strawman on your part, deliberate or not.
"Rate of curvature can be determined from that. It's been falsified MANY times."
No, the cretins who can't understand that they don't live on a perfectly smooth, airless ball keep forgetting to factor in atmospheric refraction and variation in elevation when calculating how much drop they should see. When their omission is repeatedly pointed out to them and they continue to ignore key factors, that is wilful stupidity on their part, not profound insight. It is also repeatedly potned ou to the that they are using the wrong maths; clinging to 8"/mile^2 is wilful stupidity, not profound insight. If you want to calculate something accurately then you need to account for all pertinent factors. You can't ignore factors and expect to get the right answers. (And, no, 8"/mile^2 is no the "official equation", it is not used by NASA, it is a parabolic equation and it is just a rule thumb that assumes short distance and no change in elevation.)
"Why do I have to explain to you that pressure requires physical containment?"
Because none of you ever explain why you think it is mandatory. You just keep coming up with examples of tyres or similar where a barrier is needed to separate two immediately adjacent different pressures; you never explain why you think a barrier is needed to separate a vacuum from a vacuum. You've already said that the ground level air pressure is caused the weight of air (though you still haven't explained what gives it weight); there is no apparent role for a barrier at high altitude separating vacuum from vacuum in generating the pressure at lower altitudes. Nowhere in the atmosphere are there two differing adjacent pressure requiring separation so what role do you see a barrier as playing? "It stops the air leaving" is not a valid argument because there would be no pressure on either side of your barrier; there's no pressure difference to need separating.
"THE PRESSURE SEEKING EQUILIBRIUM"
And the equilibrium in a planetary atmosphere is a balance of gravity pulling air towards the planet and the expansion that would come from pressure trying to equalise. I'm trying to get you to explain on the planetary scale where gravity is a significant factor and the pressure differential occurs over 10's of km, not 0.25mm of aluminium. You realise that 25km and 0.25mm are significantly different distances?
"You just love your fairy tales too much and don't know what actual science is"
I am a scientist. I'm asking you pertinent questions. I'm asking for your reasoning. I'm not getting answers, just canards and a failure to realise the limits to your personal knowledge & experience does not determine other peoples. If you think you have viable explanations then you need to provide them. If you think a factor is unimportant then you need to explain why; a hand-waving "it doesn't exist" is not an explanation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WesD92422 Traceable signal to, on & from the moon, detectable equipment left there, verifiable material brought back.
"How you jumped to not believing Aerodynamics, I don't know"
You not knowing the relevance is the point; you don't know what defines the Karman line but you say that you disagree with it.
"If there is still pressure, there's still a container"
Sails are not containers. Windmill vanes are not contains. Your ears are not containers. All work by air putting pressure on them. They all have surfaces for that purpose; none are containers.
Containers are referred to when discussing gas pressure because a sealed container offers the easiest way to visualise the relationship temperature, concentration, volume and pressure while excluding complicating factors. It is not a requirement for a container to obtain pressure.
"Believe what you want about the Cavendish experiment, I really don't care."
If you wish to disprove it then you need to care.
"YOU CAN'T SEE FOREVER. TECHNOLOGY CAN'T SEE FOREVER."
Several hundred miles is not forever and the FE sun would need to be visible over thousands of miles.
"you can't provide ONE single experiment that validates it"
I referred you to three, each reproduced countless times with similar results. Denying them does not make then go away.
"the reason ALL mass doesn't attract"
It does. As I've pointed out twice before, FE'ers have extraordinary difficulty understanding that more than one force can act simultaneously. I'm sure you have all helped somebody carry something, engaged in a tug of war, tried pushing two magnets together or tried to stop something rolling downhill but none of you seem to grasp there was more than once force at work. I've also pointed out that you're the only people claiming gravity is an irresistible force.
"Did I say a butterfly would have to lift you?"
Yes; you asked why a butterfly can't handle my mass when my muscles can.
"You are MUCH BIGGER AND STRONGER than a butterfly.
Butterflies are MUCH SMALLER AND WEAKER than you."
The key words being BIGGER and SMALLER; two very different size masses and therefore two different strengths of attractive force. As I have pointed out before, FE'ers cling to the notion that all forces are equal when the law of gravity states the force will be proportional to mass.
Let me put it simply:
Gravity is the attraction between two masses (e.g., Earth & ocean, Earth & butterfly).
Oceans very very big and butterflies tiny.
Oceans have very very much mass, butterflies have tiny mass.
Attraction is proportional to mass.
Oceans have very very big attraction to Earth, butterflies have tiny attraction to Earth.
Oceans have a very very great deal of weight. butterflies have tiny weight.
What's difficult to understand about the word "proportional"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WesD92422 "Yeah OK, you believe that."
You need to produce evidence they aren't genuine.
"When an inaccurate experiment is repeated, it repeatedly gets inaccurate results."
You wouldn't get the same results; people do get the same. You still haven't said what is wrong with the experiment other than you don't want to hear the results. You need to come up with a sound reason.
"It's a law. Laws don't get violated."
Which does not prevent more than one force acting simultaneously.
"I don't need to dispute magnetism because gravity is false."
When the grounds you're disputing gravity on applies equally well to magnetism then you sre disputing both whether you like it or not.
"Does air stay still?"
It doesn't move itself. There is nothing in the room to disturb it once the equilibrium has been reached. YOu still haven't specified a plausible cause for the motion of the air or an explanation why the motion would always be just right for several days for no apparent reason. You need to come up with your plausible explanation.
"The Earth does not curve at this rate."
It curves at that rate. Incompetent people ignoring elevation & atmospheric refraction and using the wrong maths are not going to prove otherwise. When competent people measure the curvature they find the correct curvature.
"Just because I'm not sure, it doesn't make gravity true."
Just because you don't like the idea does not make gravity false. You need to come up with a plausible alternative mechanism. You already are being intellectually dishonest: "It just gotta be something else" is not a plausible argument.
"Space is your heliocentric model and that is in question."
Would be helpful if you could come up with something other than "it just gotta be wrong". Try doing it.
"To use the supposed "planets" as evidence is a presupposition. "
We went through this earlier. There are these things called telescopes.... Anybody can own & use one; if you think there is a massive worldwide conspiracy planting video chips in all the telescopes then it is possible to build your own. Arguing that not looking is evidence against planets existing is intellectually dishonest.
"The helium balloon falls because it comes more dense than the surrounding atmosphere."
The air becomes thinner, there is less buoyancy and gravity becomes the stronger force; at that point the helium balloon falls. In practice it either burst when the pressure difference stretches the material too far or it will remain at the altitude where buoyancy and gravity are in equilibrium.
"Black Swan, Chicago skyline, World record photo"
Black Swan occurred briefly; nobody has been able to photograph that again. Similar for the upper half of the Chicago skyline. Did you not wonder why the photos were newsworthy if they were routine? You still haven't produced a world record photo that contradicts the globe; I ran you through why the record photo was consistent with the globe. You still haven't produced any photos that would be consistent with the greater distances possible on a FE.
"Yes it does follow. "
No, it's a non sequitur.
"No, I don't have to replace your fairy tale. Falsification is independent of replacement."
You do have to come up with evidence to back your ideas and to disprove what you disagree with, otherwise you are just another whining idiot. I'm trying to get you come up with something concrete, not just conspiracies and denial. You claim to have thought it through so convince me of that.
1
-
1
-
@WesD92422 "NASA lies and sends petrified wood under the guise of moonrocks, doesn't make it any less true. "
The two Dutch moon rocks are the National Museum of the History of Science & Medicine in Leiden and have been since they arrived in the Netherlands. The Rijksmuseum received its rock from the estate of a former Primer Minister, who received it as a personal gift in 1969. You need to explain how something can be in two places simultaneously for 40 years. "I don;t care" is not an appropriate explanation. You're making the claim, you need to care about justifying the claim.
"If you wanna believe the Cavendish experiment is valid 😂 go ahead. Again... I don't care."
Again, when you;re claiming something is incorrect then you need to care about what you're saying. You need to come up with a plausible explanation for why you think it is incorrect. Since you are not a god, "It just is" is not an appropriate explanation. Produce yours.
"Globe can't exist in space as it violates the law"
We haven't put forward any arguments that do. You are just playing the omnipotent entity declaring "Gravity doesn't exist", thinking the universe bends to your will and and throwing a wobbler because we aren't playing along. Again, you need to come up with a proper explanation for how you think it violates any law and, again, divine pronouncements don't cut it.
"I dispute gravity, there is no evidence."
There is abundant evidence. The Great God Wes denying evidence is not going to nullify it. Come up with your plausible explanation for the Cavendish experiment results and, again, divine pronouncements don't cut it. You claim to have it thought out so try actually coming up with it.
"I am fine with magnetism. It is observed.
And yet is impossible according to what you have said. How do you justify your explanations being both right & wrong simultaneously? A god can do impossible things?
"The atmosphere requires a container to contain it, not a fictitious force. IT MUST BE PHYSICAL, not fictitious"
The Great God Wes uttering that gravity is fictitious means bugger all. "I deny it, I deny" is not evidence. You are not an omnipotent entity who can banish gravity with a wave of your hand. You need to explain why the evidence for gravity is wrong and, again, divine pronouncements of "It just is" do not work.
"Nothing to do with magnetism."
Both are field forces which you were saying don't exist. You can't have it both ways.
"Air is always moving and omni-directional."
Which is what I said. You're claiming there are directional air current popping out of nowhere, blowing in just the right direction with just the right strength for just the right length of time to bejinx all Cavendish experiments. You need to explain how the omnidirectional motion of air molecules would create just the right breezes at just the right strength for just the right time. You;re professing to be the Thinker so stop prevaricating and come up with your explanation.
"It's never been demonstrated."
It's been demonstrated to exist countless times, be it a direct force or space-time curvature. How gravity works remains unproven. There is a difference between the two. If you are going to argue they are the same thing then explain how people were killed by lightning before we knew what generated lightning.
"Why does everything have to be broken down for globers? Seriously, learn to think critically."
We do think critically; we can see the holes in your argument and evidence and are continually asking you for the fine details as that is standard practice science. You all keep come backing to "Just Does" and "Just Gotta Be" so we keep asking you to fill those gaps. What's so difficult for you to do so? You're falling back on divine pronouncements rather than give the explanations you claim to possess.
"You can not use your model to prove your model. "
You use a model to make predictions and you try to disprove the predictions. If the prediction was incorrect then the Venera & Pioneer probes would have found no or too little water on Venus.
"You're presupposing that we can leave, or send stuff the atmosphere. It is not evidence when leaving the atmosphere is in question dumbass."
That would be the highly permeable impermeable barrier at an indeterminate height that nobody can find that exists to separate air from air and somehow induces air to move downwards for no apparent reason? The barrier whose existence relies solely on the evidence of "It Just Gotta Be There", the denial of gravity and the mental inability to understand why a container is used in teaching? Meanwhile we have trackable satellites passing overhead, GPS & satellite phone in the middle of the ocean and the ISS visible as it passes over, all denied by FE'ers on the grounds of "They just gotta be something else". How difficult is it for the Thinkers to produce concrete arguments when you claim you have thunk it al out to the depths of profundity untouched by scientists?
"I've told you numerous times that you can't see forever and the atmosphere is more dense the more of it you look through. So it will block your vision eventually. "
You agree with what I said then. Your view would gradually disappear into a haze after 600-700 miles according to ambient atmospheric conditions. Yes, with no sharp cutoff about a haze there is no specific distance. I've asking you to produce the photos that prove you can see that far. It would be straightforward to take such pictures so where are they?
"Water seeks its level."
How does water observe its environment, make decisions and move itself?
"How is 70% of a ball level, "
Level for water is the point of gravitational equipotential, i.e., the surface (weather aside) is a constant distance from the centre of the globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@luieflores5915 Yes I’ve checked; personal observation alone tells you that it a globe. If you think They are manipulating observable reality, eg motion if the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles & constellations changing with latitude, then you need to come up with a convincing explanation how They are doing it. You also need to explain why the shape of the Earth is so crucial to controlling the minds of the populace.
The stars are very, very, very distant and moving in the same general direction as the sun. It will take 10,000s of years for there to be a change appreciable to the eye. And, yes, the distances are measurable and measured and the measurements are not taken by They.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mooners40 Train tracks don't appear parallel either; do they meet up in the distance?
What determines the length and direction of a stick's shadow if not the position of the sun? How can the FE sun be at multiple heights simultaneously? How can a heat source produce and not produce heat simultaneously? You're the man with the answers so produce them.
"did you not grasp ANYTHING from that video ?"
Eratosthenes measured the curvature of the Earth c. 300BC; it has been deduced to be a sphere 200 years earlier from the motion of the sun, horizons and the angle to Polaris matching latitude. Still waiting on the FE answers for those.
The Coriolis effect is an apparent force, not a fictitious force, as is centrifugal force. It's due to inertia and the tangential velocity changing with latitude, not unexplained. Still waiting on the FE explanations for hurricanes rotating anti-clockwise in the northern hemisphere, clockwise in the southern hemisphere.
Rotation has been demonstrated repeatedly with gyroscopes & pendulums. Still waiting for FE explanations for the phenomena.
The Sagnac is explicable by aether and relativity; all other attempts to find aether have failed, e.g., Airy's Failure, Michaelson-Morley & Michaelson-Gale-Pearson experiments. Relativity's existence has been demonstrated repeatedly. Still waiting on the FE explanation for why absence of evidence is proof.
Einstein the motion of Earth could not be measured *WITH LIGHT*, not that there was no motion to measure. He was referring to the effect of relativity.
The lack of an absolute frame of reference is not evidence that the Earth isn't moving or that it can't be demonstrated to move.
The angle of light reaching Arctic & Antartica changes in the degree of obliqueness; with a 23.4 degree axial tilt it is always going to be oblique in the polar regions, never directly facing the sun.
Plus/minus 1 million miles of 93 million miles is 1.08% difference; the varying distance to the sun is not a significant effect because 1% it too small a difference to have any substantial effect.
Positioning of the continents affects weather patterns. Particularly good example is the Arctic Ocean being water and Antartica being a continent resulting in lower temperatures in Antarctica.
You wouldn't bother constructing a globe unless you knew what to put on it otherwise you are left writing "here be dragons" over most of the surface. Most of the exploration & mapping had been done by the 18th century.
What Jeranism said is preying on your ignorance & incredulity. It doesn't take much effort or that to question what he tells you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1