- This topic has 6,415 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Lol. Freeze it at the 2:51 mark and take in that perfectly flat horizon. That’s what happens with fisheye lenses… simply by moving the camera you can make things convex, flat and concave. Your boy Neil DeGrasse Tyson says we can’t see the curve from any plane or high altitude balloon. He says you have to actually be in space to see it.
The first man to enter the stratosphere said the earth “appeared a flat disk with upturned edge”. No fisheye lenses back then i guess. 😁
Your opinion Mike. The guy is personally saying he sees the curve, I can see one. But you have to assume that he is an actor correct?
So you just say that all videos by people claiming to see the curve are actors. That is not science Mike, that would be scientism right?
Will post more.
The first man to enter the stratosphere said the earth “appeared a flat disk with upturned edge”. No fisheye lenses back then i guess. 😁
So the window the guy is looking out of is a fisheye window or is he wearing fisheye contact lenses. lol.
This is a video from a regular guy perhaps a celeb who went into space or near space.
Will post more videos from regular guys and maybe some gals too..
According to the ball earth math, the top half of Ruapehu should be visible from that vantage point ALL THE TIME. Now you keep telling me how clear it is there, and asking why you can only rarely see Ruapehu… but that’s what I’m asking you! Why CAN’T you see it every day when the top half is ALWAYS above your imagined curve?
But that is the point I am making. Both models require a theory to explain why you cannot see the mountain most of the time. That is the original point I made. You act as if it proves the earth is flat when in fact both theories are problematic equally for either model. So roll your eyes all you like, but you need to equally roll them for your model too. Now that you have come around to the point I originally made, I think it is safe to say that you cannot use seeing Ruapehu as a Flat Earth proof because to a Flat Earth, it is also problematic.
Ordinary guy checks out the claim that CN Tower proves a Flat Earth
Mike I haven’t watched this video yet, but thought it would be good to post it here and then for both of us to watch this. I have no idea of his conclusions. But on the outset, my guess is he concludes a globe earth. We will see.
Can you come to a fair conclusion about whether the earth has curvature by visiting Toronto, Hamilton, Burlington and the area with a camera on a clear day? I invite you to visit the locations I have shown and answer these questions for yourself.
The size of Toronto’s buildings, along with the 30 mile wide lake distance make for a perfect opportunity to consider your theory. I show in this video what happens when a fellow Canadian makes simple mistakes in his calculations. I have gone to the locations myself. See his video here:
Okay, to be fair, I can now see in his video description which I scraped in my post above, his mention of an error that a Flat Earther makes in his calculations. Nevertheless, I post this to watch later when I have some time. But my guess is it would be good for you to watch it too as he appears like an ordinary guy without special equipment, the sort of thing you say I should limit as proof.
As a side note, limiting me from using video and photos from space is taking away one of the biggest proofs. I mean if you really want to know what the earth looks like, then travel far enough away to fit the whole thing in a camera viewfinder. But you disallow this which is like me fighting with one arm tied behind my back. However, I can still win this even with one arm so to speak.
US man finishes solo race across Antarctica
More proof from a regular guy. Of course you have to say he is a liar. But what if he belonged to God?
T8:
Measuring Earth’s Radius With A Telescope?
Mike. This video demonstrates how you can see over the horizon..
I forgot about this one from yesterday. At the 1:51 mark, your guy is baffled by seeing the reflection of the tower in the lake. That reflection kills anything else he has to say, because it is impossible if the lake is curved. The reflection could not show up on his side of the bulge in the lake.
I disagree. Light can reflect, refract, distort, and do all kinds of things. Light through a prism shows all the colours. You act like light must at all times travel in straight lines. That is the default yes, but the atmosphere is like a lense or filter. It is not 100% crystal clear nor is it nonexistent to allow light to be 100% unobstructed or altered.
I will dig into this topics past and look for the moon shadow question. If you think it is hard to find, perhaps you can repost it.
BTW, I watched a large portion of that video I posted, but it is far too long to watch the whole thing. At first I thought he was arguing for the Flat Earth, but he corrected some mistakes a flat earther made about CN Tower and challenged that guy’s findings. Still, I haven’t watched the end, so not too sure what his conclusion will be. But he is definitely an ordinary bloke looking for the truth of this matter.
Perhaps you are not aware of this Mike, but the horizon is straight when we look at it closely but as you pull away from it, the more curved it becomes till eventually you can see the whole sphere. There is a ton of evidence for this and smart ancients suspected this from simple observations they made. But shouting ‘Conspiracy’ is scientism Mike. I prefer science myself because science means knowledge.
I’m pretty sure that if you can see something in the distance that this something could be reflected. I will look for a video that demonstrates this.
Here’s one from India I think.You really can’t be this slow, can you? Do you SERIOUSLY think it’s more likely that Superstition and Ruapehu are always hidden by the curve, but on rare occasions refraction magically projects a PERFECT image of them up over the curve so we can see them? Isn’t it more likely that they are always there, but most days are hidden by our majorly polluted air?
I think that the part of these mountains above the curve are visible, but yes, the lack of air clarity could hide the peaks if they are distant enough. This is certainly the case with Ruapehu which I can attest to. This explanation is more than plausible for both flat earth and globe. This is my point. Saying it proves a flat earth is not the case. This is a consideration for both models.
T8: I’m pretty sure that if you can see something in the distance that this something could be reflected.
It certainly can… on a flat surface – not over a curve. And his point is that there are many feet of water bulge between him and the tower. Therefore the reflection could only make to the top of the bulge on the tower side. The reflection cannot possibly go up and over the bulge and still show on the other side of the bulge. Understand? Do you have a reflective chrome popcorn bowl or something like that in your kitchen? If so, place your face on one side of it, and raise your hand up behind the other side. You’ll never see the reflection of your hand on the face side of the bowl, because the reflection cannot go up and over the curve to the other side. That’s why when you see reflections from the sun or moon across water, the line of light will be broken up with dark lines. The dark spots are your side of the waves and ripples that the reflection can’t hit. Here you go…
Now in that photo above, there should be a mile or more of bulge in the middle of that sea. If the sun can’t reflect on the observer’s side of little waves and ripples, how do you suppose it will reflect on the observer’s side of a mile high bulge?
T8: I think that the part of these mountains above the curve are visible, but yes, the lack of air clarity could hide the peaks if they are distant enough. This is certainly the case with Ruapehu which I can attest to.
Don’t you realize that’s what I’ve been saying all along? 🙂 Despite what you keep saying, the air there is NOT crystal clear most of the time – or you’d see the top half of Ruapehu (the part that’s always above the curve) all the time. Instead, you only see it during certain atmospheric conditions, right?
Okay, so when the weather/air is just right so you can see it, do you ever see just the top half?
Gravity fails on a Flat Earth
To accept a Flat Earth, one must abandon many scientific principles with Gravity being one of them. This is a pretty big deal, since gravity explains a wide range of earthly and cosmic observations.
People who believe in a flat Earth assume that gravity would pull straight down, but there’s no evidence to suggest it would work that way. What we know about gravity suggests it would pull toward the center of the disk. That means it would only pull straight down at one point on the center of the disk. As you got increasingly far from the center, gravity would tug more and more horizontally. This would have some strange impacts, like sucking all the water toward the center of the world, and making trees and plants grow diagonally, since they develop in the opposite direction of gravity’s pull.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/24/flat-earth-what-would-happen/Another good argument amongst many that disproves a Flat Earth.
T8: I will dig into this topics past and look for the moon shadow question.
Really? It’s the last video I posted about the shadow moving west to east during a solar eclipse.
T8: What we know about gravity suggests it would pull toward the center of the disk.
Oh brother! LOL What we “know” about gravity? Gravity comes from the Latin word that simply means “weight”. It is a theory that has never been confirmed, and is unequivocally refuted by the fact that helium rises. There is no such thing as gravity.
Remember T8, we are only using evidence that regular people like you and I can verify for ourselves. Are you personally able to verify gravity? Of course not. So back to the drawing board.
And I saw your comment about not being able to use images from space. Well, you can’t verify that they’re real, right? So yeah, they’re out. Besides, when did we first have “photos from space”? The late 1950’s? How then did everyone KNOW the earth was a ball before that? Hmm…
Okay, stop already. We are talking about the impossibility of the solar eclipse shadow going west to east in the heliocentric model. While you’re pondering your rebuttal to my irrefutable argument, I was helping you through your misunderstandings about your Ruapehu photo. Let’s stick with only those two things until we have some closure on them, okay? I’m not interested in doing a replay of the first 100 pages of this thread – where D4T and I would present solid evidence that anyone could verify for themselves, and it was ignored in favor of bringing up a thousand “Oh yeah? Well what about this then?” subjects. And when we would directly address those subjects, and the many errors associated with them, there was nothing but crickets from the other side. And then here comes yet another “Oh yeah? Well what about this then?” diversion.
So please stop Googling “How to defeat a flat earther” and posting any old drivel you find without even understanding the basics of the argument. Instead, use your own brain and defeat my two arguments already on the table. I’ve asked if you ever see just the top half of Ruapehu on those exceptionally clear days. What is your answer?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
