Mikeboll’s belief in a flat world

Viewing 20 posts - 3,021 through 3,040 (of 6,405 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #845150
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    D4T:  You admit that 0.5 to 10 is 200 times the speed but then state that even a much greater difference (billions) is still only double.

    T8:  OMG, you poor boy. I never said such a thing.

    Um… you did say exactly that, T8.  Nor would it matter if you said it or not, since it is a fact.  So what is so hard about this for you?  15 times 2 is 30.  15 divided by 2 is 7.5.  Get it?  15 divided by 2 is not zero – as you seem to believe.  Your tire analogy falls flat (excuse the pun).  But of course it fell flat the minute D4T asked why NASA didn’t just build their vacuum chamber out of standard tire material, right?  And you have no answer for him, right?  But surely you are smart enough to understand that if your analogy was valid, then NASA certainly COULD HAVE built their chamber out of the standard thickness and material of your everyday car tire, right?  But they didn’t, did they?  What vital information can you glean from that fact, T8?

    #845151
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    T8:  Dig, you simply are not smart enough…  OMG, you poor boy…  Not for you Dig as it will be over your head…

    I think you need to check yourself, T8.  Is this really the snarky, condescending behavior you wish to portray on your site?  Especially when anyone reading this thread can easily recognize which one of you is having the comprehension problems?

     

    #845152
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    D4T, they’re all asking for the eye height and distance. 😆  It’s like they don’t understand the point of the challenge.  I’ll be on a live stream with dazzathecameraman to discuss it.  I’ll put a notice here when we set the time.

    #845161
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    And they say FE people are dull! “Just give me the eye height and distance and I can tell you the distance!” 🤔

    #845163
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Mike…..as I understand it we can’t reach apsolute zero vaccum,  because no matter can withstand that without colasping.

    Have you considered that pressure is like a liquid say water for an example, if you were to build a dam to hold back  water at the depth of 200 feet and the water went back 10 miles, would it require a equally as large a dam if the water was only 10 feet away from the face of the dam at the same 200 ft depth , yes or no.  And explain your answer.

    I am not even sure if this has anything to do with what you descussing right now. But if it is pressure it might help, and what does this have to do with is the earth being round or not?  Seems to me none of this has to do with, is the earth round or flat. 

    Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene

     

     

     

    #845174
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Discussing T8’s Mount Ruapehu photo with New Zealander dazzathecameraman 5-4-19 at 00:00 UTC time…

    #845181
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Great job on the challenge video Mike!

    #845186
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Thanks D4T!  Here’s the short follow up video to the live stream…

    #845191
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    You know that we have shown scientifically (observable, testable and repeatable) how the bottom of objects compress and are obscured by refraction, basically the water in the atmosphere acting as a magnifying lens. But as the saying goes, “there are none so blind as those who will not see“, which seems very applicable in this instance.

     

     

    #845193
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    This will be interesting.

    #845194
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Chicago skyline

    I agree that the news presenter offers no evidence, but that is because it is not a science show and each news clip is brief for reasons of time. But look at the facts:

    1. There is a ton of evidence in the form of photos, videos, mathematics, large objects dropping over the horizon, as well as boat, ship, and aircraft navigation times and routes. There are also testable experiments people can do for themselves.
    2. Why would light only travel in straight lines with no refraction above water? It wouldn’t. Think about it. Light from the stars travels at the speed of light so we are witnessing them from the past. If the stars we see are not really that way the moment we view them, then why would anyone think that light bouncing around the atmosphere would only ever be perfectly straight. Guess what, that doesn’t happen always and especially where water is involved. And have you noticed that water is in nearly all these pics you offer as evidence?
    3. If Chicago and Ruapehu are visible because the Earth is flat, then why are they not visible most of the time? Atmospheric interference? lol.

    The reality is Mike, that you have failed to prove that there is a conspiracy here because that is the only feasible explanation of a flat earth given the ton of evidence available. And this conspiracy in itself is so preposterous in itself that the evidence to prove it would have to be extraordinary. But you offer zero evidence of a worldwide conspiracy involving millions of people who work for space agencies, satellite organisations, and Antarctic protection fleets.

    Mike, you are not convincing anyone who is open minded about truth and has a reasonable grasp of science. All you are doing is sitting in an echo chamber of like-minded conspiracy theorists who are patting each other on the back.

    #845195
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Posting this to watch later.

    #845198
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Okay, I watched this and I think it is fair to say Mike that they debunked the notion that this image is proof of a Flat Earth. Rather as they say, the image lines up with a Globe Earth.

    I thought the guys you debated were respectful and didn’t bring up refraction as the answer because that was somehow not allowed, but then you brought up compression even when it went against your own rules, but I feel you did it because they made a great point about how half the mountain wasn’t visible under the tree line.

    Most of the points I had already brought up, so it was good to see that they were valid points being brought up by people who spent way more time and effort on this than me, but it was better than my argument in the sense that they poked holes in some of the math you presented which I did not.

    Yes, I think his image that he superimposed on my photo was not to scale, but regardless, what matters is around half of the height is still missing below the tree line there is no question about that. The tree line definitely doesn’t represent the halfway point does it?

    #845199
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    The other thing that you argued was that people resort to refraction based on their premise that the earth is a globe, so they start with the conclusion, but then they argued this successfully without refraction and for some reason you got upset about the refraction thing. But that didn’t do anything for the Flat Earth argument and they pointed out that refraction would play a little part only, if there was refraction.

    My earlier answer was refraction makes up the difference after I pointed out that the plateau needed to be factored in lessening the 67% figure you gave. And yes I brought up refraction because of my view that the earth is a globe, but I also pointed out that within the range I was suggesting that refraction may not even be needed to explain it. And these guys did just that. They explained it without refraction even though refraction took place to some degree as it is unlikely that there was zero refraction. So if there was refraction, then that gives more ammunition to the Globe.

    I believe I can place this in the Debunk List and move onto another point now.

    #845201
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    #845202
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Mike’s Ruapehu hypothesis is debunked

    Hi Mike. So if the tree line is about half way down or up the mountain due to the base being 900 metres high to start with, and if the calculators say that half the mountain should be hidden in my photo of Ruapehu (below), then it adds up right? So my photo actually points to the Earth being a globe given what is visible and what is not.

    #845223
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Looks to me like the tree line goes all the way down to the base.  So if you can all of the tree line then you are seeing down to the base.

    #845224
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    The entire island from beach to mountain is all squished into that bottom quarter of the picture – exactly how it always works.  Here’s a sunset I took in San Diego…Mission Bay Sunset_Moment 1

    Mission Bay Sunset_Moment 2

    Notice anything different about the second one when the sun is just about to merge with the ocean?  You’ll notice the width remains the same, and the top of the sun remains the same.  Only the bottom squishes vertically as it hits that thickest layer of atmosphere.

    Here’s the same thing with the moon from two weeks ago…

    190417-1810--190418-0543 Sideways Set_Moment 1 Straight

    190417-1810--190418-0543 Sideways Set_Moment 2 Straight

    Notice the same compression… only on the vertical – and only at the bottom.  The same happens with anything we view from a distance.  T8 maybe heard me mention the hotel balconies that another person measured.  Many more pixels per balcony at the upper floors than at the bottom.  But it’s not like you needed the pixel measurement, because it was easy to see that the lower balconies were visually compressed when compared to the upper ones.  I’ll look for that video for you and dazza.

    As for the live stream, it wasn’t meant to be a critique of my Mount Ruapehu video… since that had nothing to do with my challenge.  I just wanted a distant photo to use.  I could have used my Superstition Mountain from 55 miles, but went with your Ruapehu shot.  And the only question of the challenge was:  Can you tell – from the photo itself – whether it was a mirage or the real mountain?  Or does the determining factor of it being a mirage instead of the real thing hinge SOLELY on knowing the distance and eye height so you can first determine whether or not we SHOULD be able to see that thing on a ball earth with a diameter of 3959 miles?

    dazza answered directly and honestly.  Marcus… not so much – but his answer spoke volumes anyway.  Now I’m going back and forth with Mick West (the Metabunk dude) and trying to get a straightforward answer from him… without much luck.

    You’re either honest enough to admit what we all know anyway (that there is no test or scientific equipment to determine real from mirage), or you’re not.  dazza was, Mark and Mick aren’t.  How about you, T8?  It doesn’t mean the earth is flat if you admit it.  It only shows that you’re honest enough to openly acknowledge that the only “evidence” ball earthers have for claiming a mirage is that it couldn’t be seen on the ball earth.

    #845227
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Fact: There’s still a whole 590 metres below the tree line. As you drive toward Ruapehu, you slowly ascend 590 metres through rich pastoral land, not forest. Yes there are a few hills with trees, but these hills are hundreds of metres above sea level. I guess around 90% is grasslands. You can see this clearly on Google Maps in satellite mode.

    #845228
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Mike, I think you were caught in your own craftiness. You mentioned in the live stream video to not use any rescuing devices to avoid the ‘refraction’ answer I assume. Then you introduced a rescuing device yourself near the end when you are on the ropes, that is, ‘compression’.

    Yes you did say that you can use real things, but you wanted to avoid refraction and largely your opponents did just that. They demonstrated the math without refraction. But then you went against your own advice and introduced ‘compression’ as your main rebuttal which to my mind is exactly the same as someone using refraction.

Viewing 20 posts - 3,021 through 3,040 (of 6,405 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account