- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Mike,
That is because you use to ask two part leading questions meant to entrap
So I would be forced to answer “no” even when most of your question I agreed with.
But to allow you no foothold for you self promoting false beliefs I was forced to answer “no”Have I made myself clear?
Yes we understand that point, but my view is if you ask a question honestly, yes or no will bring out the truth in the end. While a person may use your answer as a springboard, you can easily negate that by asking them to answer yes or no. The truth will lead to the truth, so we put our best foot forward and see where it leads. And I have faith in the truth. So I don’t worry about being setup. Let them lay a trap. You can ask for yes and no too and the trap won’t work. If the other person thinks it works then they are deceived.
Lunar Eclipses prove the Earth is curved
Besides the shadow of Earth cast on the moon being curved, this narrator even notes that depending on the vantage point, the shadow could be cast at the top or bottom of the moon. Mike, you say it is impossible, but why is that. If the shadow can be cast below, then why not above. Consider that the 3 bodies are not always in the same plane and that people see a different view depending on where they are. If you get a perfect eclipse, then what view does a person below get compared to a person above.
T8: “You go exactly by the math, but there is probably nearly always atmospheric lensing to consider which would not make the calculation exact, unless there was zero moisture. But you can see that the general principle is true in the video despite not adhering to a perfect calculation. The curvature hides part of the island whereas you see it when higher up which is totally consistent with a spherical earth. As for not being neutral, well by default people like yourself once believe the Earth is a sphere. But he goes in with a fair test and he is not ranting on about how dumb FEers are and he just proves the accepted science without using trickery.
I use to live in Perth and it is the perfect place to prove the curved earth. Africa is to the west some 10,000 km and it is the most isolated city of over 1 million people in the world. That means there are a lot of huge container boats bringing in supplies from around the world and they provide the perfect opportunity to watch large ships disappear from the bottom first as they go over the horizon. And Rottnest Island is perfect for this sort of experiment as demonstrated in the video.
FE videos show small boats not over the horizon, so the trick is to use their small size to deceive the viewer into thinking they are supposedly over a curved horizon in terms of distance. But large ships show the curvature of the Earth because its general size means waves for example will not affect the overall effect.”
I do recall someone demanding the math.
Atmospheric lensing hides the bottom of images as it is magnified and the light is bent down. So this phenomenon would only help the FE side as it has been demonstrated to account for the disappearance of the bottom of objects, like this lighthouse.
The accepted science is also the curvature calculator that I used to determine how much of the lighthouse should be hidden IF there is a curve. Do we see 61+ feet of hidden lighthouse?
I have no problem with the way he approached this experiment. He just doesn’t have all the facts and didn’t follow through with what he should have observed if the curve was there. He simply observed some other phenomenon that he attributed to curvature.
Wouldn’t small boats disappear even faster than larger boats? Hmm.
Ed: Hi Mike,
It wouldn’t matter, as long as the light that God called “Day”
on day is the same word as “Day” used on day four.Do you not see this?
I see a couple of flaws in it…
Isaiah 60:19
The sun will no more be your light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you, for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory.
There will still be “day”, just no more sun. The Hebrew word used for “day” in the verse above (yowm) is the same as the word used for “day” in Genesis 1:5. So “day” is not dependent on there being a sun.
Genesis 1:16
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.
The greater light (Hebrew: hammaowr) isn’t the day (Hebrew: yowm), but governs the day. Just like the lesser light is not night itself, but governs the night.
Mike: …according to scripture, the answer is “Yes” to all three. So whoever is ruling over Israel right now is the same one who came from Bethlehem, but also had an origin from ancient days. You’ll have to align your understanding of “the word” so that it can fit all of those criteria.
Ed: So says you
So says scripture. Can you refute that Micah 5:2 clearly says that the one who will go forth from Bethlehem is the one who will rule Israel, and the one whose origins are from ancient times?
Hey Admin, three of my posts yesterday did this crap…
I see you fixed the one that I didn’t catch in time, so thanks for that. But today, my first two posts have done it. The copy and paste into text mode trick you told me about makes things easier, but I still have to go back and put all my bold, italics, paragraphs, etc. back into the post afterwards. So here’s what’s up…
After submitting a post, I get sent to page 1, have to scroll down to the very bottom of the page to where the page numbers are, click on the last page of the thread, wait for it to load, scroll down to wherever my latest post appears on that last page, make sure everything is okay with the way it displays, then right click on the browser arrow, try to remember what page the post to which I just responded was on, click on that page, wait for it to load, and then scroll down again on that page to find where I left off. And that’s IF my post prints right. When it doesn’t, I have to do all those things PLUS copy and paste into text mode and re-do all my highlights.
And that’s IF I don’t add an image. If I do, I have to do all that other stuff PLUS click “Edit”, scroll down to where I want the image inserted, click the cursor there, click “Add Media”, wait for that page to load, click on the image to insert it in the post and wait again for that to happen.
After I hit “Submit” with the image inserted, it’ll take me back to page 1, and so I have to go through all that stuff again to make sure the final post is right, and try to re-find the page where I left off.
That’s just too much, man. Surely there’s something that can be done?
Admin, this time my post must be the first one on page 109, and I can’t even get to it to add the image. It took me back to page 1, and then I scrolled down to find the last page of the thread, and it says page 108. I click on it, and my post isn’t there for me to add the image… but it won’t let me get to page 109. It’s like 109 doesn’t exist yet – but I know my post is there because this has happened before. So now I have to make another post real quick so page 109 will manifest itself, allowing me to get to my previous post and add the image before the edit time runs out.
Dude, I really do appreciate all you’ve done to give us a place to converse for so many years, but moving to the new server can’t happen fast enough for me. This is frustrating. Let me send you some money, and let’s get this thing done.
Okay man, this is crazy. I made a response to your post about selenelion eclipses. I drew a picture and spent a little time making the post. When I submitted the post, it took me back to page 1, as usual. So I scrolled down to the page numbers to click on the last page, which was 108. But my post wasn’t there. So I assumed that it was the first post on page 109, and that I just couldn’t see page 109 yet (see post immediately above this one). So then I wrote the post immediately above this one, and submitted it. After being re-directed to page one again, I scrolled down to the page numbers, and it was still showing 108 as the last page. So I went to 108, and this post (the one immediately above this one) wasn’t there either. So then I figured I had two posts on page 109, but just couldn’t get to them. So I made a third post (the one that is three posts above this one and says: “Uh oh, two posts now, and still no page 109. Hopefully this third one with bring it into existence.”)
But that third post actually showed up on page 108. So what happened to the two posts I made before that… the one addressing selenelion and the one immediately above this one (which finally posted on page 108 after finding and re-submitting it three more times)? I can’t find the post addressing selenelion. It’s gone with the wind, and I’ll have to do it again I guess.
Weird stuff going on here.
Okay, back to the drawing board. This time I’m not going through the trouble of quoting T8. I’m just going to tell it like it is…
Selenelion eclipses are one of the many post hoc rescue devices used by those who promote heliocentrism. The original story was that the sun lights the moon, and lunar eclipses happen when the earth gets between the sun and the moon, causing its own shadow to appear on the moon. But then people noticed that the moon is eclipsed while the sun and moon are both above the horizon, negating the possibility that the earth is what’s causing the eclipse on the moon. So the heliocentrists went to their #2 savior “refraction” (#1 is gravity), and just up and claimed that we’re not really seeing the actual sun and moon when they are close to the horizon – but a refracted projection of them. The new story is that the sun and moon are both, in actuality, below the horizon, and so when we see the sun set, we are really seeing a refracted image of the sun set – not the sun itself. Now, there has never been any test to verify this claim, because there isn’t any way to test it. That makes it unfalsifiable, and therefore not a part of science. Plus, the idea is refuted by videos that zoom the sun back up into the sky. We would not be able to zoom a refracted image hundreds of feet back into the sky – but we can if what we’re zooming back up is the actual setting sun.
So the very idea of selenelion eclipses is laughable, untestable, unfalsifiable, and refuted by zooming the sun back up into the sky.
But top-down eclipses are like selenelion eclipses on steroids. Imagine that we see the sun and the moon in the sky during a lunar eclipse. Now apply their selenelion story to that observation, which puts the sun and moon below the horizon, and us seeing their refracted image…
Do you see the problem? The “real” sun and moon have the earth separating them, because we are only seeing their refracted images above the horizon. And that means the sun has to be shining right through the earth to light the moon at all. So that right there negates the possibility of it. But on top of that, the sun has to be shining through the earth to light ONLY THE BOTTOM of the moon – while at the same time, the earth is somehow causing a shadow on the top half of the moon.
Sound possible to you?
T8: The local pitch where I live is level…
Then that sounds like a great place for you to do your own test. Have one of your kids walk from end to end dragging a box behind them tied to a string. I bet you a hundred bucks that you’ll get the same results as all those videos I’ve showed you. But then what will you do? You’ll have seen with your own eyes that it’s not the curved horizon of the football pitch that’s making things disappear from the bottom up. You might just need to reevaluate your willingness to believe men in lab coats regardless of what they’re telling you. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Because they you’d begin thinking for yourself. 🙂
**** This one didn’t post either. I had to go back a page in the browser, copy the text, delete the post box, paste the text back into it, and hit “Submit” a second time. ****
I have a friend that has the DJI inspire drone and it can go pretty high up. I’m also co soldering getting the DJI mavic air.
Any way to tell of the earth is flat or round with a drone?
T8: Mike, I went to that link you sent regarding videos of boats supposedly going over the horizon but not really, and what came up for me were videos of large ships going over the horizon and being hidden by the curvature of the Earth.
And the videos being used by FEs use small boats that are not passed the horizon, but are past the point that our eyes can see. A nice trick, but one that shouldn’t be used to scientifically prove a flat earth. The first video is the one you already posted. Notice it doesn’t use aq huge ship like the ones above.
The winner for me is the Curved Earth.
Okay, so let me get this straight… First, any boat disappearing at sea was proof of a ball earth because the vessel was obviously disappearing over the curved horizon. But then hundreds of people started zooming boats back into view, and so now the goal posts have to be changed to only large boats disappearing over the horizon? Do I have your argument right? Because it’s sounding a little like: “If the earth was flat, the sun would shrink…” Check. “Well if the earth was flat, you could zoom the sun back up into the sky…” Check. And now, “Well if the earth was flat, we could see the sun shrinking all the way until it was the size of a star…” 🙂
Come, let us reason together…
- The math on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference says the drop will be 8 inches per mile squared.
- Boats disappear from the naked eye somewhere between 3 and 5 miles away from us.
- At only three miles away, the drop will be 6 feet.
- Small boats will have a profile of less than 6 feet.
- So to say that small boats that can be zoomed back into view are really “on this side of the curve” is preposterous.
- At 4 miles, the drop is 10.6 feet, and that will hide a fairly large vessel.
- At 5 miles, the drop is 16.6 feet, and that’s hiding the vast majority of pleasure craft.
- People have zoomed boats back into view at well over 10 miles, T8 – which itself would be a drop of 66.6 feet – enough to completely hide the majority of even the tallest ocean faring vessels.
Here’s a 3 minute video that doesn’t have a boat, but a stationary oil drilling habitat 10 miles from the photographer…
And so you don’t say I failed to directly address your “large boat” point, here’s a more lengthy video (17 minutes) that shows three large vessels that have “disappeared over the horizon” being zoomed back into view. One of them is a huge oil tanker, and another is what looks to be a 5 story ferry. If you are really seeking truth, watch the entire video so you can know a little more about the subject. Because so far you’ve just been looking for debunking videos, and taking any absurd claim they make as fact without even really thinking it out in your own head. I’m not asking to you believe anything you hear in this video, but only to look at the observational evidence, listen to the reasoning, and use your own God-given brain to decide which arguments makes the most sense of what we actually observe. Rob Skiba brings up a few of the points I’ve already broached with you – like the x and y axis thing – and a few that we haven’t yet discussed. But Rob is a graphic artist, and is able to make visual aids that I can’t. (You’ve seen my drawings, right? :D) Anyway, I beg you to take 17 minutes to watch the video. You will learn so much…
Hey David, I’m also thinking seriously about the Mavic Pro. According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, regular folks can’t go high enough or get far enough from earth to see the curve. And that shoots down all those airline pilots and passengers who swear they can see it. (Actually, footage from balloons at 120,000+ feet showing a perfectly flat horizon shot them down before Neil said anything.) But you can do a lot of cool tests with a good drone, and many flat earthers have been doing them for a while.
D4T: Why why do we see so much or all of the lighthouse? Where is the 61 feet of curvature?
Well done. That’s the difference between posting a video that says it debunks something, and actually doing the work to see if the claim is legit.
T8: You go exactly by the math, but there is probably nearly always atmospheric lensing to consider which would not make the calculation exact, unless there was zero moisture.
So you’re saying that, according to the math, D4T is right – but you don’t like what the math says and so you’re going to invoke some un-measurable phenomenon to support your debunker that D4T just debunked? Okay then, what exactly IS the amount of atmospheric lensing in this particular case? Will it be the same in every case? How do we determine when the lensing is refracting 100 feet up over the horizon, and when it’s only refracting 10 feet? What is the standard amount of refraction in any given instance?
Are you starting to see the picture? That’s what the Meta-Bunk earth curvature calculator does. He has the same math as everyone else, but then adds another row of “standard refraction” data that basically eliminates the entire amount of the part of the object we saw that was supposed to hidden by curvature. Really? “Standard refraction”? Did you watch the Skunk Bay time lapse? (I have to ask, because even though I specifically asked you to let me know that you saw it, you didn’t. Likewise, you didn’t address the x and y axis point, despite me specifically asking you to let me know if you understood it.) Anyway, if you did watch that time lapse, you’ll have seen that refraction is anything but “standard”.
You know the measurement of refraction? It’s exactly the amount of thing we are seeing that we’re not supposed to be seeing. Every time! 🙂 What? You can see Chicago from 60 miles? Oh, well there’s exactly 1810 feet of refraction! What? You can see the lighthouse from 50 miles? Oh, well that’s because there was exactly 65 feet of refraction that day! LOLOL 😀
I do recall someone demanding the math.
Atmospheric lensing hides the bottom of images as it is magnified and the light is bent down. So this phenomenon would only help the FE side as it has been demonstrated to account for the disappearance of the bottom of objects, like this lighthouse
Math is a given. But the calculations would assume zero moisture in the atmosphere right? So my point is still valid. It probably will not be exact, but good enough to see the effect of curvature. The video showed the island when the person was higher up and lost the island when he was at sea level. All consistent with a globe earth. You can try and fit a Flat Earth into this observation, but the fact remains, it is consistent as to what you see on a globe earth.
So you’re saying that, according to the math, D4T is right – but you don’t like what the math says and so you’re going to invoke some un-measurable phenomenon to support your debunker that D4T just debunked?
Hell no. I am not saying that at all. I don’t even know if the math is correct. That is not the point. I am saying that the effect will still be noticeable if the Earth was a globe and that calculations would assume zero moisture in the atmosphere, thus if his calculations are actually correct (I don’t know) then atmospheric refraction is probably altering it slightly, but not enough to disprove the curve.
The point is however, the effect was seen clearly whether the math is correct or not. If he is correct, then Dig needs a margin of error to compensate for atmospheric refraction unless he can prove that there was zero moisture in the atmosphere. But the experiment shows the overall effect and that is consistent with a globe earth and that is the point.
This is starting to sound like Global Warming. Scientists put all their faith in the models and give us the outcome for the next 10,000 years and yet cannot predict the weather 1 month from now. There are all kinds of variables, so we should not discredit anything if it is not perfect math. Could be that another thing needs to be factored in right and I think in the case of calculations based on faraway objects, that we need to be sympathetic to that and I am not seeing a lot of that here.
In my heart I know that things can get skewed at the horizon as I have seen it myself. I have seen a peninsula with tall apartment blocks where in actual fact, they were low rise structures. Another could argue that there are tall buildings there and trust my senses, but that doesn’t consider the possibility of atmospheric lensing which is a real thing.
T8: Yes we understand that point, but my view is if you ask a question honestly, yes or no will bring out the truth in the end. While a person may use your answer as a springboard, you can easily negate that by asking them to answer yes or no. The truth will lead to the truth, so we put our best foot forward and see where it leads. And I have faith in the truth. So I don’t worry about being setup. Let them lay a trap. You can ask for yes and no too and the trap won’t work. If the other person thinks it works then they are deceived.
Well said!
T8: “Math is a given. But the calculations would assume zero moisture in the atmosphere right? So my point is still valid. It probably will not be exact, but good enough to see the effect of curvature. The video showed the island when the person was higher up and lost the island when he was at sea level. All consistent with a globe earth. You can try and fit a Flat Earth into this observation, but the fact remains, it is consistent as to what you see on a globe earth.”
This observed phenomenon is consistent on a level plane as the videos have demonstrated. I have said repeatedly that if you do not take this effect into account you will have incorrect results. Your result is that you see this because of the curvature but in fact you see this on a plane because of perspective. Atmospheric distortion will only add to this phenomenon.
(A football field will not have a 3 foot drop!)
(At 8 minutes-in a great point is made that will answer your confusion)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
