- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Mike and Dig
I’ll backup and read the last ten pages and think about that. I realize that Scripture speaks of a flat Earth, but could you imagine if God would have told them that the Earth was round. Man at that time new nothing else but a flat Earth. I would think if God told them that the Earth was round no one would believe in God. Man after a time realize this specially with the telescope and today’s technology’s, that the Earth was round.
Give me yours three top questions why the Earth is flat? I will look at them and search this out, then I will get back to you, I’ll need some time k.
God bless
Hi Dig
You said: Can some object overtake another object going a relatively slower rate of speed from your observation point? Yes or no?
My answer: NO
God bless
T8, does it seem plausible and rational to you that we can watch a refracted projection of the moon slowly eclipse in the sky while the actual moon is over the horizon and directly in line with the earth and sun? Does it seem plausible and rational that this refracted projection of the moon could be in the sky if the actual moon wasn’t previously in the sky? And does it seem plausible and rational to you that nobody has ever observed the actual moon set behind the horizon before observing the refracted projection of the moon eclipse above the horizon?
Absolutely plausible and if it didn’t do that, then it is not a Flat Earth proof. The reality is, the Solar System visualises the math for eclipses and the Flat Earth has nothing.
Anyway, you can test this yourself how water effects light. Simple stuff. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist.
If a moisture laden atmosphere had no effect it would seem strange and these photos do have lots of water in them.
But either way, we are seeing a whole bunch of mountain that should be hidden behind the curve, right? And either way, you should be able to see everything above the yellow line on the second picture every day, right? So the fact you can only see the part above the yellow line on days when you can also see everything below it shows that my conclusion is the more sensible one. On clear days, you can see it all. On not so clear days, you see none of it. That means what you CAN see on clear days is actually there above the horizon.
I have addressed this in this topic. It is not as much as you think and it is absolutely possible that no part of the mountain behind the curve is visible. Think about the comments I have made about the landscape that is on my side of the horizon being merged in because that is what zoom lenses do right? Also consider that the Curve Calculators become less accurate the longer the distance. How inaccurate I do not know nor care that much, but that in itself could offer an explanation or contribute to the explanation. The closer landscape merging into the mountain at the bottom is a good enough explanation. It is exactly what you would expect to happen when you seriously zoom into a mountain. You can see the water is exaggerated so it would be with the nearside landscape.
And remember, it is not half the mountain missing, you need to calculate 900 metres of Taupo Plateau that is not part of the mountain’s shape.
Anthony: Hi Mike and Dig
I realize that Scripture speaks of a flat Earth…
And do you believe the words of scripture? If you truly do, then you’re already a flat earther! 😀
Anthony: …but could you imagine if God would have told them that the Earth was round.
Is God a man, that He can lie?
Anthony: Man at that time new nothing else but a flat Earth.
Man only knew what God told them. Had God told them from the beginning that they lived on a spinning water ball, then they would have been just like you and I, who heard these things at a very young age and blindly believed them because people in positions of authority told them to us. Any 6 year old will tell you about the spinny ball earth and the planets of the solar system, right? So why would the first human beings have had trouble believing the same thing – especially if it was God Himself telling it to them?
Anthony: I would think if God told them that the Earth was round no one would believe in God.
What reason would they have had to doubt Him? Could they prove that they weren’t living on a round earth?
Anthony: Man after a time realize this specially with the telescope and today’s technology’s, that the Earth was round.
Are you saying that man, by standing on the earth and looking up into the sky with a telescope, was able to tell that the earth was round and spinning, and that it orbited around a 93 million mile distant sun, and that the stars were millions of times larger than the sun and trillions of miles away? Can YOU do that today? Of course not. You can only stand on what has always appeared to you to be a flat and stationary earth, and look at lights in the sky. So why do you think they could do it?
Anthony: Give me yours three top questions why the Earth is flat?
Let’s just go one at at time… and I’m in no hurry. Take your time. We were already talking about my race car analogy, so let’s start there. The fact is that we always observe the moon to go across the sky from east to west – just like the sun, right? But during a solar eclipse, the shadow goes across the earth from west to east. According to the heliocentric model, the moon doesn’t go east to west, but goes west to east 30 times slower than the earth rotates west to east, and so it only appears as if it’s going east to west across the sky. My question is how the moon going west to east across the sky 30 times SLOWER than the earth rotates west to east can cause a shadow that overtakes the much faster speed of the earth and goes west to east across the earth.
You’ve already told D4T that the slower object cannot overtake the faster one, right? But in their model, the slower object MUST overtake the faster one in order for the solar eclipse shadow to go west to east across the earth. In fact, that’s their explanation – that “the moon overtakes the rotation of the earth and therefore the shadow goes west to east”. So do you still agree that the slower thing can’t overtake the faster thing?
T8: Absolutely plausible…
Okay I just want to clarify that you’re saying what you appear to be saying. This video is just a comparison I made between my infrared and visible spectrum cameras. I was excited to find out that you can see the moon with IR long after it disappeared to the naked eye and to the visible spectrum camera. I’ve got it queued to the right spot, and you only need watch about 35 seconds…
Are you saying that after I watched the moon disappear at the horizon, it’s possible for me to see another moonset within the next few hours?
T8: I have addressed this in this topic…
Oh brother… here we go yet again. Okay, 700 feet eye level, 123 miles away. Earth curve calculator says 5473 feet hidden behind curve. Got it so far? The highest peak of Ruapehu is 9176 feet ABOVE SEA LEVEL. It sits on a plateau that RANGES from 600-900 meters… not IS 900 meters period. So we’ll split the difference and call it 750 meters, or 2500 feet. And that’s generous since you already told me that Ohakune sits at the base of the mountain, and Google will tell you that Ohakune is only about 2000 feet (600) above sea level. So we should be using 2000 feet instead of 2500… but definitely not 3000. Anyway, we’ll go with 2500 feet, okay?
So, we’re going to agree with you for argument’s sake that NONE of the plateau is in your photo. Okay, you ready?
Out of the 5473 feet that should be hidden behind curve, 2500 feet of that is the plateau. Do you see that? I’m giving you exactly what you keep insisting upon, despite having no proof of it. I’m agreeing that your photo shows NONE of the plateau at all.
Okay, after agreeing that 2500 of the 5473 feet that is suppose to be hidden is nothing but plateau, IT STILL LEAVES 2973 FEET OF NOTHING BUT MOUNTAIN THAT SHOULD ALSO BE MISSING AS WELL. You see? If there is first plateau, and then the mountain that sits upon the plateau, then after we subtract the entire plateau from the equation, we should STILL have almost 3000 feet of MOUNTAIN hidden along with the 2500 feet of plateau. Still with me?
Okay, now if the mountain is 9176 feet high sitting ON the plateau, once we subtract the 2500 foot plateau, how high is the actual mountain itself?
9176 – 2500 = 6676
And after we subtracted the entire 2500 foot plateau, we still needed 2973 more feet hidden behind the curve, right? So let’s subtract that from the 6676 mountain-only height…
6676 – 2973 = 3703
So your photo should show ONLY 3703 feet of a 6676 foot tall mountain. The OTHER 2973 feet of the mountain is supposed to be hidden by curve. And what percentage of the 6676 foot tall mountain is 2973? 45% Or just about HALF of the mountain itself should be missing in your photo.
Now, if we go with the Ohakune 2000 feet figure for the base of the mountain, it looks like this…
5473 total hidden, 2000 of which is plateau – leaving 3473 of actual mountain that should ALSO be missing along with the plateau. Okay, 9176 above sea level, minus the 2000 feet of plateau leaves 7176 of mountain only. Out of the 7176 of mountain only, 3473 should be missing, leaving only 3703 feet visible. 48% of the mountain should be missing in your photo.
Now let’s use your 900 meter (3000 feet) plateau height.
5473 total hidden, 3000 of which is plateau – leaving 2473 of actual mountain that should ALSO be missing along with the plateau. Okay, 9176 above sea level, minus the 3000 feet of plateau leaves 6176 of mountain only. Out of the 6176 of mountain only, 2473 should be missing, leaving only 3703 feet visible. 40% of the mountain should be missing in your photo.
So I ask you again what I’ve asked so many times before…
Does it look like 48% of the mountain is missing in your photo? Does it look like 45% of the mountain is missing in your photo? Does it look like even 40% of the mountain is missing in your photo?
After going through this so many times with you, I’m really hoping that this time you’ll say, “No Mike. It absolutely doesn’t look that 48%, 45% or even 40% of the mountain is missing in my photo. It actually looks like the entire thing is there.”
Yeah, that’d be sweet. Shall I hold my breath?
Anthony: I would think if God told them that the Earth was round no one would believe in God.
Mike What reason would they have had to doubt Him? Could they prove that they weren’t living on a round earth?Where did God say the world was flat? What is your no1 Flat Earth proof verse in scripture Mike, you never seem to answer that.
God never told us the exact shape of Earth as far as I know. If he did, what did he say?
It is obvious that earthlings have a flat world experience because we cannot naturally fly high enough to see the whole earth and the earth is so big that we do not really notice it. Think of travelling around an eternal circle, it would be completely straight / flat right? Now picture a really big circle.
Mike.
I wonder if you can comment on this.
You assume that the whole mountain is in both these shots and they show the same height, and yet the top one is missing the fact that it is already up to 900 metres high as it sits upon the Taupo Plateau. The bottom one must include the Taupo Plateau because it starts at sea level, thus it is a no brainer that it includes an extra 900 metres of other landscape that is not part of Ruapehu’s shape. I wonder if you can understand that the plateau is the bottom part of the mountain in my shot and is not actually part of the mountain itself? Acknowledgement would be good so I can put this point to bed and focus on debunking other points.
It sits on a plateau that RANGES from 600-900 meters… not IS 900 meters period.
I see that you have addresses the point, sorry about that. I will read it now. Hopefully you address this point sufficiently though, we will see. Here is the first point from your post.
If I have taken the shot showing seal level upward, then there is a good chance I have captured 900 metres of Taupo Plateau right unless the higher elevation is behind the mountain making hidden from view. Besides that, I am looking at all possible explanations and if 900 metres of plateau explains it, then it is possible and not impossible as you assume.
Out of the 5473 feet that should be hidden behind curve, 2500 feet of that is the plateau. Do you see that? I’m giving you exactly what you keep insisting upon, despite having no proof of it. I’m agreeing that your photo shows NONE of the plateau at all.
With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
Refracted Horizon = 35 Miles (184777.99 Feet)
Refracted Drop= 1.64 Miles (8648.86 Feet)
Refracted Hidden= 4426.28 Feet (53115.34 Inches)
Refracted Dip = 0.434 Degrees, (0.0076 Radians)
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/?d=123&h=700&r=3959&u=i&a=a&fd=60&fp=3264Hidden is 4426.28 feet Mike with standard refraction. 5472.92 feet hidden assumes zero refraction, but clearly something was not zero that day because it is a rare event to see that mountain. And add in landscape on the near side of the curve being blended into the mountain as I have discussed earlier, and I think that can explain my photo.
But imagine standard refraction and step it up to extreme refraction. That would require less foreground landscape to be blended in and possibly it could be all refraction. If you think that no such thing as refraction as you often mock it, then you are not being truthful because refraction is real and is science. Scientism as you like to say would be more akin to saying something like refraction doesn’t exist because you don’t like it. Refraction wasn’t created to disprove your theories because the elites got worried they would be found out, but was around a lot longer than you.
Mike, as an aside, can you explain why this calculator says the Planet Radius in Miles is 3959? Does that just mean that is what is visible in the diagram?
So your photo should show ONLY 3703 feet of a 6676 foot tall mountain. The OTHER 2973 feet of the mountain is supposed to be hidden by curve. And what percentage of the 6676 foot tall mountain is 2973? 45% Or just about HALF of the mountain itself should be missing in your photo.
Now, if we go with the Ohakune 2000 feet figure for the base of the mountain, it looks like this…
5473 total hidden, 2000 of which is plateau – leaving 3473 of actual mountain that should ALSO be missing along with the plateau. Okay, 9176 above sea level, minus the 2000 feet of plateau leaves 7176 of mountain only. Out of the 7176 of mountain only, 3473 should be missing, leaving only 3703 feet visible. 48% of the mountain should be missing in your photo.
Now let’s use your 900 meter (3000 feet) plateau height.
5473 total hidden, 3000 of which is plateau – leaving 2473 of actual mountain that should ALSO be missing along with the plateau. Okay, 9176 above sea level, minus the 3000 feet of plateau leaves 6176 of mountain only. Out of the 6176 of mountain only, 2473 should be missing, leaving only 3703 feet visible. 40% of the mountain should be missing in your photo.
So I ask you again what I’ve asked so many times before…
Does it look like 48% of the mountain is missing in your photo? Does it look like 45% of the mountain is missing in your photo? Does it look like even 40% of the mountain is missing in your photo?
Good, I will hopefully recalculate this all myself from scratch and see if I can reduce this with facts that possibly play a part such as using the refracted distance. If it turns out that refraction is not scientifically possible I will admit that the Earth Curve Calculator non-refraction calculation and agree to what part of the mountain should be missing and give the final analysis using all possible facts that I am aware of. At that point, I will double check how inaccurate these calculators are for long distances. I did see a better math equation for working it out (for all distances apparently), but it was too complex to use for the little time I can devote to this. Remember, that surveyors use the calculation used in the Earth Curve Calculators and they are accurate enough for the distances that matter to them. However, for a little inaccuracy here can lead to a big discrepancy there. as a loose example, a one degree difference in the projected direction of a storm can mean the difference of hitting a target or completely missing it. I’m just saying that it is possible, but not likely that these calculators may not be accurate when calculating a distance 200 km away. I imagine they are accurate though, but for the sake of searching things out, this should be considered.
The first point about Ohakune is its height above sea level. It is 590 metres. However, the road from there to the snow in Ruapehu first goes through dense forests that cover the lower flanks. This part of the mountain is not steep, rather level with a slight incline. I will demonstrate this with my own photos.
Here is the centre of town. As you can see in the distance, you have to walk or drive through forests at the lower flanks of the peak. The height is significant and looks to be about half the mountain in this shot.
Just to prove that the town is not exactly sitting at the bottom of the peak, this shot shows no snow in the town and a significant steadily climbing drive upward is necessary to reach the bottom of the peak. The street signs demonstrate this to some degree.
Next we have a shot that shows the peak from within a clearing in the forest. This is near the top of the forest and beginning of the real shape of the mountain.
As you can see from the following shot, there are significant landscape features even before the mountain starts to take shape. This could easily be hidden from view in my Ruapehu shot in question.
Now, we have the snowy peak coming into view from the road as you head above the forest. At this point you have climbed quite high.
I have now reached above the forest where you see the actual peak rise up behind me (out of view). This shot is interesting because it shows just how high you need to go to break out of the forest and reach the ski fields. If you cannot see how high this is, then click the photo and you will have access to a full screen version of the photo, (if you are on a desktop) .
This is looking toward the peak from the same location. Often this lava covered slope itself is covered in snow which is likely the case when I took the image in question.
So the point being, that the peak is not jutting out of a flat plain in as simple fashion as a whole mountain shot suggests. There is a lot of foreground and lower flanks of Ruapehu missing in my shot in my opinion.
The main point I am making is that 900 metres is generous because a large portion of what constitutes Ruapehu itself is gently sloping forests that look more like surrounding landscape and makes up a large percentage of the mountain itself. This means it’s possible that much more than 900 metres could be taken off the bottom of the image to gain a true perspective and is replaced by landscape on my side of the curve that has been blended into the lower mountain itself in similar fashion as to the sea in the picture that is also exaggerated in its width and distance.
I will follow this post with another that estimates how much of the mountain’s bottom section could be hidden. My guess is way more than 900 metres and perhaps even half the mountain itself.
Wow! Mike, that IR video of the moon was awesome!
Hello, can anyone else see that Mike is doing real science here? And it kinda seems like it backs our position – doesn’t it!?
I posted the actual math that describes why and Mike wasn’t interested in addressing it. Would you be interested in taking a look?
The math that explains how the eclipse shadow goes backward
Here you go Dig. Dig 4 truth here and let me know if there is an error. Otherwise, this is the best answer sp far.
You can use 86,400 seconds as the length of the day, that times 28 days, the time it takes for one revolution of the moon around the Earth, is about 2,400,000 seconds. Using the distance to the moon as 225,000 miles (it varies but for this exercise, that’s close enough), which is the radius of the more or less circular path the moon takes around the Earth, it’s not circular but elliptical but lets call it circular for this discussion. So times 2 is the diameter, 450,000 miles, times pi makes that circle 1.4 million miles give or take. So divide 1,400,000 miles by 2,400,000 seconds and you find the moon traveling in its Earthy orbit going about 0.6 miles per second. Multiply that by 3600 and you get miles per hour, which is a bit over 2000 miles per hour. At the equator the Earth is spinning about 1000 miles per hour (it’s about 25,000 miles around and it takes 24 hours so divide the two and you get close to 1000 miles per hour) So the moon is going in it’s orbit twice as fast as the Earth spins on it’s axis. Since the rate of the moon’s spin is the same as it’s orbital period of about 28 days, you always see only one side of the moon. (not completely correct since it does wobble a bit and you can see just a bit around the ‘corner’ of the moon)
If I don’t hear back on this one, I will chalk it up for a win for Team Globe Earth. If that is irritating, then show me the error.
How a zoom lense can blend closer landscape into a distant mountain
Here is an experiment with a zoom lense to test my argument about different things blending in when using a zoom lense. Below are three photos I took of Ruapehu in three separate spots within a 100 metre apart, but all spots being the same distance away from the mountain . Notice how in the top photo, the grass lcould be mistaken as being part of the lower flanks of the mountain itself, when in reality, it is not part of the mountain at all, but way further out in the surrounding landscape on the Taupo Plateau.
Bear in mind that this is close to the mountain. Imagine the effect from 200 km away?
How a photo of a mountain can be deceptive
Look at the photo below. It is an image of Mt Taranaki near Ruapehu. The photo taken above could be mistaken for most of the mountain. Not so. The above view was taken the same day as the photo below. See that smaller peak next to the big peak in the second shot, the top of that smaller peak is where I took the top photo from. In other words, what could be mistaken as nearly the whole mountain can actually a much small portion of it.
This could help understand the idea that not all of Ruapehu is in my photos. Similarly this happens in some globe photos. You can take a section of the globe with say the North American continent visible and think that continent is way bigger than it should be, thus it must be a fake photo. But when you understand it was just a section of the much bigger globe, it makes sense right.
Team Globe wins so far
So far to my estimation, Team Globe has successfully challenged many Flat Earth claims. Of course not all claims have been challenged yet. But we will get there in time. And what is most amazing is this does not include any photos or videos taken from space, the best proof of all.
Here are 7 successful debunking of Flat Earth arguments that come to mind listed below:
- Moon eclipse shadow going backwards explained, (see above math equation).
- Marble on the Table experiment’s premise was false .
- Mount Ruapehu sufficiently explained.
- Extra light source on moon eclipse explained by Earthshine.
- Video proof that boat brought back from over the supposed horizon distance was not actually passed the curve, rather was just too small to see.
- When I ask for the no1 Bible verse that teaches a Flat Earth, I get no response. That is because there is no compelling verse that teaches a Flat Earth.
- Southern Hemisphere distances I’ve travelled between Wellington and Perth do not agree with what the Flat Earth requires. Flat Earth distances between Wellington and Perth are not just wrong, but are way off. The distance that the Globe Earth requires agree with flights I myself and friends have taken between Wellington and Perth. In short the Southern Hemisphere is not the greatest part of earth area spread out to the outer ring called Antarctica, rather it tapers toward the South Pole in similar fashion to the North Pole meaning distances are way less than the Flat Earth model. Further, my friend who lives in Perth has a dad who has been to the South Pole. He brags about walking around the whole world.
Remember guys, it takes time to debunk stuff, so any outstanding claims that are not debunked yet are not correct because they haven’t been addressed yet.
Finally, can I ask both you guys (Mike / Dig) what is your number one Bible verse that teaches the Flat Earth?
T8, which is your favorite verse that teaches a globe?
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Lastly, your math is useless if you have never seen the moon travel from west to east. That is the only way the moon could produce a shadow going from west to east. It would have to be from our perspective on earth. In other words if we don’t see the moon going west to east then from our perspective it cannot produce a shadow going in that direction. Otherwise, the moon and its shadow would be going in opposite directions.
As Mike pointed out the moon does not have enough speed relative to earth’s speed to produce such a shadow. He has explained this is an easy to understand way. Simply ignoring his points and copying and pasting the same old explanation without addressing Mike’s point only makes it look like you’re not listening.
I’ll try to catch up with the posts later. D, thanks for the nice words. T8, you are excruciatingly confused/ignorant… but I’ll help you out as soon as I can. In the meantime, here’s a 4 minute video showing how the official timeanddate.com shows all solar eclipse shadows going from east to west. Hopefully this will settle the issue once and for all… https://youtu.be/m77hwgWki4Q
Btw D4T, I am really concerned about T8. I don’t know how old he is, but I seriously think dementia is setting in. He showed me that math he’s showing you, and I addressed it in 3 different posts already. In fact, that particular math – and how it doesn’t apply – is the basis of 4 of my videos. Then he later asked if I had seen the math yet. I told him I had not only seen it but I had addressed it in 3 different posts already. Now he’s asking if you can address it because I didn’t.
I’m a little worried about his mental health.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
