- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
T8: Explain to me why objects dissappear from the ground up and not top down for example.
Perspective. The way our eyes work. If you really want to know the technicalities behind it, I’m happy to link you to some videos by an artists named Rory – who has forgotten more about the way perspective works than either of us will ever know.
T8: …the photo of the football field is not a proven football field… I highly doubt we are looking at a level playing field at all.
You could always go do the experiment yourself on a field that you deem level. The results will always be the same. Here’s the guy dragging the box on the perfectly level warehouse floor…
Here’s one of a guy doing the same experiment on a flat road with joggers and cars disappearing from the bottom. I have it queued to the right spot for you. (At first you’ll think there’s no way the road is flat, but jump to 4:27 and you’ll see it is.)
Mike, I am not convinced these are perfectly level. Even just slightly out and a zoom lense will bring the low point close to the vantage point showing clearly the disparity. Whereas, in normal view the inclination is small enough not to notice.
When I did the marble experiment on a level table at home it showed me clearly how it didn’t dissappear when it was done right. And when the vantage point was just ever so slightly out of aligment so the near and far side of the table was not level, the marble disappeared bottom first.
These new examples you posted have no reason for the floor or road to be perfectly level, so yes, the chances are there is curvature going on here demonstrating aptly how the bigger curvature of earth works too. Even just a slight curve will produce this result.
T8: I saw a video of an ocean liner disappearing bottom first and in that same video, they noted that Flat Earthers use the same small boat example on the near side of the horizon, meaning when it dissappears out of view due to its small size, it can be brought back with binoculars. That is pretty deceptive or at least ignorant.
It works the same with bigger boats, T8. Take your pick of these videos…
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=flat+earth+boats+over+horizon
…or choose one of the many other ones on YouTube. When D4T suggested I look into the flat earth… I did the same thing you guys have been doing here. I searched YouTube for “debunk flat earth” – and found a ton of videos. I linked him one and said, there ya go… all your questions are answered. He said, “Okay then”, and dropped it. But I didn’t. It bugged me and so I kept looking into the flat earth claims. And the more I did that, the more I realized that those debunking videos either created straw men to knock down, or claimed things not in evidence. I mean, look at the one David just linked. It was just released to YouTube last week, and they’re still using the same old “boat over the horizon”, “the sun would shrink as it sets” type of arguments that have already been thoroughly and scientifically addressed by flat earthers.
The truth is out there for you. All you have to do is swallow your pride and look into it with an OPEN mind. And that means checking out some flat earther videos – not just the “flat earth debunked” ones that don’t actually offer a single piece of observational evidence to debunk it.
On this “boat over the horizon” point, see if you can follow this reasoning…
If the boat is disappearing over the horizon from our view at 3-5 miles, then we could look left and right and see the exact amount of curve that made the boat disappear straight ahead of us. Do you follow? On a ball, if there is observable curvature on the y axis (by way of seeing the boat disappear in front of us), then there must be an EQUAL AMOUNT of curve on the x axis (from our left to our right). Now surely you’ve seen boats disappear over the y axis. And surely you’ve looked left to right over the sea and were able to see ten times the distance at which the boat disappeared. But I’ll guarantee you’ve never see an iota of curve on the x axis – let alone so much curve that a boat would disappear behind it.
So do some OPEN MINDED thinking on this – instead of running to people who tell you what your ears are itching to hear, like “the flat earthers only use small boats”. Check it out for yourself. Think for yourself.
Please let me know in no uncertain terms that you understand my point about the x axis and the y axis. Otherwise, ask questions.
T8: Mike, I am not convinced these are perfectly level… These new examples you posted have no reason for the floor or road to be perfectly level, so yes, the chances are there is curvature going on here demonstrating aptly how the bigger curvature of earth works too. Even just a slight curve will produce this result.
So you think it’s reasonable that some business needed a warehouse with a floor that had a hump in the middle of it, and this guy either just happened to work at that one warehouse or broke into it to fake the experiment? 🙂 You think the other dude searched dozens of football fields until he was able to find the one with a hump in the middle so he could deceive the ball earthers? 🙂 As for the guy on the beach road, he raised the camera and showed you the road was straight and flat, right?
Likewise, Kathi wasn’t convinced that the Apollo 17 flag was wet, or that the earth was too small and in the wrong place in the image. But what if she accepted that it was wet? What would that have done to her belief in the Apollo missions… and the government in general?
Unlike Kathi, you have the opportunity to do your own tests on your own football field, road, or warehouse floor. The results will be the same because they are always going to be the same. But in the meantime, just for argument’s sake, ASSUME that all these surfaces were flat and level for a minute. If you assume that they are, and you observed that the things disappear from the bottom, would you then agree that disappearing from the bottom is not a proof that the object is going over a curve?
T8: As for the topsy turvey eclipse, I already said I cannot visualise it on a globe earth or a flat earth. I said that the video could be fake or the lit up part was because the sun was behind the person and to his right. Not sure what is possible here, but needless to say it doesn’t cry out flat earth to me.
I included at least four different videos and half a dozen photos that I took from the ABC Phoenix news site. Which ones did you think were fake? The one I took myself before I even knew there was such a thing as a flat earth movement? I just woke up for work, noticed a cool looking moon, got my phone and recorded it. I never gave it a second thought until months later.
And this is not a proof that the earth is flat… but that the earth could not possibly have been what caused the shadow on the moon during those particular eclipses. I don’t understand your point that it could have worked if the sun was behind the person and to his right. Because no matter where the sun was able to light the bottom of the moon from, it’s impossible that the earth could be what was shadowing the top of the moon at the same time. But I can tell you that I took my video from my balcony, facing due west while the sun was about to rise behind me in the east.
Give it some more thought, and we’ll talk some more about it later. The only point I’m making is that it couldn’t have been the earth causing the top-down shadow. Think more on it and let me know if you can accept that as fact.
T8: …you haven’t attempted to explain the coincidence that the helio model makes the orbits as simple and predictable orbits around the sun if you placebthe eat as revolving around it also.
T8, do you know the movements of the heavenly bodies were able to be predicted as far back as ancient Babylon? Did you know those ancient people thought the earth was flat? Did you know that Ptolemy devised a geocentric model that made predictions and stood for 1400 years before Copernicus’ system eventually displaced it? Did you know that the famous 87 BC Antikythera mechanism was “used to predict astronomical positions and eclipses for calendar and astrological purposes decades in advance”? Did you know that both Newton and Einstein said that whether the earth is stationary with orbiting objects, or the earth is the one doing the orbiting is only a matter of which way one wants to look at it – as either explanation would fit the observations? Did you know that every scientific test ever done to determine the movement of the earth clearly demonstrated that the earth is stationary? Did you know that as late as 1995, heliocentric cosmologist George Ellis said he could create a working geocentric model that nobody could disprove by observation?
If you didn’t, you do now, right? So slow down a little on this “perfect” heliocentric model that has had to be continually revised throughout the years to fit the observations. Keep in mind that it is only a model, and the geocentric models were explaining the observations and predicting star movement and eclipses even more accurately, and for a much longer time.
And now, to top it off, the heliocentric model has my video to contend with. If it can’t be the earth causing the shadow on the top-down eclipses, then the heliocentric model is flawed once again. But how will they revise it this time? Because as I see it, the only two options are…
- There is another unknown heavenly object up there that caused the shadow on the moon.
- The moon is its own light, as the Bible clearly and undeniably teaches.
Which one do you lean towards at this point?
T8: “Common sense would tell you that if I believe in God and the scriptures, that I would believe that God created the universe at some time in the past. Why even make that comment?”
Well since you asked, it’s because you don’t seem to believe the scriptures but rather scientists.
Many Believers know a lot about science and support many practical uses of science and technology in everyday life, but also reject scientific explanations like evolution for example. I believe the scriptures and I believe in a lot of science too. I believe for example in many fields of science that you enjoy the fruit of everyday. The device you are using now and the Internet is because of accumulated science and innovation. If scripture is true and if certain parts of science are true, they will agree or at least not disagree.
But thinking that I reject that God created the universe in the past is still a silly assumption no matter which way you cut it Dig. I gave you no reason to think that. If you really believed this, then it shows a flaw in your thinking and if you just said it to make me look bad, then that is your bad not mine because we should not bear false witness. Lots of people like to do that to win debates, but they pay the price of breaking the second commandment, so they are real losers right? I am not saying you did this, but in the least I see you have a flaw in your thinking processes and in science we need to be able to think clearly and logically. Why do I say this, because the Flat Earth science is not solid IMO.
Boats on a curved earth vs boats on a flat earth
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.
Hi Dig4,
The choice is not between believing God or scientists
but rather between scientists and your silly ideas.
You have no scriptural foundation and at least they do not pretend they have.
T8: “But thinking that I reject that God created the universe in the past is still a silly assumption no matter which way you cut it Dig. I gave you no reason to think that. If you really believed this, then it shows a flaw in your thinking and if you just said it to make me look bad, then that is your bad not mine because we should not bear false witness.”
I didn’t say anything about God creating the universe. (strawman) We were talking about the sun, remember? You should not equate the two. One is a small part of the whole. By doing this you only escalate your emotions and not the facts of the debate. I’m not questioning your belief in God’s creation as a whole although I do wonder why you insist on a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural event.
I agree we should not bear false witness. Please be more careful to accurately respond to what I say. And please, stop with the strawman arguments.
Nick: “The choice is not between believing God or scientists but rather between scientists and your silly ideas.”
No Nick, it is between what secular scientist have tried to sell us and what the Word of God teaches. Your choice.
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Hi Dig4,
Break with the godless legalists and agree that 1 day can be 1000 years
as with the 7th day, the millennial kingdom.
Ps 90.1 peter .
Dig, you said:
Glad to see you admit it was an historical event. That’s something.
Look at your wording. You say glad to see I admit.
WHen you admit to something it is usually because you are now agreeing with another view.
On the contrary, I preach that God created the universe and that it is a historical event.
Be careful next time how you choose your words. The truth is it didn’t offend me, rather it is about being honest and I care about honest discussion. I expect a high standard of honesty here and when it is not apparent, I will say something. I hold this standard because I believe that this is something expected of God’s servants and it is the best way to discover truth among people. Once a person starts to be less honest, then things go awry and time gets wasted. A number of people here are not that honest in their discussions. I have found that Mike has been quite honest while discussing things here, although in this discussion he hasn’t admitted to any good arguments or points brought up in the opposing view. Maybe he doesn’t read everything though.
Hi Mike,
I like y/n questions
You didn’t used to
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?
To All…..this whole FE thing is nothing but smoke and mirrors, made up by a bounch of fruit cakes IMO. It’s just amazing how it’s still going on.
Peace and love to you all and yours. ……gene
T8, about this “neutral guy”:
First off he states that he is trying to “debunk” – NOT neutral!
But let’s look at his results.
Bathurst Lighthouse is 63 feet high on a mound of unknown height. Estimated at 6-10 feet. So let’s say the lighthouse is 75 feet above sea level.
I used the earth curvature calculator here: https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=12.6&h0=6&unit=imperial
His distance was 12.6 miles away.
His eye level was at 6 feet and 90 feet.
Here are the results:
At 90 feet eye level there should only be .644 feet target hidden height. Not too much!
At 6 feet eye level there should be 61.46 feet target hidden height.
Do we see only 13 1/2 feet of lighthouse? Nope! We see almost the entire lighthouse with the exception of the mound it is sitting on.
I’m trying to be generous here with the math and give him every chance to make his point, but we do not see anywhere near that much of the lighthouse missing! As I said, we see almost the entire lighthouse from 6′ elevation.
Why why do we see so much or all of the lighthouse? Where is the 61 feet of curvature?
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
