Page 35 of 79
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 24th, 2019, 6:05 pm
by justme
I would assume in a flat earth model that longitude lines become radii from the center, north pole, extending to the bounding edge, and that latitude lines would be concentric circles centered at the north pole, with the equator probably being halfway. So a southern latitude line would be longer than a northern latitude line. Do we think that this has not been measured and would have been noted long ago.
(Historical Hint: In the 1700's there were major works and expeditions to measure latitudes at different points on the Earth so as to investigate if it was truly spherical or slightly bulging.)
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 24th, 2019, 6:07 pm
by justme
larsenb wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 6:04 pm
justme wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 5:56 pm
Can you see polaris from the southern hemisphere? For a flat earth model I would assume that means outside of the equator great circle. If not, why not? Where is polaris in the flat earth model? How does that work?
I'm not aware that they explain the changing star field, at all (i..e., the zodiac), which of course is explained very well by the ecliptic.
I'm new to this so I have been doing a thought experiment of having an open mind and throwing down all the geometric type objections that comes to mind that would need to be explained.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 24th, 2019, 7:03 pm
by Allison
Durzan wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 4:12 pm
Allison wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 2:26 pm
All right. This will be my goodbye to the forum. You all win---but by default, not persuasion.
...Umm, you said something quite similar to this like 10+ pages back, and then came back anyway just two or three pages ago.
Over a year ago? That was a decent leave of absence. I'll come back any time I want to.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 24th, 2019, 7:10 pm
by justme
Allison wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 7:03 pm
Durzan wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 4:12 pm
Allison wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 2:26 pm
All right. This will be my goodbye to the forum. You all win---but by default, not persuasion.
...Umm, you said something quite similar to this like 10+ pages back, and then came back anyway just two or three pages ago.
Over a year ago? That was a decent leave of absence. I'll come back any time I want to.
Please do. I enjoy the history of science and am fascinated by how much the ancients knew. Plus this is a good mental exercise to think through the different ramifications. I am currently wondering how gravity may work in such a model.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 1:05 am
by Robin Hood
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:41 pm
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:38 pm
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:03 pm
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 2:49 pm
I'm not really interested in the science to be honest. Personally it seems to me that both camps make claims which are not properly evidenced. I would tend to agree with Nicola Tesla when he said that both parties are wrong and that the Earth is a realm.
Tesla never said that.
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-earth ... oil.t8466/
Another piece of misinformation we have globe deniers to thank for.
Whoever said it, I think they were on to something.
But why do you label them "globe deniers"?
I think it is a very unfortunate choice of words and is used in order to resonate with "holocaust deniers". "Climate change deniers" is used in the same way.
What's wrong with the more accurate "flat earth believers"?
Because they have no model they will stand by or believe in. They only know one thing "not globe".
When they have something they will stand by or believe in then they can upgrade their name back to "flat earther" in my book.
Ps I think you should seriously reconsider the wisdom of that quote. But whatever.
Why do they need a model?
They are simply saying that according to observed evidence the earth appears to be flat. They don't need a model and I suggest you are creating a false argument.
But your phrase "when they have something they will stand by or
believe in..." is an example of our arrogance. Since none of us have seen the curvature or the shape of the earth, and all of our personal experience of life on earth has appeared to demonstrate a flat plane, it is us who rely on belief.
I have interacted with a few flat-earthers. Most of them are intelligent and searching for truth. They are of the maverick persuasion and distrust received wisdom and belief systems simply because they are received. I admire that.
The ones I have spoken with simply say that all of their senses reveal a flat stationary plane and in the absence of proof to contrary they hold to what their experience has revealed. NASA's cgi renditions of the marble earth simply contribute further to their position.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 6:55 am
by justme
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:05 am
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:41 pm
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Whoever said it, I think they were on to something.
But why do you label them "globe deniers"?
I think it is a very unfortunate choice of words and is used in order to resonate with "holocaust deniers". "Climate change deniers" is used in the same way.
What's wrong with the more accurate "flat earth believers"?
Because they have no model they will stand by or believe in. They only know one thing "not globe".
When they have something they will stand by or believe in then they can upgrade their name back to "flat earther" in my book.
Ps I think you should seriously reconsider the wisdom of that quote. But whatever.
Why do they need a model?
They are simply saying that according to observed evidence the earth appears to be flat. They don't need a model and I suggest you are creating a false argument.
But your phrase "when they have something they will stand by or
believe in..." is an example of our arrogance. Since none of us have seen the curvature or the shape of the earth, and all of our personal experience of life on earth has appeared to demonstrate a flat plane, it is us who rely on belief.
I have interacted with a few flat-earthers. Most of them are intelligent and searching for truth. They are of the maverick persuasion and distrust received wisdom and belief systems simply because they are received. I admire that.
The ones I have spoken with simply say that all of their senses reveal a flat stationary plane and in the absence of proof to contrary they hold to what their experience has revealed. NASA's cgi renditions of the marble earth simply contribute further to their position.
My senses include seeing day turn to night, the sun moving across the sky daily and seasonally, seasons changing, zodiac changing, planets moving, satellites moving across the sky, differences in the stars from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere, gravity, watching soap bubbles form. These are all things that I have seen with my own eyes, my own senses. So a scientist tries to explain these, or build up a
model of how the solar system that would explain these. The global model works, I do not see how a flat earth model works. Everything I bring up, usually based on simple geometry, has not been explained. A true flat earth scientist should be able to at least hypothesize answers to such questions as "if the earth is a flat disk not moving in space then (fill in the blank)" But if they respond I never said it wasn't moving then they are just saying that they haven't done the work of building a model.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 8:07 am
by braingrunt
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:05 am
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:41 pm
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Whoever said it, I think they were on to something.
But why do you label them "globe deniers"?
I think it is a very unfortunate choice of words and is used in order to resonate with "holocaust deniers". "Climate change deniers" is used in the same way.
What's wrong with the more accurate "flat earth believers"?
Because they have no model they will stand by or believe in. They only know one thing "not globe".
When they have something they will stand by or believe in then they can upgrade their name back to "flat earther" in my book.
Ps I think you should seriously reconsider the wisdom of that quote. But whatever.
Why do they need a model?
They are simply saying that according to observed evidence the earth appears to be flat. They don't need a model and I suggest you are creating a false argument.
But your phrase "when they have something they will stand by or
believe in..." is an example of our arrogance. Since none of us have seen the curvature or the shape of the earth, and all of our personal experience of life on earth has appeared to demonstrate a flat plane, it is us who rely on belief.
I have interacted with a few flat-earthers. Most of them are intelligent and searching for truth. They are of the maverick persuasion and distrust received wisdom and belief systems simply because they are received. I admire that.
The ones I have spoken with simply say that all of their senses reveal a flat stationary plane and in the absence of proof to contrary they hold to what their experience has revealed. NASA's cgi renditions of the marble earth simply contribute further to their position.
I'm simply defining them according to their most powerful and specific belief, in my opinion. I think you should relax.
Obviously I disagree with you. I've seen with my own eyes it's not flat. I saw the sun set. I know you can't quite grasp that as proof positive of the globe but try once more. The sun cannot go behind anything if there's nothing to go behind, anymore than you could hide a basketball on a basketball court.
You can go see more curve too if you want. Wait for favorable weather then go look at isle of man from St Bees. If you are standing on the right spot you'll see the island split in two because there's some low lying ground in between the North Tip of the island and the south, which is completely behind the curve. There are also some wind farms you can see going behind the curve.
If you are ever in New Orleans you could go see this:
What make globe deniers the most dishonest is that by now many of them know this evidence is true. They just refuse to see, they pluck out their minds eye because it offends them. They've been working on their alternate explanations for the past several months instead of trusting what they can see with their own eyes. The biggest irony of all because you think they are so good at trusting their senses. Honestly they suck at it.
And why do they know this evidence is real? Because they are driven to find "we see too far" evidence. If you're looking for that kind of evidence, odds are you are going to see obstruction while doing so. They also had a globe denier go and try to prove soundly's photography was faked. It was not. They eventually lost that globe denier, which is half miracle because you practically never find a globe denier who's capable of trusting his senses enough to pop out of their groove.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 10:10 am
by Robin Hood
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 8:07 am
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:05 am
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:41 pm
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Whoever said it, I think they were on to something.
But why do you label them "globe deniers"?
I think it is a very unfortunate choice of words and is used in order to resonate with "holocaust deniers". "Climate change deniers" is used in the same way.
What's wrong with the more accurate "flat earth believers"?
Because they have no model they will stand by or believe in. They only know one thing "not globe".
When they have something they will stand by or believe in then they can upgrade their name back to "flat earther" in my book.
Ps I think you should seriously reconsider the wisdom of that quote. But whatever.
Why do they need a model?
They are simply saying that according to observed evidence the earth appears to be flat. They don't need a model and I suggest you are creating a false argument.
But your phrase "when they have something they will stand by or
believe in..." is an example of our arrogance. Since none of us have seen the curvature or the shape of the earth, and all of our personal experience of life on earth has appeared to demonstrate a flat plane, it is us who rely on belief.
I have interacted with a few flat-earthers. Most of them are intelligent and searching for truth. They are of the maverick persuasion and distrust received wisdom and belief systems simply because they are received. I admire that.
The ones I have spoken with simply say that all of their senses reveal a flat stationary plane and in the absence of proof to contrary they hold to what their experience has revealed. NASA's cgi renditions of the marble earth simply contribute further to their position.
I'm simply defining them according to their most powerful and specific belief, in my opinion. I think you should relax.
Obviously I disagree with you. I've seen with my own eyes it's not flat. I saw the sun set. I know you can't quite grasp that as proof positive of the globe but try once more. The sun cannot go behind anything if there's nothing to go behind, anymore than you could hide a basketball on a basketball court.
You can go see more curve too if you want. Wait for favorable weather then go look at isle of man from St Bees. If you are standing on the right spot you'll see the island split in two because there's some low lying ground in between the North Tip of the island and the south, which is completely behind the curve. There are also some wind farms you can see going behind the curve.
If you are ever in New Orleans you could go see this:
What make globe deniers the most dishonest is that by now many of them know this evidence is true. They just refuse to see, they pluck out their minds eye because it offends them. They've been working on their alternate explanations for the past several months instead of trusting what they can see with their own eyes. The biggest irony of all because you think they are so good at trusting their senses. Honestly they suck at it.
And why do they know this evidence is real? Because they are driven to find "we see too far" evidence. If you're looking for that kind of evidence, odds are you are going to see obstruction while doing so. They also had a globe denier go and try to prove soundly's photography was faked. It was not. They eventually lost that globe denier, which is half miracle because you practically never find a globe denier who's capable of trusting his senses enough to pop out of their groove.
An astounding generalisation.
I thought better of you.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 10:17 am
by braingrunt
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 10:10 am
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 8:07 am
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:05 am
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:41 pm
Because they have no model they will stand by or believe in. They only know one thing "not globe".
When they have something they will stand by or believe in then they can upgrade their name back to "flat earther" in my book.
Ps I think you should seriously reconsider the wisdom of that quote. But whatever.
Why do they need a model?
They are simply saying that according to observed evidence the earth appears to be flat. They don't need a model and I suggest you are creating a false argument.
But your phrase "when they have something they will stand by or
believe in..." is an example of our arrogance. Since none of us have seen the curvature or the shape of the earth, and all of our personal experience of life on earth has appeared to demonstrate a flat plane, it is us who rely on belief.
I have interacted with a few flat-earthers. Most of them are intelligent and searching for truth. They are of the maverick persuasion and distrust received wisdom and belief systems simply because they are received. I admire that.
The ones I have spoken with simply say that all of their senses reveal a flat stationary plane and in the absence of proof to contrary they hold to what their experience has revealed. NASA's cgi renditions of the marble earth simply contribute further to their position.
I'm simply defining them according to their most powerful and specific belief, in my opinion. I think you should relax.
Obviously I disagree with you. I've seen with my own eyes it's not flat. I saw the sun set. I know you can't quite grasp that as proof positive of the globe but try once more. The sun cannot go behind anything if there's nothing to go behind, anymore than you could hide a basketball on a basketball court.
You can go see more curve too if you want. Wait for favorable weather then go look at isle of man from St Bees. If you are standing on the right spot you'll see the island split in two because there's some low lying ground in between the North Tip of the island and the south, which is completely behind the curve. There are also some wind farms you can see going behind the curve.
If you are ever in New Orleans you could go see this:
What make globe deniers the most dishonest is that by now many of them know this evidence is true. They just refuse to see, they pluck out their minds eye because it offends them. They've been working on their alternate explanations for the past several months instead of trusting what they can see with their own eyes. The biggest irony of all because you think they are so good at trusting their senses. Honestly they suck at it.
And why do they know this evidence is real? Because they are driven to find "we see too far" evidence. If you're looking for that kind of evidence, odds are you are going to see obstruction while doing so. They also had a globe denier go and try to prove soundly's photography was faked. It was not. They eventually lost that globe denier, which is half miracle because you practically never find a globe denier who's capable of trusting his senses enough to pop out of their groove.
An astounding generalisation.
I thought better of you.
I say it's an astounding generalization when you characterize them as intelligent people trusting their own senses.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 11:53 am
by Durzan
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 10:17 am
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 10:10 am
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 8:07 am
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:05 am
Why do they need a model?
They are simply saying that according to observed evidence the earth appears to be flat. They don't need a model and I suggest you are creating a false argument.
But your phrase "when they have something they will stand by or
believe in..." is an example of our arrogance. Since none of us have seen the curvature or the shape of the earth, and all of our personal experience of life on earth has appeared to demonstrate a flat plane, it is us who rely on belief.
I have interacted with a few flat-earthers. Most of them are intelligent and searching for truth. They are of the maverick persuasion and distrust received wisdom and belief systems simply because they are received. I admire that.
The ones I have spoken with simply say that all of their senses reveal a flat stationary plane and in the absence of proof to contrary they hold to what their experience has revealed. NASA's cgi renditions of the marble earth simply contribute further to their position.
I'm simply defining them according to their most powerful and specific belief, in my opinion. I think you should relax.
Obviously I disagree with you. I've seen with my own eyes it's not flat. I saw the sun set. I know you can't quite grasp that as proof positive of the globe but try once more. The sun cannot go behind anything if there's nothing to go behind, anymore than you could hide a basketball on a basketball court.
You can go see more curve too if you want. Wait for favorable weather then go look at isle of man from St Bees. If you are standing on the right spot you'll see the island split in two because there's some low lying ground in between the North Tip of the island and the south, which is completely behind the curve. There are also some wind farms you can see going behind the curve.
If you are ever in New Orleans you could go see this:
What make globe deniers the most dishonest is that by now many of them know this evidence is true. They just refuse to see, they pluck out their minds eye because it offends them. They've been working on their alternate explanations for the past several months instead of trusting what they can see with their own eyes. The biggest irony of all because you think they are so good at trusting their senses. Honestly they suck at it.
And why do they know this evidence is real? Because they are driven to find "we see too far" evidence. If you're looking for that kind of evidence, odds are you are going to see obstruction while doing so. They also had a globe denier go and try to prove soundly's photography was faked. It was not. They eventually lost that globe denier, which is half miracle because you practically never find a globe denier who's capable of trusting his senses enough to pop out of their groove.
An astounding generalisation.
I thought better of you.
I say it's an astounding generalization when you characterize them as intelligent people trusting their own senses.
Oh boy... please don't go down THAT rabbit hole.
Lets keep these things civil please?
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 12:01 pm
by Shawn Henry
larsenb wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 2:43 pm
Yep. A very elegant, comprehensive theory that explains the workings of the Solar system very well. And no, the heliocentric model is not dependent on the Big Bang theory. The latter was posed long after the heliocentric model came into dominance or the other concepts you mention.
It doesn't really matter which came first, the point is, the big bang had to come about to justify orbital mechanics. Believing first in a chicken does not negate the fact that you will eventually have to work out backwards the egg. You can't have one theory without the other, unless you go against the very foundation of science that you purport to stand on.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 12:05 pm
by jmack
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:05 am
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:41 pm
Robin Hood wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Whoever said it, I think they were on to something.
But why do you label them "globe deniers"?
I think it is a very unfortunate choice of words and is used in order to resonate with "holocaust deniers". "Climate change deniers" is used in the same way.
What's wrong with the more accurate "flat earth believers"?
Because they have no model they will stand by or believe in. They only know one thing "not globe".
When they have something they will stand by or believe in then they can upgrade their name back to "flat earther" in my book.
Ps I think you should seriously reconsider the wisdom of that quote. But whatever.
Why do they need a model?
They are simply saying that according to observed evidence the earth appears to be flat. They don't need a model and I suggest you are creating a false argument.
But your phrase "when they have something they will stand by or
believe in..." is an example of our arrogance. Since none of us have seen the curvature or the shape of the earth, and all of our personal experience of life on earth has appeared to demonstrate a flat plane, it is us who rely on belief.
I have interacted with a few flat-earthers. Most of them are intelligent and searching for truth. They are of the maverick persuasion and distrust received wisdom and belief systems simply because they are received. I admire that.
The ones I have spoken with simply say that all of their senses reveal a flat stationary plane and in the absence of proof to contrary they hold to what their experience has revealed. NASA's cgi renditions of the marble earth simply contribute further to their position.
Apparently they don't need anything to convince some people, but if the flat earthers want to be taken seriously by a majority of those they are trying to convince, they'll need a model and a theory that at least makes us consider their claims. I don't think that's happened, at least not here.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 12:16 pm
by larsenb
Shawn Henry wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 12:01 pm
larsenb wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 2:43 pm
Yep. A very elegant, comprehensive theory that explains the workings of the Solar system very well. And no, the heliocentric model is not dependent on the Big Bang theory. The latter was posed long after the heliocentric model came into dominance or the other concepts you mention.
It doesn't really matter which came first, the point is, the big bang had to come about to justify orbital mechanics. Believing first in a chicken does not negate the fact that you will eventually have to work out backwards the egg. You can't have one theory without the other, unless you go against the very foundation of science that you purport to stand on.
Not true. It is what it is. Big bang, steady state, or whatever you come up with.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 12:35 pm
by Shawn Henry
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 8:07 am
They also had a globe denier go and try to prove soundly's photography was faked. It was not.
This statement is a great example of your intellectual dishonesty.
For all those not familiar with Soundly's lake Ponchartrain photo, it's a photo taken more or less at ground level that shows so much curvature that the earth would be the size of Texas. The photo debunks itself, yet "we" had a flat earther "try" to disprove it.
If you notice too, braingrunt will never mention the fact that water, the moisture content in the air, will curve an image. It's what water does. We've all seen water create these false perceptions, spear fishing for example.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 12:38 pm
by justme
Shawn Henry wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 12:35 pm
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 8:07 am
They also had a globe denier go and try to prove soundly's photography was faked. It was not.
This statement is a great example of your intellectual dishonesty.
For all those not familiar with Soundly's lake Ponchartrain photo, it's a photo taken more or less at ground level that shows so much curvature that the earth would be the size of Texas. The photo debunks itself, yet "we" had a flat earther "try" to disprove it.
If you notice too, braingrunt will never mention the fact that water, the moisture content in the air, will curve an image. It's what water does. We've all seen water create these false perceptions, spear fishing for example.
Have you ever been to the bonneville salt flats?
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 12:46 pm
by Shawn Henry
larsenb wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 12:16 pm
Not true. It is what it is. Big bang, steady state, or whatever you come up with.
I'll overlook the "is what it is" retort, because who can complete with that right? Lol.
Steady state still employs an outward expansion and the same orbital mechanics.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 12:47 pm
by braingrunt
Shawn Henry wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 12:35 pm
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 8:07 am
They also had a globe denier go and try to prove soundly's photography was faked. It was not.
This statement is a great example of your intellectual dishonesty.
For all those not familiar with Soundly's lake Ponchartrain photo, it's a photo taken more or less at ground level that shows so much curvature that the earth would be the size of Texas. The photo debunks itself, yet "we" had a flat earther "try" to disprove it.
If you notice too, braingrunt will never mention the fact that water, the moisture content in the air, will curve an image. It's what water does. We've all seen water create these false perceptions, spear fishing for example.
"Size of Texas" comment is an example of pure shoot at the hip, say what comes to mind. It's false. Actually it's not even that bad it's worse. It's an example of you repeating whatever another flat earther said first.
Do the math. The amount of obstruction shown is consistent with a globe 3959 mi radius. The drop for between each hut is consistent with a globe 3959mi radius. We've actually done the math on our side. You could do the same.
Your comment is an example of intellectual dishonesty because you did not check it.
Your statement that "water will curve an image" is proof positive of what I was saying earlier. Globe deniers by and large WILL NOT believe curve when they see it with their own eyes but will come up with another explanation. (Robin Hood take note please) AOT did exactly the same thing earlier in this thread when I posted soundlys footage the first time. It's par for the course.
The guy checking up on soundly was Jose JG Gonzales. Look it up. It happened.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 12:48 pm
by Shawn Henry
justme wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 12:38 pm
Have you ever been to the bonneville salt flats?
Only via YouTube videos.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 12:58 pm
by Shawn Henry
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 12:47 pm
Do the math.
It's a photograph, there is no math to do. We already know the math dictates that there would not be that much curvature. Look at the very end of those pylons, there is a sharp drop. We can all see this drop in the photograph. We all know that no such drop exists.
If you want to be scientific about it, print dozens of copies of the photograph and cut out the curvature at the end and piece the curvature together and you will get an earth a hundred times smaller.
This is just like the Red Bull jump image that shows drastic curvature of the earth, the only problem being that New Mexico suddenly covers one quarter of the entire earth.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 1:10 pm
by braingrunt
Shawn Henry wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 12:58 pm
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 12:47 pm
Do the math.
It's a photograph, there is no math to do. We already know the math dictates that there would not be that much curvature. Look at the very end of those pylons, there is a sharp drop. We can all see this drop in the photograph. We all know that no such drop exists.
If you want to be scientific about it, print dozens of copies of the photograph and cut out the curvature at the end and piece the curvature together and you will get an earth a hundred times smaller.
This is just like the Red Bull jump image that shows drastic curvature of the earth, the only problem being that New Mexico suddenly covers one quarter of the entire earth.
1) you copy paste method is incorrect. Take a picture of a hula hoop side on. Then take a picture of the top of it nearly (but not quite) edge on. Then tell me seriously that you think you could reconstruct the curvature of the hula hoop by pasting duplicates of the edge-on picture together. I'll wait with bated breath for you to prove your point. (of course I actually know 100% that your method is wrong and will not work. But you go try it because no doubt you wont take my word for it.)
2) there is math to do because soundly reported his locations and using identifiable evidence in the photo, we can identify the distances to the huts.
If you want I will do a skype call with you so that we have a better chance of finding out whether one of us can see the error of their ways, regarding analysis of the soundly footage.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 1:19 pm
by Shawn Henry
jmack wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 12:05 pm
if the flat earthers want to be taken seriously by a majority of those they are trying to convince, they'll need a model
You mistakenly equate a model of cosmology with a model of the earth. The two go hand in hand but are not dependent upon each other.
Our model of the earth is quite simple, it's flat. How a flat earth fits into cosmology is another matter.
You're wanting some evidence for a model, which ironically is the genesis for this movement, globe believers started looking at NASA's images of earth, including the famous blue marble image, and saw instead evidence that the images were fake and then started the transition to becoming flat earthers. I say fake, but is an image truly fake if NASA includes in the fine print that it is CGI?
If any want to talk cosmology, however, let's include the narrative of modern scripture. I've pointed this out before and no one has an answer. The two creation accounts in the Pearl of Great Price clearly state that all the stars and the sun and moon are underneath the divided waters of the earth. The earth's waters were split and the "above" waters are above even the sun.
Care to explain how the earth's waters are above every star in the firmament? There's only one explanation and that's an enclosed system.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 1:24 pm
by Shawn Henry
larsenb wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 3:42 pm
the Bible is correct only in so far as it is translated correctly.
So let's resort to the Pearl of Great Price if you care to respond to my description above of it's cosmology.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 1:27 pm
by Shawn Henry
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:10 pm
If you want I will do a skype call with you
Is it your desire to offer that statement in hopes I don't respond so that you can later use it as fodder like you did with Allison?
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 1:34 pm
by braingrunt
Shawn Henry wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:27 pm
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:10 pm
If you want I will do a skype call with you
Is it your desire to offer that statement in hopes I don't respond so that you can later use it as fodder like you did with Allison?
I'm really curious, using the clarity which comes from speech and real-world objects, whether you would seriously stand by your statement that you could see that soundly's image is not real curve, because if you pasted them together it would be too small. I really think I could show you that's wrong.
I really do.
And if I really could I'd consider that a worthwhile victory.
Re: Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion
Posted: September 25th, 2019, 1:37 pm
by Shawn Henry
braingrunt wrote: ↑September 25th, 2019, 1:34 pm
skype call
I'll skype with you, I'm off to work here shortly though.