Space suits... the "nail" in the coffin?

[majj27]

They label anyone who has concepts that contradict theirs as "conspiracy theorists". Then they condescend them as "tinfoil hatters" and "uneducated" or "crackpots".

This is all done to deflect the fact that any scientist, worth their salt and all the letters after their name, should be firm and ready to defend their numbers and views to any other concept, numbers and views.

Dismissing them as crazy conspiracy theorists... IMO... is, like the guy says... a cowardly response and shows lack of confidence in their own dogma.

Then explain why the Southern Cross isn't visible from Iowa, would you kindly?

 

[JacksBratt]

Then explain why the Southern Cross isn't visible from Iowa, would you kindly?

From what I understand, the luminaries in the heavens are just like the sun and moon. Once they are so far away, they are beyond our view due to lines of perspective and their distance.

However, a person who knows all the intimacies behind the FE view would be able to explain it better.
Suffice to say that you cannot see the entire dome or fermiment from any one place. OR it would be day light all the time, you would see the moon all the time and all the other terrestrial luminaries too.

 

[majj27]

From what I understand, the luminaries in the heavens are just like the sun and moon. Once they are so far away, they are beyond our view due to lines of perspective and their distance.

However, a person who knows all the intimacies behind the FE view would be able to explain it better.
Suffice to say that you cannot see the entire dome or fermiment from any one place. OR it would be day light all the time, you would see the moon all the time and all the other terrestrial luminaries too.

Let me get this straight. I'll take a star from the Southern Cross - Alpha Crusis. It has a decliantion of -63 degreers, which means that if you are on the 63rd parallel, Alpha Crusis is straight up. A place like, say, D'Urville Island, which sits on that parallel.

I stick Dude A on D'Urville Island. I stick another dude (Dude B) at some place directly north of Dude A, at the point where Alpha Crucis disappears (approximately 27 degrees north.

I stick Dude C at 26 degrees north.

Dude A can see Alpha Crucis. It is, after all, the 13th brightest star in the night sky, and appears to him at a brightness of magnitude .76.

Dude C can also see Alpha Crucis. It is, after all, the 13th brightest star in the night sky, and appears to him at a brightness of magnitude .76 as well. Just as bright as it does to Dude A.

Apparently, in the 9,874 km between Dude A and Dude C, the star is just as bright, and the distance makes no difference.

Dude B cannot see it. At all. No combination of binoculars, telescopes, or any sort of magnifying device will allow him to see Alpha Crucis.

Apparently in that last 110 km, the 13th brightest star in the sky suddenly and without any discernable reason gets SO MUCH DIMMER that it vanishes completely from all forms of detection.

Please note, this trick will work with any star. In the last 110 km, no matter how bright it was and has been constantly for everyone else, it suddenly dims to the point that it cannot be detected at all.

That's simply nonsensical.

 

[Aldebaran]

From what I understand, the luminaries in the heavens are just like the sun and moon. Once they are so far away, they are beyond our view due to lines of perspective and their distance.

However, a person who knows all the intimacies behind the FE view would be able to explain it better.
Suffice to say that you cannot see the entire dome or fermiment from any one place. OR it would be day light all the time, you would see the moon all the time and all the other terrestrial luminaries too.

If you're not a FE person (which is what you have claimed on numerous occasions), then why do you keep putting forth the FE view?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Oh, and if anyone ever asks why scientists don't debate conspiracy theorists, this thread shows you why: it's a massive waste of time.

Circular reasoning. Scientists just label anyone they can't defeat in debate as conspiracy theorists. They've already convinced people like you debating such people is a massive waste of time.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

PRATT. Also, note how if an object is not in the directly illuminated circle of the direct beam, AN OBSERVER AT THAT POINT CAN STILL SEE THE FLASHLIGHT.

Try this... go outside at night with a friend, and have them face you and shine a flashlight at the ground, say, a few feet to your right.

Is the flashlight MAGICALLY NOT THERE ANYMORE?

The entire idea fails the How Reality Works check. Flat Earth = disproven.

Have you never seen a cloudy day? The clouds are able to shield the sun from view, even when its directly overhead. Even globe-Earthers understand that somewhere on Earth at any time, there are clouds. Sun light cannot penetrate through thick clouds, and it can't penetrate beyond a given amount of atmosphere. The atmosphere allows for night time on the flat Earth, in the same way it turns the mountains blue before making them invisible.

 

[JacksBratt]

If you're not a FE person (which is what you have claimed on numerous occasions), then why do you keep putting forth the FE view?

I am searching for truth. So, if someone presents an idea or "solid fact" about the globe model, that can be explained in the FE model as well, or can be discounted all together.... should I just sit there mute and say nothing....? Or point out the discrepancies.

 

[lasthero]

I am searching for truth.

I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that is not the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've stated in the past that you believe the Bible describes the Earth as flat. That's your basis, that's your starting point - you believe that God, an omnipotent, all-knowing being who never lies, told you that the Earth is a flat disc with a firmament covering it. That's your interpretation.

If that's the case, then your belief in a flat earth is tied to it, and you're not searching for truth - you're searching for things that support your worldview. You're not approaching this objectively, you're looking for confirmation. Whether you realize it or not, you're going to ignore or downplay anything that doesn't support your viewpoint, and champion anything that does, which is what we see from you time and time again.

When the multiple holes in the FE are pointed out, you tend to handwave them or ignore them outright. When the holes you point out in the round-Earth are explained, you ignore the explanations, then repeat the questions later on, as if they were never explained.

You're not neutral on this, you believe the world is flat. Anybody and everybody can see that. And that's fine, really, but at least own up to it.

 

[majj27]

Have you never seen a cloudy day? The clouds are able to shield the sun from view, even when its directly overhead. Even globe-Earthers understand that somewhere on Earth at any time, there are clouds. Sun light cannot penetrate through thick clouds, and it can't penetrate beyond a given amount of atmosphere. The atmosphere allows for night time on the flat Earth, in the same way it turns the mountains blue before making them invisible.

Clouds are substantially different in composition from the atmosphere in which they occur, you know. That's why they're called "clouds" and not just "air". Also, that's why you can, you, know, see them and all. Comparing "air" to "cloud" is a bad comparison.

I'd like to see the research that shows that light cannot penetrate the mix of gasses that the earth's atmosphere is made of, specifically at what distance light can no longer penetrate it. If it's true, it should be pretty easily measurable. There should be a pretty clear degradation of luminosity over distance. Can an FE person demonstrate this degradation and measure it?

And the blue mountain thing? That's called Rayleigh scattering, and we've known about how that works for about 150 years, give or take. With regards to the mountains, it's caused by particulate matter in the air (i.e. dust). Fun fact! We also see it as a source of interference in fiber-optic cables.

 

[majj27]

Circular reasoning. Scientists just label anyone they can't defeat in debate as conspiracy theorists.

Actually, I call them conspiracy theorists because I've yet to meet a single one who doesn't have a massive conspiracy at the heart of their argument.

They've already convinced people like you debating such people is a massive waste of time.

Actually, FE proponents pretty much did that on their own.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that is not the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've stated in the past that you believe the Bible describes the Earth as flat. That's your basis, that's your starting point - you believe that God, an omnipotent, all-knowing being who never lies, told you that the Earth is a flat disc with a firmament covering it. That's your interpretation.

If that's the case, then your belief in a flat earth is tied to it, and you're not searching for truth - you're searching for things that support your worldview. You're not approaching this objectively, you're looking for confirmation. Whether you realize it or not, you're going to ignore or downplay anything that doesn't support your viewpoint, and champion anything that does, which is what we see from you time and time again.

Well, in one sense, you may be right. I was confronted, by an atheist, on these forums. They showed that, if I was to believe that the Bible was the real word of God... and is truth from the creator.. then the earth is flat.

That was this atheists view.

I took a step back and decided to check it out. Coincidentally, the internet is exploding with FE information. I have researched a lot of it. Listened to strong Christians and "not so righteous" individuals as they gave talks on what they had found.

To tell you the truth... I will not be surprised if I find out, on my death bed that the earth is flat..

However... right now... I am only certain that it is not what they are telling us in school.... from Junior kindergarten, right up to those with multiple PhD's....

What is it? I don't know.

However, the Bible does not describe a globe.... It doesn't say it's a flat disk either. It describes a circle and a firmament. It describes heavens above and other places below.

I am certain that NASA and the Military have a really good idea of what is out there... Whatever it is... they ain't say'n.
It would destroy evolution and the whole one world government that they have planned.

I don't think the world can handle all the truth and lies...

I do believe that knowledge is increasing and all will be revealed.

I'm certainly not going to sit in my chair with a gag in my mouth when someone tells me that you can have a total eclipse of the moon while the sun is up... OR that the earth is a globe as small as they say when we can see things much farther than we should.

How does it all work? IDK... Maybe we are to have faith that it works because God made it that way..

I totally believe that space is a farce... for crying out loud the special effects are pathetic. What did they expect? Technology would not advance to a point where it would look laughable?

When the multiple holes in the FE are pointed out, you tend to handwave them or ignore them outright. When the holes you point out in the round-Earth are explained, you ignore the explanations, then repeat the questions later on, as if they were never explained.

Just as people ignore simple facts that show that the globe is swiss cheeze and the main source, NASA, has no integrity or substance.

You're not neutral on this, you believe the world is flat. Anybody and everybody can see that. And that's fine, really, but at least own up to it.

Like I said above... I am not sure what to think.... Why is there only Flat or a ball?

Why not...... just.... they are lying....

 

[JacksBratt]

Circular reasoning. Scientists just label anyone they can't defeat in debate as conspiracy theorists. They've already convinced people like you debating such people is a massive waste of time.

Saying "I won't debate you because you are wrong" is both arrogant and cowardly. They won't debate because they are afraid of what they don't know about the FE model and what they do know about the globe.

I, personally would love to see this in a formal debate.... the best, against the best.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Clouds are substantially different in composition from the atmosphere in which they occur, you know. That's why they're called "clouds" and not just "air". Also, that's why you can, you, know, see them and all. Comparing "air" to "cloud" is a bad comparison.

Clouds inhibit light for the same reason the atmosphere does, they are just much more dense than the atmosphere, so inhibit light over much shorter distances. Hence why you can't see your mountain peak when a cloud covers it, without any need for mention of Rayleigh scattering.

I'd like to see the research that shows that light cannot penetrate the mix of gasses that the earth's atmosphere is made of, specifically at what distance light can no longer penetrate it. If it's true, it should be pretty easily measurable. There should be a pretty clear degradation of luminosity over distance. Can an FE person demonstrate this degradation and measure it?

Are you saying that you're not convinced luminosity decreases with distance? Were this true, what would be the benefit of brighter lights at night? As you state, its something readily demonstrated by experiment, but I would have thought the effect would be so observable that you would be able to rely on your own experience?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Suffice to say that you cannot see the entire dome or fermiment from any one place. OR it would be day light all the time, you would see the moon all the time and all the other terrestrial luminaries too.

That's kind of the problem with flat Earth. If you have a perfectly flat disc under a dome, you SHOULD be able to see the entire dome all the time, clouds and mist not withstanding.

If you go out at night and stand on a hill in a dark place, you CAN see the entire night sky provided it's a clear night. But that's on a globe. If the Earth was flat, there's no reason why the sun shouldn't be visible.

 

[majj27]

Clouds inhibit light for the same reason the atmosphere does, they are just much more dense than the atmosphere, so inhibit light over much shorter distances. Hence why you can't see your mountain peak when a cloud covers it, without any need for mention of Rayleigh scattering.

Two completely different mechanisms. Rayleigh scattering is different, works different, and produces obvious and clearly seen different results than water vapor cloud opacity.

you saying that you're not convinced luminosity decreases with distance? Were this true, what would be the benefit of brighter lights at night? As you state, its something readily demonstrated by experiment, but I would have thought the effect would be so observable that you would be able to rely on your own experience?

No, that's not what I'm saying, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

The perceived brightness of a light-emitting object decreases over distance. That much of what you said is true. But you added that a characteristic of our atmosphere causes the sun to wink out at a certain distance (oddly enough, the stars, which are apparently farther away and dimmer, shine right on through the air just fine, but whatevs). Whatever atmospheric composition literally makes the sun go from sunset brightness to undetectable in about 2 minutes time.

What I want to know is just what combination of gases allow for the sun's light to come through just fine and dandy almost all day long, then within 2 minutes of distance travelled, become utterly opaque to the sun, and where I can find out about the data that shows it.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Two completely different mechanisms. Rayleigh scattering is different, works different, and produces obvious and clearly seen different results than water vapor cloud opacity.

I disagree, but whatever. The end result is the same.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

The perceived brightness of a light-emitting object decreases over distance. That much of what you said is true.

I'm glad you admit I'm right on this point. It takes a bigger man to admit he is wrong, than one who insists he is right despite knowing he has been mistaken.

But you added that a characteristic of our atmosphere causes the sun to wink out at a certain distance (oddly enough, the stars, which are apparently farther away and dimmer, shine right on through the air just fine, but whatevs).

Flat earth theory doesn't require stars to be far away - this is only necessary to explain constant star paths in heliocentrism. In fact, they're probably only marginally further than the sun, if further at all.

Whatever atmospheric composition literally makes the sun go from sunset brightness to undetectable in about 2 minutes time.

What I want to know is just what combination of gases allow for the sun's light to come through just fine and dandy almost all day long, then within 2 minutes of distance travelled, become utterly opaque to the sun, and where I can find out about the data that shows it.

Nitrogen and oxygen, mostly. As I said, the atmosphere. Depending on the thickness and cloud cover, the sun will be more or less visible on some days than others. This is why on cloudy days, the sun is mostly hidden (water vapour in these cases, which is much denser in clouds than the aforementioned nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere).

 

[lasthero]

Saying "I won't debate you because you are wrong" is both arrogant and cowardly.

You know, if I were to claim that, say, germs are controlled by invisible and undetectable pixies, and that the only way to cure diseases forever is for the entire human race to slap themselves in the face and spin around there times, no scientist would debate me, either.

This sort of mentality always amuses me, the 'they don't want to debate me, so they must be afraid'. I probably couldn't get Floyd Mayweather to box me, but that hardly means he's afraid of me, now does it?

Just because scientists don't bother debating you doesn't mean they're afraid to. It could just mean they have better things to do with their time. Which they do.

Coincidentally, the internet is exploding with FE information.

I don't think you quite understand what 'coincidentally' means.

The internet is exploding with information on just about everything. There is no theory so insane that you can't find a group of people who not only believe it, but believe it passionately. That's the double-edge sword of the place. It brings people together, but it also brings people together who shouldn't be together in the first place, and it lets them amplify their beliefs while blocking out others.

However, the Bible does not describe a globe.... It doesn't say it's a flat disk either. It describes a circle and a firmament. It describes heavens above and other places below.

That's your interpretation. The vast majority of Christians don't see it that way, clearly. Even you have to admit you're in the minority on this.

Regardless, if that's the way you feel, why bother pretending that you have an open mind about it? It doesn't matter what evidence is presented against a flat-earth to you. You believe the Bible says its flat, therefore it must be flat. You are clearly not open to having your mind changed on this.

I am certain that NASA and the Military

I know this has been pointed out to you, but it bears mentioning - NASA is not the only space agency. Plenty of countries have space agencies. Even countries that are hostile to just about everyone else have some form of a space program. Are you seriously suggesting that every country in the world is actively hiding a flat earth?

when someone tells me that you can have a total eclipse of the moon while the sun is up...

When has that happened?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

You know, if I were to claim that, say, germs are controlled by invisible and undetectable pixies, and that the only way to cure diseases forever is for the entire human race to slap themselves in the face and spin around there times, no scientist would debate me, either.

Actually, it would be more like saying germs are not the cause of disease, if they weren't - removing an unnecessary layer of theory to explain the world.

This sort of mentality always amuses me, the 'they don't want to debate me, so they must be afraid'. I probably couldn't get Floyd Mayweather to box me, but that hardly means he's afraid of me, now does it?

Just because scientists don't bother debating you doesn't mean they're afraid to. It could just mean they have better things to do with their time. Which they do.

Sure. They can't defend their own heliocentric theory. Remember, removal of globalism is simplifying our understanding of the universe, not complicating it. So any scientist claiming globalism to be science should be able to defend it.

I know this has been pointed out to you, but it bears mentioning - NASA is not the only space agency. Plenty of countries have space agencies. Even countries that are hostile to just about everyone else have some form of a space program. Are you seriously suggesting that every country in the world is actively hiding a flat earth?

If NASA were not in bed with the Russians on this conspiracy, they would have called Yuri Gargarin out on his fake space flight. If the Russians were legit, they would have called out NASA for faking the moon landing. The two space agencies are clearly in conspiracy together. The other space agencies were formed to damage control the obvious conspiracy between Russia and the US.

 

[JacksBratt]

You know, if I were to claim that, say, germs are controlled by invisible and undetectable pixies, and that the only way to cure diseases forever is for the entire human race to slap themselves in the face and spin around there times, no scientist would debate me, either.

This sort of mentality always amuses me, the 'they don't want to debate me, so they must be afraid'. I probably couldn't get Floyd Mayweather to box me, but that hardly means he's afraid of me, now does it?

Just because scientists don't bother debating you doesn't mean they're afraid to. It could just mean they have better things to do with their time. Which they do.

If you are not aware of the solid observations that the FE crowd are presenting... To the point that you are comparing their argument to "undetectable pixies". Then you are obviously arguing against a view that you have not investigated....

If I were to say to you "I have an oven that can heat a piece of meat to the point that it is too hot to eat, yet the plate it is sitting on is cool enough to touch"... In 1920 you would have called me a quack.
If someone was to show you a microwave oven..... would you believe?

In a parallel observation... we have weather balloon and amateur rockets that have video footage of going well beyond 70,000 feet and, without NASA's favorite partner, a go pro fish eye lens, they repeatedly show absolutely no curve.....Which should be readily apparent at a curve rate of 8 inches per mile squared...from these altitudes.

We also see things over perfectly flat surfaces, like oceans, large lakes and salt flats, that should be hidden by this curvature... yet, there they are in full view.

So, if someone can show these straight forward, observable, testable and repeatable evidences.... with no apparent curve, of 8 inches per mile squared.... then all your "refraction" and other deflections from the obvious will not negate the fact that we cannot see the curve.

This should invoke questions that deserve answers. One solid fact that needs to be present... excluding all other arguments and discussions... is the fact that in order to have a ball... you need to have a curve in the surface.....plain and simple. Without that.... you can theorize and wax philosophical all you want... just wasted time and breath.

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't think you quite understand what 'coincidentally' means.

I'm pretty sure I do.. It was coincidental that at the same time that I was challenged by an atheist that the Bible describes a FE.... there was information and discussions abounding on the internet..
I cannot believe I'm actually taking the time to respond with proof of my comprehension of the word "coincidental" but there it is.

The internet is exploding with information on just about everything. There is no theory so insane that you can't find a group of people who not only believe it, but believe it passionately. That's the double-edge sword of the place. It brings people together, but it also brings people together who shouldn't be together in the first place, and it lets them amplify their beliefs while blocking out others.

Yes, heaven forbid that you get people together to compile their findings and expose a great lie.
We should divide and dilute these well educated and knowledgeable people.

In a previous times, they would have felt alone and could have been easily silenced with condescension and ridicule...

Now what are we going to do?

That's your interpretation. The vast majority of Christians don't see it that way, clearly. Even you have to admit you're in the minority on this.

This is the result of simple cognitive dissonance... People are so indoctrinated with the globe, and it is so ingrained in them from such an early age.... that if you tell them that the Bible describes it as an un moving plane with an impenetrable femiment over top... they will obviously look for ways to explain why the bible says what it does.

Can you please show me any scripture that even hints at a ball, spinning at 1000 miles per hour, orbiting around a sun and all this hurling through space?

Yet, there are hundreds of places where our home is fixed, unloving and the footstool of God with a firmament over top.

From my experience.. people are happy in their cushy world where Christ died and rose again so that they can have everlasting life..

Bring up giants, Nephilime, fallen angels, FE, demons, parallel dimensions, UFO's, inter dimensional beings demon/human hybridization.... and they don't want to hear it....

Kum ba yah and all that... were meeting at the river.. now go away.

Regardless, if that's the way you feel, why bother pretending that you have an open mind about it? It doesn't matter what evidence is presented against a flat-earth to you. You believe the Bible says its flat, therefore it must be flat. You are clearly not open to having your mind changed on this.

I have not found enough evidence, so far, to say anything other than " It is not a ball that is as small as they say it is" and " NASA is a liar and we have to toss out any of their visual evidence."

I will also say that God is all powerful and when I die... I am sure that it will all make sense.

I know this has been pointed out to you, but it bears mentioning - NASA is not the only space agency. Plenty of countries have space agencies. Even countries that are hostile to just about everyone else have some form of a space program. Are you seriously suggesting that every country in the world is actively hiding a flat earth?

Does it not seem odd to you that we have a treaty among 53 countries that has held since 1959...and all it deals with is a place that is too cold to live?

Do you actually think that all these countries with space programs all figured all the same stuff out on their own, individually?

Seriously. If you don't know that these scientists could care less about borders and political bantering. They are all one big happy family and it is Naive to think that any of them would break the code of things that are "too great" for the public to know. Or to spill the beans in their collective agenda of evolution, one world government and no God.

When has that happened?

There have been recorded Lunar Eclipses with the sun visible in the sky on many occasions.

Add to that the fact that the shadow on the moon moves the wrong direction. Top down in many cases.

Not only that but the shadow of the Solar eclipse moved from west to east.

These are right there for you to see... but... it will be "splained" away by some egg head and everyone will swallow it whole and go on in ignorance.