Flat Earth - It's NOT Ridiculous

[Zetetica]

I have not seen any but I am betting that in reality you have none.

Do you understand that we could make the special effects in the early 1970's that we can now with CGI?

You assume the technology of the government or deep black was the same as the technology of the public? Why assume that, given the evidence for high technology not known to the public?

 

[Zetetica]

Why doesn’t the Moon do the same thing?

It does when rising and setting. However, this changes, as does the sun, depending on atmospheric conditions. Personally, I've not seen a small sun disk setting, though there are photos of it in different climates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Communications can be explained to my satisfaction by other means. While satellites may exist, I don't accept they exist as they are explained.

Sorry, that is not the way that it works. Your satisfaction is not what matters since you have been deceived. You must explain it to the satisfaction of others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You assume the technology of the government or deep black was the same as the technology of the public? Why assume that, given the evidence for high technology not known to the public?

Wow! Amazing.

You need to get into a shorter river.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Just for the heck of it, some nice photos from ISS.
Top 15 Space Station Earth Images of 2015

40 breath-taking images from the International Space Station

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does when rising and setting. However, this changes, as does the sun, depending on atmospheric conditions. Personally, I've not seen a small sun disk setting, though there are photos of it in different climates.

The size of the Sun in pictures depends upon the focal length of the lens that one is using. If one uses a wide angle lens the Sun looks smaller, if one takes one with a telephoto lens it looks larger. What one needs is to measure the angular size of the Sun. Guess what happens when one does that? If is almost constant in size varying by just a few percentage points which is due to the elliptical nature of our orbit.

 

[Zetetica]

No, it does not. That is an optical illusion. What you need is an object of set diameter held a constant distance from your eyes. You will find that it forms the same angle and has the same size whether at the horizon or at its azimuth. It is easier to do with the Moon since it is not so bright, but the same observation will be made.

Worse yet according to Flat Earth models the Sun is furthest away at sunset and closest at noon. Even the optical illusion of a large Sun at sunset goes against your model.

It's not an optical illusion, not exactly. It's more an optical effect, caused by atmospheric lensing. Also, it's said that the moment we see the sun touch the horizon, it has already set. That makes the sunset itself a mirage according to your model.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not an optical illusion, not exactly. It's more an optical effect, caused by atmospheric lensing. Also, it's said that the moment we see the sun touch the horizon, it has already set. That makes the sunset itself a mirage according to your model.

What? Where did you get that idea of sunset from?

But no, the size of the Sun can be measured angularly. It is almost constant. And that is because the distance of the Earth to the Sun varies from 147.10 million kilometers to 152.10 kilometers. A difference about 3%. That explains the constant angular size of the Sun Flat Earthers are never clear about the Sun's distance because when one puts the numbers into their model and compare Sunset and Noon distances the Sun's lack of a change in size does not support their claims.

All they have is wild hand waving. Math is a Flat Earther's worst enemy.

 

[Zetetica]

The size of the Sun in pictures depends upon the focal length of the lens that one is using. If one uses a wide angle lens the Sun looks smaller, if one takes one with a telephoto lens it looks larger. What one needs is to measure the angular size of the Sun. Guess what happens when one does that? If is almost constant in size varying by just a few percentage points which is due to the elliptical nature of our orbit.

Meanwhile, my eyes register the sun behaving as I explained.

 

[lasthero]

Meanwhile, my eyes register the sun behaving as I explained.

Measure it.

Don’t just say it looks such and such a way - actually verify it.

 

[A Realist]

Math is a Flat Earther's worst enemy.

Math? They don't need no steeeennkkiiinngg math!

 

[GoldenBoy89]

How difficult would hiding Earth's shape from humanity actually be? Think about it?

It would be impossible.

Three things you can't hide from anyone. The sun, the moon and the stars. Each of these give their own independent evidence of a round Earth.

The movement of the sun suggests that it is not simply circling above us as when it sets, it moves behind the horizon, not just over it, and never seems to curve up towards the north like it would if the Earth were flat.

The moon (or rather the Earth's shadow) during a lunar eclipse has never shown a thin flat dark spot. The only 3-dimensional object that can cast a round shadow no matter what direction light hits it is a sphere.

The stars you see in the Northern and Southern hemispheres are different because different parts of the sphere we are on are facing different directions into space.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yeah... NASA....

1) Lost the Lunar data.

2) Lost the the Original footage.

3) Lost the technology.

4) Moon rocks were proven to have come from Earth. *Petrified wood* and *a chunk of Earth which flung at the Moon, when the astroid hit the Earth, killing the dinosaurs, and an astronaut happened to pick up that particular rock*.

5) Camera crosshairs behind objects in lunar photos

6) Bubbles in space.

7) Scuba tank in space.

8) Reflection of scuba diver in space helmet in space.

9) Harnesses used on the ISS.

10) Did they see stars or not?

11) Behavior of astronauts, post lunar mission.

12) Selective microgravity on ISS.

I've no idea what any of that means.
But plenty of people saw the moon landings on tv, and there are many books, encyclopedias etc which say that the earth is round. I'm pretty sure it was known before the moon landings and photos.

As for why they would lie? Using the funds to afford deep underground cities? Hiding more land? Hiding God and reinforcing the godless lie that is our entire cosmology? Pick one.

Why do I need to?
I can tell you that I trust scientists over a group of people who say "we know better" and have far out ideas about government conspiracies.

However, those are still speculation and ultimately, they aren't evidence for anything.

So what evidence do you have; if any?
What evidence that all the textbooks are wrong, the photos fake and that scientists and government bodies are deliberately trying to deceive us?

 

[Kaon]

The only reason that they’re questioning the shape of the world is that they are poorly educated in basic science.

No, it actually isn't.

Some of us who are "asking questions", or downright claiming the model is false are bachelors, masters or doctorates in our fields. Some of us have written our own original published work in math or physics. Some of us work in academia, and would never dare say it in our field, but vehemently disagree with the status quo.

It is a psychology, not knowledge, that keeps people dogged in one paradigm; questioning doesn't come from a lack of education - that is asinine. Questioning itself implies thought process and a will to seek more knowledge - which should not be discouraged (especially when the threat is only to the status quo psychology).

 

[Brightmoon]

No, it actually isn't.

Some of us who are "asking questions", or downright claiming the model is false are bachelors, masters or doctorates in our fields. Some of us have written our own original published work in math or physics. Some of us work in academia, and would never dare say it in our field, but vehemently disagree with the status quo.

It is a psychology, not knowledge, that keeps people dogged in one paradigm; questioning doesn't come from a lack of education - that is asinine. Questioning itself implies thought process and a will to seek more knowledge - which should not be discouraged (especially when the threat is only to the status quo psychology).

am I going to assume you don’t accept that gravity tends to pull plastic ( soft and moldable not polyester) objects into spheres ? The subsurface structure of the earth is sorta liquid which means it can be deformed into a sphere from other shapes. Other planets and stars are spherical for the same reason. Most people learn about the center of gravity around the 4th grade. I’m going to state that flat earth nonsense is due to ignorance of basic elementary school science . Even galaxies don’t stay flat they become spherical over billions of years

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meanwhile, my eyes register the sun behaving as I explained.

Nope, if anything the Sun looks larger at sunset, even though it is not and the Flat Earth models predict that it would be smaller. And using one's eyesight is the worst way to measure the sun. You could evne rig up a device yourself to measure the angular size of the sun. A camera with a disc that can be set at different distances from the lens would be ideal. You will find that the size of the Sun is constant during the day. This goes against the Flat Earth model.

Would you like to go over the math? Math allows us to predict what we should observe if either belief was true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it actually isn't.

Some of us who are "asking questions", or downright claiming the model is false are bachelors, masters or doctorates in our fields. Some of us have written our own original published work in math or physics. Some of us work in academia, and would never dare say it in our field, but vehemently disagree with the status quo.

It is a psychology, not knowledge, that keeps people dogged in one paradigm; questioning doesn't come from a lack of education - that is asinine. Questioning itself implies thought process and a will to seek more knowledge - which should not be discouraged (especially when the threat is only to the status quo psychology).

I have never seen anyone that can do math past a high school level that accepts the Flat Earth. Perhaps you could link some of these papers for us.

 

[Brightmoon]

Nope, if anything the Sun looks larger at sunset, even though it is not and the Flat Earth models predict that it would be smaller. And using one's eyesight is the worst way to measure the sun. You could evne rig up a device yourself to measure the angular size of the sun. A camera with a disc that can be set at different distances from the lens would be ideal. You will find that the size of the Sun is constant during the day. This goes against the Flat Earth model.

Would you like to go over the math? Math allows us to predict what we should observe if either belief was true.

this same thing happens to the moon and it’s safer to look at directly . Just take a dime outside at moonrise , compare the size at arms length and then compare that with the moon high in the sky a few hours later . The apparent change in size is due to an illusion . The dime or similarly sized coin helps you see that this is an illusion.

 

[Kaon]

am I going to assume you don’t accept that gravity tends to pull plastic ( soft and moldable not polyester) objects into spheres ?

Why would you assume this? You already handicap conversation by your prejudice and assumptions.

The subsurface structure of the earth is sorta liquid which means it can be deformed into a sphere from other shapes. Other planets and stars are spherical for the same reason. Most people learn about the center of gravity around the 4th grade.

A sphere is the same thing as a circle - the difference is the topological perspective. Most radially symmetric phenomena will work in both polar and spherical coordinates to a good degree of accuracy. That gravity works doesn't make it the unique solution. Part of the reason why gravity is posing a problem with unification is because gravity is misunderstood as a field.

I’m going to state that flat earth nonsense is due to ignorance of basic elementary school science . Even galaxies don’t stay flat they become spherical over billions of years

I understand this psychology; I am saying it is ignorant at best, and downright malicious to honest intellectual odyssey in general. You have faith in a model for which you have no proof of besides what someone has shown you. When was the last time you actually saw the earth shape for yourself - preferably above low orbit?

You have never seen a galaxy, for example, yet you trust those people who say what their instruments see is, in fact, a galaxy. It must be hard keeping up with the faith needed to be acceptable in the world, and the faith needed to trust in the Most High God.

 

[Brightmoon]

Why would you assume this? You already handicap conversation by your prejudice and assumptions.



A sphere is the same thing as a circle - the difference is the topological perspective. Most radially symmetric phenomena will work in both polar and spherical coordinates to a good degree of accuracy. That gravity works doesn't make it the unique solution. Part of the reason why gravity is posing a problem with unification is because gravity is misunderstood as a field.



I understand this psychology; I am saying it is ignorant at best, and downright malicious to honest intellectual odyssey in general. You have faith in a model for which you have no proof of besides what someone has shown you. When was the last time you actually saw the earth shape for yourself - preferably above low orbit?

You have never seen a galaxy, for example, yet you trust those people who say what their instruments see is, in fact, a galaxy. It must be hard keeping up with the faith needed to be acceptable in the world, and the faith needed to trust in the Most High God.

my assumptions as you call the are based on centuries of observations . You’re calling a refusal to believe nonsense “ psychology “ . Ok whatever flips your cookies ! You can see the galaxy in Orion in the winter in the northern hemisphere with the naked eye . You don’t even need a telescope . Any plastic object will form a sphere under the those conditions , a previous poster used soap bubbles , I would have said raindrops but most people don’t realize that they’re spherical not tear shaped