A question for flat earth people

[JacksBratt]

Well ... there is a for e which pulls us to the Earth, that much is undeniable.

Whether the Earth is a sphere or a pancake can be surmised with other observations ...

Yep.. we all fall down... that's for sure...

 

[JacksBratt]

Can you see the ship, the whole ship and nothing but the ship?

Please place your hand on the bible and raise your right hand......

 

[JacksBratt]

Sun setting over the horizon ... can you zoom in and bring the sun back up ?

That sun is going over a hill.... I could run up the hill and bring the sun back.

 

[JacksBratt]

Sun setting over the horizon ... can you zoom in and bring the sun back up ?

 

[Oldmantook]

If it were a function of perspective alone the car would disappear equally bottom, top, left and right. As for your binocular comment, may I remind you that the ship video was taken through a telescope? No, it really is sailing over the horizon.

No, it would not disappear equally. Where did you get the idea?? Ignorance is not bliss. Do the experiment or look at various videos easily available online.
Binoculars or telescope - does it make a difference - both are instruments of magnification are they not? The fact that you can still see the ship proves that it hasn't sailed over the horizon. When the ship does disappear, other factors also come into play that you have not accounted for such as atmospheric distortion, air density, haze, etc. all account for "disappearance." For example on some days you can clearly see a city skyline which on other days you cannot and it's not because the earth is round.

 

[Oldmantook]

The ship was painted in a very standard way for cargo vessels --- a black hull with white superstructure. The bottom portion of the hull is missing because it is below water level but at the start of the video the rest is visible up to the level of the main deck. By the end of the video none of the black hull is to be seen --- at all. Period.

The ship is still seen period. Your video proves nothing.

 

[JackRT]

Nice try... many would agree with you.. however. that is a description of the shadow of a cross section of my body. The part of my body that is blocking the light will still be the same size or smaller than the shadow it casts.

Therefore, the shadow is still going to be either the same size of, or larger than the part of my body that is blocking the light.

What you are describing is like saying that a thin street sign will have almost no shadow.. when turned sideways.

The moon is believed to be a ball. Any light shone on it will be blocked.. the shadow will always be larger or the same size as the moon... This is unavoidable.

Your comments on the "cross section" are well taken and in the case of a solar eclipse would apply to the penumbra. However, the sun is not a point source of light and in fact is very much larger than the moon with the result that there is considerable overlap of the suns rays into the shadow zone with the effect the shadow are of full totality is very much smaller than the moon itself but not the band of partial eclipse which is actually wider than the moon's diameter. See the diagram I posted earlier. So you are partially correct.

 

[JackRT]

No, it would not disappear equally. Where did you get the idea?? Ignorance is not bliss.

If the moon were double the distance it presently is from the earth do you agree that perspective would make it appear smaller? Would it still appear circular or would it be distorted? Would it lose something on the bottom? I will reply further when you reply.

 

[JacksBratt]

Your comments on the "cross section" are well taken and in the case of a solar eclipse would apply to the penumbra. However, the sun is not a point source of light and in fact is very much larger than the moon with the result that there is considerable overlap of the suns rays into the shadow zone with the effect the shadow are of full totality is very much smaller than the moon itself but not the band of partial eclipse which is actually wider than the moon's diameter. See the diagram I posted earlier. So you are partially correct.

The Penumbra is fiction... Here:

Now, lets go through the problems..

1/ The sun is always the same size of the moon in our sky.. Here it is shown larger. The moon could never block out the entire sun if this diagram was correct. (yes it is much larger, however, it is also much farther away.. so.. same size.. = false diagram.

2/ The rays of the sun do not converge on the earth.. they are always parallel.. always. I will post a diagram that shows that at the end.

3/ The shadow also converges... error... error... error.

So, if the sun was equal, in size, with the moon, as in reality.. no penumbra. If the suns rays were parallel... same result... just a shadow..The shadow of the moon, if anything, would spread out.. not concentrate itself onto the surface of the earth to form a small shadow...

This is pure and simple misinformation. Look... look...look........ check check check... don't just absorb.

Which leads to this question.. if the sun is that far away and it's rays are all parallel.......

How do we get this:

 

[JacksBratt]

Now.. here is how the suns rays must come to earth....All parallel.... not converging rays focusing on us like ants under a magnifying glass.. ouch.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/module_3/gLOBEsUNSrAYS.jpg

and:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Seasons.svg/1280px-Seasons.svg.png

 

[JackRT]

1/ The sun is always the same size of the moon in our sky.. Here it is shown larger. The moon could never block out the entire sun if this diagram was correct. (yes it is much larger, however, it is also much farther away.. so.. same size.. = false diagram.

The sun in our perspective is the same size as our perspective of the moon because at their respective distances they subtend the same angle in our visual perspective. That doesn't mean they are the same physical size. For entirely other reasons we know that the sun is immensely larger than moon. Because of the great distances involved the diagram is not to scale but it does nonetheless accurately convey the concepts involved. I can provide you with the dimensions involved and you can use
your high school algebra and trigonometry to verify that the diagram conveys exactly what it purports to.

2/ The rays of the sun do not converge on the earth.. they are always parallel.. always. I will post a diagram that shows that at the end.

Actually they do diverge but because the sun is not a point source and because of the distances involved they are not exactly parallel. The diagram conveys that fact too.

How do we get this:

Beautiful photograph! Yours? These are known as "crepuscular rays" and are a great example of near parallel rays that appear to converge due to perspective. Thanks for posting that. You beat me too it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The Penumbra is fiction... Here:
View attachment 239190

Now, lets go through the problems..

1/ The sun is always the same size of the moon in our sky.. Here it is shown larger. The moon could never block out the entire sun if this diagram was correct. (yes it is much larger, however, it is also much farther away.. so.. same size.. = false diagram.

2/ The rays of the sun do not converge on the earth.. they are always parallel.. always. I will post a diagram that shows that at the end.

3/ The shadow also converges... error... error... error.

So, if the sun was equal, in size, with the moon, as in reality.. no penumbra. If the suns rays were parallel... same result... just a shadow..The shadow of the moon, if anything, would spread out.. not concentrate itself onto the surface of the earth to form a small shadow...

This is pure and simple misinformation. Look... look...look........ check check check... don't just absorb.

Which leads to this question.. if the sun is that far away and it's rays are all parallel.......

How do we get this:


View attachment 239191

You get that exactly like railroad tracks converging towards the distance. The rays that are spread out are, at the point they are widely spread to our vision, much closer to the viewer than where they converge towards the actual sun.

 

[JacksBratt]

The sun in our perspective is the same size as our perspective of the moon because at their respective distances they subtend the same angle in our visual perspective. That doesn't mean they are the same physical size.

For goodness sake... it really concerns me on some of the reading comprehension of people here.
Read my post again..

For entirely other reasons we know that the sun is immensely larger than moon. Because of the great distances involved the diagram is not to scale but it does nonetheless accurately convey the concepts involved. I can provide you with the dimensions involved and you can use

There is no possible way that this diagram is correct if the sun is that much larger that, according to the diagram the moon would appear to only block about 25% of the sun and be a small blob moving across it's surface. It's laughable.

your high school algebra and trigonometry to verify that the diagram conveys exactly what it purports to.

Your acceptance of incorrectly proportionate diagrams is only motivated for the need for something to explain your errant views.

Actually they do diverge but because the sun is not a point source and because of the distances involved they are not exactly parallel. The diagram conveys that fact too.

I really feel for people that believe that the rays of sunlight are anything but straight parallel lines from a place far far away..

Any acceptance of converging vectors is, again, only accepted as a method to explain a flawed explanation.

Beautiful photograph! Yours? These are known as "crepuscular rays" and are a great example of near parallel rays that appear to converge due to perspective. Thanks for posting that. You beat me too it.

Not mine... Yes, I am aware of what they are called and they are contrary to a sun that is 93 million miles away.

Another example of turning a blind eye to misinformation about a physical reality that contradicts what they are trying to sell us.

 

[JacksBratt]

You get that exactly like railroad tracks converging towards the distance. The rays that are spread out are, at the point they are widely spread to our vision, much closer to the viewer than where they converge towards the actual sun.

I could understand that if they were only the rays coming toward me... however, many times they are splayed out all around in all directions.

 

[Tom 1]

No, it would not disappear equally. Where did you get the idea?? Ignorance is not bliss. Do the experiment or look at various videos easily available online.
Binoculars or telescope - does it make a difference - both are instruments of magnification are they not? The fact that you can still see the ship proves that it hasn't sailed over the horizon. When the ship does disappear, other factors also come into play that you have not accounted for such as atmospheric distortion, air density, haze, etc. all account for "disappearance." For example on some days you can clearly see a city skyline which on other days you cannot and it's not because the earth is round.

Is the FE belief that the sun goes around the earth, as in travelling under it at night?

 

[SeventyOne]

So, if I can see the horizon and put a marker there, and then I drive my car past that point, how is this possible?

It's called perspective. You look out and at some point, if there is nothing in the way, there is what's called a vanishing point, which is what we'd call the horizon. If you then travel to a vanishing point you've marked, your position has changed resulting in a new vanishing point.

It has nothing to do with curvature. It is claimed by some that boats disappear over water because of a curve, but they are actually progressing past a vanishing point. If you then use some telescopic device, suddenly that boat reappears (it didn't actually go over any curve) because the increased view range has altered the location of the vanishing point, and that boat will stay in view until it reaches the vanishing point of that device.

That's a simplistic view as the atmosphere does play a role in visibility as well, such as refraction, lensing, and hazing effects which also limit and alter viewing conditions.

 

[CatRandy]

Nicely put.... which... negates the Coriolis effect.

See, a bullet, is under the Coriolis effect as soon as it leaves the barrel of the gun... but airplanes... they don't. ..

Total double standard.

If "the globe and the plane are rotating at equal speeds relative to each other"

Then this must pertain to a bullet too.

The Coriolis effect pertains to the plane and the bullet both. The difference is that a bullet is an unguided projectile aiming for a very small targeting point. A plane is also affected by the Coriolis effect, however an plane is controlled by a guidance system such as the pilot, so the the Coriolis effect would be hard to notice among the other factors involved, whereas 3 inches to the right over 1000 yards (for example) is readily apparent.

 

[JacksBratt]

The Coriolis effect pertains to the plane and the bullet both. The difference is that a bullet is an unguided projectile aiming for a very small targeting point. A plane is also affected by the Coriolis effect, however an plane is controlled by a guidance system such as the pilot, so the the Coriolis effect would be hard to notice among the other factors involved, whereas 3 inches to the right over 1000 yards (for example) is readily apparent.

Take some time to think about what you just said...

The earth is spinning under the bullet, right? So the bullet drifts to the right.
Now, if this were so, the earth would be spinning under the plane, to the extent that when it went to land, the runway would be moving sideways.

Now, I have flown a plane... not landed but flown... and there is absolutely no sideways movement of a runway that would be accounted for. Not that I could see as I sat right beside my buddy as we landed.

People accept the coriolis effect, as it pertains to bullets because 99.9% of them will never ever fire a bullet for 1000 meters.

It's not just a drift of the plane.. It is supposedly the earth spinning under the plane.. A movement of 3 inches over every 1000 yards would make a flight of several hundred or even a thousand miles an impossibility to have the plane safely land at the end.

 

[JacksBratt]

Is the FE belief that the sun goes around the earth, as in travelling under it at night?

Not at all. Check out this site: http://www.ukapologetics.net/17/flatearthornot.htm

 

[A_Thinker]

It's not just a drift of the plane.. It is supposedly the earth spinning under the plane.. A movement of 3 inches over every 1000 yards would make a flight of several hundred or even a thousand miles an impossibility to have the plane safely land at the end.

The length of the flight doesn't matter.

What would matter is the drift during the brief period that the plane is touching down ...