Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you say... Me, I've never seen Australia, and I believe it to be mythical. Kangaroos, seriously? The Bible says nothing about them at all. (I do, however, believe in Vegemite, and am probably the only elderly half-Asian redneck in rural Tennessee who regularly eats it. That may actually mean that I'm mythical.)I don't think it. It is what we observe.
We do like to think we are legendarySo you say... Me, I've never seen Australia, and I believe it to be mythical.
The water level showed a miniscule drop.... consistant with FE. The globe should show a more drastic change.. as my diagram showed.This is what you observe using a water level. Thank you for admitting what we observe is consistent with a globe and inconsistent with a flat earth.
By that logic.... the doors of my house swing a different direction when I'm inside from when I'm outside.I don't think it. It is what we observe.
Air is transparent... The dust, moisture and temperature changes (density) make it impossible to see through 100 miles of it.. clearly.Precisely.
So air ceases to be transparent with distance. Hmmmm... Is there a specific amount of air that it requires to become opaque?
As usual, flat earthers can't do geometry. If you do the math then the drop is entirely consistent with the globe earth.The water level showed a miniscule drop.... consistant with FE. The globe should show a more drastic change.. as my diagram showed.
Also, all the high altitude pictures confirm a negligable drop in the horizon.
You are still ignoring the fact that you cannot have two celestial poles on a flat earth. The night sky in the northern hemisphere is entirely different to the night sky in the southern hemisphere, both rotating around a different celestial pole which is again not possible on a flat earth.By that logic.... the doors of my house swing a different direction when I'm inside from when I'm outside.
There is only one pole on the FE model.You are still ignoring the fact that you cannot have two celestial poles on a flat earth. The night sky in the northern hemisphere is entirely different to the night sky in the southern hemisphere, both rotating around a different celestial pole which is again not possible on a flat earth.
There is only one pole on the FE model.
Still changes nothing... Look south... stars move east to west (left to right).. Look north... stars move east to west ( Right to left)
The only thing changing direction... is your face.
Unless you are on the equator, where they pass directly East to West.That... doesn't make any sense. The stars are rotating in the sky. It doesn't matter which direction you're facing. They're either rotating clockwise or counterclockwise, depending on which hemisphere you're in.
Your model does not match what we observe, thus your model is wrong and should be rejected.There is only one pole on the FE model.
They don't just move east to west, they circle east to west. In the northern hemisphere they circle around polaris. In the southern hemisphere they circle around the intersection of the axis of the Southern Cross and the line bisecting the Pointers (Alpha Centauri and Beta Centauri)Still changes nothing... Look south... stars move east to west (left to right).. Look north... stars move east to west ( Right to left)
Firstly, your diagram was from the view point of someone in orbit over 1000km above the earth's surface, way beyond what you claim is the limit of the 'dome' so hardly a reasonable comparison. The earth's radius is around 6371km and any comparisons need to take that into account. If you want to mock the globe model then you need to deal with the actual globe model, not a strawman model of your own making.The water level showed a miniscule drop.... consistant with FE. The globe should show a more drastic change.. as my diagram showed.
Firstly, your diagram was from the view point of someone in orbit over 1000km above the earth's surface, way beyond what you claim is the limit of the 'dome' so hardly a reasonable comparison. The earth's radius is around 6371km and any comparisons need to take that into account. If you want to mock the globe model then you need to deal with the actual globe model, not a strawman model of your own making.
Secondly, your diagram ignores the effect of perspective when dealing with large distances. In the flat earth model the horizon is effectively at infinity where everything converges to the vanishing point. In your diagram you are looking down at the ground, not looking out at the horizon where the sky and the ground/water meet. It is completely wrong.
So I did the math for the three elevations in the video with the water level in post #479
Calculations are basic trigonometry using the values above. Angle of drop from eye level is the same as the angle between the two radii, since eye level is perpendicular to the viewpoint radius.
- At sea level, with an elevation of 1.8m the horizon is at 4.8km and the drop from eye level to the horizon is 0.043°
- From Malibu, with an elevation of 365.76m the horizon is at 68.5km and the drop from eye level to the horizon is 0.615°
- From Mt Wilson, with an elevation of 1708.6m the horizon is at 147.6km and the drop from eye level is 1.327°
- From the ISS, with an elevation of 400km, the horizon is at 2294km and the drop from eye level is 19.793°
I give up.... The earth... if a spinning ball... is what casues the appearance of moiving stars.. Therefore.. since the earth only rotates one direction.. the stars will always appear to be moving in one direction.Your model does not match what we observe, thus your model is wrong and should be rejected.
They don't just move east to west, they circle east to west. In the northern hemisphere they circle around polaris. In the southern hemisphere they circle around the intersection of the axis of the Southern Cross and the line bisecting the Pointers (Alpha Centauri and Beta Centauri)
I have never claimed the height of the dome... ever.Firstly, your diagram was from the view point of someone in orbit over 1000km above the earth's surface, way beyond what you claim is the limit of the 'dome' so hardly a reasonable comparison. The earth's radius is around 6371km and any comparisons need to take that into account. If you want to mock the globe model then you need to deal with the actual globe model, not a strawman model of your own making.
Secondly, your diagram ignores the effect of perspective when dealing with large distances. In the flat earth model the horizon is effectively at infinity where everything converges to the vanishing point. In your diagram you are looking down at the ground, not looking out at the horizon where the sky and the ground/water meet. It is completely wrong.
So I did the math for the three elevations in the video with the water level in post #479
Calculations are basic trigonometry using the values above. Angle of drop from eye level is the same as the angle between the two radii, since eye level is perpendicular to the viewpoint radius.
- At sea level, with an elevation of 1.8m the horizon is at 4.8km and the drop from eye level to the horizon is 0.043°
- From Malibu, with an elevation of 365.76m the horizon is at 68.5km and the drop from eye level to the horizon is 0.615°
- From Mt Wilson, with an elevation of 1708.6m the horizon is at 147.6km and the drop from eye level is 1.327°
- From the ISS, with an elevation of 400km, the horizon is at 2294km and the drop from eye level is 19.793°
The fact that we observe a north celestial pole AND a south celestial pole proves a globe earth.The rotation of the stars don't prove flat or sphere earth
-If the earth is a spinning water globe, then santa and elves are real.
So show me the real santa and i will believe the earth is a spinning water globe. Just have him (santa) come down my chimney, that is all the proof i need.
I give up.... The earth... if a spinning ball... is what casues the appearance of moiving stars.. Therefore.. since the earth only rotates one direction.. the stars will always appear to be moving in one direction.
On the flat earth model.. it is the sun, moon and stars that move over the FE.. and therefore will always move the same direction...
I'm done.. This is so simple and you are making it way more complicated..
The rotation of the stars don't prove flat or sphere earth.
The fact that we observe a north celestial pole AND a south celestial pole proves a globe earth.
Your diagram was wrong for a couple of reasons which I have already elaborated on, so it failed to prove anything.I have never claimed the height of the dome... ever.
The diagram was exagerated to prove a point.
And on a flat earth the horizon is at infinity where all elevations converge at the vanishing point. Horizon will always be at eye level (except it isn't because we live on a globe)On a ball.. the higher you go the more of the surface of the ball you will see... Which, by nature, will be further down and away..
It's kind of hard to argue against basic trigonometry, so I'm not in the least bit surprised.I'm done with this argument also....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?