Flat Earth.... flame free, please.

[Ken-1122]

Perspective, atmospheric lensing, inherit telescopic limitations, etc.

My telescope allows me to see details of the surface of the moon, which is 100 times further than the coast of Africa.

It doesn't. That's just a matter of perspective. Watch one disappear with your eyes then switch to something more powerful, like binoculars, and it suddenly reappears from 'over the edge'. Let it disappear from the limitations from that tool and them use another more powerful tool and it reappears again. Process can repeat as often as atmospheric conditions allow.

That is untrue. I have personally watched a ship go over the horizon using binoculars and you see it disappear from the bottom up.

 

[Ken-1122]

In the case of cruise ship passengers the underground transfer takes place while they are at the buffet. That’s why cruise ships have round the clock buffets.

Cruise ships don't have round the clock buffets. and there is never a point when nobody is outside.
Are you joking? or are you serious.

 

[Colter]

Cruise ships don't have round the clock buffets. and there is never a point when nobody is outside.
Are you joking? or are you serious.

I said too much already. JFK knew the truth about the 24 hour buffet.

 

[SeventyOne]

My telescope allows me to see details of the surface of the moon, which is 100 times further than the coast of Africa.

Oddly enough, in a FE model, this statement would be untrue.

That is untrue. I have personally watched a ship go over the horizon using binoculars and you see it disappear from the bottom up.

Had you then used something stronger to view the ship, it would have appeared right back over that imaginary curve. It's an optical horizon, not a physical one. There's all kinds of footage you can view demonstrating this very thing.

 

[Ken-1122]

Oddly enough, in a FE model, this statement would be untrue.

But in reality; it is true.

Had you then used something stronger to view the ship, it would have appeared right back over that imaginary curve. It's an optical horizon, not a physical one. There's all kinds of footage you can view demonstrating this very thing.

So how does the Sun go down over the horizon, and all the light disappears when this happens? Speaking of the Sun, if the earth were flat, there would be no time zones. Time zones exist because when it is day on one side of the Earth, it is night on the other side (A simple phone call to someone on the other side of the planet can confirm this)
If you really believe the Earth is flat, how come nobody has ever gone to the edge of the Earth, or gone up in a rocket ship and look at the Earth at a distance confirming it as flat? (Astronauts have done this confirming the Earth is round) If someone were to discover this and prove everyone wrong world wide; they would be rich and famous! So how come nobody has taken the fame and fortune associated with proving modern science wrong? How come YOU haven’t done this?

 

[SeventyOne]

But in reality; it is true.

Actually, no. But until you understand flat earth a bit more, you won't understand why I would say such a thing.

So how does the Sun go down over the horizon, and all the light disappears when this happens? Speaking of the Sun, if the earth were flat, there would be no time zones. Time zones exist because when it is day on one side of the Earth, it is night on the other side (A simple phone call to someone on the other side of the planet can confirm this)

I'll provide a link here to a basic primer in the flat earth paradigm for you. These questions you are asking are the usual starter questions. This will provide you with some Flat Earth 101 education and it will save both of us tons of time.

If you really believe the Earth is flat, how come nobody has ever gone to the edge of the Earth, or gone up in a rocket ship and look at the Earth at a distance confirming it as flat? (Astronauts have done this confirming the Earth is round) If someone were to discover this and prove everyone wrong world wide; they would be rich and famous! So how come nobody has taken the fame and fortune associated with proving modern science wrong? How come YOU haven’t done this?

There is no edge. In fact there is no measurable curve or motion either. Such experiments like Airy's Failure demonstrate that the motion witnessed between the stars and earth is a result of the stars moving over the earth and not the earth moving in relation to the stars.

 

[USincognito]

Ken, they have canned answers for most of this stuff.

So how does the Sun go down over the horizon, and all the light disappears when this happens? Speaking of the Sun, if the earth were flat, there would be no time zones. Time zones exist because when it is day on one side of the Earth, it is night on the other side (A simple phone call to someone on the other side of the planet can confirm this)

The sun is a spotlight on Flerf.

If you really believe the Earth is flat, how come nobody has ever gone to the edge of the Earth, or gone up in a rocket ship and look at the Earth at a distance confirming it as flat? (Astronauts have done this confirming the Earth is round) If someone were to discover this and prove everyone wrong world wide; they would be rich and famous! So how come nobody has taken the fame and fortune associated with proving modern science wrong? How come YOU haven’t done this?

NASA won't allow anyone near enough to the edge.
NASA is part of the conspiracy.

 

[USincognito]

There is no edge. In fact there is no measurable curve or motion either. Such experiments like Airy's Failure demonstrate that the motion witnessed between the stars and earth is a result of the stars moving over the earth** and not the earth moving in relation to the stars.

Of course Airy's aether experiment did no such thing. He, like many others in the 19th century (as I pointed out notice how flat earthers place more value on 19th century experiments than anything from the mid-20th century on?) were trying to demonstrate the existence of the luminiferous aether which was a proposed medium through with light could be propagated.

All of these experiments arrived at negative results (because there is no aether, space is a vacuum) but somehow those results have been twisted by flat earthers as supporting the dome**.

**How, exactly are the stars supposed to move on Flerf? Are they in the sky like the sun and moon (and Rahu and Ketu) or are they part of the firmament and the firmament moves or are they outside the dome?

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually, no. But until you understand flat earth a bit more, you won't understand why I would say such a thing.




I'll provide a link here to a basic primer in the flat earth paradigm for you. These questions you are asking are the usual starter questions. This will provide you with some Flat Earth 101 education and it will save both of us tons of time.

A hour long video? No thank you. Again; what is stopping you from proving science wrong and becoming rich and famous?

There is no edge. In fact there is no measurable curve or motion either. Such experiments like Airy's Failure demonstrate that the motion witnessed between the stars and earth is a result of the stars moving over the earth and not the earth moving in relation to the stars.

Again; how do you explain day time in the USA while it's night time in China?

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken, they have canned answers for most of this stuff.

The sun is a spotlight on Flerf.

How does this explain time zones?

NASA won't allow anyone near enough to the edge.
NASA is part of the conspiracy.

NASA doesn't control the US military, or the actions of people in all the other nations on Earth.

 

[SeventyOne]

A hour long video? No thank you. Again; what is stopping you from proving science wrong and becoming rich and famous?



Again; how do you explain day time in the USA while it's night time in China?

Sorry, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you wanted answers from a FE perspective. I guess we can terminate our discussion at this point.

 

[USincognito]

How does this explain time zones?

It doesn't. Nothing on Flerf actually explains anything.

NASA doesn't control the US military, or the actions of people in all the other nations on Earth.

On Flerf it does.

(by the way, I'm just giving you the responses that flat earthers will give)

 

[pitabread]

what is stopping you from proving science wrong and becoming rich and famous?

Reality.

 

[Ken-1122]

Sorry, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you wanted answers from a FE perspective. I guess we can terminate our discussion at this point.

So that is how you play the game huh? When I ask you questions you don't have an answer to, you terminate the discussion; Why am I not surprised?

 

[SeventyOne]

So that is how you play the game huh? When I ask you questions you don't have an answer to, you terminate the discussion; Why am I not surprised?

On the contrary, I gave you a great source of answers to the questions you were asking and you rejected it. Blame me for your actions if you wish, it doesn't really concern me.

 

[USincognito]

I'll provide a link here to a basic primer in the flat earth paradigm for you. These questions you are asking are the usual starter questions. This will provide you with some Flat Earth 101 education and it will save both of us tons of time.

A hour long video? No thank you. Again; what is stopping you from proving science wrong and becoming rich and famous?

Ken, I'm giving it a brief breeze though and it's not looking good. This Skiba dude seems like a real arrogant jerk so there's no way I'm watching it with the sound on. Here's his list of talking points with my analysis.

1. Never forget.... we used to be you.
Ah yeah, the old "I used to be an evolutionist too" gambit. We get it, you were a skeptic until you 'researched' flat earth by watching a bunch of YouTube videos.

2. None of us belong to The Flat Earth Society!
Who cares.

3. Relax! No one is falling off the edge of anything.
This is a straw man. No one things Flerf is a flat disk floating around in space. We all know you guys think there's a magic ice wall that's somehow smaller when you circumnavigate it than it appears on Flerf maps.

4. NO ONE believes the upward floating disk theory of "gravity"!
I have no idea what this means and a Google search for "upward floating disk" get's precisely one hit - from his presentation at the Flat Earth International Conference.

5. You guys don't know anything more about "grrrravity" than we do.
Between 4 and 5 we can conclude that he's a gravity denier.

6. You can't just insert FE into the Copernican model of the universe.
Actually you can't insert FE into anything. It's even internally inconsistent and relies more on conspiracy theory than facts.

7. Do at least SOME research into JPL, NASA, Freemasons, Nazis, etc.
Hey, speaking of conspiracy theory....

8. Learn what a fish-eye lens is and what it does to images!
It distorts them somewhat. The only problem with "It's a fish-eye!" is that not every image taken showing curvature, etc. is a fish-eye.

9. Please realize you don't have a working map/model either.
This is a failed Jedi mind trick. We have plenty of maps that obviously are imperfect representations of a 3-D spherical earth on a 2-D surface. Flerf maps are simply a joke and actually debunk Flerf rather than support it.

10. Like it or not the Bible is Flat earth from cover to cover.
His presentation is "zetetic" which basically means using the Bible as evidence.

11. Most of your typical "Top_Reasons..." videos are easy to debunk.
LOL Almost two dozen problems for Flerf were posted in the closed thread, but none of the flat earthers would address them. And of the few Flerf evidences presented the the Chicago skyline myth was busted as well as selenelion eclipses.

12. Please try to keep up with the rest of the class - we're not going to do your homework for you.
And here we see the smug, patronizin attitude the Seventy-one has exhibited in this and the closed thread. I see where he gets it from.

 

[Ken-1122]

On the contrary, I gave you a great source of answers to the questions you were asking and you rejected it. Blame me for your actions if you wish, it doesn't really concern me.

I ask you 2 simple questions, and you point to a video that was nearly an hour and a half long. Why can't you just answer the question yourself?

 

[SeventyOne]

I ask you 2 simple questions, and you point to a video that was nearly an hour and a half long. Why can't you just answer the question yourself?

Asking me why I wont go become rich and famous is taunting.

Like I said, I made the mistake of thinking you might want to learn something and since all your questions were entry level questions, I pointed you to a helpful source. If it's not worth an hour of your time to get answers it's not worth any more of my time either.

 

[Freodin]

Perspective, atmospheric lensing, inherit telescopic limitations, etc.

"Perspective" would be a problem for the sun and moon on the Flat Earth just the same, but some they are extempt.
"Atmospheric lensing" has the same problem... on a Flat Earth, it applies only to objectes on the surface.
"Inherit" (inherent?) telescopic limitations sounds like a made up cop out. Just take good amateur telescope as see the improvements you get looking at the moon or the planets. Take one of the big professional telescopes, and see how well they can magnify distant objects. But none of that applies to objects on the ground.

Or combine that with the mechanisms of Jeranism's "atmospheric dome". According to him, this is the reason why you can see further, the higher up you are. Now take a telescope to a high flying plane... and you still cannot see beyond the projected curve.

It doesn't. That's just a matter of perspective. Watch one disappear with your eyes then switch to something more powerful, like binoculars, and it suddenly reappears from 'over the edge'. Let it disappear from the limitations from that tool and them use another more powerful tool and it reappears again. Process can repeat as often as atmospheric conditions allow.

Experimentally disproven. No Flat Earther has even been able to "reappear" an object hidden behind the horizon. Each time they claimed to have done that, it has been shown that they zoomed in on objects still in front of the horizon.

And it is a rather easy experiment. Look at a sunset. Wait until the sun in beyond the horizon. Coordinate your experiment with an observer on a higher vantage point. (The Burj Khalifa in Dubai is great for that. It's high, has a fast lift... you can see two sunsets on your own!)
So, the higher observer will still see the sun. It is obviously not beyond the "atmospheric lensing." And you can use as good a telescope as you like... you won't be able to recover that immensly bright object that disappeard beyond the horizon.

 

[SeventyOne]

"Perspective" would be a problem for the sun and moon on the Flat Earth just the same, but some they are extempt.
"Atmospheric lensing" has the same problem... on a Flat Earth, it applies only to objectes on the surface.
"Inherit" (inherent?" telescopic limitations sounds like a made up cop out. Just take good amateur telescope as see the improvements you get looking at the moon or the planets. Take one of the big professional telescopes, and see how well they can magnify distant objects. But none of that applies to objects on the ground.

Or combine that with the mechanisms of Jeranism's "atmospheric dome". According to him, this is the reason why you can see further, the higher up you are. Now take a telescope to a high flying plane... and you still cannot see beyond the projected curve.



Experimentally disproven. No Flat Earther has even been able to "reappear" an object hidden behind the horizon. Each time they claimed to have done that, it has been shown that they zoomed in on objects still in front of the horizon.

And it is a rather easy experiment. Look at a sunset. Wait until the sun in beyond the horizon. Coordinate your experiment with an observer on a higher vantage point. (The Burj Khalifa in Dubai is great for that. It's high, has a fast lift... you can see two sunsets on your own!)
So, the higher observer will still see the sun. It is obviously not beyond the "atmospheric lensing." And you can use as good a telescope as you like... you won't be able to recover that immensly bright object that disappeard beyond the horizon.

Cool. Prove it.