Genesis is Barely Literal

[Jipsah]

Come on now. The bulk of the proof globe-believers provied as 'evidence' are pictures and videos.

Use your own eyes, mate. Watch a boat disappear from the bottom upwards as it drops below the horizon. No tricksty numbers or measurements or misdirection needed. Did it disappear hull first, or all at once? Use whatever form of magnification you like, it's going to disappear hull first, masthead last, every time, no matter what. If the earth was flat, everything above the waterline would be visible until it was all too small to make out, and that distance would increase with magnification. Try it!

 

[Jipsah]

Arghh

 

[Jipsah]

So you brought to bear the full rigour of the method in proving the reptilian queen hypothesis, did you?

Please tell me you're not going to defend that...interesting... idea.

 

[Jipsah]

There's a really simple experiment to prove the earth has curvature. All you need is a couple of balloons on strings, a measuring device, and an unobstructed view to the horizon. Measure the string so the balloons are exactly the same length, take one balloon until you can just see the other balloon and then stand in line with the balloons, one will be lower than the other. Why? Curvature.

Observing boats is easier. That, and the fact that an observer at the masthead of a ship has a greater field of view than someone on deck. All these things work better at sea, of course.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The fact that the boat goes hull down at all is the point. In a flat sea it wouldn't. It would get smaller with distance, but magnification would allow you to see the whole thing, just as you could if it had just left the dock. The fact that the hull disappears at all is the thing - why does it disappear? Round earth says it's below the visible horizon. Flat earth has no explanation, just alibis and excuses.

Now, now. It's the fact you can see it at all at the distances tested that is the salient point. If the boat is supposed to be hidden behind 50m of curvature, saying it appears to descend hull-first is somewhat risible. FE explains that apparent effect as what we always see at the vanishing point - the 'melting' of the object into the horizon 'below' it. That's even visible to the naked eye, particularly on a hot day. Nothing magical about it.

The most hilarious thing flatties toss out is that roads don't follow the curvature of the earth. Apparently they've never seen a road, going around curves, up mountains, down into tunnels, and every which way at all to follow the terrain. The curvature of the earth has nothing to do with it, the curvature of the valley that it's winding through does.

Correct, but plans for long straight roads, for example, do not take into account any compensations for curvature. This is the same with railroads, canals and bridges. All designed on FE geometry.

Flat earth denies the existence of a long path, and can offer no rational explanation I've ever heard of why having our antennas turned back to back would work at all. If you have one I'd be very keen to hear it.

First I've heard of this phenomenon, so I'll have to look into it.
Are you saying they bounce around the ball-to-ionosphere until they land safe and sound on the far side? The ionosphere lol - so you're reflecting/ refracting off something in the air? Which stops the signal flying off into space? And has different layers? And you call FE crazy?

What I do know is that line of sight point to point radio waves consistently travel much further than they should on a globe model.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I've provided as much evidence in favor of the queen being a lizard person as there is evidence for the flat earth hypothesis.

-CryptoLutheran

You must be very proud of yourself. However, you're yet to disclose the methodology you've applied to substantiate this 'evidence based' royal reptile claim of yours. Let's see it, I've gone to the trouble of outlining a simple method for FE observations which you're yet to address, so do feel free to produce something, anything, in support of any of your claims.

 

[Jipsah]

If the boat is supposed to be hidden behind 50m of curvature, saying it appears to descend hull-first is somewhat risible. FE explains that apparent effect as what we always see at the vanishing point - the 'melting' of the object into the horizon 'below' it. That's even visible to the naked eye, particularly on a hot day. Nothing magical about it.

The only problem with that is that it isn't true. It's a contrived "explanation", eaily shot down by using magnification to change the "vanish point" of the observed craft. Best I tried was a 5" refractor. You could see the ferry clearly - except for the bits below the horizon. Your "explanation" works on an invented magical property of the horizon (come to think of it, why is there a horizon at all in a flat earth?) that makes things disappear from the bottom up. As my London friends might say, 'that's a load of cobblers".

Correct, but plans for long straight roads, for example, do not take into account any compensations for curvature.

Because it's irrelevant. They don't take into account the procession of the equinoxes, either, because they have nothing to do with anything. Roads follow the terrain, end of.

This is the same with railroads

For the same reason. It's irrelevant.

canals

A canal is a ditch filled with water. What's on the bottom is of no importance as long as it holds sufficient water to float boats. The water, however, does conform to the curvature of the earth by its very nature. So does the tea in your cup, for that matter.

and bridges.

Bridges go from point A to point B, from one support to the next. The supports may be anything; the side of a hill, a riverbank, a big rock, a tower, a pier, whatever. Ever see an arched bridge? It doesn't conform to anything but its own design and the supports it rests on. It if's tower supported, the towers will generally be vertical so they're carrying mostly compression load, and thus if there are two or more of them they won't be parallel, since they're not in the same plane.

designed on FE geometry.

Sorry, bruv, but there is no such thing.

First I've heard of this phenomenon, so I'll have to look into it.

I don't think you'll fiomd it much discussed amongst flatties. I don't think they even necessarily admit the possibility of HF communication.

Are you saying they bounce around the ball-to-ionosphere until they land safe and sound on the far side?

I couildn't have said it better.

The ionosphere lol - so you're reflecting/ refracting off something in the air?

Reflecting, or in the general parlance, "skipping". The distance of the skips is easily calculable. The ionoshere is an ionized layer of the atmosphere (hence the name), and HF frequency radiation usually (but not always) bounces off it. That's how long distance radio comunications worked until the advent of satellites that allowed reliable communications at higher frequencies. Working long ranges on HF was often difficult, which was part of the fun of hamming. If it was easy, why bother?

Which stops the signal flying off into space?

Sometimes nothing. During sunspot minimums that happens more often than not. But when the ionospheere is nice charged up yoiu can work the world with a very little power. I talked to a guy in the Marshall Islands one night who was using a 5 watt handy talky (I was in Tennessee). Signal was 5-9 halfway around the world. During those times I could talk to my pal in Queensland on 20 or 40 meters almost any night, especially if one of us was in the grey line.

Higher frequencies, VHF and above, don't bounce, they just go zinging out into space. That's why they're strictly good for line-of-sight work, and require giant towers or satellites to get a decent footprint.

And has different layers?

Yep, several.

And you call FE crazy?

Utterly absurd.

What I do know is that line of sight point to point radio waves consistently travel much further than they should on a globe model.

Depends on the footprint of the antenna and the amount of power they're using, plus various propagation quirks you can run into. I talked from Erie PA to Philadelphia one morning on a 2 meter handy talkie, a lot farther than that signal had any right to go. Apparently there was a tropospheric "duct", formed that was acting as a wave-guide that allowed us to talk over hundreds of miles as though we were across the street from each other. That's what makes hamming fun! 73 DE JIPSAH

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The only problem with that is that it isn't true. It's a contrived "explanation", eaily shot down by using magnification to change the "vanish point" of the observed craft. Best I tried was a 5" refractor. You could see the ferry clearly - except for the bits below the horizon. Your "explanation" works on an invented magical property of the horizon (come to think of it, why is there a horizon at all in a flat earth?) that makes things disappear from the bottom up. As my London friends might say, 'that's a load of cobblers".

Um, you're still avoiding the salient point here, which is that NONE of the boat should be visible. You can prevaricate all you like about why the hull appears to go first. The really fun pics are the ones where the hull is apparently gone and the horizon line is behind the boat. You're still short an explanation as to why we can see anything at excessive distances.

Because it's irrelevant. They don't take into account the procession of the equinoxes, either, because they have nothing to do with anything. Roads follow the terrain, end of.

An engineer who's designing a long railroad or suspension bridge needs to know these things. They have a functional impact.

I don't think you'll fiomd it much discussed amongst flatties. I don't think they even necessarily admit the possibility of HF communication.

VHF communication is another one that disproves the globe. The Knickerbein system was used by the Germans in WWII to set up cross-beams over targets in England. The Poms believed it wouldn't work because of earth curvature...they were wrong.

Reflecting, or in the general parlance, "skipping". The distance of the skips is easily calculable. The ionoshere is an ionized layer of the atmosphere (hence the name), and HF frequency radiation usually (but not always) bounces off it. That's how long distance radio comunications worked until the advent of satellites that allowed reliable communications at higher frequencies. Working long ranges on HF was often difficult, which was part of the fun of hamming. If it was easy, why bother?

So are there any other examples of EM waves bouncing off nothing?

Sometimes nothing. During sunspot minimums that happens more often than not. But when the ionospheere is nice charged up yoiu can work the world with a very little power. I talked to a guy in the Marshall Islands one night who was using a 5 watt handy talky (I was in Tennessee). Signal was 5-9 halfway around the world. During those times I could talk to my pal in Queensland on 20 or 40 meters almost any night, especially if one of us was in the grey line.

Higher frequencies, VHF and above, don't bounce, they just go zinging out into space. That's why they're strictly good for line-of-sight work, and require giant towers or satellites to get a decent footprint.

No need to ham it up. It stops at satelloons. Where are these 26k orbiting objects? We should have plenty of good footage of the Arthur C Clarke specials taken from earth.

Yep, several.

Like a cheesecake, eh? And has anyone been up there to check these layers out and bring back some of this magic reflective cheesecakey air? Maybe Branson and Bovox, or whatever his name is, could bring some back in the diplomatic pouch?

Utterly absurd.

Very droll.

Depends on the footprint of the antenna and the amount of power they're using, plus various propagation quirks you can run into. I talked from Erie PA to Philadelphia one morning on a 2 meter handy talkie, a lot farther than that signal had any right to go. Apparently there was a tropospheric "duct", formed that was acting as a wave-guide that allowed us to talk over hundreds of miles as though we were across the street from each other. That's what makes hamming fun! 73 DE JIPSAH

The age of the Yagi may be waning, but tropospheric ducts will never die! Is that kind of a ham signal wormhole?

 

[OnePath]

There's a really simple experiment to prove the earth has curvature. All you need is a couple of balloons on strings, a measuring device, and an unobstructed view to the horizon. Measure the string so the balloons are exactly the same length, take one balloon until you can just see the other balloon and then stand in line with the balloons, one will be lower than the other. Why? Curvature.

Cool, do that.

There are already hundreds of documented experiments over land, measuring tens to hundreds of miles, revealing no curve. You could find some online if you looked. There's been a huge purge in social media over the last couple of years (Facebook, YouTube, etc), but some stuff is still there as well as other places, such as Rokfin. Or try it yourself as I did. You'll find no curvature.

 

[OnePath]

Use your own eyes, mate. Watch a boat disappear from the bottom upwards as it drops below the horizon. No tricksty numbers or measurements or misdirection needed. Did it disappear hull first, or all at once? Use whatever form of magnification you like, it's going to disappear hull first, masthead last, every time, no matter what. If the earth was flat, everything above the waterline would be visible until it was all too small to make out, and that distance would increase with magnification. Try it!

Over the last few years, I've literally seen dozens of people using video to document boats disappearing hull first over the horizon, then zooming in and seeing the entire boat reappear, or just zooming out into the horizon and viewing boats, oil platforms, or lighthouses, once unseen due to being many miles away, come into full view.

The hull first doesn't prove anything other than perspective still exists.

 

[Jipsah]

Um, you're still avoiding the salient point here, which is that NONE of the boat should be visible.

The part above the horizon is, why wouldn't it be?

You can prevaricate all you like

None of that now. I've been civil with you, and insults are the common resort of those with no other response.

about why the hull appears to go first.

Because it's below the visible horizon while the upper works are not.

The really fun pics are the ones where the hull is apparently gone and the horizon line is behind the boat.

Share, please, I'm keen to see that. And why, in a FE scenario, is there a horizon line at all? Why is it there? With my 5 inch glass I should be able to see the ferry all the way to the port where it lands. Nothing between it and me but flat water, nothing to block the view. But for some reason I can't see either the boat or the land it's headed for once it's well past that presumably imaginary line.

You're still short an explanation as to why we can see anything at excessive distances.

What is "excessive"?

An engineer who's designing a long railroad or suspension bridge needs to know these things. They have a functional impact.[/quote] Says the guy who doesn't think that the earth has a curvature all. <Laugh>

VHF communication is another one that disproves the globe. The Knickerbein system was used by the Germans in WWII to set up cross-beams over targets in England. The Poms believed it wouldn't work because of earth curvature...they were wrong.

Yep, they were. They failed to account for the fact that Knickebein freqs were in in the grey area between HF and VHF, and were still getting significant amounts of ionospheric propagation. That, and the fact that the planes being guided by KB were well thousands of feet above sea level made the thing work quite nicely.

So are there any other examples of EM waves bouncing off nothing?

How many would you like? So lessee, in your universe HF communications never existed, neither the troposphere nor troposheric propagation exist, the horizon doesn't exist but prevents one from see things, satellites don't exist, there's an indetectable solid dome above the flat earth to keep the atmo from escaping, roads must follow the flat surfrace of the flat earth even of they're built up the sides of mountains, and whales speak French at the bottom of the sea. Got it!

Interesting imaginary planet you inhabit.

BTW, here's the short version of how tropo ducts work. Tropospheric Ducting: Everything You Need to Know

I know, they don't really exist, but we don't know that so we use them anyway. Kinda like the bumblebee; he doesn't know that he lacks the power and wing area to enable him to fly, so in his ignorance he flies anyway.

Just be thankful that there are engineers who are ignorant enough to keep your fantasy world operating.[/quote]

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The part above the horizon is, why wouldn't it be?

Because it should be obscured by curve.

None of that now. I've been civil with you, and insults are the common resort of those with no other response.

Not sure why you found that insulting..?

Because it's below the visible horizon while the upper works are not.

Again, the entire boat should have long disappeared behind the curve at the distances and observer heights we're talking about.

Share, please, I'm keen to see that. And why, in a FE scenario, is there a horizon line at all? Why is it there? With my 5 inch glass I should be able to see the ferry all the way to the port where it lands. Nothing between it and me but flat water, nothing to block the view. But for some reason I can't see either the boat or the land it's headed for once it's well past that presumably imaginary line.

Of course the air isn't clear as a bell from here to Spain. A boat will get lost in the haze. This one illustrates the distances and horizon line nice and simple:

What is "excessive"?

An engineer who's designing a long railroad or suspension bridge needs to know these things. They have a functional impact.

Says the guy who doesn't think that the earth has a curvature all. <Laugh>[/QUOTE]

Scoffers in the last days lol.

Yep, they were. They failed to account for the fact that Knickebein freqs were in in the grey area between HF and VHF, and were still getting significant amounts of ionospheric propagation. That, and the fact that the planes being guided by KB were well thousands of feet above sea level made the thing work quite nicely.

Nice try, but I'm not buying. Prove it.

Here's another apposite and informative pithy bite by Mr TC:

How many would you like?

Just one verifiable experiment would be a good start please.

there's an indetectable solid dome above the flat earth to keep the atmo from escaping

The dome is detectable by bouncing beams off it, for starters. You can practically see it on a clear night.

How does the heliocentric model explain why earth's atmosphere is kept from being sucked into the incredibly powerful vacuum of space? Velcro?

Is there any objection TC can't neatly answer?

whales speak French at the bottom of the sea.

Now that I can't argue with. Apparently Jonah was telling ppl he spent 'trois jours dans le poisson', but who could comprehend?

Interesting imaginary planet you inhabit.

Well, it's the same world that the Bible describes and the worldview of just about every culture in history. But knock yourself out enjoying all the sophisticated frantic gyrations of a space waterball without ever being able to detect motion or curvature. How about some wacky Einsteinian relativity to keep the illusion afloat?

BTW, here's the short version of how tropo ducts work. Tropospheric Ducting: Everything You Need to Know

Nice theory, pity it's rubbish.

I know, they don't really exist, but we don't know that so we use them anyway. Kinda like the bumblebee; he doesn't know that he lacks the power and wing area to enable him to fly, so in his ignorance he flies anyway.

Now isn't that special. He takes off, hovers and lands right back where he started. Luckily the air was velcroed to the ground.

Just be thankful that there are engineers who are ignorant enough to keep your fantasy world operating.

[/QUOTE]

Yes I'm certainly glad that they're ignorant of curvature when it comes to planning, designing and building major public works.

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Cor 10:12)