Is the Earth Flat?

[Shrewd Manager]

Strawman fallacy. The math does not support your claim.

Well, based on the level change vs altitude in your meme, why don't you knock something up showing where the horizon should be located at 120000 ft? Thanks I'll wait.

Great! Get someone at each spot where the sun is hitting the ocean to get bearing and angle of elevation.

Just wait on until I've dug up that pot of gold at rainbow's end.

What are you talking about? The clouds above our heads are lit by the sun well before it becomes visible on the ground at sunrise.

I don't think so, but if that's correct, then the phenomenon I described should occur. Where do we see the shadow cast of the horizon line on to clouds? Doesn't happen. Here's a primer for you.

And the follow up #16 Addendum A contains a comparative computer simulation, if you haven't yet admitted your folly.

 

[prodromos]

Well, based on the level change vs altitude in your meme, why don't you knock something up showing where the horizon should be located at 120000 ft? Thanks I'll wait.

Already did this ages ago in this post.

I don't think so, but if that's correct, then the phenomenon I described should occur. Where do we see the shadow cast of the horizon line on to clouds? Doesn't happen. Here's a primer for you.

You demand rigorous scientific method for any ball earth experiments and yet you give nonsense like this a free pass when it supposedly supports the flat earth. The hypocrisy of flat earthers apparently knows no bounds. (Pea-brain certainly lives up to his name)

And the follow up #16 Addendum A contains a comparative computer simulation, if you haven't yet admitted your folly.

Haven't had time to look at it yet, but I'm not expecting much based on what I've already seen.

 

[prodromos]

The follow up is video is just as stupid. No rigorous scientific method involved yet you demand it for any globe proofs.
This image from 0:50 in the video you posted above clearly shows the clouds above Mt Ranier despite Taboo Conspiracy's nonsense claims otherwise. If the peak was above the clouds there could not be any gap between the top of the peak and the start of the shadow. The fact that he included it among all the others where the clouds were below the peak doesn't disprove Bob's rebuttal.

Now that I fully understand the claim you were making before, I can state unequivocally that the assumptions made by Taboo Conspiracy as to what should be visible on a sphere earth are wrong. The sun is a huge object which appears slowly above the horizon which means that the clouds are lit by a small part of the sun at first, then more and more of the sun as the earth rotates. Because the horizon is far distant from the clouds, the shadow of the earth has a large amount of penumbra, meaning you will not see a sharp delineation between light and dark. The shadow cast by the mountain in the picture above is much sharper because it is much closer to the clouds.
You also have the prism affect of the atmosphere causing the different color component of the light to bend different amounts which is why the clouds take on a reddish hue, but also further blurring the line between light and dark.

 

[Lost4words]

Common sense outweighs the fantastical fantasies of flat earth believers!

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Already did this ages ago in this post.

Well that's the maths, now go prove it (and not with memes).

You demand rigorous scientific method for any ball earth experiments and yet you give nonsense like this a free pass when it supposedly supports the flat earth. The hypocrisy of flat earthers apparently knows no bounds. (Pea-brain certainly lives up to his name)

These things don't require rigorous proofs, they're basic observable phenomena. It is sufficient to posit that, on a globe, the shadow of the horizon line should be projected on to elevated objects by the sun, when below the horizon. That effect is easily tested using a ball, a torch and a wall. Give it a try.

The sun is a huge object which appears slowly above the horizon which means that the clouds are lit by a small part of the sun at first, then more and more of the sun as the earth rotates. Because the horizon is far distant from the clouds, the shadow of the earth has a large amount of penumbra, meaning you will not see a sharp delineation between light and dark. The shadow cast by the mountain in the picture above is much sharper because it is much closer to the clouds.
You also have the prism affect of the atmosphere causing the different color component of the light to bend different amounts which is why the clouds take on a reddish hue, but also further blurring the line between light and dark.

Nice try at muddying the waters. TC is just summarising P-brane's videos, which abundantly show the effect is not 'up from under'. If it were as you and Bob say, well then the horizon line effect should also be a visible phenomenon, notwithstanding your theory.

My apologies, it was Taboo Conspiracy's Addendum B, not A, that contains the shadow experiment, starts at around 5:45. Let me know if you agree with (a) the postulates at 7:10, (b) the upward earth bulge shadow at 9:10 and (c) the findings at around 10:10. Hope you've got your fudge and smear calculator!

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Common sense outweighs the fantastical fantasies of flat earth believers!

Ouch!

 

[Lost4words]

Ouch!

Reality:

What does flat mean and does that refute Einstein's contention that the universe is curved? | Science Guys | Union University, a Christian College in Tennessee

Ouch!!!

 

[prodromos]

Well that's the maths, now go prove it (and not with memes).

They've already been demonstrated, and you apparently misunderstand what a "meme" is.

These things don't require rigorous proofs, they're basic observable phenomena.

You mean like water levels and the horizon, and shadow penumbra. They are basic observable phenomena.

It is sufficient to posit that, on a globe, the shadow of the horizon line should be projected on to elevated objects by the sun, when below the horizon. That effect is easily tested using a ball, a torch and a wall. Give it a try.

No. You are ignoring a multitude of factors which prevent the kind of sharp shadow your peers claim should appear. The claim is utterly bogus.

Nice try at muddying the waters.

The opposite of what I am actually doing.

TC is just summarising P-brane's videos, which abundantly show the effect is not 'up from under'.

That one image with the gap between the peak and the start of the shadow completely debunks Pea brain's claim

If it were as you and Bob say, well then the horizon line effect should also be a visible phenomenon, notwithstanding your theory.

No, for all the reasons I've given.

My apologies, it was Taboo Conspiracy's Addendum B, not A, that contains the shadow experiment, starts at around 5:45. Let me know if you agree with (a) the postulates at 7:10, (b) the upward earth bulge shadow at 9:10 and (c) the findings at around 10:10. Hope you've got your fudge and smear calculator!

The videos you've linked to have all been rubbish. I don't expect anything different from this one.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

They've already been demonstrated, and you apparently misunderstand what a "meme" is.

Is a meme not a silly photo juxtaposition?

You mean like water levels and the horizon, and shadow penumbra. They are basic observable phenomena.

Yes, basic axioms like water finds its level, bodies of water lay flat, we consistently see too far, and so on and so forth.

No. You are ignoring a multitude of factors which prevent the kind of sharp shadow your peers claim should appear. The claim is utterly bogus.

Just keep muddying the waters, God's truth is always straight up. He feeds the little ones, but sends the wise and prudent home overseas empty.

That one image with the gap between the peak and the start of the shadow completely debunks Pea brain's claim

Er no, the shadow is cast from the parts of the mountain above the clouds, so quite consistent. But nice try.

No, for all the reasons I've given.

Your reasons are purely hypothetical ad hocs, typical of the theoretical physics m.o.. Where's that Higgs Boson at, anyways.

The videos you've linked to have all been rubbish. I don't expect anything different from this one.

I'll take that as a win for the FE. Obviously the pattern of shadows cast against vertical backdrops would differ between a receding or setting sun. Do you ever see the shadow from an object on your window ledge cast on to the ceiling? No, even in a 50th floor apartment. Sorry, but sun shadows prove your globe is BUSTED.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Reality:

What does flat mean and does that refute Einstein's contention that the universe is curved? | Science Guys | Union University, a Christian College in Tennessee

Ouch!!!

Now I'm lost for words, Lost4Words!

Common sense pervades that article, it verily pullulates from it.

 

[Lost4words]

Now I'm lost for words, Lost4Words!

Flat earth believers usually are when it comes to facts and truth!

 

[Yttrium]

Ouch!

Einstein: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

The flat Earth one is probably misattributed to Einstein, but I can see Einstein saying it. After all, common sense tells us that relativity can't work. But as Einstein would point out, the universe doesn't care about common sense. You have to look further and study your surroundings with an unbiased eye. There are times when common sense doesn't work. When you fly in a straight line and come back to your starting point. Then you have to figure out how things really work.

 

[Lulav]

FLIGHT MAP, ICE WALLS OF ANTARCTICA FIRMAMENT - Rumble

 

[prodromos]

FLIGHT MAP, ICE WALLS OF ANTARCTICA FIRMAMENT - Rumble

There is a requirement on Christian forums that you must provide a brief synopsis when posting links to videos.

Having now watched it, I can say that he has no clue what he is talking about. Flight times in the Southern Hemisphere do not match the distances on that map. NASA is not the only source of globe information. All nautical travel between continents has had the globe as their model for millenia. Every statement he made in that clip was false.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

After all, common sense tells us that relativity can't work.

That, and Sagnac. In fact, what tells us that relativity could ever work?

 

[Yttrium]

In fact, what tells us that relativity could ever work?

Oh, nothing. Einstein just made it all up on whim one day. It's not like we've tested it or anything. Well, nothing you wouldn't just dismiss as a hoax. Things like testing the speed of light in a vacuum, checking discrepancies in planetary motion and satellite clocks in orbit, silly stuff like that.

There are tremendous amounts of resources online if you ever become interested in that sort of thing, but they're all written by the same people who are trying to fool you into believing the Earth is a globe, so don't risk becoming indoctrinated.

 

[JacksBratt]

There is a requirement on Christian forums that you must provide a brief synopsis when posting links to videos.

Having now watched it, I can say that he has no clue what he is talking about. Flight times in the Southern Hemisphere do not match the distances on that map. NASA is not the only source of globe information. All nautical travel between continents has had the globe as their model for millenia. Every statement he made in that clip was false.

A kind PM could have informed the poster of the error.
Can you show sources for support to the accusation that this person "has no clue"?

 

[prodromos]

A kind PM could have informed the poster of the error.
Can you show sources for support to the accusation that this person "has no clue"?

See this post.

 

[Lost4words]

See this post.

The way i see it, any person who believes in a flat earth has 'no clue!'

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Oh, nothing. Einstein just made it all up on whim one day. It's not like we've tested it or anything.

Yes, Sagnac tested it in 1913 and it was found wanting. Now we have the Sagnac effect used in ring laser gyros on every aircraft in the world. Where's the Einstein effect?

Things like testing the speed of light in a vacuum, checking discrepancies in planetary motion and satellite clocks in orbit, silly stuff like that.

Sounds plausible. Can we verify these things?

There are tremendous amounts of resources online if you ever become interested in that sort of thing, but they're all written by the same people who are trying to fool you into believing the Earth is a globe, so don't risk becoming indoctrinated

I read some of them. Unfortunately, Einstein's maths are even wrong, there are errors in his tensors. But it's unnecessary to go into that. Let's just look at the twins paradox. It's a simple fallacy, which reduces to A>B and B>A.