Flat earthers?

[DanieltheDragon]

Flat earth belief is still around to this day. They even have elaborate apologetics dedicated to it not unlike creationists. Yet even among Christian groups they are frequently dismissed. Yet I find this strange. This dismissal among Christians of flat earth belief.

The way I see all Christian belief whether flat earth, young earth, old earth, or what have you are equally unbelievable. To me each group latches on to a particular mindset that speaks to them and ignores evidence to the contrary.

Why is Flat earth theory treated with such disrepect compared to other Christian beliefs?

[shnarkle]

First off, I'm not presenting you with an argument.

Yeah, I noticed that, and given that this is a debate group wouldn't it be more appropriate to present an argument?[/quote]

Again, I'm asking for clarification on the argument you presented.

Why don't you look at my claim and then tell me what is so perplexing about it?

Perhaps I should just take your tack and make a similar claim: Sitting on a unicorn will make ships over the horizon 'magically' appear. Happy?

Yep, now prove it.

I'm presenting you a picture and asking if a telescope will make the bottom of the ship reappear.

And I pointed out that I would answer in the same exact coin you have presented me with. You presented me with a picture, and I presented you with a number of explanations for why that picture looks the way it does. The only one I didn't supply you with was that of someone playing with the picture; using artistic license. photo shop etc.

Clearly you are missing the point or simply dodging the question.

Not only do I see the point, I responded with a number of links to clear concise explanations with evidence to support those explanations. You are the one who is having trouble understanding that unless you address those explanations, arguments, evidence, you are conceding those points. The ball is in your court. The ship is clearly beyond the vanishing point of the horizon. The telescope brings it back into view. This is clearly seen in numerous experiments. Try it yourself sometime if you don't believe it. Someone else in this discussion pointed out that they were going to do just that. Perhaps we can hear from him after he's done his experiment.

What I can cull from your responses so far is that you don't know if ships actually ever go below the horizon.

Now you're getting somewhere. Congratulations on being able to discern the obvious.

This implies you know not whether the earth is flat or spherical.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you might want to try and stick to what I'm actually posting instead of what you think I'm implying. This is probably your biggest mistake.

You want the rest of us to prove it one way or the other rather that back up your own claims.[

I've backed up my claims repeatedly with evidence. LOL!!! Now it's your turn, or are you now going to admit that you're wrong and I'm right, and take my position? If you're not going to take my position, then I will once again say that I'm all ears and eagerly await your arguments, proofs, and evidence supporting your position, or do "you want the rest of us to prove it one way or the other rather than back up your own claims"?

You claimed a telescope would make ships 'magically' reappear. You were challenged and have done nothing but dodge since.

Uh, not even close. You have admittedly pointed out that the links I provided were ignored. Then you turn right around and point out that you are working under the assumption that the links I provided don't need to be viewed as they're all the same; they're not. Ignoring what I've presented doesn't negate the fact that not only did I NOT dodge your challenge, I addressed it and refuted it. You are simply making blatantly baseless accusations. There were numerous examples of ships which had disappeared from visible sight and then seen again and again with the aid of telescopes. Why aren't you addressing those examples? Why are you still just making these baseless assertion??? You aren't advancing the discussion in the slightest. How about presenting an argument, evidence? Something? Is it your position that the earth is curved or not? Is so, please present your arguments, evidence.

It's called 'asking for clarification'. What did I get in response? Diversion and flat earth videos.

They aren't flat earth videos. None of them prove that the earth is flat. What they do portray is the same thing I've been asking, i.e. what is the reason for this phenomenon? What is really going on? Why does it appear that the formula for the curvature of the earth is off a bit?

Fine, you want to avoid backing your claim and want to move on to other questions.

Go ahead smart guy, show us all where I'm changing my position, or avoid backing my claim.

The formula may be 'off a bit' due to refraction. Look closely at the farthest rig during the zoom in. Look at the cranes on top of the rig. Notice anything?

Yeah, I notice that you're beginning to take my position.

Ok, well for starters there appear to be some questionable behavior at least in the first video given (the only one I watched. Like I explained before, when credibility goes, so does others patience for digging through everything you post).

Once again, you're admitting that you didn't even look at what I posted. Now you've lost your credibility. When you can't even be bothered to look at what I've presented the discussion is over. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. Unless you choose to address what I've posted, you are conceding the debate.

At the 'one foot' test, before the full zoom is done, it's quite apparent that the camera is moved up after first pointing at the ground/water for a moment. Did the camera slip? Does the zoom button/ring cause the camera to move all over the place? Was it a diversion so you wouldn't see the change in height?

That's it??? LOL! C,mon you can do better than that, can't you? Let's say he's at six feet above sea level, before going to the 35' elevation, you've still got to account for the fact that he's got a good THIRTY FEET OF DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION. Account for that with refraction Einstein. I just posted another link where the guy shows the difference with a FIVE HUNDRED FOOT DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION. Guess what? No, discernable difference in the shot of islands that are over THIRTY MILES AWAY. Do the math. Here's the formula again in case you need to look for some obscure link that you don't even need. How difficult is it to remember this: 8" for every mile squared.

Then let's actually look at the zoomed in picture. It's clear that the furthest rig is missing part of the bottom, more than the closer rig. That's all you can really tell given the shoddy way this experiment was performed.

And yet when he goes up to the 35' elevation whatever is missing isn't much of anything at all. Again, you need to do the math. A 35' difference in elevation is going to be well over 30' disappearing; that ain't happening by a long shot. Literally by a long shot of over NINE MILES. LOL. Do the math yourself if you don't believe me. This isn't complicated at all; it's basic math. Where I come from a second grader could do it.

Then we go to the higher camera height ("35 foot"). Again, the camera inexplicably is pointed at the sky a few times. Is this to make it easy to cut in the image from "1 foot"?

This isn't a bad argument. This is possible, but look at the video again as he repeatedly zooms in and out from that height to show that this isn't what's going on. He does it repeatedly to the point it becomes irritating.

At that point I was no longer sure what to make of this 'experiment' and didn't trust the results. All that was really shown was a zoomed in picture clearly showing part of the oil rig below the horizon.

Below the horizon???? Really? Is that what you saw? Part of the rig below the horizon? How did you see that?

How much of it is a guess since no rigorous measurements of any kind are given other than "1 foot" and "35 feet".

Why would one need to measure anything of what is seen in pictures from BOTH elevations? This is basic geometry. When measuring a length of a square, the hypotenuse forms two triangles. If we leave the length of the hypotenuse alone and change the figure completely. We don't then need to measure the length of the hypotenuse again do we? We're looking at the same identical picture. There doesn't appear to be any measurable amount of rig missing from the 1' elevation. There necessarily needs to be well over 30' feet missing. You don't seem to even understand the experiment in the first place. Seems a bit disingenuous to disregard an experiment you don't even understand. There could be ten feet missing, and it would indicate that the formula is off by quite a bit. The fact that the pictures look identical is damning unless someone can come up with an explanation. No one has.

Perform the test yourself then. I've done it a number of times from my boat with instruments that told me exactly how far away I was from the shore, other boats etc.

There's no height given of the rigs in question.

Did you notice the first still photographs of the crew boats tied to the rigs? I can tell you from first hand experience that those are quite large vessels. We're talking about rigs that are easily three to four stories high, and those are small rigs too. With the booms they're probably 5 or 6 stories. Regardless, the fact is that the math tells us how tall they are. They have to be well over 40' tall, and yet we see practically the same exact image from both elevations. Why?

Refraction doesn't account for no change in perspective from any elevation. Curvature of the earth doesn't work either. There is no explanatory power in either explanation.

There's no indication of tide height in the still shot close to the rig or during the zoom test.

And? What's your point? Do you think the tide changed in the time he went from one elevation to the other? Do you think tides on the west coast of California change more than 30'? LOL!!! Did you notice surfers ripping down 30' swells in the video? LOL! What I saw were relatively calm seas, almost perfectly flat.

There's no second camera to confirm what the first camera is actually doing.

The camera is on, or didn't you notice that? Perhaps you need someone to confirm what you're doing.

There's no measurement devices show what the actual heights in question are. I'm sure others can find more issues.

Evidently you have no idea what this experiment is showing. What we do know is the distance from the shoreline to the rigs. We also know the formula for the curvature of the earth. The boat tied to the rig indicates probably a good 12' to 15' height above the water line. Both elevations show the boat or more likely ether some small vessel or a mooring buoy. You can plainly see this object from both elevations. There is no change, if there is it is negligible. This doesn't square with the formula for the curvature of the earth. We shouldn't be able to see any of it from even a 10' drop in elevation. Unless you think the guy can pick his telescope up and immediately elevate it up to 35' from the beach and somehow make it seem that he is now going up another 35' yet keep it at the exact same level the whole time he is doing this you are clearly grasping at straws. This is actually getting so ridiculous it's becoming amuzing enough for me to save these replies of yours.

All in all, it's a shoddy video that still manages to show that the earth is curved despite itself.

Really? Do tell. How did the video manage to show that the earth is curved??? Is this the position you're taking now? Please provide evidence of your position. An argument would be immensely appreciated.

Did you look at what I presented?

I looked carefully at the first video or I wouldn't be giving details of it no? I explained why I didn't bother with the rest. If you want to point me to an exact time in any particular video that you think will help your case that's fine. I will look, but I'm not going to sit and watch a bunch of videos when the first one is clearly bunk.

Once again, you're admitting that you didn't look at anything I presented. You're admitting that you concede those points.

Okay, the other videos show boats disappearing beyond the horizon and then showing them reappear with the aid of telescopes. They also show the shoreline disappearing and reappearing due to heat distortion from the water. They also show how perspective makes the mast descend towards the horizon, but also show how the bottom of the ship goes UP until it disappears into the mirage created by the flat surface of the water. They show this quite persuasively with measurements and proportional drawings. If you don't believe me, or the facts you can check them for yourself.

Why will you simply not answer the question? Yes or no, will a telescope bring the bottom of a ship back into view once it's gone over the horizon?

Prove that there is a curved horizon first then we'll go from there.

My understanding is that debaters are required to back up their claims.

You're asking a question that presupposes a curve. You need to take your own advice and back this claim up. I don't have to answer that question as my position is that it isn't clear that there is a curve in the first place. My claim is that someone needs to prove that there is a curve in the first place. My claim is that if there is in fact a curve then the reason we can see a ship reappear must be some sort of optical phenomenon or some such other explanation. I don't know which one is more persuasive; none of them seem to offer conclusive proof. You have presented NOTHING to support whatever position you may or may not even have. How about providing an argument?

You made a claim. Please either back it up or retract it.

I've backed It up repeatedly. Review my posts if you don't believe me. Evidently you don't understand my claim in the first place. Sorry if the facts are so confusing.

Asking me to prove something to help you with your claim is not going to cut it. Nice try though.

I'm not asking you to help me with my claim. I'm asking you to prove your claim. I don't see anything that supports your claim, I don't even see you presenting much of a claim at all now that I think of it. Do you have a position? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but are you now saying that you have no idea what your position is? Are you saying that the earth is curved? You seem to want evidence to the contrary, as if this was my claim. If you are claiming that the earth is curved, then please be my guest and provide evidence to support this claim. An Argument would be ideal.

Do you think you might be able to give that a try?

[shnarkle]

First off, I'm not presenting you with an argument.

Yeah, I noticed that, and given that this is a debate group wouldn't it be more appropriate to present an argument?

Again, I'm asking for clarification on the argument you presented.

Here's my first post in this topic:

There's an assumption in Eratosthenes proof, i.e. the sun is so far away that its rays are parallel. It's a great proof, but not conclusive given that there was no proof for the distance between the sun and the earth.

I spent years watching mountains and skyscrapers slowly descending below the horizon from my sailboats. I knew this was proof positive that the earth was round. The problem is that they are simply getting smaller and eventually disappearing over the horizon. While it appears that they are going down, they're really just getting smaller.

If we do some simple math given the diameter of the earth we come up with what seems to be an uncontested formula for the curvature of the earth: 8" for every mile squared. Seems a bit too small to me. five miles should be over 15' of curvature. 5 x 5 = 25; 25 x 8 = 200" or 16'8" I'm not saying the earth is flat. I just don't understand how this formula is supposed to work.

The thing about the flat earth controversy that I find so interesting is that it spotlights an education system that really inculcates rather than educates. Who actually has first hand experience of a round or flat earth?

The shadow of the earth on the moon would indicate the earth is at least circular. We see a lot of other spherical planets, seems like the earth would be spherical as well. Retrograde motion also is a strong indicator of the heliocentric view. I haven't seen anyone present a geocentric explanation for retrograde motion yet. Even with all that, I can't really prove that the earth is flat with any arguments that couldn't also be used to prove it's round.

I started watching some of the flat earth videos on youtube just out of curiosity and there are some strange things that don't add up. The footage of the mission to the moon where they are pretending to be half way to the moon when they're only in low earth orbit looks pretty damning. The special effects of people up in the space station that aren't really convincing. The young guy in the space station talking about how we haven't quite figured out how to get through the Van Allen radiation belt when we had to go through it to get to the moon. It's like he doesn't know our own history. The strange shadows on the moon that seem to indicate an artificial light source, etc. It all looks pretty convincing sometimes. It is entertaining and the production value is fantastic.

I don't think it indicates a flat earth, but it does make one wonder what's really going on.

What's so confusing about this, and why don't you want to provide any arguments to support your own position, or do you even have one? You seem to think the earth is curved, the burden of proof is on you.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 119 by shnarkle]

I am an artist and I have a very good understanding of perspective the videographer had a very amatuerish understanding and seemed to not realize that she was working on reinventing the wheel. Had she picked up a book on perspective she could have just scrapped her whole video.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 113 by shnarkle]

He's showing that there is no difference in the TWO perspectives. Other than a slight squishing of the perspective from refraction at the 1' level, the two perspectives quite clearly show that there is no 35' of revealed rig showing at the 35' level. I can't even believe you're serious about this.

Wether the earth is flat or round there is a difference in perspective over 9 miles when you view something from two different angles.

Of course, that's not the point though is it? The point is that over a distance of nine miles with a formula for the curvature of the earth taken into consideration we shouldn't be able to see a good 30' of rig from even six feet above sea level.

The rest of your post isn't an argument; it's blatant trolling.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 114 by shnarkle]

Here's the explanation of why the video you presented shows a mirror image rather than simply the boat disappearing over the curvature. This is also explained in the videos I presented. Those videos provide better explanations, but this one is also quite good. Unlike yours, this one condenses it into ten minutes, but still manages to show how the distortion increases as it gets farther and farther away.

That video is also a bunch of baloney, with the speaker making up her own lingo to go with it. She goes on and on about 1/3 mast 2/3 ship but when the only thing that's left is the mast she ends her video with no comment.

Thank you though for exemplifying my earlier point in this thread, that instead of acknowledging there might be some issues with a belief system, theists will defend the most absurd viewpoints within their system so as to justify their own beliefs even if they don't believe it themselves.

Oh no, thank you for spotlighting your ignorance of perspective. Any artists in the forum care to enlighten our friend on how perspective works? Dismissing evidence isn't an argument.

Here's yet another fantastic bit of evidence that shows how the formula for a curved earth is in need of further explanation. This one is even more pronounced in that instead of going 35' above sea level, he goes from over 500' down to a foot above sea level with a FIVE FOOT SWELL BLOCKING HIS VIEW. The pictures are practically identical. Explain that one away Mr. Skeptic. LOL!



What's the formula for distortion, or refraction that makes EVERY elevation look the same? LOL!!

Oh, did you figure out why he moved from a 1' elevation to a 35' elevation yet???????? LOL! Have you figured out that his little sly "deception" was actually what proves he's not engaging in any deception at all????

Sorry if the facts are so confusing, but this isn't complicated at all. Any one else scrambling to figure out why these videos are so plainly showing that the curvature formula doesn't work? I don't see anyone else posting anything yet, but my suspicion is that they're going to come up with something equivalent to "That video is also a bunch of baloney".

Thanks for sharing your opinion, and furthering this discussion to its ultimate conclusion.

Here is a question for you that should resolve this. We both agree Mars is further from The east coast beaches than Iceland, Europe, and Africa. How come I can see Mars from the beach with the naked eye and not the aforementioned land masses? What is blocking my view of Spain? If the earth were flat why can I not use my 10inch telescope that can photograph the red spot of Jupiter not see Spain?

No need to debate these videos from people who don't know what they are doing or talking about. Why are there no flat earth videos of objects beyond the horizon?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 119 by shnarkle]

I am an artist and I have a very good understanding of perspective the videographer had a very amatuerish understanding and seemed to not realize that she was working on reinventing the wheel. Had she picked up a book on perspective she could have just scrapped her whole video.

I'm an artist as well, and you're not addressing perspective. You're simply bad mouthing the videographer. You're not presenting an argument, much less even addressing the issue of perspective. I'm no impressed with your credentials as an artist nor as someone interested in debate for that matter.

It is no secret that as object get farther away they get smaller. We've all looked down long hall ways in motels or watched traffic on highways disappear into the distance. At no time did we then conclude that the earth hallway or highway was curving down. Perhaps I should speak for myself. The walls of the hallway appear to meet in the distance. The sides of the highway also appear to meet at the vanishing point. The same thing happens with boats as they leave a harbor. This is evident to anyone who has two eyes that properly display an accurate depth of field.

What we see is a ship or boat actually going up as it departs. The hull is going up while the masts are simultaneously going down. What happens as the ship gets farther and farther away is that the hull begins to disappear due to a mirage effect. The videos I provided show this quite clearly. They show birds flying above the water and their reflections flying below them. They show the bow of the ship jutting out and its reflection jutting out as well. Then they just show the reflection. We shouldn't even be able to see that if the earth is curved. The point is that for the formula to be accurate we need to start seeing curvature before the vanishing point; I don't see that. If I wasn't in a debate group I wouldn't even be talking about it, but since people in this group seem to be into debating this issue, I'd like to see someone prove something. ANYTHING.

[postroad]

Why does the sun appear to set behind the horizon and then rise in the east. If the sun was a spotlight as some flat earth believers insist, this phenomenon can not be explained.

[Zzyzx]

.
For those still confused by the concept that the Earth is spherical -- and those who possibly misunderstand the 'ship disappearing from bottom up' example:

Have you ever wondered why radio and television towers are made very tall? Could it be that the taller the tower the farther its 'line of sight' radio frequency transmissions can be received? 'Line of sight' means 'in a straight line' without reflection or refraction (by the ionosphere or other agent). Some transmission frequencies are line-of-sight and others are not. This is well known to people invovled -- and often unknown to those who speculate without understanding.

If one is 'out of range' of a transmitting tower, they may be able to receive its signal if they raise THEIR (receiving) antenna.

Broadcasters and others realize that curvature of the Earth is a limiting factor in any line-of-sight transmission (or radar).

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 125 by shnarkle]

I'm an artist as well, and you're not addressing perspective. You're simply bad mouthing the videographer. You're not presenting an argument, much less even addressing the issue of perspective. I'm no impressed with your credentials as an artist nor as someone interested in debate

Says the person who said there is no change in perspective from 1 ft and 35 ft(completely false) and that the rigs look the same when the one further back cannot be seen below the lower deck and the one in front can from 1 ft. Yet the one from 35ft gets a few more pixels of the lower deck revealed.

Says the person who uses shotgun debate tactics and hopes something sticks. Whilst not defending any of the claims you make. I ain't here to impress you nor do I care about your respect. Especially that of a person who debates using the words of others on YouTube.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 125 by shnarkle]

The walls of the hallway appear to meet in the distance. The sides of the highway also appear to meet at the vanishing point.

Single point perspective

The same thing happens with boats as they leave a harbor.

zero point perspective
A googled def:
The most common example of a nonlinear scene is a natural scene (e.g., a mountain range) which frequently does not contain any parallel lines. A perspective without vanishing points can still create a sense of depth. A zero-point perspective view is equivalent to an elevation.


Some images could make the case for multi point perspective but generally speaking an image of a Harbour is zero point

Thank you for speaking for yourself. I don't think I need lessons on perspective from someone who can't deliniate from different types of perspective.