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]

[Replying to post 136 by shnarkle]

I did provide evidence...

No, you didn't.

and also pointed out in the video how the pylons below the lower deck were visible in the closer rig and only a little of the top of the Lower deck was visible from the further oil rig.

Maybe you should look at it again, as they both show the same amount of pylon. They even showed pictures of both rigs close up. Showing how they differ in size.

I also pointed out that a few more pixels of visibility were available from the higher vantage point.

And???

I also provided evidence of a ship sinking over the horizon, your response was a video from a crazy person on the Internet who did not even address the point of the video when all that was visible was the mast...

I supplied you with numerous pictures showing a number of reasons for this phenomenon, e.g. wave swells, mirage, and refraction. There is no reason to dispute any of these reasons because we can see how this happens with our own eyes. Watch the links again, if you don't believe me, or better yet go out and watch it yourself on a windy day you'll see the waves , and on a calm day you'll see the mirage.

Let's just take your ship sinking over the horizon picture and point out a few things here. First off, it's a still photo, and we have no context whatsoever. Who took the picture? Where did they take it? Is this even an actual picture, or is it photo shop? On the other hand, the link I posted has a guy with a video camera and an exceptionally powerful zoom lens which he repeatedly zooms in and out from the shoreline and the 35' elevation. The whole clip is unedited, and yet you think he's taking the photo from 10' and 35' which even then doesn't account for the fact that the pictures are essentially identical. Do the math. 8" for every mile squared is 8" for 6 miles squared. Six miles squared is 36 x 8 = 288"; divided by 12 = 24' Did you see 24' of pylon appear when he went up an additional 35'? It was definitely a clearer picture of the exact same thing we were looking at down at the shoreline. It wasn't a clearer picture of an additional 24' of footings for that rig.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 135 by shnarkle] How would a luner eclipse be explained in a flat earth concept with the sun at all times contained in the firmament above the earth?

Any of a number of ways, I suspect. How about another planet? Jupiter is pretty big, no? Since no one here is able to prove much of anything even a heliocentric model, why not just throw the geocentric model into the mix? Then we can say that Jupiter is blocking the sun's rays from hitting the moon. Then again, probably Venus or Mercury might work better, who knows?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 141 by shnarkle]
Ok

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 131 by shnarkle]

How about we stick with what we see on earth? The reason we can't see any farther is the atmosphere itself gets in the way.

It doesn't get in the way of Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Neptune, Pluto,Uranus, and Saturn. All of which are demonstrably further away. If the atmosphere was the cause then we couldn't see those either....

[/quote]

Look at the moon with your naked eyes. You can see that and then look right down to the horizon of the ocean and not see a boat BEFORE the vanishing point due to haze. You haven't got an argument at all. You can look through a telescope and see the boat reappear because it hasn't gone past the horizon at all, but just past what you can see with your naked eye. For some reason you don't seem to notice that this is an undisputed fact. On a hazy day, you can't see very far at all on the ocean, and yet you can see the moon. You seem to think this proves that the earth is round for some unknown reason; it doesn't. It proves that it is a hazy day and you can't see even half way to the horizon. I've spent countless days sitting in fog, and can't see more than a few feet past the bow sprit yet I can see the moon, birds, planes etc. above my head. the same is effectively the same with haze, mirages, etc.

Haven't you ever watched cars disappear into the distance out in the desert? The mirage swallows them up completely. That doesn't happen with the moon though does it? Although in a way it does to some degree. You can see it start to distort from the mirage. It points out where the mirage is so you can tell it's a mirage. If the conditions were right and the distortion was significant enough you could possibly lose the moon completely above the horizon.

[OnceConvinced]

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

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

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.

Account for that with refraction Einstein.

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.

Moderator Comment

The comments being made here are becoming rather snide and uncivil. Please avoid the name calling and personal comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 143 by shnarkle]

On a clear day you can see to the edge of the horizon. This is a phenomenon demonstrable as fact. The problems of haze and fog are red herrings as it typically thins vertically so if you are at the densest elevation looking forward you are staring into the thickest part of the fog verses looking vertically looking towards the thinnest.

On a clear day with a flat earth and a large telescope you should be capable of seeing Europe or Africa. I have a 10 inch telescope and I cannot see below the horizon. Riding on an airplane you can see cities easily that are hundreds of miles apart because of the angle at which you are viewing them .

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 143 by shnarkle]

On a clear day you can see to the edge of the horizon. This is a phenomenon demonstrable as fact. The problems of haze and fog are red herrings as it typically thins vertically so if you are at the densest elevation looking forward you are staring into the thickest part of the fog verses looking vertically looking towards the thinnest.

Exactly! And vertically would be where you would see all those planets, right? When you are staring into the thickest part of the haze, fog, smoke etc. you aren't going to be able to see much of anything. Eventually you're going to accumulate enough haze to block your view at eye level. Of course the same would be true if the smoke, fog etc. is thick enough to block your view looking up as well. The fact that you can't see through it doesn't prove those planets aren't there anymore than it proves the earth is round or flat. It just proves that you can't see through it.

On a clear day with a flat earth and a large telescope you should be capable of seeing Europe or Africa.

How do you see through all that atmosphere though? Think about it; the air at ground level is the thickest. When you look up, you're looking through atmosphere that thins to nothing

I have a 10 inch telescope and I cannot see below the horizon.

Go with that one. You can't see through earth regardless of what shape it's in.

Riding on an airplane you can see cities easily that are hundreds of miles apart because of the angle at which you are viewing them .

Yep, and it all looks flat too. You bring up a good point though. Stand on the coast line and look out at an uninterrupted horizon. How far can you see from left to right? The video I presented looked out at targets that were 6 and 9 miles. What about if we looked at targets from the side? We should be able to see the curve and the fact that one object at one end is lower than what is in front of us and at the same lower position as what is at the other end, right? Go look for yourself because every time I look at the horizon it's perfectly flat. You can even take picture of it and see it's flat with a ruler. This is probably the main reason they call it a "horizon".

Seriously though, that guy with that awesome video equipment should get a shot from the side looking at the channel islands on one side and the beach he was at on the other side. We should be able to see that the horizon is higher than the beach and the tops of the channel islands mountain peaks. That's a pretty significant curve, especially when one of those mountains is almost 1,000' high. Six hundred feet of that mountain should be lower than the beach at the far left of our horizon at sea level. We're just talking about a distance of thirty miles from left to right. How many times have you looked at the horizon from sea level and seen any curve at all? What happens when your elevation goes up? Doesn't the horizon go up with it? Don't you just see a horizon that extends farther away? It's not like you start to see the horizon dip do you? It always rises along with your higher elevation, right? Those ships that are dots are still dots because as you go up you're not getting any closer to them. Think about those shots from sea level and then the shot from 35' up (the one at 500' is even more pronounced). The horizon goes up as well. This shouldn't happen when were talking about a drop of 40' already. How can the horizon drop over 50' in 9 miles when we can still see the horizon farther away? I'm not talking about the mountains either. The rig itself should be missing a good 50' of it's footings.

Are you starting to see the problem with this formula yet? I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but I'm not suggesting that the earth is flat at all. I'm pointing out that this formula doesn't work. This is an undisputed formula of Science.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 142 by postroad]

Moderator Comment

Please note that unconstructive one-liners (which includes one word) are against the rules.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 146 by shnarkle]

How do you see through all that atmosphere though? Think about it; the air at ground level is the thickest. When you look up, you're looking through atmosphere that thins to nothing

It's not thick enough though. My telescopes visually range always ends at the horizon at the same distance every time. If your haze theory rang true the visual range should vary depending on the amount of visually obstructing haze. The reason I can't see Europe or Africa is the earth is roooooound. It doesn't even have to Europe or Africa any object past the horizon becomes unobservable.

[Bust Nak]

LOL. Nice circular reasoning. Prove it.

That's not circular reasoning at all. What's so circular about evidence not fabricated therefore it is trustworthy?

The testimonies could be easier, but the physical evidence is quite easy to fabricate as well. If it wasn't so easy to fabricate we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

The premise that physical evidence can be almost universally convincing, is false. The evidence can be very hard to fabricate and we could still be having this discussion.

Moreover it is just as easy to take the physical evidence available and come to a completely false conclusion. Scientists do this all the time, and gush at how wonderful it is that science can correct for its mistakes.

Right, all the more reason to trust scientists over religious leaders.

Yep, I think I even mentioned it in this discussion. Didn't I say it must be some sort of optical illusion or phenomenon?

Sure, but then what's so odd about objects that are physically over the horizon, being into view optically due to the bending of light?

I'm not saying that they can. I'm pointing that what cannot be seen with the naked eye is the vanishing point of your horizon. The telescope brings it all back into crystal clear focus. Even the telescope has its limits, but this doesn't prove the earth is curved. It just points out the limits of the horizon for the telescope.

Incorrect, no about of hypothetical zooming in can bring back into view what is obstructed. What is and isn't hidden behind the curve of the Earth is not a function of the power of a telescope.

Now a selection of other points in posts addressed to others:

re: bringing ships back into view after it's disappeared off the horizon. Not only is it correct, it can be easily proven.

I'll looked ahead, it is exactly as I have guessed: there is a difference between something being too far away to see and something being blocked from view. Telescopes affects the former but can't do anything about the latter. The youtube videos you provided does not prove what you thought it could. Indeed, the one with the oil tanker proves a curve.

I can stand on the beach and watch a ship sailing away with the unaided eye and in very short order, that ship will appear to be sinking below the horizon. My friend standing right next to me can look through his binoculars at the exact same moment and see the entire ship.

But he can't though if the ship has gone past the horizon. Don't just theory craft and say what you think would happen, go to the beach and do this.

You can do the same experiment on any flat street with your naked eyes and a pair of binoculars. Take a perfectly flat street and get down right at street level. Now take anything you want, e.g. a ball, a skateboard, a remote controlled model car etc. Put a mast on the top of the car if you want to get the real feeling of a ship disappearing over the horizon.

It gets smaller but never disappear bottom first given a flat street. Again, try this yourself.

Looking through the telescope, I just see the same thing I saw earlier with the unaided eye.

You kept talking as if you actually did it. Go do the experiment.

This is begging the question. It assumes gravity as a fact that hasn't been proven at all.

I don't know how you can say this in the very same post you mentioned both the gravity waves experiments and Cavendish experiment.

Cavendish experiment which, while a quite splendid theory and formulation; hasn't been reproduced.

You are again misinformed, you can repeat it in your own home, not good enough to produce measurements of the gravitational constant, sure, but the effect are significant enough to be detected by eye.

From what I've seen, they say it's somewhere beyond Antarctica which makes sense given that no one is allowed beyond Antarctica without express written permission from whoever represents all of the countries that signed some agreement to stay out of Antarctica.

Not true, you can buy holidays to Antarctica. The treaty you are referring to is to do with land ownership and preventing pollution.

Hit up your friend on top of any large skyscraper and another friend at the bottom. What to they see? One sees a street extending off into the distance the other sees streets going off in all different directions. This doesn't prove the skyscraper is round.

It would prove the skyscraper is round IF the result they observe matches what we observe from different side of the globe.

This is Erotosthenes proof. You must begin with the assumption that the sun's rays are parallel. This isn't proven...

The distance to the sun has been measured accurately, at that distance, parallel rays is a good approximation, as opposed to an assumption.

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.

I thought you said you were aware of optical phenomenon re: mirages? This is why all the flat Earth videos along the lines of "according to the calculation XYZ should not be seen but here is prove that I can still see it, therefore the Earth is flat" does not serve as proofs. The calculation does not take into account of the bending of light. How much should be hidden is not predictable, particularly when the object is close to the ground. What we can prove, is that we can see further away when higher up, demonstrating a curve.

They may be out of range because the signal strength is just too low...

If that was the reason then increasing the height would make it marginally worse. But instead the range is increased, we can therefore conclude that there is a curve.

You can look through a telescope and see the boat reappear because it hasn't gone past the horizon at all, but just past what you can see with your naked eye.

Right, in contrast with a ship that has gone past the horizon, in good weather condition with a tall enough ship, you can still see the top part with your naked eye, but not the bottom part even with a telescope, proving the curve.

Haven't you ever watched cars disappear into the distance out in the desert? The mirage swallows them up completely. That doesn't happen with the moon though does it?

It does, but I don't see what you are trying to get at. What does this have to do with how far the moon or the other planets are?