Flat Earth

Originally posted by sonhouse
I gather then, you think flat Earther's are just that: Practical jokers when in fact we know full well Earth is anything but flat. You didn't venture your own opinion but the tone of your bit suggests you think they (Flat Earthers) are daft.

I wasn't giving much consideration to the flat earth belief. My interest was really about the phenomena of conspiracies and why they come about and how fascinating some of them are. I suspect one of the reasons this subject has accumulated such mileage is that people like to air their views and debate. What surprises me most is the belief that scientists have deliberately led the public up the garden path so so long and even more surprising, for what reason? Not sure if anyone has given an answer to that.

Originally posted by brush
I wasn't giving much consideration to the flat earth belief. My interest was really about the phenomena of conspiracies and why they come about and how fascinating some of them are. I suspect one of the reasons this subject has accumulated such mileage is that people like to air their views and debate. What surprises me most is the belief that scientists have ...[text shortened]... long and even more surprising, for what reason? Not sure if anyone has given an answer to that.

That is a very good question and the answer to that would be a good subject in itself.

Somehow tied to deep distrust in science itself maybe from the religious programming a lot of people get when they are young.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That is a very good question and the answer to that would be a good subject in itself.

Somehow tied to deep distrust in science itself maybe from the religious programming a lot of people get when they are young.

Great theory, except for all of the agnostics and/or other non-affiliated types who have concluded the earth is not as described.
The idea that ALL of science is involved (as though science is some kind of group instead of a discipline) is patently absurd.
Overwhelmingly, the individual branches within the collective have literally nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Nothing.
That's akin to lumping all of medicine into quackery on account of chiropractors.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Great theory, except for all of the agnostics and/or other non-affiliated types who have concluded the earth is not as described.
The idea that ALL of science is involved (as though science is some kind of group instead of a discipline) is patently absurd.
Overwhelmingly, the individual branches within the collective have literally nothing to do with t ...[text shortened]...
Nothing.
That's akin to lumping all of medicine into quackery on account of chiropractors.

I have already pointed out many problems with your cherished mythology but you don't have the education to even approach the ones I listed, instead, studiously ignoring them.

Going Poo Poo is not a refutation. Poo poo is an opinion which is all you have and all you EVER will have. You have a religion and it happens to be centered around the mythology of a flat Earth. And as a religion, it can never be refuted with rational arguments since all you do is go poo poo you are wrong and we are right, period I don't give a rats ass what you come up with in the way of evidence against a flat Earth, we are right and you are wrong. THAT my fine feathered person is by definition, religious in nature having nothing to do with rational thought.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I have already pointed out many problems with your cherished mythology but you don't have the education to even approach the ones I listed, instead, studiously ignoring them.

Going Poo Poo is not a refutation. Poo poo is an opinion which is all you have and all you EVER will have. You have a religion and it happens to be centered around the mythology of ...[text shortened]... athered person is by definition, religious in nature having nothing to do with rational thought.

You have raised a couple of objections which have not been addressed... and for good reason.
I made it a point early on to limit the discussion to the two questions, knowing folks such as yourself would be unable to focus on the topic amidst the plethora of related issues.
Apparently, I gave you far too much credit.
Not only has the conversation become buried under an avalanche of loose strings, you have been completely undisciplined in keeping your concentration on the original two questions.
Instead, you've offered a few objections to them without a shred of evidence to support the same.

When discussing the horizon, the first objection is objects disappearing by "sinking" into the horizon.
This is exposed by using visual aids.
The next objection is that the math is wrong.
Again, exposed as false.
The next objection is refraction of light.
This, too, has been exposed as yet another error in the attempt to explain the reality.
What has also been exposed is the abject ignorance most of us have regarding relatively simple reality.
For instance, refraction of light--- an actual occurrence in the physical world--- becomes some kind of a magical duct tape in the hands of ignorant minds.

The second question is just more readily resolved: offer a single picture produced by NASA which has not been altered.

Two questions.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You have raised a couple of objections which have not been addressed... and for good reason.
I made it a point early on to limit the discussion to the two questions, knowing folks such as yourself would be unable to focus on the topic amidst the plethora of related issues.
Apparently, I gave you far too much credit.
Not only has the conversation beco ...[text shortened]... resolved: offer a single picture produced by NASA which has not been altered.

Two questions.

You keep SAYING 'this has been exposed as fake' etc. but all you do is post words saying this has been exposed as fake. You have presented nothing in the way of evidence while I have shown my own objections not even on the map and I have answered you several times, I said NASA does not lie AND mirages are caused by atmospheric refraction, PERIOD, no question of anything else. Did you miss the part where I said those mirages are not 24/7 whereas a real flat Earth would have that same image all the time? AND where I said the moon does not allow over the horizon imaging where you said the moon always points the same face to Earth but that is not quite true, it wobbles and you can indeed see slow moving images of the edge and there is ZERO over the horizon imaging and that has been shown in telescopes on right here on Earth.

But you are a one trick pony, always the same thing, ANSWER MY QUESTIONS but in fact you just don't like my answers which means you want MONOLOGUES not dialog.

Dialog is where you actually consider the other POV which you don't even come close to. You make no attempt to answer my charges just calling them BS but they are legitimate issues but you are too uneducated to even understand the implications of what I am talking about so that is why I am not going to go into extended dialog with you because you don't WANT dialog, you just want affirmation and total agreement. Which you will never get from me or anyone else here with more than half a brain.

Then there is the Coriolis effect where you continue to say why can you see it with bullets but totally ignore it for airplanes and I said at least twice AIRPLANES FEELS THAT EFFECT ALSO but the atmosphere is going close to the same rate as the Earth turns otherwise we would see thousand mile per hour winds but it still has to be factored in.

Also, one you probably never heard of: Foucault's Pendulum. It proves right there Earth spins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

There are dozens of them around the planet and if Earth did not spin the pendulum would ALWAYS swing in the same direction but they don't, they slowly change direction not because the swing changes its direction of swing but because Earths spins underneath it because once set in motion swinging, a mass does not change direction unless given a direction changing force. That does not happen with that device. It is Earth spinning underneath it that is changing and they all show the same effect regardless whether you are in Cairo or Buffalo or wherever. South pole, north pole, equator, doesn't matter, the swing angle changes and there is no amount of rationalization by flat Earthers who insist Earth does not spin in spite of the fact you can see the night sky go by every night which means they have to imagine the entire universe spinning around the nonspinning Earth which is so preposterous as to not be worth arguing over.

Good luck rationalizing THAT one away. But of course you will just come back with ANSWER MY QUESTIONS again and again and again even though I have just not to your satisfaction.

Here is one science project based on an airless moon, our moon, it gives solid science BECAUSE it has no air to refract energy, in this case cosmic rays, where the moon occults a ray so when a mountain covers a source of gamma rays there is no going over the horizon BECAUSE it is airless.

Good luck even understanding the logic behind this effort though.

http://phys.org/news/2016-06-moon-role-astronomical-technique.html

But of course you will just consider it another lying fake and not even go to the site, right?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You keep SAYING 'this has been exposed as fake' etc. but all you do is post words saying this has been exposed as fake. You have presented nothing in the way of evidence while I have shown my own objections not even on the map and I have answered you several times, I said NASA does not lie AND mirages are caused by atmospheric refraction, PERIOD, no questio ...[text shortened]...
But of course you will just consider it another lying fake and not even go to the site, right?

This (your wall of text) is Exhibit A in how things get muddled.
It's almost as though you want it that way, for whatever reason.
Refraction of light
Here's where ignorance is on display.
After all the other usual objections have been torn asunder, this one becomes the go-to.
Why?
Because of its majik-like properties.
You can't explain it, it's proven impossible for you to quantify it, and it has been poorly described by you.
You even claim properties for it which simply don't exist!

While it is a fact that refraction of light is, indeed, a thing--- with parameters and conditions--- you are otherwise wholly off-base and willfully uninformed.
(I'd say woefully, but the sheer number of times I've tried getting you to the water of truth on the topic indicate you simply don't want to drink.)
Your claim that these incidents of the visibility of distant objects are dependent upon the same conditions required of refraction of light is completely, demonstrably and patently FALSE, as has been pointed out repeatedly to you by me.
Not only have I informed you of the myriad conditions under which I have been able to see distant objects, there are the overwhelming number of exact scenarios found on the internet.
I'm on my phone so linking is a tad difficult, so do a little leg work yourself and check out the YouTube video entitled "Flat Earth #2: See Oahu Sunrise from Kauai" by ToolsForFreedomMedia.
First I've watched any of his stuff, but it will physically demonstrate what I've repeatedly told you is the case:
The visibility of distant objects is NOT the result of refraction of light.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This (your wall of text) is Exhibit A in how things get muddled.
It's almost as though you want it that way, for whatever reason.
[b]Refraction of light
Here's where ignorance is on display.
After all the other usual objections have been torn asunder, this one becomes the go-to.
Why?
Because of its majik-like properties.
You can't explain it ...[text shortened]... case:
The visibility of distant objects is NOT the result of refraction of light.[/b]

YouTube

This is the kind of utter bullshyte you believe in.

"Where are all the satellites?" Krist, is this dude stoned? I'm surprised you haven't picked up on THAT BS argument.

Originally posted by sonhouse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqZNAeswHtc

This is the kind of utter bullshyte you believe in.

"Where are all the satellites?" Krist, is this dude stoned? I'm surprised you haven't picked up on THAT BS argument.

Stay focused, sonhouse.
Watch the video I gave you.
See your world slowly crumble apart.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This (your wall of text) is Exhibit A in how things get muddled.
It's almost as though you want it that way, for whatever reason.
[b]Refraction of light
Here's where ignorance is on display.
After all the other usual objections have been torn asunder, this one becomes the go-to.
Why?
Because of its majik-like properties.
You can't explain it ...[text shortened]... case:
The visibility of distant objects is NOT the result of refraction of light.[/b]

So we are supposed to just fall over and play dead because he SAYS it is not refraction?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So we are supposed to just fall over and play dead because he SAYS it is not refraction?

Are you serious!?!
You are completely ignorant regarding what causes refraction of light, i.e., conditions required, or even what such an event would look like, but you throw it out with such authority!
The fact is, you have no idea what you're talking about on this topic.
Zilch.

I can TELL you it isn't refraction of light on the basis of two things.
First, I understand what the phenomenon is on account of real study.
Second, my first-hand experience of seeing distant objects under all conditions excluding weather-related, at all times of the day or night and throughout the seasons... year after year.

Forget what the video SAYS, forget what I SAY.
Just WATCH the video.
It demonstrates exactly what the maker SAYS, which is exactly what I've been SAYING all along on the topic.
Namely, your objection is full of crap.

-Removed-

I've answered the question already.

-Removed-

You have access to everything you've ever posted on here; you've even resorted to counting the number of times you've asked this question.
Go back through the times you've asked it and review my responses.
At least one of them tells you everything you can know on the topic of my understanding of the shape of the earth.