Originally posted by FreakyKBHWake up, sonhouse.
Yeah.
So...
Let's get back to that video I gave you.
You know: the one which shows you that distant objects are visible and that [b]refraction of light has nothing to do with it.
Come on, sonhouse.
Quit wiggling
The water is fine, oh so fine.[/b]
Smell the flat earth.
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLets see you prove that. Good luck. Just SAYING it is not refraction is not an argument, it is an opinion.
Yeah.
So...
Let's get back to that video I gave you.
You know: the one which shows you that distant objects are visible and that [b]refraction of light has nothing to do with it.
Come on, sonhouse.
Quit wiggling
The water is fine, oh so fine.[/b]
The formula's for figuring radio communications line of sight are (approximate) Distance you can see = 4.1 *square root of height. So the mountains on Oahu are over 4000 feet or about 1500 meters, plugging in the numbers, square root of 1500 is about 40 times 4.1 and the line of sight is about 160 Km or 100 miles. Well whaddaknow. It's actually just about line of sight to the mountains on oahu to ground level on Kawaii.
The rest is due to atmospheric refraction and that is that, no argument possible because Earth is not flat it is in FACT JACK, curved.
AND Foucault's Pendulum is not due to the 'ether' rotating around Earth, it is simply due to the Earth spinning.
Sorry, (not really), you lose BIG TIME.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExplain this one: The moon looks upside down when viewed in the southern hemisphere compared to looking at it from the north. Try rationalizing THAT in a flat Earth. This is so easy. You are dead and don't even know it.
Wake up, sonhouse.
Smell the flat earth.
Also, why would the flat Earth sky appear to rotate in opposite directions in the north V the south? Try explaining THAT with a flat Earth.
Watch this video, I dare you, then try rationalizing all they said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_4087109179&feature=iv&src_vid=BmGRRxOf6dU&v=ikmOGqA7R7A
Originally posted by sonhouseGreat video. Now I don't have to worry anymore about falling off the edge.
Explain this one: The moon looks upside down when viewed in the southern hemisphere compared to looking at it from the north. Try rationalizing THAT in a flat Earth. This is so easy. You are dead and don't even know it.
Also, why would the flat Earth sky appear to rotate in opposite directions in the north V the south? Try explaining THAT with a flat Ea ...[text shortened]... utube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_4087109179&feature=iv&src_vid=BmGRRxOf6dU&v=ikmOGqA7R7A
Can you find the video that proves there is no God? 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwYou first, show me the video that proves there IS a god. BTW, I have no problem with the concept of there being a god of some kind, it is just clear, if it exists at all, it is strictly 'hands' off, non-interacting god, for instance, the plague decades in Europe a thousand years ago. Literally 1/3 of the entire population was wiped out.
Great video. Now I don't have to worry anymore about falling off the edge.
Can you find the video that proves there is no God? 😉
Now the bible has restrictions against eating pork, presumably because 'god' told them so, but didn't say why but of course we know about Tricinosis now. However, why wasn't there a similar warning in Europe a thousand years ago? A simple statement to the pope about the fleas rats carry, kill the rats, no plague, why would a deity refuse to issue any kind of statement like that? Food restrictions made their way to the bible for good reason.
Why not Europe in 900 AD? They were good Christians then so what's up with that? A loving god? RIGHT.
Originally posted by sonhouseNothing in human experience has changed since the beginning. The same crap goes on generation after generation. There is no justice to be found.
You first, show me the video that proves there IS a god. BTW, I have no problem with the concept of there being a god of some kind, it is just clear, if it exists at all, it is strictly 'hands' off, non-interacting god, for instance, the plague decades in Europe a thousand years ago. Literally 1/3 of the entire population was wiped out.
Now the bible ha ...[text shortened]... ot Europe in 900 AD? They were good Christians then so what's up with that? A loving god? RIGHT.
There's your video sonhouse. Try and make sense of it all without God. Or opt for evolution. Chalk it up to chance. Our extinction is eminent.
Or believe and live forever. I personally can't imagine how much faith it takes to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd once again, studiously ignoring my posts and such things as Foucault's pendulum and the fact the moon looks upside down viewed from the southern hemisphere and stars rotate backwards from what we see in the north and Coriolis effect.
Your point is hardly noticeable the way you comb your hair.
If my opinion on the topic is that important, you need put no more effort into ferreting it out by reading my previous responses to you.
If you don't account for these things, you have no case.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseJust SAYING it is not refraction is not an argument, it is an opinion.
Lets see you prove that. Good luck. Just SAYING it is not refraction is not an argument, it is an opinion.
The formula's for figuring radio communications line of sight are (approximate) Distance you can see = 4.1 *square root of height. So the mountains on Oahu are over 4000 feet or about 1500 meters, plugging in the numbers, square root of 1500 is abo ...[text shortened]... round Earth, it is simply due to the Earth spinning.
Sorry, (not really), you lose BIG TIME.
Yeah: we covered that already.
This video is one which proves unequivocally that the phenomenon about which you know next to nothing, refraction of light, is not responsible for the visibility of a distant object.
Well whaddaknow.
Not much, apparently.
Not sure what math you are using, but... well, it's wrong.
Assuming the earth is a convex sphere with a radius of 6,371km/3,959mi, and that light travels in straight lines, from a height of 156' (the stated elevation of the vantage point, Kauai) an object 108 miles away (the verified distance to Oahu) would fall below the line of sight by 5,730'.
The height of the tallest mountain on the distant island (at 4,026', Ka'ala) becomes irrelevant on the basis that the entire island can be seen... although the top of that mountain would otherwise be over 1,700' below the horizon, you know, were the earth a sphere.
The horizon from the vantage point would be just shy of 15 miles out to sea, with a continually progressive drop-off from there.
Instead, as demonstrated in the video, the distant island is completely visible, with no noticeable drop-off at all.
The rest is due to atmospheric refraction and that is that, no argument possible because Earth is not flat it is in FACT JACK, curved.
I'd take you word for it, but you've proven to be a blithering idiot incapable of focusing on simple facts even when they are demonstrated in very simple terms for you.
You know literally nothing about atmospheric refraction and yet you bandy it about as though you had a clue.
The sun is rising beside and behind the distant island.
Did you miss that part of the video?
The sun is rising beside and behind the distant island
The island, which should be in excess of 1,700' below the line of sight, is completely visible from 108 miles away before the sunrise, during the sunrise and after the sunrise.
You are, once again and for the last time, encouraged to do a minimum of research on atmospheric refraction or specifically refraction of light.
If you ever manage to pull your head out of your ass, you will see how spectacularly your poorly thought-out objection fails.
Originally posted by sonhouseI absolutely refuse to answer a single thing you offer until such time as you intelligently respond to the two questions put to you.
And once again, studiously ignoring my posts and such things as Foucault's pendulum and the fact the moon looks upside down viewed from the southern hemisphere and stars rotate backwards from what we see in the north and Coriolis effect.
If you don't account for these things, you have no case.
You've continually lost focus while scrambling to bring a cavalcade of other issues into the conversation.
I've said repeatedly that none of the other aspects are worth considering since satisfactorily answering the two questions makes the rest moot.
You are clearly satisfied with half-assed claims even when they are shown to be patently false... I am not satisfied.
The issue of the visibility of distant objects is emphatically and demonstrably NOT a result of atmospheric refraction or refraction of light.
Despite you contention otherwise, neither a Foucault pendulum nor the Coriolis effect support your position.
You're simply too forsworn to your position to analyze and properly apply their functions.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI present real evidence, you present words. I'll give you this hint: just saying Nay is not an argument. If you want to dis a science, you have to do it with better science not a verbage filled tirade. You refuse to examine the ideas I presented not because you think I am unfocused, I am not, I am showing you the many reasons why a flat Earth is as dead as the Pharohs of Egypt.
I absolutely refuse to answer a single thing you offer until such time as you intelligently respond to the two questions put to you.
You've continually lost focus while scrambling to bring a cavalcade of other issues into the conversation.
I've said repeatedly that none of the other aspects are worth considering since satisfactorily answering the ...[text shortened]... ion.
You're simply too forsworn to your position to analyze and properly apply their functions.
The fact you refuse to respond, instead saying I didn't answer your questions 'intelligently' is because you don't WANT to hear refuting evidence, thus proving your basic religious stance where you just go on faith not real evidence.
So answer ONE question: Why does the moon look upside down when viewed from the southern Hemisphere? That cannot happen in a flat Earth.
Originally posted by sonhouseHey, numbnuts: did you read the post that had all the numbers in it--- you know, the one which said you had your back-of-the-envelope calculation wrong?
I present real evidence, you present words. I'll give you this hint: just saying Nay is not an argument. If you want to dis a science, you have to do it with better science not a verbage filled tirade. You refuse to examine the ideas I presented not because you think I am unfocused, I am not, I am showing you the many reasons why a flat Earth is as dead as ...[text shortened]... n look upside down when viewed from the southern Hemisphere? That cannot happen in a flat Earth.
I gave you verifiable distances and calculations.
I offered a video which demonstrates the visibility of distant objects which is not a result of atmospheric refraction or refraction of light.
I'm not SAYING you're wrong.
I am DEMONSTRATING you are wrong.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot even close. The formula's used for microwave communications and visual line of sight has been known for decades. I showed you one such. You demonstrated nothing and I note you refuse to answer even one question I posed. Why does the moon look upside down in the southern hemisphere?
Hey, numbnuts: did you read the post that had all the numbers in it--- you know, the one which said you had your back-of-the-envelope calculation wrong?
I gave you verifiable distances and calculations.
I offered a video which demonstrates the visibility of distant objects which is not a result of atmospheric refraction or refraction of light.
I'm not SAYING you're wrong.
I am DEMONSTRATING you are wrong.