Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is the Earth Flat? - Some Evidence Presented

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
    You cannot distinguish between the FE and the globe locally, because of the circular view caused by equidistance.

    JM
    sure you can.

    go back and look at your video where it shows how anything further than the horizon line would not be visible because you would have to look up. once an object on a flat earth got to the horizon, the part above the horizon would start to disappear. that means that objects like ships moving away would seem to disappear from the top first! instead of the bottom first like on a globe. oops.

    here is a screen grab

    Untitled-1.jpg

    on the video he says that because of perspective you cant see anything on the ground higher than the red line coming out of the dog's eye. so as the ship got closer to the horizon line the top of the ship would rise above the no see line, and would not be visible so the ship would seem to disappear from the top down as more of it rose to the horizon line

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
      You cannot distinguish between the FE and the globe locally, because of the circular view caused by equidistance.

      JM
      ???

      Comment


      • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
        How do you account for buildings and light houses and islands seen from great distances that are prohibitive on a global earth?
        Idiot. Light refracts in the atmosphere and under certain conditions objects over the horizon can still be seen.
        Bzzt! Wrong.

        The correct answer is:

        Idiot. Mountains are tall.
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          Still struggling to understand the 2 coin example in the Helio thread? Yes.

          JM
          Your example is wrong nutcase and shows you don't understand what you're talking about. The gravity of the earth is much stronger than the gravity of the table, so why would your coin follow the table when the earth's gravity is much more powerful? Like I said nutcase, you don't know what you're talking about and it shows.
          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
            How do you account for the suns raises acting at angles through the clouds? The angles point back to a close sun, like a lamp above a tree?

            How do you account for the eclipse over Greenland and Scotland that should have occurred far lower on the earth when the sun and moon are aligned?

            How do you account for the eclipses of the moon when the sun and moon are both visible in the sky and out of alignment with the earth, as in the evidence presented on this thread?

            How do you account for the sun hot spot over the clouds as seen from the high balloon?


            How do you account for buildings and light houses and islands seen from great distances that are prohibitive on a global earth?

            JM
            These have all been explained previously in this thread. You just have ignored the answers, or didn't undestand them.

            How do YOU account for the fact we've sent probes to venus and mercury and have measured their radii and the time it takes signals to return to the earth, validating their size and distance and by implication the Sun's size and distance?

            Jim
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              ...
              How do YOU account for the fact we've sent probes to venus and mercury and have measured their radii and the time it takes signals to return to the earth, validating their size and distance and by implication the Sun's size and distance?

              Jim
              Easy -- NASA hoaxes...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                Wow, you actually agreed there was a problem with the flat earth model.
                I already stated such some time ago. I am agnostic about the shape of the earth. There seems to be strong arguments for and against both models.

                JM

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  These have all been explained previously in this thread. You just have ignored the answers, or didn't undestand them.

                  How do YOU account for the fact we've sent probes to venus and mercury and have measured their radii and the time it takes signals to return to the earth, validating their size and distance and by implication the Sun's size and distance?

                  Jim
                  Provide one link to an answer for this problem -

                  How do you account for the eclipse over Greenland and Scotland that should have occurred far lower on the earth when the sun and moon are aligned?
                  JM

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                    I already stated such some time ago. I am agnostic about the shape of the earth. There seems to be strong arguments for and against both models.

                    JM
                    Ya mean kinda like alchemy and chemistry?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                      Provide one link to an answer for this problem -

                      How do you account for the eclipse over Greenland and Scotland that should have occurred far lower on the earth when the sun and moon are aligned?

                      JM
                      Did you understand about the tilt of the Moon's orbital plane?

                      Anyway please link to the eclipse you're yacking about.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        Provide one link to an answer for this problem -

                        JM
                        Already done right here you dishonest schmuck.

                        Looks like all the idiot moonbat Martin can do is childishly pretend no one answered him. What a coward.

                        Comment


                        • JohnMartin: How do you account for the eclipses of the moon when the sun and moon are both visible in the sky and out of alignment with the earth, as in the evidence presented on this thread?

                          Because the sun and moon are far away and the earth is round. Thus someone in say, greenland or in the northern hemisphere (or southern) can see both the sun and moon in the sky at the same time during a lunar eclipse.
                          Which cannot happen on a flat earth. ever.

                          IMG_1814.JPG

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                            Provide one link to an answer for this problem -



                            JM
                            http://www.space.com/15584-solar-eclipses.html

                            If you read in the section on "Prediction"

                            [cite=above]Eclipses do not happen at every new moon, of course. This is because the moon’s orbit is tilted just over 5 degrees relative to Earth’s orbit around the sun. For this reason, the moon’s shadow usually passes either above or below Earth, so a solar eclipse doesn’t occur.[/QUOTE]

                            Now, if sometimes the eclipse shadow passes above the earth, and sometimes it passes beneath, then it stands to reason they can occur ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN.

                            .____________________________________ o
                            <.>___________________________________o
                            . ____________________________________o


                            Just a very simple illustration - the 'o' is the moon, the '<>' is the earth, and the '.' are the moon's shadow

                            It's not to scale, the angles aren't even quite right, but the idea is simple. If the moon can be anywhere between the top and the bottom relative to the Earth and sun (off the scale here), then its shadow can 'touch down' anywhere on the surface of the Earth. The angle subtended by the Earth from the sun is only about 17" of an arc. So the rays from the sun are nearly parallel, and thus the shadow is effectively directly behind the moon relative to the 'diagram'.

                            Of more concern for you my friend is the shape of the shadow of the moon and the path of the track of totality. You will notice from the diagram the beagle posted a few pages back, they are quite curvy and the shadow at any moment in time - especially for the penumbra - is anything but circular and not even elliptical. The only explanation for THAT is that the earth itself is a ROTATING globe and the Moon is in orbit around it.

                            Here is a similar diagram for the years 2001-2025:

                            SE2001-25T-1.gif

                            Jim
                            Jim
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-12-2016, 08:37 AM.
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                              How do you account for the suns raises acting at angles through the clouds? The angles point back to a close sun, like a lamp above a tree?

                              Idiot. The sun's rays are parallel. Because of perspective they look like they converge at a distant point, just like parallel railroad tracks look like they converge in the distance.
                              This is a non answer. The angles of the sun light are under the clouds. The angles projected up above the clouds indicate the sun is close. Perspective is only a factor if the suns rays are parallel under the clouds. You have either ignored, or misunderstood the problem and proposed a false solution.

                              How do you account for the eclipse over Greenland and Scotland that should have occurred far lower on the earth when the sun and moon are aligned?

                              Idiot. Because the moon's orbit is inclined 5 deg. from the sun-earth plane the moon's shadow can fall anywhere on the globe from pole to pole. Here's a map of the moon shadow path for all solar eclipses from 2001-2020
                              Your diagram only assumes what you have to prove. Because the moons orbit is inclined 5 degrees, then the shadow should be focused near the centre of the earth face and not the north and south poles as we see. The high and low eclipses are evidence against the global model.

                              How do you account for the eclipses of the moon when the sun and moon are both visible in the sky and out of alignment with the earth, as in the evidence presented on this thread?

                              Idiot. The few rare times it's seen have been due to atmospheric refraction. Why don't we see it with every eclipse moonbat?
                              Apparently these eclipses occur about once every 20 years. If refraction can account for eclipses in the global model, then it also applies to the FE model.

                              How do you account for the sun hot spot over the clouds as seen from the high balloon?

                              Idiot. There isn't one. The sun's reflection off clouds isn't a close sun "hotspot".
                              How do you account for buildings and light houses and islands seen from great distances that are prohibitive on a global earth?
                              Nup. There is a hotspot on the clouds under the sun. Have another look.

                              Idiot. Light refracts in the atmosphere and under certain conditions objects over the horizon can still be seen.

                              0 for 5 FAIL for the Moonbat.
                              So light refraction causes about 700m of light bending to have Chicago seen from the far side of lake Michigan. Any proof that this is what really happens? None at all. Seeing distant objects must be demonstrated by the global model and not assumed to be accounted for by refraction.

                              Your answers have all failed to explain the phenomena.

                              You continue to bully as well.

                              JM

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                Bzzt! Wrong.

                                The correct answer is:

                                Idiot. Mountains are tall.
                                Bzzt! Wrong.

                                Chicago is seen from the far side of Lake Michigan.

                                JM

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X