The Biggest Lie of All - (Videos)

originally posted by: ngchunter
Tell you what, if I use a theodolite app on my phone from cruising altitude next time I take a commercial flight later this year and I show that the true horizon is higher than the apparent horizon, will you shut up?

Well I tend only believe what I have direct proof, but sure, it could place some weight on the globe theory side.

But again, you had to use the words "shut up"...tssk tssk

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: theMediator
If you're not seeing evidence of curvature when you ascend then why does the horizon to horizon distance increase? Why as you travel is there always more to come into view?

Human vision tends to send distance to the center point of the horizon just like in th is picture. We can tell with experience that the tunnel doesn't get smaller only our visions makes it seem like it is. There are surely more variables to count for but I'm pretty sure that the same applies to what we see from a plane.

You're not getting it. Why does the observable distance from horizon to horizon increase with altitude?

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: ngchunter
Then report my posts instead of complaining about them publicly.

You called my posts with ad homonims yet, you didn't report me?

[SNIP] I did not call your posts ad homs.

I'm willing to believe you know indefinitely more than me in astronomy but your logic shows fallacies which could taint your judgement.

Then prove me wrong. You still have not explained why the sun maintains a constant width. You've sat around bitching about semantics for terminology you don't understand instead.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: theMediator

There's a good bit of visual proof out there. Plenty of flights in a U-2 have been recorded that show the curvature. Most people that ride in them comment that they're at 60,000 feet or so when they start to see it.

I would love to experience it myself that's for sure!

Then again, maybe our perception bends light...I'm looking at a couple pictures right now. Some seem to be taken with a fish eye lens but I agree that many of the pictures show a clean curvature with no apparent signs of fish eye lens.

My father always said that I have the incredulity of Thomas from the Bible...I fear that I'm too inclined to humans having a wrong perception on many things. : /

Other than boarding a plane and going over Antarctica from Australia to South America, I don't think anyone could make me believe anything at 100%.

a reply to: theMediator

Other than boarding a plane and going over Antarctica from Australia to South America, I don't think anyone could make me believe anything at 100%.

Even without crossing Antarctica the distance alone should tell you something. Find a ''Flat Earth map'' that is plausible FFS.

While you're at it, plot the path of the ISS on one. Good luck.

originally posted by: ngchunter
[SNIP] I did not call your posts ad homs.

Yes, ok I'm sorry. I had the belief since just a couple seconds ago that all fallicy arguments could be included in Ad Homimen, like it was a category of words. I learned something new hehe

originally posted by: ngchunter
Then prove me wrong. You still have not explained why the sun maintains a constant width. You've sat around bitching about semantics for terminology you don't understand instead.

Well I feel it's you that doesn't understand the semantics but whatever, it's not a part I want to debate.

You know why the sun maintains a contant width, because it's so far, so big that human perception can't tell the difference between a couple thousand kilometers. I said you had a good argument for the globe theory and I clearly said that I was playing devil's advocate in saying that it could be because of human perception.

Why do you want a clear answer when you know that you started the whole deal with a bait?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
You're not getting it. Why does the observable distance from horizon to horizon increase with altitude?

Well because the earth's a sphere! :p

Although I'm not sure, if on a flat surface, the same wouldn't apply.

a reply to: theMediator
In a FE scenario binoculars and scopes should allow you to see well beyond a few measly miles. They don't, unless you ascend. Didn't you learn anything from 2012?

(That's a joke BTW )

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: theMediator
You are the gullible one for accepting, having faith, in something you can't prove yourself. Witches got burned EXACTLY because people we're like you, accepted only one side of the argument and we're sure that they we're right. Regligious fundamentalists act EXACTLY the way you do.

I think the people who use their own critical thinking skills and their own observational skills to be able to understand and recognize that the earth actually is a sphere are the same people who would have likely been against the burning of witches.

It is more likely to be the people who are handcuffed by dogma (such as religious fundamentalists) who choose to ignore all of the evidence that the Earth is a sphere that could be found by critical thinking and observation, and instead believe that the earth is flat because some guy on a Youtube video says so, and they don't bother doing a check on that Youtuber's facts and methodology.

But no, it doesn't make sense...People handcuffed by dogma, would of believe that the witches would of need to be burnt because that's what the authority said and asked...just like the people in power claim the earth is a globe now.

My belief that the earth is a sphere is not because "people in power" tell me it is. I know the Earth is a sphere because of my own direct observations and critical thinking.

Why is it that you assume I blindly believe the "people in power"? That' would be the same as me blindly believing some guy on YouTube trying to provide evidence that the world is flat, when that evidence does not hold up under critical thinking ans other scrutiny. They just hopes people would blindly believe them like sheeple, and not try to question the evidence.

I have observational evidence that the earth is a sphere. The evidence that it is flat does not hold up under scrutiny. So I ask you:

Why should I blindly believe someone else telling me that the earth is flat when my own scrutuny of the flat Earth evidence and my own observations tell me it isn't, rather than believing what my critical thinking skills tell me -- that it is a sphere?

Like I said, I'm not sure why you keep going on about "people believe the earth is a sphere only because TPTB have told them it is". I haven't come across too many people on this thread who think that way. The people on this thread have given their own observational evidence for a spherical earth. They are not simply restating what TPTB have told them.


Here's another question:

If the stars are actually very close to us, then why can't amateur astronomers notice how close the stars are when they measure their parallax?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Don't get me wrong, I to feel that there's more to the sphere model too! I'm not the resident expert on flat earth, I heard about it less than a week ago...

My response to you was towards your argument about the witches which I felt didn't apply to your argument, not that the earth is flat.

"why can't amateur astronomers notice how close the stars are when they measure their parallax? "

I've never heard of this before looking a video on it...just a sec...

So parallax measuring is applying the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the distance of stars... at least I know the gist of what parallax measuring is now. We seem to base the calculations on the distance of the sun, which 1 distance = 1 Astronomical Unit.

From the little I know about the flat earth theory, we got the distance of sun way way wrong so, I don't see how parallax measuring would be impossible other than the theory says that we got the distance from the sun wrong. The real or fake stars, or whatever, could be also distanced differently in the sky...I see real or fake because a couple flat earth theories seem to talk about the sky being fake, which I don't feel would need to be something faked even if flat earth was real.

So, from my unfounded knowledge of whatever flat earth could implicate, I don't think that the argument of parallax measuring's impossibility is applicable.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: theMediator
In a FE scenario binoculars and scopes should allow you to see well beyond a few measly miles. They don't, unless you ascend. Didn't you learn anything from 2012?

(That's a joke BTW

)

I didn't see 2012!
I guess I could learn a thing or 2 in Hollywood movies!
...or maybe it's all part of the programing! muhaha :p

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: ngchunter
[SNIP] I did not call your posts ad homs.

Yes, ok I'm sorry. I had the belief since just a couple seconds ago that all fallicy arguments could be included in Ad Homimen, like it was a category of words. I learned something new hehe

Yeah, sure you did, but apparently since I'm not allowed to call you out on your lies or issue challenges I'll just drop it. Whatever. You win.

You know why the sun maintains a contant width, because it's so far, so big that human perception can't tell the difference between a couple thousand kilometers.

Human perception doesn't factor into it. It can be measured precisely with a telescope. If it were only a few thousand kilometers away it would show a dramatic change in apparent size from rising to setting, double digit percentages.

a reply to: theMediator
I didn't mean the movie, I meant 2012, the phenomenon.

Maybe I should have italicized ascend. I have noticed a seemingly worldwide increase in density since 2012.

Ok I just finished watching both videos, and I will say that they were very compelling to say the least. Not going to come out and agree completely with them just yet but I will say that my mind is open to the possibility that something just is not right and things have been hidden from us for a very long time. Whatever those things are, I think everyone needs to keep an open mind and have the possibility to change your way of thinking and not just believing what you're told.

originally posted by: ngchunter

Human perception doesn't factor into it. It can be measured precisely with a telescope. If it were only a few thousand kilometers away it would show a dramatic change in apparent size from rising to setting, double digit percentages.

Okay so, by telescope, we can measure that the sun's apparent size and see a change but with our eyes we can't see the size difference...because it's so far, so big that human perception can't tell the difference between a couple thousand kilometers, just like I said.

originally posted by: ngchunter
Whatever. You win.

Finally, some sort of middle ground.

Who in earth, err, on earth would benefit from having all of us re believe, the earth is flat???

Why GPS works, and why RADAR works, and the results from building and using them are just a few of the modern realities that prove that at least the Solar System is the way we perceive it. Add to that the meteorites that represent the crusts, mantles and cores of other planets... and I think 3D is still here to stay.

Another GEM of Science.
The mathematics that allow us to correlate seismic waves rely on understanding the speed of sound in different layers of the Earth, and in doing so, can correctly pinpoint where, and at what depth, an earthquake has occurred anywhere on the surface of the Earth. It only works in 3D.

The Variables:

P: P-wave in mantle
K: P-wave in outer core
I: P-wave in inner core
S: S-wave in mantle
J: S-wave in inner core
c: reflection off core-mantle boundary
i: reflection off inner-core boundary

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: ngchunter

Human perception doesn't factor into it. It can be measured precisely with a telescope. If it were only a few thousand kilometers away it would show a dramatic change in apparent size from rising to setting, double digit percentages.

Okay so, by telescope, we can measure that the sun's apparent size and see a change

There is no change, that's the whole point. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO SEE!