Absolute proof.. can't deny.. the earth is flat

Apple Sky · Jul 26, 2024

lifepsyop said:
When God's word says that the sun runs circuits around the earth like a chariot, this means the sun shares the quality of speed with the chariot, both of which run courses upon the stationary ground.

I know what you mean @lifepsyop , I'd like to see them get out of this one.

This is not the day the earth stood still ^_^

but;

The Day the Sun Stood Still
On the day that the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD in the presence of Israel: “O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still and the moon stopped until the nation took vengeance upon its enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? “So the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.” There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man, because the LORD fought for Israel.… Joshua 10-13

prodromos · Jul 26, 2024

Apple Sky said:
I know what you mean @lifepsyop , I'd like to see them get out of this one.

This is not the day the earth stood still but;

The Day the Sun Stood Still
On the day that the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD in the presence of Israel: “O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still and the moon stopped until the nation took vengeance upon its enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? “So the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.” There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man, because the LORD fought for Israel.… Joshua 10-13

You seem to think that our all powerful God would not be capable of suspending the laws of physics which He created, in order to stop the earth turning for a short time and then starting again without any inertia. The God I believe in is infinite in power and has total command over His creation.

Apple Sky · Jul 26, 2024

prodromos said:
You seem to think that our all powerful God would not be capable of suspending the laws of physics which He created, in order to stop the earth turning for a short time and then starting again without any inertia. The God I believe in is infinite in power and has total command over His creation.

Like I said this is not the day the earth stood still ^_^

lifepsyop · Jul 26, 2024

prodromos said:
The toy boat is tiny in comparison to the variations in the water surface. Not so the actual boat. The eye level is above the waves in the case of the real boat so it is not being hidden by waves, and of course the more distant waves appear much smaller due to perspective, so can't be responsible for hiding the boat.

Your argument doesn't really make sense. Because of atmospheric refraction we are typically always looking at light that has bent in some degree away from its actual position. If anything, the likelihood of this increases greatly at the vast distances of the big boats.

And the effect would be most pronounced when trying to locate an object exactly on a horizon line. (Because the appearance of that horizon will fluctuate depending on its surface temperature)

As shown in this demo, the same type of effects can be seen even on hard flat surfaces. Even small variations in temperature in the atmosphere can refract light up or down as it travels to the observer.

Apple Sky · Jul 26, 2024

lifepsyop said:
Your argument doesn't really make sense. Because of atmospheric refraction we are typically always looking at light that has bent in some degree away from its actual position. If anything, the likelihood of this increases greatly at the vast distances of the big boats.

And the effect would be most pronounced when trying to locate an object exactly on a horizon line. (Because the appearance of that horizon will fluctuate depending on its surface temperature)

As shown in this demo, the same type of effects can be seen even on hard flat surfaces. Even small variations in temperature in the atmosphere can refract light up or down as it travels to the observer.

The fact is, that all Globalists miss, is that all boats & ships can be zoomed back into full focus with a good camera like a P900

prodromos · Jul 26, 2024

lifepsyop said:
Your argument doesn't really make sense. Because of atmospheric refraction we are typically always looking at light that has bent in some degree away from its actual position. If anything, the likelihood of this increases greatly at the vast distances of the big boats.

And the effect would be most pronounced when trying to locate an object exactly on a horizon line. (Because the appearance of that horizon will fluctuate depending on its surface temperature)

As shown in this demo, the same type of effects can be seen even on hard flat surfaces. Even small variations in temperature in the atmosphere can refract light up or down as it travels to the observer.

You're still talking about boats when I gave you the example of the Chicago skyscrapers. That isn't the result of distortion just above the horizon. Roughly half of the 442m high Willis Tower is hidden behind the horizon while the top half is visible well above the horizon.

prodromos · Jul 26, 2024

Apple Sky said:
The fact is, that all Globalists miss, is that all boats & ships can be zoomed back into full focus with a good camera like a P900

Gotta lie to flerf

Apple Sky · Jul 26, 2024

prodromos said:
Gotta lie to flerf

It's true, try it out.

prodromos · Jul 26, 2024

Apple Sky said:
It's true, try it out.

Trivially false. How do you claim to be a child of Christ, yet blatantly lie about this, and what do you expect to gain?

BNR32FAN · Jul 26, 2024

lifepsyop said:
Here is a good demonstration and explanation of how light bent through the atmosphere can create a "sinking" effect of objects against the horizon.

This explanation is absolutely retarded as expected. Yeah taking a video of a toy boat 600 feet away at 1 1/2 inches above the water on a lake is going to make the boat disappear because the waves are taller than 1 1/2 inches. They’re using a boat that is barely taller than the waves? Why are they using a toy boat? Because they’re stupid and they’re liars and they know that a toy boat is too small to even be seen from a distance far enough away to cross over the horizon. The distance to the horizon at 4” high is over 1 km and there no way you can see that tiny boat at 1 km away. At 1 minute 59 seconds into the video they claim that the boat disappeared below the water but that’s not what we actually see because they edited the video clip. They don’t show the entire footage they show the boat visible then cut to a clip where the boat is not visible and you can clearly see that they changed the camera position by looking at the tree and the road in the background. They cut the scene again in the next example just a few seconds after this one. Why are they cutting the scene? Because that’s the only way to hide the fact that they’re changing the camera position. Every single time they show the boat when it’s hidden behind the water they cut the scene.

Apple Sky · Jul 26, 2024

prodromos said:
Trivially false. How do you claim to be a child of Christ, yet blatantly lie about this, and what do you expect to gain?

The truth, clearly something you don't except.

lifepsyop · Jul 26, 2024

prodromos said:
You're still talking about boats when I gave you the example of the Chicago skyscrapers. That isn't the result of distortion just above the horizon. Roughly half of the 442m high Willis Tower is hidden behind the horizon while the top half is visible well above the horizon.

And you're ignoring the reason why that is not evidence for a "curve of the earth"

Here I found this demo which seems completely fair and unbiased. He shows how atmospheric refraction can make an object go up or down on the horizon and that this is not necessarily evidence for either a spherical earth, or a flat earth.

Your supposed evidence here does not rise above the level of ambiguity.

pgp_protector · Jul 26, 2024

Apple Sky said:
The fact is, that all Globalists miss, is that all boats & ships can be zoomed back into full focus with a good camera like a P900

pgp_protector · Jul 26, 2024

prodromos said:
Trivially false. How do you claim to be a child of Christ, yet blatantly lie about this, and what do you expect to gain?

Said it before & I'll say it again
Flat Earth is Totally SATANIC.

prodromos · Jul 26, 2024

lifepsyop said:
And you're ignoring the reason why that is not evidence for a "curve of the earth"

Here I found this demo which seems completely fair and unbiased. He shows how atmospheric refraction can make an object go up or down on the horizon and that this is not necessarily evidence for either a spherical earth, or a flat earth.

Your supposed evidence here does not rise above the level of ambiguity.

You keep presenting atmospheric refraction as some sort of hand wavy magic instead of the well understood phenomenon that it is. We understand very well the effect that temperature has on the density of air and how the density gradient of the atmosphere bends light and by how much. We can calculate the amount of retraction and it matches what we actually see. There is no ambiguity.

lifepsyop · Jul 26, 2024

prodromos said:
You keep presenting atmospheric refraction as some sort of hand wavy magic instead of the well understood phenomenon that it is. We understand very well the effect that temperature has on the density of air and how the density gradient of the atmosphere bends light and by how much. We can calculate the amount of retraction and it matches what we actually see. There is no ambiguity.

And yet you still seem to be struggling with the basic fact, even when it is demonstrated to you, that light refraction occurs in an atmosphere whether or not the surface is flat or curved. There is no magic involved.

prodromos · Jul 26, 2024

lifepsyop said:
And yet you still seem to be struggling with the basic fact, even when it is demonstrated to you, that light refraction occurs in an atmosphere whether or not the surface is flat or curved. There is no magic involved.

I am not the one who is struggling ^_^

The pressure gradient of the atmosphere (another thing flat earth under a dome firmament fails to explain) causes air to be densest close to the surface, gradually becoming less dense with elevation. This always causes light to bend downwards, the amount of which can vary depending on conditions. The "flat swan" and "black swan" images are both showing the effect of light bending downwards, neither is bending light upwards, which allows the more distant oil platform to be visible, since without refraction it would be mostly hidden behind the horizon.
You do get the opposite effect caused by a temperature inversion, where a layer of warm, less dense air is trapped below a layer of cold dense air, but that is not what is happening with the oil platforms.

What you seem to be struggling with is the fact that atmospheric refraction as a general rule bends light downwards, which means on a flat earth you will never have objects disappear from sight because of refraction, in fact it should cause distant objects and terrain to appear higher than eye level, which doesn't happen.

The video you linked also finishes by abusing Modus Tollens because we do in fact consider the effect of perspective and compression. There are no unstated assumptions. We don't need to consider the way our eyes work because it has no impact on the effect of things that may change how light travels before it reaches our eyes.

lifepsyop · Jul 27, 2024

prodromos said:
The pressure gradient of the atmosphere (another thing flat earth under a dome firmament fails to explain) causes air to be densest close to the surface, gradually becoming less dense with elevation. This always causes light to bend downwards, the amount of which can vary depending on conditions.

Okay... remember we are focusing on how light arrives at the observer from a very small angle around the horizon line.

prodromos said:
The "flat swan" and "black swan" images are both showing the effect of light bending downwards, neither is bending light upwards, which allows the more distant oil platform to be visible, since without refraction it would be mostly hidden behind the horizon.
You do get the opposite effect caused by a temperature inversion, where a layer of warm, less dense air is trapped below a layer of cold dense air, but that is not what is happening with the oil platforms.

Right... so if you do see an object that would normally be hidden by the curve of the earth... then it's proof of light refraction on a curved earth. If you don't see the object, then it's proof that it's hidden by the curve of the earth.... Talk about magic hand-waving... example given in this "debunker" image below.

a. I see the object = refraction is letting me see it from behind the curve of the earth!
b. I can't see the object = it's hidden by the curve of the earth!

prodromos said:
What you seem to be struggling with is the fact that atmospheric refraction as a general rule bends light downwards, which means on a flat earth you will never have objects disappear from sight because of refraction

That doesn't make sense.

Let's return to the example you alleged was proof for "earth curve"...

We see how the water line appears to end somewhere at or out front of the hull of the ship above.

Compare with the "micro refraction" screenshot below found in the following video.

(min 9:43)

Looks similar to what we're seeing with the ship in the ocean, where the water's horizon appears to end somewhere right at or out front of the hull.

Yet the same experiment done at different seasons and temperatures appears to render the water's horizon a little ways beyond the boat.

Different environmental conditions appear to have an effect of either raising or lowering the horizon line, because of how much of the light is actually reaching the viewer before it bends below view, (which would establish the fall-off limit of the visible water horizon). This has the effect of making the surface appear to be either more concave or more convex... like a lensing effect.

I believe this is referred to as either "looming" or "sinking":

Looming  and sinking  are the simplest of all the refraction phenomena. They're simply abnormally large and small refraction, respectively. As was first shown by Lambert (1759), a constant density gradient in the lower atmosphere produces only a vertical displacement of distant objects, not a distortion . So looming is just an exaggeration of normal refraction, produced by a steeper than usual decrease in density with height.

Looming, Towering, Stooping, and Sinking

Looming, Towering, Stooping, and Sinking simulations

aty.sdsu.edu

^^^^ Definitely not the curve of the earth, but it looks a lot like the ship below:

What we're seeing here isn't evidence for either a flat earth or a spherical earth. However, you are mistakenly claiming it as evidence.

Apple Sky · Jul 28, 2024

prodromos · Jul 28, 2024

lifepsyop said:
Okay... remember we are focusing on how light arrives at the observer from a very small angle around the horizon line.

No, that may be what you are focusing on so you can ignore the fact that large objects that stand well above the horizon still have large amounts of the bottom of the structure hidden behind the horizon. You want to pretend the Chicago skyline doesn't exist.

lifepsyop said:
Right... so if you do see an object that would normally be hidden by the curve of the earth... then it's proof of light refraction on a curved earth. If you don't see the object, then it's proof that it's hidden by the curve of the earth.... Talk about magic hand-waving... example given in this "debunker" image below.

View attachment 352310

a. I see the object = refraction is letting me see it from behind the curve of the earth!
b. I can't see the object = it's hidden by the curve of the earth!

I don't really want to say how stupid your response is, given that the video you linked earlier demonstrated exactly what is illustrated in the image above. Photos taken of the same oil platforms from the same location on different days, showed greater or lesser amounts of the bottom hidden behind the horizon depending on the refraction caused by the prevailing atmospheric conditions. You pre-debunked yourself!

lifepsyop said:
That doesn't make sense.

Its exactly what was stated in the same video you linked. The pressure gradient of the atmosphere bends light downwards. Light reflected off the top of a tall building at a shallow downward angle is bent at a much steeper angle by the time it reaches the flat-earth observer on the ground, so for the observer, the top of the building appears to be in a straight line up at the sharper angle, thus it will appear higher than reality on a flat earth. I suggest you draw yourself some diagrams until you get your head around it.

lifepsyop said:
Let's return to the example you alleged was proof for "earth curve"...

OK?

lifepsyop said:
View attachment 352296

We see how the water line appears to end somewhere at or out front of the hull of the ship above.

Compare with the "micro refraction" screenshot below found in the following video.

(min 9:43)

View attachment 352295

Looks similar to what we're seeing with the ship in the ocean, where the water's horizon appears to end somewhere right at or out front of the hull.

Yet the same experiment done at different seasons and temperatures appears to render the water's horizon a little ways beyond the boat.

View attachment 352311

Different environmental conditions appear to have an effect of either raising or lowering the horizon line, because of how much of the light is actually reaching the viewer before it bends below view, (which would establish the fall-off limit of the visible water horizon). This has the effect of making the surface appear to be either more concave or more convex... like a lensing effect.

View attachment 352316

I believe this is referred to as either "looming" or "sinking":

Looming  and sinking  are the simplest of all the refraction phenomena. They're simply abnormally large and small refraction, respectively. As was first shown by Lambert (1759), a constant density gradient in the lower atmosphere produces only a vertical displacement of distant objects, not a distortion . So looming is just an exaggeration of normal refraction, produced by a steeper than usual decrease in density with height.

Looming, Towering, Stooping, and Sinking

Looming, Towering, Stooping, and Sinking simulations

aty.sdsu.edu

View attachment 352318

^^^^ Definitely not the curve of the earth, but it looks a lot like the ship below:

View attachment 352296

I didn't allege any of what you just posted as evidence of a globe earth, so that was a complete waste of your time

lifepsyop said:
What we're seeing here isn't evidence for either a flat earth or a spherical earth. However, you are mistakenly claiming it as evidence.

Please show where I claimed the above clips where evidence of a globe earth. I've posted a number of other things but you don't seem to want to deal with what I've actually posted as evidence, you'd rather build a flimsy strawman so you can knock it down. You keep proving the maxim that "you gotta lie to flerf".

Absolute proof.. can't deny.. the earth is flat

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Senior Veteran

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Regular Member

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Senior Veteran

He’s a Way of life

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Regular Member

Noted strange person

Attachments

Noted strange person

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Senior Veteran

Similar threads