Flat Earthers

[Dino246]

Think about this. If the stars are not actually moving, but appear to be moving by the Earth's rotation... Then all the stars, even Polaris, would appear to be moving in either an elliptical, or partial eliptical manner. The only exception to this would be if one were directly underneath Polaris, in which case, it would appear stationary.

Also note that Polaris has been seen from the Southern hemisphere on occasion.

I'm fairly certain this is wrong, but will endeavour to offer evidence in future to refute your argument. Whether correct or incorrect, it is most certainly true that light diffracts, to make it very difficult to determine the distance of a light by its relative size, particularly at night.

Just look up!
View attachment 198923 View attachment 198924

Crepuscular rays are a matter of perspective. If you stand on the street among several tall buildings and look up, you will perceive their upper floors to converge, despite the fact that they are, in fact, parallel. You'll see the same thing if you look at straight railroad tracks, highways lanes, or rows of trees. Perspective confuses your brain into thinking things are converging when in fact they aren't.

 

[Dino246]

Here is an extensive article addressing the errors of flat-earth theory:

https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth

 

[theanointedwinner]

Astronauts landed on the moon, and the moon is round and astronauts were fine, unless if they deny moon landing as well

 

[tourist]

In order to "prove" the ball-Earth, Eratosthenes had to assume that the Earth was a ball, and the sun far away (parallel sun rays). First, to assume something in order to "prove" it is a logical fallacy, because it actually proves nothing, and is called circular reasoning. Had Eratosthenes assumed the Earth was flat, his calculations would have indicated to him the sun was about 40,000km away. Can I therefore state that Eratosthenes proved a flat Earth? Second, Eratosthenes' assumption that the sun is far away, and producing parallel rays, is clearly false, from natural evidence and observation (the sun's rays are not parallel). So Eratosthenes "proof" that Earth is a ball is clearly wrong.

The airlines simply have their planes follow designated flight routes, and factor this into their costings. The shape of the Earth can't be proved with economics.

...but perhaps with ergonomics.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Crepuscular rays are a matter of perspective. If you stand on the street among several tall buildings and look up, you will perceive their upper floors to converge, despite the fact that they are, in fact, parallel. You'll see the same thing if you look at straight railroad tracks, highways lanes, or rows of trees. Perspective confuses your brain into thinking things are converging when in fact they aren't.

Wait. So those sun rays in the photographs, that are clearly not parallel, you are saying are actually parallel in reality, and the camera just captured an optical illusion? Don't you think I could say the same about the rays from the sun which appear to be lighting up the underside of the clouds? Don't you see the hypocrisy in this? When a fact appears to refute heliocentrism or ball-Earth theory, I'm told it's an optical illusion. But when a fact appears to refute flat Earth theory, it's the nail in the coffin for Flat Earth... That's not what I call science.

Here is an extensive article addressing the errors of flat-earth theory:

https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth

Creation.com are good at discussing evolution, but they don't treat Flat Earth very carefully. They are deeply entrenched in the heliocentric worldview, and so don't really address the faults Flat Earth picks with heliocentrism, but instead focus on the faults or knowledge gaps in Flat Earth theory.

Astronauts landed on the moon, and the moon is round and astronauts were fine, unless if they deny moon landing as well

Lol. I don't think many flat Earthers believe astronauts landed on the moon. If we believed in the moon landing, we would also probably believe that painted marble really was the Earth, and hence, likely wouldn't be flat Earthers anymore.

 

[posthuman]

people with no sense of perspective might say this picture is proof that railroad tracks are not parallel.

people with no perspective, people who are trolls, people who deliberately mislead, people who are easily mislead, people who have poor spatial reasoning -- all those sorts of people might say that.


i would hope we're wiser.

 

[Dino246]

Wait. So those sun rays in the photographs, that are clearly not parallel, you are saying are actually parallel in reality, and the camera just captured an optical illusion? Don't you think I could say the same about the rays from the sun which appear to be lighting up the underside of the clouds? Don't you see the hypocrisy in this? When a fact appears to refute heliocentrism or ball-Earth theory, I'm told it's an optical illusion. But when a fact appears to refute flat Earth theory, it's the nail in the coffin for Flat Earth... That's not what I call science.

The sun rays ARE parallel, like the railroad tracks, and simply APPEAR to converge. The camera captures the same optical illusion that your eye perceives.

The rays lighting the underside of clouds are a different issue. it is impossible for rays from the sun ABOVE the clouds to light the UNDERSIDE of the clouds in the flat-earth model. It is entirely possible on a ball earth, because the sun's rays can come through the atmosphere at a low angle and hit the bottom of the clouds.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

people with no sense of perspective might say this picture is proof that railroad tracks are not parallel.

people with no perspective, people who are trolls, people who deliberately mislead, people who are easily mislead, people who have poor spatial reasoning -- all those sorts of people might say that.


i would hope we're wiser.


View attachment 198951

I appreciate the troll comment, I really do. But you're surely not saying that this track is parallel, in the same way the sun's rays in the photo below are parallel? I mean, it's obvious to anyone, even trolls, the visually impaired, and those without spacial reasoning that these train tracks are parallel.

But the light rays below can't be parallel. I don't have a mathematical formula or other proof, but you can tell simply by looking. The rays aren't parallel.

 

[posthuman]

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

The sun rays ARE parallel, like the railroad tracks, and simply APPEAR to converge. The camera captures the same optical illusion that your eye perceives.

The rays lighting the underside of clouds are a different issue. it is impossible for rays from the sun ABOVE the clouds to light the UNDERSIDE of the clouds in the flat-earth model. It is entirely possible on a ball earth, because the sun's rays can come through the atmosphere at a low angle and hit the bottom of the clouds.

Okay. So you are telling me that what my eyes see and what the camera sees is actually incorrect, and that the light rays are actually parallel?

Can't I use the same argument with your photo showing the rays lighting the underside of the clouds? It's really an optical illusion, and it was actually the sides of the clouds which were lit, but you are seeing them as the underside because of perspective? I don't really call such excuses science, unless they're backed by some level of proof.

 

[Dino246]

Okay. So you are telling me that what my eyes see and what the camera sees is actually incorrect, and that the light rays are actually parallel?

Hooray... you're starting to understand!

Can't I use the same argument with your photo showing the rays lighting the underside of the clouds? It's really an optical illusion, and it was actually the sides of the clouds which were lit, but you are seeing them as the underside because of perspective? I don't really call such excuses science, unless they're backed by some level of proof.

If the sunlight on the underside of the clouds were, in fact, an optical illusion, then you could use that argument. It isn't, and therefore you can't. Excuses have nothing to do with it.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

If the sunlight on the underside of the clouds were, in fact, an optical illusion, then you could use that argument. It isn't, and therefore you can't. Excuses have nothing to do with it.

So prove it. Prove that the sun's light rays are actually parallel.

Otherwise, I will simply claim the light under the clouds is likewise an optical illusion (probably more likely the light being diffracted through the cloud, and scattered at it's lower layers).

 

[Dino246]

So prove it. Prove that the sun's light rays are actually parallel.

Otherwise, I will simply claim the light under the clouds is likewise an optical illusion (probably more likely the light being diffracted through the cloud, and scattered at it's lower layers).

Your willingness to believe in illusions is disturbing.

 

[tourist]

Your willingness to believe in illusions is disturbing.

It might very well be an optical delusion.

 

[Dino246]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...2/crepuscular-rays-are-parallel/#.XO0z9_57nIU

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Your willingness to believe in illusions is disturbing.

I believe in what I can see, touch, taste, hear and feel. It's called science. Those who want me to believe something other than what my senses tell me will require proof of claim. Where there is no such proof of claim, it's not science.

 

[cobalt1959]

So prove it. Prove that the sun's light rays are actually parallel.

Otherwise, I will simply claim the light under the clouds is likewise an optical illusion (probably more likely the light being diffracted through the cloud, and scattered at it's lower layers).

Funny. You say "prove it,'"which just diminishes your argument even further. Flat Earth was disproved centuries ago but here you are attempting to defend it, in direct opposition to things we know to be scientifically true.

Light is both a particle and a wave, and it has the ability to bend under certain circumstances. What light cannot be is an optical illusion. Light is either there, or it is absent.

 

[theanointedwinner]

What is the straightest visible curve?

Or
What does a straight like looks like to notice the smallest most gradual curve?

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Funny. You say "prove it,'"which just diminishes your argument even further. Flat Earth was disproved centuries ago but here you are attempting to defend it, in direct opposition to things we know to be scientifically true.

This statement invokes a circular argument logical fallacy.

Light is both a particle and a wave, and it has the ability to bend under certain circumstances. What light cannot be is an optical illusion. Light is either there, or it is absent.

You sound like Einstein. But to me, Einstein was just a beggar dressed in purple clothes that ignorant folk mistook for a king.

 

[Karraster]

I believe in what I can see, touch, taste, hear and feel. It's called science. Those who want me to believe something other than what my senses tell me will require proof of claim. Where there is no such proof of claim, it's not science.

Don't forget repeatable. Too bad they "forgot" how to go to the moon. Yeah, I don't believe the spinning flying orbiting rotating ball earth. It's contrary to what the Bible says, and I've seen too many far distances that shoulda been hidden by the curve. Seen too many expanses of mirror lakes that is impossible if we are traveling like we've been shot out of a rocket. But we used to halfway believe that garbage, didn't we? Guess that's why we tolerate being made fun of, and those sideways glances.