FLAT EARTH

[Dino246]

It's easily demonstrable. Heard of fog-lamps, and why they are used? Fog is the same amount of atmosphere, just packed into a much smaller space.

Fog is not simply dense atmosphere. It's ground-level cloud. Fog lamps are simply lights that are angled farther down than regular headlights, so that less light is reflected back into the driver's eyes.

 

[Moses_Young]

Fog is not simply dense atmosphere. It's ground-level cloud.

And capable of blocking light, as is a similar quantity of atmosphere.

 

[GaryA]

I don't see how physical laws permit it.

As I keep saying, this is where the real problem exists when it comes to people trying to understand the Flat Earth model.

Before you can truly understand the Flat Earth model, you absolutely MUST be able to "suspend" or "put aside" your preconceived notions that are based on the Ball Earth model -- because, some of it does not exist or does not work in the Flat Earth model as/like it does in the Ball Earth model.

In the Flat Earth model, there is no such thing as 'gravity' (as defined by modern science according to the Ball Earth model).

If there were such a thing - the sun, moon, and stars would have fallen to earth before the end of the creation week.

In the Flat Earth model, what keeps the sun, moon, and stars where they are?

We do not know. Our only valid answer is:

"God."

How He does it is not critical for us to know. (in order for us to believe it)

What we do know is that it is not 'gravity'.

~

How many times do I have to say it?

You CANNOT "prove" or "disprove" the Flat Earth model with Ball Earth model physics.

Why?

Because --- ALL of the modern science definition and description of the 'universe' is not REAL. Some of it is made up. (The best example of such is no-doubt 'gravity'.)

Being able to discern what is and is not real is key.

This is where "real science" comes in - with clear demonstrable repeatable results.

 

[GaryA]

I reject the theory of light failing over distance as counterfactual.

Then, you will never truly fully understand the Flat Earth model.

Because, 'perspective' and "atmospheric light transmission reduction" (if that is a good way to phrase it) are very significant in the science of the Flat Earth model.

As for "counterfactual" - you have your facts mixed up - "atmospheric light transmission reduction" is very easily proven - as I believe Moses_Young is currently trying to get you to see more clearly.

 

[GaryA]

Fog is not simply dense atmosphere. It's ground-level cloud. Fog lamps are simply lights that are angled farther down than regular headlights, so that less light is reflected back into the driver's eyes.

I think he is referring to the moisture in the air being more dense.

So -- are you suggesting that the headlights (in the above), a penlight, and a lighthouse lamp - may/will all be seen - a 100 miles away? a thousand miles away? ten thousand miles away? a light-year away? equally, regardless of atmospheric conditions?

Or, would you say that - for each light source mentioned - there is some point (distance away from) such that the light from that source can no longer be seen due to the moisture, etc. of the atmosphere?

The sun does not have "infinite" brightness. Even the sun - at some certain distance away - cannot be seen - due to the cumulative effect of the moisture, etc. in the atmosphere.

THIS is what makes the appearance of the sun "coming up" and "going down" - as it moves close enough to be seen and moves too far away to be seen (respectively).

 

[GaryA]

Just thought it might be helpful to interject those thoughts/ideas - didn't really mean to "take the floor" or anything like that.

Carry on, Moses_Young...

 

[GaryA]

The KING JAMES nowhere in it says the Earth is flat, nowhere.

This is actually a true statement - nowhere in the KJV does it say "the Earth is flat"; however, what it does say, in effect - or, indicates - is that the Earth is not "a spinning ball flying through space orbiting the Sun yada yada yada" as modern science describes it.

The KJV describes the Earth as being stationary and non-moving.

The KJV describes the stars as being different from the Sun - and that - the Sun and Moon are unique in the Creation.

The KJV describes the sun, moon, and stars as [all] being in a materially-continuous individually-identifiable [spatial] expanse between "the waters above" that expanse and "the waters below" that expanse.

Do you see a conflict with the claims of modern science here?

 

[Dino246]

I think he is referring to the moisture in the air being more dense.

So -- are you suggesting that the headlights (in the above), a penlight, and a lighthouse lamp - may/will all be seen - a 100 miles away? a thousand miles away? ten thousand miles away? a light-year away? equally, regardless of atmospheric conditions?

Or, would you say that - for each light source mentioned - there is some point (distance away from) such that the light from that source can no longer be seen due to the moisture, etc. of the atmosphere?

The sun does not have "infinite" brightness. Even the sun - at some certain distance away - cannot be seen - due to the cumulative effect of the moisture, etc. in the atmosphere.

THIS is what makes the appearance of the sun "coming up" and "going down" - as it moves close enough to be seen and moves too far away to be seen (respectively).

I understand the concept of atmospheric light attenuation. I just think that it does not work for the sun over a few thousand miles, and the light from the sun does not simply fade into the distance. t "goes down" (or comes up). No adequate explanation has been provided for that.

Essentially, you're asking me to suspend both my intellect and my senses, and believe a host of theories (and mysteries) to embrace a model that I have already disproven.

I'm still waiting on your response to the sunrise pictures from Sydney, Australia. Your flat earth model cannot account for those... at all. Please don't waste my time by claiming that they are faked.

 

[GaryA]

Essentially, you're asking me to suspend both my intellect and my senses, and believe a host of theories (and mysteries) to embrace a model that I have already disproven.

No - I am asking you to "turn on" the intellect and senses that you have been trained all your life to keep "turned off"...

I have already disproven the Ball Earth model.

(Yes, I can make a statement like that also.)

I'm still waiting on your response to the sunrise pictures from Sydney, Australia. Your flat earth model cannot account for those... at all. Please don't waste my time by claiming that they are faked.

There is a lot for me to determine if I choose to not simply "take someone else's word for it"...

I have to work for a living, too...

And - the circumstances of my life for some time now have prevented me from giving it any attention.

It will take some time - it will be a while...

In any case --- even if I am never able to come up with an answer that would satisfy [even] me -- it does not "do away with" all of the things that my intellect and senses have been able to 'see' and 'process' - that give me a very firmly-established "consensus" about the true nature of the earth.

I do not know whether the pictures are faked - or, possibly there is something about the angles (or whatever) that is not quite what it appears to be - all I know for sure at this point is - I am not going to simply believe what it suggests blindly.

 

[GaryA]

Please don't waste my time by claiming that they are faked.

I am going to disappoint you instead by telling you that it looks like it will be a while yet before I even begin to "take up where I left off" on that research.

"Sorry..."

 

[Dino246]

I am going to disappoint you instead by telling you that it looks like it will be a while yet before I even begin to "take up where I left off" on that research.

"Sorry..."

No worries. Life gets busy.

 

[jacob_g]

Fog is not simply dense atmosphere. It's ground-level cloud. Fog lamps are simply lights that are angled farther down than regular headlights, so that less light is reflected back into the driver's eyes.

I have been looking into buying a new car and wondering if I should pay for fog lights.... Great answer.... to what ever question.... You helped me decide going with the fog lights..... thank you......

 

[Moses_Young]

I'm still waiting on your response to the sunrise pictures from Sydney, Australia. Your flat earth model cannot account for those... at all. Please don't waste my time by claiming that they are faked.

I'm sorry I must have overlooked this post. Can you please refer me to it?

 

[GaryA]

I'm sorry I must have overlooked this post. Can you please refer me to it?

This actually goes back [at least] a year or two ago. A quick search did not find those posts from back then. Perhaps Dino will point you to them.

 

[jxlar]

I am going to disappoint you instead by telling you that it looks like it will be a while yet before I even begin to "take up where I left off" on that research.

"Sorry..."

Is there a consensus among those who believe the earth is a globe and those who believe the earth is not a globe as to some of the longest distances we can see between land masses?

 

[Dino246]

And capable of blocking light, as is a similar quantity of atmosphere.

That is simply not correct. One cubic metre of dense fog will block a whole lot more light than one cubic metre of clear air.

I don't doubt that atmosphere blocks a small amount of light, and that over hundreds of thousands of miles, the light attenuation would be easily noticeable, but I reject the idea that a few thousand miles of atmosphere is enough to block sunlight.

 

[Dino246]

In the North-centric flat earth model, the sun allegedly moves in a circular path about 3000 miles above the surface, creating a rough oval of light on the surface, outside of which there is darkness. This darkness is allegedly caused not by the sun being blocked by the earth's curvature as in the globe model, but by the atmosphere (atmospheric light attenuation or ALA).

The math doesn't work. Inside the daylight area at any time, it is full daylight at a lateral distance of (about) 5000 miles from the sun's point of nadir. The direct distance is just under 6,000 miles when you count the height of the sun above the earth's surface. However, at a point about 8000 miles laterally from the sun's nadir point, it is dark - full nighttime. That means that the atmospheric light attenuation is minimal to nil at a distance of (about) 6000 miles, but complete at a distance of (about) 9000 miles. That simply doesn't add up.

If ALA were a legitimate explanation, sunlight would be 67% attenuated at a distance of 6000 miles if it were 100% attenuated at 9000 miles. It isn't.

 

[Moses_Young]

That is simply not correct. One cubic metre of dense fog will block a whole lot more light than one cubic metre of clear air.

I don't disagree. But clean air is less dense than dense fog.

I don't doubt that atmosphere blocks a small amount of light, and that over hundreds of thousands of miles, the light attenuation would be easily noticeable, but I reject the idea that a few thousand miles of atmosphere is enough to block sunlight.

But can you disprove this idea, or conversely, prove that sunlight can be seen through a few thousand miles of (ground-level) atmosphere? If not, 'tis just one theory versus another.

 

[Dino246]

I don't disagree. But clean air is less dense than dense fog.

Your point? The sun is not seen through heavy cloud either, and when there is heavy cloud, it is less bright at the earth's surface than above the clouds.

But can you disprove this idea, or conversely, prove that sunlight can be seen through a few thousand miles of (ground-level) atmosphere? If not, 'tis just one theory versus another.

Easily. Sunrise and sunset, at which times the sunlight is going almost laterally through thousands of miles of low atmosphere.

 

[TinalovesJesus]

I respect flat earthers, I think they make a lot of sense . If you actually ever study it out , you can see why there are so many believers .