Flat earth debunked.

[Gideon300]

Have yall ever read about the laser and light experiments that proved the earth isn't moving? One of them was with lasers and mirrors and I forget how it worked but the one with water and a telescope was interesting. They put water in a telescope slowing down the speed of light and if the earth was moving it would have to be tilted in front of the star to catch the light to be seen. I don't remember all the mechanics.

Water refracts light. Depending on the size of the telescope, you would have to move it to compensate for refraction anyway.

 

[Moses_Young]

Surveying is based on real world experience. You know nothing about that. I'm comfortable with reality and truth. You could try it yourself sometime.

You can try and justify yourself all you like. Laser experiments prove the Earth is not a ball. And there are plenty of other evidences that Heliocentrism can't explain - just refer to the conniptions of the Heliocentrist above (top of his physics class, apparently) when he was shown that Heliocentrism can't explain us being able to see an entire face of Venus (and Mercury, I understand).

I've worked with surveying before, at a scale where curvature would matter. At the time, we couldn't understand why the "flat plane" results were giving us better accuracy than the "ball Earth" assumptions - several centimeters over a few kilometers, no matter how much we tried to make the ball fit. Now I know why. There was (and is) no curvature.

Have you heard about the countless proofs that the earth is rotating? Like the storm cells you see on the weather channel continually? Did you know that the rotation of the earth causes the winds to change direction? Did you know that the storms in the southern hemisphere rotate in the opposite direction? That's why there are cyclones and anticyclones. It due to the coriolis effect. Look it up.

Lol. Notice your alleged proofs are so far from the facts that they could almost be used for anything? Having to resort to storm cells to prove that something is curved, when one should just be able to measure (if true)? Did you know that wind directions change with altitude? Lol. I can't do your thinking for you, but if storm cells and (changing) wind directions are the best proof you have of Heliocentricity, I don't consider it worth debating. Might as well claim the existence of fairies and NASA's lost photographs as your proofs.

 

[Moses_Young]

Honestly - I just want to get to the bottom of it - make sure I understand it all properly. If I misunderstood something somewhere along the way - I want to correct it.

This was meant for anyone who can verify that I am "on track":



In other words, this is the way I see it and was wondering if anyone/everyone else (excepting Dino, obviously) saw it the same way...

I just think he's a shill. In my view, anyone capable of reading would see it exactly the way you put it. Instead of admitting he's wrong or that Heliocentrism can't explain it, though, he goes on as if I misquoted his intent. Dishonest or intellectually retarded are the only valid options I can see, and I'm fairly sure it's not the latter.

 

[GaryA]

I can't believe I have to explain this AGAIN (well, I don't, but I'm going to only to prove you are off the baseline).

Post 828 was made in reference to Zandar's post 823 which (in diagram form) asked how Venus would be visible given its smaller orbit radius, in turn made in response to Gary's post 822.

My diagram in 828 demonstrates that Venus would be visible. Nothing had been said about "a whole hemisphere" being visible.

Good to here...

In his post 837, Moses_Young reinterpreted Zandar's question, adding the issue of a whole hemisphere being visible.

No, he did not.

The first word in post 837 - 'He' - is referring to me and post 833.

My response to him in post 838 made no reference to my diagram from post 828.

Okay.

In his response in post 840, Moses assumed that my post 838 was made in reference to my diagram.

I do not think he made such an assumption; rather, I believe that he was referring strictly to the 'statement' you made:

There is no reason why we should be unable to see a complete hemisphere of Venus.

This statement stands alone. It is "worthy" of questioning - especially if/when compared to what was illustrated in your diagram. He just wanted a scientific explanation for it - in graphic form. His request was perfectly valid. In his mind, he was comparing your statement with your diagram; however, I am pretty sure he made no assumptions about your response making reference to your diagram. I believe that the 'issue' was/is based on your 'statement' alone.

So, throw the blame where it belongs: squarely on Moses_Young for reinterpreting and assuming... incorrectly. My conscience is clear.

Let's throw the blame away and just say that you misunderstood what he said...

Of course, if you should happen to apologize to him for accusing him of things he did not do - well - that is all good, too.

Hey - it can happen - no worries. Go back and read it all again and see if it makes any better sense now.

 

[Moses_Young]

Good to here...


No, he did not.

The first word in post 837 - 'He' - is referring to me and post 833.


Okay.


I do not think he made such an assumption; rather, I believe that he was referring strictly to the 'statement' you made:


This statement stands alone. It is "worthy" of questioning - especially if/when compared to what was illustrated in your diagram. He just wanted a scientific explanation for it - in graphic form. His request was perfectly valid. In his mind, he was comparing your statement with your diagram; however, I am pretty sure he made no assumptions about your response making reference to your diagram. I believe that the 'issue' was/is based on your 'statement' alone.


Let's throw the blame away and just say that you misunderstood what he said...

Of course, if you should happen to apologize to him for accusing him of things he did not do - well - that is all good, too.

Hey - it can happen - no worries. Go back and read it all again and see if it makes any better sense now.

Thanks Gary. You explained my reasoning and thinking exactly. I'm surprised it would have been interpreted any other way, but my apologies if I could've been clearer. Always happy to hear your excellent guidance.