Flat earth debunked.

[GaryA]

I agree: we should only ever be able to see half of Venus at one time… just as we can only ever see half the moon at a time.

Do I detect a bit of 'snark' in this statement...???

 

[GaryA]

Yes, the arc that Venus would inhabit would be very small, but as the photo of Venus provided absolutely no context, you cannot make any point with it.

I am not trying to make any point with it - @Moses_Young is doing that. I just want you to see the magnitude of the true reality of 'what is' by looking at it properly scaled.

Simple drawings are good for simple illustration; however, when it makes a significant difference where the truth of reality is concerned, nothing beats a drawing that has been made with proper scaling.

 

[GaryA]

Yes, the arc that Venus would inhabit would be very small, but as the photo of Venus provided absolutely no context, you cannot make any point with it.

I appreciate the fact that you took the time and made the effort to create that drawing you posted. I just wanted you to "take it to the next level" - looking at it with proper scaling.

 

[Moses_Young]

Once again, I made the statement and, SEPARATELY, I made the claim.

Like I said earlier, READ MORE CAREFULLY.

smh...

Once again, I addressed what you implied. Your technique is called "muddying the waters" - trying to make out that Heliocentrism can explain that we can see an entire side of Venus, when it clearly can't. It's as simple as that, and "muddying the waters" - e.g. making a statement, and SEPARATELY, making another claim to make it appear that Heliocentricity has addressed the anomaly - is dishonesty. The simple truth is that Heliocentricity can't explain Venus like you were implying it could. If I'm wrong, prove it. (If I'm not, continue with your nonsense obfuscation technique about you making one statement, and then a separate statement about something related which only appeared to be about the same thing...)

I am not trying to make any point with it - @Moses_Young is doing that. I just want you to see the magnitude of the true reality of 'what is' by looking at it properly scaled.

Simple drawings are good for simple illustration; however, when it makes a significant difference where the truth of reality is concerned, nothing beats a drawing that has been made with proper scaling.

I was thinking that last night. If the Heliocentrists are really keen (which I doubt, 'cause I don't believe the ones in this debate even can do highschool geometry) they may make up their own diagram (which won't be to scale). Then the next step will be to use your excellent diagram, showing the sun's rays at the same angle, with the one provided previously, to refute their diagram.

But like I said, I don't expect a diagram from these Heliocentrists, 'cause I don't think they know geometry, whether one or more really is top of the Physics class, or otherwise.

 

[Dino246]

Once again, I addressed what you implied. Your technique is called "muddying the waters" - trying to make out that Heliocentrism can explain that we can see an entire side of Venus, when it clearly can't. It's as simple as that, and "muddying the waters" - e.g. making a statement, and SEPARATELY, making another claim to make it appear that Heliocentricity has addressed the anomaly - is dishonesty..

Reading two separate posts, assuming they say the same thing, and accusing me on the basis of that assumption, is disingenuous.

I’m done with your brand of stupid.

 

[kinda]

Reading two separate posts, assuming they say the same thing, and accusing me on the basis of that assumption, is disingenuous.

I’m done with your brand of stupid.

Come to the light, it's safe.

 

[GaryA]

Like I said earlier, READ MORE CAREFULLY.

(If I'm not, continue with your nonsense obfuscation technique about you making one statement, and then a separate statement about something related which only appeared to be about the same thing...)

Reading two separate posts, assuming they say the same thing, and accusing me on the basis of that assumption, is disingenuous.

Your statement is incorrect. He is not assuming they say the same thing. He is saying the exact opposite. He is saying that they are not the same thing - and that - you are acting as if they were the same thing.

In other words, it is you who are conflating the two things and not him.

His "beef" has nothing at all to do with comparing your 'statement' with your 'claim' - it is the ["separate"] 'claim' - which stands alone - that he is talking about.

I understand your concern about not having enough information about the video; however, it is moot where your 'claim' is concerned.

You cannot ignore the very-well established declarations of modern science that the "full face" of Venus - and Mercury also - may be seen in the form of a [complete/whole] sphere through a telescope.

Therefore, he does not need to prove it - modern science declares it! He is only making reference to this declaration - and, comparing it to another declaration (the solar system model) by the same entity - and, showing the inconsistancy of those declarations. (i.e. - they don't match - they actually disagree)

Sometimes, brother, it is you who needs to read more carefully...

 

[Dino246]

Your statement is incorrect. He is not assuming they say the same thing. He is saying the exact opposite. He is saying that they are not the same thing - and that - you are acting as if they were the same thing.

In other words, it is you who are conflating the two things and not him.

.
They are and always were distinct posts, made in response to two different people.

Deal with it.

 

[GaryA]

Deal with it.

He is only making reference to this declaration - and, comparing it to another declaration (the solar system model) by the same entity - and, showing the inconsistancy of those declarations. (i.e. - they don't match - they actually disagree)

Modern science does not agree with itself.

Deal with it.

 

[GaryA]

Exhibit: A

View attachment 253941

Exhibit: B

The below is a close-up image of Venus. If your diagram is true (inaccurate scale overlooked for the time being), how can we see the whole of Venus, when we should only be able to see part of it, due to the sun's light reflecting off of it?

Exhibit: C

Without context provided, I can make up any number of explanations that you will dismiss.

Exhibit: D

Context? What more do you need? According to the Ball Earth model, we should never ever be able to see all of Venus - or Mercury. It is that simple. The 'planet' would have to be on the other side of the sun for the whole thing to be illuminated. Anywhere on the Earth side of the sun you will not be able to see anywhere close to all of it - certainly while not seeing the sun at all in a completely black/dark sky.

Exhibit: E

I agree: we should only ever be able to see half of Venus at one time... just as we can only ever see half the moon at a time.

Exhibit: F

He meant (or if not, I mean) that you should never even be able to see one complete side of Venus. The angles don't allow for it, as your diagram shows that the part of Venus in view from the night side of the Earth will be partly shielded from the sun's rays, and therefore invisible or dark to the observer from Earth. Unless you hold that Venus gives off its own light, like the sun (and actually the moon, but I don't think Heliocentrists generally believe that)?

Exhibit: G

There is no reason why we should be unable to see a complete hemisphere of Venus. It just wouldn't be visible all the time, the same way the moon is not fully visible at all times.

Exhibit: H

Go back to your diagram, and explain to me how what you just said measures up to geometry. Either your diagram is wrong, or your statement here is.

Exhibit: I

I didn't claim that the entire hemisphere would be visible according to the diagram I provided. I merely proved that Venus would be visible.

Exhibit: J

It was what you implied, especially to a casual reader who may not know better. Your Heliocentric theory can't explain why an entire hemisphere of Venus can be seen (if Venus even be a ball), and yet rather than admit this to be a flaw in Heliocentric theory, you try and talk around it as if the inconsistency doesn't exist. It might appear dishonest to some.

Exhibit: K

It's not a flaw, and it's not an inconsistency. Simple geometry explains the reality.

Exhibit: L

Maybe you need to restudy, because your diagram is inconsistent with your statement. Like I said, mathematics doesn't lie, irrespective of what place you are (or would like to be) in a Physics class.

Exhibit: M

Once again, I made the statement and, SEPARATELY, I made the claim.

Exhibit: N

Once again, I addressed what you implied. Your technique is called "muddying the waters" - trying to make out that Heliocentrism can explain that we can see an entire side of Venus, when it clearly can't. It's as simple as that, and "muddying the waters" - e.g. making a statement, and SEPARATELY, making another claim to make it appear that Heliocentricity has addressed the anomaly - is dishonesty. The simple truth is that Heliocentricity can't explain Venus like you were implying it could. If I'm wrong, prove it. (If I'm not, continue with your nonsense obfuscation technique about you making one statement, and then a separate statement about something related which only appeared to be about the same thing...)

Exhibit: O

Reading two separate posts, assuming they say the same thing, and accusing me on the basis of that assumption, is disingenuous.

Okay, so we have:

~ Dino's 'diagram' (A)
~ Dino's 'statement' (G)
~ Dino's 'claim' (I)

Do I have this right so far?

They are and always were distinct posts, made in response to two different people.

Please point out specifically the two posts you are referring to here. What are the post numbers?

 

[Zandar]

 

[Gideon300]

Given the potential for experimental error in what you describe, a better experiment would be to mount the laser theodolites at a distance whereby the curvature of the Earth would hide one laser theodolite from the other, were Earth a ball. Similar experiments have been done with lasers, and surprise, surprise, time and again, the laser can still be seen from beyond where it would be blocked by the Earth's curvature, were Earth a ball. Ergo, Earth is not a ball.

What you claim is utter rubbish. The truth is exactly as I stated previously. I found this information in a surveyor's manual, not NASA or any of your other go-to nutty conspiracy theory sites. The laser beam IS blocked. Surveyors are legally required to account for the curvature of the earth. Exactly what happens depends on the distance the theodolites are apart. The earth is a rotating globe. Get over it.

 

[Moses_Young]

Exhibit: A

Exhibit: B

Exhibit: C

Exhibit: D

Exhibit: E

Exhibit: F

Exhibit: G

Exhibit: H

Exhibit: I

Exhibit: J

Exhibit: K

Exhibit: L

Exhibit: M

Exhibit: N

Exhibit: O

Okay, so we have:

~ Dino's 'diagram' (A)
~ Dino's 'statement' (G)
~ Dino's 'claim' (I)

Do I have this right so far?

Please point out specifically the two posts you are referring to here. What are the post numbers?

I love it. Are you a lawyer? 'Cause you just proved your point very well.

What you claim is utter rubbish. The truth is exactly as I stated previously. I found this information in a surveyor's manual, not NASA or any of your other go-to nutty conspiracy theory sites. The laser beam IS blocked. Surveyors are legally required to account for the curvature of the earth. Exactly what happens depends on the distance the theodolites are apart. The earth is a rotating globe. Get over it.

Lol. The laser beam isn't blocked. That's how we know the Earth is not a ball. I can see that upsets you by your insults, but its the truth.

You gots to keep up with the latest science and not trust propaganda from the 1960s if you truly want to know the truth, but I suspect you'd rather the ball-Earth fantasy you're comfortable with.

 

[GaryA]

I love it. Are you a lawyer? 'Cause you just proved your point very well.

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":

Okay, so we have:

~ Dino's 'diagram' (A)
~ Dino's 'statement' (G)
~ Dino's 'claim' (I)

Do I have this right so far?

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...

 

[GaryA]

I just want to specifically-and-properly identify Dino's 'diagram', 'statement', and 'claim' so that we can trace back through the conversation to be sure of just exactly what was said about what, etc. (as an attempt to solve all of this unnecessary confusion)

 

[GaryA]

I placed the 'Exhibit' labels for the purpose of allowing a direct reference to a particular part of the conversation if it should be needed in future posts.

 

[Dino246]

Exhibit: A

...

Okay, so we have:

~ Dino's 'diagram' (A)
~ Dino's 'statement' (G)
~ Dino's 'claim' (I)

Do I have this right so far?

Please point out specifically the two posts you are referring to here. What are the post numbers?

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.

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

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

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

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

 

[Zandar]

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.

 

[Gideon300]

I love it. Are you a lawyer? 'Cause you just proved your point very well.

Lol. The laser beam isn't blocked. That's how we know the Earth is not a ball. I can see that upsets you by your insults, but its the truth.

You gots to keep up with the latest science and not trust propaganda from the 1960s if you truly want to know the truth, but I suspect you'd rather the ball-Earth fantasy you're comfortable with.

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.

 

[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.

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.