- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe guy claims to think that the horizon is always at 'eye level' [I'm interpreting to mean at 90 degrees to local vertical]
The thing with GPS is it requires satellites, and orbits, it's a little difficult to orbit a flat Earth. I think the impossibility of GPS satellites is a major problem for the theory.
Being literally minded about the Bible isn't that bad. It fails to be compatible with a lot of empirical information, but even with the young Earthers at least it does ...[text shortened]... profession to intervene. Hopefully the NSA is monitoring this discussion and will tip them off.
for all observers regardless of altitude!
And is claiming to always observe it as such!
Which, would require some really whacked out physics, because not even a flat plane [infinite or otherwise] would
result in what he's describing.
Which means that he's either so delusional that he is permanently hallucinating...
Or he's trolling.
And I can't tell which.
But if it's the former... The 'satellite problem' is the least of his worries.
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Again with the attempts at pithy remarks, yet you remain faithful to your commitment to empty claims/charges.
Facts, son.
You need to come with facts.
Am I'm not even looking for facts which speak of a sophisticated understanding of the topic, either!
I'm just asking you bozos to do a little basic research beyond the confirmation bias you continue to hash out... when you're not simply diagnosing me with a mental disorder, that is.
when you're not simply diagnosing me with a mental disorder, that is.Defending flat earth theories is one of those things that is going to make people do that. If you have some sort of underlying point I suggest you make it. If you actually think the world is flat you may need to take a reality check.
Assuming your point is the one about accepting authorities, you have to bear in mind that part of a scientific education is learning how to do experiments. I don't need to take anyone's authority on things like the geometry of the Earth - I can work out how to test it for myself.
One of those parts of life is learning to accept that hidden conspiracies don't succeed. The evidence presented by science concerning things like the age of the Earth is overwhelming and I've looked at it. I freely admit that I've never personally measured the radiation from a grain of zircon but, well, I trust the people who did it not to be fibbing.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAnd more important you trust the system of checks and balances that mean that 'fibbing' inwhen you're not simply diagnosing me with a mental disorder, that is.Defending flat earth theories is one of those things that is going to make people do that. If you have some sort of underlying point I suggest you make it. If you actually think the world is flat you may need to take a reality check.
Assuming your point is the one ab ...[text shortened]... the radiation from a grain of zircon but, well, I trust the people who did it not to be fibbing.
science tends to quite rapidly get found out and fixed.
EDIT: And I still don't credit Freaky with the intellect to have an underlying point.
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'm now hooked on youtube presentations by flat-earthers.
If you actually think the world is flat you may need to take a reality check.
I didn't know these people existed.
Their "proofs" are insane and their alterantive models bizarre.
(20 mile diameter sun & moon)
btw GPS is all contolled by the illuminati and they do it with triangulation.
There are NO satellites at all!
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeHe may simply be trying to regurgitate something he's seen tried elsewhere. And maybe the word "cunning" is what is in play when doing this kind of thing rather the word "intellect". What seems clear to me is that he has completely lost control of whatever he was trying to do and I seriously doubt he will now dash his "underlying point" in vain on these jagged rocks-of-discourse of his own making. 😉
EDIT: And I still don't credit Freaky with the intellect to have an underlying point.
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeDo think FreakyKBH has been underplaying the value of thought on this thread?
LoL
It's always a treat to see self defined intellectuals underplay the value of thought. Someone once told me thinking is over rated, and so I said "That's what I thought"...
He didn't get it, and I didn't bother trying to explain it.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeI'll give you a clue. Don't bother defending people who argue for a flat Earth, whatever their motive. While empiricism cannot answer all questions it can answer this one. The World is an oblate spheroid. We just have too much evidence for this to be worth arguing with.
LoL
It's always a treat to see self defined intellectuals underplay the value of thought. Someone once told me thinking is over rated, and so I said "That's what I thought"...
He didn't get it, and I didn't bother trying to explain it.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd is claiming to always observe it as such!
The guy claims to think that the horizon is always at 'eye level' [I'm interpreting to mean at 90 degrees to local vertical]
for all observers regardless of altitude!
And is claiming to always observe it as such!
Which, would require some really whacked out physics, because not even a flat plane [infinite or otherwise] would
result in what he's d ...[text shortened]... 't tell which.
But if it's the former... The 'satellite problem' is the least of his worries.
Tut-tut, little monkey.
I'm not merely claiming this, I am providing proof of this.
This is proof you can test yourself, since your memory of your personal experience has failed you.
Here's what you're going to do to either prove me wrong and prove you right, or prove me right and prove you wrong.
1. Go to Google and type in the following, verbatim: "images from top of mount everest"
2. Observe said images which are returned from that search
3. Note how, in every single image wherein the horizon can be seen, it is in the direct line of sight of the camera, i.e., eye level with the photographer
Now, armed with this new information, compare the results from what I have offered
the horizon remains at eye level, regardless of one's altitude
in relation to what you have offeredthe further one climbs in altitude, the lower the horizon falls from eye level
.
Perhaps instead of playing the fool, you will start to play the objective researcher and do the work required to find truth.
Perhaps.
Which, would require some really whacked out physics, because not even a flat plane [infinite or otherwise] would result in what he's describing.
Looks as though the entire world submits itself to some really whacked out physics, if observations are anything to consider.
And since you're going to be revising your stance on things, you may want to brush up on geometry.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI put this to you, googlefudge, but have yet to see a response...
[b]I have watched ships disappear over the horizon.
You might want to try that experiment again.
Next time, bring high powered binoculars with you and watch a ship "disappear over the horizon" with your unaided eye.
Once the ship has 'disappeared,' use the binoculars and watch as the ship magically appears again, mysteriously floating above the hori ...[text shortened]... gh that the ends are higher than the middle because of the Earth's curvature.[/b]
I'm all ears.[/b]
I posted a link to an article that flat out says what the curvature should be.
Humor me.
How many feet per mile, roughly?
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour two hidden comments contradict each other.
[b]And is claiming to always observe it as such!
Tut-tut, little monkey.
I'm not merely claiming this, I am providing proof of this.
This is proof you can test yourself, since your memory of your personal experience has failed you.
Here's what you're going to do to either prove me wrong and prove you right, or prove me right and prove you ...[text shortened]... d since you're going to be revising your stance on things, you may want to brush up on geometry.[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOk you pea-brained moron.
[b]And is claiming to always observe it as such!
Tut-tut, little monkey.
I'm not merely claiming this, I am providing proof of this.
This is proof you can test yourself, since your memory of your personal experience has failed you.
Here's what you're going to do to either prove me wrong and prove you right, or prove me right and prove you ...[text shortened]... d since you're going to be revising your stance on things, you may want to brush up on geometry.[/b]
Here we go.
1: Google image search for pictures from Mount Everest.
2: Observe the horizon near the top of some images, and near the bottom of others, and near the
middle of most.
3: Conclude that placement of the horizon in the images is dependent on the angle of the camera
with respect to the horizontal, and that most people tend to put the horizon roughly in the centre
of the frame.
Conclude additionally that you are a complete and total moron, who not only doesn't understand geometry
but also doesn't understand photography or bother to check his own supposed proof.
You are wrong, and an idiot.