Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.

  • 136 Replies
  • 31016 Views
?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2012, 12:28:44 PM »
Squevil the drop is 8" in the first mile and progressively drops more the more miles you go. ENaG has a table of drop off per mile.

ahh cheers dude. is there a table for this i can see other than enag? im not keen on that book for source material. my belief is that it had a different motive other than proving the earth was flat, but thats derailing and another story.

if its not just 8" for each mile than i will have to retract my argument as my maths is not good enough to work it out correctly. i was too interested in what most teenage boys do when i was at school....

@ mau, i now see your real issue is with the jewish community. im safe with the thought that everything im told is not just a lie and im not so insecure.
but for both hoppy and mau, lets not forget that you are NOT stood at the top of a sphere when looking across to the horizon. even levee has suggested that you do not and many flat earth protagonists rightly say the same. if you do not believe me mau then carry on being naive and calling people who disagree with you a liar. 

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2012, 12:32:41 PM »
levee those pictures you last posted are very convincing. these should be added to the faq as evidence.

i enjoy reading your posts. can you answer me (please keep it as short as possible) how we do see curvature at sea/on lakes too? the best example being the sinking ship. is that ocean swell?

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2012, 12:36:23 PM »
levee those pictures you last posted are very convincing. these should be added to the faq as evidence.

i enjoy reading your posts. can you answer me (please keep it as short as possible) how we do see curvature at sea/on lakes too? the best example being the sinking ship. is that ocean swell?

I looked through some old forum posts since I know these pictures have been brought up about a million times (and I'm too tired today to really rehash everything said) so if you really do think it's interesting you might want to look through some of the old threads and arguments as well. For instance here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,39108.msg979978.html#msg979978

Long story short, there's a lot of "there's no curvature" vs "I can clearly see curvature." Some attempt to actually measure it would be a little more pragmatic.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2012, 12:40:37 PM »
cheers, there is a much better thread here somewhere where a poster made their own pictures and documented it all. it may of been bought up a million times but yet again its being discussed here.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2012, 12:53:17 PM »
randomism, you do not understand what is going on.

In none of those threads, not ever, not a single time, was any RE able to add one centimeter of curvature; they were thoroughly defeated, especially when I brought up the Tunguska explosion which was seen all the way from London.


And I am the only one who can explain the sinking ship effect, without resorting to S. Rowbotham's book.




http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/#


The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.


The roof top of the Sky Dome visible (well intended round earth supporters brought to our attention that the height of the Sky Dome is actually 90 meters, and not 86; at least 5 meters of the roof is visible, that would bring it back right to about 86, but we will use here a value of 90 meters).


Even with atmospheric reffraction (which is absent in this photograph) we might substract a few meters, there would still be about 50-55 meters remaining which cannot be explained on a round earth.


Here is the beach in St. Catharines:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg
(already we can see the top of the CN Tower, due to the fact we are using a poor quality camera)

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg
(with a better camera, more details become available, confirming the theory described in Earth is not a Globe, WITHOUT resorting to bending light)

There is a difference of 60 meters between the accepted round earth measure of 150.5 meters (under which you could see nothing), and the visible portion of the top of the Sky Dome...



Note that I have used a 50 km distance (actually 52-53 km) and a 3 meter height for the photographer (actually 2).


In order to see the roof top of the Sky Dome, we would have to ascend to at least 20 meters, that is, on top of a five story building; as we can see from the photographs taken right there, we are right on the St. Catharines beach itself.



Now another three photograph section:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/# (visible roof top of the Sky Dome, 60 meters difference between the accepted value of 150.5 meters, and the height of 90 meters)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/# (better camera, better picture, with more details)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/#

If we imagine Toronto as a gigantic ship, with the CN Tower as its masthead, we get a complete confirmation of the theory in:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

?

Mau

  • 33
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2012, 12:57:36 PM »
"i now see your real issue is with the jewish community. im safe with the thought that everything im told is not just a lie and im not so insecure."

Lier.

For any visitor reading through here, and in doubt if should follow the lies of squevil and randomism and others like them: re-read what I posted, go to some high place and see. Now research, take a look on 3d models of flat and round earth, THINK for yourself having in mind that people LIE (we have a tendency to believe, since we expect people to tell the truth, but on our time there is liers and misguided people that don't want to accept the reality) and they will seek even absurd explanations to try to save the lie they live in, or, knowing the truth, to try to keep you inside the cage, to make your strugle for truth cease by lying to you: "this is the truth you fool, how dare you doubt? are you dumb or insane?".

The warning is given, think for yourself and work to CEASE the DOUBT! If you want to keep thinking Earth is a globe, then you are forced to find on your own decent explanations for what I said and for the result of the others experiments that were done and detected NO CURVATURE.
Put the info together later and make your decision.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2012, 01:39:36 PM »
i will not participate in a debate if the other side will just shout liar for no reason. levee you make a good argument for the fes. i do see a lot is missing in the picture and cut off because of the lake. if the earth was flat then we would see the other coastline.

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2012, 01:40:58 PM »
Mau, no one is going to seriously respond to an argument that consists of "stop listening to jews, everyone is a liar." Your attitude is highly counter-productive to your cause.

levee,

Okay, so you admit that there is curvature in that picture, just that it's not as much as you would expect from RET. Or rather, you admit that you don't see the buildings from ground level, and attribute it to Rowbotham's perspective trick.

Could you please explain how you've determine that a curvature of ~60m would, under RET, obscure objects all the way up to 158m? The angle of a 55km arc would be asin((55/6368.63) = about 8636 microradians (note that it's close to 55/6368.63 itself). The angular difference between the tangent line of your position and the tangent line to where the building 55km away is would be equal to the angle of the arc. This is a really small angle, so you don't lose very much by the building angling back a bit. So shouldn't the amount that's obscured be not that much different from the curvature drop of the earth?

I'm also not seeing anywhere in the pictures you've linked how higher resolution imagery is recovering obscured objects, could you clarify this for me as well? With the CN tower being a tiny spec you could hardly determine that it's showing proportionately less vertical information, but even then it's not as if the two pictures were taken from the same location/elevation/angle/etc. To really confirm that hypothesis you'd really need to use two different cameras in the exact same position and orientation.

One other thing: you provide an elevation as the height of the observer. Doesn't this assume a completely smooth surface of the earth and negate any variations in land altitude over sea level?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 02:02:33 PM by randomism »

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2012, 03:16:01 PM »
cheers, there is a much better thread here somewhere where a poster made their own pictures and documented it all. it may of been bought up a million times but yet again its being discussed here.
This one?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50707.0.html




http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/#

Even with atmospheric reffraction (which is absent in this photograph)
You sure about that?

Here's a couple pictures I took with the same magnification from two different heights.  15-20 feet and about 6-8 inches.


The comparison.  The higher objects appear closer to the water in the low elevation picture, and below a certain point everything near the water appears compressed.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11432
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2012, 05:13:53 PM »
Squevil the drop is 8" in the first mile and progressively drops more the more miles you go. ENaG has a table of drop off per mile.

ahh cheers dude. is there a table for this i can see other than enag? im not keen on that book for source material. my belief is that it had a different motive other than proving the earth was flat, but thats derailing and another story.

if its not just 8" for each mile than i will have to retract my argument as my maths is not good enough to work it out correctly. i was too interested in what most teenage boys do when i was at school....

@ mau, i now see your real issue is with the jewish community. im safe with the thought that everything im told is not just a lie and im not so insecure.
but for both hoppy and mau, lets not forget that you are NOT stood at the top of a sphere when looking across to the horizon. even levee has suggested that you do not and many flat earth protagonists rightly say the same. if you do not believe me mau then carry on being naive and calling people who disagree with you a liar.
Squevil, there are other sources on the net with the same info. I also double checked the trigonometry of the chart and it is correct. You can feel comfortable using the chart in ENaG.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #40 on: September 24, 2012, 06:44:03 PM »
@ Levee:  I'm kind of confused.  As I think Randomism was trying to point out.  In the pictures of Toronto you keep pointing out that the city is higher in elevation than your point of reference.  Doesn't this kind of make up for the Earth's drop off due to it's curved surface?  By your own calculations the City wouldn't be out of view by the Earths curved surface from your point of reference.  As for not seeing an incline, I believe that falls in to how humans perceive things.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 06:46:08 PM by digimonkey »

?

Mau

  • 33
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #41 on: September 24, 2012, 10:13:33 PM »
See some strategy to make a topic look like a fail one? give some lies, and in the end disperse the subject as if was nothing. Coincidence? Saw it too many times to consider it that.

I was away from home, now I am back, and I thought that in the end it could be a good thing after all the bad posts of the liers here, since it will allow me now to make this side to side comparition here:

-Flat Earth-  VS  -Round Earth-

1) we see the world flat, no signal of any curvature on small or large scale:

 Flat Earth:               |  Round Earth:
there is no curvature | there is a perpetual infalible refraction effect of the light on the
                               | atmosphere, active all the time on all climates, that prevents us
                               | of see any curvature on the horizon whatsoever, close or far
                               | away. And it never activates when we are looking at long curved
                               | constructions or hills. If you don't believe in this you are dumb.

2) The horizon is always "glued" to a straight line of vision, creating the bowl effect that only happens on a 3d model of a flat earth, a model that reproduce the horizon perfectly.
On a 3d model of a round Earth this effect is impossible because the line of the horizon don't stay "glued" to a straight line of vision, since the terrain on the distance is progressively going down in altitude from your vision - to see the horizon on a round earth you have to look down a little, and progressively more down as you go up in altitudes, a effect that visible not happen on reality -. also the curvature is aparent and become more and more aparent with altitude.

 Flat Earth:                                         |  Round Earth:
the Earth is flat, that's why the horizon | There is a giant optic ilusion going on, it
works exactly the same way it works in | somehow pulls the land up to the sky to reach
a 3d model of a flat earth. The horizon  | a straight line of vision. No, it's not magic and
gives exactly the same effect of a long  | you would be dumb to believe otherwise, do
tunnel because he is a straight line.      | you wanna join the nuts club?.

3) There is this scientist that wrote a book and for decades went into debates. He made lots and lots of experiments that can be remade by anyone, and he made lots of claims, including the example of very long constructions that used a datun of straight lines and are know for be a straight, nivelated construction, that don't turn into a curve or start to go up in altitude, something that it's impossible to happen on a round earth. And that the proofs of this constructions were available by the government for anyone to verify. He debated for decades, so for sure he was not lying about this constructions or his experiments. Also his book could be easily "destroyed" if the experiments would be proved to be false or a failure, yet we don't see mention of this today.

 Flat Earth:                                          |  Round Earth:
The experiments show that there is no   | He was wrong, go do the tests yourself like
curvature whatsoever, no loss of altitude| he did. But if you do the tests and come back
in straight lines for kilômeters, and that  | here saying the Earth is flat, you did it wrong
waters on lakes are completely flat. This | and now decided to believe in a fantasy, that
proves that Earth is flat and we are being| the world, imagine that, is flat.
lied to.                                                  |

 Flat Earth:                                         |  Round Earth:
All the world is controled by evil mens, | Conspiracy theories, bouchet, we choose our
this is very, very easy to prove with a   | presidents, it's not a fake show. And even if
avalanche of information and               | true, how come they have the whole world?
incontestable facts. So it's not difficult  | China and Japan certainly don't belong to
to ponder that they can lie to us on this| then. And if indeed they control the whole
magnitude, since we are following their | world, a lie like this could not be done. Also
television, cinema, newspapers, books, | our scientists are not part of some conpiracy,
universities, etc by some 2 centuries    | they tell us the truth Because Science, Law of
now.                                                  | Physics, Gravity, Quantum Theory...EINSTEIN!
                                                         | Take that you nuts (I bet they are religious).

 Flat Earth:                                         |  Round Earth:
NASA belongs to them, it is a giant Lie  | The NASA is made to explore the space, it's
Machine made to ilude mankind of this  | our next step for the future, and take care of
round Earth crap, the Jews treat us like | the satelites that mankind needs. If not
dumb cattle (and to they we, the goyim,| 100%, they are almost that trustworth. They
are bellow the animals and evil at heart,| really went to the moon, I don't know why
so a Jew is always taught by their         | they never went again or why they revealed
fathers, and that he can lie to, torture   | so little images of the round planet earth and
and even kill remorsely any number of  | other planets with the pass of time, but now,
goyim as long as he take care (check    | on the age of realistic computer graphics they
the torah and declarations of jews        | finally let us look through the cameras of
thenselves if you doubt))                     | certain satelities, take a look on youtube. And
                                                        | even if was a farse and they not went to the
                                                       | moon on the first time, on the others they must
                                                      | have gone. Also SCIENTISTS, TRUE SCIENCE,
                                                     | EVOLUTION, BIG BANG, INFINITELY GIGANT
                                                    | UNIVERSE, COSMOS, STAR TREK, STAR WARS,
                                                   | SUPERMAN, etc, etc. All proved, or almost all if I
                                                  | concede. Plus the Jews are good people I guess,
                                                | REMEMBER THE HOLOCAUST, THAT WAS NOT A
                                               | FARSE you crazy liers, go look at the pictures... see?
                                              | now forget any other killing on history, this one must
                                             | always be a giant shield for the jews, they deserve... I
                                            | guess? Why people in geral don't talk about the jews?
                                           | Why are they so secretive, so rich and powerfull,
                                         | owning so much... companies... nah, NAH, what I am
                                               | thinking? For a moment I almost became a nut job
                                                   | like you guys. 


I could have made more complete, but for now it is this: Choose your side
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 10:17:04 PM by Mau »

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #42 on: September 24, 2012, 10:44:20 PM »
I don't even know what "bouchet" means.

Mau, levee has in fact shown a picture where there IS curvature (http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3238/toronto34.jpg). That is to say, only the top part of a distant object is visible. Please refer to his post for more.

levee's argument is that this curvature is less than what you'd expect as influenced by the accepted size of the earth in RET, although I'm not clear on his exact formulation for this. He claims that the deviation is instead due to a natural trick of perspective that causes distant objects to fall beneath the horizon line. I'm curious, what is your belief or explanation for this phenomenon?

I'd like to know more about what you've done with 3D models. One interesting thing I've found is that the position and size of the sun and the moon in the sky match a 3D simulation of two bodies orbiting the earth in a simple elliptical motion.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 10:53:17 PM by randomism »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #43 on: September 24, 2012, 11:06:07 PM »
Okay, so you admit that there is curvature in that picture, just that it's not as much as you would expect from RET.


That is exactly the point: there is no curvature whatsoever, that is why I included not one but two sequences of photographs, which show that the better the quality of the camera used, the more details will become available.

These photographs show that on a flat surface (flat earth) the lower portion of the visual target will disappear before the top part does.


I have already posted the correct formulas for the curvature/visual obstacle: 60 meters is the correct figure for the city of Hamilton; the values of 2 m - 158 m and 3 m - 150.5 m are also correct: on a spherical earth NOTHING whatsoever could be seen under a height of 158 (if you are located in St. Catharines at 50 km distance, at an elevation of 2 meters), respectively nothing could be seen under a height of 150.5 m (3 meters elevation).


There is no need to worry about refraction: the roof top of the Sky Dome is exactly where it is supposed to be, but here we go again.


http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm# (go to the Apparent altitude of distant object due to terrestrial refraction section)

Elevations of 2 and 3 meters will not permit the roof top of the Sky Dome to be seen over a 50 km distance.


Therefore, in this photograph http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/# on a spherical Earth there is no way the roof top of the Sky Dome could be seen, only on a flat surface of the lake could we see those details.


Let us go to the English Channel.


Here are the original website addresses as they were posted originally on flickr.com:



http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2548/cap2q.jpg

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/9423/cap1rp.jpg


The photographers standing between Cap Gris Nez and Cap Blanc Nez (we will ascend to 30 meters to satisfy all requirements), the photo is called Shipspotting:






No ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.4 meters, no descending slope, full view of the Dover White Cliffs (where there should have been a 16.5 m visual obstacle) - there is no curvature whatsoever across the English Channel over a distance of 34 km.




Cap Gris Nez, with full view of the White Cliffs of Dover, no 22.4 meter midpoint curvature.


Let us go the strait of Gibraltar:



No ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of some 3.3 meters, no visual obstacle of 5 meters, full view of the other side, no curvature whatsoever.


From the same spot we even have a video:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#

Between 38:28 and 38:35, no curvature whatsoever across the strait of Gibraltar (on a round earth, the curvature would measure some 3.35 meters, with a visual obstacle of some 5 meters on the other side of the strait), no ascending slope, just a perfectly flat surface of the water.



ps Mau, levee has in fact shown a picture where there IS curvature (http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3238/toronto34.jpg). That is to say, only the top part of a distant object is visible. Please refer to his post for more.

levee's argument is that this curvature is less than what you'd expect as influenced by the accepted size of the earth in RET,


Please read my messages again...especially this one.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 11:09:28 PM by levee »

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #44 on: September 24, 2012, 11:31:08 PM »
I'm sorry levee, but I still don't understand either:

a) Where this 158m cutoff point is calculated from or
b) Why a 2m or 3m height is chosen, neglecting any contribution due to height variation in local altitude

And I don't see where you've shown that detail is recoverable from a higher resolution camera, because you haven't shown an experiment performed with two cameras at the same location and orientation, only differing in resolution (optical zoom) - or do you think this is irrelevant? If so, could you explain how?

Barring that, I have another question for you (and Mau, depending on just what he believes in): why is a phenomenon that describes distant objects as being compressed non-linearly against or beneath the horizon line of a flat earth any more plausible than the opposite phenomenon of objects being lifted above the horizon on a spherical earth? At a first glance both seem equally plausible. The problem is that you aren't presenting observation of this phenomena against something that isn't the horizon. For instance, one could track the position of a plane in the sky as it recedes away from you at a constant altitude. If conventional perspective is correct its position will be inversely linearly proportional to its position from you. If Rowbotham's perspective is correct it'll recede beneath this. Unless this perspective only works for the horizon.

I'd say that at the very least you could demonstrate that this value is predictable for various observed recessions given different distance. A single measurement is just a data point, not a theory. It hardly does anything to model or predict physics.

Of course, I don't actually believe that is a universal law that lifts distant light upwards, although I do believe that the atmosphere can cause diffraction. 29silhouette provides some good images where this non-linear expansion distortion appears near the horizon. On the other hand, I haven't seen evidence of a non-linear compression distortion due to the effects of Rowbotham distortion. Nature is generally okay with non-linearity (it's full of them), but tends to rather hate sharp discontinuities (I mean things like simple laws, please no one show me jagged rocks or anything ;p). I do admit that the Bedford water level-esque tests are the most compelling FET evidence I've seen, but it's all rife with uncertainty, inconsistency, and reliance on special properties that only benefit it - while traditional physics at least seems to offer reasonable explanations for it while offering several other problems with FET. Of course I don't expect that to convince any of those here who think just the opposite, but it'd be kind of refreshing to see that someone actually has some understanding for why the other side feels that way instead of thinking they're just a fool, sheep, or liar.

I've actually been wondering something.. the Rowbotham perspective effect is one thing, but why exactly would one believe that the effect goes away with higher resolution? Is there any physical prediction or at least explanation one could give that would explain such a thing? I actually feel like I must be missing something here - maybe someone more knowledgeable in this can explain it to be - but I don't even understand how the phenomenon benefits FET (or rather, why anything else would contradict it). Of course truth is truth, but this has been such a hard thing to actually show in pictures that if it's not problematic for the theory you'd think there'd be less certainty over it. Definitely not something you'd trust just because Rowbotham said it, seeing as how there are a good many things he claimed that I don't see anyone here showing much credence towards..

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #45 on: September 25, 2012, 12:03:54 AM »
You have the formula and the graphic which goes along with it, use it.

For a distance of 50 km, from an elevation of 2 meters, you could see nothing under 158 m.

I included various photographs taken right there on the beach of St. Catharines so that you would get an idea what the elevation of the photographer was; I also included the maximum elevation required to see the roof top of the Sky Dome over a 50 km distance: some 20 meters.


You should have other things to worry about (by the way, I never use bendy light in any of my messages, either as an argument, or as a device to try to divert the discussion).


How would the surface of the water stay curved on a spherical earth?

As we have seen, there is no such thing as attractive gravity.

How did the Nasa/MIR missions take place, given the fact that there is no attractive gravitational force?


What type of a scenario do you believe in? BB or space-time continuum hypothesis? How could the elements have formed in either case, given the helium flash paradox?


And yet, you worry about the horizon line...



Let us do away with any horizon line.





At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


The authors of the very well documented work on Tunguska mention:

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/

The inhabitants of Central Siberia saw the fall and explosion of the meteorite over an area with a radius of 600-1000 km.


Another eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle


Let us go over to Europe (the explosion took place at 7:15 - 7:20 local time, therefore it was 0:15- 0:20 am in London, at an elevation of 7 km):

The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

In Berlin, the New York Times of July 3rd reported unusual colors in the evening skies thought to be Northern Lights:

"Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens ... bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappears at dawn."

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html


The visual obstacle from Tunguska measures 7463 km; we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus; no other meteorological/astronomical phenomenon occurred at that time in the world, no such records exist.

That is why this is the very best proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.


Amazingly, even the original trajectory of the ball lightning which caused the explosion, was seen all the way from London:

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.



T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


Tesla ball lightning device details:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/teslaweapons.htm
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 12:10:41 AM by levee »

?

Mau

  • 33
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #46 on: September 25, 2012, 08:06:06 AM »
Awesome Levee. I knew about this explosion but I din't knew all this details, really cool.
Also, hello to you, since I am new to the forum and stuff.

randomism:

I will hope for a moment that you may not be a agent and a lier, so I will see if I can give some satisfatory answer 1-

1) "I don't even know what "bouchet" means."
-english is not my native language, so I writed "bouchet", when I meant "bullshit", hahaha.

2) "Mau, levee has in fact shown a picture where there IS curvature (http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3238/toronto34.jpg). That is to say, only the top part of a distant object is visible. Please refer to his post for more."
-First, lots of kms and no curvature to the sides. Second, if I stay on this spot, and send a friend half distance to the front and full distance to the side he will tell me by the phone that I am in a straight line toward the city.
Third, it's obvious on the picture that the water is flat toward the city, not curved, and it's impossible to consider that there is a magic refraction on the middle of the water preventing us from see the curve, or else we would not be able to se a big wave coming from the horizon toward us. The picture was taken just a little above the ground, maybe a person standing up or a little higher, and, considering that the correct mathematic tell us that should be a elevation on the middle of the water, from this point toward the city, of around 100 meters. And considering that the refraction of light on the distance compress the things close to the ground (to your vision), it's obvious that, althought that thing by the tower (I forgot the name) is 90 meters high, the full or almost full roof is visible. This means that, on this distance, we are seeing a object of some 45 meters high.

Possible conclusions:
as our eyes tell us, completely flat distance or there is some kind of mirage going on that is showing to us a object that should not be visible on this distance.


3) "I'd like to know more about what you've done with 3D models. One interesting thing I've found is that the position and size of the sun and the moon in the sky match a 3D simulation of two bodies orbiting the earth in a simple elliptical motion."

- As I explained in more details on the first post, I created a gigant flat earth map, with a sky, and positioned the camera on the land, let it straight and went up and down with it without change the angle.
Result: our horizon and the bowl effect, exactly.
Then I made a gigant globe of earth, with a sky, and transfered the camera from the land of the flat earth model to the top of the land of the 3d earth, without chanching the angle. I positioned it on the top of the globe, went up and down, really close to the surface and a little up to the sky, and turned around to the left and right, always without mess with the straight angle.
Result: all the time the line of the horizon is bellow the center of the camera, the straight line of vision, the curvature is aparent close to the ground and increases a lot with altitude, and there is no bowl effect, since it's impossible on a round surface.

Possible conclusions:
Proved, and easily verified by anyone on 3d models, that our horizon is exactly the one of a flat earth. It's not the horizon of a round world. Earth is flat or there is a gigantic optic ilusion that, by some incredible coincidence, changes our horizon to that of a flat earth by pulling up the land, that we should not be able to see, up to the straight line of vision (that is obrigatory looking directly to the sky, since Earth is not concave).

The 3d model of a Sun and Moon orbiting a round world work perfectly, as you said and by what I know, and work perfectly on a flat Earth scenary too, after you take out the lies and let on the model a more correct size of the Sun and Moon.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #47 on: September 25, 2012, 08:28:00 AM »
mau post some pictures of your flat earth 3d map please.

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #48 on: September 25, 2012, 08:52:44 AM »
Okay, I checked the diagram now, sorry for missing that. I redid the math, although just with the Pythagoreon equation and it worked out like you specified. I apologize for taking so long to work this out.

But the big question remains: how are you accounting for differences in land elevation between the two sites? According to this site: http://veloroutes.org/elevation/?location=toronto%2C+canada&units=e the elevation of Hilton, Canada is about 250 meters, while the elevation of Toronto is only about 100 meters. Now, to really calculate what would be visible between the two you'd need to know the elevation of everything in between, and it'd be non-trivial to work it out exactly. But you can't really deny that this big difference in land elevation opens up a lot of potential for error in your calculations. In the worst case, were the land very narrowly raised to those elevations only at those points, you'd see just about everything on the other side on a spherical earth. The more plausible scenario would have the horizon at some elevation level at some point between the elevation difference, giving you a recession that's lower than what you'd get with no elevation difference but still present.

So please tell me if you think this is incorrect reasoning, or if the elevation reports are wrong.

On a similar note, your claims about the visibility of that ball of fire seem to neglect the mention in the article that it was believed have happened 5-10km in the air...
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 08:54:59 AM by randomism »

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #49 on: September 25, 2012, 09:05:04 AM »
-english is not my native language, so I writed "bouchet", when I meant "bullshit", hahaha.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up ;p

-First, lots of kms and no curvature to the sides. Second, if I stay on this spot, and send a friend half distance to the front and full distance to the side he will tell me by the phone that I am in a straight line toward the city.

If you look at the math I performed earlier you'll see that for a span of about 4km, roughly depicted by looking at relative size of the CN tower (minus some part of it not being visible), you'd only expect curvature on the sides of about a third of a meter, which is not even one tenth of one pixel of the width. Even if you got a shot of a nice horizon line without buildings obscuring it, on an absolutely perfectly flat section of land (constant elevation relative to sea level), you still would not be able to identify such curvature in a picture of that resolution.

Third, it's obvious on the picture that the water is flat toward the city, not curved, and it's impossible to consider that there is a magic refraction on the middle of the water preventing us from see the curve, or else we would not be able to se a big wave coming from the horizon toward us. The picture was taken just a little above the ground, maybe a person standing up or a little higher, and, considering that the correct mathematic tell us that should be a elevation on the middle of the water, from this point toward the city, of around 100 meters. And considering that the refraction of light on the distance compress the things close to the ground (to your vision), it's obvious that, althought that thing by the tower (I forgot the name) is 90 meters high, the full or almost full roof is visible. This means that, on this distance, we are seeing a object of some 45 meters high.

I don't think that it's obvious at all that the water does or doesn't have any curvature, and this is a moot statement if you don't first identify exactly what sort of effect you expect the given amount of curvature to produce.

Fact is, levee does show a picture where you can only see the top of a building in the distance. How do you personally account for this?

The 3d model of a Sun and Moon orbiting a round world work perfectly, as you said and by what I know, and work perfectly on a flat Earth scenary too, after you take out the lies and let on the model a more correct size of the Sun and Moon.

In that case, are you able (and willing?) to prepare a simulation that uses a model of the sun and moon in motion above the earth to predict their exact positions and sizes in any given viewer's sky? Bear in mind that the RET model also explains positions of the stars and phases of the moon, all by straightforward optics and the bodies orbiting an elliptical path (with velocity predicated by the laws of general relativity) and rotating at a relatively fixed rate about their axis.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #50 on: September 25, 2012, 09:07:08 AM »
Fact is, levee does show a picture where you can only see the top of a building in the distance. How do you personally account for this?


I already took care of this, in my previous messages...


The water level of Lake Ontario is about 75 metres above sea level (measured at the Harbourmaster's Gauge in New York City) and the top ground elevation in Toronto is about 133 m higher, at an elevation 270 m above sea level, in the Keele Street-Steeles Avenue area.

The beach in front of Toronto is AT THE SAME LEVEL as the lake itself.

The beach in front of Grimsby is AT THE SAME LEVEL as the lake itself.

Vinemount Ridge is some 213 meters above the lake level.


Such concerns are elementary...


Therefore, there are no errors in the calculations: no 59 meter curvature can be seen/observed in any of the photographs.


On a similar note, your claims about the visibility of that ball of fire seem to neglect the mention in the article that it was believed have happened 5-10km in the air...

I always include the correct and necessary bibliography: the explosion itself did take place at some 7 km in the air, as I wrote in my previous message - how this figure was arrived at, is the subject of one of the works I made available for you.



The visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.


The visual obstacle from Tunguska measures 7463 km; we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe.


The Tunguska explosion provides the most fantastic proof that the surface of the Earth is absolutely flat.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 09:08:49 AM by levee »

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #51 on: September 25, 2012, 09:31:16 AM »
The visibility of an explosion several KM in the air that spread out light throughout the sky is really not subject to the same calculations. The London article doesn't report seeing the same center of the blast, merely that the sky was bright.

The rays of light from the sun can easily reach Siberia and London simultaneously, they're not on opposite sides of the earth. This should be obvious by the fact that they're only 7 hours apart in timezones, unless you think that 9AM in London and 4PM in Siberia are never simultaneously in daylight. The fact that it was daylight in Siberia and not London at that particular time is irrelevant (not being day in London would only make the blast easier to see)

?

Mau

  • 33
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #52 on: September 25, 2012, 10:20:22 AM »
-"mau post some pictures of your flat earth 3d map please"
I am not in home right now, and later I will go to the university. I will only get in home close to midnight, so only tomorrow fo me to post pictures. But it's not really necessary, take 4 small objects of the same size, go to the ledge of a table, position some flat big thing that you may have, like some big book or some large table (or some other flat long thing on the kitchen) and position the flat thing on top of this 4 small objects. Position your eye on the ledge of the table and look: the horizon. Go a little up and down while looking straight the best you can and you will see. Now just imagine that you are turning with the view not changing, that create the bowl effect, the effect that we are on a concave world.
What would happen if it was a curved table and curved object? you would tell me that it's obvious that the exit, the "horizon" would be below the straight vision, not even close to it.
Done.
I will see tomorrow then to post some pictures of the 3d model (although my 3d model of earth is really ugly real close, that's why I recomended for people to search for a 3d model to download instead of creating your own, like I did).

And randomism:
-"If you look at the math I performed earlier you'll see that for a span of about 4km, roughly depicted by looking at relative size of the CN tower (minus some part of it not being visible), you'd only expect curvature on the sides of about a third of a meter, which is not even one tenth of one pixel of the width. Even if you got a shot of a nice horizon line without buildings obscuring it, on an absolutely perfectly flat section of land (constant elevation relative to sea level), you still would not be able to identify such curvature in a picture of that resolution."

Are you dumb? Or you are a lier?

-"I don't think that it's obvious at all that the water does or doesn't have any curvature, and this is a moot statement if you don't first identify exactly what sort of effect you expect the given amount of curvature to produce.
Fact is, levee does show a picture where you can only see the top of a building in the distance. How do you personally account for this?"

It is obvious, 100% that in geral it is flat, any moron can notice that it looks like a corridor, it don't look like a ondulated ramp. The elevation, if it existed, could not be on the format of a pyramid.
And things get small and compressed on the distance with the light of sun (or is the evaporation of the water here? I don't know) so it comes a distance too far that only the tall buildings are still visible by day, on a calm day.

-"In that case, are you able (and willing?) to prepare a simulation that uses a model of the sun and moon in motion above the earth to predict their exact positions and sizes in any given viewer's sky? Bear in mind that the RET model also explains positions of the stars and phases of the moon, all by straightforward optics and the bodies orbiting an elliptical path (with velocity predicated by the laws of general relativity) and rotating at a relatively fixed rate about their axis."

Again, are you this dumb or are you a liar? Any model can be made to work relative to the perspective of who observe, you just have to adjust the things that create the effect accordingly to your desire of ilusion or accord to the reality.

EDIT: I din't noticed the "general relativity" part, sorry. General relativity is a completely bullshit on crap jones mountain of poo, hahaha. Einstein was a jew, a evil evil men with specific orders and objectives to reach.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 10:27:18 AM by Mau »

?

Mau

  • 33
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #53 on: September 25, 2012, 10:33:42 AM »
It's part of the strategy: create false rules on science, then people that would want to explain a flat earth, and don't know that this "rules of physics that can't be ignored" are lies, or filled with lies and omissions, would have to come up with weird and "visible false" explanations. Serve to other things too.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #54 on: September 25, 2012, 10:34:26 AM »
The visibility of an explosion several KM in the air that spread out light throughout the sky is really not subject to the same calculations. The London article doesn't report seeing the same center of the blast, merely that the sky was bright.


But it is, that is why it represents the best proof of the fact that the Earth is really flat and not spherical.

The calculations are pure gold: they prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the visual range limit for that particular event.

There is a 7463 km curvature between the river Tunguska and London.

How could the London "article" report seeing the center of blast, in the period 1-4 July, 1908, when nobody had any idea about what really happened (nobody, that is, except Nikola Tesla)?


That is why the eyewitness reports are sensational: they show that the people all over Europe, Stockholm, Antwerp, Berlin, and London did see, instantaenously, the blast over the Tunguska area.

Not only that, but the trajectory of the ball lightning was also seen for some 10 minutes from London: read the accounts I included.



The rays of light from the sun can easily reach Siberia and London simultaneously, they're not on opposite sides of the earth. This should be obvious by the fact that they're only 7 hours apart in timezones, unless you think that 9AM in London and 4PM in Siberia are never simultaneously in daylight. The fact that it was daylight in Siberia and not London at that particular time is irrelevant (not being day in London would only make the blast easier to see)

We have reached the same conclusion with you, as with every RE: you want a spherical earth, but no curvature. You can't have it both ways.

Do you understand what is going on?

Let me repeat.


We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe.


By your reasoning, we should have daylight 24 hours a day: the reason that would not happen on a spherical Earth, is the fact that there is such a thing called curvature.


Let me remind you: the curvature between London and Tunguska measures some 7463 km (that is why I said you can kiss goodbye the horizon line dispute).


There is no way anything could have been seen beyond a 400 km range in Tunguksa, on the morning of June 30, 1908.


Newspapers could be read at 0:15 in London; in Antwerp the glare of what looked like a huge bonfire rose twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches were clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers found they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of the night of June 30th.


« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 10:38:35 AM by levee »

Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #55 on: September 25, 2012, 11:18:23 AM »
7 hour timezone difference means that they're NOT on the other side of a spherical earth. The difference would have to be 12+ hours. Look at Google Earth, you can clearly see London and Siberia visible on the same side of the earth simultaneously. An explosion spreading all over the sky CAN potentially be seen in both areas, depending on how far away the light and materials in the atmosphere spreads. This 400km limits everything to having spread out over a 7.5km elevation. With enough elevation up away from the atmosphere up to the entire hemisphere can see the same thing - for instance the stars visible in the entire northern hemisphere.

The first article you linked even includes an explanation of lights being affected by dust spreading in the atmosphere. While I'm sure you deny this, I think it's pretty weak that your self-alleged most sure-fire flat earth proof relies on a one-time occurrence whose circumstances weren't fully recorded or understand. You'd think everyday observable things would rank higher than that.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #56 on: September 25, 2012, 11:43:57 AM »
You are on a roll, don't stop.




Trust me. London is located on side of a globe, Tunguska (the site of the blast) on the other side.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, could have been seen given the colossal curvature of 7463 km.



I am sorry, we cannot ascend anywhere else; the blast did take place at some 7 km in elevation, and it was not a comet, an asteroid, or a meteorite, please read the references.


ps just imagine the amount of dust required to light the sky over Stockholm so that a photograph could be taken outdoors without flash apparatus; they would choke well before having a chance to enjoy the view.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 12:35:03 PM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #57 on: September 25, 2012, 12:47:50 PM »
And a reminder: the effect of the blast was immediate - the explosion was seen instantaneously at 0:10 am (London time); no chance to take into consideration any kind of dust propagation (we might talk about this subject, given a timespan of hours/days, but then I will bring up something else: the fact that the trajectories of the clouds do show that we live on a completely stationary Earth and the restoring forces paradox).

Moreover, as I have repeatedly said here, the initial trajectory was also seen from London, 0:00 - 0:10/0:15 am, when no explosion could have taken place as yet.

And we understand everything about the blast at Tunguska: that is why I included the best references pertaining to the ball lightning research done by Tesla.

Tesla's own writing: he said on May 3, 1907, in the New York World, just one year before the Tunguska explosion, that his "magnifying transmitter" has already produced 25 million horse power, and that "a similar and much improved machine now under construction, will make it possible to attain maximum explosive rates of over 800 million horse power." Tesla also states in that article and in an article the following year in Wireless Telegraphy & Telephone, 1908, pp. 67-71, that he will be able to direct electrical energy "with great precision" to any point of the globe.


« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 12:13:04 AM by levee »

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #58 on: September 25, 2012, 05:45:13 PM »
It's part of the strategy: create false rules on science, then people that would want to explain a flat earth, and don't know that this "rules of physics that can't be ignored" are lies, or filled with lies and omissions, would have to come up with weird and "visible false" explanations. Serve to other things too.

so you dont have a any pictures of this programme you have... noted...

?

Mau

  • 33
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
« Reply #59 on: September 25, 2012, 08:54:06 PM »
I had not finished the book yet, so I was reading a little more before sleeping and I read experiment 15.
So, go to hell squevil and randomism, you can't possible be that dumb, you 2 are liers to yourselfs or to the others. Flat Earth is a proved thing, 1+1=2.

I know what it is to not jump to conclusions, to take a look, not go by emotions of the moment, and to think a lot and compare. But I know too what is a fact that I can say "yeah, I know that this is what happens on reality, everyone knows. Who says otherwise is lying or doing a mistake".

I only curse/say bad words when I am angry, but I will not say that to you guys, what if you sincerelly repent? I will let the "go to hell" as a way of speak, not a curse, but you 2 will have a place in there, perhaps soon, what if you die tomorow? No worries?
Don't matter, I don't want to talk with you 2 again, so I will not answer back except if needing to confront a lie that would be dangerous for a possible good reader.

As I said on the start, it's proved, Earth is Flat, and it's not a crazy thing, it's the reality and people in geral are induced/fooled to think that this is crazy talk.

And I will post tomorrow some picture of the 3d model for the curious people, with some explanation.