Proof of curvature

  • 106 Replies
  • 31503 Views
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #60 on: May 23, 2010, 09:50:41 AM »
Relevant:



Quote from:
The superior mirage can...cause objects actually located below the horizon to appear above it (remember the setting-sun example), a condition called looming. The superior mirage can also cause objects appear to be taller than they actually are, called towering...

Saying "it doesn't match with the math for a perfectly spherical planet so the Earth can't be at all round" does a fine job at demonstrating total ignorance of contributing variables.  Problems caused by the atmosphere are just the tip of the iceberg.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15977
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #61 on: May 23, 2010, 09:54:37 AM »
The simple fact is that no one has conclusively or even remotely shown that the pictures act as predicted in the Round Earth model and yet are claiming they act differently than the flat earth models with no actual evidence shown.

So what exactly DOES the flat Earth model say is the exact visible height of the buildings? 
If you can't provide that, then you have nothing to justify that flat earth shows this is possible.
Next time I travel to St. Catherines ( might be a while, I already have plans to travel to Guat. for experimentation ) I will make the appropriate field measurements which will surely invalidate the unsupported RE claims.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Lorddave

  • 15415
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #62 on: May 23, 2010, 10:17:33 AM »
The simple fact is that no one has conclusively or even remotely shown that the pictures act as predicted in the Round Earth model and yet are claiming they act differently than the flat earth models with no actual evidence shown.

So what exactly DOES the flat Earth model say is the exact visible height of the buildings?  
If you can't provide that, then you have nothing to justify that flat earth shows this is possible.
Next time I travel to St. Catherines ( might be a while, I already have plans to travel to Guat. for experimentation ) I will make the appropriate field measurements which will surely invalidate the unsupported RE claims.

Umm... did I ASK for field measurements?
I asked for the mathematical formula.  Like if I'm at 50KM away and I'm looking at something from 2m off the ground, what can I see, how small does it appear, and what is hidden from my line of sight by what property, if anything?
I mean, you must have a model to show what I saw and to accurately predict that there would be some parts of the buildings I couldn't see.... right?

oh and I added a picture to my previous post showing sizes.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 10:19:35 AM by Lorddave »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #63 on: May 23, 2010, 10:54:00 AM »
Umm... did I ASK for field measurements?


*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #64 on: May 23, 2010, 11:18:41 AM »
Umm... did I ASK for field measurements?


Please refrain from low content posts in the upper forums.  Thank you.

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #65 on: May 23, 2010, 11:49:03 AM »
Rowbotam (and Tom Bishop) says that the human eye can't see objects below one minute of arc. Thats just a LIE: Betelguese, a star from Orion, is clearly visible with naked eye and, surprise, it's only 0 0' 0.044 "long". This was measured by Michelson over 90 years ago with an interferometer (like young experiment, roughly the same but the light source was a star). So the prespective effect is clearly a LIE since we can see stars with naked eye.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #66 on: May 23, 2010, 11:53:47 AM »
Umm... did I ASK for field measurements?


Please refrain from low content posts in the upper forums.  Thank you.

Trekky, you should know better.

And Sliver, please refrain from memberating.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15977
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #67 on: May 23, 2010, 12:57:26 PM »
The simple fact is that no one has conclusively or even remotely shown that the pictures act as predicted in the Round Earth model and yet are claiming they act differently than the flat earth models with no actual evidence shown.

So what exactly DOES the flat Earth model say is the exact visible height of the buildings?  
If you can't provide that, then you have nothing to justify that flat earth shows this is possible.


-edit-

But if you REALLY want it...



Off by less than 28m is pretty damn good, don't you think?  Especially since I don't know the height of the observer, the number of pixels that may have been removed when I resized the image, and the variation of angle the two pictures are at.
Without know the height of the observer, if the original image was resized, the location that the shot was done, etc there is no way to have any results that are not completely bunk.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #68 on: May 23, 2010, 01:22:35 PM »
The simple fact is that no one has conclusively or even remotely shown that the pictures act as predicted in the Round Earth model and yet are claiming they act differently than the flat earth models with no actual evidence shown.

So what exactly DOES the flat Earth model say is the exact visible height of the buildings?  
If you can't provide that, then you have nothing to justify that flat earth shows this is possible.


-edit-

But if you REALLY want it...



Off by less than 28m is pretty damn good, don't you think?  Especially since I don't know the height of the observer, the number of pixels that may have been removed when I resized the image, and the variation of angle the two pictures are at.
Without know the height of the observer, if the original image was resized, the location that the shot was done, etc there is no way to have any results that are not completely bunk.
Well, given how much of the tower is missing, and the fact that the picture was not taken underwater, and the water appears to only be causing mild waves, I'd say the photographer was at sea level, give or take a few feet.  Also, even if the image was resized, the inset image is matched up to the tower in the original.

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #69 on: May 23, 2010, 01:38:59 PM »
John Davis, which height margin would be inacceptable?
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

*

Lorddave

  • 15415
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #70 on: May 23, 2010, 04:30:39 PM »
Number wise?  Sure.  After all, I need to know the exact distance from the Center of the Earth the camera lens was and exactly how far away it is to get an exact number.

I'm not looking for an exact number though.  What am I looking for?  Evidence of curvature. 

What I posted is to show that the numbers are fairly close to the currently believed radius of the Earth and I also estimated the height of the observer.  Even if they were horribly wrong, all that says is that the Radius of the Earth or the height of the Observer is not what I thought.  BUT it still shows curvature.

Until you show me the Flat Earth Math on how a building can be partially obstructed by a flat body of water, you have nothing but excuses.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38894
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #71 on: May 23, 2010, 08:20:03 PM »
I know they aren't, which is why a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship.

Then why has this phenomenon never been documented photographically?

Because the documentor didn't have a camera.

And no one has bothered to repeat the experiment in order to document it photographically?  If you don't have the money, then perhaps you should try applying for a research grant.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #72 on: May 24, 2010, 04:59:24 PM »
Never mind perspective etc., if a shipfull of Flat-Earthers took a voyage around the world, would they expect to fetch up against a huge ice wall?

If that didn't happen it would surely blow a huge hole in their theory, wouldn't it? Or am I missing something?

Apologies if this is not the place to post this.

*

Lorddave

  • 15415
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #73 on: May 24, 2010, 05:13:05 PM »
Never mind perspective etc., if a shipfull of Flat-Earthers took a voyage around the world, would they expect to fetch up against a huge ice wall?

If that didn't happen it would surely blow a huge hole in their theory, wouldn't it? Or am I missing something?

Apologies if this is not the place to post this.

Not the best place, but we'll go with it.

According to all Flat Earthers, navigation requires something to navigate by.  Since the Stars are the most common navigational tool, you follow that or the Sun.  Since the Earth is a flat disk, East and West is counter-clockwise and Clockwise.  This maintain the illusion that you're traveling in a straight line even though you're turning.

Of course, since the amount of turning would be known by the pilot, air travel makes me question why they feel that such turns wouldn't be noticed.  Especially when they're trying to go straight.

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #74 on: May 24, 2010, 05:21:43 PM »
Never mind perspective etc., if a shipfull of Flat-Earthers took a voyage around the world, would they expect to fetch up against a huge ice wall?

If that didn't happen it would surely blow a huge hole in their theory, wouldn't it? Or am I missing something?

Apologies if this is not the place to post this.

Not the best place, but we'll go with it.

According to all Flat Earthers, navigation requires something to navigate by.  Since the Stars are the most common navigational tool, you follow that or the Sun.  Since the Earth is a flat disk, East and West is counter-clockwise and Clockwise.  This maintain the illusion that you're traveling in a straight line even though you're turning.

Of course, since the amount of turning would be known by the pilot, air travel makes me question why they feel that such turns wouldn't be noticed.  Especially when they're trying to go straight.

A gyroscope based INS would be hard to tamper with would tell you if you were turning even if the turn was very very very slight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system
Using an old analog type system there is no way to tamper with it.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 05:24:06 PM by Space Tourist »
Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #75 on: May 24, 2010, 06:23:58 PM »
What I've learnt from looking through various threads on this forum:

1. You can't argue with people who dismiss the overwhelming evidence against them as 'lies' and 'conspiracy'.

2. You shouldn't waste your time trying! If all that stuff Averti's posted simply receives responses such as
     'we don't trust NASA here' and, when he took apart the FAQ: 'all you're doing is stating the RE Point of view, proving nothing' (i'm       paraphrasing).... FE is essentially a religion I guess, an article of faith.

Still, reading RE responses has helped my understanding of how we can tell the earth is a spheroid, so maybe there is a point - schooling the none too bright who don't accept the FE theory but don't know about the proof of the earth's actual shape (guilty).

Errr, ok im just rambling off topic now. Could you please explain how this appearing to travel in a stright line but actually travelling in a circle works? How would a circumnavigation appear to an eyewitness on board?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #76 on: May 24, 2010, 07:08:37 PM »
Errr, ok im just rambling off topic now. Could you please explain how this appearing to travel in a stright line but actually travelling in a circle works? How would a circumnavigation appear to an eyewitness on board?

You're actually traveling along a curve in RE too.  There is no "straight line" about it, except along a great circle like the equator (the only latitude where that's the case).
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #77 on: May 24, 2010, 08:33:07 PM »
Errr, ok im just rambling off topic now. Could you please explain how this appearing to travel in a stright line but actually travelling in a circle works? How would a circumnavigation appear to an eyewitness on board?

You're actually traveling along a curve in RE too.  There is no "straight line" about it, except along a great circle like the equator (the only latitude where that's the case).

Funny thing about a sphere there is more then one "great circle" route...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle
Being all 3 Dimensional and all.
Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #78 on: May 25, 2010, 05:16:57 PM »
Errr, ok im just rambling off topic now. Could you please explain how this appearing to travel in a stright line but actually travelling in a circle works? How would a circumnavigation appear to an eyewitness on board?

You're actually traveling along a curve in RE too.  There is no "straight line" about it, except along a great circle like the equator (the only latitude where that's the case).

Funny thing about a sphere there is more then one "great circle" route...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle
Being all 3 Dimensional and all.

Yes.  And how many of them are latitudes?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Lorddave

  • 15415
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #79 on: May 25, 2010, 06:18:34 PM »
Looks like the thread has derailed.

I claim victory in the name of RET due completely to the fact that no FEer can show the mathematical equation that shows that the buildings would vanish seemingly beneath the ocean on a Flat Earth as the picture shows.

Y'all want me to retract that statement?
Give me your equation.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4887
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #80 on: May 25, 2010, 11:56:11 PM »
LD, is this supposed to be a joke?

I explained very clearly to you what is going on...but you do not want to pay attention...here we go again...

Let us use the figure you came up with, that is 143 meters which would constitute the visual obstacle, if the photograph is taken from St. Catharines, from a height of 1.65 meters.

If I am able to come up with any photograph taken from an altitude of, say, 2-10 meters, which would show details from the Toronto skyline of under 143 meters, then the debate is over.

In order to prove the earth is round, based on photography, is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT than to prove it is flat.

Let us suppose now you come up with a photograph that gives a visual obstacle of 160 meters (or even 155 meters). Then, immediately, we can use the sinking ship effect to explain this fact on a flat earth. No matter to which height you go, over 143 meters, it is the same thing.

If you want to prove the earth is round, you must come up, in the case of Lake Ontario, St. Catharines - Toronto, with a photograph with an exact measure of about 142-145 meters (for the visual obstacle). The photograph from the skyscrapers forum shows details way above that.

Now, until I am able to come up with a photo which does show details of the skyline found to be at under 143 meters, you would have the upper hand.

But I did post here one of the most remarkable photographs possible, which does show that there is no curvature over Lake Ontario.

Let us go back to the facts.

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



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.

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.

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).

Here is a panorama of the Toronto skyline:

http://www.vignetted.com/images/200705/20070510_sm.jpg
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg

Now another three photograph section, in which we see the theory written by Rowbotham, once again, confirmed:

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

Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #81 on: May 26, 2010, 02:51:44 AM »
sure in a vacuum
You for got to account for atmospheric lensing and any boundary layer interactions
also depending on what compass point that was taken from Toronto is at high lat. if it was taken east west then the curve is less then then if it was north south...

You lose.
Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #82 on: May 26, 2010, 04:01:51 AM »
Then, immediately, we can use the sinking ship effect to explain this fact on a flat earth.


Do you have any equations for this effect to explain how it works and how it can predict phenomena under certain conditions?

No? Oh well that's sad.

*

Lorddave

  • 15415
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #83 on: May 26, 2010, 04:43:49 PM »
Levee, you made no sense.

Quote
If I am able to come up with any photograph taken from an altitude of, say, 2-10 meters, which would show details from the Toronto skyline of under 143 meters, then the debate is over.

The higher you go, the less obstruction there is.  That's in the equations.

Quote
Let us suppose now you come up with a photograph that gives a visual obstacle of 160 meters (or even 155 meters). Then, immediately, we can use the sinking ship effect to explain this fact on a flat earth. No matter to which height you go, over 143 meters, it is the same thing.

The sinking ship effect is the result of the Earth being spherical.
If you are referring to the Rowbotham version of it, then you're referring to something false.  You can't obscure things on a flat Earth.  It's IMPOSSIBLE!  You can remove detail until it blurs together but you CAN NOT HIDE THINGS!  And a telescope or other magnification methods will restore the detail of the object.

His entire argument is that anything close to the ground will vanish simply because it's close to the ground and the ground and object will blur together.  Again, wrong.  It vanishes for several reasons: Atmospheric refraction, curvature of the Earth, and mostly because simply get's smaller and smaller.
Good example:
http://mercuriophotography.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/img_7715_6_7.jpg
As the cars get farther away, they get smaller, which means the space under them is also smaller.

You also have to take into account that the human eye is a lens so light does refract inside it.  This gives us a wider field of view than our eyes would normally allow.  Want proof of that?  Fold your fingers so they resemble a tube.  Now put that over your eye and adjust it until you feel that the hole matches the size of your eye.   Best to do this with your eye closed so you aren't biased.  When you open your eyes, you'll be able to see your some of your palm and fingers.  Again, we have a fairly good field of vision.  That's why we see perspective like it is.  If you want to see TRUE perspective, make a small hole the size of your eye and look at it.  Everything you see through it is what you'd see if you didn't have a lens in your eye.


Now back to the original point.
Your photos show curvature.  Note how the bottom of the buildings are hidden but the tops still have detail. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/
This one...
This one shows the dome's reflected sunlight refracting in the air.  It's not uncommon.  You can see the same thing when the sun sets or before it rises: you always see light before the sun.
You'll notice not only is the skydome orange, the same color as the two "shiny" objects next to it, but you'll also notice an absence of the skydome here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/
or here:
http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg

It's the same principal of light on the horizon or clouds with silver linings: Light refracts around the edges of an object ever so slightly.  And with the temperature of a hot metal dome being much, much greater than the cool air of the lake, I'd wager to say that there would be significant refraction.


All of this, by the way, has a mathematical way to calculate it.  Yours doesn't.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4887
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #84 on: May 29, 2010, 12:50:25 AM »
You seem not to understand what is going on.

Here is the photograph:



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.

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...

Even if we accept your figure of 143 meters, there are still some 53 meters which can be seen, a fact which is impossible on a round earth.

Here is the most complex formula for terrestrial/atmospheric refraction, you CANNOT see the roof top of the Sky Dome from that distance, no matter what you say...

http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#Terrestrial


55 kilometers, Hamilton - Toronto lakeshore west condominiums.

At that distance, there would be a 59 meter curvature, with an visual obstacle of 195 meters, given the position taken by the photographers right there on the beach (2 meters altitude).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/

Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto



No 59 meter curvature, no 195 meter visual obstacle, cut the crap.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream/

Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontario Beach in Hamilton

There is also a picture of the author right there on the beach...in that photo album...




From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=keyword&s_search_type=keyword&p_product=HSHH&p_theme=gatehouse (on the archive webpage, May 28, 2003, Oh Say Can You See article)







'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.


THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat (you can also use the above formula on atmospheric refraction to see how impossible it is to see shapes of buildings over a 128 km distance).
« Last Edit: May 29, 2010, 12:51:59 AM by levee »

*

Lorddave

  • 15415
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #85 on: May 29, 2010, 02:59:18 PM »
While I don't want to ignore your terrestrial equation, I am no expert on it and thus don't understand some of it.  I also don't have the relevant data such as atmospheric pressure, temperature, ect...  Makes it hard to use the equation.

Before I post the rest of it, I need some help.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg?v=0

How did you know where that photo's subject was?  I can't seem to find the buildings in any capacity.  I found the beach, but not the apartment/condo buildings.


-Edit-
Hold on: You and I are missing something.  Something vital...

In those pictures, why can't we see the Waterfront condominiums?
http://www.downtownrealty.ca/BLDG/250-queesn-quay.html
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Toronto_2007.JPG

This picture shows the location of those three buildings.  They are in front of the CN tower and the Dome.  They're also taller than the Dome.  So why can't we see them in any of the pictures you've showed?
BTW:
The building is 99m tall.
http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&lng=3&id=112621
Taller than the Dome yet it's not visible.  How do you explain that?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 08:03:41 AM by Lorddave »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4887
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #86 on: May 30, 2010, 06:01:07 AM »
More details about the fact that the buildings from Milwaukee were seen all the way from Holland.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).


Lakeshore Blvd. West is located some 5 km south-west of Toronto, here are some views (here is the map of Lake Ontario: http://www.sailski.com/images/OntarioMap.jpg the portion shown in the photographs is located between Port Credit and Toronto, some 50-55 km distance; EVEN IF that view from Lakeshore West would be located, say, some 10 km away from the photographer, it still proves immediately that there is no curvature whatsoever between the two geographical points, as the surface of the water is completely flat, with no midpoint curvature, OR an ascending slope):

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4733/hamtoronto.jpg
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/4948/torontolakeshorewest.jpg

The author of the photographs from Hamilton specifies clearly that he is right on the beach from Hamilton, read the captions please.

In case you still have doubts about the fact that there is no curvature across Lake Ontario, here are more photographs for you:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1090

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33777#p33777

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183#p34489
« Last Edit: May 30, 2010, 06:45:15 AM by levee »

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #87 on: May 30, 2010, 06:16:38 AM »
Hey, levee, how about just explaining why I could not see land while only about 50 miles off the coast of Maryland?  I should have been able to see Ocean City, but I couldn't.  The ocean was calm, the sky was clear, what kept me from seeing any of the buildings on land?

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #88 on: May 30, 2010, 07:09:59 AM »
In case you still have doubts about the fact that there is no curvature across Lake Ontario, here are more photographs for you:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1090

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33777#p33777


I see curvature in those photos, what's your point?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2010, 07:29:26 AM by flyingmonkey »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4887
Re: Proof of curvature
« Reply #89 on: May 30, 2010, 07:21:58 AM »
Perhaps you were looking somewhere else...no curvature in those photos...

ETOBICOKE - TORONTO 1.8 meters curvature, that is, on a round earth we should see a rising slope, a visual obstacle equal to the photographer's height (1.8 meters), but the surface of the water is perfectly flat:






Port Credit - Toronto, 14.5 km, 4 meters curvature, absolutely nonexistent, there isn't one centimeter/one inch of curvature over this distance:




Perhaps what you want is a round earth with no curvature; it doesn't work that way...there is no ascending slope, and no midpoint curvature in these photographs...


Please explain to us how, in your view, the surface of the water WOULD STAY CURVED (in the round earth theory)...you can't use attractive gravity because there ain't any...here is the complete demonstration:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542

I think, fm, that you have no idea what a round earth flying through space at some 107000 km/hr actually implies...without attractive gravity round earth theory falls flat on its nose...