Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe

Quote from: markjo on September 10, 2017, 02:23:34 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 10, 2017, 12:22:24 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 12:16:29 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 10, 2017, 12:05:26 PM

You will have to wait 30 days for his brilliant reply.

Did you condamn him to Davy Jones' locker for 30 days ?

Yes!

Seeing a just about every one of his posts belongs in AR, does anyone else think that it might be time to consider putting him in Purgatory for a while instead banning him over and over and over and over again?

And deminish our numbers even more ?...... i have sore thumbs allready typing from whatever device lying around in my living room

No Papa is always sounding like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, the globers come crawling  out of every corner to answer his music  .
I like papa and the spell he seems to have on globers...... they can't resist, can't resist...

The REtards are so gay, they love dancing for poppa.

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 02:37:16 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 10, 2017, 02:10:44 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 12:13:27 PM

A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !

And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
 

And you still have yet to prove one lie or faked picture from them.

You are right i proved multiple lies and numerous false constructed images that fail to mimick reality.
Are you referring to a specific ' grand delusion'  or NASA lie ?
You seem to refer a lot to that 'one' proof or lie.
Is their a mother of NASA lies and fabricated imagery underneath the examples i provided ?

Ah i understand..... you want me to look even deeper instead of providing the obvious proof as i did and reveal the one ( sounds almost prophetic  ) that explains all the fakery.

Thanks for the clues, but it could take a while i'm afraid !

I'm still waiting for you to prove a single lie or prove a single image faked.
Let's start with that.
You have claimed there are lies, and claim images are "obvious" fakes, but that's just empty claims.

Why don't you stop saying this bs, plenty of lies and frauds have been shown to you.

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 10, 2017, 04:28:23 PM

I'm still waiting for you to prove a single lie or prove a single image faked.
Let's start with that.
You have claimed there are lies, and claim images are "obvious" fakes, but that's just empty claims.

Why don't you stop saying this bs, plenty of lies and frauds have been shown to you.

Put up or shut up!

Quote from: markjo on September 10, 2017, 02:23:34 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 10, 2017, 12:22:24 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 12:16:29 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 10, 2017, 12:05:26 PM

You will have to wait 30 days for his brilliant reply.

Did you condamn him to Davy Jones' locker for 30 days ?

Yes!

Seeing a just about every one of his posts belongs in AR, does anyone else think that it might be time to consider putting him in Purgatory for a while instead banning him over and over and over and over again?

And deminish our numbers even more ?...... i have sore thumbs allready typing from whatever device lying around in my living room

Purgatory is an alternative to banning him.  It's simply limiting him to posting only in Angry Ranting and Complete Nonsense where he can be as obnoxious as he wants. 

No Papa is always sounding like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, the globers come crawling  out of every corner to answer his music  .
I like papa and the spell he seems to have on globers...... they can't resist, can't resist...

Maybe if he wasn't so angry and abusive, maybe he would be able to stick around longer so that he could get his message out to more people.

Well, he still has his RiF alt.

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 10, 2017, 04:28:23 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 02:37:16 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 10, 2017, 02:10:44 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 12:13:27 PM

A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !

And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
 

And you still have yet to prove one lie or faked picture from them.

You are right i proved multiple lies and numerous false constructed images that fail to mimick reality.
Are you referring to a specific ' grand delusion'  or NASA lie ?
You seem to refer a lot to that 'one' proof or lie.
Is their a mother of NASA lies and fabricated imagery underneath the examples i provided ?

Ah i understand..... you want me to look even deeper instead of providing the obvious proof as i did and reveal the one ( sounds almost prophetic  ) that explains all the fakery.

Thanks for the clues, but it could take a while i'm afraid !

I'm still waiting for you to prove a single lie or prove a single image faked.
Let's start with that.
You have claimed there are lies, and claim images are "obvious" fakes, but that's just empty claims.

Why don't you stop saying this bs, plenty of lies and frauds have been shown to you.

No, plenty have been claimed.  The proof is usually, that looks like cgi to me!
No lies, no fakes.  You, for instance never show any evidence of anything.  You just snipe at people.

Quote from: markjo on September 10, 2017, 02:23:34 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 10, 2017, 12:22:24 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 12:16:29 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 10, 2017, 12:05:26 PM

You will have to wait 30 days for his brilliant reply.

Did you condamn him to Davy Jones' locker for 30 days ?

Yes!

Seeing a just about every one of his posts belongs in AR, does anyone else think that it might be time to consider putting him in Purgatory for a while instead banning him over and over and over and over again?

I don't have the power to purgatory him, but I wouldn't object to bamming him forever.

If there is a consensus among the active mods, then maybe someone could PM John to do it.

I wish people could just ignore him, but I don't see that ever happening.

I think it's more for the morbid entertainment value.  He's like a horrible train wreck where you just can't look away.

Quote from: zork on September 10, 2017, 12:40:03 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 12:13:27 PM

A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !

And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
 

Not cosmological  highpriests but ordinary people who have learned more about topic than you. And you are too lazy to learn. But you can go and tell the military that the rangefinders are fantasy tools because they use same principles as astronomers when calulating distances.

When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.
The only proof is their fantasy space travels,....otherwise all claims fall flat completely.
To multiply the measurements on earth with an extravagant factor is simply unheared of with the scientific method in mind.

"When I use your logic" - There is only logic.  It doesn't belong to anyone, it just is.  Logic is either sound/valid/unsound/invalid or weak/strong depending on the form (deductive vs. inductive).  So, don't use a term you don't understand.

"The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space."  Do you offer proof, other than anecdote or ad hominem, that is independently verifiable (an experiment that I can do) which proves the problem you mention?  Can you provide a peer reviewed journal article, paper, or book that discusses this problem?  Let's look closer at your statement here:

So you believe there to be a problem with how the speed of light is calculated.  Somehow the fact that it's been calculated on Earth within "specific properties" that this invalidates the measure due to the environments not being uniform with the "supposed vastness of space".  I'm I following so far? 

Here are my questions:

You mention specific properties; therefore these are not general and should be named, what specific properties are you referencing?

What environmental variables are affecting the measurement of the speed of light and can they be compensated for?  If they cannot be compensated for, what is preventing us from doing so?

Why don't you stop saying this bs, plenty of lies and frauds have been shown to you.

Lies of FEers for sure.
Baseless claims by FEers of lies from NASA, sure.
But they are yet to prove any of these claims.
The closest they have come is showing that they can make a crappy fake.

How about you try proving one of these lies or frauds?

When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.

No, the first measurement of the velocity was not "calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space".

Ole Roemer and the Speed of Light
In 1676, the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer (1644–1710) became the first person to measure the speed of light. Until that time, scientists assumed that the speed of light was either too fast to measure or infinite. The dominant view, vigorously argued by the French philosopher Descartes, favored an infinite speed.

Read the rest in: Profile: Ole Roemer and the Speed of Light.

But whatever do you mean by, "specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space"?

Later and more accurate measurements were done on earth as in

Who determined the speed of light?
In the ensuing centuries, a number of other scientists worked to determine the speed of light and, using improved techniques, came up with increasingly accurate calculations. French physicist Hippolyte Fizeau is credited with making the first non-astronomical measurement, in 1849, using a method that involved sending light through a rotating toothed wheel then reflecting it back with a mirror located a significant distance away. One of the first precise calculations of light’s velocity was made in the 1920s by American physicist Albert Michelson, who carried out his research in the mountains of Southern California using an eight-sided rotating mirror apparatus. In 1983, an international commission on weights and measures set the speed of light in a vacuum at the calculation we use today: 299,792,458 meters per second (186,282 miles per second)—a speed that could circle the equator 7.5 times in a single second.

From: HISTORY STORIES, Who determined the speed of light?

The only proof is their fantasy space travels,....otherwise all claims fall flat completely.
To multiply the measurements on earth with an extravagant factor is simply unheared of with the scientific method in mind.

I can't fathom what you mean here!
How can you claim that "The only proof is their fantasy space travels"? Spacecraft  distances are effectively measured by radar, in the sense that all rely on the lo resicely known velocity of light.

The distances to the moon, nearer planets and the nearer stars was measured by parallax centuries ago.
The distance to the moon was measured by radar as early as 1946 and the distance to Venus in 1958 and 1959.
These measurements are quite consistent with each other, so I fail to see your problem.

But, when the method of parallax has been used for distances on earth, the distance to the moon, the distances to the planets and the sun how can you claim

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 01:32:31 PM

When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.

No, the first measurement of the velocity was not "calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space".

You are a funny guy at times aren't you ?
No ? what ''no'' did i assume something ?
You can not transpose things that are measured on earth to the universe and say it is rock solid evidence for everything that occurs in the universe.
You can grasp at straws all you want but when earth is scaled down to a globe of 30cm then Andromeda is still 650.000 000 000 km away,....what reasonable proof do they have for anything that can withstand the scientific method ?

They can measure the unimaginable and lately even beyond all reason.....a disturbance the size of 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to proof supposed gravitational waves.
In order to achieve such precision they built  a 4 km long head-vaporizing laser with a perfect wavelength detecting sub-proton space-time ripples.
They can calculate the distance to the moon in mm.

But the curvature formula is still flawed and roughly measured  !!!
And to built a device that shows the curvature and curving ocean water is still absent in 2017
More and more people dismiss ''your'' hogwash made out of a pendulum, sinking shipmasts, unlimited refractional magic and testimonies from some fantasy figures from Babylon and Greece long gone.

If they can measure their precious gravity waves then asking for an accurate curvature calculator up to at least a mm for a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000+ km (all the way around earth ) shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 11, 2017, 04:01:16 AM

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 01:32:31 PM

When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.

No, the first measurement of the velocity was not "calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space".

You are a funny guy at times aren't you ?
No ? what ''no'' did i assume something ?
You can not transpose things that are measured on earth to the universe and say it is rock solid evidence.
You can grasp at straws all you want but when earth is scaled down to a globe of 30cm then Andromeda is still 650.000 000 000 km away

They can measure the unimaginable and lately even beyond all reason.....a disturbance the size of 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to proof supposed gravitational waves.
In order to achieve such precision they built  a 4 km long head-vaporizing laser with a perfect wavelength detecting sub-proton space-time ripples.
They can calculate the distance to the moon in mm.

But the curvature formula is still flawed and roughly measured  !!!
And to built a device that shows the curvature and curving ocean water is still absent in 2017
More and more people dismiss ''your'' hogwash made out of a pendulum, sinking shipmasts, unlimited refractional magic and testimonies from some fantasy figures from Babylon and Greece long gone.

If they can measure their precious gravity waves then asking for an accurate curvature calculator up to at least a mm for a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000+ km (all the way around earth ) shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.

But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.

EDIT: Its dimensions are listed below (dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole mile): Polar Diameter: 7,900 miles (12,714 kilometers) Polar Circumference: 24,860 miles (40,008 kilometers) Equatorial Diameter: 7,927 miles (12,757 kilometers) Equatorial Circumference: 24,902 miles (40,076 kilometers) Earth's total surface is an area that measuring 197,000,000 square miles (09,600,000 square kilometers)

Quote from: rabinoz on September 11, 2017, 04:01:16 AM

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 01:32:31 PM

When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.

No, the first measurement of the velocity was not "calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space".

You are a funny guy at times aren't you ?
No ? what ''no'' did i assume something ?
You can not transpose things that are measured on earth to the universe and say it is rock solid evidence for everything that occurs in the universe.
You can grasp at straws all you want but when earth is scaled down to a globe of 30cm then Andromeda is still 650.000 000 000 km away,....what reasonable proof do they have for anything that can withstand the scientific method ?

They can measure the unimaginable and lately even beyond all reason.....a disturbance the size of 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to proof supposed gravitational waves.
In order to achieve such precision they built  a 4 km long head-vaporizing laser with a perfect wavelength detecting sub-proton space-time ripples.
They can calculate the distance to the moon in mm.

But the curvature formula is still flawed and roughly measured  !!!
And to built a device that shows the curvature and curving ocean water is still absent in 2017
More and more people dismiss ''your'' hogwash made out of a pendulum, sinking shipmasts, unlimited refractional magic and testimonies from some fantasy figures from Babylon and Greece long gone.

If they can measure their precious gravity waves then asking for an accurate curvature calculator up to at least a mm for a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000+ km (all the way around earth ) shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.

I would guess that no scientists has built a device to prove the curvature because no scientists considers it unproven.  We have been to space, we have been to the moon and seen it.  Just because a few people cry foul with zero evidence doesn't change that.
Provide some proof of all the lies from all the space agencies and all the people and all the photos then maybe you have a leg to stand on.  But you have yet to do that.  You just claim it is fakery and lies.
Then, for some reason, you feel like scientists should spend time and money proving something that has been proven countless times to people who won't believe them anyway.
It makes no sense.

Quote from: zork on September 10, 2017, 12:40:03 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 10, 2017, 12:13:27 PM

A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !

And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
 

Not cosmological  highpriests but ordinary people who have learned more about topic than you. And you are too lazy to learn. But you can go and tell the military that the rangefinders are fantasy tools because they use same principles as astronomers when calulating distances.

When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.

What logic? You refer to some "cosmological highpriests". There are no such people. There are only people who have learned more about that topic.  And rangefinders use same principle as astronomers use. This has nothing to do with distances and where speed of light was measured. Only thing you do here with this is saying that you don't comprehend it and because of that it is impossible and other people shouldn't understand it either. You know how ridiculous that is?

To summarize, and in total, the 2017 eclipse was predicted by astronomers, NASA, and countless others but the FET failed to be one of them.  The video shown does nothing to advance a theory that the Earth is flat, or in continuing conversation, that FET has offered anything to explain the "dark sun" (like why does it show up, can we predict when it shows up, what is it made of, why can't we see it when it isn't getting in front of things, and countless other totally ridiculous features that need to be explained for eclipses to even work in FET).  In fact, the elite of the FES have only proven one thing, and reliably at that; they are very good at wasting time.  Yours, mine, and their own time. 

Thank you FES.  You are a truly bizarre oddity, a gem of the interwebs.  I have never seen a more chaotic collection of misguided, ignorant, illogical, and frankly silly information in one place.  As I've said before, this isn't a theory, it's a shitshow. 

I would guess that no scientists has built a device to prove the curvature because no scientists considers it unproven.

Scientists also think furnature fires caused the symetrical collapse of building 7.
Is a ''scientist'' exalted above other earthlings ?
I have seen far more ''scientists'' care for their job, family and carere than truth findings lately !!!
And it has been this way in the past too.
I understand that the word ''scientist'' makes you shiver and almost fall on your knees, but i think it isn't healthy for your personal development as a human being.
Most scientists work in a very specific field and have no time to think about earth's shape or the circomstances during 9/11.
That is why it is such a revelation when an induvidual has the guts to think outside the box like general major Albert Stubblebine who listened to his wife...an insignificant civilian and she made him look into it deeper.
He confessed that with his knowledge, position and expertise it was beyond a shadow of a doubt that a missile hit the Pentagon instead of a plane.
But the scientists working at the NIST report are unworthy of their title.
So ....sorry to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of NAZI scientists considered the bonestructure of JEWS proof of their wicked nature !
There are no garantees that scientists are noble men.....to the contrary....knowledge and power corrupts easily.

We have been to space, we have been to the moon and seen it.

Why are you buying that ''we'' crap ?
Did you go to the moon ?
Outerspace ?
When you loose your job there is no ''we'' you are on your own and sort things out all alone.......they only need you to support their little lies and in return you can join the ''we'' club wich is factual incorrect, because you didn't go anywhere. 

Just because a few people cry foul with zero evidence doesn't change that.

Untill one of those ''few'' is an astronaut or Russian cosmonaut.
Numbers are irrelevant...thruth is !
And Gus Grissom's wife did reveal what scumbags the FBI are, to take away all Gus writings hours after he passed away....his relatives are sure he was killed.
A wife knows her husband and despite Gus probably didn't talk much about Apollo, she could spot his doubts by a country mile.
You can still choose to join us and expose the liars or maintain part of the corrupt deceivers....I kinda like you and i think you deserve a better perspective.

Provide some proof of all the lies from all the space agencies and all the people and all the photos then maybe you have a leg to stand on.  But you have yet to do that.  You just claim it is fakery and lies.
Then, for some reason, you feel like scientists should spend time and money proving something that has been proven countless times to people who won't believe them anyway.
It makes no sense.

See it as a scientific Disneyland.

We had ''Evoluon'' in the Netherlands where Philips sponsored an exhibition full of cool things to teach a new generation.
It was very nice when i went there as a kid !

Don't you think it would be awesome to show people the curve over 5 miles using a rail or other device instead of looking to a ceiling where a fucking pendulum is attached !
An indoors facility to show the coriolis effect with live demonstrations and participation !
A huge telescope to look at satelites and the ISS orbiting earth !
An artificial mirage that shows objects out of nowhere after some air layers of different temperature are precisely injected at will !

This way Neil deGrasse Tyson has a new generation enthousiastic kids never doubting the scientific facts ever and we will bow our heads and humbly ask for forgiveness when returning to our caves.  .
You know this will never happen, because they cannot show any curvature or spin, because it is absent !

Join us !!

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 11, 2017, 09:45:35 AM

I would guess that no scientists has built a device to prove the curvature because no scientists considers it unproven.

Scientists also think furnature fires caused the symetrical collapse of building 7.
Is a ''scientist'' exalted above other earthlings ?
I have seen far more ''scientists'' care for their job, family and carere than truth findings lately !!!
And it has been this way in the past too.
I understand that the word ''scientist'' makes you shiver and almost fall on your knees, but i think it isn't healthy for your personal development as a human being.
Most scientists work in a very specific field and have no time to think about earth's shape or the circomstances during 9/11.
That is why it is such a revelation when an induvidual has the guts to think outside the box like general major Albert Stubblebine who listened to his wife...an insignificant civilian and she made him look into it deeper.
He confessed that with his knowledge, position and expertise it was beyond a shadow of a doubt that a missile hit the Pentagon instead of a plane.
But the scientists working at the NIST report are unworthy of their title.
So ....sorry to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of NAZI scientists considered the bonestructure of JEWS proof of their wicked nature !
There are no garantees that scientists are noble men.....to the contrary....knowledge and power corrupts easily.

Quote

We have been to space, we have been to the moon and seen it.

Why are you buying that ''we'' crap ?
Did you go to the moon ?
Outerspace ?
When you loose your job there is no ''we'' you are on your own and sort things out all alone.......they only need you to support their little lies and in return you can join the ''we'' club wich is factual incorrect, because you didn't go anywhere. 

Quote

Just because a few people cry foul with zero evidence doesn't change that.

Untill one of those ''few'' is an astronaut or Russian cosmonaut.
Numbers are irrelevant...thruth is !
And Gus Grissom's wife did reveal what scumbags the FBI are, to take away all Gus writings hours after he passed away....his relatives are sure he was killed.
A wife knows her husband and despite Gus probably didn't talk mush about it, she could spot his doubts by a country mile.
You can still choose to join us and expose the liars or maintain part of the corrupt deceivers....I kinda like you and i think you deserve a better perspective.

Quote

Provide some proof of all the lies from all the space agencies and all the people and all the photos then maybe you have a leg to stand on.  But you have yet to do that.  You just claim it is fakery and lies.
Then, for some reason, you feel like scientists should spend time and money proving something that has been proven countless times to people who won't believe them anyway.
It makes no sense.

See it as a scientific Disneyland.

We had ''Evoluon'' in the Netherlands where Philips sponsored an exhibition full of cool things to teach a new generation.
It was very nice when i went there as a kid !

Don't you think it would be awesome to show people the curve over 5 miles using a rail or other device instead of looking to a ceiling where a fucking pendulum is attached !
An indoors facility to show the coriolis effect with live demonstrations and participation !
A huge telescope to look at satelites and the ISS orbiting earth !
An artificial mirage that shows objects out of nowhere after some air layers of different temperature are precisely injected at will !

This way Neil deGrasse Tyson has a new generation enthousiastic kids never doubting the scientific facts ever and we will bow our heads and humbly ask for forgiveness when returning to our caves.  .
You know this will never happen, because they cannot show any curvature because it is absent !

Join us !!

So aside from all of the dodging and weaving and 911 talk you have still not shown any proof of NASA lies or fake images.
You say well scientists have been wrong as if this somehow proves that something as basic as the shape of the earth is wrong.
You have no evidence for this, none, you just claim it.
You ignore the mountains of evidence, again, apparently because scientists have been wrong in the past and people have lied so all science is wrong and all NASA statements are lies.
That really seems to be the sum of your argument.  You decided the earth is flat so you refuse to see evidence to the contrary.

But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.

EDIT: Its dimensions are listed below (dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole mile): Polar Diameter: 7,900 miles (12,714 kilometers) Polar Circumference: 24,860 miles (40,008 kilometers) Equatorial Diameter: 7,927 miles (12,757 kilometers) Equatorial Circumference: 24,902 miles (40,076 kilometers) Earth's total surface is an area that measuring 197,000,000 square miles (09,600,000 square kilometers)

All the details you provide cannot be checked with the scientific method in mind !
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
You simply need a solid structure along a large body of supposed curved water we all agree about...nothing that couldn't be done with modern techniques and devices.
All claims for the curvature are secondary and flawed.
When we see over the curvature the implementation of refractional ''magic'' has no boundaries as is shown many times when people ''see'' beyond the curvature.
In order to measure any curvature over a larger distance we have to make sure it can be checked, repeated and corrected when needed.

''it is a superiour mirage'' is such a lame excuse that people won't buy for much longer......

I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!



And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.

What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on September 11, 2017, 09:34:16 AM

But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.

EDIT: Its dimensions are listed below (dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole mile): Polar Diameter: 7,900 miles (12,714 kilometers) Polar Circumference: 24,860 miles (40,008 kilometers) Equatorial Diameter: 7,927 miles (12,757 kilometers) Equatorial Circumference: 24,902 miles (40,076 kilometers) Earth's total surface is an area that measuring 197,000,000 square miles (09,600,000 square kilometers)

All the details you provide cannot be checked with the scientific method in mind !
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
You simply need a solid structure along a large body of supposed curved water we all agree about...nothing that couldn't be done with modern techniques and devices.
All claims for the curvature are secondary and flawed.
When we see over the curvature the implementation of refractional ''magic'' has no boundaries as is shown many times when people ''see'' beyond the curvature.
In order to measure any curvature over a larger distance we have to make sure it can be checked, repeated and corrected when needed.

''it is a superiour mirage'' is such a lame excuse that people won't buy for much longer......

I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!



And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.

What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?

But your pictures prove curvature.  Do you see the hard edge of the horizon?  That doesn't happen on a flat earth.  The horizon would fade away to infinity, simply becoming harder to see.
That hard edge is your evidence.

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on September 11, 2017, 09:34:16 AM

But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.

EDIT: Its dimensions are listed below (dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole mile): Polar Diameter: 7,900 miles (12,714 kilometers) Polar Circumference: 24,860 miles (40,008 kilometers) Equatorial Diameter: 7,927 miles (12,757 kilometers) Equatorial Circumference: 24,902 miles (40,076 kilometers) Earth's total surface is an area that measuring 197,000,000 square miles (09,600,000 square kilometers)

All the details you provide cannot be checked with the scientific method in mind !
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
You simply need a solid structure along a large body of supposed curved water we all agree about...nothing that couldn't be done with modern techniques and devices.
All claims for the curvature are secondary and flawed.
When we see over the curvature the implementation of refractional ''magic'' has no boundaries as is shown many times when people ''see'' beyond the curvature.
In order to measure any curvature over a larger distance we have to make sure it can be checked, repeated and corrected when needed.

''it is a superiour mirage'' is such a lame excuse that people won't buy for much longer......

I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!



And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.

What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?

Measured distances and path of the sun prove a round earth.

And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.

But you don't see beyond the curvature on this picture. The bottom parts of farther windmills are clearly behind curvature.

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on September 11, 2017, 09:34:16 AM

But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.

EDIT: Its dimensions are listed below (dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole mile): Polar Diameter: 7,900 miles (12,714 kilometers) Polar Circumference: 24,860 miles (40,008 kilometers) Equatorial Diameter: 7,927 miles (12,757 kilometers) Equatorial Circumference: 24,902 miles (40,076 kilometers) Earth's total surface is an area that measuring 197,000,000 square miles (09,600,000 square kilometers)

All the details you provide cannot be checked with the scientific method in mind !
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
You simply need a solid structure along a large body of supposed curved water we all agree about...nothing that couldn't be done with modern techniques and devices.
All claims for the curvature are secondary and flawed.
When we see over the curvature the implementation of refractional ''magic'' has no boundaries as is shown many times when people ''see'' beyond the curvature.
In order to measure any curvature over a larger distance we have to make sure it can be checked, repeated and corrected when needed.

''it is a superiour mirage'' is such a lame excuse that people won't buy for much longer......

I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!



And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.

What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?

i have seen the effect of the curvature of the earth even last weekend as i where again at lake ontario.
i clearly could see that the lower buildings where hidden behind the horizon.
and it changed how many level where hidden depending on the vertical distance from the waterlevel of lake ontario.

you look only at a very tiny bit of the earth curvature and simply not able to see the curvature.
you have to look on a bigger scale and with different methods than you do.

you are not able to explain the effect i can see at lake ontario with the flat earth idea.
also you can not explain the sun set and rise we can see each day with the flat earth idea.

and the reason you can not do it is simple: the earth is not flat.

not a single person has ever be able to show any proof that will support the flat earth idea.

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on September 11, 2017, 09:34:16 AM

But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.

EDIT: Its dimensions are listed below (dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole mile): Polar Diameter: 7,900 miles (12,714 kilometers) Polar Circumference: 24,860 miles (40,008 kilometers) Equatorial Diameter: 7,927 miles (12,757 kilometers) Equatorial Circumference: 24,902 miles (40,076 kilometers) Earth's total surface is an area that measuring 197,000,000 square miles (09,600,000 square kilometers)

All the details you provide cannot be checked with the scientific method in mind !
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
You simply need a solid structure along a large body of supposed curved water we all agree about...nothing that couldn't be done with modern techniques and devices.
All claims for the curvature are secondary and flawed.
When we see over the curvature the implementation of refractional ''magic'' has no boundaries as is shown many times when people ''see'' beyond the curvature.
In order to measure any curvature over a larger distance we have to make sure it can be checked, repeated and corrected when needed.

''it is a superiour mirage'' is such a lame excuse that people won't buy for much longer......

I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!



And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.

What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?

I personally feel this particular phenomenon is one of the weakest points for both. FE doesn't accurately fit how things happen, and the math and more for RE prove problematic. But it's not really conclusive either way. There are much better proofs for an RE. I was simply explaining the problem with your assertions. I'm also not sure why you think the provided details can't be checked? We know distances all across the globe, should be fairly simple to create a 'sphere' using them and figure this out.

i have seen the effect of the curvature of the earth even last weekend as i where again at lake ontario.
i clearly could see that the lower buildings where hidden behind the horizon.
and it changed how many level where hidden depending on the vertical distance from the waterlevel of lake ontario.

you look only at a very tiny bit of the earth curvature and simply not able to see the curvature.
you have to look on a bigger scale and with different methods than you do.

you are not able to explain the effect i can see at lake ontario with the flat earth idea.
also you can not explain the sun set and rise we can see each day with the flat earth idea.

and the reason you can not do it is simple: the earth is not flat.

not a single person has ever be able to show any proof that will support the flat earth idea.

You are at a lake,....i live in a country that has dykes the length of 32 km  and a height of 7.25 meters. Ad my length of 1.86 m then my camera height is at roughly 9 meters !

Earth's curvature calculator says that over that distance 35.5764 m should be hidden (refraction excluded)
Here a picture of the dyke.



This is during bad weather, but you can zoom in at the other side with a Nikkon and see the windmill as shown in the picture on a good day !!


Do i really have to go there myself and take a picture over a 32 km long dyke to show you enough of the windmill to make a point ?
Or do you not consider this as proof when i precisely handover the exact numbers involved in such photograph ?

Quote from: Canadabear on September 11, 2017, 11:15:43 AM

i have seen the effect of the curvature of the earth even last weekend as i where again at lake ontario.
i clearly could see that the lower buildings where hidden behind the horizon.
and it changed how many level where hidden depending on the vertical distance from the waterlevel of lake ontario.

you look only at a very tiny bit of the earth curvature and simply not able to see the curvature.
you have to look on a bigger scale and with different methods than you do.

you are not able to explain the effect i can see at lake ontario with the flat earth idea.
also you can not explain the sun set and rise we can see each day with the flat earth idea.

and the reason you can not do it is simple: the earth is not flat.

not a single person has ever be able to show any proof that will support the flat earth idea.

You are at a lake,....i live in a country that has dykes the length of 32 km  and a height of 7.25 meters. Ad my length of 1.86 m then my camera height is at roughly 9 meters !

Earth's curvature calculator says that over that distance 35.5764 m should be hidden (refraction excluded)
Here a picture of the dyke.



This is during bad weather, but you can zoom in at the other side with a Nikkon and see the windmill as shown in the picture on a good day !!


Do i really have to go there myself and take a picture over a 32 km long dyke to show you enough of the windmill to make a point ?
Or do you not consider this as proof when i precisely handover the exact numbers involved in such photograph ?

the picture does not prove anything because we can not see any reference hight at the far distance.

the other 2 pictures are taken from a high level.
why? if there is no curvature why not take the picture from ground level we should see the same according to the flat earth idea.

you only have proven that you can not explain anything.

i ask about the sun set and sun rise, where is explanation for that.

the picture does not prove anything because we can not see any reference hight at the far distance.

the other 2 pictures are taken from a high level.
why? if there is no curvature why not take the picture from ground level we should see the same according to the flat earth idea.

you only have proven that you can not explain anything.

i ask about the sun set and sun rise, where is explanation for that.

Of course it doesn't proof a thing....a copied them from the internet !!!!
It was used as a reference for my proposal.

Can i photograph a windmill on a 7.5 m high dyke 32km in the distance without the windmill being obscured  ?
If you would consider that as proof i would be willing to go on a nice 150km trip on a good day to photograph that specific windmill.
Here a better overview to understand what we are dealing with.....

Can i photograph a windmill on a 7.5 m high dyke 32km in the distance without the windmill being obscured  ?

Here a better overview to understand what we are dealing with.....

If you can get picture from 32 km with windmill base visible and this low building beside it visible and this red small tower also entirely visible then I guess you may have something.

Quote from: Canadabear on September 11, 2017, 11:46:09 AM

the picture does not prove anything because we can not see any reference hight at the far distance.

the other 2 pictures are taken from a high level.
why? if there is no curvature why not take the picture from ground level we should see the same according to the flat earth idea.

you only have proven that you can not explain anything.

i ask about the sun set and sun rise, where is explanation for that.

Of course it doesn't proof a thing....a copied them from the internet !!!!
It was used as a reference for my proposal.

Can i photograph a windmill on a 7.5 m high dyke 32km in the distance without the windmill being obscured  ?
If you would consider that as proof i would be willing to go on a nice 150km trip on a good day to photograph that specific windmill.
Here a better overview to understand what we are dealing with.....

yes do it:
but also do a good documentation.
with the coordinates of the viewpoint and the Windmill
and also the hight of the windmill

the best way would be you make a video with explanations of your test.

show us that picture of the complete windmill in 32km distance from a 9m high viewpoint.

BTW:
what will happen if you are not able to do so?
are you admitting here publicly that you where wrong.

What does any of this have to do with the recent eclipse debunking the globe?

I will really consider this,....fact is the weather is really bad during this season.......lots of rain and humidity.
But i think it will be a very good test and i promise to be as honest as can be !!!
On occasion in october we have those really clear days,.....

What does any of this have to do with the recent eclipse debunking the globe?

Nothing, but that specific eclipse topic was in a sleep mode......this is a dual catch. The topic stays alive and we discuss other fancy flatearth stuff untill RiF kicks some more ass ...