The earth is flat, but it has no form.No, all the evidence shows it is round, and has form.
This is because it is a two-dimensional torus.That would be an annulus. But we know Earth isn't that as we can circumnavigate it in any direction.
Skipping your ad BSNope. Stop talk BS. You are the only BS here. He says true and the earth seems homocentric more than sphere.
The topology you are looking for is a spherical shell.
i.e. Earth is round.
My book has been published.
All evidences prove the earth is NOT round. All measurements prove this.Then why have you been completely unable to provide a single piece of evidence that Earth isn't round?
Nope. Stop talk BS. You are the only BS here. He says true and the earth seems homocentric more than sphere.I thought the the Flat Earth was supposed to be round like this!
All evidences earth is NOT round[/b].]prove the earth is NOT round. (http://prove the [b)
(https://i.imgur.com/9URlJah.jpg)
HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TLZGKY9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=flat+earth&qid=1561768569&s=digital-text&sr=1-2 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TLZGKY9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=flat+earth&qid=1561768569&s=digital-text&sr=1-2)
My book has been published.
I am presenting a new flat earth model in this book.
The earth is flat, but it has no form.
The same is true of the earth as if the water were not in form.
So how does the world work?
This is because it is a two-dimensional torus.
That doesn't mean it's doughnut-shaped.
The sun, which went west, comes east again like a game screen.
That is the characteristic of our world.
Time and space, or the world is constantly renewed like that.
<Table of Contents>
Preface
1. Appearance and reality
The secret of 0.1°
Eratosthenes' strange sundial
The truth of a sundial
2. Homocentric Universe
Holographic universe
North-South angle difference
East-West time difference
Lorentz force
2-dimensional torus
Sky and Earth as space
Round Sky and Square Earth
Harmony of Round Sky and Square Earth
Moon illusion
Multiverse
Renewal of the world
3. True face of the Earth
The Earth has no shape
To save the phenomena
Duhem-Quine thesis
Footnote
My book has been published.
Congratulations. I hope you success.
(https://i.imgur.com/9URlJah.jpg)
HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TLZGKY9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=flat+earth&qid=1561768569&s=digital-text&sr=1-2 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TLZGKY9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=flat+earth&qid=1561768569&s=digital-text&sr=1-2)
My book has been published.
I am presenting a new flat earth model in this book.
The earth is flat, but it has no form.
The same is true of the earth as if the water were not in form.
So how does the world work?
This is because it is a two-dimensional torus.
That doesn't mean it's doughnut-shaped.
The sun, which went west, comes east again like a game screen.
That is the characteristic of our world.
Time and space, or the world is constantly renewed like that.
<Table of Contents>
Preface
1. Appearance and reality
The secret of 0.1°
Eratosthenes' strange sundial
The truth of a sundial
2. Homocentric Universe
Holographic universe
North-South angle difference
East-West time difference
Lorentz force
2-dimensional torus
Sky and Earth as space
Round Sky and Square Earth
Harmony of Round Sky and Square Earth
Moon illusion
Multiverse
Renewal of the world
3. True face of the Earth
The Earth has no shape
To save the phenomena
Duhem-Quine thesis
Footnote
Harmony of square box and round pizza. :)
The whole problem comes when you try to explain how
two or more people simultaneously observe the same world
standing hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.
I don't deal with him.Yes, you seem to like avoiding those that show your claims to be nonsense.
Harmony of square box and round pizza. :)
The whole problem comes when you try to explain how
two or more people simultaneously observe the same world
standing hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.
That is the secret of world harmony.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz also spoke of the harmony of the world.
But he fell short of cosmology.
Homocetric universe is the only way to tell the secret.
I think I already told you.
Harmony of square box and round pizza. :)
The whole problem comes when you try to explain how
two or more people simultaneously observe the same world
standing hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.
That is the secret of world harmony.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz also spoke of the harmony of the world.
But he fell short of cosmology.
Homocetric universe is the only way to tell the secret.
I already asked you if two people are 10 000 miles away from each other, which one is at the center?
If "the Earth has no shape", how come you attribute the Flat shape to it?
I think I already told you.
Harmony of square box and round pizza. :)
The whole problem comes when you try to explain how
two or more people simultaneously observe the same world
standing hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.
That is the secret of world harmony.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz also spoke of the harmony of the world.
But he fell short of cosmology.
Homocetric universe is the only way to tell the secret.
I already asked you if two people are 10 000 miles away from each other, which one is at the center?
If "the Earth has no shape", how come you attribute the Flat shape to it?
Everyone is the center of the world.
The earth is not an object but space.
The sky is also space.
The sky(universe) is flat.
That means there is no curvature.
That is a fact that has already been scientifically proven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe)
The same is true of the earth.
The sky is the space above and the earth is the space below.
Indeed more perspectives are needed to better understand the universe.Thanks, Danang.
The more points of view the better.
Congrats and keep it up, Zorbakim!
RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.
It is related to yin and yang and Goethe's color theory.
RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)
Yin-yang is the key principle of HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE.
Additive color mixing is the kind of mixing you get if you overlap spotlights in a dark room.
The commonly used additive primary colors are red, green and blue,
and if you overlap all three in effectively equal mixture, you get white light.
Subtractive color mixing is the kind of mixing you get if you illuminate colored filters with white
light from behind. The commonly used subtractive primary colors are cyan, magenta and yellow,
and if you overlap all three in effectively equal mixture, all the light is subtracted giving black.
Everyone is the center of the world.And as you have already been told, this only makes sense if you are saying there is no centre.
The earth is not an object but space.No, Earth is an object in space.
The sky(universe) is flat.Space is assumed to be flat as there is no detectable curvature, even at the large scale of the universe.
That means there is no curvature.
That is a fact that has already been scientifically proven.
The same is true of the earth.No. Earth is fundamentally different.
RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.Not only is this pure garbage, it is a direct contradiction.
RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)
RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.
It is related to yin and yang and Goethe's color theory.
RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)
Yin-yang is the key principle of HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE.
Electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 750 and 620 nanometers we perceive as "red".
People who assign the Yang principle to that are emotionally experiencing "red" as "active / male".
Wavelengths between 495 and 450 nanometers we perceive as "blue".
People who assign the Yin principle to that are emotionally experiencing "blue" as "passive / female".
Green as combination of Yin and Yang is just an extension of the attempts to spread out / design personal experiences of receptive part of the population.
On the contrary, Chinese tradition presents Yang as "sky / active / male", and the sky is blue.
Yin is "earth / passive / female" and before the industrial revolution it was mostly green.
Yin / Yang system is binary (base 2). Light and dark, regardles the color. Rods in the eye.
Red / Green / Blue system is ternary (base 3). Colors regardless the brightness. Cones in the eye.
Materialistic thinking cannot tell the secret of the world.Why not?
Round is not the earth, but the celestial sphere.The celestial sphere is nothing more than a consequence of Earth rotating about its axis, with stars in all directions.
Can you define homocentric?It means that man is central.
RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.
It is related to yin and yang and Goethe's color theory.
RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)
Yin-yang is the key principle of HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE.
Electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 750 and 620 nanometers we perceive as "red".
People who assign the Yang principle to that are emotionally experiencing "red" as "active / male".
Wavelengths between 495 and 450 nanometers we perceive as "blue".
People who assign the Yin principle to that are emotionally experiencing "blue" as "passive / female".
Green as combination of Yin and Yang is just an extension of the attempts to spread out / design personal experiences of receptive part of the population.
On the contrary, Chinese tradition presents Yang as "sky / active / male", and the sky is blue.
Yin is "earth / passive / female" and before the industrial revolution it was mostly green.
Yin / Yang system is binary (base 2). Light and dark, regardles the color. Rods in the eye.
Red / Green / Blue system is ternary (base 3). Colors regardless the brightness. Cones in the eye.
Materialistic thinking cannot tell the secret of the world.
The world is a relationship.
Round is not the earth, but the celestial sphere.
Instead of bands, Plato's student Eudoxus developed a planetary model using concentric spheres(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres)
for all the planets, with three spheres each for his models of the Moon and the Sun and four each for
the models of the other five planets, thus making 26 spheres in all.
Callippus modified this system, using five spheres for his models of the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars
and retaining four spheres for the models of Jupiter and Saturn, thus making 33 spheres in all. Each planet is
attached to the innermost of its own particular set of spheres.
Although the models of Eudoxus and Callippus qualitatively describe the major features of the motion of the planets,
they fail to account exactly for these motions and therefore cannot provide quantitative predictions. Although
historians of Greek science have traditionally considered these models to be merely geometrical representations,
recent studies have proposed that they were also intended to be physically real or have withheld judgment,
noting the limited evidence to resolve the question.
RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.
It is related to yin and yang and Goethe's color theory.
RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)
Yin-yang is the key principle of HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE.
Electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 750 and 620 nanometers we perceive as "red".
People who assign the Yang principle to that are emotionally experiencing "red" as "active / male".
Wavelengths between 495 and 450 nanometers we perceive as "blue".
People who assign the Yin principle to that are emotionally experiencing "blue" as "passive / female".
Green as combination of Yin and Yang is just an extension of the attempts to spread out / design personal experiences of receptive part of the population.
On the contrary, Chinese tradition presents Yang as "sky / active / male", and the sky is blue.
Yin is "earth / passive / female" and before the industrial revolution it was mostly green.
Yin / Yang system is binary (base 2). Light and dark, regardles the color. Rods in the eye.
Red / Green / Blue system is ternary (base 3). Colors regardless the brightness. Cones in the eye.
Materialistic thinking cannot tell the secret of the world.
The world is a relationship.
Round is not the earth, but the celestial sphere.
Assigning Yang to sky and Yin to Earth is not materialistic at all.
Yin and Yang are principles by which humans (still) try to give emotional explanations to the world around.
What is materialistic is the Universe that surrounds us.
We can either limit ourselves to just own, personal point of view (declare our ego to be the center of everything), or
we can exchange data, have views from more than one point and build a bigger, more accurate (less limited) picture.
~~~~~
"Celestial sphere" is the term originating in Geocentrism, not in Flat model.
Ancient Flat model before Plato and Aristotle had Dome, not Spheres.
(Looks like the term "the seventh heaven" came from superficial understanding of Geocentrism among common people.)
In Geocentrism there is Earth as the sphere in the center of heavens and
several crystal spheres, each carrying own set of celestial bodies.QuoteInstead of bands, Plato's student Eudoxus developed a planetary model using concentric spheres(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres)
for all the planets, with three spheres each for his models of the Moon and the Sun and four each for
the models of the other five planets, thus making 26 spheres in all.
Callippus modified this system, using five spheres for his models of the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars
and retaining four spheres for the models of Jupiter and Saturn, thus making 33 spheres in all. Each planet is
attached to the innermost of its own particular set of spheres.
Although the models of Eudoxus and Callippus qualitatively describe the major features of the motion of the planets,
they fail to account exactly for these motions and therefore cannot provide quantitative predictions. Although
historians of Greek science have traditionally considered these models to be merely geometrical representations,
recent studies have proposed that they were also intended to be physically real or have withheld judgment,
noting the limited evidence to resolve the question.
In the flat earth model, there was a concept of the Celestial sphere.Yes, that was the ancient FE model, where Earth was tiny.
Of course, the lower part of the foot was very vague.
In the flat earth model, there was a concept of the Celestial sphere.
Of course, the lower part of the foot was very vague.
In the flat earth model, there was a concept of the Celestial sphere.Yes, that was the ancient FE model, where Earth was tiny.
Of course, the lower part of the foot was very vague.
For the newer FE model it is a celestial disk instead.
This is how you want to think FE'rs. This knowledge is wrong and aiming manipulation.No it isn't.
there is no need to argue for it.Then run along.
No. Keep your suggestions to yourself. I am waiting to answer of Macarios to reply my suggestion. You may be disrespect person not respect others but I am not you. I respect opinion Macarios, and your thoughts have been declared null and void.there is no need to argue for it.Then run along.
Can you define homocentric?It means that man is central.
In other words, the universe originates from me.Can you define homocentric?It means that man is central.
is your house in the center of your property?
what does it matter that man is central to the universe?
In the flat earth model, there was a concept of the Celestial sphere.
Of course, the lower part of the foot was very vague.
Since the earliest Egyptian and Mesopotamian cosmographies the Flat Earth model
"imagined the Earth to be a disc floating on water with an arched firmament above it
that separated the Earth from the heavens".
Arched Firmament is Dome, not Sphere. :)
Please tell me what do you mean by "lower part of the foot".
In other words, the universe originates from me.
In other words, the universe originates from me.
Is there a difference between humans with regard to being real or simulation. If it was; so how many of the people in this earth do you think is real and how many is simulation? And I wonder this one. Is God real, simulation, we or anyone who directs this simulation? I have some thoughts but I wonder yours. Thanks in advance.
Then we should call it zorbs egocentric book of nonsense.You can't love others if you don't love yourself.
I think as follows:We're all real: I think as so too.
We're all real.
We are all the protagonists of our lives.
God is real.
Because we are the incarnation of God.
In other words, we are all sons of God.
That is the teachings of Jesus.
This is true in all religions.
In other words, the universe originates from me.Well as people have existed long before you (As have other parts of the universe) we can clearly tell that is BS.
Earth as the central yolkLast time I checked, a yolk isn't flat.
...
He rightly viewed the earth as flat.
These are all part of the game. God wanted us to worship him. This is what we do. we are not competing with it. this is a theoretical discussion. God can stop it if He wants to. but he wants us to write it because time has come and he wants people to know the truth. if you try to stop it, it will stop you. Babylon may be your end, not ours. Who can be more cruel than the one who prevents people from knowing the truth? This is what all you angry globularists here are trying to prevent people learn the truth. Why did not you angry globularists remember God till now and prevent people learn the truth?If your imaginary fiend actually existed and wanted people to know the truth, then it could easily make itself known to everyone in a way that there would be no doubt. Unless you think your imaginary is pathetic and powerless.
I think as follows:We're all real: I think as so too.
We're all real.
We are all the protagonists of our lives.
God is real.
Because we are the incarnation of God.
In other words, we are all sons of God.
That is the teachings of Jesus.
This is true in all religions.
God is real: Is God governs this earth be a simulation or somebody imitate him, can it be?
If your imaginary fiend actually existed and wanted people to know the truth, then it could easily make itself known to everyone in a way that there would be no doubt. Unless you think your imaginary is pathetic and powerless.
You also directly contradict yourself.
You say that if we try to stop you spreading your nonsense, your imaginary sugar daddy will step in and stop us, but claim that we are trying to do that, yet he hasn't stepped in to stop us.
And no, we are the ones promoting the truth.
You are the one trying to bury it and lead people away from truth and into fantasy.
I remind you what happened to Babel, Sodom and GomorrahYou mean you will try to scare me with fictional stories that show your god is an evil POS that no decent human being would ever worship.
so far you could never defeat me in any wayYou have been repeatedly defeated. You just repeatedly lie and say you haven't been.
You mean you will try to scare me with fictional stories that show your god is an evil POS that no decent human being would ever worship.I mean you have disrespected the God and will pay it.
I don't fear your imaginary fiend, and even if it was real, I wouldn't worship it as it is an evil POS.God is not imaginary. You don't realize him because he treats you the way you believe.
You have been repeatedly defeated.Nope. Never. repeating same BS more than I talk and making word salad or blabbing does not mean you defeated me in any way. Definitely you did not do it at all. Stop lying.
You just repeatedly lie and say you haven't been.The only liar is you here, you are even lying about God's existance.
I can't think of a single time you engaged in a debate (or anything close to it) and weren't defeated.This can be only in your dreams. Wake up, grow up.
Even in quite simple topics, like the discussion of accelerometers, you resorted to such insane BS anyone could have easily defeated you.I have defeated you repeatedly with evidences but you deny the facts depends on your BS baseless thoughts and evil claims.
You are only slightly less impotent than your god, and only by virtue of actually existing and being able to interact with the world.Can I get this as you have scared of unexpected and terrible happen to you, and hence you deny the challenge? You have agreed you lost, right? God is exist so you have scared something happens to you, right? If God does not exist so why do you afraid for? Is it because you are actually believing God but playing the role of you are not because somebody gave you a role of you playing atheist?
I claim that in a very short time, relying on God's existence and helping us, I claim he will punish you for denying him, ridiculing, and doing it here.
...
I challenge you to this,
hence you deny the challenge?Your challenge was nothing more than a claim that your imaginary fiend was going to beat me up.
Deluding yourself into thinking you have defeated me (or anyone here) doesn't mean you have. It just means you are lying to yourself as well as us.hence you deny the challenge?Your challenge was nothing more than a claim that your imaginary fiend was going to beat me up.
That isn't a challenge for me, it is a challenge for you and your imagination.
It is just a pathetic threat that I am not stupid enough to be scared of.
Now how about you try and explain how your celestial sphere works?
These are all part of the game. God wanted us to worship him. This is what we do. we are not competing with it. this is a theoretical discussion. God can stop it if He wants to. but he wants us to write it because time has come and he wants people to know the truth. if you try to stop it, it will stop you. Babylon may be your end, not ours. Who can be more cruel than the one who prevents people from knowing the truth? This is what all you angry globularists here are trying to prevent people learn the truth. Why did not you angry globularists remember God till now and prevent people learn the truth?It is unfortunate, that you cannot see you the truth, that is staring you in your face.
Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
So why are you still resisting against the challenge?Because it isn't a challenge.
I agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
The doughnut's surface looks curvature, but it's mathematically flat.No, it is curved.
You're a liar.The doughnut's surface looks curvature, but it's mathematically flat.For Earth, a triangle with an angle sum of 270 degrees can easily be constructed (or 180+x).
Start at the equator and go due north to the north pole. Then turn 90 degrees (or x), and head due south back to the equator.
Then turn 90 degrees at the equator and travel along until you reach your original line which is going off at 90 degrees.
That alone means Earth isn't flat, and thus can't be a flat torus.
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;DI agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
You're a liar.The doughnut's surface looks curvature, but it's mathematically flat.For Earth, a triangle with an angle sum of 270 degrees can easily be constructed (or 180+x).
Start at the equator and go due north to the north pole. Then turn 90 degrees (or x), and head due south back to the equator.
Then turn 90 degrees at the equator and travel along until you reach your original line which is going off at 90 degrees.
That alone means Earth isn't flat, and thus can't be a flat torus.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.
You're a liar.The fact that you have to insult me like that to try and dismiss me rather than deal with the arguments presented shows that it is quite likely the opposite.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.
You're a liar.The fact that you have to insult me like that to try and dismiss me rather than deal with the arguments presented shows that it is quite likely the opposite.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.
I'm not the liar here.
I'm not the one pretending Earth is a torus.
I'm not the one pretending that all tori are flat.
The simple fact is Earth is topologically equivalent to a sphere.
You can even get this just by noting connections without direct measurements.
There is no flat sphere.
You ignoring reality doesn't make me a liar.
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;DI agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
You're a liarAnd there you go chiming in with insults and no rational arguments.
Calling me a liar because ...
I am calling you a liar because you are so.No. You call me a liar because you are unable to rationally defend your claims or refute mine. So you lie and say I am a liar to pretend you have a reason to dismiss my claims.
Why are you here?Because unlike you I care about the truth.
Yes. Everybody who follow our talkings can easily understand that I've directly said your being a liar after I saw you've blamed zorbakim's insulting you. So, you are blind that do not aware what you are writing. It was not my claim your being liar in this issue, zorbakim's claim. I am supporting him because you are so.I am calling you a liar because you are so.No. You call me a liar because you are unable to rationally defend your claims or refute mine.
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;DI agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.
Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.
(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)
*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;DI agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.
Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.
(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)
*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;DI agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.
Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.
(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)
*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
Very interesting.I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;DI agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.
Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.
(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)
*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.Yes, because that is what all the evidence indicates, and how cameras and the eye works.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.Which would make it proportional to intensity, unless you wanted to invent some new magic light pressure.
No, there are many problems using an angular sizeModern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.Yes, because that is what all the evidence indicates, and how cameras and the eye works.
The light comes in at a particular direction.
Your eye/camera senses that direction due to specific photosensitive cells detecting that light and creating an electrical signal.
If something spans a large angle, it will stimulate a lot of those cells and be detected as that large angle.
If it only spans a small angle, then it will stimulate a smaller region of cells and be detected as a smaller angle.
It can also easily be explained based upon breaking the object into smaller pieces.
The top of the object is detected in one direction.
The bottom is detected in another.
The angular size is based upon the difference between these directions.But I think it's because of the light pressure.Which would make it proportional to intensity, unless you wanted to invent some new magic light pressure.
The problem is that it isn't.
A bright object can appear to span a small angular size, while a much darker object spans a much larger size.
More importantly, intensity typically drops as 1/r2, not 1/r.
So that doesn't fit reality at all.
There is no problem just using angular size as modern science knows it works.
Very interesting.I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;DI agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.
Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.
(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)
*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.
No, there are many problems using an angular sizeReally? I am yet to find one which isn't caused by people making mistakes.
If the distance is twice as far away, the object looks half the size.Only as an approximation for distant objects.
As shown in the picture, however, the angle of light entering the eye is not reduced by half.The inverse tangent (which is what I am assuming you are using) is that angle.
But the tangent of the angle is only reduced by half.
No, there are many problems using an angular sizeReally? I am yet to find one which isn't caused by people making mistakes.
The only thing that comes close is the limit of resolution where very small objects cannot be resolved and either appear larger than they are (if they are bright enough) or they aren't noticed at all (if they aren't bright enough).If the distance is twice as far away, the object looks half the size.Only as an approximation for distant objects.
If the object is close enough then doubling the distance will not cut the size in half.
The simple way to show this is to first consider an object 1024 m away which takes up 1 degree. (that is roughly 18 m tall).
Now we repeatedly half the distance and double the angular size and consider what happens. (the faster way is to note it is based upon the assumption that the size times the distance is constant, and thus we can just flip it and get it to be 1024 degrees, but lets do it the long way for completeness and to avoid any arguments)
512 m gives 2 degrees.
256 m gives 4 degrees.
128 m gives 8 degrees.
64 m gives 16 degrees.
32 m gives 32 degrees.
16 m gives 64 degrees.
8 m gives 128 degrees.
4 m gives 256 degrees, more than covering an entire side of your vision. This is only possible if you are inside it.
2 m gives 512 degrees. This is more than physically possible. Even if you were inside an object with no opening, it would only be 360 degrees.
1 m gives 1024 degrees. This is just insanity.
So clearly objects cannot simply half the angle angle when the distance is doubled.
If you think I am being unfair with my initial conditions then just take any object, and do the same. A tall building viewed from a distance is a good start.
The origin for this is the small x approximation for the tangent function.
When x is small, tan(x)~=x.
In reality, tan(a)=h/d.
The small x approximation means that a~=h/d, but only when a is small, which requires h/d to be small.
We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.
Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.
At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.
So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.As shown in the picture, however, the angle of light entering the eye is not reduced by half.The inverse tangent (which is what I am assuming you are using) is that angle.
But the tangent of the angle is only reduced by half.
If they don't match, you have done something wrong.
Your theory has a lot in common with me.Very interesting.I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;DI agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.
Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.
(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)
*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.
I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.
since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.
if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.
I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery. :)
@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
Your theory has a lot in common with me.Very interesting.I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;DI agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.
Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.
(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)
*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.
I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.
since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.
if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.
I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery. :)
@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.
That is the same result JackBlack gave, look.We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.
Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.
At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.
So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.
You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
Lets take a 16 m tall object.When the "16 m tall object" is 16 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan 16/16) = (arc tan 1) = 45.0° and
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
You're right.Your theory has a lot in common with me.Very interesting.I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;DI agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.
Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.
(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)
*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.
I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.
since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.
if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.
I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery. :)
@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.
then I will summarize the subject. in fact, although each of us is different, we are in a same virtual environment. my studies show that we live on a 2-dimensional plane, not 3-dimensional. I researched a few things to see if I was the only one in the world, and I discovered that the world was not created for intelligent people like us, but for people with less intelligence. clearly this world fiction is meant to convince them, not us. It is clear that the creators aware at the start that we'll discover its being fictional. what is it that we gain when we discover everything? Hard questions, right? I am suspect on whether God has created this world or somebody did it by using the name of God. then I ask this question. There is god, we know that. So why would he allow that?
PS: Corrections made.
When the distance doubles, the size is seen in half.That is the same result JackBlack gave, look.We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.
Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.
At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.
So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.
You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?Quote from: JackBlackLets take a 16 m tall object.When the "16 m tall object" is 16 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan 16/16) = (arc tan 1) = 45.0° and
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
when the "16 m tall object" is 32 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan 16/32) = (arc tan 1/2) = 26.6°.
Why do you say is that wrong?
You're right.Your theory has a lot in common with me.Very interesting.I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;DI agree with you.Until you come out of the cave of globe Earth, you will not see the flat.
Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.
Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.
(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)
*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.
I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.
since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.
if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.
I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery. :)
@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.
then I will summarize the subject. in fact, although each of us is different, we are in a same virtual environment. my studies show that we live on a 2-dimensional plane, not 3-dimensional. I researched a few things to see if I was the only one in the world, and I discovered that the world was not created for intelligent people like us, but for people with less intelligence. clearly this world fiction is meant to convince them, not us. It is clear that the creators aware at the start that we'll discover its being fictional. what is it that we gain when we discover everything? Hard questions, right? I am suspect on whether God has created this world or somebody did it by using the name of God. then I ask this question. There is god, we know that. So why would he allow that?
PS: Corrections made.
Living in three dimensions may be our illusion.
Try drinking beer in a small glass.
The world in the glass looks very small.
The size that the hand touches is also not absolute.
Size and shape depend solely on our senses.
So I'm saying that the world is our sense.
The only thing that can be said to be a three-dimensional is the sense of touch.
But that, too, is not certain.
In fact, we can say that we live in two dimensions, or at one point.
When the distance doubles, the size is seen in half.
But the angle is not half.
Therefore, the size we see is not the angle of an object.
The trigonometric function is not just our sense, but math.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
When the distance doubles, the size is seen in half.
But the angle is not half.
Therefore, the size we see is not the angle of an object.
The trigonometric function is not just our sense, but math.
That was not the question.
The question was:
"Why you say that what he said was wrong, when you just repeat the same thing as 'correction' to his values?"
He said:Quote from: JackBlackLets take a 16 m tall object.
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
And you 'correct' him:Quote from: zorbakimYou are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
You are wrong.Other than rounding differently, that is what I said.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
the size of the object does not decrease by half when the distance doubles. however, it would have to be halfway to connect it with a straight line. in other words, you don't see anything as straight.No, it doesn't need to be "halfway" to be straight.
the size of the object does not decrease by half when the distance doubles. however, it would have to be halfway to connect it with a straight line. in other words, you don't see anything as straight.No, it doesn't need to be "halfway" to be straight.
That is because a distance away from you will also appear to shrink as it gets further away.
You don't understand me.You are wrong.Other than rounding differently, that is what I said.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
The point is objects don't appear to have their apparent (angular) size cut in half when the distance is doubled when they are close.
Again, you can easily show this cannot be the case by going the other way, i.e. halving the distance.
I already showed that and you just ignored it and said I am wrong.
Take an object that is 16 m away and 16 m tall, above your eyeline.
That makes it 45 degrees.
According to your claim, at 8 m away it would need to cover from straight out, to straight up, but it doesn't.
Halving the distance again to 4 m it now would also need to appear behind you according to you. This makes no sense.
The apparent size of the object is the angular size.
Doubling the distance resulting in the object appearing half the size only works for small distant objects. Not close ones.
You don't understand me.No, I do understand you.
I've never said, "the apparent size of the object is the angular size".
That's your argument.
You are confusing physical and visual sizes.
So there's a contradiction like what you said.
You think you see the ship on a straight line. whereas it actually moves on a curve starting from the tip of the foot and extending to the skyline.I am yet to find a single person that thinks this.
The eye has a detection sensitivity. we cannot see after a certain sensitivity. Let's do a test to measure this sensitivity.The appropriate terminology is angular resolution.
Sensitivity of eye: 2mm. / (3m. x 1000) = 0,0007.This equates to roughly 2.3 minutes of arc or 0.04 degrees.
Since our horizontal vision sensitivity has disappeared earlier, we now see both objects horizontally, so the ship begins to disappear behind the wave.No, if it is just a case of being too small to resolve, it fades to a blur and is no longer visible.
No one has ever been able to bring an object hidden by the horizon back into view by a device with better angular resolution.
Nope. Sounds like you did not watch the video. The observer in video is clearly bringing the object back by zooming it after it has disappeared in skyline.No, I did watch the video, and it matches what I said.
First we have to determine what you think you to see and what you see in fact.No. On a flat earth there is no a curve like that at the the skyline. Are you sure that you aren't trying to draw the Globe?
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/9OV8K4.png)
You think you see the ship on a straight line. whereas it actually moves on a curve starting from the tip of the foot and extending to the skyline.
The eye has a detection sensitivity. we cannot see after a certain sensitivity. Let's do a test to measure this sensitivity.I need no education on that, thank you.
| And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible: (https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg) | And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something: (https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg) |
All that video shows is that you can't see a small boat that's become smaller that the eye's (or camera's) resolution - but we already knew that!
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg)And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg)
I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure. It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.It has been proven, and you just ignore it.
I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure. It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.It has been proven, and you just ignore it.
We don't see any massive waves in the foreground blocking view.
Rubbish! Read this again!These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg)And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg)
I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure.
It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.Rubbish! The observer is about 10 m above sea-level and there are clearly no waves anywhere near that height look at the photos and the video.
As the big ship passes, the waves rise and block a part of the ship behind. You're a complete trickster. It proves that you have no argument but trickstery and boydstery.No they do not!
The video, below, was taken with a Nikon P900 with its 2000 mm and so has something like 40 times better resolution than the unaided eye.
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... MCtheEmcee1
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg
And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg
I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure.
Rubbish! Read this again!
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.Quote from: wiseIt is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.
Rubbish! The observer is about 10 m above sea-level and there are clearly no waves anywhere near that height look at the photos and the video.
Any large waves would hide both the bulk carrier and the container ship. So stop making up these silly excuses.Quote from: wiseAs the big ship passes, the waves rise and block a part of the ship behind. You're a complete trickster. It proves that you have no argument but trickstery and boydstery.
No they do not!
Don't be silly, the "big ship", the bulk carrier EPIC, is moored and "does not pass!"
Look at the video again and don't you dare say that you can't watch it because you posted your own YouTube video!The video, below, was taken with a Nikon P900 with its 2000 mm and so has something like 40 times better resolution than the unaided eye.
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... MCtheEmcee1
Your repeatedly writing "rubbish" do not make them rubbish but proves how you are cornered and started to insult.What else should I say when you claims are meaningless?
Claiming the observe point's being 10 meter about the sea level does not magically it above ten meters of sea level,It makes little difference. There are no big waves anywhere and the bulk ore carrier is clearly all visible and beyond it the hull of the container ship is hidden.
MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018 (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw&feature=youtu.be)
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible. Unless they're deploying cargo submarines these days....
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm, that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921 at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
it still needs an evidence without your baseless claims and insults. And I've reported and leaked your insults proves you are cornered.I'm not cornered! I'm just tired of your continually denying the obvious!
I can not watch a video again which I can not watch it for the first time. As far as I see from your talkings, you say some numbers on it and some talkings.Your repeatedly writing "rubbish" do not make them rubbish but proves how you are cornered and started to insult.What else should I say when you claims are meaningless?Quote from: wiseClaiming the observe point's being 10 meter about the sea level does not magically it above ten meters of sea level,It makes little difference. There are no big waves anywhere and the bulk ore carrier is clearly all visible and beyond it the hull of the container ship is hidden.
There are no 10 or 20 m waves there!
But you obviously did not watch the video and read the explanation under it so look again!
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)...QuoteMCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018 (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw&feature=youtu.be)
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible. Unless they're deploying cargo submarines these days....
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm, that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921 at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
The person that took the video stated that: "The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921 at 10m ASL." So 10 metres Above Mean Sea Level as I said!Quote from: wiseit still needs an evidence without your baseless claims and insults. And I've reported and leaked your insults proves you are cornered.I'm not cornered! I'm just tired of your continually denying the obvious!
You've got your evidence now admit that there are clearly no waves hiding either ship!
All viewers of this page clearly see that you are not providing any evidence prove its altitude but only claiming i,t was but I have denied it.Yes, you have denied it. Your denial means nothing as you have no rational objection.
Yes, you have denied it.I did not ask you whether I denied anything or I did not.
Your denial means nothing as you have no rational objection.My denial means I denied it as you read. There isn't anything there its being a rational objection or not. Is it there? When you stop to talk wast in vain?
I have clearly explained why we know the waves aren't the issue and you just ignore it.You are thinking you have explaned does not magically it as a rational explanation. I have not to agree your BS explanations supported by anger of boydster.
We don't need some external source to tell us how high the person was.No, we need. Otherwise we can not get your being how a liar.
We can tell from the photo that the waves were not an issue.They are clearly the issue. They are appearently onstructing the ship, we clearly see it hence the observe point is not higher than the highest wave caused by the big ship passing there.
Now how about you address the rest of my post, where I clearly address your objections?I have replied, boydster deleted. I have replied, your slave deleted. I have replie, somebody deleted. I don't remember whether I have replied or not. Because you have many slaves here you say go, then it goes; come, then it comes. Stop to use our moderation as your slaves. They are free people, not your slaves. If you're paying their wages, at least employ honest people.
We don't see any massive waves in the foreground blocking view.We clearly see a grand ship passing then massive waves happen. Otherwise, can not you a time to see the ship behind but not another ship passing in front of it. Because you know the front ship causes massive waves then obstruct to see the ship behind.
We can see all the way to the near ship without any problem.Yes because another bigger ship doesn't passing in front of it.
It is only the ship that is over the horizon that isn't visible.It is not at the horizon, it is at behind the waves created by big ship. On the other hand the altitude of the observer obviously seem not enough high.
If it was some magic behind the first ship you would clearly see it as a large wave behind that ship.We call it as a big ship caused big waves, but not as magic. No need to magic but you need to magic to explain the lies.
So the waves are clearly not the issue.You have proved nothing, so that the waves are the main issue till you prove the opposite.
The clearly visible and resolvable containers on the ship shows angular resolution is not the issue.Yeah, the problem is waves obsturck the ship. Can you define the angular resolution what does here.
You need a better reason for why the bottom is not visible.Nope. The explanations are enough but you are ignoring the facts of life.
The sane explanation is that the water is getting in the way due to the curvature of Earth.your propaganda based on lies and denial of truth does not magically reinforce your arguments. The earth still is flat whether you deny it or you do not.
No, that is your baseless assertion which you have backed up with nothing.We can tell from the photo that the waves were not an issue.They are clearly the issue. They are appearently onstructing the ship, we clearly see it hence the observe point is not higher than the highest wave caused by the big ship passing there.
We clearly see a grand ship passing then massive waves happen.No, they don't.
Because you know the front ship causes massive waves then obstruct to see the ship behind.
You have proved nothing, so that the waves are the main issue till you prove the opposite.I have proven it quite conclusively.
There are no massive waves getting in the way.
I'm answering because I posted the photos and the video and the notes under the video were:There are no massive waves getting in the way.it is expected that the front ship will approach before capturing the behind ship, as it is clearly needed by the wave created by the front ship. water is swelling and blocking the image. the observation point is further down the highest wave. prove the opposite.
So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.QuoteMCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018 (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw&feature=youtu.be)
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible. Unless they're deploying cargo submarines these days....
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm, that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921 at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
I see massive waves. Prove them being small by measuring.You are the one claiming that you "see massive waves" so it's up to you to "prove them being" massive "by measuring."
There are no massive waves getting in the way.
it is expected that the front ship will approach before capturing the behind ship, as it is clearly needed by the wave created by the front ship. water is swelling and blocking the image. the observation point is further down the highest wave. prove the opposite.
I see massive waves. Prove them being small by measuring.
You are the one claiming that you "see massive waves" so it's up to you to "prove them being" massive "by measuring."I don't claim anything. I say what I see. If you claim its not being massive, so why don't you record the behind ship without any ship wandering around?
You are the one claiming that you "see massive waves" so it's up to you to "prove them being" massive "by measuring."I don't claim anything. I say what I see. If you claim its not being massive, so why don't you record the behind ship without any ship wandering around?
water is swelling and blocking the image. the observation point is further down the highest wave. prove the opposite.Again, there is no significant swelling in the photo.
I don't claim anything. I say what I see. If you claim its not being massive, so why don't you record the behind ship without any ship wandering around?You are claiming there are massive waves which hide the distant ship.
The waves close to me look bigger.Yes, closer things look bigger.
Visual size is determined by light pressure.Define what you mean by light pressure.
Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.
You're right.
Living in three dimensions may be our illusion.
Try drinking beer in a small glass.
The world in the glass looks very small.
The size that the hand touches is also not absolute.
Size and shape depend solely on our senses.
So I'm saying that the world is our sense.
The only thing that can be said to be a three-dimensional is the sense of touch.
But that, too, is not certain.
In fact, we can say that we live in two dimensions, or at one point.
The waves close to me look bigger.Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.Visual size is determined by light pressure.Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.
Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.
It does not work in general.
I never said it did.The waves close to me look bigger.Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.Visual size is determined by light pressure.Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.
Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.
It does not work in general.
Light has no size. Just dim or bright.
It's a bowl like a headlight that has size.
Yes, you saidI never said it did.The waves close to me look bigger.Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.Visual size is determined by light pressure.Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.
Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.
It does not work in general.
Light has no size. Just dim or bright.
It's a bowl like a headlight that has size.
I said the objects have a visual size.
Now care to respond to what I said?
Yes, you saidNotice the difference?
"Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light."
But the incoming rays of light is just geometry.Yes, it is just geometry which determines how large an angle that object subtends and thus its visual size.
The essence of light is the wave.So you reject the wave particle duality of light?
Yes, you said
"Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light."The essence of light is the wave.So you reject the wave particle duality of light?
The designers of solar panels, LEDs and so much more would very strongly disagree with you.
Wave is the essence of light and particle is phenomenon of light.No, the essence of light is that it is a particle, which due the nature of all particles, has wave properties as well.
Why not stay on the current topic?
By the way, let's say another reason why the Earth is flat.
No curvature has ever been found in a survey conducted in Earth's space.You mean space. No need to appeal to Earth. But so what?