The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Mau on September 23, 2012, 07:08:44 PM

Title: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 23, 2012, 07:08:44 PM
Ok, I discovered this one week ago, and being researching since and... Wow, what-the-hell?? Diferent from conspiracy "theories" that people can choose to not believe, besides lots of true facts/arguments/etc, this "theory" of a flat earth is a different case: It's already proved without doubt, by experimentation and by what we know is the reality we see. There is NO SPACE FOR ARGUMENT!! Certain experiments CAN'T BE DENIED!!

Some examples:

Fact 1:

ERASED: My mistake, this fact was wrong. But anyway, I discovered later that there is lots of other proofs, so I am not in the mood to post another one as -fact 1- here whithout necessity (and because people answered this topic with the previous "fact 1").
In here you can find lots of info to remove doubts:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17760.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17760.0)

Fact 2:
If I am on the other side of lake Ontario, on Toronto, and I am some 40 kms away looking at the CN Tower, I see the whole of the city on the other side completely straight/plane. Now, if someone is in doubt if the water until my position towards the tower is flat, I just need to go 20 kms towards the tower, then turn to the side 90 degrees and go more 40 kms, so that I can look at the tower and my previous position to see: the water is completely plane from the position 1 to the tower, case closed.
-We always see the horizon without any curvature, even in the ocean and on high altitudes (like some 3-4 kms in a baloon (I never went in a airplane) and on top of mountains).
There is a bouchet explanation that this "ilusion" is caused by refraction of light, and I say "yeah, this refraction effect works all the time on all places on earth, all through history, on all the different climates, and always "fixin" the curvature just enough so that we see a straight line."

Fact 3:
Long tunnels, or part of tunnels, around the world, that when you look at the exit light, while being on the entrance, you can see it's a straight/plane nivelated line. You look at the tunnel by the side on the distance and you see it is a straight line. It was projected and build to be a straight line. Yet... I am supose to believe that it is a curve, that some refraction of light prevents me from seeing his true form?

Fact 4 - The FINAL one (I consider this one the best):
Speaking of tunnels, what happens when we see the exit of a more or less long linear and nivelated tunnel? The "light at the end of the tunnel"?
We see a small bright square perfect on the line of our vision (since it's a straight line, the light of the exit of the tunnel is hitting the center of our eyes in a straight line). It's the same effect that we see when we look at a pipe and see the circular small exit in the other end, we all know this.
If we crouch or if we jump, while all the time looking straight to the front (180º degrees), the exit of the tunnel is always on the center of our vision, on the same level, no matter if you position your head on the ceiling or on the floor.
So far this is undeniable by everyone, if you don't remember you can just take some straight pipe or something like it and move your vision up and down while looking in it.
this effect ONLY happens if you are looking at straight lines, because we SEE in a straight line (if you look at a thing, you know you ARE looking straight at that thing). If there is some curvature on the tunnel, then the exit, if you can still see it, will never be on the same line of your vision (when you are looking straight). If you look straight inside a curved pipe you know you will be looking at the "ceiling", not the exit.
Clear enough, so far so good?
What you think the horizon is? The horizon is a perfect straight line, a corridor. The line of the horizon is always on the line of our vision, when looking straight/nivelated/180º. If you go up the tallest building you can go, or mountain, or inside a baloon (I never went into a plane, haha), the effect is still the same, giving the effect that we are living in a concave world (go on the hightest place inside a boat when you go to the ocean and turn around while always looking straight, it's like you are inside a bowl (same effect on others very high places).
-But now someone should ask: "but if Earth were a globe, how the horizon would look like? what effect would happen"
-Answer: With everything progressively going down in altitude, the more far away from your position it is localizated, and give the size of the "globe Earth", on the ground it would look like more or less the same, but the curvature on the sides would be really aparent on the distance. But one BIG difference: the more high you would go, the more and more the line of the horizon would go BELOW your line of vision looking straight. On the top of a high building or a mountain, the line of the horizon would be WAY BELLOW the straight line of vision (plus the curvature WOULD HAVE to be really aparent on high altitudes). The bowl effect would not be able to happen for 2 reasons: the curvature and the fact that, for the land on distance, there would not be enough altitude to reach the straight vision line (the land/sea would not magically go up to the sky to reach your straight line of vision while in a high building or looking to the ocean while on a high place, logic my friends (although this one can be a little hard to visualize on your mind)).
-If you want to do the test yourself, download the Blender program (or some other 3d program you know how to mess with), learn a little on how to mess with it, open a picture of some map of some region of the world. Now enlarge the picture to a super gigant size, let more or less equal to the size of the map on reality or just make it gigant.
Now open a picture of the sky, position it upside down on top of the map, increase to the same size you have increased the map, position it higher than the map and put your camera on top of the map (let the angle of the camera straight too). "Look, it's the horizon...", play around and see that it's exactly the same effect wee see on reality, including the bowl effect.

NOW: google earth is horrible for this because, by what I know (and I guess it was on purpose), since there is no marker of the angle of the camera on the screen (there is using the "yellow pin" marker, but when setting the angle straight, you have to fix the distance to the object as well, and in the end you stay "glued" to the floor), no crosshair on the center of the camera, and, when looking straight, I could not discover some way to increase the altitude, it is better to download a 3d Earth globe to open it on Blender or some other program. Position the 3d globe inside a bigger globe with the texture/image of the sky (to simulate the sky), and position the camera on top of the land, better if on some high place you know... and look around.
On blender, while looking throught the camera, press "r" and then "z", a line will appear from the center of the camera pointing to your mouse arrow, now by moving the mouse the camera will rotate left or right without change the angle, at same time that you will have a way to look at the center/look straight. On a flat surface the center is the center of the horizon, on a globe the horizon is below the center even on small altitudes (if I tested right) and it keeps going way down the more you go up (and the curvature is super visible).

FINALIZING:
Now, don't matter if you are naive/innocent enough to still want to believe that the guys who control the governments of the world, the midia and entertainment, universities, research centers, science fields, Nasa, etc would be incapable of lie on this magnitude and hide from people this for some more than 2 centuries, or if you simple want to decide keep believing in a round earth. You know why don't matter? because this examples above have destroyed the floor of this lie, you simple can't look back, after have read and understood what I just said, and say to yourself, without lie, "it is not truth, it can't be, aaaahhhh", hahaha.
And it has to be a lie that before 1800 or 1700 humanity in geral believed for a fact that earth was round, I bet it was the other way around. More so because the majority of people was catholic (and others protestants) and the Bible says that Earth is plane, and universities and science was certainly not that contamined by this guys's lies yet.

And it was a shock to me too, on the last week, but now is a little bit fun to think about what the other things relacioned are lies too. And as I said, you can't turn back because the cover of the lie is gone, you can only choose to not think about it if you want, but you have to be crazy to not see it (and look at the irony here, the crazy people were not the ones that believed in a flat earth, but the inverse, haha (and kind of awesome if you think in a certain way).

WARNING: it's high provable that liers, servants of the evil guys (that obviously lurk on this forum), will post lies to attack this post bellow this point (or offenses), it's with you to think for yourself and recheck what I said (or lot of other experiments that you can do or read about).
And moderators, sticky this post or come with a better one, one full of pictures and videos by preference.

EDITED: took off "fact 1", it was not all wrong, but exagerated, my mistake, haha.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 23, 2012, 07:17:27 PM
I made this picture while analyzing on google earth some 2 days ago, it serves as one example of one of the things I said above:
(http://s14.postimage.org/v2qg6vsq5/No_curvature.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/v2qg6vsq5/)
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 23, 2012, 10:17:53 PM
Fact 2:
If I am on the other side of lake Ontario, on Toronto, and I am some 40 kms away looking at the CN Tower, I see the whole of the city on the other side completely straight/plane. Now, if someone is in doubt if the water until my position towards the tower is flat, I just need to go 20 kms towards the tower, then turn to the side 90 degrees and go more 40 kms, so that I can look at the tower and my previous position to see: the water is completely plane from the position 1 to the tower, case closed.



Indeed, no curvature whatsoever across Lake Ontario (55 km distance to Vinemount Ridge, 213 m altitude, we will ascend to 240 m - 59 meter curvature absolutely does not exist) - bear in mind the photographs were taken from a lower altitude, we ascend to 240 meters so that no questions will remain.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)


http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/#)


(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)


http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/#)

Photograph taken at Beamer Falls Conversation Area (some 45 meters in altitude - maximum height of cliffs some 110 meters - but we will ascend to 240 meters)



http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)


http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG)

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG)


http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/IMG_0734.JPG (http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/IMG_0734.JPG)

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/IMG_0734.JPG)
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 24, 2012, 06:43:37 AM
I was thinking in what could be said to a teacher at the university, and in front of the class, that would make they instant realize that something is wrong, without you looking like a crazy guy:

you - "professor, a question"

prof - "what's up, dude?"

you - "you said that on 55 kms of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of 250 meters. If I divide both numbers by 256, it shows that around 215 meters of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of around 1 meter, correct?"

prof - "oh yeah, you understood it right bro."

you - "but professor, this means that long buildings and bridges can't be constructed straight, in a nivelated right line, or else, when moving along it, it soon would become a inclined road, going up."

prof - "?!?"

you - But this don't happen, so all long buildings in the world are always curved and we don't notice? How come there is really long straight bridges crossing big lakes, and they don't become roads that are going up? Or are they curved and our eyes can never detect it? But how come we can easily notice constructions that ARE curved?

prof - "hum... haa..."

class - "yeah prof, how come this happen, explain to us."

prof - "You see, there is this thing about refration... and... but it doesn't make sense... then how come... ??... ...?... !!?!!!! !FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuu"

EDIT: This one was based on the "fact 1", wich was exagerated by my mistake, so, reader, disconsider this one.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2012, 07:19:53 AM
I agree. The earth is flat.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 24, 2012, 07:29:34 AM
That's a problem Mister Tom: the "I agree" thing.

This is not a subject open for discussion, with "agrees" and "disagrees", it's a proven fact. Proved facts are not open for discussion.

For example, would you accept to discuss with someone the subject if people really have to feed to survive? You would say that this is not open for discussion, if people would stop eating and drinking, they would die in a few days.

And Levee, there is no need to go to 240 meters high, if the effect is not happening on a small escale, it don't happen in a big escale. After all the big effect of curvature, if it existed, would have to be made of the conection of small curvatures, or else it would not exist, no one can argue against this.
What I mean is that the effect HAS to be visible on this pictures by the eleveation of someone standing on the floor.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: digimonkey on September 24, 2012, 08:16:22 AM
Quote
you - "you said that on 55 kms of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of 250 meters. If I divide both numbers by 256, it shows that around 215 meters of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of around 1 meter, correct?"

If we're talking about a perfectly shaped sphere with no variance in crust that's still not true.  The curvature of the earth is calculated to account for an 8 inch difference over a mile.  With that we can say the difference in altitude on a perfectly smooth sphere would account for about a 7 meter difference over a distance of 55kms.  Considering these shots are taken across a large body of water, we also would have to factor in refraction although I'm not sure that's necessary, at 55kms away the naked eye probably couldn't really make out a 7 meter altitude difference in this case.


Below is the reference calculation for the curvature of the earth per mile:

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.html (http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.html)
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 24, 2012, 08:40:31 AM
"If we're talking about a perfectly shaped sphere with no variance in crust that's still not true".

That's bouchet, Earth, by the pictures from satelities that they show to us until today, is a perfect or almost perfect sphere (considering their lies to be truth). given the radius they tell us, in no way it would be "8 inch difference over a mile", think a little or you are a lier.
Water has to be always pulled toward the center of the sphere, so, even on right irregular terrains, the water should be perfectly curved.
Also I read mentions on other places, like in a book from a scientist, that this figure "55 kms - 250 meters difference" is more or less correct. So how come you appear here with a information that goes contrary to this, that I never heard about?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 24, 2012, 09:10:45 AM
That's bouchet, Earth, by the pictures from satelities that they show to us until today, is a perfect or almost perfect sphere (considering their lies to be truth). given the radius they tell us, in no way it would be "8 inch difference over a mile", think a little or you are a lier.

What problem do you have with the calculations presented on the linked page? I don't think anyone is going to take you seriously if you respond to simple geometry with "no way could that be true, you must be lying." Even Earth Not a Globe uses values that are consistent with these calculations.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 24, 2012, 09:21:34 AM
Hum... ok, I will do a math here:

"7 meter difference over a distance of 55kms"

110 kms - 14 meters difference in altitude
1000 kms - around 140 meters difference
20000 kms (half the Earth globe) - 2800 meters

hahaha

Did I miss something? I should have used some other weird calculation?

The perimeter is not around 40.000 kms in Earth? its what I get when using the radius said on the wikipedia.

EDIT: I went to the link and did the math, surprise: 55 kms = 237,49 meters
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 24, 2012, 09:40:25 AM
perhaps best left to a local perma noob...  after all it is in the debate section.

firstly if this is known fact then why is it up for debate?

secondly why are none of these photos taken close to the water? surely that will prove there is no curvature?

but one point that is missing here is the facts. there is no drop of 2540m that is true. this is how you view something in the distance;

(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/curverealview_zps1133494f.png)

the common misconception is that you see like this;

(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/curvefakeview_zps0fc6fbec.png)

at best those photos are inconclusive. however there have been many photos where 'hills' of water have been shown on boats at such short distances. just lurk for yourself to see them.

number 1. well this has already shown to be false. not only that if the change was as small as a few inches do you think you could tell over 250m? i wouldnt detect a few inches over 25m and you think you will notice after 250? do remember that your example of a 1m drop was wrong to begin with before you reply. even if it was 1m it would actually be 0.5m or about 20 inches. over 250m i dont think i would notice a change in 20 inches.

number 2. i have only seen explanations here for the accountability of a horizontal horizon. however if you can device an actual experiment to show there is no curve, then you have some evidence for your case. however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either.

number 3. when you find a perfectly strait tunnel for several miles you may have a case. was this a thought experiment of have you witnessed this? again refer to point 1 that i made.

number 4. its a shame your strongest evidence was this. i think the horizon being strait is far stronger. what is happening here is that your eye is drawn to the horizon. the horizon is not actually curving upwards (there is another website for that bat shit theory) it would be best described as an optical illusion i guess. next time you are high up do not focus on the horizon and just look strait, its quite hard as your eye is always drawn down to the horizon. next time you may notice that the horizon does not appear to be at eye level but your eye is just drawn to the horizon.

to summarise;

what you have presented here are weak facts that in your mind equal solid evidence. if its such evidence then how is it so easy to make a counter argument. also its worth asking why you dismiss all evidence that points towards a round earth? so in 1 week you have found these 3 'facts' and decided to dismiss everything you have been told and now you are declaring that the earth is flat. so what does make this theory stand out from other conspiracy theories anyway? its very close to religion, in the sense that the society only give theories that cant be proven either way or if they can they have it covered by a global conspiracy. oh and not to mention most of the belief comes from a fictional book that makes many claims that have NEVER been proven.

yes this is my attack  ::) spreading my sheeple lies!
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 24, 2012, 09:47:12 AM
ok im not a math whizz kid but ill try this.

1 mile = 1.6 km

8 inches per mile

8x1.6=12.8

12.8x55=704

704" = 1788.2cm   or  18m.

so over 55km there should be aprox 9m of water obstructing the view.

is that correct?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 24, 2012, 09:54:58 AM
"is that correct?"

If you want to consider the "8 inches per mile"

now, by that site:

a=squar(55² + 6.368,63²)
a=squar(3.025 + 40.559.448,08)
a=squar(40.565.498,08) = 6.369,1

6.368,63-6.369,1 = 0,47 kms
if I do on one go on the calculator: 0,237 kms

what is wrong with this calculator, haha

"this is how you view something in the distance"
wrong, on a sphere you, by your vision, are always on TOP of the sphere
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 24, 2012, 09:58:35 AM
"is that correct?"

If you want to consider the "8 inches per mile"

now, by that site:

a=squar(55² + 6.368,63²)
a=squar(3.025 + 40.559.448,08)
a=squar(40.565.498,08) = 6.369,1

6.368,63-6.369,1 = 0,47 kms

i told you i dont understand this kind of maths, "im noo whizz kid " implied that my maths is basic. ill find another source. please address my other points too as even 50cm over 200+m is not much anyway. and as curvature is seen your point is moot. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 24, 2012, 10:02:36 AM
all searches say 8" per mile. maybe you are getting your inches and cm mixed up.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 24, 2012, 10:30:19 AM
My internet was down, so the late answer.
Squevil I edited the post above, take a look.

now, to your other points:

number 1: if it is one meter below on a distance of 220 meters, by looking by the side the middle should be half meter up in relation to the edges. And I showed the calculation was correct by your formula of that site. The thing I am not understanding right is why it gives a really wrong number if I use 1km on that formula, perhaps someone can explain to me later.
EDIT: this one was based on that mistake I mentioned earlier, so it's exagerated.

number 2: "however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either." there is only a small curvature on really high altitudes, consider this to be the light of the sun iluminating in a circle and you know that this can't be considered a proof of earth rotundity. also the curvature is too small.

number 3: go search around, I don't know a close tunnel close to me, but I read about it. Other thing to consider, the writer of that book did this experiment in a way, he explained in lots of details with lots of informations, would he decide to lie to be easily discovered later and, in consequence, send his work and name to the hole? Also he debated for decades, if it was a false example, someone would have proved him wrong easy.

number 4: bouchet, a ilusion of optic that keeps the land that we can't see, given the curvature, magically glued to my line of vision and touching the sky, even as I go really high up. Also, do the 3d blender test. Also I am not saying "look to the horizon", I am saying to look straight. go on top of a high building, on the ledge put a nivel, fix it so it is completely nivelated and look straight: you will look to the horizon, that's why the bowl effect happens.

Now, you are posing as a smart guy, but you did mistakes that show that you are ignorant and/or disatent, or you are a lier, who omit information on middle of conversations to improve your side. Also you are mocking me, other obvious strategy used to put my reason as bouchet.
The one that you said people on top of a sphere are actually to the side of the sphere was a mistake so big that it look like a big lie, since only someone who have not thought about the subject would fall for it.

EDIT: I see now that you were talking about the heigh your vision is, when on top of a sphere. only your feet is on the "top of the world", even so your example, considering the size of earth, was not well done, if not bad intentioned (obviously, who we are kiding here?)
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2012, 10:34:47 AM
The distances I used for proving the Earth is flat are as follows:

13 km (strait of Gibraltar, photographs and videos)

34 km (english channel, photographs)

55 km (lake Ontario, photographs)

7500 km (explosion of Tunguska seen all the way from London)



Correct formula for curvature on a spherical Earth:

C = R x [1 - cos(s/2R)]

R = 6378.164 km

s = distance


Example: for 55 km, we would have a curvature of 59 meters



Correct formula for a visual obstacle on a spherical Earth:

(http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif)

BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF []

R = 6378.164 km

h = AE = height of observer/photographer

s = distance at the surface, for example 34 km between England and France across the English Channel

BD = height of observable visual target on a round earth
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 24, 2012, 10:39:29 AM
The deviation is 8 inches given a 1 mile arc span, but it isn't "8 inches per mile." The deviation in altitude due to curvature is not linear with the arc span. The larger the arc angle is, the more the deviation will be. It's for this reason that small angle approximations are often acceptable in trigonometry, where sin(theta) is closer to theta the smaller theta is (if theta is in radians).

Quote from: Mau
"is that correct?"

If you want to consider the "8 inches per mile"

now, by that site:

a=squar(55² + 6.368,63²)
a=squar(3.025 + 40.559.448,08)
a=squar(40.565.498,08) = 6.369,1

6.368,63-6.369,1 = 0,47 kms
if I do on one go on the calculator: 0,237 kms

what is wrong with this calculator, haha

"this is how you view something in the distance"
wrong, on a sphere you, by your vision, are always on TOP of the sphere

Nothing's wrong with the calculator, it's your addition that's wrong. sqrt(55^2 + 6368.63^2) = sqrt(3025 + 40559448.0769) = sqrt(40562473.0769) ~= 6368.87. 6368.87 - 6368.63 ~= 240m like the calculator gave. You should double check your math.

At any rate, 240m is still not a lot of curvature; vs a 55km span that is only a 0.436% deviation. Given your widest photo is 1024 pixels wide that'd be under a 5 pixel difference. However, this would be of the horizon, which is not actually visible in any of these pictures but is obscured by buildings. The shoreline is visible, but there's no reason to believe that'd follow the horizon, nor is it perfectly straight in the pictures.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2012, 10:57:08 AM
At any rate, 240m is still not a lot of curvature; vs a 55km span that is only a 0.436% deviation.


For a distance of 55 km, 240 meters represents the difference in altitude, NOT the curvature.

The curvature for 55 km measures 59 meters (see my previous message).


The photographs taken in Grimsby show no such curvature (59 meters), no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 59 meters, no visual obstacle whatsoever.


(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)

As I said in my first message here, the photograph was taken in Beamer Falls Conservation Area, some 45 meters in altitude (well below the height of the curvature itself) - the maximum height of the cliffs there measures some 110 meters, but we will ascend to 240 meters.

No curvature, not a single cm of it, no ascending slope, a perfectly even, flat surface of Lake Ontario.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 24, 2012, 11:05:45 AM
No, it's because, when I did it in parts I rounded the numbers. since the number is a big one, doing this resulted in that discrepancy in the result.

And randomism, the bowl effect happens because we can see the land without loss, without the floor being hiding hinself on the distance because of loss of altitude relative to the ovserver.

The minimum existence of curvature would inevitably put the line of the horizon below the straight angle. On the simulation in 3d, even on very low altitudes the horizon was always visible below the straight angle, not even close if compared with the other result of a 3d flat earth.

This proves without doubt that: Or earth is plane, OR is round but there is always going on a optic ilusion that presents it as a perfect plane.
The optic ilusion may seen like a option, but it direct appears as a strange/hard to believe option, since the land we are NOT SEEING because of the curvature is magically going up to touch the straight line of vision to create the bowl effect.

The optic ilusion is bouchet
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 24, 2012, 11:14:39 AM
My internet was down, so the late answer.
Squevil I edited the post above, take a look.

now, to your other points:

number 1: if it is one meter below on a distance of 220 meters, by looking by the side the middle should be half meter up in relation to the edges. And I showed the calculation was correct by your formula of that site. The thing I am not understanding right is why it gives a really wrong number if I use 1km on that formula, perhaps someone can explain to me later.

number 2: "however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either." there is only a small curvature on really high altitudes, consider this to be the light of the sun iluminating in a circle and you know that this can't be considered a proof of earth rotundity. also the curvature is too small.

number 3: go search around, I don't know a close tunnel close to me, but I read about it. Other thing to consider, the writer of that book did this experiment in a way, he explained in lots of details with lots of informations, would he decide to lie to be easily discovered later and, in consequence, send his work and name to the hole? Also he debated for decades, if it was a false example, someone would have proved him wrong easy.

number 4: bouchet, a ilusion of optic that keeps the land that we can't see, given the curvature, magically glued to my line of vision and touching the sky, even as I go really high up. Also, do the 3d blender test. Also I am not saying "look to the horizon", I am saying to look straight. go on top of a high building, on the ledge put a nivel, fix it so it is completely nivelated and look straight: you will look to the horizon, that's why the bowl effect happens.

Now, you are posing as a smart guy, but you did mistakes that show that you are ignorant and/or disatent, or you are a lier, who omit information on middle of conversations to improve your side. Also you are mocking me, other obvious strategy used to put my reason as bouchet.
The one that you said people on top of a sphere are actually to the side of the sphere was a mistake so big that it look like a big lie, since only someone who have not thought about the subject would fall for it.

EDIT: I see now that you were talking about the heigh your vision is, when on top of a sphere. only your feet is on the "top of the world", even so your example, considering the size of earth, was not well done, if not bad intentioned (obviously, who we are kiding here?)

it is a common misconception that you are looking from the top of the sphere
  you are not looking from the top at all. its ok its common to think that.

levee as the curve should be 18m anyway, standing at 45m will not show any curve... thats as long as you agree that 1 mile = 8" of course.


mau you failed to answer my real question. "why do you ignore all other evidence for a round earth after 1 week of reading about fet?"
especially when your findings are so inconsistent with reality.

and no im not posting as a smart guy and i am not as smart as some, levee is far more intelligent but perhaps misguided. im sure the master of all things conspiracy will surely disagree but thats why he/she/it/future being far beyond comprehension is such a character.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 24, 2012, 11:28:35 AM
For a distance of 55 km, 240 meters represents the difference in altitude, NOT the curvature.

The curvature for 55 km measures 59 meters (see my previous message).

You are correct that if the picture captures a 55km region then the arc length is not 55km but half that, hence your 59m value (sqrt(6368.63^2 + (55/2)^2) - 6368.63 = 0.059), and I shouldn't have just gone with numbers picked out from the thread.

However, there's a much more fundamental problem here: 55km may be the viewing distance, but the horizontal viewport is nowhere close to 55km. You can easily determine this by looking at the CN Tower in the center, whose height is only 553.5m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CN_Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CN_Tower)). As the tower takes up about 140 pixels in the picture that is about 1024 pixels wide that means the viewport is only about 4km wide.

This gives us an expected curvature of sqrt(6368.63^2 + (4/2)^2) - 6368.63 = 0.00031403927, or about a third of a meter. This is now under one ten-thousandth of the width and therefore under one tenth of a pixel.

How you think that "even a cm of curvature" should be discernible is beyond my understanding.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 24, 2012, 11:44:18 AM
"and no im not posting as a smart guy"
Lier

""why do you ignore all other evidence for a round earth after 1 week of reading about fet?"
especially when your findings are so inconsistent with reality"

Ok lier, I will play the game for a moment:
1- Earth a globe, we are give the radius. By calculation the correct thing is that, from your feet towards the feet of other person at 55 kms in a completely straight terrain, your feet would be around 240-250 meters high than the other feet. Because of gravity, your feet, to you, is on top of the sphere, it's not to the side. this number was also spoken to me directly by my teacher of topography, a old man who worked creating maps for decades before becoming a teacher.
Doing the math, on 200 meters, it's close or around 1 meter curvature.
Profit. (EDIT: the "200 meters is wrong, it's just some 3 or 4 cms at 200 meters, but the rest is right)

2 - Horizon = straight lines, like in a tunnel or a pipe.
Profit, or consider a optic ilusion.

3 - We always see the horizon perfect plane for Kms.
Profit, or consider ilusion because of some permanet PERFECT refraction of light

4 - read about lots of experiments on that book, check what can be deduced of the personality of the author of the book, check his history, enconter other descriptions of this experiments in other places/books.
Profit.

5 - Check that the world is indeed dominated by jews, they are everywhere owning pratically everything. Also check history of Jews on various sources, how they were the paria of the world after Christ, how the real jews become catholics or disapear, and how the pharisees (the evil jews of the time) were the only ones left, check the torah to see if indeed is a monstruous book as lots of writers and peoples say. Check who created the secret organizations, check who created Nasa, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Profit, all checked on various and various and various other sources.

6 - Check Nasa, see if they are indeed a "Lie Machine". result: lots and lots and lots of visible false and/or strange things.
Profit.

7 - Check the story of the "heroes" of science, einsten, newton, Kepler, etc. result: Jews mixed with mens that may be marranos (counceled jews) and evil mens.
Profit.

8 - Give a check for lies/incompatible things on other fields, like astronomy, geology, arqueology (oh boy), etc.
Profit.

9 - Observe, remember what was seen on movies, magazines, animes, etc, regarding Earth format. Was it casual scenes or there is a lot of obviously centralized scenes on this fact?
Profit, in doubt, but indeed suspect (add the information above for final resolution)

10 - some etc that I may have forgot.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2012, 11:46:00 AM
Perhaps you found your way here by mistake, randomism...


Do you understand where you are and what is being debated here?


We are talking about a distance of 55 km, and a curvature of 59 meters which simply does not exist.


On a spherical earth, no horizontal viewport will save you: there should be an ascending slope, perfectly seen, a midpoint curvature of 59 meters, over a distance of 55 km.


No such thing exists in the following photographs.


No matter what the pixels are, you cannot hide a colossal curvature of 59 meters.


The photographs show a perfectly even, flat surface of the lake Ontario: therefore, my comment that not a single centimeter of curvature exists is quite warranted.


The visual target, city of Toronto, is IN FULL VIEW, top to bottom, with NO curvature whatsoever in sight.



(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)


No viewport, pixels, can hide the missing 59 meter curvature: a perfectly flat surface of lake Ontario, no matter what pixels you have in mind.


(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)



Photograph taken at Beamer Falls Conversation Area (some 45 meters in altitude - maximum height of cliffs some 110 meters - but we will ascend to 240 meters)




(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

Perfect view, no curvature, full sight of the visual target: city of Toronto.




(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG)

Same thing.




(http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/IMG_0734.JPG)

No curvature whatsoever over a distance of 55 km, no viewport can save you: not a single cm of curvature across lake Ontario.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 24, 2012, 11:53:44 AM
So you're not looking for curvature of the horizon, but a lowering in height of the buildings.

Before even bothering further with this, can you actually provide a source that says any of these pictures are taken 55km away? The one site link you provided doesn't say that. Perspective drops as a rational function, so I don't really see how you could be 55km away but only see about 4km.

Then, of course you would need to know what the buildings look like at their base, up close, to determine how much (if anything) is being obscured by the horizon, if it is indeed an amount that is discernible by this picture. You absolutely still would not be able to discern "even one centimeter" as you put at. The pixel ratios are less in your favor because you're only looking at an individual building instead of an entire horizon...
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2012, 11:59:26 AM
You have not been able to respond to my previous message in any way whatsoever.


Each photograph is carefully documented: they were taken from the city of Grimsby, for the last three photographs please check the websites of Ms. Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn; actually I could use a distance of 53 km - but as always I use the best scenario for the spherical earth hypothesis, and will ascend at some 240 meters - 55 km distance.


Let us go to the city of Hamilton, some 60 km distance to the other side of the lake, Lakeshore Blvd. (situated west of Toronto).


Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto (the words used by the photographer himself)

(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg)


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#)

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

(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/232/487726854_181aa457da.jpg)


The curvature measures over 60 meters, the visual obstacle some 200 meters.


What viewport/pixel argument are you going to use now?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 24, 2012, 12:02:19 PM
Or randomism is being blind/dumb about this, or he is a lier, I guess no 4th alternative possible?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: hoppy on September 24, 2012, 12:04:08 PM
Squevil the drop is 8" in the first mile and progressively drops more the more miles you go. ENaG has a table of drop off per mile.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 24, 2012, 12:12:01 PM
And what's the elevation of the camera, and the angle? These things do have an impact on how much the horizon would obscure objects visible above it... Of course atmospheric refraction does have a potential impact as well, but there's probably no point even bringing that up..

Or randomism is being blind/dumb about this, or he is a lier, I guess no 4th alternative possible?

I believe this is what they call here a "low content post", you should probably read the rules before posting more..
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2012, 12:20:32 PM
Forget the elevation of the camera and the angle.


The photographer is right there on the beach itself - the curvature itself measures some 60 meters, do you understand these numbers?


Let us elevate the camera to some 10 meters. Still we can see the perfect details from the other side of the lake, and remember that the visual obstacle measures some 200 meters.

On a spherical earth you must ascend to some 60 meters to even see something from the other side of the lake...and we are right there on the beach in the city of Hamilton.


You think refraction will save you?


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


Put in the numbers: 10 meters, 50 meters (I will give you that, 50 meters, to satisfy your lust for spherical earth theory), and a distance of 60 km: the response? the visual target is behind the horizon - could not be seen, that is.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 24, 2012, 12:28:44 PM
Squevil the drop is 8" in the first mile and progressively drops more the more miles you go. ENaG has a table of drop off per mile.

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

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

@ mau, i now see your real issue is with the jewish community. im safe with the thought that everything im told is not just a lie and im not so insecure.
but for both hoppy and mau, lets not forget that you are NOT stood at the top of a sphere when looking across to the horizon. even levee has suggested that you do not and many flat earth protagonists rightly say the same. if you do not believe me mau then carry on being naive and calling people who disagree with you a liar. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 24, 2012, 12:32:41 PM
levee those pictures you last posted are very convincing. these should be added to the faq as evidence.

i enjoy reading your posts. can you answer me (please keep it as short as possible) how we do see curvature at sea/on lakes too? the best example being the sinking ship. is that ocean swell?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 24, 2012, 12:36:23 PM
levee those pictures you last posted are very convincing. these should be added to the faq as evidence.

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

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

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

Long story short, there's a lot of "there's no curvature" vs "I can clearly see curvature." Some attempt to actually measure it would be a little more pragmatic.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 24, 2012, 12:40:37 PM
cheers, there is a much better thread here somewhere where a poster made their own pictures and documented it all. it may of been bought up a million times but yet again its being discussed here.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2012, 12:53:17 PM
randomism, you do not understand what is going on.

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


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

(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3238/toronto34.jpg)


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


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


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


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


Here is the beach in St. Catharines:

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

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

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



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


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



Now another three photograph section:

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

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

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

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

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm)
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 24, 2012, 12:57:36 PM
"i now see your real issue is with the jewish community. im safe with the thought that everything im told is not just a lie and im not so insecure."

Lier.

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

The warning is given, think for yourself and work to CEASE the DOUBT! If you want to keep thinking Earth is a globe, then you are forced to find on your own decent explanations for what I said and for the result of the others experiments that were done and detected NO CURVATURE.
Put the info together later and make your decision.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 24, 2012, 01:39:36 PM
i will not participate in a debate if the other side will just shout liar for no reason. levee you make a good argument for the fes. i do see a lot is missing in the picture and cut off because of the lake. if the earth was flat then we would see the other coastline.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 24, 2012, 01:40:58 PM
Mau, no one is going to seriously respond to an argument that consists of "stop listening to jews, everyone is a liar." Your attitude is highly counter-productive to your cause.

levee,

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

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

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

One other thing: you provide an elevation as the height of the observer. Doesn't this assume a completely smooth surface of the earth and negate any variations in land altitude over sea level?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: 29silhouette on September 24, 2012, 03:16:01 PM
cheers, there is a much better thread here somewhere where a poster made their own pictures and documented it all. it may of been bought up a million times but yet again its being discussed here.
This one?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50707.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50707.0.html)

(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3238/toronto34.jpg)


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

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

Here's a couple pictures I took with the same magnification from two different heights.  15-20 feet and about 6-8 inches.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img10/1633/15x3mh32.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img849/6007/15x6inbh32.jpg)
The comparison.  The higher objects appear closer to the water in the low elevation picture, and below a certain point everything near the water appears compressed.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img405/1936/3compare6.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: hoppy on September 24, 2012, 05:13:53 PM
Squevil the drop is 8" in the first mile and progressively drops more the more miles you go. ENaG has a table of drop off per mile.

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

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

@ mau, i now see your real issue is with the jewish community. im safe with the thought that everything im told is not just a lie and im not so insecure.
but for both hoppy and mau, lets not forget that you are NOT stood at the top of a sphere when looking across to the horizon. even levee has suggested that you do not and many flat earth protagonists rightly say the same. if you do not believe me mau then carry on being naive and calling people who disagree with you a liar.
Squevil, there are other sources on the net with the same info. I also double checked the trigonometry of the chart and it is correct. You can feel comfortable using the chart in ENaG.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: digimonkey on September 24, 2012, 06:44:03 PM
@ Levee:  I'm kind of confused.  As I think Randomism was trying to point out.  In the pictures of Toronto you keep pointing out that the city is higher in elevation than your point of reference.  Doesn't this kind of make up for the Earth's drop off due to it's curved surface?  By your own calculations the City wouldn't be out of view by the Earths curved surface from your point of reference.  As for not seeing an incline, I believe that falls in to how humans perceive things.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 24, 2012, 10:13:33 PM
See some strategy to make a topic look like a fail one? give some lies, and in the end disperse the subject as if was nothing. Coincidence? Saw it too many times to consider it that.

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

-Flat Earth-  VS  -Round Earth-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I could have made more complete, but for now it is this: Choose your side
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 24, 2012, 10:44:20 PM
I don't even know what "bouchet" means.

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

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

I'd like to know more about what you've done with 3D models. One interesting thing I've found is that the position and size of the sun and the moon in the sky match a 3D simulation of two bodies orbiting the earth in a simple elliptical motion.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2012, 11:06:07 PM
Okay, so you admit that there is curvature in that picture, just that it's not as much as you would expect from RET.


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


Let us go to the English Channel.


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



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

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


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

(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8526/doverbest2.jpg)


(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6801/doverbest.jpg)

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


(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)

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


Let us go the strait of Gibraltar:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)

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


From the same spot we even have a video:

# (http://#)

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



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

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


Please read my messages again...especially this one.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 24, 2012, 11:31:08 PM
I'm sorry levee, but I still don't understand either:

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

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

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

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

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

I've actually been wondering something.. the Rowbotham perspective effect is one thing, but why exactly would one believe that the effect goes away with higher resolution? Is there any physical prediction or at least explanation one could give that would explain such a thing? I actually feel like I must be missing something here - maybe someone more knowledgeable in this can explain it to be - but I don't even understand how the phenomenon benefits FET (or rather, why anything else would contradict it). Of course truth is truth, but this has been such a hard thing to actually show in pictures that if it's not problematic for the theory you'd think there'd be less certainty over it. Definitely not something you'd trust just because Rowbotham said it, seeing as how there are a good many things he claimed that I don't see anyone here showing much credence towards..
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 25, 2012, 12:03:54 AM
You have the formula and the graphic which goes along with it, use it.

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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



Let us do away with any horizon line.


(http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/june302008/asteroidx.jpg)


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


Another eyewitness account:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

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



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

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

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

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


Tesla ball lightning device details:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/teslaweapons.htm (http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/teslaweapons.htm)
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 25, 2012, 08:06:06 AM
Awesome Levee. I knew about this explosion but I din't knew all this details, really cool.
Also, hello to you, since I am new to the forum and stuff.

randomism:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

The 3d model of a Sun and Moon orbiting a round world work perfectly, as you said and by what I know, and work perfectly on a flat Earth scenary too, after you take out the lies and let on the model a more correct size of the Sun and Moon.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 25, 2012, 08:28:00 AM
mau post some pictures of your flat earth 3d map please.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 25, 2012, 08:52:44 AM
Okay, I checked the diagram now, sorry for missing that. I redid the math, although just with the Pythagoreon equation and it worked out like you specified. I apologize for taking so long to work this out.

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

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

On a similar note, your claims about the visibility of that ball of fire seem to neglect the mention in the article that it was believed have happened 5-10km in the air...
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 25, 2012, 09:05:04 AM
-english is not my native language, so I writed "bouchet", when I meant "bullshit", hahaha.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up ;p

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

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

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

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

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

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

In that case, are you able (and willing?) to prepare a simulation that uses a model of the sun and moon in motion above the earth to predict their exact positions and sizes in any given viewer's sky? Bear in mind that the RET model also explains positions of the stars and phases of the moon, all by straightforward optics and the bodies orbiting an elliptical path (with velocity predicated by the laws of general relativity) and rotating at a relatively fixed rate about their axis.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 25, 2012, 09:07:08 AM
Fact is, levee does show a picture where you can only see the top of a building in the distance. How do you personally account for this?


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


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

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

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

Vinemount Ridge is some 213 meters above the lake level.


Such concerns are elementary...


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


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

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



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


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


The Tunguska explosion provides the most fantastic proof that the surface of the Earth is absolutely flat.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 25, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
The visibility of an explosion several KM in the air that spread out light throughout the sky is really not subject to the same calculations. The London article doesn't report seeing the same center of the blast, merely that the sky was bright.

The rays of light from the sun can easily reach Siberia and London simultaneously, they're not on opposite sides of the earth. This should be obvious by the fact that they're only 7 hours apart in timezones, unless you think that 9AM in London and 4PM in Siberia are never simultaneously in daylight. The fact that it was daylight in Siberia and not London at that particular time is irrelevant (not being day in London would only make the blast easier to see)
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 25, 2012, 10:20:22 AM
-"mau post some pictures of your flat earth 3d map please"
I am not in home right now, and later I will go to the university. I will only get in home close to midnight, so only tomorrow fo me to post pictures. But it's not really necessary, take 4 small objects of the same size, go to the ledge of a table, position some flat big thing that you may have, like some big book or some large table (or some other flat long thing on the kitchen) and position the flat thing on top of this 4 small objects. Position your eye on the ledge of the table and look: the horizon. Go a little up and down while looking straight the best you can and you will see. Now just imagine that you are turning with the view not changing, that create the bowl effect, the effect that we are on a concave world.
What would happen if it was a curved table and curved object? you would tell me that it's obvious that the exit, the "horizon" would be below the straight vision, not even close to it.
Done.
I will see tomorrow then to post some pictures of the 3d model (although my 3d model of earth is really ugly real close, that's why I recomended for people to search for a 3d model to download instead of creating your own, like I did).

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

Are you dumb? Or you are a lier?

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

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

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

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

EDIT: I din't noticed the "general relativity" part, sorry. General relativity is a completely bullshit on crap jones mountain of poo, hahaha. Einstein was a jew, a evil evil men with specific orders and objectives to reach.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 25, 2012, 10:33:42 AM
It's part of the strategy: create false rules on science, then people that would want to explain a flat earth, and don't know that this "rules of physics that can't be ignored" are lies, or filled with lies and omissions, would have to come up with weird and "visible false" explanations. Serve to other things too.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 25, 2012, 10:34:26 AM
The visibility of an explosion several KM in the air that spread out light throughout the sky is really not subject to the same calculations. The London article doesn't report seeing the same center of the blast, merely that the sky was bright.


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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

Do you understand what is going on?

Let me repeat.


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


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


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


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


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


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

The first article you linked even includes an explanation of lights being affected by dust spreading in the atmosphere. While I'm sure you deny this, I think it's pretty weak that your self-alleged most sure-fire flat earth proof relies on a one-time occurrence whose circumstances weren't fully recorded or understand. You'd think everyday observable things would rank higher than that.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 25, 2012, 11:43:57 AM
You are on a roll, don't stop.


(http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/maidment/grad/akmansoy/aral/webfiles/globe.jpg)

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

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



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


ps just imagine the amount of dust required to light the sky over Stockholm so that a photograph could be taken outdoors without flash apparatus; they would choke well before having a chance to enjoy the view.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: sandokhan on September 25, 2012, 12:47:50 PM
And a reminder: the effect of the blast was immediate - the explosion was seen instantaneously at 0:10 am (London time); no chance to take into consideration any kind of dust propagation (we might talk about this subject, given a timespan of hours/days, but then I will bring up something else: the fact that the trajectories of the clouds do show that we live on a completely stationary Earth and the restoring forces paradox).

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

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

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


Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 25, 2012, 05:45:13 PM
It's part of the strategy: create false rules on science, then people that would want to explain a flat earth, and don't know that this "rules of physics that can't be ignored" are lies, or filled with lies and omissions, would have to come up with weird and "visible false" explanations. Serve to other things too.

so you dont have a any pictures of this programme you have... noted...
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 25, 2012, 08:54:06 PM
I had not finished the book yet, so I was reading a little more before sleeping and I read experiment 15.
So, go to hell squevil and randomism, you can't possible be that dumb, you 2 are liers to yourselfs or to the others. Flat Earth is a proved thing, 1+1=2.

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

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

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

And I will post tomorrow some picture of the 3d model for the curious people, with some explanation.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 25, 2012, 09:28:20 PM
thanks for confirming that you are the liar here for not being able to provide the evidence that you have available on the very computer you are typing on! im shocked that a person who can create 3d images lacks the ability to post the findings on this forum.
if you lurked a bit harder you will soon see that this society follows zetetic philosophy and it was expressed that 1+1=1 and my favourite is 1/half=1.

you have such a strong passion for something that you decided over a week. welcome to the debate section of fet, if you feel that you have to attack members for disagreeing with you there is an angry ranting section below where we can happily slag each other off. see you there!

one does not lie even if the information is false if thats what they believe in. im glad we make you mad.

shame you couldnt prove your claims after all....
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: 29silhouette on September 26, 2012, 12:28:30 AM
I figured I'd do some comparing of the multitude of Toronto pictures provided.

Pictures A,B,C are the 'high' elevation pictures.  D is the lower elevation picture that supposedly shows refraction.

1(red) is aligned with the light/dark point of the top of the tower.
2(yellow) is aligned with the bottom of the observation(or whatever) deck.
3(green) is aligned with the top of the lighter building to the right.
4(blue)is aligned with the shorter black building to the right.
5(purple) is aligned with the top of the Skydome.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img560/6645/domecompare3.gif)

In D, the two buildings to the right appear slightly higher and compressed, and the dome is even higher yet.  Again, just like in my pictures of the bridge, the water is much higher too, which would be the 'hill of water.

Looks a lot like curvature and refraction to me.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 26, 2012, 05:35:13 AM
7 hour timezone difference means that they're NOT on the other side of a spherical earth. The difference would have to be 12+ hours. Look at Google Earth, you can clearly see London and Siberia visible on the same side of the earth simultaneously. An explosion spreading all over the sky CAN potentially be seen in both areas, depending on how far away the light and materials in the atmosphere spreads. This 400km limits everything to having spread out over a 7.5km elevation. With enough elevation up away from the atmosphere up to the entire hemisphere can see the same thing - for instance the stars visible in the entire northern hemisphere.

6 time zones would be 90 degrees apart on a spherical Earth.  So, the two locations were separated by more than 90 degrees of a sphere, yet you can easily see an event from one location to another?

Here is a diagram of what this would look like.  The large circle represents a  cutaway of a spherical Earth.  I divided the Earth into 24 evenly spaced time zones.  Point A represents an event happening.  Point B represents an observer 7 time zones away.  The line extending along the horizon at point B represents the line of view of the person at that point.  He would never see the event happen.

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26082347.png)

Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 26, 2012, 06:35:44 AM
Ok, just wakeup, so now I will work to prepare the presentation of the 3d model. I will take pictures, put the thing for download and give instructions on how to mess with blender a little.

But I had to post this before because of what 29silhouette did:

29silhouette:
you can't align distant objects by the top parts, unles they are on the exact same distance. you must align by the low part, by the terrain (on this case by the water).
If you put a pen on front of you and send it away from you with your hand in a straight line, the botton of the pen stays on the same place, while the top directly loose altitude.
And worse on a round earth, you would have to make the pen loose altitude with distance, and "lay down" too (wich means that this buildings, on a round earth, would have to be showing a inclination toward the horizon, but I guess it's a hard thing to verify).
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: digimonkey on September 26, 2012, 06:40:45 AM
I never heard of eye witness reports in England saying they seen an explosion.  The reports before anybody knew what was going on just mention seeing light, or measuring a quick change in air pressure.  I'm sure lots of people later claimed they saw it, but I wouldn't put much faith in those reports.  I do agree however, there is no way anybody seen the actual explosion from England. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 26, 2012, 07:45:40 AM
6 time zones would be 90 degrees apart on a spherical Earth.  So, the two locations were separated by more than 90 degrees of a sphere, yet you can easily see an event from one location to another?

Here is a diagram of what this would look like.  The large circle represents a  cutaway of a spherical Earth.  I divided the Earth into 24 evenly spaced time zones.  Point A represents an event happening.  Point B represents an observer 7 time zones away.  The line extending along the horizon at point B represents the line of view of the person at that point.  He would never see the event happen.

We're talking about the same event being visible by two observers seven time-zones apart. It isn't the same thing as one observer seeing an event that is happening in an isolated location seven time zones away. Regardless of where the center of this event occurred, we don't know the exact radius of its activity.

Turn your diagram on its side, then place something far in the air over some point between A and B (it can be pretty close to B). See how it could be seen by both?

I've only heard about this event yesterday and I will need to research it more (I'm certainly not so easily willing to believe it was the result of a Tesla doomsday device) but I think it stands to reason that if people were reporting the entire sky glowing and being able to read things by its light that they weren't just observing some small point in the sky.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: digimonkey on September 26, 2012, 08:12:30 AM
Quote
I've only heard about this event yesterday and I will need to research it more (I'm certainly not so easily willing to believe it was the result of a Tesla doomsday device) but I think it stands to reason that if people were reporting the entire sky glowing and being able to read things by its light that they weren't just observing some small point in the sky.

Yeah pretty sure we can file this under a case of skyglow.  The light was seen for several days across Europe.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: digimonkey on September 26, 2012, 09:19:33 AM
@Levee:  Going back to your Toronto picture, I believe you keep saying you're taking into account a 240m different in altitude?  Correct me if I got that fact wrong.  However with the formula that can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation)

d² = (6378 + .24)² - 6378²
d² = 40,681,945.5 - 40,678,884
d² = 3,061
d = 55.32km

So at 240m altitude difference you could see for 55.32 kilometers.  We don't even have to take into account the height of the buildings.  We should be able to see the shoreline.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 26, 2012, 10:02:29 AM
@Levee:  Going back to your Toronto picture, I believe you keep saying you're taking into account a 240m different in altitude?  Correct me if I got that fact wrong.  However with the formula that can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation)

d² = (6378 + .24)² - 6378²
d² = 40,681,945.5 - 40,678,884
d² = 3,061
d = 55.32km

So at 240m altitude difference you could see for 55.32 kilometers.  We don't even have to take into account the height of the buildings.  We should be able to see the shoreline.

no its the reverse dude. the pictures are taken 55km away and levee says there is a difference of 240m between observer and shoreline.

this is then halved to 120 (aprox anyway) and this should be the 'hill' that blocks your view. i only saw a difference of 18m but apparently thats wrong.

@hoppy i just realised the in enag the formula for calculating the drop is taken as if the observer is stood on top of a sphere. this means it is also wrong.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 26, 2012, 10:19:19 AM
Ok, get the program Blender here:
http://www.blender.org/download/get-blender/ (http://www.blender.org/download/get-blender/)
It's free.

Now download the 3d models and read the explanation bellow to know how to mess around with it in Blender:

Models:
http://www.4shared.com/rar/4v413ovq/3d_map_flat_round_earth.html (http://www.4shared.com/rar/4v413ovq/3d_map_flat_round_earth.html)

EXPLANATION - INSTRUCTIONS:

(http://s12.postimage.org/x2lsnt7hl/3d_maps_flat_and_round.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/x2lsnt7hl/)
-They both are the same archive, but I duplicate it to let the camera already in position in each model. Because to teach here how to transfer the camera from inside the flat model to the top of the round model, without messing with angle, would be a bother and complicated for people without any experience on this kind of program.
-I made a half globe on the round model, no need for a full one because the camera will be fixed on the top of it. Also it look really "ugly bugly", on looking close to the surface, because of 2 reasons: the texture used was meant for a full globe, but I ended making a half globe, and because I increased the size a lot (the 2 models are gigantic, in comparation with the size of the camera and other models on blender in geral).
- Comparatively to their size and the size of the camera, they are not equal on escale, the round model is way bigger than the flat model, in proportion. If they were on escale, the curvature on the round earth model would become much more aparent as you gain altitude, but I purposedely left it bigger to not hear complains like "you made this on purpose to let the curvature this aparent". The curvature become aparent anyway on round model after some gain in altitude, what matter here most is what happens with the line of the horizon on both models, the basic difference and what happens with the gain on altitude.
- It serves for the analyze, but it would be cool to have someone do a pretty one with some buildings and stuff, all on escale. It's not THAT hard to do, but it takes time and calculations and stuff to make it right, so I don't want to do one.
Well, not right now, I hope some guy with more experience on messing with 3d models would do one, since I don't work with 3d models, my thing is to draw on photoshop. But let me see... It would be necessary to download or create a globe of the Earth with the correct map texture, increase it a lot, localize Toronto and create a CN Tower and some buildings on top of it in escale, decrease the size of the camera to match the photographies, then play around analyzing. And do the same on other parts of the globe, like the Tower Eiffel for example.

Well, enough explanation, to the instructions/steps:

1) Install Blender, open it and see if no message will appear saying that you need to instal some other thing for it to work, like latest direct-x or some other thing from the microsoft site (if you are using windows).

2) Open the "Flat Earth" model first, the one with the icon of blender, not the one that has the name "Flat Earth.blend1".
You will see this:
(http://s12.postimage.org/9587vp4q1/3d_maps_flat_and_round_2.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/9587vp4q1/)
The camera is half inside the land, that's why that grey zone appears. the camera is straight, looking to the black line perfect, since it's a flat model, a "tunnel".

3) Now, pres "r" and then "z" and move your mouse:
(http://s12.postimage.org/q9lfrjgo9/3d_maps_flat_and_round_5.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/q9lfrjgo9/)
Notice the line going out of the center of the camera toward your mouse pointer. You will look to the sides without change the straight angle, press the right mouse button to cancel and come back to the start vision, or press the left to stay to where you choose to look at. Remeber to press "Ctrl + z" to cancel any mistake, or reopen the file.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 26, 2012, 10:20:47 AM

4) Now press "g" and then "z" and move your mouse, you will go only up or down, without mess with the angle. Hold shift to move really slow and simulate that you are flying up till the end of the atmosphere:
(http://s12.postimage.org/7fz4nmp0p/3d_maps_flat_and_round_3.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/7fz4nmp0p/)
Notice, even when almost going into space, the horizon line still stays on the center. Repeat step 3, the bowl effect (you are on high altitude and still the horizon stay up to your straight line of vision, it gives the impression that you live in a concave world).

5) Open the "Round Earth" model (not the one named "Round Earth.blend1"), you will see this:
(http://s12.postimage.org/isc8cbr55/3d_maps_flat_and_round_4.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/isc8cbr55/)
Notice that, even touching the ground, on a distance that we should not notice a curvature on the horizon (or perhaps just a little bit), the line of the horizon is already bellow the center of the camera, below the straight line of vision. Repeat step 3 if you want.

6) Repeat step 4 to gain altitude, but on this model the sky ended way more high, because of the tremenduous increase in size I did, so it will come a altitude were you will see the end of the half globe of the sky, just ignore it or imagine that the grey part is still the sky with different clouds. On gaining altitude, you will see this:
(http://s12.postimage.org/vz1obumuh/3d_maps_flat_and_round_6.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/vz1obumuh/)
Notice: On a altitude where we should see that level of curvature, the line of the horizon went way down (for those who don't want to download the 3d models, copy and put this 2 pictures side by side to see well the difference). Obviously, the bowl effect is impossible, the only effect we would notice, if we could see this on reality, is that we live indeed in a convex/round world.


OBS: Let me know of any problem and I will see if I can fix it, then I change the initial post. Feel free to mess around with the models, and perhaps to create a more pretty one, because I din't bothered with apparence when I did it.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 26, 2012, 10:24:44 AM
I forgot to explain: when you open it you are on "camera vision", to exit and look at the models, press "numpad 0 (zero)".
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 26, 2012, 10:30:26 AM
By the way, the Tunguska Event occurred over modern day Krasnoyarsk Krai, 5655km away from London. In case anyone cares.

And it released at least 46PJ of energy (or 4.6 * 10^16 joules) . Tesla's alleged 800M horsepower is only about 5.97 * 10^11 watts. So it'd have to be running for 21 hours straight to generate that kind of power. Doesn't strike me as much of a sudden event.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: digimonkey on September 26, 2012, 10:46:59 AM
@Squevil:  You need to realize you're wrong about the sphere.  You are technically from a point of reference always on top of the world due to gravity.  The world from your point of reference always slopes down.  Mau pointed this out earlier and it's true.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 26, 2012, 11:32:29 AM
More on the Tunguska event..

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June09/TunguskaComet.html (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June09/TunguskaComet.html)

I don't know, seems pretty plausible to me. Regardless of what you think about where the space shuttle goes, it's undeniable that it launches, and the effects were viewed from a source on the ground.

My big question is, if the explosion happened due to Tesla pointing a death ray at the area from thousands of miles away why would people all over Europe report glowing in the sky that lasted for days? Exactly how and why would the explosion itself cause this?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 26, 2012, 02:31:32 PM
We're talking about the same event being visible by two observers seven time-zones apart. It isn't the same thing as one observer seeing an event that is happening in an isolated location seven time zones away. Regardless of where the center of this event occurred, we don't know the exact radius of its activity.

Turn your diagram on its side, then place something far in the air over some point between A and B (it can be pretty close to B). See how it could be seen by both?

Fine, in this diagram, both point A and point B are looking towards the horizon in the direction of each other.  The V above where the two views cross represents the field of view that they share.  They can only see the same event if it is higher than 4100 km.  Yet, the Tunguska event supposedly occurred approximately 10 km above the Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event)

And, before you say that it was reflecting off the atmosphere, space starts just a little past 1000 km.  http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Atmosphere.shtml (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Atmosphere.shtml)

Note:  The radius of the Earth and the height of the convergence of the two views are AutoCAD dimensions.  In other words, I did not just make the numbers up.  The dimensions are in kilometers, even though they are not labeled. 

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26171216.png)
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: hoppy on September 26, 2012, 03:48:08 PM
@Levee:  Going back to your Toronto picture, I believe you keep saying you're taking into account a 240m different in altitude?  Correct me if I got that fact wrong.  However with the formula that can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation)

d² = (6378 + .24)² - 6378²
d² = 40,681,945.5 - 40,678,884
d² = 3,061
d = 55.32km

So at 240m altitude difference you could see for 55.32 kilometers.  We don't even have to take into account the height of the buildings.  We should be able to see the shoreline.

no its the reverse dude. the pictures are taken 55km away and levee says there is a difference of 240m between observer and shoreline.

this is then halved to 120 (aprox anyway) and this should be the 'hill' that blocks your view. i only saw a difference of 18m but apparently thats wrong.

@hoppy i just realised the in enag the formula for calculating the drop is taken as if the observer is stood on top of a sphere. this means it is also wrong.
No, it is not wrong. You are.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Vongeo on September 26, 2012, 04:03:50 PM
I am posting here to follow the zetetic research in this thread.

Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 26, 2012, 04:47:26 PM
Fine, in this diagram, both point A and point B are looking towards the horizon in the direction of each other.  The V above where the two views cross represents the field of view that they share.  They can only see the same event if it is higher than 4100 km.  Yet, the Tunguska event supposedly occurred approximately 10 km above the Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event)

And, before you say that it was reflecting off the atmosphere, space starts just a little past 1000 km.  http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Atmosphere.shtml (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Atmosphere.shtml)

Note:  The radius of the Earth and the height of the convergence of the two views are AutoCAD dimensions.  In other words, I did not just make the numbers up.  The dimensions are in kilometers, even though they are not labeled. 

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26171216.png)

Tell me if I'm misunderstanding your diagram, because you still seem to be describing the event as a single point. The event was described as a light almost as bright as the sun moving through the sky, followed by a huge light filling the sky. It caused quite a bit of damage to trees in the area and knocked people back in a significant area. The explosion would cause light and heat to outwards at a pretty significant radius before it dispersed to the point of not being visible, wouldn't you say?

Seeing the center of the explosion from those points might not work so well. Can you show me some credible accounts of this?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: digimonkey on September 26, 2012, 05:31:25 PM
@jroa:  I'm not sure if it'll prove anything or not, but that diagram is not exactly accurate.  The explosion part of the event didn't go off on the ground like you have it shown.  The line drawn I understand was so the line of sight didn't go through the curvature of the Earth, but at 10km you have a bit more room to play with then at eye level, or the ground.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: squevil on September 26, 2012, 05:38:12 PM
@Levee:  Going back to your Toronto picture, I believe you keep saying you're taking into account a 240m different in altitude?  Correct me if I got that fact wrong.  However with the formula that can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation)

d² = (6378 + .24)² - 6378²
d² = 40,681,945.5 - 40,678,884
d² = 3,061
d = 55.32km

So at 240m altitude difference you could see for 55.32 kilometers.  We don't even have to take into account the height of the buildings.  We should be able to see the shoreline.

no its the reverse dude. the pictures are taken 55km away and levee says there is a difference of 240m between observer and shoreline.

this is then halved to 120 (aprox anyway) and this should be the 'hill' that blocks your view. i only saw a difference of 18m but apparently thats wrong.

@hoppy i just realised the in enag the formula for calculating the drop is taken as if the observer is stood on top of a sphere. this means it is also wrong.
No, it is not wrong. You are.

ignorance is so bliss is it hoppy? there are others who would agree with me, including in this thread. i cant be bothered to draw it up or explain it again you can believe what you want.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: hoppy on September 26, 2012, 06:40:12 PM
@Levee:  Going back to your Toronto picture, I believe you keep saying you're taking into account a 240m different in altitude?  Correct me if I got that fact wrong.  However with the formula that can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation)

d² = (6378 + .24)² - 6378²
d² = 40,681,945.5 - 40,678,884
d² = 3,061
d = 55.32km

So at 240m altitude difference you could see for 55.32 kilometers.  We don't even have to take into account the height of the buildings.  We should be able to see the shoreline.

no its the reverse dude. the pictures are taken 55km away and levee says there is a difference of 240m between observer and shoreline.

this is then halved to 120 (aprox anyway) and this should be the 'hill' that blocks your view. i only saw a difference of 18m but apparently thats wrong.

@hoppy i just realised the in enag the formula for calculating the drop is taken as if the observer is stood on top of a sphere. this means it is also wrong.
No, it is not wrong. You are.

ignorance is so bliss is it hoppy? there are others who would agree with me, including in this thread. i cant be bothered to draw it up or explain it again you can believe what you want.
Think about it Squevil. How about if instead of standing, you layed on the ground. Would the hill at the mid point of where you are looking to be in every direction? I say no. If you say yes, your head would seem to be in a bowl, while your head is at ground level.
 On a round earth, everywhere you look should be down hill.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mau on September 26, 2012, 06:41:54 PM
Now, as I said before that I would check that video: Here is the thing::
Toy Robot in Space! - HD balloon flight to 95,000ft (http://#ws)

This video shows that, on 95.000 ft, or 28.956 meters, or almost 29 kms, the line of the horizon is still on the straight line or a little bellow.

How?

Well, there is a interesting thing about this video: when close to the floor, on low altitude, we can verify that:
1) when the camera look up, the horizon is distorted to look concave;
2) when the camera look down, the horizon is distorted to appear convex;
3) when the camera is looking straight, or almost exactly it (when the camera is straight going up, because of the position of the balloon pulling it up) the horizon appears normal, straight without distortion (something that at this height we all agree, the thing is just starting to go up);
4) we see that when the camera is straight, the line of the horizon is on the MIDDLE OF THE CHEST of the robot toy;
5) we can continue to verify when the toy is straight because of the effect the lens cause when looking up and down, and because that he quickly changes back to straight when deviant from the normal position. In other words, the most stable moments on the long video are when he is straight, since the balloon can't pull him up without constantly forcing him to keep straight;
6) at 4:11 or something the video can be considered over, because the thing falls back to earth, rotating all around;
7) We notice that, even on this altitude, the line of the horizon still is around the middle of the chest of the toy (I had the impression that it become just a little bit bellow of what was on the start);
8) No signal of curvature too, or at least not a really aparent one.

Well, it's obvious that on a sphere the line of the horizon would have to be super below the straight line.
I don't see how could be argue that he is in reality looking down to the line of the horizon when he is at the top, and that the effect of the len is not working anymore like in the start. For this to be the case, around 4:00 the normal, more stable position of the balloon would have to be in diagonal, like a "strong, steady and relative calm wind is pushing him constant to the side, giving the impression that he is looking straight".
It seens that almost there is no wind at that height.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: 29silhouette on September 26, 2012, 08:44:38 PM
29silhouette:
you can't align distant objects by the top parts, unles they are on the exact same distance. you must align by the low part, by the terrain (on this case by the water).
If you put a pen on front of you and send it away from you with your hand in a straight line, the botton of the pen stays on the same place, while the top directly loose altitude.
And worse on a round earth, you would have to make the pen loose altitude with distance, and "lay down" too (wich means that this buildings, on a round earth, would have to be showing a inclination toward the horizon, but I guess it's a hard thing to verify).
I can't?  I just did.  I did it with the Toronto pictures and the bridge pictures.  The upper portion of the objects show minimal distortion in the low-elevation pictures because they're not affected by mirage or refraction anywhere near as much as the low objects, therefore I used the upper parts of the objects to align everything. 

I can align them using the water if you like, but the lower objects past the water are still going to be flattened, and there will still be a difference in height between the Skydome roof and the top of the tower when compared to the high-elevation pictures, and everything in the low picture will still be closer to the water (a hill of water between the photographer and the buildings perhaps).

The high-elevation pictures (if taken form shore) are about 51km.  The low-elevation picture is taken from an area that is about 47km.  Not enough difference to really matter.

If you move a pen away from you, the top could stay at the same level, and the bottom could gain altitude.  It depends on the positioning of your eye.

Also, yes, the further away over the curve, the more buildings will be 'tilted away' from you. 

Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 26, 2012, 09:44:50 PM
Also, yes, the further away over the curve, the more buildings will be 'tilted away' from you.

Yeah but let's face it, with arcs of no more than a handful of milliradians you're probably not going to be able to see it. We're talking dozens of ppm of error at the most.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 28, 2012, 08:49:08 PM
Fine, in this diagram, both point A and point B are looking towards the horizon in the direction of each other.  The V above where the two views cross represents the field of view that they share.  They can only see the same event if it is higher than 4100 km.  Yet, the Tunguska event supposedly occurred approximately 10 km above the Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event)

And, before you say that it was reflecting off the atmosphere, space starts just a little past 1000 km.  http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Atmosphere.shtml (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Atmosphere.shtml)

Note:  The radius of the Earth and the height of the convergence of the two views are AutoCAD dimensions.  In other words, I did not just make the numbers up.  The dimensions are in kilometers, even though they are not labeled. 

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26171216.png)

Tell me if I'm misunderstanding your diagram, because you still seem to be describing the event as a single point. The event was described as a light almost as bright as the sun moving through the sky, followed by a huge light filling the sky. It caused quite a bit of damage to trees in the area and knocked people back in a significant area. The explosion would cause light and heat to outwards at a pretty significant radius before it dispersed to the point of not being visible, wouldn't you say?

Seeing the center of the explosion from those points might not work so well. Can you show me some credible accounts of this?

I don't have AutoCAD installed on the laptop that I am current using, so use your imagination on this.  Look at my last diagram.  An explosion 10 km above the earth that can be seen from both A and B would be several thousands of miles in diameter.  It would have taken out half of Europe.

@jroa:  I'm not sure if it'll prove anything or not, but that diagram is not exactly accurate.  The explosion part of the event didn't go off on the ground like you have it shown.  The line drawn I understand was so the line of sight didn't go through the curvature of the Earth, but at 10km you have a bit more room to play with then at eye level, or the ground.

The diagram does not show the explosion going off at ground level.  It only shows the minimum hight in which two people 7 times zones apart can see the same thing.  That height is over 4000 km. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: randomism on September 29, 2012, 02:05:02 AM
I don't have AutoCAD installed on the laptop that I am current using, so use your imagination on this.  Look at my last diagram.  An explosion 10 km above the earth that can be seen from both A and B would be several thousands of miles in diameter.  It would have taken out half of Europe.

So what you're saying is that the explosion's blast radius (the part that would "take out" stuff) is the same as its illumination radius? Surely you know that isn't the case. An explosion will release a bunch of light spreading in all directions. Think of something as mundane as fireworks going off, which will momentarily light up the visible sky, far beyond viewing the "explosion" part. If you're trying to say that both parties would not simultaneously see stuff burning then yes, I agree with that.

At any rate, I'm not sure if you're defending levee's claims on this or if you're defending it as a thought experiment.. or if it really matters. But I still contend that if they saw something in the sky for days then at the very least they had to have seen more than just the explosion, or its immediate effects. Do you agree with that much?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: iWitness on November 11, 2012, 11:10:01 PM
Now, as I said before that I would check that video: Here is the thing::
Toy Robot in Space! - HD balloon flight to 95,000ft (http://#ws)

This video shows that, on 95.000 ft, or 28.956 meters, or almost 29 kms, the line of the horizon is still on the straight line or a little bellow.

How?

Well, there is a interesting thing about this video: when close to the floor, on low altitude, we can verify that:
1) when the camera look up, the horizon is distorted to look concave;
2) when the camera look down, the horizon is distorted to appear convex;
3) when the camera is looking straight, or almost exactly it (when the camera is straight going up, because of the position of the balloon pulling it up) the horizon appears normal, straight without distortion (something that at this height we all agree, the thing is just starting to go up);
4) we see that when the camera is straight, the line of the horizon is on the MIDDLE OF THE CHEST of the robot toy;
5) we can continue to verify when the toy is straight because of the effect the lens cause when looking up and down, and because that he quickly changes back to straight when deviant from the normal position. In other words, the most stable moments on the long video are when he is straight, since the balloon can't pull him up without constantly forcing him to keep straight;
6) at 4:11 or something the video can be considered over, because the thing falls back to earth, rotating all around;
7) We notice that, even on this altitude, the line of the horizon still is around the middle of the chest of the toy (I had the impression that it become just a little bit bellow of what was on the start);
8) No signal of curvature too, or at least not a really aparent one.

Well, it's obvious that on a sphere the line of the horizon would have to be super below the straight line.
I don't see how could be argue that he is in reality looking down to the line of the horizon when he is at the top, and that the effect of the len is not working anymore like in the start. For this to be the case, around 4:00 the normal, more stable position of the balloon would have to be in diagonal, like a "strong, steady and relative calm wind is pushing him constant to the side, giving the impression that he is looking straight".
It seens that almost there is no wind at that height.

Thank you for using your brain.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: robertotrevor on November 12, 2012, 04:36:15 AM
Now, as I said before that I would check that video: Here is the thing::
Toy Robot in Space! - HD balloon flight to 95,000ft (http://#ws)

This video shows that, on 95.000 ft, or 28.956 meters, or almost 29 kms, the line of the horizon is still on the straight line or a little bellow.

How?

Well, there is a interesting thing about this video: when close to the floor, on low altitude, we can verify that:
1) when the camera look up, the horizon is distorted to look concave;
2) when the camera look down, the horizon is distorted to appear convex;
3) when the camera is looking straight, or almost exactly it (when the camera is straight going up, because of the position of the balloon pulling it up) the horizon appears normal, straight without distortion (something that at this height we all agree, the thing is just starting to go up);
4) we see that when the camera is straight, the line of the horizon is on the MIDDLE OF THE CHEST of the robot toy;
5) we can continue to verify when the toy is straight because of the effect the lens cause when looking up and down, and because that he quickly changes back to straight when deviant from the normal position. In other words, the most stable moments on the long video are when he is straight, since the balloon can't pull him up without constantly forcing him to keep straight;
6) at 4:11 or something the video can be considered over, because the thing falls back to earth, rotating all around;
7) We notice that, even on this altitude, the line of the horizon still is around the middle of the chest of the toy (I had the impression that it become just a little bit bellow of what was on the start);
8) No signal of curvature too, or at least not a really aparent one.

Well, it's obvious that on a sphere the line of the horizon would have to be super below the straight line.
I don't see how could be argue that he is in reality looking down to the line of the horizon when he is at the top, and that the effect of the len is not working anymore like in the start. For this to be the case, around 4:00 the normal, more stable position of the balloon would have to be in diagonal, like a "strong, steady and relative calm wind is pushing him constant to the side, giving the impression that he is looking straight".
It seens that almost there is no wind at that height.

That video is obviously fake, there are no stars.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: kenorb on November 12, 2012, 04:52:35 AM

Another fact? Video camera installed on rocket that reaches 121,000 ft.


(http://www.zimagez.com/miniature/screenshot-11122012-012607pm.png) (http://www.wimp.com/rocketcamera)


Jump to: 3:20
It actually shows the flatness (except the other cameras).


Update: Ah, completely forgotten. There are no stars, it's fake. Please ignore.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: robertotrevor on November 12, 2012, 05:54:54 AM
The curvature is almost imperceptible for the same reason it is when you are on the ground, because no matter in what direction you look, the height of the horizon is the same. You would need to be a lot higher to see it clearly.
Still, you can there is an almost imperceptible curvature in the earth in that video, I increased the contrast of the color for it to be more clear, the photo is not edited besides that, I only added a straight line so you could compare.
(http://picturestack.com/727/856/rDZUntitled2d3x.png)

As for what Mau said, you cant really know in what angle related to the floor the camera is looking.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: kenorb on November 12, 2012, 07:33:39 AM
The curvature is almost imperceptible for the same reason it is when you are on the ground, because no matter in what direction you look, the height of the horizon is the same. You would need to be a lot higher to see it clearly.
Still, you can there is an almost imperceptible curvature in the earth in that video, I increased the contrast of the color for it to be more clear, the photo is not edited besides that, I only added a straight line so you could compare.
(http://picturestack.com/727/856/rDZUntitled2d3x.png)

As for what Mau said, you cant really know in what angle related to the floor the camera is looking.

You'll have to do software lens correction first based on the camera model which they used, then you could draw a line (e.g. Adobe After Effects or Adobe Bridge).
Otherwise every optical lens has varying forms of curvature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics))



Here you have different pictures from this flight:
http://ddeville.com/derek/Qu8k.html (http://ddeville.com/derek/Qu8k.html)
And most of them are curved in different ways.

Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Nolhekh on November 12, 2012, 07:47:42 AM
Indeed, no curvature whatsoever across Lake Ontario (55 km distance to Vinemount Ridge, 213 m altitude, we will ascend to 240 m - 59 meter curvature absolutely does not exist) - bear in mind the photographs were taken from a lower altitude, we ascend to 240 meters so that no questions will remain.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)

If we're 240 meters up, then the horizon (eye line) should cut behind the CN Tower at 240m, but it doesnt.  Proof of a round earth.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: robertotrevor on November 12, 2012, 11:46:32 AM
I just did that because you said I should see the "flatness" in that videp, but if we agree on lens distortion theres no point in talking about flatness on videos.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Razanir on December 09, 2012, 06:53:43 PM
Local linearity.  If you zoom in enough on a curve (such as the surface of the Earth), it appears flat
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: jtlondon83 on March 15, 2017, 12:18:00 PM

Another fact? Video camera installed on rocket that reaches 121,000 ft.


(http://www.zimagez.com/miniature/screenshot-11122012-012607pm.png) (http://www.wimp.com/rocketcamera)


Jump to: 3:20
It actually shows the flatness (except the other cameras).


Update: Ah, completely forgotten. There are no stars, it's fake. Please ignore.

GREAT EVIDENCE THERE, UNTIL IT SHOWS THE EARTH FROM A HIGHER POSITION FROM 5 MINUTES ONWARDS...


YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING RIGHT?

Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: physical observer on March 16, 2017, 03:38:47 AM
perhaps best left to a local perma noob...  after all it is in the debate section.

firstly if this is known fact then why is it up for debate?

secondly why are none of these photos taken close to the water? surely that will prove there is no curvature?

but one point that is missing here is the facts. there is no drop of 2540m that is true. this is how you view something in the distance;

(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/curverealview_zps1133494f.png)

the common misconception is that you see like this;

(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/curvefakeview_zps0fc6fbec.png)

at best those photos are inconclusive. however there have been many photos where 'hills' of water have been shown on boats at such short distances. just lurk for yourself to see them.

number 1. well this has already shown to be false. not only that if the change was as small as a few inches do you think you could tell over 250m? i wouldnt detect a few inches over 25m and you think you will notice after 250? do remember that your example of a 1m drop was wrong to begin with before you reply. even if it was 1m it would actually be 0.5m or about 20 inches. over 250m i dont think i would notice a change in 20 inches.

number 2. i have only seen explanations here for the accountability of a horizontal horizon. however if you can device an actual experiment to show there is no curve, then you have some evidence for your case. however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either.

number 3. when you find a perfectly strait tunnel for several miles you may have a case. was this a thought experiment of have you witnessed this? again refer to point 1 that i made.

number 4. its a shame your strongest evidence was this. i think the horizon being strait is far stronger. what is happening here is that your eye is drawn to the horizon. the horizon is not actually curving upwards (there is another website for that bat shit theory) it would be best described as an optical illusion i guess. next time you are high up do not focus on the horizon and just look strait, its quite hard as your eye is always drawn down to the horizon. next time you may notice that the horizon does not appear to be at eye level but your eye is just drawn to the horizon.

to summarise;

what you have presented here are weak facts that in your mind equal solid evidence. if its such evidence then how is it so easy to make a counter argument. also its worth asking why you dismiss all evidence that points towards a round earth? so in 1 week you have found these 3 'facts' and decided to dismiss everything you have been told and now you are declaring that the earth is flat. so what does make this theory stand out from other conspiracy theories anyway? its very close to religion, in the sense that the society only give theories that cant be proven either way or if they can they have it covered by a global conspiracy. oh and not to mention most of the belief comes from a fictional book that makes many claims that have NEVER been proven.

yes this is my attack  ::) spreading my sheeple lies!

"i dont think i would notice a change"

Why is it, none of the claims of a spinning speeding earth can be detected on earth? Doesn't that give you reason to pause, and think? Or is your trained response to run to a fabricated excuse in some book? If you have to access excuse after excuse to explain away what is not observed, shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Canadabear on March 16, 2017, 03:49:25 AM
perhaps best left to a local perma noob...  after all it is in the debate section.

firstly if this is known fact then why is it up for debate?

secondly why are none of these photos taken close to the water? surely that will prove there is no curvature?

but one point that is missing here is the facts. there is no drop of 2540m that is true. this is how you view something in the distance;

(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/curverealview_zps1133494f.png)

the common misconception is that you see like this;

(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/curvefakeview_zps0fc6fbec.png)

at best those photos are inconclusive. however there have been many photos where 'hills' of water have been shown on boats at such short distances. just lurk for yourself to see them.

number 1. well this has already shown to be false. not only that if the change was as small as a few inches do you think you could tell over 250m? i wouldnt detect a few inches over 25m and you think you will notice after 250? do remember that your example of a 1m drop was wrong to begin with before you reply. even if it was 1m it would actually be 0.5m or about 20 inches. over 250m i dont think i would notice a change in 20 inches.

number 2. i have only seen explanations here for the accountability of a horizontal horizon. however if you can device an actual experiment to show there is no curve, then you have some evidence for your case. however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either.

number 3. when you find a perfectly strait tunnel for several miles you may have a case. was this a thought experiment of have you witnessed this? again refer to point 1 that i made.

number 4. its a shame your strongest evidence was this. i think the horizon being strait is far stronger. what is happening here is that your eye is drawn to the horizon. the horizon is not actually curving upwards (there is another website for that bat shit theory) it would be best described as an optical illusion i guess. next time you are high up do not focus on the horizon and just look strait, its quite hard as your eye is always drawn down to the horizon. next time you may notice that the horizon does not appear to be at eye level but your eye is just drawn to the horizon.

to summarise;

what you have presented here are weak facts that in your mind equal solid evidence. if its such evidence then how is it so easy to make a counter argument. also its worth asking why you dismiss all evidence that points towards a round earth? so in 1 week you have found these 3 'facts' and decided to dismiss everything you have been told and now you are declaring that the earth is flat. so what does make this theory stand out from other conspiracy theories anyway? its very close to religion, in the sense that the society only give theories that cant be proven either way or if they can they have it covered by a global conspiracy. oh and not to mention most of the belief comes from a fictional book that makes many claims that have NEVER been proven.

yes this is my attack  ::) spreading my sheeple lies!

"i dont think i would notice a change"

Why is it, none of the claims of a spinning speeding earth can be detected on earth? Doesn't that give you reason to pause, and think? Or is your trained response to run to a fabricated excuse in some book? If you have to access excuse after excuse to explain away what is not observed, shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?

You are wrong the Rotation can be detected,
 See Foucault pendulum
See the movement of the sun, Moon and Stars
See the observation from Astronauts

Stop lying.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: physical observer on March 16, 2017, 04:38:17 AM
perhaps best left to a local perma noob...  after all it is in the debate section.

firstly if this is known fact then why is it up for debate?

secondly why are none of these photos taken close to the water? surely that will prove there is no curvature?

but one point that is missing here is the facts. there is no drop of 2540m that is true. this is how you view something in the distance;

(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/curverealview_zps1133494f.png)

the common misconception is that you see like this;

(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/curvefakeview_zps0fc6fbec.png)

at best those photos are inconclusive. however there have been many photos where 'hills' of water have been shown on boats at such short distances. just lurk for yourself to see them.

number 1. well this has already shown to be false. not only that if the change was as small as a few inches do you think you could tell over 250m? i wouldnt detect a few inches over 25m and you think you will notice after 250? do remember that your example of a 1m drop was wrong to begin with before you reply. even if it was 1m it would actually be 0.5m or about 20 inches. over 250m i dont think i would notice a change in 20 inches.

number 2. i have only seen explanations here for the accountability of a horizontal horizon. however if you can device an actual experiment to show there is no curve, then you have some evidence for your case. however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either.

number 3. when you find a perfectly strait tunnel for several miles you may have a case. was this a thought experiment of have you witnessed this? again refer to point 1 that i made.

number 4. its a shame your strongest evidence was this. i think the horizon being strait is far stronger. what is happening here is that your eye is drawn to the horizon. the horizon is not actually curving upwards (there is another website for that bat shit theory) it would be best described as an optical illusion i guess. next time you are high up do not focus on the horizon and just look strait, its quite hard as your eye is always drawn down to the horizon. next time you may notice that the horizon does not appear to be at eye level but your eye is just drawn to the horizon.

to summarise;

what you have presented here are weak facts that in your mind equal solid evidence. if its such evidence then how is it so easy to make a counter argument. also its worth asking why you dismiss all evidence that points towards a round earth? so in 1 week you have found these 3 'facts' and decided to dismiss everything you have been told and now you are declaring that the earth is flat. so what does make this theory stand out from other conspiracy theories anyway? its very close to religion, in the sense that the society only give theories that cant be proven either way or if they can they have it covered by a global conspiracy. oh and not to mention most of the belief comes from a fictional book that makes many claims that have NEVER been proven.

yes this is my attack  ::) spreading my sheeple lies!

"i dont think i would notice a change"

Why is it, none of the claims of a spinning speeding earth can be detected on earth? Doesn't that give you reason to pause, and think? Or is your trained response to run to a fabricated excuse in some book? If you have to access excuse after excuse to explain away what is not observed, shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?

You are wrong the Rotation can be detected,
 See Foucault pendulum
See the movement of the sun, Moon and Stars
See the observation from Astronauts

Stop lying.

If the earth's rotation is causing the pendulum to swing, then why do all of them need to be manually started?

How does the cut of the ball and socket joint affect the movement of the counterweight?

Why do some pendulums not work at all?

Why do some pendulums work in reverse?

Of course, you rarely get to see the last two, they never make it into a "science" museum, do they?

Another point about the F/P, from Brown university: "Wherever you put it, Foucault's Pendulum swings from a motionless point while the earth rotates beneath it." EXCUSE ME! That would only be true if the F/P were sitting dead center of earth's axis point. What is claimed to be rotating is the table under the counterweight. Anywhere else on earth, you are said to be moving west to east, not in a circle that will cause the table mounted to earth to rotate in a circle under the counterweight.

This too, and is the eye-opener of how much you are tricked, from the San Diego Natural History Museum: "Because of air friction and gravity the pendulum would eventually stop swinging, but a magnet encircling the cable pulls on the cable with each swing. Electric current controlling the magnetism is turned on and off with each swing of the pendulum."

Did you see that? They control the swing with electromagnetism! It's not the rotation of earth that is causing the swinging and movement of the counterweight, it is the cut of the ball/socket joint, and the use of magnetism to pull the counterweight in the direction of the applied electric current. The rotation of earth has nothing to do with the Foucault pendulum, because earth is motionless. We've been Jedi mind-fffed with magician's trickery!

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/n2k/visibility/Alison_Errico/Soft%20Moon/pendulum.html

http://www.sdnhm.org/about-us/history/museum-lore/foucault-pendulum/
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Canadabear on March 16, 2017, 05:07:48 AM

If the earth's rotation is causing the pendulum to swing, then why do all of them need to be manually started?

the swing has to be started manually, the rotation is caused by the earth rotation
was already explained to you
but you ignored it

Quote
How does the cut of the ball and socket joint affect the movement of the counterweight?

the effect is taken out by using a very long cable
was already explained to you in a link for the setup of a Foucault Pendulum
but you ignored it

Quote

Why do some pendulums not work at all?

if the pendulum rotates or not depends on the direction of the pendulum swing and the location of the setup
was already explained to you in a link for the setup of a Foucault Pendulum
but you ignored it

Quote
Why do some pendulums work in reverse?

the direction of the pendulum rotation depends on the location of the setup (norther or southern hemisphere)
was already explained to you in a link for the setup of a Foucault Pendulum
but you ignored it

Quote
Of course, you rarely get to see the last two, they never make it into a "science" museum, do they?

yes, there are a lot of Foucault pendulums setup in science "museums"

but you ignored it

Quote
Another point about the F/P, from Brown university: "Wherever you put it, Foucault's Pendulum swings from a motionless point while the earth rotates beneath it." EXCUSE ME! That would only be true if the F/P were sitting dead center of earth's axis point. What is claimed to be rotating is the table under the counterweight. Anywhere else on earth, you are said to be moving west to east, not in a circle that will cause the table mounted to earth to rotate in a circle under the counterweight.

This too, and is the eye-opener of how much you are tricked, from the San Diego Natural History Museum: "Because of air friction and gravity the pendulum would eventually stop swinging, but a magnet encircling the cable pulls on the cable with each swing. Electric current controlling the magnetism is turned on and off with each swing of the pendulum."

Did you see that? They control the swing with electromagnetism! It's not the rotation of earth that is causing the swinging and movement of the counterweight, it is the cut of the ball/socket joint, and the use of magnetism to pull the counterweight in the direction of the applied electric current. The rotation of earth has nothing to do with the Foucault pendulum, because earth is motionless. We've been Jedi mind-fffed with magician's trickery!

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/n2k/visibility/Alison_Errico/Soft%20Moon/pendulum.html

http://www.sdnhm.org/about-us/history/museum-lore/foucault-pendulum/

did you look up who Alison Errico is?
his/her title is:
Alison Errico
Laser Safety Officer, Medical Physics and Radiation Safety
617-638-8828

see: https://www.bu.edu/ehs/contact-us/staff-directory/

it looks like a private Webpage of that person on the University Server.
please show me the official part of that that is published and confirmed from the University.

do a little more research on what you post. it took me 1 min to find this information.

Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: rabinoz on March 16, 2017, 05:14:59 AM

"i dont think i would notice a change"

Why is it, none of the claims of a spinning speeding earth can be detected on earth? Doesn't that give you reason to pause, and think? Or is your trained response to run to a fabricated excuse in some book? If you have to access excuse after excuse to explain away what is not observed, shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?
You ask, "shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?"
Yes, I think about it I know why what you ask cannot be detected without some sort of instruments.

You may not like or accept that, well tough cheese, them's the facts!

Why is it that you will never fact the fact that the initial deduction for the rotating (0.0007 rpm is hardly spinning) was from astronomical observations?

Uniform linear motion cannot be detected at all without reference to other objects.
Even slow rotational motion (and 0.0007 rpm is certainly slow) cannot be detected without reference to objects known to be fixed of with suitable instruments.
You will not ever acknowledge that we repeatedly claim it.
Since the time of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Kepler though various instruments have been developed that do detect rotation.

Some of these were:
For myself I do not need any excuses. I see observations all over the place that are completely unexplainable on any flat earth model that I have seen. These range from simple things like:
Now, these may not convince you, but, along with the plethora of astronomical evidence, they satisfy me!

Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: physical observer on March 16, 2017, 06:05:43 AM

"i dont think i would notice a change"

Why is it, none of the claims of a spinning speeding earth can be detected on earth? Doesn't that give you reason to pause, and think? Or is your trained response to run to a fabricated excuse in some book? If you have to access excuse after excuse to explain away what is not observed, shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?
You ask, "shouldn't that give you reason to pause, and think?"
Yes, I think about it I know why what you ask cannot be detected without some sort of instruments.

You may not like or accept that, well tough cheese, them's the facts!

Why is it that you will never fact the fact that the initial deduction for the rotating (0.0007 rpm is hardly spinning) was from astronomical observations?

Uniform linear motion cannot be detected at all without reference to other objects.
Even slow rotational motion (and 0.0007 rpm is certainly slow) cannot be detected without reference to objects known to be fixed of with suitable instruments.
You will not ever acknowledge that we repeatedly claim it.
Since the time of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Kepler though various instruments have been developed that do detect rotation.

Some of these were:
  • The gyroscope: Invented by Foucault, though he did detect some rotation, did not have the means to keep it spinning for long enough to be convincing.

    The gyroscope has since been used in the marine Gyro-Compass, see Gyro Compass on Ships: Construction, Working, and Usage (http://www.marineinsight.com/marine-navigation/gyro-compass-on-ships-construction-working-and-usage/)
    and the Gyro-theodolite,
    see NORTH SEEKING GYROSCOPE (http://www.directsystems.org/equipment/north-seeking-gyroscope.aspx)
    and Use of gyrotheodolite in underground control network. (http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:866515/FULLTEXT01.pdf)
    Both on these instruments rely on the earth's rotation to accurately find true North, not Magnetic North as with a magnetic compass.

  • Ring laser gyroscopes with resolution capable of measuring the earth's rotation are now commonly used in aircraft Inertial Reference Systems.
    This sort of thing: Honeywell Aerospace, GG1320AN Digital Ring Laser Gyroscope (https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/navigation-and-sensors/gg1320an-digital-ring-laser-gyroscope)
    (https://aerospace.honeywell.com/~/media/aerospace/images/sensors/ring-laser-gyro_625x460.jpg)
    This one has a "drift" that would do very well: Angular Random Walk (ARW) 0.0035 deg/hour (typical).
     Angular Random Walk means that in the absence of any movement,  after an hour it will typically show 0.0035°.
    Since the earth rotates at about 15°/hr, this gyroscope will easily measure the earth's rotation.

For myself I do not need any excuses. I see observations all over the place that are completely unexplainable on any flat earth model that I have seen. These range from simple things like:
  • Measured east-west distances agree with the globe distances (Google Earth, GPS maps, etc) and not with Flat Earth map distances,

  • the appearance, direction and timing of sunrises and sunsets,

  • the sun and moon staying a constant size from rising to setting,

  • the sharp sea/sky horizon over the ocean,

  • the fact that the distance to the horizon changes as the observer's height changes,

  • the constellations staying the exactly the same size and shape wherever they are in the sky,

Now, these may not convince you, but, along with the plethora of astronomical evidence, they satisfy me!

"the initial deduction for the rotating (0.0007 rpm is hardly spinning) was from astronomical observations?"

"the fact that the distance to the horizon changes as the observer's height changes,"

Perhaps, but it is always a flat level horizon, no matter the height gained. At least till you get high enough to see, "a disc with up-turned edges"(Piccard).

Yeah, gotta slow that ground moving at 1,000 MPH right down, don't cha? If you mean, out-of-this-world by astronomical, it would have to be, because the effects of a spinning speeding spherical earth cannot be observed here on earth, can it?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 07:11:02 AM
You think refraction will save you?

Posting this purely for sig-worthiness.

The OP was cringy, lucky sandokhan was here to save the thread.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Canadabear on March 16, 2017, 07:22:42 AM
You think refraction will save you?

Posting this purely for sig-worthiness.

The OP was cringy, lucky sandokhan was here to save the thread.

he saved nothing,
even if you take refraction in account it does not prove flat earth. it even more disprove it.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: taylor ortego on March 16, 2017, 08:17:49 AM
Y'all are some retards! If you think that the earth is flat then how can you see the earth clearly a sphere from space. The pictures of space are not made in a holly wood basement either. There is this thing called science and proof you need to look into it. and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth take a really big ball and put something micro on it so small you can't see it. It will be flat to the F**KING Dumb a*s
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: physical observer on March 16, 2017, 12:29:39 PM
Y'all are some retards! If you think that the earth is flat then how can you see the earth clearly a sphere from space. The pictures of space are not made in a holly wood basement either. There is this thing called science and proof you need to look into it. and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth take a really big ball and put something micro on it so small you can't see it. It will be flat to the F**KING Dumb a*s

Ah, the need to poison the well before presenting an argument. Clearly the desperate act of survival, survival of a defunct religious belief.

"and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth"

Ah, but it is claimed that Toronto, and ships, disappear over the curvature of the water on earth, so what do you mean people on earth cannot see the curvature? You spherical earthers really need to get on the same page, you really do!

Oh look, you end with an insult, yeah, that confirms your point, NOT!
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Canadabear on March 16, 2017, 01:04:08 PM
...
Ah, but it is claimed that Toronto, and ships, disappear over the curvature of the water on earth, so what do you mean people on earth cannot see the curvature? You spherical earthers really need to get on the same page, you really do!

Oh look, you end with an insult, yeah, that confirms your point, NOT!

you can see the effect of the curvature.

lets clear it for ever, come to Niagara on the Lake and take a look yourself.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: JackBlack on March 16, 2017, 01:46:45 PM
If the earth's rotation is causing the pendulum to swing, then why do all of them need to be manually started?
They don't. Stop lying.
The swing is caused by gravity and inertia.
Earth's rotation causes the apparent rotation of the plane of oscillation.

How does the cut of the ball and socket joint affect the movement of the counterweight?
It doesn't.
Many don't even have such a joint.
If it affects the movement (other than merely restricting it to pivot about that point) then it is not a Foucault's pendulum.

Why do some pendulums not work at all?
Because people haven't started swinging them or because they are generic pendulums which are restricted to a single (or small range) plane of oscillation.

Why do some pendulums work in reverse?
Because they are in the opposite hemisphere, and should be moving in reverse.

Of course, you rarely get to see the last two, they never make it into a "science" museum, do they?
Sure you do.
Go to one in the southern hemisphere, you will see it in "reverse".
Go to one and just wait for long enough and it will slow down and stop.

Another point about the F/P, from Brown university: "Wherever you put it, Foucault's Pendulum swings from a motionless point while the earth rotates beneath it." EXCUSE ME! That would only be true if the F/P were sitting dead center of earth's axis point. What is claimed to be rotating is the table under the counterweight. Anywhere else on earth, you are said to be moving west to east, not in a circle that will cause the table mounted to earth to rotate in a circle under the counterweight.
And how nice, you resort to quote mining them.
That isn't what they said.
That was a quote they provided from someone else.
If you kept reading the page you would notice this:
Quote
The elegant answer is that the pendulum swings in a fixed plane and the Earth rotates beneath it, but this explanation is misleading. At the north or south pole, the pendulum is moving in a fixed plane (if we disregard the fact that the Earth is also revolving through space), so the plane of the pendulum seems to rotate through 360° as the Earth makes one full rotation. At any other point on Earth, however, the point at which the pendulum is attached cannot be considered a "fixed point," because that point also moves as the Earth rotates.

But of course, why would you ever be honest? That would require admitting Earth is round.

Did you see that? They control the swing with electromagnetism! It's not the rotation of earth that is causing the swinging
Yes, they keep it swinging using magnets. Not all do. The one closest to me doesn't have a magnet, nor a ball and socket joint, yet every time it has been used, it always rotates in the same direction, regardless of where you start it.
Earth's rotation doesn't make it swing, it changes the plane it appears to swing in.

How about instead of trying to refute crap no one is claiming you instead focus on trying to refute what people ARE saying?

The rotation of earth has nothing to do with the Foucault pendulum, because earth is motionless.
Nope. It has loads to do with it because Earth is in motion and its rotation causes an apparent change in the plane of oscillation.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: JackBlack on March 16, 2017, 01:48:54 PM
Ah, but it is claimed that Toronto, and ships, disappear over the curvature of the water on earth, so what do you mean people on earth cannot see the curvature? You spherical earthers really need to get on the same page, you really do!
You cannot see the curvature at this height, just its effect.
Seeing a ship disappear below the horizon is an effect of the curvature.
Seeing the curve itself would be seeing the curvature.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: rabinoz on March 16, 2017, 05:17:42 PM
Y'all are some retards! If you think that the earth is flat then how can you see the earth clearly a sphere from space. The pictures of space are not made in a holly wood basement either. There is this thing called science and proof you need to look into it. and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth take a really big ball and put something micro on it so small you can't see it. It will be flat to the F**KING Dumb a*s

Ah, the need to poison the well before presenting an argument. Clearly the desperate act of survival, survival of a defunct religious belief.

And what would this "defunct religious belief" be? Do you mean the Christianity of the early English monk, the "Venerable Bede"?

Quote
One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.

In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.

Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:

    “We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”

Looks like this Globe idea started before the time of the Venerable Bede (673–735) and note that
he was very specific about the shape "represent the figure of a perfect globe".

It is you clinging to a relatively new hypothesis of a flat earth with sun, moon, planets and stars circling above it thar is desparately clinging to life.
Can you show me any early flat earth belief that could not even explain the rising an setting of the sun?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 05:57:09 PM
Y'all are some retards! If you think that the earth is flat then how can you see the earth clearly a sphere from space. The pictures of space are not made in a holly wood basement either. There is this thing called science and proof you need to look into it. and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth take a really big ball and put something micro on it so small you can't see it. It will be flat to the F**KING Dumb a*s

Posts like this just make you look stupid, it's literally all it achieves, if you make it to 1000 posts I can recommend someone to hone your skills at ad hominems and well poisoning. He's literally the best shitposter I've ever seen
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: jtlondon83 on May 19, 2017, 10:05:07 PM
Y'all are some retards! If you think that the earth is flat then how can you see the earth clearly a sphere from space. The pictures of space are not made in a holly wood basement either. There is this thing called science and proof you need to look into it. and you won't see the curvature because of the scale of the people relative to the earth take a really big ball and put something micro on it so small you can't see it. It will be flat to the F**KING Dumb a*s

Posts like this just make you look stupid, it's literally all it achieves, if you make it to 1000 posts I can recommend someone to hone your skills at ad hominems and well poisoning. He's literally the best shitposter I've ever seen

Yes disputeone, posts like that do make you look stupid. Because it implies a belief that every single photo from space is fake, which is obviously crazy and entirely without evidence.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: dutchy on May 20, 2017, 12:45:09 AM
Unbelievable that globers still believe in the FP and other ancient methodes to proof a globe.
Take into consideration how much we developed medical science in the last hundred of years.
What if we would use the medical 'science' prior to 1900 to cure someone today  ?
I give that person, depending on the disease , hardly any chance at all......

What is it that we believe Eratosthenes could measure the circomference of a globe earth
What is it that we believe that Newton worked out gravity because an apple fall on his head
What is it that an invalid ancient test like the Cavendish rock and FP still haven't been updated in 2017 for better ones ?

It is clear that if medical science was that lazy, hanging on to myths and invalid research of the past, people with chronical headaches would have their scull opened to release some pressure off their vains........ :o

But since every scientist around the globe knows the earth is round ....... a simple question.
If there are countless of scientists perfectly capable of explaining the cosmos, curvature, spacetravel, refraction etc. just give me two or three names....

Who is according to globers the most trustworthy scientific outlet of them all ?
Because Bill Nye, Neil dGT, Kraus, astronauts, that 'mikaku
' Japanese guy etc have all proven to have limited understanding in many aspects.
Sure they know about their specific field, but make cringeworthy mistakes when leaving their comfortzones.
Heard them all make unbelievable ignorant remarks when adressing some things outside of their specific field.

So who is an outlet who does have an accurate overall understanding about the cosmos, curvature, refraction, spacetravel and relativity ?
Can't be hard globers, can it ? Because 'every scientist out there knows what earth is like'

Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: JackBlack on May 20, 2017, 03:03:13 AM
Unbelievable that globers still believe in the FP and other ancient methodes to proof a globe.
Yes, other "ancient" methods which are still just as reliable today as they were back there.

Sure we have better things, like laser ring gyroscopes and theodites, but they can be expensive or difficult to get.

Take into consideration how much we developed medical science in the last hundred of years.
You do realise that medicine is much much much more complex than far simpler sciences like the shape of Earth?

What if we would use the medical 'science' prior to 1900 to cure someone today  ?
You mean the things which modern science has shown to be a load of crap?
It is a good thing you put science in quotes there, because the crap you are thinking of isn't scientific in any way. Most of it was just superstitious garbage.

Regardless, the key thing is that FP and the like hasn't been disproven like blood letting has.
It still works today just like it did back then.

Do you also think we should stop using wheels because ancient people did?

What is it that we believe Eratosthenes could measure the circomference of a globe earth
Do you mean why?
If so, it is because he did. It takes quite simple math to work it out.

What is it that we believe that Newton worked out gravity because an apple fall on his head
Because people are fools that like to believe in nice stories.
There is no evidence for any apple falling on his head. But there is a decent amount for him partially figuring out gravity.

What is it that an invalid ancient test like the Cavendish rock and FP still haven't been updated in 2017 for better ones ?
Pure bullshit.
They were never invalid tests.
They were always valid.
They have also been updated with far more accurate versions which are capable of measuring it far more precisely.
But do you know what has remained consistent? The result, that Earth is round and gravity is real.

It is clear that if medical science was that lazy, hanging on to myths and invalid research of the past, people with chronical headaches would have their scull opened to release some pressure off their vains........ :o
That is because it was myths of the past, rather than science of the past.

If there are countless of scientists perfectly capable of explaining the cosmos, curvature, spacetravel, refraction etc. just give me two or three names....
Well, there are those you named, and plenty of others, but as you named them I see no reason to go through listing more. If you would like to find some, feel free to do a search for a local university's physics department.

Who is according to globers the most trustworthy scientific outlet of them all ?
We don't declare any as the most trust worthy.

Now then, do you have anything to refute these ancient proofs and show that they are invalid like you claim?
Do you have anything to support Earth being flat?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: rabinoz on May 20, 2017, 03:09:44 AM
Unbelievable that globers still believe in the FP and other ancient methodes to proof a globe.
They believe those "ancient methodes to proof a globe" because those "ancient methodes to proof a globe" are consistent with proofs and measurements made right up to the present day.

Quote from: dutchy
Take into consideration how much we developed medical science in the last hundred of years.
What if we would use the medical 'science' prior to 1900 to cure someone today  ?
I give that person, depending on the disease , hardly any chance at all......
If you "would use the medical 'science' prior to 1900 to cure someone today" you would be criminally negligent and probably locked up for your efforts.

Quote from: dutchy
What is it that we believe Eratosthenes could measure the circomference of a globe earth
Because Eratosthenes result, though not as accurate, is quite consistent with measurements done by the Indian mathematician Aryabhata (AD 476–550), the medieval Persian Abu Rayhan al-Biruni (973–1048), Jean Picard in 1669–1670 to US geodesist Hayford  in ~1910 with an accuracy of 200 m to recent even more more precise measurements from NASA.

Quote from: dutchy
What is it that we believe that Newton worked out gravity because an apple fall on his head
"Newton" never "worked out gravity because an apple fell on his head"!
Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke did much research and measurement before Newton produced his Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.
And those "Laws" have been verified as accurate. Of course Einstein's relativity gives corrections that apply under extreme conditions of velocity or energy. But Newton's Laws are still the ones used for almost all calculations, with usually very small relativistic corrections applied when required.

Quote from: dutchy
What is it that an invalid ancient test like the Cavendish rock
There was no "invalid ancient test like the Cavendish rock". The Cavendish Experiment was quite valid and used heavy lead spheres, not a  ;D rock  ;D.
His results were within 1% of the present value, not bad for something done in 1798/9.
Though we do not have to rely on the Cavendish measurement as dozens of similar experiments have been performed since then.
That is how real science works. There is always the need to verify and improve the accuracy of measurements.

Quote from: dutchy
and FP still haven't been updated in 2017 for better ones?
Well, it has!
Quote
The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1925) is a modified version of the Michelson–Morley experiment and the Sagnac-Interferometer. It measured the Sagnac effect due to Earth's rotation.
And modern ring laser gyroscopes are capable of measuring the earth's rotation so presisely that slight wobbles can be detected.

Quote from: dutchy
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<< I might tackle the rest when I get on a "real computer" >>
So, dutchy, we do not rely on those ancient measurements. It's just that the history of the Globe, and even the Heliocentric Globe, goes a long way back.

Now, on measurements, what is the basis of the usual claim that the sun and moon are  :P about :P 3,000 miles above the earth.
Especially as Rowbotham made the only actual measurement that I can find and he claims that it is not more than 700 miles high.
There are plenty more oddities with the flat earth when you have explained that.

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Turtles_All_The_Way_Down on May 20, 2017, 03:16:04 AM
Actually it's not a theory it's a hypothesis and a discredited one at that. Theorys have to backed by evidence, sorry to break it to you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Lonegranger on May 20, 2017, 04:02:33 AM
Actually it's not a theory it's a hypothesis and a discredited one at that. Theorys have to backed by evidence, sorry to break it to you.

I'm sorry but it does not even meet the criteria to be rated as a hypothesis, it is no more than a conjecture.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Turtles_All_The_Way_Down on May 20, 2017, 05:32:53 AM
I was thinking in what could be said to a teacher at the university, and in front of the class, that would make they instant realize that something is wrong, without you looking like a crazy guy:

you - "professor, a question"

prof - "what's up, dude?"

you - "you said that on 55 kms of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of 250 meters. If I divide both numbers by 256, it shows that around 215 meters of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of around 1 meter, correct?"

prof - "oh yeah, you understood it right bro."

you - "but professor, this means that long buildings and bridges can't be constructed straight, in a nivelated right line, or else, when moving along it, it soon would become a inclined road, going up."

prof - "?!?"

you - But this don't happen, so all long buildings in the world are always curved and we don't notice? How come there is really long straight bridges crossing big lakes, and they don't become roads that are going up? Or are they curved and our eyes can never detect it? But how come we can easily notice constructions that ARE curved?

prof - "hum... haa..."

class - "yeah prof, how come this happen, explain to us."

prof - "You see, there is this thing about refration... and... but it doesn't make sense... then how come... ??... ...?... !!?!!!! !FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuu"

EDIT: This one was based on the "fact 1", wich was exagerated by my mistake, so, reader, disconsider this one.

Nice strawman you built yorself there. Try it IRL and the results will not be the same.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Turtles_All_The_Way_Down on May 20, 2017, 05:45:07 AM
Forget the elevation of the camera and the angle.


The photographer is right there on the beach itself - the curvature itself measures some 60 meters, do you understand these numbers?


Let us elevate the camera to some 10 meters. Still we can see the perfect details from the other side of the lake, and remember that the visual obstacle measures some 200 meters.

On a spherical earth you must ascend to some 60 meters to even see something from the other side of the lake...and we are right there on the beach in the city of Hamilton.


You think refraction will save you?


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


Put in the numbers: 10 meters, 50 meters (I will give you that, 50 meters, to satisfy your lust for spherical earth theory), and a distance of 60 km: the response? the visual target is behind the horizon - could not be seen, that is.

Did you even read the link you quoted? It says: " The astronomical refraction is depending on the altitude of a celestial body" (http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#)
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Turtles_All_The_Way_Down on May 20, 2017, 05:49:18 AM
Actually it's not a theory it's a hypothesis and a discredited one at that. Theorys have to backed by evidence, sorry to break it to you.

I'm sorry but it does not even meet the criteria to be rated as a hypothesis, it is no more than a conjecture.

You're right, I apologize.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: dutchy on May 20, 2017, 06:44:03 AM
@Rabinoz and Jackblack

With our current abilities to create streched structures over a few miles to proof the existing curvature the question is why we won't built such structures.
I am no engineer, but it seems very possible to think about a structure that would clearly proof curvature once and for all, if science would see it as a challenge.
Why shouldn't we try to proof beyond what is used now as secondary proof for curvature ?

We don't use the Greek observations (ships sinking over the curvature) knowing about our limited eyesight and refraction, which both were barely known by the ancient Greeks who therefor cannot be a reliable source for anything concerning earth's form.
They have proven to have access to limited scientific methodes and therefore should no longer take part in the discussion about earth's form, curvature and tilt.

Yes it sounds nice that the Greeks did figure it all out with barely any technical enhanced tools, but in modern times the scientific method should rely on better and more precise repeatable methodes then the guesswork of the ancient Greeks.
The only reason they are brought up is because that specific ''research'' sounds plausible in the current cherished heliocentric model.
The same Greeks thought the Olympus was the home of the Gods located on top of the Mytikas peak.
So much for their scientific understanding and an obvious case of deliberate cherry picking by the current globe supporters !
And please spare me the notion about what those few genuine knowledgable Greeks did or didn't believe......they simply had a mixture  between saga, reality and insufficient tools to make a real statement about earth's definite form and it's purpose.

You can derail this simple fact all you want, but it is time to come up with proof that is showing earth's curvature, precisely, accurate, repeatable and for all to observe.
Just like we go to disneyland....see it as a scientific attraction for mankind.
With lasers, graphene and modern tools it would be achievable to create a visible miles long structure that we can all see, feel, touch and check with our own tools so that the debate will be over once and for all.

''but you flatearth nutjobs will claim it's still fake hahahah''

I won't, i think the FP, CGI from outerspace and a whole level of refraction bogus about flipflopping mirages is simply not good enough by a long shot.
I admire the attempts of Cyrus Teed rectilineator, flawed in todays light of structural stiffness, but at least he tried to built something to proof his model.
We have to settle for CGI, testimonies from proven Apollo and NASA frauds (did this on several occasions, read back the proper topics) and invalid tests from ancient history.

I would be the first to admit and apologize if such a modern and accurate structure would underline the current hypothesis about earth's form, circomference and corresponding curvature drop.
But asking me to believe in the current ''proof'' is the same as believing ''aliens'' exist.
Both can be made equally credible without hardcore evidence....so i'll just pass for now, until better proof for the globe is presented.
And i believe in flatearth now, because it at least alligns with my senses and own convictions, something the heliocentric model does not.
The sun 150.000.000 km away ?......you have to come up with some real evidence for me to close my own eyes and other senses.....to believe such nonsense ever again.


Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: JackBlack on May 20, 2017, 07:14:14 AM
With our current abilities to create streched structures over a few miles to proof the existing curvature the question is why we won't built such structures.
What kind of structure are you thinking of?
What is the point of such a structure?

I am no engineer, but it seems very possible to think about a structure that would clearly proof curvature once and for all
No. It wouldn't.
It would be no more proof of curvature than any of the other countless proofs we have, like a large body of water.
The FEers will deny it and pretend it is flat just like they do with everything else.

if science would see it as a challenge.
We have better challenges to do.

Why shouldn't we try to proof beyond what is used now as secondary proof for curvature?
There are already so many proofs it isn't funny.
It is so solidly settled that people have moved on.

We don't use the Greek observations (ships sinking over the curvature)
Except we do. Not necessarily their observations directly, but similar observations, of things disappearing below the horizon, indicating that Earth is curved.

knowing about our limited eyesight and refraction, which both were barely known by the ancient Greeks who therefor cannot be a reliable source for anything concerning earth's form.
BULLSHIT.
They can be a reliable source.
Our limited eye-sight isn't what is making these things disappear.
The Ancient Greeks knew about refraction.
Stop pretending they were a bunch of ignorant morons.

They have proven to have access to limited scientific methodes and therefore should no longer take part in the discussion about earth's form, curvature and tilt.
The arguments and evidence stand on their own merit. It doesn't matter who came up with it.

If you want me to dismiss them you are going to need to come up with a decent argument against them.

Yes it sounds nice that the Greeks did figure it all out with barely any technical enhanced tools
Again, stop acting like they are ignorant cavemen.
They had tools, just not modern ones.

but in modern times the scientific method should rely on better and more precise repeatable methodes then the guesswork of the ancient Greeks.
It wasn't guess work. It was a (or a collection) rational conclusion based upon the evidence. Evidence you are yet to refute.
The ancient guess work was guessing that Earth was flat because it "looked like it".

Science doesn't just decide to discard all the old data because it is old or was obtained with older instruments. You need a valid reason to refute it.
Science will also often acknowledge the work of prior contributors.

The only reason they are brought up, because that specific part sounds plausible in the current cherished heliocentric model.
No. They are brought up to show it isn't some new idea and that even people thousands of years ago knew Earth was round, and had arguments and evidence to show that.

The same Greeks thought the Olympus was the home of the Gods located on top of the Mytikas peak.
And what evidence did they have for that? NONE!
Those same Greeks also used wheels. Does that mean we should discard wheels?
They also wore clothes, so should we discard that as well?
What about speaking and writing?

Should we also discard all scientific work by any other religious person for believing in childish nonsense?

Your argument is pathetic.
You are saying we should just ignore them because they were ancient and believed a few false things. It doesn't work like that. You need a valid argument. You need to refute them.

So much for their scientific understanding and an obvious case of deliberate cherry picking by the current globe supporters !
No. Not obvious cherry picking. We picked the science parts, not the religious BS or guess work part.

and please spare me what knowledgable Greeks did or didn't believe......they simply had a mixture  between saga, reality and insufficient tools to make a real statement about earth's definite form and it's purpose.
No. They had sufficient tools and intellect to determine Earth's form.
It has no purpose.

You can derail this simple fact all you want, but it is time to come up with proof that is showing earth's curvature, precisely, accurate, repeatable and for all to observe.
Again, it has been done, repeatedly, even by the Ancient Greeks.
You just want to dismiss it.
How about instead of such childish dismissal you try refuting it or providing evidence that Earth is flat?

With lasers, graphene and modern tools it would be achievable to create a visible miles long structure that we can all see, feel, touch and check with our own tools so that the debate will be over once and for all.
No. It wouldn't. The FEers will still just reject it with no rational grounds, just like all the existing proof.

If proof is what was needed there would be no debate, as the proof is already there for a round Earth.

I won't, i think the FP, CGI from outerspace and a whole level of refraction bogus about flipflopping mirages is simply not good enough by a long shot.
See, there you go claiming all that is fake.

We have to settle for CGI
No. You dismiss it as CGI when there is no reason to think it is. We have real pictures from space.

testimonies from proven Apollo and NASA frauds
Except you (just like so many others) are yet to prove they are frauds. All you can do is dismiss their testimony as fake.

and invalid tests from ancient history.
No. Completely valid tests from the past which you are unable to refute.

I would be the first to admit and apologize if such a modern and accurate structure would underline the current hypothesis about earth's form, circomference and corresponding curvature drop.
BULLSHIT.
You will continue with your current path and just say it is fake or curved away from Earth or some BS like that to pretend Earth is flat.

If you actually care about the truth you would accept all the proof that already exists.

But asking me to belive in the current ''proof'' is the same as believing ''aliens'' exist.
No, it isn't.
There is mountains of irrefutable proof that Earth is round, proof that you just ignore.

so i'll just pass for now, until better proof for the globe is presented.
Again, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CURRENT PROOF?
With how good it is, you are likely to just discard any new proof that comes along.

And i believe in flatearth now, because it at least alligns with my senses and own convictions, something the heliocentric model does not.
I.e. you believe in a flat Earth model because you want to, not for any rational reason at all. You reject the RE model, not for lack of proof or evidence, but because you don't want to accept it.
With a mindset like yours you will never accept any proof that Earth is round.

Especially when it is quite well known that your senses can easily be tricked by various optical illusions or the like.

The sun 150.000.000 km away ?......you have to come up with some real evidence for me to close my own eyes and other senses.....to believe such nonsense ever again.
And what evidence would you like?
How about the direction of sunrise and sunset on the equinox? Everywhere on Earth it rises due east and sets due west.
Completely impossible on a flat Earth.
This shows the sun must be very far away.

How about you try telling us why you foolishly believe the sun couldn't be that far away?
Do you have any rational reason?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Badxtoss on May 20, 2017, 07:41:43 AM
@Rabinoz and Jackblack

With our current abilities to create streched structures over a few miles to proof the existing curvature the question is why we won't built such structures.
I am no engineer, but it seems very possible to think about a structure that would clearly proof curvature once and for all, if science would see it as a challenge.
Why shouldn't we try to proof beyond what is used now as secondary proof for curvature ?

We don't use the Greek observations (ships sinking over the curvature) knowing about our limited eyesight and refraction, which both were barely known by the ancient Greeks who therefor cannot be a reliable source for anything concerning earth's form.
They have proven to have access to limited scientific methodes and therefore should no longer take part in the discussion about earth's form, curvature and tilt.

Yes it sounds nice that the Greeks did figure it all out with barely any technical enhanced tools, but in modern times the scientific method should rely on better and more precise repeatable methodes then the guesswork of the ancient Greeks.
The only reason they are brought up is because that specific ''research'' sounds plausible in the current cherished heliocentric model.
The same Greeks thought the Olympus was the home of the Gods located on top of the Mytikas peak.
So much for their scientific understanding and an obvious case of deliberate cherry picking by the current globe supporters !
And please spare me the notion about what those few genuine knowledgable Greeks did or didn't believe......they simply had a mixture  between saga, reality and insufficient tools to make a real statement about earth's definite form and it's purpose.

You can derail this simple fact all you want, but it is time to come up with proof that is showing earth's curvature, precisely, accurate, repeatable and for all to observe.
Just like we go to disneyland....see it as a scientific attraction for mankind.
With lasers, graphene and modern tools it would be achievable to create a visible miles long structure that we can all see, feel, touch and check with our own tools so that the debate will be over once and for all.

''but you flatearth nutjobs will claim it's still fake hahahah''

I won't, i think the FP, CGI from outerspace and a whole level of refraction bogus about flipflopping mirages is simply not good enough by a long shot.
I admire the attempts of Cyrus Teed rectilineator, flawed in todays light of structural stiffness, but at least he tried to built something to proof his model.
We have to settle for CGI, testimonies from proven Apollo and NASA frauds (did this on several occasions, read back the proper topics) and invalid tests from ancient history.

I would be the first to admit and apologize if such a modern and accurate structure would underline the current hypothesis about earth's form, circomference and corresponding curvature drop.
But asking me to believe in the current ''proof'' is the same as believing ''aliens'' exist.
Both can be made equally credible without hardcore evidence....so i'll just pass for now, until better proof for the globe is presented.
And i believe in flatearth now, because it at least alligns with my senses and own convictions, something the heliocentric model does not.
The sun 150.000.000 km away ?......you have to come up with some real evidence for me to close my own eyes and other senses.....to believe such nonsense ever again.
But we have used modern technology to prove the earth is round.  Gps, satellites, multiple countries and many private corporations prove it every day.  Maritime navigation proves it, flight times in the Southern Hemisphere prove it.
That you refuse to accept these things do not make them any less true.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Pezevenk on May 20, 2017, 11:35:48 AM
@Rabinoz and Jackblack

With our current abilities to create streched structures over a few miles to proof the existing curvature the question is why we won't built such structures.

Why are people like you under the impression scientists are still interested in proving the curvature "once and for all" when it's already been proven, "once and for all"?

Btw the Stanford Linear Accelerator is sort of what you're looking for.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: dutchy on May 20, 2017, 04:41:28 PM
Why are people like you under the impression scientists are still interested in proving the curvature "once and for all" when it's already been proven, "once and for all"?

Btw the Stanford Linear Accelerator is sort of what you're looking for.
I am under the impression that scientists care more for money, a good job, solid pension, publishing in nature and science etc.........contrary to past centuries there are hardly unique minds left to confront any current idea with new and unique insight.
Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Handel, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, Rachmaninov, Tjsaikovski and many more are groundbraking musicians of the past, every classical trained conductor or performing artist is copying the unique inventions of others instead of creating something unique themselves.
Of course there are obscure composers for a niche market, but no one can hold a candle next to the big ones.

In todays science there are hardly any genuine field explorers left, simply copying data from real researchers of the past and assuming a double check is totally unnessecary.
Most scientists are expert in only a fragment of their field, therefor we have no real scientific outlets in modern days with an accurate understanding of the bigger picture, just fragments of ''hearsay'' scientists.

Goethe and his ''light theory'' is one example. It defies Newton's theory about prisma's and colored light in such a gentile and accurate way that one would assume that considering the profound reputation of Goethe in other fields, scientists would give it another look.
But scientists of modern days have become (like composers and muscians in our time), way to dependent on achievements from others that they hardly ever try to accomplish anything from scratch.
And those they do value more over others (Einstein over Tesla and Newton over Goethe) are the lesser gifted ones in my opinion.

No one really knows about the profound light theory of Goethe which should tell you something !!!
It took him 45 years and much better equipment to put Newton's previous tests to shame.
But since Goethe was not part of mainstream science hardly anyone knows about his great scientific fieldwork......and the same goes for Tesla to some extent.

All my remarks are made with that in mind.........hardly any real scientist explores what really matters from scratch....all have become to dependent on achievemnents of the past, just like my ''muscians'' example !
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: JackBlack on May 20, 2017, 06:46:27 PM
In todays science there are hardly any genuine field explorers left, simply copying data from real researchers of the past and assuming a double check is totally unnessecary.
Most scientists are expert in only a fragment of their field, therefor we have no real scientific outlets in modern days with an accurate understanding of the bigger picture, just fragments of ''hearsay'' scientists.
Bullshit.
Today's scientists do this double checking, but only to a certain point. There are no scientists today working on the shape of Earth as there is no need to.
And while they might not be experts, they certainly understand a lot.

Goethe and his ''light theory'' is one example. It defies Newton's theory about prisma's and colored light in such a gentile and accurate way that one would assume that considering the profound reputation of Goethe in other fields, scientists would give it another look.
Why would a scientist give a serious look to the work of a poet that goes against already established science which is used on a daily basis?

But scientists of modern days have become (like composers and muscians in our time), way to dependent on achievements from others that they hardly ever try to accomplish anything from scratch.
Yes, because doing it from scratch would mean literally discarding everything and starting all over again. There wouldn't be enough time and money to rediscover everything to then discover something new.

It took him 45 years and much better equipment to put Newton's previous tests to shame.
Except he didn't put anything to shame.

and the same goes for Tesla to some extent.
No. The real issue with Tesla is a bunch of morons thinking they know something about his work when they are completely wrong about it.


Now how about you try offering some proof of a flat Earth or refuting that for a round Earth?
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: rabinoz on May 20, 2017, 06:56:13 PM
Why are people like you under the impression scientists are still interested in proving the curvature "once and for all" when it's already been proven, "once and for all"?

Btw the Stanford Linear Accelerator is sort of what you're looking for.
I am under the impression that scientists care more for money, a good job, solid pension, publishing in nature and science etc.........contrary to past centuries there are hardly unique minds left to confront any current idea with new and unique insight.
Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Handel, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, Rachmaninov, Tjsaikovski and many more are groundbraking musicians of the past, every classical trained conductor or performing artist is copying the unique inventions of others instead of creating something unique themselves.
Of course there are obscure composers for a niche market, but no one can hold a candle next to the big ones.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I totally agree with you on those composers, but what has any of that to do with the shape of the earth other than to point out that the current model of the Heliocentric Globe was developed during essentially the same period as those gret composers worked.

The work of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 – 1543), Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Sir Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) and Henry Cavendish (1731-1810) falls right in this period.
Kepler believed in a "modified" Geostationary Globe, but his careful measurements were instrumental in Kepler's work.

Their results of the work of these people set the basis of the current understanding of the Heliocentric Globe.

You can claim no such solid foundation for the flat earth model,
in fact, you do not even have a single flat earth model.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: rabinoz on May 20, 2017, 08:07:45 PM
@Rabinoz and Jackblack
You have not attempted to answer any of the points I made in
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact. « Reply #114 on: May 20, 2017, 08:09:44 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55885.msg1911685#msg1911685)
The main point I made is that there has been a continuous development of the Heliocentric Globe since the time of Aristotle.
We do not take the results of those of Classical Greek period as proving, once and for all, the modern theories.

I simply do not follow your logic.
You are down on the Greeks because they were "ancient" and You are down on modern science because it's modern science.
You seem down on anything that does not fit your own ideas.

Quote from: dutchy
With our current abilities to create streched structures over a few miles to proof the existing curvature the question is why we won't built such structures.
I am no engineer, but it seems very possible to think about a structure that would clearly proof curvature once and for all, if science would see it as a challenge.
Why shouldn't we try to proof beyond what is used now as secondary proof for curvature ?
Yes, clearly you are no engineer!

No, it is not possible to make such a structure with any available material!
If you have better information than I have, just present it and I'm sure some kind structural engineer would give a rough idea.

Now an apartment building is vertical, but is subject to wind loading enough to sway considerably.
For example, the "432 Park Avenue" apartment building is 1,398 ft (or 426 m) sways in the wind from 1.2m to 1.5m and it could not support itself lying sideways.
In that 432 m the earth would only have dropped away by only about 10 cm!

But, you ask "Why shouldn't we try to proof beyond what is used now as secondary proof for curvature ?"
Why would anyone spend the huge amount of money to do such a thing?

We, except for a few that choose to ignore all the available evidence, know that the earth is a Globe!

Nothing else fits the observations, nothing!
The elevation angles of the sun at various locations on earth do not fit what is possible on a flat earth. They only fit a Globe. See:
Flat Earth Debate / So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high? « Message by rabinoz on August 24, 2016, 01:22:33 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.msg1812804;topicseen#msg1812804)
and
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball? « Message by rabinoz on August 26, 2016, 10:24:04 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67788.msg1813717;topicseen#msg1813717)

Even these couple of photos prove that the earth is not flat! Yes, flat earthers have their guessed excuses!
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/08-Weipa%20Sunset_zpstd6ncc8x.jpg)            (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/13-Weipa%20Sunset_zpsvl5otrfj.jpg)
This proves that the earth is a rotating sphere
:P :P and it's from your  :P :P favourite source of information  :P :P! Hope you like it!
But if you want if actually moving, here it is:
A NASA camera aboard the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR)
satellite captured a unique view of the moon as it moved in front of the
sunlit side of Earth last month. The series of test images shows the fully
illuminated “dark side” of the moon that is never visible from Earth.

The images were captured by NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC),
a four megapixel CCD camera and telescope on the DSCOVR satellite orbiting
1 million miles from Earth. From its position between the sun and Earth,
DSCOVR conducts its primary mission of real-time solar wind monitoring
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
This animation features actual satellite images of the far side of the moon,
illuminated by the sun, as it crosses between the DSCOVR spacecraft's
Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) and telescope, and the Earth
 - one million miles away. Credits: NASA/NOAA

If you want to throw away all the available evidence, that's your problem, not mine!


Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: markjo on May 20, 2017, 08:16:16 PM
There are no scientists today working on the shape of Earth as there is no need to.
That isn't quite true.  Geodetic scientists are always working to refine the reference ellipsoid model of the earth.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: JackBlack on May 21, 2017, 12:15:24 AM
There are no scientists today working on the shape of Earth as there is no need to.
That isn't quite true.  Geodetic scientists are always working to refine the reference ellipsoid model of the earth.
My bad, you are right.
Perhaps I should have said no one is trying to figure out if Earth is flat or round.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Pezevenk on May 21, 2017, 01:32:24 AM
Why are people like you under the impression scientists are still interested in proving the curvature "once and for all" when it's already been proven, "once and for all"?

Btw the Stanford Linear Accelerator is sort of what you're looking for.
I am under the impression that scientists care more for money, a good job, solid pension, publishing in nature and science etc.........contrary to past centuries there are hardly unique minds left to confront any current idea with new and unique insight.
Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Handel, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, Rachmaninov, Tjsaikovski and many more are groundbraking musicians of the past, every classical trained conductor or performing artist is copying the unique inventions of others instead of creating something unique themselves.
Of course there are obscure composers for a niche market, but no one can hold a candle next to the big ones.

In todays science there are hardly any genuine field explorers left, simply copying data from real researchers of the past and assuming a double check is totally unnessecary.
Most scientists are expert in only a fragment of their field, therefor we have no real scientific outlets in modern days with an accurate understanding of the bigger picture, just fragments of ''hearsay'' scientists.

Goethe and his ''light theory'' is one example. It defies Newton's theory about prisma's and colored light in such a gentile and accurate way that one would assume that considering the profound reputation of Goethe in other fields, scientists would give it another look.
But scientists of modern days have become (like composers and muscians in our time), way to dependent on achievements from others that they hardly ever try to accomplish anything from scratch.
And those they do value more over others (Einstein over Tesla and Newton over Goethe) are the lesser gifted ones in my opinion.

No one really knows about the profound light theory of Goethe which should tell you something !!!
It took him 45 years and much better equipment to put Newton's previous tests to shame.
But since Goethe was not part of mainstream science hardly anyone knows about his great scientific fieldwork......and the same goes for Tesla to some extent.

All my remarks are made with that in mind.........hardly any real scientist explores what really matters from scratch....all have become to dependent on achievemnents of the past, just like my ''muscians'' example !

Actually quite a few people know about Goethe's theory. In fact it was at one point considered by Heisenberg. The only issue is that it has been demonstrated to be wrong.

I don't understand the musician analogy since there are so many musicians who compose original music that is not classical. Just like scientists, who have moved on from classical mechanics and electrodynamics.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: 29silhouette on May 21, 2017, 09:27:23 AM

The sun 150.000.000 km away ?......you have to come up with some real evidence for me to close my own eyes and other senses.....to believe such nonsense ever again.
Because the sun and moon would look different if they were as close as Fe'rs claim.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mikey T. on May 21, 2017, 10:16:33 AM
@Rabinoz and Jackblack

With our current abilities to create streched stretched structures over a few miles to proof the existing curvature the question is why we won't built build such structures.
I am no engineer, but it seems very possible to think about a structure that would clearly proof curvature once and for all, if science would see it as a challenge.
Why shouldn't we try to proof beyond what is used now as secondary proof for curvature ?


Explain a bit more about what you feel would be a suitable structure please.  I figure those structures are already in place, I refer to them as tall buildings.  They even come with measuring marks many times, most refer to those as windows on each floor though.  Looking at one of those, say across a large lake, counting the floors you can see on that building, accounting for atmospheric and temperature (weather) related refraction (very easily found information for pretty much any type of weather).  Then you measure how much drop is there. 
Oh nvm you want something like the rectilineator thing the hollow earthers tried.  I think it has been said before, but why the waste of money and resources to build such a thing that anyone so rooted in their emotional conspiracy driven mindset like the flat Earthers will just claim to be a hoax anyway. 
You don't try to convince the crazy person he isn't a space dog by showing him his reflection just for him to claim trickery, you treat him with the correct drugs/therapy or you move on and allow him to be happy shitting on the front lawn.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: dutchy on May 21, 2017, 01:10:21 PM
You have not attempted to answer any of the points I made in
Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact. « Reply #114 on: May 20, 2017, 08:09:44 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55885.msg1911685#msg1911685)
The main point I made is that there has been a continuous development of the Heliocentric Globe since the time of Aristotle.
We do not take the results of those of Classical Greek period as proving, once and for all, the modern theories.

I simply do not follow your logic.
You are down on the Greeks because they were "ancient" and You are down on modern science because it's modern science.
You seem down on anything that does not fit your own ideas.
The Greeks mentioned that ships masts were dropping over the horizon. They had drawn this conclusion based on eysight.
If someone brings back the hull of a larger ship or even the Toronto skyline (Jenna Fredo's recent vids that i posted) into visibility using a Nikkon P900, the glober's answer is that the earth isn't flat ,but that our eyesight is simply to limited to see the ship or skyline in the first place, let alone make the wrong conclusions. The P900 is (according to that sort of reasoning) only showing what is still visible before any curvature drop, but ''hidden'' due to our limited eyesight.
The Greeks thought they saw a (smaller Greek) ship disappear over the horizon, but in reality they could not have drawn such a conclusion based upon what modern P900 shows what is really out there near the horizon.....obscured for our eyes.

A rather big mistake made by the Greeks don't you think ? So what makes you think their conclusions about the earth's circomference and tilt are done with greater accuracy ?
All modern science that cherry picks from ancient ideas is not to be trusted, unless the scientific set up meets the criterea of the scientific method. Repeatable and reproducible with the same outcome over and over again.
The Foucault pendulum, the coriolis effect on bullits, cgi from space organisations do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.
All modern ways to proof the earth is indeed a spinning globe fail in my opinion, only secundary and sometimes changing results with predetermined conclusions are used to support the globe.

The earth is a globe......look how NASA CGI confirms just that
The earth is a globe......look how cities behind the curvature can jump over the curvature due to refraction and a very gifted flip flopping gymnastics mirage
The earth is a globe......look how some southern hemisphere flight paths should take much longer on a flat plane
The earth is a globe......look how the profound scientific community reacts with disdain against the flatearth movement
The earth is a globe......look how much flatearther's blame the Jews
The earth is a globe......look how you could see satelites and the ISS in the sky
The earth is a globe......look how we can predict future eclipses
The earth is a globe..... look how the stars are different in the Southern hemisphere

I am not going over the long list in detail, but there is still no proof for the earth's spin, curvature, tilt and relative speed through the expanding universe that is based on the principles of the scientific method.
It is not my fault that you have different personal standards to confirm what was taught to you from a very young age.
I am only observing that many things concerning the cosmos, earth and reletavity are hypothetical at best.... and of course it kept me puzzled for quite some time....
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: frenat on May 21, 2017, 01:30:56 PM
I've not seen anything to indicate the p900 shows anything that is not visible to the eye without zooming.  When zoomed out it appears that boats may not be visible IN THE CAMERA but that only shows it is below the resolution of the camera (which is less than our eyes) when zoomed out.  IF the p900 was bringing back objects hidden then AS THE ZOOM CHANGES, the amount hidden should also change and that is NEVER seen.

I have done my own tests with objects visible and partially hidden by the horizon.  When adding binoculars or a telescope no amount that was hidden before was then visible.

I've stood on the beach in Mexico Beach, FL at the Bay/Gulf county line looking directly South.  From that point, standing at the water line, you can see the trees on Cape San Blas but you can NOT see the beach or water line of the Cape.  Even with binoculars or a telescope they are not visible.  But if you climb up the ~15 feet to the road level then they ARE visible without any magnification.  Anyone can test this.

I've also worked with radio and RADAR from both ground and airborne platforms.  In all cases the max range was related to the height of the emitter.  If the Earth were flat then that range could be increased simply by increasing power but I've tried that and it has no effect on the range. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: Mikey T. on May 21, 2017, 01:56:30 PM
I've not seen anything to indicate the p900 shows anything that is not visible to the eye without zooming.  When zoomed out it appears that boats may not be visible IN THE CAMERA but that only shows it is below the resolution of the camera (which is less than our eyes) when zoomed out.  IF the p900 was bringing back objects hidden then AS THE ZOOM CHANGES, the amount hidden should also change and that is NEVER seen.

I have done my own tests with objects visible and partially hidden by the horizon.  When adding binoculars or a telescope no amount that was hidden before was then visible.

I've stood on the beach in Mexico Beach, FL at the Bay/Gulf county line looking directly South.  From that point, standing at the water line, you can see the trees on Cape San Blas but you can NOT see the beach or water line of the Cape.  Even with binoculars or a telescope they are not visible.  But if you climb up the ~15 feet to the road level then they ARE visible without any magnification.  Anyone can test this.

I've also worked with radio and RADAR from both ground and airborne platforms.  In all cases the max range was related to the height of the emitter.  If the Earth were flat then that range could be increased simply by increasing power but I've tried that and it has no effect on the range.
This is where most FE people ignore you, tell you your observations are either you lying or you didn't know what you are doing, or make up some ad hoc excuse like waves.  Not once have I heard an explanation from a FEBS believer that holds up to any sort of analyzing.  I am still waiting for something, anything, to make me question reality from them.  I have tried many times, but I have come to the realization that it is not free thinking hindering me from seeing it their way, but their own closed mindedness to actually trying to understand that what they are saying makes no sense.  They need the emotional support of thinking they are fighting some evil force, it blinds them to doubt about their ideas since they would lose this emotional armor.
Title: Re: Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.
Post by: JackBlack on May 21, 2017, 02:39:38 PM
The Greeks mentioned that ships masts were dropping over the horizon. They had drawn this conclusion based on eysight.
If someone brings back the hull of a larger ship or even the Toronto skyline (Jenna Fredo's recent vids that i posted) into visibility using a Nikkon P900, the glober's answer is that the earth isn't flat ,but that our eyesight is simply to limited to see the ship or skyline in the first place, let alone make the wrong conclusions.
There are 2 separate processes which can happen (and both occur simultaneously to some extent).
One is that that as the object gets further away, it will be smaller. This can result in us no longer being able to see it. But this is not what we are talking about.
The other is that as it gets further away, past the horizon, it will begin to drop out of sight, with the bottom appearing first. No amount of zooming ever brings it back. The only thing which can bring it back is refraction.

No one has ever shown obscured parts of a building or ship magically being brought back into view by zooming in.


The Greeks thought they saw a (smaller Greek) ship disappear over the horizon, but in reality they could not have drawn such a conclusion based upon what modern P900 shows what is really out there near the horizon.....obscured for our eyes.
No, in reality it was the large ships that disappeared over the horizon. They could have drawn such a rational conclusion because it is what all the evidence shows.

A rather big mistake made by the Greeks don't you think ? So what makes you think their conclusions about the earth's circomference and tilt are done with greater accuracy ?
No. Not a mistake by the Greeks. A mistake made by FEers thinking it is perspective. You can have very significantly zoomed in objects with still large sections missing, with the only thing getting in the way being water.
That is impossible on a FE.

One reason why things like the circumference would be done with greater accuracy is because that was based upon actually measuring things (like shadows), instead of just eyeballing it.

All modern science that cherry picks from ancient ideas is not to be trusted, unless the scientific set up meets the criterea of the scientific method. Repeatable and reproducible with the same outcome over and over again.
And do you know what modern science "cherry picks"?
The things that actually work. The things which stand up to scrutiny.

The Foucault pendulum, the coriolis effect on bullits, cgi from space organisations do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.
Yes they do. Just because you want to reject them doesn't magically mean they don't.
The only thing which doesn't would be CGI from space organisations. But we don't need that. We have plenty of actual photos from space.

Do you know what is completely unscientific?
Sticking your fingers in your ears and dismissing all the evidence that is available to pretend Earth is flat.

All modern ways to proof the earth is indeed a spinning globe fail in my opinion, only secundary and sometimes changing results with predetermined conclusions are used to support the globe.
And your opinion is completely wrong.

The conclusions are only "predetermined" because we already know it is a globe and already know what to expect.
The reason these results are sometimes changing is because the circumstances you do the test in change.
For example, Focault's pendulum depends upon where you are on the globe. Thus go to a different location, get a different result.

The earth is a globe......look how NASA CGI confirms just that
No. Actual pictures from space confirm that.

The earth is a globe......look how cities behind the curvature can jump over the curvature due to refraction and a very gifted flip flopping gymnastics mirage
No. Objects are obscured by the curve, impossible on a flat Earth, which refraction (a well documented phenomenon) occasionally allowing you to see more than you should.
If Earth was flat, none should ever be hidden by the curve.

The earth is a globe......look how some southern hemisphere flight paths should take much longer on a flat plane
No. Look at how some make absolutely no sense on a flat plane and the times required would be impossible for those flights.

The earth is a globe......look how the profound scientific community reacts with disdain against the flatearth movement
No. The scientific community finds the FE movement pathetic and laughable because you have nothing backing you up except paranoid delusions, while the RE has mountains of evidence.

The earth is a globe......look how you could see satelites and the ISS in the sky
Not just satellites and the ISS, basically every object in space, where the position only makes sense for a round Earth. Where the position for them on a flat Earth is completely wrong.

The earth is a globe......look how we can predict future eclipses
Yes, based upon the RE model, showing it has predictive capabilities, unlike the FE one.

The earth is a globe..... look how the stars are different in the Southern hemisphere
Yes, the stars are different, and only match what would be expected for a round Earth.

How about this one:
The Earth is a globe... look how we have 2 celestial poles separated by 180 degrees at all points on Earth. Physically impossible for a flat plane as it requires 2 straight lines to intersect twice without having to be colinear.

I am not going over the long list in detail, but there is still no proof for the earth's spin, curvature, tilt and relative speed through the expanding universe that is based on the principles of the scientific method.
Yes there is. There just isn't proof you will accept because you will never accept any proof that goes against your delusions.
You have covered several bits of proof above, showing that you know it exists and that you are wilfully rejecting it without cause.
Foucault's pendulum and laser ring gyroscopes show that Earth is indeed spinning.
The path of the sun throughout the year shows that we are orbiting it and that the plane of our orbit is not perpendicular to the axis of our rotation, meaning there is an axial tilt.
The relative speed is measured with red-shift.

So no, there is plenty of proof, you just ignore it because it doesn't match your delusions.

If you wish to claim there isn't, feel free to actually refute it rather than just spouting pathetic crap about it.

It is not my fault that you have different personal standards to confirm what was taught to you from a very young age.
You could say that. It isn't your fault I have honest, rational standards, while you have extremely dishonest, delusional standards which will reject reality.

I am only observing that many things concerning the cosmos, earth and reletavity are hypothetical at best.... and of course it kept me puzzled for quite some time....
No, lots of them are real models with predictive capabilities backed up by mountains of evidence.
One which is hypothetical at best is the idea that Earth is flat.