Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Until you fold it up as a globe. Then it makes perfect senseAnd I think no flat-earth map would be able to explain the flight times...
Maps are a visual aid that help give us a general guide of an area. They are a useful tool in a lot of ways, but no map is ever 100% accurate. A map cannot prove or disprove the shape of the Earth.
Not if you stand on Australia and India and look at the sun at the same time.On the flat earth. In lets say Australia, the sun travels east to west in the sky. In Sweden the sun travels west to east.
In your picture, all of the arrows are pointing to the west, no matter where you are on the map. I am not sure what is confusing you so much.
I want to give an example about how is rounder's ancestors are animals and ours or not:This supposed planet our ancestors came from. Was that planet also flat?
You don't know my parents and i don't know your parents. I'm asking you what is you father's name and you are saying me as he is John. Now i know your father is John and when somebody asked me what is User324's father then i can tell your father as John, because you said it and don't act me. So i can accept is as true. It is same.
You are asking me what were your parents and i'm saying you my parents are human for all time. Is it act you? No. We don't know our ancestors are same for all time or not. Maybe they came the earth from different planets, who knows? Nobody. We just have some theories. So you should accept my ancestors are human for all time because it don't act you. And if you say your ancestors are not human i accept it because i don't know true or not and don't act me.
You don't understand what i mean because your iq is insufficient to understand me.Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience
Sun spotlightI meant to say the clouds are lit from the bottom because the sun spotlight is reflecting off the ground and illuminating the clouds from below.
You do know how reflection works? Light must reach to the ground and reflect back from there and all the area below clouds should bath in sunlight. And there is also problem with reflection angles and reflective properties of ground. You also totally ignore shadow from the mountaintop. This "light is reflecting off the ground" is total BS in so many ways that its hard to imagine how you can come out with it.
Greetings from the Enterprise Holodeck
But that's where you are wrong İntikam. You deserve all the disrespect you get here. You know.. For every action there is an equal and opposing ...Ignored by interrupting a conversation. This is a disrespecting and i can't tolerate it. So good bye.
"mimimimi mommy I have no answer mimimimi" *runs away crying*
I don't become aware of your question to me. I saw your dialog with someone others. And i asked a question to owner of the topic and still waiting for him for an answer. No need to disrespect.
I know, It was me, and I stand by it. As you see in 2 out of 3 examples where the variables are known.So what are you saying? We should disregard the two examples where the math lines up perfectly because the first example, where more variables was unknown, has a error margin? Mockery you say
He was mostly adressing the point that his maths/ online calculators gave a different result than what was calculated in the video - even though someone mentioned it was "rock solid maths" that were used.
It's totally legitimate to adress this matter; I have explained the different values above. Both are correct, but based on different approaches.
So what are you saying? We should disregard the two examples where the math lines up perfectly because the first example, where more variables was unknown, has a error margin? Mockery you sayBut it is a difference of appr. 15%Can anyone explain to me why the online calculator shows a hidden part of 108m from 1.38 eye level instead of the proclaimed 91.46 m claimed in this video ? Is the online calculator wrong ? Also the horizon is at 4.19 km instead of 4.52 km when an eyelevel of 1.38m is taken into account, something is off here......or it is due to my limit
108m is correct and fits perfectly with the video.
Anyway, important is THAT some parts are hidden by curvature. There are lot's of reasons why it will not be that accurate, e.g.
- Refraction
- Waves
- Tides
- Hard to measure exact height of both observer and the "bulge" in between the objects.?......i thought it was about ''rock solid math'' ?
And this is by no means meant to be offending.
I am the first to acknowledge proof, but why do those who claim to have proof (seen that a lot on the flat earth side too) always favour the rock solid math to fit the prefered outcome ?
I live in the Netherlands and we have a 100+ km sealevel flat beach. Our country is one of the flattest in the world and below sealevel for big parts.
I have been to the coast all my life and have seen things streching to 20 km out.
My friend and i have a Nikon 83x zoom and you can slowly pan accross the coastline so that any disturbance in the seawater is easily avoided. A flat beach as far as the eye can see.
We have sea harbors (IJmuiden) with 100m harbor mouths into the sea. I could see them from great distances when doing a beach walk accross the coastline.
On a good clear day i will post pictures and all the involved distances, from camera level and object heights.
I think the flat earth model is crazy, but our current measurements of the globe seem to be off.
Always proof by the absence of so called ''bottom parts'' of skylines and towers or superiour mirages that pop into excistance.
If that online calculator is (like you said) correct, then i can measure the distance from the little town Katwijk (used to live there for 18 years) - IJmuiden (32.19 km) and set my camera on a height of 1.80 m and according to the curvature calculator IJmuiden should be a whopping 58.9 meters below the curvature.
I shouldn't be able to sea anything of the harbor mouth and or supertankers / large seaships coming in......
Furthermore in my childhood in Katwijk our fishermen's fleet was stationed in IJmuiden, because Katwijk didn't have an own sea harbor. The locals claimed they could see IJmuiden on a very rare clear day.......didn't pay any atention to this untill recently.
It will me my pleasure to take the Nikon out for a little experiment according to the accurate numbers of the curvature calculator.
Even ''Noorwijkerhout-IJmuiden'' shouldn't allow for the harbor mouth to be seen.....well that is bloody rediculous !!!
Noordwijkerhout-IJmuiden 23.7 km. Camera height 1.80. hidden height target 28m......by no means i should see the harbor mouth of rock and stone, because it hasn't got a height of 28m.
Very strange indeed..........please do not use all the mockery that seems to be normal around here.
This is so strange that i actually cannot believe the calculator is right, or that the curvature is not what we think it is........
You ARE funny
Totaly ignoring the rock solid math. Whats wrong with you?Just reminding the flatties that they still have no answer to this thread.New here from the Netherlands.
Plus added a new video
Your last vid is weak proof for objects falling behind the curve, because the water in between the observer and the objects is obscuring the bottom first when the distance of the observer increases and the objects become ''smaller'' towards the horizon.
It is these kind of weak arguments from ball earthers (btw, i am no flatty) that keep me thinking.
It is obvious in the footage that the longer the distance the more the rough waters nearer to the observer obscure the bottom of far away objects.
Simply draw a scetch and see how the horizontal lines of a tower (top and bottom) enter our eye / retina.
It is easy to see when and how a bulge of water could easily obscure the bottom end of objects over large distances over water when our object is observed from increasing distances.
Most of the wold must seem magic to youIn remote areas of Australia we have quite a lot of internet connections using satellites, so satellites can be used for two-way data communication.That is a microwave dish used for point to point communication for eg linking mobile phone base stations. Take it from someone who knows.
Mobile or tv uses same linking. All of these using the "comminication bandwith" so there is no difference around mobile, gps or tv transmission. You can use your telephone for watch tv and you can use your tv for entering internet!
Which of you thinked about this question before i asked: how can you entering internet by using a sattelite tv? it is just gathering waves and have only an antenna. Can't send anything any data.
But you cannot get two-way data communication over an ordinary satellite TV link, that is strictly a one-way link.
If you want to arrange a connection, contact NBN Satellite (Sky Muster). (see, free ad)
Of course if an internet connection is available by cable, ADSL or mobile data then that is less expensive and has a higher data rate.
Where those are not available (a large part of Australia) satellite internet connections are valuable.
Did you ever think on how satellite internet connections work? It is impossible. Your tv remote control only controls to your tv, but you are sending to a request to an internet web site and getting the answer. Getting an answer is possible but it is impossible you send a data request by your tv system. This is impossible. Completely nonsence. It is not sattelite tv, it is a microwave point to point transmission.
Oh how I wish I could unlearn myself to your degree. How fucking awesome the world was back then.When earth is round, why are there still monkeys?Because god is busy reading hilarious threads here on forum and has not come around to upgrade them of yet.
What was that? Like 4 posts.. I see in the language you use that your mind is set. Onone, nowhere can change your mind. You have already made up your mind that there is no proof. So why do you keep asking. Logic suggests all FE are trolls. And honestly, I do find really funny dialogues here. Thats why I return. Not thinking I will convert someone.Whatever you shape shifting reptiles think is bestI have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.
Would you like me to prove that it is a ball first, or that it is spinning first? Take your pick. Generally it is a lot easier to prove that it is a ball first, then spinning second. I like a good challenge though.
Alrighty, I'll start with the shape first. Maybe I'll do it in the reverse order some other time.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth is round.
The angle of the sun in the sky proves the earth is round, and that the sun is very far away.
This should be enough to start with.
The existence of the South Celestial Pole proves the earth cannot be a ball in that same thread as sandokhan pointed out. No proof here
Rabinoz's calculations for the circumference of the earth (The circumference can be calculated from (distance from Vaupes) * 360°/(angle difference of sun from Vaupes)) and based entirely on what I claim are fictitious globe numbers. Also I see it could be possible the sun rises and falls in elevation on a flat earth. So no proof here either.
I can't say I've had more fun in days then when I found this thread! Bulge, "What you describe is RE and gravity." "No I'm not!" LOL!I'm still sticking with "You're literally just describing RET."
Your aether is now gravity, and the Sun shines directly above the equator, and the Earth 'bulges' up and down either side, to give the sun further access. In what way is that not RET?
no, it's not. just because you're obsessed with your gravity and round earth doesn't mean you get to force it on to everyone else. the earth is flat.
Priceless
