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.
The heavens are not far from me and revolves around me.No, they are very far away.
All the evidence indicates they are very far away, and not just centred around you.It is possible because the celestial bodies are holograms.Prove it.
No, the eye-level is the average height of top and bottom of the waves.If your eye-level is below the top of the waves then the waves can block ships or buildings higher than the wave but1m high wave at eye level can cover 100m building.
Because the waves are near but the building is far from.
This is true. I have a working about it, that somewhere in here or another website.
In the simplest term, Although the sight distance is much shorter in a rough sea, you can visually follow a ship up to tens of kilometers in the sea without wind. this may extend equal to the distance to the horizon on the land; if there is no wind.
if your eye-level is above the top of the waves then the waves cannot block ships or buildings higher than the wave.
And the amount blocked can be expressed as waveheight + ((waveheight - eyeheight)/waveheight) x ((shipdistance - wavedistance)/wavedistance).
As an example:
WaveHeight = 2 m, WaveDistance = 10m and ShipDistance = 10 km
EyeHeight BlockedHeight
1.8 m 102 m
1.9 m 52 m
2.0 m 2 m
2.1 m -48 m the negative values might apply if a ship were "over the curve".
2.2 m -98 m
If a clock is round and time is a wave, here's a compromise:wow, it's a nice wave-clock.
1. The sailors found the land, not the earth
2. Are you saying that EPIC is not the way of whisk broom scan?
As for no 1. both seas and continents were indeed mapped. How do you imagine that trade routes were established? What do you think the British Empire was based on? Trade. Trade routes needed accurate maps and charts.
As for 2 I haven’t a clue what you are on about?
You don't know the difference between FOV and IFOV.I quote from https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/epicThanks for showing once again that you have no idea what you are talking about, or are blatantly lying/blatantly misrepresenting reality.
"The first image released to the public (Figure 3) shows Africa, Middle East, India and China, it also shows the size of the Earth relative to EPIC’s field of view (black area). The pixel size projected onto the Earth near the equator is 8x8 km squared with an optical resolution of about 12x12 km squared for visible wavelengths."
"The pixel size projected onto the Earth near the equator is 8x8 km squared"
Namely, 8x8 km squared is IFOV.
It is the range of being taken at once.
What that is saying is 1 pixel of the image is 8 by 8 km at the equator.
Instead, if you bothered reading the above you have this:
"relative to EPIC’s field of view (black area)"
That means the entire image is EPIC's FOV.
So EPIC takes a picture of roughly a full hemisphere as a single image.
Or are you going to try claiming all digital cameras only produce composite images, as do digital scans of analog images?
I know what you're talking about....the calculation was done according to perspective...
If you ever expect to be persuasive with this "side-view perspective" argument, you're going to have to show/explain how you perform your calculations.
I'm on the other flat earth forum as Bobby Shafto, and I and others have expressed our critiques there, but you're over here repeating the same errors. At least the errors we conclude from your presentations and subsequent follow-up. You're not getting OUR point.
If there's a language disconnect, maybe mathematics will bridge the gap.
The first order of business I would ask is for you to explain how you arrive at distance values for the horizon. I've asked before and you said it was complicated and requires experience. So, help me develop that experience. I live on a coast and I can see the horizon from the shoreline, from 30m bluffs, from 120m hills and from 250-500m coastal "mountains." I can use my 20/20 (corrected) "naked eye" vision resolution, my 200mm-equivalent camera telephoto lens and HD resolution, and I'll soon have a decent enough long-tube refractor telescope for terrestrial digiscoping that will allow me even better distance viewing (atmosphere and "waves" permitting.)
I want to learn how you determine the distance to the horizon.
After that, you can show me how you calculate 1m obstacle on that horizon blocks heights beyond that horizon for eye-level at that 1m height. It doesn't make sense to me. If there's an inverse-distance (ID) curve that produces a perceived rising effect of objects that are at eye-level, I'd like to know how that is calculated, and how to calculate a "shadow" or "hidden" area beyond that.
Currently, no model I know incorporates such an "ID curve" factor. You started out with a good observation of how objects appear to diminish in size not linearly but inversely according to distance. But beyond that, you seem to go off the rails and make leaps of reason that don't make sense, at least not to me. And since you persevere without seeming to address the criticism, I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something that you've discovered in the math(s). So instead of just asserting it, can you show us how it's done? It's okay if it's complicated. If the concept you are trying to convey is to make any headway, you have to do that eventually; because it'll never convince anyone if it's based on the Art and Devices of Zorbakim and we have to take your word for it. You need to show us how it's done.
Feel free to do it here or on the other flat earth society forum. Or via YouTube. That actually might be best. Just let us know when it's posted.
Good and easy explanationSo the distant object physically becomes smaller. How does that work?Today we'll see an example about what appearent size causes:
This is the reason of why we can not see the other side of a small wave, although we are on a high has enough high.
If raniboz stays on a mountain has 1.000 metres high, even so he can not see a ship behind a 1 metre sea wave! We'll do its theoric calculations soon.
In short; This simple geometry is not actually valid.
Sounds you everytime see C object from A object. But this basic geometric knowledge does not work everytime. You can not see the C object everytime from A point, whenever C object far enough the B object blocks it.
