91

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building

« on: October 17, 2018, 04:28:31 PM »

The earth has considerable contradictions.
We know it by intuition but are deceived by concept.
The earth is a just concept, especially a mathematical concept.
The reality is not mathematics at all.

Wise, I appreciate your advice and will be careful.

92

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building

« on: October 15, 2018, 06:24:16 AM »

Zorbakim they never give you alone till you left this forum. You have not to reply them. Their only aim is either demotivate you, or if they can not achieve then insult you. So that, I recommend you continue your workings without affected by daninoz and jack, and others.

Your explanation is perfect if someone wants to get it. But whatever you do, can't stop them to target you mercilessly. As how While NASA doing chemtrails has nomercy to human beings, this team has nomercy to believers. No different.

You're right.

93

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building

« on: October 15, 2018, 01:10:24 AM »

Keep looking.  << I've swapped the video for the original source video >>

Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1

But look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little closer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.

There is no way that waves can be hiding that ship. Look at these two screenshots:

The curvature of the earth cannot be so small.

What do you mean by "the curvature of the earth cannot be so small"?

That's just the waves and swell.

There is no sign of significant swell in that video. The camera height is not given but one comment (by a flat-earther) is that it's about 33 ft (or 10 m).
This would make the (refracted) horizon about 12 km away with the nearer ship a little closer.

Waves would be visible along the sides of the nearer ship and any long period swell would lift the ships and none of that is visible.

I suggest you try again.

The sea is very different from the ground.
If the land is ideally flat, we can see very far.
But the sea isn't ideally flat.
The sea has wave and swell and much more refraction of light.

In short, The obscured height depends on eye level and wave height and horizon distance.
Horizon distance depends on the resolution and ID curve accuracy.
Reflection of light should also be considered.
So it is complex visual phenomena.

94

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building

« on: October 13, 2018, 05:59:22 PM »

That's quite true. But the wave would have to be stationary and permanent to create the illusion of a sharp horizon.

But only if the waves are higher than eye-level. Look at this video from 4:00 esp after 5:10

visibility is too bad.
visibility also blocks sight.
after 5:10, waves and swell block the sight typically.

Keep looking.
At 5:10 the little boat is not hidden behind the curve. The visibility is bad but the horizon can be seen past the boat.
But look from 5:17 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little closer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.

There is no way that waves can be hiding that ship. Look at these two screenshots:

The curvature of the earth cannot be so small.
That's just the waves and swell.

95

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building

« on: October 10, 2018, 11:24:45 PM »

That's quite true. But the wave would have to be stationary and permanent to create the illusion of a sharp horizon.

But only if the waves are higher than eye-level. Look at this video from 4:00 esp after 5:10

visibility is too bad.
visibility also blocks sight.
after 5:10, waves and swell block the sight typically.

96

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building

« on: October 10, 2018, 11:18:56 PM »

There is no need.
Because resolution plays the role.

No, it is actually the exact opposite.
If resolution was going to be the issue you would not get a nice sharp horizon. Instead it would be a blur. This has already been explained to you.

NO.
Our eyes have only one minute of resolution, but we see a distinct horizon in our daily lives.

97

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building

« on: October 09, 2018, 04:23:08 PM »

That's quite true. But the wave would have to be stationary and permanent to create the illusion of a sharp horizon.

There is no need.
Because resolution plays the role.
The average of resolution of human eyes is about 1'.
The resolution of a good camera is about 4~8".
That is enough for waves to cover the building.

98

Flat Earth Debate / 1m Wave block 100m building

« on: October 08, 2018, 06:46:48 AM »

1m high wave at eye level can cover 100m building.
Because the waves are near but the building is far from.

99

Flat Earth Debate / Re: No one knows <Side perspective>_It's the key

« on: October 03, 2018, 04:32:45 PM »

Limits of resolution also play an important role.
If the resolution is only 8 seconds, the building will be blocked.
like in the video below.

100

Flat Earth Debate / Re: No one knows <Side perspective>_It's the key

« on: October 02, 2018, 11:02:37 PM »

This so-called side perspective is a nonsense: the photograph simply suffers from distorsion due to the camera lenses.

No.
Even with standard lenses, the results were the same.
I wrote it on the video.
The lens is irrelevant.
That is a fact known in optical theory.

101

Flat Earth Debate / Re: No one knows <Side perspective>_It's the key

« on: October 01, 2018, 11:06:38 PM »

Those side curves only occur if the object  is moving in a constant sideways direction from the observer's perspective. If it were just moving directly back, those lines would be perfectly straight.

No. My argument seems to be already known in the scientific world.
I thought I was the first in the world.
But someone already knew.

102

Flat Earth Debate / Re: No one knows <Side perspective>_It's the key

« on: September 28, 2018, 11:24:47 AM »

Interesting video 

To paraphrase: The sea is flat, but appears round. This is due to the limit of sight, refraction / reflection, and visibility.

A few problems.

Side perspective isn't curved. On the side, its travelling away at 45 degrees. Eye level still remains the same and the top and bottom do move closer as it gets farther away, but this is still in straight lines. Then until the bottom starts to noticeable disappear as it goes over the curve. To negate limit of eyesight, visibility, and refraction - use a powerful telescope - just to see ships going over the physical earth curvature in better detail.

Side perspective is curved. So, we can feel the depth of the world.
Here's the evidence.

103

Flat Earth Debate / Re: No one knows <Side perspective>_It's the key

« on: September 23, 2018, 12:31:29 AM »

I don't know how to post pictures on this board. So see the video.
It will be helpful.
[/size][/size]

One way to post pictures is to have them stored on some site that allows "hot-linking" then put the "url" of the picture in the

Code: [Select]

[img][/img] BBCode. The one below the Bold.
As in:

Code: [Select]

[img width=600["url of you picture (.jpg, .png or .gif)"[/img]
Here is a screenshot from your video with width=600:

I'm sure someone can explain it better than I.

Thanks a lot. 

104

Flat Earth Debate / Re: No one knows <Side perspective>_It's the key

« on: September 23, 2018, 12:10:45 AM »

Most people are mistaken about perspective. They know it only in straight lines.
But it's wrong.

No, most people are correct. You are wrong.
Perspective is simply objects appearing smaller because they are further away.

Side perspective is curved. It's the key to a dip of horizon

Why?
What causes the curve?
Why does it have a preferred orientation?

It will be helpful.

Yes, the start can be helpful, but it would be more so if it was just presented as a series of images with text as the voiceover is useless.
What is important is how you are determining the side view.
You are completely confusing the very real aspect of how it is curved with nonsense required to make a FE work.

In reality, the angular size is not a simple linear function of distance as some people might foolishly think, but I suspect that is rare. That is because they realise that the x axis shrinks as well.
The video is also wrong. The correct function is an inverse tan function, specifically a=atan(h/d), where h is the height of the point above eye level, d is the distance along eye level to it, and a is the angle it subtends.
Thus when the angle is small it can be approximated as a 1/x function, as for small(x), tan(x)~=x, so when h/d is small, a~=h/d.
But at small distances and thus large angles, it is no longer 1/d. The fact it goes above 90 degrees and instead goes off to infinity is a dead give away that it is wrong.

That is nothing like your complete nonsense that objects will magically appear to sink below eye level and the horizon even when they are at eye level or above it.

Did you notice how the video starts? Objects at eye level remain at eye level. Objects above eye level remain above eye level, but get closer to it. Objects below eye level remain below eye level but get closer to it.
There is no magically curving making objects appear to sink, they simply get smaller.

So while it starts off on solid ground, it then throws all sense out the window.

Notice the ship going off into the distance in the model? It gets smaller and smaller, not disappear from the bottom up.
If limited angular resolution was going to be a limiting factor, then small objects would disappear first, and it wouldn't appear to sink from the bottom up, it would also be possible to bring it back into view with a telescope and going higher would make it harder to see as you increase the distance.
If limited visibility through the atmosphere was going to be a limiting factor, then the object would blur to nothing, not disappear from the bottom up.
At best you would have it start to blur from the bottom and have that blur grow in size, but the top of the object would still be well above the horizon.
None of that matches reality.
Instead ships are clearly observed to disappear from the bottom up, as if sinking below the horizon. No telescope is capable of bringing it back, but getting higher easily can. This is with a clear horizon rather than a blur.
This shows it is Earth physically getting in the way.

There are only 2 options:
1 - Earth is round and physically obstructing the view to the object akin to a hill.
2 - Light magically bends such that light coming from the object gets blocked by Earth as it starts off going down and needs to bend back up to reach your eye.

The trigonometry is only geometrical optics.
Geometrical optics is only a mathematical tool but not real.
On the other hand I found that in my own experiment.

105

Flat Earth Debate / Re: No one knows <Side perspective>_It's the key

« on: September 23, 2018, 12:03:56 AM »

Most people are mistaken about perspective. They know it only in straight lines.
But it's wrong. Side perspective is curved. It's the key to a dip of horizon,
ships disappear, etc.,  I don't know how to post pictures on this board. So see the video.
It will be helpful.

ý

Would you cite a source for reference on this ?

I have taken several courses  in Mechanical Drawing and Architectual Drawing , both in High School and College, but I must confess that I had never heard of "Side Perspective". (?)

Just a question on the video.
The caption on the video states :
 "The sea is physically flat , visually round."
How is this explained ?
Isn't the sea is both physically and visually round ?
The sea is so large that it looks flat - especially from the deck of a ship at sea - due to the vast distance involved - but it definitely curves away from the ship in all directions.The key to the dip of a horizon is simply due to the curvature of the earth.
Putting a grain of sand on the top of a beach ball will give you an idea of the sizes and distances  involved.

Right. You must have never heard of "Side Perspective".
Because it is a completely new word in the world.
If the sea is round, Such a visual phenomenon cannot appear.

106

Flat Earth Debate / No one knows <Side perspective>_It's the key

« on: September 22, 2018, 03:19:18 PM »

Most people are mistaken about perspective. They know it only in straight lines.
But it's wrong. Side perspective is curved. It's the key to a dip of horizon,
ships disappear, etc.,  I don't know how to post pictures on this board. So see the video.
It will be helpful.

107

Flat Earth Debate / Whether the Earth spins independently of the air or not?

« on: September 18, 2015, 11:54:09 PM »

Whether the Earth spins independently of the air or not?

1. Coriolis Effect: independent
2. Foucault's Pendulum: independent
3. airplane: dependent !!

People assist that airplane is tied with Earth's spin.
So they say that flight-time of east to west is equal to that of west to east.

what's true? independent or dependent?

 

108

Flat Earth Debate / when did the Round Earth model appear in history?

« on: September 18, 2015, 01:16:56 AM »

What do you think that the round earth model appeared in history?
ancient Greek? or Medieval?

In Asia, China Korea and Japan etc, I know that Jesuit gave the notion.
We Asian thought that the Earth is flat until then. 

When did the Vatican start to believe the Round Earth?
although Bible says flat Earth.

109

Flat Earth General / Re: Australia or South American CitiIzen please read...

« on: May 02, 2015, 05:35:32 AM »

I need it, too. It's interesting. We can see it on Internet but not in personal. I wonder star trail is really one like internet. Sorry, I'm poor at English. But I'm serious a FE. I'm writing a novel about it in Korean.