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.


Messages - Marciano

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
31
We aren't supposed to be able to detect the curve, because the world is supposed to be sooo hugeeeeee!  But, we're still supposed to have a drop of around 4,000 miles over 6,000 miles.  That's 2/3rds of a mile, over every mile or eight inches over every foot, then after about 6,000 miles, climb about 8 inches for every foot!  The earth is supposed to be basically a sphere.  Not a square or a rectangle, but a sphere. 

Nobody observes it, but we're supposed to accept it, because if you knock a cup off a table, it falls down!   ;D

32


Even though these guys were supposed to live inside a big ball, they lived on a flat plane. 

33
which boils down to an average drop of nearly 8 inches per foot, not per mile.  Those are the numbers we have, so somehow you have to account for that.

The chart in this link should be helpful.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

See this Marciano?  Even a flat-earther is telling you you're wrong.

Wrong about what!?  He isn't denying that you have to account for the drop!  Nobody is!!!  But You Can't See Observe It!  IF WE REALLY LIVED ON A BALL, IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS! 


34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« on: October 27, 2016, 01:13:44 PM »
Light, does not appear to go on forever. 

35
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« on: October 27, 2016, 01:12:05 PM »
The sun gets smaller and smaller as it moves away and the light gets dimmer and dimmer as well!  Just see how far you can see on a dark night, traveling in the country, with your headlights. 


36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« on: October 27, 2016, 01:08:32 PM »
So your google is broke and you can't comprehend scientific journals. Why are you on this forum exactly?
obvious troll is obvious.

The paper does not support your point.  If you think it does then show why but you won't.

Google works fine for me but I'm not here to do YOUR work for you.   When YOU have a burden of proof, YOU need to do the work.  YOU are obviously avoiding it.

You say it doesn't, so why not?

Have you bothered to read the discussion and the following posts that talk about it?  It was already said multiple times why it doesn't support his point.  Do you understand the written word or do you frequently need someone to hold your hand?

Are you kidding?  Do you really think anybody takes all that gobbly gook seriously!
In other words, no, you don't understand the written word.  How sad for you.

You don't seem very nice. 

37
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« on: October 27, 2016, 01:06:20 PM »
Uh, this took like 5 seconds on google to find. Is your google broke or are you just lazy?

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101

One of thousands of papers related to my point.
That paper is not related to your point.

And it isn't my burden of proof.  YOUR point, YOUR responsibility to back it up.

That's convenient!   ::)
Convenient that he quoted a paper that doesn't back him up?  Or that he can't back up his own point?  Both are HIS failings.

Whatever, things get farther away, they are harder to see.  The Sun's light does not appear to be so intense that it can light up the entire world (flat world) at the same time.  So, it just doesn't seem that huge. 


38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« on: October 27, 2016, 12:53:24 PM »
So your google is broke and you can't comprehend scientific journals. Why are you on this forum exactly?
obvious troll is obvious.

The paper does not support your point.  If you think it does then show why but you won't.

Google works fine for me but I'm not here to do YOUR work for you.   When YOU have a burden of proof, YOU need to do the work.  YOU are obviously avoiding it.

You say it doesn't, so why not?

Have you bothered to read the discussion and the following posts that talk about it?  It was already said multiple times why it doesn't support his point.  Do you understand the written word or do you frequently need someone to hold your hand?

Are you kidding?  Do you really think anybody takes all that gobbly gook seriously! 

39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« on: October 27, 2016, 12:48:05 PM »
Because the sun doesn't just all the sudden disappear into the atmosphere! That's why! According to what you're saying the sun would have to continually get smaller, but it doesn't. It just - disappears. Literally before you're eyes. 5 seconds after it's gone you're gonna sit there and say there's too much atmosphere obscuring it to be able to bring it back into view? Come on now. That's just nonsense.

Everything else appears smaller and smaller as it moves away.  So, why shouldn't the sun too?

40
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« on: October 27, 2016, 12:43:39 PM »
So your google is broke and you can't comprehend scientific journals. Why are you on this forum exactly?
obvious troll is obvious.

The paper does not support your point.  If you think it does then show why but you won't.

Google works fine for me but I'm not here to do YOUR work for you.   When YOU have a burden of proof, YOU need to do the work.  YOU are obviously avoiding it.

You say it doesn't, so why not? 

41
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« on: October 27, 2016, 12:42:20 PM »
Uh, this took like 5 seconds on google to find. Is your google broke or are you just lazy?

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101

One of thousands of papers related to my point.
That paper is not related to your point.

And it isn't my burden of proof.  YOUR point, YOUR responsibility to back it up.

That's convenient!   ::)

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« on: October 27, 2016, 12:27:22 PM »
General Relativity was just a made up term at one time.  Do you think you are smarter than Einstein?



I think Einstein is an extremely over-rated con artist! 

43
Flat Earth General / Re: Real or Fake?
« on: October 27, 2016, 12:23:43 PM »


Dracula's casket found on Mars!   :D

44
Flat Earth General / Re: Real or Fake?
« on: October 27, 2016, 12:23:02 PM »
What about this one?


Or this one? They can't all be fake, can they?


If you have a point to make then state it and then it can be discussed.

I'm sure he appreciates the instructions!   ;D

45
Flat Earth Debate / Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« on: October 08, 2016, 08:36:46 PM »


When I look down my street, the houses look smaller and smaller the further away they are.  I notice the same thing with telephone polls, trees and electrical towers.  However, if I walk down to where the last telephone poll looks like it is one inch tall, I find that it is still over 30 feet tall!  One way to explain this is that the earth is curving down;  another is that it is just an illusion, caused by our limited vision.  The second explanation seems to be correct, since a zoom lense will reveal the entire lenght of the tower, not just the top of it.  Moreover, with the naked eye, I can still see land and the top of the telephone pole, even though it appears to be only one inch tall!  So, it must be an illusion. 

46
This is over the horizon:



This is showing different ships one being beyond the horizon:



That video is not a boat beyond the horizon.  That is an example of a camera not having enough resolution to resolve the boat and buoy when zoomed out.

I also like to point out there is a reason these,"restored a boat over the horizon" videos are all boats around 20 feet long.  Find videos of container ships and tankers.  Much larger and most likely a camera will be able to resolve the upper decks and part of the super structure.

Here's a video that addresses your concerns


47
I think you posted the wrong video. That doesn't show what you said it would.

Why don't you think it does?

Because reality. It has nothing to do with what I think.

The buoy is in view at the beginning. When the camera zooms in, there is no new portion of the buoy that becomes viewable. (Same with the boat, although it's moving around all over the place and its distance is variable so it's not as good of an indicator as the buoy, so we can leave that out of the discussion for now.)

It's obvious that the ship and buoy are several miles away from shore.  Yet, they are clearly viewable.  That makes no sense on a round earth and this is just one of thousands of videos like it, made mostly by amateurs.

It's obvious? How far away are they, then? What source are you citing for this information? And how come zooming in doesn't reveal any new information hidden behind the horizon (which was the original request that you said you resolved with that video)?

There's plenty of videos with more information on them all over youtube.  The ship and buoy can't be seen with the naked eye, but they can with a zoom lense, while standing on the beach.  This shows that there can't be 16 feet of curve or anything close to that. 

48
I'm still completely lost as to how people calculated the "drop" equation.

Because it seems from your three points, that the earth curves exponentially downward, which makes absolutely no sense at all.

What doesn't make sense about it?
That equation would suggest that the earth is somehow a mound that gets steeper and steeper the farther away you go. But we actually claim it is a sphere

Why don't you calculate what the actual drop would be based on actual measurements.

Well somehow, round earth'ers have to account for nearly 4,000 miles of drop over a little more than 6,000 miles.  An ant on a beach ball would notice a decline that became greater and greater as they traveled from the "north pole" of the ball towards any point on its "equator."  Of course, we don't observe that on the earth either.

Uh...  we do observe that,  and  it's easily measured.   Just ask your local surveyor to demonstrate.

O.k, well why don't I see it with a telephoto lense? 

49
The drop on the round earth is supposed to be as follows:  8 inches first mile, then 32 inches at the second mile, then at 90 miles it jumps to over a mile, then at 6,250 miles, the total drop becomes nearly 5,000 miles, which is about 1,000 miles too much on the round earth model, because the diameter of the earth on their model is less than 8,000 miles. 

O.k., so if you accept that, then you aren't saying that the earth curves 8 inches per mile, because over 6,250 miles, that would only add up to a total drop of less than eight tenths of a mile and round earthers are claiming a drop of nearly 4,000 miles, over just 1/4 of the earth's circumference (assuming it is round). 

Alright, so if your perspective is supposed to change, based on where you are on the ball and that model is actually correct (enough for government work), then you would only observe 8 inches of drop, for the first mile in any direction.  Of course, with telephoto lenses, we don't.   :o

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm



Do you ever READ your references? It clearly says:
"Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles.[/b]"

Here are accurate "curvature" figures. The trouble is defining what is meant become ambiguous when the angles around the globe gets more than a few degrees. In what follows I have used the perpendicular drop from local horizontal (eye-level) to the earth's surface.

The following table has been calculated for an equator to pole distance of 6,250 miles (and earth's radius of 3,979 miles) simply because that is what you have been using. More accurate values are equator to pole distance of 6,220 miles and earth's radius of 3,960 miles.

Distance
   
Exact Curve
   
8" x miles2
0 miles
   
0.00 feet
   
0.00 feet
1 mile 
   
0.66 feet
   
0.67 feet
2 miles
   
2.65 feet
   
2.67 feet
5 miles
   
16.6 feet
   
16.7 feet
10 miles
   
66.4 feet
   
66.7 feet
20 miles
   
265 feet
   
267 feet
50 miles
   
1,659 feet
   
1,667 feet
100 miles
   
1.26 miles
   
1.26 miles
200 miles
   
5.03 miles
   
5.05 miles
500 miles
   
31.4 miles
   
31.6 miles
1,000 miles
   
125 miles
   
126 miles
2,000 miles
   
492 miles
   
505 miles
3,000 miles
   
1,078 miles
   
1,136 miless
5,000 miles
   
2,749 miles
   
3,157 miles
6,250 miles
   
3,979 miles
   
4,932 miles

You can see why Rowbotham suggests that the approximate 8" x miles2 should not be used over 1,000 miles.
And when the distance approaches the equator to pole distance the slope finally becomes vertical.

<< I hope I haven't made any mistakes, but it looks OK. >>

Thanks for sharing. 

50
You can see why Rowbotham suggests that the approximate 8" x miles2 should not be used over 1,000 miles.
And when the distance approaches the equator to pole distance the slope finally becomes vertical.

<< I hope I haven't made any mistakes, but it looks OK. >>
The Rowbotham's formula is ok for up to ~50-100 miles (so it's ok for most applications) and it doesn't work at all over the ocean/sea/huge water - significant errors can be observed even under 10 miles distance.

Do you think it is grossly innacurate or just a little off? 

51
The drop on the round earth is supposed to be as follows:  8 inches first mile, then 32 inches at the second mile, then at 90 miles it jumps to over a mile, then at 6,250 miles, the total drop becomes nearly 5,000 miles, which is about 1,000 miles too much on the round earth model, because the diameter of the earth on their model is less than 8,000 miles. 

O.k., so if you accept that, then you aren't saying that the earth curves 8 inches per mile, because over 6,250 miles, that would only add up to a total drop of less than eight tenths of a mile and round earthers are claiming a drop of nearly 4,000 miles, over just 1/4 of the earth's circumference (assuming it is round). 

Alright, so if your perspective is supposed to change, based on where you are on the ball and that model is actually correct (enough for government work), then you would only observe 8 inches of drop, for the first mile in any direction.  Of course, with telephoto lenses, we don't.   :o
The drop on the round earth isn't 8 inches per mile squared. This is what you would get if expanded square root function to Taylor series up to 1st derivative and ignore the remaining, higher derivative terms. So it's just an approximation that most flat earthers think is an exact formula.

Oh I see, well, do you have an alternative formula you would like to share with us? 

52
according to the globe, if you travel 12,500 miles in one direction, you should curve all the way back.

This means that the average slope of the earth must be a straight vertical drop on each side.

Why don't we see this?

The globe must be wrong!

exactly


53
Look at all that curve in the "After" photo. What are you trying to say? That a picture, or even a person, could misrepresent reality?

Your picture is lacking context. Can you use a telephoto lens to zoom in on a ship that has partially gone over the horizon, and bring it back? Or the sun?

Can I use a telephoto lens to zoom in on a ship that has partially gone over the horizon and bring it back?  Yeah, I think I can  ;D


Brilliant, you've demonstrated that when you zoom back from long telephoto to wide-angle you make it too small to see!
But once something has really disappeared behind the horizon, it stays hidden.

Any more magic up your sleeve?

Are you kidding?  That boat is to far away to see with the naked eye!  Haven't you ever used the zoom on a camera?   

54
Look at all that curve in the "After" photo. What are you trying to say? That a picture, or even a person, could misrepresent reality?

Your picture is lacking context. Can you use a telephoto lens to zoom in on a ship that has partially gone over the horizon, and bring it back? Or the sun?

Can I use a telephoto lens to zoom in on a ship that has partially gone over the horizon and bring it back?  Yeah, I think I can  ;D


That video doesn't show that.  The hidden part of the boat is never brought back into view.

edit to add:  Oh goody, yet another heavily biased poll!  Do you work for CNN?
The pictures in your first post mean absolutely nothing without the height of the observer and the distance.

That boat isn't one mile away, it is several miles away!   So, quite a bit more of the boat should be hidden from view, and the buoy should be completely/mostly hidden from view.  Yet, they aren't. 

In regards to the picture in the opening post, the distance is obviously several miles.  Even if it's just 5 miles, the drop should be at least 16 feet, but it isn't!  Furthermore, this is just one of thousands just like it and I've observed this myself!  If you really don't think you see it, you should try if for yourself.  It is a simple experiment to perform. 

55
I think you posted the wrong video. That doesn't show what you said it would.

Why don't you think it does?

I'm guess you just googled for a video to support this without watching it closely.  Take another look at it.  The first part argues that we're really seeing a mirage(we're not).  In the second half whoever's shooting it is trying to demonstrate that zooming in will restore the hull which you can clearly see doesn't happen despite his best efforts.

This one's a little more clear, take a look


Here's one showing the same effect completely with measurements and gps coordinates


I don't see the video arguing a mirage or that the hull isn't visible. 

56
I'm still completely lost as to how people calculated the "drop" equation.

Because it seems from your three points, that the earth curves exponentially downward, which makes absolutely no sense at all.

What doesn't make sense about it?
That equation would suggest that the earth is somehow a mound that gets steeper and steeper the farther away you go. But we actually claim it is a sphere

Why don't you calculate what the actual drop would be based on actual measurements.

Well somehow, round earth'ers have to account for nearly 4,000 miles of drop over a little more than 6,000 miles.  An ant on a beach ball would notice a decline that became greater and greater as they traveled from the "north pole" of the ball towards any point on its "equator."  Of course, we don't observe that on the earth either. 

57
I think you posted the wrong video. That doesn't show what you said it would.

Why don't you think it does?

Because reality. It has nothing to do with what I think.

The buoy is in view at the beginning. When the camera zooms in, there is no new portion of the buoy that becomes viewable. (Same with the boat, although it's moving around all over the place and its distance is variable so it's not as good of an indicator as the buoy, so we can leave that out of the discussion for now.)

It's obvious that the ship and buoy are several miles away from shore.  Yet, they are clearly viewable.  That makes no sense on a round earth and this is just one of thousands of videos like it, made mostly by amateurs. 

58
Flat Earth General / Re: Real or Fake?
« on: October 04, 2016, 02:51:12 PM »
Is this video, made from a weather balloon with a camera strapped to it real or fake? 


59
I'm still completely lost as to how people calculated the "drop" equation.

Because it seems from your three points, that the earth curves exponentially downward, which makes absolutely no sense at all.

What doesn't make sense about it? 

60
I think you posted the wrong video. That doesn't show what you said it would.

Why don't you think it does? 

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7