Photographic proof that the earth is flat and the sun is very close to the earth

This photograph proves that the earth is flat. Based on the absense of curvature on the opposite bank. Also, this photograph is taken from Rosario, Washington, and looks clear across the Puget sound. The mountains you see on the opposite bank are not very large, their apparent small size is entirely explained by perspective. They have not been cut at all from the bottom by the curvature of the earth, despite being in excess of 60 miles away.

Further, the foreground spit provides an absolute geographic reference point to trace perspective to the opposing shore, confirming the absence of curvature of the earth.



And here we see a conclusive demonstration of the sun being VERY LOCAL to the earth. If the sun were actually nintey-three million miles away, then these sunrays would appear to be parallel, because the angles would be so small. The drastic difference between the angles of the foreground and background rays clearly demonstrates that the sun is extremely close to the earth, and probably very small.

wow you are officially narcberry stupid. 

No curvature is visible in the first photograph due to the mountain range that interrupts the horizon.

The second picture does not prove anything, light is simply more visible where the cloud is thinner, try measuring the length of shadows of two meter sticks at noon if you don't believe me.

I don't need to. Can't you see that the light on the left and right sides of the image are clearly making an extreme angle with each other? They are *not* parallel.

Light bounces off water. Clouds are made of water vapor. Only some of the light comes through the cloud, where it is thinest. Clouds obstruct light. To see if the light is parallel you must make sure the light is not obstructed or distorted. Undertand?

The major mistake is to assume that the rays are all going straight down and not in fact coming towards you causing the perspective effect that we see in the picture.

"Also, this photograph is taken from Rosario, Washington, and looks clear across the Puget sound. The mountains you see on the opposite bank are not very large, their apparent small size is entirely explained by perspective. They have not been cut at all from the bottom by the curvature of the earth, despite being in excess of 60 miles away."

I thought that was the best point of the first post.

And here we see a conclusive demonstration of the sun being VERY LOCAL to the earth. If the sun were actually nintey-three million miles away, then these sunrays would appear to be parallel, because the angles would be so small. The drastic difference between the angles of the foreground and background rays clearly demonstrates that the sun is extremely close to the earth, and probably very small.

This effect is due to perspective.  The rays of light are in fact running parallel, as you might expect.  Except the light is travelling in our general direction.  Therefore perspective makes the rays converge to the sun.   Light will always appear to come radially from the sun.

To think of it another way. If you were to go to a point near to horizon (say 10 miles out), the sun would still be in roughly the same position in the sky, and not overhead as the image would suggest.

BTW this effect also contradicts FE theory because the angles made by the sun's rays suggest the sun is much lower than 3000 miles (given a cloud base of a few thousand feet).

BTBTW it's a great photo.

Quoting myself on another thread with the exact same idea, thread, and arguments.

Snell's law applies to the angle of incidence. Proves nothing. I might add that at 3000 miles, the same problem arises as it would from 9 million miles away. The difference of 10 miles from 3000 would only be equal to much less than half a degree of angular difference, and 9 million would give veeeeeery little. These rays seem at least 15 degrees off. Also, the shape of the clouds seems to be affecting the angle more than anything else. Get a wooden block that's thick, and cut a hole at an angle. Then shine a flashlight straight down at it. What angle do the rays come out at?

So, to summarize, if this picture is correct, the distance to the Sun is...

tan 15 = 10/x

x*tan15 = 10

x = 10/tan15

x = 40...

40 miles, at max.

We've flown higher than that.

40 miles, at max.

We've flown higher than that.

Of course we haven't, that's higher than the space boundary, and space travel is impossible on a flat earth...

for some reason.

Yes, we have. Space boundary is at 100 kms. Weather balloons, rocketry, etc can reach there.

Yes, we have. Space boundary is at 100 kms. Weather balloons, rocketry, etc can reach there.

You don't seem to understand unit conversions. In FE theory, 1km = .398 miles, so 40 miles > 100 km.

The difference helps to account for travel in the southern hemisphere and the lengths of the tropics of cancer and capricorn.

Quote from: fshy94 on February 15, 2008, 02:04:02 PM

Yes, we have. Space boundary is at 100 kms. Weather balloons, rocketry, etc can reach there.

You don't seem to understand unit conversions. In FE theory, 1km = .398 miles, so 40 miles > 100 km.

The difference helps to account for travel in the southern hemisphere and the lengths of the tropics of cancer and capricorn.

OK, this is so sigged...I wasn't aware that FE had redone unit measurements...

I'd tell you that changing unit lengths doesn't fix your problem, but I doubt it'll help...

The impossibility of space travel is an area of FE theory that our scientists are still researching, in hopes of a better explanation.

There are no flat earth scientists.

then what does that make Tom Bishop, The Engineer, Dogplatter, or any other of the most highly respected members of this forum? You all think the earth is round because it's all you've ever been taught. Great minds think for themselves.

You might find it somewhat entertaining to know that TheEngineer is an RE'er...

You might be somewhat amused to know that I'm an RE'er

So how does that make you a FE scientist? You mentioned "our" scientists, implying relation.

Besides, these two statements are contradictory:

This photograph proves that the earth is flat.

You might be somewhat amused to know that I'm an RE'er

So are these statements:

You might find it somewhat entertaining to know that TheEngineer is an RE'er...

the FE is accelerating.

Not with engy's explanation that he likes to play devil's advocate for RE. Alot of people here play devil's advocate to amuse themselves and/or see the real explanations against them.

I fall into the former category.

Quote from: fshy94 on February 15, 2008, 02:04:02 PM

Yes, we have. Space boundary is at 100 kms. Weather balloons, rocketry, etc can reach there.

You don't seem to understand unit conversions. In FE theory, 1km = .398 miles, so 40 miles > 100 km.

WOW!
     
1 miles = 1.609344 kilometers
1 kilometers = 0.621371192 miles
according to google, where did you find those measurements?

Google uses the round earth standards.

Google uses the round earth standards.

Maybe it's just me but I'm pretty sure that the conversions for measurements has nothing to do with the earth being flat or round.  I could be mistaken.

If you're going to use different conversions please rename them.  Don't use an already established system of measurements and then change the conversions to fit your model.  You could say 1 kilometer = .398 FEU (Flat Earth Units) then that could work.  It may not mean anything to me or anybody else but at least it wouldn't be totally wrong.  Right?

you've missed my meaning entirely.

Yay for Jesus Lights!

Google uses the round earth standards.

Where do you get the flat earth standards?

From the natural way things are on a flat earth. Flat earth standards arise from a normalization of all units of measurement lend a level of consistency to the world. In hubward regions, they're a bit long. in rimward regions, they're a bit short. It's analogous to timezones, which vary by as much as several hours in some areas of china.