Proof of curvature

I want to thank Levee for posting this:




This is a perfect example of a curved Earth.

If you look at the horizon, you notice how the ground seems to just cut off at the horizon?  It looks like a hill, rolling up until it hits the peak.


Also

BURLINGTON (VERMONT) - MONTREAL, 117 KM

CURVATURE: 268 METERS

HEIGHT OF PHOTOGRAPHER 300 FEET = 91.4 METERS, WE ROUND OFF TO 100 METERS

TALLEST BUILDING IN MONTREAL: 225 METERS

The height of the photographer is not 300 feet.  Those trees on the land closest to the bottom edge of the picture means he's several THOUSAND feet in the air.


But hey, let's not bother with that one.  So he had no idea what the height was and guessed.

Let's go to page 3 of the thread where Levee got the picture originally and you get...



Hmmm...

Water?  Check.
Clear skyline?  Check.
50KM?  Check.
At water's edge?  Check.


So Levee... does that end the debate?  Or did you conveniently ignore that page?

Oh and Levee...
Thank you for introducing me to that site.  Lots of great pictures AND you see them as valid.

My god!  There are buildings sticking straight up out of the ocean!  I'm really curious how FEers try and explain that without a downward-curving surface.  (p.s. for them: saying "perspective" and walking away isn't a victory.  It's more like calling checkmate after crapping on the board.)

Also relevant:

My god!  There are buildings sticking straight up out of the ocean!  I'm really curious how FEers try and explain that without a downward-curving surface.  (p.s. for them: saying "perspective" and walking away isn't a victory.  It's more like calling checkmate after crapping on the board.)

Bendy Light?

I'm just annoyed at how many simply say "perspective."  Ben Franklin's been guilty of that numerous times.  I actually have yet to hear the argument for it.  They just say "perspective effect" and leave it at that.  What the hell are they actually referring to?

I'm just annoyed at how many simply say "perspective."  Ben Franklin's been guilty of that numerous times.  I actually have yet to hear the argument for it.  They just say "perspective effect" and leave it at that.  What the hell are they actually referring to?

I believe they refer to Rowbotham's work concerning distance and perspective that I feel is completely incorrect.  Supposedly one can see beyond the horizon with simply a telescope.

I'm just annoyed at how many simply say "perspective."  Ben Franklin's been guilty of that numerous times.  I actually have yet to hear the argument for it.  They just say "perspective effect" and leave it at that.  What the hell are they actually referring to?

I thought it was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28visual%29

Well so much for a flat earth. /thread

Well so much for a flat earth. /thread

What exactly were you trying to prove or add to the conversation?

We all know what the round earth model is (hopefully.)  Stating it does not make it true.

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 21, 2010, 02:10:52 PM

Well so much for a flat earth. /thread

What exactly were you trying to prove or add to the conversation?

We all know what the round earth model is (hopefully.)  Stating it does not make it true.

What about the picture that shows a curvature over water?

He was showing why we can see the tops of buildings but not their bottoms or anything of the ground they're on.

Yea didnt fell like trying to re-type that equation so sue me.
But yea the the math speaks for it self.

Yea didnt fell like trying to re-type that equation so sue me.
But yea the the math speaks for it self.

It most certainly does not.

The images speak for themselves.  The math predicts exactly those images.

The images speak for themselves.  The math predicts exactly those images.

Show me.  Of course, I imagine that would require a trip to St. Catherines.

Show me.

Move mouse pointer to right of screen.  Hover pointer over scroll bar.  Hold left mouse button.  Move mouse up.

--Excerpt from page 1 of "Successful Scrolling for Beginners."

It would be nice to hear a FE'er say how the OP pictures are possible in FET. Preferably without the word conspiracy.

Quote from: John Davis on May 21, 2010, 02:36:27 PM

Show me.

Move mouse pointer to right of screen.  Hover pointer over scroll bar.  Hold left mouse button.  Move mouse up.

--Excerpt from page 1 of "Successful Scrolling for Beginners."

I guess its obvious to everyone now that you don't have the proper information to support the claims you made.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 21, 2010, 02:42:53 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 21, 2010, 02:36:27 PM

Show me.

Move mouse pointer to right of screen.  Hover pointer over scroll bar.  Hold left mouse button.  Move mouse up.

--Excerpt from page 1 of "Successful Scrolling for Beginners."

I guess its obvious to everyone now that you don't have the proper information to support the claims you made.

So are you actually going to ignore the picture in the first post? 

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 21, 2010, 02:42:53 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 21, 2010, 02:36:27 PM

Show me.

Move mouse pointer to right of screen.  Hover pointer over scroll bar.  Hold left mouse button.  Move mouse up.

--Excerpt from page 1 of "Successful Scrolling for Beginners."

I guess its obvious to everyone now that you don't have the proper information to support the claims you made.

Seems you don't ether. Or would you like to explain how the image of the container ships works on a flat earth please include mathematical proofs.

Here is mine. For a round Earth.


Now how would this work on a flat Earth?

Quote from: John Davis on May 21, 2010, 02:56:04 PM

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 21, 2010, 02:42:53 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 21, 2010, 02:36:27 PM

Show me.

Move mouse pointer to right of screen.  Hover pointer over scroll bar.  Hold left mouse button.  Move mouse up.

--Excerpt from page 1 of "Successful Scrolling for Beginners."

I guess its obvious to everyone now that you don't have the proper information to support the claims you made.

Seems you don't ether. Or would you like to explain how the image of the container ships works on a flat earth please include mathematical proofs.

Here is mine. For a round Earth.


Now how would this work on a flat Earth?

I never made any claims.  Am I to support the claims I haven't made?

Mathematical proofs do not apply to reality.

You still have yet to backup wikipedias image with concrete evidence relating to the pictures involved.  Distances, locations, long, lat, sizes of the objects in the photo and show they fit in the model.  You cannot simply just post a picture of the Toronto skyline and an equation and assume the numbers fit.

You cannot simply just post a picture of the Toronto skyline and an equation and assume the numbers fit.

I don't need to support any numbers.  Hell, this isn't even about the numbers, it's about showing curvature over water, something Flat Earth says is impossible.

Quote from: John Davis on May 21, 2010, 03:04:31 PM

You cannot simply just post a picture of the Toronto skyline and an equation and assume the numbers fit.

I don't need to support any numbers.  Hell, this isn't even about the numbers, it's about showing curvature over water, something Flat Earth says is impossible.

It says no such thing.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 03:06:50 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 21, 2010, 03:04:31 PM

You cannot simply just post a picture of the Toronto skyline and an equation and assume the numbers fit.

I don't need to support any numbers.  Hell, this isn't even about the numbers, it's about showing curvature over water, something Flat Earth says is impossible.

It says no such thing.

Wait...

Are you telling me that Flat Earth Theory says you CAN have curved, standing water?

Question:
What FE model predicts us only being able to see the tops of buildings that are far away?

Question:
What FE model predicts us only being able to see the tops of buildings that are far away?

Mine, bendy light as well as Rowbotham's as well as quite a few others that are less popular here.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 21, 2010, 03:11:59 PM

Question:
What FE model predicts us only being able to see the tops of buildings that are far away?

Mine, bendy light as well as Rowbotham's as well as quite a few others that are less popular here.

But Bendy Light contradicts the idea that you can see farther than you should.  All of Levee's posts are invalid.

You know, I realize that some things just aren't going to be universally agreed upon for FET but you really need to figure out if light bends or not.  I mean, the bending or non-bending of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum is something that is either a Yes or a No and either one will result in a radically different set of physics for the universe.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 21, 2010, 03:11:59 PM

Question:
What FE model predicts us only being able to see the tops of buildings that are far away?

Mine, bendy light as well as Rowbotham's as well as quite a few others that are less popular here.

Rowbotham's theory ? He obviously doesn't know how perspective works...

The line A, B, represents the altitude of the mast head; E, H, of the observer, and C, D, of the horizontal surface of the sea. By the law of perspective the surface of the water appears to ascend towards the eye-line, meeting it at the point H, which is the horizon. The ship appears to ascend the inclined plane C, H, the hull gradually becoming less until on arriving at the horizon H it is apparently so small that its vertical depth subtends an angle, at the eye of the observer, of less than one minute of a degree, and it is therefore invisible; whilst the angle subtended by the space between the mast-head and the surface of the water is considerably more than one minute, and therefore although the hull has disappeared in the horizon as the vanishing point, the mast-head is still visible above the horizon. But the vessel continuing to sail, the mast-head gradually descends in the direction of the line A, W, until at length it forms the same angle of one minute at the eye of the observer, and then becomes invisible.

Those who believe that the earth is a globe have often sought to prove it to be so by quoting the fact that when the ship's hull has disappeared, if an observer ascends to a higher position the hull again becomes visible. But this, is logically premature; such a result arises simply from the fact that on raising his position the eye-line recedes further over the water before it forms the angle of one minute of a degree, and this includes and brings back the hull within the vanishing point, as shown in fig. 84.


The altitude of the eye-line E, H, being greater, the horizon or vanishing point is formed at fig. 2 instead of at fig. 1, as in the previous illustration.

Hence the phenomenon of the hull of an outward bound vessel being the first to disappear, which has been so universally quoted and relied upon as proving the rotundity of the earth, is fairly, both logically and mathematically, a proof of the very contrary, that the earth is a plane. It
has been misunderstood and misapplied in consequence of an erroneous view of the laws of perspective, and the unconquered desire to support a theory. That it is valueless for such a purpose is now completely demonstrated.

Honestly, how can that be a complete demonstration?

Yeah, that fellow never understood perspective, it seems.

The problem with concepts like this is that it's hard to make one claim accounting for only one phenomenon.  One claim tends to affect numerous other things that we're then able to accurately predict and observe in multiple phenomena.  This is why nobody believes bendy light;it makes lots of other predictions that all turn out to be wrong--it doesn't match the evidence.  Keep these in mind when I ask: what's your personal idea, JD?

Well, perhaps a FE'er would care to explain why when I went on a deep sea fishing trip roughly 50 miles off the coast of Ocean City, MD, I could not see land?  The seas were calm.  If there's no curve, I should have been easily able to see the buildings on the boardwalk.  Take a stab at it guys.

Well, perhaps a FE'er would care to explain why when I went on a deep sea fishing trip roughly 50 miles off the coast of Ocean City, MD, I could not see land?  The seas were calm.  If there's no curve, I should have been easily able to see the buildings on the boardwalk.  Take a stab at it guys.

OT OH HAI You from MD? But yea for that matter there are parts of the bay you can't see land out in the middle
OR The Farris wheel on Division St. ! that and IIRC the Sea Watch are the tallest stuff in OC.  

Another good one would be the kites from the Kite Loft that are ~ 200 feet up.