Proof that Earth is round, not flat

At a closer look, it actually seems that the cloud just above the car's side-mirror at the right side (seen from our position) in the first photo is a little higher there than in the second photo, probably due to the wind.

Quote from: TrollCrusher on November 12, 2010, 06:33:05 PM

Quote from: Thork on November 12, 2010, 03:24:05 PM

Quote from: Horatio on November 12, 2010, 03:03:54 PM

Still too far for the change to be noticed.

Epic fail, Thork.

If earth's radius is 12,000 miles and stars are between 700 and 3100 miles above us, then you would notice that change moving from North pole to equator. You are moving 4 times the distance horizontally to their altitude.
Epic failure to understand the thread, Horatio. You seem most out of your depth when you venture from RM.

Quote from: TrollCrusher on November 12, 2010, 02:30:02 PM

The very idea of the hottest and brightest stars being that close to earth is ridiculous...we would see them in full view...enormous in the sky....affecting the heat and perhaps climate on earth.

But FE also doesn't say the sun and stars are huge. The sun's diameter is only 32 miles across and the stars are as you see them. Closer but smaller. They are very small and bright. They do not put out lots of heat like the sun. They are too small. They may well be bioluminesent like the moon anyway.

WEll consider for once that FE may be wrong.....WE have every bit of contradictory information on all points. We also know the sun is only one of many stars in the universe. The do not put off heat like the sun? that's crazy talk and a very childish view...scientists have observed the level of heat given off by them at relative distance..

Please do not put words in Thork's mouth. It is intellectually dishonest.

doesnt that mean that eventually, we would see stars in a line, or near a line, but as we aproach their location, they become different shapes? constellations dont do that, just look at the big dipper, then drive or fly 600 miles one way.  the big dipper does not become "smooshed"

also, dont shout in such big font, that makes you look immature, and not willing to debate

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 14, 2010, 03:59:02 AM

doesnt that mean that eventually, we would see stars in a line, or near a line, but as we aproach their location, they become different shapes? constellations dont do that, just look at the big dipper, then drive or fly 600 miles one way.  the big dipper does not become "smooshed"

also, dont shout in such big font, that makes you look immature, and not willing to debate

Victorious expression is probably hard to contain at times.  The bold print is useful when scanning a thread to see who has won the debate. It did work in this case.

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 14, 2010, 03:59:02 AM

doesnt that mean that eventually, we would see stars in a line, or near a line, but as we aproach their location, they become different shapes? constellations dont do that, just look at the big dipper, then drive or fly 600 miles one way.  the big dipper does not become "smooshed"

also, dont shout in such big font, that makes you look immature, and not willing to debate

Victorious expression is probably hard to contain at times.  The bold print is useful when scanning a thread to see who has won the debate. It did work in this case.

Victorious expression is probably hard to contain at times.  The bold print is useful when scanning a thread to see who has won the debate. It did work in this case.

Quote from: gotham on November 14, 2010, 06:21:15 AM

Victorious expression is probably hard to contain at times.  The bold print is useful when scanning a thread to see who has won the debate. It did work in this case.

I didn't read down as far as your post GD. Once I saw FE had won, I knew the thread was over (The bold type helped draw my attention). I really only posted to offer my warmest congratulations to EG and Gotham, on a very well reasoned argument.

EG really did do a splendid job with supporting failing documentation and delivered without a winning argument.  It is that wasn't the substance and not but the font size that won the debate, as it should be.   

Quote from: gotham on November 14, 2010, 05:52:57 PM

EG really did do a splendid job with supporting failing documentation and delivered without a winning argument.  It is that wasn't the substance and not but the font size that won the debate, as it should be.   

Fixed for you.

Quote from: zork on November 14, 2010, 09:40:14 PM

Quote from: gotham on November 14, 2010, 05:52:57 PM

EG really did do a splendid job with supporting failing documentation and delivered without a winning argument.  It is that wasn't the substance and not but the font size that won the debate, as it should be.   

Fixed for you.

1. So you admit we won the debate?
2. If there is so much wrong with my argument, do post a rebuttal.

  2. Rebuttal was posted and you failed to counter it. Just pitiful attempt to divert attention to elsewhere by getting examples from closer things when you specifically were asked to look at the farthest things.

Quote from: zork on November 14, 2010, 11:11:37 PM

  2. Rebuttal was posted and you failed to counter it. Just pitiful attempt to divert attention to elsewhere by getting examples from closer things when you specifically were asked to look at the farthest things.

I did. I was told to look at the clouds, and there was indeed a difference between them.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 14, 2010, 11:29:23 PM

Quote from: zork on November 14, 2010, 11:11:37 PM

  2. Rebuttal was posted and you failed to counter it. Just pitiful attempt to divert attention to elsewhere by getting examples from closer things when you specifically were asked to look at the farthest things.

I did. I was told to look at the clouds, and there was indeed a difference between them.

You were told following:
If we instead look at the trees at the far end of the street, we can see no difference between the silhouettes of those trees in the two photos, not even if we also consider the clouds in the sky behind.
 You were asked to look at the far end  of the street and the clouds behind them. Specifically AT THE FAR END. But you deliberately choose the closest tree and the cloud. You did not counter the thing that you were asked about. You started trolling.

They don't appear to me. But which one is the longer one in your opinion?

If I measured them with ruler both of them had same length 3 cm and 7 mm.

Just out of curiosity I calculated the length of the upper one with pixels and got length to be 1.8 pixels more than the lower one. I have some 3.x pixels per millimeter on my screen. So, it's about a half millimeter difference. It's not noticeable difference and only reason why the may appear to be so different to you is because of the different angle/position.

dang! thats hella good vision (it is right?, becuase i have like 20/30 or something)

but if the stars were that close proportionately to the angle, then, the stars would one day appear smooshed in a line form, and some other day, would appear stretched out right?

I blew it up and now the top one has 15cm 2mm and the bottom one has 15cm 1mm