Here's an Easy One

  • 124 Replies
  • 33913 Views
*

AnonConda

  • 95
  • +0/-0
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #60 on: February 12, 2012, 10:33:57 AM »
(derpy picture)
I LOLed. But seriously, care to admit that the size of Antarctica and view from space in the photo you posted do not disprove RET, but rather are entirely consistent with it?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45174
  • +99/-139
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #61 on: February 12, 2012, 10:37:20 AM »
Come on guys you're supposed to be Scientists! Do you honestly believe that Antarctica can have a recorded coastline of 11,165 miles, at the South Pole and not be visible in the 1st two pictures?

And I'm not even getting paid for this! LOL

You are assuming that length of a coastline has anything to do with the size a land mass.  That assumption is wrong.  It doesn't really get much more simple than that.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • +0/-0
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #62 on: February 12, 2012, 10:39:51 AM »
This is when a thread should be locked.

Why lock the thread? We still haven't had any other comments or remarks from other Flat Earth Believers and the Sphere Earthers have not provided sufficient argument to counter the evidence and claims presented. Look at the 1000s of threads throughout this website. You will find a majority of posts containing similar images and even worse trolling. At least this thread is having a legitimate discussion on important topics. Just because things are not going in favor of the Sphere Earth Theory is no reason to End a Debate or Lock a Thread.
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

AnonConda

  • 95
  • +0/-0
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #63 on: February 12, 2012, 10:57:03 AM »
This is when a thread should be locked.

Why lock the thread? We still haven't had any other comments or remarks from other Flat Earth Believers and the Sphere Earthers have not provided sufficient argument to counter the evidence and claims presented. Look at the 1000s of threads throughout this website. You will find a majority of posts containing similar images and even worse trolling. At least this thread is having a legitimate discussion on important topics. Just because things are not going in favor of the Sphere Earth Theory is no reason to End a Debate or Lock a Thread.
We have.
Two things important details were ignored by your first post.
1 Distance. It matters how far the photo was taken. I showed this in a diagram.
2 Relative size. Your mistaken view on what coastline means has been demonstrated to be the reason why you think Antarctica should take up way more of that photo.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • +0/-0
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #64 on: February 12, 2012, 11:08:59 AM »
Regardless of the relative sizes, surface area or assumed diameters there is recorded 11,165 miles of coastline absent from the images. It is hard to comprehend how the landmass is hidden from view on the bottom of the globe remaining nearly flat with eye level and not curve up the edge a noticeable amount.

Someone posted earlier that the surface area is over 8 percent of the globe and even if the you take into account the curve of the globe one would think that it would Cup the bottom of the globe at least some.
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • +0/-0
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #65 on: February 12, 2012, 11:15:15 AM »
the Sphere Earthers have not provided sufficient argument to counter the evidence and claims presented.


The claim:

On a spherical Earth with a circumference of 25,000 miles, if Antarctica had a circumference of 11,165 miles, it would be visible from this view of the sphere:





Exhibit A:



Sphere circumference = less than 25,000 miles. Confirmed.


Exhibit B:



Antarctica circumference = greater than 11,000 miles. Confirmed.


Exhibit C:



Given these measurements, Antarctica would not be visible at that angle. Confirmed.


The claim has been more than sufficiently countered.


one would think

One would be wrong. Move on.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45174
  • +99/-139
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #66 on: February 12, 2012, 11:29:34 AM »
This is when a thread should be locked.

Why lock the thread? We still haven't had any other comments or remarks from other Flat Earth Believers ...

Perhaps the reason that other FE'ers haven't responded is because even they don't buy into your nonsense.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • +0/-0
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #67 on: February 12, 2012, 11:37:45 AM »
Given your calculations and technologically advanced 3d computer simulations I can see how it is possible. Thank you for your work.

What I do not see is possible is how the earth is a 25,000 mile circumference sphere when no independent researcher has been able to successfully detect any curvature in the ground? For instance. Here is a picture taken with a telescope across Lake Ontario showing the skyline. The lake is 30+ miles across. How is it possible that the skyline of Toronto be perfectly level and not curved around the globe even the slightest?

As you can clearly see Lake Ontario is perfectly flat across and the City of Toronto is entirely visible ABOVE the waterline?



According to http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm the ground should curve downwards 600 feet over a 30 mile distance.

I guess that's the problem Flat Earthers have with techmologically advanced 3d computer simulations is that they could be wrong. Who knows...
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • +0/-0
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #68 on: February 12, 2012, 11:47:54 AM »
Hasn't this experience taught you anything? The assumptions you make about distances and what should or shouldn't be visible can be wrong. Get some verified measurements so you can put your expectations to the test, otherwise kindly stop talking out of your ass.


I guess that's the problem Flat Earthers have with techmologically advanced 3d computer simulations is that they could be wrong. Who knows...

If you don't trust simulations, feel free to repeat the test with a globe and measuring tape. You'll get the same result.

Also, to ensure that I get your next reply, be sure to write it down with pencil and paper and bring it to me on foot.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 11:51:41 AM by zarg »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • +0/-0
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #69 on: February 12, 2012, 11:51:56 AM »
I'm sorry sir but everyone knows that the Toronto Skyline is visible from New York on a clear day. Here is a discussion:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=849986

So you mean to say that on a 25,000 mile circumference sphere the ground would not curve 600 feet downwards over 30 miles distance? Surely if those figures are wrong in the above link then Flat Earth Theory would have died out a long time ago? I mean, that's the whole basis of the Flat Earth Society is it not?
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • +0/-0
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #70 on: February 12, 2012, 11:57:35 AM »
We've been over this.  Don't make assumptions, do the math.  600 feet is 0.38% of 30 miles. Even if your value and calculation are correct, a 600-foot drop would be imperceptible from 30 miles away.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • +0/-0
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #71 on: February 12, 2012, 12:09:52 PM »
The CN Tower is 1815.4 ft tall so if the ground curved downwards 600 feet, at least 1/3 of the tower should be covered by water plus you have to take into account the tilt from the curvature.

The tower is perfectly level and the horizon is flat all the way across. The ground is visible above the waterline which leads towards a flat plane all the way across.
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • +0/-0
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #72 on: February 12, 2012, 12:38:36 PM »
Correct, you would be able to see evidence of curvature by the buildings disappearing over the horizon, but you wouldn't be able to visually discern a downwards curve because it's so infinitesimal.

As for why the CN tower's base is visible, this depends on the relative elevations above sea level. In the thread you linked, you can't tell the elevation in most of those photos; however many of them are clearly taken high above the trees, and there is a pretty big hint on page 3:

Quote
So it's highly unlikely you could see Toronto from Rochester. I wouldn't be surprised if you could see if from Buffalo though, especially since its elevation is 100m higher than Toronto's and I don't think there are any significant hills in between that would block the view.

So once again, don't make assumptions. Get some verified measurements. Do the math.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

DonaldC

  • 194
  • +0/-0
  • Physics & Philosophy guy, teach science in China
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #73 on: February 12, 2012, 04:15:27 PM »
Uh no. Having lived in NYC for several years as well as working there for several more I can flat out deny that luducrous claim that you can see Toronto. Hell you cannot even see much of Long Island or Jersey. And the reason is not curvature, the atmosphere is not completely transparent. Light gets diffused, and with the addition of pollution and smog, you are not going to see that far.

The best view I ever had was a day in Central Jersey when a bunch of us from my National Guard unit when skydiving. It was an amazingly clear day. At 12,000 feet you could see NYC, Philadelphia and the Atlantic Ocean out a fair ways.

« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 04:21:46 PM by DonaldC »
"Think of the average person. Now remember how stupid he is. Now realize half of them are dumber than that." George Carlin

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • +0/-0
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2012, 04:23:26 PM »
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

DonaldC

  • 194
  • +0/-0
  • Physics & Philosophy guy, teach science in China
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2012, 04:28:56 PM »
Earth's Curvature


Date: 01/27/97 at 17:20:57
From: Neha
Subject: Earth's curvature

I am interested in knowing the degree of curvature of the earth's
surface.  I am attempting to find a method which would allow me to
conceptualize and calculate the making of such a depiction on paper.

That is to say, if the earth curves from point A to point B, points
exactly 10 kilometers apart, if one were to draw a straight line
betwen the two points, then WHAT WOULD BE THE HEIGHT of the highest
point the curvature AB would be above the line AB?  Moreover, if the
point AB were now to be 20 kilometers apart, would the height be 2
times the height calculated earlier or would it be something
altogether different?

Thank you for your kind consideration and aid.  This young artist
sincerely and surely appreciates it!

Date: 01/29/97 at 12:01:59
From: Doctor Lorenzo
Subject: Re: Earth's curvature

Hi Neha -

The first thing to realize is that this problem is about circles in
the plane, not about spheres in 3-dimensional space.  You are only
interested in comparing a curve and a straight line, and they all lie
in the same plane. A plane through a sphere yields a circle.  So we
just have to understand how a circle pulls away from a straight line.

Consider a circle of radius R, tangent to the x-axis at the origin and
the center on the negative y-axis.  (I set it up this way in order to
simplify the calculation of the height which now will go straight up
the y-axis from the midpoint of line AB to the origin.) The equation
for such a circle is:

x^2 + (y+R)^2 = R^2

Equivalently, x^2 + y^2 +2Ry = 0     

Equivalently, y = - (x^2 + y^2)/2R

[Note: The notation "x^2" means "x squared"]

Near the origin y is small, and y^2 is smaller still, so this can be
approximated by:

y = - x^2 / 2R

If 2 points are separated by a distance L, they might be point A at
x = -L/2 and point B at x = +L/2.  At both A and B we have:

y = - L^2 / 8R

That is, while the curve from A to B goes through the origin, the
straight line from A to B cuts a distance L^2/8R below the origin. 
Notice that doubling L (say, from 10 miles to 20) means quadrupling
this distance.

As for the curvature of the actual earth, you just have to plug in,
for R, the radius of the earth, which is about 4000 miles.  So, if
L = 10 miles, then:

y = (100/32,000) miles (about 16 feet)

You can see this effect in real life.  If you look across a 10-mile
wide lake at the other shore, you can't see the low buildings on the
other side! To see a cabin 16 feet high, you would have to climb a
ladder so that your eyes are 16 feet above the ground (to be exact you
would take into account the effect of the curvature on the angles of
the building and your viewing station make relative to the "y-axis",
but this effect is negligible at this distance).

This is dramatic in Lake Tahoe, where, from the north shore of the
lake you can see the tall casinos of Stateline, Nevada, but not the
low buildings of South Lake Tahoe, California.  (Lake Tahoe is also
more than 10 miles from top to bottom).

By the way, the L^2/8R answer is only an approximation, since we
ignored the y^2 term in the equation of the circle, and ignored the
difference between the straight-line distance between A and B and the
distance along the curve.  These corrections are negligible, being
approximately of size L^4/R^3. If L = 10 miles and R = 4000 miles,
these corrections add up to less than 1/1000 of an inch! 

-Doctor Lorenzo,  The Math Forum

And here is the direct link: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54904.html
"Think of the average person. Now remember how stupid he is. Now realize half of them are dumber than that." George Carlin

*

DonaldC

  • 194
  • +0/-0
  • Physics & Philosophy guy, teach science in China
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2012, 04:31:29 PM »
iWitness, it would seem we spoke past one another. As a resident of New York City for several years, I have the appalling habit of hearing or reading New York and thinking immediately New York City. You meant New York State. And yes you can see Toronto from upstate New York State, but not from New York City.

So we are both correct.
"Think of the average person. Now remember how stupid he is. Now realize half of them are dumber than that." George Carlin

?

Mizuki

  • 356
  • +0/-0
  • Earth is NOT a Globe
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #77 on: February 12, 2012, 04:35:03 PM »
Donald.

Here is the math that iWitness is referring to: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm#page_9

Mizuki x
"Earth is a maximal sphere in a cyclical space and its surface therefore a total plane, the equator plane of the Cosmos. The (total) plane, as well as the straight line and space as a whole, is flat, without curvature yet closed, running back on itself."

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • +0/-0
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #78 on: February 12, 2012, 05:05:13 PM »
iWitness, it would seem we spoke past one another. As a resident of New York City for several years, I have the appalling habit of hearing or reading New York and thinking immediately New York City. You meant New York State. And yes you can see Toronto from upstate New York State, but not from New York City.

So we are both correct.

I apologize for the misunderstanding I should have been more clear about where the pictures were taken.
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #79 on: February 13, 2012, 02:42:44 AM »
Since when does circumference have anything to do with surface area?
Since pi, give or take.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #80 on: February 13, 2012, 05:47:45 AM »
Since when does circumference have anything to do with surface area?
Since pi, give or take.
IWitness is using "circumference" in the lamest sense: coastline. Pi is not involved accordingly.

cir·cum·fer·ence/sərˈkəmf(ə)rəns/
Noun:   
1) The enclosing boundary of a curved geometric figure, esp. a circle.
2) The distance around something.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45174
  • +99/-139
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #81 on: February 13, 2012, 06:28:11 AM »
Since when does circumference have anything to do with surface area?
Since pi, give or take.
How is pi useful in determining the surface area (or even circumference) of Antarctica?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

krukoslik

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #82 on: February 13, 2012, 12:33:08 PM »
No no no you dont get it. antarctica's coastline stretches out that much INCLUDING the bays and ridges on the coastline. your theory would be true if antarcticas coast was a perfectly constant curve, or straight line. but its all jagged and zig-zagged, so it is measured as much longer than it appears.

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #83 on: February 13, 2012, 01:35:06 PM »
The CN Tower is 1815.4 ft tall so if the ground curved downwards 600 feet, at least 1/3 of the tower should be covered by water plus you have to take into account the tilt from the curvature.
I shall make this as simple as possible.  A 600ft curve downward, does not equal a 600ft bulge.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #84 on: February 13, 2012, 04:28:18 PM »
The CN Tower is 1815.4 ft tall so if the ground curved downwards 600 feet, at least 1/3 of the tower should be covered by water plus you have to take into account the tilt from the curvature.
I shall make this as simple as possible.  A 600ft curve downward, does not equal a 600ft bulge.

Why not?

*

AnonConda

  • 95
  • +0/-0
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #85 on: February 13, 2012, 05:29:07 PM »
The CN Tower is 1815.4 ft tall so if the ground curved downwards 600 feet, at least 1/3 of the tower should be covered by water plus you have to take into account the tilt from the curvature.
I shall make this as simple as possible.  A 600ft curve downward, does not equal a 600ft bulge.
Why not?
Here is a diagram illustrating the difference between downward curve and a bulge.
http://i.imgur.com/jTM9J.png
Let point A be the object of regard or a building in this case. Let points B and C be two locations some distance apart, C is twice as far as B is from A.
Let the red line represent 600ft, and this demonstrates that from point B there is a 600ft downward curve, and from point C there is a 600ft bulge.
And the bulge between points A and B is smaller than 600ft.

Let me add, that at 30mi there is a 600ft drop, but only about a 150ft bulge.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 05:48:35 PM by AnonConda »

?

areyouguysserious

  • 323
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth Is Flat - True Story
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #86 on: February 13, 2012, 05:58:57 PM »
This whole thread is a fail from start to finish. First of all, flat earth believers dont believe in satellites. Therefore satellite imagery isn't real. iWitness believes the earth is flat, but he is using satellite imagery of the earth to prove that Antarctica isn't real. It's one giant contradiction.
You have the right to believe in whatever you want. I also have the right to believe that you're a (Bleep)ing idiot!

?

areyouguysserious

  • 323
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth Is Flat - True Story
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #87 on: February 13, 2012, 06:00:41 PM »
and any idiot should know about fractals and how they are used to map the coastlines of countries. also the earth is bulged at the equator and flattened at the poles, maybe thats why it didn't show up in the pictures.
You have the right to believe in whatever you want. I also have the right to believe that you're a (Bleep)ing idiot!

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • +0/-0
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #88 on: February 13, 2012, 06:28:20 PM »
The CN Tower is 1815.4 ft tall so if the ground curved downwards 600 feet, at least 1/3 of the tower should be covered by water plus you have to take into account the tilt from the curvature.
I shall make this as simple as possible.  A 600ft curve downward, does not equal a 600ft bulge.
Why not?
Here is a diagram illustrating the difference between downward curve and a bulge.
http://i.imgur.com/jTM9J.png
Let point A be the object of regard or a building in this case. Let points B and C be two locations some distance apart, C is twice as far as B is from A.
Let the red line represent 600ft, and this demonstrates that from point B there is a 600ft downward curve, and from point C there is a 600ft bulge.
And the bulge between points A and B is smaller than 600ft.

Let me add, that at 30mi there is a 600ft drop, but only about a 150ft bulge.

Well in the picture there are neither so... Things are as flat as it gets.
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Here's an Easy One
« Reply #89 on: February 13, 2012, 06:38:39 PM »
The CN Tower is 1815.4 ft tall so if the ground curved downwards 600 feet, at least 1/3 of the tower should be covered by water plus you have to take into account the tilt from the curvature.
I shall make this as simple as possible.  A 600ft curve downward, does not equal a 600ft bulge.

Why not?
I don't believe I can make it simpler.