why?

  • 38 Replies
  • 6833 Views
why?
« on: April 24, 2012, 10:49:42 PM »
Why all this? I mean, we are Not talking about if the erath is flat or Not, everybody knows the answer, do you Guys really think 3million peoplenarr lying at us and nobody Sees? Mmh but that isnt the Point, its more about the reason  vor the Nasa, and every government..
 
PS: Experiment for u: big balloon to the sky + Video am = big sphere =D

Re: why?
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2012, 08:55:53 AM »
these expermients show the lit portion of the disc, which appears to be slightly spherical, but this is just due to the suns boundary on the known part of the disc.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: why?
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2012, 08:57:52 AM »
Would you please, for one, give us some evidence of your claims?

Re: why?
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2012, 08:59:01 AM »
these expermients show the lit portion of the disc, which appears to be slightly spherical, but this is just due to the suns boundary on the known part of the disc.
Do tell us how you know this please. Why would the lit portion of the disc appear slightly spherical? Did you mean slightly circular? Unless you have an FE map, how can you tell what portion of the disc is illuminated at any given time?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: why?
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2012, 10:43:00 AM »
these expermients show the lit portion of the disc, which appears to be slightly spherical, but this is just due to the suns boundary on the known part of the disc.

This is not true, due to the just as visible "circle of darkness" for which FE'ers have no explanation whatsoever.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

Re: why?
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2012, 04:24:49 PM »
whats is this visible circle of darkness theory, and how would darkness be visible?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: why?
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2012, 05:11:04 PM »
these expermients show the lit portion of the disc, which appears to be slightly spherical, but this is just due to the suns boundary on the known part of the disc.

This is not true, due to the just as visible "circle of darkness" for which FE'ers have no explanation whatsoever.

The circle of darkness is utterly false. The cause was a wide-angle lens.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: why?
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2012, 10:51:36 PM »

when high altitude photographs are taken and people point out that they can see the curve of the planet the general response is that what the observer sees is the area where the suns light reaches and we are infact looking at the illuminated area of the earth. beyond the light are just parts of the earth that are not visible because that is where it is night.

figure 1. high altitude photo taken in the day



as we can see here the illuminated area has an edge that is convex in shape as expected. this is because the light from the sun works like it does in figure 2.

figure 2. artists impression of the light shining on a flat earth



that is where the term spotlight sun comes from. it is not to be taken litterally but its just the term used to explain that the sun illuminates a round area just like a spotlight does.

figure 3. dawn photo taken from a high altitude



however in figure 3 we now see the light from another angle and now it looks as if the shadow is convex and the 'spotlight' is concave in shape.
as sunrises and sunsets happen simultaneously we must concluse that the spotlight effect is both concave and convex at the same time depending where the observer is.
 we also observer the same thing on the moon and possibly other celestial bodies, but i have not witnessed these myself.
 the experiment can be repeated using a sphere of any size using a direct light source pointing and one half of the sphere. when the observer walks arround the sphere they can observe that the light observed from directly behind it casts a convex shape, but if the observer walks round and observes the area where the sphere is mostly in shadow and only a thin area of light is allowed to be seen they will observe that the shadow is now convex and the light has become concave on its outer edge. this is roughly drawn in figure 3.

figure 3. artists impression of simulated day and sunrise as observed from a high altitude.



the real life images used are from a satellite or as some will say a NASA high altitude plane disguised as a satellite. either was the same pictures can be seen from weather balloons. these pictures are chosen as they show what im trying to discribe quite clearly and high altitude aircraft or weather balloons tend to still have haze distorting the far edge of the visible earth because of the atmosphere.
i have yet to come up with any conclusions as of yet but so far the only time i have been able to reproduce the phenomenon is when i have used a sphere are a test model.
another way to check the results would be to launch my own balloon and not the area that is furthest from view. then check the times beyond that and calculate where the light terminator actually is. but i do not have the means unfortunately.


tom i explained this before here it is for your enjoyment

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: why?
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2012, 10:52:43 PM »
yes we know its the ISS, but just to repeat myself again its the best clear shot available

imnotsurewhatyoubelieve if you like i can also show you why a spotlight sun fails too. its quite easy to prove it wrong actually
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 10:54:16 PM by squevil »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: why?
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2012, 11:40:55 PM »
yes we know its the ISS, but just to repeat myself again its the best clear shot available

There are no clear shots of this effect from amateur high altitude enthusiasts outside of NASA because it doesn't happen.

Re: why?
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2012, 04:17:42 AM »
yes we know its the ISS, but just to repeat myself again its the best clear shot available

There are no clear shots of this effect from amateur high altitude enthusiasts outside of NASA because it doesn't happen.
Then please provide your evidence that sunrise from a high altitude looks differently--or should we just conclude that you're making things up again?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: why?
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2012, 06:13:43 AM »
yes we know its the ISS, but just to repeat myself again its the best clear shot available

There are no clear shots of this effect from amateur high altitude enthusiasts outside of NASA because it doesn't happen.
Then please provide your evidence that sunrise from a high altitude looks differently--or should we just conclude that you're making things up again?

It's up to you guys to demonstrate that it happens. I have seen hundreds of amateur images from the edge of space where it does not.

See the MIT Space Camera balloon experiment, for example. Nope. No circle of darkness. It looks as if we're looking down at a circle of light.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 09:19:27 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: why?
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2012, 06:48:19 AM »
yes we know its the ISS, but just to repeat myself again its the best clear shot available

There are no clear shots of this effect from amateur high altitude enthusiasts outside of NASA because it doesn't happen.
Then please provide your evidence that sunrise from a high altitude looks differently--or should we just conclude that you're making things up again?

It's up to you guys to demonstrate that it happens. I have seen hundreds of amateur images from the edge of space where it does not.

See the MIT Space Camera balloon experiment, for example. Nope. No shadow of darkness. It looks as if we're looking down at a circle of light.
Thanks for admitting you don't have any evidence to support your outlandish claim, once again.



http://netwind.ru/
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: why?
« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2012, 09:15:43 AM »
Thanks for admitting you don't have any evidence to support your outlandish claim, once again.

Actually, I did provide photographic evidence of the lack-of-effect. Please read what you are replying to.

Quote from: ClockTower
http://pics.livejournal.com/nightnat/pic/0043hyw4

http://netwind.ru/

Here's the live journal page for that amateur mission:

http://nightnat.livejournal.com/197536.html

Look at how much curvature is displayed at cloud level:



The camera is clearly using a distorted or wide angle lens, and can thus be discounted.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 09:18:02 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: why?
« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2012, 09:58:10 AM »
Thanks for admitting you don't have any evidence to support your outlandish claim, once again.

Actually, I did provide photographic evidence of the lack-of-effect. Please read what you are replying to.

Quote from: ClockTower
http://pics.livejournal.com/nightnat/pic/0043hyw4

http://netwind.ru/

Here's the live journal page for that amateur mission:

http://nightnat.livejournal.com/197536.html

Look at how much curvature is displayed at cloud level:

<image>

The camera is clearly using a distorted or wide angle lens, and can thus be discounted.
Again, your lame excuse of discounting "distorted" lens is really lame this time.

First, How much curvature at cloud level is too much? The height of clouds is relative to the sea level, so why wouldn't the clouds curve with the curved horizon?

Second, The curvature is not the issue. The issue is that we see curvature looking toward the Sun and darkness below. Please do pay attention. I refer you to the OP.

...
figure 3. dawn photo taken from a high altitude

<image>

however in figure 3 we now see the light from another angle and now it looks as if the shadow is convex and the 'spotlight' is concave in shape.
as sunrises and sunsets happen simultaneously we must concluse that the spotlight effect is both concave and convex at the same time depending where the observer is
....
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: why?
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2012, 10:05:16 AM »
Quote
First, How much curvature at cloud level is too much? The height of clouds is relative to the sea level, so why wouldn't the clouds curve with the curved horizon?

Considering that there is more curvature in that cloud picture than what is seen at the edge of space in the MIT balloon experiment, we can see that one of them is flawed. The answer is that the image at cloud level is flawed, as there is not that much curvature at cloud level.

Many people on this forum have stated that earth curvature is not even visible from the altitude of an international flight.

TheEngineer, a former moderator on this forum, tells us that he has not witnessed curvature on any international flight.

Quote:

    "I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth." --TheEngineer


Quote from: Clocktower
Second, The curvature is not the issue. The issue is that we see curvature looking toward the Sun and darkness below. Please do pay attention. I refer you to the OP.

Curvature is the issue. A circle of darkness should be impossible on a Flat Earth. But the picture you presented is taken through a warped or wide-angle lens. Hence any purported "circle of darkness" is discounted.

Re: why?
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2012, 10:19:02 AM »
Quote
First, How much curvature at cloud level is too much? The height of clouds is relative to the sea level, so why wouldn't the clouds curve with the curved horizon?

Considering that there is more curvature in that cloud picture than what is seen at the edge of space in the MIT balloon experiment, we can see that one of them is flawed. The answer is that the image at cloud level is flawed, as there is not that much curvature at cloud level.
So tell us how you determined that both experiments took pictures of clouds whose tops were at the same height from the same (camera) altitude. You're just making things up again, aren't you?
Quote
<irrelevant text snipped>
Quote from: Clocktower
Second, The curvature is not the issue. The issue is that we see curvature looking toward the Sun and darkness below. Please do pay attention. I refer you to the OP.

Curvature is the issue. A circle of darkness should be impossible on a Flat Earth. But the picture you presented is taken through a warped or wide-angle lens. Hence any purported "circle of darkness" is discounted.
Show me where I said "circle of darkness". Please do pay attention.

Again, tell us why there is darkness below the edge when looking toward the rising Sun. If you can see the Sun, shouldn't all the Earth between you and the Sun be lit, especially close to the horizon?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: why?
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2012, 10:38:26 AM »
Quote
So tell us how you determined that both experiments took pictures of clouds whose tops were at the same height from the same (camera) altitude. You're just making things up again, aren't you?

The MIT picture was taken from the edge of space. There are no clouds at the edge of space. Clouds are far lower. Yet there is more curvature in the cloud picture than the edge of space picture -- clearly the result of a distorted lens.

Quote
Show me where I said "circle of darkness". Please do pay attention.

You were replying to the subject of circles of darkness with a purported example. Kindly reads posts before you reply to them.

Quote
Again, tell us why there is darkness below the edge when looking toward the rising Sun. If you can see the Sun, shouldn't all the Earth between you and the Sun be lit, especially close to the horizon?

The light is hitting the clouds from the side or from a very shallow angle.



The far away clouds are lit up, but as clouds are not entirely transparent, the light dimms out into darkness as they approach the observer.


« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 10:40:44 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: why?
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2012, 10:53:26 AM »
as the ISS is visible from earth i think its far to say that the pictures i have presented are evidence enough. just because you dont trust the source doesnt mean they are not trustworthy

Re: why?
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2012, 10:57:58 AM »
Quote
So tell us how you determined that both experiments took pictures of clouds whose tops were at the same height from the same (camera) altitude. You're just making things up again, aren't you?

The MIT picture was taken from the edge of space. There are no clouds at the edge of space. Clouds are far lower. Yet there is more curvature in the cloud picture than the edge of space picture -- clearly the result of a distorted lens.
Nope. You're just wrong there. You can't conclude that in the Russian example there is not curvature, but then claim there is in the MIT example. You're grasping at straws.
Quote
Quote
Show me where I said "circle of darkness". Please do pay attention.

You were replying to the subject of circles of darkness with a purported example. Kindly reads posts before you reply to them.
So I didn't say "circle of darkness". I thank you for admitting your failure. If you wish to debate the circle of darkness with TK, feel free.
Quote
Quote
Again, tell us why there is darkness below the edge when looking toward the rising Sun. If you can see the Sun, shouldn't all the Earth between you and the Sun be lit, especially close to the horizon?

The light is hitting the clouds from the side or from a very shallow angle.



The far away clouds are lit up, but as clouds are not entirely transparent, the light dimms out into darkness as they approach the observer.
So in FET: the Sun is 3000 miles above the FE; Clouds' maximum height is less than 5 miles; The maximum distance from an observer to the point on the FE directly under the Sun would be less than 7,000 miles. So why is the Sun below eye-level? Using simple trig, the steepest angle the Sun could present to the clouds would be arctan(7000/3000) = 67o, not enough close to the alleged very swallow angle.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: why?
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2012, 11:31:06 AM »
as the ISS is visible from earth i think its far to say that the pictures i have presented are evidence enough. just because you dont trust the source doesnt mean they are not trustworthy

Plenty of evidence has shown that NASA is untrustworthy.

Quote from: Clocktower
Nope. You're just wrong there. You can't conclude that in the Russian example there is not curvature, but then claim there is in the MIT example. You're grasping at straws.

The Russian example just above the clouds is much lower than the MIT edge of space example, yet the Russian image displays more curvature. Clearly distorted.

Quote from: Clocktower
So I didn't say "circle of darkness". I thank you for admitting your failure. If you wish to debate the circle of darkness with TK, feel free.

You replied to the subject. It would be kind of you to stay on topic.

Quote from: Clocktower
So in FET: the Sun is 3000 miles above the FE; Clouds' maximum height is less than 5 miles; The maximum distance from an observer to the point on the FE directly under the Sun would be less than 7,000 miles. So why is the Sun below eye-level? Using simple trig, the steepest angle the Sun could present to the clouds would be arctan(7000/3000) = 67o, not enough close to the alleged very swallow angle.

You forgot about perspective, refraction, etc, which limits how far bodies are seen across the surface of the earth. Please purchase a copy of Earth Not a Globe.

Re: why?
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2012, 12:05:44 PM »

Quote from: Clocktower
Nope. You're just wrong there. You can't conclude that in the Russian example there is not curvature, but then claim there is in the MIT example. You're grasping at straws.

The Russian example just above the clouds is much lower than the MIT edge of space example, yet the Russian image displays more curvature. Clearly distorted.
Saying it does not make it true. You don't now the height of both experiments at the time the two photos were taken. Again, why is the Sun below eye-level?

Quote from: Clocktower
So I didn't say "circle of darkness". I thank you for admitting your failure. If you wish to debate the circle of darkness with TK, feel free.

You replied to the subject. It would be kind of you to stay on topic.
I am on topic as presented by the OP.
Quote
Quote from: Clocktower
So in FET: the Sun is 3000 miles above the FE; Clouds' maximum height is less than 5 miles; The maximum distance from an observer to the point on the FE directly under the Sun would be less than 7,000 miles. So why is the Sun below eye-level? Using simple trig, the steepest angle the Sun could present to the clouds would be arctan(7000/3000) = 67o, not enough close to the alleged very swallow angle.

You forgot about perspective, refraction, etc, which limits how far bodies are seen across the surface of the earth. Please purchase a copy of Earth Not a Globe.
Nope, I didn't forget. Perspective fails miserably in general, and here especially as the horizon is below eye-level. Refraction fails miserably as the experiments are above almost all of the atmosphere.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: why?
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2012, 12:09:23 PM »
yes we know its the ISS, but just to repeat myself again its the best clear shot available

There are no clear shots of this effect from amateur high altitude enthusiasts outside of NASA because it doesn't happen.


Note straightness of structures in the foreground, disproving the claim Tom Bishop is about to make that all this curvature is due to a wide angle lens.


Note structures towards the edge appear less curved than the edge of the earth, disproving Tom Bishop's autoclaim that a wide angle lens is responsible for the earth's curve in this image (even though this picture was taken with one).

Both of these images are not illuminated by the Sun. Disproof of spotlight Sun causing a round edge effect smashes FET into the ground once again.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: why?
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2012, 12:12:30 PM »
I am on topic as presented by the OP.

You were not on the topic of what you were replying to. I ask that you read more carefully in the future.

Quote
Nope, I didn't forget. Perspective fails miserably in general, and here especially as the horizon is below eye-level.

A flat horizon is not below eye level. It is at eye level by definition.

The horizon does not drop as you ascend in height. The horizon line remains stationary with the eye as new and distant lands come into view. The horizon will remain at eye level until you run out of new lands to see.
 
From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read:

    AERONAUTICS.

    If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us,
    the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as
    the highest part of the "surface of the globe" would be
    directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall
    away or "dip" down in every direction. The universal
    testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the
    globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The
    London Journal 18th July, 1857, says: --

    "The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a con-
    siderable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained
    practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two
    miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead
    of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the
    horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."


Quote
Refraction fails miserably as the experiments are above almost all of the atmosphere.

The altitude from the cloud level shot is still breathable. The medium gets significantly thinner above that.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 12:27:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: why?
« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2012, 12:13:25 PM »
There are no clear shots of this effect from amateur high altitude enthusiasts outside of NASA because it doesn't happen.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/10/article-0-0BFF0E8F000005DC-684_964x501.jpg
Note straightness of structures in the foreground, disproving the claim Tom Bishop is about to make that all this curvature is due to a wide angle lens.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/494796main_image_1795_946-710.jpg
Note structures towards the edge appear less curved than the edge of the earth, disproving Tom Bishop's autoclaim that a wide angle lens is responsible for the earth's curve in this image (even though this picture was taken with one).

Both of these images are not illuminated by the Sun. Disproof of spotlight Sun causing a round edge effect smashes FET into the ground once again.

Please see the bolded.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: why?
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2012, 12:22:27 PM »
There are no clear shots of this effect from amateur high altitude enthusiasts outside of NASA because it doesn't happen.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/10/article-0-0BFF0E8F000005DC-684_964x501.jpg
Note straightness of structures in the foreground, disproving the claim Tom Bishop is about to make that all this curvature is due to a wide angle lens.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/494796main_image_1795_946-710.jpg
Note structures towards the edge appear less curved than the edge of the earth, disproving Tom Bishop's autoclaim that a wide angle lens is responsible for the earth's curve in this image (even though this picture was taken with one).

Both of these images are not illuminated by the Sun. Disproof of spotlight Sun causing a round edge effect smashes FET into the ground once again.

Please see the bolded.

So you're happy to accept high altitude pictures during the day showing a curved edge to the earth to represent a real view, but all pictures taken at night are faked.
As I said yesterday, the best argument against FET is the FE'ers. Tom Bishop is a worthless poster who does nothing but spam the forum with nonsense.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: why?
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2012, 12:26:29 PM »
So you're happy to accept high altitude pictures during the day showing a curved edge to the earth to represent a real view, but all pictures taken at night are faked.

You misunderstand. Pictures taken by NASA are faked, as NASA is a sham.

Quote from: The Knowledge
As I said yesterday, the best argument against FET is the FE'ers. Tom Bishop is a worthless poster who does nothing but spam the forum with nonsense.

Cease.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: why?
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2012, 12:48:32 PM »

Quote from: The Knowledge
As I said yesterday, the best argument against FET is the FE'ers. Tom Bishop is a worthless poster who does nothing but spam the forum with nonsense.

Cease.

Oh, did you not say this?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Knowledge is a worthless poster who does nothing but spam the forum with nonsense.

Should have thought first before posting that, shouldn't you? Now cease memberating.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

Re: why?
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2012, 12:50:48 PM »
Let's remember Tom Bishop's claim:

yes we know its the ISS, but just to repeat myself again its the best clear shot available

There are no clear shots of this effect from amateur high altitude enthusiasts outside of NASA because it doesn't happen.

Well, after Tom Bishop's wild attempt to salvage FET from squevil great analysis, I think I can spring the trap now (1:04 starts the FET death knell.): " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">.

Yes, it's definitive proof. Yes, the Earth is round. Thanks for playing!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: why?
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2012, 03:55:45 PM »
Let's remember Tom Bishop's claim:

yes we know its the ISS, but just to repeat myself again its the best clear shot available

There are no clear shots of this effect from amateur high altitude enthusiasts outside of NASA because it doesn't happen.

Well, after Tom Bishop's wild attempt to salvage FET from squevil great analysis, I think I can spring the trap now (1:04 starts the FET death knell.): " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">.

Yes, it's definitive proof. Yes, the Earth is round. Thanks for playing!

It's also impossible to claim wide angle lens effect on that video as the earth appears convex at every position in the frame.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.