The horizon is curved.

  • 86 Replies
  • 44879 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #60 on: April 23, 2016, 08:09:30 PM »
Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height created by the waves is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

The person who took the photo and posted it to this thread 4 years ago stated he took it at an altitude of 100 feet. It would require a wave of over 100 feet to block the view in the photograph of objects higher in altitude, such as the clouds. A dime below your eye line will never block anything above your eye line, no mater how close you get to it. I am 6 feet tall, nothing below 6 feet tall will ever block my view of a 20,000 foot mountain, no matter how close or far away it gets to me.

I doubt that. Have you ever seen the ocean from a cliff side? The waves aren't that large or distinguishable like that.


?

Inkey

  • 221
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #61 on: April 23, 2016, 08:21:48 PM »
Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height created by the waves is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

The person who took the photo and posted it to this thread 4 years ago stated he took it at an altitude of 100 feet. It would require a wave of over 100 feet to block the view in the photograph of objects higher in altitude, such as the clouds. A dime below your eye line will never block anything above your eye line, no mater how close you get to it. I am 6 feet tall, nothing below 6 feet tall will ever block my view of a 20,000 foot mountain, no matter how close or far away it gets to me.

I doubt that. Have you ever seen the ocean from a cliff side? The waves aren't that large or distinguishable like that.



I was just going off of what the photographer said. That is the problem with digging up 4 year old threads, he isn't here to defend himself. You can go ahead and say he is lying and there isn't much we can do to prove otherwise.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #62 on: April 23, 2016, 08:31:07 PM »
Quite apart from the shape, just how do you explain the sun right in the horizon

You have simply stated numerous times that it is just perspective, but that is rubbish!

You may as well complain that when on the deck of a boat you can look down at the water and see waves below you and then up at the horizon and see waves there, too. Waves at two different altitudes. Mysterious!

I completely fail to see the connection! The sun (so you claim) is about 3,000 miles high. There is no reasonable (sorry, I know it's not in the FE vocabulary) explanation of how it can appear to disappear UNDER the horizon.

Sorry, I and millions of other KNOW of one mechanism. The sun actually does disappear behind the relative close horizon of the Globe Earth.

<spelling>
« Last Edit: April 23, 2016, 10:58:54 PM by rabinoz »

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +0/-0
  • Extra Racist
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #63 on: April 23, 2016, 10:34:05 PM »
That requires the millimeter object to be right up close. This is not even close to real life.

Why does it have to be up close?
What do you mean why? Stand in a road. Throw a penny on the ground. Did it block any cars?

If you adjust your eye level to the point where it is blow the edge of the penny, it can block out anything if it is far enough behind the penny.

The premise of my post was that these types of pictures are taken at a low altitude, so much that the average height of the distant waves and swells would affect the scene.
The problem is how you use it. You are simply wrong. Simple videos show this.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #64 on: April 24, 2016, 09:10:29 AM »
Tom, how does your BS theory explain this picture?
Quote





This picture was most likely taken at a low altitude near the surface, just as every other picture of half sunken things are that get posted to this forum. I would be willing to bet a sum of money that if we were able to track down the source of this, we would find that it was taken very low in altitude. In investigating these sorts of pictures over the years, we have found this to be so.

According to the poster, who claims to have taken the picture, it's at an altitude of about 100 feet. So, have you already reached the inevitable endpoint of having to claim evidence is faked in order to support your theory? That was quick.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

?

TigerWidow

  • 67
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #65 on: April 24, 2016, 09:58:04 AM »

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • +0/-0
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #66 on: April 24, 2016, 10:14:54 AM »
Explain these then: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

and: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Looks really flat from there. Total disk mate...
That is some beautiful footage of this beautiful spheroid. I liked the Northern Lights from above.
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

?

TigerWidow

  • 67
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #67 on: April 24, 2016, 01:02:29 PM »
Explain these then: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

and: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Looks really flat from there. Total disk mate...
That is some beautiful footage of this beautiful spheroid. I liked the Northern Lights from above.

Isn't it just.

For the record. I've posted these videos in about 4 different threads now and not a single FEr has acknowledged they exist in any of the threads.

The silence is deafening.

?

Woody

  • 1144
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #68 on: April 24, 2016, 01:28:01 PM »
Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height created by the waves is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

The person who took the photo and posted it to this thread 4 years ago stated he took it at an altitude of 100 feet. It would require a wave of over 100 feet to block the view in the photograph of objects higher in altitude, such as the clouds. A dime below your eye line will never block anything above your eye line, no mater how close you get to it. I am 6 feet tall, nothing below 6 feet tall will ever block my view of a 20,000 foot mountain, no matter how close or far away it gets to me.

I doubt that. Have you ever seen the ocean from a cliff side? The waves aren't that large or distinguishable like that.



How high above the water were you when you conducted the Bishop experiment?



Seems cliffs vary in height.


*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 18043
  • +11/-9
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #69 on: May 02, 2016, 08:42:54 AM »
Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height created by the waves is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

The person who took the photo and posted it to this thread 4 years ago stated he took it at an altitude of 100 feet. It would require a wave of over 100 feet to block the view in the photograph of objects higher in altitude, such as the clouds. A dime below your eye line will never block anything above your eye line, no mater how close you get to it. I am 6 feet tall, nothing below 6 feet tall will ever block my view of a 20,000 foot mountain, no matter how close or far away it gets to me.
Except that the horizon rises to meet you at eye level.
"Once again the apostles of science are found to lack the scientific credentials for their faith. This not an indictment of science; it only shows again that the choice of science over other forms of life is not a scientific choice."

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2016, 12:30:14 PM »
Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height created by the waves is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

The person who took the photo and posted it to this thread 4 years ago stated he took it at an altitude of 100 feet. It would require a wave of over 100 feet to block the view in the photograph of objects higher in altitude, such as the clouds. A dime below your eye line will never block anything above your eye line, no mater how close you get to it. I am 6 feet tall, nothing below 6 feet tall will ever block my view of a 20,000 foot mountain, no matter how close or far away it gets to me.
Except that the horizon rises to meet you at eye level.

A theodolite will show that the horizon is slightly below eye level. Got anything else?
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

TheSchwa1337

  • 55
  • +0/-0
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter @ hand
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #71 on: May 02, 2016, 05:03:38 PM »
So, if the earth is flat, why is the horizon curved?
Because circles are curved.

AHAHAHAHA

I lol'd
Well, You had some good points OP, thanks for correcting the image. I'm neither a RE or FE. Just confused.
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!

*

TheSchwa1337

  • 55
  • +0/-0
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter @ hand
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #72 on: May 02, 2016, 05:12:47 PM »
Because the light from the Sun shines in a spotlight therefore what is visible is a circular shape NOT spherical.

Here's the problem. Yes, the horizon is curved at high altitudes as it should be on Flat Disc shaped earth. But, the horizon is not curved at lower altitudes where curvature should be present on a Spherical earth.

The curvature observed in your original picture is not spherical curvature but circular curvature. You will notice that the curve wraps round your line of sight and does not curve downwards in all directions as if you are standing on TOP OF A BALL.

Take this high altitude picture for instance. There is simply NOT ENOUGH curvature to constitute the shape of the earth being a Sphere.

It's a Flat Disc:


Here is the image mirrored on itself to prove the edge is curved. You continue to tell lies. Additionally, without knowing the focal length of the lens, the distance the picture was taken at and therefore what size the chunk of earth you're looking at is, your statement "there is simply NOT ENOUGH curvature to constitute the shape of the earth being a Sphere" is completely baseless.

The horizon is not curved at lower altitudes? I beg to differ:

Taken by me, altitude approximately 100 feet, clearly showing the horizon curving down in the direction of vision.

I once heard someone say this:
If the earth were a boulder it would be 40 meters wide, and if humans were on that boulder we would be like bacteria on its surface. The bacteria would never know they were on the boulder, they would think it was just a flat surface from the ground. If Mount Everest was show on that boulder it would be 1cm off the boulder. Even if the bacteria found its way to the highest point on the boulder, the horizon would still look flat to the bacteria.

I don't see a curve in the last picture you took yourself though, even with 20/21 vision. I'm pretty sure there is none. Because standing even 100 feet up, we still shouldn't be able to see a curve. Even at 29,029 feet we shouldn't be able to see a curve.
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!

*

TheSchwa1337

  • 55
  • +0/-0
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter @ hand
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #73 on: May 02, 2016, 05:16:56 PM »
The cloud appears to grow out of the horizon for the same reason a ship's mast seems to. None of the independent high-altitude photos appear to show a sphere. Why is that, do you wonder?

What would a giant sphere look like fairly close to its surface, do you suppose?

Idk, lets ask NASA get some awesome CGI answers.

At least the Photo OP presented is legit.
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!

*

TheSchwa1337

  • 55
  • +0/-0
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter @ hand
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #74 on: May 02, 2016, 05:26:32 PM »
I was at an engineering conference last week reviewing several different proposals, one including using new optics technology that utilizes some higher-level math to accurately calculate the radius of the earth.....and it reminded me of this site. I saw all of the evidence for myself, provided by four optical engineers and two mechanical engineers. The sad thing is their months of work would be completely discounted here. Just like these perfectly verifiable pieces of evidence are being discounted. And when given this evidence, FES proponents beat around the bush with it like they went to school for it. I personally have explained refraction effects using basic calculus and nobody ever makes another comment, like it was just dismissed. Really? Its unbelievable the amount of people on this site that will intentionally ignore good evidence for their own reasons, be it ignorance, not wanting to be proved wrong, wanting to feel part of a community, etc. I am just amazed.

"A wise man, when confronted with data that his theory is wrong, does not discount the data.....he changes his theory." -B.T.

Why do FES believers refuse to consider that their theory might be wrong? It isn't good science. In fact, it is terrible science.

Scientists bash FE theory. Call that good science? Even with all the evidence brought forth by some of the very smart people behind the flat earth movement. Math is math is math is math. My brother is studying to become a Nuclear Physicist. I'm not even close to as smart as he is, and I hardly can wrap my head around the basic stuff. Probably what I get from being a drop out. People are here for answers and things they can wrap there head around. Most can't do that with math, no matter how clearly you present it. This is a forum with mostly normal people who haven't done much math after high school. There are however exceptions of course!

You post math, people might read, but it will go over there head. No matter who they are RE or FE believer.

I'm speaking generally of course, and not insulting your intellegince, if anything I'm insulting my intellegince and the intellegence of others who flock to this site. Basically, don't feel bad you make perfectly good topics that are coherently explained and evidence that is presented presently. You just can't end up expecting much from this site in terms of actual science.

FE's don't do many experiments, they cost to much  ;) pretty sure that is someone's signature on here lol
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!

*

29silhouette

  • 3373
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #75 on: May 03, 2016, 09:53:25 AM »
I don't see a curve in the last picture you took yourself though, even with 20/21 vision. I'm pretty sure there is none. Because standing even 100 feet up, we still shouldn't be able to see a curve. Even at 29,029 feet we shouldn't be able to see a curve.
Left to right curvature at 100 feet, no.  Curving away however, can be seen when two different elevations are used to observe distant objects.  Higher magnification makes it even more obvious.

Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #76 on: May 03, 2016, 11:37:04 AM »
I was at an engineering conference last week reviewing several different proposals, one including using new optics technology that utilizes some higher-level math to accurately calculate the radius of the earth.....and it reminded me of this site. I saw all of the evidence for myself, provided by four optical engineers and two mechanical engineers. The sad thing is their months of work would be completely discounted here. Just like these perfectly verifiable pieces of evidence are being discounted. And when given this evidence, FES proponents beat around the bush with it like they went to school for it. I personally have explained refraction effects using basic calculus and nobody ever makes another comment, like it was just dismissed. Really? Its unbelievable the amount of people on this site that will intentionally ignore good evidence for their own reasons, be it ignorance, not wanting to be proved wrong, wanting to feel part of a community, etc. I am just amazed.

"A wise man, when confronted with data that his theory is wrong, does not discount the data.....he changes his theory." -B.T.

Why do FES believers refuse to consider that their theory might be wrong? It isn't good science. In fact, it is terrible science.

Scientists bash FE theory. Call that good science? Even with all the evidence brought forth by some of the very smart people behind the flat earth movement. Math is math is math is math. My brother is studying to become a Nuclear Physicist. I'm not even close to as smart as he is, and I hardly can wrap my head around the basic stuff. Probably what I get from being a drop out. People are here for answers and things they can wrap there head around. Most can't do that with math, no matter how clearly you present it. This is a forum with mostly normal people who haven't done much math after high school. There are however exceptions of course!

You post math, people might read, but it will go over there head. No matter who they are RE or FE believer.

I'm speaking generally of course, and not insulting your intellegince, if anything I'm insulting my intellegince and the intellegence of others who flock to this site. Basically, don't feel bad you make perfectly good topics that are coherently explained and evidence that is presented presently. You just can't end up expecting much from this site in terms of actual science.

FE's don't do many experiments, they cost to much  ;) pretty sure that is someone's signature on here lol

1) Scientists who "bash" FE theory are justified in doing so, not only because it's so easily disproven by those who do know what they're talking about, but also because it doesn't even meet the criteria for a scientific theory.  Theory, yes.  Scientific theory, no.

2) By your own admission, if there are people whose intelligence you aren't even close to, how are you certain that the FE evidence you've seen is presented by "very smart people?"  How are you sure it isn't terrible evidence presented by dumb people?

*

29silhouette

  • 3373
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #77 on: May 03, 2016, 11:41:01 AM »
How high above the water were you when you conducted the Bishop experiment?



Seems cliffs vary in height.
I wonder if Tom Bishop would also be so kind as to point out his location in the picture, the direction he was aiming, and what type of telescope and eyepiece was used.

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #78 on: May 03, 2016, 01:37:53 PM »
Because the light from the Sun shines in a spotlight therefore what is visible is a circular shape NOT spherical.

Here's the problem. Yes, the horizon is curved at high altitudes as it should be on Flat Disc shaped earth. But, the horizon is not curved at lower altitudes where curvature should be present on a Spherical earth.

The curvature observed in your original picture is not spherical curvature but circular curvature. You will notice that the curve wraps round your line of sight and does not curve downwards in all directions as if you are standing on TOP OF A BALL.

Take this high altitude picture for instance. There is simply NOT ENOUGH curvature to constitute the shape of the earth being a Sphere.

It's a Flat Disc:


Here is the image mirrored on itself to prove the edge is curved. You continue to tell lies. Additionally, without knowing the focal length of the lens, the distance the picture was taken at and therefore what size the chunk of earth you're looking at is, your statement "there is simply NOT ENOUGH curvature to constitute the shape of the earth being a Sphere" is completely baseless.

The horizon is not curved at lower altitudes? I beg to differ:

Taken by me, altitude approximately 100 feet, clearly showing the horizon curving down in the direction of vision.

I once heard someone say this:
If the earth were a boulder it would be 40 meters wide, and if humans were on that boulder we would be like bacteria on its surface. The bacteria would never know they were on the boulder, they would think it was just a flat surface from the ground. If Mount Everest was show on that boulder it would be 1cm off the boulder. Even if the bacteria found its way to the highest point on the boulder, the horizon would still look flat to the bacteria.

I don't see a curve in the last picture you took yourself though, even with 20/21 vision. I'm pretty sure there is none. Because standing even 100 feet up, we still shouldn't be able to see a curve. Even at 29,029 feet we shouldn't be able to see a curve.

I think the clue is the line "curving down in the direction of vision." Nobody is claiming to see a left to right curve. What he's saying is that the clouds look as if they're dropping over a precipice beyond the horizon, i.e. what you'd expect to see if you were standing on top of a ball. This drop off would occur in every direction, but presumably there was a cliff or buildings behind the photographer so he could only show it over the sea.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

?

Inkey

  • 221
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #79 on: May 04, 2016, 05:29:56 AM »
Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height created by the waves is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

The person who took the photo and posted it to this thread 4 years ago stated he took it at an altitude of 100 feet. It would require a wave of over 100 feet to block the view in the photograph of objects higher in altitude, such as the clouds. A dime below your eye line will never block anything above your eye line, no mater how close you get to it. I am 6 feet tall, nothing below 6 feet tall will ever block my view of a 20,000 foot mountain, no matter how close or far away it gets to me.
Except that the horizon rises to meet you at eye level.

What does the horizion appearing to by nearly eye level have to do with my statement, unless you are claiming the horizon is blocking things behind it? That would be a round Earth.

On a flat Earth nothing below my eye level would ever block my view of something above my eye level. I am six feet tall. A 5 foot fence would block a most 5 feet of a moutain if it were directly against it. If the fence were direcly against me it would block nothing, I would see over it. Any point between it would block between 5 feet and 0 feet of a moutian.

On a round Earth the horizon itself can block things behind it, a 5 foot tall fence could block a mountain if most of the moutain was already behind the horizon.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15553
  • +0/-5
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #80 on: May 04, 2016, 08:21:04 AM »
Alright, now tell me why the curvature looks the same 75,000 feet above Australia as it does 75,000 above Canada.
Because you're only looking at the illuminated portion of the disk, of course.

It seems like none of you actually read the original post...
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15553
  • +0/-5
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #81 on: May 04, 2016, 08:24:18 AM »
Must be to have a 5 foot wave cover something over 2,000 feet in the sky.

At that distance there are a series of waves squished on the horizon. Many, many waves which build up in complexity as to make the horizon line seem solid. If any little part of the increased height created by the waves is above eye level, it can block something larger behind it without limit, the same way a dime can easily obscure a 20,000 foot tall mountain by holding it out in front of you.

The person who took the photo and posted it to this thread 4 years ago stated he took it at an altitude of 100 feet. It would require a wave of over 100 feet to block the view in the photograph of objects higher in altitude, such as the clouds. A dime below your eye line will never block anything above your eye line, no mater how close you get to it. I am 6 feet tall, nothing below 6 feet tall will ever block my view of a 20,000 foot mountain, no matter how close or far away it gets to me.

I doubt that. Have you ever seen the ocean from a cliff side? The waves aren't that large or distinguishable like that.



Is this post supposed to mean or prove something?
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Planar Moderator
  • 50978
  • +7/-10
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #82 on: May 04, 2016, 09:46:18 AM »
Alright, now tell me why the curvature looks the same 75,000 feet above Australia as it does 75,000 above Canada.
Because you're only looking at the illuminated portion of the disk, of course.

It seems like none of you actually read the original post...

It seems like some of you don't realize you are arguing with people who haven't posted here for years.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #83 on: May 04, 2016, 10:26:39 AM »
Alright, now tell me why the curvature looks the same 75,000 feet above Australia as it does 75,000 above Canada.
Because you're only looking at the illuminated portion of the disk, of course.

It seems like none of you actually read the original post...

It seems like some of you don't realize you are arguing with people who haven't posted here for years.

Which means they win by having the last word. :)
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

TheSchwa1337

  • 55
  • +0/-0
  • Confused quite honestly on the whole matter @ hand
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #84 on: May 04, 2016, 04:42:25 PM »
I was at an engineering conference last week reviewing several different proposals, one including using new optics technology that utilizes some higher-level math to accurately calculate the radius of the earth.....and it reminded me of this site. I saw all of the evidence for myself, provided by four optical engineers and two mechanical engineers. The sad thing is their months of work would be completely discounted here. Just like these perfectly verifiable pieces of evidence are being discounted. And when given this evidence, FES proponents beat around the bush with it like they went to school for it. I personally have explained refraction effects using basic calculus and nobody ever makes another comment, like it was just dismissed. Really? Its unbelievable the amount of people on this site that will intentionally ignore good evidence for their own reasons, be it ignorance, not wanting to be proved wrong, wanting to feel part of a community, etc. I am just amazed.

"A wise man, when confronted with data that his theory is wrong, does not discount the data.....he changes his theory." -B.T.

Why do FES believers refuse to consider that their theory might be wrong? It isn't good science. In fact, it is terrible science.

Scientists bash FE theory. Call that good science? Even with all the evidence brought forth by some of the very smart people behind the flat earth movement. Math is math is math is math. My brother is studying to become a Nuclear Physicist. I'm not even close to as smart as he is, and I hardly can wrap my head around the basic stuff. Probably what I get from being a drop out. People are here for answers and things they can wrap there head around. Most can't do that with math, no matter how clearly you present it. This is a forum with mostly normal people who haven't done much math after high school. There are however exceptions of course!

You post math, people might read, but it will go over there head. No matter who they are RE or FE believer.

I'm speaking generally of course, and not insulting your intellegince, if anything I'm insulting my intellegince and the intellegence of others who flock to this site. Basically, don't feel bad you make perfectly good topics that are coherently explained and evidence that is presented presently. You just can't end up expecting much from this site in terms of actual science.

FE's don't do many experiments, they cost to much  ;) pretty sure that is someone's signature on here lol

1) Scientists who "bash" FE theory are justified in doing so, not only because it's so easily disproven by those who do know what they're talking about, but also because it doesn't even meet the criteria for a scientific theory.  Theory, yes.  Scientific theory, no.

2) By your own admission, if there are people whose intelligence you aren't even close to, how are you certain that the FE evidence you've seen is presented by "very smart people?"  How are you sure it isn't terrible evidence presented by dumb people?

Honestly. I'm here for the lolz, in my free time I read, and just enjoy the community. It reminds me of the comment section of youtube. Or as stated in another thread 4chan. Its large, varried, and fun to read and learn a little from others. On both sides.
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PM

I've got top men working on babyhighspeed's potentially disastrous amazon voodoo detector recalibration issue right now...

Top... Men!

Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #85 on: May 04, 2016, 05:13:01 PM »
I was at an engineering conference last week reviewing several different proposals, one including using new optics technology that utilizes some higher-level math to accurately calculate the radius of the earth.....and it reminded me of this site. I saw all of the evidence for myself, provided by four optical engineers and two mechanical engineers. The sad thing is their months of work would be completely discounted here. Just like these perfectly verifiable pieces of evidence are being discounted. And when given this evidence, FES proponents beat around the bush with it like they went to school for it. I personally have explained refraction effects using basic calculus and nobody ever makes another comment, like it was just dismissed. Really? Its unbelievable the amount of people on this site that will intentionally ignore good evidence for their own reasons, be it ignorance, not wanting to be proved wrong, wanting to feel part of a community, etc. I am just amazed.

"A wise man, when confronted with data that his theory is wrong, does not discount the data.....he changes his theory." -B.T.

Why do FES believers refuse to consider that their theory might be wrong? It isn't good science. In fact, it is terrible science.

Scientists bash FE theory. Call that good science? Even with all the evidence brought forth by some of the very smart people behind the flat earth movement. Math is math is math is math. My brother is studying to become a Nuclear Physicist. I'm not even close to as smart as he is, and I hardly can wrap my head around the basic stuff. Probably what I get from being a drop out. People are here for answers and things they can wrap there head around. Most can't do that with math, no matter how clearly you present it. This is a forum with mostly normal people who haven't done much math after high school. There are however exceptions of course!

You post math, people might read, but it will go over there head. No matter who they are RE or FE believer.

I'm speaking generally of course, and not insulting your intellegince, if anything I'm insulting my intellegince and the intellegence of others who flock to this site. Basically, don't feel bad you make perfectly good topics that are coherently explained and evidence that is presented presently. You just can't end up expecting much from this site in terms of actual science.

FE's don't do many experiments, they cost to much  ;) pretty sure that is someone's signature on here lol

1) Scientists who "bash" FE theory are justified in doing so, not only because it's so easily disproven by those who do know what they're talking about, but also because it doesn't even meet the criteria for a scientific theory.  Theory, yes.  Scientific theory, no.

2) By your own admission, if there are people whose intelligence you aren't even close to, how are you certain that the FE evidence you've seen is presented by "very smart people?"  How are you sure it isn't terrible evidence presented by dumb people?

Honestly. I'm here for the lolz, in my free time I read, and just enjoy the community. It reminds me of the comment section of youtube. Or as stated in another thread 4chan. Its large, varried, and fun to read and learn a little from others. On both sides.

I'm here for four reasons: psychological theorization of "normal" people with near-delusional beliefs and the implications on psychological diagnosis; the "lulz;" critical thinking practice; reaffirmation of my intelligence. 

Actually, there's a 5th reason:  spreading of beliefs like this upon gullible people is harmful to society. 

I recall you saying in another post that you were "confused," and it pains me when people without a good scientific background claim they find flat earth claims compelling.  It's scarier if they actually have a good scientific background.

Make no mistake about it,  flat earth believers are seriously misguided.  It's one thing if they are generally curious about using their own devices to determine the shape of the earth. But I'll go out on a limb here and assume that the overwhelming majority of flat earth believers don't fit this description.  Instead, they are mostly uneducated and are poor independent thinkers, and know it whether consciously or unconsciously with a large dose of denial, and it makes them feel good to be part of this fringe minority of believers.

Flat earth believers talk about motives a lot in their conspiracy talk.  As it turns out, flat earthers have a huge motive to believe in a flat earth.  It's enormously motivating to feel as though you're part of some small minority privy to information that billions of others do not know, including those persons in the most prestigious, powerful, or wealthy professions.  For one to believe in a flat earth and believe they are correct is to believe that they are smarter, better, and perhaps more virtuous than all of those countless others who surpassed them long ago.  I'd bet good money that virtually all true flat earth believers fit this general description in some form or another.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 05:17:14 PM by uCantBeSerious »

?

NewtSmooth

  • 132
  • +0/-0
Re: The horizon is curved.
« Reply #86 on: May 04, 2016, 05:49:06 PM »
Not to mention that many clouds hug the surface of the earth, which is basically what fog is.
Ah, yes. That nimbus actually identifies as trans-fog, and I need to check my privilege.

Nnnnnnnnope that's still obviously not fog.

Also perspective will never allow for the base of a non-fog cloud to be hidden by waves. Unlike a distant relatively flat landmass like in the pictures you've presented, clouds are, you know, obviously in the sky. Entirely above the waves. Well above them, in fact. I doubt you would even be able to see the cloud at the distance it would take for obstruction by choppy water to be a factor because of light dispersion from the air and humidity if the earth was flat. You're stretching the perspective argument too far here.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 05:52:47 PM by NewtSmooth »
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.