Flat Earth "theory" is not a theory, it's a fact.

Ok, I discovered this one week ago, and being researching since and... Wow, what-the-hell?? Diferent from conspiracy "theories" that people can choose to not believe, besides lots of true facts/arguments/etc, this "theory" of a flat earth is a different case: It's already proved without doubt, by experimentation and by what we know is the reality we see. There is NO SPACE FOR ARGUMENT!! Certain experiments CAN'T BE DENIED!!

Some examples:

Fact 1:

ERASED: My mistake, this fact was wrong. But anyway, I discovered later that there is lots of other proofs, so I am not in the mood to post another one as -fact 1- here whithout necessity (and because people answered this topic with the previous "fact 1").
In here you can find lots of info to remove doubts:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17760.0

Fact 2:
If I am on the other side of lake Ontario, on Toronto, and I am some 40 kms away looking at the CN Tower, I see the whole of the city on the other side completely straight/plane. Now, if someone is in doubt if the water until my position towards the tower is flat, I just need to go 20 kms towards the tower, then turn to the side 90 degrees and go more 40 kms, so that I can look at the tower and my previous position to see: the water is completely plane from the position 1 to the tower, case closed.
-We always see the horizon without any curvature, even in the ocean and on high altitudes (like some 3-4 kms in a baloon (I never went in a airplane) and on top of mountains).
There is a bouchet explanation that this "ilusion" is caused by refraction of light, and I say "yeah, this refraction effect works all the time on all places on earth, all through history, on all the different climates, and always "fixin" the curvature just enough so that we see a straight line."

Fact 3:
Long tunnels, or part of tunnels, around the world, that when you look at the exit light, while being on the entrance, you can see it's a straight/plane nivelated line. You look at the tunnel by the side on the distance and you see it is a straight line. It was projected and build to be a straight line. Yet... I am supose to believe that it is a curve, that some refraction of light prevents me from seeing his true form?

Fact 4 - The FINAL one (I consider this one the best):
Speaking of tunnels, what happens when we see the exit of a more or less long linear and nivelated tunnel? The "light at the end of the tunnel"?
We see a small bright square perfect on the line of our vision (since it's a straight line, the light of the exit of the tunnel is hitting the center of our eyes in a straight line). It's the same effect that we see when we look at a pipe and see the circular small exit in the other end, we all know this.
If we crouch or if we jump, while all the time looking straight to the front (180º degrees), the exit of the tunnel is always on the center of our vision, on the same level, no matter if you position your head on the ceiling or on the floor.
So far this is undeniable by everyone, if you don't remember you can just take some straight pipe or something like it and move your vision up and down while looking in it.
this effect ONLY happens if you are looking at straight lines, because we SEE in a straight line (if you look at a thing, you know you ARE looking straight at that thing). If there is some curvature on the tunnel, then the exit, if you can still see it, will never be on the same line of your vision (when you are looking straight). If you look straight inside a curved pipe you know you will be looking at the "ceiling", not the exit.
Clear enough, so far so good?
What you think the horizon is? The horizon is a perfect straight line, a corridor. The line of the horizon is always on the line of our vision, when looking straight/nivelated/180º. If you go up the tallest building you can go, or mountain, or inside a baloon (I never went into a plane, haha), the effect is still the same, giving the effect that we are living in a concave world (go on the hightest place inside a boat when you go to the ocean and turn around while always looking straight, it's like you are inside a bowl (same effect on others very high places).
-But now someone should ask: "but if Earth were a globe, how the horizon would look like? what effect would happen"
-Answer: With everything progressively going down in altitude, the more far away from your position it is localizated, and give the size of the "globe Earth", on the ground it would look like more or less the same, but the curvature on the sides would be really aparent on the distance. But one BIG difference: the more high you would go, the more and more the line of the horizon would go BELOW your line of vision looking straight. On the top of a high building or a mountain, the line of the horizon would be WAY BELLOW the straight line of vision (plus the curvature WOULD HAVE to be really aparent on high altitudes). The bowl effect would not be able to happen for 2 reasons: the curvature and the fact that, for the land on distance, there would not be enough altitude to reach the straight vision line (the land/sea would not magically go up to the sky to reach your straight line of vision while in a high building or looking to the ocean while on a high place, logic my friends (although this one can be a little hard to visualize on your mind)).
-If you want to do the test yourself, download the Blender program (or some other 3d program you know how to mess with), learn a little on how to mess with it, open a picture of some map of some region of the world. Now enlarge the picture to a super gigant size, let more or less equal to the size of the map on reality or just make it gigant.
Now open a picture of the sky, position it upside down on top of the map, increase to the same size you have increased the map, position it higher than the map and put your camera on top of the map (let the angle of the camera straight too). "Look, it's the horizon...", play around and see that it's exactly the same effect wee see on reality, including the bowl effect.

NOW: google earth is horrible for this because, by what I know (and I guess it was on purpose), since there is no marker of the angle of the camera on the screen (there is using the "yellow pin" marker, but when setting the angle straight, you have to fix the distance to the object as well, and in the end you stay "glued" to the floor), no crosshair on the center of the camera, and, when looking straight, I could not discover some way to increase the altitude, it is better to download a 3d Earth globe to open it on Blender or some other program. Position the 3d globe inside a bigger globe with the texture/image of the sky (to simulate the sky), and position the camera on top of the land, better if on some high place you know... and look around.
On blender, while looking throught the camera, press "r" and then "z", a line will appear from the center of the camera pointing to your mouse arrow, now by moving the mouse the camera will rotate left or right without change the angle, at same time that you will have a way to look at the center/look straight. On a flat surface the center is the center of the horizon, on a globe the horizon is below the center even on small altitudes (if I tested right) and it keeps going way down the more you go up (and the curvature is super visible).

FINALIZING:
Now, don't matter if you are naive/innocent enough to still want to believe that the guys who control the governments of the world, the midia and entertainment, universities, research centers, science fields, Nasa, etc would be incapable of lie on this magnitude and hide from people this for some more than 2 centuries, or if you simple want to decide keep believing in a round earth. You know why don't matter? because this examples above have destroyed the floor of this lie, you simple can't look back, after have read and understood what I just said, and say to yourself, without lie, "it is not truth, it can't be, aaaahhhh", hahaha.
And it has to be a lie that before 1800 or 1700 humanity in geral believed for a fact that earth was round, I bet it was the other way around. More so because the majority of people was catholic (and others protestants) and the Bible says that Earth is plane, and universities and science was certainly not that contamined by this guys's lies yet.

And it was a shock to me too, on the last week, but now is a little bit fun to think about what the other things relacioned are lies too. And as I said, you can't turn back because the cover of the lie is gone, you can only choose to not think about it if you want, but you have to be crazy to not see it (and look at the irony here, the crazy people were not the ones that believed in a flat earth, but the inverse, haha (and kind of awesome if you think in a certain way).

WARNING: it's high provable that liers, servants of the evil guys (that obviously lurk on this forum), will post lies to attack this post bellow this point (or offenses), it's with you to think for yourself and recheck what I said (or lot of other experiments that you can do or read about).
And moderators, sticky this post or come with a better one, one full of pictures and videos by preference.

EDITED: took off "fact 1", it was not all wrong, but exagerated, my mistake, haha.

I made this picture while analyzing on google earth some 2 days ago, it serves as one example of one of the things I said above:

Fact 2:
If I am on the other side of lake Ontario, on Toronto, and I am some 40 kms away looking at the CN Tower, I see the whole of the city on the other side completely straight/plane. Now, if someone is in doubt if the water until my position towards the tower is flat, I just need to go 20 kms towards the tower, then turn to the side 90 degrees and go more 40 kms, so that I can look at the tower and my previous position to see: the water is completely plane from the position 1 to the tower, case closed.


Indeed, no curvature whatsoever across Lake Ontario (55 km distance to Vinemount Ridge, 213 m altitude, we will ascend to 240 m - 59 meter curvature absolutely does not exist) - bear in mind the photographs were taken from a lower altitude, we ascend to 240 meters so that no questions will remain.




http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/#





http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/#

Photograph taken at Beamer Falls Conversation Area (some 45 meters in altitude - maximum height of cliffs some 110 meters - but we will ascend to 240 meters)



http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg




http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG




http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/IMG_0734.JPG

I was thinking in what could be said to a teacher at the university, and in front of the class, that would make they instant realize that something is wrong, without you looking like a crazy guy:

you - "professor, a question"

prof - "what's up, dude?"

you - "you said that on 55 kms of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of 250 meters. If I divide both numbers by 256, it shows that around 215 meters of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of around 1 meter, correct?"

prof - "oh yeah, you understood it right bro."

you - "but professor, this means that long buildings and bridges can't be constructed straight, in a nivelated right line, or else, when moving along it, it soon would become a inclined road, going up."

prof - "?!?"

you - But this don't happen, so all long buildings in the world are always curved and we don't notice? How come there is really long straight bridges crossing big lakes, and they don't become roads that are going up? Or are they curved and our eyes can never detect it? But how come we can easily notice constructions that ARE curved?

prof - "hum... haa..."

class - "yeah prof, how come this happen, explain to us."

prof - "You see, there is this thing about refration... and... but it doesn't make sense... then how come... ??... ...?... !!?!!!! !FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuu"

EDIT: This one was based on the "fact 1", wich was exagerated by my mistake, so, reader, disconsider this one.

I agree. The earth is flat.

That's a problem Mister Tom: the "I agree" thing.

This is not a subject open for discussion, with "agrees" and "disagrees", it's a proven fact. Proved facts are not open for discussion.

For example, would you accept to discuss with someone the subject if people really have to feed to survive? You would say that this is not open for discussion, if people would stop eating and drinking, they would die in a few days.

And Levee, there is no need to go to 240 meters high, if the effect is not happening on a small escale, it don't happen in a big escale. After all the big effect of curvature, if it existed, would have to be made of the conection of small curvatures, or else it would not exist, no one can argue against this.
What I mean is that the effect HAS to be visible on this pictures by the eleveation of someone standing on the floor.

you - "you said that on 55 kms of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of 250 meters. If I divide both numbers by 256, it shows that around 215 meters of distance between 2 points, there must be a diference in altitude of around 1 meter, correct?"

If we're talking about a perfectly shaped sphere with no variance in crust that's still not true.  The curvature of the earth is calculated to account for an 8 inch difference over a mile.  With that we can say the difference in altitude on a perfectly smooth sphere would account for about a 7 meter difference over a distance of 55kms.  Considering these shots are taken across a large body of water, we also would have to factor in refraction although I'm not sure that's necessary, at 55kms away the naked eye probably couldn't really make out a 7 meter altitude difference in this case.


Below is the reference calculation for the curvature of the earth per mile:

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.html

"If we're talking about a perfectly shaped sphere with no variance in crust that's still not true".

That's bouchet, Earth, by the pictures from satelities that they show to us until today, is a perfect or almost perfect sphere (considering their lies to be truth). given the radius they tell us, in no way it would be "8 inch difference over a mile", think a little or you are a lier.
Water has to be always pulled toward the center of the sphere, so, even on right irregular terrains, the water should be perfectly curved.
Also I read mentions on other places, like in a book from a scientist, that this figure "55 kms - 250 meters difference" is more or less correct. So how come you appear here with a information that goes contrary to this, that I never heard about?

That's bouchet, Earth, by the pictures from satelities that they show to us until today, is a perfect or almost perfect sphere (considering their lies to be truth). given the radius they tell us, in no way it would be "8 inch difference over a mile", think a little or you are a lier.

What problem do you have with the calculations presented on the linked page? I don't think anyone is going to take you seriously if you respond to simple geometry with "no way could that be true, you must be lying." Even Earth Not a Globe uses values that are consistent with these calculations.

Hum... ok, I will do a math here:

"7 meter difference over a distance of 55kms"

110 kms - 14 meters difference in altitude
1000 kms - around 140 meters difference
20000 kms (half the Earth globe) - 2800 meters

hahaha

Did I miss something? I should have used some other weird calculation?

The perimeter is not around 40.000 kms in Earth? its what I get when using the radius said on the wikipedia.

EDIT: I went to the link and did the math, surprise: 55 kms = 237,49 meters

perhaps best left to a local perma noob...  after all it is in the debate section.

firstly if this is known fact then why is it up for debate?

secondly why are none of these photos taken close to the water? surely that will prove there is no curvature?

but one point that is missing here is the facts. there is no drop of 2540m that is true. this is how you view something in the distance;



the common misconception is that you see like this;



at best those photos are inconclusive. however there have been many photos where 'hills' of water have been shown on boats at such short distances. just lurk for yourself to see them.

number 1. well this has already shown to be false. not only that if the change was as small as a few inches do you think you could tell over 250m? i wouldnt detect a few inches over 25m and you think you will notice after 250? do remember that your example of a 1m drop was wrong to begin with before you reply. even if it was 1m it would actually be 0.5m or about 20 inches. over 250m i dont think i would notice a change in 20 inches.

number 2. i have only seen explanations here for the accountability of a horizontal horizon. however if you can device an actual experiment to show there is no curve, then you have some evidence for your case. however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either.

number 3. when you find a perfectly strait tunnel for several miles you may have a case. was this a thought experiment of have you witnessed this? again refer to point 1 that i made.

number 4. its a shame your strongest evidence was this. i think the horizon being strait is far stronger. what is happening here is that your eye is drawn to the horizon. the horizon is not actually curving upwards (there is another website for that bat shit theory) it would be best described as an optical illusion i guess. next time you are high up do not focus on the horizon and just look strait, its quite hard as your eye is always drawn down to the horizon. next time you may notice that the horizon does not appear to be at eye level but your eye is just drawn to the horizon.

to summarise;

what you have presented here are weak facts that in your mind equal solid evidence. if its such evidence then how is it so easy to make a counter argument. also its worth asking why you dismiss all evidence that points towards a round earth? so in 1 week you have found these 3 'facts' and decided to dismiss everything you have been told and now you are declaring that the earth is flat. so what does make this theory stand out from other conspiracy theories anyway? its very close to religion, in the sense that the society only give theories that cant be proven either way or if they can they have it covered by a global conspiracy. oh and not to mention most of the belief comes from a fictional book that makes many claims that have NEVER been proven.

yes this is my attack  spreading my sheeple lies!

ok im not a math whizz kid but ill try this.

1 mile = 1.6 km

8 inches per mile

8x1.6=12.8

12.8x55=704

704" = 1788.2cm   or  18m.

so over 55km there should be aprox 9m of water obstructing the view.

is that correct?

"is that correct?"

If you want to consider the "8 inches per mile"

now, by that site:

a=squar(55² + 6.368,63²)
a=squar(3.025 + 40.559.448,08)
a=squar(40.565.498,08) = 6.369,1

6.368,63-6.369,1 = 0,47 kms
if I do on one go on the calculator: 0,237 kms

what is wrong with this calculator, haha

"this is how you view something in the distance"
wrong, on a sphere you, by your vision, are always on TOP of the sphere

"is that correct?"

If you want to consider the "8 inches per mile"

now, by that site:

a=squar(55² + 6.368,63²)
a=squar(3.025 + 40.559.448,08)
a=squar(40.565.498,08) = 6.369,1

6.368,63-6.369,1 = 0,47 kms

i told you i dont understand this kind of maths, "im noo whizz kid " implied that my maths is basic. ill find another source. please address my other points too as even 50cm over 200+m is not much anyway. and as curvature is seen your point is moot. 

all searches say 8" per mile. maybe you are getting your inches and cm mixed up.

My internet was down, so the late answer.
Squevil I edited the post above, take a look.

now, to your other points:

number 1: if it is one meter below on a distance of 220 meters, by looking by the side the middle should be half meter up in relation to the edges. And I showed the calculation was correct by your formula of that site. The thing I am not understanding right is why it gives a really wrong number if I use 1km on that formula, perhaps someone can explain to me later.
EDIT: this one was based on that mistake I mentioned earlier, so it's exagerated.

number 2: "however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either." there is only a small curvature on really high altitudes, consider this to be the light of the sun iluminating in a circle and you know that this can't be considered a proof of earth rotundity. also the curvature is too small.

number 3: go search around, I don't know a close tunnel close to me, but I read about it. Other thing to consider, the writer of that book did this experiment in a way, he explained in lots of details with lots of informations, would he decide to lie to be easily discovered later and, in consequence, send his work and name to the hole? Also he debated for decades, if it was a false example, someone would have proved him wrong easy.

number 4: bouchet, a ilusion of optic that keeps the land that we can't see, given the curvature, magically glued to my line of vision and touching the sky, even as I go really high up. Also, do the 3d blender test. Also I am not saying "look to the horizon", I am saying to look straight. go on top of a high building, on the ledge put a nivel, fix it so it is completely nivelated and look straight: you will look to the horizon, that's why the bowl effect happens.

Now, you are posing as a smart guy, but you did mistakes that show that you are ignorant and/or disatent, or you are a lier, who omit information on middle of conversations to improve your side. Also you are mocking me, other obvious strategy used to put my reason as bouchet.
The one that you said people on top of a sphere are actually to the side of the sphere was a mistake so big that it look like a big lie, since only someone who have not thought about the subject would fall for it.

EDIT: I see now that you were talking about the heigh your vision is, when on top of a sphere. only your feet is on the "top of the world", even so your example, considering the size of earth, was not well done, if not bad intentioned (obviously, who we are kiding here?)

The distances I used for proving the Earth is flat are as follows:

13 km (strait of Gibraltar, photographs and videos)

34 km (english channel, photographs)

55 km (lake Ontario, photographs)

7500 km (explosion of Tunguska seen all the way from London)



Correct formula for curvature on a spherical Earth:

C = R x [1 - cos(s/2R)]

R = 6378.164 km

s = distance


Example: for 55 km, we would have a curvature of 59 meters



Correct formula for a visual obstacle on a spherical Earth:



BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF []

R = 6378.164 km

h = AE = height of observer/photographer

s = distance at the surface, for example 34 km between England and France across the English Channel

BD = height of observable visual target on a round earth

The deviation is 8 inches given a 1 mile arc span, but it isn't "8 inches per mile." The deviation in altitude due to curvature is not linear with the arc span. The larger the arc angle is, the more the deviation will be. It's for this reason that small angle approximations are often acceptable in trigonometry, where sin(theta) is closer to theta the smaller theta is (if theta is in radians).

"is that correct?"

If you want to consider the "8 inches per mile"

now, by that site:

a=squar(55² + 6.368,63²)
a=squar(3.025 + 40.559.448,08)
a=squar(40.565.498,08) = 6.369,1

6.368,63-6.369,1 = 0,47 kms
if I do on one go on the calculator: 0,237 kms

what is wrong with this calculator, haha

"this is how you view something in the distance"
wrong, on a sphere you, by your vision, are always on TOP of the sphere

Nothing's wrong with the calculator, it's your addition that's wrong. sqrt(55^2 + 6368.63^2) = sqrt(3025 + 40559448.0769) = sqrt(40562473.0769) ~= 6368.87. 6368.87 - 6368.63 ~= 240m like the calculator gave. You should double check your math.

At any rate, 240m is still not a lot of curvature; vs a 55km span that is only a 0.436% deviation. Given your widest photo is 1024 pixels wide that'd be under a 5 pixel difference. However, this would be of the horizon, which is not actually visible in any of these pictures but is obscured by buildings. The shoreline is visible, but there's no reason to believe that'd follow the horizon, nor is it perfectly straight in the pictures.

At any rate, 240m is still not a lot of curvature; vs a 55km span that is only a 0.436% deviation.


For a distance of 55 km, 240 meters represents the difference in altitude, NOT the curvature.

The curvature for 55 km measures 59 meters (see my previous message).


The photographs taken in Grimsby show no such curvature (59 meters), no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 59 meters, no visual obstacle whatsoever.




As I said in my first message here, the photograph was taken in Beamer Falls Conservation Area, some 45 meters in altitude (well below the height of the curvature itself) - the maximum height of the cliffs there measures some 110 meters, but we will ascend to 240 meters.

No curvature, not a single cm of it, no ascending slope, a perfectly even, flat surface of Lake Ontario.

No, it's because, when I did it in parts I rounded the numbers. since the number is a big one, doing this resulted in that discrepancy in the result.

And randomism, the bowl effect happens because we can see the land without loss, without the floor being hiding hinself on the distance because of loss of altitude relative to the ovserver.

The minimum existence of curvature would inevitably put the line of the horizon below the straight angle. On the simulation in 3d, even on very low altitudes the horizon was always visible below the straight angle, not even close if compared with the other result of a 3d flat earth.

This proves without doubt that: Or earth is plane, OR is round but there is always going on a optic ilusion that presents it as a perfect plane.
The optic ilusion may seen like a option, but it direct appears as a strange/hard to believe option, since the land we are NOT SEEING because of the curvature is magically going up to touch the straight line of vision to create the bowl effect.

The optic ilusion is bouchet

My internet was down, so the late answer.
Squevil I edited the post above, take a look.

now, to your other points:

number 1: if it is one meter below on a distance of 220 meters, by looking by the side the middle should be half meter up in relation to the edges. And I showed the calculation was correct by your formula of that site. The thing I am not understanding right is why it gives a really wrong number if I use 1km on that formula, perhaps someone can explain to me later.

number 2: "however ignoring the fact that high altitude photography captures the curvature on the horizon should not be ignored either." there is only a small curvature on really high altitudes, consider this to be the light of the sun iluminating in a circle and you know that this can't be considered a proof of earth rotundity. also the curvature is too small.

number 3: go search around, I don't know a close tunnel close to me, but I read about it. Other thing to consider, the writer of that book did this experiment in a way, he explained in lots of details with lots of informations, would he decide to lie to be easily discovered later and, in consequence, send his work and name to the hole? Also he debated for decades, if it was a false example, someone would have proved him wrong easy.

number 4: bouchet, a ilusion of optic that keeps the land that we can't see, given the curvature, magically glued to my line of vision and touching the sky, even as I go really high up. Also, do the 3d blender test. Also I am not saying "look to the horizon", I am saying to look straight. go on top of a high building, on the ledge put a nivel, fix it so it is completely nivelated and look straight: you will look to the horizon, that's why the bowl effect happens.

Now, you are posing as a smart guy, but you did mistakes that show that you are ignorant and/or disatent, or you are a lier, who omit information on middle of conversations to improve your side. Also you are mocking me, other obvious strategy used to put my reason as bouchet.
The one that you said people on top of a sphere are actually to the side of the sphere was a mistake so big that it look like a big lie, since only someone who have not thought about the subject would fall for it.

EDIT: I see now that you were talking about the heigh your vision is, when on top of a sphere. only your feet is on the "top of the world", even so your example, considering the size of earth, was not well done, if not bad intentioned (obviously, who we are kiding here?)

it is a common misconception that you are looking from the top of the sphere   you are not looking from the top at all. its ok its common to think that.

levee as the curve should be 18m anyway, standing at 45m will not show any curve... thats as long as you agree that 1 mile = 8" of course.


mau you failed to answer my real question. "why do you ignore all other evidence for a round earth after 1 week of reading about fet?"
especially when your findings are so inconsistent with reality.

and no im not posting as a smart guy and i am not as smart as some, levee is far more intelligent but perhaps misguided. im sure the master of all things conspiracy will surely disagree but thats why he/she/it/future being far beyond comprehension is such a character.

For a distance of 55 km, 240 meters represents the difference in altitude, NOT the curvature.

The curvature for 55 km measures 59 meters (see my previous message).

You are correct that if the picture captures a 55km region then the arc length is not 55km but half that, hence your 59m value (sqrt(6368.63^2 + (55/2)^2) - 6368.63 = 0.059), and I shouldn't have just gone with numbers picked out from the thread.

However, there's a much more fundamental problem here: 55km may be the viewing distance, but the horizontal viewport is nowhere close to 55km. You can easily determine this by looking at the CN Tower in the center, whose height is only 553.5m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CN_Tower). As the tower takes up about 140 pixels in the picture that is about 1024 pixels wide that means the viewport is only about 4km wide.

This gives us an expected curvature of sqrt(6368.63^2 + (4/2)^2) - 6368.63 = 0.00031403927, or about a third of a meter. This is now under one ten-thousandth of the width and therefore under one tenth of a pixel.

How you think that "even a cm of curvature" should be discernible is beyond my understanding.

"and no im not posting as a smart guy"
Lier

""why do you ignore all other evidence for a round earth after 1 week of reading about fet?"
especially when your findings are so inconsistent with reality"

Ok lier, I will play the game for a moment:
1- Earth a globe, we are give the radius. By calculation the correct thing is that, from your feet towards the feet of other person at 55 kms in a completely straight terrain, your feet would be around 240-250 meters high than the other feet. Because of gravity, your feet, to you, is on top of the sphere, it's not to the side. this number was also spoken to me directly by my teacher of topography, a old man who worked creating maps for decades before becoming a teacher.
Doing the math, on 200 meters, it's close or around 1 meter curvature.
Profit. (EDIT: the "200 meters is wrong, it's just some 3 or 4 cms at 200 meters, but the rest is right)

2 - Horizon = straight lines, like in a tunnel or a pipe.
Profit, or consider a optic ilusion.

3 - We always see the horizon perfect plane for Kms.
Profit, or consider ilusion because of some permanet PERFECT refraction of light

4 - read about lots of experiments on that book, check what can be deduced of the personality of the author of the book, check his history, enconter other descriptions of this experiments in other places/books.
Profit.

5 - Check that the world is indeed dominated by jews, they are everywhere owning pratically everything. Also check history of Jews on various sources, how they were the paria of the world after Christ, how the real jews become catholics or disapear, and how the pharisees (the evil jews of the time) were the only ones left, check the torah to see if indeed is a monstruous book as lots of writers and peoples say. Check who created the secret organizations, check who created Nasa, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Profit, all checked on various and various and various other sources.

6 - Check Nasa, see if they are indeed a "Lie Machine". result: lots and lots and lots of visible false and/or strange things.
Profit.

7 - Check the story of the "heroes" of science, einsten, newton, Kepler, etc. result: Jews mixed with mens that may be marranos (counceled jews) and evil mens.
Profit.

8 - Give a check for lies/incompatible things on other fields, like astronomy, geology, arqueology (oh boy), etc.
Profit.

9 - Observe, remember what was seen on movies, magazines, animes, etc, regarding Earth format. Was it casual scenes or there is a lot of obviously centralized scenes on this fact?
Profit, in doubt, but indeed suspect (add the information above for final resolution)

10 - some etc that I may have forgot.

Perhaps you found your way here by mistake, randomism...


Do you understand where you are and what is being debated here?


We are talking about a distance of 55 km, and a curvature of 59 meters which simply does not exist.


On a spherical earth, no horizontal viewport will save you: there should be an ascending slope, perfectly seen, a midpoint curvature of 59 meters, over a distance of 55 km.


No such thing exists in the following photographs.


No matter what the pixels are, you cannot hide a colossal curvature of 59 meters.


The photographs show a perfectly even, flat surface of the lake Ontario: therefore, my comment that not a single centimeter of curvature exists is quite warranted.


The visual target, city of Toronto, is IN FULL VIEW, top to bottom, with NO curvature whatsoever in sight.






No viewport, pixels, can hide the missing 59 meter curvature: a perfectly flat surface of lake Ontario, no matter what pixels you have in mind.






Photograph taken at Beamer Falls Conversation Area (some 45 meters in altitude - maximum height of cliffs some 110 meters - but we will ascend to 240 meters)






Perfect view, no curvature, full sight of the visual target: city of Toronto.






Same thing.






No curvature whatsoever over a distance of 55 km, no viewport can save you: not a single cm of curvature across lake Ontario.

So you're not looking for curvature of the horizon, but a lowering in height of the buildings.

Before even bothering further with this, can you actually provide a source that says any of these pictures are taken 55km away? The one site link you provided doesn't say that. Perspective drops as a rational function, so I don't really see how you could be 55km away but only see about 4km.

Then, of course you would need to know what the buildings look like at their base, up close, to determine how much (if anything) is being obscured by the horizon, if it is indeed an amount that is discernible by this picture. You absolutely still would not be able to discern "even one centimeter" as you put at. The pixel ratios are less in your favor because you're only looking at an individual building instead of an entire horizon...

You have not been able to respond to my previous message in any way whatsoever.


Each photograph is carefully documented: they were taken from the city of Grimsby, for the last three photographs please check the websites of Ms. Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn; actually I could use a distance of 53 km - but as always I use the best scenario for the spherical earth hypothesis, and will ascend at some 240 meters - 55 km distance.


Let us go to the city of Hamilton, some 60 km distance to the other side of the lake, Lakeshore Blvd. (situated west of Toronto).


Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto (the words used by the photographer himself)




http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream




The curvature measures over 60 meters, the visual obstacle some 200 meters.


What viewport/pixel argument are you going to use now?

Or randomism is being blind/dumb about this, or he is a lier, I guess no 4th alternative possible?

Squevil the drop is 8" in the first mile and progressively drops more the more miles you go. ENaG has a table of drop off per mile.

And what's the elevation of the camera, and the angle? These things do have an impact on how much the horizon would obscure objects visible above it... Of course atmospheric refraction does have a potential impact as well, but there's probably no point even bringing that up..

Or randomism is being blind/dumb about this, or he is a lier, I guess no 4th alternative possible?

I believe this is what they call here a "low content post", you should probably read the rules before posting more..

Forget the elevation of the camera and the angle.


The photographer is right there on the beach itself - the curvature itself measures some 60 meters, do you understand these numbers?


Let us elevate the camera to some 10 meters. Still we can see the perfect details from the other side of the lake, and remember that the visual obstacle measures some 200 meters.

On a spherical earth you must ascend to some 60 meters to even see something from the other side of the lake...and we are right there on the beach in the city of Hamilton.


You think refraction will save you?


http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm# (go to the Apparent altitude of distant object due to terrestrial refraction section)


Put in the numbers: 10 meters, 50 meters (I will give you that, 50 meters, to satisfy your lust for spherical earth theory), and a distance of 60 km: the response? the visual target is behind the horizon - could not be seen, that is.