Proofs for alternate concept of Earth

  • 137 Replies
  • 27229 Views
Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #120 on: August 18, 2014, 09:42:54 AM »
I've actually thought about these 3 questions before and the 1st 2 questions are actually answered by the 3rd question and the 3rd question is all a matter of angles. Firstly your line of sight is always 135 degrees in front of you in respect to your feet and your line of sight is always 135 degrees above you. This means if for example you are inside of a very large ball you will not be able to see the other side above you as your line of sight doesn't reach that far so from your perspective you only see black perhaps tinted with green and red to make blue, yellow, purple or red skylines depending on the light to darkness ratios.

Your line of sight is basically like a football with the upper half always being sky and the lower half always being ground. This happens as light curves up in still reflects towards you up to eye level and then as it passes eye level it actually curves away from you so are not able to see it anymore. Good telescopes can actually alter the starting point of optical curvature so the telescope actually gathers light into it's optics that is closer to the sky (aka higher then you are physically standing basically altering your eye level so that it's like starting at higher elevation) so to see further then the horizon with a good telescope you have to point it slightly above the horizon line.

I will go one step further then this and claim that firstly it is possible to launch and orbit satellites inside the Earth as well as hang them motionless in-between the Earth and Sky neutral zone (like the surface of water). However our measured distances of 20-30 thousand miles is jacked up because we assume the Earth to be a globe and thus all measurements derived from that are messed up.

Also the 8 inch drop per mile comes from the Earth curving up and if you stay locked on the horizon this is what drop you will get. However this is only if you are actually moving at ground altitude. The curvature becomes much less the higher altitudes you gain so if you are for example flying 1 mile high this will only be 2 inches per mile instead of 8. Since most planes fly 5-8 miles the calculation goes as follows.

1 mile high = 2 inches per mile of drop
2 miles high = .5 inches per mile of drop
3 miles high = .125 inches per mile of drop
4 miles high = 0.03125 inches per mile of drop
5 miles high = 0.0078125
6 miles high = 0.001953125
7 miles high = 0.00048828125
8 miles high = 0.0001220703125

and it keeps going quartering itself per mile of altitude gained. So if your flying very high at like 19 miles the curvature would only be like 0.0000000000291038304567337 inches per mile of curvature. However the Earth does look curved when viewed with wide angle optics but then again everything has a fish-eye effect when you try and fit more then 90 degrees field of vision into a computer monitor unless you have one that wraps around your head: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

After reading, re-reading and thinking about this and some of your other posts for the better part of a day, I'm still not sure at all that I understand what you're saying. Here's a stab:

We're inside a sphere about 4,000 miles radius. "The heavens" are contained in a smaller sphere that is centered on the same center as ours. For whatever reason, light from the surface only reaches our eyes from a maximum angle of 45 degrees above our local horizontal (135 degrees from straight "down").  Above that is blackness (or perhaps featureless color).  Is this right?  I just don't see how this is plausible.  If I'm in a cave, say, and look up I see the cave roof.  If i"m outside on a partly cloudy day I can see clouds move from horizon to overhead.

If we're living inside a hollow earth and I'm standing at 90 degrees W longitude, how come I don't see the Atlantic Ocean, western Africa, and parts of Europe rising up in the east before disappearing above the 45-degree upward limit? 

How do sunrises and sunsets work? How can a star like Vega appear to rise in the northeast, pass directly overhead, and set in the northwest?  Or, say, Antares, rise in the SE, culminate not quite 45 degrees up in the south and set in the SW?

In the table of curvatures, why is the statute mile so significant?  Since the relationship appears to be

drop per mile = 8" / 2^(twice the height in miles)

(the ^ symbol means "raised to the power of") the unit "mile" has particular significance.  Did this just happen to coincide with a common measure of length in the USA (and almost nowhere else), or does the statute mile have some mystical significance?  Even if this is right, what does it mean?  Two planes flying parallel straight paths with one mile difference in altitude will change altitude at different rates?

After trying to understand this, I'm still totally baffled.  Isn't being on the outside of a sphere of about 4,000 miles radius a lot easier to explain?  I just don't see any plausible reason to think we're inside a hollow earth.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #121 on: August 18, 2014, 10:09:57 AM »
Miles and inches are just the units of measure I used but you could use any unit that has a similar ratio as it's the ratios that are important not the miles or inches themselves.

As for your other question if Earth were rotating we would see the Sun rise in a circular arc but it's not and thus only coming into our viewpoint from above our heads but below the horizon. This is the same for stars but we never see stars below 20 degrees above the horizon as wavelengths become longer and this diminishes the starlight into the invisible spectrum. Wavelengths get progressively longer as they reach the horizon until they become invisible.

As for Earth itself it's not moving at all so you won't see any visible difference in landmarks. At night time with reduced visibility you will see the horizon start sooner then in the daytime. At sea level you can only sea around 2 miles and perhaps 3 miles with an illuminated light-source. Of course if you are viewing higher objects you can see much farther then that.

Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #122 on: August 18, 2014, 10:51:35 AM »
... we never see stars below 20 degrees above the horizon as wavelengths become longer and this diminishes the starlight into the invisible spectrum. Wavelengths get progressively longer as they reach the horizon until they become invisible.

Just about everything else in that last post is wrong, too, but I'm simply astonished by this statement.

Go outside some clear evening and see for yourself.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #123 on: August 18, 2014, 11:28:59 AM »
... we never see stars below 20 degrees above the horizon as wavelengths become longer and this diminishes the starlight into the invisible spectrum. Wavelengths get progressively longer as they reach the horizon until they become invisible.

Just about everything else in that last post is wrong, too, but I'm simply astonished by this statement.

Go outside some clear evening and see for yourself.

I've watched the skies alot and generally I never see stars come into view lower then 20 degrees in the sky. Yeah they might fade from view lower then that but not generally enter.

Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #124 on: August 18, 2014, 11:52:53 AM »
... we never see stars below 20 degrees above the horizon as wavelengths become longer and this diminishes the starlight into the invisible spectrum. Wavelengths get progressively longer as they reach the horizon until they become invisible.

Just about everything else in that last post is wrong, too, but I'm simply astonished by this statement.

Go outside some clear evening and see for yourself.
How do you move from 'I never' to 'we never'?

I've watched the skies alot and generally I never see stars come into view lower then 20 degrees in the sky. Yeah they might fade from view lower then that but not generally enter.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #125 on: August 19, 2014, 09:51:17 AM »
As for Earth itself it's not moving at all so you won't see any visible difference in landmarks.
Other flat earthers have claimed the earth IS moving—"upwards" at a constant 9.8m/sec/sec acceleration.

Quote
At night time with reduced visibility you will see the horizon start sooner then in the daytime.
Which is due entirely to the strength of the illumination at the time.  It has nothing to do with the geometry of the planet.  That's why the military use IR and night-vision optical devices at night.


Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #126 on: August 19, 2014, 12:16:35 PM »
As for Earth itself it's not moving at all so you won't see any visible difference in landmarks.
Other flat earthers have claimed the earth IS moving—"upwards" at a constant 9.8m/sec/sec acceleration.
It may have gotten lost in the somewhat difficult-to-follow chatter, but Sculelos is an "Insider", not a flat earther.  He proposes we live on the inside of a hollow spherical earth (that apparently isn't moving).
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #127 on: August 20, 2014, 09:24:00 AM »
As for Earth itself it's not moving at all so you won't see any visible difference in landmarks.
Other flat earthers have claimed the earth IS moving—"upwards" at a constant 9.8m/sec/sec acceleration.
It may have gotten lost in the somewhat difficult-to-follow chatter, but Sculelos is an "Insider", not a flat earther.  He proposes we live on the inside of a hollow spherical earth (that apparently isn't moving).

Yeah I am definitely an "Insider" and not a "Flat Earther". Before that I was a geocentrist and before that a heliocentrist but now I guess you would call me a "Skycentrist". Too many experimental problems showing Earth to be neither convex nor flat nor the center of the universe however Wmap's prove entirely that the universe is either A: Completely flat or B: That we live inside of the Earth and the "Universe" is actually inside the Earth.

However besides believing that we are inside of the Earth I believe that there is also an outside to Earth with air, ground and water and an exiled race of ancient shape-shifter's that will return to Inner-Earth in the form of spaceship flying, talking apes in the year 2055 when the Earth heats up enough to melt Antarctica after World War 3 starts in 2045 due to World overpopulation and oil scarcity. But that stuff is more-so conspiracy talk then anything else but there are reasons why I have these "lunatic" ideas that are actually more real then you could imagine...

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #128 on: August 20, 2014, 10:17:00 AM »
As for Earth itself it's not moving at all so you won't see any visible difference in landmarks.
Other flat earthers have claimed the earth IS moving—"upwards" at a constant 9.8m/sec/sec acceleration.
It may have gotten lost in the somewhat difficult-to-follow chatter, but Sculelos is an "Insider", not a flat earther.  He proposes we live on the inside of a hollow spherical earth (that apparently isn't moving).

Yeah I am definitely an "Insider" and not a "Flat Earther". Before that I was a geocentrist and before that a heliocentrist but now I guess you would call me a "Skycentrist". Too many experimental problems showing Earth to be neither convex nor flat nor the center of the universe however Wmap's prove entirely that the universe is either A: Completely flat or B: That we live inside of the Earth and the "Universe" is actually inside the Earth.

However besides believing that we are inside of the Earth I believe that there is also an outside to Earth with air, ground and water and an exiled race of ancient shape-shifter's that will return to Inner-Earth in the form of spaceship flying, talking apes in the year 2055 when the Earth heats up enough to melt Antarctica after World War 3 starts in 2045 due to World overpopulation and oil scarcity. But that stuff is more-so conspiracy talk then anything else but there are reasons why I have these "lunatic" ideas that are actually more real then you could imagine...

Wmap is a satellite which definitely shows the Earth is round.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #129 on: August 20, 2014, 11:18:38 AM »
All head maps and planets (seperated parts) of Earth seems to show the same pattern.



And just for giggles outer Earth reconstructed:


Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #130 on: August 27, 2014, 02:14:30 PM »
Have some new proofs that Earth is not sphere:

First: Clouds are not bending on edge of the horizon and actually they don't touch horizon line at all

Second: It seem like water create horizon by bending light, where most experiments to prove horizon was made on ocean.. where air is most wet. Actually such experiments should be done on dry desert where clearly you may see at very large distances. Unless that is "explained" as Fata Morgara "illusion" Well where is dry air light not bend so if illusion exist somewhere is most likely on ocean not on desert = there is not such thing as fata Morgana, it is real distant view without illusions we see all the time.

Third: Satellites are flying on outdated and flaw Newton Cannon concept. In 17-th century cannons was smooth and bullet not spinning, so he not include that detail.. but he should. Everything in space is spinning and this is happening for some reason. All peoples send in space does not spin. All of these objects don't behave as they apparently should in space. So satellites are not proof for round Earth because they don't have any credibility.





« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 02:18:50 PM by koval321 »

Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #131 on: August 27, 2014, 02:25:49 PM »
Have some new proofs that Earth is not sphere:

First: Clouds are not bending on edge of the horizon and actually they don't touch horizon line at all

Second: It seem like water create horizon by bending light, where most experiments to prove horizon was made on ocean.. where air is most wet. Actually such experiments should be done on dry desert where clearly you may see at very large distances. Unless that is "explained" as Fata Morgara "illusion" Well where is dry air light not bend so if illusion exist somewhere is most likely on ocean not on desert = there is not such thing as fata Morgana, it is real distant view without illusions we see all the time.

Third: Satellites are flying on outdated and flaw Newton Cannon concept. In 17-th century cannons was smooth and bullet not spinning, so he not include that detail.. but he should. Everything in space is spinning and this is happening for some reason. All peoples send in space does not spin. All of these objects don't behave as they apparently should in space. So satellites are not proof for round Earth because they don't have any credibility.





1a) If the clouds aren't touching the horizon, why isn't the sky touching the horizon in that photo blue?

1b) Clouds can be localised

1c) How would you see clouds bending?

2) The refractive index of moist air is negligible over those distances.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=refractive+index+of+moist+air

3a) Lots of satellites spin. Who said they don't?

3b) Things in space don't have to spin. Show me the law of physics that says things have to spin. Further, spacecraft have reaction control systems to control spin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system

Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #132 on: August 27, 2014, 03:08:34 PM »
Quote
1a) If the clouds aren't touching the horizon, why isn't the sky touching the horizon in that photo blue?

On picture are low altitude clouds and above them very high altitude other type of clouds. These high which are low at horizon are extremely distant the same as ground and you cant observe fact that they don't touch that line. Where low altitude clouds clearly end at some point of observation.

Quote
1c) How would you see clouds bending?

I mean you never see bottom of cloud at distance. No matter how telescope you would use for that, you cant see bottom of cloud at edge of horizon.

Quote
3a) Lots of satellites spin. Who said they don't?

Apparently these which don't inhabit peoples. Where space shuttle and space station if orbit planet are also satellite.

Quote
3b) Things in space don't have to spin. Show me the law of physics that says things have to spin.

Yes they must spin, satellites work on outdated 17-th century physic. Newton never build satellite, not even as model. He just made thought experiment, it happen in his head only and was not tested until 20-th century. He couldn't known that in space is vacuum anyway so how could even create such theory. Well maybe he did somehow but that is bit anachronism.

Everything in space is spinning... beside man made satellites. They don't have any credibility to prove anything. And yet we known that Earth is sphere only from satellite view...

Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #133 on: August 27, 2014, 03:14:41 PM »
Quote
On picture are low altitude clouds and above them very high altitude other type of clouds. These high which are low at horizon are extremely distant the same as ground and you cant observe fact that they don't touch that line. Where low altitude clouds clearly end at some point of observation.

No they aren't.

Quote
I mean you never see bottom of cloud at distance. No matter how telescope you would use for that, you cant see bottom of cloud at edge of horizon.

The bottoms of clouds is exactly what you're seeing when the sky meeting the horizon is grey.

Quote
Where space shuttle and space station if orbit planet are also satellite.

Please speak English.

The ISS does spin. It spins in synch with its orbit so that the same side always faces the earth, just like the moon. Satellites have RCS systems that allow us to control how and if they spin (as well as providing other functions)
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 03:23:57 PM by Goggleman »

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #134 on: August 27, 2014, 04:10:47 PM »
Quote
1a) If the clouds aren't touching the horizon, why isn't the sky touching the horizon in that photo blue?

On picture are low altitude clouds and above them very high altitude other type of clouds. These high which are low at horizon are extremely distant the same as ground and you cant observe fact that they don't touch that line. Where low altitude clouds clearly end at some point of observation.
If you can't observe that they don't touch the horizon, how do you know that they don't touch the horizon?

?

Blacksmith

  • 113
  • Debunker of Debauchery
Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #135 on: August 27, 2014, 07:37:56 PM »
Is OP joking? I feel like the poor english and terrible arguments are actually supposed to be funny.
Tally Count of Every Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth, Ever:

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #136 on: August 28, 2014, 09:02:02 AM »
First: Clouds are not bending on edge of the horizon and actually they don't touch horizon line at all

Second: It seem like water create horizon by bending light, where most experiments to prove horizon was made on ocean.. where air is most wet. Actually such experiments should be done on dry desert where clearly you may see at very large distances. Unless that is "explained" as Fata Morgara "illusion" Well where is dry air light not bend so if illusion exist somewhere is most likely on ocean not on desert = there is not such thing as fata Morgana, it is real distant view without illusions we see all the time.

Third: Satellites are flying on outdated and flaw Newton Cannon concept. In 17-th century cannons was smooth and bullet not spinning, so he not include that detail.. but he should. Everything in space is spinning and this is happening for some reason. All peoples send in space does not spin. All of these objects don't behave as they apparently should in space. So satellites are not proof for round Earth because they don't have any credibility.


I appreciate the time you've taken to post the photo and diagrams, but the positions of clouds proves neither a flat earth nor a round earth—based solely on their positions relative to the observer and/or the visible horizon.

Secondly, the visible horizon is not affected whether it's observed over water or land.  The laws of optics and the curvature of the earth's surface accounts for that distance which is identical in both cases.  The Fata Morgana mirage occurs both over oceans, deserts and polar regions, and is caused by thermal inversions—which need to be sufficient such that that the curvature of the light rays within the inversion layer is more pronounced than the curvature of the earth's surface.

Lastly, most satellites, such as the ISS can, or are able, to spin.


Re: Proofs for alternate concept of Earth
« Reply #137 on: August 28, 2014, 09:09:18 AM »
Secondly, the visible horizon is not affected whether it's observed over water or land.  The laws of optics and the curvature of the earth's surface accounts for that distance which is identical in both cases.  The Fata Morgana mirage occurs both over oceans, deserts and polar regions, and is caused by thermal inversions—which need to be sufficient such that that the curvature of the light rays within the inversion layer is more pronounced than the curvature of the earth's surface.

Actually the curvature wouldn't be the same, but high points in the distance are just going to reduce the amount of intervening air at the horizon.