Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).

  • 73 Replies
  • 17237 Views
Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2014, 12:02:40 PM »
Easy way is just to think of it like a clock. The Earth and the orbit thereof would be like clock-hands running both parallel at different speeds but the Sun would be the clock itself. Imagine the clock itself is rotating backwards and the clock hands are moving forwards. Now if you locked the frame of reference on the clock it would look like a stationary clock, but if you watched this clock it would take less time to pass then on a real stationary clock. That would be the difference. The stationary clock takes longer then the non-stationary clock...
That makes no sense.  Parallel at different speeds...
Parallel might not have been the best word choice, but in my usage of it, it simply means together in the same general direction.

Well just take one person running and one person walking on a lap. It will always take the runner longer to lap the person then it would take to lap the starting point if they are both traveling the same direction. However if the walker is stationary and the whole lap moves underneath the walker, it will still look the same as it will still always take the runner longer to lap the person. Now if the runner is stationary and the walker is travelling backwards, the lap will be traveling backwards faster then the walker (All 3 reference frames are dynamically equivalent).

Now if you switch their directions where the runner is going forward and the walker is going backwards then of course you are always going to have the runner lap the walker quicker then the runner laps the lap. This is important because the Sun (would need to appear) to move the opposite direction of the rotation and orbit of the Earth. If the Sun is (apparently) moving the opposite direction then the solar day will be shorter then the sidereal day. This is just basic geometry. If you have a walker that is moving backwards on the lap the runner will lap the walker quicker then the lap. Direction doesn't matter as long as they are traveling opposite to each other which they would be forced to do in a rotating, orbiting earth. The only way to have the solar day be longer is by having the Earth rotate opposite to the direction it orbited in. However you can tell quickly by observation that if that was the case the Sun moves West to East in the North from June to December and East to West from December to June. This is actually why I said this would happen in my diagram (shift in minutes) if the Sun was changing directions dynamically in comparison to the Earth each year but this doesn't happen either, so it's another loss to heliocentrism (and geocentrism and flat earthism). The reason why it disproves heliocentrism and flat earth and also geocentrism is that what you see namely a 4 minute steady time lengthening is impossible if the Sun moves outside of the Earth or even above the Earth, it doesn't matter, if the Sun changes direction the time should also change direction, this is why I say only concave Earth theory works with the Sun inside the Sky inside the Earth because if the sky is inside the Earth the Sun never actually changes direction it simply is always slightly slower then the sky making 1 less rotation per year which is why we have only 364 (real) days per year but if you use the Sun as a reference frame and don't count for the illusion you say the Sky has one more revolution per year which is true, but of course we have 1 total day per year that is an illusion of the Sun completing it's circuit +.5 days per winter and +.5 days per summer because you don't subtract the days. 



I see that round Earthers(for a lack of better term) like to use their astronomy knowledge to prove the Earth is not flat. However, have you ever thought for a second about the reality of what you actually see? You see lights in the sky and you are brainwashed to believe that these lights are really solid objects which can be reached and some of them are much bigger than the Earth itself, and the stars are huge suns very far away in the universe.

OK, but what if you're wrong, what if the celestial objects are simply celestial phenomena or projections on the celestial sphere? What then, how can you be so arrogant to claim you know something for a fact when it is just observations! You cannot verify that these observations represent solid objects. It is just an assumption made by the scientists to develop their theory of the universe.

Unfortunately, the only proof for that theory is the fake NASA and other space agencies missions to space. Space travel is impossible and you should know it if you were a bit more discerning and didn't believe in the media nonsense. The whole thing was done for political and propaganda purposes and was never real. 

Humans have not been in outer space. I think those who believe in something they haven't experienced themselves are those who should provide the evidence and not the ones who are skeptical.

In this particular debate, the topic is the Earth is round or flat. Well it appears flat, so please provide evidence it is round which can be experienced by anyone on the planet. There is nothing like that. You can never provide such evidence. You cannot prove the Earth rotates either. It is impossible regardless of how many Foucault pendulums you believe in. It is impossible to experience it. You need to believe in it. So please cut the arrogant "scientific" smartass attitude, when it boils down to your beliefs only. Be skeptical! You can only verify if something is real if you have experienced it first-hand yourself.

Space travel is not impossible. Humans have indeed not been to Outer-Space because that is space that is outside of the Earth (Well some humans have been to outer-space but they are trapped outside the Earth on outer earth but they have not yet returned because they have been unable to return because the Earth's magnetic field is blocking their teleporters from working correctly). What we have been to is Inner-Space. Which yes inner-space is real, yes you shrink when you go into it and yes it is more miles wide then the earth itself when you go into it because your mile stays the same but you shrink. Now if defining the miles by physical size the miles fit more into smaller space. Even light shrinks so light takes longer to transverse the abyss.

Earth is round and a globe, but it's a globe that is inside of a square connected inside a rectangle with half being outer-space and half being inner space and both spaces being connected and each side being connected to a square (Octahedron).

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2014, 12:42:25 PM »
Sunrise and sunset across the world prove a round earth.  Also explain satellite communications.

It actually proves nothing like that. It just proves there is a source of light which rises and sets daily and shines upon different parts of the surface. Actually, you cannot prove the Sun is a sphere either. It might be a spotlight or anything else for that matter.

Can you prove that the satellite communication is actually signals coming from space and not from another place on Earth? How exactly do you determine it is coming from space, do you follow the signal?

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2014, 01:01:47 PM »
Can you prove that the satellite communication is actually signals coming from space and not from another place on Earth? How exactly do you determine it is coming from space, do you follow the signal?

Well, we pretty much can. That is the whole point.

Satellite dishes are rather sensitive as to where they are pointed(a few degree deviation significantly lowers the signal strength), so it is a safe bet that they point in the direction from which the signal comes. A simple matter of checking where satellite dishes from a sufficiently large area point makes it obvious it is not a ground based station, but a fixed point somewhere very high in the sky. For obvious reasons it can not be some kind of a building.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2014, 03:10:54 PM »
I see that round Earthers(for a lack of better term) like to use their astronomy knowledge to prove the Earth is not flat. However, have you ever thought for a second about the reality of what you actually see? You see lights in the sky and you are brainwashed to believe that these lights are really solid objects which can be reached and some of them are much bigger than the Earth itself, and the stars are huge suns very far away in the universe.

OK, but what if you're wrong, what if the celestial objects are simply celestial phenomena or projections on the celestial sphere? What then, how can you be so arrogant to claim you know something for a fact when it is just observations! You cannot verify that these observations represent solid objects. It is just an assumption made by the scientists to develop their theory of the universe.

Unfortunately, the only proof for that theory is the fake NASA and other space agencies missions to space. Space travel is impossible and you should know it if you were a bit more discerning and didn't believe in the media nonsense. The whole thing was done for political and propaganda purposes and was never real. 

Humans have not been in outer space. I think those who believe in something they haven't experienced themselves are those who should provide the evidence and not the ones who are skeptical.

In this particular debate, the topic is the Earth is round or flat. Well it appears flat, so please provide evidence it is round which can be experienced by anyone on the planet. There is nothing like that. You can never provide such evidence. You cannot prove the Earth rotates either. It is impossible regardless of how many Foucault pendulums you believe in. It is impossible to experience it. You need to believe in it. So please cut the arrogant "scientific" smartass attitude, when it boils down to your beliefs only. Be skeptical! You can only verify if something is real if you have experienced it first-hand yourself.

Oh dear..... this sounds like another sceptimatic alt or a Charles Bloomington alt.    ;D

It's quite funny really, but a lot of flat earthers make this patently erroneous claim:  "You can only verify if something is real if you have experienced it first-hand yourself".

—Next please.

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2014, 10:37:16 PM »
I see that round Earthers(for a lack of better term) like to use their astronomy knowledge to prove the Earth is not flat. However, have you ever thought for a second about the reality of what you actually see? You see lights in the sky and you are brainwashed to believe that these lights are really solid objects which can be reached and some of them are much bigger than the Earth itself, and the stars are huge suns very far away in the universe.

OK, but what if you're wrong, what if the celestial objects are simply celestial phenomena or projections on the celestial sphere? What then, how can you be so arrogant to claim you know something for a fact when it is just observations! You cannot verify that these observations represent solid objects. It is just an assumption made by the scientists to develop their theory of the universe.

Unfortunately, the only proof for that theory is the fake NASA and other space agencies missions to space. Space travel is impossible and you should know it if you were a bit more discerning and didn't believe in the media nonsense. The whole thing was done for political and propaganda purposes and was never real. 

Humans have not been in outer space. I think those who believe in something they haven't experienced themselves are those who should provide the evidence and not the ones who are skeptical.

In this particular debate, the topic is the Earth is round or flat. Well it appears flat, so please provide evidence it is round which can be experienced by anyone on the planet. There is nothing like that. You can never provide such evidence. You cannot prove the Earth rotates either. It is impossible regardless of how many Foucault pendulums you believe in. It is impossible to experience it. You need to believe in it. So please cut the arrogant "scientific" smartass attitude, when it boils down to your beliefs only. Be skeptical! You can only verify if something is real if you have experienced it first-hand yourself.

Oh dear..... this sounds like another sceptimatic alt or a Charles Bloomington alt.    ;D

It's quite funny really, but a lot of flat earthers make this patently erroneous claim:  "You can only verify if something is real if you have experienced it first-hand yourself".

—Next please.

What if we measured it ourselves and found out something that others thought was pure lunacy? (An upward curving Earth)


*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2014, 12:28:41 AM »
What if we measured it ourselves and found out something that others thought was pure lunacy? (An upward curving Earth)


Fair enough question.  But it'd up to you to actually measure, record and prove your observations rather than simply saying "what if..."

Real science doesn't deal in what ifs.  It deals in empirical evidence.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42013
Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2014, 06:58:09 AM »
What if we measured it ourselves and found out...
Why don't you do that and let us know your results.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2014, 11:18:46 AM »
What if we measured it ourselves and found out...
Why don't you do that and let us know your results.

For accuracy of the results if I measure 280 ft of land that is level over and over again using a panorama of 280 pictures (from a straight camera) I should then have a width sample of 358,400 pixels in comparison to a height of 960. Since I can see 6 miles of horizon I should get a 1 mile sample for each ft I test giving me a total viewing differential of 280 miles. This should be enough to test against the earth as it should be about a 4 degree divergence over 280 ft. Using my pixel sampling method and camera of about 90 degrees fov tall. I should see about 42 pixels of upward curve when compared in a super layered composite image.

I'll try to perform this test on Saturday and maybe post results of the above experiment Saturday night.

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2014, 06:55:09 PM »
I did a 280 ft experiment today. I measured an upward curve of about 6.875% over 280 horizontal miles. This puts my calculation at roughly 4072 miles for a straight edge one direction or if I use pi about 25,576 miles around the Earth one full revolution using this simple surveying method. It should be at least 94% accurate.

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2014, 12:38:29 AM »
I did a 280 ft experiment today. I measured an upward curve of about 6.875% over 280 horizontal miles. This puts my calculation at roughly 4072 miles for a straight edge one direction or if I use pi about 25,576 miles around the Earth one full revolution using this simple surveying method. It should be at least 94% accurate.
Cool... How did you measure all this stuff? A simple description/diagram, maybe? I mean the 6.875% and 280 miles. What were those 280 miles? The distance you think to the horizon? And by the way, once more - how could the horizon even exist in your weird model?

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2014, 11:55:34 AM »
I did a 280 ft experiment today. I measured an upward curve of about 6.875% over 280 horizontal miles. This puts my calculation at roughly 4072 miles for a straight edge one direction or if I use pi about 25,576 miles around the Earth one full revolution using this simple surveying method. It should be at least 94% accurate.
Cool... How did you measure all this stuff? A simple description/diagram, maybe? I mean the 6.875% and 280 miles. What were those 280 miles? The distance you think to the horizon? And by the way, once more - how could the horizon even exist in your weird model?

Numbers were around 6.5% to 8% but averaged around 6.875% with me averaging out the mean distance. However it's simple in that you just take a camera and get yourself two (vertically adjustable) L beams and make sure to line up the L beams every time and place your camera in the center of one L-beam and take a photo for each L beam swing you make making sure to make sure the beams run parallel each time. Over a distance you should see the beam go higher and higher into the air if the Earth is convex or lower and lower if it's concave. If it was flat you would see no change. Of course this is all on level ground, make sure to get two points and a tight wire to make sure your starting point and end point are fairly level with each other. Say a drop or rise of 1 ft in 280 ft of measure could sway your total results by up to about 3% which means my 25,576 number is +-3%. However in 280 ft I measured 19.25 ft of difference. This was using a tracing method where I had 6 ft of gap per measurement and overlapped by 30.5 inches every time to give myself 110 2.54 ft samples which at a height of 6 ft per measurement gave me 1 mile of horizon per ft measured so I measured a total amount of sample width of 280 miles in 280 ft even though it was the same horizon over and over again 280 samples to detect the difference of 6.875% (+-6% of 6.875%)

As for the horizon existing in my model. I believe that your eyes work by gathering light and all optical instruments work the same way. I also believe that shortwaves curve faster then longwaves. I also believe that higher objects when farther will appear lower and lower objects will appear higher when they are farther away due to this light shift when they meet at the end of your viewing radius they blend together to form the horizon line. Hot reflections dither faster then atmospheric scattering so any reflected object will constantly lose light at a distance but highly reflective objects will be seen from farther way then non-reflective objects. This is all based on the fact that you cannot see forever. It's why when you go out into space and look at the earth around the edges you see darkness. This is the same thing that happens if you shine a flashlight in a very large room you will see the center illuminated but the edges will still be dark, this is because light only travels a certain distance before it dithers out. If you could see an unlimited distance I believe you would see Earth as a flat plane because light travels parallel with the earth as long as it doesn't encounter any atmospheric drag. Yea Earth might curve up, but you will never be able to see it curve up because light curves upward at the same exact rate or more. It's literally impossible for a reflection of light to be stronger then the source so because all objects we see are reflections all objects will appear less then they really are. All objects appear to us diminished in some way or fashion but luminous objects are visible from farther away then non-luminous objects all objects however blend into a line from a far enough vantage point away.

Remember it's all perspective and geometry. Objects that are fading from your view will appear level to your eyes even if they are far higher then you as long as they are travelling away from you they will go past the horizon line eventually no matter what direction they are travelling as long as they are moving away from you.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #41 on: October 19, 2014, 07:58:14 PM »
Even a casual inspection of the "data" recorded in the above post will reveal it as nothing more than meaningless gibberish.

It doesn't take a science degree to realise it either LOL.

The maximum range I can shoot a level is around 8km over clear open ground.  This guy is seriously telling us he did it over 280 miles?    ;D

Or was it over 280 feet?  Who can tell?


Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #42 on: October 20, 2014, 09:39:01 AM »
Even a casual inspection of the "data" recorded in the above post will reveal it as nothing more than meaningless gibberish.

It doesn't take a science degree to realise it either LOL.

The maximum range I can shoot a level is around 8km over clear open ground.  This guy is seriously telling us he did it over 280 miles?    ;D

Or was it over 280 feet?  Who can tell?

280 miles sampled over 280 ft. 110 2.54 ft (real) samples each 2.54 (horizon) miles each. All combined showed an inclination of 6.875%. 30.5 inches of overlap of 6 ft right angled L beams sampled 110 times shows a inclination of 4.95 inches of 6 ft which is 19.25 ft of 280 ft which shows an Earth about 25,576 miles around because a camera will generally show things larger then they are this number could be 2-3% larger then reality.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2014, 06:51:41 AM »
280 miles sampled over 280 ft.

Sorry, but you can not extrapolate any "sample" curved or flat planar data recorded over a mere 280 feet to apply to a global distance of 280 miles.

Quote
...because a camera will generally show things larger then they are this number could be 2-3% larger then reality.

Nope.  No camera shows things larger than what they are in reality.  Are you really suggesting that if I take a medium format photo of the Empire State Building, and measure its image on the negative at 5.5cm, then the "real" building is less than 5.5cm tall?

 

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2014, 10:42:02 AM »
280 miles sampled over 280 ft.

Sorry, but you can not extrapolate any "sample" curved or flat planar data recorded over a mere 280 feet to apply to a global distance of 280 miles.

Quote
...because a camera will generally show things larger then they are this number could be 2-3% larger then reality.

Nope.  No camera shows things larger than what they are in reality.  Are you really suggesting that if I take a medium format photo of the Empire State Building, and measure its image on the negative at 5.5cm, then the "real" building is less than 5.5cm tall?

The way I think the test worked is it's the same 6 mile sample from 280 'foot mile' marker points taken from 110 samples, each sample 2.54 ft in length (differential) which equates to 2.54 horizon miles (differential). It's based on the concept that I can see 6 miles of horizon in 6 ft of width when lined up to extend to the horizon line on the camera. All in based on overlapping the beams to where they have overlap of 30.5 inches. The end result is that in 110 samples of 2.54 ft I seen about a 6.875% shift in the horizon line when the beam started running parallel with the horizon but ended up going downward. The background clouds also shifted downward at a 6-7% inclination in relative shift to the horizon line. Because the clouds appear to move with you (like the Moon or Sun when you are moving) I think the test does positively show a sway. Remember each image show a differential of 2.54 miles because that's the overlap amount.

The ground I tested on was almost perfectly flat, 280 ft, the horizon itself was also perfectly flat.

Also I do suggest that any object will appear at least 1-2 pixels larger then real size. So if your 5.5cm building might be 2-3% larger then it appears if you are only sampling it at say 40 pixels. Larger pixel sample rates work to reduce the error but it always is there in some form.

 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2014, 11:21:12 AM »
Also I do suggest that any object will appear at least 1-2 pixels larger then real size. So if your 5.5cm building might be 2-3% larger then it appears if you are only sampling it at say 40 pixels. Larger pixel sample rates work to reduce the error but it always is there in some form.


You can't measure the size of something by simply counting the pixels on a digital image.  (When I mentioned "medium format" I was referring to roll film with a nominal frame size of 6cm x 6cm.)

And could you please explain what you mean by "pixel sample rate"?

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #46 on: October 21, 2014, 11:29:40 AM »
Also I do suggest that any object will appear at least 1-2 pixels larger then real size. So if your 5.5cm building might be 2-3% larger then it appears if you are only sampling it at say 40 pixels. Larger pixel sample rates work to reduce the error but it always is there in some form.


You can't measure the size of something by simply counting the pixels on a digital image.  (When I mentioned "medium format" I was referring to roll film with a nominal frame size of 6cm x 6cm.)

And could you please explain what you mean by "pixel sample rate"?

Pixel sample would be pixel dimensions I suppose, but yes I was referring to digital photographs, not analog images which would follow a different set of rules I suppose. (Analog signals contain a lot more noise for starters which makes them a lot less accurate)

As for my test I don't know why it wouldn't be valid. I could do the exact same thing on a cup to determine if it was flat (bottom), convex (outside) or concave (inside) and all I would need is a tiny sample of the cup because any part of the part that is curving should theoretically show at least a tiny amount of curvature.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #47 on: October 21, 2014, 03:52:13 PM »
You can't measure the size of something by simply counting the pixels on a digital image.

Actually, you can determine the angular size of something by counting pixels and knowing the information about the camera, lens, etc., and with a little more information, you can determine the actual size of the object in the picture. 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #48 on: October 21, 2014, 07:08:41 PM »
Actually, you can determine the angular size of something by counting pixels and knowing the information about the camera, lens, etc., and with a little more information, you can determine the actual size of the object in the picture.
 

It's that simple is it jroa?  Here's a chance for you to prove that:  How tall is this tree?




•  Image Width = 480 pixels
•  Image Height = 640 pixels
•  Camera Model = Olympus SP500UZ
•  1/2.5" CCD
•  6.4 MP total
•  Exposure Time =1/800 second
•  Lens F-Number = ƒ/4
•  Focal Length = 6.3 mm


—I've given you all the techie stuff you need to work this out (or for any other flat earther should they so desire). 

       

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #49 on: October 21, 2014, 09:37:36 PM »
Actually, you can determine the angular size of something by counting pixels and knowing the information about the camera, lens, etc., and with a little more information, you can determine the actual size of the object in the picture.
 

It's that simple is it jroa?  Here's a chance for you to prove that:  How tall is this tree?




•  Image Width = 480 pixels
•  Image Height = 640 pixels
•  Camera Model = Olympus SP500UZ
•  1/2.5" CCD
•  6.4 MP total
•  Exposure Time =1/800 second
•  Lens F-Number = ƒ/4
•  Focal Length = 6.3 mm


—I've given you all the techie stuff you need to work this out (or for any other flat earther should they so desire). 

     

This is my calculation based on those numbers: 62 ft tall, 6 inches (+-5%).
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 09:47:52 PM by Sculelos »

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #50 on: October 21, 2014, 10:41:38 PM »
This is my calculation based on those numbers: 62 ft tall, 6 inches (+-5%).
How many pixels did the tree itself measure?

?

guv

  • 1132
Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #51 on: October 21, 2014, 10:51:55 PM »
I get 20m or 60 feet +- a few beers. Aus fence 1m tall +- a few beers.

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #52 on: October 22, 2014, 09:47:07 AM »
This is my calculation based on those numbers: 62 ft tall, 6 inches (+-5%).
How many pixels did the tree itself measure?

About 391 but measured from the very top to very bottom would be about 400. From the viewer to the tree 25 pixels is about 4 ft.

Edit: Another interesting fact is in that photo of the tree when I use my sampling method from just that photo alone I can sample 240 miles of horizon and I get a 5.9% divergence, however because it's only one sample I can't tell which direction the horizon is going either upward or downward because motion is important to determining what the numbers mean. Yea I could say because 5.9 goes into 100 16.95 times that you could take 16.95x240x6.28 to determine and approximate earth size of 25,547 miles. To be even more correct and eliminate the rounding error times by .98563 twice (1,2,3) and you get 24,818 miles approx.

Edit 2: Looking at the tree image more I can actually see that the fence-post run counter to the horizon line. If horizon runs up the fence runs down, if the horizon runs down the fence runs up. To find the true center you draw axial lines through the center and find it makes a right angle 45 degrees up (concave) so from the perspective of the ground, you see an upward curvature, from the perspective of the sky you see an upward curvature. The higher you go into the sky from a ground perspective you see the person in the sky go lower into the horizon until they blend with it.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 10:37:38 AM by Sculelos »

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #53 on: October 22, 2014, 01:30:33 PM »
I did a 280 ft experiment today. I measured an upward curve of about 6.875% over 280 horizontal miles. This puts my calculation at roughly 4072 miles for a straight edge one direction or if I use pi about 25,576 miles around the Earth one full revolution using this simple surveying method. It should be at least 94% accurate.
I would say it is no more than 93.3175% accurate, actually.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #54 on: October 22, 2014, 03:23:46 PM »
Edit 2: Looking at the tree image more I can actually see that the fence-post run counter to the horizon line. If horizon runs up the fence runs down, if the horizon runs down the fence runs up. To find the true center you draw axial lines through the center and find it makes a right angle 45 degrees up (concave) so from the perspective of the ground, you see an upward curvature, from the perspective of the sky you see an upward curvature. The higher you go into the sky from a ground perspective you see the person in the sky go lower into the horizon until they blend with it.

Oh, dear God. Do you think the direction the fence takes in the photo may have something to do with the direction the fence runs on the ground relative to the spot where the photographer is standing, independent of the horizon?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #55 on: October 23, 2014, 08:51:47 AM »
Edit 2: Looking at the tree image more I can actually see that the fence-post run counter to the horizon line. If horizon runs up the fence runs down, if the horizon runs down the fence runs up. To find the true center you draw axial lines through the center and find it makes a right angle 45 degrees up (concave) so from the perspective of the ground, you see an upward curvature, from the perspective of the sky you see an upward curvature. The higher you go into the sky from a ground perspective you see the person in the sky go lower into the horizon until they blend with it.

Oh, dear God. Do you think the direction the fence takes in the photo may have something to do with the direction the fence runs on the ground relative to the spot where the photographer is standing, independent of the horizon?

Using the fence was just my attempt to level the ground. Also used the background hills to try and level the ground. However using only one reference frame at one angle can leave a lot of it up to guesswork, for more solid answers you have to be there and do a few measurements beforehand.

However I have repeatedly said that the horizon would not be at eye level when you are standing level with the ground if the Earth was convex nor if it was flat and I believe this to be true. The horizon should be halfway between your eyes and your feet if the Earth was a very large convex surface or a flat surface.

(Something like this: http://www.visualmmg.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GTA5-Next-Gen.jpg , notice how the buildings curve down as well, this is because Grand Theft Auto V was rendered on a large oblate spheroid so it makes all the buildings fronts run higher then their rears from your perspective, it's the same thing in say Gun for example: http://guides.gamepressure.com/gun/gfx/gallery/large/Screenshots/5.jpg)

In real life if you look at buildings their rears always seem higher then their fronts from your perspective, I think this is probably because Earth is concave so their rears are actually higher then their fronts.

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #56 on: October 23, 2014, 12:26:37 PM »
And if I measure the fronts and the rears of buildings...

Please stop making up nonsense long sentences.

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #57 on: October 23, 2014, 06:40:02 PM »
Edit 2: Looking at the tree image more I can actually see that the fence-post run counter to the horizon line. If horizon runs up the fence runs down, if the horizon runs down the fence runs up. To find the true center you draw axial lines through the center and find it makes a right angle 45 degrees up (concave) so from the perspective of the ground, you see an upward curvature, from the perspective of the sky you see an upward curvature. The higher you go into the sky from a ground perspective you see the person in the sky go lower into the horizon until they blend with it.

Oh, dear God. Do you think the direction the fence takes in the photo may have something to do with the direction the fence runs on the ground relative to the spot where the photographer is standing, independent of the horizon?

Using the fence was just my attempt to level the ground. Also used the background hills to try and level the ground. However using only one reference frame at one angle can leave a lot of it up to guesswork, for more solid answers you have to be there and do a few measurements beforehand.
Why would you assume the fence is level?  Further, even if it were level, it wouldn't appear as a horizontal reference in your picture unless the camera was pointed perpendicular to it. Think about it... if the photographer were straddling the fence and took a picture in the direction it was running, it would appear vertical in the photo.

Quote
However I have repeatedly said that the horizon would not be at eye level when you are standing level with the ground if the Earth was convex nor if it was flat and I believe this to be true.
You have also been repeatedly told that this is not correct and shown why.

Quote
The horizon should be halfway between your eyes and your feet if the Earth was a very large convex surface or a flat surface.
No. It will be ever-so-slightly below eye level on a very large convex surface, and dead level on an infinite flat surface. A point on level ground about 5-6 feet away will be halfway between straight down and level on a flat or very large convex (or, for that matter, concave) surface.

Quote
(Something like this: http://www.visualmmg.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GTA5-Next-Gen.jpg , notice how the buildings curve down as well, this is because Grand Theft Auto V was rendered on a large oblate spheroid so it makes all the buildings fronts run higher then their rears from your perspective, it's the same thing in say Gun for example: http://guides.gamepressure.com/gun/gfx/gallery/large/Screenshots/5.jpg)
The nice thing about artificially rendering images is that you can do whatever you want with perspective.

Quote
In real life if you look at buildings their rears always seem higher then their fronts from your perspective, I think this is probably because Earth is concave so their rears are actually higher then their fronts.
Not in my world, they don't. My world must not be concave.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #58 on: October 23, 2014, 10:51:42 PM »
That picture from the tree was inconclusive because it lacked an initial reference frame. I tried to create a frame of reference with the fence but of course the fence is not perfectly straight.

I was thinking about the original post some more though and I feel like it wouldn't really matter what point of Earth you are on even on opposite sides clockwise rotation is still clockwise rotation as long as you remember to keep the North and South poles distinct from each other.

Say Mr North is facing North and Mr South is facing South. Both will still see the Sun go from East to West throughout the day and likewise if Earth's orbit is going West to East and it is rotating West to East, then the Sun must appear to be going East to West on a daily schedule of just under 1 degree per day. Remember because if Earth is spinning counter-clockwise from the north and also orbiting counter-clockwise from the North then it stands to reason that the Sun most move East to West no matter what your reference frame is on Earth.

However think of it like this. If a year was only 24 days, then of course you would be moving 1 hour per day. Now because the Sun would be physically moving East to West (in relation to you, as it appeared to move per day) and because Earth would be rotating West to East you would get one less hour per day (then sidereal of course). Because if you say start a clock's hands clockwise and turn the clock backwards independent of the hands that are moving forwards the hour will shorten, not lengthen in comparison to a non-moving backwards clock. This is the best and most logical proof that the Sun is moving around the Earth and that the Earth cannot be rotating at all. If the Earth is flat, convex or concave it is not rotating either way!

Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« Reply #59 on: October 24, 2014, 07:09:11 AM »
That picture from the tree was inconclusive because it lacked an initial reference frame. I tried to create a frame of reference with the fence but of course the fence is not perfectly straight.

I was thinking about the original post some more though and I feel like it wouldn't really matter what point of Earth you are on even on opposite sides clockwise rotation is still clockwise rotation as long as you remember to keep the North and South poles distinct from each other.

Say Mr North is facing North and Mr South is facing South. Both will still see the Sun go from East to West throughout the day and likewise if Earth's orbit is going West to East and it is rotating West to East, then the Sun must appear to be going East to West on a daily schedule of just under 1 degree per day. Remember because if Earth is spinning counter-clockwise from the north and also orbiting counter-clockwise from the North then it stands to reason that the Sun most move East to West no matter what your reference frame is on Earth.

However think of it like this. If a year was only 24 days, then of course you would be moving 1 hour per day. Now because the Sun would be physically moving East to West (in relation to you, as it appeared to move per day) and because Earth would be rotating West to East you would get one less hour per day (then sidereal of course). Because if you say start a clock's hands clockwise and turn the clock backwards independent of the hands that are moving forwards the hour will shorten, not lengthen in comparison to a non-moving backwards clock. This is the best and most logical proof that the Sun is moving around the Earth and that the Earth cannot be rotating at all. If the Earth is flat, convex or concave it is not rotating either way!
Saying the Earth orbits the Sun from west to east is meaningless and is confusing you, as discussed at length earlier.

This illustration still says it all.

Image courtesy Case Western Reserve University

For your hypothetical 24-day year, substitute "1 hour" for "4 minutes" and "15 degrees" where it says "1 degree (approx)" in the illustration.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan