"Equator" problem

  • 454 Replies
  • 53889 Views
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #60 on: October 19, 2014, 01:23:52 AM »

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2014, 02:34:33 AM »
Are you serious?  :P
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: "Equator" problem
« Reply #62 on: October 19, 2014, 02:58:25 AM »
Regarding water level experiments:

http://www.energeticforum.com/264162-post361.html

In addition:



Accompanying video: #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#

One question for JimmyTheCrab: Why do we put word "level" in a phrase "water level" if the surface of all waters is not leveled but curved?

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #63 on: October 19, 2014, 04:25:54 AM »



Now this is moronic. You know why usually trails look blurry and jagged when the camera is moved? Because it shakes like hell while being moved. Earth is rotating as smoothly as possible - there is literally NOTHING to shake it while the long exposure is taken.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #64 on: October 19, 2014, 05:24:23 AM »
Regarding water level experiments:

http://www.energeticforum.com/264162-post361.html

In addition:



Accompanying video: #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#

One question for JimmyTheCrab: Why do we put word "level" in a phrase "water level" if the surface of all waters is not leveled but curved?
Ship is clearly not on or past the horizon.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22472
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #65 on: October 19, 2014, 05:27:22 AM »
Regarding water level experiments:

http://www.energeticforum.com/264162-post361.html

In addition:



Accompanying video: #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#

One question for JimmyTheCrab: Why do we put word "level" in a phrase "water level" if the surface of all waters is not leveled but curved?
Ship is clearly not on or past the horizon.
Take notice of the zoom in and out. the horizon is simply down to your vision over distance.
Do you think the horizon is a drawn line or something.  ::)

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #66 on: October 19, 2014, 06:21:52 AM »
Quote
Now this is moronic. You know why usually trails look blurry and jagged when the camera is moved? Because it shakes like hell while being moved. Earth is rotating as smoothly as possible - there is literally NOTHING to shake it while the long exposure is taken.

NOTHING to shake it, of course, because the Earth is immovable and doesn't rotate, and doesn't revolve, that is why there is literally NOTHING to shake it, couldn't you figure it out without my help?

The Earth is rotating as smoothly as possible only in RET dizzy-rotund heads, the Earth is revolving as smoothly as possible only in RET drunk-round heads, Earth is traveling around galactic centre 250 km/sec only in deluded globular RET heads!!!

Sorry, but that is ruthless truth!!!

Quote
Ship is clearly not on or past the horizon.

Stop the video at 17 sec. and pay attention to the object on the right side of the screen, has this much more distant ship passed the horizon? Do you think that there is any chance that you could see any part of this (more distant) ship with naked eyes?

So, this first ship should have been used to illustrate the principle of how objects passing the line of horizon disappear out of our perspective. If you forgot how it works read again Rowbotham's explanation of a TRUE law of perspective!!!

http://www.energeticforum.com/255927-post20.html

The main point of this conversation is that majority of members of this forum are very skilled in skipping capital questions like it is a question posed in the opening post of this thread, and like it is a question posed in my last post, i repeat it:

Why do we put word "level" in a phrase "water level" if the surface of all waters is not leveled but curved?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 06:28:07 AM by cikljamas »

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #67 on: October 19, 2014, 06:52:39 AM »
Regarding water level experiments:

http://www.energeticforum.com/264162-post361.html

In addition:



Accompanying video: #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#

One question for JimmyTheCrab: Why do we put word "level" in a phrase "water level" if the surface of all waters is not leveled but curved?
Ship is clearly not on or past the horizon.
Take notice of the zoom in and out. the horizon is simply down to your vision over distance.
Do you think the horizon is a drawn line or something.  ::)
And as you notice, the ship in the first picture is in front of the horizon.  Therefore, it is not restoring a ship that has gone past the horizon.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #68 on: October 19, 2014, 06:58:10 AM »
Stop the video at 17 sec. and pay attention to the object on the right side of the screen, has this much more distant ship passed the horizon? Do you think that there is any chance that you could see any part of this (more distant) ship with naked eyes?
  Then maybe the guy recording the video should have zoomed in on the more distant object?  But from my experience, zooming in on an object past the horizon do not restore more of the object.  Just make what is visible larger.
Quote
So, this first ship should have been used to illustrate the principle of how objects passing the line of horizon disappear out of our perspective. If you forgot how it works read again Rowbotham's explanation of a TRUE law of perspective!!!
No it doesn't.  First, the ship is not past the horizon.  Second, it shows the limitations of the camera's digital sensors to discern details until the optical zoom is employed.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #69 on: October 19, 2014, 07:45:09 AM »
@BJ1234, There are countless recorded (and minutely described and explained on the basis of a true law of perspective) testimonies (experiments)  of a different people about their successful visual restorations of hulls of a sailing away ships by applying telescopes or binoculars or strong optical lenses of cameras. Would you like to assert that all minutely described experiences of that kind are just false testimonies?




Why do we put word "level" in a phrase "water level" if the surface of all waters is not leveled but curved?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 07:48:11 AM by cikljamas »

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #70 on: October 19, 2014, 07:58:16 AM »
@BJ1234, There are countless recorded (and minutely described and explained on the basis of a true law of perspective) testimonies (experiments)  of a different people about their successful visual restorations of hulls of a sailing away ships by applying telescopes or binoculars or strong optical lenses of cameras. Would you like to assert that all minutely described experiences of that kind are just false testimonies?




Why do we put word "level" in a phrase "water level" if the surface of all waters is not leveled but curved?


Then show me a video where the hull of a ship has been restored AFTER it has gone past the horizon.  So fare, every video posted has been of ships in front of the horizon.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38046
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #71 on: October 19, 2014, 08:29:22 AM »
Regarding water level experiments:
What do water level experiments have to do with the equator?  ???
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.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #72 on: October 19, 2014, 08:41:46 AM »
Also tell me why, if the disappearance is due to perspective, the hulls disappear first, which are much larger than masts or stacks on a ship?  Logically, these should disappear first as they are smaller.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #73 on: October 19, 2014, 08:55:38 AM »
Then show me a video where the hull of a ship has been restored AFTER it has gone past the horizon.  So fare, every video posted has been of ships in front of the horizon.



#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Flat Earth Response Video To Everyone its so flat__________________________ (Starts at 1min. 30 sec.)
Amazing video : #t=47" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=47
Time lapse photographs relating video: #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Flat motionless earth vs globe challenge




Quote
What do water level experiments have to do with the equator?

I am still waiting for that answer!

Why do we put word "level" in a phrase "water level" if the surface of all waters is not leveled but curved?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 09:00:08 AM by cikljamas »

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #74 on: October 19, 2014, 09:16:36 AM »
Then show me a video where the hull of a ship has been restored AFTER it has gone past the horizon.  So fare, every video posted has been of ships in front of the horizon.



#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Flat Earth Response Video To Everyone its so flat__________________________ (Starts at 1min. 30 sec.)
Amazing video : #t=47" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=47
Time lapse photographs relating video: #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Flat motionless earth vs globe challenge



Those pictures are not showing what I am asking.  They show that raising elevation allows you to see further.  They do not show a hull being restored after it has gone past the horizon.  And I assumed I didn't need to add by zooming in on the ship since the previous video showed a camera zooming.

Don't have time to watch the video provided right now.  Will watch it later.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #75 on: October 19, 2014, 09:32:32 AM »
Regarding water level experiments:

http://www.energeticforum.com/264162-post361.html

In addition:




The ship is not on the horizon.   ::)
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: "Equator" problem
« Reply #76 on: October 19, 2014, 10:54:33 AM »
Ships and hillside sinking below curvature of Earth as point of view is lowered.
*original thread- http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50707.0#.VEP3m2fvgSk

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr



Ship 2, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr


No restoration here.

Ship 3, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 3, 28x mag. 0m alt. 

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #77 on: October 19, 2014, 11:08:17 AM »
In addition:

http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg
The camera is stationary in relation to the surface and moves right along with Earth's rotation, thus the stars become streaks across the sky and the ground sharply focused. 

Learn some photography and then get back to us.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #78 on: October 19, 2014, 11:47:39 AM »
Why do we put word "level" in a phrase "water level" if the surface of all waters is not leveled but curved?
Because (assuming calm water) any one spot on the surface of a given body of water is level (not tilted).   

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #79 on: October 19, 2014, 11:54:03 AM »
Answer to post #76 : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za34.htm

Why do we put word "level" in a phrase "water level" if the surface of all waters is not leveled but curved?
Because (assuming calm water) any one spot on the surface of a given body of water is level (not tilted).

Not tilted? Like the Earth? Hahahahaha...

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #80 on: October 19, 2014, 12:24:08 PM »
This is the video that you were asking for: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #81 on: October 19, 2014, 01:21:07 PM »
1st hd camera at the Edge of Space:



accompanying video: #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">1st HD Camera At The Edge Of Space

Flat Earth/Terra Plana : #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Flat Earth/Terra Plana

Now that we are 100 % sure that the Earth is flat, you can freely spell out your suggestions about the most logical possible solutions for resolving Equator problem, don't be afraid, you got nothing to lose, you already lost this game long time ago, since the creation of the world...

« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 01:32:00 PM by cikljamas »

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #82 on: October 19, 2014, 06:50:34 PM »
This is the video that you were asking for: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
As you can see in that video, no more of the hull is appearing.  The portions of the ship are staying the same relative size.  The hull isn't gaining in proportional size.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #83 on: October 19, 2014, 08:25:18 PM »
1st hd camera at the Edge of Space:




I'm afraid selecting a single frame from the video that happens to show a horizontal cloud band (rather than the earth's horizon) does nothing for your cause—except weaken it.  Sorry.

At least the two videos you've inadvertently (?) linked to show the actual curved horizon at various stages.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #84 on: October 19, 2014, 08:35:28 PM »
http://i.imgur.com/QKLhI41.jpg
Nice picture showing curvature there.

Quote
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Flat Earth Response Video To Everyone its so flat__________________________ (Starts at 1min. 30 sec.)
Not sure what going on with the music drowning out the narration.  Anyway, at 1:30 we see a nice example of resolution getting a boost from magnification, with additional help from infrared.  Not seeing any example of 'restoration' though.

Quote
Amazing video : #t=47" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=47
A ship traveling through large waves.  Neat.

Quote
Time lapse photographs relating video: #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Flat motionless earth vs globe challenge 
LMAO... this guy can't even get the speed of rotation correct ("1000mph faster than the speed of sound"?), nor can he comprehend one revolution per day.  Spin a merry-go-round at that rate and get back to us.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #85 on: October 20, 2014, 03:34:16 AM »
IT has already been proved that the astronomers of the Copernican school merely assumed the rotundity of the earth as a doctrine which enabled them to explain certain well-known phenomena. "What other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?" is the language of Professor de Morgan, and it expresses the state of mind of all who hold that the earth is a globe. There is on their part an almost amusing innocence of the fact, than in seeking to explain phenomena by the assumption of rotundity, another assumption is necessarily involved, viz., that nothing else will explain the phenomena in question but the foregone and gratuitous conclusion to which they have committed themselves. To argue, for instance, that because the lower part of an outward-bound vessel disappears before the mast-head, the water must be round, is to assume that a round surface only can produce such an effect. But if it can be shown that a simple law of perspective in connection with a plane surface necessarily produces this appearance, the assumption of rotundity is not required, and all the misleading fallacies and confusion involved in or mixed up with it may be avoided.

Before explaining the influence of perspective in causing-the hull of a ship to disappear first when outward bound, it is necessary to remove an error in its application, which artists and teachers have generally committed, and which if persisted in will not only prevent their giving, as it has hitherto done, absolutely correct representations of natural things, but also deprive them of the power to understand the cause of the lower part of any receding object disappearing to the eye before any higher portion--even though the surface on which it moves is admittedly and provably horizontal.

"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet." 1

The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following:. when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.

From the above it follows:--

1.--That the larger the object the further will it require to go from the observer before it becomes invisible.

2.--The further any two bodies, or any two parts of the same body, are asunder, the further must they recede before they appear to converge to the same point.

3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body.
Read more: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

Classical example:



Accompanying video: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

In addition: Ship :

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Now you can proceed with your wordplay (obscuring the meanings of the words)....

« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 03:41:19 AM by cikljamas »

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #86 on: October 20, 2014, 05:44:58 AM »
Yes, Iunderstand how you claim it works.  However, none of these videos actually are supporting your claims of ships being restored from beyond the horizon.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #87 on: October 20, 2014, 06:12:36 AM »
Yes, Iunderstand how you claim it works.  However, none of these videos actually are supporting your claims of ships being restored from beyond the horizon.

Or maybe being restored from beyond vanishing point, shouldn't we use that phrase ("vanishing point") instead of "horizon", so that you cannot play with words any more?  ;)

?

Goth

  • 220
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #88 on: October 20, 2014, 06:31:16 AM »

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #89 on: October 20, 2014, 06:32:37 AM »
Yes, Iunderstand how you claim it works.  However, none of these videos actually are supporting your claims of ships being restored from beyond the horizon.

Or maybe being restored from beyond vanishing point, shouldn't we use that phrase ("vanishing point") instead of "horizon", so that you cannot play with words any more?  ;)
Now who's vanishing point? Yours or the camera's?  The digital camera's sensor might not be adequate enough to see the boat out on the ocean while a human eye can?