Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan

Quote from: modestman on May 16, 2015, 11:15:03 PM

I tell you something you are asshole i hope the earth is flat despite that what i said people like you are trash.

Easy there mate, trolling is about extreme patience, don't forget that.

You are hero,you know ? people don't like the damn world and you come here and remind them why they hate it so much.

You are hero,you know ? people don't like the damn world and you come here and remind them why they hate it so much.

My dream is to become an Avenger, or an X-Man, and my name is DEADPOOL.

Quote from: modestman on May 16, 2015, 11:55:03 PM

You are hero,you know ? people don't like the damn world and you come here and remind them why they hate it so much.

My dream is to become an Avenger, or an X-Man, and my name is DEADPOOL.

So just fuck Spider-Man I guess

I just watched the following video about the solar analemma.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Can anyone explain (alpha2omega, aliveandkicking etc) why the author is wrong? They claim this proves flat Earth.

Only proves Zetetic Flat Earth is a faithful follower of Rowbotham,   No maths, no explanation,  just unsupported assertions.   
The analemma is a result of the earth's tilt and elliptical orbit,   better explanation and maths here http://www.analemma.com

Flat earth theory doesn't even come close to an explanation.

Quote from: abaaaabbbb63 on May 17, 2015, 12:11:14 AM

Quote from: modestman on May 16, 2015, 11:55:03 PM

You are hero,you know ? people don't like the damn world and you come here and remind them why they hate it so much.

My dream is to become an Avenger, or an X-Man, and my name is DEADPOOL.

So just fuck Spider-Man I guess

Not literally, I hope.

Quote from: Saros on May 16, 2015, 02:27:12 AM

I just watched the following video about the solar analemma.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Can anyone explain (alpha2omega, aliveandkicking etc) why the author is wrong? They claim this proves flat Earth.

Only proves Zetetic Flat Earth is a faithful follower of Rowbotham,   No maths, no explanation,  just unsupported assertions.   
The analemma is a result of the earth's tilt and elliptical orbit,   better explanation and maths here http://www.analemma.com

Flat earth theory doesn't even come close to an explanation.

This makes sense. I actually wonder why they even attempt to discuss these topics when clearly they lack the education and the understanding of the subject. It is mostly based on faith that the Earth is flat, so the facts don't matter.

Quote from: Saros on May 16, 2015, 01:38:35 AM

Quote from: modestman on May 15, 2015, 07:07:01 PM

another question:Mahrai ziller says and you probably say also that when you climb on a mountain by a global model you should see further away, bigger range, why then you won't notice the curvature ?

The Earth's diameter is 12742 km. If you're on top of a mountain 5 km tall, how do you expect to see the Earth is a ball? You're barely off the surface.

Why do roundies routinely claim that you can see the curvature of the Earth from a beach or even from a plane at cruising altitude?

Probably because the horizon is visible all around you. It makes a circle,if you are easily confused you might mistake it for a sphere.

Why do roundies routinely claim that you can see the curvature of the Earth from a beach or even from a plane at cruising altitude?

Nobody has ever claimed that you can see it at sea level and you can only see it from an airplane if you have a really wide field of view that the small airplane windows don't give you.

Quote from: jroa on May 16, 2015, 01:42:07 AM

Why do roundies routinely claim that you can see the curvature of the Earth from a beach or even from a plane at cruising altitude?

Nobody has ever claimed that you can see it at sea level and you can only see it from an airplane if you have a really wide field of view that the small airplane windows don't give you.

Pilots report no curvature at commercial cruising altitude.
People have claimed to witnessed curvature on the sea at sea level. It's true. It's not correct and is an illusion, but the claim has been made.

And fe'ers have claimed you will see curvature on a flat earth, do you have a point?

And fe'ers have claimed you will see curvature on a flat earth, do you have a point?

I can't be responsible for the things other people say.
I was just pointing out two facts.
You can draw conclusions based on them as you wish.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 18, 2015, 04:04:13 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 16, 2015, 01:42:07 AM

Why do roundies routinely claim that you can see the curvature of the Earth from a beach or even from a plane at cruising altitude?

Nobody has ever claimed that you can see it at sea level and you can only see it from an airplane if you have a really wide field of view that the small airplane windows don't give you.

Pilots report no curvature at commercial cruising altitude.
People have claimed to witnessed curvature on the sea at sea level. It's true. It's not correct and is an illusion, but the claim has been made.

I have also seen "curvature" at the sea level, but that is an illusionary curvature. It is due to the fact that the opposite coast is curving(i.e. some parts of it are closer to you than others) and observed from a distance it looks like the horizon is curving. The coast across a bay is not a straight line from your perspective, so it is easy to get fooled by that illusion, that is why some people say they have seen the curvature from the beach. They are wrong. You can only see it from a much higher altitude if you have greater field of view.

Here is an example of the illusion:

On top of that :

If the earth is globular, the two ends east and west of the Isle of Wight would be 80 feet below the centre, and would appear in the field of view of the theodolite as represented in fig. 20. As a proof that such would be the appearance, the same instrument directed upon any object having an upper outline curved in the smallest degree, will detect and plainly show the curvature in relation to the cross-hair a b; or the levelled board employed in experiment 7, fig. 18, will prove the same condition to exist; viz., that the margin of the Isle of Wight is, for twenty-two miles, a perfectly straight line; and instead of curvating downwards 80 feet each way from the centre, as it certainly would if convexity existed, it is absolutely horizontal.



A line stretched horizontally before the observer would not only show the various elevations of the land, but would also show the declination of the horizon H, H, below the cross-line S, S. The fifty miles length of the Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay, would have a declination from the centre of at least 416 feet (252 x .8 inches = 416 feet 8 inches). But as such declination, or downward curvation, cannot be detected, the conclusion is logically inevitable that it has no existence. Let the reader seriously ask whether any and what reason exists in Nature to prevent the fall of more than 400 feet being visible to the eye, or incapable of detection by any optical or mathematical means whatever. This question is especially important when it is considered that at the same distance, and on the upper outline of the same land, changes of level of only a few yards extent are quickly and unmistakably perceptible.

If he is guided by evidence and reason, and influenced by a love of truth and consistency, he cannot longer maintain that the earth is a globe. He must feel that to do so is to war with the evidence of his senses, to deny that any importance attaches to fact and experiment, to ignore entirely the value of logical process, and to cease to rely upon practical induction. READ MORE : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm

Chicago Skyline seen from Michigan Proves "Flat Earth" : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Have a good time! 

You just have to stop rotting your brain with those youtube videos.   The word you are looking for is looming.   You should now go google for  "atmospheric looming"   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looming_and_similar_refraction_phenomena

please educate yourself. They are two different types of mirages.

There are so many different pictures on the internet.

You have to do your own long distance experiments with a (tele)scope. Isn't that obvious?

Quote from: cikljamas on May 16, 2015, 03:44:10 AM

Pictures of Chicago skyline we've seen before.

On top of that :

If the earth is globular, the two ends east and west of the Isle of Wight would be 80 feet below the centre, and would appear in the field of view of the theodolite as represented in fig. 20. As a proof that such would be the appearance, the same instrument directed upon any object having an upper outline curved in the smallest degree, will detect and plainly show the curvature in relation to the cross-hair a b; or the levelled board employed in experiment 7, fig. 18, will prove the same condition to exist; viz., that the margin of the Isle of Wight is, for twenty-two miles, a perfectly straight line; and instead of curvating downwards 80 feet each way from the centre, as it certainly would if convexity existed, it is absolutely horizontal.

The Isle of Wight is a little more than 22 miles long; 22 miles is 116,160 feet. If you fill the entire FOV of a theodolite's telescope with the 116,160 feet of island as shown in Fig. 19., above, the the 80 feet of curvature would amount to 0.07% of the vertical FOV, not a large fraction of it as depicted in Fig. 20.

In order to see what is suggested, the island would have to span about 1/6 the circumference of the Earth (just looking at the curvature depicted in Fig. 20. by eye), so the island would have to be 4200 miles long, or the Earth about 22 miles in radius. Neither of these is reasonable. Yet another of Rowbotham's arguments is easily shown to fail miserably.

Quote

<Some mumbo-jumbo about the Welsh Coast that seems unrelated.>

If he is guided by evidence and reason, and influenced by a love of truth and consistency, he cannot longer maintain that the earth is a globe. He must feel that to do so is to war with the evidence of his senses, to deny that any importance attaches to fact and experiment, to ignore entirely the value of logical process, and to cease to rely upon practical induction. READ MORE : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm

<yv;dw [yootoob vid; didn't watch]>

Have a good time! 

Always do. That was easy. Any questions?

I love how Rowbotham, of all people, talks glibly about "guided by evidence and reason, and influenced by a love of truth and consistency".

This stuff is amazing. It's astonishing that anyone would even pretend to believe any of this.

[Edit] Resize image. Sorry about that.

I've been reading up on Rowbotham,  and he really was a troll.    Quoting from wikipedia.  And following the current trend for red highlighting.

Rowbotham started out as an organiser of an Owenite commune in the Fens, where he first observed the strange phenomenon on the Bedford level that led to his theories about the earth. Following allegations of sexual misconduct he reinvented himself as an itinerant lecturer under the name Parallax. He took a little time to learn his trade, running away from a lecture in Blackburn when he couldn't explain why the hulls of ships disappeared before their masts when sailing out to sea.[1] However, as he persisted in filling halls by charging sixpence a lecture his quick-wittedness and debating skills were honed so much that he could "counter every argument with ingenuity, wit and consummate skill".[2]

His book Zetetic Astronomy - The Earth not a Globe appeared in 1864. His lectures continued and concerned citizens addressed letters to the Astronomer Royal seeking rebuttals for his claims. A correspondent to the Leeds Times observed that "One thing he did demonstrate was that scientific dabblers unused to platform advocacy are unable to cope with a man, a charlatan if you will (but clever and thoroughly up in his theory), thoroughly alive to the weakness of his opponents".[5]

I know exactly what they mean,   lucky we don't have any debaters of Rowbotham's skill around to contend with

I know exactly what they mean,   lucky we don't have any debaters of Rowbotham's skill around to contend with

Indeed - though he'd be fucked on an internet debate, when his nonsense (like the Isle of Wight shit) could be checked before you answer.

Anyway, I'm actually off the Isle of Wight on Friday - I will measure it's curvature while I'm there and report back. 

Quote from: cikljamas on May 16, 2015, 03:44:10 AM

On top of that :

If the earth is globular, the two ends east and west of the Isle of Wight would be 80 feet below the centre, and would appear in the field of view of the theodolite as represented in fig. 20. As a proof that such would be the appearance, the same instrument directed upon any object having an upper outline curved in the smallest degree, will detect and plainly show the curvature in relation to the cross-hair a b; or the levelled board employed in experiment 7, fig. 18, will prove the same condition to exist; viz., that the margin of the Isle of Wight is, for twenty-two miles, a perfectly straight line; and instead of curvating downwards 80 feet each way from the centre, as it certainly would if convexity existed, it is absolutely horizontal.



A line stretched horizontally before the observer would not only show the various elevations of the land, but would also show the declination of the horizon H, H, below the cross-line S, S. The fifty miles length of the Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay, would have a declination from the centre of at least 416 feet (252 x .8 inches = 416 feet 8 inches). But as such declination, or downward curvation, cannot be detected, the conclusion is logically inevitable that it has no existence. Let the reader seriously ask whether any and what reason exists in Nature to prevent the fall of more than 400 feet being visible to the eye, or incapable of detection by any optical or mathematical means whatever. This question is especially important when it is considered that at the same distance, and on the upper outline of the same land, changes of level of only a few yards extent are quickly and unmistakably perceptible.

If he is guided by evidence and reason, and influenced by a love of truth and consistency, he cannot longer maintain that the earth is a globe. He must feel that to do so is to war with the evidence of his senses, to deny that any importance attaches to fact and experiment, to ignore entirely the value of logical process, and to cease to rely upon practical induction. READ MORE : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm

Chicago Skyline seen from Michigan Proves "Flat Earth" : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Have a good time! 

Regarding this Rowbotham's experiment, shouldn't we be looking for a hight of a Third Hump/Bulge, instead of a hight of a First/Second Hump/Bulge? ---

Your doing your calculations wrong.  You are calculating the height of the bulge correctly but that's not how you calculate visibility distance.  You have to find out the arc distance at which your line of sight is tangent to the sphere of the Earth for both objects in question and add them together to get the maximum distance at which those two objects can see each other given their altitude and the size of the Earth.  If you are going to pretend like you care about math then at least do a bit of research first.

Your doing your calculations wrong.  You are calculating the height of the bulge correctly but that's not how you calculate visibility distance.  You have to find out the arc distance at which your line of sight is tangent to the sphere of the Earth for both objects in question and add them together to get the maximum distance at which those two objects can see each other given their altitude and the size of the Earth.  If you are going to pretend like you care about math then at least do a bit of research first.

Maybe you have missed this part:

A very striking illustration of the true form of the sea horizon may be observed from the high land in the neighbourhood of the head of Portsmouth Harbour. Looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the base or margin of the island, where water and land come together, appears to be a straight line from east to west, a length of twenty-two statute miles. READ MORE : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm

Congratulations Cikljamas, you just proved that refraction exists.  Refraction actually causes light over the ocean to bend down when a temperature inversion is created which makes things visable from a further distance in a round Earth, it's well understood and easy to predict.  Nothing you have said has proven round Earth.

Congratulations Cikljamas, you just proved that refraction exists.  Refraction actually causes light over the ocean to bend down when a temperature inversion is created which makes things visable from a further distance in a round Earth, it's well understood and easy to predict.  Nothing you have said has proven round Earth.

8 % in normal circumstances max.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 21, 2015, 10:54:07 AM

Your doing your calculations wrong.  You are calculating the height of the bulge correctly but that's not how you calculate visibility distance.  You have to find out the arc distance at which your line of sight is tangent to the sphere of the Earth for both objects in question and add them together to get the maximum distance at which those two objects can see each other given their altitude and the size of the Earth.  If you are going to pretend like you care about math then at least do a bit of research first.

Maybe you have missed this part:

A very striking illustration of the true form of the sea horizon may be observed from the high land in the neighbourhood of the head of Portsmouth Harbour. Looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the base or margin of the island, where water and land come together, appears to be a straight line from east to west, a length of twenty-two statute miles. READ MORE : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm

In the diagrams in the web page you linked to the example of how it should look on a round Earth had an arc length of over 45 degrees.  This would imply that the mountain was bigger then the United States and so tall that it will become a hazard for most satellites with so much mass that it will noticably alter Earth's gravity.  Do I really have to explain to you how stupid that is?  Please start grinding the rusty gears in the spacial reasoning part of your brain.

Mikeman,

Do you really believe that before Rowbotham presented his illustration of a supposed curvature of the Earth (in fig. 20), he had expected of his potential readers to be so stupid to believe that what (a degree of a curvature) was going to be presented with that illustration (fig. 20) should have been interpreted/understood literally?

Although, i have to admit, he couldn't have supposed, that someone like you could ever appear on the face of the Earth.

Mikeman,

Do you really believe that before Rowbotham presented his illustration of a supposed curvature of the Earth (in fig. 20), he had expected of his potential readers to be so stupid to believe that what (a degree of a curvature) was going to be presented with that illustration (fig. 20) should have been interpreted/understood literally?

Although, i have to admit, he couldn't have supposed, that someone like you could ever appear on the face of the Earth.

In reality the curvature is so small that it can't be detected without special instruments.  I have proven this with math many times, the horizon at sea level should be less then half a degree below eye level and that doesn't create much curvature.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 21, 2015, 10:54:07 AM

Your doing your calculations wrong.  You are calculating the height of the bulge correctly but that's not how you calculate visibility distance.  You have to find out the arc distance at which your line of sight is tangent to the sphere of the Earth for both objects in question and add them together to get the maximum distance at which those two objects can see each other given their altitude and the size of the Earth.  If you are going to pretend like you care about math then at least do a bit of research first.

Maybe you have missed this part:

A very striking illustration of the true form of the sea horizon may be observed from the high land in the neighbourhood of the head of Portsmouth Harbour. Looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the base or margin of the island, where water and land come together, appears to be a straight line from east to west, a length of twenty-two statute miles. READ MORE : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm

From a vantage point in Portsmouth Harbor the Isle of Wight is only about 12 miles across.  One would have to be in the Fawley area to even be perpendicular to the island's 22 mile length.

Mikeman,

Do you really believe that before Rowbotham presented his illustration of a supposed curvature of the Earth (in fig. 20), he had expected of his potential readers to be so stupid to believe that what (a degree of a curvature) was going to be presented with that illustration (fig. 20) should have been interpreted/understood literally?

Yes, absolutely. That's how he made his living.

You copied it here without any disclaimer since you thought it illustrated something, so it still apparently fools works with some readers even in the 21^st Century.

"Stupid" may be an unwarranted description, though. Many of the people taken in were probably pretty smart, but uneducated. "Ignorant" may be more reasonable.

Although, i have to admit, he couldn't have supposed, that someone like you could ever appear on the face of the Earth.

Any number of scientists are now experienced with addressing hand-waving showmen like him and would have been his worst nightmare. Fortunately for Rowbotham, like many snake-oil salesmen, the scientific establishment at the time weren't expecting aggressive charlatans like him. He survived in his niche, but times have changed.