Proof earth isn't flat! (All you troglodytes read)

As explained earlier, it is easiest and most correct to find the total horizontal distance. Calculate the RE drop, then subtract the camera height and the building heights. Our vision and camera resolution make it nearly impossible to make out details from nearly 50 miles. However we can clearly see the buildings are not behind the horizon, rather sitting on it.

As explained earlier, it is easiest and most correct to find the total horizontal distance. Calculate the RE drop, then subtract the camera height and the building heights. Our vision and camera resolution make it nearly impossible to make out details from nearly 50 miles. However we can clearly see the buildings are not behind the horizon, rather sitting on it.

You're calculating the horizontal drop of the orange line and then subtracting the height of the viewer. Look at the diagram and you can see this is clearly not correct. Until you understand this extremely simple idea, you're just talking out your arse. Your way may be easier, but it's certainly not correct.

Hoppy, the fact the bottom parts are missing of buildings which are hundred of feet high is only possible on a spherical earth, since they are below the horizon due to the curvature of the earth. It is the easiest to see and understand observation. You do not have to do any math. The missing bottom part suffice the earth is a sphere. Don't be stubborn about it, it is the way it is.

Incorrect, the math and pictures are included in this thread. The buildings are not covered by water, this conclusively proves that the earth is not a sphere.

Incorrect, the math and pictures are included in this thread. The buildings are not covered by water, this conclusively proves that the earth is not a sphere.

Why do all you FErs use such blatant non sequiturs? How does it follow that since the buildings are not covered by water, the earth is not a sphere.

Quote from: hoppy on August 03, 2013, 09:28:42 AM

Incorrect, the math and pictures are included in this thread. The buildings are not covered by water, this conclusively proves that the earth is not a sphere.

Why do all you FErs use such blatant non sequiturs? How does it follow that since the buildings are not covered by water, the earth is not a sphere.

Lurk more, read and study this thread.

Quote from: therationalist56 on August 03, 2013, 09:51:22 AM

Quote from: hoppy on August 03, 2013, 09:28:42 AM

Incorrect, the math and pictures are included in this thread. The buildings are not covered by water, this conclusively proves that the earth is not a sphere.

Why do all you FErs use such blatant non sequiturs? How does it follow that since the buildings are not covered by water, the earth is not a sphere.

Lurk more, read and study this thread.

I did read and study it. You made a non sequitur and I'm asking you to justify it... not explain what has already beens stated but justify why your non sequitur should not be consider a logical fallacy.

It does follow that if the earth drops nearly 1400', that you would not see a 600' building.

It does follow that if the earth drops nearly 1400', that you would not see a 600' building.

Which is what was addressed above using both logic and math. I suggest you lurk and study the thread more. Your claim that because the buildings are not covered by water, the earth is therefore flat does not follow.

Incorrect, the math and pictures are included in this thread. The buildings are not covered by water, this conclusively proves that the earth is not a sphere.

I suggest you buy some glasses then. There are buildings in the picture, several hundred feet tall, and yet you see only the very top. Only possible on a spherical earth. End of discussion.

Quote from: hoppy on August 03, 2013, 09:28:42 AM

Incorrect, the math and pictures are included in this thread. The buildings are not covered by water, this conclusively proves that the earth is not a sphere.

I suggest you buy some glasses then. There are buildings in the picture, several hundred feet tall, and yet you see only the very top. Only possible on a spherical earth. End of discussion.

I wish I could see the world through childlike eyes sometimes.  It would make life a lot simpler.  However, if you want to draw conclusions based on incorrect observations, then be my guest. 

So we're supposed to ignore the very obvious fact that most of the buildings are obscured completely, and of the ones we can see, a large portion is obscured? There is simply no way to have this happen on a flat earth!

Oh, and as regards the maths, Alex is exactly right:

Your way may be easier, but it's certainly not correct.

However, if you want to draw conclusions based on incorrect observations, then be my guest.

Observations are neither correct or incorrect.  It's the conclusions that you draw from from those observations that are subject to debate.

Quote from: Don Quichotte on August 03, 2013, 10:16:24 AM

Quote from: hoppy on August 03, 2013, 09:28:42 AM

Incorrect, the math and pictures are included in this thread. The buildings are not covered by water, this conclusively proves that the earth is not a sphere.

I suggest you buy some glasses then. There are buildings in the picture, several hundred feet tall, and yet you see only the very top. Only possible on a spherical earth. End of discussion.

I wish I could see the world through childlike eyes sometimes.  It would make life a lot simpler.  However, if you want to draw conclusions based on incorrect observations, then be my guest.

A suggestion: indicting someones' reasoning requires some reasoning of your own, not mere naysaying. Try it.

I will make a .dwg file tonight and we can settle this while letting anyone who cares also look at the raw data.  I will also post a screen shot, so you people do not have to worry about format.

How's that coming?  I'm curious to see it.

I did a 200x30,000 pixel diagram using the figures from ENaG to create the curve.  Not sure how well it would show up here though.

Here's my rather simple not-to-scale diagram in addition to the one Alex posted.

Green = line of sight from '0' elevation
Red = elevated
Blue = line of sight to base of building showing height of curvature 'hill'
L Green = length of 'hill' and drop actually blocking line of sight
purple = rough estimate of refraction



I based this off the diagram and drop tables from ENaG.

3 miles = 72in drop, so if I raise my point of view 72inches, I can now see to a point 3 miles distant, plus exposing far more than 72 inches of something further beyond that.

Not that hoppy'll respond, but I can try...:

Hey Hoppy, notice how the difference in the light green and dark green 'drop distances' is a LOT more than the altitude of the camera. Yeah. That's why you can't just subtract 20' from the drop distance and call it good.

@29, what's with the point of the 3 miles? The total distance is almost 50 miles. Get the total RE drop, then subtract the elavations, ie the height of the camera, the height of the buildings.

Actually the total distance is about 46.5 miles (from where the photographer put a marker for the picture location to the Willis Tower).

I put the diagram from ENaG in there showing how it coincides with my diagram.  From an elevation of 'zero' the drop would hide a lot below 72inches after 3 miles.

By raising up 72 inches, one could see the surface at 3 miles before the drop starts to hide anything.  Even then, looking at where the 4 and 5 mile marks would be, a lot more than 72 inches of something would be visible at those distances.

Maybe jroa's diagram will show something different. 

Quote from: hoppy on July 30, 2013, 10:17:42 AM

Yes it is a losing battle. 29silohette is a good guy, so i responded to him. If you want to add anything go ahead.

I will make a .dwg file tonight and we can settle this while letting anyone who cares also look at the raw data.  I will also post a screen shot, so you people do not have to worry about format.

Any update on that file, Jroa?  It'd be helpful to deciding the thread.

Quote from: jroa on July 30, 2013, 10:28:44 AM

Quote from: hoppy on July 30, 2013, 10:17:42 AM

Yes it is a losing battle. 29silohette is a good guy, so i responded to him. If you want to add anything go ahead.

I will make a .dwg file tonight and we can settle this while letting anyone who cares also look at the raw data.  I will also post a screen shot, so you people do not have to worry about format.

Any update on that file, Jroa?  It'd be helpful to deciding the thread.

Been a three week long night, is there anything going with that file or do we need to wait a month?

Instead of doing calculus on internet and tracing curves and stuff, why nobody goes on this lake with laser emittor/receptor to check the curvature/flatitude of the Earth?

I mean it would be easy, one person American side, one person Canadian side.

Could the FES make such an experiment? Proving that the 50kms lake is exactry FLAT would mean something. No?

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 13, 2013, 07:10:58 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 30, 2013, 10:28:44 AM

Quote from: hoppy on July 30, 2013, 10:17:42 AM

Yes it is a losing battle. 29silohette is a good guy, so i responded to him. If you want to add anything go ahead.

I will make a .dwg file tonight and we can settle this while letting anyone who cares also look at the raw data.  I will also post a screen shot, so you people do not have to worry about format.

Any update on that file, Jroa?  It'd be helpful to deciding the thread.

Been a three week long night, is there anything going with that file or do we need to wait a month?

Yeah, I forgot about this.  I will post it shortly.  Stay tuned. 

Sorry but the Earth is flat. Want proof? Look outside your window.

This thread still active? If so, question for the supporters.

According to the "supported"* world map, reposting for convenience,



it would imply there is a significant difference in the distance between, say New York and Lisbon, versus Rio Gallegos and Cape Town.

Basically I just said mid North America to western Europe versus southern South America to southern Africa, for ease of reference.

Rio Gallegos to Cape Town: 6,970 kilometers.

New York to Lisbon: 5,422 kilometers.

Now, compare those distances to the FE world map. It does not seem to add up. Care to explain?

Sorry but the Earth is flat. Want proof? Look outside your window.

Funny, when I look out my window I see so much evidence supporting a round earth, and next to nothing to support a flat earth, apart from the appearance of flatness, which could just be (is) due to the earth being a really big ball.

Sorry but the Earth is flat. Want proof? Look outside your window.

frozen_berries, I am glad you are back; however, please do not bump threads unless you are going to add content.  We are trying to make things even across the boards lately as far as low content goes, and this post could be considered low in content.

Please feel free to share more flat Earth knowledge.  I hope this does not discourage you. 

Quote from: frozen_berries on August 24, 2013, 04:33:29 AM

Sorry but the Earth is flat. Want proof? Look outside your window.

Funny, when I look out my window I see so much evidence supporting a round earth, and next to nothing to support a flat earth, apart from the appearance of flatness, which could just be (is) due to the earth being a really big ball.

so what evidence do you see that supports the RET when you look our your window?

Quote from: Scintific Method on August 24, 2013, 05:09:27 AM

Quote from: frozen_berries on August 24, 2013, 04:33:29 AM

Sorry but the Earth is flat. Want proof? Look outside your window.

Funny, when I look out my window I see so much evidence supporting a round earth, and next to nothing to support a flat earth, apart from the appearance of flatness, which could just be (is) due to the earth being a really big ball.

so what evidence do you see that supports the RET when you look our your window?

Sunrise; sunset; clouds and aircraft illuminated from underneath by the sun at these times (without the possibility of reflected light being responsible); mountains that appear lower than they should, despite details such as transmission towers still being visible; the South Celestial pole; Crux (every night, for the whole night); the moon in it's various phases, it's current phase always being consistent with it's relative position to the sun; etc, etc...

While we wait for jroa's diagram, here's the rough 200x30,000 pixel diagram I did.  I plotted out points along the curvature from a straight and level line working from the table in ENaG, and then went from point to point connecting them. 

Red= zero elevation line of sight
Green = slight elevation line of sight
Blue = higher elevation line of sight

These lines are straight and don't take refraction into account.
(scroll to the right)


http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/1945/fbdl.png

How is yours coming along jroa?

Check your image link.  Diagram's not showing up for me.