# Non-debate proof for globe earth

• 13 Replies
• 1128 Views
?

#### flat_theory_is_wrong

• 4
##### Non-debate proof for globe earth
« on: June 04, 2017, 05:12:36 AM »
These two videos prove without any debate that earth is a globe absolutely.
Thanks to people like him that making strong evidence against flat earth theory.
Promote these videos.

#### Shifter

• 10364
• ASI
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2017, 05:46:13 AM »
These videos do nothing to debunk the theory we could primarily exist in a 2D flat universe and what we may be seeing is a 3D holographic projection.

Nice try though

#### InFlatEarth

• 1637
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2017, 12:48:17 PM »
The video has been solved with the use of trigonometry

Angle = 2*atan(diameter/distance).

Where diameter is building Height 190m
Distance is the distance that we have, but in meter not kilometers

At 25.0 km, the angle is 0.87 Degrees
At 28.4 km, the angle is 0.77 Degrees
At 34.7 km, the angle is 0.63 Degrees
At 40.3 km, the angle is 0.54 Degrees
At 45.1 km, the angle is 0.48 Degrees
At 47.9 km, the angle is 0.45Degrees

The difference between the angle of the first reading at 25 km and the rest are as follows

At 25.0 km, 0
At 28.4 km, 0.119714
At 34.7 km, 0.279532
At 40.3 km, 0.379645
At 45.1 km, 0.445669
At 47.9 km, 0.478072

Know if multiply the difference of the angles with the number of blocks and then we subtract that number form the 8 blocks that we see originally we get the following

At 25.0 km – 8 Blocks
At 28.4 km, – 7.042284041 Blocks
At 34.7 km, – 5.763742129 Blocks
At 40.3 km, – 4.962837934 Blocks
At 45.1 km, – 4.434648944 Blocks
At 47.9 km, – 4.175423834 Blocks

Original from movie
At 25.0 km – 8 Blocks
At 28.4 km, – 7 Blocks
At 34.7 km, – 6 Blocks
At 40.3 km, – 5 Blocks
At 45.1 km, – 3.5 Blocks
At 47.9 km, – 3 Blocks

We get very close answers to what we so with an average error of 4.5%, which is very good, considering that most of the error was from the last two readings.

This is due to perspective and optics, not do to curvature.
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

?

#### JackBlack

• 10947
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2017, 04:05:29 PM »
The video has been solved with the use of trigonometry
No it hasn't. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about.

Angle = 2*atan(diameter/distance).
It is radius, not diameter, but for a building that just goes up, it is just atan(height/distance).

Regardless, this just tells you the apparent size of the building.

Know if multiply the difference of the angles with the number of blocks and then we subtract that number form the 8 blocks that we see originally we get the following
Why would you subtract it?

All that should be happening is the building appearing to shrink, not magically have some disappear.

This is due to perspective and optics, not do to curvature.
No it isn't. If it was just perspective and optics, the building would simply shrink, not have the bottom disappear.

#### Mikey T.

• 2398
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2017, 05:58:26 PM »
The video has been solved with the use of trigonometry

OH JOY YOUR TRIED MATH... Nvm, you don't know What you are doing.  Well at least you tried.

This is due to perspective and optics, not do to curvature.

Without math.  Notice the size of each section of floors.  He purposefully made sure all images were zoomed in correctly to make sure the building was at the same scale.  Notice how floors were disappearing and not the building shrinking.  Notice how the buildings near it that were shorter disappeared behind the curvature of the Earth.  Notice how it was the bottom floors disappearing behind the curve while the top floors remained relatively the same size in each photo?
Guess not.  No math needed.  Just simple common sense, or what the FE people say, "I believe what I can see".  I have done a slightly similar experiment with the same results, I saw his controls and the video leading up to the stills being captured right there.  No reason to suspect fakery.

?

#### prkearther

• 6
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2017, 06:38:01 AM »
These videos do nothing to debunk the theory we could primarily exist in a 2D flat universe and what we may be seeing is a 3D holographic projection.

Nice try though

Why is this relevant?

?

#### flat_theory_is_wrong

• 4
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2019, 06:58:07 AM »
Thanks to all specially InFlatEarth.
After years research i figured out the earth is flat. So i am making a best model of heavens On the plate. Globe is done.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 17964
• Backstage
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2019, 10:37:48 AM »
These two videos prove without any debate that earth is a globe absolutely.
Thanks to people like him that making strong evidence against flat earth theory.
Promote these videos.

It is not about the shape of the earth. It is about angular size's not being linear.

Here, a looking at this problem:

Can ignorant people go out and only mathematicians remain?

Walk through

Is not there anybody done it yet?

What all these mean:

The object on second or third point generally prevents you see the remained ones.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78362.0

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 17964
• Backstage
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2019, 10:45:51 AM »
Angular size isn't a linear function but a second order function limits our perspective.

I want to show you first its mentality.

In this example, you see an object has a high of 1 metre. When you stay a high as 2 metre, theorically you can see the C point. But this theory collapsed. It is collapsed "now".

If you think the distance as so long, as equal your sight limit, so you can understand the issue.

I'll take 100kms as our sight limit. Actually it is smaller than it, depend on sensitivity of our eyes or tool we use; but even so I'll take it as 100kms.

I've calculated it as 114 kms earlier; as follow.

Calculating the maximum sight range:

Our eyes are not perfect so we are limited with a sight range. We can not notice objects have apparent size smaller than 0,00005°.

As a solve the problem of wave, we can use a high place. Whether if waves arrive 5 metres high, we can solve it by stay on an object more than 5 metres. But we can solve the problem we have not perfect eyes.

With a binoculars or not, our sight range is limited with our eye limit as follow shape:

One rod cells do not provide a sensitivity. We need a bunch of rod cells for aware the object. I take it as 10. More close estimate can be calculated by obversations. Anyways.

We can calculate our minimum sight range as:

1°/2000 cells , and it is equal to 0,0005°

So we can calculate the maximum distance we can observe of an object have 10 metres high.

D/L = tan a

10 metres / L? = tan 0.0005

>> so

L= 10/tan 0,0005 = 114591 metres
L= 114 kms.

It is related with sensitivity if your eye. Distance of it with binoculars is related with sensitivity if binoculars.

Now, lets turn to our problem again:

There is an object stays half of it.

If we see the angular size as object equal to 1 metre, so we can see the C object. But we practically know that the angular size of object are so so small after a short while. The angular size of objects practically changes like the following diagram.

If we compare overlaps our sight angle and angular sizes, so we can understand that we can not see a 1 metre hight object behing a 1 metre object whether if we stay a point higher than it after a distance.

So; where is the problem caused from?

Here:

We can see that these functions aren't equal in following diagram:

Actually these are more than a second order  function , but it is enough we take them as second order functions.

If we conclude the topic, so because of the angular size of object decreases as a second order function but the geometric angle that limits us is in the form of a straight line; so that we can not see an object behind the other one has equal or less high; although we stay a high enough point.

Best regards.

Zeta bless you.

?

#### JackBlack

• 10947
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2019, 03:26:17 PM »
It is not about the shape of the earth. It is about angular size's not being linear.
It has nothing to do with the angular size not being linear.
The ship appearing smaller when it is further away doesn't magically make the bottom disappear.
You need an object (like Earth) to get in the way.
There are only 2 options:
Either Earth is round so the ship is being obscured by the horizon, or light magically bends.

#### rabinoz

• 21642
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2019, 06:51:43 PM »
It is not about the shape of the earth. It is about angular size's not being linear.
It has nothing to do with the angular size not being linear.
The ship appearing smaleler when it is further away doesn't magically make the bottom disappear.
You need an object (like Earth) to get in the way.
There are only 2 options:
Either Earth is round so the ship is being obscured by the horizon, or light magically bends.
Jack, you need to study up on Flerspective which "explains everything":

Explaining Sunrise & Sunset On Flat Earth by MrThriveAndSurvive
(AKA MrLiveToDeceive).
His real Flerspective starts at around 5:15 with the Flat Earthers magic Perspective Matrix.

Here's another:

TIMELAPSE OF THE SUN PROVES FLAT EARTH - HD perspective matrix by p-brane

The nitty-gritty starts at about 10:34.
Their basic premise is that the visual horizon is the vanishing point for all (sufficiently large) objects therefore
it "logically follows" that objects past the visible horizon (somehow) gradually disappear under it.
That's so wrong that it's hard to know how to respond but that sort of logic or simply "we don't know how light behaves over such vast distances" is quite common.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2019, 07:25:10 PM by rabinoz »

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 17964
• Backstage
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2019, 11:27:16 PM »
It is not about the shape of the earth. It is about angular size's not being linear.
It has nothing to do with the angular size not being linear.
It directly related with angular size's being linear or not. Since you are an ignorant about high mathematics so you don't have an idea. So stop to interfene the issue you have not enough knowledge or simple agree the earth's being flat. Grow up.

#### John Davis

• Secretary Of The Society
• 15369
• Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2019, 12:29:55 AM »
Explain it so we can all get it, without knowledge of higher mathematics then. The truth should, by most accounts, be simple and obvious but beyond our reach.
Quantum Ab Hoc

#### Macarios

• 1621
##### Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2019, 05:53:48 AM »
Let's speak about those "non-linear angles":

This diagram here shows two observation points, U and L.
Altitude of U is 10 km,  altitude of L is 1 km.

In reality:
- U will have horizon at A, which is 357.3 km away
- L will have horizon at B, which is 112.9 km away

In Flat model:
Looking from L, the segment of the ground that covers 1/60th of a degree (1 arc minute, resolution of an average human eye) is from A to C.
C is at 323.66 km, which is 33.64 km closer than A.

Why L can't see the segment AC?

If we select some random point M at, say, 233 km, then the ground segment between A and M will seen from L have angular size of 0.086 degrees (5.16 arc minutes).
That is more than 5 times bigger than the average human ability to distinguish details.

Why L can't see the segment AM?

And finally:

Why L can't see beyond B?

SL = 1 km
SU = 10 km
SB = 112.9 km
SM = 233.0 km
SC = 323.66 km
SA = 357.3 km

ALC = 1 arc min (1/60 = 0.0166666 degrees)
ALM = 5.16 arc min (0.086 degrees)
ALB = 21 arc min (0.35 degrees)

~~~~~

Ofcourse, everyone is allowed to calculate refraction and apply the corrections.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.