You are a funny guy at times aren't you ?
No ? what ''no'' did i assume something ?
You can not transpose things that are measured on earth
You really don't understand do you?
They have measured things in space as well.
to the universe and say it is rock solid evidence for everything that occurs in the universe.
The scientific method relies upon a few assumptions. One is that Earth isn't special. Meaning if it works here, it should work elsewhere.
They can measure the unimaginable and lately even beyond all reason.....a disturbance the size of 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to proof supposed gravitational waves.
In order to achieve such precision they built a 4 km long head-vaporizing laser with a perfect wavelength detecting sub-proton space-time ripples.
Science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence.
That is evidence of gravitational waves, regardless of if you like it. Also, it wasn't 1, it was 2 interferometers.
They can calculate the distance to the moon in mm.
Says who?
But the curvature formula is still flawed and roughly measured !!!
Do you know why?
The curvature of Earth isn't constant.
It varies from place to place.
The radius at the equator is larger than the radius at the poles.
And to built a device that shows the curvature and curving ocean water is still absent in 2017
No. That has been done long ago. You just reject it.
We even have photos from space clearly showing the curve, and you just reject it.
More and more people dismiss ''your'' hogwash made out of a pendulum, sinking shipmasts, unlimited refractional magic and testimonies from some fantasy figures from Babylon and Greece long gone.
You mean reality, which you are unable to refute in any rational, honest way.
Also, we aren't the ones with refractional magic. That would be the FEers, making up pure bullshit to explain why the bottom of distant objects are missing, and why the sun appears to set.
If they can measure their precious gravity waves then asking for an accurate curvature calculator up to at least a mm for a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000+ km (all the way around earth ) shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.
We can do that, quite easily, but EARTH IS NOT A PERFECT SPHERE!!!
Do you understand that?
It also depends upon how you measure the drop and the distance, and requires a perfect measurement of the radius.
Even if it was a perfect sphere, you still have the atmosphere, which can have numerous different gradients in it (temperature, pressure, water vapour, density, etc) effecting the refractive index of it which can make the curvature appear more or less.
You aren't asking for a model of reality.
You are asking for a model of a straw man, but here it is:
So you have your radius sphere of radius R in a perfect vacuum so there is no atmosphere in the way, and it is a perfect sphere so no oblateness, no mountains or valleys, just a perfectly smooth and perfectly symmetrical sphere.
But which way are we going to measure it?
We have 3 options for h and d.
So which would you like:
Fortunately, there are simple formulas you can use.
a=d1/R.
tan(a)=d2/R, sin(a2)=d2/R
Thus a=atan(d2/R), a2=asin(d2/R)
sin(a)=d3/R
Thus a=asin(d3/R).
cos(a)=R/(R+h1)
thus h1=R/cos(a)-R
cos(a2)=(R-h2)/R
h2=R-R*cos(a2)
cos(a)=(R-h3)/R
h3=R-R*cos(a)
And you can also get other relationships:
(h1+R)^2=R^2+d2^2
R^2=(R-h3)^2+d3^2
R^2=(R-h2)^2+d2^2
And you can simplify them all (by taking approximations where a is small as is h compared to R, and that gives you h=d^2/(2*R).
Why are you buying that ''we'' crap ?
Did you go to the moon ?
We refers to humanity.
Numbers are irrelevant...thruth is !
And that is something you seriously lack.
And Gus Grissom's wife did reveal what scumbags the FBI are, to take away all Gus writings hours after he passed away....his relatives are sure he was killed.
Sure, they "know" he was killed, without any evidence of that.
In reality, they don't know, they just believe that.
You can still choose to join us and expose the liars or maintain part of the corrupt deceivers....I kinda like you and i think you deserve a better perspective.
We are exposing the liars. They are the FEers.
Don't you think it would be awesome to show people the curve over 5 miles using a rail or other device instead of looking to a ceiling where a fucking pendulum is attached !
Then you go buy the 5 miles of land and the rails and set it up.
And how are you planning on setting it up to show the curve?
How are you planning on verifying a level piece of ground (or other surface) to compare the height of the rails to?
Considering you are a paranoid delusional nutcase, what would it take to convince you?
Would you need to take your own tape measure/ruler to measure each point?
You can't use water because that could be carefully pumped in or out as you moved around, and you clearly aren't going to trust anyone to check it for you.
See, this is a common issue, you will find whatever excuse you can to dismiss it.
The only person that can convince you is you.
You have shown that you are not willing to trust others and will dismiss things they present as fake. As such, if you want something like this to convince you, you need to do it yourself so you can be sure there isn't any trickery going on.
An indoors facility to show the coriolis effect with live demonstrations and participation !
They have that, just not using Earth.
The effect on Earth is quite small for a small area.
The best you can get for that on Earth is Foucault's pendulum.
A huge telescope to look at satelites and the ISS orbiting earth !
Again, are you going to pay for this?
If not, people can already go out and buy telescopes or just binoculars to look for them.
An artificial mirage that shows objects out of nowhere after some air layers of different temperature are precisely injected at will !
You try injecting air at precise temperatures at will.
And how many of these locations do you want set up?
You know this will never happen, because they cannot show any curvature or spin, because it is absent !
No, it is there, and has been shown.
Just because people like you bury your head in the sand doesn't mean it isn't there.
Join us !!
No thanks. I have too great a sense of honesty and rationality to join a bunch of delusional, paranoid nutcases.
I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!
And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.
What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?
None of those images showed any missing curvature.
In fact, unless you have significantly different sized and shaped wind turbines, the last one shows curvature as the bottom of the masts are cut off.
Even without that, you have the horizon. We know the atmosphere doesn't let all the light through. The clear horizon is an edge, and it isn't the edge of a flat disc Earth as that would be too far away. So it must be the edge of a round Earth.
What I want is for you to take a picture from just above a known lake (to get above any waves) of a known city across the lake showing the entirety of the buildings, down to the street level (when a lot should be missing), without any significant distortion (where that distortion would indicate it is a mirage), with evidence that the video is taken from that position.
Can you do that?
And when you do, should I then demand you prove the picture is real and not just shitty CGI or otherwise fake?
What would it take to convince you that Earth is made of cheese, but t is magic cheese which tastes like Dirt.
That is akin to what you are trying to do, convince us of something which all evidence (with can distinguish one way or another) goes against.
You are at a lake,....i live in a country that has dykes the length of 32 km and a height of 7.25 meters. Ad my length of 1.86 m then my camera height is at roughly 9 meters !
Earth's curvature calculator says that over that distance 35.5764 m should be hidden (refraction excluded)
Here a picture of the dyke.
Do i really have to go there myself and take a picture over a 32 km long dyke to show you enough of the windmill to make a point ?
Or do you not consider this as proof when i precisely handover the exact numbers involved in such photograph ?
Once again, you have shown the curve.
When close to Earth (the first picture) you can't see very far at all.
When you get higher, you can, as the horizon is now further away due to the curve of Earth and your increased elevation.
And of course, you spout pure bullshit with your claims, which anyone with access to google maps (at least on a computer, can verify is pure bullshit.
The straight section of that dyke is only 22 km, not 32.
And that would mean you get 23 m hidden, much less than what you claim.
You can't even see the windmill in that photo.
Also, how tall is the windmill, and more importantly, can you see the bottom?
Just like the above, it would be proof, if you can see the bottom, and you can show that it was taken from that location.
And again, should I just call CGI or fake like you always do?
Nothing, but that specific eclipse topic was in a sleep mode......this is a dual catch. The topic stays alive and we discuss other fancy flatearth stuff untill RiF kicks some more ass ...
The only ass RiF kicked is his own.
The mathematician from Cairo, Mustafa Abdelkader, wrote an essay something like ''the geo cosmos....turning the world inside out'' in which he made a perfect mathematically inversion of all current cosmological observations and hypothesis.
The math is fine, the explanation is not.
For a round Earth goestationary model, you need to explain why the sun orbits us and all the planets except Earth orbit the sun, rather than all the planets, including Earth, orbit the sun.
With a flat model you need to explain why light bends and why it warps you when you (or light) go too far south.
It was the first time i realised that there could be several plausible explainations for the things we observe from earth.
A mathematical model does not make an explanation.
You can do the math to get any arbitrary reference frame.
That doesn't make that reference frame true.
It is akin to centripetal/centrifugal forces.
You can view it as what it is, merely the objects inertia wanting to go in a straight line and the apparatus having to turn it and apply the centripetal force to do so, or you can view it in the non-inertial reference frame and see it as a force pushing the object out.
Both have the math match the observation, but only 1 provides the explanation.
After examining Gemini, Apollo and the post WW2 America and The Sovjet Union, i became convinced that deepspace travel is made out of delusions of grandeur.
Why?
I think it is still a discussion with many things to solve, but a spinning, tilted ball traveling 32 million miles per day through the vastness of space is not one of them anymore.
WHY?
I am yet to see anyone present any sound argument against it.
Each to his own, but the further i went, the more absurd the current cosmological model seems to me.
It seeming absurd to you doesn't mean it is wrong.
Especially as it is the best model for explaining observations.