So let me get this straight...

How can you believe in something with such limited evidence? Nothing logically points to a flat earth. You guys are either trolls or the biggest retards on the planet. You don't want to take answers from NASA and other leading scientists, then DO IT YOURSELF. Isn't that the whole point of the zetetic method? If you do follow the zetetic method you will find all observations to only make sense on a spherical Earth. Plus the burden of proof is one you guys for making absurd claims against well-established evidence. You fail to   provide a drop of evidence. Unless there is something I'm missing here...

How can you believe in something with such limited evidence? Nothing logically points to a flat earth. You guys are either trolls or the biggest retards on the planet. You don't want to take answers from NASA and other leading scientists, then DO IT YOURSELF. Isn't that the whole point of the zetetic method? If you do follow the zetetic method you will find all observations to only make sense on a spherical Earth. Plus the burden of proof is one you guys for making absurd claims against well-established evidence. You fail to   provide a drop of evidence. Unless there is something I'm missing here...

They don't want to start with facts and then see if Earth is flat or globe.
Unlike them, you take into consideration ALL data and fit your model acording to reality.

They are starting with "Earth is flat" by default, and then try to force others into believing the Earth is flat.
They are NOT taking all into consideration. They filter and take only what they consider "final proof" for what they decided in advance.
Everything else they try to discredit, as if they are in court and can twist laws of physics like lawyers can twist human laws.

For example, clouds enlightened from below during sunset.
They will try to discard it, because it clearly shows that Sun goes much lower than their 3000 miles.
Some of them will say "it is a lie", anothers will try to give some "explanation" like "boomerang photons were synchronized in curved stream from the Sun".

How can you believe in something with such limited evidence? Nothing logically points to a flat earth. You guys are either trolls or the biggest retards on the planet. You don't want to take answers from NASA and other leading scientists, then DO IT YOURSELF. Isn't that the whole point of the zetetic method? If you do follow the zetetic method you will find all observations to only make sense on a spherical Earth. Plus the burden of proof is one you guys for making absurd claims against well-established evidence. You fail to   provide a drop of evidence. Unless there is something I'm missing here...

This is the type of thing the other PP likes to post to make GEers look stoopid.

How can you believe in something with such limited evidence? Nothing logically points to a flat earth. You guys are either trolls or the biggest retards on the planet. You don't want to take answers from NASA and other leading scientists, then DO IT YOURSELF. Isn't that the whole point of the zetetic method? If you do follow the zetetic method you will find all observations to only make sense on a spherical Earth. Plus the burden of proof is one you guys for making absurd claims against well-established evidence. You fail to   provide a drop of evidence. Unless there is something I'm missing here...

I only want a non optical device that measures and shows the curvature of our supposed sphere.
Surely there must be such a structure/ device in 2018 that does not solely rely on visual interpretations.
Simply a hardware structure that ends the whole discussion.

In Holland we have an attraction park called 'Corpus' where you enter a huge human body on the inside with plastic organs and somewhat underwhelming other features.
People pay to go there and see what we know is inside our body anyways.
A long enough structure that shows earth's curvature should be a financial benefit in no time.
Schooltrips etc. to the 'curvatureon'

But it seems that it is THE most difficult piece of mechanics that has ever been created.
It is also contagious like the plague, because it hasn't been tried once by authorities with enough financial means to built something along those lines.
I think they want to ignore the obvious....... that such a device cannot be built, since no curvature as claimed in the current sphere with a circomference of 40.0000 km can be shown through whatever mechanical structure.

Quote from: Pizza Planet on January 04, 2018, 02:21:15 AM

How can you believe in something with such limited evidence? Nothing logically points to a flat earth. You guys are either trolls or the biggest retards on the planet. You don't want to take answers from NASA and other leading scientists, then DO IT YOURSELF. Isn't that the whole point of the zetetic method? If you do follow the zetetic method you will find all observations to only make sense on a spherical Earth. Plus the burden of proof is one you guys for making absurd claims against well-established evidence. You fail to   provide a drop of evidence. Unless there is something I'm missing here...

This is the type of thing the other PP likes to post to make GEers look stoopid.

Please, explain how "this type of thing" makes "GEers" look "stoopid"

Quote from: Boots on January 04, 2018, 07:21:49 PM

Quote from: Pizza Planet on January 04, 2018, 02:21:15 AM

How can you believe in something with such limited evidence? Nothing logically points to a flat earth. You guys are either trolls or the biggest retards on the planet. You don't want to take answers from NASA and other leading scientists, then DO IT YOURSELF. Isn't that the whole point of the zetetic method? If you do follow the zetetic method you will find all observations to only make sense on a spherical Earth. Plus the burden of proof is one you guys for making absurd claims against well-established evidence. You fail to   provide a drop of evidence. Unless there is something I'm missing here...

This is the type of thing the other PP likes to post to make GEers look stoopid.

Please, explain how "this type of thing" makes "GEers" look "stoopid"

Please see my post above. It applies to your post as well.

For an example of what the other PP likes to post check out this link:
(BTW He goes by the name Pete Svarrior over there)

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1495.0

Quote from: smokified on January 05, 2018, 09:09:27 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 04, 2018, 07:21:49 PM

Quote from: Pizza Planet on January 04, 2018, 02:21:15 AM

How can you believe in something with such limited evidence? Nothing logically points to a flat earth. You guys are either trolls or the biggest retards on the planet. You don't want to take answers from NASA and other leading scientists, then DO IT YOURSELF. Isn't that the whole point of the zetetic method? If you do follow the zetetic method you will find all observations to only make sense on a spherical Earth. Plus the burden of proof is one you guys for making absurd claims against well-established evidence. You fail to   provide a drop of evidence. Unless there is something I'm missing here...

This is the type of thing the other PP likes to post to make GEers look stoopid.

Please, explain how "this type of thing" makes "GEers" look "stoopid"

Please see my post above. It applies to your post as well.

For an example of what the other PP likes to post check out this link:
(BTW He goes by the name Pete Svarrior over there)

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1495.0

Your post above is nothing but rambling drivel that explains nothing.

There is endless evidence that you yourself can observe that show that the earth is in fact round.

Quote from: Pizza Planet on January 04, 2018, 02:21:15 AM

How can you believe in something with such limited evidence? Nothing logically points to a flat earth. You guys are either trolls or the biggest retards on the planet. You don't want to take answers from NASA and other leading scientists, then DO IT YOURSELF. Isn't that the whole point of the zetetic method? If you do follow the zetetic method you will find all observations to only make sense on a spherical Earth. Plus the burden of proof is one you guys for making absurd claims against well-established evidence. You fail to   provide a drop of evidence. Unless there is something I'm missing here...

I only want a non optical device that measures and shows the curvature of our supposed sphere.
Surely there must be such a structure/ device in 2018 that does not solely rely on visual interpretations.
Simply a hardware structure that ends the whole discussion.

In Holland we have an attraction park called 'Corpus' where you enter a huge human body on the inside with plastic organs and somewhat underwhelming other features.
People pay to go there and see what we know is inside our body anyways.
A long enough structure that shows earth's curvature should be a financial benefit in no time.
Schooltrips etc. to the 'curvatureon'

But it seems that it is THE most difficult piece of mechanics that has ever been created.
It is also contagious like the plague, because it hasn't been tried once by authorities with enough financial means to built something along those lines.
I think they want to ignore the obvious....... that such a device cannot be built, since no curvature as claimed in the current sphere with a circomference of 40.0000 km can be shown through whatever mechanical structure.

Why would someone build such a device?  There is no need to prove the earth is round, that's been done many thousands of times.
If you have an alternate theory about the shape, it is on you to prove it or at least show some supporting evidence that does not fit in with a round earth.

I only want a non optical device that measures and shows the curvature of our supposed sphere.

Non-optical that shows the curvature?  How will this work exactly?

A long enough structure that shows earth's curvature should be a financial benefit in no time.
Schooltrips etc. to the 'curvatureon'

Hmmm, yeah.  They'll be queuing up to see the kilometer long tunnel with it's 11cm of curvature.  That'll pack em in!

Alternatively, you could just go to the coast and watch ships disappearing over the horizon.

How often do you look for evidence?
If a friend lends you some money, do you perform an anti-forgery test or do you take it? When you meet someone, do you establish a password system to avoid mistaking them for someone else? Do you test the PH whenever it rains?

It's one of those facts that deep down we all know. We don't need evidence for everything, when we already know what the case is.

Hector

I only want a non optical device that measures and shows the curvature of our supposed sphere.
Surely there must be such a structure/ device in 2018 that does not solely rely on visual interpretations.
Simply a hardware structure that ends the whole discussion.

I don't think you or anyone else would be ready or able to pay for it for the sole purpose of convincing you.

Two verticals at distance of 1852 meters have angle between them of one arcminute.
It is easily shown by theodolite or sextant.

It is not so hard to learn from the Internet how to use them.
Unfortunately, those instruments use optics, so I can only ask manufacturers to apologize to you for the inconvenience.

You think that a ship disappears on the the horizon but it actually doesn't. What if one got a telescope and looked out there. Will you still see the ship or not? This could be a theory to figuring out if the earth curves. Next time I go to a beach will probably test this out.

I have tested it.  A telescope doesn't bring it back.

The various youtube videos claiming to bring ships back only show boats that are below the resolution of the camera when zoomed out.  If they were really bringing it back with the zoom then the amount hidden should change as the zoom changes but it never does.

You think that a ship disappears on the the horizon but it actually doesn't. What if one got a telescope and looked out there. Will you still see the ship or not? This could be a theory to figuring out if the earth curves. Next time I go to a beach will probably test this out.

If you would need zoom to "overcome perspective", then the same perspective would hide the ship (or island) no matter how high the observer is.

However, if you climb 100 feet above your original position you will see the ship without any additional zoom.

I only want a non optical device that measures and shows the curvature of our supposed sphere.
Surely there must be such a structure/ device in 2018 that does not solely rely on visual interpretations.
Simply a hardware structure that ends the whole discussion.

The Globe is HUGE, get used to it!

Here, just an idea:
OK, so you make a covered (to keep out any wind) water trough 4 km long and keep it temperature controlled (to avoid refraction).
Then somehow put
     one set of height markers say 1.5 m above the centre water level (nice eye-level) extending in a perfectly straight line every 200 m to each end
     and another set of markers 1.5 m above the level local water level every 200 m to each end.

So at each 200 m, the difference between the levels of the two markers is the curvature to that point.
The difference in level would be about 8 cm at each end - real exciting and convincing? I don't think!

Especially as total reliance would still have to be placed on the surveyors that set the display up.

That sort of thing has been done with the water in a (very) long "hose".
There is an ex-flat-earther, odiupicku who now posts videos debunking Eric Dubay.
Here is the third of a series:.
And .

odiupicku is a member here under the name cikljamas and "changed over" during his time.
He still believes in a Geocentric Model (Tycho Brahe's version) and is still very anti-NASA!

In Holland we have an attraction park called 'Corpus' where you enter a huge human body on the inside with plastic organs and somewhat underwhelming other features.
People pay to go there and see what we know is inside our body anyways.
A long enough structure that shows earth's curvature should be a financial benefit in no time.
Schooltrips etc. to the 'curvatureon'

But it seems that it is THE most difficult piece of mechanics that has ever been created.
It is also contagious like the plague, because it hasn't been tried once by authorities with enough financial means to built something along those lines.
I think they want to ignore the obvious....... that such a device cannot be built, since no curvature as claimed in the current sphere with a circomference of 40.0000 km can be shown through whatever mechanical structure.

No such a thing has not been built for the simple reason that it would be huge, expensive, still reliant on professionals to set up and less exciting than watching paint dry.

There have been a number of attempts to built mechanical structures to do that and some show curvature - either way!
No material is rigid enough, so angle measurement have to be relied on and the curvature is about 0.05 minutes of arc each 100 m.

I did post a somewhat similar, though accidental demonstration of the earth curve in, Flat Earth General / Re: Most ridiculous thing a FEer has said to prove a flat earth.
I did post the same material in reply to an earlier post of yours, but you ignored it then as you will now.

So like it or not the Globe is HUGE, get used to it!

The Globe is HUGE, get used to it!

Did you change your mind about engaging with a hate- filled person like me , that according to your own words ''you do not want to debate'' ?

If you changed your mind about having a conversation with ''hate-filled dutchy'' i will reply, but then again you shouldn't use such remarks towards me...
Do we have a deal ?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2018, 01:47:36 PM

The Globe is HUGE, get used to it!

Did you change your mind about engaging with a hate- filled person like me , that according to your own words ''you do not want to debate'' ?

If you changed your mind about having a conversation with ''hate-filled dutchy'' i will reply, but then again you shouldn't use such remarks towards me...
Do we have a deal ?

The post I replied was not hate-filled like your NASA rants, so I replied in as constructive a way as I could.

But, I see no comment on what I said, so?

The Globe is HUGE, get used to it!

Thanks for your ideas about a curvature device, but it seems to me it is not THAT huge when it has a marketing purpose to promote a globe..


From an average height of 400 km...while at tjhe same time they claim only 3% of the intire globe is visible from the ISS 

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2018, 01:47:36 PM

The Globe is HUGE, get used to it!

Thanks for your ideas about a curvature device, but it seems to me it is not THAT huge when it has a marketing purpose to promote a globe..


From an average height of 400 km...while at tjhe same time they claim only 3% of the intire globe is visible from the ISS 

Seems pretty huge.  What's your point?  By the way you could probably test this with a large ball and small camera.  Just figure out the scale to get the height of the camera (as the ISS)

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2018, 01:47:36 PM

The Globe is HUGE, get used to it!

Thanks for your ideas about a curvature device, but it seems to me it is not THAT huge when it has a marketing purpose to promote a globe..


From an average height of 400 km...while at tjhe same time they claim only 3% of the intire globe is visible from the ISS 

*start quote*
You would have to be infinitely far away from a sphere in order to see exactly 50% of its surface all at the same moment.
Using simple geometry, you can prove that an observer that is a distance d away from the surface of a sphere with radius R
can only see a percent area A of the sphere's surface as given by the equation:
A = 50%/(1+R/d)
The Earth has a radius of about R = 6371 km and the ISS is currently (as of Jan. 23, 2015) at an altitude of about d = 406 km.
Plugging in these numbers we get:
A = 3%
*end quote*

Problem?

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 11:26:49 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2018, 01:47:36 PM

The Globe is HUGE, get used to it!

Thanks for your ideas about a curvature device, but it seems to me it is not THAT huge when it has a marketing purpose to promote a globe..


From an average height of 400 km...while at tjhe same time they claim only 3% of the intire globe is visible from the ISS 

*start quote*
You would have to be infinitely far away from a sphere in order to see exactly 50% of its surface all at the same moment.
Using simple geometry, you can prove that an observer that is a distance d away from the surface of a sphere with radius R
can only see a percent area A of the sphere's surface as given by the equation:
A = 50%/(1+R/d)
The Earth has a radius of about R = 6371 km and the ISS is currently (as of Jan. 23, 2015) at an altitude of about d = 406 km.
Plugging in these numbers we get:
A = 3%
*end quote*

Problem?

Since other timelaps footage of the ISS is gathered from different periods, edited and stiched together, i see no reason whatsoever that any footage of the ISS is corrected in displaying the curvature to mimick reality.....not an exagerated curvature as displayed in the photograph.

NASA confesses all the time they enhance pictures, stich satelite fragments together, but for some unknown reason the exagerated curvature as displayed in this and similar footage isn't corrected towards real life proportions of the curvature from 400km out.

I'd say it is propaganda at it's finest to show such curvature, even when it shouldn't be there......

Anything else to say ?

Quote from: Macarios on January 06, 2018, 01:22:31 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 11:26:49 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2018, 01:47:36 PM

The Globe is HUGE, get used to it!

Thanks for your ideas about a curvature device, but it seems to me it is not THAT huge when it has a marketing purpose to promote a globe..


From an average height of 400 km...while at tjhe same time they claim only 3% of the intire globe is visible from the ISS 

*start quote*
You would have to be infinitely far away from a sphere in order to see exactly 50% of its surface all at the same moment.
Using simple geometry, you can prove that an observer that is a distance d away from the surface of a sphere with radius R
can only see a percent area A of the sphere's surface as given by the equation:
A = 50%/(1+R/d)
The Earth has a radius of about R = 6371 km and the ISS is currently (as of Jan. 23, 2015) at an altitude of about d = 406 km.
Plugging in these numbers we get:
A = 3%
*end quote*

Problem?

Since other timelaps footage of the ISS is gathered from different periods, edited and stiched together, i see no reason whatsoever that any footage of the ISS is corrected in displaying the curvature to mimick reality.....not an exagerated curvature as displayed in the photograph.

NASA confesses all the time they enhance pictures, stich satelite fragments together, but for some unknown reason the exagerated curvature as displayed in this and similar footage isn't corrected towards real life proportions of the curvature from 400km out.

I'd say it is propaganda at it's finest to show such curvature, even when it shouldn't be there......

Anything else to say ?

No need.
I believe you know some geometry.
"Or do you?" (VSauce)

Width of the picture is 900 pixel.
Height of the arc in the picture is 53 pixels.
Which means the radius of the arc is
H/2 + W² / 8H = 1937 pixel.

From the height of 406km the distance to horizon is 2312km.
Horizon is lower that point directly below ISS by 381km because the whole surface inside horizon is convex, so the distance from the ISS to horizon plane is 787km.
The angle ISS is looking at horizon is 20 degrees above the horizon plane.
Euclidean radius of horizon circle is 2170 km.

Now, if 2170km is 1937 pixel, then we have 1.12km per pixel.
In that case 900 pixel is 1008km, and half (450 pixel) is 504km.
Distance from center to tetive is 2110km, which makes the remaining distance from tetive to arc to be 60km.
60km / 1.12km per pixel = 53.57 pixel.

It is not exactly 53 pixel because of approximations in the way.

Are you still sure the curve is where it shouldn't be?

Quote from: Macarios on January 06, 2018, 01:22:31 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 06, 2018, 11:26:49 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2018, 01:47:36 PM

The Globe is HUGE, get used to it!

Thanks for your ideas about a curvature device, but it seems to me it is not THAT huge when it has a marketing purpose to promote a globe..


From an average height of 400 km...while at tjhe same time they claim only 3% of the intire globe is visible from the ISS 

*start quote*
You would have to be infinitely far away from a sphere in order to see exactly 50% of its surface all at the same moment.
Using simple geometry, you can prove that an observer that is a distance d away from the surface of a sphere with radius R
can only see a percent area A of the sphere's surface as given by the equation:
A = 50%/(1+R/d)
The Earth has a radius of about R = 6371 km and the ISS is currently (as of Jan. 23, 2015) at an altitude of about d = 406 km.
Plugging in these numbers we get:
A = 3%
*end quote*

Problem?

Since other timelaps footage of the ISS is gathered from different periods, edited and stiched together, i see no reason whatsoever that any footage of the ISS is corrected in displaying the curvature to mimick reality.....not an exagerated curvature as displayed in the photograph.

NASA confesses all the time they enhance pictures, stich satelite fragments together, but for some unknown reason the exagerated curvature as displayed in this and similar footage isn't corrected towards real life proportions of the curvature from 400km out.

I'd say it is propaganda at it's finest to show such curvature, even when it shouldn't be there......

Anything else to say ?

Yes, do you have anything other than it doesn't look right to you?
Like did you try the experiment I mentioned?  Did you do the math?  Anything?