Revisiting a commonly presented image...

  • 436 Replies
  • 39563 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6646
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #180 on: February 01, 2018, 06:01:39 AM »
What the frell is this?

With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)

The formula you use is an innacurate one.

You cannot increase the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83 just off the top of your head.


Refracted Drop= 26.43 Feet (317.15 Inches)

Refracted Hidden= 13.89 Feet (166.66 Inches)


Your innacurate assessment leads to an irrational result: where you are able to delete 13.89 ft from the correct value (30.44 ft).

So, 14' should be hidden, just as we see.

Not at all. In fact on that day the video was made both the atmospheric pressure and the temperature could have contributed to just 1 ft in hidden refraction, and not your bs 14 ft value. You are not fooling anyone here. Remember, I have been involved in many more debates than you involving terrestrial refraction. The main component is the QUALITY OF THE CAMERA, not the refraction. With a better quality camera, you could capture the entirety of the visual target. The refraction term could be small, it is the quality of the camera which counts.

Here is an example.

Three successive photographs, each using a better quality camera, thus capturing more details.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

The refraction term is very small, perhaps a few ft, it is the quality of the camera which contributes most to the final result. That is why you cannot blindly apply a general/standard formula to a particular situation, without knowing more details.



What is needed is another video which could settle the entire debate.

This is just what that user on youtube did.

Here is the final video:



Distance 10.4 miles.

Drop = 66 ft.

https://www.aaroads.com/guides/lake-pontchartrain-cswy/

The bridge system travels at an average height of 15 and 16 feet over the brackish waters of Lake Pontchartrain. Incorporated into the design are three main ship passes, where the bridges elevate to a height of 25 feet.

On a spherical Earth, the Causeway bridge could not have been seen at all.

This is how easy it is to prove that Lake Pontchartrain is actually flat.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 06:16:55 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #181 on: February 01, 2018, 12:22:58 PM »
What the frell is this?
With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
The formula you use is an innacurate one.
You cannot increase the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83 just off the top of your head.
Good thing it isn't just off the top of his head.
As many people know, a phenomenon associated with light is refraction.
This has the effect of curving light downwards. This means you see furhter than you should if you go based upon a spherical Earth with no atmosphere.
Given the nature of Earth's atmosphere, a good approximation to account for standard refraction is to increase the radius by a factor of 1/6.

Before you go making up any BS saying that is too good to be true, as it is just increasing the numerator by 1, it isn't. It is adding some factor of the radius. If refraction was less significant it would be a larger denominator, e.g. 1/20, giving a "corrected radius" of 21/20*r.

There is a discussion of it here:
https://www.metabunk.org/standard-atmospheric-refraction-empirical-evidence-and-derivation.t8703/#post-205947

The simple fact that you need to ignore refraction to pretend Earth isn't round, shows your dishonesty.
Especially when even though large portions are still hidden, you foolishly claim it as a victory for FE.

If Earth was flat, refraction wouldn't come into it nor would any be hidden.
So all you have done is proven Earth is round and proven the dishonesty of FEers.

Your innacurate assessment leads to an irrational result: where you are able to delete 13.89 ft from the correct value (30.44 ft).
And there you go misunderstanding it yet again.
The correct value was never 30.44 ft.
That is only the value you expect if your head was at water level.
But you said 2 feet.
That is not 0.

So this is just another example of your dishonesty, where you need to blatantly lie about the situation to pretend there is a problem with a RE, while you continue to ignore the problems with the FE.

Remember, I have been involved in many more debates
I am yet to see you engage in any debate on this site. You continually ignore what has been said and just repeat the same refuted BS.
That isn't debate.

The main component is the QUALITY OF THE CAMERA
No it is not.
If the camera was an issue for why you couldn't see the bottom of the houses you would see the water line, a blur where the botom of the houses should be, then the top of the houses.
A camera cannot magically make a section of a house disappear as if hidden by the curve.

Three successive photographs, each using a better quality camera, thus capturing more details.
Nope. Three photos taken from completley different locations with completely different conditions.


What is needed is another video which could settle the entire debate.
It has already been settled. On a FE the towers should appear to be in a straight line and the bottom of the houses should be clearly visible, as should Toronto's shore.
Instead it is hidden by the water. Clear proof of the curvature of Earth.
Good job refuting yourself yet again.

This is just what that user on youtube did.
Here is the final video:

Distance 10.4 miles.
Drop = 66 ft.
Drop, not how much should be hidden. Try again.


And yet again, it is wonderful proof of the curve.
At first, you can't see the bridge at all. Then after panning right far enough it appears to rise from behind the water, with the bottom pylons disappearing long before the rest of the bridge.
Clear evidence of the curvature of Earth.

This is how easy it is to prove that Lake Pontchartrain is actually flat.
Nope, you just proved it is curved.

That is how hard it is to prove it is flat; when trying to you end up proving it is curved.


Now quit with this irrelevant BS (or would you prefer them to be called lies, as that is what they are) and deal with the OP.
What causes the curve?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6646
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #182 on: February 01, 2018, 12:40:04 PM »
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.

I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Google maps shows this to about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
The image seems to be taken from about 1000' from the first tower in the straight line, where it splits.

If you actually took the time to learn a little bit about surveying  you would realize just how stupid your comment is and how delusional your flat earth claims are.

This is why there are no surveyors who believe your BS and also why you accuse them of being dishonest members of the  grand conspiracy.

Btw, why do you use perspective in instances where it is patently  false yet refuse to consider forced perspective making the curve look more exaggerated exactly as it should?

Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.

What can NOT be explained by perspective is the water line on the towers.
Notice how they disappear right at the horizon yet you still see the white base of the towers?

Why are you obsessed with the peaks yet ignore the 800 pounds gorilla  in the room, the rest of the tower?  Spoiler: I know the answer.
I explained to you that that the towers are all not space evenly and I explained the reason why this is.

1. Why are the water stains curved?

Has water now joined with light and air in conspiring to make the earth look round?

2.  Why do the water stains disappear after the horizon yet the tops of the pilings are still visible?

You owe your supporters answers before you post your letter.

Now explain why the pilings drop out of view after the horizon but the towers they support are still visible.

If you had enough information to make the claims in the first place, then you have enough information to defend them.

Or were you just talking out your ass as usual?

Man up and answer the questions that other members have asked you about your claims.

AFTER you answer those questions I will be happy to answer any questions you have.

To summarize there are FIVE proofs of curvature in the image.

1.  The nearby distinct horizon.
2.  The powerline is curved and not because  of any distortion.
3.  The bottom of the large tower is below the horizon.
4.  The concrete pilings are curved and disappear after the horizon while the towers that they support are still visible.
5.  The waterline stains are curved and disappear after the horizon while the tops of the pilings are still visible.
 
Five proofs one pic.

Flat earth 0
Reality 5


And yet reality struck back: the video turned out to be a miserable hoax.


Let us increase the distance to 13 km.

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip (The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Gilliam)

38:28 to 38:35





https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#


From the same spot, a splendid photograph:

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #183 on: February 01, 2018, 01:01:46 PM »
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.
Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.
That is the funniest line uttered in support of Soundly's shit I have ever seen!!!

LMMFAO!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6646
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #184 on: February 01, 2018, 01:08:13 PM »
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.
Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.
That is the funniest line uttered in support of Soundly's shit I have ever seen!!!

LMMFAO!

Perhaps Naza is Soundly's alt. Only he knew that the first three or four bases wobble and move around.

That is a funny line indeed.

*

sokarul

  • 18359
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #185 on: February 01, 2018, 01:34:53 PM »
Well that was incredible easy to disprove what you claim.

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sokarul

  • 18359
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #186 on: February 01, 2018, 01:38:40 PM »
Even the Toronto sign has the drop taken into account.

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #187 on: February 01, 2018, 02:03:42 PM »
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.
Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.
That is the funniest line uttered in support of Soundly's shit I have ever seen!!!

LMMFAO!

Perhaps Naza is Soundly's alt. Only he knew that the first three or four bases wobble and move around.

That is a funny line indeed.
Would not surprise me in the least...

Already has 950 feet of distance "compressed," into a range of a few pixels...

Then tries to pull out the word "perspective," as if it can be legitimately represented by the OP photo...

Here is another claim he made about the Pontchartrain power lines in Soundly productions:

NAZA: "It is perpendicular to the interstate not parallel like in his video.
Check it out for yourself, it's perfectly straight for 15 miles.'

If you go to Google, you can test for yourself whether any Pontchartrain power lines are plotted "perfectly straight." (HINT - They are not)

NAZA listed a whole bunch of reasons why he is here on this forum...

Reads like a Carrie Nation brochure...

"My father this...," or "my family that..." Hell, let us take a look:
But let's (be)entertained (by) that for the moment.
I would argue that I was insulted first, before I made my first post.
I have installed many satellite antennas so I am part of the conspiracy or I am too stupid to notice it is fake.  I find this insulting.

My father was a surveyor, I find it very insulting that you guys accuse him of being a conspirator.
As does the family of every person that has been or DIED in space travel, every scientist, every airline pilot, every ship captain,  every teacher, etc.  I could go on but you get my point.
Not too mention the billions of people who are indoctrinated.

So Sandokhan,  you can never claimed that you were insulted first.
And do not be surprised if people are quick to insult, YOU choose a belief that is insulting to billions.
Finds the whole concept of FE stupid and "insulting."

Yet, needs to spend time seeking out the stupid and insulting perps to hang with them!

LMMFAO!!!

Hoists the poniard of the entire human race above his head, shouting, "I will save you from the FE!!! I will save you from the FE!!!"

What a fucking joke!!!

LMMFAO!!!
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 02:20:36 PM by totallackey »

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #188 on: February 01, 2018, 02:15:53 PM »
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.
No. You have been desparately trying to dismiss it as fake because you know you have no rational defence against it.
It is clear proof that Earth is round.

And yet reality struck back: the video turned out to be a miserable hoax.
Nope. You attempting to dismiss it as one doesn't magically make it into one.

Let us increase the distance to 13 km.
i.e. lets try and change the topic yet again to avoid your miserable defeat.

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:
Citation needed.
Understanding also needed.
Why would there be an ascending slope?
Relative to the observer, Earth curves downwards. This is made more clear by the horizon always being observed below eye level.
And there is has never been any recorded instance of a perfectly flat surface of water.

From the same spot, a splendid photograph:
Which once again shows this curvature with the botom of the mountain hidden by the water instead of the shoreline and objects near the shore being visible like you would expect if Earth was flat.
So thanks for once again proving that Earth is round.
Now how about you deal with the photo in the OP.
What is causing the curve?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #189 on: February 01, 2018, 02:18:16 PM »
If you go to Google, you can test for yourself whether the power lines are plotted "perfectly straight."
I wouldn't say perfect, but it is pretty darn straight, when you use the correct powerline rather than the one your lying video used.

"My father this...," or "my family that..." Hell, let us take a look:
i.e. lets follow in the footsteps of Sandy and try to avoid the topic at any cost.

What is causing the curve in the image?
It has been established it is not lens distortion, nor is it due to the powerline curving to the left or right.
What explanations are left other than the curve of Earth?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6646
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #190 on: February 01, 2018, 09:39:00 PM »
In this photograph there is no hidden portion: a perfectly flat surface of the strait all the way to the other shoreline.



And a professionally produced video, which shows the very same thing:

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip (The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Gilliam)

38:28 to 38:35

In both images THERE IS NO ASCENDING SLOPE AND NO MIDPOINT 3.5 METERS VISUAL OBSTACLE.


Again, here is the fake video:



JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE, MAYBE ITS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN...........OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????
WHY ARE THE FOOTINGS MOVING AT THE BASE? THIS IS VERY BIZARRE IS IT ABOUT TO FALL OVER? COMPLETE FAKE. ABOUT 10 SECONDS IN WATCH THE FIRST 3 OR 4 BASES AND THEY WOBBLE AND MOVE.
IM ACTUALLY A PHOTOGRAPHER, AND KNOW ALL ABOUT EDITING, ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME YOUR HAND WAS SHAKING........HAHA, A SHAKEY HAND DOES NOT MAKE THE BOTTOM OF THE POSTS MOVE INDEPENDANT OF ONE ANOTHER, SORRY TO SPOT THAT BIT AND DRAW ATTENTION TO IT. FAKE AS F**K,  SO JUST TO BE CLEAR TO EVERYONE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE FOOTINGS OR BASE OF EACH POST ESPECIALLY THE 3
OR 4 CLOSEST TO THE CAMERA THEY MOVE VERY FUNNY IT IS AN OBVIOUS SIGN OF FAKERY, (NOW WHY WOULD ANYONE TRY TO FOOL YOU THE EARTH IS ROUND?????)



Soundly faked the damn videos.

The footings are moving at the base.

An obvious CGI.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #191 on: February 02, 2018, 12:03:40 AM »
What the frell is this?

With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)

The formula you use is an innacurate one.
Incorrect!
Quote from: sandokhan
You cannot increase the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83 just off the top of your head.
No-one is increasing the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83!

Are you totally ignorant or do you just pretend to be?
Quote from: The Free Dictionary
standard refraction
(electromagnetism)
Refraction which would occur in an idealized atmosphere in which the index of refraction decreases uniformly with height at a rate of 39  106 per kilometer; standard refraction may be included in ground wave calculations by use of an effective earth radius of 8.5  106 meters, or 4/3 the geometrical radius of the earth.

From: The  Free Dictionary, Standard Refraction
The 4/3 the geometrical radius of the earth is a rough approximation for radio and radar signals.
For optical frequencies refraction is a little less and 7/6 the geometrical radius of the earth is usually used.

It might not be your favourite site, but there's more detail in: Standard Atmospheric Refraction: Empirical Evidence and Derivation

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6646
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #192 on: February 02, 2018, 12:18:22 AM »
Let us increase the distance to 34 km.

The English Channel: 34 km distance from Cap Gris Nez to Dover, a curvature of some 22.4 meters on a round earth.






The original webpages, as they were posted on flickr.com


The photographers located between Cap Blanc Nez and Cap Gris Nez: we will ascend to 30 meters.



And now the photograph itself: no curvature whatsoever, all the way to the other shoreline, the Dover cliffs seen in their entirety (on a round earth, from 30 meters, we could not see anything under 16.5 meters from the other side), the ships are not part of an ascending/descending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.4 meters:




Another photograph taken right on the beach of Cap Gris Nez: no curvature over a distance of 34 km:





Dover cliffs:





Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #193 on: February 02, 2018, 12:48:19 AM »
Let us increase the distance to 34 km.

The English Channel: 34 km distance from Cap Gris Nez to Dover, a curvature of some 22.4 meters on a round earth.

https://s16.postimg.org/jznqhanrp/dover1.jpg

https://s16.postimg.org/lf9aqof4l/dover2.jpg


The original webpages, as they were posted on flickr.com


The photographers located between Cap Blanc Nez and Cap Gris Nez: we will ascend to 30 meters.

http://image.ibb.co/cmTkZR/doverbest2.jpg

And now the photograph itself: no curvature whatsoever, all the way to the other shoreline, the Dover cliffs seen in their entirety (on a round earth, from 30 meters, we could not see anything under 16.5 meters from the other side), the ships are not part of an ascending/descending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.4 meters:

https://s9.postimg.org/ptymv8ltb/doverbest_zpse4522974.jpg


Another photograph taken right on the beach of Cap Gris Nez: no curvature over a distance of 34 km:

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg



Dover cliffs:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4070/4521816996_2971e62065.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1051/4726849923_389dba2176.jpg

Amazing, suck it RE, there's no coming back from this, you have been utterly defeated! Great job mr sandokhan, another great victory!

Do you by any chance have more pictures to recommend? Preferably even smaller and lower quality if possible, maybe even some more with the horizon mostly blocked by nearby objects or structures like this one you posted before https://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg. Lets finish these dumb and deceitful round earthers once and for all!


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #194 on: February 02, 2018, 01:05:34 AM »
In this photograph there is no hidden portion: a perfectly flat surface of the strait all the way to the other shoreline.
You give no details as to the height the photo was taken from, so it's useless as evidence. But
  • It was certainly taken from well above sea level.
  • There is no way to tell how much of the far shore might be hidden.
    If the photo was taken from 10 m high, less than 1 m would be hidden. There's no way you could even see 1 m at 14 km! That's 1 part in 14,000. That's a minute part of a pixel!
  • Likewise, there is no possible way you could see a 3.5 m "hump" 7 km away,
So your Gibraltar photo is meaningless.

Quote from: sandokhan
And a professionally produced video, which shows the very same thing:

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip (The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Gilliam)
38:28 to 38:35
In both images THERE IS NO ASCENDING SLOPE AND NO MIDPOINT 3.5 METERS VISUAL OBSTACLE.
You're joking! There us no way to see a "MIDPOINT 3.5 METERS VISUAL OBSTACLE" that's about 7 km away. That's a fraction of a pixel on either image.

Quote from: sandokhan
Again, here is the fake video:



JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE, MAYBE ITS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN...........OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????
WHY ARE THE FOOTINGS MOVING AT THE BASE?
Rubbish! But there is no need to shout.
Soundly stabilised some of the videos and the stabilisation is imperfect in some parts - end of story.
If you object see some earlier ones.

Quote from: sandokhan
Soundly faked the damn videos.
The footings are moving at the base.
An obvious CGI.
Really?

Lake Pontchartrain West Side Transmission Lines Raw
 - (Debunk Flat Earth), Soundly
     
DSCN1121 - Flatearth Game, Set, Match
 - (Flat Earth Debunked), Soundly

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #195 on: February 02, 2018, 01:18:21 AM »
Let us increase the distance to 34 km.

The English Channel: 34 km distance from Cap Gris Nez to Dover, a curvature of some 22.4 meters on a round earth.






The original webpages, as they were posted on flickr.com


The photographers located between Cap Blanc Nez and Cap Gris Nez: we will ascend to 30 meters.



And now the photograph itself: no curvature whatsoever, all the way to the other shoreline, the Dover cliffs seen in their entirety (on a round earth, from 30 meters, we could not see anything under 16.5 meters from the other side), the ships are not part of an ascending/descending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.4 meters:




Another photograph taken right on the beach of Cap Gris Nez: no curvature over a distance of 34 km:





Dover cliffs:





These images are totally fake! Along with the claims made.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #196 on: February 02, 2018, 01:35:19 AM »




There you go some proper unfakery images of the Chanel  from space. If you can claim images prove your point then so can I.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #197 on: February 02, 2018, 01:41:44 AM »
In this photograph there is no hidden portion: a perfectly flat surface of the strait all the way to the other shoreline.
Unless you are going to lie and claim the trees grow underwater, there is stuff hidden.
The shoreline is missing.

There is no perfectly flat surface.

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:
If there is no curvature, what is hiding the shoreline?
Why would there be an ascending slope?

In both images THERE IS NO ASCENDING SLOPE AND NO MIDPOINT 3.5 METERS VISUAL OBSTACLE.
Again, WHY WOULD THERE BE A MAGIC ASCENDING SLOPE?

Why must you continually argue against strawmen?

\
Again, here is the fake video:
You mean the real video you are yet to refute?

JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS
Which is it? 3 or 4?
How can you make such confident claims about them when you can't even decide which ones it effects.

AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE
Just like the last time you said it, this remains pure bullshit.

OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????
Why would someone trying to fake it looking curved magically make them wobble around?

There are plenty of videos showing this, not just this one, and it can be observed in real life.
Now stop with the pathetic BS and explain the curve, which is visible in reality.

Soundly faked the damn videos.
The footings are moving at the base.
An obvious CGI.
Nope, not obvious.
There is no reason to have them move around if they were CGI and no evidence that it is CGI.
What is obvious is that you are grasping at whatever pathetic BS you can to avoid this proof of Earth's curvature.

Deal with the photo in the OP, explaining what is causing the curve which can be observed in relaity before moving on to other pathetic BS.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #198 on: February 02, 2018, 08:47:56 AM »
Anyway, to recap:

NAZA is on some kind of special sauce, claiming he and his father have been personally insulted by the FE crowd since day one of his life...

Well, I have never personally insulted him yet...

But, hey NAZA!

You and your father?

Take the time to try more various and in-depth activities with the sand around the shorelines in Louisiana.

Perspective in the OP photo?

Short down in flames...

Curved right to left layout of the entire length of the power lines depicted in the OP...

PLUS

Distances of 950 feet between stanchions compressed into several pixels...

LMMFAO at NAZA!!!
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 12:18:18 PM by totallackey »

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #199 on: February 02, 2018, 10:18:56 AM »
An actual recap of the thread would be:

Two flat earthers inadvertently prove the Earth is a sphere with several pictures that definitively demonstrate curvature.

Good job guys, it's always fun watching you hang yourselves with your own rope!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #200 on: February 02, 2018, 11:41:55 AM »
Anyway, to recap:
Actual recap:
A photo is provided which clearly shows the curvature of Earth.
FEers continually spout pure garbage to try and ignore it and are repeatedly refuted.
One FEer goes the extra mile providing more photos and videos to further prove that Earth is in fact curved.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #201 on: February 04, 2018, 11:21:31 PM »
Comparing drawings designed to show lines of perspective with an actual photo of powerlines disappearing over the horizon is a lame sort of argument.

We don't have to rely on this particular photo, nor assume that all the powerline structures are equally tall or anything of that sort.   If you were to go to the southernmost tip of Florida, you could see the causeway leading to Key West disappear over the horizon.  And it is significant that we would say OVER the horizon, as if it were on the far side of a hill, because, as with a hill, there is a characteristic of curvature involved.  If the earth were flat, we could see those powerlines or the Key West causeway disappear in the distance - visible but so small because of the distance that we can no longer make it out - but we could continue to see it to the very end with a strong enough telescope because, on a flat earth, its end point would never be concealed from us.  But the end point is concealed from us in the real world and even the strongest telescope can't enable us to see it - because it disappears from view over the curve of the earth.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6646
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #202 on: February 09, 2018, 04:06:42 AM »
totallacky, take a look at this:

WE HAVE BEEN DEBATING A PHYSICS ILLITERATE!!!!

THE JACKBOT IS A PHYSICS ILLITERATE.

It used A VARIABLE RADIUS TO DERIVE A SAGNAC FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2021997#msg2021997

But the Sagnac features only one radius, and it is constant.


The jackbot is an semi-analphabetic physics illiterate!!!


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #203 on: February 09, 2018, 05:13:45 AM »
totallacky, take a look at this:

WE HAVE BEEN DEBATING A PHYSICS ILLITERATE!!!!

THE JACKBOT IS A PHYSICS ILLITERATE.

It used A VARIABLE RADIUS TO DERIVE A SAGNAC FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2021997#msg2021997

But the Sagnac features only one radius, and it is constant.

The jackbot is an semi-analphabetic physics illiterate!!!
And you are a total ignoramous!

Stop spamming the whole site and proving your total panic and total confusion on the Sagnac delay.

What do you think Totally Lacking would know about fyzix?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6646
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #204 on: February 09, 2018, 05:19:32 AM »
We have in the upper forums TWO PHYSICS ILLITERATES: the jackbot and rabbibot.

Both USED A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.

A SURE SIGN OF PHYSICS ILLITERACY.

The Sagnac has a CONSTANT RADIUS.


Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #205 on: February 09, 2018, 09:02:47 AM »
jackbot and rabbibot.
I'm sorry if I was supposed to have caught on to this sooner, but is it common knowledge that Sandokhan and Papa Legba are characters played by the same person?  Or did he just get caught up in his "bot" schtick and forgot he was posting from Sandokhan?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #206 on: February 09, 2018, 03:46:56 PM »
Comparing drawings designed to show lines of perspective with an actual photo of powerlines disappearing over the horizon is a lame sort of argument.

We don't have to rely on this particular photo, nor assume that all the powerline structures are equally tall or anything of that sort.   If you were to go to the southernmost tip of Florida, you could see the causeway leading to Key West disappear over the horizon.  And it is significant that we would say OVER the horizon, as if it were on the far side of a hill, because, as with a hill, there is a characteristic of curvature involved.  If the earth were flat, we could see those powerlines or the Key West causeway disappear in the distance - visible but so small because of the distance that we can no longer make it out - but we could continue to see it to the very end with a strong enough telescope because, on a flat earth, its end point would never be concealed from us.  But the end point is concealed from us in the real world and even the strongest telescope can't enable us to see it - because it disappears from view over the curve of the earth.
It disappears simply because it is unable to be resolved by the human eye any further.
I'm sorry if I was supposed to have caught on to this sooner, but is it common knowledge that Sandokhan and Papa Legba are characters played by the same person?  Or did he just get caught up in his "bot" schtick and forgot he was posting from Sandokhan?
You think papa and sandokhan are the same persona?

I think you are full of crap.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #207 on: February 09, 2018, 04:44:38 PM »
We have in the upper forums TWO PHYSICS ILLITERATES: the jackbot and rabbibot.

Both USED A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.

A SURE SIGN OF PHYSICS ILLITERACY.

The Sagnac has a CONSTANT RADIUS.
No, SandyBot, they did not USE A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.
JackBlack used two fixed radii in the derivation and
      at the end simplified the Sagnac delay to dt = 4 A ω/c2, which agrees with the references that you gave for any velocities << c.

You might read: Let's finalise the Sagnac delay for Sector Shaped Loop on: Today at 08:37:47 AM

I can't help it if you suffer from total ILLITERACY,
but the Sagnac has no RADIUS in the final expression, unless you choose to leave the circular loop radius in.
Now,  please run away and see if you can get your partner-in-ignorance, PapaBot, to hold your hand while you do your homework.
Of course, going to  PapaBot for instruction in physics is a bit like going to Lucifer for religious instruction.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 10:26:47 PM by rabinoz »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6646
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #208 on: February 09, 2018, 10:21:04 PM »
I locked the thread, also. It's just a repetitive flame fest anyway. It would be so helpful if you didn't respond to him and spam other threads he posts in with off topic stuff.

Agreed.

However, take a look at the previous message signed rabinoz.

they did not USE A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.
JackBlack used two fixed radii in the derivation and



Quote from: JackBlack on June 03, 2017, 04:10:29 PM

For the system we are discussing, the interferometer is on Earth (or quite close to it), and thus R CANNOT be constant. Instead R MUST CHANGE AS IT GOES ALONG THE LOOP!

Then, this person is bending the rules of physics to suit his own purposes. This is called scientific illiteracy.

The Sagnac effect features a single term, one single constant radius.

The Earth does not use TWO RADII to orbit the Sun in the heliocentrical version.

Sagnac did not use TWO RADII to perform the experiment.

The hypotheses of the Sagnac effect stipulate clearly: one single constant radius, one final term, one speed. Nothing else.

If the hypotheses are defied, then we are no longer talking about the Sagnac effect.

That is why obtaining two final terms and two final terms, and having used a variable radius to start with, means a total scientific disaster.

Such a person, including rabinoz, should not be allowed to post in the upper forums.

It is as simple as this.

If someone is willing to construct his own laws of physics and drastically modify the hypotheses of the Sagnac effect to suit his own purposes, then this is more than trolling, it is also called scientific illiteracy, and certainly has no place in the upper forums. Once something like this happens, that person has to be placed on probation, and allowed the privilege to post only in the Lounge, or CN, or AR. If the hypotheses of the Sagnac stipulate clearly that the radius is constant, that the final term is a single term and includes only one speed, and someone comes along and says that the radius now becomes a variable and can modify the Sagnac experiment to suit his own purposes, then this is more than not debating in good faith, it is trolling the upper forums using scientific illiterate arguments.

Again, everyone, including the moderators, should take notice:

rabinoz
on: Today at 04:44:38 PM

but the Sagnac has no RADIUS in the final expression, unless you choose to leave the circular loop radius in.

But the Sagnac ALWAYS will feature the single radius of the loop, many times included in in the linear velocity term (radius x angular velocity).

Again, we have a user, the rabinoz, who is willing to MODIFY at will certain well established scientific experiments, which include certain hypotheses, to suit his own purposes.

This is called not only trolling, or not debating in good faith, but also scientific illiteracy.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 10:31:14 PM by sandokhan »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #209 on: February 09, 2018, 10:39:48 PM »
I locked the thread, also. It's just a repetitive flame fest anyway. It would be so helpful if you didn't respond to him and spam other threads he posts in with off topic stuff.

Agreed.

However, take a look at the previous two messages signed rabinoz.

they did not USE A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.
JackBlack used two fixed radii in the derivation and



Quote from: JackBlack on June 03, 2017, 04:10:29 PM

For the system we are discussing, the interferometer is on Earth (or quite close to it), and thus R CANNOT be constant. Instead R MUST CHANGE AS IT GOES ALONG THE LOOP!

Sure two fixed radii come into the derivation.
How else can you define the dimensions of a portion of a sector, other than by two radii!
Please answer actual detail,  don't just rant and rave about generalities.

Please actually read the derivation and if you disagree with it, show exactly where it is wrong!
The end result of that derivation leads to the same result that your own references give, but you simply cannot face facts and cannot face being wrong!

Of you disagree with that derivation, please post your own for a Sagnac loop in the form of a sector extending from say R1 to R2[/i].

If you are unable to do that, then just admit that you are a failure!

Because, you are wrong!