To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)

  • 159 Replies
  • 24050 Views
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2019, 05:10:54 AM »
brutally incorrect.
far things maintain original size.
middle things shrink and grow.
how does that make sense, wise?

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25561
  • Soul Transformer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2019, 05:16:22 AM »
Get an educate a bit angular geometry. It prevents you make brutal mistakes.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2019, 05:57:10 AM »

That diagram of yours is completely incorrect!


Your childishly claiming its being wrong is completely a wrong estimation. I want to remind the issue and continue with calculation:



This is the ship we want to see. Logically we have to see it. But practically we can not.

Short of calculations:

Appearent size of ship: h: 2 metre, L: 10 000 metre >> a= arctan 2/10.000 = 0.01145916 degrees
Appearent size of wave ~= arctan (1,90/10) = 10,7579
Apperant distance of wave: arctan (2 / 10) = 11,30 degrees;
Sum of apperant distance: arccotan (2/10000) = 90-arctan (2/10000) = 90- 0.01145916 = 89,986 degrees
appearent distance from wave to ship: 89,986 - 11,30 = 78,69 degrees
I won't bother with that!

You have a 2 metre high eye height, a 2 metre high "ship" and a 1.9 metre wave!
Try a 10 m eye height, 20 metre ship height and a 2 m wave height and see that the nearer waves hide nothing and the distant ones hide no more than their own height!

Get some sensible values and try again! Here is a more practical case!

They are not photos that I have taken. But whatever the height the ships are hidden behind SOMETHING!

Here are two large cargo ships taken from the coast near Wollongong, NSW about 10 m above sea-level!
And the tops ships are more like 20 m above the water line!

And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
         A container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2019, 06:12:16 AM »
No U! Get an educate yourself a bit on angular geometry. It might prevent you from making more silly mistakes.

Even Samuel Birley Rowbotham disagrees with you so run off and get educated!

*

Danang

  • 5745
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2019, 06:13:30 AM »
Crossing the north is the real deal.

If you go northwards continouesly are you gonna reach North Russia? Or reach the darkness, even get blocked by a solid material AKA Dome?
I believe the latter.

Prove me wrong.  8)
Ever been there yourself? These people have and I'd trust their navigation more than your map:

Who Was the First Person to Reach the North Pole? | National Geographic



First Flight Over North Pole (1926), British Pathé



Solo Flight over the North Pole, Harry Anderson.



Very Rare Three Submarines Surfaced In The Arctic At Once For ICEX 2018 (and a Canadian Ski-do ;D) The Joint Forces Channel



Voyage to North Pole on Nuclear Icebreaker '50 Years of Victory'/50 Лет Победы by tletter


For commercial flights, crossing the north pole could saved time and money, if it existed.

Again, there have never been such trajectory in commercial flights since the age of dinosaur. 8)
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 06:16:30 AM by Danang »
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 5745
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2019, 06:15:33 AM »
Crossing the north is the real deal.

If you go northwards continouesly are you gonna reach North Russia? Or reach the darkness, even get blocked by a solid material AKA Dome?
I believe the latter.

Prove me wrong.  8)

Prove yourself right.

Scroll down 8)
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25561
  • Soul Transformer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2019, 07:33:46 AM »

That diagram of yours is completely incorrect!


Your childishly claiming its being wrong is completely a wrong estimation. I want to remind the issue and continue with calculation:



This is the ship we want to see. Logically we have to see it. But practically we can not.

Short of calculations:

Appearent size of ship: h: 2 metre, L: 10 000 metre >> a= arctan 2/10.000 = 0.01145916 degrees
Appearent size of wave ~= arctan (1,90/10) = 10,7579
Apperant distance of wave: arctan (2 / 10) = 11,30 degrees;
Sum of apperant distance: arccotan (2/10000) = 90-arctan (2/10000) = 90- 0.01145916 = 89,986 degrees
appearent distance from wave to ship: 89,986 - 11,30 = 78,69 degrees
I won't bother with that!

You have a 2 metre high eye height, a 2 metre high "ship" and a 1.9 metre wave!
Try a 10 m eye height, 20 metre ship height and a 2 m wave height and see that the nearer waves hide nothing and the distant ones hide no more than their own height!

Get some sensible values and try again! Here is a more practical case!

They are not photos that I have taken. But whatever the height the ships are hidden behind SOMETHING!

Here are two large cargo ships taken from the coast near Wollongong, NSW about 10 m above sea-level!
And the tops ships are more like 20 m above the water line!

And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
         A container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

You are proving how you are ignorant about angular geometry. I am just laughting on you. I am proving somethign mathematically and you are showing a photo actually support it, but you are as ignorant as do not aware your photo has nothing to deny my arguments. Grow up, get educate!

Try this:

1)



2)



3)



4) Now we are laughting on the rabinoz.  :)

« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 07:35:27 AM by wise »
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2019, 09:37:46 AM »
Really now !
This argument about the shape of the earth being a flat  disc and there is no curvature of the earth and the shape of the earth is not a globe is just plain stupid.

In reality there is absolutely no evidence that the earth is a flat disc and every evidence that the earth is a round globe.

If you wish to verify this, a good place to start would be to contact any Navy of any country on earth.
The best persons to contact would be those of  the Specialists Ratings and Ranks , such as Quartermasters who are Chief Petty Officers , other Petty Officers , and from  Seamen to Commissioned Officers such as the Captain and others of those who stand lookout duties and navigation duties on the  Bridge.
They do this on a 24/7 basis.
They know very well what is the shape of the earth and can tell you why and explain how they know this.

Of course, any FE will say they are all liars, he is the only person who knows the truth, and he knows more than all of them. LOL.

Wise , I dare you to go to and to have a talk with a QMC.
I hope you will find a good natured one who will treat you kindly after listening to you.
Some sailors get rather expressive in their language when confronted with stupidity .LOL
Good luck !
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 11:03:30 AM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2019, 10:29:18 AM »
Can you provide some photos and online videos prove the earth's being not flat during your travel, please?

to wise
What good would photos or videos be to you ? Don't all FE' discount photos as "fakes" or "photoshopped"
and of no value for evidence ?


I guess I can get an amateur real photo or video has high definition. The point here, how can he get its being round on a ship? This is BS. It is almost impossible fake the world with a live video "on the earth". Manipulation is easy because there is no space between the world and the so-called iss in an iss station. however, for an object moving in contact over the sea, this manipulation is almost impossible. I think we can easily understand that this is real or not. Any other BS suggestion?

The photos and/or  videos of the horizon is one of the most positive ways of  showing the evidence of the curvature of the earth.
I'm not even sure you would even see the horizon if you were on a ship at sea if the earth was flat..
I think some of Rowbotham's writings say that you would just see (Quote) '' An indistinct blur that fades away in the distance.''

the disappearance of an object behind the waves at sea is a simple perspective problem and the distant object disappears behind the nearby waves. this has nothing to do with the so called curvature of the earth.

Let's get back to basics.
Are you saying that if you had a telescope you could bring a ship back into view after it has completely passed out of sight after it has passed over and beyond the horizon on a clear, sunny , calm day in the middle of the ocean with just normal atmospheric conditions of no mirages , etc. ?  Tell us .....What were your experiences of this ?
There are really days like this when there are no waves or swells and the ocean is so smooth it  looks like a sea of glass.

Ooooops !   
I goofed !
If you really believe the earth is flat, I should have used the words " atmoplanic conditions " instead of  " atmospheric conditions ".
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 11:00:26 AM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

JackBlack

  • 22451
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2019, 02:55:15 PM »
This is the ship we want to see. Logically we have to see it. But practically we can not.
Stop lying.
Logically and practically we could see it if Earth was flat.
The only reason not to see it is if Earth was curved.

You repeating your same mistaken calculations (which still show that we should be able to see the ship) wont help you.

Now let's draw this shape in scaled on autocad. and so let's see if we can see a ship at this height and distance.
that is not a scale drawing.
That is a drawing where you are pretending that angles are the same as distances.
If you want to use angles, use angles, don't use them as distances.

You ignoring basic geometry and pretending angles are distances will not save you.
It will just show you either have no idea what you are talking about or a blatantly lying to save a FE.

Again, the top of the wave will be at an angle of -0.5729 degrees.
The bottom of the ship would be at -0.0115 degrees.
That is well above the top of the wave.
As such, YOU WOULD SEE THE SHIP IF EARTH WAS FLAT!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2019, 03:02:27 PM »

That diagram of yours is completely incorrect!


Your childishly claiming its being wrong is completely a wrong estimation. I want to remind the issue and continue with calculation:



This is the ship we want to see. Logically we have to see it. But practically we can not.

Short of calculations:

Appearent size of ship: h: 2 metre, L: 10 000 metre >> a= arctan 2/10.000 = 0.01145916 degrees
Appearent size of wave ~= arctan (1,90/10) = 10,7579
Apperant distance of wave: arctan (2 / 10) = 11,30 degrees;
Sum of apperant distance: arccotan (2/10000) = 90-arctan (2/10000) = 90- 0.01145916 = 89,986 degrees
appearent distance from wave to ship: 89,986 - 11,30 = 78,69 degrees
I won't bother with that!

You have a 2 metre high eye height, a 2 metre high "ship" and a 1.9 metre wave!
Try a 10 m eye height, 20 metre ship height and a 2 m wave height and see that the nearer waves hide nothing and the distant ones hide no more than their own height!

Get some sensible values and try again! Here is a more practical case!

They are not photos that I have taken. But whatever the height the ships are hidden behind SOMETHING!

Here are two large cargo ships taken from the coast near Wollongong, NSW about 10 m above sea-level!
And the tops ships are more like 20 m above the water line!

And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
         A container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

You are proving how you are ignorant about angular geometry. I am just laughting on you. I am proving somethign mathematically and you are showing a photo actually support it, but you are as ignorant as do not aware your photo has nothing to deny my arguments. Grow up, get educate!
Try again! In those photos, the camera height is about 10 m above sea level and the ships about 20 m high and over 10 km away.

You use silly values of the camera height is 2 m above sea level with 1.9 m waves and the ships about 2 m high and over 10 km away.

And for these values you first diagram:


But what is this supposed to be?

You seem to have an eye height of 11.32 m, a 10.76 m wave only 11.3 m away and a 0.011 height 78.69 m away! What rubbish is that.
Even if you distance were in kilometres it makes no sense at all!

*

JackBlack

  • 22451
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2019, 03:49:04 PM »
Even if you distance were in kilometres it makes no sense at all!
They are in degrees, and they are wrong.
It should be like this:


He is pretending that degrees can be used as lengths.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2019, 06:11:38 PM »
Even if your distances were in kilometres it makes no sense at all!
They are in degrees, and they are wrong.
. . . .
He is pretending that degrees can be used as lengths.
Do you know what his distances are?
Wise has the same screwed up ideas about perspective that Phuket Word and other YouTube Flat Earthers.
I won't inflict Phuket Word's original on you but if you have your face-palm protection and anti-nausea pills at the ready I'm are sure the link will be on the YouTube site:

Flat Earth Can't Science 5- Perspective on Phuket Word by Bob the Science Guy

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25561
  • Soul Transformer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2019, 08:13:49 PM »


But what is this supposed to be?

You seem to have an eye height of 11.32 m, a 10.76 m wave only 11.3 m away and a 0.011 height 78.69 m away! What rubbish is that.
Even if you distance were in kilometres it makes no sense at all!

You have proven one more time how you are ignorant about angular geometry. These values are angular size, have not unit, ie meter or anything else.

This drawings show the shape in your eye. When you loon from your foot to skylike you see some objects in a line has a shape represented as 90 degrees. Inother say you do not see distances as metres or kilometres but just degrees.

You have to get education to get this issue. You are ignorant, hence stop talking anymore BS and go home.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

*

JackBlack

  • 22451
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #44 on: June 28, 2019, 09:43:32 PM »
You have proven one more time how you are ignorant about angular geometry. These values are angular size, have not unit, ie meter or anything else.
No, you have proven yourself ignorant.
If they were angular sizes they would be shown in the diagram as angles, not as lengths.
Instead, you chose to make them into lengths and pretends that determines what you can see.
You diagram relies upon them being lengths, not angular sizes.

Using angles instead of lengths, to try and show what your eye sees would convert 3D into 2D and 2D into 1D.

This means what your image should look like is something like this:

Or to really emphasise the angular part of it:

Notice that this just has a single dimension. Not 2 like you want to pretend.
That is because we are only dealing with its angular position based upon elevation.

Also note these numbers still have units.
The unit is degrees.

Once again, YOU STILL SEE THE SHIP!
Perspective cannot explain why it is hidden.
The only reason for it to be hidden is for Earth to be curved.

Stop accusing others of being ignorant just because they don't accept your ignorant BS.

Edit: my bad, I left out the eye and figure you probably want that in there as well.
Fixed now.
Notice that in the arc form, you see the eye as a point, as it is at the centre, and still spans all angles.
In the line form, it is the entire height as it spans all the angles.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 10:04:33 PM by JackBlack »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #45 on: June 28, 2019, 09:57:08 PM »


But what is this supposed to be?

You seem to have an eye height of 11.32 m, a 10.76 m wave only 11.3 m away and a 0.011 height 78.69 m away! What rubbish is that.
Even if you distance were in kilometres it makes no sense at all!
My whole point has been that your heights and distances are quite unrealistic but let's use yours.

You have an eye height of 2 metres, a wave 1.9 metres high only 10 metres away and  "ship" only 2 metres high but 10 kilometres away.
  • That wave would swamp you in a couple of seconds!

  • A "little boat" only 2 metres above the water but 10 km away would has, as you say, an angular size of only 0.011° and near enough to be invisible without a good telescope.

  • While you 1.9 metre wave does have an angular size of 10.75° the sight-line from the top of the wave hits sea-level 1000 metres from the observer and so hides nothing.
Your angular sizes of the horizontal distances only show how far the parts of the picture appear below eye-level but they are not needed.

The way you have drawn the diagram:
  • The top on the boat is at eye-level.
  • The bottom of the boat is at 0.011° below eye-level.
  • The top of the wave is 0.57° below eye-level and so could not hide the boat.
  • And the base of the wave (if it were vertical!) would be 11.31° below eyelevel.
Hence the boat could not be hidden at all!

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25561
  • Soul Transformer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #46 on: June 29, 2019, 04:57:58 AM »


But what is this supposed to be?

You seem to have an eye height of 11.32 m, a 10.76 m wave only 11.3 m away and a 0.011 height 78.69 m away! What rubbish is that.
Even if you distance were in kilometres it makes no sense at all!
My whole point has been that your heights and distances are quite unrealistic but let's use yours.

You have an eye height of 2 metres, a wave 1.9 metres high only 10 metres away and  "ship" only 2 metres high but 10 kilometres away.
  • That wave would swamp you in a couple of seconds!

  • A "little boat" only 2 metres above the water but 10 km away would has, as you say, an angular size of only 0.011° and near enough to be invisible without a good telescope.

  • While you 1.9 metre wave does have an angular size of 10.75° the sight-line from the top of the wave hits sea-level 1000 10 metres from the observer and so hides nothing.
<ignorant BS>

You made a big mistake so the boat has hidden behind the wave. So the earth is still flat. 8)

if you deem appropriate so leave this issue to jackblack because you don't get the mathematic at all. At least he is less ignorant than you.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25561
  • Soul Transformer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #47 on: June 29, 2019, 05:33:59 AM »
You have proven one more time how you are ignorant about angular geometry. These values are angular size, have not unit, ie meter or anything else.
No, you have proven yourself ignorant.

No, I have proven yourself ignorant. And you shamesly don't talk about ignorance of rabinoz at all. You are hypocrital. Because you know he is more ignorant than you, almost can't get anything about angular geometry but did not say anything about it. Pay attention he talked a 1000 metre distance according to my calculations. You know the wave distance is anywhere isn't 1000 metres.

In one hand, you are talking about ignorant depends on your magical round theory; on the other hand you did not tell anything about his ignorance making 10 metre to 1000. Shame on you, grow up. Be fair and get resign.

If they were angular sizes they would be shown in the diagram as angles, not as lengths.

Nope. It is not. I am not talking the theory, I am talking about pratic.

angular size is also the projection of the visual angles on your eye and this value can be expressed on a line. What you see on a single line from the toe to the skyline is a straight line. this line is the projection of the angle over the eye. we can tell the subject as follows to ignorants like you.



:'( :'(
Don't cry and grow up.Now you have learned what is angular "size".
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #48 on: June 29, 2019, 05:50:08 AM »
You made a big mistake so the boat has hidden behind the wave. So the earth is still flat. 8)
Real perspective cannot hide that boat behind the wave.

I couldn't care less what your twisted flat earth perspective might claim. I might draw a good diagram tomorrow but I guess it would be a waste of time so why should I bother.

But over a flat surface, it is quite impossible for an obstacle below eye-level to hide all of an object that projects above eye-level.
And in the photos that I showed eye-level was 10 m above the water and the boats over 20 m high so 2 m waves could hide virtually nothing - get used to the facts for once in your life!



*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25561
  • Soul Transformer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #49 on: June 29, 2019, 06:43:35 AM »
You made a big mistake so the boat has hidden behind the wave. So the earth is still flat. 8)
:'( :'(
Real perspective cannot hide that boat behind the wave.
 :'( :'(
I don't get mathematics at all and just cry  :'(  :'(

Since you are completely ignorant about angular geometry, I want to continue this debate with jackblack. But for your career, I want to teach you angular size. Why do we not get real distances but angular sizes?

I show you an image to explain why you can not get the event here. Because you really need to get educated.



You see three blocks on a line. All are equal and has lenght as 2 metres. is everything so normal here? Yes.

Question here: when do we see this shape like this shape?

Answer: We do not. Ahaha.  ;D

block B appears larger than blocks A and C if we look them from middle of front side.

 if you look from the left then A, if you look from the right then C block is larger; others will appear smaller. You get this rabinoz? If you still can not get this so return your home and register for an elderly camp. Read it again till you get it. If you still can not get it so ask it one of your old friends which educated mathematics with showing him following drawing explains what I try to teach you:



Get it now, rabinoz?

Now.

objects that are too far away become contiguous with the skyline due to their perspective. Is there a mistake here? I think this is something you know.

Now. This is the shape we never can see.



Now let's go to the left. Let's get object B too close to A. Objects A and B now have approximately the same angular size. The reason I do this is to make it easier for you to understand.



You still can get it? Nice.

Now we are looking from left side and see the object C like this, and we see it like this:



get it rabinoz? angular size rabinoz. You never see the shape of object same with its theoric lenght. And the ship (C) has disappeared behind wave (object B) according to your point of view (A)

You were thinking the ship may be upside of the line and touches it. But it is impossible mister rabinoz. ship has to tounch the sea. ships can not fly mister rabinoz.

Get it rabinoz? Now get chant the earth is flat.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #50 on: June 29, 2019, 10:16:31 AM »
You made a big mistake so the boat has hidden behind the wave. So the earth is still flat. 8)
Real perspective cannot hide that boat behind the wave.

I couldn't care less what your twisted flat earth perspective might claim. I might draw a good diagram tomorrow but I guess it would be a waste of time so why should I bother.

But over a flat surface, it is quite impossible for an obstacle below eye-level to hide all of an object that projects above eye-level.
And in the photos that I showed eye-level was 10 m above the water and the boats over 20 m high so 2 m waves could hide virtually nothing - get used to the facts for once in your life!

To Rabinoz
IMO debating anything with "wise" (or any other FE for that matter) is a waste of time.
So I am just going to sit on the sidelines , be an observer , and let youse guys slug it out.
Have a good time.
Have fun. :-)

P.S.  I still wish some FE would answer my questions and explain '' Horizon On A Flat Earth ''.
But I am very much afraid that is  just one more waste of time. :-(

Here is a question (somewhat, that is ?) related to the Rabinoz - vs-  wise discussion :
If the earth was flat, would a ship ever pass over or beyond the horizon ?
If the earth was flat, it does seem that a ship could  or might get so far away it would appear to get so small it would appear to disappear when seen by the naked eye, but could be returned to vision with a powerful enough telescope ?
Perhaps that was the way Rowbotham was thinking ?
Ships were much smaller in Rowbotham's time than they are today and might get so far away they would appear to get so small they would no longer be able to be seen with the naked eye, but could be seen with a telescope......before they went over the horizon ,
that is ?
And if the earth was flat and the ship was in a typhoon, the ship could be hidden by the waves ?
( See the "typhoon scene" in the 1954 movie "The Caine Mutiny" for an example.)
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 11:03:12 AM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

JackBlack

  • 22451
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #51 on: June 29, 2019, 02:53:28 PM »
You made a big mistake so the boat has hidden behind the wave. So the earth is still flat. 8)
No, it is still you that made a big mistake.
You are trying to apply perspective twice.
That isn't how it works.
You are yet to provide any justification for why the boat should be hidden by the wave.
All the math shows it is still visible.

No, I have proven yourself ignorant.
I'm not the one ignorantly trying to apply perspective twice.
I'm not the ignorant one trying to use angles as lengths.
I'm not the ignorant one that is unable to provide any math to back them up.

Pay attention he talked a 1000 metre distance according to my calculations. You know the wave distance is anywhere isn't 1000 metres.
Follow your own advice.
Read what he is actually saying to figure out what that 1000 m is.
He isn't saying the wave is 1000 m away. He is saying your line of sight from the top of the wave would hit sea level 1000 m away.
But you are correct that that number isn't correct. He overestimated it.
If you wave is 0.1 m below you and at a distance of 10 m, the gradient of the line of light which just misses the top and comes up to your eye is 0.1 in 10.
If you project this ray of light backwards until it hits the sea/ground, i.e. 2 m below you, you will find that this is at a distance of 200 m.

Would you like me to correct him as well?
If so, here:
While you 1.9 metre wave does have an angular size of 10.75° the sight-line from the top of the wave hits sea-level 1000 metres from the observer and so hides nothing.
You have severely overestimated that number.
It only takes 200 m for the sight line to hit sea level.
1000 m would be required if the wave was 9.9 m high and you were 10 m above sea level.

Happy now?
Your position is now even worse, as 200 m is less than 1000 m.
There is no reason for the wave to hide the boat.

Nope. It is not. I am not talking the theory, I am talking about pratic.
And in practice, angular sizes are ANGLES, not lengths.
Do you understand the difference?
An angle is not a length.
So, no you are not presenting relativity or practice. You are representing nonsensical fantasy.

If Earth was flat, the top of the boat would appear at an angle of dip of 0 degrees, as it is at the same height as you.
The bottom of the ship (where it meets the water anyway) would appear at an angle of dip of 0.01 degrees.
The top of the wave would appear at an angle of dip of 0.57 degrees.
This means the wave CANNOT obstruct the view to the ship.
If you want it to you either need to go lower, or have the wave go higher.


angular size is also the projection of the visual angles on your eye and this value can be expressed on a line.
Yes, A LINE!
A single line.
Not as a 2D diagram.
That is consistent with what I have already shown, where from 0 degrees, going down you have the ship covering 0.01 degrees, followed by the sea for 0.56 degrees, followed by the wave for 10.74 degrees, followed by the sea for the rest.

Again, YOU CAN STILL SEE THE SHIP!
The wave is well below it.

:'( :'(
Don't cry and grow up.Now you have learned what is angular "size".
And of course, you completely ignore the fact that I know how angular size works and clearly showed what it would look like as a line, with the boat still visible.
Ignoring everything which shows you are wrong wont save you.
Repeating the same lies wont save you.
Crying wont save you.

You need to explain how a wave with its top at an angle of dip of 0.57 degrees can magically jump up and block a ship where the bottom of the ship only has an angle of dip of 0.01 degrees.

Again, if you want to try drawing a crappy picture to try and demonstrate it, it should look like one I provided before, e.g. this:

Or for a close up in the small angle section, it will look like this:


Some key things to notice:
You don't keep the sea level way down below. That comes up to eye level.
You don't shrink the ship down to sea level, you shrink it up to eye level.
The part obstructed isn't at any fancy angle, instead it goes horizontally back, as it is an angular measurement.
Your eye is not shown in the diagram at all, as it covers the entire left side.

That is how perspective works.
The distance from your line of sight is reduced, not magically increased like you want to pretend.

Get it now?
If Earth was flat the entire ship should be visible.
The only solution is to have Earth actually curve away to block the view of the ship.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2019, 03:45:14 PM »
You made a big mistake so the boat has hidden behind the wave. So the earth is still flat. 8)
Real perspective cannot hide that boat behind the wave.

I couldn't care less what your twisted flat earth perspective might claim. I might draw a good diagram tomorrow but I guess it would be a waste of time so why should I bother.

But over a flat surface, it is quite impossible for an obstacle below eye-level to hide all of an object that projects above eye-level.
And in the photos that I showed eye-level was 10 m above the water and the boats over 20 m high so 2 m waves could hide virtually nothing - get used to the facts for once in your life!

To Rabinoz
IMO debating anything with "wise" (or any other FE for that matter) is a waste of time.
Yup! And wise seems the best they have to offer at the moment. For all practical purposes, this place has died when it comes to debate about the flat earth.
Can someone arrange a decent burial?

But you should see the goings on over on the "YouTube Front".
Jeran Campanella and Bob Knodel thrown out of the Globebusters team for "Jeran proving the Globe and Bob proving rotates" - they didn't "prove it" but . . .
Eric Dubay really "spitting the dummy" and ratting on all the other big names including Mark Sargent and Jeran Campanella.
Patricia Steere, Mark Sargent's media contact shutting down her YouTube channel, FaceBook and Twitter accounts and disappearing into the wild blue yonder or . . .

But it seems that Nathan Oakley, Quantum Eraser and the like are getting more vicious.

Interesting times for the Flat Earth "movement".

Quote from: Googleotomy
So I am just going to sit on the sidelines, be an observer, and let youse guys slug it out.
Have a good time.
Have fun. :-)

P.S.  I still wish some FE would answer my questions and explain '' Horizon On A Flat Earth ''.
But I am very much afraid that is just one more waste of time. :-(

Here is a question (somewhat, that is ?) related to the Rabinoz - vs-  wise discussion :
If the earth was flat, would a ship ever pass over or beyond the horizon?
You would be better than I at describing that, with your . . . .  ;), but "passing over the horizon" doesn't seem a bad way to describe it.

In a case like this, the farther ship seems to be "over the horizon".
From a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW - taken from about 10 m above sea-level!
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
         A container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

Quote from: Googleotomy
If the earth was flat, it does seem that a ship could or might get so far away it would appear to get so small it would appear to disappear when seen by the naked eye, but could be returned to vision with a powerful enough telescope ?
Perhaps that was the way Rowbotham was thinking ?
Ships were much smaller in Rowbotham's time than they are today and might get so far away they would appear to get so small they would no longer be able to be seen with the naked eye, but could be seen with a telescope......before they went over the horizon ,
that is ?
And so many Flat Earth YouTube videos trying to prove than show small boats disappearing simply because of distance and then "brought back by the magic ;D of a P900".

Quote from: Googleotomy
And if the earth was flat and the ship was in a typhoon, the ship could be hidden by the waves ?
( See the "typhoon scene" in the 1954 movie "The Caine Mutiny" for an example.)
Some of those videos show just that sort of thing - a small boat hidden by waves.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25561
  • Soul Transformer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #53 on: July 01, 2019, 12:18:12 AM »
You are far to understanding me and nature. therefore, I present my views on this matter unilaterally, without considering the objections.

Your eyes are doing something that they shouldn't, and you can't explain it by the laws of nature. This is a program, you first need to understand it.

You see a train rays here. Look at it. Look at it more and more.



The train rails in the closest location to us were far from each other. and where it is moving away from us, rays begins to approach each other visually. the following example is more enlightening:



If we draw the formed shape, the shape of the rails is simply as follows.



These rails have both left and right.

We see the right side as follow:



If we add the right side to the figure, we should see it like this according to upside visuals.



but we can never see it like this. When we look from the front we see as follow:



In fact, since angular size is inverse trigonometric function similar to a second order parabole. the figure we should to see is:



At this point the brain acts like a computer. or our eye works within a program. either one of them is valid. As a result we see two paralel lines when look at it from front side.



Such a situation is theoretically impossible, hence our brains are deceiving us. This proves that our brains work for simulation, not for us. in other words, our brain is part of the simulation.

our brain knows that this rail is straight, so whatever side you look at it depicts it as a straight line. in other words, the information that the object we are looking at is flat is transmitted to our brain. therefore, we do not see what we are looking at, we see the actual form of the object, because this information is instantly transmitted to our brain by the program.



This is proof that we live in a simulation.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 12:56:06 AM by wise »
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

?

alex314

  • 206
  • Truth, knowledge and science.
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #54 on: July 01, 2019, 12:21:28 AM »





I can see these two parallel lines right now. Here on the computer screen!

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25561
  • Soul Transformer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #55 on: July 01, 2019, 12:29:16 AM »





I can see these two parallel lines right now. Here on the computer screen!

This is already what I explained. It should not. Your brain is deceiving you.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

*

JackBlack

  • 22451
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #56 on: July 01, 2019, 03:27:28 AM »
You are far to understanding me and nature.
You mean I am far from accepting your nonsense, which all the evidence is against?

You see a train rays here. Look at it. Look at it more and more.
Notice how the sleepers at the front don't magically obstruct those behind them, because you are above them?

Your observation point in those photos are completely wrong.
They should be placed in the middle of the tracks, not off to the side.

If we add the right side to the figure, we should see it like this according to upside visuals.
No, we shouldn't.
Again, that requires you to be in the middle of the tracks, simultaneously looking left and right.
I don't know anyone that can look both ways at once.
As such, that situation will never exist.
You can stand in the middle and look to the right and see the tracks appear to converge off in the distance. Or you can look left and see the same.
But you can't do both at once.

but we can never see it like this. When we look from the front we see as follow:
No, we don't see it as 2 straight lines.
Instead what we see are 2 apparently curved lines.

This is proof that we live in a simulation.
No, it is "proof" that you don't understand how perspective works, or how the brain works, and that you need to keep resorting to distractions.

Notice how in none of that do you try and explain why you can't see the wave?

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25561
  • Soul Transformer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #57 on: July 01, 2019, 03:42:07 AM »
You mean I am far from accepting your nonsense, which all the evidence is against?
Nope. I mean you are far to accepting all the evidences, which all the nonsence is against!

<Passing BS>
Again,  :'(
I am a BS
Again and again...  :'(

You are objectiong just for count yourself objected to the wise. your writings have no value at all other than BS. it has nothing to do with what I've told. Show the mistakes on my drawing. You can't show because you know your talkings just BS has not a respond of reality. You are just talking vaste in vain and can not provide opposite arguments on drawings. Do not flee. Show the mistakes on diagrams instead of blabbing.

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:


You can't! Because you know they are true. You have nothing but blabbing. Your baseless claim of mistakes have nothing value more than a garbage. Because you know the earth is flat and simulation. Otherwise you could replied them. Your baseless talking can not magically debunk my irrefutable strong proofs. You have no answer just blabbing.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

*

JackBlack

  • 22451
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #58 on: July 01, 2019, 04:18:51 AM »
Nope. I mean you are far to accepting all the evidences, which all the nonsence is against!
You are yet to provide any evidence to support your claims.
You are yet to present anything to rationally challenge what has been presented to refute you.

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:
I already did.
You ignored it.

Now care to explain why the bottom of objects are hidden?
It has been shown quite conclusively that it isn't because of a wave.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25561
  • Soul Transformer
Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« Reply #59 on: July 01, 2019, 04:22:12 AM »
You are yet to provide any evidence to support your claims.

Your claiming I am yet provided evidence does not magically all the proofs absent those you deny because you don't like it.

Debunk them if you can.


Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

Is this wrong? Show where of it is wrong on it. You can't!:

 You have no answer just blabbing.

Once again,  You have no answer just blabbing.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong