Plans on doing flat earth science?

  • 35 Replies
  • 3994 Views
*

Curvature

  • 14
  • Flat Earth Hobbyist
Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 06, 2020, 03:22:14 PM »
I came up with a formula that can be used to disprove (or prove, for that matter) the flat earth theory. If you know the height of some vertical object and the distance between you and that object, you can calculate the minimum altitude from which that object is visible. This works perfectly on an ocean because earth's gravity causes water to minimize its potential energy. The minimization of potential energy results in perfectly smoothly curved water (yes, water actually curves).



For example, let's say that there are two ships on a sea, both of them being 50 meters tall. This means that they would need to be at least 50.5 kilometers apart before the curvature would completely block the view from one ship to the other. Basically, if you could still see the other ship even though it was that far away, this would prove that the earth is flat. If you had a really powerful telescope, you could also do a similar experiment with things like lighthouses that are often on seashores.



I found a video which supposedly proves that the earth is flat because the Tallinn TV Tower in Estonia is clearly visible from Helsinki (about 47 miles away). But the reason why it is visible is because the video was recorded on such a high altitude. If you plug in the height of the TV Tower (338 meters) and the distance (47 miles), the camera would need to be less than 9 meters above sea-level before the curvature would block the view completely.

I know that the earth is a little bit flatter in the North than it is in equator, but this is such a minute difference that it can easily be ignored. For example, even if the earth's radius was hypothetically 5% bigger or smaller, in the case of the Tallinn TV Tower being viewed from Helsinki, that would only affect the viewing height by no more than three meters.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2020, 03:46:54 PM »
When doing experiments like this that are on the edge, you also need to consider refraction.
Refraction will allow you to see further than the Earth alone would allow.
This is because the atmospehre has a density gradient that will cause light to bend downwards.
A common formula I have seen is to multiply the radius of Earth by 7/6.

But over water that can vary quite dramatically.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2020, 04:28:29 PM »
You can receive radio waves from many thousands of kilometres away on the planet. If the Earth were spherical, these waves would get lost to space. Clearly the Earth is flattish

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2020, 05:21:26 PM »
You can receive radio waves from many thousands of kilometres away on the planet. If the Earth were spherical, these waves would get lost to space. Clearly the Earth is flattish

Depends on the frequency of radio waves.

"Line of Sight (Space Wave)
With this method of travel, radio waves are sent as a simple beam of light from point A to point B. This method was commonly used in old-fashioned telephone networks that had to transmit calls over a long distance between two massive communication towers.

Ground Wave (Surface Wave)
You can also send radio waves along the curvature of the earth’s surface in the form of a ground wave. You’ll find AM radio waves traveling in this manner for short to medium distances, which is why you can still hear radio signals even when there isn’t a transmitter and receiver in your line of sight.

Ionosphere (Sky Wave)
Last, you can also send radio waves straight up into the sky, which ends up bouncing off of the earth’s ionosphere, which is an electrically charged part of the atmosphere. When you do this, the radio waves will hit the ionosphere, bounce back down to earth, and bounce back up again. This is the process of mirroring a wave, bouncing it back and forth to its final destination.
"
https://www.autodesk.com/products/eagle/blog/wireless-basics-radio-waves-work/


*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2020, 05:59:37 PM »
I came up with a formula that can be used to disprove (or prove, for that matter) the flat earth theory. If you know the height of some vertical object and the distance between you and that object, you can calculate the minimum altitude from which that object is visible. This works perfectly on an ocean because earth's gravity causes water to minimize its potential energy. The minimization of potential energy results in perfectly smoothly curved water (yes, water actually curves).

If you want an easy way to accomplish what you're after, check out Walter Bislin's Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

It allows you to punch in all the parameters (including refraction) and do measurements/comparisons.

*

Curvature

  • 14
  • Flat Earth Hobbyist
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2020, 07:28:23 PM »
When doing experiments like this that are on the edge, you also need to consider refraction.
Refraction will allow you to see further than the Earth alone would allow.
This is because the atmospehre has a density gradient that will cause light to bend downwards.
A common formula I have seen is to multiply the radius of Earth by 7/6.

But over water that can vary quite dramatically.

Interesting stuff. I guess if you could figure out how the density of air affects the speed of light, you could then figure out how much light bends due to refraction.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2020, 08:33:43 PM »
When doing experiments like this that are on the edge, you also need to consider refraction.
Refraction will allow you to see further than the Earth alone would allow.
This is because the atmospehre has a density gradient that will cause light to bend downwards.
A common formula I have seen is to multiply the radius of Earth by 7/6.

But over water that can vary quite dramatically.

Interesting stuff. I guess if you could figure out how the density of air affects the speed of light, you could then figure out how much light bends due to refraction.

People have figured out refractive calculations. Geodesy/Surveying have been doing it for decades.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2020, 02:39:36 AM »
You can receive radio waves from many thousands of kilometres away on the planet. If the Earth were spherical, these waves would get lost to space. Clearly the Earth is flattish
Only if there was no such thing as refraction, diffraction or an atmosphere (or other similar thing) which can interact with electromagnetic radiation.

Do you also think mirrors means there isn't a corner, because if there was you wouldn't be able to see what was around it?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2020, 02:42:24 AM »
Interesting stuff. I guess if you could figure out how the density of air affects the speed of light, you could then figure out how much light bends due to refraction.
The issue is getting all the information required over the distance.
You need to know things like the humidity and temperature of the air, at each point along the way.
The problem is it is over water some of the water can evaporate, changing both the temperature and humidity.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2020, 02:23:00 PM »
One thing to keep in mind with refraction is it's a limited effect.

You will never see the sun overhead at midnight due to refraction.  You aren't going to see 20 copies of the sun all over the sky due to refraction.  The sun isn't going to appear 50 times larger due to refraction, or shrink to a pinprick.  Refraction can cause a lot of wild effects but we can easily put limits on it.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2020, 10:40:28 PM »
I came up with a formula that can be used to disprove (or prove, for that matter) the flat earth theory.
Your theory does not work on lakes. It has been already experienced and proved that the earth is flat, and water has not curve at all.

In the oceans, it hides objects that shrink behind the wave magnitude due to the nonlinear sight lenght function. Because it is trigonometric.

Are you Australian?

Nice to meet you.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2020, 04:19:24 AM »
I came up with a formula that can be used to disprove (or prove, for that matter) the flat earth theory.
Your theory does not work on lakes. It has been already experienced and proved that the earth is flat, and water has not curve at all.

Why wouldn't it work on lakes?  Are you aware there are some very large lakes?

Lake Michigan is 500km long, more than big enough to show the curve.

I'm not aware of any proof of a flat earth.

In the oceans, it hides objects that shrink behind the wave magnitude due to the nonlinear sight lenght function. Because it is trigonometric.

There is no such thing as a "nonlinear sight lenght function" that prevents you from seeing objects far away. You can see an object at any distance, provided it's large enough.

The size of an object depends on BOTH how far away it is, and how large it is.

Also nothing about trigonometry would cause objects far away to start vanishing from the bottom up.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2020, 06:26:16 AM »
I came up with a formula that can be used to disprove (or prove, for that matter) the flat earth theory.
Your theory does not work on lakes. It has been already experienced and proved that the earth is flat, and water has not curve at all.

Why wouldn't it work on lakes?  Are you aware there are some very large lakes?

Lake Michigan is 500km long, more than big enough to show the curve.

I'm not aware of any proof of a flat earth.

In the oceans, it hides objects that shrink behind the wave magnitude due to the nonlinear sight lenght function. Because it is trigonometric.

There is no such thing as a "nonlinear sight lenght function" that prevents you from seeing objects far away. You can see an object at any distance, provided it's large enough.

The size of an object depends on BOTH how far away it is, and how large it is.

Also nothing about trigonometry would cause objects far away to start vanishing from the bottom up.
ignorance is a problem that can be solved by reading. but we could not find the solution for stubbornness. A fierce angry globularist gone and another angry fierce globularist comes inetead, right?

Angular size isn't a linear function but a second order function limits our perspective.

I want to show you first its mentality.



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

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

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

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

Calculating the maximum sight range:

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

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

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



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

We can calculate our minimum sight range as:

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

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

D/L = tan a

10 metres / L? = tan 0.0005

>> so

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

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

Now, lets turn to our problem again:



There is an object stays half of it.

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



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

So; where is the problem caused from?

Here:





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



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

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

See also: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78117.msg2109554#msg2109554

As every sane people can see that (not angry globularists like you) the sight limit is 114 kms, more than the Lake example you give, not because the supposedly curvature, but because limit of seing. You can't see an object far than 114 kms on about sea level.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2020, 10:33:48 AM »
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2020, 10:51:11 AM »
56mile= 90kms < 114 kms   ::)
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2020, 12:46:02 PM »
I came up with a formula that can be used to disprove (or prove, for that matter) the flat earth theory.
Your theory does not work on lakes. It has been already experienced and proved that the earth is flat, and water has not curve at all.

Why wouldn't it work on lakes?  Are you aware there are some very large lakes?

Lake Michigan is 500km long, more than big enough to show the curve.

I'm not aware of any proof of a flat earth.

In the oceans, it hides objects that shrink behind the wave magnitude due to the nonlinear sight lenght function. Because it is trigonometric.

There is no such thing as a "nonlinear sight lenght function" that prevents you from seeing objects far away. You can see an object at any distance, provided it's large enough.

The size of an object depends on BOTH how far away it is, and how large it is.

Also nothing about trigonometry would cause objects far away to start vanishing from the bottom up.
ignorance is a problem that can be solved by reading. but we could not find the solution for stubbornness. A fierce angry globularist gone and another angry fierce globularist comes inetead, right?

Angular size isn't a linear function but a second order function limits our perspective.

I want to show you first its mentality.



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

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

If the object is large enough then yes, they can see it just fine.

This is a whole lot of misunderstanding how perspective works.

You can't see a small object at 100km but you certainly still can see a big one. 

Your entire argument is ignoring the fact that you can see large objects just fine at greater distances. No matter how far something is away from you, it's angular size will be large enough to be visible if you make it large enough.

It's a very simple concept.  Small things far away can't be resolved, big things far away can.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2020, 01:28:38 PM »

If the object is large enough then yes, they can see it just fine.

This is a whole lot of misunderstanding how perspective works.

You can't see a small object at 100km but you certainly still can see a big one. 

Your entire argument is ignoring the fact that you can see large objects just fine at greater distances. No matter how far something is away from you, it's angular size will be large enough to be visible if you make it large enough.

It's a very simple concept.  Small things far away can't be resolved, big things far away can.
While calculating 114 kilometers see limit , the object with a height of 10 meters was taken as the basis.

The picture and explanation are different things. Picture explains why you can not see objects behing a small wave. Hence, the seing range in ocean is small, but in  lakes it is more and more longer.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2020, 01:31:22 PM by wise »
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2020, 01:32:39 PM »

If the object is large enough then yes, they can see it just fine.

This is a whole lot of misunderstanding how perspective works.

You can't see a small object at 100km but you certainly still can see a big one. 

Your entire argument is ignoring the fact that you can see large objects just fine at greater distances. No matter how far something is away from you, it's angular size will be large enough to be visible if you make it large enough.

It's a very simple concept.  Small things far away can't be resolved, big things far away can.
While calculating 114 kilometers see limit , the object with a height of 10 meters was taken as the basis.

The picture and explanation are different things. Picture explains why you can not see objects behing a small wave. Hence, the seing range in ocean is small, but in  lakes it is more and more longer.

Nothing in any of your images or text explains why things vanish from the bottom up as they get further away.  That makes no sense.

There is no law of physics saying we have a limit to how far the eye can see.  We can see as far as we can resolve due to the angular width, and the only variables are distance and size of the object.

There is no 114km limit. We can see large objects far away just fine if they are big enough, or bright enough.

I can see a laser shining at me from miles away even though it's less than 1 mm wide.

I can see a 10 meter wide object at 114km easily with a good enough telescope.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2020, 01:46:27 PM »

If the object is large enough then yes, they can see it just fine.

This is a whole lot of misunderstanding how perspective works.

You can't see a small object at 100km but you certainly still can see a big one. 

Your entire argument is ignoring the fact that you can see large objects just fine at greater distances. No matter how far something is away from you, it's angular size will be large enough to be visible if you make it large enough.

It's a very simple concept.  Small things far away can't be resolved, big things far away can.
While calculating 114 kilometers see limit , the object with a height of 10 meters was taken as the basis.

The picture and explanation are different things. Picture explains why you can not see objects behing a small wave. Hence, the seing range in ocean is small, but in  lakes it is more and more longer.

Nothing in any of your images or text explains why things vanish from the bottom up as they get further away.  That makes no sense.
Ahahaha! Ignorance of geometry caused you deny the fact!

This is completely proves it. So you have nothing to tell about these perfect explanations, because you either don't get it, or don' have an answer do not magically make it not exist! Read it and SHOW THE MISTAKE IF EXIST! "All wrong, or all mistake is NOT an opposite arguments but accepting the argument as true and denying it without any argument.

Again, try to either learn, or reply:



Is this wrong, considering angular size is a reverse tangent function?





Areyou have an objection about any of these formulas? If so, where?

You can not deny a fact without any argument but only telling "wrong, because wrong". Even Jackinoz does not behave this way. Guess its upgrade is unsuccesfull. Because you could been a flat earther after the upgrade! Ahahaha, you are really weak! I am laughting out load at you involuntarily.  ^-^
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2020, 02:08:12 PM »

If the object is large enough then yes, they can see it just fine.

This is a whole lot of misunderstanding how perspective works.

You can't see a small object at 100km but you certainly still can see a big one. 

Your entire argument is ignoring the fact that you can see large objects just fine at greater distances. No matter how far something is away from you, it's angular size will be large enough to be visible if you make it large enough.

It's a very simple concept.  Small things far away can't be resolved, big things far away can.
While calculating 114 kilometers see limit , the object with a height of 10 meters was taken as the basis.

The picture and explanation are different things. Picture explains why you can not see objects behing a small wave. Hence, the seing range in ocean is small, but in  lakes it is more and more longer.

Nothing in any of your images or text explains why things vanish from the bottom up as they get further away.  That makes no sense.
Ahahaha! Ignorance of geometry caused you deny the fact!

This is completely proves it. So you have nothing to tell about these perfect explanations, because you either don't get it, or don' have an answer do not magically make it not exist! Read it and SHOW THE MISTAKE IF EXIST! "All wrong, or all mistake is NOT an opposite arguments but accepting the argument as true and denying it without any argument.

Yes, your ignorance doesn't prove anything.

You can spam and copy paste math you don't understand all day long, it doesn't change the fact that we can see large objects just fine.

If you make an object bigger, it's angular size gets larger.

No matter how far away it is, you can keep making it bigger until the angular size is large enough for even a near blind person to see.

You're not understanding this fact doesn't make anything you post true. It just makes you ignorant.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2020, 04:30:49 PM »
Your theory does not work on lakes. It has been already experienced and proved that the earth is flat, and water has not curve at all.
It sure seems to work on Lakes, like the plentiful pictures of Lake Ontario showing the bottom of buildings in Toronto being hidden by the curve.
That sure seems to prove that Earth is curved.

Or did you just mean for tiny lakes, where the curvature is too small to hide anything?

it hides objects that shrink behind the wave magnitude due to the nonlinear sight lenght function.
We have been over this before.
A wave below you cannot hide an object above you.
If a wave is 1 m tall, and you are above it, the most it can hide of any object is 1 m.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2020, 10:39:16 PM »
Both of you, I mean both versions of the program, are in the same despair attitude.

You both are supposedly claiming to represent science and true math. On the other hand, you are denying a clear math without doing any math disproves it, because both you know they are true calculations. Hence, you are simply denying their existance.

Again, your denying them do not make those calculations wrong. You need to disprove it. If you can not like this example, so you agreed the earth is flat mathematically, but you are denying it phlosophically. Because this is short of what both you virused programs do.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2020, 02:49:35 AM »
56mile= 90kms < 114 kms   ::)
No shit.

So why can't you see the bottom of the skyscrapers or any smaller buildings?  What has happened to most of chicago?



Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2020, 03:55:05 AM »
You both are supposedly claiming to represent science and true math. On the other hand, you are denying a clear math without doing any math disproves it, because both you know they are true calculations. Hence, you are simply denying their existance.
Like I said, we have been over all this before.
You are the one in denial.
You are the one rejecting science and reality.

Remember this thread
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78033.0
where we went over it all, and how you refuted completely and could not defend your claims at all?

Remember this post of mine:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78033.msg2112228#msg2112228
Where I provided graphs showing how waves which peak at -2 m do not obscure any more than -2 m, and the most of the distant object is obscured by a wave right at the object?

But if you would like some more numbers/diagrams, how about this one, provided by you:

We have our observer at a height of 2 m. We have a wave at 1 km, and we have that wave blocking no more than 2 km away.

But we don't need any of that.
We can just use the angle to the object directly.
Your wave, at 1 km distance is 1 m below the eye.
Thus the angle to it is given by arctan(1/1000) =~ 0.06 degrees BELOW eye level.

Now lets consider a 1 m tall wave at 2 km distance.
Well now the top is at an angle of arctan(1/2000) =~0.03 degrees BELOW eye level.
Importantly this is above the previous angle. This means the top of the object is visible.
In addition, the bottom of the wave is at an angle of arctan(2/2000)=~0.06 degrees below eye level.
That means the bottom of the distant wave appears to be in line with the top of the closer wave, and thus the closer wave does not obstruct the more distant wave.
That means if Earth was flat that 1 m high wave at 1 km cannot block any more than 2 km.

As for your other nonsense, there is no magical limit of vision.

What you have is a limit of resolution. This is roughly 0.5 arcminutes for a human eye.
But things smaller than that don't magically become invisible. You just cannot resolve detail finer than that.
At 114 km, that would mean the naked eye can resolve 2 objects roughly 17 m apart.
But that is just the naked eye. If you use a decent camera or telescope you can have much better resolution and see finer detail.

so you agreed the earth is flat mathematically
And there you go with more dishonest BS.
I have never agreed Earth is flat mathematically.
I have some times presented math based upon a FE to show that Earth isn't flat, but that is quite different.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2020, 06:04:40 AM »
Both of you, I mean both versions of the program, are in the same despair attitude.

You both are supposedly claiming to represent science and true math. On the other hand, you are denying a clear math without doing any math disproves it, because both you know they are true calculations. Hence, you are simply denying their existance.

Again, your denying them do not make those calculations wrong. You need to disprove it. If you can not like this example, so you agreed the earth is flat mathematically, but you are denying it phlosophically. Because this is short of what both you virused programs do.

Just because someone throws some math around doesn't mean their calculations mean anything if the entire basis of their argument is wrong.

You are a blue potato because 5+9=14.  There, my calculation is correct but it's meaningless because the premise is flawed.

There is no limit for how far a human can see because you can always make an object bigger.  So saying there is a limit to how far an eyeball can see is a flawed concept. You can do as much math as you want, but it doesn't matter.

You can resolve an object at ANY DISTANCE IF IT'S BIG ENOUGH.

There IS NO LIMIT where the angular size is too small.  You can always make it bigger.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2020, 08:04:09 AM »
56mile= 90kms < 114 kms   ::)
No shit.
So why can't you see the bottom of the skyscrapers or any smaller buildings?  What has happened to most of chicago?

You do not get at all the formulas I have write there , right?
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2020, 08:25:57 AM »
<not close enough to be a reply>
<Version B of , not close enough to be a reply>
The problem for both of you is that you see the problem the way you want to see it and accordingly you overlook the main point.

I have to admit here that the formatted version of jackblack, JJA, is a worse copy. Both you are far from really responding.

In this example;



In other formulas, the angular size value of object B is calculated depending on the distance. And this value is not linear. However, our observation is linear. I have showed both cases over limit states with integral formulas.

The first of these, that is, the angular height value depending on the distance is -in general- smaller than the angular height value depending on the height. This is because in the first formula there is a positive in the denominator, while the denominator has a negative value in the second, and other factors are similar. It is worth noting that the H and L values ​​are also important here.

So these values ​​create interference.

I will explain these in a way that everyone understands, you two do not understand because you are already soulmates;

The short of the explanations above denied by these two angry globalists but proved to be entirely scientifically based are the following:

You cannot observe exactly flat objects that claim to be flat. You can never observe any object described as curved obliquely at the claimed angle.

You will see objects curved depending on the distance you are from them, comparable to their length.I can answer your questions if there are others who are curious about the subject other than these two who prove that they are far from explaining the subject and act like internet search engine.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2020, 08:30:39 AM »
I will explain this in a simpler way that anyone, even robots, can understand.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2020, 08:34:12 AM »
<not close enough to be a reply>
<Version B of , not close enough to be a reply>
The problem for both of you is that you see the problem the way you want to see it and accordingly you overlook the main point.

I have to admit here that the formatted version of jackblack, JJA, is a worse copy. Both you are far from really responding.

JackBlack has more patience than I do when you start posting large amounts of incomprehensible theories.

You are the one overlooking the main points.

You can't hide a 10 meter object behind a 1 meter high wave.

There is no limit to how far away you can resolve the angular size of an object if you make it big enough.

You bringing up all kinds of unrelated ideas like interference does nothing but make your arguments a mess, and still wrong.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2020, 09:08:34 AM »
I explain the subject in a simple way that everyone can understand. Whether or not you know math and geometry, you'll understand a little here. Please everyone read and try to understand. Please, you two, take a rest so as not to confuse the others.

Here we see a shape. The middle object is half the size of the object in the background. Here, regardless of the distance of the objects, mathematically and geometrically, you always see half of the object behind; -theorically-.



At this point, popular science is collapsing. Because this is not the truth. In fact, object B shrinks more rapidly than object A as the angular size decreases as the object behind moves away.

No matter how far geometrically object B goes, the observer at point O should still be able to see it halfsize through compared to object A. However, this is not possible. Try to visualize the shape and you'll know that this is the case.



We can see from the example that these two objects have the same angular size. In other words, these two objects are the same size according to the observer at point O. It is therefore impossible to see half the object behind the obstruction of the front object.

However, since you are looking "over" object A, you can still see object B at this stage. And we can calculate this value as follows:

Apparent height of B: h
Angular size of apparent B = arctan (h/2h) = 26. 

This value is more than half of B. ;D

Lets compare the full angular size of B, it was 45.

26/45 *100 = 58%

The meaning of this is this. In theory, we see 57% of the object that we should see, half of the object height at a distance.

This value decreases as the object moves further away.



In this second drawing, we clearly see that the body B has now lost its comparable size from the vertex of object A and has become comparable to only a part of it.

Remember the first image:



As you can see, although objects are actually on the same horizontal plane with respect to the observer at point O, and body B is always twice the size of body A, it is now gradually disappearing behind body A.

I have touched on this issue before. After the holiday, this subject will be told in more detail in the section on believers.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1