Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry

Do we have to account for a laser finder arcing around the curvature as it passes from sight?

What do you not get about line of sight?

Anyway…

Flat-earthers tried to prove the Earth was flat with a videotaped experiment and it did not go well


Flat-earthers tried to prove the Earth was flat with a videotaped experiment and it did not go well

The film has received positive reviews, with critics commenting on how it focuses on the human side of the movement, rather than dismissing them. Many viewers have enjoyed a particular clip from the documentary, where a flat-Earther proves that the Earth is not flat live on camera. In the immortal words of Meryl Streep: “These are the moments that make life worth living”.

In the clip, a flat-Earther named Jeran from a group known as Globebusters set up a simple experiment to prove that the Earth is flat. He used two boards, both with a hole at a height of 5.18 meters (17 feet) above water level, a camera, and another person by the name of Henrique holding a torch at the same height and aligned with the holes.

If the Earth was flat, no matter how far Henrique was, the light would come through the holes. But on a spherical Earth, there’s the curvature to consider. Given Henrique’s distance from the holes, he would have to position the light above his head (7 meters/23 feet above the water level) for it to be seen.

When the experiment began, the light didn’t appear on camera. A perplexed Jeran radioed Henrique to confirm the height of the light at 5.18 meters (17 feet) above sea level. On a flat Earth, he should be seeing the light. He then asked Henrique to lift the light above his head. Lo and behold, the light shined through.

“That’s interesting,” Jeran commented in the clip.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 05, 2022, 05:41:51 AM

Do we have to account for a laser finder arcing around the curvature as it passes from sight?

What do you not get about line of sight?

Apparently, you admit the curvature is nothing more than line of sight (no diff from the parabola, really) when it's convenient for you. Then when someone gets you admit that ballistics is more limited than the advertised speed and force, you double down and present models of ships firing around the water.

Anyway…

Quote

Flat-earthers tried to prove the Earth was flat with a videotaped experiment and it did not go well

Flat-earthers tried to prove the Earth was flat with a videotaped experiment and it did not go well

The film has received positive reviews, with critics commenting on how it focuses on the human side of the movement, rather than dismissing them. Many viewers have enjoyed a particular clip from the documentary, where a flat-Earther proves that the Earth is not flat live on camera. In the immortal words of Meryl Streep: “These are the moments that make life worth living”.

In the clip, a flat-Earther named Jeran from a group known as Globebusters set up a simple experiment to prove that the Earth is flat. He used two boards, both with a hole at a height of 5.18 meters (17 feet) above water level, a camera, and another person by the name of Henrique holding a torch at the same height and aligned with the holes.
When the experiment began, the light didn’t appear on camera. A perplexed Jeran radioed Henrique to confirm the height of the light at 5.18 meters (17 feet) above sea level. On a flat Earth, he should be seeing the light. He then asked Henrique to lift the light above his head. Lo and behold, the light shined through. “That’s interesting,” Jeran commented in the clip.

Has it ever occurred to you that this stuff is Hollywood? The same Hollywood that routinely shows us superimposed space shuttles, and animates all of it to look like seamless reality? I rewatched Moonfall with my dad last night. Not only did they have actors visit space twice, but they had all the special effects of a moon falling toward Earth. If Hollywood can make a full-blown fake moon, how difficult do you think it is for people to take bad pictures.

In other words, these people are controlled opposition. They don't want to actually present a convincing picture of things. Just like in CNN depictions of angry rightist protestors, when it turns out they all came on a bus hosted by Soros. Some of these people put on Antifa uniforms and harassed Trump supporters. Other people pretended to be Trump supporters and wore alot of Nazi or Confederate logos.

I think I saw the show mentioned on Hulu or Netflix, but I didn't bother watching it.

This proves nothing. Again.





The light seen here is probably indirect (note the weird line) As the parabola rises, light is able to penetrate.  Meanwhile, in a round earth, no matter what rotation, the sun is simply too big (even factoring its distance) to move out of sight. Nice fairy tale, but no.

Btw, their telling each other to lift the thingy? Only possible because radio waves can extend "beyond the curve."

https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/

Ham radio operators today can communicate with people all over the earth. This author remembers talking with a ham radio operator in the early 1970’s. He had a massive radio antenna in his backyard. He explained that he had records of contact with ham radio operators in every country in the world, except Russia. How could he communicate with fellow ham radio operators all over the world if the earth were a sphere?

Modern science has come up with all sorts of convoluted theories to explain such long distance radio transmissions, because they cannot allow it to be known that the earth is flat. The most prevalent theory is the ionosphere bounce theory.  Under that mythology, radio operators can talk to people on the other side of the supposed spherical earth, not because the earth is flat, but because their radio signal bounces off the thin upper atmosphere, called the ionosphere.

Think about it logically. Under the ionosphere bounce stratagem, radio waves travel through the atmosphere until the atmosphere gets extremely thin (it is then called the ionosphere), and when those radio waves reach that thinnest part of the atmosphere, they bounce off and return to earth. Now, the modern scientists are not sure where the bouncing takes place, because the height of the ionosphere ranges from 50 miles to 600 miles in altitude. Does that make sense? No.

It is actually probably hitting the cloud and being scattered between the cloud and mountain, casting shadow based on the divided shape of that mountain's top.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that all mountains have "divided shapes" at their top.

Has it ever occurred to you that this stuff is Hollywood? The same Hollywood that routinely shows us superimposed space shuttles, and animates all of it to look like seamless reality? I rewatched Moonfall with my dad last night. Not only did they have actors visit space twice, but they had all the special effects of a moon falling toward Earth. If Hollywood can make a full-blown fake moon, how difficult do you think it is for people to take bad pictures.

Because Hollywood with their incredible CGI capabilities has only been around for a couple of decades at most. These phenomenon recorded have been around way before the Hollywood capabilities of today. That's why your argument is ludicrous.

As the parabola rises,

There is no “parabola” in the context your pushing.


There is no evidence of any force or items making personal “parabolas”.  Not in observed flights of birds to aircraft.

Not in the mist to the way dew and dust coat everything.



To the way mist and the tree lines are relatively straight in where your imagined parabola must distort your flat earth delusion to make the sun set at a three mile horizon.

To the way there sun shines in straight lines…



No evidence of your imagined parabola in the way line of sight radar is accurate.  Not reflected in line of sight radio transmission and the radio horizon.

Nothing about flat earth makes this possible.




Nor would the sun being lower than the clouds to shine up through the clouds to a viewer above the clouds.

——-

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 15, 2022, 01:49:16 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 15, 2022, 01:18:23 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 15, 2022, 01:04:36 AM

They both swear that the sun is near them. But it's not. It not near anyone. It never at any point gets closer or further away. This isn't "proof" that the sun is actually huge and incredibly distant. It is "probable cause" that the sun is being projected through our own perceptions, and we really have no idea where the hell it is.

How have we navigated for centuries without having any idea where the sun is?

Simple. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Finally, you nailed it. The sun sets and the sun rises. It does not go around like a halo in the sky. It rises up from the horizon and sets below the horizon.

And nothing like flying above the sun in just a little Cessna...

———

The lunar eclipse of the moon in earth’s shadow would be impossible


The sun would “rise” Funny on a flat earth

On this map I have placed a red circle along the tropic of Capricorn. This circle represents where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the December solstice. In the zetetic model, the circle also represents the circumference of the sun’s motion on that day (albeit at some unspecified height above the flat earth). Pick a location beyond this circle, say in southern South America, southern Africa, or southern Australia. Notice that the sun will be north of all these locations on the December solstice. For that matter, since the sun is farthest south on this date, the sun will always be north of these locations. True enough, at noon the sun will be due north at each of these locations, casting shadows that extend due south. Also notice that before noon the sun will be northeast, and after noon the sun will be northwest So, how can the sun rise south of east and set south of west at these locations? Obviously, it can’t.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2021/01/25/flat-earth-fails-solstice-predictions/

Only possible because radio waves can extend "beyond the curve."

Not all radio waves and not for most occurrences of light.  See refraction.

For part of the electromagnetic spectrum (like FM and light) which are line of sight transmissions, the question is why don’t they broadcast consistently over the “horizon/radio horizon” which would not be a obstacle on a flat earth. 

In contrast to line-of-sight propagation, at low frequency (below approximately 3 MHz) due to diffraction, radio waves can travel as ground waves, which follow the contour of the Earth. This enables AM radio stations to transmit beyond the horizon. Additionally, frequencies in the shortwave bands between approximately 1 and 30 MHz, can be refracted back to Earth by the ionosphere, called skywave or "skip" propagation, thus giving radio transmissions in this range a potentially global reach.

However, at frequencies above 30 MHz (VHF and higher) and in lower levels of the atmosphere, neither of these effects are significant. Thus, any obstruction between the transmitting antenna (transmitter) and the receiving antenna (receiver) will block the signal, just like the light that the eye may sense. Therefore, since the ability to visually see a transmitting antenna (disregarding the limitations of the eye's resolution) roughly corresponds to the ability to receive a radio signal from it, the propagation characteristic at these frequencies is called "line-of-sight". The farthest possible point of propagation is referred to as the "radio horizon".

In practice, the propagation characteristics of these radio waves vary substantially depending on the exact frequency and the strength of the transmitted signal (a function of both the transmitter and the antenna characteristics). Broadcast FM radio, at comparatively low frequencies of around 100 MHz, are less affected by the presence of buildings and forests.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation

It is actually probably hitting the cloud and being scattered between the cloud and mountain, casting shadow based on the divided shape of that mountain's top.

So more vague nonsense.
Why don't you try drawing a diagram showing how such a clear shadow is produced?

The curve in ths cloud shadow has more to do with me attempting at finding the right starting angle than the shadow actually doing a curve like that. I just didn't bother erasing it.

I would say it is to do with you trying to make Earth flat.

The simple fact is we see that light is being cast upwards (Note: Not directly upwards, but it is coming from below, not above) from below the top of the mountain onto the bottom of the clouds.
This either requires the sun to be "below" (using the direction of down at the mountain) the top of the mountain, which makes perfect sense in the RE model and the ancient FE models, but no sense at all in the modern FE nonsense provided; or it requires the light to bend, such that the light from the sun starts off above the clouds, goes down below the clouds, and bends up to end up hitting the mountain from a downwards direction.

I have repeatedly explained that the parabola is about perception.

You have repeatedly stated. You haven't provided explanations because you have none.

so this light curving under is nonsense.

That's right, and it shows why the FE is nonsense.

So let's ask you a question.

You mean so lets run away from all the issues with the nonsense you have been spouting and deflect yet again.

That does seem to be all you can do. Spout pure BS, then when it is explained why that BS doesn't work, you run away from it and respond with some other crap.

Meanwhile, round Earthers tell me that their similar delusion, the curvature, is not in fact a nonphysical construct

Pure BS.
In reality, (not delusions) curvature is quite real. It is physical. Are you referring to refraction?

Do we have to account for a laser finder arcing around the curvature

Do you mean refraction? If so, it is useful to account for that, but if you are just measuring the distance, then no, as that change will be insignificant.

Can that crane build a bridge near the equator going in a straight line, or do they need to adjust for a C-shaped hump

No.

we can't actually measure the speed of a bullet

Just because you can't doesn't mean no one can.
We can even measure it fairly directly with high speed cameras.

You not liking the numbers doesn't mean they are fake.

bullet was really going that fast, we'd have to consider factoring its speed against the rotation of the Earth

Why?
Again, you just assert pure BS with no justification at all.
You may as well claim that if it was going that fast we'd have to consider its interactions with light.

You really expect me to believe that the introduction of spark and chemical propulsion is enough to multiply speed by five?)

With all the BS you spout and believe, I  would be surprised if you believe mankind can tie their own shoelaces.

Meanwhile, in a round earth, no matter what rotation, the sun is simply too big (even factoring its distance) to move out of sight.

Pure delusional BS.

Are you again trying to use a FE model to refute the RE model?
In the RE model, the sun is not circling overhead. Earth is rotating.

Please tell why in the RE model you should see the sun when it is directly below you, with Earth obstructing roughly 180 degrees of your FOV in the direction towards the sun.

Only possible because radio waves can extend "beyond the curve."

You mean because it can diffract around Earth, and bounce off the ionosphere?

But notice how this should also apply to your BS.
Why do radio waves magically violate this parabola?
If radio waves can, why can't other frequencies of EM radiations, like visible light?

they cannot allow it to be known that the earth is flat.

It is impossible to know Earth is flat, as Earth is not flat, and it would need to be true to know it.

Does that make sense? No.

Because it doesn't fit your fantasy?

Now again, care to address the issues with your fantasy?
Why do objects disappear from the bottom up and appear to sink, when your nonsense indicates they should disappear from the top down?
How do people see the sun or the stars for any considerable period of time if the magical parabola is only 5 km away when it hits the ground?
How does this magic parabola work at all?
How do the stars magically manage to project to just the right positions to make Earth appear round?

"we can't actually measure the speed of a bullet so we throw an absurd 1022 mph at it for a .22

I should read your posts more closely.  I miss small easy to debunk items. 

One.  It’s pretty easy to tell if a bullet breaks the sound barrier.

Two.

Competition Electronics ProChrono DLX Bluetooth Chronograph


https://ads.midwayusa.com/product/1020438152?pid=988434&utm_medium=shopping&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=Shooting%20-%20Chronographs,%20Wind%20Meters%20&%20Timers&utm_content=988434&utm_medium=paid-search&utm_source=google&gclid=Cj0KCQjw1vSZBhDuARIsAKZlijSbJY9b5Rfv4Z_vP06ZfTwNnNs4VFf6CHzj7FRqLTtAHquLWfy1VSUaAmFCEALw_wcB



The next generation of the ProChrono model based on a time proven design that has been measuring “almost anything that shoots” since 1985! Great for firearms, shotguns, archery, airguns, and paintball. Everything is included for outdoor use. For indoor use, Competition Electronics recommends their optional Indoor Lighting System (part# CEI-4100). Requires one 9 volt alkaline battery for operation (not included)

Sensing system compatible with a wide variety of light conditions and projectiles
Faster internal shot clock for improved accuracy to +/- .5% or better

People that bench load cartridges, and don’t use factory loads, need an accurate means to measure the muzzle velocity of their cartridges to better understand how the shot bullet will perform.

Cant measure the speed of a bullet?
Amazing!
If you cant figure out how circles work, no one else could either!?

Bumble is just being ignorant...again...



First shot, (@ 0:42) 750 meters per second, 1677.7 MPH.

As the parabola rises,

Closest thing I can find to a “parabola” effect.  And it takes the waste heat from a gas turbine.  And it really doesn’t do much to the horizon. 

And makes a very noticeable shadow.  It’s more pronounced in real life. 

Bumble is just being ignorant...again...



First shot, (@ 0:42) 750 meters per second, 1677.7 MPH.

as if it's IMMMpossible to record the time of a trigger pull and compare it to an impact, at a known distance.

IM POH SEEEEBLE (frenhc accent).

or

Inconceivalbe (princess bride).



also
the reduction in height should follow the upsidedown parabola's curve and tall things shouldn't be truncated or kneecapped.
like, a normal heighted person with short legs vs just an all around short person.
yet... they're not gradually transitioning, just cut off/ gone.

I rewatched Moonfall with my dad last night.

This just occurred to me. What's funny about your the Moon is hollow and artificial based upon 2 viewings of the worst movie of the summer is that the entire film is predicated on gravity. But since you like the hollow moon gig and you don't understand gravity, therefore don't like it, you discount the entire premise of the film in favor of your likes versus dislikes. Embracing one aspect and discarding the more important one. All because you don't understand. Nothing like a healthy dose of confirmation bias sprinkled with ignorance.

Here ya go. 



You'll probably need to actually go to the website to read the thing (right click, and it should have a link).

As a result of a two day vacation, whereupon I have ideal conditions to examine the sky, the land, and the moon (btw, the moon is not dangerous, I looked at it steadily for nearly an hour and a hour), I think I can safely conclude that any "common sense" you guys have is wrong. You can clearly see that the basic rules of a round Earth put you constantly at the bottom of a hill perspective-wise. You can also see going up and down a hill that the moon tilts forward or backward, yet never actually sunk. It was constantly at the same elevation. I also saw field of view move to well below 3 miles as I was moving up a hill in our car. Based on this perspective, even if you were to continue with the idea of curvature, you wouldn't get a round Earth, but something more akin to a shamrock. The ballistics image you gave earlier, I can well and truly prove is not so after seeing what sort of distance I could see facing a hill vs being at a hilltop. If curvature were a thing, after three miles you are basically firing up a hill. A hill btw, which we can't see at all. A hill which is probably the same height at the distance to curvature, which means no weapon should be able to fire at any length, and it's unlikely we'd be able to see past it, even from the highest mountain. Perspective's not like that.

Now, I'm going to sleep, and then gonna take several vacations in succession this year (out of town for tomorrow to like two weeks later, then about two more), so whatever. I think I've proven what I wanted to prove so that's probly it.

Unfortunately there's no such thing as this parabola stuff. There's no mechanism for it. Everyone would have their own which is easily trashed by just having people near each other and they all would be seeing something different. It doesn't even work on a flat earth, things in the sky would be arcing all over the place.

We don't observe any of that. Let alone measure any of that.

Here ya go. 


You'll probably need to actually go to the website to read the thing (right click, and it should have a link).

Oh.  No.  Through trying to find your parabola delusion. Through my military experience, hunting shooting, wildlife photography, rockery.   There is zero proof of anything that would create separate personal parabolas for each individual person, with zero evidence such a thing actually exists.

So.  The only proof of flat earth you have is some parabola delusion that makes flat earth act like a spherical earth?  Total BS…..

Here ya go.

You still have the issue of not explaining what magic is causing this parabola, nor addressing the other issues raised.

Again:
Why do objects disappear from the bottom up and appear to sink, when your nonsense indicates they should disappear from the top down?
How do people see the sun or the stars for any considerable period of time if the magical parabola is only 5 km away when it hits the ground?
How does this magic parabola work at all?
How do the stars magically manage to project to just the right positions to make Earth appear round?

And this also relates to your claims about the clouds.
If this parabola hits the ground 5 km away, why can you see clouds which are so much further?
How does your magic parabola magically bend the view to the clouds down?

And you still have the issue of spouting pure BS.
Your claim in proof 3 remains pure BS.

For a RE, the distance to the horizon is expected to be roughly sqrt(2*R*h)
So for an observer height of 2 m, the horizon should be roughly 5 km.
For an observer height of 10 m, the horizon should be roughly 11 km.

Stop repeating the same false claims.
On a RE, you expect the distance to the horizon to vary with observer altitude.
On a FE, there should be no horizon and that is what you are trying to explain.

So proof 3 is either proof of curvature, or still can't tell the difference.

Likewise, proof 4 you repeat another lie about the RE, and the same lie about curvature magically only ever being at 3 archaic units.
How many times will that 3 archaic unit lie of yours need to be exposed as pure BS before you stop making it?
Every time you do you just show the levels of dishonesty you are willing to stoop to to pretend your BS is correct.

For the RE, it isn't like standing at the bottom of the hill.
It is like standing at the top of the hill, with the ground curving down away from you in all directions.

A hill added on top of that RE would behave quite similarly regardless of if Earth was flat or round.
Approaching a hill from the bottom will result in the hill obstructing part of your FOV, with the amount obstructed depending on a few factors.
So yet again, your "proof" is entirely consistent with a RE.

Your "clarification" of proof 4 is just more garbage.
The RE is roughly a sphere, not a line that just takes a 90 degree corner.
You haven't even attempted to make a sensible depiction, so your garbage in no way invalidates a sensible depiction. And you thinking curved water looks stupid, just shows your own opinion and has no bearing on reality.

Proof number 5 is you failing to understand distance.
The sun and moon are so far away that the main factor determining their apparent position in the sky is the angle of the surface of Earth.

More importantly, when we see the sun and moon, they don't go off into the distance, shrinking and having us see a different fact like you need.
Instead, they appear to circle you, not a plane about you, but circling you, going down below Earth.

So not only do you fail to explain why any of this happens, what does happen is expected for the RE, so again, proof 5 is either proof of curvature, or at best (for you) can't tell.

I think I can safely conclude that any "common sense" you guys have is wrong.

And I can safely and confidently conclude that that claim of yours is pure BS, just like so many others, based upon nothing more than an intentional misrepresentation of the RE model.

The fact that yet again you appeal to a magical 3 archaic unit distance, which you have done nothing to justify and instead just baselessly assert to attack the RE shows this to be the case.

You can clearly see that the basic rules of a round Earth put you constantly at the bottom of a hill perspective-wise.

No, we can't. That is your claim you are yet to substantiate.
A RE (ignoring topography) puts you at the top of the hill, with the horizon at the same angle of dip all around, due to the Earth curving down away from you.

You can also see going up and down a hill that the moon tilts forward or backward

No, you don't. Not if you are measuring relative to level.

I also saw field of view move to well below 3 miles as I was moving up a hill in our car.

Which, depending on the hill, could be entirely expected for a RE.

If curvature were a thing, after three miles you are basically firing up a hill. A hill btw, which we can't see at all. A hill which is probably the same height at the distance to curvature, which means no weapon should be able to fire at any length, and it's unlikely we'd be able to see past it, even from the highest mountain.

Again, this is pure BS.
For a RE, it is like down a hill, not up, as the ground is curving down.
But for ballistics it is more complex because the direction of down changes, meaning the ground remains level.

It is not 3 miles straight and then a magical curve.
The curve is continuous, and the distance to the horizon depends on your altitude.
As you get higher, you can see further.

What is observed in reality matches what is expected for a RE. It does not match what is expected of a FE, even with your fantasy with the issues raised which you are yet to address.

I think I've proven what I wanted to prove so that's probly it.

If you wanted to prove the FE model is pure garbage, completely inconsistent with reality, and so bad that FEers need to resort to blatantly lying about the RE model repeatedly to pretend their garbage could actually work, all while refusing to address the issues with the claims of FEers, then yes you have.
If you wanted to prove how desperate FEers are for Earth to be flat, and the levels of dishonesty they are willing to stoop to to pretend Earth is flat, then yes you have.
If you wanted to clearly demonstrate that Earth is not flat, and in fact is round, then your BS, along with the refutations of your BS have done that.

If you wanted to prove your model could actually describe reality and that Earth could be flat or could not be round, then you have failed entirely.

Now, I'm going to sleep, and then gonna take several vacations in succession this year (out of town for tomorrow to like two weeks later, then about two more), so whatever. I think I've proven what I wanted to prove so that's probly it.

Is this whole flat earth thing a pretentious thing?  How dare you imply I believe in something so common as spherical earth.  While I drink my Kopi Luwak coffee.  Plan my several vacations in succession.  While I wear my mass produced shirts proclaiming how special and incorporeal my existence is.

😁

Here ya go. 

This is amazing!
Like sceppys drawing of stacked sponges and his down arrow magically pushing through a house onto a brick

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 06, 2022, 11:41:27 PM

Here ya go. 

This is amazing!
Like sceppys drawing of stacked sponges and his down arrow magically pushing through a house onto a brick

If round earthers can explain how things work with words and drawings, then any words and drawings are equally valid.

This is the basic reasoning you’re up against. 

here's the thing,

vague overlapping parabolas that follow you whereever you go don't explain shitall.

circles and triangles work.
observing how a road curves around a mountain or over a bridge is the same principal of circles and triangles and the horizon and ships disappearing bottom-up.
and the tangent creates a definitive "horizon" line.
not a fuzzy haze or intersecting parabola or darkness or whatever.