Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm not bothering to read through the volumes of the thread i have missed, i have checked a couple of pages though, but it appears you have yet to answer my first of three questions.
Take a look at a FE map and you'll see how.
How come the constellations are upside down, depending on which hemisphere you stand? Hw does that work on a flat earth?
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou haven't missed much, actually.
I'm not bothering to read through the volumes of the thread i have missed, i have checked a couple of pages though, but it appears you have yet to answer my first of three questions.
How come the constellations are upside down, depending on which hemisphere you stand? Hw does that work on a flat earth?
Those same two questions which I put forward several weeks ago remain unanswered.
I'll answer yours in full, once you answer mine.
"Answer the question."
"What was the question?"
"The question is the question I asked after I answered the other question."
"You didn't answer the other question."
"What was the question?"
"I'll tell you when you answer the first question."
"Which one was that?"
"I've already answered that."
"Could you repeat the answer?"
"The answer is the same as it was before."
-Removed-On the first page of this long thread, back on February 02, I posted one of the issues in a nutshell.
The curvature required of a round-ish globe dictates a vanishing horizon using a specific formula.
For reality to not conform to this formula says one of three things:
1. Either the formula is wrong; or
2. The dimensions attributed to the earth are wrong; or
3. The earth is not round.
Today is June 08.
127 days following that assertion, someone finally put forth a suggested formula for the curvature of the earth.
It required a modification, but it was serviceable otherwise.
And it was an answer.
73 pages of avoidance and general ignorance.
That's simply amazing.
On April 14, you claimed you'd asked me several times on my opinion of the earth's shape.
That same day, I let you know:
I honestly KNOW the earth is not the shape (or at least the dimensions) we have thought it to be over the last 500 years.
Math--- basic math--- simply cannot lie.
Complex and convoluted math can, but basic math cannot.
On April 15, in response to wolfgang59, I gave the commonly-accepted formula for determining the curvature of the earth since no one in between could manage to post it.
It took 73 days of back and forth and all manner of ridicule, but not one person who supports the globe earth could provide the formula for the rate of curvature.
73 days.
On page 32, dated April 25, I put the issue in the most concise perspective possible.
It didn't help.
On page 47, dated May 08, I offered my description of the earth.
Following this, no one has answered the questions put forth.
As stated, GOAD has responded with an approximation of the formula for determining the earth's curvature, but otherwise, no one has answered the two questions put forth fairly early on:
HOW ARE DISTANT OBJECT WHICH OUGHT TO BE BELOW THE HORIZON OTHERWISE VISIBLE
and
WHY DOES NASA LIE?
And here we sit...
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHOW ARE DISTANT OBJECT WHICH OUGHT TO BE BELOW THE HORIZON OTHERWISE VISIBLE
On the first page of this long thread, back on February 02, I posted one of the issues in a nutshell.
[quote]The curvature required of a round-ish globe dictates a vanishing horizon using a specific formula.
For reality to not conform to this formula says one of three things:
1. Either the formula is wrong; or
2. The dimensions attributed to the ear ...[text shortened]... BELOW THE HORIZON OTHERWISE VISIBLE
and
WHY DOES NASA LIE?
And here we sit...[/b]
Distant objects below the horizon are 'not' visible. I don't think you have successfully evidenced otherwise. Taking our agreed curvature of the Earth (8 inches per mile) I don't see how it can be argued that objects will not eventually drop below the horizon and out of view.
WHY DOES NASA LIE?
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if NASA have tidied up images or made exaggerations to enhance their reputation, secure funding etc. All large organizations are arguably guilty of lying,at some time or another. - That said, you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. It is not a reasonable conclusion that, because NASA lies, the Earth is therefore flat and we haven't been to the moon.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou know, 3000 years ago, nobody could be blamed for thinking Earth to be flat and the center of the universe and so forth.
Side note concession:
Hell is exactly where the Bible indicates is, i.e., beneath the earth.
I'm guessing somewhere beyond the seven mile mark.
You have no such excuse, I am personally insulted you would think NASA lies about everything. I watch the NASA channel and there is no way they could fake people being weightless, where you claim it is just done in the vomit rocket which as you know full well cannot do more than 30 seconds of weighlessness yet there is far longer sequences on ISS which is not photoshopped.
It is so stupid to be beyond believe you think GPS is all done from ground stations even though I have pointed out GPS works just fine a thousand miles out at sea where there are no ground stations.
You ignore the fact about Foucault's pendulum, you ignore the problem for flatassers the sun should be visible 24/7. You ignore the fact the moon looks upside down in the southern hemisphere or stars rotating backwards south of the equator.
In other words, you have your head firmly up your own ass and will stay that way for the rest of your miserable existence.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeDistant objects below the horizon are 'not' visible. I don't think you have successfully evidenced otherwise.
[b]HOW ARE DISTANT OBJECT WHICH OUGHT TO BE BELOW THE HORIZON OTHERWISE VISIBLE
Distant objects below the horizon are 'not' visible. I don't think you have successfully evidenced otherwise. Taking our agreed curvature of the Earth (8 inches per mile) I don't see how it can be argued that objects will not eventually drop below the horizon and o ...[text shortened]... conclusion that, because NASA lies, the Earth is therefore flat and we haven't been to the moon.[/b]
And yet they are, and yet I have.
I've not asked anyone to take my word for my own experience, even though it includes daily confirmation of this reality.
Daily (and all times of the day or night) I am able to see Cleveland from 20+ miles away as well as the stacks of the Euclid Power Plant--- and lower buildings--- which are over 30 miles away, both with my unaided eye.
The only impediment is weather-related (rain, fog, haze, clouds), smog, or unusually high waves.
From my vantage point, Cleveland ought to be obscured by ~200' due to curvature, but this is not the case.
The power plant further up north should be 523' below my line of sight, but this also is not the case.
That's just my daily experience and I am only one man.
Therefore, I offered the many examples available in both pictures and videos on the internet as proof of the reality.
One which was touched upon briefly herein was a video recording of an experiment intended to corroborate the Bedford Level Experiment.
Sitting the camera on one side of the bay at ground level with a 4' mirror on the shore of the other side with six miles between them, the camera should not have been able to record the images of the other shore with the mirror visible.
There should have been 10-14' of loss due to curvature, yet except for high waves, the mirror was completely visible.
This most recently discussed video of the sunrise behind Oahu as seen from a state park in Kauai demonstrates an object 80+ miles east of the observer (the distance between the center of the two islands is 108 miles; I am here measuring between the shore of Kauai and the tallest portion of Oahu).
At that distance, the line of sight for an observer would be at least 3,000' above the surface of the earth.
The tallest portion of Oahu is Ka'ala which tops out at 4,025' so with at least 3,000' of loss due to curvature, we would expect to see only the top ~1,000' of the island.
Such is not the case, however: we see the entire western side of the island, from the shore up.
That said, you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. It is not a reasonable conclusion that, because NASA lies, the Earth is therefore flat and we haven't been to the moon.
Although I agree that proof of their collusion is not proof of the shape of the earth or that we didn't make it to the moon, I am not inclined to accept the testimony of a known liar.
Since most people are crap at math or critically analyzing data, the overwhelming majority of people take their "proof" of the earth's shape from the cartoons produced by NASA (or any other space program).
The fact that they lie even while presenting their discoveries as truthful representations is grounds enough to dismiss anything they do provide as anything more than entertainment.
Couple their representation of a perfectly round earth with the discrepancies of the formula for the rate of curvature exhibited daily, and the conclusion is something is amiss.
Does it mean the world is flat?
Not based on those two facts.
Does it mean the world is not a sphere?
If it is, it certainly cannot be the dimensions given: the math does not lie.
NASA does, but the math does not.
-Removed-This is just a load of waffle based on YOUR assertion that YOU can see a distant object from YOUR home which YOU think should be below YOUR visible horizon. What YOU can see is irrelevant.
You don't debate much, do you?
Well, at least not successfully.
If I am basing my position solely on my observations, it is as valid as my ability to ascertain the particulars, i.e., measure distances, confirm elevations, calculate the expected curvature and, of course, understand the time of day.
Assuming I can Google with the best of them as well as input numbers into any one of several calculators and other formula projectors, the only thing left to consider is my sanity: perhaps the objects I am seeing every day really aren't there, are simply figments of my demented imagination.
Of course, that would mean that everyone in my family and all the people who live around me, and all of the photographers who have captured images which we think we are seeing are also equally demented, since we are all seeing the same things.
Totally possible.
So I eliminated this as a possibility by encouraging people to do their own research in their respective neck of the woods or even find examples on the internet of the same reality.
We actually discussed some examples found on the internet which demonstrated the reality: distant objects which ought to be below the horizon are clearly visible.
We also discussed some examples of the government agency, NASA, misrepresenting reality with cartoon-like productions.
If the commonly-accepted formula for the rate of curvature of a sphere is incorrect, it is on you to provide one to replace it.
Of course, this will be somewhat difficult for you to do, since you have failed to provide even the commonly-accepted formula, no matter how many times you've been challenged.
You wish the argument to be about something opinionated or otherwise subjective.
I insist the discussion remain on what can be proven by anyone with a baseline of coordination and ability.
The assumed formula for the rate of curvature of a sphere with the earth's given dimensions using US standards of measurement is:
distance in miles squared multiplied by eight inches, divided by twelve inches equals the expected rate of loss due to curvature.
Now: what else do you have to say?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]This is just a load of waffle based on YOUR assertion that YOU can see a distant object from YOUR home which YOU think should be below YOUR visible horizon. What YOU can see is irrelevant.
You don't debate much, do you?
Well, at least not successfully.
If I am basing my position solely on my observations, it is as valid as my ability to ascertai ...[text shortened]... hes equals the expected rate of loss due to curvature[/b].
Now: what else do you have to say?[/b]
If I am basing my position solely on my observations, it is as valid as my ability to ascertain the particulars, i.e., measure distances, confirm elevations, calculate the expected curvature and, of course, understand the time of day.Interesting that your list and your description assumes that light only travels in straight lines, but of course that is only so in a vacuum and not true in an atmosphere. I cannot see where you acknowledge this interesting and critical (for your argument) variable but I have not searched your historical posts so stand to be corrected. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Effect_of_atmospheric_refraction
Earth has an atmosphere of air, whose density and refractive index vary considerably depending on the temperature and pressure. This makes the air refract light to varying extents, affecting the appearance of the horizon. Usually, the density of the air just above the surface of the Earth is greater than its density at greater altitudes. This makes its refractive index greater near the surface than higher, which causes light that is travelling roughly horizontally to be refracted downward. This makes the actual distance to the horizon greater than the distance calculated with geometrical formulas. With standard atmospheric conditions, the difference is about 8%. This changes the factor of 3.57, in the metric formulas used above, to about 3.86. This correction can be, and often is, applied as a fairly good approximation when conditions are close to standard. When conditions are unusual, this approximation fails. Refraction is strongly affected by temperature gradients, which can vary considerably from day to day, especially over water. In extreme cases, usually in springtime, when warm air overlies cold water, refraction can allow light to follow the Earth's surface for hundreds of kilometres. Opposite conditions occur, for example, in deserts, where the surface is very hot, so hot, low-density air is below cooler air. This causes light to be refracted upward, causing mirage effects that make the concept of the horizon somewhat meaningless.
If you consider the most extreme examples of mirages that have been reported, then you will see that it is not valid to infer too much about the curvature of the earth based on lines of vision, since these are an elastic variable, too unreliable to give consistent results. The belief that light travels in precisely straight lines is often false and can be false by a huge margin of error.
You need to build your argument on better foundations.
Originally posted by finneganDon't worry, his masterful refutation: I'm right and you are wrong. Period. NASA lies about everything, there are no satellites, GPS is run from ground stations only and don't EVEN tell me about foucault's pendulum or stars *supposedly* upside down and turning the wrong way at night.If I am basing my position solely on my observations, it is as valid as my ability to ascertain the particulars, i.e., measure distances, confirm elevations, calculate the expected curvature and, of course, understand the time of day.Interesting that your list and your description assumes that light only travels in straight lines, but of cou ...[text shortened]... an be false by a huge margin of error.
You need to build your argument on better foundations.