21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA

« on: June 28, 2019, 09:06:24 PM »

Interesting. 

A spring (torsion) scale measures the deformation of such spring to indicate weight.  The deformation is based on the mass over the spring, compressing it by the gravity pull.  "Calibration" means to use a standard known weight over the spring, and adjust the dial to show exactly the value of such mass.  Other intermediary standard weights are used to make sure the scale indication still correct after calibration.   Industrial and lab scales are supplied with calibration weights and more precise ones could be bought to produce frequent calibrations.  No industry or "pharmacy" would use a scale that is out of calibration according to procedures stated and followed.  It is imperative for an industry to calibrate their equipment very often, they may be losing money by not doing so, it worth the calibration cost.  Some equipment can not even be calibrated in the field, some need to be sent to calibration labs, where they use super-standards based on NIST, and even those super-standards calibrators need calibration also.   So, you can be sure, an industrial or lab calibrated scale located anywhere in the globe would indicate the same weight for the same pound of mass.  No doubt about that.  Thinking differently is just demonstrating not knowing about how this things work.   A 499g piece of stainless steel will not change its mass based on temperature, humidity, air pressure, it must show 499g on the Equator or on the Poles.  Some electronic scales has self-calibrating features, they do pretty good within certain range.  In the past I worked with load cells, when you work with those you start to understand about all other scales, since they are also used to measure force of deformation in general, bridges steel beams, arcs, building floor beams, vehicles long frames like long trucks, trains, even rockets structures - pounds related to nothing is the most common measurements on those, just related to deformation of resting state.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What empirical evidence proves a curved half round "dome" shape firmament?

« on: June 28, 2019, 04:54:16 PM »

TAN X1 = 1.27330478216 = 0.636652 x 2
SIN X2 = 116.712/188.962 = 0.617648
Please explain how to find the values of X1 and X2 using only basic arithmetic.
Using a pocket calculator, an online web calculator, or the tools of advanced calculus, we obtain:
X1 = 51.8554 degrees
X2 = 38.144 degrees

I do Tan(x) and Sin(x) calculations in assembly language, in a 8 bits microcontroller in less than 300 bytes of code, without using any "pocket or online calculator".
Taylor, Maclaurin and my own algorithms can do it easily.
Egyptians had the same brain capacity as Taylor and myself.
Basic Arithmetic:
sin(x) = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - x^7/7! ... 
tan(x) = x + x^3/3 + 2x^5/15 + ...

Anyway, this is very far off from the original post, about the evidence that proves the "dome".

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA

« on: June 28, 2019, 04:24:06 PM »

As it is not listed on Wiki, I previously calculated; the UA force to accelerate the FE mass to 9.8m/s² is equivalent to 1 billion billion Saturn-V rocket engines trust.
AFAIR from the calculation, it is equivalent to 100 thousand Saturn V rockets per km² of FE area.
It would be 1 rocket per each 10m², it would not even physically fit.
I wonder the source of this unimaginable continuous energy flow for eons, a star that comes along?

There is a huge difference between Gravity and UA;  Gravity doesn't need huge forces or energy, UA requires huge amounts of energy to accelerate mass.

Want some comparison?

Try to hold a 100kg block of steel hanging from the ceiling, just using strong neodymium magnets bolt to the ceiling, then, try to do the same using electromagnets.  The later will require constant energy to create the strong magnetic field to hold the steel block, while the neodymium magnets will do the job for years without consuming any extra energy at all.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: June 26, 2019, 10:43:01 PM »

Google maps tend to be more accurate for regular people observation.
Even if you get your spinning globe at the corner of the room and observe details with a magnifier, you will see no difference if the map was flatten or not.
In small angles it is very difficult to notice differences.
Google does that, when you zoom in, it tend to flat since there is no gain in keeping the roundness.
If you zoom out, it tend to become more and more round, but it is just for the sake of it, you don't have any real use for a whole planet view as a map, other than just curiosity to locate something or to learn a little bit more. 

Google gain points by that, since you can actually see the poles in almost real geometry, and the lands of higher latitudes.
Microsoft tend to be lazy on the programming for real time scaling, they keep the map as the Mercator projection - some navigators like the mercator since it represent a spaced time longitude, but fails on distances.  Spaced time is good for navigation observing the sky, Sun, stars, etc, but it doesn't mean exactly "clock time", since distances become shorter, it seems you are traveling faster, what is not true.  If you measure wind speed and knots of water movement, it doesn't match the traveled time, but they use a table for latitude compensation that fixes that, they are not stupid.

For the common person, observing the Mercator map makes a wrong impression of the planet, but a great part of the "common persons" can not even think in 3D or in a spherical navigation, most of them not even left the city they're born, so...

My own young age education used the Mercator map, and it polarized my mind in a wrong way.  It took few years of my youth to correct it, mostly close to the poles.  Then, and only then, everything about the solar projections, seasons and eclipses start to make better sense, and then I move out from the bag of "common persons".

Interesting that there is no need to use Mercator projection for Mars map, for example, but it is done like that, and I think they do it for "compatibility" of what "common person" is used on the Mercator map of Earth.  Even so, I think it is ridiculous. Fortunately we have GoogleEarth with Mars 3D database, what solves the issue easy.



There is a lot of people already working for the Human trip to Mars, it is a good plan, there are many thousands of people, companies, universities (including us) studying all kinds of subjects, everything you can imagine and more, just to avoid surprises once on Mars.  In 20~40 years we will have people there, researching, living, expanding environmental habitats, increasing the living conditions for more and more people moving to Mars.  There is even a research about animal embryos to be transported to Mars and grew up there, some as food, some as pets, some tests involve low oxygen levels.  FEs would continue to say it is just fake pictures and images from NASA, unfortunately, for them.

https://youtu.be/8QtXFLL7Y2g

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 25, 2019, 08:45:35 PM »

So, according to you, if even Einstein did it, why can't you do the same, right?
And thanks for not refuting my statement.
Please read this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-career-in-counseling/201110/facts-and-assumptions-what-is-the-difference-and-does-it

There are different ways to communicate in this world.
When you state something as a fact, you NEED to supply evidences of proof, if not, the world stop seeing you as honest or serious.
When you want to expose what you think about something, you need to make sure people understand that is an personal assumption.
All your posts are stating your text as a fact.  Readers can assume that is the reality, not a supposition.

You wrote:
"The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams."

The wording lead to a factoid statement of the truth, without any logical evidences.  I understand this is what you believe it could be, but it is not written like that.
Dictators in our history use to say things like "This is like this and that, and it is because I want it to be", even so, they don't last longer.
Humans don't communicate like that when trying to find alternate ideas for something. There is a cooperative exchange of ideas and possible assumptions, nobody is owner of the truth, nor nobody knows everything, thus, nobody can use words like "it is, they are, which use, which orbit", when supposing things, without a minimum shred of evidence, except on dreams.   If you have evidencial facts, several times duplicated and experienced, then expose them, and then, only then, you can use words like "based on my findings, it is..."  But you don't have any personal findings about the retroreflectors, other than the oficial version (a laser reflective device on the surface of the Moon, installed by Apollo astronauts), you are just supposing it could be like you wrote to justify your flat earth assumptions, using explanations of Biefeld-Brown effect, something that you use on every sentence you write, to justify something is floating on orbit.  Seriously, we can not listen to this music track anymore.

Oh, and by the way, don't waste your time posting links to "www.theflatear...", I don't click on those, never did.

Also, did you ever think to imagine that humans of Flat Earth could put something on the Moon at 4800km in altitude? why not?
If the UA helps to fly high above, what could be the problem to reach the FE Moon, and even the FE Sun? nothing, right?
So, why it is impossible to have laser reflectors on FE Moon? Robots, scanners, cameras? photos of FE down here? why not? 

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 25, 2019, 07:00:13 PM »

You can not make people believe in something just because you say it.

But you can, if their livelihood/careers depend on it.

"Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity. Distinguished British physicist Dr Louis Essen stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.'


One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since."

This sort of thing was happening in the physics departments of ALL major universities (USA, UK, France, Canada).

So, you are saying that you would LIE through your face, in order to achieve a career goal, money or objective.
That is beautiful.
Then I can "assume" that everything you wrote in your life is only based on your own gain, nothing with reality or truth.
I rest my case.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 25, 2019, 05:17:22 PM »

I want you to imagine for a minute that you have been selected for jury duty, and you are sitting in the courtroom listening to the evidence. As you watch, the prosecution calls an expert forensic scientist to the stand, and they carefully explain the facts concerning the forensic evidence, all of which point towards the defendant’s guilt. Then, the defendant’s lawyer stands up and shouts, “Objection, this witness has been paid off to lie about my client!” After a moment of shocked silence, the judge says, “That is quite a claim. What evidence do you have to support it?” The lawyer then responds simply by saying, “only someone who had been bought off would say things like that against my client.” Now, what do you think is going to happen next? Is that a reasonable defense that the judge will accept? Obviously not! The defense is making an extraordinary assumption, and it is clearly invalid to do so.

In an example like that, the problem is obvious. You can’t just make things up to dismiss facts that are inconvenient for you. Indeed, when a person’s fate hangs in the balance, we all want the arguments and evidence to be based on facts, not assumptions. Nevertheless, when it comes to science and many aspects of our daily lives (such as politics), people are often more than happy to accept assumptions, and people frequently state them as if they are facts. Therefore, I am going to provide several examples of this flawed line of reasoning, and explain why it not only doesn’t work, but often commits a logical fallacy.

One of the most important concepts in debates and rational thinking: the burden of proof. This states that the person making the claim is always required to provide legitimate evidence to support it. In other words, if you want to claim that scientists have been paid off, then it is your duty to provide actual evidence to support that claim, and if you cannot do that, then you are stating an assumption, not a fact, and your argument is illegitimate. Similarly, if you want to claim that companies are hiding cures, a conspiracy is afoot, etc., you must provide evidence to substantiate those claims. You simply cannot dream about it and assume things that haven’t been verified, because if you could, then we could all dismiss every single argument that we don’t like simply by assuming the existence of some contrary evidence. Also, it is worth explicitly stating that you have to show the evidence, not the other way around. In other words, if you are claiming that a conspiracy exists, you have to provide evidence that it exists, whereas I do not have to provide evidence that it doesn’t exist.  You can not simply create such assumptions and spread to the internet, waiting someone to come up with the evidences, or for the masses popular belief to be considered evidence.  That’s the way that the burden of proof works. In fact, saying “you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, therefore it is valid to think that it does exist” is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance.

Yes, I agree with TomInAustin, Mr. Sandokhan statements are just blind assumptions as facts, and it is being repeated over and over everywhere, getting comical, not a single shread of evidence is proven, other than his own previous sayings or from other people that act in similar way.  I can not believe that Mr. Hawkings, Einstein, Sagan, and so many other thousand scientists were paid off by governmental agencies to lie to the general population, if yes, show me the evidences and proof.  Some people still thinking the actual population knowledge and brain capacity still the same as 1880, not evolved.  You can not make people believe in something just because you say it.

Tom Bishop already said, "To accept blindly is to live in ignorance."

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs

« on: June 25, 2019, 04:56:44 PM »

I wonder why all dubious highly contested old text from Alexander Gleason and Samuel Rowbotham should be considered way above and over Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, for example.  When you just discard and completely ignore the best brains of our history, in favor to your own obscure agenda, you are showing where and how your foundations are built, this by itself states the colors of your flag and where and how far you will go with such shoes.

55. The Newtonian theory of astronomy requires that the Moon "borrow" her light from the Sun. Now, since the Sun's rays are hot and the Moon's light sends with it no heat at all, it follows that the Sun and Moon are "two great lights," as we somewhere read; that the Newtonian theory is a mistake; and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Just try to follow and compare the intelligence reasoning of the above text (#55) and Stephen Hawking text about black holes in 1974, what became known as "Hawking Radiation", below link:
https://www.livescience.com/65683-sonic-black-hole-spews-hawking-radiation.html

In case of difficulties, just google about the temperature of the universe presented to the surface of the earth at night under clear skies, try to understand about dew point and condensation caused by this extreme low temperature, causing your car's windshield get wet but no the side windows.  At clear nights, the universe presents an extreme low temperature blanket, and there, in the middle a weak low reflective (albedo = 0.136, 13.6% reflection) moon, with a charcoal dark grey color surface - oh, you didn't know it was dark grey?, the full moon receives solar radiation enough to heat its surface to 127°C, but it represents only 0.5° of the 150°+ super cool blanket.  I imagine if when you open your home freezer door you can feel the warmth of the internal lamp.  Yeah.   Try to read about why we astronomers need to produce a small heat around the primary lens/glass of telescopes to avoid condensation due sky super-cool temperatures at night, with or without Moon (doesn't change a thing).



"...since the Sun's rays are hot...".  Are they? really? did you ever measured the temperature of the green or blue rays from the Sun?  They may be packed with energy, but not thermal as essential.  Infra-red radiation is the most responsible for the temperature we feel from the Sun.  What burns your unprotected skin under Florida's Sun is UV, in real it doesn't burn by temperature, but by its packed energy damaging your dermal cells. If the energy pack is big enough it causes ionization in the cells, damage DNA, cancer, you don't even feel the ionization happening, no temperature really.  Ask any radiologist about "what is the temperature of X rays?"  It can cook you, give you cancer by it, you don't feel a thing when exposing yourself to a x-ray.

In 1880, the complete lack of knowledge about most scientific facts we have today, could lead people to believe and assume things like "Sun's rays are hot", and "the moon light cools down earth", people also think martians are green small creatures with big dark eyes, later they changed the color to grey... yeah.

Mr. Gleason didn't use any spectrograph+thermometer on his telescope to measure Moon's temperature when stating the #55, not even declared the temperatures involved from the Sun, Moon or the universe, but wait, he never touched a telescope, all he has was a printing machinery and wanted to sell his cardboard flat maps of the earth.

4 The Flat Earth Society is a bastion of disobedience, a shining buoy of rebellion on a dark sea of compliance, a declaration that we must not blindly accept a truth without compelling evidence. We are skeptics, and rightly so. The role of the skeptic is to examine both the claims and the evidence, to expose any internal or external inconsistencies, and to prefer those conclusions that are more consistent with real-world facts than competing claims, rejecting any that are manifestly inconsistent with themselves and with the truth.

5 To accept blindly is to live in ignorance. To question the world around you is to be free. So we seek to question -- to endlessly question and question again -- to unravel the mysteries of reality for ourselves, allowing truth to be our compass and to follow it wherever it leads us.

I personally strongly agree with Mr. Bishop on #5 above.  That is the fundamental basis of science, and all the scientists are doing for long time, including Mr. Newton, Hawking, Sagan, Einstein and so many others.  Unfortunately Mr. Bishop beliefs don't rely on those fantastic minds and their life of research and discoveries.  Unfortunately his own words "endlessly question and question again" is different from "endlessly being contrary and contrary again".  You can question society/science and their statements, that is accepted and is parte of the evolution.  Being contrary without evidences is to work blindly and to live in a revolutionary ignorance.

But everyone is free to choose to draw the lines of his/her own future.  And live by that.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs

« on: June 24, 2019, 08:04:23 PM »

The invention of A. Gleason:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US497917A/en

His "invention" was a simple way to calculate time differences using two arms and a flat map of the earth.
Read on the invention text, he never mentioned a "map of the flat earth", but "a flat map of the earth".

Interesting, isn't it?

Most amazing, patents office in 1893, calling such thing an invention, can you imagine the average knowledge and intelligence level of the common Joe?
Patented granted 1893, expired 1910, never reclaimed.

I understand, at that time a simple shoe laces hard tips could be considered an invention, and patented.
I went through some patent applications during my life, right now it is not an easy task to make sure it would be accepted and patent granted.
Of course, if you are rich with well paid lawyers, you can register a hard drive with words like "in general magnetic surface, in general a very small magnetic flying read/write head...", and locks the way for everybody else trying to do the same.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA

« on: June 24, 2019, 05:55:27 PM »

To make it easy to visualize, I can imagine a 40 thousand km diameter air blower nozzle blowing air underneath FE, pushing it up.  Only the lower layer is being affected by such force, but for such force to act upon Sun, Moon, all the planets, stars, etc, the nozzle must be larger than 40,000 km, so the air flow leaks all around the ice wall, converge and act upon thousands of miles above FE surface.  Yes, I can imagine it inside a wind tunnel.   

There are few problems here. 

First, this seems to be an accelerating force, so the blower is not stationary somewhere in the empty universe, it must accompany the FE movement in order to accelerate it - like a blower inside a ship, blowing air to the sails. 

Second, FE is pretty massy, heavy, imagine PI*20000km²*T where T is thickness, lets imagine T ~= 1000km, = PI * 4E8 * 1E3 = 1.256E12 cubic km, lets consider 1m3 of basalt rock = 3 Ton, lets average with water and other lighter elements, to 2Ton per cubic meter.  A cubic km has 1E9 cubic meter, so 2E12 kg per cubic km, times 1.256E12 = 2.56E24 kg would be the assumed mass of FE. 

That was a wild pretty good guess, looking now at wikipedia, the spherical planet has a mass of 5.97E24 kg, I missed by half.  Then, I wolder the UA force to accelerate such mass at 9.8m/s².  Newton's Second Law of Motion states Force is mass times acceleration, so the UA force will be 2.5E25 Newtons. 

Third, the Saturn V engines could generate a trust of 2.5E7 Newtons, and that was the most powerful thing humans could produce to date.  UA would be 1E18 times stronger than a Saturn V (1,000,000,000,000,000,000, a billion billion Saturn V rockets).  Dividing rockets per square km of the FE, it will be approximate ONE HUNDRED MILLION Saturn V rockets per km², that is pretty amazing energy, and we have no idea where this energy comes from or what it is composition. Interesting.

Fourth, the energy leaking, brushing and flowing up all around the ice wall should be astonishing magnificent, and nobody ever try to use that, that would be the best place to install a rocket launching platform, right? Zero G all the way up and beyond!

Fifth, I wonder how the edge of the ice wall stand such energy pressure/friction without being broken to pieces and pushed up to the atmosphere.  There is no other way, such force must leak all around the ice wall, if not, if it is more concentrated to the center part of the bottom FE, such huge force in the center and huge mass to the edge not being pushed up, would break up the FE. 

Sixth, the actual SUN produces 3.86E26 Watts of energy, one Newton m/s = 15 Watts, so the Sun produces an equivalent force of 2.57 E25 Newtons, the UA energy to push FE up at 9.8m/s² is 1/10E6 of the Sun's power.  So, the UA power plant should be an amazing mini star, producing such cold energy equivalent to a billion billion Saturn V, not melting the ice wall, and the only thing keeping FE to ice cold completely is a tinny puny Sun of 48 km in diameter, at 4800km in altitude.

I don't know about you, but for me it is much more simpler and physically possible for gravity to be as we know it, and deform space/time as predicted and confirmed so many times.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs

« on: June 24, 2019, 04:02:45 PM »

I really don't know why everything related to flat earth must be based on more than 130 years old literature, and, observations without modern instrumentation and measurement, largely based on unknown navigator through his cousin, friend, etc.

Why not rely on actual modern documents, as this ships navigation real time maps below?  I really don't understand why very old and dubious documents are more valid and more believable.  Why FEs have this fixation about old books and old questionable information?

The marinetraffic is a real time transport sea ships position information, with thousands of ships, routes, etc.  All of them are mistaken about the fuel they need to travel the distances?  I don't think so.  If the distances from the actual map were wrong, I guess few thousand of those ships captains would have reported the problem already.  A 1800'sh book is more reliable?  It would be funny for a captain knowing the ship needs "x" gallons of oil per mile, fitting "y" gallons in the tanks, making "z" miles, being z double or triple what he expects? Nah. It doesn't happen.  Perhaps a simple (many thousands of) ship trip log could demonstrate it.  A 1800'sh book is more reliable, based on a "say" from few letters from sailors, that "suggest" longer trips?

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:29.4/centery:30.1/zoom:2

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs

« on: June 21, 2019, 09:26:30 PM »

In 1885's magnetics were not a great playful toys as we have 130 years later.  Today any 7 years old kid buying any kind of magnetic balls and such at eBay can answer #11, #12 and #13 smiling.  Mr. William Carpenter in 1885 had a vague idea about magnetic fields, and worse, his readers (the ones that can read and the others that can not even read) had even less knowledge.   

#16 is a proof that people are free to state as truth whatever they want, without hard evidence, in 1885 letters and mail traveled over horses, so nobody could contest fast some untrue statements, like we can do now over internet in seconds.  Mr. Bill Carpenter statements wound't survive 30 minutes in 2019.  "since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance", Mr. Carpenter, please, what is the name and email address of these "navigators", please, if you state it as truth, you have the information.  Like people would say 135 years later, without evidence your words are just dust in the wind.

33

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?

« on: June 21, 2019, 08:32:48 PM »

I know BD is not faking at all. 

First, I saw personally one of the robots working.

Second, my personal budget is waaaaay below BD, million times lower, and even so I was able to build a self standing and driving two wheels and one arm robot, with accelerators and gyros chips, infrared and ultrasound sensors for obstacles, no image camera yet (working on it), and a simple space orientation beacon based on 3 ultrasound emitters in the long room.  When he wants to make sure about location, it stops, shuts off its own ultrasound obstacle avoidance, blinks its strong IR LEd upwards in a certain sequence of pulses, this trigger the 3 emitters, then listen to them.  The first emitter beeps, the second hear such beep and issue its own beep, the third does it too.  The robot listen for the 3 beeps and measures time between them following its own IR flash.  As the time delay between each emitter  is known, the robot calculates the delays from what he hear, and with certain accuracy he can tell where he is in the room, walks a foot and repeat, now he even knows the direction.  This was home made (as many others in the world), using 8 simple AVR AtMega microcontrollers (including the emitters) a half size car battery, MosFET drivers, motors, etc.  Boston D uses much more advanced processors, memories, programming, drivers, actuators, engines, and millions of dollars.  If they can? Of course they can, much more even, talk about the military contracts we shouldn't know.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The horizon isn't a straight line. Stop saying it's a line.

« on: June 21, 2019, 08:03:27 PM »

Therefore, the horizon (if you look at it) is a circle that is TILTED compared to your view direction.
The higher you are, the more you need to TILT to look at it, and the more TILTED that circle looks.

Correct, the same example of the hola-loop on the ground, you may say there is a up and down on the 2D image, because it is tilted.
Yes, if you go high enough you will see the circle curvature, and the vertical curvature, and there is a height where it starts to show that, really small and then it grows.  We are in the same page.

35

Flat Earth Theory / 100 proofs

« on: June 21, 2019, 06:51:57 PM »

I wish to start a conversation about some of the 100 proofs from the link below, text written year: 1885.
I have a list here I selected as good conversation points, 16, 33, 34, 37, 44, 49, 54, 55, 57 and 71.
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe

But first, I want to ask if FEs agree with the 100 items posted on the file, and if not, which numbers should I eliminate?

Anyhow, I wish to start with numbers 33, 37 and 44, but pay attention to 44 first, and answer my question: If you fire 3 bullets, no, no bullets, just a baseball by hand, inside an airplane flying at 500 miles per hour, front to back then back to front, the last sideways. If you timed each ball to travel 1 meter, they would present different times?, meaning different speed?  Just remember, the airplane is the frame of reference. To confuse you a little bit more, remember that the "sideways" ball travel is in a real diagonal if observed from a stationary observer on the ground, but on board, it moves neatly sideways.  Try to calculate the 1m distance time/speed, from the point of view of a airplane passenger and from the observer on the ground.  Then read again the #44 below.

44) It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in, a second of time, "from west to east," it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.

And no, the flight attendant does not walks the corridor in different speeds when going back or front in reference to passengers... that would be ridiculous to think.  In 1885 the world was different, ignorant, lacking tools, technology, instrumentation.  In 1880 only 19.5% of the population COULD READ. How this people could understand the world? They could not research, just believing on what the other ignorant say. And even the ones literate, what they read?
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy

So, how many of the 100 can we discard now?

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The horizon isn't a straight line. Stop saying it's a line.

« on: June 21, 2019, 06:17:53 PM »

Yes, it all depends on how high you are compared to the diameter of the horizon circle.   

The problem with the hola-loop is the diameter is so small (and fixed) compared to you, and its diameter never change according to you moving it up and down.  In the oblate spherical planet, such diameter changes according to your altitude, to a certain point. 

Think with me:  If you are floating on the open high sea, you can not see very far, your horizon is limited by the 8"/mile, and most of all, the waves and turbulence in the water, but imagine you stand at 30 ft high, and can see far because you can see over the waves and turbulence.  Even so, your horizon view distance is limited by the 8"/mile, maybe not considering waves of moisture affecting refraction of light, you will be able to see 3 to 4 miles, so that is the radius of your hola-loop.  If you fly up to 300 ft, your hola-loop horizon radius will increase, keep the flat horizon line straight. Fly up to 10km high, hola-loop becomes bigger, still flat horizon.   The only altitude your hola-loop stop increasing radius, is when the horizon increase can not keep up with your height, the curvature escaped in an bigger angle than your distance (altitude) can not see it, and that is when you start to see the curvature of the horizon as you stated, yes, it happens, I agree with you, but only in altitude proportional to the diameter of the hola-loop.   In case of the Earth, the diameter is big, you need to be far away for that to happen.  See, I agree with you, it is just a matter of proportions.

I don't have a graphic generator software here, tonight I will post some nice drawing about mending 4 "pictures" of 90° aperture to make a panoramic view of 360°, even with small degrees of curvature down on the edges, the final image becomes what you do not see in real life. It will be a dented horizon, you don't see it when turning your head on open seas, not real.

There is a visual misconception about what is up/down, front/back on our world observation.
If you see a hola-loop in the ground, and you are standing up one meter outside it, you could state that in a 2D representation the farther side of the loop is high, the closer side is down, it appears like that in a photo, right?  But your intelligence tells you the hola-loop is flat on the ground, so it is leveled horizontally, no up, no down, just a visual interpretation of the 2D observation.   You can even swear that loop forms a curvature, yes, but horizontal one, over the ground.

Now, imagine 100 hola-loops each one with an increasing diameter as a function of sine(), if you pile up those loops you will have one half of a ball (hemisphere), number those loops from 1 to 100, being 1 the small on top, the largest (100) touching the floor.  Now, if the diameter of the #100 is 10 thousand times bigger than you, and you are over the #1, maybe you could see the #1 and #2, being the horizon.  If you go higher vertically, start to see the #3, #4 and so on, perhaps very high you could see #50, much higher, #70, astonishing higher, perhaps #99 or even #100.   What curvature would you see, even when seeing the #100?  The curvature of the loop, you can not see the curvature made by the sequence #1 to #100, you can not, you are on vertical top, you only see concentric circles.  Of course, 3D image can show you the #100 is further down than #1, but you still "not seeing any curvature", only the curve (circle) of each loop in the pile.  Well, the curvature of each loop is a nice proof of the hemisphere being curved, but that is horizontally curved, not vertically.   To see it vertically, you need to move yourself down and out of the top, go horizontally far, at height of loop #50, then maybe you will see the hemisphere sideways, curved vertically.

We are talking the same thing, just a matter of proportions and what curvature you are trying to show, the horizon circle curvature or the vertical curvature made from you to distance?  That is the one people try to prove showing boats disappearing below the horizon.  You can not capture that curvature horizontally in front of you with a photo picture.
 

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The horizon isn't a straight line. Stop saying it's a line.

« on: June 21, 2019, 03:42:37 PM »

It seems you guys don't grasp it, do yah?

There is no horizontal curvature on the circled horizon around you, and I am talking about oblate spherical planet.
If it exist, so it would accumulate and go very deep down on your back view, right?
The problem on any optical device is the lens, only expensive lens can give you a very good orthoscopy image.
You need to read https://clickitupanotch.com/lens-distortion/

There is no horizon curvature, except if you go very very high in a way where you have the whole object in front of you, nothing on your back.  In case of Earth planet, "very high" means more than 20 thousands miles up.

Apparently this thread is being diverted to discuss camera pixels accuracy, trying to ignore the original post.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The horizon isn't a straight line. Stop saying it's a line.

« on: June 20, 2019, 08:07:17 PM »

That is exactly what I'm been saying during the last two days... precisely https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14994.msg195235#msg195235

I've seen lots of people at Internet rubbishing texts about proving the horizon is not curved, so, wow, the earth must be flat, and other foolishness due not understanding the tridimensional real world visual basics.

Yes, without obstructions the horizon is a flat horizontal circle, the perimeter of such horizon is all around you, mostly equidistant, in the same horizontal level, just sit over the edge of how far you can see.   Any other explanation about horizon is nonsense.

People start to calculate 8 inches drop per mile, blah blah, they are just showing their ignorance.  You can not see any curvature on horizon, sorry, period.

Some pearls of bad auto-exposure:
https://aplanetruth.info/14-if-the-earth-is-a-curved-sphere-why-are-all-horizons-flat/

Almost, but no cigar... failed to see the light.
https://www.boredpanda.com/lake-michigan-curvature-flat-earth-gregpagel/

Is not how high you go, if you still can see the same land on your back, you still over a horizontal flat circle, the horizon.
https://steemit.com/flatearth/@barber78/flat-horizon

The only way to see "some curvature" is going very far from the object, in order to see the "horizon circle"  in front of you, as a whole, everything at once, one viewframe, then you will see the "circle", curved.  Then, obviously the same object will not be at your back, everything at once in front of you.  To do it with Earth planet, you need to go 20~30 thousand miles up in space.   Other than that, nope, your horizon will be a flat circle around you.

39

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this

« on: June 19, 2019, 05:52:39 PM »

...But in reality, sea lines-horizons appear both in front and behind the observation point and in other directions. They don't overlap.
So you're saying things that don't fit reality.So you're wasting everyone's time!
After consideration, the above reply is not appropriate, so I apologize.But there are other points I want to make to you, which I'm not sure about, but I'm sure someone can.

High seas horizon is everywhere you look, any direction, 360° around you, so it forms a nice horizontal flat circle.  I don't understand what you mean by "overlap"...   You say the "lines-horizons appear both in front and behind the observation point, and in other directions".  Sorry, it is not lines-horizons, it is just "horizon".  As I already said before, a "line" connects A to B, the horizon connects nothing, it is a horizontal circle all around you, that specifies how far you can see due the curvature.  That distance is the same, the radius that forms the circle around you.   In a very calm ocean (almost impossible), suppose you can make a very long line of party balloons 11 inches (28cm) in diameter, and make a very big circle around you. If you are just floating eyes few inches from the water, to see the balloons they can not be more than 3km from you (radius of the circle).  If the ocean is really calm, you will see all the balloons whatever direction you look, so they form a nice horizontal circle around you.   If you make this circle of balloons with a radius of 5km (example), you will not see any balloons, they will be under the horizon circle.   The horizon will always be a flat horizontal circle all around you, no matter what.  That is the reality.

40

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this

« on: June 19, 2019, 03:55:01 PM »

Again, everyone is failing to understand a fundamental concept of visual geometry.

Think about a gigantic torus like the one below, 300m in radius.
Now close the top with a gigantic circular board, just to cover and ignore the central inner circles orange and below.
Go to the center top of such board, go up 20 meters, so you can see better around.
Now look all around you, 360°.
Do you think you would see the external orange or yellow bands?
Of course not, they will be below the "red horizon" bands all around you.
Keep climbing so your head would be few meters over the top most red band.  What you see?  Only red horizon.

Even that a strong curvature exists from red to external orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, etc, you can't see that curvature, anywhere you look around you, you only see a red horizon.

You can not see any curvature on the red concentric circles, because there are no vertical curvature there, only flat horizontal circles.  The trick here is that all curvature lines start from your point of view in a line that goes away from you.

See, the visual red horizon band is not higher in the center with the sides (left and right) going down, no way, it can't, because when you turn your head, all the red horizon will make a flat plain horizontal line, even that the next red band would be below the horizon, making a curvature from you to ahead, in all directions.

This effect will always happens while you have the object all around you, no matter the altitude you are from that object.  It means, if you turn your head all around and still see the object in all directions.   The only way to see the curvature from red to orange, yellow, etc, is to get out of the top center of the object, away enough to see the object as a whole in just one direction at certain angle, so you would see  the torus as in the image, curvature and all.

Replace the torus with the planet Earth, to see it whole in a single view, curvature and all, you would need to be probably more than 20 to 30 thousand miles in space.   While you are close to the planet, no matter the altitude, if you turn your head and still see the planet all around you, the horizon will be a flat horizontal circle line all around you, impossible not to be like that.



And no, you can calculate as much as you want, the only way to see the small degree of curvature as someone calculated in a previous post, is if you slice the planet in vertical half, like a half orange, then go away back and face the cut. 

Think with me, if you see ANY horizontal drop at your left of right horizon with the center a little bit up, as in a curvature, what happen when you turn your head to the right? that drop would be more pronounced?, what about on your back? that drop would be adding to be way below you?  No, the horizon is a straight flat circle all around you.  The next concentric circle further from the horizon would be below the horizon and you can't see it, the horizon image blocks such view. You can, of course, the the inner concentric circle before the horizon, and you will see it all around you, as another flat horizontal circle.

There is not curvature drop to measure while you are sitting on such sphere, the horizon is a flat horizontal circle all around you.  In open ocean, the horizon would be at the same distance from you, no matter the direction you look, this makes the horizon a circle around you, leveled, horizontal, no curvature.