1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: Today at 07:01:54 PM »

So where is this projector and how does it operate? That, as well, remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in FET.

It's a projection of a body upon a medium. It's explained in the Wiki - https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I read the wiki. I didn't see where it explained where the projector is and how it operates. Where is the mechanism located that projects an image of a celestial body on the atmoplane and how does it work?

Also, there's a bunch in the wiki about polarizing filters and glare an such. Some people use Solar filters which are different than polarizing filters.

A polarizer might block one or two stops of visible light. Amount of IR or UV blocked is unknown.
Eye-safe solar filters block over 16 stops of IR, visible, and UV.

Here are a couple of examples of a sunset through a solar filter:



The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 25, 2023, 07:26:31 PM »

That doesn't explain why the Sun has layers with radically different temperatures, or why the photosphere is so much cooler than the sun's atmosphere.

Well, you were just remarking on the darkness not on what causes the layers to be which causes darkness.

And your explanation seems to be a projection just like mine seems to be layers. And I didn't describe what causes the layers to work the way they do just like you haven't described what causes the projection.

So where is this projector and how does it operate? That, as well, remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in FET.

You can find various articles which get published every so often which claim to have solved it like any other major problem, but those are not the consensus that it is a mystery in Astronomy. There are "we solved it!" papers published practically every year or two, but the next year something will be published suggesting that it's a mystery. The official stance is generally that it's a mystery.

Even NASA's standard educational materials admit that it's a historic mystery that still persists:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12903

Discovering the Sun’s Mysteriously Hot Atmosphere

Something mysterious is going on at the Sun. In defiance of all logic, its atmosphere gets much, much hotter the farther it stretches from the Sun’s blazing surface.

Temperatures in the corona — the Sun’s outer atmosphere — spike to 3 million degrees Fahrenheit, while just 1,000 miles below, the underlying surface simmers at a balmy 10,000 F. How the Sun manages this feat is a mystery that dates back nearly 150 years, and remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics. Scientists call it the coronal heating problem.

See: "remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics" and look up the definition of "remains".

In FET, how does the projected corona get so hot?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 25, 2023, 04:39:42 PM »

The image is somewhat inaccurate. The Sun is not brighter near the edges. The Sun is actually darker near the edges: A long standing mystery in Astronomy.

I don't know if this is correct, but limb darkening doesn't seem to be a "mystery" to astronomy...

The photosphere is the visible surface of the Sun that we are most familiar with. Since the Sun is a ball of gas, this is not a solid surface but is actually a layer about 100 km thick (very, very, thin compared to the 700,000 km radius of the Sun). When we look at the center of the disk of the Sun we look straight in and see somewhat hotter and brighter regions. When we look at the limb, or edge, of the solar disk we see light that has taken a slanting path through this layer and we only see through the upper, cooler and dimmer regions. This explains the "limb darkening" that appears as a darkening of the solar disk near the limb.
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/surface.shtml

Even lowly olde Britannica gives it a mention:

Such limb darkening occurs because the solar atmosphere increases in temperature with depth. At the centre of the solar disk, an observer sees the deepest and warmest layers that emit the most light. At the limb, only the upper, cooler layers that produce less light can be seen. Observations of solar limb darkening are used to determine the temperature structure of the Sun’s atmosphere.
https://www.britannica.com/science/limb-darkening



You mentioned projection of the celestial bodies on the atmolayer? Where is the projector? And how is it operated?

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 24, 2023, 11:30:13 AM »

...he's a shill and it's easier to shill to the GOP base.

All democrats are shills, of course.

It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

The payments to Stormy Daniels are not in dispute.  They happened whether there was an affair or not.  The NY investigation (imagine having to specify which criminal investigation is being referred to lol) is in to whether or not the payment violated campaign finance law.

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

Democrats do not get indicted for paying off women to keep silent.

A' la Trump's good buddy, Clinton...

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

It's not that he paid hush money. He could have just written her a personal check or handed her a bag full of money from under his mattress and that would have been that. It's far more complicated in regard to where the money came from and how it was recorded/claimed, so to speak. Basically all the stuff Cohen got a three year sentence for; campaign finance illegalities, tax stuff, etc. Here's the short version...

Bragg’s case reportedly alleges that the Trump Organization falsely logged the payment to Daniels as legal expenses so it wouldn’t have to be disclosed as money benefiting Trump’s presidential campaign. One specific charge would likely be falsification of business records, a misdemeanor offense in New York. But, per the Times, Bragg’s team has considered arguing that these business records were falsified to cover up another crime — which could mean Trump would be charged with a felony.

I have no idea what this "cover up another crime" is. I think that's what the grand jury stuff was about.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 24, 2023, 03:38:37 AM »

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2023, 07:30:59 PM »

In the "Took me 30 seconds" in getting us the video did AllAroundTheWorld even bother watching the Jan 2018 Jimmy Kimmel interview?

One has to ask the question as to why then the payoff?

In any case, no affair, story changes, affair...Doesn't matter:

Unfortunately for Trump, he's being charged over the payoff to Daniels, not the alleged affair with her.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2023, 06:26:46 PM »

I removed two of my replies to the offending parties here, who happen to believe everything they see on social media and in the news.

I guess if you can't believe Trump on his own social media platform who can you believe...

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 22, 2023, 09:09:08 AM »

Suggested changes to 'Horizon is always at eye level' in the Wiki

It looks like it was originally here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

If you go to that redirect and read the content it says that the horizon is not always at eye level. So why are you claiming that the wiki says that the horizon is always at eye level or that it is the official stance?

Because, quite simply, I was mistaken. Let me explain.

I was reading through ENAG to see what good old Sam had to say about the horizon, atmosphere, eye level, etc. And I came across this from Chapter 'PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA’ :
“…it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye…”

He refers back to FIG. 44 under EXPERIMENT 15:


And I swore that the wiki aligned with that belief being ENAG, Rowbotham and all. But I couldn’t find anything in the wiki specifically about it. So I searched the forum and found a suggestion thread from 2018 requesting that the following statement in the wiki under the page https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level be altered:

"A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.”

That particular suggestion thread somewhat died seemingly without a resolution.

However, apparently that statement was deleted in 2019 and the page redirected to https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Horizon_Dip.

It now appears that TFES no longer holds the Rowbotham position that the horizon always rises to eye level as it did back in 2018. At least FE and GE are now in agreement on one thing.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 20, 2023, 11:51:22 AM »

Definitely my mistake in assuming that the items I mentioned in the wiki have much to do with FE.

They do have "much to do" with FE. The book is an important historical record, and provides useful context on how we developed over time. It used not to be available elsewhere, and has since once again become a well-known piece of our history. It absolutely "has much to do" with FE.

Unfortunately, this is on you for mindlesuquote-mining a resource you haven't bothered to familiarise yourself over the course of five years.

I personally wouldn’t consider presenting a passage explicitly stating that the horizon always rises to eye level taken from a former wiki page titled “Horizon always at Eye Level” as mindless quote-mining. But that’s just me.
 
Like I mentioned before, as this now seems to be something that the society no longer adheres to then that’s fine. I incorrectly had assumed otherwise.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 20, 2023, 02:45:00 AM »

Again, if I came here and started insisting that you defend something that "some RE'ers" believe (but which doesn't seem to have much to do with RE), you'd rightly think I'm out of my mind. Connect the dots.

Definitely my mistake in assuming that the items I mentioned in the wiki have much to do with FE. I thought that was the point of the wiki, but apparently I was wrong. Lesson learned.

Stack, there's no nice way of saying this - you've spent half a decade here, and you still don't know how to use this site. You need to take a huge step back and start lurking - you should have done so in 2018. Learn to fucking read.

Cool. Thanks for the pro tips. It means a lot when you take the time to offer advice and guidance.

Edit: Oh yeah, I was remiss in not including the link regarding where it used to state in the wiki that the horizon always rises to eye level:

Suggested changes to 'Horizon is always at eye level' in the Wiki

It looks like it was originally here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 19, 2023, 05:29:57 PM »

As in some FE contend that the horizon line would and always rises to eye-level

Have you considered bringing it up with the people who hold this view? You're unlikely to find them here, and repeatedly trying to bait people into this by saying "well, sOmE FE'ers claim this" only encourages people not to take you seriously.

SoMe Re'ErS can't even figure out the difference between velocity and acceleration. SoMe Re'ErS think that spirit levels can only operate thanks to the nigh-immeasurable differences in gravity affecting 2 ends of the tube. And that's just with things sOmE rE'eRs claim today - if we started digging up centuries-old beliefs, there's more fun to be had. We don't hold all of RE accountable to that, because that would be an utterly psychotic thing to do.

If you want an argument from your anonymous "some FE'ers", go talk to them.

A couple of things…

I was being cautious by using “some”. As in the past if I were to simply say, “FErs claim that blah, blah, blah…” I would get blasted by you for implying all FErs. So now, if I say “some”, that still seems to be an issue.

For two, there’s some stuff in the wiki regarding horizon/eye-level/dip experiments and observations that are stated as inaccurate. It appears to me as a refutation of GE’s claim of dip due to curvature considering that’s exactly what the experiments are designed to show: Water Level Devices

There’s also this in the wiki leading me to believe that some FEr's may dispute the dip:
“...since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.”
And
“...no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye…"

Also, there was a request back in 2018 to remove this from the wiki:

”A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see."

Since I can’t seem to find it in the wiki, I guess it was removed. Perhaps it was removed when a new redirect was created in 2019:

• Horizon always at Eye Level
#REDIRECT [[High Altitude Horizon Dip]]
39 bytes (5 words) - 14:33, 6 December 2019

All that said, if some or all FEr’s here are no longer in the horizon always at eye-level camp anymore then, I guess, never mind.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 19, 2023, 08:43:16 AM »

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

With all due respect, I’m not claiming anything about curvature in this thread. I’m taking issue with the blanket assertion that the horizon can never be clearly distinguished.

Posters on this thread should also be wary when they talk about curvature, are they talking in the sense of a curve appearing left to right as you look at the horizon, or in the sense of the curvature away from the observer that produces the horizon?

Agreed, I don't care about curvature left to right, nor whether the horizon line is fuzzy or crisp or somewhere in between. As I've stated before, I'm way more interested in the observed dip at altitude, the perceived curvature away from the observer that produces a horizon line. As in some FE contend that the horizon line would and always rises to eye-level whereas GE contends that it dips below eye-level with altitude as it curves downward and away...



I'm looking for an explanation of this.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 19, 2023, 04:39:52 AM »

It's simply a weak argument. The photographer is clearly faking earth curvature in some of his works, and the image in which the curvature is clearly manipulated the photographer calls an "Air to Air Photograph" without disclaimer that the shape of the horizon in the scene was not as we would see it.

Hmmm, how do you know photographer is clearly faking earth curvature? By you saying so it seems that you somehow know what is real earth curvature and what is fake earth curvature. Your source on this is your own self and your personal opinion, which is a poor method of inquiry and creates a poor argument.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 11:34:53 PM »

Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?

That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:

So you admit that pictures labeled as Adrian Meredith Photography is not actually pure "Photography" and concordephotos.com picture are not actually "Photos" and that an artistic license is applied to the images.

All images are altered as soon as they committed to a sensor inside a camera or on to a strip of film. Even more so when developed or imported. Even more when printed or exported.

But I guess you are saying that if a photographer adjusts anything in one image, all images they have ever taken have been similarly adjusted. Ok, sure. If that's the hill you want to die on, go for it.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 11:29:03 PM »

Respects to Stack but, gentlemen, you're just going down a wormhole here. 

One minute on the concordephotos site shows that the picture was taken from a Tornado; the air defence version has a maximum ceiling of 50,000 feet.  In practice, military aircraft never get anywhere near their stated ceiling, so I would be very surprised if this was much above a normal airliner cruise altitude of 40k.  And if you magnify the image, I think you'll find that both the cabin window line and the roof line have curvature. 

Yes, the Earth's a globe, but posting this as "evidence" is a non-starter.

It's reported that the shot was taken at 55k'.

I'm not seeing what you are seeing. A comparison between the high altitude image and a low altitude image...



Just to be clear, this discussion started with Lackey taking an old AATW quote out of context, the context being the image in question. Whether the image was cropped, distorted, etc., I obviously can't say for sure. And no one else can either except for Mr. Meredith himself. So yeah, the argument is sort of pointless.

Aside from all of this, for me, it's whether the observed dip of the horizon line at altitude is caused by a globe earth or the potential fuzziness of the line between the sky and ground/water. That's what I think really needs to be addressed.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:54:13 PM »

Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?

That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:

Here’s the only picture of Concorde flying at supersonic speed
The image was taken by Adrian Meredith who was flying a Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado jet during a rendezvous with the Concorde over the Irish Sea in April 1985.

Although the Tornado could match Concorde’s cruising speed it could only do so for a matter of minutes due to the enormous rate of fuel consumption.

Several attempts were made to take the photo, and eventually the Concorde had to slow down from Mach 2 to Mach 1.5-1.6 so that the Tornado crew could get the shot. The Tornado was stripped of everything to get it up to that speed as long as possible.

After racing to catch the Concorde and struggling to keep up, the Tornado broke off the rendezvous after just four minutes, while Concorde cruised serenely on to JFK!

Like I said, buy the photo, rip it out of the frame, and see what's hidden behind the 2" matte.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:29:32 PM »

Even that signed photo was cropped. Compare the sky and clouds to the left of the plane cockpit area of the signed photo to the first picture you posted.

Signed photo:



From the first picture you posted:



There is clearly more area to the left of the cockpit first picture you posted than the area to the left of the cockpit in the signed photo.

This is evidence that the signed photo is also cropped.

Could be. Or maybe the matte in the frame is covering it. We don't know. So no, it's not necessarily evidence it is cropped. Buy it, rip it out of the frame and find out.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:18:46 PM »

Yes, stack...

I can unequivocally state you have nothing to offer relevant to the op.

Wrong as usual.

Anyway, the math dictates that even from the altitude of the Concorde, you were not able to see curvature.

Not high enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.

I see. So again, you're just saying so without saying how so. What is this dictatorial math you keep ambiguously referring to without saying what it is. Why so cryptic? Why not just lay out this math you claim exists. Or are you just in the business of making claims without backing them up? Seems to be your MO.

If you can't bring yourself to put your money where your mouth is, I've got one for you...

Anyway, the math dictates that from the altitude of the Concorde, you are able to see curvature.

High enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.

There you go, case closed.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:03:33 PM »

The Concord photo is from 1985 and could have been cropped by a number of sources along the way to us in 2023, including by the original author or the original publishing company. Therefore this is a very poor piece of evidence.

It could have been cropped over the years...or not. Here's a print signed by Adrian Meredith, the original photgrapher. Whether he cropped it back in 1985, unknown.



The horizon seems to be in the center of the image, yet still arc'd. And if barrel distortion was present, I would expect to see the Concord itself sufficiently bent considering it's location in the image. Interesting.

Here's what I would expect from fisheye barrel distortion...



I guess from now on the only acceptable evidence is something that came straight from the source with a letter of provenance guaranteeing that it has never been altered in any way. And the same standard shall be applied to anything and everything you post.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 09:21:11 PM »

You cannot see curvature of the earth in that photo either.

That is according to RET dimensions as presented.

Again, just stop with the equivocation (and in this case), with the outright falsehoods.

I guess you and I are seeing two different things. It happens.

What RET dimensions are you referring to? I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.

And does crispness or fuzziness of the horizon line account for the observed dip of said line at altitude?

You are the RE expert, remember?

You come here spouting how the globe must exist because of math, yet ask me for the dimensions of the globe?

Anyway, the math dictates that even from the altitude of the Concorde, you were not able to see curvature.

Not high enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.

You are a smart guy, figure it out.

As expected, I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.

Thanks for proving my point.