181

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 14, 2015, 01:49:05 AM »

It looks like we live on the inside of a bowel. How is that?

Yes, it sometimes feels like that.   

182

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 03:26:12 PM »

Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?

This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:

The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer

So you put the dime at the vanishing point?  Why would you do that?

The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.

It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.

On a FE the earth does not literally rise to meet your eyes. I am interested in the actual physical relationships that cause your alleged phenomena.

This is the way I interpret the effect.
If you imagine you are walking up a hill,  the horizon as you look towards the top of the hill is clearly above you,   as you crest the top of the hill the horizon clearly falls away and is lower than you.   Now consider what happens on the globe.   There is no perception that the horizon is lower than you,  and as you climb higher that doesn't really change,  so the "horizon rises to eye level"   keep going higher and as you get to 100,000 ft or more the left-right  curvature starts to become obvious and the horizon starts to look clearly lower than you.  Keep going to the ISS and the curvature is clear, and the horizon is way below you.

At least that's my interpretation.  it's our inability to detect curvature in the line between ourselves and the horizon.

183

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 03:13:37 PM »

Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?

This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:

The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer

So you put the dime at the vanishing point?  Why would you do that?

The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.

It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.

The reason the horizon appears to rise to eye level is that we can't perceive the curvature between ourselves and the horizon,  just as we can't perceive the curvature of the horizon in the left/right direction,   you don't perceive the horizon to be lower until you get to the altitude where the left/right curvature starts to become visible.   

So,  at low altitudes where "the horizon rises to eye level"   there will be some point where the dime can be placed to obscure anything you like,  the question that is harder to answer is where that position is,   It can't be the vanishing point,  since the dime itself would vanish,  it can't be at ground level for any reasonable distance, since the sight line to the vanishing point would be over the top of the dime.   It would have to be close and positioned about eye level to obscure the distant elephant.   No question that  distant objects can be obscured by higher objects in the foreground,  the question is does the geometry make sense.   A better diagram might help.

The dime vanishes at the vanishing point only in so much that you cannot easily see it, as it is beyond the resolution of the eye, which Rowbotham estimates to be at about one 60th of a degree in arc seconds. However, emperically, the dime is still there to block light rays and cast "shadows" behind it, as I have described, regardless if you can readily see it or not.

Ok  so everything vanishes,  and the dime can in fact obscure the elephant,  provided the elephant as close to vanishing already,   what happens when I look through a telescope,  I'm no longer limited to 1 arc second minute.   Are the elephants still hidden?
 

184

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 13, 2015, 02:52:29 PM »

Then you should be able to present a scale diagram that shows a dime standing on its edge on the ground obscuring an elephant but still has light traveling in a straight line. Would you do that for me?

This is not to scale, but it would look something like this:

The dime is at the horizon line, and therefore at eye level with the observer

So you put the dime at the vanishing point?  Why would you do that?

The plane below us rises upwards to meet the level of our eyes. Anything you see on the horizon line is at our eye level, and consequently, anything peeking up over the horizon, even imperceptibly, is above the level of our eyes.

It follows therefore, that any imperfections on the earth's surface, above that geometric plane at the horizon line, no matter how slight, would create an area for bodies to shrink and disappear behind.

The reason the horizon appears to rise to eye level is that we can't perceive the curvature between ourselves and the horizon,  just as we can't perceive the curvature of the horizon in the left/right direction,   you don't perceive the horizon to be lower until you get to the altitude where the left/right curvature starts to become visible.   

So,  at low altitudes where "the horizon rises to eye level"   there will be some point where the dime can be placed to obscure anything you like,  the question that is harder to answer is where that position is,   It can't be the vanishing point,  since the dime itself would vanish,  it can't be at ground level for any reasonable distance, since the sight line to the vanishing point would be over the top of the dime.   It would have to be close and positioned about eye level to obscure the distant elephant.   No question that  distant objects can be obscured by higher objects in the foreground,  the question is does the geometry make sense.   A better diagram might help.

185

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory

« on: July 13, 2015, 01:10:52 AM »

And the Anti-crepuscular rays?

The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.

But here's the primary and major difference.

Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.

Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.


Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg

In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg



—

Try this simple experiment,   get a blank sheet of paper,   draw a horizontal line about half way up, representing the horizon.   Draw a circle in the upper half representing the sun.   Draw some trees and stick figures on the lower half of the page. 

Now draw lines from the sun to the various trees and stick figures,  put in shadows if you like....    do the rays diverge?   Does the divergence of the rays tell you anything about how far away the sun is?

186

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earth Curve - An Engineer's Perspective

« on: July 12, 2015, 12:54:08 PM »

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

The first link is a whole book. The second link explains how the drop over distance is figured. The length is squared because the drop is exponential around a circle.

From the 1st link: "To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning...."

Kind of like how modern science determines the distance of the sun, right?

To find the distance to the sun, they use the diameter of the sun; But to find the diameter of the sun they first had to have the correct distance; But to find the correct distance they needed the correct diameter. . . Circular reasoning.



The only way to determine the distance of an object of unknown distance, is by triangulation - which is supplied by sunbeams shining on two points of known distance and length. The scientific community didn't use the scientific method. So accusing Rowbotham of not using scientific methods and circular reasoning is more akin to the pot calling the kettle black. I would be willing to conclude that his opponents couldn't understand his methods, and were suppressing the truth they knew to be wrong by their own circular reasoning.

Either way, what is important today is not to look back at all the errors of yesterday; but to acknowledge the advancements made to date. With study since Rowbotham's time, such arguments are proving themselves self evident through rewriting all the science modern science has screwed up through their circular reasoning.


—

Here are several methods for measuring the distance to the sun.

187

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity,Weight and Altitude?

« on: July 12, 2015, 06:35:24 AM »

there is no gravity...our weight keeps us stuck to the earth.

Hm I wonder what causes weight...

The object's mass.

Well,  seeing it's a flat earth Q&A,  and Gravity doesn't exist here,  the answer has to be the Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g,   or is on the end of a cosmic string rotating to give a centripetal force of 1g,

But to answer the original question a height of  1 km  would be  a reduction in weight of 0.03%  if you weighed 80 kg,  you would be 23 grams lighter at a height of 1 km.   Under UA,  you would be the same weight.

188

Flat Earth Theory / Re: And the mountains?

« on: July 12, 2015, 03:47:17 AM »

There is an imperfection on the earth's surface and the tree is shrinking behind it as it recedes from the observer, as trees will do.

So how come the tree in the middle pops up higher than the ones either side?

You can see more of the base of the trunk in the middle tree.

189

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earth Curve - An Engineer's Perspective

« on: July 11, 2015, 07:23:53 AM »

Here you go,     


I prefer to work in meters an kilometers,   which is  D = 3.86 * sqrt (h)   

Don't forget that if you want the height ( bulge ) at the mid point you divide the drop at the endpoint  by 4.

190

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Standard Map of the World - High Definition

« on: July 08, 2015, 06:33:25 AM »

Ha. I found the map here:

https://seashoremary.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/is-the-earth-really-round-or-circular-flat/

I found that by doing a search for the map, and the link above was all that showed up on a Bing search. The map on that site is not downloadable, and it took me a few hours to snap shots and piece them together using GIMP.

—

Yes, it is downloadable,  I downloaded it no problem,   I did notice that yours is 28 Meg,  where the one I downloaded  is 31.4 Meg?   

Here is the link   http://maps.bpl.org/download?image=06_01_008377&full=1 

Here's a video about flat earth maps.

191

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Standard Map of the World - High Definition

« on: July 08, 2015, 05:47:11 AM »

http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/The-Final-Paradigm/media/The%20True%20Nature%20of%20Science%20Earth%20and%20the%20Universe/New%20Standard%20Nautical%20Map%20copy%201892_zpsrksoubmv.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

(I would have uploaded the PDF, but photobucket doesn't accept PDFs for upload; So this is a jpeg.)

I doubt this old 1892 map is still under copyright. But just in case, here's my official Fair Use notice.
http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/The-Final-Paradigm/media/FAIR%20USE%20NOTICE/Fair%20Use%20mine_zpsx3ehkiwe.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

P.S. Govt. Shills - You Suck

Why not just download the full resolution image from here http://maps.bpl.org/id/15442   click on the download link on the left,  be warned it's almost  32 meg.

192

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Terrestrial Refraction, does it prove of disprove Flat Earth?

« on: July 07, 2015, 04:42:50 AM »

Terrestrial refraction is just the first step in properly defending FET...

Here are the terrestrial refraction, looming and ducting phenomena applied to Lake Michigan:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1591587#msg1591587

Interesting.   

It's worth knowing that long distance measurements over water are always going to be suspect,  a vertical air temperature gradient of just 0.11 degrees per meter is sufficient to bend light so that it will follow the curvature of the earth.  And you ALWAYS get water temperatures different to air temperature close to the water, so the closer to the water the more likely the effect.

http://web.archive.org/web/20131717135100/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#looming

Just to be pedantic,  it's incorrect to call it a mirage unless the image is inverted.   

If you wish to prove the shape of the earth using long distance observations over water, then you need to be well above the water surface, and have some control measurements in place, when Wallace and later Oldham debunked the Bedford level experiments of Rowbotham,  they had boats positioned along the canal with fixed height poles, so there was an independent line of sight established to correct for refraction.    Surveyors routinely use C+R  ( curvature and refraction ) corrections when doing geodetic surveys.

193

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?

« on: July 06, 2015, 02:42:00 AM »

Some believe that they are actually crossing a commonly crossed peninsula off of the coast of the Ice Wall.

Others believe that Antarctica exists as a continent and the layout of the earth is different than the traditional Flat Earth model.

What is the current status of an "official"  flat earth map?    Is there a flat earth map better than the Gleason map?

http://maps.bpl.org/id/15442

That map works ok for Northern Hemisphere,   but fails  to give correct distances in the Southern Hemisphere.

194

Flat Earth Theory / Re: None of the flat Earther's on YouTube are addressing this...

« on: July 05, 2015, 06:23:58 AM »

The 25% is correct.

Think of it as the drop at the mid point,  which is  1/4 of the drop at the end point.   simply because it's  (1/2)²

Good point to keep in mind when dealing with curvature calculations.