[StinkyOne]

So, where's the curve?

It is there. Easiest to see it if you enlarge the image and draw a line. It isn't going to be as obvious as the video because it isn't zoomed in 83x.

[douglips]

Where's the curve? It's visible near the end of the line of towers. Remember that the curve is only 8 inches in the first mile, and up to about 6 feet by the third mile and if you can see 12 miles it's about 100 feet.
https://imgur.com/a/Bpb64

The towers are about 800-1000 feet apart from the Google Maps aerial photography:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0832458,-90.4019739,441m/data=!3m1!1e3

So, somewhere between 5 and 7 towers per mile.

You can count towers up to at least 5 miles away, after which the towers are clearly diverging from a straight line.

[AATW]

Yes, we've seen them. But anyone with who has looked at our material would know that those observations were addressed many years ago by the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea.

Is this the idea that the bottom of objects disappear first as objects recede on a flat plane?
I have no idea how you think that would work. Can you provide any proof of this?
If I'm walking away from you on a flat plane then no matter how far away I get you have a clear line of sight to all of me.
Perspective makes things smaller and distance makes things less clear but on a flat plane the bottom half of me isn't going to disappear first.
I might become hard to see, optical zoom will then make me visible again because you have  clear line of sight to me.
In another thread you said that items only appear to sink beneath the horizon but optical zoom can restore them. But this image is already zoomed in



It's clear you can only see the tops of the tallest buildings, the buildings in between cannot be seen as they are hidden by the curve of the earth.
I guess you're probably going to claim that it's waves hiding the rest although it's clear the water is pretty calm in this photo.

[Tom Bishop]

If we enlarge the photo we see that some of those buildings are floating in the air above the water. How can you present it as any kind of evidence with a straight face?

[Ratboy]

Yes, we've seen them. But anyone with who has looked at our material would know that those observations were addressed many years ago by the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea.

Is this the idea that the bottom of objects disappear first as objects recede on a flat plane?
I have no idea how you think that would work. Can you provide any proof of this?
If I'm walking away from you on a flat plane then no matter how far away I get you have a clear line of sight to all of me.
Perspective makes things smaller and distance makes things less clear but on a flat plane the bottom half of me isn't going to disappear first.
I might become hard to see, optical zoom will then make me visible again because you have  clear line of sight to me.
In another thread you said that items only appear to sink beneath the horizon but optical zoom can restore them. But this image is already zoomed in



It's clear you can only see the tops of the tallest buildings, the buildings in between cannot be seen as they are hidden by the curve of the earth.
I guess you're probably going to claim that it's waves hiding the rest although it's clear the water is pretty calm in this photo.

Again, if you go up that tower and watch the sunset, just check the angle of the sun to your eyeball.  Why is the sun lower than you when it should be 3000 miles higher?

[AATW]

If we enlarge the photo we see that some of those buildings are floating in the air above the water. How can you present it as any kind of evidence with a straight face?

Bad example, maybe. This one is better.



No floating. Happy now?

And I see you ignored the point about perspective. Perspective on a flat plane does NOT make the bottom of objects disappear.
If you think it does then please provide some evidence. No matter how far away I am from you, if we are on a flat plane there will be a clear line of sight between us.
All of me should be visible. With distance I may become unclear and optical zoom would then make me clear again but that is all.
On a curved surface then the bottom of me will become visible till only the top of my is visible. At that point no amount of optical zoom would allow you to see the rest of me.

[HorstFue]

If we enlarge the photo we see that some of those buildings are floating in the air above the water. How can you present it as any kind of evidence with a straight face?

The obvious thing with these images is, that no one takes refraction into account, and there are a lot of these.
I've also seen similar things while out at sea and approaching land. There is often a blur and  mirage by refraction, so that small woods or small islands appear to be floating above the horizon, normally only dark blobs due to the blur.
If you do not evaluate refraction, you cannot evaluate curvature.

I see 2 lines 'at the horizon'.

• The sharp water-horizon, seems to have pretty visible structure (waves) till the visible end.
• A mirage line a bit above the water-horizon. The top of lower buildings seem to be inverted/mirrored at that line. The gap between the mirage-line and the water-horizon is filled with parts of the sky mirrored. depending on the hight of these lower buildings the gap is sometimes smaller or larger, for really high buildings there's no gap, the gap filled with the mirror image of the building.

As the water is more structured than the blurred images of the buildings , I can only deduce following:
The water-horizon is much nearer than the buildings.
On a flat earth the structured water surface should be visible until it is blurred in the same way as the buildings behind, but it is not.

[StinkyOne]

If we enlarge the photo we see that some of those buildings are floating in the air above the water. How can you present it as any kind of evidence with a straight face?

Welcome to light refraction, Tom. It is the same thing that messed up Rowbotham. Glad you finally can see that it exists.

[ShowmetheProof]

What do you think, Guest? Good shit, or bunk shit?
[/quote]
You know I'm on your side, right?  And please don't swear.

[xenotolerance]

That's the \you\ flag. Everyone sees their own username there. It continues to trip people up, so I have edited the post.

[HorstFue]

I'm just repeating, what I've seen out at sea:
The sticking point is the sharp "water-horizon-line".
With clear weather and good visibility, the horizon at sea is a sharp line. It looks like, as if your looking over some near mountain ridge and see other blurred mountains (sea, e.g. islands) behind it. This is all around you, all 360°. So on first sight, it looks like your sitting at the bottom of a very flat bowl. But as you proceed, the "bowl" is moving with you, you never reach the rim.
The only other geometry, which gives a similar view and can explain, that the view is sustained as you proceed, is the surface of a big sphere...

And don't try to explain this with "waves obscuring your view". I've been out in a storm, watching another yacht near by (less than a mile away). You clearly see the difference, when sometimes the yacht is obscured by waves so high, that you only see the higher part of the mast of the other yacht.

[JonBonJovi]

Anyone have a photo of a curved cloud?

[AATW]

Anyone have a photo of a curved cloud?

As opposed to the regular cube shaped ones, you mean?

[Treep Ravisarras]

Thork has shown plenty of evidence that the images are fakes. The world would have to be tiny if those images were true

Yes, probably agree, although I have not seen or observed this myself.

However let's have the round earthers have their day for one moment and allow them their many assumptions.
They say the earth is approx. 6371km radius. The causeway looks very interesting. Standing at the beginning of it, the end would be there and abouts 115m lower. If we believe the round earthists, and if we believe the causeway to be as long as they say it is.

It's very simple sinus and cosinus. I'll post below how it works:


So the angle is teeny tiiny 0.34 degrees, so I'll post another photo below to show what it shows:


This is of course give and take a little bit, because they also assume the earth is not exactly round etcetera. Nevertheless I doubt that you could see that far to see the difference. Better to limit ourselves to what we can see or observe, and leave the rest as unknown.

[jimbob]

Thork has shown plenty of evidence that the images are fakes. The world would have to be tiny if those images were true

Yes, probably agree, although I have not seen or observed this myself.

However let's have the round earthers have their day for one moment and allow them their many assumptions.
They say the earth is approx. 6371km radius. The causeway looks very interesting. Standing at the beginning of it, the end would be there and abouts 115m lower. If we believe the round earthists, and if we believe the causeway to be as long as they say it is.

It's very simple sinus and cosinus. I'll post below how it works:


So the angle is teeny tiiny 0.34 degrees, so I'll post another photo below to show what it shows:


This is of course give and take a little bit, because they also assume the earth is not exactly round etcetera. Nevertheless I doubt that you could see that far to see the difference. Better to limit ourselves to what we can see or observe, and leave the rest as unknown.

Simple math to give the distance to the horizonhttp://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

ie. OH=√(V^2+2Vr)

However since no FE has answered the post "what would constitute proof to them", implying there is no proof that they would consider sufficient to make them believe in a round earth, this discussion is relatively pointless.

[Jfkinney]

While I applaud your attempt to use trigonometry in response to the Lake Ponchatrain case, you have made a significant error.  You are mixing polar and cartesian coordinate systems.

The use of geometry to determine the radius of the earth (geo - earth, merty - measurement) goes back to the ancient Greeks and peoples of the subcontinent of India.  Two historical figures whose mathematical computations estimated the radius of a spheroid earth of approximately 6370 kilometers are Eratosthnes (Greece) and Al Beruni (India).  These scholars worked independently, as they were significantly removed one from the other in space and time, and arrived at similar results using different methodologies.

[jimbob]

While I applaud your attempt to use trigonometry in response to the Lake Ponchatrain case, you have made a significant error.  You are mixing polar and cartesian coordinate systems.

The use of geometry to determine the radius of the earth (geo - earth, merty - measurement) goes back to the ancient Greeks and peoples of the subcontinent of India.  Two historical figures whose mathematical computations estimated the radius of a spheroid earth of approximately 6370 kilometers are Eratosthnes (Greece) and Al Beruni (India).  These scholars worked independently, as they were significantly removed one from the other in space and time, and arrived at similar results using different methodologies.

Ok simple experiment go stand in the sea or even better a lake, on a very calm day. Stand up to your belly button (0.5m from eyes to surface) and get you girl friend to take the boat out hold an bright coloured object (eg orange stick) horizontal and close to the water line. When she is 2,5 km out, you wont see the stick. This gives the earth radius of 6378137 metres.

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

[Treep Ravisarras]

you have made a significant error.  You are mixing polar and cartesian coordinate systems.

Explain to me your statement: significant error? It does not change the outcome of the calculation. Measurements can be expressed polar or cartesian. Only changes representation.

In our case Polar coordinate is uninteresting, because distance from reference point, the supposedly radius of the earth stays 6371km. The angle is irrelevant too.

What we are interested in are the Base and the Height, or the approximate length of the causeway, and the height difference that it results in.

Supposed length of causeway is 38.442km.
A supposed radius of earth results in a height difference of -115m.
Because angle is so small, around 0.34 degrees, you cannot notice distinction in the graph, the two lines are into one on top of each other, so it seems.

If you still disagree, tell me what you think the answer should be, assuming we pretend to be round earthers for a moment, and we'll discuss further.

[Treep Ravisarras]

For sake of completion tidied up the graph a bit. Now the right way up, and labelled.

Of course, we don't believe in round earth, but if we were to allow them to have their assumptions, and we forgot about what we see, observe and experience, we could say that if you were at the start of the causeway and you were to look in a flat line, and the earth were to be round which I highly doubt, this is what it would look like:

Whole earth radius speculated to be 6371 by round earthers:


Zoomed approximately a few times:


Zommed in approximately even further:


Anyway, let's get back to flat earthism before too long. Thank you. But mathematics is a bit of fun. Very simple.

[Westprog]

Well, this has been an excellent thread. It really has it all.

First, the obvious demonstration of the curve of the Earth. Then, the insistence that a set of power lines perfectly visible to millions of people actually didn't exist, and the whole thing was a photoshop fraud. The incredibly confused mathematical diagrams. The bans for people pointing out the above.

If someone wanted to know the state of current FE thinking, I would point them at this.