1601

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A letter to the Flat Earther's

« on: May 12, 2019, 11:02:23 AM »

Launched from Roswell International Air Center

There's a distinctive feature right below, what I call the "triple light patch", south of Mescalero Sands, and one can pick
out other features within the general range I specified, as well as determine the direction in which capsule/Felix cameras are looking;












It looks to me exactly what would be expected from looking at a spherical cap of the size I indicated.

What does everyone else think?

1602

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A letter to the Flat Earther's

« on: May 11, 2019, 01:13:40 PM »

Regardless of whether the Red Bull photo was taken with a fish-eye or not;

1. If you look at a globe, any globe, of any size, you see a Spherical Cap, part of one hemisphere of the globe. The amount of the hemisphere you can see, or the size of the Spherical Cap, is entirely dependent on how close you observe it from. The closer you go, the smaller the Spherical Cap, the farther you go, the larger it will be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap



2. If you know the distance from the surface of the globe, and the size of the globe, you can calculate the size of the spherical cap with the geometric formulae described in the wiki above.

The above is not open to argument, I feel. It's simple geometry with solids.


The next stage is to take the height of the jump, apply it to the standard, generally-accepted size of the Earth, found in every textbook on the subject worldwide, and figure out how far one could see, purely in a geometric sense, from the capsule, given the stated height and stated size of the globe.

Having done this, I reckon the limit of visibility corresponds roughly to this, due to the size of the Spherical Cap that I calculated;



What to do next?

Study the Red Bull footage and photos, along with a map or maps covering this area, and consider;

What landmarks or land features can you see?
Identify those features, and see how far away they are from the launch/landing site.
Can you see ANY oceans? If not, why not?
Surely if the Earth were flat, there would be a clear line of sight to the Pacific, or to the Gulfs of Mexico and California?

1603

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Crisp clear horizon line

« on: May 11, 2019, 08:20:27 AM »

The angular resolution of the eye is 1/60th of a degree. An object will disappear at about a little over 3000 times its own diameter.

Angular resolution is common knowledge and part of  high school science curriculum.

Again, this is not applicable when looking at a zoomed-in photo of the scene, as opposed to being there in person, nor when looking at the scene with binoculars or telescope.

1604

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help

« on: May 10, 2019, 10:16:35 AM »

Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Define the horizon, then.

If there's grass, bushes, trees or other vegetation on the horizon, where do you say the horizon is? The line following the tops of the various growths, or that of the land below them? 

"The horizon isn't at the top of the grass, it's at the ground"

You think the horizon is somewhere BELOW the hill, not at the top of it? You don't think it follows the hill line?

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-sun-setting-behind-boma-national-park-hills-boma-jonglei-state-south-36257574.html

1605

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Crisp clear horizon line

« on: May 09, 2019, 10:04:52 PM »

Take a look at these experiments. They suggest that we can't see forever and that eventually limits of optical resolution will affect our vision.

I'm not expecting to see forever, and the horizon in that photo is not at the limit of my optical resolution, it's on an iPad screen some 8 to 9 inches from my nose .... with a clear horizon.

1606

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation

« on: May 03, 2019, 06:25:41 PM »

Please reference an experiment for your idea that gravity varies by altitude.

It lasts one hour, so if you're back here decrying it in 10 minutes, we'll all KNOW you're just cherry-picking from it.

1607

Flat Earth Community / Re: Losing Respectibility

« on: May 01, 2019, 05:21:12 PM »

Who appointed Mark Sargent as a leader? We don't even recognise him.

So tell him this. Take him down a peg or two.

He won't listen to RE-ers who tell him this, will he?

1608

Flat Earth Community / Re: Losing Respectibility

« on: May 01, 2019, 11:31:45 AM »

Would you be willing to summarise how Mark makes this profit?

Monetisation of YouTube pages.

Begging for "donations" through Patreon, Paypal, etc.

Selling Flat Earth app through iTunes

Selling T-shirts and other FE Merch

1609

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: April 28, 2019, 04:43:29 PM »

per what often happens with the three body interactions from the sources we have read.

When, where, and to which bodies has this "often" happened?

Please provide reference to a source which suggests or shows that the heliocentric Sun-Earth-Moon system works at all.

Go outside on a moonlit night, and look up at the Moon. Repeat at intervals over your lifetime.

Do the same with the sun during the day.

Let us know as soon as you see either exhibiting chaotic behaviour

1610

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: April 28, 2019, 09:42:49 AM »

QED, your words are not evidence.

Only his? Or does this apply to everybody's words?

1611

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: April 28, 2019, 09:40:06 AM »

QED, your words are not evidence. You have made reference to literally nothing which says or suggests that the three body sun-earth-moon problem can exist as a stable system.

Whether he says it here or not, we know it is a stable system from observation, and from travels between Earth, Moon and Sun.

If they were not stable, the lunar craft sent to the Moon by USA, Russia, India, Japan, China and Saudi Arabia would have missed their marks.

No?


We also know the stability of the other planets from travels to and between them.

1612

Flat Earth Community / Re: Henry Yule Oldham - Bedford Level Experiment

« on: April 28, 2019, 09:07:20 AM »

The bending of light to cause sinking is pretty common. This road effect also gives the same result when you look at it from different positions and angles near the surface.

VID snipped

Again, I haven't posted a video or other example of anything "sinking", nor of a "road effect"

Again, you're posting a near-surface video, whereas I keep asking you to address the examples I posted, where the observation sightline is 210m away from the surface. Looking at Rowbotham's drawings, and mine, they both suggest that if the observer at 210m looks past the top of a 210m object, that sightline should reach a higher object beyond at the 210m level, IF IF IF the Earth is flat. But it does not. 

It passes clear above the hill, missing this point by a clear 200m (to the top of the hill) and more (which hasn't been measured, it's merely the amount of sky above the hill).

As can be seen from my scale model above, the sightline over 2-unit objects on a flat surface always meets a 4-unit object at the 2-unit level. It does this regardless of the distance to the camera, and the tilt of the camera. The sightline can be anywhere in the frame. 

If you place the same three objects on a curved surface, the sightline between the two 2-unit objects, when continued to the 4-unit one, will hit a point ABOVE 2 units. The farther they are apart, the higher this sightline will go.

1613

Flat Earth Community / Re: Henry Yule Oldham - Bedford Level Experiment

« on: April 27, 2019, 04:32:45 PM »

It means that a single video or observation of sinking doesn't cut it.

That's not what I cited.

The source you provided isn't even claiming that it matches up with vanilla RET, but is getting close to what the standard refraction equations predict.

The source(s) I cited simply state that the observation within is impossible on a Flat Earth. No claim that it "matches" with "vanilla RET" at all, simply that it cannot be possible on FE.

1614

Flat Earth Community / Re: Henry Yule Oldham - Bedford Level Experiment

« on: April 27, 2019, 04:08:47 PM »

That is the same bridge from Ranty's video. Soundly's own timelapse shows that light is bending up and down.

VID snipped

But ... so what? What relevance does that have to (for instance) the observation I cited above, or to Rowbotham's claim about his observation?

Video B shows certain effect. That's not a proof that effect was in play for video A, nor for an observation claimed in a dusty book.

1615

Flat Earth Community / Re: Henry Yule Oldham - Bedford Level Experiment

« on: April 26, 2019, 09:56:11 PM »

In another parallel to this, and modelling the observations noted in the two videos above, set up a couple of 2-unit markers and a 4-unit marker beyond them on flat and curved surfaces.

Sight along the two objects of matching height (2 units) and the sightline will meet a 4-unit object beyond at the 2-unit mark,
IF IF IF they are all on a level surface;



.. but put all three on a curved surface, and the sightline will pass above this level, potentially passing clear above an
object of 4 units or more;



This is what's seen in the videos. Looking from an elevation of 210m, past a bridge tower also of 210m, the sightline passes clear over the 415m hill beyond. It does not meet it at the 210m level.

Impossible on a Flat Earth.

1616

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clock the Sky

« on: April 26, 2019, 09:52:13 PM »

Surely you're obliged to chop the sky into the sections that you can see at any one time?

Unless you can show us how someone in (say) Nether Wallop, UK could see Polaris and Acrux simultaneuously?

1617

Flat Earth Community / Re: Henry Yule Oldham - Bedford Level Experiment

« on: April 26, 2019, 05:18:38 PM »

  “ Along the edge of the water, in the same canal, six flags were placed, one statute mile from each other, and so arranged that the top of each flag was 5 feet above the surface. Close to the last flag in the series a longer staff was fixed, bearing a flag 3 feet square, and the top of which was 8 feet above the surface of the water--the bottom being in a line with the tops of the other and intervening flags, as shown in the following diagram, Fig, 4. ”



  “ On looking with a good telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal.

If the earth is a globe, the series of flags in the last experiment would have had the form and produced the results represented in the diagram, Fig. 5. The water curvating from ”



  “ C to D, each flag would have been a given amount below the line A, B. The first and second flags would have determined the direction of the line of sight from A to B, and the third flag would have been 8 inches below the second; the fourth flag, 32 inches; the fifth, 6 feet; the sixth, 10 feet 8 inches; and the seventh, 16 feet 8 inches; but the top of the last and largest flag, being 3 feet higher than the smaller ones, would have been 13 feet 8 inches below the line of sight at the point B. ”

On analysis of this experiment, if the earth were a globe, it would be quite the coincidence that the flags all experienced the Flat Earth refraction effect, one by one, all the way down to the end, which projected each flag into the air at the exact height they needed to be at in order to make things look flat in accordance with the distance looked across and the height of the observer.

Funny, but Rowbotham's observation would appear an exact opposite of that observed here;



and, when viewed in the exact reverse direction, on a different day, by a different observer, here;



Both of which show that this situation applies, in exact opposition to Rowbotham's assertion of his observation;



as opposed to this;





What's the difference? We have the photographs, and real, living people who will attest to the photographs corresponding to what they saw.

With Rowbotham, all we have is his commentary and drawings in a dusty old book. He CLAIMS to have seen something, but we have no way to verify it.

1618

Flat Earth Community / Re: Henry Yule Oldham - Bedford Level Experiment

« on: April 26, 2019, 05:09:13 PM »

Refraction happens all the time. All of the all day time-lapse scenes I have seen have seen objects in the background constantly sinking and rising. We are beyond the point of single pictures.

Why?

Because you say so? Or because in the past you've only looked at surface-level examples? 

1619

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: April 25, 2019, 06:13:12 PM »

So ... why do you think the author states "no useful general solution" has been found, as opposed to simply stating "no solution" has been found?

Why do you think he included those two keywords in particular?

1620

Flat Earth Theory / Re: From FEM - "No Boat went over the Horizon" - extended discussion

« on: April 25, 2019, 04:50:18 PM »

You failed to respond to the core point of my post.

Round earth Logic:
A distant object disappearing over the Horizon = Round earth

Flat earth logic
A distant object disappearing over the horizon = Optical phenomenon

...except the observation I cited at the beginning of the thread does not involve a disappearance over a horizon.

I presented you a time lapse video in which a distant object disappeared and reappeared from behind the horizion many times over the span of several hours.  What is the round earth logic behind that?

Given that you haven't specified which object, how far away it is, and how high the camera is, all that this appears to present is a situation where temperature variants near to the surface cause mirage effects, refraction and the like. Tidal effects would appear to be involved, too.

This is why the observation I cited is the interesting one - it's 200m+ above the level of the river at the centre of the river valley being looked over, the river is a good few km away, and most of the observation is over land.

No near-surface optical effects. No?

If we string together a few days or even weeks where the optical conditions remain stable there still could  be a situation, 15 minutes later, where the optical conditions change and the observation changes dramatically.

So what? Surely you base any conclusion on the majority of consistent observations, rather than throwing the whole series out due to one off day ....?

I say proof the earth is round you say impossible (or disprove) flat earth. Same difference. Many people have claimed that an object disappearing over the horizon either:
A. Disproves the flat earth
B. Proves the round earth

To claim either of these things without addressing all the possible optical conditions which could make an observation appear to show that the earth is curved is erroneous

Except, once again, the observation I cite does not involve any object disappearing over a horizon. I'm happy to address optical conditions, if you could provide any indication as to which could be involved in this particular situation, or identify any which you see in the video.

Given that the video author has repeated the observation more than once, and someone else repeated it in the opposite direction, all on different days, with consistent results, I would suggest that pretty much wraps it up.

I'm within striking distance of the observation location, I could go repeat it myself, but given all the scepticism from FE-ers on the YouTube comments, regarding "height/distance not proven", "camera tilt not accounted for", etc., I asked if the FE-ers would outline their specific methods for proving all this BEFORE I go climbing that 221 metre hill. Not one did, not a single one.