*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Now days, it is VERY rational to believe Earth is not a Ball
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2018, 12:44:43 AM »


This could be visible, but there's no validation of the quality of the lenses/cameras, the slightest distortions would render the result void.



 You don't visually see a curve in the horizon, right?
How much curve in the horizon do you think should you visually see if the earth was round?

There is no curve in a horizon. That's why it can't be seen.
I didn't ask how much curve could be seen.  I asked how much curve should be seen if the earth is round.

That's a broad question, it depends on the elevation, but very visible at high altitudes because of its small radius of only 3959 miles.    Please see my last post to "edby"
So, in other words, you don't see curvature that you wouldn't expect to see anyways, right?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Now days, it is VERY rational to believe Earth is not a Ball
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2018, 12:55:12 AM »
Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:

Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason
Your video does not prove anything except that a stronger zoom lens is needed along with better atmospheric conditions.
  • A "stronger zoom lens"  can never "bring something back" if it is really hidden!

  • You didn't bother watching the video. It's about much more than the horizon hiding things.
Quote from: Earthman
If you really want to talk about curvature or lack thereof, then chew on this.

Chicago can be seen from shore from almost 60 miles away. At that distance no part of the cities buildings should be seen. Did you understand that?

The tops of the buildings should not be visible, but be several hundred feet below an alleged curve if Earth were a Ball. Did you get this? Not seen at all. Zip.

The tallest building in Chicago is 1650'. Please do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball. Please enlarge the pic below.
Sorry, it doesn't work thst way. You're making the claim so you "do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball."!

Quote from: Earthman
That's a true Checkmate.
Not so fast with your Checkmate!

Of course "the professional weather man was caught be surprise" because that much of Chicago cannot usually be seen across Lake Michigan.

I imagine that you mean this photo?

[/quote]
Which looks very like "Looking toward Chicago - Joshua Nowicki" taken about 91 km  (~56.5 miles) from Chicago.

Now Joshua Nowicki's photo was claimed to be a "mirage", though it's not really a mirage, just a bit more refraction than usual, called looming.
And please note the light band along the horizon - that's a pretty good sign of some unusual optical conditions.
But I wonder why the newsreader would bother even presenting such a photo if it could be seen at any time.
It is painfully obvious to anyone that it was featured on the evening TV news because it was a rare event.

So what about this photo showing most of Chicago hidden from 40 miles away? It has quite a sharp horizon and far more hidden.
Chicago from New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)

. . . . . . .
Question is, what's hiding the lower part of the city?
Some of Chicago is hidden from 56.5 miles away and much more is hidden from 40 miles away so "something's going on".
Something is hiding the lower part of Chicago in both cases and none should be hidden if the earth were flat - so what is it?

Now when you come along with the height of the camera above the water when Joshua Nowicki took "Looking toward Chicago" I bother looking further ;).
The viewing height is extremely important in calculating "hidden distance".

PS I'm quite prepared to admit that more might be hidden than expected but if that weren't so, "Why would it have made the evening TV news?".

Earthman

Re: Now days, it is VERY rational to believe Earth is not a Ball
« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2018, 01:56:36 AM »
Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:

Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason
Your video does not prove anything except that a stronger zoom lens is needed along with better atmospheric conditions.
  • A "stronger zoom lens"  can never "bring something back" if it is really hidden!

  • You didn't bother watching the video. It's about much more than the horizon hiding things.
Quote from: Earthman
If you really want to talk about curvature or lack thereof, then chew on this.

Chicago can be seen from shore from almost 60 miles away. At that distance no part of the cities buildings should be seen. Did you understand that?

The tops of the buildings should not be visible, but be several hundred feet below an alleged curve if Earth were a Ball. Did you get this? Not seen at all. Zip.

The tallest building in Chicago is 1650'. Please do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball. Please enlarge the pic below.
Sorry, it doesn't work thst way. You're making the claim so you "do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball."!

Quote from: Earthman
That's a true Checkmate.
Not so fast with your Checkmate!

Of course "the professional weather man was caught be surprise" because that much of Chicago cannot usually be seen across Lake Michigan.

I imagine that you mean this photo?

Which looks very like "Looking toward Chicago - Joshua Nowicki" taken about 91 km  (~56.5 miles) from Chicago.

Now Joshua Nowicki's photo was claimed to be a "mirage", though it's not really a mirage, just a bit more refraction than usual, called looming.
And please note the light band along the horizon - that's a pretty good sign of some unusual optical conditions.
But I wonder why the newsreader would bother even presenting such a photo if it could be seen at any time.
It is painfully obvious to anyone that it was featured on the evening TV news because it was a rare event.

So what about this photo showing most of Chicago hidden from 40 miles away? It has quite a sharp horizon and far more hidden.
Chicago from New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)

. . . . . . .
Question is, what's hiding the lower part of the city?
Some of Chicago is hidden from 56.5 miles away and much more is hidden from 40 miles away so "something's going on".
Something is hiding the lower part of Chicago in both cases and none should be hidden if the earth were flat - so what is it?

Now when you come along with the height of the camera above the water when Joshua Nowicki took "Looking toward Chicago" I bother looking further ;).
The viewing height is extremely important in calculating "hidden distance".

PS I'm quite prepared to admit that more might be hidden than expected but if that weren't so, "Why would it have made the evening TV news?".
[/quote]

It doesn't matter if it made the news or not. I do know seeing Chicago from that distance is common.   

Joshua Nowicki was standing on shore at a park. The news reported this.

This is not an isolated event. There are many. The world record is 275 miles across water. (At later date)

What is hiding more of the city at 40 miles is worse atmospheric conditions than from 56 miles away.

Oh, yes, it's Checkmate because all of it should be under an alleged curve of a Ball with a 3959 mile radius, but I don't expect you to believe it nor do I care. I only care for those seeking truth.

Do you know how to prove Earth has curvature with a curvature chart?  If you can, why haven't you or any other Globie done this already?
Bye for now.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Now days, it is VERY rational to believe Earth is not a Ball
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2018, 04:28:39 AM »
Not so fast with your Checkmate!

Of course "the professional weather man was caught be surprise" because that much of Chicago cannot usually be seen across Lake Michigan.

I imagine that you mean this photo?

Which looks very like "Looking toward Chicago - Joshua Nowicki" taken about 91 km  (~56.5 miles) from Chicago.

Now Joshua Nowicki's photo was claimed to be a "mirage", though it's not really a mirage, just a bit more refraction than usual, called looming.
And please note the light band along the horizon - that's a pretty good sign of some unusual optical conditions.
But I wonder why the newsreader would bother even presenting such a photo if it could be seen at any time.
It is painfully obvious to anyone that it was featured on the evening TV news because it was a rare event.

So what about this photo showing most of Chicago hidden from 40 miles away? It has quite a sharp horizon and far more hidden.
Chicago from New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)

. . . . . . .
Question is, what's hiding the lower part of the city?
Some of Chicago is hidden from 56.5 miles away and much more is hidden from 40 miles away so "something's going on".
Something is hiding the lower part of Chicago in both cases and none should be hidden if the earth were flat - so what is it?

Now when you come along with the height of the camera above the water when Joshua Nowicki took "Looking toward Chicago" I bother looking further ;).
The viewing height is extremely important in calculating "hidden distance".

PS I'm quite prepared to admit that more might be hidden than expected but if that weren't so, "Why would it have made the evening TV news?".
Quote from: Earthman
It doesn't matter if it made the news or not. I do know seeing Chicago from that distance is common.   

Joshua Nowicki was standing on shore at a park. The news reported this.

This is not an isolated event. There are many. The world record is 275 miles across water. (At later date)
I guess that you mean this one? Bring it on!
Beyond Horizons, Pic de Finestrelles – Pic Gaspard (Ecrins) | 443 km. AUGUST 3, 2016 ~ MARK BRET.
But please show your detailed calculations and be prepared to accept some extra refraction  because that is why those photographera were there at the time.

Quote from: Earthman
What is hiding more of the city at 40 miles is worse atmospheric conditions than from 56 miles away.
Not at all! It is quite obvious that the 40 mile photo has a far more sharply defined horizon.

Quote from: Earthman
Oh, yes, it's Checkmate because all of it should be under an alleged curve of a Ball with a 3959 mile radius, but I don't expect you to believe it nor do I care. I only care for those seeking truth.
But I asked you to calculate how much would have been expected to be hidden in Joshua Nowicki's photo but you refused as you have always done.

Quote from: Earthman
Do you know how to prove Earth has curvature with a curvature chart?  If you can, why haven't you or any other Globie done this already?
Bye for now.
You made the claim that "because all of it should be under an alleged curve of a Ball" so the onus is on you to prove your claim.
But the bottom line is that if the earth were flat nothing at all should be hidden.

Like it or not distant visibility is highly dependent on atmospheric conditions which can range from normal refraction, looming or more than normal refraction right though to superior and inferior mirages and Fata Morgana.

It's not my problem it you can't face reality and refuse to take any notice of anything said to you.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Now days, it is VERY rational to believe Earth is not a Ball
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2018, 10:17:27 AM »
Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:

Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason
Your video does not prove anything except that a stronger zoom lens is needed along with better atmospheric conditions.
  • A "stronger zoom lens"  can never "bring something back" if it is really hidden!

  • You didn't bother watching the video. It's about much more than the horizon hiding things.
This video might provide a more detailed explanation of why, when viewed from a low altitude, the horizon on the Globe should look flat.

Rob Skiba's Fuzzy Ball Logic, and the Eye Level Horizon - Flat Earth Falsities, VoysovReason

Earthman

Re: Now days, it is VERY rational to believe Earth is not a Ball
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2018, 03:36:23 PM »
Back to the points of the topic.

Considering today's technology, it is very rational to believe Earth is not a Ball. But you must be careful and not be deceived by this same technology. Curvature can be added to any photo to trick people. Photography is a powerful tool, and in the wrong hands and used with technology, it can be a very deceptive tool.

These tools, CGI, Photoshop and a fisheye lens are used to deceive and brainwash the masses, projecting a Globe Earth into the minds of those who see it. After a few months of this projection, people see no reason to question what they see. It then becomes common knowledge and taught in schools as fact. 

Beware of the tools used by NASA. The following video shows how NASA fakes space with pictures.

Awesome Flat Earth Song - No Photographs of Earth! Must Watch song from flat earth man :)




*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Now days, it is VERY rational to believe Earth is not a Ball
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2018, 04:05:40 PM »
Using pictures to show a globe earth are very difficult because the effects are on the edge of perception.  You have to do accurate calculations and apply them correctly and even then the desired effects will usually be less than the other variables that you can't control.  Do a simple thought experiment.  Take an average sized swimming pool.  As accurately as you can measure it's depth.  Now pour in a glass of water.  You know absolutely for sure that the depth of that pool has just increased, but do you expect to be able to measure it?  It is rational for a landlubber to believe that the earth is flat.  Experiencing the effects of the globe are usually just indirectly felt and even the direct effects can usually be difficult to rationalize and could be interpreted to mean you are really on a flat earth because that is your core belief.  If you take a course in celestial navigation and then actually use that knowledge to correctly get from point A to point B at sea your belief system can slowly be altered.  Today the art of celestial navigation is in decline because GPS navigation is so good, accurate, and easy to use.  The sun, moon, planets, and stars along with an accurate clock can be used to accurately determine your position on the earth, as long as your base assumption is that the earth is a globe.  These assertions can still be demonstrated today.  The bottom line is that for a landlubber to believe in a flat earth is totally rational.  For a seaman, the global earth is essential. 
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!