61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 12, 2022, 08:08:46 PM »

I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 12, 2022, 05:47:40 PM »

Yes the person on the equator will be standing upright with their feet pointing to the centre of the earth. But when viewed from a point in space above or directly above the globe (above the north pole for example) they will look, to the observer like they are sticking out from the earth at right angles to it as in my diagram.

Yup, like the example I gave above in text. You can see the land masses, why would you think anyone on those land masses is not vertically aligned? Here's the picture to show it

I didnt say they would be vertically alighned but if those people you had drawn on that globe were real and a real photo was taken of them from that same side view would they appear to lean/tilt as in your image?

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 12, 2022, 05:45:47 PM »

Change the 'stick' person in my diagram for a mountain range near the equator and take a pic of it from a point many many miles directly 'above it'. I use the word 'above' to illustrate where I mean (as i know most people think the earth does not have a top or bottom). Looking 'down' on the mountain range the peaks will stick out of the globe as the stick person does. Will they not? And if they did wouldnt it make a fantastic picture? Especially with a mountaineer standing on the peak looking like they are floating.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 12, 2022, 05:39:52 PM »

I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

We have numerous photographs of the Earth from multiple space missions. One can identify the land masses of the various continents in most all of them. If you accept that everybody in (say) Africa is standing upright in their onw geographic position, and you can see that the land mass of Africa wraps around the edge of the globe when viewed from the camera location, why would you doubt that the vertical person in Africa would have a different orientation when viewed by the camera?

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example? Imagine how folk would marvel at such images. They would be priceless.

Not really clear where you’re going with this one. There are loads of photos available - the key word you need is ‘oblique’, meaning side on, as opposed to the normal plan form shots. A quick google will reveal loads of shots. Here’s a couple:

https://www.newsweek.com/can-you-spot-mt-everest-space-this-photo-astronaut-took-iss-1654811?amp=1

https://www.universetoday.com/147074/mount-everest-seen-from-space/amp/

The issue is that you are just going to cry ‘fake’ at anything that refutes your views. The orientation thing seems a bit of a red herring - you can rotate any photo, any which way you choose. Most of the oblique shots that I’ve seen have been orientated gravity-down, but even if they weren’t, you would presumably just say they were faked, right?

Nice pics but they are taken side on - not from the location i suggested.

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 12, 2022, 05:38:19 PM »

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example?

You answered that yourself. Read my first reply from the last 15 mins or so.

So if there was a person standing on top of the mountain peak they could be seen at right angles to the planet?

A right angle is 90 degrees. The person, if standing vertically, would be aligned with a plumb line, which if continued downward, would pass through the Earth's centre. Any 90 degree angle formed by another line in relation to this would be totally arbitrary

I dont think you understood fully what i was getting at. Probably my fault. Yes the person on the equator will be standing upright with their feet pointing to the centre of the earth. But when viewed from a point in space above or directly above the globe (above the north pole for example) they will look, to the observer like they are sticking out from the earth at right angles to it as in my diagram.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 12, 2022, 05:17:53 PM »

I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

We have numerous photographs of the Earth from multiple space missions. One can identify the land masses of the various continents in most all of them. If you accept that everybody in (say) Africa is standing upright in their onw geographic position, and you can see that the land mass of Africa wraps around the edge of the globe when viewed from the camera location, why would you doubt that the vertical person in Africa would have a different orientation when viewed by the camera?

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example? Imagine how folk would marvel at such images. They would be priceless.

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 12, 2022, 05:15:52 PM »

So if there was a person standing on top of the mountain peak they could be seen at right angles to the planet? Why does no such picture exist? Ever thought of that? The lack of such, what one can only consider as, simple evidence speaks volumes. It would be the mother of all photographs - forget the 'marble earth' pic. This would surpass it. It would look so 'unreal'. But it isnt ever going to exist.

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 12, 2022, 04:49:40 PM »

I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.
But why does such a picture not exist. Why not take a zoomed in photo from a craft in space (from or near to the astronaut location/angle on above diagram) of a mountain range close to the equator. Surely the technology exists. Would it really show the peaks of the mountains sticking out at right angles to the earth?

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 11, 2022, 09:43:40 PM »

Some interesting diagrams and explanations. Thank you.
It seems that the further away from the shoreline the ship travels that the more it tilts away from the observer standing on the shore. To the extent that if it could be zoomed in enough and with an unlimited height it would eventually lean so far away from the observer that it was not visible. Would that not be the case?
 
I have a further question and would be grateful for comments.
In the attached diagram (I hope it attaches) it shows the earth (blue circle) and astronaut (at position 'A', and the astronauts line of vision to the earth (the red arrow). The stick person is what I would presume the astronaut would see if they zoomed in on a person at or near to the equator. They would appear to be sticking out at right angles to the earth. Can anyone explain why this would not be the case? I understand the global earth has no top or bottom or sides. But the astronaut surely wouldn't see the person standing vertically - could they? Would they?

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 11, 2022, 01:50:24 PM »

So at what point i.e. distance from the shore, would a ship become impossible to see (assuming it has an unlimited height) due to the curvature of the earth? I presume the 90 degree mark i.e. 6,000 miles away?
And if such a ship had a mast lets say of 4,000 feet tall - assuming curvature of 8 inches per mile then using a telescope capable of seeing such a distance what would that ship look like in the water? According to the figures mentioned above it would appear to be lying on its side i.e. at 90 degrees but we know that isnt how it would be. I rather fancy it would still be sailing at right angles to the water surface.

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 10, 2022, 09:41:30 AM »

It might be credible if this video had been an 'official' and authentic recording.

What "official" agency do you suppose would be recording such videos and why would you believe them?  We all know how "official" agencies lie all the time.

It could quite easily be CGI.

It can also be independently recreated by anyone with the appropriate consumer grade equipment.

The word 'debunked' usually means someone has deliberately set out to prove something wrong rather than just to stumble upon something.

What makes you think that whoever recorded that video didn't deliberately set out to prove that the FE claims about ships and the horizon are wrong?

This sort of thing would be ideal for David Attenboroughs 'Planet' series - we are forever being shown whats on the planet but not what the planet actually is. Film crews spend months and months waiting to catch a glimpse of a snow leopard. If they sat for 20 minutes at a busy port they could surely replicate these images. But they don't.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 10, 2022, 09:36:33 AM »

If the earth is a globe then any image of a ship beyond the horizon would not be sitting at right angles to the horizon. It would be at right angles to the relevant curvature. The ships in the image are both upright which clearly shows the pic is a fake.
If an infinite number of ships on the sea beyond the horizon (one after the other) could be viewed to an infinite distance they would not be sitting like little ducks in a row.

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 09, 2022, 11:01:53 PM »

How do you know what they would say?

Well, based on the totally unscientific and meaningless sample size of the posts since yours it appears that I'm on the right track.

That explanation also sounds unscientific.

do you have any authentic pics of the same occurrence?

Evidently reading the thread you're posting in is not your thing.

Call the coastguard, quick:-)
It might be credible if this video had been an 'official' and authentic recording. It could quite easily be CGI. The word 'debunked' usually means someone has deliberately set out to prove something wrong rather than just to stumble upon something.

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 09, 2022, 03:07:02 PM »

How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ? i.e. a boat cruising along parallel to the coastline just beyond the horizon.

What makes you think this has "never been seen"? How many people have you asked? Have you asked ANYONE if they have seen this? Or is your "never" just based on your own, limited, experience?

it would aid the round earth theorists if it was a regular occurrence but for some reason i think not.

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 09, 2022, 03:05:41 PM »

How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ? i.e. a boat cruising along parallel to the coastline just beyond the horizon. If anyone saw this they would think it was sinking and call the coastguard.

WTF......Seriously.

The majority of the people in the world would simply say, "Oh, look at that ship beyond the horizon."
It's an everyday occurrence.  Why would it warrant a call to the coastguard?

How do you know what they would say? do you have any authentic pics of the same occurrence?

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 09, 2022, 03:04:37 PM »

How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ?

What makes you say it "has never been seen"? And why does it have to be fake? How do you know that no one called the coast guard?

Seeing this would probably prompt to call the coast guard, not the other one...

If you have some thatearent processed/photoshopped I would like to see them but I have never seen an authentic one of a boat sailing parallel to the shore with its bottom half seemingly below the water level.

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 08, 2022, 11:16:44 PM »

How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ? i.e. a boat cruising along parallel to the coastline just beyond the horizon. If anyone saw this they would think it was sinking and call the coastguard. This one has to be a fake so how come there are no real ones? Or are there?

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fqph.cf2.quoracdn.net%2Fmain-qimg-a04c6df7269268394ce2348d6476bf22.webp&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.quora.com%2FCan-anyone-shatter-the-argument-Ships-disappear-over-the-horizon-because-of-the-limits-of-human-vision-not-a-spherical-world-I-found-it-online&tbnid=RP1SeUCdRJsTgM&vet=12ahUKEwiFncKpk-v7AhXVhHMKHdEkAKAQMygAegQIARBZ..i&docid=J20kGyaxtSGR5M&w=602&h=337&q=why%20is%20there%20no%20sea%20beyond%20a%20ship%20on%20the%20horizon&ved=2ahUKEwiFncKpk-v7AhXVhHMKHdEkAKAQMygAegQIARBZ

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reconciling Velikovskianism with the theory of the Flat Earth

« on: December 03, 2022, 10:34:35 AM »

I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Am not sure that a magnetic and some iron filings demonstrates/proves the large-mass-becomes-sphere theory.
But surely its all relative. And the timescale of tens of thousands of years for a large mass to become a sphere would be much reduced for a very small mass surely? Or is there a minimum definitive size of mass which only above this the sphere theory works? If so what is that 'size'? If the theory has been tested, peer-reviewed, accepted by (and everything else that goes with proving such things) by science that shouldn't be a difficult one to answer.

It depends on what the object is made from

Here's a good paper on the subject http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.1091.pdf
The term used us hydrostatic equilibrium. As gravity pulls equally in every direction it will naturally attempt to pull things into an object where the mass is equally distributed from the centre of mass (a sphere). But depending on the material the object is, it's own integrity will try and resist the change. We can see this when we look at asteroids and moons as the paper shows in its diagrams. Below a certain size they will be more lumpy and potato shaped, but as they get larger the more rounder they are. The maths given are how this is calculated and the verification is observing the different sized bodies in the solar system.

Think of a thought experiment to explain why not just any body will turn into a sphere. Take a cardboard box and place a weight in it. The box is unlikely to collapse in any given timeframe. We add the same sized box with a weight in on top. Unless they are very poorly made your stack should be fine. But if we keep going eventually we will reach a trigger point. The weight constantly increasing is balancing against the strength of the boxes which is fixed. When the weight gets too much a crush begins. In our example you'll end up with a big pile of boxes, but in space with nothing to act on them you'll get a cloud. Keep adding boxes, they'll all be attracted to one another and with pressure on every side with enough you'll end up with a sphere!

Thank you. Very interesting. Also interesting was the article in the link you provided. In particular the galactic disk M104. And a thought came to mind; If this 'flat' galaxy was being 'pulled' together by a central force (magnetic, anti-gravity or something else) might it be possible for the constituent parts (of the galaxy) to form a complete disk? And even if this was just remotely possible could this therefore suggest how a flat as opposed to global earth was formed? Is there anything to dispel this for example?

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reconciling Velikovskianism with the theory of the Flat Earth

« on: December 02, 2022, 09:35:21 PM »

I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Am not sure that a magnetic and some iron filings demonstrates/proves the large-mass-becomes-sphere theory.
But surely its all relative. And the timescale of tens of thousands of years for a large mass to become a sphere would be much reduced for a very small mass surely? Or is there a minimum definitive size of mass which only above this the sphere theory works? If so what is that 'size'? If the theory has been tested, peer-reviewed, accepted by (and everything else that goes with proving such things) by science that shouldn't be a difficult one to answer.

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reconciling Velikovskianism with the theory of the Flat Earth

« on: December 02, 2022, 03:05:21 PM »

That's interesting. Is there any way this has been or can be demonstrated as it would be interesting to watch something like this happen?

Have we ever watched the a planet being created in real time?  I doubt it, that would take thousands of years.

I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.