1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Apollo 8 astronaut William Ander's Earthrise???

« on: October 12, 2016, 11:38:54 AM »

As soon as FE'ers can't come up with an answer which excludes 'fake' or 'lie', the topic fades away. Do you think NASA would have been afraid of a flat earth movement starting when they were clearly showing pictures of a globe earth from space, and then they would actually have the foresight to think ahead to make sure that their dimensions matched so perfectly as proved by Rabinoz above? Methinks not!

I'm curious cel has a "motto" of "STOP BEING DECEIVED. BE A TRUTH SEEKER", yet when caught out trying to NASA is faking a photo (probably ignorantly) we hear no more from him.

I really think thing that cel should "STOP BEING DECEIVED. BE A TRUTH SEEKER."

Wow, rabinoz! you're too fast to think falsely about my absence in this forum (i have reason that is none of your business!). No wonder that you're not getting anywhere but going around the circle just trying to rebut anything posted that is against your GE propositions/belief. Anyway, why couldn't you control your urge to demean and insult people here who do not conform 100% to your belief? In the interim period I was out here, have you read any postings from me in other topics? Presumptive conclusions done in haste are often either deceitful, ill-motivated or ignorantly wrong! Is that how you reason out? Who the hell will believe in your insinuations and/or arguments then?

Re the NASA photo thing, it's perfectly normal for one who wants the real truth to be skeptic after all the reasonable presentations of arguments, proofs, facts, testimonies, etc. about the NASA's faking the moon landing or Apollo 11 or the rest of the Apollos. Until this time, all such documentary accounts/presentations have not been rebutted successfully by NASA or by you perhaps (as agent of NASA, probably) to convince millions of people that Apollos, e.g. Apollo 11, was undoubtedly real. How can you let people believe in something whose authenticity had been tainted by deceitful politics? Don't forget or you should know well the backgrounder before you judged people's stand on the matter. Btw, there's nothing surprising about the formula or calculation you've presented, it's the normal thing to do. In fact, you can just use online calculations without having to go into manual computations. I have a question to you, is it possible to take a still picture of studio earth model and come up with a negative earth image the same size as that of the earthrise? Can the earthrise negative be authenticated and verified? To prove something to be genuine, every step of the way should be verified to be genuine, right?

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Has anyone got proof(s) that isf/are TRUE ONLY for Globe OR Flat earth?

« on: October 12, 2016, 10:29:04 AM »

@ Boots,

Oh c'mmon, all your GE-based arguments and proofs have been overused already. I suggest you read also ALL FE arguments and facts re such topic. Anyway, let me tell you that in those lines of arguments, both GEs and FEs have valid points, only that they don't see that, causing them to pointlessly and endlessly argue and argue without getting to the truth out there. Don't get into such trap, you might find yourself knowing nothing but shallow info. Be a truth seeker. Find out there somewhere an irrefutable and indubitable proof(s)... Thanks.

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: October 12, 2016, 10:09:04 AM »

Hello, people! ...who don't even have the courage to let their true identities or names be known... and yet trying to prove and convince people here of something truthful. At the start, there's already inconsistency. Anyway, for the fun of it, seeing how people here one-sidedly and narrow-mindedly defend their sides of the what's really the truth out there, I tried to get new line of reasoning and evidences/facts, but it's very disappointing as everything discussed and presented here has been already presented and arguably discussed somewhere here and in other fora. Nothing new! Everybody still went around the circle trying to catch each other's behind. .... Hey, wake up!  Each of you people has a point! Tom and his colleagues have a point. And rabinoz, et.al. also have a point.. You all have points, but can't you ever see that all your (repeated) arguments and evidences/observations are valid based on which frame of mind or mindset you have, GE or FE? Why can't both sides or parties cooperate and join together to prove once and for all what the earth really is? And be a real truth seeker, not a debater or arguer all your life. For example, re earth's curvature, go further beyond 200 miles away from a seashore using high powered telescope mutually agreed upon and proper calculations, and be brave and humble enough to accept the real truth, GE, FE or something else. Tom in this forum has a point in presenting his views on how things about GE had transpired or came to be. Rabinoz, in trying to prove his globe-based reasoning and facts, has also a point just like other FEs here in their posts.

Pls elevate the discussion to the next level to find the truth, and nothing but the truth...an irrefutable and indubitable truth out there... maybe the level of analytical, intellectual and/or imaginative faculty among people here just does not have that capacity.... one way of knowing, try answering my question below....

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: Has anyone got 100% proof for globe or flat earth that cannot be debunked? 8)

« on: October 12, 2016, 07:13:29 AM »

im thinking our reality is neither globe or flat..its something else..it wouldnt even be debatable if it was.

It's an irregular shape but most closely resembles a sphere.

Better back up your proposition with irrefutable proof(s) that is true only to that "irregular shape" claim of yours....

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy debunk: The sun is clearly moving away

« on: September 23, 2016, 01:05:33 PM »

Where are the videos? they're all gone. Why can't the GEs and FEs calculations be based on empirical data, info that have been taken or seen from real time observations, not on theory or assumptions. Math calculation should only follow from given empirical data. We don't have to assume that the earth is a globe at the start. How can one prove or get the correct sun's distance if the initial assumption is a global earth. So i think it's better to base math calculation on something observed in real time like the sun rays' angle, etc..  be a truth seeker...

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 23, 2016, 11:36:04 AM »

All I have ever seen you do is declare that our arguments are not good enough. Perhaps contribute to the actual discussion? This thread is about how angles relate to perspective when viewing the sun at sunset. Be specific. No more blanket declarations. And no, I'm not going to buy you an expensive telescope.

Each one of you should recognize and be aware that the law on perspective and vanishing point (LP/VP) is inherent in or governs our unaided eyes in seeing or viewing objects at a distance, whether or not the objects are moving towards or away from our position.

Yes, I am aware. If you had read this thread, you would know that I was very specific about how perspective and the vanishing point effects how we see angles. That's the whole point of this thread, in case you didn't notice.

I think you missed my point. All I want to convey to you both GEs and FEs is that you've got good enough arguments and/or proofs supporting your claims, your shortcoming is that you missed to see that you're both seeing or observing the same object or thing with differing mindsets which blinded or shielded you both from the real thing or truth out there (FE or GE?; moving or stationary sun or moon, etc.). What I want people in this thread to understand is that both your arguments or explanations are quite good enough to support each other's claims or proposition, but you missed or don't want to see the "forest". Haven't you wondered why is this so? It's simple. Each of your biased mindsets prevent you from seeing things with open mind. Try seeing what truth seekers see that the number "6" can well be seen also as "9" depending on where the vantage point of the observer or reader is. No one should argue against this, for it is the truth. This is the kind of mindset we want you both to have inorder to arrive at what's really the truth about the earth in relation to the sun, moon or its shape...

Ok, you know what I think where you are right now in your debate re LP/VP (law of perspective/vanishing point), angles etc., you're both arguing for something you observed within only the limits of LP/VP governing human eyes' capacity. You've not even gone beyond such limitation towards what it is really like without the LP/VP limitation. To have this limitation expanded, i think you view things with aided eyes. Also, sun's angles, perspective (setting or rising) can be analyzed well with empirical data taken real time frm all over the world. I think if you have those kind of data, no one dares debunking them as they're what people see in real time. What we can do is to understand and explain the results, whether or not they're inconsistent with our pre-conceived beliefs, mindsets or biases. Be a truth seeker...

You still don't get it.

Science is explaining these things with proven math and geometry, test, tests, and more tests. While new findings might be the target of some bias in the scientific community, the shape of the earth isn't. The shape of the earth is as unbiased a fact as they'll ever come.

You seem to miss the point of why some of the more eloquent and obviously educated "GE'ers" participate in debates on this site. To me, as a "GE'er", it's quite clear:

We want to make sure, that the next person who joins the board to ask questions about their newly found belief, aren't misinformed. That the social presence of TFES doesn't lead young people to believe what TFES is actually claiming. To me, that's just as dangerous as religious indoctrination.

What you've just said is also exactly what your FE opponents have been saying. You both are using science, scientific explanation, empirical data, tests, etc..... About your intention, it's noble, but let me tell you this, the more you engage into debate and defend your claims like the way you do here or perhaps in other venues as well (in not so clear, flawless and empirically convincing manner), the more people become more curious. This is a fact. The FEs will thank you for that. You can never control people from being curious. All has access to internet, youtube, facebook, this one, etc... It's impossible to control this now.

All you have to do, i think, if you really want to stop these FEs from further exposing their claims/proofs is to really show an irrefutable proof of at least one of your claims such as presenting real time unedited video showing that at, say, 100+ mi away (all other given data should be confirmed true), you cannot anymore see a tower, bldg, etc... by using high-powered telescopic camera. If you can show this with precision, you'll really be the "global man" for GEs and people around, and they, even FEs, will believe. How can this be refuted? Be a truth seeker then... be challenged...

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Apollo 8 astronaut William Ander's Earthrise???

« on: September 23, 2016, 09:52:37 AM »

First of all, NASA's info or images posted have been discredited by FEs, and somewhat doubted by GEs from what had happened to the moon landing movie making. Anyway, I advised you questfortruth not to use NASA images or posting. It doesn't help.

For example, your Apollo 8 image of the earth that was taken by one of the astronauts Anders could not be confirmed to be authentic as it was posted by NASA in its website. And by ordinary observation, the earth just appears to be just the size of the moon as we viewed it from earth at his full moon condition, and the size of the moon is about 1/3 that of earth from a distance of something like 238,900 mi. It's a bit puzzling because the photo was taken at 240,000 miles away from earth while they orbitted the moon (they were really pretty near the moon surface at this orbit distance)... and yet they saw an earth image just the same size as that of the moon. Direct calculation and common sense dictate that it should have been 3 times the size of moon image as seen from earth. Further, I came across websites that calculate the size of an object's image given the object's size, distance of the object from the camera or observer with known focal length, etc. and the image size of earth from Apollo 8's report came out to be much smaller as expected... I did this just for curiosity's sake. No need to debunk, hehe... With that image size, the distance from the observer came out to be much more than 240,000 mi that seems to be an unrealistic result already.... well, seems not reliable enough...

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The South Celestial Pole

« on: September 23, 2016, 06:54:16 AM »

Before we or people go into a lot of researching, arguments and explanation, i think it's just proper for someone who wants to know the truth out there to verify first if the picture showing both the north and south celestial poles are authentic, unedited one. It should be the first thing for both camps to agree on before proceeding to debates which may likely end up endless if improperly done. I think this pic came from a photo techsie whose business is in virtual reality presentation equipped with photoshop expertise and capacities to make a picture or video appear to be enjoyably extra beautiful or wonderful. Would the FEs allow this? see http://www.vincentbrady.com/Planetary360

Anyway, are there any other updated FE explanations, assuming the pic is verified/authenticated and agreed upon by both camps? Are the vantage points of the one shooting the picture exactly the same as those of the observers in the diagram? Why not let the FEs explain their side? How about their argument on the "firmament" aspect wrt celestial pole matters? The last or final statement in this thread that the "earth  isn't flat" I think is still inadequately supported, pre-mature and inconclusive. The way of proving matters about the celestial poles has to be made the scientific and objective way, not by convincing way with a biased mindset. Be a truth seeker... not a "convincer"...

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 23, 2016, 05:05:26 AM »

All I have ever seen you do is declare that our arguments are not good enough. Perhaps contribute to the actual discussion? This thread is about how angles relate to perspective when viewing the sun at sunset. Be specific. No more blanket declarations. And no, I'm not going to buy you an expensive telescope.

Each one of you should recognize and be aware that the law on perspective and vanishing point (LP/VP) is inherent in or governs our unaided eyes in seeing or viewing objects at a distance, whether or not the objects are moving towards or away from our position.

Yes, I am aware. If you had read this thread, you would know that I was very specific about how perspective and the vanishing point effects how we see angles. That's the whole point of this thread, in case you didn't notice.

I think you missed my point. All I want to convey to you both GEs and FEs is that you've got good enough arguments and/or proofs supporting your claims, your shortcoming is that you missed to see that you're both seeing or observing the same object or thing with differing mindsets which blinded or shielded you both from the real thing or truth out there (FE or GE?; moving or stationary sun or moon, etc.). What I want people in this thread to understand is that both your arguments or explanations are quite good enough to support each other's claims or proposition, but you missed or don't want to see the "forest". Haven't you wondered why is this so? It's simple. Each of your biased mindsets prevent you from seeing things with open mind. Try seeing what truth seekers see that the number "6" can well be seen also as "9" depending on where the vantage point of the observer or reader is. No one should argue against this, for it is the truth. This is the kind of mindset we want you both to have inorder to arrive at what's really the truth about the earth in relation to the sun, moon or its shape...

Ok, you know what I think where you are right now in your debate re LP/VP (law of perspective/vanishing point), angles etc., you're both arguing for something you observed within only the limits of LP/VP governing human eyes' capacity. You've not even gone beyond such limitation towards what it is really like without the LP/VP limitation. To have this limitation expanded, i think you view things with aided eyes. Also, sun's angles, perspective (setting or rising) can be analyzed well with empirical data taken real time frm all over the world. I think if you have those kind of data, no one dares debunking them as they're what people see in real time. What we can do is to understand and explain the results, whether or not they're inconsistent with our pre-conceived beliefs, mindsets or biases. Be a truth seeker...

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the Earth flat? Experiment

« on: September 23, 2016, 04:35:43 AM »

@Villi, to resolve issues and comments raised to discredit your experiment shown in the video, may I suggest that you add at least 50% to your distance from the tower or double the distance if it's possible, and better use, if you have, much powerful zooming camera or telescopic camera, and show us again your result in video. If you really can still see the tower, I think GEs couldn't anymore debunk or disprove it using mirage, refraction, global shape irregularity or whatever known explanation they can think of as it would just doesn't make sense anymore.

And you can be the man who people or we can count on of having made an irrefutable proof that curvature doesn't exist. This is what I meant by next level reasoning and proof. Anyway, do something to do what is suggested here, or FEs and GEs will endlessly engage in useless debates without something really concrete arrived at. Be a truth seeker, and continue to be one until you can prove to all what the earth really is, FE or GE? It doesn't matter which one, the most important thing is that we know what it is in reality... the truth will eventually be known by all.... good luck!

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Genuine Question

« on: September 23, 2016, 02:32:36 AM »

As you asked "genuine question", well, let me give "genuine answer", how's that? Fair enough. After watching some FEs' videos, you're now as curious as other inquisitive people on topics about FE (or GE?). Well, keep it up! It's a good way to know what's going on and find the truth out there someday. Let me give you a simple analogy. These FEs and GEs debates now going on and becoming viral are all wanting to prove their own claims about earth, but some of them are just too narrow-minded and stubborn not to see that their opponents also have a valid point. The very reason why they keep on fighting, insulting, disrespecting, cursing, etc... You know, people behave badly under fictitious names. Dare them their true identity, and they'll curse no more...   Anyway, these FEs actually started it all long ago, decades or even centuries perhaps, and of course, GEs, including you and me in a way as we're taught or grew with GE science since we're young, could not just accept their claims, proofs, etc. as they don't conform to what GEs were made to believe eversince. So that's where the arguments and debates started.

Now, if you ask me if these FEs have a point. I would not be telling the truth if I say they don't. They have a point. But there those who are not really that serious as FEs, beware of them, they'll just confuse you more. Better be selective in getting your info about FE / GE issues. Of course, GEs are also like that, some of them. Well, we can really verify as we know also how science and GE work. If you watch FE videos and websites, you'll really ask questions because of their valid observations and supporting data for their claims, and we, or GEs, don't have all the convincing explanations plus the fact that there are fake or fraud incidents perpetrated by science or political people of the modern world. You know, this world is full of hidden agenda and political maneuvering that we just could not get to the truth in a silver platter. In fact, I see these GEs and FEs as both correct in their respective claims, only that they could not see that such that they insist that their claims are the only correct one, where in fact, both of them might have been right. You know, seeing the truth from different perspective or vantage point. The very reason why I encourage them to elevate their debates to a higher level to see the forest that they're looking at the same thing. This is the only way by which they can arrive at what's really the truth about earth. Keep asking questions about FE wrt to GE. As we know already about GE, know more about FE. We'll eventually arrive at the real truth out there someday... be one of the truth seekers then...

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: Has anyone got proof(s) that isf/are TRUE ONLY for Globe OR Flat earth?

« on: September 23, 2016, 01:43:36 AM »

I have a wildest idea and suggestion here just to come up with real time data supporting what's really the truth out there. Imagination and calculations are ok but real time observation from all over the world is much better. CGI is not welcome in this experiment. My suggestion is why don't everybody, GEs and FEs alike join together to get to or prove what's really an undeniable fact/truth about earth. Quite crazy, but we're all human who want to know the real truth regarding earth issues.

Anyway, I came across this video of FEs just having fun taking real time videos for their data gathering. We can say what's the point gathering those real time videos taken to prove something like the equinox? Well, this is a modern free world, let them go for it, who knows, some questions can be answered by their results. You know, nowadays, we just cannot have a monopoly of theoretical and mathematical claims without verifiable valid empirical data taken real time. If the the gathered data are inconsistent with what we believe, theorize or calculated as mathematical fact, then that's the opportune time that we ask the question "why"? and of course, we should strive to find the correct answer as the truth is just out there waiting to be discovered by people who are genuine truth seekers...

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: Has anyone got 100% proof(s) for globe or flat earth that cannot be debunked?

« on: September 22, 2016, 12:29:34 PM »

The the Flat Earth seems to use this to prove the the sun and moon reach their vanishing point at the horizon.

Perspective on the Globe is really just a drawing guide.

But, I would contend that the "vanishing point" depends entirely on the size (and brightness) of the object, and has no connection with the visible horizon.

I think I commented on this bit earlier, but I don't think anyone is going to prove anything much other than that a telescope will never bring anything back.

I think you misunderstood a bit about the law on perspective and vanishing point (LP/VP). You, being a GE, and those FEs like Tom, have all observed your respective "suns" and "moons" according to the LP/VP. NO ONE with eyes escapes this law. You are not human or simply just blind if you insist that you're not governed by this law. This is not just for drawing guide, as the drawing is just made right according to what the eyes have observed or seen. The LP/VP governs the sight of all persons' eyes, so everything seen especially at a distance moving towards or away from the observer, gets smaller from all sides until convergently vanishes to a point and disappears.

Since the horizon can be seen around the observer (GE OR FE), of course, it will not vanish, but two objects seen from it tend to go closer and closer to each other as the observer gets farther away from them until they merge and vanish from sight. So for GEs, this LP/VP cannot just be ignored, for doing so, makes your observation erroneous. It could be that both GEs and FEs observed distant objects, bldgs, sun and moon relative to earth's huge surface WITHIN ONLY the LP/VP limitation that governs their eyes, all observers' eyes. To end this debate, once and for all, let someone with a high-powered telescope/camera prove whether the earth is really F or G. Better be ready GEs and FEs when the time comes to have this experiment done, probably by genuine truth seekers as they don't have any political agenda and have nothing to fear or hide... what they want is plain TRUTH...

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 22, 2016, 11:56:25 AM »

It appears that FEs Tom, etal and GEs Rabinoz, etal have all exerted efforts and tried to prove their respective claims, but all in vain... sorry, i just could not see that both parties can ever prove anything on what really is the truth about the shape or form of earth. I suggest raise or bring this topic to the next level as I always suggested. Each one of you should recognize and be aware that the law on perspective and vanishing point (LP/VP) is inherent in or governs our unaided eyes in seeing or viewing objects at a distance, whether or not the objects are moving towards or away from our position. You both GEs and FEs here appears to go around a circle like in merry go round.

What we, truth seekers, observe is that FEs keep on proving their claims just like seeing the number "6" from their position, while the GEs also keep on proving their claims just like seeing the same number "6" as number "9" from their position at the opposite side. From your arguments and explanations, it's a fact that  all of you have seen distant objects, e.g. sun, bldgs, moon, etc., all by and through the LP/VP, NO ONE with eyes can escape this law. So whether you have a GE mindset or FE mindset, you all have more or less similar observation when it comes to seeing objects at a distance on this enormously HUGE earth as you are only a virus size compared to it.

For GEs even though you have a spherical or global shape in mind, you cannot really prove curvature with unaided eyes because you can only see flatness just like what the flat minded FEs see or wanted to see. Both of you are actually seeing flatness in general with unaided eyes, plus the fact that objects seen are governed by LP/VP, hence, a very limited view. For GEs, you should both consider curvature and LP/VP in explaining why objects disappear from horizon, while FEs are expected to consider only LP/VP. But with the huge earth surface appearing to be flat for both withtheir unaided eyes, they'll just end up at nothing worth their efforts. It's a pity... The truth is out there people, but we have to change strategy, and use tools like high powered telescope or camera to significantly extend this LP/VP much farther for us to find the absolute truth. Better think out of the box in resolving this issue.. Wake up...

15

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 22, 2016, 10:38:03 AM »

Just curious... how much does a satellite cost nowadays, if there is any? FEs say satellites are non-existent, and GEs say they do. But to think that they or NASA allotted huge budget for this, i think its true existence can be verified. Anyway, satellite, if it does exist, can really orbit around the GE as presently taught to us by NASA and textbook/schools, and likewise also revolves/orbits in a circular path over FE just like FE sun and moon. So in both cases, satellites can do orbit/revolves....

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« on: September 22, 2016, 10:26:50 AM »

So…..the reason I should go to church, get down on my knees and basically beg for forgiveness for sins I don’t feel I have committed, is to hedge my bets? That’s the best you’ve got?

What if I get the wrong god? How do I gauge if Islam isn’t right, or Hinduism isn’t true and I’m insulting Kali by idolising a man nailed to some wood? What if Odin is the man, and he just backed out because he thought the invention of gunpowder devalued the applicants for Valhalla? What if the bird is the word?

I’m with Andruszkow, history is written by the victors, Christianity/Abrahamic religion has spread through the world by conquest and repression. We only get one point of view, Lucifer could be the Che Guevara of the celestial realms, the “Bringer of light” doesn’t sound like a name of the evil one so perhaps Hell aint’ a bad place to be?

However, for me an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, religion, the child of the evolutionary wiring in our brains for pattern recognition and wishful thinking to stave off the long dark sleep.
I shan’t take your bet, I would rather have my convictions and plead my case (I don’t think I will have to), than sneak in having played “just in case” all my life, get some backbone

If life or your life is full of "ifs", then it's best to settle for Big "IFs" that go for something good. At least this way can give you chance... As you said, everything dies, well, does that exempt you? If not, it's wise to choose the "IFs" that can give you at least one life more...

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: Has anyone got 100% proof(s) for globe or flat earth that cannot be debunked?

« on: September 21, 2016, 02:20:42 AM »

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Most os Chicago hidden - behind what?

Oops, where has Chicago gone?

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law.

The only reason the debate would be endless is because flat earthers refuse to accept what is plainly obvious from that photo: that the bottom of those buildings are hidden behind the horizon. What "law on perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to that would cause the bottom 3/4ths of a massive building to appear to be below the horizon? Please be specific.

And another reason would be that the flat earthers refuse to believe that there is such a thing as the horizon instead of "A blur which fades away at some indeterminate distance." They would probably say the photo is a fake and the horizon and the buildings are photoshopped.

It is strongly suggested that GEs study more of how the law of perspective and vanishing point work, for if you don't understand what it is, you're perpetuating your debates with the FEs. You both see the same result of eventually not seeing the buildings until they vanish from sight. Whether it's because of the earth's curvature as the GEs claimed or of the law of perspective and vanishing point as the FEs claimed, both their claims/reasons could have the same effect/result for the Chicago - Michigan case. So you'll really end up in useless debate if you don't understand this and insist in arguing that your reason (GE or FE) is the only one that works here. Both your reasons GEs and FEs have the same effect... wake up you people. To end this debate, it's best for someone to use a high powered camera or telescope with zooming capacity as powerful as that used in observatory and see if the buildings can still be seen at even much farther than Michigan.... well, good luck GEs and FEs.... don't fight or use foul words/comments, you don't have to... keep using reasons and supporting facts.... think, think, think....

I repeat: what "law of perspective and vanishing point" are you referring to?

It seems you're really hungry of technical/scientific info, better do further research on the subject. There are lots of info on this in the internet, youtube, etc. I got one from one of the FEs, see and read this one: https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/24/17-if-a-flat-earth-why-does-the-sun-go-down/#more-515  Actually, at certain distance, regardless of whether or not the earth is flat or globe (as tiny as we are compared to earth, at some far distance, it still appears to be flat than curve if earth is really globe and has curvature), our eyes has limitation because the extent of our sight is governed by the law on perspective or vanishing point principle. Anyway, read on something about this topic. Better have some imagination to appreciate what this law means... good luck...

Yes, I am aware of Rowbotham's theory of "true perspective", which is where the law of perspective referenced by that article originates.

We see an object because our eyes detect the light coming from the object. Our eyes detect 3 things about the light:

1. Intensity
2. Direction
3. Color (irrelevant for this discussion)

There are 2 ways for an object to "disappear":

1. When the intensity of the light is too low, we can no longer detect the object. Therefore, far away stuff tends to disappear.
2. When the angular diameter gets too small, we can no longer detect the dimensions of the object. The object will appear as a zero dimensional point. In the case of a star, we are able to detect some amount of light, but the angular diameter of the star is too small for us to detect the width of the star. We can't discern any details of the star. It just appears as a zero dimensional point.

How does this relate to perspective? As an object increases in distance, it's angular diameter decreases. This causes an object to appear to become smaller the farther away it gets. The entire object will appear  proportionally smaller. Any details that become smaller than what our eye can detect will be merged with the rest of the details in that area.

Rowbotham's theory of "true perspective" is based on this reasoning: if the angular diameter between an object and the horizon is smaller than what our eye can detect, then it will appear to merge with the horizon. This is perfectly reasonable on the surface. But he misapplies this reasoning.

Look at the picture of the Chicago buildings below the horizon: you can clearly see the tops of the buildings. Therefore, the angular diameter of the top portion of the building is much greater than the minimum discernible angular diameter of the camera. However, the portion of the building that is below the horizon is just as large as the portion above the horizon. The angular diameter of the bottom portion of the building should be plenty big enough to see. So why is the bottom portion gone? Rowbotham's reasoning does not apply here. "True perspective" does not apply here. The bottom portion of the building is plenty large enough to see. No amount of zooming in will cause the bottom portion to reappear. The only reasonable explanation is that the bottom portion of the building is hidden behind the water. This leaves us with two options: a massive wave is about to wipe out Chicago, or the water is curved along with the earth.

Stop assuming other people haven't thought this through.

Opps, I simply provided you with what you asked. You made me/us believe that you don't know anything about perspective, where in fact you seemed to knew it already... ?? what a deceitful gesture! Anyway, people lie.. Ohh, you've thought this through already, and yet you let people here believe that you don't know anything about perspective... well, people tend to be deceitful just to push their agenda. hehehe, ... well, it seems that you know a lot about perspective. Thanks for your explanation. You have a point though, but not that conclusive yet, in an absolute sense, i mean. Let us put it this way. You concluded right away that there is curvature by seeing with only the "naked eye" or by "ordinary unaided observation" the upper portion of the bldgs. Wait, how about refraction effect? Remember, you're only using unaided eye observation which cannot be relied upon 100%. Ok, you can do it this way to erase all doubts esp. from the FEs. Observe, using a high powered camera or telescope recommended, the Chicago bldgs from a distance much farther, not just from Michigan, that according to curvature computation or formula the bldgs should have completely vanished already or out of sight already due to curvature, and show proof of this. This can also be done by the FEs. I challenge both FEs and GEs on this. So this can be proven once and for all. If the FE still sees the bldgs at such farther distance, well, FE is right, but if not, the GE is right, the earth is globe. So c'mmon people, do this experiment. Don't just make inadequately supported outright conclusions, that's not how scientific proving or proof works. Be a bit scientific... to end this seemingly endless debate, for now... Go and report to us the unedited and authentic verifiable result... photo,,,etc..

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: eye level flat horizon at 120,000 feet

« on: September 21, 2016, 01:50:27 AM »

The earth is ENORMOUS.  Even at the seemingly very high altitude of 120k feet, you are not very high up in terms of the size of the plant overall.

Earth has an average radius of 3959 miles.  That's 21 million feet.  120k feet is 1/2 of 1% of that.  If you take a basketball as a model of the earth, the balloon is less than 1/32 of an inch off the surface.

If you can see the "curvature" that is the horizon, then why does it not follow the same curvature should be expected to be seen horizontally along the horizon?

From near sea-level. there is absolutely no horizontal curvature of the horizon to be seen - nil!

Imagine being on an island in mid-ocean with a relatively calm sea.

All around you the horizon is exactly the same distance away and has to be the same height, just a few metres below eye-level. It does not matter which way you look, it's the same.

You can imagine looking at a very large circle around you. Seen edge on it looks perfectly flat.

From
1.5 m above sea-level, ideally the horizon is about 5 km away and 3 m below eye level. This makes the horizon only 0.03° below eye-level - quite imperceptible!

100 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 41 km away and 200 m below eye level. This makes the horizon 0.28° below eye-level - unnoticeable to the unaided eye, but measurable with good instruments!

10,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 412 km away and 20,000 m below eye level. The horizon is now 2.8° below eye-level - barely detectable to the unaided eye, but easily measurable!

even 20,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 582 km away and 40,000 m below eye level. Now the horizon is 3.9° below eye-level -  detectable to the unaided eye, and easily measurable!

Now, what does this mean as far as visible curvature goes? So far I am guessing! But certainly
a 41 km circle only 0.28° below eye-level is not going to show any visible curvature, but when in comes to
a 412 km circle 2.8° below eye-level any visible curvature will be very small, especially looking out of a passenger plane window.
a 582 km circle 3.9° below eye-level any visible curvature will still be small, but probably quite noticeable from a pilots wider angle view..
What I will try to do is to work out just what would show on a flat photographic image - that's just geometry, once I get my head around the problem!

Maybe someone better at graphics than I can help.

There is this photo showing this "dip angle to the horizon" from an aircraft's instruments superimposed on the outside horizon.

The angle down to the visible horizon (somewhat blurred) looks to be 2.7° to 2.8°.

Before seeing that, I had done those calculations on the "dip angle to the horizon" and one line happened to be:

Altitude		Dip Angle		Horizon Distance
32,808 feet		2.8°		256 miles

It is certainly refreshing to see calculations work out like this.

I had not given a thought that flight instruments prove this horizon dip on every high altitude flight! There might be some curvature on that horizon, you have a look.

Then there is this video, which is aimed at "debunking" the idea that "The horizon always rises to eye-level", so it is certainly biased that way:

He uses only an iPhone "Theodolite App". I would prefer better equipment,
but at 30,000 ft the "dip angle" is quite substantial.

None of these are really aimed at showing "curvature", but at showing the "dip angle to the horizon", which is much easier to measure and much more definitive, besides being one way that the radius (of curvature) of the earth has been measured even from ancient times.

You could look at:
Al Biruni measured the radius of the earth by measuring the dip angle to the horizon as in Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment: How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth?

Sorry, this wasn't meant to go on so long, but it just grew - like Topsy!

You know what i think on this? You're right in saying that the height reached by the camera is still just very near to the earth relative to the earth's radius or diameter. So it's hard to tell and conclude whether there is really an observable curvature. Well, we need bigger funding to prove and see a curvature this way. I can see that this will end up, just the same, in GEs and FEs still believing, defending and confirming/proving their respective claims. You know why? the FEs claim that the earth is a flat circular disc, so whatever curvature, though how minute, seen at some considerable height, they will just say that it confirms also the circular arc or edge of their circular disc earth. Well, again an endless debate continues. The earth is enormous. People are just virus wanting to see the curvature of their enormous spherical or circular disc home called earth... good luck... just an insight...

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: Has anyone got 100% proof(s) for globe or flat earth that cannot be debunked?

« on: September 21, 2016, 01:29:54 AM »

Indoctrination?  You mean like what all schools and universities do as well as the military?

 I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.   I can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space.   

If you are on a bus, as long as the bus goes straight you can move around on it.  But if it accelerates or makes a corner one would have to hold on to something if they were not seated.  The reason being that the bus is being subjected to a jerk:  J(t)= da/dt ; the 4th derivative on displacement.

Our Earth according to modern science is constantly changing direction and speed as well as traveling around in arcs of various radii.  And nobody ever feels the ground move unless there is an earthquake.  Infer what you will.  But, I wouldn't put it past the scientific community to be dishonest; we all need a paycheck.  Telling lies seems to be what people do best.

• Learn to count! If v(t) = ds/dt, a = dv/dt then if j(t) = ds/dt; Then your "jerk" is the 3rd derivative of displacement, so where does the "the 4th derivative on displacement" come from?
  
  
• The only accelerations that the a person standing on earth in subject to are gravitation (9.83 m/s²), from earth's rotation (0.034 m/s²) and from earth's orbiting the sun (0.0059 m/s²). These are all constant, though the direction of the minute latter one changes relative to us during the day, so might subject us to a "jerk" of 0.0000004m/s³ -  big deal! 

And you wonder why you "can't feel the Earth move even though it is constantly making circles in space" when the only variable acceleration is 0.06% of the constant one we feel from gravitation.

  Come off it! 

And you claim that you "can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day." That does seem to be very variable!

<< removed pictures >>

So which is it are just ignorant or are you knowingly trying to exaggerate massively to push your agenda - it really has to be one of the other!

I suggest you try again!

On this issue of seeing Chicago from Michigan, you'll end up in an endless debate to the point of catching each other's behind if not on a useless argument, pls be reminded people that the law on perspective and vanishing point do apply for both GE and FE as the earth is too big compared to the size of man such that man's view, regardless of whether is flat or globe, is always governed by such law. I think to settle this, one has to get a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope and use it to view Chicago, or any place much farther, at sea level from Michigan, or elsewhere suitable for such viewing. Of course, the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply. This can be a reckoning point of what really the shape or form of earth, flat or globe? Is anyone here willing to perform this experiment/task to settle once and for all GEs; and FEs' debates on this issue? Whatever the resulting fact on this matter would really be a stepping stone towards the absolute truth about what earth really is... 

Yes, I know, but when we had

I can see Chicago from Benton Harbor, Michigan on a clear day.

I replied showing how variable it is.

And I don't think that "a gigantic/astronomical telescope or camera with super high zoom capacity like that of a gigantic/astronomical telescope" will help one little bit.

Sure "the mathematical formula for curvature for GE should always apply" but then
like it or not observations of this nature (for or against the globe) will always be bugged by that unfortunate fact of life, refraction near the horizon.

Much safer to steer clear till someone brings it up.

Well, there's no harm in trying. We cannot confirm any facts out there if you just slam any possible experiment that can prove something at the next level. That's how scientific method works. We can talk and talk and debate all the time defending each other's theory or belief, but this is useless and a waste of time if no valid experimental results are performed to prove one's proposition/theory. This is the only way i think can raise this matter to the next level. No one yet in this group is 100% sure or has a monopoly of the truth, the very reason why there seems to be an endless debate. Give a chance for people to make this experiment. Refrain from absolute conclusion. It does not help at this time. No one will believe in that. We cannot go on forever proving nothing by using just eye observation, without the aid of high powered telescope/camera, afterall, astronomy advances that way. Certainly, it is a fact that such gadget can significantly extend our sight capacity or the limits of perspective that governs unaided eye observation regardless of whether the earth is flat or a globe. Just be open-minded for better options as science works that way.

20

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« on: September 21, 2016, 01:03:14 AM »

It's for the children.

Not really, for me, it's for the unwise or shall we say, fools. My reason? simple. If you choose to be atheist, well, religion, say christianity, teaches a life (heavenly life is more attractive than that of hell) after this earthly life. Now, if this next life is indeed true, then unbeliever, atheist by choice, will go to hell and the believer can have that heavenly next life (well, assuming he/she is good christian of course    ); and if it is not true, well, the believer and the atheist both end in nothing. Who is wiser then? Certainly, the believer. Let's just be wiser in making choices like this...

Hell, you say. Now, this is God's version of it all. You know, the creator of everything, except hell. Until I've read Satan's side of the story, the Bible is just God pointing fingers.

The problem with religion is the absence of logic. From the believers that is. Adam and Eve populated earth, in all our colors, shapes and sizes, yet there's a surprisingly small amount of  people showing the symptoms of being inbred. This is just one of the humorous flaws.

Well, of course, you can say all you want to say against God and the Bible. You can despise and condemn religion with all your might. You really can. No one will prevent you from doing this. hehehe.... but the problem is everyone dies. You die. And when you die, this is the time when anyone, with or without believing God, can confirm in real time whether this "next life after this life" is true. My point is this. Believing or not believing a God out there who tells us that next life exists, we all gonna DIE. Unless you're also a God and 100% sure of where you're going to after this life, you'll be wise enough to choose to be atheist. Get what I mean? But you are not. You cannot even stop or exempt yourself from dying. If you don't die, well, I'll believe in you and likewise be an atheist, but you do die...    Well, who's wiser then in making a choice? the one who is open-mined opting for a chance to go on living a good next life or the one who is too narrow-minded opting for nothing, but only this present life? If you're a gambler, and you know you'll lose no matter what you do and how many times you bet, and still you keep on betting, well, what are you? simple, a fool... a wise gambler bets with a mindset that he'll win... meaning, hoping, believing, and taking a chance to win. Just like that, we take the same chance to go on living after this life.... well, i have no problem with your choice, you opted to live only once, well, good luck... it's your choice...