3101

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 11, 2018, 11:05:01 AM »

What data is being interpreted in Astrology? I guess you're going to say "the position of the stars", but I'm not sure what scientific principle is being used to determine that because the stars are in a certain position that means I'll meet a tall, dark stranger.

I sort of see what you're getting at, and you're right in that a lot of astronomy is about collecting data and interpreting it, but interpreting data like red shift and blue shift isn't pseudo-science, it's based on well tested scientific principles which can be tested on earth in controlled conditions.

3102

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 11, 2018, 09:42:40 AM »

Where do astronomers perform a controlled test on the universe? What was the control?

What was the control in the Bishop experiment? Not every experiment needs a control, you only need that if you're comparing two different outcomes.

3103

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 11, 2018, 08:36:21 AM »

The physical parallel plane rises to an eye level.

No, it doesn't. Bobby has shown that result very clearly in the other thread about the horizon rising to eye level but you are free to repeat his experiments or design your own if you dispute his findings.

Therefore, waves on the horizon can interfere with our vision.

No, they can't. I have shown with diagrams above and some real life photos why they can't.
The horizon is basically you seeing the edge of the earth. You can't see the surface of the earth (or sea) beyond that because it is behind the curve of the earth.
You CAN, however, see tall objects beyond the horizon if you have clear line of sight to them and the curve isn't occluding the whole object and the atmosphere is clear enough.
The pictures of the Turning Torso building show that very clearly.

We must distinguish between math and reality.

If the math didn't accurately represent reality then any computer 3D rendering which uses that math would not look real. But it does look real, because it is an accurate reflection of reality.

EDIT: Maybe it would help if you showed some diagrams explaining how light from a tall building is blocked by a small wave on the horizon. I'm struggling to picture it.

3104

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: October 10, 2018, 10:38:52 AM »

Ditching the wire cube. Made sense to me, but too hard to explain and too unwieldy to tote about and set up. (Also, it drew crowds and made me face a lot of questions I'd rather not have to answer.)

On a lark this past weekend, I cobbled this together from some surplus irrigation parts (12" long 1/2" threaded PVC pipe and two barbed elbows). Bought a 10' length (only need about a foot or two) of 1/2" ID vinyl tubing and, voila: a portable water level sighting tool. Found a way to clamp it onto a travel tripod, and with a little water and food coloring....






Check of the horizon from 90' from here:





and from 360' from here:




I like it.

Outstanding work, as always.
I'm sure in the light of this the Horizon Always At Eye Level page will be amended and FE Theory will be moved on immeasurably.

3105

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 10, 2018, 10:03:39 AM »

About 8" of resolution creates a horizontal line at seven kilometers.
The waves on the horizon are at eye level.
The waves on the horizon look small, but they are enough to cover a farther building.
The secret lies at a angle.
Our eyes can't sense such a small angle.
That's why it's so hard to believe it.
In addition, the swells is higher than the waves.
Not only the waves, but the swells enough to block the sight.

OK, so what you're saying amounts to in this diagram, let's imagine that last wave, the one nearest the building, is the wave at the horizon.



What your claim amounts to is that you can see the 1m wave, but you can't see the 100m building just beyond it.

3106

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: October 09, 2018, 07:19:07 PM »

Did you see the last one where no camera footage of the landing on ocean platform? Or deployment of sat? Ya we can put men on moon and talk about a colony on Mars but photos are tough he he.

So...if there are pictures then they are fake which proves it’s all fake and if there aren’t pictures then it shows it’s all fake, right?

It’s good, confirmation bias, isn’t it?

3107

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 09, 2018, 07:04:53 PM »

The author in the OP has composed several videos demonstrating that perspective is non-linear. If correct, it shows that perspective is not as it has been taught.

Where can we see something which demonstrates that perspective is as it is taught in schools?

And have shown some diagrams showing how a 1m wave cannot block a 100m building unless the viewer height is less than a meter.

I have also shown some pictures of an experiment I did some time back which shows my diagrams reflect reality.

If you feel there is some error in my conclusions then feel free to conduct your own experiment and publish the results for review.

3108

Flat Earth Community / Re: RESEARCH - Do you agree with this statement? Your main reason for believing

« on: October 09, 2018, 03:34:54 PM »

I've still yet to understand why any FE person came to the belief they did.
I've seen vague hints at experiments they've done but never seen any details of them.
I get that Zeteticism is about doing your own research but it would help if there were some experiment results shown if only so people could look at those results and where appropriate repeat the experiments.

3109

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 09, 2018, 02:07:47 PM »

While you're doing that, here are the results of the experiment I did previously to demonstrate the effect I outline above:

The set up:



Eye above the level of the obstacles, less of the Jenga block height is occluded:



Eye At the level of the obstacles, exactly the Jenga block height is occluded:



Eye below the level of the obstacles, more than the Jenga block height is occluded:



I look forward to your experiment results.

3110

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 09, 2018, 02:03:22 PM »

A dime CAN block your view of a distant elephant but only if you hold the dime close to your eye.

Perspective attempts to bring the surface in the distance to eye level. Unless you have a solid demonstration on how perspective works, I don't see how your argument holds any weight.

Do some experiments and show me a photo of a dime hiding an elephant with the dime on the ground and the eye/camera height more than a couple of centimetres off the ground.
As elephants are not native to California I'll accept an elephant size object.

3111

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: October 09, 2018, 01:47:17 PM »

Interesting you provide a link to a paper which references the rotating earth.
Cherry-picking, much?

3112

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 09, 2018, 10:39:00 AM »

In my experiments I only saw the earth rising upwards and the earth pushing me as I stood still.

And everyone else saw you fall to earth while they stood still.
And in the second experiment you observed the ball falling to earth while you stood still. You keep ignoring that, strangely.
That's not you being biased towards one explanation is it?

Yet, the gravity proponents argue that "just because you don't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist,"

No, they argue that every observation shows that objects fall to earth and the Cavendish experiment is proof that objects attract one another.

3113

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez

« on: October 09, 2018, 10:13:35 AM »

Unless you can explain how two gravitons attract each other, you are believing a fairy tale.

Again, I don't need to understand the mechanism behind how something works to observe that it does.
Did rainbows only start appearing in the sky after people understood how the light travelled through raindrops to cause the effect?
I'll ignore your word soup about the Cavendish Experiment, suffice to say that when I Googled "Cavendish Experiment Debunked" most of the results came, predictably, with flat earth websites. In the real world it is a well accepted and repeatable experiment.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Cavendish-experiment-a-pseudoscience-hoax

That is what you have to deal with: even if you ascend to a point higher than C (let's say 45 meters in Cap Gris Nez), and you have a visual target, the ascending slope, the midpoint curvature (22.4 meters) and the desending slope are still there on a globe earth.

Why do you keep on talking about ascending slopes? There is no ascending slope, just a descending one. The actual situation is this:



Your line of sight is the red line. The horizon is where you see the edge of the earth, H. Any object nearer to you than that, such as a boat at A, should be fully visible - waves or other obstacles permitting. Any object further away than that such as the cliffs at B would be partly occluded by the curve of the earth. How much depends on your viewer height and refraction would be a factor. It just isn't clear from the picture of the channel whether the cliffs are occluded or by how much.
You have been shown plenty of photos in this thread of distant shorelines clearly occluded.

If you believe my diagram to be flawed somehow then please produce your own explaining why.

3114

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 09, 2018, 08:26:00 AM »

Depends on viewer height. There are 3 scenarios.

If your viewer height is above wave height then the wave will block less of the distant object than its own height because you are looking down and over it:



If your eye is at wave height then the wave blocks as much of the distant object as its own height as you are looking straight across the top of it:



If your eye is below wave height then yes, the wave will then block more of the distant object than the wave's own height:



And the closer the wave in this scenario, the more of the building it will block:



So, if your viewer height is low enough then waves would be an explanation for you not being able to see distant objects.
If you're at any reasonable altitude then unless there are massive waves - which there typically are not - then waves cannot be the explanation as you are above wave height and thus the waves cannot block the distant object. A dime CAN block your view of a distant elephant but only if you hold the dime close to your eye. Put the dime on the ground and you'd have to lie on the ground and close your other eye to get low enough that it can block anything.

3115

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez

« on: October 08, 2018, 03:08:48 PM »

Your diagrams are comparing the arclength distance to the value of the midpoint curvature.

They're not comparing anything. You seem to be asserting that there is a big hill of water rising up in front of you.
Actually, you're looking slightly down (horizon dip) over the hill of water.
The line of sight is the red line (I did this for the boat/laser experiment)



But note that the curve is massively exaggerated in this diagram, you wouldn't be able to perceive it. It would block the view of anything beyond the curve but the amount blocked would depend on viewer height and distance of the object.
Bobby gave a more accurate "to scale" diagram above, you can see how slight the curve is in real life.

You need attractive gravity to explain the supposed curved line of the body of water.
How does it work?

Why do I need to understand how it works in order to observe that it exists? Every time I see something fall I observe it exists.
The Cavendish experiment demonstrates it is attraction between objects, not the earth pushing upwards.
Do I have to understand how magnetism works to notice that magnets attract (or repel)
All I need to do is observe that it occurs. I believe the latest model is to do with curved space-time, gravitons are theoretical, but the mechanism is irrelevant.

If you cannot explain this, you are going to have to admit you are relying on pure magic as an explanation.

Says the man who talks about "ether whirlpools" a lot...

3116

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?

« on: October 08, 2018, 01:59:49 PM »

It is well known that you can't get a satellite signal much above 70 North latitude.  This is because you would have to point the dish below the horizon and the earth and/or sea would block the signal.  If the earth was flat this wouldn't be necessary and my job would have been a lot easier.

You are using the "the sun should never set of a flat earth" logic, despite that on a flat earth it must do so.

No, the sun must set on earth because we observe it to do so. If light travels in straight lines then the sun would never set on a flat earth if you're at altitude.
There would be clear line of sight between you and the sun at all times. The only solutions to this are:

1) The sun being a literal spotlight although there is no explanation how this would work.
2) Some mechanism like EA which would bend the light upwards so there would come a point where we can't see it. That would mean objects in the sky being illuminated all night though which is not what we observe
3) The earth isn't flat.

I know you go for option 4, some made up version of perspective which doesn't match observations, but that is you just using the "the earth is flat therefore everything else which shows it isn't has to be explained somehow" logic.

3117

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 08, 2018, 01:47:25 PM »

We do not see anything pulling us

The observation when an apple detaches from a tree is that it falls to earth, the earth pulls the apple towards it. As it does with every object we observe falling.
We throw something up, we observe the way the earth pulls it back down. We feel the pressure on our feet of the earth pulling us down.
So no, we don't "see" gravity any more than we "see" magnetism, but we do observe its effects so we know that it exists.
An alternative theory which would produce equivalent results is that the earth could be accelerating upwards.
The claim about Zeteticism is an experiment is done without pre-supposing which of these is the correct cause for the observation.
You outlined 2 experiments, one which you "observe" the earth coming towards you (while everyone else sees you descending)
The second where you observe the ball falling to earth, as does everyone else.
So which is the correct explanation? How do we distinguish which it is?

In the real world we have the Cavendish experiment which demonstrates a force between objects, if you reject that then what is the experiment in your world which can resolve this?

3118

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez

« on: October 08, 2018, 01:38:07 PM »

That midpoint curvature is totally missing from the photographs taken in France, Grimsby, Gibraltar.

There is no midpoint curvature, my diagram shows why.
If you want to provide your own diagram explaining my mistake then please do, just repeating yourself does nothing to advance this discussion.

3119

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 08, 2018, 01:32:15 PM »

I looked for gravitons and bending space while conducting those experiments. None were found.

Did you find any "dark energy" or whatever you're supposing powers UA? 

I was not under the earth, so why would I be able to see what was pushing it?

All my observations suggest that nothing is, instead objects fall to earth.

3120

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 08, 2018, 01:21:47 PM »

I looked for gravitons and bending space while conducting those experiments. None were found.

Did you find any "dark energy" or whatever you're supposing powers UA?