1641

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

« on: April 15, 2019, 06:56:10 PM »

The first video you posted claims that observations match up with standard refraction. The second video has no analysis, and is completely silent. Neither do you provide an analysis of RET either.

Reality doesn't match up with RE. Bendy light is required for the RET, and we are told that everything we see is an illusion.

Once again, I make no mention of refraction, regardless of what the original video author says.

Reality does not match FE.

If you look along a sightline between two points at 210m high, that sightline, IF the Earth is flat, MUST meet any higher hill, or higher object beyond, at the 210m level, not pass clear above it. It passes clear above the hills, leading to the conclusion that the Earth is not flat. Why should I provide an "analysis of RET" in this context?

The observation has been repeated on different days from the original author's location. A totally-different video author has twice repeated it in the reverse direction, back toward the original author's observation position, with the same result. The observations are not over large expanses of water, close to the ground, nor do they focus on the horizon. 

A host of other observations from the same location also reinforce the point in a different way, such as that looking out toward the Isle of May from Traprain Law. The 73m high lighthouse on Isle of May appears above the horizon. Looking from Traprain at 210m, through the top of the lighthouse, at 73m, IF the Earth is flat, and by implication the surrounding waters are flat, that sightline MUST meet the water at some point. It does not, again leading to the conclusion that the Earth is not flat.   

1642

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

« on: April 15, 2019, 05:30:12 PM »

Why should we bother when authoritative sources tell us that when we look out and do these types of observations that "nothing [is] like it seems!"?

Pretty discrediting to the arguments that are being put forward in this thread, that website, and elsewhere.

Do you mean the Wiki you quoted immediately above?

I'm not suggesting you do a sea-level observation, nor a line of sight to the horizon, nor an observation "near the ground".

I'm actively suggesting you do an observation that is immune from refraction effects due to these factors.

If we go back to my examples above, the observation is at 210m above sea level, looking along 210m sightline between two matching points, with most of the ground and water up to 210m below this.

The observation has been repeated on different days, in both directions.

1643

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: April 15, 2019, 05:21:17 PM »

It has been said a numerous number of times that the google map distances are not correct. Therefore, going by google maps would be the wrong thing to do. The idea of google maps is just another way of people covering lies over the eyes of people believing that the world is not round.

Which maps, then? Do you accept UK Ordnance Survey as correct? Other national surveying organisations?

1644

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: April 15, 2019, 05:18:26 PM »

.... several posts providing evidence that GPS is inaccurate, fake, or deliberately misleading
Here's some examples:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441

Cannot be all three. If it's inaccurate and/or misleading, it cannot be fake. If it's fake, then debating whether it's inaccurate or misleading has no meaning.

1645

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's misinformation

« on: April 15, 2019, 02:29:04 PM »

Here is why the misinformation from NASA should lead to worry across the world. If NASA is giving everyone false information, how much do we know if false versus actually true?!

First of all, that's qualified with a big IF.

Second, you can check against the work of others. Disbelieve the NASA "Blue Marble"?  Russia, Japan, China and Saudi Arabia have all taken pictures of the globe from Earth or Lunar orbit.  etc.

If people get used to not telling the truth, they will continue to do so.

Again, that's a honkin' big IF. Not a definite. "If" they are doing this. They're not.

Therefore, if the earth is flat, they will lie to us about it which they are doing right now as we speak. They are giving us false information

Proof, please.

1646

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

« on: April 15, 2019, 10:53:09 AM »

Tim, if you're reading this, the thread has diverted into discussion of other (similar) observations. Sorry about that.

Tom; do you have a decent-sized river valley near you?  One at which you could observe from a similar situation to the one I describe above, with a bridge of known height in the middle, you on a hill at one side, at the same height as the bridge, with an outlook beyond said bridge to hills of greater height beyond?

1647

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Sun and Moon Trajectories

« on: April 15, 2019, 07:09:14 AM »

Instead, lets say that the red ball is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude. In order to find its position in degrees below eye level we can use the knowledge that there is a gap of 3 feet, 6 inches; a space which represents where the hypothetical eye level ball would be.

Perform the calculations for angular diameter of that space manually or find an angular diameter calculator. At 500 feet, 3.5 feet (3 feet, 6 inches) makes up 0.401 degrees of space. Therefore a ball that is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude is 0.401 degrees below eye level.

Surely all you need do here is apply right-angle triangle trigonometry?

The horizontal distance to the 5ft6in point above the new position is one side, the 3ft6in another, and you have two sides of a right triangle. Solve for the angle at your location.

1648

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

« on: April 13, 2019, 08:47:17 PM »

The fact is that the observation do not support RET ...

I didn't say it did.

I said that, given the lie of the land at the observation site, the observation was totally impossible IF the Earth was flat.

Again, as asked in #15;

"Do you agree, given the geography of the location (shown in the diagram at #15), that if the earth were flat, the sightline from the observation point (camera position) at 210m, through the top of the bridge tower at 207/210m, to a 400m+ hill should look like this? That the sightline should essentially be parallel to the surface?  "

I make no assertion of bendy light, refraction, or other atmospheric effects. I'm not trying to "make something fit a round earth theory" here. I simply assert that the observation does not fit with a flat earth, and that there are multiple other observations from the same location that re-inforce the same conclusion.

(See image at #15)

Please don't go down the route of suggesting the photographer has misled us about his camera height. That's been done to death in the video comments. The camera height is correct. Likewise, the height of the bridge tower and hills beyond are all in public record and not open to dispute.

1649

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

« on: April 13, 2019, 04:53:31 PM »

Kindly, you seem to have it backwards. You guys are the ones who came here and presented your equations as evidence and so it is your responsibility to present the supporting evidence.

I presented no equations. I showed a YouTube video with an observation that I assert could not be possible on a Flat Earth, with supporting diagrams t illustrate the principle behind it, and a further observation which is the reverse of the first one, showing the same result.

This is my supporting evidence, isn't it?

Do you agree, given the geography of the location, that if the earth were flat, the sightline from observation point at 210m through bridge tower at 210m, to a 400m+ hill should look like this? That the sightline should essentially be parallel to the surface? 

EDIT - forgot picture

1650

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's misinformation

« on: April 13, 2019, 01:40:30 PM »

What has it got to do with NASA in particular?

Yes, they may well be the pre-eminent space agency in the eyes of Americans, but let's not forget that the first orbital mission, first  animal in space, first man and woman in space, were ALL Russian missions. 

China, India, Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia have all been involved in recent years in lunar missions, the most recent of which, the Israeli one, took 47 days to get to the Moon due to its orbital path around the Earth. It was set up for an elliptical orbit which got larger and larger until the Moon's gravity pulled it in. 

1651

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: April 13, 2019, 01:14:19 PM »

The UK was caught putting on entire call center-like operations of shills posting on internet forums ...

"The UK" as in ... whom?

The Government?
The public?
Someone else?

1652

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Expiremnt

« on: April 13, 2019, 01:08:35 PM »

You could look for a location where you have a view over a large river valley, with an object such as a bridge in the middle of the valley, and hills which are higher than the bridge on one or both sides.

Stand or sit on one side at the same height as the bridge tower, with a view to the higher hills beyond.

Let's say your height, and the height of the bridge, is 2 units, and you have hills beyond which are 4 units high.

Does the sightline from you, at 2 units high, through the top of the bridge, also 2 units high, meet the hills beyond at exactly the 2-unit elevation?

Let us all know once you've done this, and we can then compare notes.

 

   

1653

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

« on: April 13, 2019, 10:09:15 AM »

He's quite specific in NOT asserting round/globe earth, and his simple assertion is "not flat"

I need no "standard refraction" equations. The sight line through two levels of 210m must meet the 400m+ hills at the 210m level, IF the earth is flat. It does not. It misses the hills altogether, and is clearly way more than 200m off-target.

The observation, repeated from the hills looking back to this observer's position, on a different day with different conditions, shows the same.

These two observations are over a river valley where the river forms a small part of the distance between observer and target hill. Subsequent observations over the same bridge from different observation points show the same result, and subsequent observations out to sea from the original point also show sight lines which cannot exist were the earth to be flat.

I'm not going to post all of the author's videos, there's a host of them following the one above, most of which are there to address the criticisms from flat-earthers ( none of whom will actually go to the observation point)

1654

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

« on: April 13, 2019, 12:43:19 AM »

 There is no inaccuracy. The angular sizes are not the core point. The sight lines are.

If the Earth were flat, the sight line through the top of the bridge tower would meet the hills beyond at 210m or so, not pass above them. The hills are some 400m high...

I do not claim any refraction, curved light, whatever. If you claim these are a factor, then show their presence and/or effect.

1655

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

« on: April 13, 2019, 12:13:57 AM »

I'm not going to bother myself to look into that, but lets assume that it is accurate. You have stated that someone has verified a work that "almost" matches what refraction predicts, and relies on the basis of "The earth is round and light is curving, but it is only curving in the direction and amount that I want it to curve..." and "Here is my Round Earth curvy light compared to a Flat Earth with no curvy light."

Questionable validity in its premise, in my opinion.

Didn't state anything like that. I mentioned no refraction, and doggedly insisted the lines of sight were straight, not curved.

1656

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

« on: April 12, 2019, 11:51:24 PM »

Assuming that his work is accurate (I didn't bother to check), according to that author the mountain at the top left should be at a height on the left white line below it.

No, the photo was taken from an elevation of 210m. The bridge tower is also 210m. The highest of the hills beyond is over 400m.

IF the Earth is flat, the sightline from 210m to 210m MUST meet the hill at 210m or so. It does not. It passes clear over the top, missing the hill completely, missing where it should be, on a flat earth, by well over 200m. This is not explainable away by refraction, unless you can PROVE the presence of over 200 metres' worth of refraction

It never does agree. Sometimes it can get close, but it does not agree with RET. It changes often, from day to day, even hour to hour, and requires another invented science to fill in the gaps.

This observation changes?  Really?  Show us where you've seen it change. You may well have seen other, possibly sea-level observations change, but this one has not.

Here's the videos from the guy who tried to prove it wrong by photographing it in reverse, on another day, from the far hill back to the observation point of the one I cited above, and who ended up proving the first one correct, with a matching result.



This is what should happen if the Earth is flat;



... but this is what the actual observation was;



The line of sight between two points at 210m each passed clear over a 400m hill.

1657

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

« on: April 12, 2019, 11:23:08 PM »

All day time-lapses are now desired to make progress on determining the matter (of sinking)

Why? What difference would/could be made by taking (for instance) this photo at varying times, or in the reverse direction?

(Note; the video author has re-visited to take it at different times, with the same result, and another YouTuber who apparently wanted to prove him wrong took a view from the hills in the distance, back towards the camera position shown here - with the same result.)

 

1658

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: April 12, 2019, 06:48:56 PM »

Trick question.  All of the "HEIGHTS" given are relative to sea level, which is not shown in photo. 

Why would it need to be shown?

For instance, Mt. Saint Helens has a PROMINENCE of only 4606 feet.  The Mount Jefferson's PROMINENCE is 5707 feet We would need the PROMINENCE numbers of all the peaks to calculate a proper eye level calculation.  The earth is FLAT, but nobody is saying it is LEVEL!

Why would you need these? What would they indicate?

1659

Flat Earth Theory / Re: knowing the distance to the moon

« on: April 10, 2019, 10:17:44 PM »

The USA, Russia, India, Japan, China, and most recently Israel, have all sent craft to or around the Moon.

If the generally-accepted distance of around 240k miles was incorrect, someone would have noticed by now.

You can safely assume it is correct.

1660

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Flat Earth

« on: April 10, 2019, 11:41:51 AM »

Norwood and the French Geodesic Missions calculated the circumference in the 1600s and 1700s, here summarised by Bryson;

According to Newton’s theory, the centrifugal force of the Earth’s spin should result in a slight flattening at the poles and a bulging at the equator, which would make the planet slightly oblate. That meant that the length of a degree of meridian wouldn’t be the same in Italy as it was in Scotland. Specifically, the length would shorten as you moved away from the poles. This was not good news for those people whose measurements of the planet were based on the assumption that it was a perfect sphere, which was everyone.

For half a century people had been trying to work out the size of the Earth, mostly by making very exacting measurements. One of the first such attempts was by an English mathematician named Richard Norwood. As a young man Norwood had travelled to Bermuda with a diving bell modelled on Halley’s device, intending to make a fortune scooping pearls from the seabed. The scheme failed because there were no pearls and anyway Norwood’s bell didn’t work, but Norwood was not one to waste an experience. In the early seventeenth century Bermuda was well known among ships’ captains for being hard to locate. The problem was that the ocean was big, Bermuda small and the navigational tools for dealing with this disparity hopelessly inadequate. There wasn’t even yet an agreed length for a nautical mile. Over the breadth of an ocean the smallest miscalculations would become magnified so that ships often missed Bermuda-sized targets by dismayingly large margins. Norwood, whose first love was trigonometry and thus angles, decided to bring a little mathematical rigour to navigation, and to that end he determined to calculate the length of a degree.

Starting with his back against the Tower of London, Norwood spent two devoted years marching 208 miles north to York, repeatedly stretching and measuring a length of chain as he went, all the while making the most meticulous adjustments for the rise and fall of the land and the meanderings of the road. The final step was to measure the angle of the sun at York at the same time of day and on the same day of the year as he had made his first measurement in London. From this, he reasoned he could determine the length of one degree of the Earth’s meridian and thus calculate the distance around the whole. It was an almost ludicrously ambitious undertaking—a mistake of the slightest fraction of a degree would throw the whole thing out by miles—but in fact, as Norwood proudly declaimed, he was accurate to “within a scantling”—or, more precisely, to within about six hundred yards. In metric terms, his figure worked out at 110.72 kilometres per degree of arc.

Points to note;

The method used would make no sense on a Flat Earth. Where do you draw the angle of arc?

Separate observations, in differing parts of the world, by different teams, return the same result