401

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 16, 2015, 01:57:50 PM »

So are there any land-based objects that can actually be seen from the CN tower that are 100 miles away? 

CN Tower's webpage says there are.

402

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 06, 2015, 05:40:47 PM »

So the tallest building in Niagara Falls, NY is the Seneca Niagara Casino Tower at 109 meters.  Niagara Fall, NY has an elevation of 51 meters.

The horizon is there for 45kms away from the top of the tower.

The CN Tower is roughly 101 kms away from the Seneca Niagara Casino Tower, as determined by a triangulation on Google Maps.  So in order to be able to see the Seneca Niagara Casino Tower from the CN Tower, you must have a horizon greater than (101-45)kms, or 56kms, away.  So do we?

Well if the CN Tower observation deck is roughly 450m tall then the distance to the horizon is 75kms.  It appears that you can see well past the bulge between the two towers.

Does anyone agree or disagree with this?

101km is not >= 100mi as round-earthers boast that you can see from CN tower.

403

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 06, 2015, 05:30:23 PM »

It doesn't look like the Earth is flat. You can't see the bottom of the building.

According to Markjo, "The image is following the curvature of the earth."  So the image both follows the curvature of the earth AND cuts off at the bottom.  Round-Earth theory does all the things at all the times! DO NOT QUESTION IT!

What?  I am not really sure what you are referring to.

It was two posts above mine that you quoted.  The last post my Markjo in this thread.

404

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 06, 2015, 04:29:19 PM »

It doesn't look like the Earth is flat. You can't see the bottom of the building.

According to Markjo, "The image is following the curvature of the earth."  So the image both follows the curvature of the earth AND cuts off at the bottom.  Round-Earth theory does all the things at all the times! DO NOT QUESTION IT!

405

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 06, 2015, 01:10:21 AM »

Is this what the goal posts have been moved to now? Refraction? Can you let us know the next goal post move so when we shut this one down we have a head start on what's next?

On a side note, it's an amazing bit of doublethink that round-earthers can both vehemently deny bendy light while fully supporting things like refraction.

406

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 05, 2015, 07:34:48 PM »

We are already bending over backwards to accommodate your nitpicking. Even if we conced every variable and give you benifit on each of them it won't account for the 55 more miles you need for round-earth theory to be true. Give it up, the proof is before you.

407

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 05, 2015, 01:48:15 PM »

Again, wrong formula. Again, FEers ignore that Lake Ontario, the CN Tower, and the target object are not on the surface of the hypothetical sphere. They have altitude more than their height. Do you really think that Lake Ontario is at sea level? Please do try harder. Why do you believe that you can't see beyond the drop? Do you think the photons get too tired to travel over Lake Ontario? Please think.

I know you can't do your own maths Gulliver, so I did them for you!  I adjusted the post to reflect your concerns about sea level.  Here's a synopsis.

Given Values
Height of the observation deck: 1,135 feet
Generous height of eye level: 6 feet
Elevation of Toronto: 249 feet

Mean Radius of the Earth at sea level (lol) = 20,903,520 feet

h = Height of observation deck + Generous height of eye level + Elevation of Toronto
R = Mean radius of the Earth (lol)

h= 1390 feet
R= 20,903,520 feet

Formula
How far you can see if you were on a sphere = R*ACOS(R/(R+h))

How far you can see if you were on a sphere = 20925524.9*ACOS(20925524.9/(20925524.9+1390))

How far you can see if you were on a sphere = 241,057.18 feet

How far you can see if you were on a sphere =  45.65 miles


Looks like you got yourself a few more miles!  Still, you have over 54 more miles to account for, but as I know you'll not do any of your own math and just tell us to try harder, I guess we'll just have to leave it as it. 

Flat-Earth victory!

408

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 04, 2015, 02:25:29 PM »

Oh, and I've already produced attributed photographs showing that you can indeed see objects more that 41 miles away from the CN Tower, so, no, I will not claim that fact to be false. Integrity is important.

Right... you can see objects more than 41 miles away from CN Tower because the earth is flat.  What do you think we're discussing in this thread?

409

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 03, 2015, 11:11:49 PM »

It's your claim that you've proven that the earth is not round.

OMG, it was my claim that you can't see 100 miles from the CN tower and I posted a freaking proof with it. You claim it's incorrect then YOU have to demonstrate it. If I stand outside a museum and shout evolution is wrong because of x, it's not the job of the museumists to come outside and prove me wrong. If I make the claim that they are wrong then I would have demonstrate why; just as you do.

410

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 03, 2015, 03:28:43 PM »

All you can do is repeat "wrong formula" ad nauseum.  If it's the wrong formula then prove it.  I posted a perfectly good formula and I will not address each person that isn't happy with the results.  If you want to make the claim that I used an incorrect formula then the onus is on you to back that claim up.  Perhaps if you just tried a bit harder...

411

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 01, 2015, 10:13:17 PM »

If you solve for h in my formula and allow d to be 100, as round-earthers claim, you arrive at the same 6660 foot height required that Thork found in his online calculator. So I guess I'm wrong, the formula is wrong, the internet is wrong, trigonometry is wrong, and only Gulliver is right; all alone laughing at us lunatics.

412

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 01, 2015, 10:05:35 PM »

Oh, and just to clarify. The "Niagara Falls" that can be seen from the CN Tower's Observation Deck is just the taller buildings of the City of Niagara Falls. See: http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g155019-d155483-i32613999-CN_Tower-Toronto_Ontario.html


This photo [of from the] CN Tower is courtesy of TripAdvisor

So T is actually much longer. Shall I assume that FEers have had enough debunking of their sophomoric proof of a FE in this thread? Please do try harder.

Now your argument is, "because I can see Niagra Falls, then d must be further than 40 miles because the earth is round and I could only see it if d were further than 40 miles."  Shall I pick apart your logic there or can you see the flaws for yourself?

413

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 01, 2015, 09:43:42 PM »

You don't even plug numbers into your equation! For all you know, it could yield the same results, but we don't know because all you're capable of saying is, "wrong formula," and, "do try harder."  All you can really say is that the observer can see further because the sun is x million miles away (something you've yet to demonstrate). And that's not even the furthest thing you can see in the round-earth model when you take stars into account. When your primary arguments are "nuh uh," and, "the world is round because you can see the sun," you had best rethink your stance. 

This, sun-distance argument is so asinine that you not only embarrass yourself, but all of round-earth theory as well.

414

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 01, 2015, 05:42:27 PM »

Of course, lol. Still, none of this makes the arccosine formula incorrect.

415

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 01, 2015, 03:48:56 AM »

Why aren't you accounting for the foundation of the tower? I was told that was super necessary...

416

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 01, 2015, 03:36:27 AM »

So you want the underground parts added?  Your arguments are insane. I understand that you can't see that because, by definition, you cannot see your own insanity. It's always reassuring when the round-earthers come up with crap like this as their primary arguments. Makes me believe that my dream of seeing flat-earth theory widely accepted in my lifetime is possible.

Also, I added 6 feet for the observer in the original calculation. I didn't mention it because it effects the outcome so slightly that only someone who is insane would bring it up.

417

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 01, 2015, 03:06:07 AM »

Actually, I mistyped it in the description, but good catch. I'll fix that. Reguardless, why do you suppose that the height of the observation deck does not include the tower's foundation 

418

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 01, 2015, 02:55:59 AM »

Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"

The foundation, the base, of the CN Tower is above sea level thus R is not just 20,925,524.9 feet, as you incorrectly stated. The height of that side of the triangle is more than R+h. You really do need to try harder.

Again, because of the pedantry, what do you think h represents in the diagram?

419

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 01, 2015, 02:45:28 AM »

Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"

420

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: March 01, 2015, 01:24:31 AM »

Are you trying to be pedantic about the horizon and distance of the sun on the round-earth model? That's not what this thread is about.