1

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

« on: December 14, 2022, 01:09:05 PM »

The rear of the foreground ship is covered too.

No it isn't



Again, here's the full-frame photo



If the seas were flat, my sightline from 100 to 52m (the top of the yellow cranes) must meet the water beyond. The sightline is descending toward the water, so is non-parallel to the presumed flat surface. Non-parallel lines MUST meet. The picture has the sightline missing the water altogether. Connect the camera to the top of a crane with a straight line, continue it beyond the crane, and it meets the sky, not the water. So the water cannot be flat. If it were, we would see water behind and beyond the tops of the cranes

2

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

« on: December 14, 2022, 12:57:42 PM »

those full shots - how do you know what the countries of the world look like after having only seen them on a rectangular drawing on the school room walls?

The photos taken from other angles, such as from Himawari;



What reason do you have to doubt those who made the maps for the school wall, anyway?

on the total scale of the earth I expect to see something projecting from 'ground level'.

As long as you realise the ground level immediately adjacent to Everest is not the same as sea level. The ground level has, in the main, been climbing from the nearest coastal point, and when you reach the typical base camp for climbing Everest, you're already at over 5000 metres - with Everest topping out at 8848m, the base camps are already 5/8ths of the way there. So the peak of Everest will only be 3/8ths of the whole mountain, peeking up above the surroundings which have already taken up 5/8ths of the height.

3

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

« on: December 13, 2022, 11:19:29 PM »

Its ok for NASA to term it a disc. But not anyone else? Is that what you are saying?

Since they only use the term for a small subset of the photos, they clearly don't mean to say it's a disc in actuality

4

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

« on: December 13, 2022, 01:59:03 PM »

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile.

Back to reply #16 in this thread.

The water pictured CANNOT be flat, for the reasons I stated in reply #16 and those which follow. It cannot be concave, as that would exacerbate those reasons. So it must be convex. Curved.

5

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

« on: December 13, 2022, 01:46:20 PM »

The first thing I found was a set of photos of a flat earth with the title 'EarthDisc' and not Earth Orb.

Yes, that's their term for a view in which you can see the full circumference, as opposed to detail shots which pick out small portions of the surface

You did notice that none of those full shots show all the countries of the world, didn't you?

6

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

« on: December 13, 2022, 10:51:55 AM »

The lack of close up shots of the earth is a bit like someone taking the 5th amendment or saying 'no comment' in a police interview.

There is no lack of them. There are thousands upon thousands.  They just might not fit EXACTLY the criteria that you want to impose, post-flight, on the photographer(s). The lack of those which fit exactly the criteria you've outlined in the last few days is not, of itself, any sort of disproof of globe earth, nor a proof of flat.

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/

Are you saying its not possible to orbit around a flat disk? Are you? Really?

It's in the etymology and the definitions. Orb-it. Round an orb.

Definitions; the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution; one complete circuit round an orbited body; the state of moving in an orbit.

If you can find the flat star, planet or moon, then I might accept that there could be an orbit around it, but for the time being, science says they're all broadly spherical.

That is simply a model though based an a RE theory? It doesnt prove anything it shows what things would look like if the earth was round.

So, in order to show the Earth is not round, it's down to you to indicate instances where the model is incorrect, and does not match real-world observation.

Again; What would it take to persuade you that you are wrong?

 

7

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

« on: December 12, 2022, 11:09:53 PM »

Again the question from a couple of hours ago;

"What would it take to persuade you that you are wrong?"

4 October 1957, Russia launched humankind's first orbital satellite. The Americans, primarily, wanted to know where it was at any one time, so their boffins used doppler techniques to track it, and narrowed down the orbital time and path using them. They found it had a regular 90min interval between appearances. What a coincidence, that's pretty much the same as the ISS. How would that happen, other than by them both being orbital objects?

Since then, there have been thousands of craft launched from Earth into orbit and into other trajectories. You don't REALLY think all the people involved are ... pretending? in the dark?  do you? Really?

8

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

« on: December 12, 2022, 11:07:47 PM »

'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away.

Yes. None of which requires leaving our planet. And we can only see the big craters on the Moon. The craters the size of Everest are invisible.

But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe.  That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

It requires leaving the planet. That is an expensive undertaking. Nobody is going to do that to satisfy you, not on the basis of around 60 posts here, not on the basis of what you've said, and certainly not on the basis of the forum you've asked in.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

You can dress this up as a big failing of "globe earth proof" if you want.... you can hint at this being the only globe proof that would be acceptable, but neither of those really cut it.

Plenty of globe proofs gathered since the time of Copernicus, possibly earlier.

9

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

« on: December 12, 2022, 09:34:31 PM »

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

Is there such a thing as a 3-dimensional photo?

The issue is not whether or not the blue marbles have been assembled from subsidiary photos, or whatever. We're proceeding on the explicit presumption/assumption that that the Earth is a perfect sphere. From reply #56, as I recall.

Yes, reply #56

Let us take the Earth as a perfect sphere. ...

The blue marbles are being used to illustrate the mechanics, the geometry of what we're talking about, following your questions, and on the explicit presumption/assumption quoted above. It does not matter, for the purposes of such, what they have been derived from. They're merely being used to illustrate.

10

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

« on: December 12, 2022, 07:01:15 PM »

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

I'm coming to the conclusion that you're not really sure what you're asking for. If the photographer was directly above the stick person in both your diagram and my photo, he would not appear as shown. You would see the top of his head. He's shown from head to foot because what you're asking for IS the side view of him, not the view from above.

In my illustration with the two stick men, the camera is above mountains in the upper half of South America, but the mountains in Alaska/Canada and/or Africa are being viewed from the side, not from above

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

Yes. Why do you think they would not (if, indeed, that's what you think - it's a struggle to tease that out of you)?

If someone stands upright, they are vertically aligned with respect to the land mass below them, are they not?

11

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

« on: December 12, 2022, 05:44:27 PM »

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

....and as I said, you have already stated in your own words why that is either impossible or at least extraordinarily difficult.

12

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

« on: December 12, 2022, 05:43:22 PM »

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

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

13

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

« on: December 12, 2022, 05:25:03 PM »

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

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

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

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

14

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

« on: December 12, 2022, 05:14:44 PM »

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

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

15

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

« on: December 12, 2022, 05:08:01 PM »

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

You've answered your own question already;

To the extent that if it could be zoomed in enough

Merely saying "Surely the technology exists." does not actually make it so.

The person on the outer rim of the Earth, when viewed from a point in space, would not only be farther away from the camera than any other point on the surface, but the amount of atmosphere that the camera would need to find its way through would at its greatest. Besides which, why, having actually launched a craft into space, having presumably placed it in a stable orbit around Earth, for which the base requirement is to know the shape of the Earth, would anyone operating the space craft want to indulge you on this? What reason would you give to justify it as a worthwhile use of time and payload?

That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

Already done by other means. Hundreds of years of cartography and mapmaking. 60+ years of orbital space flight. One cannot have an orbit without an orb, globe or sphere to orbit around. etc. etc.

16

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

« on: December 11, 2022, 11:00:15 PM »

In the attached diagram (I hope it attaches) it shows the earth (blue circle) and astronaut (at position 'A', and the astronauts line of vision to the earth (the red arrow). The stick person is what I would presume the astronaut would see if they zoomed in on a person at or near to the equator. They would appear to be sticking out at right angles to the earth. Can anyone explain why this would not be the case? I understand the global earth has no top or bottom or sides. But the astronaut surely wouldn't see the person standing vertically - could they? Would they?

If the astronaut were vertically aligned with the letter, on a theoretically vertical N-S axis, then this WOULD be the case. I can't fathom why you're asking anyone to explain why it would not be.

In theory, if the astronaut had a zoom capability to this extent, the guy on Earth WOULD be aligned that way.

If you place an analogue clock on your wall, and orient it in the standard manner - 12 at the top, 3 to the right, 6 at bottom, 9 to the left. then 3 and 9 will ONLY be in their correct place if you remain upright, won't they? If you stand on your head, 3 will be left and 9 right. If you lie on the floor with your head to left or right, then 3 and 9 will be top/bottom in your field of view. 

17

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

« on: December 11, 2022, 10:37:51 PM »

Some interesting diagrams and explanations. Thank you. It seems that the further away from the shoreline the ship travels that the more it tilts away from the observer standing on the shore. To the extent that if it could be zoomed in enough and with an unlimited height it would eventually lean so far away from the observer that it was not visible. Would that not be the case?

Isn't that basically what I said and diagrammed, just phrased slightly differently?

If S is less than H, the non-parallel lines must meet at some point, no matter how far away. In theory, the observer has a direct sight line to, and can see the ship of infinite height.

If S is equal to H, the lines are parallel and cannot meet
If S is greater than H, the lines are divergent away from each other and cannot meet

In both of the latter cases, the observer cannot see the ship of infinite height

18

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

« on: December 11, 2022, 06:52:20 PM »

Let us take the Earth as a perfect sphere.

Place a human on the surface, and let's say he is 1.7m tall. He will be able to see to the horizon, and whatever is nearer than the horizon, but nothing of the Earth's surface beyond it. If we draw a plumbline, a vertical at his location, his sightline to and beyond the horizon will be the green angle H. (EDIT - No, it will not BE the green angle - the sightline and vertical will FORM the angle H)

If there's a ship out there of infinite height, and we also draw a plumb vertical at its location, the angle between that plumb and the vertical we formed at the human's location will be the red angle S

These two lines can only meet (i.e. the human's sightline will meet the ship's infinite height) if angle S is greater than H. If they are equal, the sightline will be parallel to the ship, and can never meet it. If S is less than H, the sightline will diverge away from the ship. The lines can only meet if they converge. If S is greater than H. I could work out the maths to the Nth degree to determine exactly how far, but really ...

19

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

« on: December 11, 2022, 05:43:20 PM »

So at what point i.e. distance from the shore, would a ship become impossible to see (assuming it has an unlimited height) due to the curvature of the earth? I presume the 90 degree mark i.e. 6,000 miles away?

One can only compute this if the height of the ship is known. Not with an unspecified "unlimited" height

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 10, 2022, 06:29:40 PM »

The Stinson incident was in .... wait for it .... 1994.

1994.