The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: jimbob on March 31, 2018, 06:42:41 PM
-
I have derived a formula (see working below) considering a sphere of 6371km to see how much of something is obscured for an observer of given height at given distance from a feature that is on the circles surface. (I will probably set this as an exercise for my students)
Formula derivation
https://pasteboard.co/Her0ToJ.jpg
and have applied it to comparing theoretical data in relation to results gathered from the video to see if we are on a sphere of radius 6371km
Data comparison (theoretical and actual)
https://pasteboard.co/HetXwJD.jpg
Data from video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk&feature=youtu.be
As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface
Note, if you use this calculator app and copy in the formula link, you can check the calculations
https://www.desmos.com/calculator
Formula copy/paste
y=6371-\sqrt{\left(\left(6371\right)^2-\left(47.9-\sqrt{\left(.002+6371\right)^2-\left(6371\right)^2}\right)^2\right)}
-
I have derived a formula (see working below) considering a sphere of 6371km to see how much of something is obscured for an observer of given height at given distance from a feature that is on the circles surface. (I will probably set this as an exercise for my students)
Formula derivation
https://pasteboard.co/Her0ToJ.jpg
and have applied it to comparing theoretical data in relation to results gathered from the video to see if we are on a sphere of radius 6371km
Data comparison (theoretical and actual)
https://pasteboard.co/HetXwJD.jpg
Data from video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk&feature=youtu.be
As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface
Note, if you use this calculator app and copy in the formula link, you can check the calculations
https://www.desmos.com/calculator
Formula copy/paste
y=6371-\sqrt{\left(\left(6371\right)^2-\left(47.9-\sqrt{\left(.002+6371\right)^2-\left(6371\right)^2}\right)^2\right)}
I see no Flat Earthers have commented on this. I have looked through it and if the formula is correct, then we have to be on a sphere of radius 6300km. Otherwise the findings in the video would be wrong.
-
I see no Flat Earthers have commented on this. I have looked through it and if the formula is correct, then we have to be on a sphere of radius 6300km. Otherwise the findings in the video would be wrong.
I would have thought that Treep Ravisaras would be all over this, given the "calculations" that he's quite fond of.
-
As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface
Did you even watch that video? The experimenter does NOT maintain a constant altitude of "around 3m" above the ground. At one point he is 54+ feet above sea level. If your math relies on the observer maintaining 3m above sea level, this is not reflected in the video.
The cause of the sinking ship effect seen at sea, and on inland seas, is well explained in Earth Not a Globe. See Rowbotham's chapters on the Sinking Ship here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm) and here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm). I suspect that there is some effort by the Youtube author in the OP to use the sinking ship effect to try and construct an accurate globe effect.
Regardless; if your math relies on the assumption of 3m above sea level, then it is clearly wrong from a cursory viewing of the video where the experimenter ascends to different heights for his pictures. Your effort to show that the sinking ship effect matches the Round Earth Theory is clearly a failure, since an altitude change between 3 meters and 54 feet would cause a difference of hundreds of feet of obfuscation at that distance. The conclusion of this being a good presentation of RET curvature is unsound.
-
As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface
Did you even watch that video? The experimenter does NOT maintain a constant altitude of "around 3m" above the ground. At one point he is above 54+ feet above sea level. If your math relies on the observer maintaining 3m above sea level, this is not reflected in the video.
The cause of the sinking ship effect seen at sea, and on inland seas, is well explained in Earth Not a Globe. See Rowbotham's chapters on the Sinking Ship here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm) and here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm). I suspect that there is some effort to use the sinking ship effect to try and construct an accurate globe effect.
Regardless; if your math relies on the assumption of 3m above sea level, then it is clearly wrong from a cursory viewing of the video where the experimenter ascends to different heights for his pictures. Your effort to show that the sinking ship effect matches the Round Earth Theory is clearly a failure, since an altitude change between 3 meters and 54 feet can cause a difference of hundreds of feet of obfuscation at that distance. Therefore you conclusion of this being a good presentation of RET curvature, which rests on the assumption of a 3 meter viewing height, is unsound.
Tom, do you just look for any way to attempt to discredit something when it clashes with your view? Even when your attempts to do so are clearly fallacious? Your argument has no ground to stand on. The relevant images are from approx. 3m above sea level. There is only a single one taken from 54 ft. up, and it's not included in the images being tested against the expected curvature. Clearly your own cursory viewing of the video was not enough. Try watching it again, with a bit more focus hmm?
-
As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface
Did you even watch that video? The experimenter does NOT maintain a constant altitude of "around 3m" above the ground. At one point he is 54+ feet above sea level (which is stated in the video), and seems to suggest that he is going higher as he takes the pictures. If your math relies on the observer maintaining 3m above sea level, this is not reflected in the video.
The cause of the sinking ship effect seen at sea, and on inland seas, is well explained in Earth Not a Globe. See Rowbotham's chapters on the Sinking Ship here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm) and here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm). I suspect that there is some effort to use the sinking ship effect to try and construct an accurate globe effect.
Regardless; if your math relies on the assumption of 3m above sea level, then it is clearly wrong from a cursory viewing of the video where the experimenter ascends to different heights for his pictures. Your effort to show that the sinking ship effect matches the Round Earth Theory is clearly a failure, since an altitude change between 3 meters and 54 feet would cause a difference of hundreds of feet of obfuscation at that distance. The conclusion of this being a good presentation of RET curvature is unsound.
Most are from around 3m however i will explain as your math seems to be sadly lacking. 3m to 15m wont make that much difference since we are talking about a triangle of lengths 25km upwards for one side and a variation of meters along the other, the angle changes marginally. Try the equation and see for yourself.
PS We know you are an incredible leader Tom and are just pulling our plonkers for the fun of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFgo2gQSdtg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFgo2gQSdtg)
-
Tom, do you just look for any way to attempt to discredit something when it clashes with your view? Even when your attempts to do so are clearly fallacious? Your argument has no ground to stand on. The relevant images are from approx. 3m above sea level. There is only a single one taken from 54 ft. up, and it's not included in the images being tested against the expected curvature. Clearly your own cursory viewing of the video was not enough. Try watching it again, with a bit more focus hmm?
The author does not give his altitude for those shots in the video. The author is taking the pictures from the shore at all times. The author does not tell us what his altitude is. We can clearly see that the shoreline is not even in altitude, seeing that at one point the shoreline turns into a very steep slope where the 54 feet altitude picture is taken.
In some shots he is looking down at a beach, but we don't know what the slope of that beach is or what his height is. The imprecision of this experiment invalidates it.
Most are from around 3m.
Why are you assuming that when you are on the shoreline looking down at a beach, that you are 3m in altitude? The author does not give his altitude for those shots anywhere in that video.
If this is supposed to show that the size of the Round Earth perfectly matches the sinking ship effect, then we need more precision on how high the observer is.
-
Look at the metabunk calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Put 29.7 mi as the distance in miles
Put in 4 feet and 9 feet as the observer's height.
4 feet = 495.19 feet hidden
9 feet = 415.34 feet hidden
That is a 80 foot distance, from only a slight difference in height. This is why we need to know the exact height these photos are being taken from if we are going to assess whether they "perfectly match" RET predictions.
-
Look at the metabunk calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Put 29.7 mi as the distance in miles
Put in 4 feet and 9 feet as the observer's height.
4 feet = 495.19 feet hidden
9 feet = 415.34 feet hidden
That is a 80 foot distance, from only a slight difference in height. This is why we need to know the exact height these photos are being taken from if we are going to assess whether they "perfectly match" RET predictions.
How much would be hidden if the earth was flat .....and behind what? 400 feet are some mighty big waves.
-
Look at the metabunk calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Put 29.7 mi as the distance in miles
Put in 4 feet and 9 feet as the observer's height.
4 feet = 495.19 feet hidden
9 feet = 415.34 feet hidden
That is a 80 foot distance, from only a slight difference in height. This is why we need to know the exact height these photos are being taken from if we are going to assess whether they "perfectly match" RET predictions.
Anyone want to look at the video and give an estimate for the heights viewed for each distance, preferably one roundearther and one flat earther (if there are any)
Or perhaps a "flat earther" pretender like Tom. Go on Tom I know you like winding us up. Excellent opportunity to irritate and aggravate some RE who think you’re serious.
-
Look at the metabunk calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Put 29.7 mi as the distance in miles
Put in 4 feet and 9 feet as the observer's height.
4 feet = 495.19 feet hidden
9 feet = 415.34 feet hidden
That is a 80 foot distance, from only a slight difference in height. This is why we need to know the exact height these photos are being taken from if we are going to assess whether they "perfectly match" RET predictions.
How about you actually do some measurements.
-
Look at the metabunk calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Put 29.7 mi as the distance in miles
Put in 4 feet and 9 feet as the observer's height.
4 feet = 495.19 feet hidden
9 feet = 415.34 feet hidden
That is a 80 foot distance, from only a slight difference in height. This is why we need to know the exact height these photos are being taken from if we are going to assess whether they "perfectly match" RET predictions.
No, we don't. The evidence clearly shows a round Earth. It doesn't show, to an arbitrary degree of precision, the radius of the Earth. However, they demonstrate that the Earth is round quite clearly. There's no compatibility between these observations and any possible flat Earth theory.
-
No, we don't. The evidence clearly shows a round Earth. It doesn't show, to an arbitrary degree of precision, the radius of the Earth. However, they demonstrate that the Earth is round quite clearly. There's no compatibility between these observations and any possible flat Earth theory.
The fact that things can be seen to sink in the ocean is not enough. Rowbotham specifically addresses the sinking ship effect in Earth Not a Globe. Half of the book is dedicated to the study of water convexity and the disappearance of bodies. The effect is studied on calm bodies of water, and it is also studied on bodies of water containing waves and swells. It was found that the effect only occurs where the water is disturbed. The observation of bodies sinking on seas and on inland seas is the expected result under Flat Earth Theory. Take a look at Earth Not a Globe sometime.
-
You keep directing people to read Earth Not A Globe, and meanwhile most of us have already and found it unconvincing at best. His diagrams are a display of bad geometry: Figures 73 and 74 with the circles are just straight up wrong. Better information can be found at wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics).
anyway, anyone with a telescope can make these observations for themselves. Tom's objection about the observer's height not being constant doesn't hold water in the face of the consistent result: These observations are impossible on a flat Earth.
-
Sinking ships is the expected result under Flat Earth Theory when looking at the sea. Please stop insisting that it is not. Rowbotham describes which conditions the sinking effect is expected under. These pictures are taken across the North Sea, and therefore, according to our materials, the sinking effect is the expected result.
See the links I provided earlier:
The cause of the sinking ship effect seen at sea, and on inland seas, is well explained in Earth Not a Globe. See Rowbotham's chapters on the Sinking Ship here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm) and here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm).
Now, if you want to actually address our material, feel free. Please do not tell us what we do and do not predict under our theory without actually having understood it yourself.
-
You expect them because your understanding of perspective is wrong.
Your understanding of perspective is wrong because it allows you to explain why things that appear to show the Earth is a sphere don't actually.
This is useful because your premise is that the Earth is flat.
but it isn't (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=758&ei=WKUCWtrCOIfCmwHOyrCQCQ&btnG=Search&q=earth+from+space&oq=earth+from+space&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2851.4163.0.4201.19.17.0.0.0.0.150.1311.6j7.13.0....0...1.1.64.img..6.13.1309.0...0.oSGlaVo7ZN8)
also, Tom, I encourage you to respond to my objection to the geometry in the diagrams. that's definitely more interesting for both of us
also:
'Please do not tell us what we do and do not predict under our theory without actually having understood it yourself.' fucking lol
-
Disagreeing with the explanation is one thing. Disagreeing with the observation is quite another. Rowbotham saw the sinking ship effect on the sea, which he did not see on calmer bodies of water. In order to properly combat the material of a work, there must be an understanding of what is being claimed.
Rowbotham's work has been the basis of Flat Earth Theory over 150 years. You did not understand it because you did not read Earth Not a Globe, and the Youtube debunkers do not understand it because they have not read Earth Not a Globe. If there was better understanding on what the Flat Earth Theory actually claims, then perhaps there could be some progress in these debunk attempts. As it is, these efforts have gone to waste. They have only shown us what we expected to see.
To combat us you must combat the source material the theory is based on, not your own personal idea of Flat Earth Theory.
-
I read Earth Not A Globe cover to cover before I made my first post on the site.
So, no
editing to elaborate:
This is gatekeeping, to say 'you have to read up before you can make a point.' It's a fake goalpost. Having read the book you so confidently told me I had not read, I am prepared to write in depth about its various weaknesses as a piece of scientific writing, and its interest as a historical piece. I do not have to do this before making an argument past it. The sinking ship effect, as described by Rowbotham, does not exist. It's not how things work. So, I ignore it when claiming these results are impossible on flat Earth.
if you like, we can start another redundant thread about the sinking ship effect, where we link to videos that show obvious, readily apparent evidence that Rowbotham was incorrect, and you pretend not to notice. I'm up for it. but that's not this thread.
-
I directly combat the information in enag in a previous post and have had no response (distance to sunset). This is something that isn't explained in enag, and seems to be a huge oversight. How can the distance to the sun at sunset in the northern summer, be half the distance to the sun at sunset in the southern summer? This is not debating the flat earth understanding of perspective, it is accepting it as true. Enag shows that the sun sets when it reaches a certain distance because there is a diagonal line down to a vanishing point. Ergo, when the sun sets, then the sun has reached a certain distance. How can the distance required be different in northern summer vs southern summer???
https://i.imgur.com/TLTCwYj.jpg
-
Disagreeing with the explanation is one thing. Disagreeing with the observation is quite another. Rowbotham saw the sinking ship effect on the sea, which he did not see on calmer bodies of water. In order to properly combat the material of a work, there must be an understanding of what is being claimed.
Rowbotham's work has been the basis of Flat Earth Theory over 150 years. You did not understand it because you did not read Earth Not a Globe, and the Youtube debunkers do not understand it because they have not read Earth Not a Globe. If there was better understanding on what the Flat Earth Theory actually claims, then perhaps there could be some progress in these debunk attempts. As it is, these efforts have gone to waste. They have only shown us what we expected to see.
To combat us you must combat the source material the theory is based on, not your own personal idea of Flat Earth Theory.
Have you seen this effect?
-
I've dealt with waves in this thread
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9338.msg145931#msg145931
Tom derailed it by talking about the horizon, but the main point of the thread was to show that unless the waves are higher than the observer they would not occlude objects as shown in that video.
-
I've dealt with waves in this thread
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9338.msg145931#msg145931
Tom derailed it by talking about the horizon, but the main point of the thread was to show that unless the waves are higher than the observer they would not occlude objects as shown in that video.
Which is why Tom refuses to budge on the horizon rising to eye level, because this 'magic' is how the waves get higher than your eyes. The horizon rises to the level of your eyes, and the waves rest atop the horizon and can then block your view of objects beyond. At least, that's my understanding.
-
Although in his crazy world the horizon is the vanishing point, so how anything could rest on top of it...
But logical contradictions never seem to trouble him too much so long as he thinks they prove him right.
-
A few nitpicks in the math here:
"Distance" on the Earth could mean straight-line distance or great-circle distance. In this 2D representation, straight-line distance at the base of each object is the chord length, straight-line distance from the tops of each object is something else, while the great-circle distance is the arc length (using the base of both observer and object).
Your diagram/derivation should include two segments: one for the object being observed and one for the observer.
(https://uploads-cdn.omnicalculator.com/images/earth-curvature.svg)
(Ignore the distance labels; these are for you to define).
-
About the observer height from the Turning Torso video, they are in the description of the video:
25km/15.5mi - 3.7m/12.1ft
28.4km/17.6mi - 2.9m/9.5ft
34.7km/21.6mi - 2.9m/9.5ft
40.3km/25mi - 2.4m/7.9ft
45.1km/28mi - 2.7m/8.9ft
47.9km/29.8mi - 2.1m/6.9ft
47.9km/29.8mi - 17.6m/57.7ft
And also shown on https://flic.kr/p/R2q2fd and https://flic.kr/p/EseKVJ
-
I have derived a formula (see working below) considering a sphere of 6371km to see how much of something is obscured for an observer of given height at given distance from a feature that is on the circles surface. (I will probably set this as an exercise for my students)
Formula derivation
https://pasteboard.co/Her0ToJ.jpg
and have applied it to comparing theoretical data in relation to results gathered from the video to see if we are on a sphere of radius 6371km
Data comparison (theoretical and actual)
https://pasteboard.co/HetXwJD.jpg
Data from video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk&feature=youtu.be
As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface
Note, if you use this calculator app and copy in the formula link, you can check the calculations
https://www.desmos.com/calculator
Formula copy/paste
y=6371-\sqrt{\left(\left(6371\right)^2-\left(47.9-\sqrt{\left(.002+6371\right)^2-\left(6371\right)^2}\right)^2\right)}
Did you notice the horizontal horizon line from left to right as you search for the curve?
-
The answers to a lot of questions about the global earth can be found in the the publication called "The American Practical Navigator". It's available on line for free. Most of the theory of the global earth can be found there, but you will have to be prepared to spend some time reading and understanding the theory and information contained in this publication. This publication can be found on any American Flagged ship as it is required to be on board at all times. You really can't argue too much with the contents as a ship conducts an 'experiment' each time it leaves the dock and sails from point A to point B. The part that says 'Practical' means exactly what it says. You take the theory and information found in this publication and it just plain works. Is everything down to a gnat's ass? No. King Neptune is a harsh task master and will kill you if you don't pay attention and know what to do when things get ugly. The American Practical Navigator is required reading for any watch officer because the safety of the ship and crew depends on the theory and practice of the information in this publication. Why would it be interesting to people on this site? Because the theory of the global earth is explained fairly well and there is no BS. Is the theory and information verifiable in theory and practice? Yes, ships come and go daily and navigate using the theories and practice contained in this publication. It wasn't unusual for me to have the pages open and on my desk often while at sea. How can you really dispute anything that works in theory and practice?
-
Did you notice the horizontal horizon line from left to right as you search for the curve?
Why would anyone be searching for a curve on a globe as big as the earth is?
You can certainly see the earth going away from you in the turning torso video, it's clear how the amount of the building occluded by the curve increases with distance, exactly as predicted. :)
-
Did you notice the horizontal horizon line from left to right as you search for the curve?
Why would anyone be searching for a curve on a globe as big as the earth is?
You can certainly see the earth going away from you in the turning torso video, it's clear how the amount of the building occluded by the curve increases with distance, exactly as predicted. :)
I have tried to discussing with Earthman the reason for the horizon viewed from low altitude on the Globe appearing almost precisely straight, horizontal and at eye-level.
The end result is that he is more convinced than ever that a straight, horizontal horizon proves the earth to be flat, end of story.
And he has "invented" this proof that the earth is flat:
At random the idea of Flat Earth passed in front of my computer screen a few months back. I am an inventor and I love a challenge, so this intrigued me. I thought, “I can debunk this.”
I started with the Blueprint of the Globe Earth theory, the curvature chart. If anything will prove Earth is a Ball, this will. If it doesn't, I will find I have been deceived.
I picked the (width) landmass of Florida to see if the surface curvature matched the Earth curvature chart of a 3959 mile radius.
Florida is 360 miles wide.
The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340' The Globies’ curvature chart dictates there should be a high surface point of 21,586' at center, which is short 21,246' of surface curvature.
I then applied the curvature chart to many other larger landmasses using two bodies of water as references points and found them to be a part of a plane Earth too.
I now understand why Globies will not use their own Blueprint to prove Earth has curvature; it’s because it proves the opposite. It's quite ironic that the Globe Earth theory is destroyed by their own curvature chart. Hahahahaha
If you want to know how flat Earth is, use a curvature chart as a reference along with widths and elevations of land masses between two bodies of water. If you do this you will see that even intelligent people are deceived with this fake Globe Earth crap.
He seems to have it all sewn up.