[Storm]

Just a friendly suggestion to those who keep posting images of the horizon at great heights to attempt to show a dropping horizon on a 'ROUND EARTH.'

You might wanna stop posting those images. All they are doing is supporting my argument emphatically.

Do you all not realize you are showing a horizon that is many miles in length without a single hint of curvature?

Are you aware that those images should show 'SOME' very distinguishable curvature at those heights if the Earth were round? Every one of those images for the past two pages show miles and miles of perfectly FLAT HORIZON.

Yeah....might wanna delete those posts entirely.

But thanks for the support. If I can't get it from Fellow Flat Earthers, here at the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY FORUM, I'll gladly accept it from the masses of Round Earthers, here, struggling to prove that the Earth is a ball amidst a SEA of evidence to the contrary.

[AATW]

I continue to be amazed at your lack of understanding of perspective, Tom. You seem to think it can explain sunset and the sinking ship effect (which it absolutely can’t) and don’t understand that it can explain crepuscular rays even when you’re shown a model proving it can.

Anyone who has seen something like train tracks going into the distance knows that perspective can make parallel lines appear not to be parallel.

[AATW]

You might wanna stop posting those images. All they are doing is supporting my argument emphatically.

Your argument was that the horizon remains at eye level at altitude. The video I posted shows quite clearly that it does not.

Do you all not realize you are showing a horizon that is many miles in length without a single hint of curvature?

As would be expected on a globe the size of the earth.

[Tom Bishop]

I continue to be amazed at your lack of understanding of perspective, Tom. You seem to think it can explain sunset and the sinking ship effect (which it absolutely can’t) and don’t understand that it can explain crepuscular rays even when you’re shown a model proving it can.

Anyone who has seen something like train tracks going into the distance knows that perspective can make parallel lines appear not to be parallel.

Would those parallel tubes in the 3D model be parallel if the camera were half mile away?

Yes or no?

[AATW]

Would those parallel tubes in the 3D model be parallel if the camera were half mile away?

Yes or no?

It’s a meaningless question in the context of a 3D model. Double the camera distance and double the length of the rays and you’ll see the same effect.

[Tom Bishop]

Would those parallel tubes in the 3D model be parallel if the camera were half mile away?

Yes or no?

It’s a meaningless question in the context of a 3D model. Double the camera distance and double the length of the rays and you’ll see the same effect.

That is not true and didn't answer my question.

[stack]

Did you know that Nikola Tesla believed in the Flat Earth?

I think Tesla may have disagreed with you. Quotes from Tesla's article published in 1900:

THE PROBLEM OF INCREASING HUMAN ENERGY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCES TO THE HARNESSING OF THE SUN'S ENERGY.
by Nikola Tesla
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm

This metal, it would seem, has an origin entirely different from that of the rest of the globe.
....
It is a well-known fact that the interior portions of the globe are very hot, the temperature rising, as observations show, with the approach to the center at the rate of approximately 1 degree C. for every hundred feet of depth. The difficulties of sinking shafts and placing boilers at depths of, say, twelve thousand feet, corresponding to an increase in temperature of about 120 degrees C., are not insuperable, and we could certainly avail ourselves in this way of the internal heat of the globe.
...
By realizing such a plan, we should be enabled to get at any point of the globe a continuous supply of energy, day and night
...
The observation of this wonderful phenomenon impressed me strongly that communication at any distance could be easily effected by its means, provided that apparatus could be perfected capable of producing an electric or magnetic change of state, however small, in the terrestrial globe or environing medium.

[iamcpc]

I'm still waiting for ONE SINGLE Flat Earther to show up here on the 'so-called' Flat Earth Society Chat Forum.
Four pages of discussion, about a dozen different individuals chiming in, give or take; exactly ZERO Flat Earthers here besides myself. That is shameful. This Forum is a total DECOY. Just like modern mainstream churches. Attract believers, and those with a desire to learn, and then mock them and correct them relentlessly to stomp out and DASH their Faith.

Flat earthers have shown up but it has been demonstrated by flat earhters that the horizon does not ALWAYS rise to eye level as you have claimed.

You adhere to a FE Model in which the horizon always rises to the eye of the observer and there is a firmament.  High altitude balloons have had go pros put on them and they have never shown any sort of firmament.

Would those parallel tubes in the 3D model be parallel if the camera were half mile away?

Yes or no?

It’s a meaningless question in the context of a 3D model. Double the camera distance and double the length of the rays and you’ll see the same effect.

I disagree. I think the parallel nature of the rays does matter. Furthermore I believe that, from a for enough distance, any rays will stop being parallel.

[stack]

Would those parallel tubes in the 3D model be parallel if the camera were half mile away?

Yes or no?

It’s a meaningless question in the context of a 3D model. Double the camera distance and double the length of the rays and you’ll see the same effect.

I disagree. I think the parallel nature of the rays does matter. Furthermore I believe that, from a for enough distance, any rays will stop being parallel.

I thought this was a pretty accurate description of the crepuscular rays phenomena:

"The train's destination is not above the ground, but rather far away, and perspective means that the tracks appear not to be parallel but instead to converge to the vanishing point.

The same applies to the beams of light above them. The Sun is very far away and the beams are pretty much parallel, but they're pointing towards you, and perspective makes them appear to converge towards the vanishing point - which in this case is the Sun's location in the sky."



As well, there are anticrepuscular rays projecting up from below the horizon. The question becomes, how is the sun projecting light up from below the horizon?

[Tumeni]

Einstein announced: "I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
(-Albert Einstein Kyoto University, Japan Dec.14, 1922)

His point being that the only way to prove the movement of the Earth would have to be through mathematical equations. No empirical experiment could prove it.

No empirical OPTICAL experiment, Einstein said. Dontcha think he was being quite ... precise, to specify that? He strikes me as a precise person, to single out a a specific TYPE of experiment.... but not exclude other types. 

"Optical", using the optics of 1922. We've moved on since then, so quoting what Einstein felt was the be-all and end-all 98 years ago becomes less and less relevant with each passing year.

[Tumeni]

Just a friendly suggestion to those who keep posting images of the horizon at great heights to attempt to show a dropping horizon on a 'ROUND EARTH.'

You might wanna stop posting those images. All they are doing is supporting my argument emphatically.

Do you all not realize you are showing a horizon that is many miles in length without a single hint of curvature?

Just a friendly suggestion - look back at my post #61 and try and explain how this observation could possibly be made on a Flat Earth - the observer was at 210m, the focal height of the lighthouse is 73m. If we presume the seas around to be flat, how could the sightline from observer to lighthouse, if continued beyond the lighthouse, miss the water? Why can't the observer, some 137m above the lighthouse, see the water beyond it? Simple geometry dictates that he should, IF the surface is flat ...

This shows the geometrical principle - non-parallel lines must meet.

https://imgur.com/dRtnc3D

This shows the situation, but with labels applicable to another observation; same principle applies

https://imgur.com/CXUvjwa

Are you aware that those images should show 'SOME' very distinguishable curvature at those heights if the Earth were round?

No, they should not. Earth too big.

Mostly, cameras zoomed in or using big telephoto. The more you zoom in, the less curve is in frame. The more you zoom out, or the further you move away from the surface, the more in frame.


Edit to correct quoted post number to 61

[Tumeni]

Storm, Tom - does "eye level" form an imaginary line in space, parallel to your presumed flat plane?

i.e. if I construct a 100m tower, right on the beach, right at the edge of the sea, and I construct another, 1000m out into the sea, of exactly the same height, then do you agree a sightline between the tops of the two towers is a line in space, deemed to be parallel to the (presumed) flat plane of the sea below?

https://imgur.com/GKu4JnZ

Simple Y/N, if you could... 

[Tumeni]

Did you know that Nikola Tesla believed in the Flat Earth?

If he did, why was he talking about, at some point in his future, "rocket ships orbiting the globe in 5 hours or so"

http://www.teslasociety.ch/info/mechanic/Tesla_Juli_1934_6MB.pdf

[Storm]

Which of these images most closely depicts the world that you inhabit?

This one....



...or this one?



Wait, that's not fair.

Ok, this one...



...or this one?



Ok, forget it. Having technical problems, here.

Let's put it this way:

Do you believe you live on the Earth...



...or on the Pearth?



I know, I know. Very limited options, here, but these are the only two options they give us.

Pick one.

[Storm]

This image, here, is hilarious.



That's about a photoshopped image if I've EVER seen one.

Never in ALL my life have I seen anything like that in the real world.

At least it still shows the small size and close proximity of the actual sun, though. (Edited to add: as well as a perfectly Flat Horizon.)

The light on the clouds shows clearly that the real sun is behind the camera and shining on the side of the clouds that is facing the observer. The clouds don't confirm the upward sun rays in the background or anything this image is intended to depict or prove.

Very entertaining, though.

[stack]

This image, here, is hilarious.



That's about a photoshopped image if I've EVER seen one.

If you say so.

Never in ALL my life have I seen anything like that in the real world.

The logic being that if you haven’t seen something before it must not exist?

At least it still shows the small size and close proximity of the actual sun, though.

The light on the clouds shows clearly that the real sun is behind the camera and shining on the side of the clouds that is facing the observer. The clouds don't confirm the upward sun rays in the background or anything this image is intended to depict or prove.

If it’s photoshopped and you believe it can’t exist because you've never seen it before why would you have an explanation for it?

Google ‘anticrepuscular’ and poke on images and let us know what you think about all of those as well.

Very entertaining, though.

Very entertaining indeed.

[AATW]

That is not true and didn't answer my question.

No, I didn't answer your question because the question is meaningless. The 3D model has no scale so "half a mile" is a meaningless value.
What the model quite clearly shows - and you must understand this, again, train tracks - is that parallel lines can appear to converge at a distance depending on the angle you're viewing from. The model even shows that, as the "camera" is moved it shows that the lines are parallel if you look at them from the side - just like train tracks are parallel if you look at them from above. But look at them straight on and they appear to be emanating from a point as do train tracks if you look along them. It all depends on the viewing angle.

tl;dr crepuscular rays do not demonstrate a local sun. And while we are here, why can't you see the EA effect bending the rays?

[Tumeni]

Never in ALL my life have I seen anything like that in the real world.

I've never seen a shark, a whale, a kangaroo. But they still exist. Your disbelief is no proof of anything.

[Tumeni]

Which of these images most closely depicts the world that you inhabit?

Yes, we can all see that you think it's good fun to post comedic mockery in the guise of substantive analysis, but we all see right through the fact that you're glossing over the actual questions put to you, in favour of diversion to your comedic rants, and changes of subject. 

When you're ready to actually engage with other posters here, and treat the subject with some gravity ....

(see what I did there?)

[Storm]

Did you know that Nikola Tesla believed in the Flat Earth?

I think Tesla may have disagreed with you. Quotes from Tesla's article published in 1900:

THE PROBLEM OF INCREASING HUMAN ENERGY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCES TO THE HARNESSING OF THE SUN'S ENERGY.
by Nikola Tesla
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm

This metal, it would seem, has an origin entirely different from that of the rest of the globe.
....
It is a well-known fact that the interior portions of the globe are very hot, the temperature rising, as observations show, with the approach to the center at the rate of approximately 1 degree C. for every hundred feet of depth. The difficulties of sinking shafts and placing boilers at depths of, say, twelve thousand feet, corresponding to an increase in temperature of about 120 degrees C., are not insuperable, and we could certainly avail ourselves in this way of the internal heat of the globe.
...
By realizing such a plan, we should be enabled to get at any point of the globe a continuous supply of energy, day and night
...
The observation of this wonderful phenomenon impressed me strongly that communication at any distance could be easily effected by its means, provided that apparatus could be perfected capable of producing an electric or magnetic change of state, however small, in the terrestrial globe or environing medium.

This article 'MAY' have actually been written at some point in history, but it was likely 'NOT' written by Tesla, AND there is absolutely NO record of it anywhere online.

My conclusion, based on 'STRONG' evidence to the contrary, is that it was written at a much later date, likely after his demise, and attributed to him for the purpose of supporting theories that he would 'NEVER' have affiliated himself with.

Here is an 'ACTUAL' quote from Tesla, completely contradicting every part of that article...

"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electro-magnetic levitation. Electromagnetic levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the firmament."
                                                                                      -Nikola Tesla

Everyone reading this can do a simple Google search for 'ANY' Tesla quotes about the 'Globe' or 'rocket ships' and find absolutely 'NOTHING.'

Tesla was all about electricity. His dreams of the future involved electricity and vehicles for land AND air that were powered thereby. To Tesla, rocket science was a primitive concept, at best, dating back to 200 BC with the accidental discovery of fireworks. He also wasn't the only inventor of his day who believed in the power of electricity to shape our world for the better.

There were others who had invented, and built, electric cars Pre-1900's, but the Oil Barrens and others would never allow these technologies into the public market; and to this very day they have 'barely' allowed those technologies to trickle out into the mainstream. The greedy Government has stolen all of Tesla's inventions to keep, and use, them for themselves; only allowing out the few creations that they could monitor and utilize for their agendas.

-------------------

I have to say: The credibility of those posting in this thread is very much in question. If you can't use factual information to debate the Flat Earth, you may as well bow out gracefully. All you are accomplishing with your desperate attempts at continued rebuttal, and failed refutation of the facts, is to make a mockery of the very argument you are contending for. That being the 'round/pear-shaped' earth.