[AATW]

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

I did do that and found this very quickly

https://flatearth.ws/tesla-misquote

So it is actually your quote which is wrongly attributed, the quote is partly in this

https://archive.org/details/TeslaProblemEnergy/mode/2up

It's quite long but he definitely mentions the globe in it. I found this later, it's a searchable version:

http://teslacollection.com/tesla_articles/1900/century_magazine/nikola_tesla/the_problem_of_increasing_human_energy

[Tumeni]

This article 'MAY' have actually been written at some point in history, but it was likely 'NOT' written by Tesla

Says who? You? Why is it "likely"?

AND there is absolutely NO record of it anywhere online.

So what? Honestly, trying to claim that something is not online, based on simply the results from search engines, is a lost cause...

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.

WHAT evidence?

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

Oh, so it's "My quote is BETTER than yours", even though you provide no source or context to it....

I have to say: The credibility of those posting in this thread is very much in question.

Why? Because you claim that you have better quotes than everyone else?

If you can't use factual information to debate the Flat Earth, you may as well bow out gracefully.

... but you haven't proven your quote to be the factual one.

[Seemom]

Quote from: Storm on February 15, 2020, 04:15:05 PM

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

Of all the absurd claims I have read on this site, that is one of the worst.  It is also the most easily disproven.

"To give you an idea, I have prepared a diagram illustrating an analogue which will clearly show how the current passes through the globe"

https://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/wardenclyffe-lab-1901-1906/connection-to-earth/


Just count how many times Tesla refers to a "globe" earth.

[Storm]

So, I asked all of you once before (page 5 reply #93), with only a modicum of sarcasm, but I will ask again because it is very relevant and important to this discussion.

All day long, each and every day, you are all attacking and correcting 'MY' beliefs, but I think those following this thread deserve to know what 'YOUR' belief is.

So, to all of you FLAT EARTH SOCIETY 'FRAUDS', who are actually Round Earthers in the wrong place, here is the question that begs a response:

Do you believe that we all live on 'THIS'.......



....or do you believe we all live on 'THIS'?



Simple, straighforward, no jokes intended.

THIS is what modern science, NASA, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and all other champions of 'Round/Oblate Spheroid' Earth are insisting we all exist upon. vvv



Straight up: Do you believe this or not??

You are not allowed to believe in this anymore....



....because THIS ^^^ has been proven to be false ad nauseum; it is not even a debate anymore.

So, once again, here are your choices.

World E:



or...

World P:



Which are you hailing from with all your refutation and rebuttal of the Flat Biblical Earth?

[iamcpc]

So, to all of you FLAT EARTH SOCIETY 'FRAUDS', who are actually Round Earthers in the wrong place, here is the question that begs a response:

Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 100% chance the earth is flat.
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 50-99% chance the earth is flat
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 1-49% chance the earth is flat
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 0% chance the earth is flat

How sure you are the earth is flat is moot for many of the claims you have made.

Do you believe that we all live on 'THIS'.......

This is the FE model which most closely matches reality based on my investigations

https://www.bing.com/maps

[Storm]

Reply from iamcpc

This is the FE model which most closely matches reality based on my investigations

https://www.bing.com/maps

That model is taken from this World, where I live:


Interesting....thanks for the response.

Anyone else...?

[Storm]

First you say this:

Claims[/b] that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 100% chance the earth is flat.
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 50-99% chance the earth is flat
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 1-49% chance the earth is flat
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 0% chance the earth is flat

....all hung up on 'ONE' single solitary 'claim' in my 20 posts in this thread, which, I will add, has only been refuted by repeated images of horizons that are PERFECTLY FLAT for many miles.

Then you say this:

How sure you are the earth is flat is moot for many of the claims you have made.

Again, referring to 'ONE' claim, from ONE out of TWENTY posts.

And, somehow, you've magically made me irrelevant.

.....That's GOOD!

[Storm]

So, if it hasn't been answered satisfactorily yet, here is another great example of why you can't see Mt. Everest from Indonesia, with the naked eye or any conventional equipment. (Note the ridiculously FLAT horizon from one side of the shot to the other and you can skip to 44 seconds if you like.)



If you had a Hubble Telescope and aimed it in the direction of the top of the mountain, you'd be able to see approximately the top 3 miles (in width) of the mountain over all the terrain in between.

[Bikini Polaris]

(Note the ridiculously FLAT horizon from one side of the shot to the other and you can skip to 44 seconds if you like.)

Note the ridiculously crisp cutting line made by the horizon, *as if* it was going to frontally dive down.

[Storm]

Note the ridiculously crisp cutting line made by the horizon, *as if* it was going to frontally dive down.

I don't even know what that means....

There's no crispy cutting anything going on in that vid. And you can actually see more water 'above' the farthest waves when it's zoomed all the way in; indicating MORE waves further beyond the camera's capability to zoom and detect.

Pretty irrefutable video, but it won't stop the Pearthers.

God Bless 'em.

[stack]

Reply from iamcpc

This is the FE model which most closely matches reality based on my investigations

https://www.bing.com/maps

That model is taken from this World, where I live:


Interesting....thanks for the response.

Anyone else...?

Actually, no, Bing Maps are based upon a spherical earth.

From the Microsoft developers website regarding Bing Maps:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system

"Map Projection
To make the map seamless, and to ensure that aerial images from different sources line up properly, we have to use a single projection for the entire world. We chose to use the Mercator projection...Although the Mercator projection significantly distorts scale and area (particularly near the poles), it has two important properties that outweigh the scale distortion:

1) It’s a conformal projection, which means that it preserves the shape of relatively small objects. This is especially important when showing aerial imagery, because we want to avoid distorting the shape of buildings. Square buildings should appear square, not rectangular.
2) It’s a cylindrical projection, which means that north and south are always straight up and down, and west and east are always straight left and right.

The latitude and longitude are assumed to be on the WGS 84 datum. Even though Bing Maps uses a spherical projection, it’s important to convert all geographic coordinates into a common datum, and WGS 84 was chosen to be that datum. The longitude is assumed to range from -180 to +180 degrees, and the latitude must be clipped to range from -85.05112878 to 85.05112878. This avoids a singularity at the poles, and it causes the projected map to be square.”

WGS 84 Datum reference looks like this:


Caption: WGS 84 reference frame. The oblateness of the ellipsoid is exaggerated in this image.

[ChrisTP]

So, I asked all of you once before (page 5 reply #93), with only a modicum of sarcasm, but I will ask again because it is very relevant and important to this discussion.

All day long, each and every day, you are all attacking and correcting 'MY' beliefs, but I think those following this thread deserve to know what 'YOUR' belief is.

So, to all of you FLAT EARTH SOCIETY 'FRAUDS', who are actually Round Earthers in the wrong place, here is the question that begs a response:

Do you believe that we all live on 'THIS'.......



....or do you believe we all live on 'THIS'?



Simple, straighforward, no jokes intended.

THIS is what modern science, NASA, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and all other champions of 'Round/Oblate Spheroid' Earth are insisting we all exist upon. vvv



Straight up: Do you believe this or not??

You are not allowed to believe in this anymore....



....because THIS ^^^ has been proven to be false ad nauseum; it is not even a debate anymore.

So, once again, here are your choices.

World E:



or...

World P:



Which are you hailing from with all your refutation and rebuttal of the Flat Biblical Earth?

Can't tell if you're just trolling but neither of those. famous science writers described the earth as pear shaped to dumb it down for people but in reality, the earth still looks almost perfectly spherical from a distance with only a slightly imperfect shape, it's not a literal space pear.

Do you believe you live on a disk where all space around it warps light to make it look like a sphere?

[iamcpc]

....all hung up on 'ONE' single solitary 'claim' in my 20 posts in this thread, which, I will add, has only been refuted by repeated images of horizons that are PERFECTLY FLAT for many miles.
Again, referring to 'ONE' claim, from ONE out of TWENTY posts.

And, somehow, you've magically made me irrelevant.

.....That's GOOD!

First off I have not make you irrelevant.  I just want the community to come together and agree on some aspect of these models. Is there a dome? Is there a firmament? etc. etc.

When the FE community finally starts to come together and say the horizon drops with altitude and it's because of refraction and not the shape of the earth and here's why and here's evidence supporting our theories someone comes along saying the horizon rises to eye level. Discounting all progress that was made.

The thing that weakens the FE movement more than anything else is that there is no consistency.

In addition you have made posts that I agreed with. You posted an image with light going through the clouds which did make it appear the sun is very close to the earth.

Actually, no, Bing Maps are based upon a spherical earth.

From the Microsoft developers website regarding Bing Maps:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system

That's funny because when you zoom all the way out on bing maps it very very clearly represents the earth as a flat plane for one.

For two your FE model is based on a globe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

So you have your flat disk FE model and I have my rectangular FE model. According to the internet they are both based on a globe. Just because the internet claims they are based on a globe does not mean that they can't be used as FE models when they represent the earth as a flat plane.

[Bikini Polaris]

And you can actually see more water 'above' the farthest waves when it's zoomed all the way in; indicating MORE waves further beyond the camera's capability to zoom and detect.

I'm sorry but I can't, those waves are in good contrast painted against the sky, their edges are well defined. Above them there appears to be only the sky. Also, the boat doesn't get down the horizon as it's zoomed in, as I would expect if more waves in the background were coming out. But I'm not saying that's a proof of anything, I'm on the "visual proofs are useless" camp, I'm just pointing out that's not what I would expect to see in a totally flat sea surface, i.e. I would expect a repeating fractal structure.

[Tumeni]

... you can actually see more water 'above' the farthest waves when it's zoomed all the way in; indicating MORE waves further beyond the camera's capability to zoom and detect.

What do you see in this one? More waves beyond the ship? Beyond the mast to the right of the ship? Beyond the lighthouse?

[proponent]

Exactly! thanks I will put your argument in my question as this debunks the travel limit of light through air.:

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

Can anyone answer?
[/quote]


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I'm not a flat earth theorist. I just believe that the earth is flat, and have heard about the height and size and shape of the sun, and how it shines, and how high it is from the surface, from the sutras. Their data are inconsistent with those provided by the flat theory.
Back to your question, I guess there are two reasons. First of all, mount Everest is visible mainly because it is illuminated by the sun and it is not blocked from view. If it's far enough away, it won't be hard to block. If the sun flies far enough, it will be blocked by things that are not high or thick at close range. The world is huge, much bigger than published, as recorded in the sutras. So it's possible.
The first reason is maybe that things that are too far away, that are too far away, look smaller, which is something that everybody knows but is easy to overlook, and the sutras say that they become round, which you probably haven't heard of.
The second reason may be that, when the sun shines on mount Everest, the light hits the peak to generate heat, and the mountain's reflected light is already very weak, far less than the sun. You may have observed that the nearby peaks are the color of trees or rocks, but the distant peaks gradually look darker. When it's far enough away, it gets very dark.
I can't give you a more practical answer. My abilities are limited. From my point of view, the two reasons mentioned above should be part of the formation of the horizon, and another reason for the horizon should be that the layer of sky adjacent to the surface of the earth and the surface of the earth are flat. And they're part of the reason you're asking questions. But what I'm telling you, you might experience on your own, not bad, right?

[/quote]

[Smarts]

Exactly! thanks I will put your argument in my question as this debunks the travel limit of light through air.:

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

[/quote]

[Smarts]

It's because the curvature of the earth. The moon and sun are thousands of miles above the atmosphere.

[Storm]

Now, these, here, can't possibly exist.

These are Moon-blooming flowers. Yep, they ONLY bloom in moonlight.

Incorrect, they only bloom at night, regardless of whether moonlight is present or not.

Not sure this article contradicts your rebuttal statement, per se, but it certainly indicates the very unique characteristics that moonlight has and how those characteristics affect plants that bloom without sunlight (at night time).

It also states, in no uncertain terms, that their findings indicate that it is NOT due to any tidal/gravitational effect on the moisture inside the plant's cells, etc, but that moonlight is uniquely different than sunlight. (Moonlight is NOT reflected sunlight.)

While it may not be as widely recognized yet, it is becoming more clear that the moon also affects the flow of water through plants: sap moves more vigorously during the waxing phase as the moon grows to full, and slows down as the moon wanes to a thin morning crescent.

...vigorous, sappy plants will suffer if cut, harvested, or pruned close to the full moon. ...(a phenomenon known as “lunar burn”, because it was so often noted around the full moon).

For an excellent review of the subject, see Ian Cole and Michael Balick’s review article.2 The authors... note that studies that examine lunar rhythms are still few and far between.

It is rumored that the wooden stilts upon which Venice was built all were harvested during the last few days of the moon cycle: less water and denser fibers means less susceptibility to rotting and parasites.

Ernst Zürcher...expanded on Cole and Balick’s work...  The conclusions are consistent: there is indeed a lunar effect. But he also points out that the easy explanation (a tide-like gravitational force) is most likely incorrect, as the amount of water in even the largest tree is relatively small, and a tidal force would be negligible. An intriguing hypothesis is that moonlight itself may contribute to electromagnetic effects that alter the surface tension of water, allowing for some of the microscopic effects that have been experimentally documented.

What we do know is that moonlight, while generally similar to the sunlight..., shifts a bit towards the infrared...This makes moonlight not just a less intense version of sunlight—it is somewhat qualitatively different, too.

As the old myths tell us, the moon is a powerful force, regulating the unseen, yin-like processes hidden under the surfaces of things...

https://permacultureprinciples.com/post/moonlight-affect-plant-growth/#lightbox/0/

[iamcpc]

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

Can anyone answer?

This has been answered many many times. The most popular answer has to do with how many miles of dense low altitude atmosphere that light is able to pass through.

Light that is coming from outer space only has to pass through 10-20 miles of this low altitude more dense layer of the atmosphere.

Light traveling from the surface level of mount Everest to someone standing on the surface of Indonesia the light must pass through over 2,000 miles of dense low altitude air. over 100 times the distance.

By this logic someone 200 meters underwater can see the sunlight and someone  10,000 meters of water can't see the sunlight. Therefore the earth is round. This limited ability to see the sunlight happens regardless of what shape the earth is.