[stack]

I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

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

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.

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

I'm not sure I'm following "No formulas, equations, theories or experiments.". There are plenty.

For instance, in this FE/RE comparison calculator we have a 3000' mountain, 25 miles away with an observer height of about 6.5'.

In the RE model, the mountain bottom is obscured by the earth by about 319'. More importantly is the tilt, which I think is what you have been referencing - The tilt of the object away from the observer. As you can see, given the large size of the earth the "tilt", given all the parameters, is approximately 0.36°. Which is imperceptible to the human eye.

[Tumeni]

'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.

[Tumeni]

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?

[markjo]

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

Just out of curiosity, have you tried doing a Google search for commercial satellite imagery?  It's a multi-billion dollar industry and I'm thinking that their customers would be more than just a bit irate if all of that imagery turned out to be fake.

[SteelyBob]

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

Something like this?

https://www.businessinsider.com/mount-everest-himalayas-astronaut-photos-2016-6

I’m not really clear why the ‘projection’ aspect of this gives you the proof. You’ve already dismissed other photos as fake, so wouldn’t you just say it was fake as well?

Moreover, I’m not sure if the kind of photo you’re after is even possible - Everest is a big mountain (elevation approx 5.5 statute miles), but it’s tiny in comparison to the earth, so any picture that shows an appreciable component of the globe (radius approx 4000 statute miles) isn’t going to really show Everest itself very much. You also have the problem that the more oblique the photo, the more haze layer you have to photograph through, and the fuzzier the image.

[SimonC]

I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

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

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.

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

I'm not sure I'm following "No formulas, equations, theories or experiments.". There are plenty.

For instance, in this FE/RE comparison calculator we have a 3000' mountain, 25 miles away with an observer height of about 6.5'.

In the RE model, the mountain bottom is obscured by the earth by about 319'. More importantly is the tilt, which I think is what you have been referencing - The tilt of the object away from the observer. As you can see, given the large size of the earth the "tilt", given all the parameters, is approximately 0.36°. Which is imperceptible to the human eye.

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.

[SimonC]

'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.

There are however plenty of things leaving the planet and or floating around it. I wasnt simply asking someone to go take a pic. 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 ample opportunity to 'hover' level with the equator from a decent enough distance and the zoom in with a decent camera (not one of Armstrongs instamatics) photograph what is there sticking out from the edge of the earth. Its not rocket science :-)

[SimonC]

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?

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

[SimonC]

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

Just out of curiosity, have you tried doing a Google search for commercial satellite imagery?  It's a multi-billion dollar industry and I'm thinking that their customers would be more than just a bit irate if all of that imagery turned out to be fake.

Just their customers? Wouldnt you be irate too?

[SimonC]

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

Something like this?

https://www.businessinsider.com/mount-everest-himalayas-astronaut-photos-2016-6

I’m not really clear why the ‘projection’ aspect of this gives you the proof. You’ve already dismissed other photos as fake, so wouldn’t you just say it was fake as well?

Moreover, I’m not sure if the kind of photo you’re after is even possible - Everest is a big mountain (elevation approx 5.5 statute miles), but it’s tiny in comparison to the earth, so any picture that shows an appreciable component of the globe (radius approx 4000 statute miles) isn’t going to really show Everest itself very much. You also have the problem that the more oblique the photo, the more haze layer you have to photograph through, and the fuzzier the image.

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

[Tumeni]

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?

 

[SteelyBob]

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

[SimonC]

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/

Good link that - a great help. The first thing I found was a set of photos of a flat earth with the title 'EarthDisc' and not Earth Orb.
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/ShowQueryResults-Lightcycle.pl?results=EarthDisc

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.

Oh dear thats a tad pedantic surely. Its only called orbit because scientists think the earths an orb.

[AATW]

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

It really wouldn't.

From ancient times we knew the true shape of the earth. We might not have been able to observe it directly, but it can be inferred from observations.
The Wiki pages here on things like EA are an admission that observations do not match what you would expect to see on a FE. The very existence of a horizon is good evidence. Why is there a sharp line between the sea and sky? Why is that line only a few miles away? Why can't you see more sea? It can't be visibility, you can see ships and distant landmarks further away, you just can't see the bottom of them. Why not? What's hiding the bottom of them? And why does increasing in altitude increase the distance to the horizon? All these observations make sense on a sphere, on a FE you have to invoke mechanisms to explain them.
You can make observations of the sun and moon too - they maintain a constant angular size through the day and night, that implies a constant distance. Objects get smaller as they get further away. Again, this makes sense on a rotating globe with a distant sun and moon. On a FE other mechanisms have to be hypothesised to explain it.

But then since the 60s we've had the ability to observe the shape of the earth  directly via both manned and space exploration.
We had Earthrise in 1968 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise )
And The Blue Marble in 1972 ( https://www.nasa.gov/content/blue-marble-image-of-the-earth-from-apollo-17 )
Actual photos taken by humans who observed the earth as it really is.

There's also this timelapse made from images taken from the DSCOVR satellite:



If you don't trust NASA you can find similar things from the Japanese Himawari8 satellite.

Right now we have people orbiting the globe in the ISS - an object you can see from the ground. We have technologies like GPS and satellite TV which people use every day and relies on satellites orbiting a globe earth. FE exists despite the evidence, not because of it. So with all that, you think the images you're requesting are the things which will tip the balance and end all debate on the matter? It would be just as easy to dismiss them as fake as any other images from space.

[SimonC]

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile. That is 8/63360ths of a mile. Yet we won't see a mountain peak which is a 727th of the 4000 unit radius?
You can do anything with statistics.

[Tumeni]

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?

[SteelyBob]

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile. That is 8/63360ths of a mile. Yet we won't see a mountain peak which is a 727th of the 4000 unit radius?
You can do anything with statistics.

I don’t claim that, no. I believe that is a rule of thumb, which you have slightly misquoted - it’s per mile squared.

Emphasis on rule of thumb though - it’s not accurate, and it gets less accurate the further away you go.

Let’s try this again. Draw a circle of 8 inches diameter on a piece of paper. That is earth. You can write N and S to indicate the poles, and a line across the middle to show the equator.

Now let’s try to draw the situation you describe. Get a protractor and measure 28 degrees around from the equator towards the North Pole - mark it off on the edge of circle. That’s Everest’s latitude. Now draw a mountain sticking out from the earth by 5.5 thousandths of an inch. Let me know how you get on, bearing in mind that your pen or pencil is probably making lines substantially thicker than Everest is high.

[Tumeni]

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.

[DuncanDoenitz]

And Simon, you understand that although Sagarmatha (Everest) is the highest mountain, it doesn't just rise up to 8848 metres directly from sea level, like the Eiffel Tower.  Its in a mountain range, its surrounded by other mountains; its like the tallest man standing in a crowd of very tall men.   

Also, its not symmetrical.  When you find such a photo how will you define whether it is perpendicular to the horizon?   

[SimonC]

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?

So its ok to say that anything you think is orbitting the round earth is going full circumference round a flat earth (whether you believe FE or not is it ok to describe it as such thereby leaving the key word 'orbit' out of the description)?

And 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?