Topic: Flat Earth - page 639. (Read 1095196 times)

Not sure if trolling, but in any case I used ms paint to show you. It's to do with angles.



The only time the sunlight can't directly hit the moon is during a lunar eclipse, where the Earth is directly between the Sun and moon. You might think the moon would disappear fully and turn black, but there is a certain amount of light that refracts through the Earth's atmosphere, causing a shift in light frequency and making the moon appear red, rather than totally black (and invisible).

Stop arguing something so obvious, !!

Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis

Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..

If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".

you can absolutely bend light. (use therm bend loosely) light is matter. photons are matter, however light is also a wave. therefore it can bend around objects. (of extreme gravitational mass, or even through lenses.

 light is really a wave and can only approximately be thought of as consisting of independently-propagating rays. This happens when the wavelength of the light is much smaller than the distances it is propagating over, which is usually the case for light (whose wavelength in the visible range is 0.4 to 0.7μm) but is not necessarily the case e.g. for radio waves and when nanoparticles are involved.

In this short-wavelength limit, wave propagation gives way to ray propagation (which is a special, approximate case of the former), and specifically to Fermat's principle for the mathematical description of light. This principle states that light rays starting at A and ending up at B will follow the path that minimizes the travel time

S=∫BAn(s)ds,

where n(s)n(s) is the (possibly spatially dependant) refraction index along the path.

For a homogeneous medium, this does indeed give straight lines for propagation. For a planar interface between two different media it gives Snell's law for refraction and it also describes reflection. (However, because it does not account for the actual nature of light as an oscillating electric field, this description cannot predict transmission or reflection coefficients.

However, if the medium is not homogeneous, then light will not travel on a straight line, and for complicated inhomogeneities the path can be correspondingly difficult to calculate. For an example, see the formation of mirages or more generally atmospheric refraction. Conversely, if one has a path one wishes a given light ray to take, then it is possible to engineer a refractive index spatial dependence that will make light bend that way. (Of course, whether such a dependence is physically reasonable is another matter; if the path bends too sharply then it may not be possible to find materials with the correspondingly large index and index gradients necessary.)

Einstein theory was "invented" to hide light bending by aether. It was scientificly proven by the Lorentz . They needed to reinterpet the data.

Do you know thats its "confirming" the newtonian model by adding a very rare exception. Such a logical construct, but im not sure you can understand that. Prove me Im wrong and you are more inteligent than I think you are.

Here is a counter theory to official. And yes thats how science works by disproving one argument by proposing a counter argument. Contrary to some wanabe "scientists" try to claim here on this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwSXwV2jG4

If you are so critical as you suppose you are. Why do you think they have picked the Einstein interpretation and dumped the rest? Theory of relativity is still mainly a hyphotesis. Some experiments are wrongly done. If you want I can wrote what experiments that "prove" theory of relativity need to be redone.

It was the Tesla himself that had said that without the aether the world around us is unexplainable. You can call everything about the Tesla but not being unscientific.

But if some guy propose a redone of experiments he is faced with a lack of funds and a wall of authorities. Its a very unscientific aspect of science we need to face to make world more innovative and in touch with the truth. If they wont do that there will be a turmoil of different more intouch thoeries on the internet about the universe because scientists sux at their job for making science more democratic.

By doing bad job at science, you create a frankensteins like flat earth. If there are some actual scientist. Do you your fucking job and experiments right so that people would not have any chance to call you losers.

What does it have to do with the true view? Well. The experiment if light we see bends in the sky, is doable, but for it to be spotless it would have to be very expensive.  If that experiment would be done all of the astronomy makes absolutely no sense because its basing its premise of light going in the same speed and always in the straight line. And even if its temporary bends it gets straightened afterwards.

If official astronomy model fails because of its puzzle element are messed up, then ALL what they assumed is a complete crap.

Thats what scientists says... not me ok? Im just a humble thinker.

Yeah well you are not critical.... give me a break. By being in the majority and saying everyone else is stupid because they dont believe what majority do? Is that critical? Thats absolutely wrong argument by what ever standard you can make. EVER. You set a new standards of wrongness mate. Congrats.

Real unbiased scientists should at least ponder upon the idea - what if light actualy bends.

Karl Popper, a science methodolician once have said. The best scientist wake up every morning and try to destroy his best hyphotesis he have. Good scientists dont think their hipothesis are wrote in stone.

I dont believe my hypothesis are wrote in stone as well. I try to debunk concavity of the earth everyday. I fail to do so. If I do that Im actually antiinsane.

Insane people are sticking to some one stuff even if its utterly disregarded. Im not insane sorry. But if you think im insane, help me. Prove me Im wrong that light cant bend. Please help me rofl. You cant because you are propably a lot more crazy than me lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VwMDo7fxuY

You people are epic ... really epic. None of you are scientists no? Yeah you are not. Real scientists not like you say if light is not going straight their whole model is fake. Guess what it doesnt go straight.

By real scientists I mean a people with phd in physics not some wanabee smartasses. Those operate if, and when and if and when. Real scientists dont say it is like this or that because "it has proof of evidence". Yeah "scientists" was telling the same against the heliocentrism for ages for goecentric model. And no. Flat earth model was inexistence because its too stupid too consider by anyone anytime in the world history. And it was too stupid because people actually traveled on the seas and used maps or astronavigation. And guess what. Those were not flat earth maps. Maybe just 100 years of deepest and darkest middleages but just because some crazy pope have said so. People at least for 3000 years believed the earth is globe. At first they believed the true version which was shown by the prophets, that we are inside. There are many artifacts that shows that they was told that. Then they believed in geocentrism for 2500 years and now its short history of heliocentric model folly.

All it have to be done is to find someone with extremely a lot amount of money to prove it to you experimentaly, but experiments with ether and earth curvature geologist just ommit so propably the money would be wasted. But yeah. Sooner or later there will be such an experiment. As for now.... Yeah fuck off lol.

Meantime in flat earth HQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_kGLtKXPUY

Just walk around the earth if it's flat you'll fall off if spherical you should be good

Don't waste too much time with flat Earthers, dude... they cannot provide any kind of proof that our planet is flat (simply because they can't  ) so they keep flooding the thread with the worst bullshits ever seen.

Some time ago I traveled on an intercontinental flight at a cruise height of 41k feets (12.5km) and I clearly had the view of the curvature of Earth.
Everyone can do the same, just hop into a plane and see it for yourself.

Thanks, It isn't my math, and the only thing that stands out immediately wrong with the math is it would only work for 1/4 of the earth surface.  And when you add up the area of drop by divisible segments of the total circumference of the earth it doesn't add up.  So something is goofy with how they are doing this if you tried to add up the drop.  Either that or I am not understanding something about the calculation for the entire sphere.  Someone a lot better at the math will have to teach me how that is suppose to work for the entire circumference of the earth.

You are absolutely right about the horizon and sea level.  I think that really messes people up, but it also makes it one of the easiest places to get a handle on the earth curvature. 

Most notable stuff I have seen has been air density and inversion layers that distort what can be seen.  In some cases covering the bottoms of things so it appear they disappear, but it is really an atmospheric condition.  Really some interesting stuff and a lot of what we see is distortion, mirage, and effects due to temp, wind, moisture, light angles, and dirt/dust when looking at distances.

Biggest problem I see with most of the flat earth videos and presentations is they forget elevation makes a huge difference in what can be seen.  And it appears both sides(ball and flat earthers) seem to make a lot of mistakes in trying to do the calculations.  Both distance and elevation of the observer and the elevation of the object being observed, and the height of that objects have to be put in the calculations.  I am seeing a lot of mistakes here and it affects how much of an object would be view able or not.   So some videos that I thought were slam dunks for the flat earth turned out to be inconclusive at best because the elevation would have made enough difference to see an approximation of what was observed.  Sloppy work on the part of the people trying to make the case for flat earth.

So I think there are a lot of mistakes being made on both sides of this conversation in specific circumstances where videos and presentations are being done and the work is pretty sloppy.  People need to be more precise when they make claims and take note of the details in order to really understand what should or should not be visible and the conditions at the time that might affect what can or cannot be viewed.

I am trying to keep an open mind.  I want the observations and the science be observable, and repeatable.  When something doesn't add up, don't try to explain it, just document it and file it away until more data can be gathered.  In time dots will connect as the data weeds out the noise. 

Thanks for the Youtube warning... I find I spend more time trying to fact check these videos and run down details that are missing and it gets pretty frustrating and time consuming.  LOL
 

Uh, no. Every fucking scientist with at least a BSc in some sort of physical or astrophysical field accepts that tha Earth is a ball. I challenge you to find a scientist with a BSc/PhD in a field of physical science that believes the Earth is flat. It can be your project/research for the next day or two!

That puts the burden of proof on you, because you're the one making the outlandish claim.

For example, If I told you that the sun was producing power not from nuclear fission, but from a plasmic link to a small omniescent tree frog located in the 9th dimension, who harvests human souls after their death to provide power to the sun and continue the cycle of life/death on Earth and the souls he needs, would you believe me? Is it up to you to prove me wrong, or is it up to me to provide evidence for my claims? That's how the "burden of proof" works, you go against the majority of scientific theory, you better have some damn good evidence to back it up son!

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"


To be fair, your measurements of vertical drop are surprisingly accurate, as far as I can tell. However there are a few things you're not thinking about...

A. At sea level, the horizon is surprisingly close - less than 3 miles away. So there's only a 6 ft drop between you and as far as you can see.

B. Atmospheric distortion can easily mess with things far in the distance, that's why you can often still see the sun on a clear day even when it's technically set below the horizon.

C. Finally, it seems that your calculations of the drop in distance are actually very good evidence for a spherical Earth - they make sense mathematically, and also in the real world when we look at ships going out to sea? I don't see your point of how these figures prove any sort of flat Earth?

Anyway, good luck with your theory - I advise you not to get stuck in the filter bubble, question everything you read, and avoid youtube for reliable information.

My bad, circumference: 24,874 miles, NOT diameter.
http://www.space.com/17638-how-big-is-earth.html


Here is a earth curve calculator for you since apparently google must have been down when you looked for it:
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial

Burden of proof yours, not mine.  You say the earth is a ball, you support the ball earth theory, ball earth math, ball earth observations of curvature all based on this over 500 year old idea.  Burden is on you to defend this joke.  I can prove that that what is stated in your ball earth theory is wrong as there is clearly NO CURVATURE as stated by ball earth theory.   

I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that I can see distances and objects beyond what would be the curve of the earth at my location.  Again using ball earth math.  Some objects/landmarks should be partially blocked by the horizon, others should be completely blocked.  I know the distances and I did the math.  I am not alone, many people all over the world are doing the same thing.  This is not complicated.  Any ball earth 101 student should know how this works.  Sadly few bother to check it and there in lies the rub.  Then when you start looking around, and a lot of people are now looking and checking and trying to figure this out.  Most people have had this staring them in the face the entire time with things right where they are that should not be visible, but they are.  Things they thought were out of sight due to curvature of the earth are easily pulled back into view with optics or a good zoom. 

So I hate to break it to you, but the "new theory" here is the ball earth.  And what we are finding is that the new theory was not very well sorted out before it was turned into a religion. I guess I shouldn't be so hard on people because I know what you are thinking because I thought the same things.  I also assumed that what I was told was correct, and I never had any reason to ever question any of it.  I mean "flat earth" sounds like a joke, gonna fall off the edge and all that kind of stuff... But the truth is stranger than fiction at this point. 

So there you have it, you have a calculator.  You know the circumference is roughly 24,874 miles.  The basic math is: 8 inches drop x miles distance x miles distance / 12 to get the distance in feet drop. 
Simple list of measurements:
1 mi = 8 inches
2 miles = 32 inches
3 miles = 6 ft
4 miles = 10 ft
5 miles = 16 ft
6 miles = 24 ft
7 miles = 32 ft
20 miles = 266 ft
50 miles = 1666 ft

You get the idea.  Again ball earth math, not mine, not flat earthers math, and I have yet to hear anyone say that this is not how you calculate the curvature of the earth. 

I will introduce you to a concept known as the "Burden of Proof". You may have heard of it before.

Basically, if you wish to put forward a hypothesis that disproves the general scientific consensus, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to the contrary.

For example, if you believe that the mathematics of the curvature of a ball earth, of a certain diameter, prohibit an observer from seeing that curvature from a point on its surface, then show me the calculations! They're really not that advanced, a bit of trigonometry and pi should get you through it.

You say the maths is easy to calculate. Do you understand how maths works?

Not to mention you say the Earth has a diameter of 25,000+ miles. Uhhhuh dude, you might need to check your figures math genius, because the Earth has an average diameter (because it is a spheroid, or slight elipse) of 12,742 km, or 7,918 miles. Your figures were off by a serious amount, the actual diameter is about 70% less than the number you claimed.

Get back to me when you can formulate a calculation, and don't post any youtube videos becasue I won't watch them because they're mostly misleading bullshit.

inspire me many time

shiver in body

i use to share and tell in other place?

you poem write good!

Sorry, try again... Just clicked the ignore link... I would be embarrassed... 

If the Illuminati cards say "they know something": Flat Earth must be true

So Newton was wrong...  Next.

It is your ball earth.  Your ball earth theory.  It is your ball earth math, and proofs are cited by ball earthers as proof of the curve.  Diagrams, illustrations, and many cited proofs of the curved ball earth and things we can see.  Now I could waste my time showing you proof from a ball earthers perspective that shows you that YOU SHOULD BE ABLE to see the curve.  Many ball earthers try to say they see the curve.  Cite all sorts of fun examples that are dis-proven in in just a couple of minutes.  Now you ball earthers can't have it both ways.  Either the earth is 25+k miles in diameter, and the math is easy to calculate, diagrams easily illustrate the distances at which you should have your view obscured by the horizon.  These are all very very close visible distance where you should be able to see the curve of the earth.  This is from ball earth 101.    

Many of founders of your ball earth theory even made these claims and many still try to make these claims.  So so easy to disprove.  Technology makes it easy now.  Makes it much easier to prove the earth is not a ball.  Oh, and lets please do throw out the wonderful explanations of curving light, mirages, and refraction... This is google 101 childs play.  I would highly suggest doing your homework on all of those ideas before trying to claim that you can see over the horizon due to some new explanation of how light is bending.  Yes the laws of physics really suck when the law is laid down on these lame theories.  Oh I have heard it all now and the laws are suddenly suggestions and we come up with ever better stories about how it works.  It is all laughable.

So I suggest you go back to ball earth university and get your ball earth stories straight.  Simple really.  If the earth is what you say it is then it is very easy to prove.  You should be able to see the curve, see the horizon, and of course objects should be obscured.  Do we really need to put up YOUR BALL EARTH diagrams and show people what they SHOULD SEE according to the ball earth experts?  See your premise of you have to go higher is a crock and even the ball earthers know this.    

We ask all the time.  Well then if now you really think it isn't possible to see the curve from earth(contrary to everything the ball earthers have ever said and produced for math and explanations of everything from ships going over the horizon to people disappearing from the ground up as they walk away at distances).  So we tell you ball earthers pick a height/altitude where you should be able to see the curvature of the earth.  Now let's make sure we do an "optics 101 lesson" on camera lenses before we begin... Wide angle lenses distort or curve the image... Please google this... I mean if we have to teach at this level then there is nothing that can be taught here.  Now we know that you have to correct a wide angle lens if you want to see what was actually seen(to remove the optical distortion of the lens).  Once you do that and you get a flat horizon no matter how high you go then come back and explain it... We have balloon footage at 120k feet and the horizon is flat.  And let's make sure we keep your 25k mile in diameter earth clearly before us and not try to tell us how HUGE the earth is... Because it is not that big and the curvature of the earth should be very very visible.  Don't believe me, then go back to ball earth university and then come back...  Because I was there, believed what you do, and now I know I cannot disprove there is no curve and I SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE CURVE.  

How many places do we need to cite examples of large bodies of water we can see quite long distances objects, landmarks, people, birds that you should NOT be able to see?  How many places do we need to cite bridges, railroads, and building construction.  Ask any engineer if they have ever ever had to consider the curvature of the earth when building these large and massive structures.  How about massive bodies of water that freeze and there is no measurable curvature to the water over long long distances... It is perfectly FLAT.  

The proof is right before your eyes.  Throw away your religion.  This isn't about belief, this is about real science, observation, things you can see and prove yourself.  Oh I know, only if you can explain it with Einstein math or Newton's laws... then it isn't science... That isn't science, that is religion!

So when I say show me the curve, according to the leading experts on ball earth you should be able to see the curve.  Not my theory, the problems are ball earth problems.  So don't waste your time quoting Newton, Einstein, or any other famous theologian.  The math provided and size of the earth given this should be a knock it out of the park thing to do.  Show me the curve.  If you are going to ignore "ball earth 101" then you are wasting everyone's time.  Again it isn't my theory, and the explanations provided by the creators of this theory state that YOU ARE WRONG and curvature is visible.  So show me the curve.  If you refuse then I will click ignore in this forum and that will be the last time I will respond to you.  

You can either choose to address this one very simple straight forward topic because everything else you could possible state will hinge on the ability to grasp the issue of curvature.  Anything else is just a waste of time.

And after all of that if you still think you live on a ball good for you.  One day in the not so distant future everyone will know the earth isn't a ball.  Every day we are reaching more and more people and showing them what is already right in front of there faces, and they didn't even think about it.  I know I didn't. I have landmarks all around me where I live at known distances where I shouldn't be able to see them, or I should barely be able to see them, and guess what?  They are all very clearly visible at huge distances.  And all of the ball earthers will be saying.... I always knew it was flat...

So show me the curve... If we have to post images and explain curvature we will, but you should be able to google it yourself and then use the earth curve calculator I posted to figure out distances and what you should be able to see.  This is a ball earth theory, so it is up to you to defend it.  Not me.   I am not the one who came up with the distances, heights, math, and explanations for the ball earth.  That is for you to explain away what can be clearly seen.  

But one thing is for sure, we will keep posting these images, and ball earth math until ball earthers have to finally acknowledge there is something wrong with your theory.   We will not let you keep stating that you have to be higher because the earth is too big.  We know from all the work that was done to come up with this ball earth theory that this is simply not true.  We will quote the famous ball earth studies and show the diagrams how they all clearly believe you can see curvature here on earth.  Again these are ball earth problems.

Now the fact is that your position that you cannot see the curve unless you are really high contradicts what ball earthers have clearly stated for over 500 years.  So are you now breaking new ball earth theory ground and going to revise the size of the earth maybe?  I tried that too when I first tried to figure this all out.  I figured the size of the earth must be wrong.  Newton must have been wrong... Blah blah blah...  Well anyway if you are serious you dig and look for answers.  If you just want someone to tell you what you want to hear... Well that isn't science now is it?

Anyway, I am done here... I will watch for your proof of curvature reply.  If you respond with anything else or just refuse to do the work then I will gladly hit ignore and will continue one with my own research into the earth we live on... I am willing to help those who are willing to help themselves.  I did the math, I did the work, I looked for the proof, and it wasn't there... Now my world is a different place.  I am more than glad to help those willing to to do the work.  So when I have some time I will start posting ball earth 101 here so that people can look and be amazed that anyone believes any of this theory when the basics of it are so easily disproven.    I really feel embarassed that I once believed this nonsense... God we are such sheep...

Anyone who understands the basic laws of Newtonian physics and gravity, can deduce quite easily that a globe Earth is by far the most likely shape, and that we live on a small blue dot, surrounded by a solar system, and a universe of billions of galaxies, each with millions of stars, many with spherical planets orbiting them.

If you really don't understand the physics, and need to actually see the curve to believe it, I guess you need to take a trip on a high altitude spy plane or into space. Unfortunately I don't have the funds to give to you for your mission, but I suggest you escape your filter bubble, learn some mathematics and physics and have an open mind. Because everything about a flat Earth defies the general consensus about how the universe works, and there are tens of thousands of scientists such as astrophysicists that confirm this data every day.

The only way you would believe "the curve" (I'm assuming you're a flat Earther), is if you actually went into space and saw it for yourself. So there's no point asking for people to "show you the curve" because you would immediately claim the photo/video was fake or distorted.

Stop asking stupid questions that don't have possible answers and do some actual research.

I absolutely LOVE the ignore link under peoples ID's.  Anyone not willing to do the work isn't worth the effort to reply to.  Show me the curve!  Put up or shut up! LOL

I wrote a series of haikus about the flat Earth crew!

Uneducated
people think the Earth is flat,
Pythagoras weeps.

These guys don't venture
far from their home, so don't see
the movement of stars,

or the sun and moon,
which seem to suggest: Globe Earth
with gravity laws.

I pity these fools,
cause they're not real scientists,
they regurgitate...

lies, from shit websites,
that fabricate false concepts,
To earn bucks from ads.

Footstools are real good
for putting both your feet up!
But don't prove flat Earth.

 

Thanks for sharing.  Keep up the good work.  Anyone who actually digs into this will be shocked to find out there isn't any curvature.  Many examples cited now from all over the earth where the curve should be easily seen and it isn't there.  High altitude balloons also at 120k feet and no curvature.  Leaves a lot of questions about this place we call earth.  One of the odd things that I find myself asking now is just how big is the earth?  We cannot see "the edge" in any images I have seen so obviously the pictures were not taken close enough to the "southern" region to be able to see an edge.  But I have also seen a map that seems to show other continents outside of the area of earth that we do know.  So that raises some interesting questions.  Lots more to learn about this place we live in once you get past this flying ball and the magic gravity "theory". 

What I say to everyone now is: "Show me the curve, or go do your own homework" "don't waste your time unless you can show me the curve" 
It really is that easy.  If the earth is a ball, just over 25k miles in diameter it is really a lot smaller that you think.  Pull up an earth curvature calculator and see just how far you should be able to see before the curve of the earth gets in the way.  Then pull out some optics(binoculars, really good zoom lens, telescope) and take a look.  The things you were told that were beyond the curve of the earth suddenly come back into view.

Here is an earth curve calculator:
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial 

This isn't hard.  The people that came up with this theory 500 years ago didn't have the technology we have to day to easily verify something as simple as curvature of the earth.  As a matter of fact they didn't have the ability to pop on a computer, pick a location and look at all the constellations in the sky from any point on earth to verify if what someone said was true or not.  You can toss out about 3/4 of the nonsense today by validating and checking it yourself. 

There is a lot we don't know of course, but the journey figure it out starts with figuring out there is no curvature to the earth.  Then everything else that we have been told is called out as a blatant lie from there.  Science has become the religion, and what is being called science isn't science when it comes to the ball earth. 

So much we could talk about in a thread like this, but of course there are those that love to parrot what they have been told and most of it is so easy to refute it is a joke now.  When I came across the flat earth I was one of them.  I laughed, I mean really laughed and thought well this will take all of 15 minutes to refute... Well I was very wrong.  The more you dig the more problems appear with the ball earth theory.  Now I wonder about a lot of things I have done in my life and jobs I have had.  Places I saw and worked.  Trying to piece together the puzzle because there is a lot of unanswered questions now.