Topic: Flat Earth - page 785. (Read 1095196 times)

Sorry I meant perspective matrix.

---

I think what I'm trying to say here is that the geometry of the eye/camera (in combination with elevation) defines the distance to the vanishing point and horizon.

note:

The horizon on a flat plane always rises to eye/camera level, it could only do this if it's a function of the eye/camera. The fact the horizon always remains at eye level irrespective of elevation on earth is more proof that it's flat.

Nice thinking!

A lot of people die in the distant past because they've discover that Earth is round, not flat as the church tell them. Another fact, in the Bible - Old Testament, on the same beginning there is a verse where is telling that the planet Earth is round.

Galileo, was the first scientist who discover that the Earth is round. When the priests found out that was start to share the information with the audience, they decided to burn him alive.

Many people die because they discover the facts that are written in the Bible, but was keep in secret for centuries.

Define "perceptual matrix".

Have you ever operated a camera with a telephoto lens? If you had, you would know this is not the case.

You're assuming there's a physical barrier (earth curvature), but the vanishing points physical limitations are the result of the observers perspective matrix. A camera with no Telephoto Lens has a closer point than one with a TL. One camera will see half a ship on the horizon and one will see 100%. This proves that there's no physical barrier in the case of a ship on the ocean. The same would apply to the sears tower.

No.



Perspective does not work that way. Zooming in doesn't allow you to see over obstructions.

50% of the Sears Tower is visible at 96.5 km in the photo in question. ~355 - 709 m that's about 364 m above the horizon.

Now according to the globe earth model taking refraction and the curvature into account only ~85 m should be visible above the horizon.

I'm willing to bet that with a more powerful telephoto lens 100% of the tower will be visible. I'm extremely confidant (and the numbers are backing me up here) that perspective is at play here and not earth curvature.

Can I stop facepalming yet?

You get another facepalm.



There are plenty of buildings in Chicago taller than 33 metres. The city itself is 181 metres above sea level. The top of the Sears Tower is 709 metres above sea level, almost high enough to be visible from 60 miles away without atmospheric refraction.

96.5 / 1500 = 0.064°

OK, I'm getting 107.79 meters added height for a distance of 96.5 km according to the divide by 1500 calculation. This is considerably more than the 6.4 cm faceplam number but, it's still not enough.

60 * 60 * 8 = 28800 inches (731.52 meters)

The drop due to the claimed curvature I'm getting is 731.52 meters for a distance of 96.5 km.

---

A 10 story building is 33 meters tall.

So if the Earth is flat a 10 story building should measure 140.79 m at a distance of 96.5 km.

If the Earth is round it should not be visible.

---

Do I get another facepalm or is this correct?
   

96.5 / 1500 = 6.4 centimeters

Guess it should actually read it.

96.5 / 1500 = 0.064°

How does a map of a spherical Earth confirm that the Earth is flat? It is obviously a spherical map, because it doesn't have a scale, just the words "60 Miles to the Degree" (nautical miles, that is). Degrees of what? Curvature of the Earth, of course! You have to take it into account to read the fucking map, and the map itself says so. Flat-Earthers are getting dumber all the time.

The earth is only flat to those who don't actually know how to Google search.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Nice try but you're attempting to use Astronomical Refraction to make your calculations. When Terrestrial Refraction is used the dispersion angle is so small it can't even be measured due to atmospheric turbulence.

Did they also prove that 3 gigantic elephants riding an enormous turtle have this flat earth on their backs?


You know, 'cause that would've been nice.

Several pages back, I did the actual math as to why, for example, you can clearly see the Chicago skyline at a distance of some ~60 miles.  When you take into account the curvature of light at the horizon, only some ~30-something feet of the skyline will be obfuscated by the curvature of the earth.  At a distance of 60 miles, the effect of light's curvature is so great that you can simply pretend a 500 foot-tall building is something like ~6 times it's actual height.  In other words, it's like a 500 foot-tall building is actually 3,000 feet tall, and you're observing that 3000 foot-tall building at a distance of 60 miles, which you would clearly see.

The math used by flat earthers to say "you shouldn't see the skyline at a distance of 60 miles" is flawed as hell as the other factors not taken into account perfectly explain why we see what we see.  Educate yourself, do the math yourself, and be amazed at the round earth.

(For some explanation, light bends about 0.5 degrees of arc at the horizon whereas a 500 foot-tall building occupies only about 0.08 degrees of arc at a distance of 60 miles, or 1/6th as much.  This means you can account for the bending of light by imagining the building is 6 times taller than it is and then calculating how much you would expect to see due to curvature.  For taller buildings which occupy more perceptual scope, it would be less than 6 times; for shorter buildings, it would be more than 6 times.)

Here:https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12645979

"Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Now if my camera and telephoto lens observes an object and captures it on film/CCD at a distance that would put it far below the supposed curvature of the Earth how is that not empirical evidence and proof of a flat Earth? I can come up with all sorts of "empirical evidence" that's just one point.

As for the drone, how do I protect it from the missiles that will be fired at it if I try and fly it across Antarctica?

"Broadly, the method places a lot of emphasis on reconciling empiricism and rationalism, and making logical deductions based on empirical data." There's no empirical proof just made up theories. Anything that doesn't go with the flat Earth theory is either a lie or conspiracy according to the believers; it doesn't surprise me that people call it a joke. Buy a drone, fly it over Antarctica (I'm pretty sure that yours wouldn't be the only one around there).

I got Kool-Aid by the barrel full!

You lash out with "idiodoc theories" but there's no substance to your rebuttal. You're attempting to rebut technical arguments and empirical proof with peer pressure.

 

Oh so I'm infringing on the Emperor Penguin's bird house am I?

Extrapolating that the Earth is flat from Antarctica's restricted access status was not the point here. There's better points for that argument. I was explaining to Lauda that one simply can't just go there and wonder around on their own in response to her questions about The New Standard Map of the World and the Antarctic ice ring. There's no "logical disconnect" here.

And again, I'm not interested in an "authority" taking me on an "authorized" predetermined fly by, that proves nothing. Since I'm prevented from flying a private jet over myself at gunpoint I might add that kind of puts a stop to using that part of the world to prove anything.