So many say “they see the curvature” of the round ball Earth and that “settles it” for them.
I simply ask on the flattest places on Earth, where hundreds and even thousands of miles show only a few feet of elevation change. Where is the curve.
The math is simple. There must be curvature on a round ball. There must, yet …
Take the test. Estimate at what length of miles can you see in these two pictures and then do the simple spherical math of MILES X MILES X 8 inches to see how much earth curvature must be on a round ball earth, or use the chart below.
We should at least see SOME curvature on the left and right sides, if Earth were truly a globe.
Measuring the (Non) Curvature of the Earth; Basic Spherical Geometry
IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity–every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:
Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1 The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles.[4]
(note how many times 666 shows up)
| Statute Miles Away | Math | = Drop |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 x 1 x 8 = | 8 Inches |
| 2 | 2 x 2 x 8 = | 32 Inches |
| 3 | 3 x 3 x 8 / 12 = | 6 Feet |
| 4 | 4 x 4 x 8 / 12 = | 10.6 Feet |
| 5 | 5 x 5 x 8 / 12 = | 16.6 Feet |
| 6 | 6 x 6 x 8 / 12 = | 24 Feet |
| 7 | 7 x 7 x 8 / 12 = | 32.6 Feet |
| 8 | 8 x 8 x 8 / 12 = | 42.6 Feet |
| 9 | 9 x 9 x 8 / 12 = | 54 Feet |
| 10 | 10 x 10 x 8 / 12 = | 66.6 Feet |
| 20 | 20 x 20 x 8 / 12 = | 266.6 Feet |
| 30 | 30 x 30 x 8 / 12 = | 600 Feet |
| 40 | 40 x 40 x 8 / 12 = | 1,066.6 Feet |
| 50 | 50 x 50 x 8 / 12 = | 1,666.6 Feet |
| 60 | 60 x 60 x 8 / 12 = | 2,400 Feet |
| 70 | 70 x 70 x 8 / 12 = | 3,266.6 Feet |
| 80 | 80 x 80 x 8 / 12 = | 4,266.6 Feet |
| 90 | 90 x 90 x 8 / 12 = | 5,400 Feet |
| 100 | 100 x 100 x 8 / 12 = | 6,666.6 Feet |
| 120 | 120 x 120 x 8 / 12 = | 9,600 Feet |
SHOW ME THE CURVE????
Schleswig-Holstein mudflats, Germany
The mudflats in northern Germany’s Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea National Park are the largest continuous mudflats on the planet and therefore pretty darn flat. They stretch from the North Sea coast all the way to Denmark, but only part is periodically dry, the rest is under water. Hardly the tropics, North Sea beaches still attract large numbers of sun-starved Germans.
Salar de Uyuni
At 10,582sq km in size and about 100km across, Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia – the world’s largest salt flat – is roughly the size of Jamaica. The salt crust ranges from three to 10m thick, amounting to about 10 billion tons of salt – more than enough to cover the world’s French fries.
In fact, there’s so much salt there are even hotels built of it. But what lies beneath is worth the big money – that magic mineral on which mobile phones and laptops depend; lithium. Salar de Uyuni is the world’s largest lithium reserve.
Danakil Desert
Called the “Gateway to Hell” by locals, the Danakil Desert in north-east Ethiopia is definitely not a place to go to get a tan. Daytime temperatures surpass 50°C, enough to give you more problems than a badass bikini line.
The desert is not only the hottest, but also one of the lowest places on Earth and has a full range of unfriendly features such as regular earthquakes, volcanoes, geysers, salt canyons – and hostile tribes.
Everglades, Florida
Native Americans called it the “grassy waters”, others the “River of Grass”, which describes the Everglades located in southern Florida, one of the flattest parts of America.
Mosquito repellant is a must when visiting. The tiny winged bloodsuckers are a crucial part of the food chain, providing food for fish, which feed alligators, which feed giant pythons and so on. Want to get around easily here? You’ll need one of those cool airboats.
The Maldives
Welcome to the flattest country on Earth. The island chain in the Indian Ocean is so flat – between one and 1.5m above sea level – that only the occasional 2m high sand dune punctuates the otherwise table top surface. The rising sea level, though, threatens the existence of the 1,192 coral islands that make up the Maldives.
Lake Baikal, Siberia
Lake Baikal in the south of Siberia is not only the oldest and deepest lake in the world, but during colder months it freezes and forms one of the flattest surfaces on Earth. During the Russian Civil War in 1920, the White Russian Army fled the pursuing Red Army by crossing the frozen lake southward to China.
Cloncurry, Australia
The outback in Australia is famous for its vast, almost unending flat plains. Getting across them requires driving along strips of tarmac in a seemingly endless stretch of sameness that can make some drivers go bananas and question whether they are really getting any closer to their destination.
Bonneville Salt Flats
If you want to drive really fast, and we mean really fast, say 900kph for example, then this is the place to do it. Located in north-western Utah, the 121sq km flats are famous for the Bonneville Speedway where various daredevils since 1912 have strapped themselves into speed machines – some jet-propelled – and blasted themselves across the vast flats and into the halls of speed fame. In 1965, professional racecar driver Craig Breedlove topped 966kph in his jet-propelled machine.
Makgadikgadi Salt Pans, Botswana
The 16,000sq km Makgadikgadi Salt Pans in north-eastern Botswana flood seasonally and are not a single pan, but consist of many saltpans divided by sandy desert. Idiot drivers are discouraged, as it’s easy to become bogged or lost and with little hope of rescue.
Wadi Rum, Jordan
If you woke up tomorrow and found yourself in Wadi Rum, you might guess you had astral travelled to Mars. Also called the Valley of the Moon for similar reasons, the 720sq km desert valley is walled by sheer sided sandstone and granite mountains.
Aplanetruth.info 
Great work. Gonna have to repost this one. I know most people who originally started following my blog are undoubtedly getting SICK of hearing me hammer away on this topic like some broken record, but I just don’t know how to walk away from it, as though, eh, doesn’t matter, and I can somehow unsee what I have now seen….
I admit that lately, I do stop and wonder to myself, “How much DOES it really matter, in the grand scheme of things”, if essentially belief in the Flat Earth doesn’t really affect one’s day-to-day life in the end anyhow…? It’s not like we’re all lining up to board fake rockets to Mars anyhow, right?
But I don’t know, it certainly seems to matter to me, if for no other reason that now it’s like every time I step outside, I’m constantly looking at the world around me in such amazement, you know? It’s crazy how on just a personal level, it’s like my whole experience with nature is so different. I think there’s really something to that. There is something about the belief in “outer Space” and distances between everything supposedly being millions and billions of miles, light-years, etc., that just breeds a mentality of eventual apathy towards all of it. Copernican cosmology seems to have a very disempowering psychological effect on us over time, wouldn’t you say? Because for “ordinary people”, who don’t have their own Space shuttles or massive telescopes, we basically just accept that we can’t really know much about the world/cosmos on our own. We have to rely on the “establishment” for true understanding, and maybe that’s the real point, because it sort of indirectly fosters a psychological and even emotional reliance upon the “experts” and the “Group Think”….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said! I can totally relate to that feeling! I’m looking at everything differently and reevaluating everything I have been taught about our world and cosmos.
LikeLike
So aside from schools lying about the earth’s shape, what else did they teach you that was a lie? It appears you can spell and form sentences. Did schools have 2 separate curriculum? One for teaching the truth and another for teaching lies? You seem to know which were lies and which weren’t. How about providing a list of all the lies they taught and a list of all the truths? Good luck with that!
LikeLike
I agree
LikeLike
Personally, I find it embarrassing that people in this day and age believe the world could be flat. Just goes to show that paranoia breeds stupidity.
LikeLike
Tizzy, just debunk the facts above. We’ll let someone else decide on the paranoia and stupidity.
LikeLike
Tizzle I find it embarassing that so many people in this day and age simply hand over their lives to so called authorities like Globalists, Scientists and Religious Leaders.
They spend every breath of every day labouring to pay tax, pay interest and pay corporations and retain very little for their effort.
They wake up each day and do it again until they die. Perfect for a Globalist isn’t it???
LikeLike
I’m one of those people that can’t leave a paradigm shifting idea alone until I figure it out to my own satisfaction. As I am digging through this experience with the flat earth theory, a funny thing is happening. I keep finding incredible amounts of 666 issues. The newest one was the purported 23.4 degrees of the tilt of the earth. If 90 degrees is straight up and down, as we are taught in rudimentary geometry, then the number of degrees off vertical is 66.6 degrees. Hmm.
Also, thanks to this exploration into flat earth theory, it has become irrefutably clear that NASA lies entirely. Which severely begs the question of why?
Some have posited that NASA (and the other space agencies) lie for funding from “we the people”. That doesn’t really hold up though. There plenty of Black Ops programs that come out of other budgets, so the motive must be other than funding.
The arguments for global and heliocentric are very much like the arguments for evolution. In evolution theory, they add lots of time to get the magic conclusion. In global heliocentrism, they add lots of distance and lots of speed…but no photographic proof that isn’t CGI.
I guess at this point in my journey, the two biggest issues evidencing the likelihood of a flat earth are the lies of NASA (et al) and the lack of curvature. At only 8″ per mile (no square per mile) it isn’t even evident.
For those who hold solidly to the heliocentric global paradigm, I want you to logically explain the lack of curvature, and tell me why NASA lies about everything.
If the owner of the site doesn’t care for that challenge, please feel free to delete. Thanks!
LikeLike
There IS no lack of curvature. Therefore, no explanation needed.
I’ve seen no compelling evidence leading me to believe that NASA lies about everything. I’m sure they do lie, but I’ve yet to see solid evidence of it.
LikeLike
No. There is not curvature. But you can believe whatever you want. 8″ per mile squared is what it would have to be if we were on a globe the size they say it is. It just isn’t there.
LikeLike
Truthfarmer, regarding NASA or other nations’ space programs may I suggest you read sent weapons for quiet wars if you have not already done so. This will help answer the why of lies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Forgive me. It is silent weapons for quiet wars.
LikeLike
Thank you. While I haven’t read the book, I am familiar with most of the apparent subject matter.I’ll check into getting it though. I guess I also need to dig into NASA’a funding. I don’t know if it comes through the Defense budget, or as an adjunct of DARPA. And DARPA is easily one of the most obviously evil agents of the self appointed uberlords.
LikeLike
NASA is full of deceit. They father lies while making themselves sound intelligent because that’s what has always gathered ignorant people’s trust. They led me to consider what those wacko flat earthers had to say whom I deemed mad before I actually looking into what they reveal, and often through that free gift of reason that all could put to use if they ceased from the all-knowing man that made truth something “science” must tell us. However I know the Creator of all things did not hide the work of His hands for thousands of years only for wise NASA prophets to declare it in their time, whom the majority (if not all) are clouded atheists.
LikeLike
In order to see a curved horizon, you would need to live on a cylindrical planet. What are you people thinking? Or smoking, is more like it.
LikeLike
Really, Ken?
Why don’t you go take a picture of the surface of a basketball with the camera just above the surface and pointing across one of the lines. Then go take a five inch or larger pipe and do the same, except look down the length or across it. If you have the lens going across the diameter of the cylinder, you don’t see a curve. If you shoot down the length, it drops hard off both sides. With a basketball, it drops off both sides no matter how you shoot across the surface. As far as I know, not even Degrasse Tyson has suggested we live on a cylinder, which would be a potential for not seeing a curve on a specific line axis. He says our eyes are too small. But then expects us to believe that a thing designed by us small eyed beings can see entire solar systems….but can’t take a pic of the ball earth rotating.
Just try to be intellectually honest and really examine the flat earth proofs put forward before you go casting aspersions. Or if you prefer, just keep believing NASA.
LikeLike
You seem to think that capturing the earth’s rotation should be a simple task. So please, explain to us how exactly NASA would go about achieving this task? Especially considering that most cameras will be satellite-based and orbiting the earth at over 17,000 mph. Not to mention the fact that the earth will be rotating at a measly 15 degrees an hour. Sounds simple, doesn’t it?.
LikeLike
ALL motion is measurable/detectable. Where is that earth cam, David? Why don’t we have a real time camera in this technological world of 2017 on the moon? And satellites? Puhl-eeze! How can they send a signal to your phone if they are zipping along as fast as you claim? It’s all make believe. Why aren’t the dish receivers aimed up at ‘space’? Why do we need land based towers?
So many questions for your fantasy to even pretend to work.
LikeLike
I have been to The Makgadikgadi Pans and you can definitely see the curvature of the earth with your own eyes. It`s simple.
LikeLike
HOw far can you see? at what distance could you see the curve?
If you multiple Miles x Miles X 8 ” you get the spherical math in inches. Does this coincide with your viewing?
LikeLike
can someone use a computer mathematical model of the earth and compute a horizon on the computer screen at sea level and then just increase height until a curve can be seen, if the reality does not match the model, then the model is wrong and the earth is not a globe.
i have heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson say there is no height at which man can see the curve because we a small creatures. surely if the world is a globe there most be a point above the earth where the curvature can be seen because if you are at such a height you would see the world as a round disc, or pear shaped as Neil DeGrasse Tyson says it is pear shaped.
LikeLike
To see the curvature, one must be above 35,000 feet and have a 60-degree field of view.
It’s simple enough to send a camera up that high, it can be done for just a few hundred dollars, but FE theorists remain resistant to actually conducting the experiment, since it would prove they are wrong.
LikeLike
Not true Zimba.
There are many Weather balloon videos.
LikeLike
Not true Zimba.
There are many Weather balloon videos.
LikeLike
Not true Zimba.
There are many Weather balloon videos.
LikeLike
Not true Zimba.
There are many Weather balloon videos.
LikeLike
I made an App that computes the curvature of the globe and flat earth for different altitudes and shows the result graphically:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth&demo=Curve
LikeLike
Uhm, those videos show curvature. The first one shows distortion probably because of the lens which makes it appear sometimes concave and sometimes convex, but the others just show curvature very clearly.
In any case, my suggestion was that FE theorists perform their own experiments. The only way to keep it honest though is for FE theorists and FE skeptics to do experiments together to eliminate bias.
LikeLike
Actually they all show lens distortion. None of these are shot with what is called a ‘normal’ lens. As the cameras pan up or down, the horizon appears concave and then convex due entirely to lens design. These examples are all filmed with wide angle lenses designed to ‘capture’ a bigger image, much like cell phones are equipped. Go Pros use a wide angle format and provide lens correction software to enable users the ability to remove distortion from their imaging.
There is no curve and no, we are not too little to see it.
LikeLike
Then why did bluepill post them?
LikeLike
Mr, I’m taking the piss out of you, Tyson says that the earth is “an oblate spheroid” so how does an eclipse work and how come NONE of Never A Straight Answer’s fake pictures of earth show this? Also, how does earth’s supposed rotational speed comprehend if it is much ‘fatter’ in the middle and a narrowing pear shape below that equatorial point? Still waiting to be shown curved water. Still waiting for scientific proof of a vacuum existing next to a non vacuum. Still waiting for scientific proof of gravity instead of buoyancy, mass and pressure. Please remember that anything that has the word theory in front or after is NOT FACT. Still waiting for a logical explanation of the moon’s so called 1/6th gravity managing to shift our oceans but defying earths gravitational force by apparently drifting further away from earth. Still waiting to be shown tall buildings across major cities that are not vertically parallel to each other. Still waiting to see curved ice on the worlds largest frozen lakes. Still waiting to be shown a ship disappear over the curvature that cannot be brought back into view by magnifying optics. Still waiting for an explanation why we can see relatively small craters on the moon with the naked eye from 240000 miles away or the ISS at 220 miles away when we can only just see a plane at only 30000 feet. All those views are of course through our atmosphere. Etc. etc. etc.
LikeLike
If you’re talking to me, I’m a Ms. not a Mr.
Not sure what piss has to do with it, but your comment is classic Gish Gallop, which you are using to try to deflect from the fact that the videos bluepill posted don’t support FE, and that people on your side of the debate also don’t think the videos were useful.
LikeLike
Hi Zimba
All videos support FE.
You said “It’s simple enough to send a camera up that high, it can be done for just a few hundred dollars, but FE theorists remain resistant to actually conducting the experiment, since it would prove they are wrong.”
There are 4 above displaying no resistance to experimentation but a desire to get out and experiment. There are many more that i have watched.
All videos are shot with a wide angle or fisheye lens. This lens is accurate in the centre of the image and more distorted to the outside of the image.
When the horizon is positioned in the centre of the image you can see it is perfectly flat.
Further to this as the balloon with camera attached goes higher the camera would need to constantly pan lower to keep the horizon in picture. (If We Were On A Ball)
We are not on a ball. The earth is flat. the camera remains pointed at the horizon even at 120,000 feet.
Zimba you are not being intellectually honest with your approach.
LikeLike
The only way for it to be truly honest is if FE proponents and FE skeptics do the experiment together.
In the videos you posted I see curvature. poolman says there are lens issues. See what I mean?
Hey, maybe my eyes are warped or something. So then why not use a ruler or other straightedge to see if there’s a curve. So I fullscreened to videos and did just that. Guess what – curved.
I’m sure the folks at metabunk would love to do experiments with you. The main guy over there did a public debate with Dane Wiggington the chemtrails guy, so it’s not that outrageous to suggest something like that.
LikeLike
Zimba
You cannot see a flat earth from a ball earth perspective.
Free your mind.
Poolman is in good company as anyone with intellectual honesty knows the effect of a fisheye lens.
Not interested in a debate as i would then have to talk to a ball earth believer who most likely doesn’t even understand the ball earth that they believe in.
What is much more interesting is discovering old knowledge hidden from us which is becoming new knowledge again.Talking to others who are also on this journey of rediscovery is also interesting.
Debating with the willfully ignorant is pointless. Stupid people will have to catch up in their own time. It is their choice.
LikeLike
If you are not interested in debate, why did you post the videos? And now that the videos have been debunked by your own side, you say you don’t want to debate.
Honestly, I’m not trying to disrupt your mutual admiration society. At the same time I am happy t debate. Teddybear asked a question and I answered it from my perspective, then a lot of back and forth happened. If you don’t want to debate, why are you still responding to my comments?
LikeLike
semaj
That is a delightful summary above.
Well compiled.
LikeLike
“Tyson says that the earth is “an oblate spheroid” so how does an eclipse work and how come NONE of Never A Straight Answer’s fake pictures of earth show this?”
What does the Earth being a sphere or an oblate sphereoid have anything to do with whether or not eclipses are possible? And are you talking about lunar, solar, or both?
The oblate shape doesn’t appear in photos because the difference between the polar radius and the equatorial radius is less than a third of a percentage.
“Also, how does earth’s supposed rotational speed comprehend if it is much ‘fatter’ in the middle and a narrowing pear shape below that equatorial point?”
In what way does the Earth’s more imperfect shape make its rotation less comprehendable? Are you aware that literally any object can rotate about any axis in 3D space?
“Still waiting to be shown curved water.”
Would high-altitude weather balloon footage, in which water is in the frame, be acceptable? You’ll be hard-pressed to find footage over the middle of the ocean, seeing as that makes deployment and recovery far more expensive than it needs to be. Also: why does it need to be of water? Isn’t a curve in the Earth, land or water, good enough?
“Still waiting for scientific proof of a vacuum existing next to a non vacuum.”
I was confused by this statement until I read it again, and if I’m guessing correctly, then your objection is to the possibility of a vacuum existing around the Earth’s atmosphere, not to the possibility of vacuums in general. If that’s the case, then all I have to say is: the Earth’s atmosphere is a gradient. It’s not a hard transition between not a vacuum and a vacuum. This is because gases like to disperse due to the particles that make them up bumping with each other, and can only compress so much under a given force, such as gravity. Increase Earth’s mass and you’ll have a more compressed atmosphere. And the extent of the atmosphere increases with temperature. The first attempt at a space station, Skylab, was accidentally deorbited because the atmosphere got really hot, and expanded enough to start significantly dragging on it, reducing orbital velocity.
“Still waiting for scientific proof of gravity instead of buoyancy, mass and pressure.
You can do a simplified version of the infamous Cavendish Experiment. That’s the one that measured the value of the universal gravitational constant. Such a simplified experiment, linked after this paragraph ends, demonstrates the attraction of objects with mass.
Buoyancy and pressure alone does not account for the way objects stick to the Earth with 9.8 meters per second of acceleration. Without a force of gravity, we wouldn’t be here. If there wasn’t a force of gravity, then we would float into the sky because the air pressure at our feet is stronger than the air pressure at our heads, thus we are lifted up more strongly. In addition, with no force attracting air to the surface, they would all float away from the Earth too, since gas particles bump into each other a lot, and so without a force to confine them, then particles at the edges would get bumped away, and it would continue until all of the air was gone.
You need a force of gravity for buoyancy too, since it relies on liquids consistently applying pressure to objects with less density than the liquid. Without gravity to hold water to the Earth, an object hitting water would simply go right through it, or bounce away while the water splashes away in zero G. With gravity, though, the water is kept from being splashed away because it’s constantly being pulled down, which means it keeps putting pressure on the object, which makes it float.
You need a force that pushes things to the ground in order for anything to work like what we observe.
“Please remember that anything that has the word theory in front or after is NOT FACT.”
Please learn what the word “theory” means within a scientific context.
http://Www.notjustatheory.com
I challenge you to find a single active scientist who disagrees with these definitions.
“Still waiting for a logical explanation of the moon’s so called 1/6th gravity managing to shift our oceans but defying earths gravitational force by apparently drifting further away from earth.”
Do you understand what a net force is? It’s the total strength and direction of all the forces applied to an object. Earth’s gravity has a limited influence. It’s why the Earth isn’t a universe-sized black hole. If you apply a force in the opposite direction of Earth’s gravity, such as with the gravity of another celestial body, then the net force will change. The Earth pulls on the water less strongly, allowing water to bunch up (relative to the water not being pulled as strongly by the moon) as tides.
Are you satisfied with that explanation? It’s not that the moon is defying Earth’s gravity, it’s that the moon weakens the Earth’s pull by applying a force opposite of the Earth’s pull. If the forces were balanced equally, then the water would freefloat.
“Still waiting to be shown tall buildings across major cities that are not vertically parallel to each other.”
No one argues that you’ll be able to see that in a picture, and that’s because any distance away from the Earth that would have enough curvature in the frame that’s noticable, like five degrees of curve, the buildings would be too small to see.
“Still waiting to see curved ice on the worlds largest frozen lakes.”
You don’t need it to confirm the Earth’s shape. Such photos are very difficult to take. More indirect methods, such as watching objects drop below the horizon, are good observations, though.
“Still waiting to be shown a ship disappear over the curvature that cannot be brought back into view by magnifying optics.”
I’m still waiting for a flat earther to show that such a thing is possible in the first place. I won’t accept low-quality footage with really shitty atmospheric distortion, though, as that’s because zooming in gives you more resolution to see things that were previously too distorted to see. Get me footage of this on a clear day, and a model that explains this phenomenon and can be repeatedly confirmed through experimentation.
“Still waiting for an explanation why we can see relatively small craters on the moon with the naked eye from 240000 miles away or the ISS at 220 miles away when we can only just see a plane at only 30000 feet.”
What small craters? And are you aware that there’s a huge fucking difference in scale between those things?
LikeLike
Do you know the meaning of the word patronise? I have read a lot of books as well! Please show your experiments to convince me your answers are correct and where do your ‘facts’ come from?. I teach theory as well as practice and I am well aware of the difference but thanks for your input.
LikeLike
“Do you know the meaning of the word patronise?”
Yes. Question: I have no idea what point you’re trying to make with this, as I can’t find any connection between this question and anything else you’ve said, but if you’re trying to make the point that I think you’re making, then are you aware that tone is very difficult to accurately grasp through text alone, and so that mistakes in interpretations should be forgiven so that people can move on with a conversation because it’s more productive?
“I have read a lot of books as well!”
Why is this relevant and why are you mentioning this? Not all books are equal, you know.
“Please show your experiments to convince me your answers are correct and where do your ‘facts’ come from?.”
I’m not a scientist. I’m reporting scientifically accurate information, though, and am trying to do basic experiments when it’s convenient for me. Stuff like measuring the distance between the Earth and the Moon to prove that it’s not only a few thousand miles away. I, to the best my ability, am attempting to represent factually accurate information. Which is why I don’t use made-up versions of physics terms, and it’s why I have a basic grasp of forces that allows me to understand that if you put two objects side-by-side, one being pulled in one direction more strongly than the other, that will have an effect on the motion of those objects, and that this applies to water and thus explains tides.
Where are your experiments? Where do you get your facts? Because your understanding of buoyancy, mass, and pressure, does not represent what I understand those terms to mean, and thus when I compare your claims to how I’ve defined the terms (using the definitions used by virtually every scientist), I see that your claims don’t add up to the facts.
That’s just one example of where you’re wrong and I’d like to know how you think that you’re right.
I’d also like you to actually address the points of criticism that I’ve made, because not everything I’ve said is a direct physics refutation of your claims, but also confused questions and demands for further details and explanations as to what your claims mean and what your evidence is. Stuff like why the hell you think an object’s rotation is less comprehendable because of bulging at the equator and flattening at the southern hemisphere.
“I teach theory as well as practice and I am well aware of the difference but thanks for your input.”
You clearly don’t because at no point did I discuss “theory and practice”. What I discussed, with regards to theory, and this shows that you’re too dishonest to read a simple web page with five minutes of reading on it and simple citations that are easy to verify, is what it means in a scientific context as well as what “fact” and “law” means. Since you won’t read that webpage, I’ll summarize its already summarized info.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, taking in a multitude of facts and laws, that allows one to create testable predictions that could potentially confirm or falsify that explanation for the body of information. A bundle for many kinds of observations.
Fact: a confirmed observation of reality’s behavior. A verified point of data. Also sometimes used to describe theories and laws that are so well-substantiated by evidence that they are effectively impossible to refute.
Law: a description of how reality behaves under a given specified circumstance. A statement of behavior.
Please make less dishonest responses. I’d like to actually learn something, and you’re depriving me of that by giving awful responses. If you’d prefer, which I would, we could move to a more real-time format such as IMs or a Google hangout.
LikeLike
Zimba, my post was not addressed to you, clearly my sarcasm is taken out of context. What I was saying is that Mr De Grasse Tyson is extracting the urine with his treatise and is paid handsomely I am sure to perpetuate the lies. What I would really welcome is some simple, PROVEABLE explanations to my questions as listed within my last post. What seems to happen on here is that there is a resort to belittle anybody asking questions as being an ignoramus by people with closed, tunnel vision, controlled minds. Why can we not have sensible debate instead of point scoring I never understand. I am quite willing to be proved wrong if someone thinks they have the answers, but theories are NOT answers.
WTF is Gish Gallop????????????
LikeLike
Zimba, Rob Skiba did a recent video all about the curve. Here it is. If you can watch this and still believe we are on a ball, than I cannot help. Our minds always supersede our vision. Try with no preconceived notions going in…
LikeLike
The original post above says: “We should at least see SOME curvature on the left and right sides, if Earth were truly a globe.”
Is there any evidence or explanation why such a side-to-side view should show curvature?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Tom, spherical geometry requires it. An 8 inch per mile drop would be evident in all directions if we truly are on a sphere. The video I posted yesterday easily explains it.
LikeLike
poolman,
I watched about 1/2 the video, and was struck by the fair and continued use of “eye level” along with the activity of viewing the horizon. What was not included was how a person determines “eye-level” as they look towards the horizon.
I presume that to view at eye-level, one must use some sort of measurement so they are looking in the correct manner and direction. How is this achieved?
In addition, the video primarily/only describes a single viewing direction, that of the earth directly in front of the person. No side-to-side dimensional changes (especially at a distance) are mentioned or measured in what I watched.
I did appreciate the explanation of the necessity of the horizon needing to rejoin itself as a viewer did a 360 view by turning in a circle. Of course, the viewpoint in that example was still directly in front of the viewer, and not encompassing a side-to-side view.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Tom, I’m delighted to know you watched half the video.
Yes, eye level is a key term. It actually has a definition you can find in any dictionary.
Level is another key term and its meaning can be found throughout various dictionaries and engineering textbooks. Working with swimming pools as I do makes one very familiar with the term.
So, If you checked with your dictionary, you should know every sighted individual will have their own eye level. If you are standing upright and looking straight ahead, it is the distance from the ground to your eye’s pupil. That distance is constant for you no matter where you roam.
That is also the line of convergence where the sky and earth meet. It is called the horizon as it is always horizontal. This is totally testable. Go outside and check it out.
LikeLike
poolman,
The question I had asked was about how to measure eye level when viewing something at a sizable distance. How can this be measured?
“Straight ahead” is not detailed enough to know if the focus of your gaze is actually at the same height of your eyes above your feet.
If there is no clearly defined method for examining or determining that the thing you see is at “eye level”, then any assumptions and conclusions are clearly inexact, and not usable in a scientific discussion.
Thanks.
LikeLike
How can there be a scientific discussion about the heliocentric model then, since it is ENTIRELY based on theory and assumption?
What do you mean by a sizable distance? Sizable is relative, just as eye level is relative.
The horizon is where your vision ends. It is always distant. It is always horizontal. And it is always straight ahead. At eye level. The sky and earth converge there. This is the limit of our physical vision. But most humans are not level-headed. Maybe science can explain that.
LikeLike
Vague and imprecise claims about where “eye level” is for a “distant” observation is just a lot of BS. If you had any evidence of how to show where “eye level” was, you would most certainly want to produce it.
I can also guess at things, and my guess is that the horizon is below eye level. Now, where is your evidence to counter my claim?
I’ll even add an easier question. If the horizon is the limit of our vision (as you’ve said); how far away is that?
LikeLike
What dictionary or textbook definition do you find vague? Or have you even gone there? I am not the one who originated the term nor its definition and it has been common vernacular during more than my lifetime.
The only guessing I’m doing here is whether or not you are interested in truth.
It varies based on one’s altitude and the condition of the earth terrain and the atmosphere that serves as a lens we view through toward any such distance. Moisture can also visually distort and magnify images closest to the horizon.
As I have said, these are known and definable terms with testable claims.
LikeLike
poolman,
You failed to pay attention to context; I was clearly referring to “eye level” for a distant observation. Can you describe or link to something about that concept? Can you answer this basic question?
I also checked on horizon, and for about 6 ft eye level of the viewer, the horizon is about 3 miles distant. Can someone see the calculated “drop” of the earth’s curvature at that distance? I think the best prospect is that everything at a distance of 3 miles across water will look the same, as a relative observation.
Unless there is any evidence, how can you claim that what is being seen is flat, or is it curved? Eyesight isn’t precise enough to measure the earth at that distance.
LikeLike
>You failed to pay attention to context
I did no such thing. Do you understand the term ‘level’? I think that is what you are having a hard time grasping. Unless you are a child, you should be able to comprehend that whole concept. Level means we are not on a ball. There are no level places on a sphere. None.
Your eyesight is quite bad if all you can see is 3 miles. I think you’ve been listening to too much metajunk.
If you don’t address the level issue, this will be my last response to your posts.
LikeLike
poolman,
To quote you: “The horizon is where your vision ends. It is always distant. It is always horizontal . And it is always straight ahead. At eye level.”
I can measure my eye level, and my eyes are about 6″ high. Please measure “eye level” for the horizon, and be specific.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Level is the key. It is the answer.
Level in all directions near or far.
LEVEL
That is specific. That is definitive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
poolman,
Consider EYE LEVEL – your insistence on ignoring what I’m discussing shows your basic unwillingness or inability to address this 2-word term. You seem able to use the phrase (5 times), but unable to grasp that it has it’s own definition and measurement aside from one of its component words.
You’ve combined “eye level”, “distant”, and “horizon” in adjacent sentences. These are three distinct ideas, and deserve separate definitions and individual clarity. When there is a combination of some of these 3 ideas, that creates a new idea: “eye level at a distance” or “eye level and the horizon”.
I don’t hold out much hope that you intend to say anything more about “eye level”, which is odd since it was a feature of the video you linked, and have since largely ignored questions related to “eye level” in terms of the horizon or at a distance.
I thought a key part of this topic was about including the earth as context. Are you sure all you have to reply to this topic, is your new favorite word: LEVEL?
LikeLike
Tom, you just don’t understand common words and their meaning…
Eye level: (noun) The level of the eyes looking straight ahead.
Straight: (adjective) 1. extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend. 2. properly positioned so as to be level, upright, or symmetrical.
Ahead: (adverb) 1. further forward in space; in the line of one’s forward motion. 2. further forward in time; in advance; in the near future.
Level: (noun) 1. a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point. (adjective) 1. having a flat and even surface without slopes or bumps.
Distant: (adjective) 1. far away in space or time.
Horizon: (noun) 1. the line at which the earth’s surface and the sky appear to meet.
Internet troll: (noun) One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
LikeLike
An experiment I saw, and would like to try soon, is this. I think this might clear up your issue with “Level”. If the earth is a ball or a globe it is not level, it is an ARC, a curve, or the edge of a circle.
Your eye level is about 6 feet (by the way – this character (“) usually means inches.
1. Go to a beach where you can see at least two or three miles in a straight line on the beach.
2. Take two or three flags and place them on the level beach with the tops of the flags at EXACTLY 6 feet AND the flags all in a straight line from your observation point..
3. Place them a few feet from the water to make sure they are very “level” as water will be your level for this “two or three mile distance” experiment.
4. Place a scope or tripod at your beginning point at your eye level – at exactly 6 feet also.
Now we have at least three points of reference: a) observation point, b) flag 1 at 1 mile away, and c) flag two at two miles away. If the beach is long enough you could also have flag three at three miles away).
Sight down the flags from your observation point at 6 feet above water level. According to geometry based on the arc of the earth (if the earth is indeed a ball) you should OBSERVE the following.
1. Flag 1 will be your first reference point to the other flags (although it is actually 8 inches below level from where you observe if the earth is a globe).
2. Flag 2 will be 32 minus 8 (or 24) inches lower then the top of flag 1.
3. If you have a flag 3 it will be barely visible since it should be 6 feet below level where you are observing. if you had a 6 foot flag 4 miles away it would be below your vision and hidden by the curvature of the arc of the earth.
If we observe that all flags are even at their tops from the observation point – the earth is flat, not arc’ed. If the 2 mile flag is 32-8, or 24 inches lower then the one mile flag, then the earth is an arc.
Said another way – with a 6 foot high (from the surface of the earth) line of sight and a curved, arc, ball, globe earth, we could not observe or see objects UNDER 6 feet tall at distances past three miles. They would be below the arc or horizon.
Now people have reported seeing the Chicago skyline on the other side of lake Michigan at 60 miles away, but I’m not sure of their observation height from the lakes water. According to the math for the arc of the earth, if you were on the beach of lake Michigan, you should only see the parts of Chicago which were 2400 feet higher then the lake. If most of the skyline of Chicago is not that high, you would only see the tops of the highest buildings (those over 2400 feet high), not a skyline. Here’s the kicker, the tallest building in Chicago is only 1450 feet tall – the Willis Tower!!
LikeLike
Are you aware of the fact that you can’t always see the Chicago skyline from that place, that refraction is a thing, and you can demonstrate this by looking at the Chicago skyline and comparing it to the same buildings from the same angle and see that the proportions of the buildings are stretched out?
LikeLike