Flat Earth Believers, I would like to hear your ideas.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that you can take a Joy Flight in a Russian Mig up to 22KM (70000+Ft) and enjoy the spectacular views of the curvature of the Earth?

There is a massive different in seeing the subtle curvature of earth at 40000ft because the best view is from the cockpit, and seeing it at 60000+ft in the cockpit of a Fighter or the Concorde (while it was still around) is the easiest way and anyone can do it.

PS: Doing laser check over a 6KM lake of water will not reveal anything, your experiment is flawed.

originally posted by: NNN87

Are you people awake? Are you in this earth? What in the world are you talking about? 10cm?

For crying out loud go outside and grab some binoculars with you and repeat the experiment i mentioned, instead of talking about assumptions and maybes and ifs. Theres a world out there and one can clearly see that what you are told about its reality don't match to the observable experience.

what good will going outside with binoculars do??

do you not understand that the earth has a radius of about 6300km?? thats 6,300,000m.. you are how tall?? about 1.8m??

you expect to see visible curvature at 1.8m height of an object that has a radius of 6.3million metres??

you talk about perspectives but yet you completely fail on this one..

p.s. in fact when you keep claiming that you should see curvature from ground level you are claiming that the earth is no where near as large as it is.

a reply to: NNN87

and " whoosh " - with that you really did ` jump the shark `

BRAVO :p

your " new " claim - is the worst example of " pulling crap out of your arse " to sully this thread

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: NNN87

and " whoosh " - with that you really did ` jump the shark `

BRAVO :p

your " new " claim - is the worst example of " pulling crap out of your arse " to sully this thread

I have no idea why you reply, you said nothing of value.

Yes perspective and atmosphere has a lot to do with it, and yes lenses and all lenses including the eye create the illusion of ''curvature'' by the very design of it, the fact that one can magnify his own observational limits to a degree and see that the original formulas for curvature are based on illusion, then there is no need to continue investigating illusions, but ground based physical observations, which prove the earth is flat.

The size, i don't know, infinite. Stars and and other planets, maybe due to our perspective and the fact that we only see such a small amount of light visible, that could be a surface quite far away enough, to create the illusion of being seperate and isolated land masses. I don't know, but believing in mathematical formulas based on illusions created hy the optical lenses, kind of goes against my other senses.

originally posted by: NNN87

but ground based physical observations, which prove the earth is flat.

you fail to understand..
you are about 1.8 metres tall correct?? the radius of earth is about 6300km.. thats 6.3million metre .. thats just the radius, the diameter is about 12600km.. that 12.6million metres.. the circumference of the earth would thus be about 40,000km..

so from the ground when you are trying to measure the curvature, ill be generous and say you can see about 50km of the horizon (you cant, since your last proof was a youtube measuring only about 6km)

so you see about 0.1% of the earths curvature (and thats being extremely generous).. and based on your observations of 0.1% of an object, you can clearly make your conclusions???

add in to the fact that you just claimed that the eyes creates the illusion of curvature, the fact that you see something as flat would mean that in reality (your reality) it is actually curved because the eye has already made it curve to appear flat!

I don't know, but believing in mathematical formulas based on illusions created hy the optical lenses, kind of goes against my other senses.

ah so when you go and look at the horizon with your binoculars and lasers (like you claim you do) you dont believe those results??

a reply to: choos

No now you are just mixing everything up.

At the height of 1.7 meters the horizon is roughly 5km away, that's using eyesight. With some maginification one can see beyond the horizon and said curvature formula.

We have water and land as a reference, when looking at celestial ''bodies'' the lenses effect through the telescope including the eye is multiplied, that's why i mean that celestial bodies just appear to be round, and isolated. Humans can only see so much light.

But on ground observations as i stated, we have solid reference. Copernican formula is based purely on illusion that they for some reason did not account for in their calculations oddly enough, ignoring natural mathematical properties of nature.

That's what the whole globe model is based on, curvature. We can see that it is not true with simple experiments.

No i did not do the laser test my self yet, i have said so repeatedly. Waiting for thicker ice.

originally posted by: NNN87
a reply to: choos

No now you are just mixing everything up.

At the height of 1.7 meters the horizon is roughly 5km away, that's using eyesight. With some maginification one can see beyond the horizon and said curvature formula.

so what you are saying is that the earth curves at roughly 1.7m for every 5000m??

so you are suggesting that you can see, with your naked eye, a height change of 1.7m that is 5000m away?? are you an eagle by any chance??

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: NNN87
a reply to: choos

No now you are just mixing everything up.

At the height of 1.7 meters the horizon is roughly 5km away, that's using eyesight. With some maginification one can see beyond the horizon and said curvature formula.

so what you are saying is that the earth curves at roughly 1.7m for every 5000m??

so you are suggesting that you can see, with your naked eye, a height change of 1.7m that is 5000m away?? are you an eagle by any chance??

No, stop making stuff up.

There is a curvature formula, we should be able to see it, what i am saying is that it's not detectable.

You are making things up, stop it.

a reply to: NNN87

talking of " making thing up " you never did explain where your delusion of :

` the sun = 6300 km above the plane of the flat earth "

source

just so you cannot deny it

now the direct naked eye osbervation you are o fond of - falsifies that claim


simply observe the moon at a given time - then 4 hours later - observe it again - and note the apparent changes

here - helpfull graphic :



red lines = your view of the moon at time A

purple lines = your view of the moon at A +4 hours [ IF the flat earth delusion is true ]

bonus blue line - the observation of the moon from a point 6300km from you at A+4 HOURS

you should never have made the claim that you know the distance - you avoided it previously - but hey - one slip

observation wins - plat earth cult fails

now - are you going to address this - or pull another brave sir robbin ?

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: NNN87

You have to get up towards 40k feet to see it with your eyes (no mountains on Earth are that tall).

Here is an image from 1935, taken by the Explorer II Manned Ballon:

You can see the subtle curve of the Earth in the Photo, which was not taken with a fish eye or wide angle lens by the men in the capsule. this was at a height just over 72,000 feet.

Several countries, including Russia were attempting to do this, and in fact their crew died falling to Earth the year before.

Next up, how about some photos from 1947? Taken with a camera onboard a V2 rocket:

Taken from about 100 miles up. Source

Not bad from a captured German V2, huh? This was before NASA.

Now, before you (or anyone else) start yelling "LIES! PHOTO SHOPPED!", I have one question:

Why? Why lie?

Also: There is nothing stopping you, or any other Flat Earther out there from getting the camera equipment, and materials you need to make your very own high altitude balloon. You can launch that baby yourself and get your very own images.

So....it will either show you that the Earth is indeed a spinning ball.......or, it could prove that the Earth is flat.

Until a Flat Earth can show me an image of a flat Earth from 100 miles or more up, I'm afraid that the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of Ball Earth.

I guess your point with the old pics is that they couldn't possibly be faked? All they would have to do is cut off the top of the pic and make it curved, then put a black background behind it.

It looks fake too.

The first pic was taken from 72,000 ft.

That would mean that the horizon would be at around 350 miles out.

Calculator,

www.metabunk.org...


If you look at the fields in the foreground I would say this is at a smaller scale. Close to the horizon you can see the Black Hills of South Dakota. They are about 35 miles across from this viewpoint.

No way that we are looking at a horizon that is 350 miles away.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I did not say the moon is at that distance, i was talking about the formula for the diameter of earth using shadows, but instead pointing thst calculation upwards on a flat surface would give the rough estimate for the distance of the sun, or aka using curvature formula you would get the diameter of earth, or half of it.

I clearly said ''somewhere'' around the same distance since i don't know of a calculation based on moon shadows.

You have again drawn imaginary lines adding nothing, and have made wrongfully claims of what i said, stop it.

Your making stuff up, cut it out.

originally posted by: NNN87

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: NNN87
a reply to: choos

No now you are just mixing everything up.

At the height of 1.7 meters the horizon is roughly 5km away, that's using eyesight. With some maginification one can see beyond the horizon and said curvature formula.

so what you are saying is that the earth curves at roughly 1.7m for every 5000m??

so you are suggesting that you can see, with your naked eye, a height change of 1.7m that is 5000m away?? are you an eagle by any chance??

No, stop making stuff up.

There is a curvature formula, we should be able to see it, what i am saying is that it's not detectable.

You are making things up, stop it.

how am i making things up??

you are suggesting that you can see a change of 1.7m from a distance of 5000m away with the naked eye.

you are saying you can see the curvature of the horizon from 5000m away..
so pick two point out on the horizon and draw a straight line connecting these two, then find the centre and measure the height like this:


use your curvature formula to work out the height "b" in the diagram.. that is the height you claim you can see with the naked eye from 5000m away.

p.s. use a distance from a-c of about 50km, treat it like your field of vision.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Don't worry.

I'm still waiting for my answer of how anyone on earth who has a basic Point and Shoot camera can take a long duration photo of distant galaxies and star clusters with the Flat Earth Model on both the Northern and Southern Sides of the Planet, considering how photons and different light spectrums work with a camera.

The answer never came and I was given a children's story instead (I am not joking, I was given and actual children's story to ask my kids).

Do not expect an answer of basic intelligence or comprehension to follow.

I think a lot of people are waiting for answers that will never come...

Im still waiting on how planetary retrograde works on a flat earth model

There are no answers here... no logic...

just delusions...

a reply to: NNN87

so what distance is the moon at - remember - solar eclipse = moon IN FRONT of sun

so distance to sun = ?????????????

distance to moon = ?????????????

even if we double the distance - to 12600 km - your delusion still fails the lunar and solar paralax test

i dont know where your number came from - butt its wrong - and demonstrably wrong - thus your pathetic bsackpeddling

PS - the eratosthenes experiment measured the shadow of the sun and offered 2 explainations :

1 - the earth was a sphere with the sun at a great distance

2 - the earth was flat with the sun 3000km above the plane [ observations of the sun and moon disproove this hypothesis ]

ergo the earth is a sphereoid

a reply to: NNN87

you are the one making crap up - i shall now quote you directly :

On a flat plane with the moon with a somewhat same distance as the sun, ''diameter'' of earth calculations pointed upwards using shadows putting it at 6.3 thousand kilometres roughly, it would be the same effect as looking at a ceiling painting from different positions of the room.

there YOUR claim that both sun and moon are " about " 6300 km away

so - its your claim - stand by it [ as i said - we can double it - and the lack of parralax would still be a damming rebbutal ]

next - the lines i drew are not imagginary - but the perspective of viewing a solid object from 2 different angles

its hillarious that you now runaway from using perspective as soon as it turns against you

flat aerth delusion has failed again

a reply to: MatterOfPerspective

oh joy - another sock puppet

a reply to: ignorant_ape

All of you, are trying to apply Globe formulas which are purely based on the illusion of the optical lenses, atmosphere and perspective, on to a flat surface which takes into account the illusion of lenses and such.

Your still using imaginary numbers, i said somewhere!! Somewhere!! I never mentioned the size, the strength of the light or so on, i made a very rough single estimate, i don't know the disntace or exactly size, you are claiming things in my behalf.

a reply to: choos

We have explained this, when scientist tell us that a ship leaving ones location away from the viewer, that it disappears due to curvature, using the formula and today's technology like zoom cameras something the ancient never had, we all can clearly see that the original calculationsdont even apply to reality, but the laws of VISUAL perspective.

Yes we should be able to see curvature,using the formula, search it up.