April 25, 2018 at 8:40 am #822623
T8, were you seriously only 248 meters high when you took that photo? Because if so, this is big.
Yes Mike, I was 248 metres high according to this google search. I was standing at an official lookout that has a recorded height of 248 metres. Next time I pass by here I will photograph the plaque if there is one. They usually tell you the height.
https://www.google.co.nz/search?ei=3pLfWtjlDcK58QXK-bTgDw&q=paekakariki+hill+road+lookout+248+metres&oq=paekakariki+hill+road+lookout+248+metres&gs_l=psy-ab.3…21581.21581.0.22507.1.1.0.0.0.0.224.224.2-1.1.0….0…1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0….0.YHnZWyGOOMUApril 25, 2018 at 11:14 am #822629
Gene: You also seem to think 53 miles away from something on a 24,000 mile curvature means you could see with the human eye a curve, i don’t think so. Even in that 53 mile experiment, if you were to fix a telescope at perfect level position you would not see the the buildings foundation point as you would at say a mile away.
Here is a experiment we all can do, go to the ocean and watch a ship heading straight out from you, you will notice as the ship goes further and further out you slowly see less and less of the (vertical) hight of the ship in the horizon, why? Because the ship is moving around a sphere, so the horizon is slowly rising above the ship as it goes further out until it completely dissappears from the horizon.
This 1 minute video explains it better than I could in a post.
I will reiterate his point that it’s not rational for you to think we couldn’t see curvature from 53 miles away, but we can see the effects of it from a boat going out of our view at 3-5 miles.
I will also add that you can’t expect to see the effects of curvature on the Y axis (the ship moving directly away from you) but not be able to also see that same curvature on the X axis (the distance you can see from left to right while watching the ship move away from you.) The ship goes out of your sight after only 3-5 miles, but you can see much farther than that from left to right at the same time. So if the ship is disappearing over a curve, then you will be able to see that same amount of curve (big enough to hide a 30′ tall ship) from left to right. In other words, you should see the water bulge up 30′ in the middle of your view, as compared to its height at both the left and right part of your view – like in the photo below. Notice also that if ships and balloons remained level with their particular part of the curved earth (an oxymoron), then from your part of the curved earth many miles away, you should view them as leaning left, right, or away from you.
Now imagine that you are person A on the image below. You are watching ship X as it is slowly going over the curve of the earth and out of your sight. Wouldn’t person B, looking at the same ship from the side, be able to see the curve that is making the ship disappear from your sight?
And just so you know, that last footage in the video of the perfectly flat earth was from a balloon floating almost 40 miles above the earth.April 25, 2018 at 12:03 pm #822632
T8: First off, the shadow is at the top of the moon because sunlight is peeping over the horizon and lighting up the bottom of the moon but not high enough or angled enough to light the top of the moon because the Earth is casting its shadow on that part.
Here’s a 1 minute video from the same guy who shot that upside down shadow, showing how what you’re saying is impossible…
Take your own light and two balls to represent the earth and the moon. No matter how you do it, if the one ball is causing the partial shadow on the other, the shadow will always be on the part closest to the ball that is causing the shadow. You simply cannot have the partial shadow on the part of the ball that is farthest away from the ball causing the shadow.
Anyway, I uploaded my poor quality smartphone video to YouTube, so you and Ed can check it out…April 25, 2018 at 12:12 pm #822633
So my own video that I just happened to shoot because I woke up for work and saw something cool in the sky proves – beyond any doubt – that eclipses are not caused by the earth’s shadow on the moon. But it gets worse. In the heliocentric model, you can’t see a full moon in the daytime, because the sun is supposedly 93 million miles farther away from us than the moon, and would therefore necessarily be lighting the back of the moon, not the full front that faces us. To do that, the sun would have to be between us and the moon. Yet we’ve all seen the full moon in the daytime with the sun high in the sky. Here’s one I took November 5th, 2017.
And another I took February 26th of this year.April 25, 2018 at 12:30 pm #822636
Nick: But seriously, someone from NZ should arrange tours to the Great Wall of Antarctica.
But if you can believe this it would be easier to believe in Mormonism and Preexistence.
There is no dispute that the wall exists. It’s just that some of us believe the wall encircles the entire perimeter of the AE/United Nations map instead of circling around into a continent.April 25, 2018 at 12:36 pm #822639
T8: For me, there is a huge range of evidence for the heliocentric model.
Which piece of evidence can you personally verify? Just list one.April 25, 2018 at 12:39 pm #822640NickHassanParticipant
- Topics started 284
- Total replies 70,962
If your anecdotal findings cause you to doubt science
why would you think it adds any validity to your ideas?
Paranoia about organised scientific skullduggery too?..April 25, 2018 at 12:44 pm #822641
Ed: At approx 20 mi distance at 30 feet height you can see 2/3 of the Sears Tower.
Run the numbers on that
117 feet hidden by curvature. I don’t think you’re going to set any records with that one. 🙂April 25, 2018 at 12:56 pm #822642
Gene: …flat earth therioies always disallows any existance of the true photos, from NASHA, ORBITING SATALITES OR FROM SPACE MISSIONS, WHICH SHOWS CLEARLY THE EARTH IS A SPHERE LIKE ALL OTHER PLANETS.
Which of these NASA images conveys the real ball earth, Gene?
I personally like the 2012 one, where North America put on a lot of weight. 🙂
Gene: …I could see across the hugh San Juaquine valley about 150 miles across, all the way to the costal mountains, to the pacific ocean about a 200 mile distence. We had just had a rain and the atmosphere was very cleary, and i could see from that hight the ocean it self…
Boy I wish you had taken a picture of that. You simply would not have been able to see even the very tips of those mountains were the earth really a ball 25,000 miles in circumference.
Gene: But as we decended down the horizion would seem to be closer and closer, why, because i was moving down and the refacted light which goes in a straight line was going over my head as i decended.
I’m going to talk a little about refraction, but I don’t have time today. But did you notice that the horizon was always at your eye level – whether you were up on the mountain or down on the ground? The fact that the horizon always rises to a person’s eye level is another piece of evidence that we don’t live on a ball. Because on a ball – no matter how big – the higher you go, the lower the horizon will drop in your view. On a flat plane, the horizon will rise in your view as you rise.April 25, 2018 at 1:15 pm #822644
Hey T8, I put Mt Ruapehu and Paekakariki Hill into Google World. It shows 127 miles distance, but looks like it is all over land, whereas your photo looks to be over sea. Do you have the locations right? Just double checking.April 25, 2018 at 1:20 pm #822646GeneBalthropParticipant
- Topics started 42
- Total replies 16,604
Mike.., light does go in a straight line, but light can also seem to bend if it is refacted by something between you and its source OF REFLECTION, i still do not believe it actually bends it is just redirected by refraction AND SEEMS TO BEND.
The earth is so large it takes a great distence to calculate its cruve from what seems to be a “flat plain”. But there is a apsolute formula that can be used to calculate it perfectly. The earths roundness can be very accurately calulated, the curve is large it is beyond our normal vision but can be acurately calculated and has been. But from outer space it can be clearly seen from outer space as many thousands of different picture of it clearly show, literely thousands of them. The flat earth therioies only seem to work if you completely disallowed all of them by some kind of conspiracy theory. But fact is we can even see those satlites in space with the naked eye with the right night lite. And very easely with a small telescope.
Have you ever heard of the orange explanation of why the earth seem flat to us. Cut a straight flat piece of an orange off, now look at the flat round cut off part of the orange, from the center of the cut to the outer edge it looks flat, this represents our horizon view limits we are capable of while standing on this earth, even though our horizontal vision is only speck compared to that orange cut of, it looks perfectly flat, no matter which way we turn. Same as our horizon because light moving byond our line of site goes over us so we cant see it, it simply goes over us and the object beyond the horizion can not be seen, this demonstration can be seen on utube.
But the best and easiest proof is the photos taken from outer space back on earth, you or the flat earth therioies can’t get beyond this evidence, because it actually does exist. The only reason we can’t see the curvature of the earth from the earth is because of the size of this huge earth and because we are so small compared to it.
Peace and love to you and yours. …….geneApril 25, 2018 at 1:23 pm #822647
T8: I know that things can look bigger on the horizon because of the way light is reflected through moisture or something like that.
It’s called atmospheric lensing. You can see it in the photos I posted yesterday too. You’ll notice the shot from 55 miles away shows the mountain magnified as compared to the one I took from a couple miles away.April 25, 2018 at 1:26 pm #822648
T8, with the information you gave me, the mountain in the distance should have 1723 meters hidden by curvature.April 25, 2018 at 1:30 pm #822649
Mike, if from the perspective of the viewer the sun was hovering just above the horizon and the moon much higher than the horizon, then why couldn’t the shadow be different if the sun was higher on the horizon and the moon lower? When lunar eclipses happen, I assume, (I’m no expert) that the sun and moon could be postioned differently and it is their interaction regardless of their position that proves the eclipse. We have to factor in variation to the shadow. Then add in the different position on Earth of the viewer. He or she could be on top of the world in Norway, near the bottom in New Zealand or on the equator in Ecuador. Perhaps this would give many variations of the shadow as being above, below, to the side, or a full shadow or no shadow. I watched the following video and tried to imagine it from the Earth surface in varying positions. While I may not have the photographic mind of Tesla, it is not hard to assume variation in relation to the various positions of the heavenly objects and the viewer’s position. I find it hard to imagine all the possibilities so I remain humble about what is actually possible in the heliocentric model. For me, I need to prove that the heliocentric model can produce this result which I am not sire how to go about and also prove that the video is 100% genuine.
Also, I note that while it is true that an eclipse is taking place for one viewer, it may not be for another. So is the eclipse true? Of course, but it is not universally true for all people/viewers. So I also conclude that yes the world is flat from one perspective and a sphere from another. If the viewer was travelling really fast, things in the Universe would look different again. Our now moment is not even consistent to everyone else’s moment due to light speed and vast distances in space. Time and perspective is not a constant even though our senses tend to think it is. This opens up interesting scenarios if the viewer travels at the speed of light or close to it for example. But that is another subject, but suffice to say, all reality is only true to the viewer because each viewer is presented with a slightly different reality and all the more the further away they are from each other.
For example, there may be a fire on my street and this is true for my neighbour. But for you, this may or may not be true. So the world is flat when I am walking around the Earth from my perspective. I cannot detect the curve. I assume however, if I was sitting on Mars that I would see a spherical Earth. ANd sure this is an assumption because I cannot afford the fee to Mars as it is currently way to prohibitive to go there.
Again, I am not expecting you to rebut or answer everything I am saying. I’m just putting it out there as general ideas for the discussion or there may be something you can dispel easily.April 25, 2018 at 1:41 pm #822651
Gene: The earth is so large it takes a great distence to to calculate its cruve FROM A FLAT PLAIN. But there is a apsolute formula that can be used to calculate it perfectly.
Yes, it is the formula I’ve been using – the one you and anyone else can find on the internet. It is based on the Pythagorean Theorem. I don’t know the mathematics behind it, but I do know that all of the earth curvature calculators online use the same exact formula, and that they are all run by people who believe the earth is a ball. I also know that you can just Google, “What’s the formula for the curvature of the earth?”, and they’ll tell you it’s 8 inches per mile squared. Note that this simplified version only works for up to 1000 miles or so. After that, you have to break out the hard math again. Here, I’ll show you…
Notice the phrase I typed into the Google box. Notice the result. Now if you do the same, you can scroll down the page and find all kinds of earth curve calculators. They will all use the same formula, because it is the only formula for determining the curve on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. They’ll tell you it’s “simple trigonometry”. 🙂 You’ll also find sites and articles that will walk you through the math step by step, but the end result is always the same.
Gene: But the best and easiest proof is the photos taken from outer space back on earth, you or the flat earth therioies can’t get beyond this evidence, because it actually does exist.
You didn’t tell me which of the NASA earth images you liked best. But let’s assume you’re right, and all those NASA images are real. Would you then agree that before the 1972 Blue Marble image, nobody could know for sure the earth was a sphere?April 25, 2018 at 1:43 pm #822653
Hey T8, I put Mt Ruapehu and Paekakariki Hill into Google World. It shows 127 miles distance, but looks like it is all over land, whereas your photo looks to be over sea. Do you have the locations right? Just double checking.
Good question Mike.
When I took the pic, I assumed it was Mount Taranaki which is a volcano further east. Here is a couple of pics I took some years back of that mountain.
I initially assumed the mountain in my photo in question was Taranaki because of the water and because it is common knowledge that you can see it from there on a clear day. Perhaps that makes it more amazing if it is that volcano because it is not as high and further away.
But upon closer examination, I discovered it was Ruapehu instead and I have never heard anyone saying they could see Ruapehu from there, but you can clearly see that it is that one due to the shape. Taranaki is a near conical shaped volcano and is often used a Mt Fuji double in movies that try to depict that volcano before modern times, because there is little urbanisation nearby.
You can for example see that the picture of Ruapehu I posted along with mine, the same contours and overall shape.
So why is there water between me and Ruapehu. My guess is when you seriously zoom into a subject, all the horizontal lines stretch out and the lines between me and the volcano shrink to bring the subject closer. Could someone confirm if this is a known photographic phenomena. There is a bit of water between me and the volcano because I am standing very near the coast. So I assume the water is stretched width way when using the zoom lense.April 25, 2018 at 2:22 pm #822654
T8: Mike, if from the perspective of the viewer the sun was hovering just above the horizon and the moon much higher than the horizon, then why couldn’t the shadow be different if the sun was higher on the horizon and the moon lower?
I promise you my friend, what you’re imagining is impossible. Here is a screenshot from your video. I’ve drawn me with the sun coming up behind me, and from my view, the bottom of the moon is shadowed by the earth while the top – not yet blocked by the earth – remains lit. The green arrow points to what I’m seeing as the bottom (dark from the earth’s shadow), and the purple arrow points to what I’m seeing as the top of the moon (still directly lit by the sun).
This time I’m still in the same place, but I’ve colored the moon to how it was when I videoed it that day – shadowed red on top (from my view) and brightly lit on the bottom (again, from my viewpoint).
Do you see it now? There is no way you can make the earth cast a shadow on the part of the moon that is further from the earth, while the sun somehow shines through the earth to light the closer part.
This last one is also a screenshot from the same video, and it is to show you why we would never be able to see a full moon during the daytime. Notice how the day part of the earth is seeing a dark moon, since the sun is on the other side of it.April 25, 2018 at 2:37 pm #822658
T8: But upon closer examination, I discovered it was Ruapehu…
So out of 2797 meters, 1723 should be hidden behind the curvature of the earth, leaving only 1074 meters visible to your location. Does it look to you like almost two thirds of that mountain is missing? Because it sure doesn’t to me.
Uh oh, you’ve just presented irrefutable scientific evidence against the ball earth. 🙂April 25, 2018 at 2:48 pm #822659GeneBalthropParticipant
- Topics started 42
- Total replies 16,604
Mike thousand of photos not even from Nasa, but others, they all confirm that the earth is round. You simply can’t get past that even if you ignor the exact calculation formula. IMO
peace and love to you and yours. ……geneApril 25, 2018 at 4:01 pm #822660NickHassanParticipant
- Topics started 284
- Total replies 70,962
So your plan is to disprove science using science?
And you believe what you believe from the ideas of other believers?
You were doing so well before you so so distracted by this time wasting and foolish trivia.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.