- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 3 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
Here’s a photo version of the same…
The guy on t8’s video is misleading people on purpose. t8 also posted a young kid a while ago making the same baseless claims. The math is the math, based on a ball earth. You’ll see in the chart that, like the girl D4T just posted, the calculations are done both with the Pythagorean theorem (designed exclusively to figure out things like drop on spheres) and spherical trigonometry. You’ll see the formulas listed at the bottom (using the same Cosine method that t8’s guy said we didn’t use). You’ll see above each column the method those figures were derived from. You’ll see that the figures in both columns are virtually identical. And most importantly, you’ll see that the 8 inches per mile squared formula matches all the way to about a 400 mile distance (farther than we can see anyway).
So yes, the Pythagorean theorem, spherical trigonometry (as confirmed by the professional AutoCAD program), AND the 8 inches per mile squared formula ALL come up with the same results.
The formulas are correct, and t8’s guy is like a lot of “flat Earth debunked” guys… trying to convince people who don’t have the desire to look into things for themselves by telling them blatant lies or simply parroting completely unproven crap like their refraction rescue device.
t8, do you understand that we can zoom in and see cars/boats from over 15 miles away?
Do you understand that a boat would be 100 feet behind the curve (at a 5 ft viewer height) at 15 miles?
(Check any online earth curve calculator you want – including the Metabunk one from your buddy Mick West.)
Do you understand how this completely destroys your argument that a boat would be too small to see on THIS side of the curve?
1. Completely disappears behind the curve at only 5 miles.
2. Able to see it from 15 miles.
3. To small to see when still on the viewer’s side of the curve.
Do you see how 1+2 will never equal 3 in this case?
Okay, so you are saying that 8” per mile squared is a valid way to measure distance even long distances.
Earlier I showed a video or text that stated this was good for surveyors but becomes increasingly inaccurate for long distances of which it was never designed for.
Then the latest video states that this math is based on a hyperbola which is two curves that are like infinite bows. See diagram below.
I won’t spend too much time on this, but will do some research to see if this is the case.
t8, do you understand that we can zoom in and see cars/boats from over 15 miles away?
Do you understand that a boat would be 100 feet behind the curve (at a 5 ft viewer height) at 15 miles?Those cars look like they are going up a hill Mike which changes everything.
If it was the same altitude, how could you see those buildings in the background?
And the cars are going up a hill by the look of it.
This is extremely weak evidence if you can call it that because the town and road are higher up. You can tell that just by looking at it. If the shot was taken at the same altitude exactly, then the distance wouldn’t be raised up as you see in the shot.
The amount of obstruction for a distant object depends on:
- The distance of the object.
- The height of the observer.
- The height of the object.
- The magnitude of atmospheric refraction.
Flat-Earthers often fail to account for observer’s height and atmospheric refraction, or make other mistakes. Once all are considered for, and mistakes are fixed, everything will be consistent with the spherical Earth. Remember when you were corrected by Dazza? And he stated correctly that the Ruapehu shot was a good case for a spherical earth when the math was done correctly.
In this case Mike, I think the error is with the height of the objects. If the objects were entirely on the same altitude, it would be a line, but instead you see that the further back you go, the higher the objects.
In other words, you are looking not at a flat surface but a tilted plain. This cannot be compared to water which as you guys say, ‘finds its level’.
Replies being put into spam fix
I think this problem is sorted.
Comments were set to two links max otherwise it was flagged as spam. This setting never affected the forum, but it appears to do that now. I changed it to 20 links which is a lot. That includes images and videos.
Spammers often post lots of links, but this forum is sort of different in that it is not full of members that we are not familiar with. So it is easier to keep tabs on spammers. Thus increasing posts to 20 links should be fine.
Has a Working Flat Earth Map Finally Been Produced?
Dang, it works for one season. Back to the drawing board.
Unbelievable Epic Zoom Powers P900 Nikon
A random dude testing his new camera out captures a container ship behind the curve.
He has no idea what it is and doesn’t appear to be involved in the Flat Earth debate at all.
I was thinking Mike that the best thing you could do is film a container ship yourself going over the curve. When that happens, my guess is you would be forced to explain it and the globe is the only thing that makes sense.
Why not attempt to get such footage yourself? Or doesn’t the truth matter only your opinion?
What have you got to lose? Only belief in lies.
I have started the video at the relevant point.
t8: Usually you can see Kapiti Island as clear as day and even the South Island is clearly visible most days.
Does anyone want to take a guess why they vanished?
Take a guess? I’ve already pointed this out to you a dozen times! 😁 You have now filmed proof of what I was saying. See, when Nowicki shoots Chicago from 55 miles away, the ballers say it is a mirage – and offer as proof the fact that you can’t see it every day. The flat earthers agree that it can’t be seen every day. The difference is that the flat earthers know it is THERE every day, it’s just that at this distance, the air quality must be very clear to see it. The ballers say that it ISN’T there every day, and we can only see it when atmospheric conditions are just right to loom a mirage of the city up and around the curve it is always behind.
Now think this out… if your ball earth math (I’ll get to that later) says we SHOULDN’T be able to see Kapiti because it’s behind the curve, then you would use your foggy, low quality air video as proof that Kapiti is behind the curve – and only looms up over the curve on special clear days. We would argue that it’s always there, but unable to be seen on days when the air quality isn’t pristine.
In this case, since your ball earth math DOESN’T say that Kapiti should be over the curve, you are able to understand that the island is still there in your video – it’s just that the air quality prohibits you from seeing it that day. In fact, I made a challenge video to all ball earthers to explain how they know when a distant object is a mirage or the actual thing. Your boy Dazza was the ONLY one (out of dozens of ball earthers who troll my channel) who openly admitted that the ONLY evidence they have that it is a mirage is the determination of whether or not they SHOULD BE able to see that thing on a ball with a circumference of 25,000 miles.
And that, t8, is the fact of the matter. Chicago is only “a mirage” because ball earthers know from their ball math (8 inches per mile squared) that we WOULDN’T be able to see the actual Chicago from that distance on their ball. If there math said we should be able to see it from that distance, then they’d agree that Nowicki took a photo of the actual city of Chicago. But since their math says we shouldn’t be able to see it, it is automatically a mirage jumping up and around the curve and placing itself perfectly on the horizon so it only APPEARS as if we’re seeing the actual city. Really? Perfect Chicago? No distortions or waving or other mirroring effects that ALWAYS accompany mirages? 😂🤣
So the reason you’re not seeing Kapiti in the video is because the air is foggy, prohibiting you from seeing an island that actually is there all the time.
t8: Okay, so you are saying that 8” per mile squared is a valid way to measure distance even long distances.
Yes… up to about 400 miles – at which point the 8″/mi² starts to error on the side of the globe. But you can check it yourself. Right now, the world record of distance photography is 275 miles…
So using my chart above, let’s compare 300 miles on a ball earth – since nobody can see that far through our atmosphere anyway.
300 (miles) x 300 (miles) x 8 inches = 720,000 inches. That is miles squared (300 x 300) times 8 inches. Good so far?
720,000 inches divided by 12 to get feet… 60,000 feet. Now, look at the middle column in the chart I posted above. That is the figure derived using the Pythagorean theorem. Do you see that at 300 miles, the hidden amount would be 60,101 feet? Still good?
Okay, let’s divide that 60,000 feet by 5280 (the number of feet in a mile)… 11.36 miles. Now look at the right column in the chart above. That’s the figure (in miles) derived from the spherical trigonometry that the guy on your video said we didn’t use. Do you see that at 300 miles, the hidden amount would be 11.38 miles?
So far, the 8″/mi² formula is spot on… all the way up to 300 miles away – a distance we can’t see anyway. (And you can test the 8″ formula all the way up the scale if you want to see it works at 10 miles, 20 miles, 50 miles, 100 miles, etc.)
Okay, now let’s use an online earth curve calculator to see if that 300 miles still matches. We’ll set the eye height at zero, since these figures are all based on how much drop there’d be if you were lying flat on the ground.
Do you see the result at 300 miles? 59,932 feet of drop. So even at the unseeable distance of 300 miles, the 8″ formula matches the Pythagorean theorem, AutoCAD spherical trigonometry, and a random (non flat earther) online earth curve calculator. All of them give approximately 60,000 feet of drop at that distance.
Okay, now let’s try globe zealot Mick West’s MetaBunk earth curve calculator…
So first, go below the bolded type to see the geometric results. Can you see that the drop and the hidden are both approximately 60,000 feet? So can you now understand that – even at the impossible distance of 300 miles – the 8″ formula, the Pythagorean theorem, spherical trigonometry, AND two different online earth curve calculators (including flat earth hating Mick West’s) all match at about 60,000 feet of drop?
I really want you to understand this this time, so we don’t have to continually go through you implying that the formula is incorrect every time we post a distance photo.
And I really want you to understand that these flat earth debunkers you’re believing, because they say what your ears are itching to hear, are LYING TO YOU! A while ago, you posted a 17 year old kid just making the claim that we’re doing the math wrong – and you believed him without even checking into it. And just the other day, you posted another guy saying we’re doing the math wrong, and you believed HIM too. Did you notice how condescending he was? Did you notice how he used big words and hard mathematical concepts to convince people like you that he knew what he was talking about concerning parabolas versus spheres? Most of them go even farther than he did, using all kinds of vulgar language to convince the unwitting like you that we flat earthers are a bunch of mathematically inept idiots who don’t know what we’re talking about.
Have you learned your lesson finally? Have you figured out that these people convincingly tell you that WE’RE wrong while themselves appealing to arguments where THEY’RE wrong? And that’s the basis of EVERY “flat earth debunked” video out there, dude. And anyone who takes even a cursory look into the flat earthers’ claims VERSUS the claims the debunkers make about our claims will be able to figure out that WE’RE the ones speaking truth – and THEY are the ones lying through their teeth in an effort to convince people like you to not even look into flat earth because it’s so stupid.
Now you know that you might have to do a little more than posting a “flat earth debunked” video if you actually want the truth of the matter. The only question is whether you do want the truth of the matter that the Bible has been right all along… or would prefer to just keep posting videos and parroting arguments that you can’t personally understand or explain. That choice, as always, will be yours.
I really want you to understand this this time, so we don’t have to continually go through you implying that the formula is incorrect every time we post a distance photo.
I have always said that everything is up for debate. Even that. Wisdom tells me that you can run with a formula, but always be open to new information. I have always said that one possible explanation for so-called seeing over the the curve is that the math is not that accurate to begin with. Just because I don’t mention it all the time doesn’t mean I have changed my stance. However, it doesn’t seem to be needed as for example Dazza pointed out that my Ruapehu shot made a good case for the globe and indeed it did. I know you have other cases, but investigating them to the nth degree takes time and not sure I want to commit to giving away time as it is very precious. I am wary of course of chasing rabbits and wasting the time God has given me. I spent a lot of time looking at the Ruapehu shot and it paid off.
Take a guess? I’ve already pointed this out to you a dozen times! 😁 You have now filmed proof of what I was saying. See, when Nowicki shoots Chicago from 55 miles away, the ballers say it is a mirage – and offer as proof the fact that you can’t see it every day. The flat earthers agree that it can’t be seen every day. The difference is that the flat earthers know it is THERE every day, it’s just that at this distance, the air quality must be very clear to see it. The ballers say that it ISN’T there every day, and we can only see it when atmospheric conditions are just right to loom a mirage of the city up and around the curve it is always behind.
I will just say that rarely is Kapiti Island invisible, in fact I have never seen it hidden in my whole life. The island is close and thus huge and stands out even on unclear days. The cause is the Australian bush fires. NZ has been enveloped in smoke and dust the last few days. It’s been so bad that even the sun is hard to see at times. Australia is some 2500 km away. That’s the equivalent distance of London to Istanbul in Turkey or Los Angeles to St. Louis. That is near apocalyptic in my opinion.
“Okay people, you can go anywhere in the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone Park. You can explore anywhere you want in the great Outback territory. You can hike across the Alaskan wilderness to your heart’s content. But the only place you can’t fly over, explore freely, or even come close to is Antarctica because…” (You fill in the rest.)
I saw this post when looking for another, so I thought I will give you a quick answer.
Anyone can land on Antarctica and not be stopped. There is no fleet of ships with lizard people at the helm waiting to arrest you.
The thing is, you will likely not even reach the shore because of the ice and if you managed to reach the continent itself, you will die. It is cold, there is little to zero food, and it doesn’t rain. But you will die of the cold before starvation and unlike Alaska there are no cities to take refuge.
You totally underestimate how hostile Antarctica is, Alaska is a summer holiday camp in comparison. But feel free to go there and explore. Start a Gofund me page or something. Prove it to yourself, but you will pay with your life.
t8: I have always said that one possible explanation for so-called seeing over the the curve is that the math is not that accurate to begin with. Just because I don’t mention it all the time doesn’t mean I have changed my stance.
But now we don’t have to EVER hear about the math not being accurate again, right? Now you KNOW that the math IS the math for a ball with a radius of 3959 miles – and is accurate via the 8″/mi² formula, the Pythagorean theorem, spherical trigonometry, and demonstrated as accurate by EVERY online earth curve calculator out there, right? And now you KNOW that your 17 year old kid and your most recent “debunker” were just blowing smoke up your ass because they know your itching ears only want to hear what they want to hear, right? In other words, they’re PLAYING you because they know that most of the people who watch their videos don’t WANT to know that the earth is actually flat and stationary with a dome over it.
t8: However, it doesn’t seem to be needed as for example Dazza pointed out that my Ruapehu shot made a good case for the globe and indeed it did.
No, no, no… he did NOT make a good globe case with your photo. He embarrassed himself by trying to overlay a much closer photo of the mountain on top of yours. He also appealed to nonexistent never-been-proven “refraction lift” to make the observation match the model, whatever it took. The fact that your photo proves a FLAT earth is found in the hills and valleys in front of Ruapehu. In your model, the top half of Ruapehu would have been sitting on top of water – with nothing but ocean below it. I’ve shown you this multiple times already. But this is just like you constantly saying “the flat earthers’ math is wrong”. You didn’t understand HOW it was wrong – you were just told that it was (by a 17 year old kid no less) and blindly believed it. Now you understand how our math WASN’T wrong though, right? That’s good. Unfortunately there are no charts or online calculators for your photo of Ruapehu that I can show you to drive it into your head. So you keep on saying that Dazza proved me wrong if it makes you feel better, but just remember that you also said the 17 year old kid (and this other guy from a couple of days ago) proved me wrong too. And now you know that to be false, right?
Besides, if you can’t actually articulate any errors I’ve made all by yourself, you’re only parroting other people’s crap, and nobody gives a blind parrot too much credence. I and D4T can also parrot “billions of years” and “big bang”, and “millions of light years away” and “redshift” so we can “look cool and smart” like you. But we’re not blind parrots. We both spent many YEARS on that other forum, painstakingly researching and debunking these laughable ideas. The same goes with flat earth. I’m not here to just parrot some things that other flat earthers say, t8. I’m doing my own research so I can know that of which I speak to the best of my ability. I wish you’d do the same.
After all, there are few people on earth who have researched the Trinity Doctrine more than you, right? You can speak with authority on that subject without even thinking too hard because YOU have already put many, many years of ongoing research into it. You know I’ve done the same right? You remember my battles with Lightenup and Kangaroo Jack and Worshiping Jesus and all the others, right? You know that I put the time in, and that I know that subject like the back of my hand – just like you, right? Gene knows it too. And Nick. And Ed. How about giving me a little benefit of the doubt on this other thing I’ve been researching then? Have I gone from “genius” on the preexistence of Jesus to “idiot” who can’t add or think straight that soon… only because this new subject is something you find ridiculous? Now I’m all of a sudden some drug crazed crackhead – but you’ll gladly invite me to help you in other battles?
t8, you were wrong about the curvature formula – and I was finally able to make you see that. You’re also wrong about Dazza and Ruapehu – but I haven’t yet found a way to make you see it that you’re willing to accept. But then again, only one of us has put the time in on this subject.
t8: I will just say that rarely is Kapiti Island invisible, in fact I have never seen it hidden in my whole life.
Air must be way better there then. Because like I said, I’ve shot Superstition from 55 miles away, and often can’t see it from 10. So much haze and pollution here that the mountain looks like gray sky from only 10 miles away. Anyway, the point is that IF Kapiti was supposed to be behind the curve, then you’d be seeing a mirage of it being loomed up around the curve. Since it’s not supposed to be hidden by curvature, you’re seeing the actual thing.
That’s just how it works with globe proponents. Dazza has openly admitted as much, and you should too. Fact: It’s only “a mirage” IF the ball earth math says we’re seeing something we’re not supposed to be seeing. That’s all there is to it.
t8: Anyone can land on Antarctica and not be stopped.
Absolutely 100% wrong. There have already been arrests among the flat earth community. Here’s a story about one of your own countrymen… https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/102307/norwegian-arrested-after-antarctic-voyage
This also from a very quick Google search…
Can you go to Antarctica without permission?
Since no country owns Antarctica, no visa is required. However, the countries that signed the Antarctic Treaty’s Protocol on Environment Protection require that visitors from those countries (including the USA, Canada, EU and Australia) need permission. This is nearly always through tour operators.
You’re wrong once again. You need permission, and will get arrested (or worse) if you try to check it out on your own. And normal everyday people like us will NEVER been granted permission to go where we want and do whatever we want to do on our own schedule down there.
Really? “Environmental Protection”? It’s supposedly a huge patch of ice, man! 🤣 If they want to protect something, there are millions of more suitable places on earth that are being trashed and could use some of their “environmental protection”. Such a joke. But you’re not laughing, because they have you hook, line and sinker.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
