- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
Ah, but you can’t find the simple curve.
How do you explain this? Where is the curve that your math demands? Can you just answer that?
Since in your own words you won the debate then this should be an easy one. What is your answer?Without wasting my time with frivolous claims, I will object with one word, ‘parabola’. If this has been taken into consideration and the evidence still stands, let me know and I’ll look into it.
I wish you would remember what science has to say about this.
(Reposted from Mike’s post) [If you want to see the graphs go to page 223 post #863119]
I pointed out that we ARE using a parabolic formula to calculate a PARABOLIC curve.
NOW HEAR THIS: Nobody is trying to use the 8 inch formula for thousands of miles around a ball! We use that formula for a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the ball. And very small fractions of a ball ARE parabolas! Here we go again…
The top illustration is obviously a ball. The center image is a section of that ball magnified 10x. What do we call that downward curving line that I’ve circled in blue? Yep… that’s a parabola. How many miles does that parabola go? 1000 miles. So yes, up to one thousand miles, the curve of the earth (before it starts curving back around itself to form a circle) IS a parabola. And doesn’t t8’s argument include the “rebuttal” that the 8 inch formula is only valid for parabolas? HELLO! We’re using it FOR parabolas! In fact the diagram that HE posted shows the same exact thing, and even carries it out for the same exact 1000 miles! Here is the image he posted…
So if you look at the purple, red, and green lines in HIS post, they all align up to about 800 miles. Only then does one of the circular lines start to veer from the parabolic line. And like I keep saying, nobody is using the 8 inch formula for 800 miles! The farthest anyone has even seen across the earth is 237 miles!
From my above post:
“It’s 13.7 miles, so no parabola. Can you offer an explanation?“
Should read; It’s 13.7 miles, so parabola. Can you offer an explanation?
Well, still waiting.
And doesn’t t8’s argument include the “rebuttal” that the 8 inch formula is only valid for parabolas? HELLO!
I’ve said from the beginning that it becomes more inaccurate with longer distances. But is used for shorter distances by surveyors for example because it is both easier and good enough. You really need to pay attention.
Diggy, I haven’t watched the video yet but I will. Until then, wouldn’t it be fair to answer some of the questions I have asked you. There are 3 outstanding.
Or do you feel by ignoring them that you will give a better appearance of being right because you won’t have to admit your stumped?
The first comment I see in that video is this:
“Poor flat earth morons. Always relying on optical illusions to verify their desperate need to prove the Earth is flat, so their biblical desires are confirmed.”
“Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
In short Dig. If you and others are wrong, and people are blocked from the way by your lies and stupidity, then woe to you.
But I think you will shrug this off because you think your right, despite most of your claims being proven wrong.
It’s your life.
Anyway, I continue with the video.
Back to the video. I see it is another Ruapehu type situation which I debunked.
The process starts again. Lol. You should know better by now.
D4T: So in other words you can’t explain it. You can’t even try apparently. Thanks for the confirmation.
Yeah, it’s hard to explain things that can only be explained by our flat earth. That black swan video you linked is great. Tater says a comment called it an “optical illusion”. No. That was their OLD argument about seeing Chicago and Ruapehu and Canigou, and all the others. “It’s a mirage, people! It’s an optical illusion caused by cold dense air above hot moist water during the seven year lunar libation while Sagittarius is in the house of the Sun! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” 😂
But that’s where the Black Swan destroys. Because the same “optical illusion” cannot create three different false horizons. I’ve been wanting to do a video about the Black Swan, because I think a lot of people don’t fully understand why it is such a powerful and complete debunking of the ball earth idea.
There can only be ONE horizon at any given time. So if the legs of the closer platform are being cut off by that one horizon, then they can make the unsupported claim that the closer platform is looming up around the horizon and that’s why we see so much of it when a lot more of it should be hidden behind the curve. And that’s where it has always ended. Chicago is looming up over the curve. Ruapehu is looming up over the curve. Canigou is looming up over the curve. Etc.
But if it is the horizon cutting off the legs of the closer platform, what is cutting off the legs of the more distant one? Because remember, there can be only ONE horizon – and in the ball earth model, that is the physical point where we can no longer see around the curve of the earth. So if the closer platform is being lost behind the curve of the earth, then how could we possibly see the much more distant platform ALL THE WAY TO THE WATER LINE? But maybe THAT’S the real horizon – where the water cuts off the legs of the SECOND platform? Okay, but then that means we’re seeing the ACTUAL point where the legs of the first platform meet the water. And the first platform is 7 miles away, while the distance to the horizon should be only a mile away on our curved ball earth. How is it possible to see 6 more miles of flat water beyond the curve?
And as if that was not enough, the video clearly shows ANOTHER horizon way, way beyond even the second, more distant platform. So now we either have three completely different horizons… or the most distant horizon is the ACTUAL horizon, and we are seeing where the legs of BOTH platforms actually and truly meet the waterline in the foreground because the earth is completely flat all the way from the camera to that most distant (ACTUAL) horizon 20+ miles away.
So that’s basically it in a nutshell. Either it is possible for there to be multiple physical horizons, or that particular 20 miles of the earth is completely flat.
The one mountain I checked out was Ruapehu and it proved the globe not a pepperoni pizza with double cheese.
Ohakune at the base of the mountain was not visible. And that was 600 metres that at minimum needed to be deducted. The base of that pic was not sea level. Lol. Thought you might have known that by now.
What was in view is what one would expect to see on a globe. And that is true without factoring in refraction which was obviously not zero.
And I’m not sure if the parabola kicks in at that distance, but if so, then that further sways toward the globe.
Science won that debate. Globe Trotters won gold. Mike’s argument fell flat and he was deflated Remember?
So have given up on the video with the 13.7 mile visibility? Oh come on give it a shot, what do you have to lose anyway? Everyone can already see you don’t have a clue!
I know I can debunk it like I did Ruapehu if the video is not lying with the stats or whatever, but honestly, I know this would be futile. I may do it, but have more important things to do lately. I have debunked all that I have given good time too, so know that this video would be no different. But yeah, time is important, and Flat Earth is not important.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
