- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Can anyone explain why we can see buildings, mountains, and other objects like the Statue of Liberty and lighthouses from many times farther away than we should?
Maybe the Earth is so big that it is possible to see these things from great distances before the curvature makes them invisible.
A better question might be why I cannot see Alaska from New Zealand when looking through a powerful telescope. I looked at the graphics you posted of a flat Earth map, and there appears to be a clear line of view between Alaska and New Zealand.
There is another possibility. If indeed we can see objects that according to the dimensions of the Earth, we shouldn’t be able to see with a telescope, then here is one explanation. Light is what makes things visible and light can reflect and refract off things such as physical objects and even clouds and moisture. So it is possible to peak over the horizon if light is being reflected over the horizon.
A similar explanation was given to a Supernovae that was observed hundreds of years ago and again in modern times. It was apparently the same event, but some light took a direct route to Earth while other light was reflected here and there and took a longer route.
T8:Here is the view I got looking at the same side of the mountain, but some 305 km (190 mi) away at Paekakariki Hill. The island is out of the picture to the left.
The mountain is 2,797 metres (9176 ft) high.
So you take 190 miles squared (190 x 190=36,100). Multiply that by 8 inches (36,100 x 8=288,800 inches that should be hidden). Then divide that by 12 inches per foot (288,800\12 = 24,066 feet). Now divide that by 5280 feet in one mile (24,066\5280 = 4.5 miles). So your 2 mile tall mountain should be hidden behind 4.5 miles of curvature. But that is if your camera was at sea level (notice it’s called sea LEVEL, not sea CURVE 🙂 ). I put the data into one of the many earth curve calculators you can find online, and put your camera height at 1000 feet. The result was 3 miles hidden due to curve. The higher you were, the less will be hidden. I put you at 10,000 feet high, and then there’s only supposed to be 3000 feet of that mountain hidden behind curvature.
(I don’t know what I did to make one of those screenshots sideways. 🙂 Oh well.)
Mike,
you asked:
What exactly were you agreeing with? 🙂 Anna didn’t actually say anything.
This is what I was agreeing with…she has only made two comments, this was her first. You must have missed it.
“No such thing as flat earth.”-Anna
And yes, I did mean round as in spherical, not flat and round obviously.
Hi Mike,
Molten glass is not strong.
You offer the anecdotal evidence of the eyes of tiny men on the nature of our universe?
To utterly believe in a flat earth with icy walls at the edges that cannot be shown seems like some sort of punishment from on high. I have no problem learning about the wondrous creation of God from carnal men wth amazing instruments. Do you?
Hi Mike.
No probs about answering everything from me. I will just put my ideas out there for all to read. If you or anyone else wishes to address anything I say, then good. If not, then I won’t take it personally. This is because this is not a foundational doctrine of the faith. If one man views it as he sees from his own perspective, and another from a different perspective, that is fine. The real picture is created by the brain. What the brain receives is frequency.
Similarly, this website is actually data until a device and browser decodes it. Heaven Net doesn’t fly on the wireless Internet as we perceive it. No it is data in its raw form. This is why the universe is so subjective. It depends on the view at the time and the speed of the viewer. The reality we see is decoded from the spectrum and decoded by the brain.
This understanding leads to Quantum physics which is a real mind bender as to what reality actually is. Would love to discus this too, but maybe in a different topic.
(I don’t know what I did to make one of those screenshots sideways.
Maybe it is because NZ and US are on the side of a globe, so it was the right way up, but when the Earth became flat it then appeared sideways. Okay, that was a joke. Carry on.
I put the data into one of the many earth curve calculators you can find online, and put your camera height at 1000 feet. The result was 3 miles hidden due to curve. The higher you were, the less will be hidden. I put you at 10,000 feet high, and then there’s only supposed to be 3000 feet of that mountain hidden behind curvature.
I would have thought that the volcano would be the same height if viewed below and on top of the hill in a Flat Earth. Just less obstruction near the bottom. If I descended the hill and took another shot, surely it would be the same height from the horizon if the Earth were flat. If so, that would be the way for me to test it personally, rather than rely on current scientific data. However, I am willing to bet I would not even see the mountain from the main road below. I travel that road quite a bit and have never seen the mountain ever from there. The Paekakariki Hill Road provides a bit of a shortcut to my place, but I do not stop at the lookout very often. So I have decided that if I ever see the mountain again from the lookout, I will photograph it, then descend down and take photos to see if the mountain starts to shrink or loose visibility of the lower reaches of the mountain as I descend.
Mike, you say we (heliocentric model believers) rely too much on the testimony of scientists, but is it possible that you rely too much on the testimony of the math calculator or the formula you use?
For me, there is a huge range of evidence for the heliocentric model. Consider that New Zealand launches rockets and satellites into Space and even recently launched a giant disco ball for a laugh, okay maybe for publicity. Many other nations and private companies do as well. What of all their employees and why go to such elaborate means to keep the hoax alive? It is not just NASA anymore, so cannot say that one organisation is lying to us about it and doctoring photos and videos.
Private companies charge millions to send up rockets and satellites and this is why there is a rise in private space companies. Who is going to pay that sort of cash and get nothing in return? Are we to also assume that Google is in on the hoax and doctors Google Earth or more precisely its associated satellite photos?
BTW, I am not expecting you to answer me here as I know you are busy. Just putting it out there for others to read too.
Here is the world record holder for distance photography. The peak in the center is 2.7 Km tall, and 392 Km away. We’re not told the height of the photographer, but if he took the photo from ground level, we’d be talking about 12 Km of curvature that should be hiding the 2.7 Km tall mountain. And even if he took it from the very top of the mountain on which he was standing, we’d be looking at 5 Km of curvature hiding the 2.7 Km tall mountain. Yet we can clearly see that mountain in the photo… all of it.
So let me get this straight. my photo of Mt Ruapehu (2,797 metres / 9176 feet) high taken some 305 km (190 mi) away at Paekakariki Hill and looking from a height of 248 metres is almost a world record? Pretty weird how both mountains are 2700 metres high and both pics were shot at a distance of three hundred and something kms. My distance was slightly shorter. Dang, I was so close to getting a record. lol. But I think my image is clearer and I am not as high by the look of it.
Okay, Mike. I found a photo (not mine) that is a similar projection to my photo except it is taken up close and shows the lower flanks of Mt Ruapehu clearly.
I have attached my image so you can download it and zoom in on it and make a decent comparison.
IMO, my photo doesn’t show the very lowest part of the mountain. The above photo shows an extensive belt of trees at the bottom of the volcano which I know personally as I have walked through these forests many times. In my image, the tree belt seems quite a bit thinner. Could that be due to the curvature of the Earth blocking the view of the lower regions of the mountain?
Another quick point. Imagine the circumference of an eternal circle. It would be a straight line right? So a really big circle would also appear as a straight line too. Compared to us, the Earth is a very big circle or sphere. So that at least supports the idea of a spherical Earth right? It’s not like that is counterintuitive or not logical. Not proof in itself of course, but pointing out that it is very possible for a circle to look like a straight line.
Hi T8,
At approx 20 mi distance at 30 feet height you can see 2/3 of the Sears Tower.
Run the numbers on that
I am excited to get home from work and put your info into Google World to verify the distance. Can you verify the camera height?
Mike….light does not curve as i recall, but travels in straight lines. So that could account for not seening the cruve from reflected light from earth. But from outer space you can by not moving see as the earth rotates BUY the light refacted is going out from one side and comming into view on the other as the earth truns. This is a infalable proof of the movement of spheres in space and it also works if the earth is also viewed from outer space.
That is why 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. I WOULD SAY YOU NEED TO FIRST PROVE OR DISPROVE THERE CONSPIRACY THEORIES BEFORE, BUYING INTO THEIR FLAT EARTH THERIOIES. RIGHT?
MIKE once many years ago I partnered with two others on a radio transmission station on Mount Stephen about 8000 ft as i recal, I provided the electrial system needed to run the repeater, from the site 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,but because light travels in a straigh line i couldn’t see the curve either. 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.
This is why we can’t see a cruve because light does not bend and we lose site of thing as we decend or as the object decends over the horizon as inthe case of the boats going straight out into the ocean from you. These are infalable proofs the earth is round even if you believe the conspiracy theories of the flat earth believers.
Peace and love to you and yours. ……..gene
I know that things can look bigger on the horizon because of the way light is reflected through moisture or something like that. I have on a few occasions seen things appear bigger when looking in the direction the photo was taken. The low-rise on the peninsula once looked like it had high rise apartments. I boiled it down to moisture in the air skewing the light to give it a magnification effect. The end of Kapiti Island also looked huge, so it was obviously distorted.
In the photo, I used a zoom lense, but it was clearly visible with the naked eye too. I may even have a shot of what it looked like from the naked eye. I will take a look.
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.YHnZWyGOOMU
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.
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…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
