Absurdities around these parts.
Like Im for real asking my friends do they believe this flat earth shit. If they say yeah, then we're simply not cool anymore.
For the flat Earth people!
- Thread starter SirRahX
- Start date
Absurdities around these parts.
Like Im for real asking my friends do they believe this flat earth shit. If they say yeah, then we're simply not cool anymore.
So this black dudes entire theory is based on watching a Gyroscope...
But Hold up doesn't a gyroscope still Depend on Newton's Law of Motion to work. And Hold up.. Didn't Newton (A Well Known CAC) also discover Gravity.
Didn't someone like this video.....
We are living in an age of Selective CAC-Ception...
Last edited:
Last edited:
I'm about to hit the gym and I can't wait to read the 10 to 11 quotes that I'm going to see in my notifications when I get back.
Anything you can do I can do better...
As this video.. demonstrates the effect of atmospheric refraction. Is this scientific nope.. but fuck it... Science left the building months ago.
Anybody figure out how Direct Tv works without Satellites?
I know we mentioned this in the last thread, but I still need an answer.
I know we mentioned this in the last thread, but I still need an answer.
Horizon rays from the sun bounces off the Antarctic ice-walls causing radio singles to make banana pudding.
These type of things happens on flat earth.
I really cant believe this thread is 19 pages
; I just would like to know how knowing the earth is "flat" improves the lives of my bros and sis?? I mean first the walking on water jesus, then the illumanati and now this??
; I just would like to know how knowing the earth is "flat" improves the lives of my bros and sis?? I mean first the walking on water jesus, then the illumanati and now this??
I really cant believe this thread is 19 pages
I think if you combine all the threads.. this shit is an easy 120 to 150 pages.
Somebody needs to put all this shit to print and make a compilation book.
"BGOL - Alternative Facts Vol 1: Chronicles of the Flat-Man"
Could be tropo"spheric" scatter...
A Flat Earther might call it tropo"planic" scatter
nope... not possible
the Ku-band (12–18 GHz) can be disrupted by inclement weather and even medium clouds - so that signal can't survive bouncing around the atmosphere
nope... not possible
the Ku-band (12–18 GHz) can be disrupted by inclement weather and even medium clouds - so that signal can't survive bouncing around the atmosphere
Traditional line-of-sight microwave communications use frequencies between 12 and 19 GHz, troposcatter communications use frequencies around 2 GHz. Only a small portion of troposcatter radio waves can be received, so large high-gain dish antennas are necessary.
Military forces have been using troposcatter communications in various forms since the 1960s to transmit voice and data without the use of satellites or high-frequency (HF) radio signals.
Last edited:
The battle continues...
I'm still waiting on a response to my atmospheric refraction takedown.
I'm still waiting on a response to my atmospheric refraction takedown.
Hoe rise on
Your waiting for what from who???
Please those mother fuckers are springing brain aneurysms left and right trying to figure out what "Hoe rise on", really mean..
Your waiting for what from who???
Please those mother fuckers are springing brain aneurysms left and right trying to figure out what "Hoe rise on", really mean..
Man that's not even funny.
It's takes a lot of math to Figure out why Hoe Rise zontal hoe rise ons don't Dip baby.
If that hoe don't rise on, drip drop.
I still just don't understand.... Why you can't see how stupid this sounds?
Look at this Video you posted....
Can you not see the problems with how he is judging perspective?
Let's say that this golden globe was the earth. Please tell me how small this person would have to be in relation to the height of the average human on our earth.
Think of an atom on a basketball. That's basically... How we compare in size to the Earth. An Atom is never going to notice drop off or slop in the horizon, because at that size and from that perspective.... the curve will not be noticeable unless he is way above the earth's surface to the point where he can see almost the entirety of the object.
I think you are comparing humans to Ants on a Basketball. An Ant would clearly notice a curvature and drop in horizon, because at that size and that perspective... the world would be small enough to clearly notice a slope in the surface from his eye level.
Again... I'm not even relying on math for this. Because again... It's pure logic.
And again... Your theory can not be held true because it continues to fail to truly account for Refraction...
Here is the video that you posted earlier and (God help my soul) I watched the entire thing.
1. This guy tries to support his argument, by using Google Maps. While at the same time, he says that Google believes the Earth is round and these numbers aren't correct. (So off the top.. His theory is fucked.)
2. He clearly uses Google to find articles to try to support his theory. While at the same time, says that Google believes the Earth is round. (So off the top again... His theory is fucked)
This is the equivalent of me walking up to a White Supremacist, asking him to tell me about the Black Experience, and take everything that he said as the word of God.
So back to your theory... Your Theory is Wrong from jump,
Again Because it fails to account for refraction and it fails to account for the distance to the horizon.
This is your main argument... I'm going to put in red the meat of your argument.
So the argument is that the Earth is Flat, because if it was round we would be looking down upon the horizon the higher we get up...
It is true that the Higher we get up... We would eventually start looking down into the Horizon.
Without Refraction.. Determining the distance to the horizon isn't that hard..... Look at this diagram
This diagram shows a vertical plane through the center of the Earth (at C) and the observer (at O). The radius of the Earth is R, and the observer's eye is a height h above the point S on the surface. (Of course, the height of the eye, and consequently the distance to the horizon, are greatly exaggerated in this diagram.) The observer's astronomical horizon is the dashed line through O, perpendicular to the Earth's radius OC. But the observer's apparent horizon is the dashed line OG, tangent to the surface of the Earth. The point G is the geometric horizon.
Elementary geometry tells us that, because the angle between the dashed lines at G is a right angle, the distance OG from the observer (O) to the horizon (G) is related to the radius R and the observer's height h by the Pythagorean Theorem.
The Earth has a radius of approximately 3965 miles. Using the Pythagorean theorem, that calculates to an average curvature of 7.98 inches per mile or approximately 8 inches per mile (squared).
The distance to the geometric horizon is approximately 3.57 km times the square root of the height of the eye in meters (or about 1.23 miles times the square root of the eye height in feet).
For example 1.23 times the square root of 8 divided by 12 equals 1 mile. Inversely given the horizon distance in miles, the height in feet required to be visible equals the distance in miles squared divided by 1.513. Thus if a peak rises up 1844 feet at a distance of 10.0 miles or 52,800 feet, it will form an angle of 2 degrees with a theoretical flat horizon. The tan is 1844/52800=0.0349 or 2 degrees.
However due to the Earth's curvature, it would appear as though it was only 1778 feet tall with the lowest 66 feet below the horizon.
AGAIN YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT... Atmospheric Refraction.
There are atmospheric effects of mainly ray refraction that tend to cause objects beyond the theoretical horizon to sometimes be visible. Thus the visible setting sun is usually a little below the theoretical horizon. In like manner, the effect is to increase the apparent height of distant peaks.
That's where the problem lies with these pictures..
For Example.. Let's look at the Distance to the Horizon with refraction.
Usually, the air is densest at the surface, so the rays of light are concave toward the surface.
Look at this diagram..
The solid arc OH now represents the curved line of sight; H is the (refracted) apparent horizon. Notice that refraction lets us see a little farther, if the ray is concave toward the Earth, as shown here.
If we can assume a constant lapse rate in the air between the eye and the Earth's surface, and if the observer's height h is small compared to the 8-km height of the homogeneous atmosphere, then we can assume the curved ray is an arc of a circle. This assumption makes things easy, because the relative curvature of the ray and the Earth's surface is all that matters. In effect, we can use the previous result, but just use an effective radius of curvature for the Earth that is bigger than the real one.
Most surveying uses a “refraction constant” that's just the ratio of the two curvatures. A typical value of the ratio is about 1/7; that is, the ray curves about 1/7 as much as the Earth does (or, equivalently, the radius of curvature of the ray is about 7 times that of the Earth's surface).
So now we look at the effective radius of the Earth (typical value)...
1/R′ = 1/R − 1/(7R) = 6/(7R) ,so that R′ = R × 7/6 .
This would make R′ about 7440 km, so that the distance to the horizon in kilometers is about 3.86 km times the square root of the height in meters (or about 1.32 miles times the square root of the height in feet).
So right now the numbers are similar but None of this even matters because of the Variable Gradients in effect... due to atmospheric refraction...
Refraction varies considerably from day to day, and from one place to another. It is particularly variable over water: because of the high heat capacity of water, the air is nearly always at a different temperature from that of the water, so there is a thermal boundary layer, in which the temperature gradient is far from uniform.
These temperature contrasts are particularly marked near shore, where the large diurnal temperature swings over the land can produce really large thermal effects over the water, if there is an offshore breeze. This is particularly bad news for anyone standing on the shore and wondering how far out to sea a ship or island might be visible.
While the dip of the horizon depends only on an average temperature gradient, and so can be found from just the temperatures at the sea surface and at the eye, the distance to the horizon depends on the reciprocal of the mean reciprocal of the temperature gradient. But the structure of thermal boundary layers guarantees that there will be large variations in the gradient, even in height intervals of a few meters. This means that on two different days with the same temperatures at the eye and the water surface (and, consequently, the same dip), the distance to the horizon can be very different. In conditions that produce superior mirages, there are inversion layers in which the ray curvature exceeds that of the Earth. Then, in principle, you can see infinitely far — there really is no horizon. Not even counting that visibility is limited by the clarity or haziness of the Air.
Hell I haven't even mentioned the Duct phenomena.. or really explain Dips in the Horizon... (Were even though we are standing on the surface of the Earth.. Standing doesn't mean our eyes are at the Surface. Typically when you observe Sunset and Mirage phenomena.. you are experiencing a Dip of the Horizon..)
BUT ALL THIS JUST GOES TO MY MAIN POINT HERE....
ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION DEALS WITH VARIABLES THAT HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR.
This is what Alfred Wallace found when he adjusted the findings of Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment to account for atmospheric refraction. He found a curvature consistent with a Spherical Earth.
THE END
I'm salty I actually read all this shit, especially when half of it is redundant shit that I already explained, plus nice work on the copy/pasting. I googled your shit....anyway!
I'm not denying atmospheric refraction at all, it actually supports the flat earth model more than it does the ball earth, but I don't even have to go that route.
Like stated in the refraction video I posted, Google Earth, which supposedly is a replica of the ball earth, shows something very different in it's model than actual photos.
Since we live in a you know... 3d world.... you also have to consider the horizon's curvature, not just height. Surely you're not suggesting that refraction flattens out the horizon are you? Because at 20 miles above the ball (like the image above) you should be able to see the horizon curve, but you don't in the REAL WORLD. Mind you, the focal length of Google Earth is 31.2mm.
So when I post this photo here:
This image, with a waaaay wider lens FOV shows a flat horizon (be sure to note the lens is 135Degree angle, not mm). But yeah, the refraction's flattening the horizon right? And if you check out the actual video on youtube you'll see it's flat when panned 360 degrees. You see it in the video I last posted. When you pan in Google Earth however, it stays curved.
But I know, you probably got your mind all in the gutter saying,"but that's not clear enough, clouds, refraction! refraction!"
But like my friend Mrs. Obama....
Wait, wait....
At 60 miles, we're at a flat line still so.....
And while on the subject of refraction,
I can also make the argument that the simple reason why you see beyond the supposed "geometric horizon" of a sphere is because THE EARTH IS FLAT. With minimal atmospheric blockage you can see further than the apparent horizon dip.
And how the fuck do you get crepuscular rays and sunspots with a convex atmosphere? The only high altitude footage you see with a curved horizon are from NASA and allied space agencies that are color graded, enhanced and are too close to be considered low-orbit footage...or just shitty cgi. Plus, the supposed ISS footage at 270 miles shows the earth moving, but footage from 60 miles, above the atmosphere, the earth is still. Why? Relativity? At what point do we SEE the earth move between independent rocket footage vs. NASA?
Check any non-NASA, non-government rocket/balloon footage and you will find a flat horizon at eye level.
This is why the felix red bull jump attempts to fool you into thinking the earth is curved at 38 miles up with fish eye lenses, when the first frame of the video gives you clue to what's really going on if you look out the door....
Eye-level to the camera, STILL and FLAT.
Nowhere in this muthafucka, besides NASA photos do you find curved surfaces.
I got memes, laser beams, math, graphs, surprises, the horizon, it rises..
so.....
This shit gettin boring.
I ain't bout to continue to school y'all over and over again and y'all clearly don't appreciate these asswhippins' I be handin' out. I'ma start chargin y'all to argue with me. Setup a connectpal...make some money off this shit.
Last edited:
the question was about Dish Network sat TV services - they use freqs between 12 and 18 ghz - no one said anything about short wave
There is a HUGE difference between the build and design of a short wave antenna / dish vs c band dish vs ku band dishes
did you even stop to consider how much bandwidth were they really tx over large distances via short wave vs current broadcast -
Also if you acknowledge line of sight then you know there is curvature to the earth.
Last edited:
Diffraction of Light
Diffraction is the slight bending of light as it passes around the edge of an object. The amount of bending depends on the relative size of the wavelength of light to the size of the opening. If the opening is much larger than the light's wavelength, the bending will be almost unnoticeable. However, if the two are closer in size or equal, the amount of bending is considerable, and easily seen with the naked eye.
In the atmosphere, diffracted light is actually bent around atmospheric particles -- most commonly, the atmospheric particles are tiny water droplets found in clouds. Diffracted light can produce fringes of light, dark or colored bands. An optical effect that results from the diffraction of light is the silver lining sometimes found around the edges of clouds or coronas surrounding the sun or moon. The illustration above shows how light (from either the sun or the moon) is bent around small droplets in the cloud.
Optical effects resulting from diffraction are produced through the interference of light waves. To visualize this, imagine light waves as water waves. If water waves were incident upon a float residing on the water surface, the float would bounce up and down in response to the incident waves, producing waves of its own. As these waves spread outward in all directions from the float, they interact with other water waves. If the crests of two waves combine, an amplified wave is produced (constructive interference). However, if a crest of one wave and a trough of another wave combine, they cancel each other out to produce no vertical displacement (destructive interference).
This concept also applies to light waves. When sunlight (or moonlight) encounters a cloud droplet, light waves are altered and interact with one another in a similar manner as the water waves described above. If there is constructive interference, (the crests of two light waves combining), the light will appear brighter. If there is destructive interference, (the trough of one light wave meeting the crest of another), the light will either appear darker or disappear entirely.
\/ G is the physical horizon \/
I make number 5
Oil tanker vacuum implosion...
but on the atmosphereless moon in the "vacuum" of space....
scotch tape......muthafuggin scotch tape...
gettin pretty icey in these bgol streets...
but on the atmosphereless moon in the "vacuum" of space....
scotch tape......muthafuggin scotch tape...
gettin pretty icey in these bgol streets...
Oil tanker vacuum implosion...
but on the atmosphereless moon in the "vacuum" of space....
scotch tape......muthafuggin scotch tape...
gettin pretty icey in these bgol streets...
dude.... you are fucking up again like you did in the beginning of this thread - this is another ridiculous post that is unworthy of you
vacuum of space
vacuum implosion
tangent: enjoy
I doubt it...I reaaaaally doubt it
You want me to believe that you can take some pieces from the junkyard and some scotch tape and glue and fly to the moon, in a vacuum with no atmosphere and temperatures that can make bacon outta cacs.....
I'm good.
Last edited:
of course - but I think you'll see it after you get some sleep
we'll see, cuz I am actually sleepy as fuck right now.
Oil tanker vacuum implosion...
but on the atmosphereless moon in the "vacuum" of space....
I started to say "this nigga can not be this stupid"
And then I was tripping because for a sec I actually legit forgot exactly which hyper-ignant ass thread I was in.
That last sentence was
do flat earthers believe in gps?
Similar threads
