Please clarify your question, man. "Explain this vanishing point." Wtf are you asking?
Explain this vanishing point in the sky and the crespuscular ray fallacy you proport?
naah
@cashwhisperer @14damoney & @DarkMatter-X
I'm still waiting for someone/ anyone to give me a proper answer to my Plate Tectonic's question from last year.
I'm going to post a refresher of the original discussion...
So based on the second video... the sun and the moon would have to rotate around the surface area of the flat earth. How does this make any sense?
How is the earth able to generate gravity without a rotating shape?
I have seen three rocket launches in my
life, one of them was one of the final Shuttle launches,..... So these people just take this massive rocket and hide it somewhere? In today's modern age, wouldn't there be people tweeting somewhere about a mutherfucking rocket being spotted. You just can't hide a fucking 3 to 4 story rocket.
Why doesn't Lava just fall through the bottom the earth's crust if we were flat. It would be impossible for any gravity to be on the bottom side of the earth. Any ground underneath would naturally have to be unstable and sedimentary... So after every volcanic eruption, lava should be spilling out from the other side of the earth. How in the world would we even have lava since we wouldn't have a core, because there is no way that a core could survive under this flat theory?
If the Earth has tectonic shifts, how is this ICE circle around us able to stay intact over millions of years. The Earth is in a constant state of change. The land masses of the Earth move about 0.6 inches a year. Every shift pushes land mass outward and over the other plate. So when Pangea broke about 200 something million years ago and the continents were formed.... this ice crust would have had to been cracked around the time that Australia and Japan were formed. The plate underneath Australia would have to naturally push outward toward the edge of the Ice crust. This crust would not have the luxury of having a tectonic plate to push back against the Indo-Australian Plate's movement... therefore it would have collapsed millions of years ago.. mainly due to the all the pressure and heat that would naturally occur during this process.
I asked this question on Page 4 of the Flat Earth Vol 2: Epicness of Awesomeness Thread...
and 31 pages later...
this is was first and only attempt at an answer..
So then I responded with
And then Crickets....
That's when we went on the Epic....
1600 ft and Google Search Conspiracy discussion...
So anyway... Let's get back to it...
Tectonic plates, Magma, Earth's core..... Give me some explanation.
No Youtube clip art videos. I need scientific explanations.
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 thought I'd leave this info about DUCTs in here... for those saying... Ships don't dip down in the horizon, because you can zoom up and still see them..
When the correct term should be... (see them sometimes)
This is DUCTING..
Atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) are guided or ducted, tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.
Under normal atmospheric conditions, the warmest air is found near the surface of the Earth. The air gradually becomes cooler as altitude increases. At times, however, an unusual situation develops in which layers of warm air are formed above layers of cool air. This condition is known as temperature inversion. These temperature inversions cause channels, or ducts, of cool air to be sandwiched between the surface of the Earth and a layer of warm air, or between two layers of warm air.
If a transmitting antenna extends into such a duct of cool air, or if the radio wave enters the duct at a very low angle of incidence, vhf and uhf transmissions may be propagated far beyond normal line-of-sight distances. When ducts are present as a result of temperature inversions, good reception of vhf and uhf television signals from a station located hundreds of miles away is not unusual. These long distances are possible because of the different densities and refractive qualities of warm and cool air. The sudden change in density when a radio wave enters the warm air above a duct causes the wave to be refracted back toward Earth. When the wave strikes the Earth or a warm layer below the duct, it is again reflected or refracted upward and proceeds on through the duct with a multiple-hop type of action. An example of the propagation of radio waves by ducting is shown in the figure.
http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/wa17.en.html
I will say one thing about these Flat Earth threads. I've learned tons of shit that I wouldn't have given a shit about.
Like how you have to view radio waves just like how you would view Light rays...
Dip of the Horizon
Dip, without refraction
Dip, including refraction
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
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.
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'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.
Dude..... Are we still doing this.
Let's just go through this piece by piece....
1. All you have been doing is Copy and Pasting. I went through and took the time to look at the math and other theories and pieced them together. I did all this to ultimately make the point that all the math in the world doesn't really matter because ultimately.. You can't accurately quantify all the variables due to the effect of atmospheric refraction.
2. The fact that YOU CAN'T ULTIMATELY SEE.. the problem with your Horizon argument with pictures that you are posting is troubling.
Oh and I love the fact... that one of your pictures is taken from a video that I posted in the last thread... So good for you. Lets look at it...
A. Let's look at the Picture you posted..
B. Now let's look at the video....
C.- Curious At one point do that state the Lens Angle, the Distance to Horizon, and the Distance Across Horizon? Just curious, I must have missed this.
OK NOW TO THE DEBUNKING...
Based on the Height listed.. this picture was supposedly taken when the Balloon reached it's peak at 110,000 ft. That's 20.8 miles. That's at the 5:30 mark of this video.
What do we see at that Mark?
An obvious curved horizon.
I believe that your pic was taken at 6:35 mark.
And what do you see at that mark...
A slightly curved horizon..
But now you are saying to yourself.. But FONZ, I can put a straight red line through the blue area, so clearly that means the Horizon is clearly flat. It's shouldn't matter what direction the Camera is looking at during the 5:30 mark.
"Pseudo Science Rules Bitches"
Is the Camera high enough and far enough back to accurately see the surface of the Earth in One SHOT?
NO.. That's why it panned around... and when it starts at the 5:30 mark.. The curve is OBVIOUS..
But now you are saying... But FONZ look at the 6:35 mark.. Look at the Red Lines on my picture.. They are Flat, so the Horizon is Flat... YOLO..
This is wrong, because you can see the slight bend of the Horizon near the edges of the screen at the 6:35 Mark...
Damn... that slight bend at the 6:35 Mark.. looks familiar. Where have I seen this before?
Oh YEAH...
It looks exactly like the above pic..(you remember the picture that Google fabricated to make a curve) except the pic doesn't have clouds. GAWD DAMN YOU CLOUDS and your Obstruction...
Let's take a commercial break right now and let's look at the Wiki definition of Horizon (Somehow I don't think you know what this means)...
The horizon or skyline is the apparent line that separates earth from sky, the line that divides all visible directions into two categories: those that intersect the Earth's surface, and those that do not.
In many contexts, especially perspective drawing, the curvature of the Earth is disregarded and the horizon is considered the theoretical line to which points on any horizontal plane converge (when projected onto the picture plane) as their distance from the observer increases. (SEE WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT)
For observers near sea level the difference between this geometrical horizon (which assumes a perfectly flat, infinite ground plane) and the true horizon (which assumes a spherical Earth surface) is imperceptible to the naked eye (but for someone on a 1000-meter hill looking out to sea the true horizon will be about a degree below a horizontal line).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
So these Red Lines are wrong from jump... The true horizon is not going to be where they are located.
Now you must be saying... But Gawd Damn.. FONZ... you must be making shit up. You can't have a Slight curve.. I don't see shit. I'm Flatt-er Blind...
Well let's see what Wiki says again... To the Internets..
Curvature of the horizon.
From a point above the surface the horizon appears slightly bent (it is a circle). There is a basic geometrical relationship between this visual curvature, the altitude and the Earth's radius. It is
From a point above the surface the horizon appears slightly bent (it is a circle). There is a basic geometrical relationship between this visual curvature, the altitude and the Earth's radius. It is
The curvature is the reciprocal of the curvature angular radius in radians. A curvature of 1 appears as a circle of an angular radius of 45° corresponding to an altitude of approximately 2640 km above the Earth's surface. At an altitude of 10 km (33,000 ft, the typical cruising altitude of an airliner) the mathematical curvature of the horizon is about 0.056, the same curvature of the rim of circle with a radius of 10 m that is viewed from 56 cm directly above the center of the circle. However, the apparent curvature is less than that due to refraction of light in the atmosphere and because the horizon is often masked by high cloud layers that reduce the altitude above the visual surface.
The curvature is the reciprocal of the curvature angular radius in radians. A curvature of 1 appears as a circle of an angular radius of 45° corresponding to an altitude of approximately 2640 km above the Earth's surface. At an altitude of 10 km (33,000 ft, the typical cruising altitude of an airliner) the mathematical curvature of the horizon is about 0.056, the same curvature of the rim of circle with a radius of 10 m that is viewed from 56 cm directly above the center of the circle.
However, the apparent curvature is less than that due to refraction of light in the atmosphere and because the horizon is often masked by high cloud layers that reduce the altitude above the visual surface.
So the higher you go up... the less of the curvature (as long as you are staying in the exact same spot and ARE NOT MOVING BACKWARDS WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY GOING UPWARDS...in that case the curve will become more obvious) LOGIC!!
NOW JUST FOR KICKS.. LET'S LOOK AT YOUR OTHER PICTURES
Rocket you Say... Went up 73 miles?
Well damn... What does Science say...
Scientists at the University of Calgary, scientists confirmed that space begins 73 miles (118 kilometers) above Earth's surface. Meanwhile the boundary recognized by many in the space industry is also a somewhat arbitrary 62 miles (100 kilometers).
http://www.space.com/6564-edge-space.html
So I take it that you are still saying that Space starts after the 73 mile mark, because that looks like.. Space to me.
---- 0:03 mark.. There is an Obvious Slight Curve... Are you seriously telling me that you can't see this? Maybe you have Eye problems. That would explain a lot.
Ok lets continue to this picture...
To the internets...
Crepuscular rays occur when objects such as mountain peaks or clouds partially shadow the sun's rays. The name crepuscular means "relating to twilight" and these rays are observed at sunrise and sunset. Crepuscular rays appear to diverge outward from the setting sun, and are visible only when the atmosphere contains enough haze or dust particles so that sunlight in unshadowed areas can be scattered toward the observer.
The light rays are actually parallel, but appear to converge to the sun due to "perspective", the same visual effect that makes parallel railroad tracks appear to converge in the distance. (THAT DAMN PERSPECTIVE CREEPS UP AGAIN) Crepuscular rays are often red or yellow in appearance because blue light from the sun is selectively scattered out of the beam by air molecules.
Light rays scattered by dust and haze occasionally appear to converge toward the "antisolar" point, (the location on the horizon opposite the point where the sun is setting). These rays, called anti-crepuscular rays, originate at the sun, cross over the sky to the opposite horizon, and appear to converge toward the antisolar point because of perspective.
In the photo above, the sun is near the horizon behind the observer and sunlight is reflecting off the small cloud in the top right corner of the picture. Mountains and clouds behind the observer are responsible for the shadows in between.
Looks like the Light is Converging to me? Are these Pics also CGI??
This is fun... FOR SCIENCE!!!!
No the fuck you didn't....
This was shot down during the Horizon discussion.. When you posted the Chicago Skyline picture to try and support your theory.
Remember this shit..
And then I hit you with that Slow Ether .... in the 2015 Flat Earth Thread...
Then Followed that up... with some of that Spicy Ether...
And then @ViCiouS came through with that BBQ'd Ether with Extra Sauce...
Then you tried to follow this up...
Then @ViCiouS came through that Altered Beast Ether
THen I came through with the Babelity, Fatality and the Toosty all wrapped in a warm Burrito ether...
And then you said.... And I quote..
9 months later and I'm still waiting...
Yeap... Sure seems like you fucking Answered this question to me...
The Bible does not say the earth is a sphere
It makes no sense if you believe the moon is a light bulb and the sun is 35 miles across and there is a wall of ice preventing us from going to the north and or south pole.
Here is your simple geometry: https://astronavigationdemystified.com/eratosthenes-proved-that-the-earth-is-not-flat/
This was done 300 years before the galactic space jew came and saved our souls.
Point A represents Alexandria.
Point B represents Assouan.
Point D represents the Earths centre.
x represent the angle made by the Sun’s rays and a stick at point A.
y represent the angle made by the Sun’s rays and a stick at point B.
Arc AB = 580 miles (by Eratosthenes’ reckoning)
Angle FEA = angle ECG (alternate angles).
Angle GCD = 180o – x (supplementary angles)
→ angle CDB = 180o – (angle GCD + angle CGD) (Angles in a triangle)
→ angle CDB = 180o – (180o – x + y) = x – y
→ arc AB subtends angle (x – y) at the Earth’s centre.
→ 1o subtends arc of AB ÷ (x – y) miles
→ Earth’s circumference = 360 x AB ÷ (x – y) miles
= 360 x 580 ÷ 7.2 miles = 29000 miles (statute miles).
As entertaining a punching bag you make, and as fun as it is to feed your trolling, I'm done laying the smack down on y'all.
Flat Earthers be like...
@cashwhisperer @14damoney & @DarkMatter-X
I'm still waiting for someone/ anyone to give me a proper answer to my Plate Tectonic's question from last year.
I'm going to post a refresher of the original discussion...
So based on the second video... the sun and the moon would have to rotate around the surface area of the flat earth. How does this make any sense?
How is the earth able to generate gravity without a rotating shape?
I have seen three rocket launches in my
life, one of them was one of the final Shuttle launches,..... So these people just take this massive rocket and hide it somewhere? In today's modern age, wouldn't there be people tweeting somewhere about a mutherfucking rocket being spotted. You just can't hide a fucking 3 to 4 story rocket.
Why doesn't Lava just fall through the bottom the earth's crust if we were flat. It would be impossible for any gravity to be on the bottom side of the earth. Any ground underneath would naturally have to be unstable and sedimentary... So after every volcanic eruption, lava should be spilling out from the other side of the earth. How in the world would we even have lava since we wouldn't have a core, because there is no way that a core could survive under this flat theory?
If the Earth has tectonic shifts, how is this ICE circle around us able to stay intact over millions of years. The Earth is in a constant state of change. The land masses of the Earth move about 0.6 inches a year. Every shift pushes land mass outward and over the other plate. So when Pangea broke about 200 something million years ago and the continents were formed.... this ice crust would have had to been cracked around the time that Australia and Japan were formed. The plate underneath Australia would have to naturally push outward toward the edge of the Ice crust. This crust would not have the luxury of having a tectonic plate to push back against the Indo-Australian Plate's movement... therefore it would have collapsed millions of years ago.. mainly due to the all the pressure and heat that would naturally occur during this process.
No the fuck you didn't....
This was shot down during the Horizon discussion.. When you posted the Chicago Skyline picture to try and support your theory.
Remember this shit..
And then I hit you with that Slow Ether .... in the 2015 Flat Earth Thread...
Then I Followed that up... with a side of some of that Spicy Ether...
And then @ViCiouS came through with that BBQ'd Ether with Extra Sauce...
Then you tried to follow this up... with some Salty Claim Chowder
Then @ViCiouS put down his plate and came through with that Altered Beast Ether
Then I came out of the Champagne room with the Babelity, Fatality and the Toosty all wrapped in a warm Burrito ether...
And then you said.... And I quote..
9 months later and I'm still waiting...
Yeap... Sure seems like you fucking Answered this question to me...
truth = provable facts
really?
