Flat Earth

[—]

Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch. First he stood in the canal with his telescope held 8 inches above the surface of the water, then his friend in a boat with a 5 foot tall flag sailed the 6 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the 6 mile stretch of water should have comprised an arc exactly 6 feet high in the middle, so the entire boat and flag should have ultimately disappeared, when in fact the entire boat and flag remained visible at the same height for the entire journey.


In a second experiment Dr. Rowbotham affixed flags 5 feet high along the shoreline, one at every mile marker. Then using his telescope mounted at 5 feet just behind the first flag looked over the tops of all 6 flags which lined up in a perfectly straight line. If the Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the flags should have progressively dipped down after the first establishing line of sight, the second would have descended 8 inches, 32 inches for the third, 6 feet for the fourth, 10 feet 8 inches for the fifth, and 16 feet 8 inches for the sixth.

[the joint]

Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch. First he stood in the canal with his telescope held 8 inches above the surface of the water, then his friend in a boat with a 5 foot tall flag sailed the 6 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the 6 mile stretch of water should have comprised an arc exactly 6 feet high in the middle, so the entire boat and flag should have ultimately disappeared, when in fact the entire boat and flag remained visible at the same height for the entire journey.


In a second experiment Dr. Rowbotham affixed flags 5 feet high along the shoreline, one at every mile marker. Then using his telescope mounted at 5 feet just behind the first flag looked over the tops of all 6 flags which lined up in a perfectly straight line. If the Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the flags should have progressively dipped down after the first establishing line of sight, the second would have descended 8 inches, 32 inches for the third, 6 feet for the fourth, 10 feet 8 inches for the fifth, and 16 feet 8 inches for the sixth.

You didn't even bother to read the Wiki on this, or look into all the repeated tests showing curvature, did you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment#Refraction

It's called atmospheric refraction which creates a superior image mirage.  When you devise an experiment that avoids this problem, you will get a result of curvature e.g. like Alfred Wallace did when he set up 3 poles in a line in the canal, setting a sight line from the 1st pole to the 3rd pole several feet above the water rather than a few inches to compensate for atmospheric refraction.  When you do this, you will find the middle pole is significantly higher than the outer two, proving curvature.

Because physics.

[—]

It is often possible to see the Chicago skyline from sea-level 60 miles away across Lake Michigan. In 2015 after photographer Joshua Nowicki photographed this phenomenon several news channels quickly claimed his picture to be a “superior mirage,” an atmospheric anomaly caused by temperature inversion. While these certainly do occur, the skyline in question was facing right-side up and clearly seen unlike a hazy illusory mirage, and on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference should be 2,400 feet below the horizon.




From Genoa, Italy 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Capraia 102 miles away can often be seen as well. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Capraia should always remain hidden behind 5,605 feet, over a mile of supposed curvature.




Also from Genoa, on bright clear days, the island of Elba can be seen an incredible 125 miles away! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Elba should be forever invisible behind 8770 feet of curvature.




In Chambers’ Journal, February 1895, a sailor near Mauritius in the Indian Ocean reported having seen a vessel which turned out to be an incredible 200 miles away! The incident caused much heated debate in nautical circles at the time, gaining further confirmation in Aden, Yemen where another witness reported seeing a missing Bombay steamer from 200 miles away. He correctly stated the precise appearance, location and direction of the steamer all later corroborated and confirmed correct by those onboard. Such sightings are absolutely inexplicable if the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles around, as ships 200 miles distant would have to fall approximately 5 miles below line of sight!

[notbatman]

...

Altitude is relative, i.e. "How high is x compared to y?" When the sun is below the horizon, it has negative altitude relative to the 2-D plane connecting your eyes and the horizon, which is why you can't see the sun when it's below the horizon (earth is opaque).  In this case, the sun has negative altitude relative to the visual plane.  When you are up in an airplane, you see the sun while observers on the earth cannot because the 2-D plane connecting your eyes and the horizon are now at a downward angle compared to that of observers on the ground.  Because the angle of your scope now extends across a plane that is angled downward, you see the sun again; its altitude is above the visual plane.

a) Altitude is relative to sea level.
b) The Sun's altitude never changes as it orbits above the Earth in a circle. This implies that the Sun never goes below the horizon.
c) As I stated before "... The greater the altitude the farther away from the vanishing point the object becomes and farther you can see it. ...".

I can't believe I'm explaining this.

Also, that's a great picture of the Sun setting BTW, I can see the bottom 1/4 has been cropped off though. How do you explain the reflection of the Sun on the water...

Cropped off?  No...no it hasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Mirage, who said anything about a mirage? I can tell that picture is cropped because the horizon is always at eye level. You really can't argue that fact. Also I'm sure you didn't take that picture so how are you so sure the image hasn't been cropped?

The picture in question:

Fake edit:

Oh and I can see somebody beat me to my point about the reflection of the Sun on the water. LOL

Um, you can see the sun reflect on the water when 1) any part of the sun is above the water and 2) your eyes are above the water.  You realize water reflects light, yes?

See the other guys post about the reflection traveling along the water all the way to the feet on the camera tripod.

EDIT:

The original picture would have looked something like this:


Simulated un-cropped image.

[the joint]

It is often possible to see the Chicago skyline from sea-level 60 miles away across Lake Michigan. In 2015 after photographer Joshua Nowicki photographed this phenomenon several news channels quickly claimed his picture to be a “superior mirage,” an atmospheric anomaly caused by temperature inversion. While these certainly do occur, the skyline in question was facing right-side up and clearly seen unlike a hazy illusory mirage, and on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference should be 2,400 feet below the horizon.




From Genoa, Italy 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Capraia 102 miles away can often be seen as well. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Capraia should always remain hidden behind 5,605 feet, over a mile of supposed curvature.




Also from Genoa, on bright clear days, the island of Elba can be seen an incredible 125 miles away! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Elba should be forever invisible behind 8770 feet of curvature.




In Chambers’ Journal, February 1895, a sailor near Mauritius in the Indian Ocean reported having seen a vessel which turned out to be an incredible 200 miles away! The incident caused much heated debate in nautical circles at the time, gaining further confirmation in Aden, Yemen where another witness reported seeing a missing Bombay steamer from 200 miles away. He correctly stated the precise appearance, location and direction of the steamer all later corroborated and confirmed correct by those onboard. Such sightings are absolutely inexplicable if the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles around, as ships 200 miles distant would have to fall approximately 5 miles below line of sight!

Of course the buildings of the Chicago skyline are right-side up.  You're talking about less than a single degree of angular difference over a 59 mile stretch.  How big of a perceptual difference do you think that is going to make?  That's less than the same amount of differential change that you would notice in the sun's position over a duration of 4 minutes.

Of course you can see the Chicago skyline from 59 miles away.  Notice what you don't see in the picture?  The ground, nor the bottoms of the buildings.  Why?  Because curvature.

Distance to horizon = sqrt(2*r*h)
Radius of earth in meters = ~6,378,100m
h = height in meters

Let's say you have a 500 ft tall building, i.e. h=~152.4m.  From the top of that building to the horizon, you get sqrt(2*6,378,100*91.44) = ~44.122km.  Okay, so, little over 44km to the horizon.

Now, why can you see the bulk of a 500 foot tall building at sea level if its 60 miles (i.e. ~96.56km) away?

Simple: atmospheric refraction.  At sea-level, atmospheric refraction bends light at about 0.5 degrees, which is slightly larger than the entire diameter of the sun as it appears in the sky.  From 60 miles away, the Chicago skyline, would occupy far less than 0.5 degrees of your perceptual scope.  In fact, a 500 foot building would only occupy ~0.08 degrees of perceptual scope at a distance of 60 miles.

What does this mean?  It means that you could simply compensate for atmospheric refraction by imagining that 500 foot building to be more than 6 times its original height, or at minimum 3000 ft, or ~914.4m

So, what's the distance to the horizon from a vantage point of 914.4m?   Sqrt(2*6,378,100*914.4) = ~108.077km, or 67.155mi.

Now, subtract the actual distance of 60mi from this, and you get 7.155 mi.  This is the distance you then use to determine how much of the building you would expect to see blocked by curvature.  It's a little over 32 feet. In other words, you would still see over 460 feet of that 500 foot building from 60 miles away at sea-level.  This is entirely consistent with that photo of the skyline, where the ground is not visible, but the bulk of the buildings are.

This applies to all of your cute little images.  Jesus Christ, research this!

[—]

The idea that people are standing, ships are sailing and planes are flying upside down on certain parts of Earth while others tilted at 90 degrees and all other impossible angles is complete absurdity. The idea that a man digging a hole straight down could eventually reach sky on the other side is ludicrous.
Common sense tells every free-thinking person correctly that there truly is an “up” and “down” in nature, unlike the “everything is relative” rhetoric of the Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm




Quoting, “On the False Wisdom of the Philosophers” by Lacantius, “A sphere where people on the other side live with their feet above their heads, where rain, snow and hail fall upwards, where trees and crops grow upside-down and the sky is lower than the ground? The ancient wonder of the hanging gardens of Babylon dwindle into nothing in comparison to the fields, seas, towns and mountains that pagan philosophers believe to be hanging from the earth without support!”

[the joint]

The idea that people are standing, ships are sailing and planes are flying upside down on certain parts of Earth while others tilted at 90 degrees and all other impossible angles is complete absurdity. The idea that a man digging a hole straight down could eventually reach sky on the other side is ludicrous.
Common sense tells every free-thinking person correctly that there truly is an “up” and “down” in nature, unlike the “everything is relative” rhetoric of the Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm




Quoting, “On the False Wisdom of the Philosophers” by Lacantius, “A sphere where people on the other side live with their feet above their heads, where rain, snow and hail fall upwards, where trees and crops grow upside-down and the sky is lower than the ground? The ancient wonder of the hanging gardens of Babylon dwindle into nothing in comparison to the fields, seas, towns and mountains that pagan philosophers believe to be hanging from the earth without support!”

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg12645979#msg12645979

[the joint]

...

Altitude is relative, i.e. "How high is x compared to y?" When the sun is below the horizon, it has negative altitude relative to the 2-D plane connecting your eyes and the horizon, which is why you can't see the sun when it's below the horizon (earth is opaque).  In this case, the sun has negative altitude relative to the visual plane.  When you are up in an airplane, you see the sun while observers on the earth cannot because the 2-D plane connecting your eyes and the horizon are now at a downward angle compared to that of observers on the ground.  Because the angle of your scope now extends across a plane that is angled downward, you see the sun again; its altitude is above the visual plane.

a) Altitude is relative to sea level.
b) The Sun's altitude never changes as it orbits above the Earth in a circle. This implies that the Sun never goes below the horizon.
c) As I stated before "... The greater the altitude the farther away from the vanishing point the object becomes and farther you can see it. ...".

I can't believe I'm explaining this.

Also, that's a great picture of the Sun setting BTW, I can see the bottom 1/4 has been cropped off though. How do you explain the reflection of the Sun on the water...

Cropped off?  No...no it hasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Mirage, who said anything about a mirage? I can tell that picture is cropped because the horizon is always at eye level. You really can't argue that fact. Also I'm sure you didn't take that picture so how are you so sure the image hasn't been cropped?

The picture in question:

Fake edit:

Oh and I can see somebody beat me to my point about the reflection of the Sun on the water. LOL

Um, you can see the sun reflect on the water when 1) any part of the sun is above the water and 2) your eyes are above the water.  You realize water reflects light, yes?

See the other guys post about the reflection traveling along the water all the way to the feet on the camera tripod.

EDIT:

The original picture would have looked something like this:


Simulated un-cropped image.

a) Altitude can be relative to sea-level, or it can be relative to anything else you want it to be relative to.  For example, "This ball is two feet above the table; this ball is two feet below the table."

b) A sunset + trigonometry proves without question the sun does not circle above a flat earth according to flat earth modeling.

c) You can keep saying all you want, it just doesn't make it true.  Simple trigonometry proves without question that there is no possible way that the sun in the flat earth model (i.e. ~3000mi above us and ~30-something mi in diameter) could ever get anywhere near the horizon no matter where you are on earth.  It would be visible at all times to everyone on the planet.

d)  Actually, if you're at any altitude above the ground with a line of sight parallel to it, then eye-level is always above the horizon.  You can calculate, measure, and observe how far below your line of sight the horizon is based upon your altitude.  But, because the horizon is so far away and the diameter of the earth is so large, it won't be very perceptually noticeable unless you're a great distance above the surface.  Because math.

e)  See definition of "reflection."

[RealBitcoin]

I watched this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJ7kdJOTUI

Why are there no stars at all visible, and no satelites at that high altitude?

Plus the void looks ultra dark, in all other images it used to be shows as more colored, in this one its looks ultra dark and scary.

[the joint]

I watched this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJ7kdJOTUI

Why are there no stars at all visible, and no satelites at that high altitude?

Plus the void looks ultra dark, in all other images it used to be shows as more colored, in this one its looks ultra dark and scary.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae323.cfm

TL;DR: Starlight is too faint and it gets washed out by the brightness of Earth.  Look around a full moon and see how many stars you see...or, rather, won't see.

[RealBitcoin]

I watched this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJ7kdJOTUI

Why are there no stars at all visible, and no satelites at that high altitude?

Plus the void looks ultra dark, in all other images it used to be shows as more colored, in this one its looks ultra dark and scary.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae323.cfm

TL;DR: Starlight is too faint and it gets washed out by the brightness of Earth.  Look around a full moon and see how many stars you see...or, rather, won't see.

Thats bullshit, the stars emit light too,directly, according to the traditional theories, you dont need the sun's light to refract from it and lighten it.

What about the satelites? The video showed more or less a 360 degree shot of earth's orbit up/down/left/right and not a single satelite.

[the joint]

I watched this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJ7kdJOTUI

Why are there no stars at all visible, and no satelites at that high altitude?

Plus the void looks ultra dark, in all other images it used to be shows as more colored, in this one its looks ultra dark and scary.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae323.cfm

TL;DR: Starlight is too faint and it gets washed out by the brightness of Earth.  Look around a full moon and see how many stars you see...or, rather, won't see.

Thats bullshit, the stars emit light too,directly, according to the traditional theories, you dont need the sun's light to refract from it and lighten it.

What about the satelites? The video showed more or less a 360 degree shot of earth's orbit up/down/left/right and not a single satelite.

Yes stars emit light, but that light is not going to be registered by the camera when it's being washed out by the light of the Earth which is thousands of times brighter by comparison.  Like I suggested, see how many stars you see around a full moon.  You won't, because the light from the moon washes out the light from the stars.  Or, go near a metropolis and see how many stars you can see with all of the light pollution, and then compare that to when you're out in the country.

You actually expect to see satellites?  Why?  Satellites are tiny little things flying at >17,000 mph in orbit 1.91 mi/s in geostationary orbit.  They occupy such a tiny volume and are flying around so fast (compared to that rocket which is going virtually straight up)...you actually expect to see them? Are you kidding?

[—]

I watched this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJ7kdJOTUI

Why are there no stars at all visible, and no satelites at that high altitude?

Plus the void looks ultra dark, in all other images it used to be shows as more colored, in this one its looks ultra dark and scary.

Video is interesting

• The moon is visible from a place from which it should not on a globe.
• The lack of anything "hanging" up there (Satellites)
• The invisible stars
• The Rocked hitting the "soft" donat style dome barrier at the end and instantly stops spinning (no chance of getting to the hard barrier)

[RealBitcoin]

Yes stars emit light, but that light is not going to be registered by the camera when it's being washed out by the light of the Earth which is thousands of times brighter by comparison.  Like I suggested, see how many stars you see around a full moon.  You won't, because the light from the moon washes out the light from the stars.  Or, go near a metropolis and see how many stars you can see with all of the light pollution, and then compare that to when you're out in the country.

I dont know, even if earth has a glow around it, it should not be 360 degree, yes maybe it glows a few kilometers and you dont see a few starts that are behind the edge of the "globe" but not the whole sky.

You didnt saw a single star, not a single one, even Venus the brightest object, nothing.

Haha the metropolis vs countryside analogy sucks, you dont see stars in the metropolis because of the smog not because of the light, my city is ultra polluted, yet you barely see that many lights at night, and i never see any stars.

But when I used to visit my grandma in the countryside it was full of stars, and the countyside was so poor back then that they didnt even had roads, so its was 0 pollution there.

You actually expect to see satellites?  Why?  Satellites are tiny little things flying at >17,000 mph in orbit 1.91 mi/s in geostationary orbit.  They occupy such a tiny volume and are flying around so fast (compared to that rocket which is going virtually straight up)...you actually expect to see them? Are you kidding?

Yes I do,you can see the peak of a mountain easily from that point, so thats what about a 200-300 meter radius, you should also be able to see a 10 meter satelite too even some point that is moving around fast, it should be visible, especially if it's moving fast.

[the joint]

I watched this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJ7kdJOTUI

Why are there no stars at all visible, and no satelites at that high altitude?

Plus the void looks ultra dark, in all other images it used to be shows as more colored, in this one its looks ultra dark and scary.

Video is interesting

• The moon is visible from a place from which it should not on a globe.
• The lack of anything "hanging" up there (Satellites)
• The invisible stars
• The Rocked hitting the "soft" donat style dome barrier at the end and instantly stops spinning (no chance of getting to the hard barrier)

Lmfao, oh yeah dude, I totally need to find a camera that can survive an impact at several times the speed of sound and keep filming.  That totally makes complete sense.

[RealBitcoin]

I watched this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJ7kdJOTUI

Why are there no stars at all visible, and no satelites at that high altitude?

Plus the void looks ultra dark, in all other images it used to be shows as more colored, in this one its looks ultra dark and scary.

Video is interesting

• The moon is visible from a place from which it should not on a globe.
• The lack of anything "hanging" up there (Satellites)
• The invisible stars
• The Rocked hitting the "soft" donat style dome barrier at the end and instantly stops spinning (no chance of getting to the hard barrier)

Yes thats all true but the most impressive/scary thing is the void, I mean the universe is fucking dark, not like in CGI photos:



They make the background gray, or dark gray, or some blurred other tinting color, but never dark dark.

While the real video, it is totally dark, dark as you havent seen before and empty: THE VOID

[PrimeGlitch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAifzh7_-cg

[the joint]

Yes stars emit light, but that light is not going to be registered by the camera when it's being washed out by the light of the Earth which is thousands of times brighter by comparison.  Like I suggested, see how many stars you see around a full moon.  You won't, because the light from the moon washes out the light from the stars.  Or, go near a metropolis and see how many stars you can see with all of the light pollution, and then compare that to when you're out in the country.

I dont know, even if earth has a glow around it, it should not be 360 degree, yes maybe it glows a few kilometers and you dont see a few starts that are behind the edge of the "globe" but not the whole sky.

You didnt saw a single star, not a single one, even Venus the brightest object, nothing.

Haha the metropolis vs countryside analogy sucks, you dont see stars in the metropolis because of the smog not because of the light, my city is ultra polluted, yet you barely see that many lights at night, and i never see any stars.

But when I used to visit my grandma in the countryside it was full of stars, and the countyside was so poor back then that they didnt even had roads, so its was 0 pollution there.

You actually expect to see satellites?  Why?  Satellites are tiny little things flying at >17,000 mph in orbit 1.91 mi/s in geostationary orbit.  They occupy such a tiny volume and are flying around so fast (compared to that rocket which is going virtually straight up)...you actually expect to see them? Are you kidding?

Yes I do,you can see the peak of a mountain easily from that point, so thats what about a 200-300 meter radius, you should also be able to see a 10 meter satelite too even some point that is moving around fast, it should be visible, especially if it's moving fast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution

If there was a metropolitan blackout, you would see the stars just fine.  If light pollution didn't exist, you would see all the stars during the daytime (from the sun, not from cities).

As far as satellites, geostationary orbit is 1) about 22,236 miles above earth, and 2) above the equator.  All geostationary satellites orbit in a ring around the equator.  So, not only is this rocket more than 22,000 miles away from those satellites in terms of altitude, it is also x miles away from the equator depending on where this guy was when he launched the rocket.

Again, I ask the question, you expect to see satellites in that video, which are probably ~25,000-30,000 miles away from a moving, wobbly camera, which are so tiny, and whose light would also be washed out from the light pollution of the earth?  Seriously...think about this!

[RealBitcoin]

Yes stars emit light, but that light is not going to be registered by the camera when it's being washed out by the light of the Earth which is thousands of times brighter by comparison.  Like I suggested, see how many stars you see around a full moon.  You won't, because the light from the moon washes out the light from the stars.  Or, go near a metropolis and see how many stars you can see with all of the light pollution, and then compare that to when you're out in the country.

I dont know, even if earth has a glow around it, it should not be 360 degree, yes maybe it glows a few kilometers and you dont see a few starts that are behind the edge of the "globe" but not the whole sky.

You didnt saw a single star, not a single one, even Venus the brightest object, nothing.

Haha the metropolis vs countryside analogy sucks, you dont see stars in the metropolis because of the smog not because of the light, my city is ultra polluted, yet you barely see that many lights at night, and i never see any stars.

But when I used to visit my grandma in the countryside it was full of stars, and the countyside was so poor back then that they didnt even had roads, so its was 0 pollution there.

You actually expect to see satellites?  Why?  Satellites are tiny little things flying at >17,000 mph in orbit 1.91 mi/s in geostationary orbit.  They occupy such a tiny volume and are flying around so fast (compared to that rocket which is going virtually straight up)...you actually expect to see them? Are you kidding?

Yes I do,you can see the peak of a mountain easily from that point, so thats what about a 200-300 meter radius, you should also be able to see a 10 meter satelite too even some point that is moving around fast, it should be visible, especially if it's moving fast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution

If there was a metropolitan blackout, you would see the stars just fine.  If light pollution didn't exist, you would see all the stars during the daytime (from the sun, not from cities).

As far as satellites, geostationary orbit is 1) about 22,236 miles above earth, and 2) above the equator.  All geostationary satellites orbit in a ring around the equator.  So, not only is this rocket more than 22,000 miles away from those satellites in terms of altitude, it is also x miles away from the equator depending on where this guy was when he launched the rocket.

Again, I ask the question, you expect to see satellites in that video, which are probably ~25,000-30,000 miles away from a moving, wobbly camera, which are so tiny, and whose light would also be washed out from the light pollution of the earth?  Seriously...think about this!

Ok but trust me my city is nothing like NY or Las Vegas, there are only a few street lamps on and a few light from windows where people dont sleep, the sky is black, no light, and no stars...(it's the smog man)

Yes when I go to countryside, I can see stars, it is very strange....

So it's the smog. I`m skeptical about this glow theory hiding the stars.
----------------

Ok on the satelite question you have a plausible answer, I`ll accept that for now. But I`m still skeptical about the earth glowing hiding the stars, and the dark dark void at that high altitude.

[PrimeGlitch]

The world is not flat..If you think it is you might want to step back from the bag of meth and have a reality check... Really.