Flat Earth

[notbatman]

^^^ Is this your proof of a globe?

[1713581211]

1713581211

[1713581211]

1713581211

[1713581211]

1713581211

[1713581211]

1713581211

[1713581211]

1713581211

[BADecker]

^^^ I've shown you proof (Nikon P900 video) the distance to the horizon is not consistent with a globe far beyond any reasonable margin of error.

Get the fuck out of here!

You aren't taking into account everything that is necessary to prove the shape of the earth. Nice religion you have there, though.

 

The earth is observably and measurably flat and motionless thus, the burden of proof is on the globe!

Here's proof the earth is flat:

   Globe Fails Distance to the Horizon ... -- https://youtu.be/XOVW25pQgjk

I accept that you believe. I don't have anything against you believing what you want to believe. You might want to believe that two-headed green Martians came down and helped you at the keyboard. I am not against you believing it.

Proof that you haven't proven FE, and proof that your FE calc is at least incomplete can be found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg52735246#msg52735246
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg52738726#msg52738726

[BADecker]

^^^ Is this your proof of a globe?

So you are against using enhancements so that people can see what the earth really looks like.

[notbatman]

^^^ It's not "enhancements", the faggot takes image strips from high altitude aircraft and pastes them on a globe with 3D rendering software, then adds clouds and lighting effects.

NASA got $21.5 billion FY2019 and they have to pay mr. sodomite and friends to make cartoon balls. They can't take a photograph of the globe because the earth is flat and provably so.

[BADecker]

^^^ It's not "enhancements", the faggot takes image strips from high altitude aircraft and pastes them on a globe with 3D rendering software, then adds clouds and lighting effects.

NASA got $21.5 billion FY2019 and they have to pay mr. sodomite and friends to make cartoon balls. They can't take a photograph of the globe because the earth is flat and provably so.

https://i.imgur.com/LezaBvo.jpg

It's easy to say to write all kinds of things. But even if the guy took high altitude strips and pasted them on a globe, it's a globe that the pictures were taken of in the first place. So, it's simply enhancement.

If he did this (which you aren't clearly backing up with evidence), he was only clarifying things that are found on many globe photos from space.

[Paashaas]

^^^ Is this your proof of a globe?

What if flat-earthers aren’t actually crazy but they are 2d creatures that can’t imagine 3 dimensions?

[notbatman]

^^^ It's not "enhancements", the faggot takes image strips from high altitude aircraft and pastes them on a globe with 3D rendering software, then adds clouds and lighting effects.

NASA got $21.5 billion FY2019 and they have to pay mr. sodomite and friends to make cartoon balls. They can't take a photograph of the globe because the earth is flat and provably so.

https://i.imgur.com/LezaBvo.jpg

It's easy to say to write all kinds of things. But even if the guy took high altitude strips and pasted them on a globe, it's a globe that the pictures were taken of in the first place. So, it's simply enhancement.

If he did this (which you aren't clearly backing up with evidence), he was only clarifying things that are found on many globe photos from space.

You forget faster than an AI chat bot, I proved last page that the globe is the projection of a plane.



@Paashaas,

   For the so-called Eratosthenes experiment, a flat earth's close small sun with divergent rays is mathematically identical to a globe with a sun whose rays are parallel.

This is for the assholes at Netflix. | Carl Sagan 1989 flat earth interview -- https://youtu.be/Zg_J_3iCyy8

[BADecker]

^^^ It's not "enhancements", the faggot takes image strips from high altitude aircraft and pastes them on a globe with 3D rendering software, then adds clouds and lighting effects.

NASA got $21.5 billion FY2019 and they have to pay mr. sodomite and friends to make cartoon balls. They can't take a photograph of the globe because the earth is flat and provably so.

https://i.imgur.com/LezaBvo.jpg

It's easy to say to write all kinds of things. But even if the guy took high altitude strips and pasted them on a globe, it's a globe that the pictures were taken of in the first place. So, it's simply enhancement.

If he did this (which you aren't clearly backing up with evidence), he was only clarifying things that are found on many globe photos from space.

You forget faster than an AI chat bot, I proved last page that the globe is the projection of a plane.



@Paashaas,

   For the so-called Eratosthenes experiment, a flat earth's close small sun with divergent rays is mathematically identical to a globe with a sun whose rays are parallel.

This is for the assholes at Netflix. | Carl Sagan 1989 flat earth interview -- https://youtu.be/Zg_J_3iCyy8

So, you think I forgot, right? But can you refresh my memory with proof that I forgot? And can you supply the proof that the earth is flat rather than only saying that you have proof? After all...

You say that the sun is 32 nm in diameter. This means that, using geometry on a FE, if you stand a person looking straight up when the sun is directly overhead, so that he sees the center of the sun, anybody standing 16 nm away from this guy should see the edge of the sun when he looks straight up. Standard, simple geometry.

If the person at the edge of the sun uses an accurate transit, with a powerful telescope, he would be able to prove the edge of the sun, if it is as you say.

But all that people see at 16 nm away from the guy with the sun directly overhead, is still the center of the sun. This proves that the sun is much farther away than the inside of the supposed dome you talk about, and that it is much larger than you say. The only other option is that physics is vastly different than the standard physics that we know.

Either way, you prove that you don't have proof of FE with this simple observational method.

If physics happens to be extremely different than the standard understanding of physics, unless you can show us the accurate, REAL physics, at best you don't know what you are talking about any more than anyone else would.

[notbatman]

... You forget faster than an AI chat bot ...
... I proved last page that the globe is the projection of a plane ...
... | Carl Sagan 1989 flat earth interview -- https://youtu.be/Zg_J_3iCyy8

So, you think I forgot, right? But can you refresh my memory with proof that I forgot? And can you supply the proof that the earth is flat rather than only saying that you have proof? After all...

You say that the sun is 32 nm in diameter. This means that, using geometry on a FE, if you stand a person looking straight up when the sun is directly overhead, so that he sees the center of the sun, anybody standing 16 nm away from this guy should see the edge of the sun when he looks straight up. Standard, simple geometry.

No, not simple geometry. We're using trigonometry and there's an atmospheric lensing effect [looming] to account for.

If the person at the edge of the sun uses an accurate transit, with a powerful telescope, he would be able to prove the edge of the sun, if it is as you say.

But all that people see at 16 nm away from the guy with the sun directly overhead, is still the center of the sun. This proves that the sun is much farther away than the inside of the supposed dome you talk about, and that it is much larger than you say. The only other option is that physics is vastly different than the standard physics that we know.

Either way, you prove that you don't have proof of FE with this simple observational method.

If physics happens to be extremely different than the standard understanding of physics, unless you can show us the accurate, REAL physics, at best you don't know what you are talking about any more than anyone else would.

The rest of what you say disregards the non-zero effect of lensing thus, it too may be disregarded.

The sun is a 32 nautical mile disc of electrical plasma on the surface of the topmost layer of a gaseous/liquid crystal atmospheric plane. Above this plane at about ~3100 nautical miles is an electron gas then a concave mirrored surface that reflects directed energy.

That being said the plasma forms a hologram from the directed energy and, the curvature of the firmament needs to be accounted for in determining what the observer sees. For example if 5 people go to the beach at sunset all 5 people will claim the long reflection of the sun on the water goes only to their own feet.

My point is where the sun is, is unique to each observer.

Stars are also electrical plasma, like little sun bits.

   What are Stars? - Nikon P1000 -- https://youtu.be/z8p5Dk-Aof4

[BADecker]

... You forget faster than an AI chat bot ...
... I proved last page that the globe is the projection of a plane ...
... | Carl Sagan 1989 flat earth interview -- https://youtu.be/Zg_J_3iCyy8

So, you think I forgot, right? But can you refresh my memory with proof that I forgot? And can you supply the proof that the earth is flat rather than only saying that you have proof? After all...

You say that the sun is 32 nm in diameter. This means that, using geometry on a FE, if you stand a person looking straight up when the sun is directly overhead, so that he sees the center of the sun, anybody standing 16 nm away from this guy should see the edge of the sun when he looks straight up. Standard, simple geometry.

No, not simple geometry. We're using trigonometry and there's an atmospheric lensing effect [looming] to account for.

If the person at the edge of the sun uses an accurate transit, with a powerful telescope, he would be able to prove the edge of the sun, if it is as you say.

But all that people see at 16 nm away from the guy with the sun directly overhead, is still the center of the sun. This proves that the sun is much farther away than the inside of the supposed dome you talk about, and that it is much larger than you say. The only other option is that physics is vastly different than the standard physics that we know.

Either way, you prove that you don't have proof of FE with this simple observational method.

If physics happens to be extremely different than the standard understanding of physics, unless you can show us the accurate, REAL physics, at best you don't know what you are talking about any more than anyone else would.

The rest of what you say disregards the non-zero effect of lensing thus, it too may be disregarded.

The sun is a 32 nautical mile disc of electrical plasma on the surface of the topmost layer of a gaseous/liquid crystal atmospheric plane. Above this plane at about ~3100 nautical miles is an electron gas then a concave mirrored surface that reflects directed energy.

That being said the plasma forms a hologram from the directed energy and, the curvature of the firmament needs to be accounted for in determining what the observer sees. For example if 5 people go to the beach at sunset all 5 people will claim the long reflection of the sun on the water goes only to their own feet.

My point is where the sun is, is unique to each observer.

Stars are also electrical plasma, like little suns.

   What are Stars? - Nikon P1000 -- https://youtu.be/z8p5Dk-Aof4

Regarding the sun, you have totally negated everything you say. How? When you apply all the things you say to your observations and ideals about FE, you cancel out FE just like you are attempting to cancel out standard geometry and optics regarding what I have said.

To make anything work like you have said, while eliminating what I have said, you need to have a whole different, proven system of physics in use. Since you don't have such a system of physics existent to the core of how things operate, you simply negate everything you say in your attempts to negate what I say.

[notbatman]

^^^ What you've said doesn't take all the variables into account, you do this with intellectual dishonesty in order to claim NASA's animated balls are for real.

I've said nothing that isn't covered by existing science i.e. trigonometry, holograms, plasma displays, liquid crystals, optics, etc.. The sun is a close small artificial electrical light source, not some absurd thermonuclear bomb that's a million miles wide.

[BADecker]

^^^ What you've said doesn't take all the variables into account, you do this with intellectual dishonesty in order to claim NASA's animated balls are for real.

I've said nothing that isn't covered by existing science i.e. trigonometry, holograms, plasma displays, liquid crystals, optics, etc.. The sun is a close small artificial electrical light source, not some absurd thermonuclear bomb that's a million miles wide.

My explanation at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg52906498#msg52906498 shows that you are missing a whole section of explanation. To make flat earth work in light of the info in my link, you need to have a big change in physics in order to get YOUR flat earth to exist. And that is only one thing that proves FE is at least very different than what you say.

You can't use standard, well-proven physics to prove the things of standard, well-proven physics wrong.

[notbatman]

^^^ I don't need anything to make it work, the earth is observably and measurably flat. Snap the fuck out of it!

[BADecker]

^^^ I don't need anything to make it work, the earth is observably and measurably flat. Snap the fuck out of it!

Now don't get so upset. Get glasses.

I'm not trying to dispel your personal beliefs. I'm glad you have something to believe in that is really greater than yourself. We all need that. So, continue to believe if you want.

But don't dispel our beliefs that are backed up by logical, scientific, physics proof.

You keep your FE belief. The rest of us will maintain our scientifically backed GE understanding... which is backed by visual sight, btw.

[notbatman]

@BADecker, empirical measurement and observation are not faith based! The earth is flat for as far as the eye/camera can see and your claims otherwise are nonsense and lies.

The majority of the surface of the earth is water and water forms a flat level surface, this is measurable, testable, verifiable science using the scientific method.



Does this look like a curved fun-house mirror to you?

[Filos]

Yes oceanic topographic variations are measurable by gravitational measurements and altimetry measurments taken by FUCKIN sattelites.
And the facts state that the best geometrical shape that someone could fit the geoid is the ellipsoid.... get your head out of your ass and read some actual scientific evidence...

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

[suchmoon]

Yes oceanic topographic variations are measurable by gravitational measurements and altimetry measurments taken by FUCKIN sattelites.

FYI satellites don't exist on notbatman's pancake. I don't remember if they're projections or balloons or some other shit like that.

[BADecker]

@BADecker, empirical measurement and observation are not faith based! The earth is flat for as far as the eye/camera can see and your claims otherwise are nonsense and lies.

The majority of the surface of the earth is water and water forms a flat level surface, this is measurable, testable, verifiable science using the scientific method.

https://i.imgur.com/M4fROE6.jpg

Does this look like a curved fun-house mirror to you?

Wrong! Empirical eye and camera measurements produce an optical illusion that only suggests that the horizon rises to meet the eye. This illusion is produced by the inflation of the same aberration oblation that you constantly talk about all the time. Empirical eye and camera measurements are completely faith based... except in the case of your buddies who intentionally produce the camera lies that show the horizon extending when you use a telescopic lens.

Consider. When you are transit-telescope-camera looking straight up, the atmosphere rarefies with height. This has been proven many times by Everest climbers, and high-flying airplanes and balloons. It is a well know science. But there is no rarefaction when you are looking at the horizon. In fact, when you are looking at the horizon from a height above the ground, you are really looking from a slightly atmosphere rarefied position into a denser position. Your explanation of what is normally called gravity shows this.

The elevation of Mount Everest is considered to be almost 30,000 feet. That's something under 6 miles. Throughout all that elevation ascension, the atmosphere is gradually rarefying until the climbers need oxygen tanks because it is so thin. Calculations have shown that at 20 miles of altitude, there is so little atmosphere that it is essentially negligible for causing aberration of sight.

The point? All the aberration stuff you talk about makes your eye and camera views to be something different than actually exists, because there is way more aberration as you look through way more atmosphere at or near ground level. At the same time, when you look straight up, you DO have some aberration. But the aberration tapers off because of the rarefaction of the atmosphere with altitude.

This means that, on a FE, you should be able to see the edge of the sun, or at least be able to see near the edge of the sun, when looking straight up at 16 nm away from the spot where the sun is directly overhead. However, the thing that you see straight up at 16 nm or further from the center, is the emptiness of space. Why do you see this? Because of the curvature of the earth combined with the great distance the sun is from the earth.

If you are going to use simple understanding of what the eye sees, you are using faith based stuff. When you take into account a whole lot of math, trig, and telescopic observation, and include all the understanding of aberration and the way temperature affects the atmosphere, you will find that FE doesn't fit... except if you want to change the whole explantion of physics. But you use much of normal physics without explaining why.

Globe earth is the realistic observation.

[Filos]

Yes oceanic topographic variations are measurable by gravitational measurements and altimetry measurments taken by FUCKIN sattelites.

FYI satellites don't exist on notbatman's pancake. I don't remember if they're projections or balloons or some other shit like that.

https://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/index.html

doesn't matter what an idiot believes, there are multi million dollar industries that utilise all that satellite data. I know because i am a freakin geoscientist.

I have worked that data, I have found potential hydrocarbon positions with similar data.

And then comes every flattard thinking he can negate ACTUAL WORKABLE INFORMATION with crap from youtube or their retarded photo cameras.



I have posted those before in this thread one way or another. But everything goes way over the flattheads heads.
But in any case someone could add to their argument arsenal regarding layman info on how someone could prove the earth is a geoid without being a scientist.

Constellations and moon phases: http://www.astro4dev.org/blog/2017/03/20/north-vs-south-constellations-moon-phases/

Climet: https://www.thoughtco.com/northern-vs-southern-hemisphere-weather-3444434

Solar system with HOME telescope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-P031VlbU

[notbatman]

They launch giant mylar balloons in rockets that reach 1000 miles in altitude (see project echo), at this altitude they can see the sun and reflect it back to earth. When ones of these "satellites" pops a military jet "space force" flys up and hooks it.

The "real" GPS (not the cellular tower triangulation smartphones use) it uses a network of these balloons.

Echo II Satelloon Inflation, 1964 -- https://youtu.be/qz3-b7sB9CA

...
PAGEOS (PAssive Geodetic Earth Orbiting Satellite) was a balloon satellite which was launched by NASA in June 1966.
...
Orbital parameters
Reference system   Geocentric[1]
Eccentricity   0.00301
Perigee altitude   4,207 km (2,614 mi)
Apogee altitude   4,271 km (2,654 mi)
...

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