SH Archive Can you answer five questions asked by Mark Sargent?

SH.org OP Username
KorbenDallas
SH.org OP Date
2018-08-15 20:56:47
SH.org Reaction Score
68
SH.org Reply Count
68
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: AmorDeCognos
Date: 2019-04-25 02:20:37
Reaction Score: 9
Click to expand...
I finally looked into the curvature thing. The "8 inches/mile squared" formula can't be right; that's a parabola and we're dealing (so they say) with a circle. I derived the formulas below from scratch, then searched online to see if anybody agrees. I found this page by photographer David Senesac. Based on his diagram I'd say his approach was the same as mine, and I get the same answer he does for one of his numerical examples. He doesn't explicitly state his formulas though.

Here's what I worked out.

Given these inputs:
  • e = the height of your eye (or camera) above the ground
  • h = the height of some point on an object, e.g., the top of a ship's mast
  • r = the radius of Earth
We want formulas to compute:
  • d(e,0) = the maximum distance away (along Earth's surface) at which your eye can see a point on the ground (height 0)
  • d(e,h) = the maximum distance away (along Earth's surface) at which your eye can see a point at height h
Note:
  • All quantities have units of length. The choice of unit (feet/meters/etc.) doesn't matter as long as you're consistent.
  • Earth is treated as a perfect sphere, neglecting any deviation due to spin and ignoring terrain. Wikipedia's value for the mean radius is 6371.0088 km.
  • For this analysis, light rays are assumed to travel in straight lines in a 3d cartesian space independent of the Earth. They are in no way 'bent' by the atmosphere or any other property of Earth. A light ray ignores the Earth unless it happens to hit it, at which point it is absorbed.
  • Visual acuity is irrelevant to the issue. By 'can see' we mean 'a line of sight exists'.
  • In the following, acos() is the inverse cosine function and yields an angle in radians (not degrees).
My formulas are:
  • d(e,0) = r * acos(r / (r + e))
  • d(e,h) = r * acos(r / (r + h)) + d(e,0)
Some examples:

e (meters)
h (meters)
d(e,0) (kilometers)
d(e,h) (kilometers)
1.8288 (6 feet)104.82716.115
1.52 (5 feet)7.25 (23.8 feet)4.40614.021

The second example matches one at the bottom of David Senesac's page, assuming his 'Distance' column represents the quantity [d(e,h) - d(e,0)], i.e., not the total distance from viewer to object, but from the tangent point to the object. His 'distance' of 6.0 miles, plus the 2.75 miles from viewer to tangent point which he computed earlier, works out to 14.082 km, close to my d(e,h) = 14.021 km. The difference could be due to roundoff or a different choice of r. It's also possible one or both of us made a mistake somewhere. He used slightly different (presumably equivalent) math to solve the same problem; I'll probably check his steps in more detail later. Senesac's page is just the first apparently equivalent answer I happened to find. There are probably lots more.

Summary and discussion:
  • My result is obviously not compatible with the so-called mainstream formula, "8 inches/mile squared".
  • But that formula was never even a plausible candidate. I'd simply never looked into this issue, but on doing so it was apparent immediately. Its mathematics aren't those of a circle. I doubt it was ever mainstream, but hey, relativity is mainstream and it's almost as obviously wrong. "8 inches/mile squared" is very likely a disinformation meme, and it would be interesting to know how it spread.
  • Please, check my work if you're so inclined. I've been known to make a mistake. I can write up my derivation, and/or generate a precomputed lookup table for ranges of (e,h). But again: the correct formulas are probably in many references.
  • I've taken no position on 'atmospheric refraction' (or other complications) being significant or insignificant. But they shouldn't be trotted out to explain why a so-called mainstream formula fails when that formula is just obviously wrong.
  • I'll admit that my personal probability for the Earth being approximately spherical has never dropped below maybe 90%. But I'm never writing off a huge group of dissenters without listening ever again. That'd be one of those mistakes. Did it for decades and all it got me was stupid. 90% does not equal dismissiveness. The 10% means I still have work to do.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-04-25 03:14:50
Reaction Score: 5
Click to expand...
Officially, according to what we are told, our planet looks something like this. As a matter of fact we are being told by the highest authorities, it looks exactly like that Whether it is like that in reality, or not is a separate question, not related to what we are talking about here.

globe_east_540.jpg

This way my question is this: if 8 inches/mile squared is incorrect, what would be an official formula? Sure for such a perfect sphere, it should be possible to mathematically describe the curvature drop via a formula. In other words, what formula is being provided by the scientific community?
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: AmorDeCognos
Date: 2019-04-25 05:05:31
Reaction Score: 6
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly, and that's what I just did. Just a bit of trigonometry. I haven't stated the Earth is spherical; I've just derived what the line-of-sight formulae should be IF it's spherical. It's a well-defined problem with one right answer. Now, as with natural language, it's possible to say the same thing using different 'words' (e.g., I used cosine, Senesac used pythagoras), but all variants of the right answer will be provably equivalent and produce identical numerical results.

My solution and "8 inches/mile squared" do not produce the same numerical results. At least one of them is wrong.

Here's an easy way to see "8 inches/mile squared" is wrong: for any finite distance, it'll give you a finite height. That's also true in reverse; just rearrange it to solve for distance. Now consider the distance 'halfway around the world'. At that distance, no point at any height is visible. Of course, this is an extreme case, but it tells us that the function "8 inches/mile squared" simply has the wrong form. If you graph it, the graph will have the wrong shape, especially at larger distances.

Of course, even the mainstream admits 'spherical' is an approximation. Therefore, my solution, even if mathematically correct for a sphere, will also be an approximation. The closer to a sphere the Earth is, the better my approximation will be. But "8 inches/mile squared" would be wrong even if the Earth were exactly a sphere.

I don't know. I may look.

I realized this was a rare case where I could know something without having to sort through a bunch of conflicting narratives first.
So I decided to work it out myself, then compare results after. I could claim some principled reason, but honestly, it was just a nice change.

In a sane world, I'd say 'the scientific community does not need to provide this formula because it only takes grade 12 math'. But we don't live in a sane world. We live in a world where you can refute special relativity with grade 10 math, but Einstein is still the greatest genius ever.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: codis
Date: 2019-04-25 06:02:56
Reaction Score: 2
Click to expand...
Or one of the greatest imposters. His relativity theory is a regurgitation of Poincare and Hilbert, and his Nobel prize winning work was for sure written by his then-wife.
But anyway, it should not be too difficult to bring a camera up high enough to a photo, and see for yourself.
Like those project here: Sugar Shot to Space – Mach 5 Low-down
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: WildFire2000
Date: 2019-04-25 06:22:24
Reaction Score: 9
Click to expand...
Sorry to burst your bubble on Einstein and all, but gravitics are way off. He even admonished the scientific community of his day NOT to take his papers as fact, and yet that's exactly what they did. We've been operating on General Relativity and Gravity space/time for almost 100 years now and still haven't found any of the proof necessary to make up the mass GR says we're supposed to see out in space. We'll also ignore the fact that every model demonstrated in laboratories using plasma physics solves many of the glaring issues that conventional GR physics keeps having to develop newer and newer models to support.

Look into the Thunderbolts Project (not necessarily 100% accurate) but their work on Plasma Cosmology and the Suspicious Observers studies on plasma physics and magnetic fields and electric current are rock solid in what we can study and reproduce in a laboratory here on Earth. Was Einstein wrong about everything? Probably not, but his discounting of the Aether and the after-effects have hampered our knowledge of electricity, magnetics, and raw energy for decades now.

This was a bit of a side-track, and I'm sorry KD, but I had to interject. I've come to the conclusion that 'gravity' as we know it is actually an affect an electromagnetic force between our Earth and our bodies. Everything in the universe runs on electricity.

On topic however, no, I still can't answer the 5 questions and while I'm not sold on Flat, I definitely believe we're being lied to about our planet.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Andromeda
Date: 2019-04-25 06:45:37
Reaction Score: 2
Click to expand...
I've lagged way too much behind to grasp the concepts of gravity, electricity, energy and magnetics (God, I feel worthless). However, I'm convinced Aether is where the truth lies and the scientific consensus enterprise knows this as well and whoever who voices any ideas of aether, free energy and so on gets eliminated professionally and sometimes even assassinated making it look like an 'accident'.

Sorry for derailing the thread. I had to interject as well.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: codis
Date: 2019-04-25 06:56:15
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
To comment on the initial questions (I see only two ...):
This curvature is just an approximation of the average, nowhere is claimed the earth is a perfect sphere.
The second and third sentence are just repetitive and redundant babble.
Misleading. Over what distance, and do you really see more of the ship then spatially possible, if the earth is a sphere ? I want to see proof that one can see more than supposed to.
BTW, neither does the water of the oceans form a nearly perfect spherical surface - even ignoring visible waves. The tides are everywhere, but you really notice them only on the shores.
Ditto. Ever heard of over-the-horizon radar ? The Nazis had it already in WWII, using the ionosphere as reflector. Similar to the normal radar that uses direct reflections, but longer wavelength.

No. Torr is a unit of pressure, not force. Pressure is force per area. Can't he get his units straight ???
Perhaps because the force of vacuum from space is compensated by an equal force on earth ? Being it gravity, or EM forces.
Good question. The fact that I don't have a definite answer shall not conceal that this question is misleading in this regard.
Do they ? And how, exactly? I don't just swallow any unsubstantiated assertion.

Do they have no answer, or don't you like their answer ?
Or are you paid to twist our brains, and make us look like fools ? Crazy tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory fools ???
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: AmorDeCognos
Date: 2019-04-25 08:24:36
Reaction Score: 2
Click to expand...
"Or?" Perhaps my contempt was too subtle. Whatever Einstein was, he wasn't a genius. And priority debates are pointless because SR is garbage. I'm glad my name isn't on it. I suppose it's an open question whether he was a knowing participant in the destruction of physics or an honest 2nd rate hack. Either way, he was just a front man. Physics is crippled because people with power and money forced it to swallow a set of logically inconsistent concepts. Power and money sustain the environment that makes those concepts unchallengeable today. If Einstein hadn't existed, other front men would've been found. Actually, some were.

I realize I've now waded a little ways into the Earth Shape debates, but I hesitate to engage fully. It seems like a giant time and energy sink, highly polarized, a lot of people talking at/past each other. This is possibly by design.

I will simply state the approach to resolving the issue that I personally favor. The one I intend to pursue myself when I find the time, to get my 'roundish Earth' probability either back near 100% or down near 0%. First, here's what I'd prefer to avoid if I can:
  • Relying on experiments almost nobody will ever have the time/money/expertise to do, which leads to information coming from just a few sources the rest of us can't check. I am not calling anybody a shill, but the disinformation playbook is well-known. Nobody open to the potential falsification of most of history should be shocked at this suggestion.
  • Tricky science, like the optics of wide-angle lenses, atmospheric refraction and other effects. Even correct arguments involving these things will end up convincing very few people. Opponents can just say 'you're wrong' and most people will never have a way to decide who to believe.
Here's what I favor: pooling data from simultaneous observations of the night sky by a few widely separated observers who are known to me personally. Synchronization made possible by instantaneous communication (supposedly unavailable for most of history, now easy). Simple observations like the elevation (angle relative to horizontal) of a set of easy-to-identify stars. Distances between observers assumed to be approximately knowable; maybe limit to one continent so regular people have physically driven these distances. Maybe avoid relying on magnetic north.

If the night sky is a sort of movie, maybe meant to fool us, well, it's easy (at least logically/mathematically speaking) to make a movie that fools a bunch of people in one location. But it's much harder to fool widely separated people who compare notes. Let's even say the 'movie' doesn't have to be some sort of projection. Let it include live-action elements: actual objects, of arbitrary size and luminosity, moving in a 3d space of any size. Regardless, I think the pooled data will be mathematically consistent with at most one of the 2 models. I say 'at most' to leave open the possibility of other shapes.

Maybe somebody has done something like this? I've looked, but only a little.

I'll respectfully read what anyone may have to say in reply. But past this I'm going to try to lapse back into a respectful silence on the overall Earth Shape topic. I mainly jumped in because I saw something I could do with just math.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: codis
Date: 2019-04-25 08:40:47
Reaction Score: 1
Click to expand...
Perhaps, sorry. I should have known - anyone truly believing in MSM heros wouldn'd be here.

That was just an idea of mine. I had a period when I enjoyed building rockets - from scratch. Including making the propellant. Surprisingly easy, I even reached/exceed Mach 1 with a small 600 Gramm rocket. Or a ballon, alternatively.

My main point is - I learned to trust my own experiences more than second-hand wisdom on paper. I rather accept the results of an experiment, than a dozen assertions from books or Wackopedia.

Also agree.
But if you can find simple holes in the arguments, like (for example) starting out with incorrect physical units, there is something wrong. Omission of simple facts is the next criterion. Most people don't even bother to check and investigate themselves, like looking things up in a physics text book.
A motor-mouthed speaking mode and a soothing voice covers up a lot. Think NLP.
I believe "convincing many people" is not the goal of MindOps like FE. It is just fine if you can smear people critical of "your" misdeeds. For example, researchers that express doubts in NASA's moon landing or Mars operation are quickly associated with flat earthers.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Red Bird
Date: 2019-04-25 13:45:07
Reaction Score: 1
Click to expand...
When I found the topic I watched many videos and have read several books. First, I didn’t find the FE people very obnoxious at all. Not any more than any other topic, and most were responding to being called crazy, some in sarcastic manners. That to me is a Psyops.
I was taught that equation. It doesn’t work. Perspective seems to.
Plus the images of earth are round and all different. Why don’t we have more plus showing those poor upside down people. I would think there would be a station recording 24/7 with its own channel. Learning over 90% of our communication is by cable lends doubtfulness to satellite (maybe balloons) and it seems most (if not all) space stuff doesn’t leave earth ‘orbit’. Now the moon is in the earths atmosphere, you may have read. Interesting.

Plus NASA lies. The final nail in the coffin for me was ‘we lost all of that information, and we have to get through the Van Allen belt’. Dang. Over the top. This will have to be explained further.

It’s doubtful the earth spins or goes round the sun, etc. not proven.
The math works IF it’s a sphere, or somewhat a sphere. If it’s not, it’s just geometry. And very exact as in the moon is almost exactly 25% of sun size- this goes on and on.
The Bible’s description fits current discussions (plus water firmament.)

There’s more, like vacuum. Something isn’t right. And I’m not believing NASA.

If all this earth science is fake it’s a BIG deal. People who down play the importance are another psyop.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: AmorDeCognos
Date: 2019-04-25 16:42:33
Reaction Score: 1
Click to expand...
I have no doubt whatsoever that the purpose of NASA is to sell us a package of lies. They're not above lying about earth shape or anything else. The only question is: just what package did they decide to go with? I've stated some of my current leanings w.r.t. resolving that question.

I could hardly consider these issues more important. It is a matter of basic dignity. I long suspected we were slaves, but I didn't know we were cattle. I'd like to upgrade to at least slave.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: RecycledSoul
Date: 2019-04-25 19:37:11
Reaction Score: 2
Click to expand...
Anyone with a junior high science class under thier belt knows that it will not take long for a pressurized situation to equalize to a vacuum. Anyone open a soda lately? To think that 13 billion (or however many claimed today) years later, Bella Gaia hasn’t “equalized” with the vacuum of space is just senseless. The “vacuum” does not exist.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: HulkSmash
Date: 2019-04-25 19:44:24
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
I remember hearing a theory about gravity not being a force that was pulling us towards the center of the earth, but the opposite. Its a force pushing you towards the center. Something in regards to dark matter and black holes if I remember correctly. I believe it was the work of Nassim Haramein. Some of his work is very compelling and I just always thought the idea of gravity as pushing you down, interesting. Who knows though. I am no physicist or mathematician.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: RecycledSoul
Date: 2019-04-25 19:52:50
Reaction Score: 1
Click to expand...
It is all relative to magnetism. Gravity is a theory full of holes.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: RecycledSoul
Date: 2019-04-25 22:40:17
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
That link only takes me to a place (not phone friendly) that I have no idea how to navigate. Are you saying gravity as a theory is real, and that link provides proof? Or are you advocating the Aether? Just calling me a jackass, in not so many words, or are you making a point without typing tangible sentences? I’m not very good at the psychic stuff...sarcasm aether....
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Maybe
Date: 2019-04-28 17:17:43
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
Oh, ok.

Tangible sentences!

It is a book.
It is a book hosted by a website.
It is a book hosted by a website which is mobile responsive.
it is a book hosted by a website which is mobile responsive and holds over fifty four thousand old books.

I did not call you anything.
You called yourself a 'jackass'.

I would give you a summary of said book but I probably cannot write a coherent sentence which you could comprehend!

And with that I shall take my leave.
I bid most good fortune and fair winds.

:)
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-04-29 16:19:58
Reaction Score: 8
Click to expand...
In reference to the above quote and the reply to the quote. It's very simple in my opinion. This website does not have an army of moderators, or people monitoring the posts. It's only myself. I rarely step in, for which I am very grateful.

For those who can not stay civil, and are unable to refrain from provoking, or being provoked - you are welcome to find a different website to discuss your opinions. There are plenty of places for that. This place is not going to support this type of interaction.

My post does not require an answer.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: madroona
Date: 2019-06-06 21:21:22
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
Respectfully offered: the 8"perMileSquared formula is a rough estimate of the *amount of curvature* between two points. You have carefully created a formula to the horizon on curved surface. Entirely differing thing. The first is used as a quick and easy way to explain to people what should be encountered, but is not. Cheers.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: AmorDeCognos
Date: 2019-06-06 23:50:37
Reaction Score: 0
Click to expand...
I'm not sure exactly what "amount of curvature" means. Can you describe it further, or provide/suggest a diagram where that quantity is labeled?

My formula can be used for exactly that purpose. It says what should be observed if the Earth is spherical.

If your point is that it isn't as quick or easy, that may be true, but I don't see how things like the observer and object heights can be omitted without causing confusion. It could possibly be rearranged to not use acos() though.
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.

Similar threads

Artemisian
The Stourhead Massacre of true English Nobility in1902
Replies
14
Views
5K
Artemisian
Artemisian
MaziarMohajer
Iranian Coinage: Revisionist Perspectives
Replies
5
Views
2K
MaziarMohajer
MaziarMohajer
MaziarMohajer
The Parthenon Mosque: An Alternative View
2
Replies
25
Views
8K
MaziarMohajer
MaziarMohajer
MaziarMohajer
Medieval Russian Coins with Arabic Inscriptions a Book by Dr. Fomenko
2
Replies
39
Views
8K
Janusstark
J
KD Archive
SH Archive Can you answer five questions asked by Mark Sargent?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Broken Agate
Broken Agate
Back
Top