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

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-06-07 01:36:44
Reaction Score: 1

I will ask a simple question, for with us allegedly knowing the size of the Earth, the answer should not be that complicated.

Given conditions:

• 100% calm sea, or a level plain (100% same elevation over sea level)
• 6 foot person with eyes on top of his head
• those are looking at the so-called horizon

Question: how far is that horizon?

 

[madroona]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: madroona
Date: 2019-06-07 11:24:41
Reaction Score: 3

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?

Sure, see below for a very simple diagram, done up very quickly, so please pardon the lack of professionally

"madroona said:
quick and easy way to explain to people what should be encountered, but is not"

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

No, respectfully offered, most average folk can figure out the square of something, but tossing out a mind-grenade of

• d(e,h) = r * acos(r / (r + h)) + d(e,0)

will only serve to turn folk away, and render them muttering to themselves, even if it was a more exact formula.

The idea of the approximation of the 8" formula is to allow for a quick and dirty estimate of the missing reality that an expanse of land or water exposes. I lived across from Port Angeles, Washington for years. On a beach in Victoria, I could easily see the the docking ships. PA is roughly 25 miles across from us. Most folks can do a 8*25*25 /12 calculation to reveal there should be roughly 417 feet of curvature-related water between them and the far shore. And yes, most get that their height changes this, so you can squat and eliminate most of that math. The point being that one should only be able to see the top of the tallest structures there. This is most decidedly not the case. This is where my mind opened to the reality of the questioning of the current paradigm.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: AmorDeCognos
Date: 2019-06-09 22:15:07
Reaction Score: 2

6 foot person with eyes on top of his head [...] how far is that horizon?

I get 4.827 km, which is almost exactly 3 miles.

That's using my formula earlier in this thread and the value of the Earth's mean radius I quoted there. I take 'the horizon' to mean my d(e,0): the maximum distance that 6' person with the strangely mounted eyeballs could see a point on the ground. The answer is the walking distance, following the alleged curve of the Earth.

Post automatically merged: 6/9/19

Sure, see below for a very simple diagram, done up very quickly, so please pardon the lack of professionally

Great diagram, couldn't be clearer. Any further sophistication would detract.

I'll see if I can work out what I think the formula should be for that quantity. Then I'll graph that vs. the '8 inches...' formula and see how they compare.

I take your point re: 'mind-grenade'. My perspective on math has varied significantly over my lifetime. In grade 12, where they teach you stuff like 'inverse cosine', it was simple. But I was amazed how quickly all that evaporated just a few years out of school in a career that didn't need it. It would still be long-gone had I not later gone back for grad school and (rather painfully) recovered my lost fluency. Having learned it twice, I think it's permanent now.

 

[DanFromMN]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: DanfromMN
Date: 2020-04-20 14:54:00
Reaction Score: 1

That's a very crappy one. Here's a better use of the camera:

The above video is a more recent one of his. His older one has 5 million views:

Seems like the moon is way closer than were expected to believe.

 

[N.D. Magoo]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: N.D. Magoo
Date: 2020-04-27 00:34:41
Reaction Score: 1

You guys have raised some fascinating topics here, and I appreciate seeing real math being thrown into the mix. While I find flat Earth to be counter intuitive to my observation and fundamental understanding of the world, you guys do raise a few points that honestly have not been rationally explained. I wonder if the supposed state of "light being both a particle and a wave" could play into this, somehow.

At the same time, on multiple occasions I have been in North America, and been joined by people who had come there, east from Asia and West from Europe (respectively). The only way the Earth could be flat, is if we live in some sort of Pac-Man dimension, where you go to the left edge of a plane, and appear on the right edge (and vice-versa). That wouldn't explain the shape of the continents, however, nor the evidence of Earth expansion. Their shapes not only match up as jigsaw puzzle pieces on all sides, they fit together perfectly on a smaller globe.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Andronikos
Date: 2020-05-20 22:24:40
Reaction Score: 1

At the same time, on multiple occasions I have been in North America, and been joined by people who had come there, east from Asia and West from Europe (respectively). The only way the Earth could be flat, is if we live in some sort of Pac-Man dimension, where you go to the left edge of a plane, and appear on the right edge (and vice-versa). That wouldn't explain the shape of the continents, however, nor the evidence of Earth expansion. Their shapes not only match up as jigsaw puzzle pieces on all sides, they fit together perfectly on a smaller globe.

No Pac-Man dimension is required. Think of the flat earth as an LP record, with the central spindle being the north pole and the continents arrayed around it towards the edge of the record, which is the southern circumference that we call Antarctica. Your friends are basically travelling "east" or "west", which are both directions perpendicular to the north (center) pole, so they are both moving along the grooves of our record in opposite directions. The very slight curvature of their path - horizontal only, of course - is not noticeable over such distances. The pilots generally keep their headings east or west (but never down or up to cover for absent curvature).

I agree with you about the continents' shapes matching up in all directions being proof of earth expansion, but keep in mind that that also works on a flat plane and not only on a smaller globe. Picture dropping the above flat earth "record" and it breaking apart, with the shattered pieces (continents) moving away from the centre and the spaces between filling with ocean. This is what I believe happened to the continents after a fairly recent cataclysm.

Cheers!

 

[N.D. Magoo]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: N.D. Magoo
Date: 2020-05-28 01:40:03
Reaction Score: 0

No Pac-Man dimension is required. Think of the flat earth as an LP record, with the central spindle being the north pole and the continents arrayed around it towards the edge of the record, which is the southern circumference that we call Antarctica. Your friends are basically travelling "east" or "west", which are both directions perpendicular to the north (center) pole, so they are both moving along the grooves of our record in opposite directions. The very slight curvature of their path - horizontal only, of course - is not noticeable over such distances. The pilots generally keep their headings east or west (but never down or up to cover for absent curvature).

So in this model, is gravity (or another force) pulling the plane in a circle, while it flies straight?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Willmatron
Date: 2020-05-28 05:01:46
Reaction Score: 0

The problem with Mark Sargent's 5 questions is I don't think it happened.

As far as the Van Allen Radiation Belts they are between 640 and 58,000 km. This places the radiation belt in space and therefore if space is fake they are fake. This leaves with two possibilities.

1. Space is fake and any dangers represented in aren't fake and therefore any dangers they pose aren't real and therefore any precautions they take are more than adequate.
2. Scientists know what they are talking about and therefore they figured out the right precautions to take.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Andronikos
Date: 2020-05-28 21:56:52
Reaction Score: 0

So in this model, is gravity (or another force) pulling the plane in a circle, while it flies straight?

No, the instrumentation is what helps pilots maintain their heading as either west or east. Those directions form a circular path on the surface of the Earth as they are perpendicular to North - the only "fixed" direction their compasses can base their heading on, being a physical location.

Thus, north is the direction towards this location, east and west are directions perpendicular to it, while south is the direction away from it.

 

[Truth Lover]

Mind you, I'm not out on the roof every night with a telescope staring at the skies but the one thing I can't get my head around is: on those nights when I am on the roof with a telescope staring at the skies, all I see are round spheres, not flat pancakes. Is Earth the only planet that's flat and everything else is round? That makes no sense whatsoever. I wonder if Mark Sargent has encountered that question and what might be his answer to it?

@KorbenDallas-aw shucks.

I don't know if you have a camera or a bad telescope. I took my children out on our hill one night in Ohio, in the early 1980s. I looked through the good quality telescope, at a star, and zoomed in. All I saw were flashing lights. Like little sparklers going off in a small area. I zoomed in at other stars and saw the exact same thing. You know what I did? I put the "broken" telescope right into the basement and never used it again.

Last year I saw a video of looking through a good telescope and what they showed was EXACTLY the little light show that I saw 4 decades ago. WHY? Because that is what is up there. Gentle lights in the night sky.

I don't know if you have a camera or a bad telescope. I took my children out on our hill one night in Ohio, in the early 1980s. I looked through the good quality telescope, at a star, and zoomed in. All I saw were flashing lights. Like little sparklers going off in a small area. I zoomed in at other stars and saw the exact same thing. You know what I did? I put the "broken" telescope right into the basement and never used it again.

Last year I saw a video of looking through a good telescope and what they showed was EXACTLY the little light show that I saw 4 decades ago. WHY? Because that is what is up there. Gentle lights in the night sky.

As unbelievable as it may sound, my daughter told me that the new telescopes are electronically fixed to show a false picture when aimed at stars. I'm sure that would not be too hard to do considering all the video games, videos, apps for tweaking photos excetera. And it's certainly not beyond those liars to do such a thing.
They told us Mars is MILLIONS of light-years away. Yet they get there extremely quickly every time. I noticed that they periodically come out with quirky well timed NASSA news of a Mars excursion, a new planet found or something ultra spacey. They impliment precise timing to grab the headlines, as opposed to us noticing the news about the lies, dirty deeds, and downfall of the wicked.

 

[The Illuminator]

Can Ii just add that it's so refreshing to read an emotive subject debated in such a splendid way. I know we have lost a good few gentlemen and scholars to the covid reboots, but it's nice to see there's still plenty left on this fabulous site.

Lots of intriguing factors at play. I like to meddle with the ones that we can measure and observe.

Water is level. Hidden quantum reality and warped plsnk length dimensions can't hide that fact. Lock less stretches of water like the suez and Panama canals testify to that too.

We can see way too far if we live on a ball. The hundreds of miles records especially the infra red ones are baffling. Mirages and refraction do not adequately answer this particular quandary

What happens if we dig to Australia do we come out feet 1st? The silly answers they have tried to explain this away are laughable. Spinning 180 degrees at the core. As if. When gyroscopes in flight never once show this. The pendulums do no adequately answer the question either.

Let's go higher...in a balloon. The horizon does not fall away. No matter how high you go, you will never see the earth spin. EVER. No matter how high. Hot air balloon travel was outlawed for many reasons. I believe to keep the Heliocentric lie going they didn't want people asking questions. Being very high in balloons invokes all kind of wonder and mystery about our plane.

Tideal shenanigans. Why does water salinity have such an effect on tides? Why are there dead nodal zones on earth? Why do we not have sun tides? Ergo tides are not caused by the moon even though there might be correlation.

I'm leaning towards living on infinite gakaxtic level plane electric torus universe.

But who knows for sure. Especially after learning about all the mainstream and non mainstream lies we've been told for centuries.

Résultats Google Recherche d'images correspondant à https://i.pinimg.com/564x/bb/ec/37/bbec37a259c809d7fb7d17bad0f6782d.jpg

 

[The Illuminator]