Flat Earth

Worsaae

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
183
Reaction score
137
@grav What is the difference between apparent and geometric horizon?

He calculates the geometric horizon of RE. He measures the apparent horizon of RE. He then says that the geometric and the apparent horizon is not the same, which he uses as a proof that the geometric horizon of RE does not exist.

This is faulty logic.
If you want to reject the apparent horizon of RE, then you need to measure and calculate both. If the measurement of the apparent horizon does not match the calculated apparent horizon, then you can reject RE, but that is not what he does.
 

Silent Bob

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
150
Reaction score
399
@grav What is the difference between apparent and geometric horizon?

He calculates the geometric horizon of RE. He measures the apparent horizon of RE. He then says that the geometric and the apparent horizon is not the same, which he uses as a proof that the geometric horizon of RE does not exist.

This is faulty logic.
If you want to reject the apparent horizon of RE, then you need to measure and calculate both. If the measurement of the apparent horizon does not match the calculated apparent horizon, then you can reject RE, but that is not what he does.

I don't get why you think this is faulty logic, seems pretty straight forward to me - we shouldn't be able to see further than the calculated geometric horizon, but clearly we can see much further. The geometric horizon has been calculated and compared to the measured one, which clearly don't match - what am I missing here? This is a simple case of comparing a model to reality and finding that the model doesn't agree with reality.
 

Worsaae

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
183
Reaction score
137
I don't get why you think this is faulty logic, seems pretty straight forward to me - we shouldn't be able to see further than the calculated geometric horizon, but clearly we can see much further. The geometric horizon has been calculated and compared to the measured one, which clearly don't match - what am I missing here? This is a simple case of comparing a model to reality and finding that the model doesn't agree with reality.
We have a geometric horizon and an apparent horizon.
We can measure either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
We can calculate either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
In the video, he calculates the geometric, but measures the apparent, and it should come as no surprise that he see a difference between the two.

If you want to calculate the apparent horizon, then you need to take into context other factors such as refraction. He does not do this.
 

Silent Bob

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
150
Reaction score
399
We have a geometric horizon and an apparent horizon.
We can measure either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
We can calculate either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
In the video, he calculates the geometric, but measures the apparent, and it should come as no surprise that he see a difference between the two.

If you want to calculate the apparent horizon, then you need to take into context other factors such as refraction. He does not do this.

Ah, I see your confusion now. You can't measure the geometric horizon, you can only calculate it and you can't calculate the actual horizon, it has to be measured. The whole point is to compare the theoretical calculated horizon from the globe model with the actual reality that we see. So in this case the geometric horizon is the calculated, theoritcal value and the actual horizon is, as the name suggests, the actual horizon we see in reality. The actual horizon, when measured, should equal the theoretical one if the globe model is correct, which clearly it doesn't.

As for refraction, this is the only explanation offered to try and explain this very well known discrepancy between what we should see under the globe model and what we actually see in reality. I have lost count of the times I have asked someone to explain how refraction could affect what we see in the way that it does, and I have never had a satisfactory response. This goes way back to the Bedford Flats experiment back in the 1800's.

So, just to summarise the refraction argument. Normally refraction only occurs at the junction between two different materials, which we can see and measure by shining a light beam through a glass block. We see clearly that the direction of light changes, all fine so far. However, in all of our observations the light is not passing from one material into another, so standard refraction does not apply. So, then we get told about graded refractive index, which can occur within one medium, such as air, if their is a temperature differential. That shimmer we see on the road during a hot day is often used as an example. However, this argument is very hand wavy and has no real substance to back it up. First the refraction would be very small in these cases, not enough for us to see as far we do. Second, the graded refractive index caused by the temperature difference in air just above the water line would have to be just the right amount to match the curvature of the earth. In other words, in every single case where we see this effect the temperature difference between the air just above the water and the air just above that would have to be the same - does this seem likely?

Overall the refraction argument really bores me now, if you want to quote this argument then you should be able to back it up - you would need to calculate and demonstrate what the temperature difference would need to be to create just the right refractive index, which in turn would create just the right change in direction of the light to perfectly match the curvature of the earth for however far you are able to see. It really is a far fetched theory, grasping at straws - prove me wrong!
 

Worsaae

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
183
Reaction score
137
What we have here is a debunking of a strawman model. The video is debunking a RE model that no one uses.

If you want to debunk refraction, then you need to measure refraction, so that you can correctly calculate the apparent horizon of the RE model. One way to do this would be to have different intervals of length, to see the curvature of the light. If there is no or insufficient curvature/refraction between the intervals, then your proof works.
 

Silent Bob

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
150
Reaction score
399
What we have here is a debunking of a strawman model. The video is debunking a RE model that no one uses.

If you want to debunk refraction, then you need to measure refraction, so that you can correctly calculate the apparent horizon of the RE model. One way to do this would be to have different intervals of length, to see the curvature of the light. If there is no or insufficient curvature/refraction between the intervals, then your proof works.

Now you've really lost me - are you saying that the equation to calculate curvature is a model that no one uses? If so then what model do they use for RE?

You can't debunk refraction, it's real as I explained in my previous post using the glass block illustration. Also the burden of proof here is on those that wish to use refraction as an explanation for why the earth looks flat when it should look curved, something that so far no one has done. Until someone comes up with a realistic mathematical explanation for how this is even possible then it is an argument which does not merit discussion for the reason I gave in my previous post. In your proposed experiment, how would you measure light refraction over these distances? what equipment would you need and how would you set it up?
 

Worsaae

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
183
Reaction score
137
Yes, no one is saying that the geometric horizon is the same as the apparent horizon. The burden is not on me to prove anything. I'm merely pointing out that this video is flawed and intentionally so. He is trying to debunk a model that no one uses.
 

E_V_

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2021
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Yes, no one is saying that the geometric horizon is the same as the apparent horizon. The burden is not on me to prove anything. I'm merely pointing out that this video is flawed and intentionally so. He is trying to debunk a model that no one uses.
Which is the model that no one uses?
 

grav

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
184
Reaction score
500
Wiki:
Terrestrial refraction, sometimes called geodetic refraction, deals with the apparent angular position and measured distance of terrestrial bodies. It is of special concern for the production of precise maps and surveys.[24][25] Since the line of sight in terrestrial refraction passes near the earth's surface, the magnitude of refraction depends chiefly on the temperature gradient near the ground, which varies widely at different times of day, seasons of the year, the nature of the terrain, the state of the weather, and other factors.[26]
. . .
Although the straight line from your eye to a distant mountain might be blocked by a closer hill, the ray may curve enough to make the distant peak visible. A convenient method to analyze the effect of refraction on visibility is to consider an increased effective radius of the Earth Reff, given by[11]

..............

I contacted TC (Taboo Conspiracy) to ask him to address refraction in future videos.
As for the optical illusion called the horizon, Silent Bob has pretty well expained the problem with definitions. The globe model fails the math test. Therefore, the world is not a globe.

I don't know how many times we have to go down this unpleasant road.
FE researchers show time after time that distant objects are visible well beyond the fictitious curve. Not only do we see cities and drilling platforms whose distances are verifiablly measurable and mathematically impossible -- but we see even more land or water beyond that.

The horizon is actually the vanishing point of human optics, where all lines of convergence meet. Zoom lenses extend that range of vision.
Yes, water vapor does interfere with clarity. So far, I see no way to calculate the percentage of distortion.
But most models show that refraction bends light down, not up.
This works against the globe and favors the plane.

Lastly, the atmosphere itself can only exist over a motionless surface, not one spinning 1000 mph and spiralling 66,600 mph. Globe defenders tell us that's due to "gravity drag" -- yes, gravity.

Gravity, refraction, relativity. These are the magic words that freemasons use to replace science with pseudoscience.
 

Worsaae

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
183
Reaction score
137
Wiki:
Terrestrial refraction, sometimes called geodetic refraction, deals with the apparent angular position and measured distance of terrestrial bodies. It is of special concern for the production of precise maps and surveys.[24][25] Since the line of sight in terrestrial refraction passes near the earth's surface, the magnitude of refraction depends chiefly on the temperature gradient near the ground, which varies widely at different times of day, seasons of the year, the nature of the terrain, the state of the weather, and other factors.[26]
. . .
Although the straight line from your eye to a distant mountain might be blocked by a closer hill, the ray may curve enough to make the distant peak visible. A convenient method to analyze the effect of refraction on visibility is to consider an increased effective radius of the Earth Reff, given by[11]

..............

I contacted TC (Taboo Conspiracy) to ask him to address refraction in future videos.
As for the optical illusion called the horizon, Silent Bob has pretty well expained the problem with definitions. The globe model fails the math test. Therefore, the world is not a globe.

I don't know how many times we have to go down this unpleasant road.
FE researchers show time after time that distant objects are visible well beyond the fictitious curve. Not only do we see cities and drilling platforms whose distances are verifiablly measurable and mathematically impossible -- but we see even more land or water beyond that.

The horizon is actually the vanishing point of human optics, where all lines of convergence meet. Zoom lenses extend that range of vision.
Yes, water vapor does interfere with clarity. So far, I see no way to calculate the percentage of distortion.
But most models show that refraction bends light down, not up.
This works against the globe and favors the plane.

Lastly, the atmosphere itself can only exist over a motionless surface, not one spinning 1000 mph and spiralling 66,600 mph. Globe defenders tell us that's due to "gravity drag" -- yes, gravity.

Gravity, refraction, relativity. These are the magic words that freemasons use to replace science with pseudoscience.
The globe model doesn't fail the math test, because you are calculating geometric horizon, not apparent horizon, but you are observing the apparent horizon. No wonder that your test fails if you compare the geometric horizon and the apparent horizon. No one thinks these should be the same. It is a strawman argument.

As for vanishing point of human optics. Please do a test and see if the horizon is at 90 degrees directly in the middle of the picture when you are at a height and when you are close to the ground. If the horizon is lower than the exact middle, then your model of perspective fails.
 

kd-755

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
692
Reaction score
2,149
Dear god.
The horizon is always dead level because contained liquid water always displays a level surface. Neither maths nor masons can make contained water bend.
The eyes have a cone shaped vision and the vanishing point is always slap bang in the dead centre of the cone.
These things are truths not opinions.

As I mentioned earlier why do people who know the earth is a ball bother with a thread labelled Flat Earth?
Are they trolling?
Are they just having a laugh?
Do they doubt themselves?
Do they have some religious zeal to eliminate blasphemers?
worsaae
If you know the earth is a ball falling away from your position in every direction what is the gain from taking this thread in the direction you have?

Edit to correct typo.
Second edit to add a missing word; neither
 
Last edited:

Worsaae

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
183
Reaction score
137
Dear god.
The horizon is always dead level because contained liquid water always displays a level surface. Maths nor masons can make contained water bend.
The eyes have a cone shaped vision and the vanishing point is always slap bang in the dead centre of the cone.
These things are truths not opinions.

As I mentioned earlier why do people who know the earth is a ball bother with a thread labelled Flat Earth?
Are they trolling?
Are they just having a laugh?
Do they doubt themselves?
Do they have some religious zeal to eliminate blasphemers?
worsaae
If you know the earth is a ball falling away from your position in every direction what is the gain from taking this thread in the direction you have?

Edit to correct typo.
If it is always dead centre of the cone, then I suggest you take a picture that is 100% level to the ground from height of 1 meter and height of 10 meters. Show that the picture is 100% level and show that the horizon is straight in the middle of the picture with both heights.

As for your last question. I saw a "debunking" that was clearly wrong.
 

kd-755

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
692
Reaction score
2,149
If it is always dead centre of the cone,
There is no IF about it.
You can get your eyes to whatever height you want it makes no difference to what you see.
I assume you have done the precise experiment you suggest I do, care to share your results on here?

Stand in a long corridor and you will see the walls, floor and ceiling all converge on the centre of your vision and if the corridor is long enough you will not see the far end. Then walk to the far end of the corridor and you will discover, when you turn round the end you were stood at disappears. But I reckon you are already aware of this.
I cannot wait to see your photographs.

Edit to correct typo. The T and Y keys have stopped working!
 
Last edited:

Worsaae

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
183
Reaction score
137
There is no IF about it.
You can get your eyes to whatever height you want it makes no difference to what you see.
I assume you have done the precise experiment you suggest I do, care to share your results on here?

Stand in a long corridor and you will see the walls, floor and ceiling all converge on the centre of your vision and if the corridor is long enough you will not see the far end. Then walk to the far end of the corridor and you will discover, when you turn round the end you were stood at disappears. But I reckon you are already aware of this.
I cannot wait to see your photographs.

Edit to correct typo. The T and Y keys have stopped working!
I haven't done that experiment, but I have yet to see flat earthers do it. It would be an easy way to prove the RE model wrong.
 

grav

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
184
Reaction score
500
I haven't done that experiment, but I have yet to see flat earthers do it. It would be an easy way to prove the RE model wrong.

Just how many experiments do you need to see?
How about this one?

3:34
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=edlPGRQvw3g&feature=youtu.be


Rothbard calls refraction a tool that globe propagandists employ to remove all evidence of giant bulges of earth curvature.
Here, bases of pylons are visible beyond what the math predicts. If the earth (water) curved down at that point, then the horizon beyond it would also be curved down and therefore invisible. But it isn't.

Globers will of course claim that different atmospheric conditions make the different locations rise and/or drop from sight.
Once again, globe belief is based on relativity. Here, it works. There, it doesnt. Unmeasureable, unverifiable, unprovable.

Like gravity. It is likewise selective, making ocean waters -- and air -- cling to a spinning ball, while allowing butterflies and clouds to float hither and thither and yon.
 

Worsaae

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
183
Reaction score
137
Just how many experiments do you need to see?
How about this one?

3:34
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=edlPGRQvw3g&feature=youtu.be


Rothbard calls refraction a tool that globe propagandists employ to remove all evidence of giant bulges of earth curvature.
Here, bases of pylons are visible beyond what the math predicts. If the earth (water) curved down at that point, then the horizon beyond it would also be curved down and therefore invisible. But it isn't.

Globers will of course claim that different atmospheric conditions make the different locations rise and/or drop from sight.
Once again, globe belief is based on relativity. Here, it works. There, it doesnt. Unmeasureable, unverifiable, unprovable.

Like gravity. It is likewise selective, making ocean waters -- and air -- cling to a spinning ball, while allowing butterflies and clouds to float hither and thither and yon.
I've seen this video.

I want to see a video where they measure 90 degrees angle photo of the horizon and then I want to see that the horizon is directly in the middle. This at a low height and at a high height, ie 1 meter and 10 meter or something like this.
It is a simple experiment to do and if it is below the middle, then we have a problem for FE. I don't know if it proofs RE. If it in the middle, then it is a problem for RE. I don't know if it proofs FE.

I agree that refraction is a get out of jail freecard for RE, but those that do the experiments for FE, need to account for refraction because otherwise both camps will just sit yelling at each other.

That said, RE has had 500 years of the best maths to fix any mistakes that it might present with observations, so it will be hard to disprove RE with observations.

A better approach would be to develop the FE model more, so that this model also corresponds to the observations.
 

fega72

Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
65
Reaction score
92
That said, RE has had 500 years of the best maths to fix any mistakes that it might present with observations, so it will be hard to disprove RE with observations.
If the 500 years was really 500 years how this "new idea" with RE was published? Without TV, phone, internet, education... Do you think somehow all the best mathematicians knew each other and the communication went trough hand written letters waiting weeks for the reply? Or this is just happened in the past 100 years when the communication network was ready and the education (programming) network was available (compulsory) for everyone?
 

wise

Member
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
15
Reaction score
25
Whether or not the earth would be flat, you could not observe it because of visual problems. Because observing is a trigonometric funtion.

I have open a threat here to discuss some problems like this. If the subject will be approved, I will present here with arguments why you can't see a surface as flat but always curved like a fish eye camera image.

We see some objects flat and some not, but I have a working evidences forward that you never can see flat the flat objects.
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Top