Flat Earth

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 by a moderator:
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.
 
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 by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?

Sorry there, but thought this was a thread on which other views could be discussed civilly so that views could be compared and answers found in regards to the FE model.

Though maybe not always civil or civil sounding, there has been a bit of hostility both ways.

I view it all this way, there's experts in different fields, from tech to engineering and more, if things don't jive, then things don't work. Being so many fields overlap so much more than people sometimes realize, means a lot of things must line up properly to function as intended.

I dunno which model may be correct, others are more solidified in their opinion, I guess we may or may not ever find out. Just would still like a solid reason to lie about this one way or another.
 
Here is the OP where Grav laid it out.
I am new to this forum and don't see an active thread on flat earth. Is there any interest in the topic?
SH's format is quite impressive. And imposing, to the point that navigating it is tricky for a simple mind like mine. Generic forums have become gross mockeries of their original designs, and so I am looking for a new home where I may spout my heresies, primarily the most basic hidden truth upon which all other distorted truths are based. The Infinite Plane of the Electric Universe.

One can deny the way their eyes work, the way contained water behaves, the level & plumb used for all built structures for as long as one wants. It doesn't change these facts one whit.
As you quoted one of my posts presumably as an example of the hostility you feel I will make it plain.
I have no idea whatsoeveratall what shape, if any earth has nor if it needs to have one.
The level plane is real its not a model. I laid the clear evidence out in the first line.
The concept of a ball shaped finite earth is a physical impossibility. It is a figment of imagination in the same way a corporation is.
I do not look a the ceiling to figure out what I am standing on.

The post you singled out was in response o worsaae's. Here it is in case you missed it.

e 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.

I am not getting any younger and am done with theorising quite frankly as none of them pass the physicality my senses serve up every waking moment.
Evidence of ice walls, domes, firmament, space, planets, what the luminaries are, balls, etc is all missing. None appears in my daily lived life.
My frustration is I cannot come up with the path to finding out much more about this reality. Short of going on a long walk or voyage which entails leaving everyone I care about 'behind' and that is currently beyond me.
As much as I feel I need to know where I am I feel I need their company more.
 
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?

Here is the OP where Grav laid it out.


One can deny the way their eyes work, the way contained water behaves, the level & plumb used for all built structures for as long as one wants. It doesn't change these facts one whit.
As you quoted one of my posts presumably as an example of the hostility you feel I will make it plain.
I have no idea whatsoeveratall what shape, if any earth has nor if it needs to have one.
The level plane is real its not a model. I laid the clear evidence out in the first line.
The concept of a ball shaped finite earth is a physical impossibility. It is a figment of imagination in the same way a corporation is.
I do not look a the ceiling to figure out what I am standing on.

The post you singled out was in response o worsaae's. Here it is in case you missed it.



I am not getting any younger and am done with theorising quite frankly as none of them pass the physicality my senses serve up every waking moment.
Evidence of ice walls, domes, firmament, space, planets, what the luminaries are, balls, etc is all missing. None appears in my daily lived life.
My frustration is I cannot come up with the path to finding out much more about this reality. Short of going on a long walk or voyage which entails leaving everyone I care about 'behind' and that is currently beyond me.
As much as I feel I need to know where I am I feel I need their company more.
If you ever go to a mountain top, then take a picture of the horizon 90 degrees to the ground/water level. If the horizon is in the middle of the picture, then there you go. If it does not, then flat earth goes bye bye, unless there is a good theory to explain why observations don't match the flat earth model.

It is important that it is directly 90 degrees to water level. There is a reason why you don't see flat earthers do this test.
 
Looks like we'll continue from here. People don't understand why the earth is flat but sometimes it looks round and sometimes it looks flat. For example, in the sea it looks as if it is round, but in a stationary lake it usually appears flat. This is because the world is a simulation. The earth is flat and stable, but some functions in the simulation are adjusted so that the earth is round. This is a sign that the world program is copied from more than one program, that these imported programs belong to different worlds, and that some of these worlds are flat and some are round. Now I will give you examples that would be impossible to occur in a normal world, but very natural to occur in a simulation.

1.png

Now, in this photo, in a three-part view, we see a tree and landspace outside the window opposite. While your location here is fixed, the visual size of all sides of the image you see should be the same. The eye is oval in shape to see around you, and sees all objects angularly, then the brain converts these angles into length. Let's consider these angles now.

1.png
Now here, no matter where you turn your head, the angles of alpha, beta and gamma are always constant, they don't change as long as your point does not change. In other words, turning your head left and right does not affect the size of the images. This situation is theoretical, mathematical, scientific, suitable for the ordinary course of life, compatible with the rules of mind and physics.

But in the world, in practice this is not the case. There are many objections to this example below, but none of them is based on concrete evidence. You can do these experiments yourself. Even though your position is fixed, wherever you turn your head, that image is small, the parts that are out of focus are larger. This is usually the case. Now let's move on to our example. Look, I'll say it again, you might think of this as a camera error, but it's not like that. You can test this situation yourself with your own experiment.

Now, right now, we're going to take a random photo from google and do this experiment. The three-dimensional cameras used for google maps take 360-degree photos of everything around them. In this way, you can focus from one point to the surrounding area wherever you want.

1.png

This image is a church from Beykoz, the district where Jesus was crucified. There are two doors opposite, they look about the same size to each other.

We can mark it as follows. If you want, let's put a scale on it, let it be a scientific process.

1.png
The situation that occurs when we focus on the front while looking at the building. Compared Door sizes : 2,1/2,1=1 (same size)

Now, even though our position is the same, let's turn our heads a little to the right.

3.png

Now, since our position is the same, the angular magnitudes have not changed either. As in the visual drawing I explained above, alpha, beta and gamma should not have changed. That's how it would be in a real world. The ratio of the dimensions of the doors when we just measured them was 1, so they were of equal length. Let's re-measure now.

3.png

Compared Door sizes : 2,8/1,7=1,65

As I explained above, while the side to which we turn is shrinking, the other side has grown. There are 65% visual difference as of now.

If we turn to the left;

3.png
Compared Door sizes : 1,8/2,7=0,67

In stark contrast to the one above, this time the door on the right is larger.

If we return to the first explanation one more time:

1.png
Here, looking at alpha and beta together, looking at beta and gamma together, or looking at alpha, beta and gamma together does not change the magnitude of alpha, beta and gamma. Or rather, that's what it would be like in a normal world that operates by its own rules. But the example I gave now, you can reproduce these examples yourself, now you can do this for the items in front of you right now, and you can see that this is not the case, something is wrong.

See you later.
 
Sigian
Do have a read through these threads.
SH Archive Replies - Is "Flat Earth" a PsyOp?
SH Archive - Is the Flat Earth conspiracy the conspiracy?
SH Archive - Questions About Flat Earth
SH Archive - Polish "Asstronaut" Admits Earth is Flat
How to logically prove a round Earth
SH Archive - The Concave Earth Discussion.

And an earlier post of mine.
Flat Earth
There is a reason why you don't see flat earthers do this test.
There is a reason no-one does this 'test'.
Have you done the 1m , 10m test yet?
If so, pictures please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
worsae
Here is a photo of mine where one can clearly see the ocean appears to be above the slagbank between me and it. I am stood on a hill looking straight out to sea. The slagbank is the land on the right running into mid image. It is a a higher elevation than the land at left which is actually an island and is further away from my position than the slagbank is. Just ignore the mid ground reservoir, that reveals nothing about how our eyes work!
When I go back to the cemetery hill I will retake the shot looking down and looking up. Now about the 1m 10 test photo's! of yours.

4.jpg
From this post which has more photographs.
Flat Earth

Edit two to add
I just nipped outside and took these two images.
The first is with the camera on the ground so the lens centre is 1 inch off of the ground. The second is at a height of 51 inches (50 inches of wooden post and 1 inch from camera base to the lens centre.) I did not level them with a spirit level. The full size images were too big for upload so I used an imaging programme called nomacs to reduce their size.

DSC06422.JPG
DSC06423.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
worsae
Here is a photo of mine where one can clearly see the ocean appears to be above the slagbank between me and it. I am stood on a hill looking straight out to sea. The slagbank is the land on the right running into mid image. It is a a higher elevation than the land at left which is actually an island and is further away from my position than the slagbank is. Just ignore the mid ground reservoir, that reveals nothing about how our eyes work!
When I go back to the cemetery hill I will retake the shot looking down and looking up. Now about the 1m 10 test photo's! of yours.

From this post which has more photographs.
Flat Earth

Edit two to add
I just nipped outside and took these two images.
The first is with the camera on the ground so the lens centre is 1 inch off of the ground. The second is at a height of 51 inches (50 inches of wooden post and 1 inch from camera base to the lens centre.) I did not level them with a spirit level. The full size images were too big for upload so I used an imaging programme called nomacs to reduce their size.

If you can go to the hill and take a picture perpendicular to the water level, then it would be great. It is important that it is directly 90 degrees, because any slight difference will have a huge impact the farther away the horizon appears
 
If you can go to the hill and take a picture perpendicular to the water level, then it would be great. It is important that it is directly 90 degrees, because any slight difference will have a huge impact the farther away the horizon appears
I will when you post your 1m and 10m test photographs.
 
What is it with the 90° perpendicular perspective?
For short distances, that nicety might make a difference, but who gives a whoop when we have pics 50 miles and further.
77bbeb8f5b98fb9e766610d3c42343a6.jpg
77bbeb8f5b98fb9e766610d3c42343a6.jpg
 
Last edited:
What is it with the 90° perpendicular perspective?
For short distances, that nicety might make a difference, but who gives a whoop when we have pics 50 miles and further.
You should give a whoop, because they would likely disprove or present a problem for the FE model.
 
You should give a whoop, because they would likely disprove or present a problem for the FE model.

I see. A photo which displays a flat horizon at 65 miles is not perpendicular enough for you?

That seems like a big enough whoop to present a yuuge priblem for the RE.
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.
Back
Top