SH Archive When does it start to curve?

[_harris]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: 0harris0
Date: 2020-01-24 17:43:32
Reaction Score: 1

so this "Mississipi flows upwards" thing...

by simply looking at the ELEVATION (height above mean sea level), the Mississipi flows downwards the entire way to the Sea, whichever model of Earth you wish to use.

it looks like sheer misuse of the data set to claim a river is flowing up hill... I bet by the same process you could "prove" that all rivers (with a northern source/ southern mouth or vice-versa) flow upwards.

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2020-01-24 17:50:45
Reaction Score: 2

We had that occurrence during the New Madrid Earthquake, I think, when it did temporarily reverse its course, allegedly. Wondering how that was supposed to work and whether official explanations have any merit.

 

[_harris]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: 0harris0
Date: 2020-01-24 18:24:17
Reaction Score: 0

We had that occurrence during the New Madrid Earthquake, I think, when it did temporarily reverse its course, allegedly. Wondering how that was supposed to work and whether official explanations have any merit.

a river changing course sounds very much like a tidal surge, which would indicate sub-oceanic tectonic movements.... or, i guess, some kind of global shift!

the Severn Estuary, UK, has the 3rd highest tidal range in the world [world's higest tidal range beach in my hometown!]... i live 10 miles up a tributary to the estuary itself (another 10/15 miles before it's officially Ocean), and have seen sea water flowing upstream on a summer's day!

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2020-01-24 18:29:09
Reaction Score: 1

I am not sure this is the official explanation for the Mississippi River:

• In 1811 and 1812, a series of earthquakes emanated from New Madrid, Missouri, and were felt as far away as Ohio and South Carolina. The soil beneath the Mississippi River rose, temporarily changing its course so that it flowed backward.
• Source

 

[Uncle Bill]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Uncle Bill
Date: 2020-01-25 00:13:05
Reaction Score: 7

These are the words of Samuel Rowbotham from his book Zetetic Astronomy as he describes his renowned 1838 New Bedford Canal Experiment using wooden stakes at even intervals, each protruding five feet from the surface:

Along the edge of the water, in the same canal, six flags were placed, one statute mile from each other, and so arranged that the top of each flag was 5 feet above the surface. Close to the last flag in the series a longer staff was fixed, bearing a flag 3 feet square, and the top of which was 8 feet above the surface of the water--the bottom being in a line with the tops of the other and intervening flags, as shown in the following diagram,

On looking with a good telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal.

If the earth is a globe, the series of flags in the last experiment would have had the form and produced the results represented in the diagram, Fig. 5. The water curvating from

C to D, each flag would have been a given amount below the line A, B. The first and second flags would have determined the direction of the line of sight from A to B, and the third flag would have been 8 inches below the second; the fourth flag, 32 inches; the fifth, 6 feet; the sixth, 10 feet 8 inches; and the seventh, 16 feet 8 inches; but the top of the last and largest flag, being 3 feet higher than the smaller ones, would have been 13 feet 8 inches below the line of sight at the point B. The rotundity of the earth would necessitate the above conditions; but as they cannot be found to exist, the doctrine must be pronounced as only a simple theory, having no foundation in fact--a pure invention of misdirected genius; splendid in its comprehensiveness and bearing upon natural phenomena; but, nevertheless, mathematical and logical necessities compel its denunciation as an absolute falsehood.

Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham) [1881]

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: MrB0N3s
Date: 2020-01-25 10:13:08
Reaction Score: 3

Map you speak of:

View attachment 38772
I find it hilarious how heated both sides of this argument gets over this.

Weird idea, that perhaps the earth is curved just in some way we don't really understand as of yet. Such as that the earth is actually larger than it seems, and we are only in one location of it locked in some kind of "dome", here it looks like a bowl, maybe the idea sticks that way, bowl of water.
I start to think, if theres these polar machines around us constructing ice barriers as mentioned in other threads, at the rim of a big slightly curving outward circular area perhaps. Other posters have mentioned that if it were a dome encasing us here, it could be ice, some people think its some magnetic barrier, or gridlined focused static energy that acts as a force wall.
With someone else beside me, confirming they have seen it too. With our own eyes, we've seen some stars linked by paths of light looking exactly like an asterism or constellation hovering in reality, and some type of dome of energy behind it all in the sky made specifically out of interlocking hexagons that perturb eachothers edges shimmering like diamond apparitions. Take it with a pinch of salt, because its my anecdote. Maybe I need to lay off the calcium.

Anyone else think of a big empty bowl in the ground and think the edges of an ice wall, start to sound like a massive Crater, full of dirt and water, with cold rocky craterous walls on the periphery?

If we were, maybe the curvature would appear uneven and nonsensical the further toward antarctica we go, like the qouted image. I mean theoretically, you could have a plane, in this massive crater, and until you exited the crater you wouldn't be able to tell you were in a bowl, the earth can still be a giant round thing but also can contain an entrapped location that seems flatter and smaller than measured or stated, everyone is wrong but also right in this way etc.

Could we be in something like a giant version of the Eye of The Sahara? Series of concentric circles, the inner one would be Arctic region, the middle bulge would be the equator, the final ring would start curving into the craters perimeter quite gradually. This starts to look like that weird map.
Funny that we seem a lot smaller, that we can't really see the exact globe curve, maybe a curve yes, but its not the right size it seems from each argument.
How many times do you find yourself saying:
"small world"?

 

[Knowncitizen]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: knowncitizen
Date: 2020-01-25 12:39:18
Reaction Score: 6

We are locked in a prison of our individual minds. Collectively we are powerful and I think have the power to manifest our reality. I think all the stuff we are told are fairytales and folklore was real at one point but as they say "you have to believe". They gradually changed our views and beliefs in order to gain control of them. The people that continued to believe in the old world were punished and burned as witches to prevent the knowledge from reaching the next generation. Rinse and repeat. The world we see today is designed to be seen as it is because the majority collectively believes it is so. But people think I'm mad!

 

[Curious]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Curious
Date: 2020-01-25 16:31:11
Reaction Score: 1

Actually it would make a huge difference.

If it is as said, then we are on a ball which is an insignificant speck and thus we are even less!

But if it is a 'flat plane' or more a realm and everything else goes around us, then we are the center of All things and become most important!

We become the actual reality and not that which is told to us!

I couldn't agree more with you, we are the heart and soul, the emotions and the imagination of this realm, and obviously very, very important for some reason, we are the ones to ask that question and find the answer.
Thanks everyone!

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Nomad
Date: 2020-01-31 07:44:43
Reaction Score: 6

I've been researching Flat Earth for 5 years now and I think I finally figured out the hardest obstacle for me in the FE model , the Sun and the Moon.
What they are and what's their roles are in the model, especially the Moon seemed like the most mysterious object in the sky for me.
But, now that I have a workable and semi-provable theory I really really don't feel like sharing it with others.
I have two particle physics and QM graduetes in my family and I don't feel the need to share my findings even with them.

There are many reasons why I'm sick and tired of the issue but I'll mention only few:

1. Somewhere along the line I realized that the shape of the earth is a MASSIVE psychological barrier for many.
It's really hard for people to approach the issue in unbiased manner, especially for young physics students.
They get emotional and since we know that emotion trumps reason, any reasonable discussion goes out the window.
It's what we call the battered wife syndrom - "He beats me but I love him so I'll stay.."
Emotions shut down thinking, it's how we are built, it's part of our biological defensive mechanism, you can't talk sense to an emotionaly upset person and that's that.

2. It took a huge amount of energy, time and effort for me to push on with the research, especially when I got stuck (and I got stuck many times lol) so when I encounter a "globehead" willing to argue... I don't feel like they deserve to hear my theories.
I would discuss FE to a point with a genuine FE researcher but when it comes to debating with "globeheads"... not worth my time really.
Let them have their own journey and discover things at their own pace, it's the best approach, imo.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: BrokenAgate
Date: 2020-02-01 14:17:36
Reaction Score: 0

I just wish someone would go to the very edge of this supposed flat, circular Earth and take some pictures. How hard could that possibly be, in a world dominated by mass transportation, mass communication, and technological wonders? Just take a camera, go out there on a boat, take some pics, post them all over the Internet.

After further studying, I've realized that this is pretty much impossible, at least for anyone on the "outside" of the vast political barriers the elites have set in place. I suppose we'll have to rely on someone on the inside to engage in clandestine information gathering in Antarctica. Any chance of that happening?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2020-02-06 16:55:10
Reaction Score: 1

This gentleman, LifeIs Short, does a fantastic breakdown of optics and how our vision works to create the illusion of curvature. I suggest watching this full presentation, but here's his latest, specifically getting into bottom up obstruction:

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2020-02-06 18:00:52
Reaction Score: 1

All very interesting pdf's peruse at your leisure public - Google Drive

But that said this diagram explains it instantly.

Also have a look at my night time photo's here FE - Nullarbor Plain

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2020-02-09 14:44:14
Reaction Score: 7

"...The world was set in place; it cannot be moved."
Psalms 93:1

also, Interesting quote:

Taken from The earth stands fast: : Schoepffer, Carl : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

It becomes easier to understand the absurdity of the heliocentric model once you realize that we are looking at a model that was forced upon the public at large a mere 200 years ago.

 

[fabiorem]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: fabiorem
Date: 2020-02-29 15:27:25
Reaction Score: 0

The Earth starts to curve when you have at least half of it visible. This means you cant see the curvature while on orbit.
Experiments with baloons and rockets will not work, and those who show the curve will be using fisheye lens.

Since man never got to the moon (the expeditions were faked for Cold War propaganda), the only way to prove the curvature is from the ground: Lake Pontchartrain (Series 1) - Google Drive

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Starmonkey
Date: 2020-02-29 16:19:17
Reaction Score: 1

Ri-iiight before crossing the plate. If it's a good pitch.

 

[Bunnyman]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Bunnyman
Date: 2020-02-29 16:30:44
Reaction Score: 0

Refractional elevation of normally "invisible" images of objects such as coastlines....

Novaya Zemlya effect

Distorted image due to the mirage

The Novaya Zemlya effect is a polar mirage caused by high refraction of sunlight between atmospheric thermal layers. The effect will give the impression that the sun is rising earlier than it actually should, and depending on the meteorological situation, the effect will present the Sun as a line or a square—sometimes referred to as the rectangular sun—made up of flattened hourglass shapes.

The mirage requires rays of sunlight to have an inversion layer for hundreds of kilometres, and depends on the inversion layer's temperature gradient. The sunlight must bend to the Earth's curvature at least 400 kilometres (250 mi) to allow an elevation rise of 5° for sight of the solar disk.
The first person to record the phenomenon was Gerrit de Veer, a member of Willem Barentsz's ill-fated third expedition into the north polar region in 1596–1597. Trapped by the ice, the party was forced to stay for the winter in a makeshift lodge on the archipelago of Novaya Zemlya and endure the polar night.

On 24 January 1597, De Veer and another crew member claimed to have seen the Sun appear above the horizon, two full weeks prior to its calculated return. They were met with disbelief by the rest of the crew—who accused De Veer of having used the old Julian calendar instead of the Gregorian calendar introduced several years earlier—but on 27 January, the Sun was seen by all "in his full roundnesse". For centuries the account was the source of skepticism, until in the 20th century the phenomenon was finally proven to be genuine.

Apart from the image of the Sun, the effect can also elevate the image of other objects above the horizon, such as coastlines which are normally invisible due to their distance. After studying the Saga of Erik the Red, Waldemar Lehn concluded that the effect may have aided the Vikings in their discovery of Iceland and Greenland, which are not visible from the mainland under normal atmospheric conditions.

Suggested reading: Worlds Beyond the Poles. Invisible is what is there but what is hidden from sight. Think lies, restrictions and misconceptions due to visual and mental distortions, induced or naturally occurring.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2020-02-29 17:14:14
Reaction Score: 1

Ri-iiight before crossing the plate. If it's a good pitch.

Hahaha, actually, it's always curving!!

Breaking curveball an illusion, scientists say

So, real briefly, when trying to measure curve, people are analyzing images and looking for bottom-up obstruction on distant objects and assuming that is the physical earth blocking those objects. The counterargument is this is simply a function of vision and the bottom-up obstruction varies at a rate greater than possible for the obstruction to be the result a physical earth curving away and what could reasonably be expected from refraction or any other phenomena which alters our perception of the path light takes to reach our eye. At places and times, like Lake Pontchartrain, the bridge is going to appear to disappear at certain rate according to the earth curve math. Other times, not so much or not at all.

I posted this video a couple weeks ago, but it's worth mentioning again. Basically, following the concept that bottom-up obstruction is the result of optics relating to our vision being unable to resolve parts of the image due to the limited viewing angle given enough distance, in this video, he captures the obstruction of a light from across the lake and does the math for how small the Earth would be if you presume that the obstruction is caused by curvature:




This and the more well known long distance observations show me that any bottom-up obstruction is largely related to the nature of optics with atmospheric visibility playing a smaller role. Large variance atmospheric phenomenon, like the Novaya Zemlya effect, generally have extreme distortion, as shown in the picture of the sun linked in the post above. Many observations that exceed the distance expected from the globe model do not contain miraging effects. I tend to think that our vision is really limited by "haze" (pollution, weather, etc) more than it is enhanced by refraction, generally speaking. This is also why I think that it is very possible that the entire globe model was developed organically... prior to the advent of more advanced optical devices, one could derive a globe of a radius of around 3963 miles from simpler observations. There are too many examples showing extreme variance that to me it is impossible we are living on a sphere the size described.

 

[fabiorem]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: fabiorem
Date: 2020-02-29 17:29:21
Reaction Score: 0

How to explain the movement of the sun in a flat Earth model?

This is a plane, and the sun is moving in the horizontal.
However, when I look to the sky, the sun is moving in the vertical. It goes up from east until the noon, and then down to the west after the noon.
In the flat Earth model, the sun is always at noon, as you can see in the figure.
You can adjust the curve (in relation to the north pole) to a straight line, but the sun will still be moving in the horizontal (in relation to the plane).

Will you say this is also a optical illusion? If so, how do you explain it?

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2020-02-29 17:33:50
Reaction Score: 1

This is a plane, and the sun is moving in the horizontal.

Have you tried this one?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2020-02-29 17:35:48
Reaction Score: 2

There are too many examples showing extreme variance that to me it is impossible we are living on a sphere

A sphere is a mathematical object.
A ball is a tangible object.
They are totally different things.
I know you know this but it bears repetition.
One cannot stand on a sphere.
There is no level on a ball.

However, when I look to the sky, the sun is moving in the vertical. It goes up from east until the noon, and then down to the west after the noon.

#132