Originally posted by @freakykbhSpecifically...what and from where are the objects that should not be seen on a “curved” earth regularly seen. I want to investigate your specific claims, not these vague assertions.
Except the evidence you are citing doesn't support such a conclusion.
If mirages appear under certain conditions, any image perceived without those conditions present must necessarily be something other than a mirage.
Since the appearance of distant objects is not attributed to mirages in far more situations than any example we have of the mirages, how can we explain the appearance of distant objects otherwise?
In the meantime please explain the following in context of a flat earth.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/09/09/astroquizzical-upside-down-moon/amp/
Originally posted by @joe-shmoDon't worry, he has a rationale for all of that. I have gone over and over all of that and more to his deaf ears. Earth is flat and that is that. Your aguments will ALWAYS come to zero with the freak.
Specifically...what and from where are the objects that should not be seen on a “curved” earth regularly seen. I want to investigate your specific claims, not these vague assertions.
In the meantime please explain the following in context of a flat earth.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/09/09/astroquizzical-upside-down-moon/amp/
Anything he can't logically explain in flat Earth terms, he ignores. So good luck getting into a real narrative with him.
Originally posted by @joe-shmoJoe.
Specifically...what and from where are the objects that should not be seen on a “curved” earth regularly seen. I want to investigate your specific claims, not these vague assertions.
In the meantime please explain the following in context of a flat earth.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/09/09/astroquizzical-upside-down-moon/amp/
Did you watch the OP video?
FFS, gotta tell ya: it is pretty clear folks are more inclined to simply argue instead of actual dialogue and research.
Sonhouse with his off-topic rants refusing to address the subject at hand, or you now asking for an example of the impetus for the thread in the first place.
It's in the OP!
3 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhYes I watched the OP video. I also verified most of the calculations in the opening frame, they are correct. The obscured height from the curvature of the Earth of CN Tower is 516 ft. The tower is 1815 ft tall. So it is visible all the time, partially obscured from that distance across Ontario. Here is a host of examples.
Joe.
Did you watch the OP video?
FFS, gotta tell ya: it is pretty clear folks are more inclined to simply argue instead of actual dialogue and research.
Sonhouse with his off-topic rants refusing to address the subject at hand, or you now asking for an example of the impetus for the thread in the first place.
It's in the OP!
https://www.google.com/[WORD TOO LONG].wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AToronto_seen_acrooss_lake_Ontario_from_Olcott.JPG&psig=AOvVaw2OPrjpA-Y5q1y4ftVDdUkh&ust=1524666458265247
https://www.google.com/[WORD TOO LONG].tfes.org%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D4751.0&psig=AOvVaw2OPrjpA-Y5q1y4ftVDdUkh&ust=1524666458265247
https://www.google.com/[WORD TOO LONG].theflatearthsociety.org%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D43972.0&psig=AOvVaw2OPrjpA-Y5q1y4ftVDdUkh&ust=1524666458265247
You can find a thousand more distinct images like this by completing a simple google search yourself.
So what you are saying is that all the obscured images are (fantastically unexplained in this day and age) mirages that only distort the lower portion of the tower to "zero" height, but leave to upper part unaffected? And that this "special" mirage happens every day?
Your OP video is the exception, not the rule! You may have the last word, because the game is over as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by @joe-shmoYes I watched the OP video. I also verified most of the calculations in the opening frame, they are correct. The obscured height from the curvature of the Earth of CN Tower is 516 ft. The tower is 1815 ft tall.
Yes I watched the OP video. I also verified most of the calculations in the opening frame, they are correct. The obscured height from the curvature of the Earth of CN Tower is 516 ft. The tower is 1815 ft tall. So it is visible all the time, partially obscured from that distance across Ontario. Here is a host of examples.
https://www.google.com/ur ...[text shortened]... on, not the rule! You may have the last word, because the game is over as far as I'm concerned.
How tall is Rogers Center Dome?
Should we be able to see its 267' at all, given the loss due to curvature?
https://www.google.com/[WORD TOO LONG].wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AToronto_seen_acrooss_lake_Ontario_from_Olcott.JPG&psig=AOvVaw2OPrjpA-Y5q1y4ftVDdUkh&ust=1524666458265247
Poor quality, resulting in no new information to consider.
https://www.google.com/[WORD TOO LONG].tfes.org%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D4751.0&psig=AOvVaw2OPrjpA-Y5q1y4ftVDdUkh&ust=1524666458265247
Video removed, but I have seen at many which I assume to be very similar in nature.
Those who use their expertise in geodetic surveying aren't considering apples with apples and therefore the results which come from such formulas do not resolve the issue.
https://www.google.com/[WORD TOO LONG].theflatearthsociety.org%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D43972.0&psig=AOvVaw2OPrjpA-Y5q1y4ftVDdUkh&ust=1524666458265247
Not sure what you wanted me to see on this one.
So what you are saying is that all the obscured images are (fantastically unexplained in this day and age) mirages that only distort the lower portion of the tower to "zero" height, but leave to upper part unaffected?
I do not know what you mean by this.
Your OP video is the exception, not the rule! You may have the last word, because the game is over as far as I'm concerned.
The OP video is not the exception, but the rule.
I can personally observe a nearly identical situation almost every day.
If you are interested in the consideration, I will provide the details, i.e., location, elevation, coordinates and etc..
Observances fitting this exact scenario are available throughout the world, many of them recorded on the internet.
Originally posted by @freakykbhI was linking to pictures found in a google search...apparently it musn't work like that. Sorry for the bogus links. Yes please send me spherical earth coordinates of these examples you see nearly everyday so I can use them to prove your flat earth theory...
[b]Yes I watched the OP video. I also verified most of the calculations in the opening frame, they are correct. The obscured height from the curvature of the Earth of CN Tower is 516 ft. The tower is 1815 ft tall.
How tall is Rogers Center Dome?
Should we be able to see its 267' at all, given the loss due to curvature?
https://www.google.com ...[text shortened]... g this exact scenario are available throughout the world, many of them recorded on the internet.
Originally posted by @joe-shmoGood one.
I was linking to pictures found in a google search...apparently it musn't work like that. Sorry for the bogus links. Yes please send me spherical earth coordinates of these examples you see nearly everyday so I can use them to prove your flat earth theory...
I think it's possible to consider a scenario in which we don't know anything about the shape of the earth.
Using no cue other than the strictest of strictures as it relates to observable and measurable phenomenon, and without drawing a conclusion at all, this particular phenomenon has something to say.
Some claim there is nothing to be heard, or perhaps that only fools consider challenging the known body of knowledge.
Others claim (I think more rightly) that no harm ever comes from an open examination.
Even when that exam leads to a prognosis of pending death, at least we can comfort ourselves knowing we will be avoiding taxes--- most likely forever--- in the near future.
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhStill waiting on those coordinates and object data? I would like coordinate of observer ( lat. long. elev.), coordinate of object, name and description of object when you get a chance.
Good one.
I think it's possible to consider a scenario in which we don't know anything about the shape of the earth.
Using no cue other than the strictest of strictures as it relates to observable and measurable phenomenon, and without drawing a conclusion at all, this particular phenomenon has something to say.
Some claim there is nothing to be he ...[text shortened]... omfort ourselves knowing we will be avoiding taxes--- most likely forever--- in the near future.
Originally posted by @joe-shmoYou're still waiting because your last response indicated a lack of interest in examining--- at least, that's how I took your sarcasm.
Still waiting on those coordinates and object data? I would like coordinate of observer ( lat. long. elev.), coordinate of object, name and description of object when you get a chance.
My vantage point:
41°40'23.0"N 81°26'43.4"W
or
41.673043, -81.445399
Looking east and across the water to the Eastlake Power Plant, now shuttered:
41°30'39.1"N 81°59'10.9"W
or
41.510849, -81.986357
Interesting note: according to a few reports, the distant power plant was the epicenter for a massive blackout of the Eastern Seaboard a few years back.
The story has it that the person manning the monitors went to lunch without switching the system back to automatic, and, as happenstance will do, when a squirrel lost his balance and briefly connected two live wires, a chain of surges went through the system leading to a bigger chain reaction of complete failure shutdown.
Pretty poor infrastructure, to be sure.
Very high cost, that squirrel bar-b-que...
Originally posted by @freakykbhYour flat Earth theory runs into an insurmountable problem: Fly on the equator as in the real world, you could theoretically fly in an exact straight line forever, turning neither left or right not in the slightest degree, for as long as fuel holds out, ONLY a straight line going around the equator.
You're still waiting because your last response indicated a lack of interest in examining--- at least, that's how I took your sarcasm.
My vantage point:
41°40'23.0"N 81°26'43.4"W
or
41.673043, -81.445399
Looking east and across the water to the Eastlake Power Plant, now shuttered:
41°30'39.1"N 81°59'10.9"W
or
41.510849, -81.98635 ...[text shortened]... e shutdown.
Pretty poor infrastructure, to be sure.
Very high cost, that squirrel bar-b-que...
Try that on your flat Earth, since the equator there has to be just a large circle.
Try going in a straight line there. You will soon not be on the equator.
There is no flat Earth refutation for that problem. You HAVE to continually turn left or turn right depending on which way you are flying. if you want to maintain the flight over the flat Earth equator as tiny an adjustment as you seem to think it would be. It is still a slight adjustment that would become ever more obvious as you try to fly over the flat Earth equator.
Good luck refuting that one.
Originally posted by @sonhouseRefute?
Your flat Earth theory runs into an insurmountable problem: Fly on the equator as in the real world, you could theoretically fly in an exact straight line forever, turning neither left or right not in the slightest degree, for as long as fuel holds out, ONLY a straight line going around the equator.
Try that on your flat Earth, since the equator there h ...[text shortened]... ver more obvious as you try to fly over the flat Earth equator.
Good luck refuting that one.
You first.
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhHow do you explain the very first satellite had nothing to do with NASA? October 4 1957 is seared into my brain, I was going to HS in Anchorage. You figure the Russians also faked the launch? You think somehow in 1957 when transistors were still experimental and not many available for much beyond am transistor radios (2 megahertz frequency limit for the first transistors, ok for AM radios but not much else) meaning there was no way to fake a satellite launch since the first computers could only run a few hundred thousand computations per minute, forget video. So how do you explain that?
Refute?
You first.
Has there ever been a rationale for how a satellite can 'orbit' around a flat planet?
Originally posted by @freakykbhAnd in your religion, what are the facts about satellites?
Satellite trajectory is a completely different topic.
Facts remain facts.