https://www.quora.com/Chicago-is-59-...can-it-be-seen
There's a link for ya.
Printable View
https://www.quora.com/Chicago-is-59-...can-it-be-seen
There's a link for ya.
yeah i saw the earth from space in a nasa video.. you dont believe that but you believe some random dude on youtube?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
So let's see... day length in argentina, size of the sun at dawn, ships getting cut off from the bottom on the horizon... all you have left is some video of a dude on a boat claiming he can see chicago.
Sorry mate, flat earth theory is debunked.
Here's another one
http://www.abc57.com/story/31830937/...ichigan-mirage
Refraction doesn't account for it and it's not a mirage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
What's crazy to me is in the face of all this you still cling to your beliefs.
You want to believe... that's the only explanation I can come up with. You don't seem stupid, so it must be willful.
I don't think so. People are testing this all over the plane and demonstrating the fact that curvature cannot be detected or measured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADYFTgTyox8
Yeah you linked that one before too. See my previous articles to understand why that video misunderstands.
I don't want to believe flat earth. Nobody can demonstrate or measure curvature in a repeatable experiment. You haven't provided any proof of a convex curve. Believe me... I thought f.e. was the stupidest thing on earth until I tried to debunk it. But I could not find any proof of the curve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Wow that last video was just a dude talking, and then walking around at night a little bit.
That makes you think the earth is flat?
ships getting cut off is proof of curvature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
No... that's a new one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
You must be willfully ignorant after all the discussion and videos. Not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
the videos are a jokeQuote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Or your trolling.
Here is something you apparently haven't realized yet. Some people like to create youtube channels and get subscribers. Doing videos about flat earth experiments is a good way to do that.
The videos you've posted are goofy, those are not proofs of anything. They are mostly guys just talking science-babble and getting youtube hits.
if you find that video of the guy on his snowmobile a compelling proof of flat earth then i am 100% convinced you just want to believe.
The math for the curvature and the fact that things can be seen when they should be below the horizon makes me think the earth is flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
and i also think you know deep down, after thinking about a 17 hour day in Argentina, that flat earth is bullshit. But at this point, you don't want to look stupid for admitting you got so into it, but it was untrue.
That's my take anyway. I'm sure you don't agree but that's my read of the situation.
I'm honest and can admit that I don't know everything about f.e. and cannot explain everything. I do know the math for the supposed convex curvature and that it cannot be detected or measured on earth. If it could be measured you would have provided the formula or experiment by a scientist or video of a lecture that we could then test and verify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
If the sun and moon orbit the north pole, the phases of the moon would change during the night as the angles between them and you changed.
We havent really talked about that, but there's another one for ya.
You HAVE to admit you dont know everything about it, because you cannot explain away all the logical flaws so that's your only recourse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
What you cannot do is admit the evidence demonstrates it's roundness.
If the earth is round, you might appear wrong, gullible, and silly.... for that reason alone it MUST be flat!
"I dont know everything about it" is ACTUALLY saying "these arguments you make invalidate my model, and i cannot find a youtube video to refute them, so I'm going to claim ignorance as a way of dismissing the logical problems in my model"
Where's the curve dude ? That's all I'm saying. Neil Degrasse, Laurence Krauss... somebody should be able to demonstrate the convex curvature of the ball practically as well as mathematically.
I'm out for now.
When a boat goes over the horizon and the bottom gets cut off, that's the curvature. When you sail away from a city and the water line comes up on the buildings, that's the curvature. The tops of the buildings are not getting small as fast as the water line comes up. That's the curvature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
When you watch a rocket, it gets smaller and smaller until it eventually vanishes.
If you watch the boat it gets smaller, and then the water line starts creeping up. The water line creeps up much faster than the boat gets smaller. Eventually the water line creeps over the top of the boat and you cannot see it anymore, even with binoculars. Zoom in as much as you want, you cannot see the boat anymore.
A rocket going up does not do this. It just gets smaller, and smaller and smaller. Until you can ONLY see it with binoculars.
Do you see the difference between a rocket or plane vanishing and a boat going over the horizon? (one gets cut off, the other doesnt)
How can you possibly tell me that the boat is "perspective"? The ROCKET is perspective! Perspective means things get smaller as they get further away. Perspective has nothing to do with the water line obscuring the bottom half of a boat! I dont care what youtube links you post, that's not how perspective works.
Perspective means things are smaller when further away. The water line on the boat goes UP. That's not perspective, that's curvature.
Your assertion that curvature has never been demonstrated or proven or observed is poppycock.
That's not a display of curvature. It is perspective with the horizon and vanishing point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Is there a picture of a map, of the British Empire of the time in which thier slogn was " an empire on which the sun never sets" on a flat Eart map???
You think? I'm not sure how some youtube video convinced you of that, but it doesnt make sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
If the Earth is flat I would expect something on the horizon to get smaller and smaller and smaller until I can't see it anymore. But it would NOT get cut off at the bottom by the water line.
This seems a pretty obvious proof of curvature to me. You can continue to repeat your mantra about "it's vanishing point bro" but that does not make sense. Think about the rocket, does it get cut off? Why not? What's so special about the horizon that cuts things off? That's right, curvature.
Just watched as much of that balls out physics guy as I could. He's not even talking about why things get cut off at the bottom. He's just mostly babbling.
You don't need a youtube video to understand perspective. If the water line is halfway up the building, that's curvature. This seems pretty obvious to me.
Actually, shouldn't it, by your logic, be tilted away from you. You shouldn't see them as standing parallel but rising away from you at an angle. On a sphere "level" to the building would look at an angle to me observing from a distance. Your gonna need more than a 17 hr. Day to explain that one. Besides, it's already moot because according to the official maths, the Willis tower (tallest building in chi town) would be farther underneath the line of sight (1482.6 ft.) than it is tall (1473 ft.). To clarify, the top of the Willis tower would be hidden (1482.6 ft.) below the line of sight. The curve maths are patantly and provably not observable.
Yes the building would angle slightly away from you. Probably not enough to even be noticeable if you're close enough to still see the building. I don't see a problem with my observation here at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanfit
The Willis Tower is not built at sea (lake) level, so yes it should be visible above the horizon by whatever amount it's foundation is above water level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanfit
Also that distance is how far you can see at lake level, which means your eye is literally at the water line. Go to that curvature calculator and see what happens when you are 6 feet tall standing on the deck of a boat that is 4 feet above the water line. All of a sudden you can see much further and the water line comes way down again.
The water line comes way up the building, but not all the way up, and so that's your argument that the Earth is Flat? Wouldn't that be an argument that the Earth is larger than they say? It's still being obscured by the waterline, which proves curvature.
So at this point you've admitted curvature, but you are arguing about the amount....
I just did the math, at a distance of 40 miles over Lake Michigan, 753' of the Willis tower's 1450' height would still be visible over the line of sight given that the observer 6' plus elevation difference of +33' is 39' from the observer across the radian distance of 40 miles from Michigan city. I yield my argument on this point. Sucks to be wrong but god DAMN it felt good to math! :) ps my math could be wrong so do it for yourself!Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Well my respect for you just went up like the waterline on the Willis Tower! Props. If more people could say that as easily, the world would be a better place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanfit
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve...&unit=imperial
10' elevation over the water, 40 miles ... yields 870'
That assumes the building itself has a foundation of lake level, which it does not. I don't have this actual number so I can't add that it. You seemed to suggest 33'.
But yeah... you can see even without that, just being 10 feet above the water yourself takes it way down to under 900 feet.
And yeah, doing match rocks! This is what I was talking about in the beginning... think for yourself.
One step closer to the truth is always worth admitting your wrong. Let's hear some more of your reasons for spherical thinking?
Don't forget lake level isn't sea level. Chicago elevation is 595' and Michigan city is 627'. For the record.
according to that calculator a 10 foot increase in your viewpoint results in a 200' change in waterline at 40 miles away. That's a lot.