Author Topic: Flat Earth-curious (Read 45472 times)

Anne Evergreen · « **Reply #145 on:** January 10, 2022, 07:55:58 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on January 10, 2022, 07:18:29 PM

What height is the ship, what height is the observer (eye height)? We need a few more parameters.

When we have those, we can calculate it as described here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/593064/how-to-calculate-how-much-of-an-object-is-hidden-due-to-earth-curvature

Earth's radius is 3959mi or 6371km.

Or we use this simpler formula: h = 6,371km * (1 - cos(0.009° * d))
We could solve for d here if h is known (too tired for that right now).
Let's assume the observer is on water level, and the ship is 30m high.

6371 * (1 - cos(0,009 * 19,55)) = 30m
So that gives us roughly d = 19,55km fo ar distance with the assumption of no atmospheric effects going on for the ship to stay visible longer or shorter.

Alright how about a woman that is 6' tall, standing level at 650' above sea level. There is 100% visibility, no clouds, completely blue sky, June 1, above the equator, with a cruise ship that is sailing to Alaska from the port of Los Angeles,
CA up to Juneau, AK
The cruise ship is a maximum of 217' in height, and is travelling at maximum speed of 22 knots.

Anything else you need, you can add in.
Okay just going to add in here that there are no buildings around, and the nearest tree is 15' away and is 150' tall. It is 4PM in the afternoon.

Too tired to think of anything else. Thanks.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #146 on:** January 10, 2022, 07:58:28 PM »

Here's another proof of FE, that reality is closer to the Azimuthal equidistant map than the fake globe model.

FEs hold that the reality looks something like this (Azimuthal equidistant map from the North pole).

Mostly reconizable, right? You can make everythig out. But globe earthers allege that the Southern hemisphere continents are too big.

But is that the case? No. That perception is actually based on the distorted Mercator map. To correct this, they released the Galls-Peter projection map, which asserts that this shows the TRUE SIZE of the continents in the Southern hemisphere, and that they were deliberately shrunk on the Mercator map. They have their true size, even if, they assert, their shapes are slightly off in order to get the right size projection.

So now the size of the continents on the North Pole Azimuthal Equidistant map are so far off, are they?

And, if the earth were a true globe, a South Pole Azimuthal Equidistant map would be recognizable as well, just like the North Pole one is.

Well, have a look:

This is riduclous, and apart from Australia, South America, and to a degree, Africa, the rest is absolutely unrecognizable. But if the earth were a true globe, both of them would be rather recognizable and would be off by about the same degree.

This demonstrates that the Azimuthal Equidistant map from the North Pole is actually an extremely accurate representation of the TRUE layout of the world.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #147 on:** January 10, 2022, 08:03:47 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on January 10, 2022, 07:18:29 PM

What height is the ship, what height is the observer (eye height)? We need a few more parameters.

When we have those, we can calculate it as described here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/593064/how-to-calculate-how-much-of-an-object-is-hidden-due-to-earth-curvature

Earth's radius is 3959mi or 6371km.

Or we use this simpler formula: h = 6,371km * (1 - cos(0.009° * d))
We could solve for d here if h is known (too tired for that right now).
Let's assume the observer is on water level, and the ship is 30m high.

6371 * (1 - cos(0,009 * 19,55)) = 30m
So that gives us roughly d = 19,55km fo ar distance with the assumption of no atmospheric effects going on for the ship to stay visible longer or shorter.

So the curve is steep enough to hide the ship at about 12 miles out in this case?

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #148 on:** January 10, 2022, 08:15:49 PM »

Quote from: Anne Evergreen on January 10, 2022, 07:55:58 PM

Alright how about a woman that is 6' tall, standing level at 650' above sea level. There is 100% visibility, no clouds, completely blue sky, June 1, above the equator, with a cruise ship that is sailing to Alaska from the port of Los Angeles,
CA up to Juneau, AK
The cruise ship is a maximum of 217' in height, and is travelling at maximum speed of 22 knots.

Anything else you need, you can add in.
Okay just going to add in here that there are no buildings around, and the nearest tree is 15' away and is 150' tall. It is 4PM in the afternoon.

Too tired to think of anything else. Thanks.

LOL

That's too complicated for me!

I just want a simple answer.

Average person on the beach watching average ship go over curve.

How far out?

Anne Evergreen · « **Reply #149 on:** January 10, 2022, 08:28:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 10, 2022, 07:51:12 PM

#1, there is no 24-hour sun in Antarctica.
#2, the climate of Antarctica is massively colder than that of its opposite "pole" which it should not be based on the tilt model
#3, that first one is not an accurate picture of FE, which holds that there's a firmament which reflects the sun when it hits its outer limts, which does cause there to be more sun in the Antarctic, but never a 24-hour sun.

There was a timelapse video made pretending to show the 24-hour sun from Antarctica but it was proven to be a hoax due to absolutely identical cloud detail at the beginning and at the end of the video. Why fake it if there's a real 24-hour sun.

Brain is already mush for today, back is bugging me from shoveling, and I could only wish there were more sun around here! I don't trust a whole lot of what NASA says, but it cannot all be garbage. A lot of what was at Kennedy Space Centre made sense, and a lot did not. But there were an awful lot of "burnt" props, if you will, from something very hot, (ie. the sun), so however high the astronauts can go, I really do not know! Sounding like Dr. Seuss here.

There are all sorts of reasons for people to fake a whole lot of things, and money immediately comes to mind. But if you actually visit the Kennedy Space Centre, it seems there is an awful lot of money being spent to simply try and fool everyone.

So while I appreciate your thoughts and help, I personally am going to stick with the globe theory, and again, I have given many reasons why. Not the least of which are the pictures showing Jesus Christ King with a globe, or orb in His hand. If those pictures are wrong, then giving them veneration is blasphemy.

Since I am going to go with the assumption that you would not partake in that, HOW do you explain the pictures of Our Lord with a globe? You can't.

If the earth were flat, He would be shown with a flat map in His hands, right? So either one has to deny the Kingship of Christ (atheist), or accept that those pictures are acceptable for Catholics.

Therefore if anything, I would say the Flat Earth belief is for atheists. It does not speak to my natural instincts for understanding the world.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Flat Earth-curious (Read 45472 times)

Anne Evergreen

Re: Flat Earth-curious

Ladislaus

Re: Flat Earth-curious

Miser Peccator

Re: Flat Earth-curious

Miser Peccator

Re: Flat Earth-curious

Anne Evergreen

Re: Flat Earth-curious