Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: kiwiboy on October 10, 2017, 10:52:55 AM
-
TAKEN FROM THE FLAT EARTH TRADS WEBSITE (FLATEARTHTRADS.COM)
LASERS AND LEVELS
Lasers can be used to measure the supposed curvature of the earth. The images below show an experiment done by some hungarian researchers who were not even flat earthers. Their proof was conclusive; the curvature that is supposed to be there is not. We include also a link to the video.
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_1a28f3f0360b42e78e6174c91594888b~mv2.png)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_d027f3e8c15c4a20a44ee97f41c30a0e~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_312,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_d027f3e8c15c4a20a44ee97f41c30a0e~mv2.png)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_76d28bfdd600425683cf85c34c84125c~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_327,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_76d28bfdd600425683cf85c34c84125c~mv2.png)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_666c240396bd482bb4e716d1252a983e~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_320,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/e43599_666c240396bd482bb4e716d1252a983e~mv2.png)
https://youtu.be/GBhDFO4NMrw
Levels
Experiments have been done in the past to demonstrate the lack fo curvature on the earth. The Bedford level experiment is one of the most well known. Flag poles are placed along at mile intervals in a canal, at the same height above the water.
At the end of the line a telescope is used to try to see back to the first flag. The result is that it is visible. Yet it should not be!
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43599_05df4e7b55dd4902b5852a9f795a2ca4~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_400,h_244,al_c,q_80/e43599_05df4e7b55dd4902b5852a9f795a2ca4~mv2.jpg)
Refraction? Opponents of the flat earth try to claim that refraction causes light to bend perfectly consistent with the curvature of the earth to give always and everywhere the impression that the earth is flat.
However, while no-one denies refraction, it cannot bend with such consistency, in different conditions. This renders null and void any attempt to explain results consistent with a flat surface.
-
interesting
-
A measly 7.5 miles laser test doesn't prove the earth is flat. It's an incorrect application.
7.5 miles (let's round it up to 8 miles) is only .10103 % (basically 1/10 of 1 percent) of the earth's mean diameter of 7917.5 miles (let's round it up to 7918 miles). No matter how you cut it, 1/10 of 1 percent of ANY sphere's diameter, whether it's microscopic or astronomical, will be FLAT. If "flat earth" is premised off of this "laser test", I have now completely obliterated this argument and exposed its fallacy.
-
Furthermore, 7.5 miles (let's, again, round up to 8 miles) is only .03212 % (basically 3/100 of 1 percent) of the earth's circuмference of 24,901 miles. This is an even SMALLER distance than the aforementioned model that I created above, which logically means a much smaller fraction of any sphere (in this case 3/100 of 1 percent), despite the sphere's actual size, will be FLAT.
Look at a baseball or a basketball. If you take 3/100 of 1 percent of its circuмference, it will be flat.
-
Thanks for your response!
You are really helping flat earthers out, by showing how totally idiotic globers are.
The supposed curvature would very measurable and discernable because it is supposed to be on a ball which is more or less uniform. Over water this would apply even more so.
I don't think you understand the science of what you are suppose to be defending.
-
A measly 7.5 miles laser test doesn't prove the earth is flat. It's an incorrect application.
7.5 miles (let's round it up to 8 miles) is only .10103 % (basically 1/10 of 1 percent) of the earth's mean diameter of 7917.5 miles (let's round it up to 7918 miles). No matter how you cut it, 1/10 of 1 percent of ANY sphere's diameter, whether it's microscopic or astronomical, will be FLAT. If "flat earth" is premised off of this "laser test", I have now completely obliterated this argument and exposed its fallacy.
So please calculated the number of feet the earth would drop after 7.5 miles.
PS -- you've "obliterated" nothing but have merely shown your ignorance.
-
So please calculated the number of feet the earth would drop after 7.5 miles.
PS -- you've "obliterated" nothing but have merely shown your ignorance.
Allow me to help you, o great obliterator.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=6&unit=imperial
If the camera is 3 feet off the water level, at 7.5 miles, objects shorter than 19.3 feet would not be visible.
At 30 miles, 518 feet would be hidden.
-
So please calculated the number of feet the earth would drop after 7.5 miles.
PS -- you've "obliterated" nothing but have merely shown your ignorance.
Allow me to help you, o great obliterator.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=6&unit=imperial (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=6&unit=imperial)
If the camera is 3 feet off the water level, at 7.5 miles, objects shorter than 19.3 feet would not be visible.
At 30 miles, 518 feet would be hidden.
Ladislaus is undercarbed, hence his red herring fallacy. :laugh1:
Try making an argument relevant to the 7.5 mile laser premise.
-
Ladislaus is undercarbed, hence his red herring fallacy. :laugh1:
Try making an argument relevant to the 7.5 mile laser premise.
You asserted that there's no drop because 7.5 miles is such a small percentage of the earth. Evidence of a brain powered by refined sugar.
In case you can't read, my numbers were relevant. If you point a laser at 3 feet above level over 7.5 miles, the target on the other side would have to be more than 20 feet above level ... to be hit by the laser. What part of that was so difficult to understand?
-
Furthermore, 7.5 miles (let's, again, round up to 8 miles) is only .03212 % (basically 3/100 of 1 percent) of the earth's circuмference of 24,901 miles. This is an even SMALLER distance than the aforementioned model that I created above, which logically means a much smaller fraction of any sphere (in this case 3/100 of 1 percent), despite the sphere's actual size, will be FLAT.
Look at a baseball or a basketball. If you take 3/100 of 1 percent of its circuмference, it will be flat.
There is no flat area, of any size on a baseball, a basketball, or any ball.
-
Evidence of a brain powered by refined sugar.
Full sugar, brah. 8)
Ladislaus says:
You asserted that there's no drop because 7.5 miles is such a small percentage of the earth.
Wrong analysis. I'm asserting that the drop is imperceptible to the human naked eye, which is why the actual curvature is perceived as "flat", further hence why many flat earthers' beliefs & arguments are based off this false premise. The actual curvature is still there, whether we're talking about the earth or a baseball, over miles or nano distances, respectively.
Also, the 7.5 mile laser test is faked. It proves nothing.
That's the point that escaped your undercarbed brain.
-
Full sugar, brah. 8)
Wrong analysis. I'm asserting that the drop is imperceptible to the human naked eye, which is why the actual curvature is perceived as "flat", further hence why many flat earthers' beliefs & arguments are based off this false premise. The actual curvature is still there, whether we're talking about the earth or a baseball, over miles or nano distances, respectively.
Also, the 7.5 mile laser test is faked. It proves nothing.
That's the point that escaped your undercarbed brain.
19 feet is imperceptible to the human eye? What are you talking about.
And if they video is faked, then why are you even talking about it? Go away, or show us some evidence that it is fake.
-
19 feet is imperceptible to the human eye? What are you talking about.
And if they video is faked, then why are you even talking about it? Go away, or show us some evidence that it is fake.
A 19 foot cliff just in front of a person is perceptible; However, a very gradual 19 foot drop spaced out over miles is imperceptible to the naked human eye.
I'm talking about a video that's faked because people should know it's fake. Go away, or give us some evidence that the earth is flat rather than making arguments completely devoid of logic and common sense.
-
A 19 foot cliff just in front of a person is perceptible; However, a very gradual 19 foot drop spaced out over miles is imperceptible to the naked human eye.
I'm talking about a video that's faked because people should know it's fake. Go away, or give us some evidence that the earth is flat rather than making arguments completely devoid of logic and common sense.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
-
Hello folks, before staging my own disappearance act, here's a nice little story for you all about a disappearing ship, in the middle of the ocean!
http://tradidi.com/etc/fe-disappearing-ship
Hint: no, we're not looking at rising sea levels due to global warming ;D
-
Hello folks, before staging my own disappearance act, here's a nice little story for you all about a disappearing ship, in the middle of the ocean!
http://tradidi.com/etc/fe-disappearing-ship
Hint: no, we're not looking at rising sea levels due to global warming ;D
.
Your link to two photos on your tradidi website isn't working so your whole point is missing there.
.
-
.
Your link to two photos on your tradidi website isn't working so your whole point is missing there.
.
Thanks for telling me, I've fixed the issue.
-
Thanks for telling me, I've fixed the issue.
.
You're welcome.
.
But I still see the same thing - the "ship-compare.jpg" does not link to anything:
.
Two snapshots, put side by side, scaled and marked.
(http://ablf3.local/attachments/ship-compare-jpg.449/)ship-compare.jpg
As they say, a picture paints a thousand words. I trust this picture is one of them.
-
.
You're welcome.
.
But I still see the same thing - the "ship-compare.jpg" does not link to anything:
.
Two snapshots, put side by side, scaled and marked.
(http://ablf3.local/attachments/ship-compare-jpg.449/)ship-compare.jpg
As they say, a picture paints a thousand words. I trust this picture is one of them.
Try refreshing the page. It's definitely working from my end, but the old page could still be stuck in a cache somewhere.
-
Try refreshing the page. It's definitely working from my end, but the old page could still be stuck in a cache somewhere.
.
Yaaay! Finally it's working!
.
(http://tradidi.com/files/inline-images/ship-compare_0.jpg)
.
Please don't neglect to mention that the photo on the left side, being taken from a greater distance than the one on the right, shows an important aspect of distortion that the flat-earthers are wont to ignore and even to argue against its existence.
.
Below the bottom red line, notice the left boat's striking difference in detail compared to the boat on the right.
.
As you go down to the roof line of the main deck cabin the details match even though blurry on the left.
.
But below that roof line everything is haywire.
Half of the region between the bottom red line and the water surface on the left boat is subject to intense distortion!
The two ball-shaped white objects seen in the right boat, center stern, are stretched out on the left boat.
.
The dark doorway on the right boat, center photo, appears elongated on the left boat, and the small white panel left of the doorway in the right boat appears to be the entire height and taller than the dark doorway on the left boat.
.
All the exterior wall details on the left side of the right boat appear stretched out on the left boat.
.
As you get down to the water level the boat on the left has no stern at all, for it has been obscured by the blurriness of the water surface and a zone of inversion that covers the water at great distance with magnification.
.
IN FACT, there appears to be a mirror running horizontally through the doorway that repeats below it the few feet of image above the mirror line.
.
It is this zone of inversion that results in a lot of confusion in all the telephoto images shot over the surface of water.
.
It applies to looking at a tall mirror on a distant shore, it applies to a laser shining over the surface of water, it applies to a ladder leaning against a building viewed from across a lake, and it applies to views of Chicago and specifically the Willis Tower from across Lake Michigan.
.
-
.
Yaaay! Finally it's working!
.
(http://tradidi.com/files/inline-images/ship-compare_0.jpg)
.
Please don't neglect to mention that the photo on the left side, being taken from a greater distance than the one on the right, shows an important aspect of distortion that the flat-earthers are wont to ignore and even to argue against its existence.
.
Below the bottom red line, notice the left boat's striking difference in detail compared to the boat on the right.
.
As you go down to the roof line of the main deck cabin the details match even though blurry on the left.
.
But below that roof line everything is haywire.
Half of the region between the bottom red line and the water surface on the left boat is subject to intense distortion!
The two ball-shaped white objects seen in the right boat, center stern, are stretched out on the left boat.
.
The dark doorway on the right boat, center photo, appears elongated on the left boat, and the small white panel left of the doorway in the right boat appears to be the entire height and taller than the dark doorway on the left boat.
.
All the exterior wall details on the left side of the right boat appear stretched out on the left boat.
.
As you get down to the water level the boat on the left has no stern at all, for it has been obscured by the blurriness of the water surface and a zone of inversion that covers the water at great distance with magnification.
.
IN FACT, there appears to be a mirror running horizontally through the doorway that repeats below it the few feet of image above the mirror line.
.
It is this zone of inversion that results in a lot of confusion in all the telephoto images shot over the surface of water.
.
It applies to looking at a tall mirror on a distant shore, it applies to a laser shining over the surface of water, it applies to a ladder leaning against a building viewed from across a lake, and it applies to views of Chicago and specifically the Willis Tower from across Lake Michigan.
.
.
In the event you come back and read this thread, Samuel, it occurred to me later that if you're the one who drew those red lines across the images above, I would like to suggest an additional edition of this image, one that shows the boat on the left with a third red line midway between the lower existing red line and the apparent water surface. This is the place where a reflection of the zone just above it (from there to the existing bottom red line) is inverted.
.
To be specific, it would be really great to see this image left alone as it is, because it is really nice, but also if you could ADD ANOTHER edition of this same image with a third red line inserted across the left boat only.
.
The zone from the lower existing red line going down to midway to the apparent water surface, is a zone that we can see turned upside down or inverted from midway to the apparent water surface down to the apparent water surface. But without a red line to divide it, most viewers won't notice the inversion going on right there before their eyes.
.
If you could add a new picture with a third red line that divides the normal view above it from the upside-down view below it, then viewers would more easily see the "mirage" or "refraction" phenomenon going on here. The new red line should divide the doorway in half, with each detail from the left side to the right side reflecting below whatever is seen directly above. Go from left to right and notice each figure, shape and shadow that is repeated below the new red line what is seen directly above it (and under the existing lower red line).
.
I have a lot of experience looking for minute detail and often-overlooked nuances and this image you have is chock full of them.
.
The clues and glaring inconsistencies here are easily missed since the boat on the left is a lot more blurry than the boat on the right.
.
It should also be explained that these are not results of the same magnification.
.
The boat on the right probably was shot with a magnification of 10 power, whereas the boat on the left appears to be 15 or 20 power mag.
.
The difference in mag power has a lot to do with pixel resolution and image clarity.
.
The boat on the left could be twice as distant as the boat on the right but they appear to be the same size.
.
They're not the same distance, though, as seen by the loss of clarity of the image on the left boat.
.
The further away a subject is, the more fuzzy its image becomes due to several factors, not the least of which is water vapor in the air and dust particles, like clouds. But this effect is even seen in outer space when looking at distant stars where very little objective form can be seen and therefore astronomers rely more on spectral analysis of light bands than they do of the shapes of figures they can see.
-
.
In the event you come back and read this thread, Samuel, it occurred to me later that if you're the one who drew those red lines across the images above, I would like to suggest an additional edition of this image, one that shows the boat on the left with a third red line midway between the lower existing red line and the apparent water surface. This is the place where a reflection of the zone just above it (from there to the existing bottom red line) is inverted.
.
To be specific, it would be really great to see this image left alone as it is, because it is really nice, but also if you could ADD ANOTHER edition of this same image with a third red line inserted across the left boat only.
.
The zone from the lower existing red line going down to midway to the apparent water surface, is a zone that we can see turned upside down or inverted from midway to the apparent water surface down to the apparent water surface. But without a red line to divide it, most viewers won't notice the inversion going on right there before their eyes.
.
If you could add a new picture with a third red line that divides the normal view above it from the upside-down view below it, then viewers would more easily see the "mirage" or "refraction" phenomenon going on here.
.
I have a lot of experience looking for minute detail and often-overlooked nuances and this image you have is chock full of them.
.
The clues and glaring inconsistencies here are easily missed since the boat on the left is a lot more blurry than the boat on the right.
.
It should also be explained that these are not results of the same magnification.
.
The boat on the right probably was shot with a magnification of 10 power, whereas the boat on the left appears to be 15 or 20 power mag.
.
The difference in mag power has a lot to do with pixel resolution and image clarity.
.
The boat on the left could be twice as distant as the boat on the right but they appear to be the same size.
.
They're not the same distance, though, as seen by the loss of clarity of the image on the left boat.
.
The further away a subject is, the more fuzzy its image becomes due to several factors, not the least of which is water vapor in the air and dust particles, like clouds. But this effect is even seen in outer space when looking at distant stars where very little objective form can be seen and therefore astronomers rely more on spectral analysis of light bands than they do of the shapes of figures they can see.
Good observation Neil.
Yesterday I was checking out a video of a guy who actually calculated the radius of the Earth when the guy claimed that the true horizon is the line right in between the two mirror images, i.e. the line you suggested that I add to another image is the true horizon! I haven't yet verified the truth of this claim, but I suspect he may well be correct. In which case, the effect (curvature drop) will be even more obvious.
I will try to verify that claim and add another picture with your suggestion to that page soon.
-
.
In the event you come back and read this thread, Samuel, it occurred to me later that if you're the one who drew those red lines across the images above, I would like to suggest an additional edition of this image, one that shows the boat on the left with a third red line midway between the lower existing red line and the apparent water surface. This is the place where a reflection of the zone just above it (from there to the existing bottom red line) is inverted.
.
To be specific, it would be really great to see this image left alone as it is, because it is really nice, but also if you could ADD ANOTHER edition of this same image with a third red line inserted across the left boat only.
.
The zone from the lower existing red line going down to midway to the apparent water surface, is a zone that we can see turned upside down or inverted from midway to the apparent water surface down to the apparent water surface. But without a red line to divide it, most viewers won't notice the inversion going on right there before their eyes.
.
If you could add a new picture with a third red line that divides the normal view above it from the upside-down view below it, then viewers would more easily see the "mirage" or "refraction" phenomenon going on here. The new red line should divide the doorway in half, with each detail from the left side to the right side reflecting below whatever is seen directly above. Go from left to right and notice each figure, shape and shadow that is repeated below the new red line what is seen directly above it (and under the existing lower red line).
.
I have a lot of experience looking for minute detail and often-overlooked nuances and this image you have is chock full of them.
.
The clues and glaring inconsistencies here are easily missed since the boat on the left is a lot more blurry than the boat on the right.
.
It should also be explained that these are not results of the same magnification.
.
The boat on the right probably was shot with a magnification of 10 power, whereas the boat on the left appears to be 15 or 20 power mag.
.
The difference in mag power has a lot to do with pixel resolution and image clarity.
.
The boat on the left could be twice as distant as the boat on the right but they appear to be the same size.
.
They're not the same distance, though, as seen by the loss of clarity of the image on the left boat.
.
The further away a subject is, the more fuzzy its image becomes due to several factors, not the least of which is water vapor in the air and dust particles, like clouds. But this effect is even seen in outer space when looking at distant stars where very little objective form can be seen and therefore astronomers rely more on spectral analysis of light bands than they do of the shapes of figures they can see.
I added an Appendix based on your suggestion.
http://tradidi.com/etc/fe-disappearing-ship
-
I added an Appendix based on your suggestion.
http://tradidi.com/etc/fe-disappearing-ship
.
That's beautiful -- even better than I was expecting!
.
(http://tradidi.com/files/inline-images/fe-ship-compare-true-horizon.jpg)
.
Your idea of making the third line dashed is brilliant.
.
First off, at the far right side of the left hand boat you can see a nub or eave of the roof line in the main deck cabin sticking out to the right a quarter inch above the dashed red line, and the same roof line sticks out a quarter inch below the line. Below that is a chunk of blue sky before the apparent water surface. No such inferior image is to be found on the right hand boat.
.
Moving to the left, you see two vertical blurs of white and then about 1/8th inch below the dashed red line is two white balls. Go over to the boat on the right and you see those same two white balls, looking like they're strung on a cable over the stern. So the boat on the left has a double image, with distortion in place of the white balls. No such inferior image is to be found on the right hand boat.
.
Moving to the left of the white balls, there is a dark square above the red dashed line, and a hazy copy of the same black square below the red dashed line. See the boat on the right has only ONE bold, dark square, and none at all below it.
.
Moving to the left again, you come to the doorway, which is much taller in the left boat than it is in the right boat. This illusion of taller height of the doorway is due to the illusion of a mirror-image below the red dashed line which makes the doorway APPEAR to be taller than it really is (see how tall it is on the boat on the right). The mirror image (inferior image) below the red dashed line obliterates what OUGHT to be there as seen on the right hand boat, because those details cannot be seen on the left hand boat due to the fact that the ocean surface occupies that space concealing the details, and the inferior image overwrites them. No such inferior image is to be found on the right hand boat.
.
Proceeding past the corner to the left, the boat on the right clearly shows a series of 5 or 6 dark rectangles, probably windows, on the side of the boat's cabin. ALL of these dark rectangles are stretched out in the left hand boat to become as tall as the doorway. Clearly on the actual boat the doorway is in fact much taller, as seen in the boat in the right hand picture, which has no inferior image.
.
In the end, the actual horizon is twice as high as it first appeared on the left hand boat, showing how the boat has moved beyond the curvature of the earth at sea. The horizon level covers half of the boat already.
.
When you let the same boat continue further away, the superstructure of the boat disappears entirely and the mast on top appears to stretch out before it suddenly disappears in the distance. The sudden changes are due to distortion of the inverted or inferior image, which changes quickly, appearing and disappearing in rapid flashes.
.
Aspects of the inverted image are very similar to those of a mirage which appear and disappear in something akin to waves of images fading in and fading out in rapid succession. This flickering picture is very hard to show in a still image like these.
.
-
.
The inferior image slowly creeps into the picture. It does not suddenly appear.
.
If you go back and look at the progress of the boat from the place where it was in the right hand image, you will see the inferior image fade in gradually until it becomes as prominently shown in the left hand boat.
.
Further along, as the boat proceeds over the curvature of the sea, the inferior image gradually consumes the boat leaving only its mast visible, in quivering, wavy flashes, before the mast vanishes entirely over the curvature of the sea in the distance.
.