the myth of flat earth debunked again

[Phil G]

These are excellent photos clearly showing evidence that the earth cannot be flat.

There are several advantages with observing an island a few miles away compared with looking at ships or boats disappearing over the horizon:

• Islands are large enough to see without needing a telescope or zoom lens
• Islands do not move, so they stay the same apparent size to the observer
• Islands do not move, so you do not have to wait for a ship to sail towards or away from you

Observe the island from somewhere where you can go higher or lower, e.g. a cliff. View the island from different elevations and see if the island looks the same or different.

1) If the earth is flat: starting from a high point and walk (or however) down towards the sea. As you descend, the island will remain fully visible. It will look slightly larger, as you will be very slightly closer, but the difference in unlikely to be enough to notice.

2) If the earth is curved: as you descend and get lower, you will see less of the island as it is hidden (from the bottom up) by the 'horizon'. Depending on the distances and hights involved, the island may not be visible at all from sea level.

Phil G's photos clearly show option 2.

I've observed a small island at the other end of a bay in South Devon disappear from view at sea level.

Yes, all true. Then along comes a FE guy who claims none of it is proof of a spherical earth because human eyesight is limited on a flat plane, while virtually every other FE guy claims exactly the opposite.

What it is actually clear evidence for is the extent of the irrational delusions of the FE cult. Hopefully some FE dabblers see it before they start to believe these delusions.

 

[Phil G]

-
​

I have posted many times, video of Jupiter moving across the sky. Zoom in on the star (using a tripod) and just let the stars move across the viewfinder on a camera.

I usually time it where i know the path the star is taking and after positioning my camera, Just let the star move into the field of view. I hit record before i even see the star on the viewfinder, it just moves into place and across the screen, till the stars exits right.

That’s not proof of anything. Prove to me that that’s Jupiter & not some piece of cardboard on a string. I’m waiting….

 

[Bradskii]

The Great Trignometrical Survey of India, which took six decades to complete, determined the height of Mount Everest from multiple stations set at a distance of (according to ChatGpt, because I couldn't afford the time to do an exhaustive search myself) 250 km, about 155 miles. So a close order of magnitude to your example. As you likely know the mountain was named after Sir George Everest who was superintendent of the Survey from 1823 to 1843. Where possible I try to remember to use the Tibetan name for the mountain, Chomolungma. (See wikipedia article.)

From the north peak of Izzaccihuatal in Mexico, at just under 17,000' I was able to see a substantial portion of the 18, 491' Pico de Orizaba. From maps.google I get a distance of around 146km, or 90 miles, between the two. It's certainly the furthest I have seen from one land point to another.

I read somewhere that Everest spent quite some time getting to where he needed to set up his equipment. And he very carefully took as accurate a reading as he could. Which, so the story goes, came out to (in imperial) exactly 29,000 feet.

Ah, he thought. People might just assume that a nice round figure like that was just a rough estimate and he hadn't done the work required. So he made it 29,002 feet. Which was then suitably impressive.

Edit: After a quick wiki check on the details, I found this:

'George Everest had no direct connection with the mountain which bears his name, which he never saw. He was, however, responsible for hiring Andrew Scott Waugh, who made the first formal observations of the mountain, and Radhanath Sikdar, who calculated its height.'

And from here: Everest's Elevation - Everest Education Expedition | Montana State University.

'In fact, Peak XV (before it was formally named) was calculated to be exactly 29,000 ft., but to avoid people thinking that they had simply rounded-off or estimated the calculation, they added two feet to make the elevation look more believable'

 

[sjastro]

-
​

I have posted many times, video of Jupiter moving across the sky. Zoom in on the star (using a tripod) and just let the stars move across the viewfinder on a camera.

I usually time it where i know the path the star is taking and after positioning my camera, Just let the star move into the field of view. I hit record before i even see the star on the viewfinder, it just moves into place and across the screen, till the stars exits right.

So you took this video of Jupiter on a tripod.
A tripod is not an equatorial mount which is thousands of dollars more expensive because it is designed to eliminate the altitude and azimuth movements of Jupiter found in your video.

You are deluded into thinking if Jupiter is not represented as a low resolution object that wanders all over the field of view as per your video it must be a fake.
This means practically every amateur astroimager like myself, all professional astronomers, and NASA with their interplanetary probes taking close up images of Jupiter have all engaged in fraudulent behaviour to take down the non rotating flat earth model.

 

[d taylor]

Is Jupiter's motion more like the motion of the Moon (which wanders among the stars), or the motion of a star (fixed in place with respect to 'other' stars in the dome)?

-
​

The created lights in the sky, move in their designed circuits, have been since God placed them in the raqia.

 

[d taylor]

Still not answering the question, you’re merely obfuscating & trying to distract from your obvious inability to rationally explain your irrational statements

-
​

I do not spend my life on a computer. When i am on my computer i will answer a post or two, but i am not going to sit here for hours upon hours answering questions that i have in the past.

If you are new here you can look back and read all you want.

 

[Phil G]

-
​

I do not spend my life on a computer. When i am on my computer i will answer a post or two, but i am not going to sit here for hours upon hours answering questions that i have in the past.

If you are new here you can look back and read all you want.

Neither do I spend my life on the computer reading through nonsensical claims of a flat earth which have been debunked repeatedly. If you want to convince people that spherical earth is false, you’re doing a great job exposing your delusions.

 

[Phil G]

So you took this video of Jupiter on a tripod.
A tripod is not an equatorial mount which is thousands of dollars more expensive because it is designed to eliminate the altitude and azimuth movements of Jupiter found in your video.

You are deluded into thinking if Jupiter is not represented as a low resolution object that wanders all over the field of view as per your video it must be a fake.
This means practically every amateur astroimager like myself, all professional astronomers, and NASA with their interplanetary probes taking close up images of Jupiter have all engaged in fraudulent behaviour to take down the non rotating flat earth model.

And a number of those amateur astronomers are Christians who believe the Bible & the evidence of a spherical earth which they see with their own eyes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

-
​

I have posted many times, video of Jupiter moving across the sky. Zoom in on the star (using a tripod) and just let the stars move across the viewfinder on a camera.

I usually time it where i know the path the star is taking and after positioning my camera, Just let the star move into the field of view. I hit record before i even see the star on the viewfinder, it just moves into place and across the screen, till the stars exits right.

Congratulations on demonstrating that (1) the Earth is rotating and (2) Jupiter is also in the shape of a ball. (I grant you the courtesy of accepting your description of your video camera set up. I do so, in no small part, because that's exactly how a celestial object will move if you set up a camera as described. I've done the same thing with the Sun.)

 

[sjastro]

To those flat earthers who think the limit of vision is 3 miles (amazing this primitive unit is still in use).

Here is an image I took of a partial solar eclipse.

​

I'm sure even a flat earther understands a solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the earth and sun.
Since the sun can be no further than 3 miles away, the moon must be closer so how close is the moon to the earth?

Here is something else to consider, note the sun is darker at and near the edge.
This is a well understood phenomena known as limb darkening and only occurs when the sun is a sphere, not a circular disk and is caused by variations in the solar atmosphere temperature which increases with depth.
At and near the centre of the solar image, an observer sees the deepest and hottest layers that emit the most light.
When approaching the limb, the gas density decreases with increasing radius which corresponds to increasing height for a sphere where only the upper, cooler layers are observed which produce less light.

 

[weekEd]

lens imperfections or sun spots?

 

[trophy33]

The created lights in the sky, move in their designed circuits, have been since God placed them in the raqia.

Where are those lights in the sky, though? Rockets get above the sky routinely and the Sun is still far away.

 

[prodromos]

lens imperfections or sun spots?

Sun spots.

 

[weekEd]

Sun spots.

those are the best part.
dyson sphere tech is pretty cool, I looked up a compound that sells for $96 (at the time) a lbs that will withstand the Sun spot temperatures.

 

[sjastro]

lens imperfections or sun spots?

Most definitely sunspots, note the dark central areas (umbra) surrounded by lighter regions (preumbra).
The umbra is where the magnetic field is strongest and approximately vertical to the Sun's surface, while the penumbra is composed of radially elongated structures known as penumbral filaments and has a more inclined magnetic field than the umbra.

I was able take an image of a giant sunspot group showing these filaments.

​

On a historical note the observation of sunspots by Galileo saw the start of the Roman Catholic Church's unravelling on doctrine which stated God created a perfect sun which rotated around the earth.
A spotted sun where the sunspots marched across the surface indicated the sun was not perfect and was another piece of evidence which supported heliocentrism.
Galileo's 'Letters on Sunspots' as illustrated started his gradual persecution by the Church which at the time had the habit of eliminating scientists who contradicted the Church's teaching as Giordano Bruno found out the hard way.

​

I wonder if flat earth diehards such as @d taylor who consider scientists and science as evil supported the Church's policy of executing scientists.

​

 

[Phil G]

I don't know why I'm doing this but here goes:

The reason why the lower regions of the island I posted earlier cannot be seen at the lower location is because the earth is spherical. I drew a crude diagram to illustrate it visually:

Observer A will only see Object B along the red line and above. Below the red line is obscured by the bump of the earth's curve. Where the red line of sight intersects with the black curved line of the earth is the horizon.

I then made Observer A higher:

Observer A can now see nearly all of Object B above the horizon because of the added elevation.

Then I drew another crude diagram to illustrate a flat earth:

It is blatantly obvious (despite my simplistic illustration) that Observer A should see ALL of Object B because there is no obstruction.

Then I reduced the height of Observer A:

And....Observer A can still see All of Object B because there is no obstruction. Now, if it is the case that, on a flat earth, the closer to the ground Observer A is, the less of Object B is seen, WHY??? What is the obstruction which limits the human eye to see the lower area of Object B?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know why I'm doing this but here goes:

The reason why the lower regions of the island I posted earlier cannot be seen at the lower location is because the earth is spherical. I drew a crude diagram to illustrate it visually:

View attachment 345099

Observer A will only see Object B along the red line and above. Below the red line is obscured by the bump of the earth's curve. Where the red line of sight intersects with the black curved line of the earth is the horizon.

I then made Observer A higher:

View attachment 345102

Observer A can now see nearly all of Object B above the horizon because of the added elevation.

Then I drew another crude diagram to illustrate a flat earth:

View attachment 345098

It is blatantly obvious (despite my simplistic illustration) that Observer A should see ALL of Object B because there is no obstruction.

Then I reduced the height of Observer A:

View attachment 345101

And....Observer A can still see All of Object B because there is no obstruction. Now, if it is the case that, on a flat earth, the closer to the ground Observer A is, the less of Object B is seen, WHY??? What is the obstruction which limits the human eye to see the lower area of Object B?

This simply and brilliantly shows why I keep bringing up the Isle of Wight from North Wales as a thing against flat earth.

 

[Phil G]

This simply and brilliantly shows why I keep bringing up the Isle of Wight from North Wales as a thing against flat earth.

Glad you found it good, use it wherever you can to debunk flat earth.

 

[prodromos]

I don't know why I'm doing this but here goes:

Expect zero responses from any flat earthers, although there may be a token claim of "perspective".
They will simply move on to some other argument and pretend they never saw your post..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Expect zero responses from any flat earthers, although there may be a token claim of "perspective".
They will simply move on to some other argument and pretend they never saw your post..

Like the whole thing that human eye sight stops at an arbitrary distance that remarkably coincides with the horizon...