Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you say... Me, I've never seen Australia, and I believe it to be mythical. Kangaroos, seriously? The Bible says nothing about them at all. (I do, however, believe in Vegemite, and am probably the only elderly half-Asian redneck in rural Tennessee who regularly eats it. That may actually mean that I'm mythical.)
The water level showed a miniscule drop.... consistant with FE. The globe should show a more drastic change.. as my diagram showed.
By that logic.... the doors of my house swing a different direction when I'm inside from when I'm outside.
Air is transparent... The dust, moisture and temperature changes (density) make it impossible to see through 100 miles of it.. clearly.
You are still ignoring the fact that you cannot have two celestial poles on a flat earth. The night sky in the northern hemisphere is entirely different to the night sky in the southern hemisphere, both rotating around a different celestial pole which is again not possible on a flat earth.
There is only one pole on the FE model.
Unless you are on the equator, where they pass directly East to West.
Your model does not match what we observe, thus your model is wrong and should be rejected.
They don't just move east to west, they circle east to west. In the northern hemisphere they circle around polaris. In the southern hemisphere they circle around the intersection of the axis of the Southern Cross and the line bisecting the Pointers (Alpha Centauri and Beta Centauri)
Firstly, your diagram was from the view point of someone in orbit over 1000km above the earth's surface, way beyond what you claim is the limit of the 'dome' so hardly a reasonable comparison. The earth's radius is around 6371km and any comparisons need to take that into account. If you want to mock the globe model then you need to deal with the actual globe model, not a strawman model of your own making.
Firstly, your diagram was from the view point of someone in orbit over 1000km above the earth's surface, way beyond what you claim is the limit of the 'dome' so hardly a reasonable comparison. The earth's radius is around 6371km and any comparisons need to take that into account. If you want to mock the globe model then you need to deal with the actual globe model, not a strawman model of your own making.
Secondly, your diagram ignores the effect of perspective when dealing with large distances. In the flat earth model the horizon is effectively at infinity where everything converges to the vanishing point. In your diagram you are looking down at the ground, not looking out at the horizon where the sky and the ground/water meet. It is completely wrong.
So I did the math for the three elevations in the video with the water level in post #479
Calculations are basic trigonometry using the values above. Angle of drop from eye level is the same as the angle between the two radii, since eye level is perpendicular to the viewpoint radius.
- At sea level, with an elevation of 1.8m the horizon is at 4.8km and the drop from eye level to the horizon is 0.043°
- From Malibu, with an elevation of 365.76m the horizon is at 68.5km and the drop from eye level to the horizon is 0.615°
- From Mt Wilson, with an elevation of 1708.6m the horizon is at 147.6km and the drop from eye level is 1.327°
- From the ISS, with an elevation of 400km, the horizon is at 2294km and the drop from eye level is 19.793°
I give up.... The earth... if a spinning ball... is what casues the appearance of moiving stars.. Therefore.. since the earth only rotates one direction.. the stars will always appear to be moving in one direction.
I have never claimed the height of the dome... ever.Firstly, your diagram was from the view point of someone in orbit over 1000km above the earth's surface, way beyond what you claim is the limit of the 'dome' so hardly a reasonable comparison. The earth's radius is around 6371km and any comparisons need to take that into account. If you want to mock the globe model then you need to deal with the actual globe model, not a strawman model of your own making.
Secondly, your diagram ignores the effect of perspective when dealing with large distances. In the flat earth model the horizon is effectively at infinity where everything converges to the vanishing point. In your diagram you are looking down at the ground, not looking out at the horizon where the sky and the ground/water meet. It is completely wrong.
So I did the math for the three elevations in the video with the water level in post #479
Calculations are basic trigonometry using the values above. Angle of drop from eye level is the same as the angle between the two radii, since eye level is perpendicular to the viewpoint radius.
- At sea level, with an elevation of 1.8m the horizon is at 4.8km and the drop from eye level to the horizon is 0.043°
- From Malibu, with an elevation of 365.76m the horizon is at 68.5km and the drop from eye level to the horizon is 0.615°
- From Mt Wilson, with an elevation of 1708.6m the horizon is at 147.6km and the drop from eye level is 1.327°
- From the ISS, with an elevation of 400km, the horizon is at 2294km and the drop from eye level is 19.793°
Your diagram was wrong for a couple of reasons which I have already elaborated on, so it failed to prove anything.
And on a flat earth the horizon is at infinity where all elevations converge at the vanishing point. Horizon will always be at eye level (except it isn't because we live on a globe)
It's kind of hard to argue against basic trigonometry, so I'm not in the least bit surprised.
