Is the Earth Flat?

[Jipsah]

When did you take this photo

3:30?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

 

[The Liturgist]

View attachment 335150

Indeed. One can also really see it even at FL330, and from FL390 in a B747, which Lufthansa still flies, it is very clear.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

View attachment 335150

If it were not so, as the flat Earthers claim, the entire structure (base and tower body) would diminish to invisibility together rather than the base going before the tower body. I would like to hear a refutation of THAT!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Hey, this is interesting.

Names of parts on electric pole

Names of parts on electric pole

waterheatertimer.org

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Mark Quayle]

View attachment 335150

Or Lake Pontchartrain has a bulge! Maybe gravity consistently behaves strangely there.

 

[The Liturgist]

Hey, this is interesting.


View attachment 335680

Names of parts on electric pole

Names of parts on electric pole

waterheatertimer.org

Google Search

www.google.com

There is an awesome channel on YouTube run by a Canadian lineman called BobsDecline which shows you the interesting and perilous world in which he works, in which the danger is increased by the fearsome winter weather, which is enough to terrify most Americans, except for those from Minnesota or North Dakota or especially Alaska. Fairbanks is deservedly unpopular as a vacation destination during the cooler months. I believe it was in 1947 that the temperature dropped to -50 Fahrenheit and all the Boy Scouts in the city got a special medal simply for having survived the terrible cold.

 

[Edwin Wright]

View attachment 335150

What you are seeing is not curvature but angular perspective. You will notice that the actual horizon (left to right) is absolutely straight — to the pixel or to whatever degree it can be optically resolved.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What you are seeing is not curvature but angular perspective. You will notice that the actual horizon (left to right) is absolutely straight — to the pixel or to whatever degree it can be optically resolved.

You are not addressing the fact thAt the entire structure (base and tower body) does not diminish to invisibility together due to angular perspective, rather, the base goes before the tower body. How do you explain that?

 

[prodromos]

What you are seeing is not curvature but angular perspective. You will notice that the actual horizon (left to right) is absolutely straight — to the pixel or to whatever degree it can be optically resolved.

Vanishing point of angular perspective would be on the horizon if the earth was flat, but the vanishing point in the photo linked is above the horizon due to the curvature of the earth. Of course the horizon in the image is absolutely straight. The telescopic lens gives a very narrow field of view and it is well understood that the curvature of the horizon is only perceptible from extremely high elevations.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Photo from about 58,000 feet. The curvature seems clear.

Another

Another

 

[prodromos]

Photo from about 58,000 feet. The curvature seems clear.
View attachment 335913

Another
View attachment 335914
Another
View attachment 335915

In the first photo, the horizon is above the centre of the lens, so any lens distortion would tend to make it look flat or even curving upwards at each end. The fact that it still curves downwards pre-debunks any claims of lens distortion.

 

[Edwin Wright]

In the first photo, the horizon is above the centre of the lens, so any lens distortion would tend to make it look flat or even curving upwards at each end. The fact that it still curves downwards pre-debunks any claims of lens distortion.

See the video:

In this case (from 121,000 feet), the flat earth horizon is below the center of the lens. Clearly, the earth is flat.

 

[The Liturgist]

See the video:

In this case (from 121,000 feet), the flat earth horizon is below the center of the lens. Clearly, the earth is flat.

Nonsense. The proof is in the existence, frequently denied by flat Earthers, of flights from South America to Australia, and New Zealand and South Africa, and occasional flights from Perth to South Africa, which happen due to the mining industry. A lot of these are private flights or charters, but they do happen.

But if you really want to prove your case, take up Kelly, a 747 pilot with Atlas Air, a major cargo and passenger charter airline, who posts on YouTube as 74Gear. He has offered to book a trans-antarctic flight from Buenos Aires to Melbourne if Flat Earthers club together and get enough paying passengers to charter a suitable aircraft. The details are here:

So if you really want to do this, take him up. If you chartered a 747 with maximum high density configuration, and signed up 462 people, the cost per person would probably be around $4,000, which I daresay would be worth it to definitively prove the world was flat, since the flight time would literally be impossible if the aircraft had to divert around the ice wall or the edge of the Earth or the gateway to a secret paradise world that exists in the supposedly forbidden vastness of Antarctica (which tourists visit routinely by the way; you can book an expedition to McMurdough Station, and you can book an Arctic cruise. There was one cruise line that in the late 1990s offered expeditions on cnartered Russian icebreakers some of which had nuclear reactors, including circumnavigating the arctic, which would have been so awesome. I mean, imagine the thirll of going on a cruise on a ship with a nuclear power plant.*

Air New Zealand also used to offer sightseeing flights

*As an aside, mainly of interest to my friends @prodromos @Jipsah @Akita Suggagaki @Hans Blaster and @SavedByGrace3 I would be a big fan of the cruise industry switching to nuclear power. The newest cruise ships are larger and bulkier than US aircraft carriers, and burn massive amounts of diesel, and frankly are not as seaworthy as older ships like the SS Rotterdam or RMS Queen Mary or the QE2, all of which were fortunately preserved as museum ships (I sailed on the QE2 twice, in 2002 and on her farewell crossing in 2004; sadly I have not had the opportunity to sail on the Queen Mary 2, which is the only modern cruise ship that is really as seaworthy as I would prefer, since it was built as an ocean liner).

As Costa Concordia demonstrated, much of the cruise industry fleet consists of ships built as cheaply as possible, indeed Costa Concordia had fewer watertight compartments than Titanic and the engine room was taken out immediately, whereas Titanic theoretically could have kept steaming almost until it sank. At any rate, nuclear power would result in huge improvements in fuel efficiency, and marine nuclear propulsion has a much better safety record than general purpose nuclear power. For example, the USS Thresher disaster did not result in any fallout despite the submarine being crushed, since the pressure of the ocean prevented the distribution of fusion products into the atmosphere, and in there are more toxic, longer lasting things floating in the ocean (such as dangerous levels of mercury, which makes a Pescatarian diet inadvisable).

 

[The Liturgist]

Staff Edit

Indeed, that was how the ancients figured out the world was spherical in the first place.

 

[prodromos]

See the video:

In this case (from 121,000 feet), the flat earth horizon is below the center of the lens. Clearly, the earth is flat.

Actually, I have to apologise as I had my lens distortions mixed up. Most cameras have radial distortion of the "barrel" variety, and for some reason my brain switched it to "pin cushion" distortion. So it is actually he photos where the horizon is below the centre of the camera that prove the curvature of the earth beyond all doubt.

What camera lens is being used in that video? I couldn't find any reference to it in the video and such details are very important.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Nonsense. The proof is in the existence, frequently denied by flat Earthers, of flights from South America to Australia, and New Zealand and South Africa, and occasional flights from Perth to South Africa, which happen due to the mining industry. A lot of these are private flights or charters, but they do happen.

But if you really want to prove your case, take up Kelly, a 747 pilot with Atlas Air, a major cargo and passenger charter airline, who posts on YouTube as 74Gear. He has offered to book a trans-antarctic flight from Buenos Aires to Melbourne if Flat Earthers club together and get enough paying passengers to charter a suitable aircraft. The details are here:

So if you really want to do this, take him up. If you chartered a 747 with maximum high density configuration, and signed up 462 people, the cost per person would probably be around $4,000, which I daresay would be worth it to definitively prove the world was flat, since the flight time would literally be impossible if the aircraft had to divert around the ice wall or the edge of the Earth or the gateway to a secret paradise world that exists in the supposedly forbidden vastness of Antarctica (which tourists visit routinely by the way; you can book an expedition to McMurdough Station, and you can book an Arctic cruise. There was one cruise line that in the late 1990s offered expeditions on cnartered Russian icebreakers some of which had nuclear reactors, including circumnavigating the arctic, which would have been so awesome. I mean, imagine the thirll of going on a cruise on a ship with a nuclear power plant.*

Air New Zealand also used to offer sightseeing flights

*As an aside, mainly of interest to my friends @prodromos @Jipsah @Akita Suggagaki @Hans Blaster and @SavedByGrace3 I would be a big fan of the cruise industry switching to nuclear power. The newest cruise ships are larger and bulkier than US aircraft carriers, and burn massive amounts of diesel, and frankly are not as seaworthy as older ships like the SS Rotterdam or RMS Queen Mary or the QE2, all of which were fortunately preserved as museum ships (I sailed on the QE2 twice, in 2002 and on her farewell crossing in 2004; sadly I have not had the opportunity to sail on the Queen Mary 2, which is the only modern cruise ship that is really as seaworthy as I would prefer, since it was built as an ocean liner).

As Costa Concordia demonstrated, much of the cruise industry fleet consists of ships built as cheaply as possible, indeed Costa Concordia had fewer watertight compartments than Titanic and the engine room was taken out immediately, whereas Titanic theoretically could have kept steaming almost until it sank. At any rate, nuclear power would result in huge improvements in fuel efficiency, and marine nuclear propulsion has a much better safety record than general purpose nuclear power. For example, the USS Thresher disaster did not result in any fallout despite the submarine being crushed, since the pressure of the ocean prevented the distribution of fusion products into the atmosphere, and in there are more toxic, longer lasting things floating in the ocean (such as dangerous levels of mercury, which makes a Pescatarian diet inadvisable).

Here's what has to happen (see the excerpt below from my blog post (THE ANTARCTIC TREATY: VEILING REALITY) dated March 4, 2023):

Moving Forward: Beyond The Antarctic Treaty​

Restricted access to the Antarctic land mass (and certainly, to the adjoining firmament-planar earth circumference, i.e. the Southern Circumference at 90° South) notwithstanding, the planar nature of the large-scale structure of the earth’s surface could easily be ascertained by circumnavigating the earth at a specific southern latitude well north of Antarctica or even north of 60° South for that matter. Whereas a spherical or spheroidal large-scale structure of the earth’s surface implies smaller and smaller circumferences of latitudinal parallels with increasing distance south of the Equator, a planar large-scale structure of the earth’s surface implies larger and larger circumferences of latitudinal parallels with increasing distance south of the Equator, culminating with the Southern Circumference at 90° South. Any private or corporate interests with sufficient resources could underwrite a marine expedition to circumnavigate the earth (unimpeded by any land mass) along a specific latitude, say 56° South (i.e., just south of Cape Horn), said expedition being equipped with the technology necessary to precisely determine the circumnavigated distance at that latitude. Obviously, if the measured circumnavigated distance at 56° South is greater than the equatorial circumference calculated under the spheroidal model, then the area of the world south of the Equator is much larger than the area north of the Equator, thereby pointing to the planar large-scale structure of the earth’s surface.

Would anyone be interested in underwriting such an expedition?

 

[prodromos]

Here's what has to happen (see the excerpt below from my blog post (THE ANTARCTIC TREATY: VEILING REALITY) dated March 4, 2023):

Moving Forward: Beyond The Antarctic Treaty​

Restricted access to the Antarctic land mass (and certainly, to the adjoining firmament-planar earth circumference, i.e. the Southern Circumference at 90° South) notwithstanding, the planar nature of the large-scale structure of the earth’s surface could easily be ascertained by circumnavigating the earth at a specific southern latitude well north of Antarctica or even north of 60° South for that matter. Whereas a spherical or spheroidal large-scale structure of the earth’s surface implies smaller and smaller circumferences of latitudinal parallels with increasing distance south of the Equator, a planar large-scale structure of the earth’s surface implies larger and larger circumferences of latitudinal parallels with increasing distance south of the Equator, culminating with the Southern Circumference at 90° South. Any private or corporate interests with sufficient resources could underwrite a marine expedition to circumnavigate the earth (unimpeded by any land mass) along a specific latitude, say 56° South (i.e., just south of Cape Horn), said expedition being equipped with the technology necessary to precisely determine the circumnavigated distance at that latitude. Obviously, if the measured circumnavigated distance at 56° South is greater than the equatorial circumference calculated under the spheroidal model, then the area of the world south of the Equator is much larger than the area north of the Equator, thereby pointing to the planar large-scale structure of the earth’s surface.

Would anyone be interested in underwriting such an expedition?

Talk to Lisa Blair. She managed to circumnavigate Antarctica in a sailboat in just under 93 days last year, a journey of a bit over 30,000 km. Given that the distance around the earth at the equator is 40,000,000km, I believe her journey fulfils your requirements of proving the globe.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Talk to Lisa Blair. She managed to circumnavigate Antarctica in a sailboat in just under 93 days last year, a journey of a bit over 30,000 km. Given that the distance around the earth at the equator is 40,000,000km, I believe her journey fulfils your requirements of proving the globe.

It must be a really big ball if the distance around the earth at the equator is 40,000,000 km!!!