Proof the Earth is Flat

[JacksBratt]

The actual calculation for the curvature of the earth that you need to use in order to determine whether or not you see an object is......

h=r-r cos(s/2r)

Stop believing everything the FE conspiracy theorists tell you.

The equation I am using is given by a math teacher who is not a FE'er.
It is accepted by many from both views.

8 inches for every mile of the surface of the earth.. will give you a sphere of the size accepted for the globe earth.

The only time it is not applicable is when the curve is dropping perpendicular to the line of sight.

Obviously.. at some point.. you are looking off into space while the earth is curving down.. and eventually underneath the viewer.

For all other cases.. a drop of 8 inches per mile squared.. is the accepted calculation for our purposes.... by both FE and Globe viewers... In fact, it was taken from a FE denier site.

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't know what you are trying to get at. It is completely unrealistic to have a line of sight at zero inches. Whether an object 1000 feet tall can be seen at a distance of 40 miles depends very much on the eye height of the observer. Here is a website that explains it:

David Senesac Visual Line of Sight Calculations dependent on Earth's Curvature

If a person is standing at sea level with an eye height of say 5 feet above sea level, then the top of an object 1000 feet tall can be seen from 40 miles. In fact it can still be seen from just under 46 miles away according to the correct formula. If a person is standing with an eye height of 10 feet, then it can be seen from just under 47 miles away.

For some reason you are stuck on the 8 inches per mile formula for deciding how far an object of a particular height can be seen. You seem to forget about how crucial the eye height of the observer is for this.

I understand that... It's a theoretical statement.

Obviously a six foot person is going to be able to see the 8 inch object...

Do you understand.. however, the difference of how far the horizon is, how far we see, how we can still see objects that should be hidden by the curve... etc?

I mean really... the statement "We see too far" should be quite elementary when you combine it with examples of how we can see things that are very far away.. when they should have gone over the curve like they used to say ships do.

Objects, even very tall objects, are visible... when viewed from distances that, by calculations, should place them well over the curve and impossible to view in a straight line of sight.

 

[Phil G]

For all other cases.. a drop of 8 inches per mile squared.. is the accepted calculation for our purposes....

No it is not the accepted calculation for our purposes.

‘That formula is not accurate if one’s goal is to make real-world calculations: the formula provided can only calculate the height of targets hidden if the perspective was at 0cm from the Earth’s surface. While this doesn’t seem to make a very dramatic difference at first glance, it’s actually very substantial.’ (Emphasis in the original)

The math of the Flat Earth…

 

[Phil G]

I understand that... It's a theoretical statement.

Obviously a six foot person is going to be able to see the 8 inch object...

Do you understand.. however, the difference of how far the horizon is, how far we see, how we can still see objects that should be hidden by the curve... etc?

I mean really... the statement "We see too far" should be quite elementary when you combine it with examples of how we can see things that are very far away.. when they should have gone over the curve like they used to say ships do.

Objects, even very tall objects, are visible... when viewed from distances that, by calculations, should place them well over the curve and impossible to view in a straight line of sight.

No because again you are trying to focus on 8 inches per mile which does not translate into realistic expectations of how far we can see.

 

[SPF]

In true FE uneducated fashion, JB is willing to die upon his belief of 8 inches per mile squared. JB, take 1 minute of your time and watch the video.

 

[Phil G]

In true FE uneducated fashion, JB is willing to die upon his belief of 8 inches per mile squared. JB, take 1 minute of your time and watch the video.

It is unlikely to make any difference. 8 inches per mile is his mantra and he doesn't seem to understand its limitations of use.

 

[JacksBratt]

No it is not the accepted calculation for our purposes.

‘That formula is not accurate if one’s goal is to make real-world calculations: the formula provided can only calculate the height of targets hidden if the perspective was at 0cm from the Earth’s surface. While this doesn’t seem to make a very dramatic difference at first glance, it’s actually very substantial.’ (Emphasis in the original)

The math of the Flat Earth…

Found this:

Earth Curvature Calculator - Calculate the curve you should see

Which is not exact to 8 x distance in miles squared.. but very close....

So, I'm not arguing this anymore. It's splitting hairs.

 

[JacksBratt]

It is unlikely to make any difference. 8 inches per mile is his mantra and he doesn't seem to understand its limitations of use.

I can hear you.. you do know that... right?

Check out post # 347

 

[JacksBratt]

In true FE uneducated fashion, JB is willing to die upon his belief of 8 inches per mile squared. JB, take 1 minute of your time and watch the video.

Are you serious.. I said I would when I can.... sheesh....

 

[Phil G]

I can hear you.. you do know that... right?

Check out post # 347

You're still stuck on it. Here is another website quote:

'How much of an object is hidden behind the curvature of the earth, the so called hidden height hh, depends on the distance of the object from the observer and from the height of the observers eye above the surface hO. The distance can be expressed as the line of sight d to the object, tangent to the horizon, or as the arc length s along the surface of the earth between observer and target.


Note: To calculate the hidden height you must not use the famous equation 8 inches per miles squared! This equation is an approximation to calculate the drop of the earth surface from a tangent line on the surface at the observer. It calculates not the hidden part of an object.'

Eight Inches per Miles squared Formula Derivation

The 8 inches per mile (or per mile squared) is not appropriate for the purpose of how far we can see beyond the horizon. It is not splitting hairs. For some reason you're just stuck on that formula beyond its usefulness.

 

[JacksBratt]

You're still stuck on it. Here is another website quote:

'How much of an object is hidden behind the curvature of the earth, the so called hidden height hh, depends on the distance of the object from the observer and from the height of the observers eye above the surface hO. The distance can be expressed as the line of sight d to the object, tangent to the horizon, or as the arc length s along the surface of the earth between observer and target.


Note: To calculate the hidden height you must not use the famous equation 8 inches per miles squared! This equation is an approximation to calculate the drop of the earth surface from a tangent line on the surface at the observer. It calculates not the hidden part of an object.'

Eight Inches per Miles squared Formula Derivation

The 8 inches per mile (or per mile squared) is not appropriate for the purpose of how far we can see beyond the horizon. It is not splitting hairs. For some reason you're just stuck on that formula beyond its usefulness.

Here is another site....

David Senesac Visual Line of Sight Calculations dependent on Earth's Curvature

More in depth that "miles squared x 8 inches.. but.. the results are still close enough..

Here's another:
Curvature of the Earth

AND... yes.. I understand that the height of the observer is not calculated into this..


AND yes... I will watch the video


AND..check our the video I posted, presented by Jerinsism where he DOES use the height of the observer in his calculations.

God bless.

 

[Phil G]

Here is another site....

David Senesac Visual Line of Sight Calculations dependent on Earth's Curvature

More in depth that "miles squared x 8 inches.. but.. the results are still close enough..

Here's another:
Curvature of the Earth

AND... yes.. I understand that the height of the observer is not calculated into this..


AND yes... I will watch the video


AND..check our the video I posted, presented by Jerinsism where he DOES use the height of the observer in his calculations.

God bless.

I already gave you the first link you supply in order to show you that 8 inches per mile is not suitable for realistically estimating how far we can see an object beyond the horizon.

I think you are so stuck on this formula that you are not looking at realistic situations.

Calculating the earth's curvature or drop of the the earth's curvature does not translate into the point you seem to be trying to make.

 

[Phil G]

Here is another site....

David Senesac Visual Line of Sight Calculations dependent on Earth's Curvature

More in depth that "miles squared x 8 inches.. but.. the results are still close enough..

Here's another:
Curvature of the Earth

AND... yes.. I understand that the height of the observer is not calculated into this..


AND yes... I will watch the video


AND..check our the video I posted, presented by Jerinsism where he DOES use the height of the observer in his calculations.

God bless.

The fact that we see objects beyond the distance 8 inches per mile would indicate does not invalidate the formula for its correct usage. But it does invalidate it for calculating what can be seen at what distance. From my reading of your posts, you seem to be trying to invalidate the formula completely by saying we can see further than its results. If that is so, then you're missing the point. The formula is legitimate but not your usage of it.

 

[SeventyOne]

And there you have it - flat earth believers actually believe they are more intelligent than those of us who believe the earth to be spherical. That's the condescending attitude I come accross all the time with flat earthers.

Sorry, I won't be accepting a claim of condensation from any of you ballers how constantly come on here and call flat-earthers stupid at every turn available, all the while not taking any time to understand what they are arguing against.

If you want to tow that hypocritical line, feel free.

 

[SeventyOne]

No, not immediately rejected. Just no proof.

And you just knew that by divine inspiration immediately, of course.

 

[SeventyOne]

And in that thread you only rehashed videos which prove nothing.

Well, they did, to those who were interested in actually looking and considering. I did say in that thread I expected most, if not all, to dismiss them immediately as well, and, as usual, that's exactly what happened for most.

 

[SPF]

Sorry, I won't be accepting a claim of condensation from any of you ballers how constantly come on here and call flat-earthers stupid at every turn available, all the while not taking any time to understand what they are arguing against.

If you want to tow that hypocritical line, feel free.

SeventyOne, I get that you are probably tired of people thinking you're a bit of a dunce for believing the earth is flat (it's not, by the way).

But I think maybe you have lost sight of how you engage with people on this forum. I can't imagine that you would speak to any member of Calvary Chapel the way you speak to us here. In fact, you're one of the rudest, most condescending, and insulting poster to people who disagree with you.

While I'm sure you originally were not part of the problem, you are now. I see you calling people stupid 10x more than anyone says it back to you.

 

[Phil G]

Here is another site....

David Senesac Visual Line of Sight Calculations dependent on Earth's Curvature

More in depth that "miles squared x 8 inches.. but.. the results are still close enough..

Here's another:
Curvature of the Earth

AND... yes.. I understand that the height of the observer is not calculated into this..


AND yes... I will watch the video


AND..check our the video I posted, presented by Jerinsism where he DOES use the height of the observer in his calculations.

God bless.

So I just watched the first ten minutes of the video you posted and already I can see he is taking things out of context. The 'levitation' of mountains is clearly designed to ridicule the well understood phenomenon of atmospheric refraction.

Here is a tourism website advertising Cleaveleys on the west coast of England.

https://www.visitcleveleys.co.uk/about/views-across-water/see-the-isle-of-man-from-cleveleys/

There are various photos of the Isle of Man on the website as photographed from Cleveleys. In these photos, the Isle of Man appears to 'levitate' out of the sea depending on the the prevailing atmospheric conditions at the time. It should not be possible to see so much of the Isle of Man from this location, but it can happen.

The website clearly explains this phenomenon and says it sometimes happens at night and rarely during the day. So anyone discounting atmospheric refraction (which is apparently very prevalent in Antarctica) for being able to see further than we should as some sort of 'levitation' sillyness is being deceptive and misleading. I find it hard to watch the rest of the video because 10 minutes is spent trying to ridicule something so obvious.

 

[Phil G]

Well, they did, to those who were interested in actually looking and considering. I did say in that thread I expected most, if not all, to dismiss them immediately as well, and, as usual, that's exactly what happened for most.

Well they didn't and you refused to engage on their content.

 

[SeventyOne]

SeventyOne, I get that you are probably tired of people thinking you're a bit of a dunce for believing the earth is flat (it's not, by the way).

But I think maybe you have lost sight of how you engage with people on this forum. I can't imagine that you would speak to any member of Calvary Chapel the way you speak to us here. In fact, you're one of the rudest, most condescending, and insulting poster to people who disagree with you.

While I'm sure you originally were not part of the problem, you are now. I see you calling people stupid 10x more than anyone says it back to you.

No, you actually don't see that. I've been hounded relentlessly for more than a year on this forum. There is a particular group who have earned my complete disrespect and I don't mind letting them know. As long as they keep approaching me in a condescending manner concerning the truth of flat earth (it is, by the way), they will receive the same in kind, until the day they repent of their foolishness. These are the only people who have earned for me to talk to them the way they have repeatedly talked to me over the course of many months. I don't do it to anyone else on the forum, because no one else has earned it. When you see me as rude and condescending, it's a mirror of what I see.