Banana Bread wrote:
The biggest irony I find with different maps is the size of Greenland. On a flat map Greenland is stupidly big. Ok it's big but you have to be an idiot to think it is that big. A curved globe ball shows it's correct size.
On a flat earth map Greenland is in proportion to the other countries.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_MapsContradicting this unverified claim that the horizon ALWAYS rises to eye-level, here is an amateur repeating Al-Biruni's experiment of 1000 years ago (before NASA), that shows at only a small height of around 530m, the horizon is NOT horizontal, rising to eye-level, but the dip angle to the horizon is about 1/2 degree below horizontal eye-level -- something predicted by a BALL earth, and not predicted by a FLAT earth. To answer the question, where is the curvature, at these low heights, the curvature is not visible from left to right (where each point of the horizon is the same distance from the observer, therefore the same drop-off, from the viewer on a ball earth), but the curvature is from near to far.https://vimeo.com/97035111
Ground Control wrote:
Legit question wrote:
The horizon is ALWAYS at eye level which is only possible on a flat plane- where is the curvature?
I'm curious about this often repeated statement. Has this been verified by any flat-earther at high altitudes, and confirmed that it indeed ALWAYS rises to eye level?
On a ball earth with a large radius, we can predict the expected "dip angle" of the horizon as a function of altitude. The horizon would appear to rise 1:1 with eye level, at low altitudes, but at higher altitudes, a ball model predicts that the horizon would rise at a slower and slower rate than eye-level.
Al-Biruni performed an easy experiment more than 1000 years ago, that anyone can repeat, to settle the question, using their own eyes, and not NASA lies.
He stood on a high mountain of a known height, and measured the "dip angle" of the horizon, from eye-level. We can chose any model we want and predict the outcome:
- Flat earth model: If the horizon is ALWAYS at eye level, then the "dip angle" would ALWAYS be measured as 0 degrees, regardless of altitude, and the radius of the earth would be infinite, i.e. this would PROVE the earth is flat.
- Ball earth model: If the horizon is visibly BELOW eye level, then the "dip angle" from eye-level would be measurable. Any non-zero angle would DISPROVE that the earth is flat, and basic trigonometry would give us the means to calculate the radius of the earth, from the height of the mountain.
When Al-Biruni did this experiment, he came up with an estimate of 6335.725 km, a value which confirmed Eratosthenes' measure some 1200 years earlier, with sticks and shadows. Al-Biruni's measure was less than 1% error of the accepted measure today.
Where's the photo of the edge of the flat earth? I'm waiting, $100,000 in hand.
FFF wrote:
Where's the photo of the edge of the flat earth? I'm waiting, $100,000 in hand.
Ground Control wrote:
at only a small height of around 530m, the horizon is NOT horizontal, rising to eye-level, but the dip angle to the horizon is about 1/2 degree below horizontal eye-level
The horizon is always horizontal, that's why they named horizontal after it. How can it not be?
You are misinterpreting this experiment by insisting on Euclidean geometry. If the angle to the horizon departs from "level," i.e. precisely 180 degrees from the opposite horizon, that need not mean it isn't flat. Rather it means that a straight line isn't described by 180 degrees in that circumstance.
If you look at the gravity vector, it's slightly less than 90 degrees compared to each horizon. And that's the clue to why the geometry turns non-Euclidean - gravity is curvature in space. A straight line from one frame of reference looks curved in another.
As I said before, you can look at the earth as flat, which it is, or curved into a ball by gravity, which it is. Both are valid viewpoints that require different math to describe them.
Banana Bread wrote:
The biggest irony I find with different maps is the size of Greenland. On a flat map Greenland is stupidly big. Ok it's big but you have to be an idiot to think it is that big. A curved globe ball shows it's correct size.
It's a literal map.
Ground Control wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/6uiilj/the_picture_nasa_doesnt_want_you_to_see/FFF wrote:
Where's the photo of the edge of the flat earth? I'm waiting, $100,000 in hand.
With some decent lights the bottom side looks like a great spot for a grow op. I guess the migrant workers doing the harvesting would fall off though.
Maybe, but the often repeated, yet never verified claim was "horizon is ALWAYS at eye-level", which does not visibly appear to be the case at modest heights, regardless of your choice of geometry or choice of earth model.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Ground Control wrote:
at only a small height of around 530m, the horizon is NOT horizontal, rising to eye-level, but the dip angle to the horizon is about 1/2 degree below horizontal eye-level
The horizon is always horizontal, that's why they named horizontal after it. How can it not be?
You are misinterpreting this experiment by insisting on Euclidean geometry. If the angle to the horizon departs from "level," i.e. precisely 180 degrees from the opposite horizon, that need not mean it isn't flat. Rather it means that a straight line isn't described by 180 degrees in that circumstance.
If you look at the gravity vector, it's slightly less than 90 degrees compared to each horizon. And that's the clue to why the geometry turns non-Euclidean - gravity is curvature in space. A straight line from one frame of reference looks curved in another.
As I said before, you can look at the earth as flat, which it is, or curved into a ball by gravity, which it is. Both are valid viewpoints that require different math to describe them.
I can't figure out how I flew to Moscow, via the North Pole, given that image.
Ground Control wrote:
Maybe, but the often repeated, yet never verified claim was "horizon is ALWAYS at eye-level", which does not visibly appear to be the case at modest heights, regardless of your choice of geometry or choice of earth model.
Well that is just a silly claim. The horizon can't be at eye level unless the ground curves upward. If it's flat or concave down, then the horizon is at or below feet level.
For the ground to be concave up requires an amount of gravimetric distortion that exists only in black holes. Theoretically it would look like the inside of a hollow sphere.
Flat-earthers often say this. Rapper BoB said it. But I have yet to see this confirmed by any youtube scientist experiment. "ALWAYS at eye-level" would only make sense with infinite visibility of an infinite flat earth. With finite limits, it is close to horizontal, but not quite. The beauty of mathematics is that we can consider models in parallel: making predictions for a ball earth model, a flat earth model, an inside the sphere model, a mobius bottle model, etc. Standing 530m above a ball model with radius 6371 km will give us one dip-angle prediction. Standing 530m above a frisbee model with radius 6371 km will give us another dip-angle prediction. Standing 530m inside the surface of a hollow sphere, yet another. What other toys and shapes are there? A football? An oblate spheroid? Then, if you measure actually measure a half-degree dip-angle, like the BBC 4 narrator, you have several choices to make about which models work best, and which don't work at all. If it's not clear, you might repeat the experiment at a higher altitude.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Ground Control wrote:
Maybe, but the often repeated, yet never verified claim was "horizon is ALWAYS at eye-level", which does not visibly appear to be the case at modest heights, regardless of your choice of geometry or choice of earth model.
Well that is just a silly claim. The horizon can't be at eye level unless the ground curves upward. If it's flat or concave down, then the horizon is at or below feet level.
For the ground to be concave up requires an amount of gravimetric distortion that exists only in black holes. Theoretically it would look like the inside of a hollow sphere.
Ground Control wrote:
"ALWAYS at eye-level" would only make sense with infinite visibility of an infinite flat earth.
With finite limits, it is close to horizontal, but not quite.
No! That's my whole point, their claim is absurd without non-Euclidean geometry. An "infinite flat earth" describes a line. "Eye level" describes another line between the viewer's eye and the horizon. Because these lines don't intersect at the point the viewer is standing, they must either intersect somewhere else or be parallel.
If they intersect at the horizon, then they can't intersect at the opposite horizon. If the horizon were really always at eye level, the earth would certainly be concave-up, i.e. inside a black hole. That's possible but highly unlikely.
The earth is a plane wrote:
LoneStarXC wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVaElLPW4AABdym.jpgThe flat earth society is controlled opposition.
This is correct. The current FE movement has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Flat Earth Society.
Because all large masses of matter in the universe eventually turn into a sphere
The Mars rover never went to Mars. The whole setup is located on Canadian DEVON Island located off the coast of Greenland. We never went to the Moon either. NASA lies.
https://www.disclose.tv/nasa-mars-hoax-in-reality-rover-is-on-devon-island-canada-308141
We have all been indoctrinated by Scientism and attacked & ridiculed for merely questioning their religion of Science. These are the same tactics used against people who question global warming, errrr, climate change. Know this, no one starts out as a Flat Earther. The FE movement continues to grow.
Research Flat Earth. Wake up.
So would you have us replace one religion with another? What about this untested claim that the horizon ALWAYS rises to eye-level? What is the real shape of Australia, and why can't we make it right on a flat map?
Legit question wrote:
We have all been indoctrinated by Scientism and attacked & ridiculed for merely questioning their religion of Science. These are the same tactics used against people who question global warming, errrr, climate change. Know this, no one starts out as a Flat Earther. The FE movement continues to grow.
Research Flat Earth. Wake up.
Hey Legit question! I'm trying to RESEARCH Flat Earth, and I'm stuck on two points. During my RESEARCH of Flat Earth, I found these two issues, which the flat earth community seems to have overlooked: 1) They, and you, keep saying the horizon ALWAYS rises to eye-level. Yet this was seemingly debunked over 1000 years ago, by a globe earth fanatic on a mountain measuring the horizon against eye-level with an ASTROLABE, and again recently in a BBC 4 documentary, repeating the 1000 year old experiment. I don't think this involves NASA, as the formation of NASA is less than 1000 years old, and was formed in America, not Uzbekistan, and NASA does not sponsor the BBC, so far as I know. 2) Flat maps of the flat earth, which should be possible just by proportional scaling, always gets AUSTRALIA wrong, making it SHORT and FAT. Is some Flat Earth researcher working on a correct map? Can you help a beginning researcher? Do you have RESEARCH you can point me to, which tested and confirmed that "the horizon ALWAYS rises to eye-level", and fixes the flat map of a flat earth DISTORTION of the Southern Hemisphere? Thanks!
Legit question wrote:
We have all been indoctrinated by Scientism and attacked & ridiculed for merely questioning their religion of Science. These are the same tactics used against people who question global warming, errrr, climate change. Know this, no one starts out as a Flat Earther. The FE movement continues to grow.
Research Flat Earth. Wake up.
Houston we have a problem wrote:
They, and you, keep saying the horizon ALWAYS rises to eye-level. Yet this was seemingly debunked over 1000 years ago, by a globe earth fanatic on a mountain measuring the horizon against eye-level with an ASTROLABE, and again recently in a BBC 4 documentary, repeating the 1000 year old experiment.
Pay attention! It was debunked by me on the previous page, and I didn't have to hike up a hill or use an astrolabe like those idiots.
The horizon of a flat earth is never at eye level, it is just below feet level. The horizon of a ball earth is farther below feet level. Only the horizon of a bowl earth can rise to eye level.
Even on this primitive board I can illustrate this with a diagram:
eyes
feet
-------flat-----earth------------------------------------------------------------(horizon)
As you can see, the very flatness of the earth, once accepted, means every bit of it is below your feet. None of it is at eye level.
A bowl earth is possible with non-euclidean geometry.
