#Login Register


  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
Home 


Is it OK . . .
06-10-2019, 08:05 PM #46
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:41,370 Threads:1,583 Joined:Feb 2011
Oh we have our own flat earther now? How quaint coffeetime.gif
06-10-2019, 09:16 PM #47
grav Member
Posts:44 Threads:0 Joined:Jun 2019
(1 hour ago)Octo Wrote:  Oh we have our own flat earther now? How quaint  coffeetime.gif

Yes, it's true, lucky you.  chuckle.gif
I thought FE was quaint too, when I first saw it in 2015. I figured it was some Amish rejection of modern science. Or a Luddite religious notion.
And then.
I looked at the math and physics and optics.

And now I can't believe how naive I was to ever accept the spinning ball in space vacuum. I grew up with sci-fan, read all the books from A.E. van Vogt on and was a Sci-Fi Book Club member. Now I see SF writers as brainstormers for the NWO. They make up bs and then it's put their propaganda in textbooks. Predictive programming.

İmage
06-10-2019, 09:57 PM #48
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:41,370 Threads:1,583 Joined:Feb 2011
We have banned posters for less reasons before
06-11-2019, 12:29 AM #49
RiskyRob Master Blaster
Posts:424 Threads:49 Joined:Apr 2018
(9 hours ago)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  1800 FEET of curvature over 52 miles ???????????? That would make the Earth no bigger than Texas !


37.gif

I gave her a link to the math to calculates the curve properly, but she's stuck on a flat earther's bogus equation. Someone told me the flat earther's math is actually based on archaic surveying approximations.
06-11-2019, 01:43 AM #50
grav Member
Posts:44 Threads:0 Joined:Jun 2019
(1 hour ago)RiskyRob Wrote:  
(11 hours ago)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  1800 FEET of curvature over 52 miles ???????????? That would make the Earth no bigger than Texas !


37.gif

I gave her a link to the math to calculates the curve properly, but she's stuck on a flat earther's bogus equation. Someone told me the flat earther's math is actually based on archaic surveying approximations.


Sorry about the poor quality image.
But . . . . .
My math is the same as your math.

Did you even read your link???

İmage
http://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.AjUpVB...=Api&dpr=2


Here is your link.
http://earthcurvature.com/Earth Curvature Calculator

by NyttNorge.com

Accurately calculate the curvature you are supposed to see on the ball Earth.

Distance:                                  Kilometers                                               Miles                             Calculate

Distance
1 mile0.0001
3 miles = 0.67 feet
2 miles0.00051 miles = 2.67 feet
5 miles0.00316 miles = 16.67 feet
10 miles0.01263 miles = 66.69 feet
20 miles0.05052 miles = 266.75 feet
50 miles0.31575 miles = 1667.17 feet
100 miles1.26296 miles = 6668.41 feet
200 miles5.05102 miles = 26669.37 feet
500 miles31.5336 miles = 166497.53 feet
1000 miles125.632 miles = 663337.65 feet
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
06-11-2019, 03:51 AM #51
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
ONLY when you are measuring down from that horizontal line on your graph !

You ARE NOT walking/flying/driving/sailing out into space when you are FOLLOWING the curvature ARE YOU ? As you would be if you were to follow that horizontal line !

Tell us, what are the curvature readings FROM YOUR GRAPH once you get past the 3 o'clock position on that graph ?
06-11-2019, 05:00 AM #52
grav Member
Posts:44 Threads:0 Joined:Jun 2019
(1 hour ago)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  ONLY when you are measuring down from that horizontal line on your graph !  

You ARE NOT  walking/flying/driving/sailing out into space when you are FOLLOWING the curvature ARE YOU ? As you would be if you were to follow that horizontal line !

Tell us, what are the curvature readings FROM YOUR GRAPH once you get past the 3 o'clock position on that graph ?

Correct. The math will not work after a while. You will be entering negative territory.

So what is your point?

There are many online algorithms to measure earth curvature.

This one lets you plug in observer height, target height, and distance to determine how much bulge there should be.

İmage
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
06-11-2019, 06:51 AM #53
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
blink.gif You are STILL measuring from the horizontal line up in the sky ! You are measuring DROP OFF by doing that !
If I asked you to measure a beach ball, would you draw a straight line above it and measure down to the surface in a hundred places and then find a math solution or would you wrap a tape measure around it ??
06-11-2019, 03:06 PM #54
grav Member
Posts:44 Threads:0 Joined:Jun 2019
(8 hours ago)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  blink.gif  You are STILL measuring from the horizontal line up in the sky ! You are measuring DROP OFF by doing that !
If I asked you to measure a beach ball, would you draw a straight line above it and measure down to the surface in a hundred places and then find a math solution or would you wrap a tape measure around it ??

I am not, repeat NOT, measuring the curve on a beach ball.

I am measuring the drop from sight. Which is a straight line.
Why are you belaboring the point?

Can a 1450-ft. tall building be seen from 50 miles away?
8 x (50x50) =  20,000 inches ÷ 12 = 1666.666 ft.

No!
is the answer. Risky Rob's link corroborates that figure.

Yet Chicago's  Willis Tower is clearly visible from across Lake Michigan.
Conclusion: there is no ball.
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
06-11-2019, 03:14 PM #55
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
''I am measuring the drop from sight. Which is a straight line.''

NO, you are NOT ! From eye height, about 5 foot, you are looking DOWN at the horizon line !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
06-11-2019, 05:53 PM #56
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,345 Threads:458 Joined:Jun 2012
(2 hours ago)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  ''I am measuring the drop from sight. Which is a straight line.''

NO, you are NOT !  From eye height, about 5 foot, you are looking DOWN at the horizon line !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It boggles the mind why grav can't understand that crucial point you just made.
06-11-2019, 06:17 PM #57
grav Member
Posts:44 Threads:0 Joined:Jun 2019
(24 minutes ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(3 hours ago)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  ''I am measuring the drop from sight. Which is a straight line.''

NO, you are NOT !  From eye height, about 5 foot, you are looking DOWN at the horizon line !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It boggles the mind why grav can't understand that crucial point you just made.

OK, y'all are right and the whole world that measures drop from sight is wrong.
Observer height is always included in the calculation. Always. In some cases photographers place their cameras a few inches above the ground or water.

By the way, the horizon is an optical illusion, which is another thing the AK will dispute. In optics, all lines of convergence meet at the vanishing point. When zoom lenses are applied, the vanishing point moves further away.

My last post about what is common knowledge.
Since no one will address if Chicago should be visible or not from 50 miles.
Which is the main point. Which - why is everyone avoiding it by quibbling over a non sequitur?
06-11-2019, 06:35 PM #58
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,345 Threads:458 Joined:Jun 2012
(17 minutes ago)grav Wrote:  
(41 minutes ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(3 hours ago)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  ''I am measuring the drop from sight. Which is a straight line.''

NO, you are NOT !  From eye height, about 5 foot, you are looking DOWN at the horizon line !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It boggles the mind why grav can't understand that crucial point you just made.

OK, y'all are right and the whole world that measures drop from sight is wrong.
Observer height is always included in the calculation. Always. In some cases photographers place their cameras a few inches above the ground or water.    

By the way, the horizon is an optical illusion, which is another thing the AK will dispute. In optics, all lines of convergence meet at the vanishing point. When zoom lenses are applied, the vanishing point moves further away.

My last post about what is common knowledge.
Since no one will address if Chicago should be visible or not from 50 miles.
Which is the main point. Which -  why is everyone avoiding it by quibbling over a non sequitur?

All your counter points contain non sequitur, CGI and optical illusion - what's there to quibble over?
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
06-12-2019, 04:35 AM #59
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(10 hours ago)grav Wrote:  
(10 hours ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(Yesterday, 03:14 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  ''I am measuring the drop from sight. Which is a straight line.''

NO, you are NOT !  From eye height, about 5 foot, you are looking DOWN at the horizon line !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It boggles the mind why grav can't understand that crucial point you just made.

OK, y'all are right and the whole world that measures drop from sight is wrong.
Observer height is always included in the calculation. Always. In some cases photographers place their cameras a few inches above the ground or water.    

By the way, the horizon is an optical illusion, which is another thing the AK will dispute. In optics, all lines of convergence meet at the vanishing point. When zoom lenses are applied, the vanishing point moves further away.

My last post about what is common knowledge.
Since no one will address if Chicago should be visible or not from 50 miles.
Which is the main point. Which -  why is everyone avoiding it by quibbling over a non sequitur?

Hmmmm, 50 miles at 8 inches per mile is 400 inches. 200 inches the camera side of the horizon and 200 inches the buildings side of the horizon (as the horizon is at the halfway point)  So, the lower 16.5 FEET of those buildings will be hidden from view from 50 miles away AND ONLY IF THE CAMERA IS AT THE WATER LEVEL !  NOT up on the bank and taken at eye height as that photo of yours was !  Show the un cropped photo YOU DO HAVE that shows the vegetation AND the water level at least 6 or 7 feet below the camera !
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
06-12-2019, 05:25 AM #60
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
Get on a plane and fly to the edge with camera in hand.
Prove it.

Anyone?

Let's see it.



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com