Flat Earth?

[gerrydandridge]

Chinahand: Do you think this is all down to light refraction in the atmosphere or a mirage, well let’s assume light refraction is a possibility to this extent so if we eliminate it with the below fact.

 

If you look from the highland near Portsmouth, looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the entire base of the island, where water and land meet composes a perfectly straight line 22 miles long.

According to ball earth theory, the Isle of Wight should decline 80 feet from the centre on each side, to account for necessary curvature. The cross-hairs of a good theodolite directed there, however, have repeatedly shown the land and water line to be perfectly level, this cannot be effected by atmospheric refraction.

 

Go up to Douglas head and look with optical help (Binoculars or telescope) if needed at the Great Orms head in North Wales and tell me it is a mirage or refraction from the atmosphere...

 

I am not looking for attention or trolling...

[Isaac]

Go up to Douglas head and look with optical help (Binoculars or telescope) if needed at the Great Orms head in North Wales and tell me it is a mirage or refraction from the atmosphere...

 

Look with optical help? lol, Ans, you do crack me up.

[Bobbie Bobster]

I am not looking for attention or trolling...

You are doing a very poor job of it.

[Chinahand]

Hee hee, I'm proving Albert right!!

 

Gerry, you question whether these effects are due to refraction and mirages.

The question to you is what would they look like if they were due to refraction.

Can you try to think about that?

Because if you can, while you are thinking about that why don't you also think about why it is dark in Australia when it is light here, why is it summer in South Africa when it is winter on the Island, why can you see the sun at noon looking up from the bottom of a well in Egypt but not in Greece, why does every surveyor have to add calculations for the curvature of the Earth to keep them accurate over a few miles.

Gerry, what do you think Solar Impulse is doing at the moment? Do you really think it is unknowingly flying round in spirals, grooves in record was the analogy you gave wan't it? Do you really know more about navigation than the pilots of the Solar Impulse, or Magellan, Drake Cook, Darwin, and thousands upon thousands of airline pilots, sailors, car drivers and even cyclists who have circumnavigated the world?

Do you know anything about navigation or surveying?

Do you know how people are able to predict the time of an eclipse and how its shadow moves across the face of the earth?

Do you really think they would miss the fact that they are using a flat earth to get their predictions correct, or are hiding it from you.

Well that isn't possible because the calculations are readily available and you can do them your self and guess what - they spherical coordinates of globe within their calculations to predict the path of the eclipe - heck we even have pictures of the track moving across the earth:

.

Heck maybe I'll even try to do the calculations to show you - but then again I suspect it won't be worth while, because you won't accept it will you Gerry, even if you could understand them, which sadly I doubt.

About the only merit in this otherwise totally stupid thread has been finding some wonderful web sites patiently explaining the issues which so confuse poor Gerry.

I've already linked to this wonderful site.

It goes into amazing detail on temperature inversions, changes to the lapse rate (Gerry do you know what this is?) and then uses basic optical theory to look how objects on or beyond the horizon would look like if these assumptions were true. And the result is very simple. There is no conspiracy to hide the fact of a flat earth from the cowered population of the world, just readily explainable optics.

One thing I really like is that the academic who's produced this work actually cites the work of Newton from 1704, or Lambert in 1759,or Everett in 1873 showing how hard patient diligent scholarship has been able to understand the optics and the atmosphere and how these create the effects so confusing Gerry.

Another fantastic site I've discovered and probably will continue to read is this one run by a very mathematically astute engineer.

Wikipedia and most surveying websites simply assert that the distance to the horizon without an atmosphere is:


While when you have a standard atmosphere it changes to:

 

Proving the first is pretty trivial - Gerry honestly get a paper, a pen and try it - if you need to borrow a brain try to talk to a math's teacher, but if you understand Pythagoras you should be able to work out the first equation yourself (its also explained in the surveying video I linked to if you need some Youtube based help).

 

Proving the second equation is hugely complicated. Well beyond my ability but the author of Maths Encounters patiently goes through it.

 

It is a wonderful tour de force of scholarship.

 

Gerry please don't dismiss this - what do you think this gentleman is doing? Do you think he is trying to bamboozle you? Are you capable or willing to answer this? I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply.

 

In another post he then directly answers Gerry's concerns about light houses being visible when under the horizon. Using the standard techniques proved in the first post to calculate how far away lighthouses could be expected to be seen.

 

I really recommend anyone who is interested in the application of logic and rigour to solving real world problems to read these posts. They are wonderful applications of maths.

 

As is this post from the first site I found which actually calculates what a sunset with an atmosphere would look like on a flat earth.

 

Surprise surprise the mathematical models which successfully replicate mirages and horizon effects show that such a system would produce sunsets nothing like those seen on earth:

 

 

Now why is that?

 

Is it because he is faking his results to be a member of the conspiracy?

 

Well you can go and check the maths of his simulations.

 

It isn't hidden, just like the author of Maths Encounters it is patiently laid out to try to ensure no mistake has been made.

 

Gerry, do you really want to ignore all this and stick with your Youtube videos?

 

The effects you have put up are well known and explained. They are totally consistent with a globe with an atmosphere and totally inconsistent with a flat earth and an atmosphere.

 

Who'd have thunk it!

 

Ah there's a Ted William's quote about that. Gerry, try and see if you can at least find that quote. Hint type Ted William's into the search box in the Maths Encounters site.

 

You are wrong. The world is a globe and the effects of refraction explain what is so troubling you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gerrydandridge]

ChinaHand:

 

I will look at these points you mention much closer over the coming days, I had already looked at refraction, my problem is with the equations when written underneath them they say "This formula assumes that light is refracted and travels along a circular arc", the age old trick is to put out complex maths that 99% of the population would never understand fully, based on assumptions, reading his blog I am skeptical of the author also.

 

refraction doesn't answer the "Isle of Wight" problem of my last post either?

 

I can answer your dark in one part of the world and light in another, simply stand in a dark room, move a flash light around in a circle not too far from the surface and you will see what I mean.

 

Think of a globe covered in water spinning, what happens? Even better think of a globe spinning with an atmosphere, inside a vacuum, it doesn't make any sense until you add “GRAVITY” yes this is the solution. And it’s still only a THEORY, what has been the biggest problem for the Grand Unification Theory,,, from memory I think it is GRAVITY, could gravity be simply thrown in to account for this spinning ball and why we don’t fly off into space and why the vacuum of space doesn't just suck away our atmosphere?

 

2 Maps below, one from the flat earth Society and one is the UN logo, do they look familiar? Do you think they did this as a joke?

 

[Chinahand]

[Bobbie Bobster]

About the only merit in this otherwise totally stupid thread has been finding some wonderful web sites patiently explaining the issues which so confuse poor Gerry.

And a +1 for that, China.

 

Also, I think I'd go for Goode Homolosine. Maybe we need a poll?

[kevster]

2 Maps below, one from the flat earth Society and one is the UN logo, do they look familiar? Do you think they did this as a joke?

 

Yes, the Flat Earth Society are well known for their sense of humour.

[gerrydandridge]

The UN copied the Flat Earth model, not the other way around...notice how the UN also spread out the landmass in the southern hemisphere just as the flat earthers have done, to compensate for the southern hemisphere being much larger than the northern hemisphere as would happen on a flat earth, i.e. the center of the disk is of lower area compared to the outer part of the disk... look at the proportions of southern hemisphere land on the UN map compared to the globe map proportions,,,whats this all about?

[gerrydandridge]

As from the engineering part of Chinahands post I add page 4 from a book published in 1895

 

 

CHEAP EDITION. FEB., 1895.

The fo llowing E x tr a c t w a s tak en from the “ Birmingh

am Weekly M e rcu ry ” of F e b ru a ry ISth, 1890, an d m u s t

h a v e been first published ve ry soon a fte r the experiment

on the Bedford C an al, w h en th a t P ro fe sso r fraudulently

ap p ro p r ia ted the sum o f £ 1,000, on the g ro s s ly false plea

th a t he h ad prov ed a c u rv a tu r e on s ix mile s of the su rfa

c e -w a te r o f th a t Canal.

“ An Engineer of Thirty Years Standing” writes to a magazine in

1874 quoting the following sentences as the result of his experience

in the construction of railways, more especially :—“ I am thorou^lily

acquainted both with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However

bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying

according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst ua that

such theoretical measurements are incapable of any practical illustration.

All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as tnie

levels or flats. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and

there, but they are always accurately defined, and must be carefully traversed.

But anything approaching to ‘ eight inches in the mile, increasing

as the square of the distance,’ could not be worked by any engine that was

ever yet constructed. Taking one station with another all over England

and Scotland, it may be positively stated that all the platforms are on the

same relative level. The distance between the eastern and western coa.st≫

of England may be set down as three hundred miles. If the prescribed

curvature was indeed, as represented, the central stations say at Rugby or

Warwick, ought to be close upon three miles higher than a cord drawn

from the two extremities. If such was the case, there is not a driver or

stoker within the kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train.

As long as they know the pretended curve to be mere theory, they do not

trouble themselves about what may be stated in the tables of the geographers.

But we can only laugh at those of your readers and others who

seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains

round spherical surfaces. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous

enough; vei tical ones would be a thousand times worse, and, with our

rolling stock constructed as at present, physically impossible. There are

several other reasons why such locomotion on iron rails would be as impracticable

as carrying the trains through the air.”—Sckveyor.

[paul's got wright]

nice info lads cheers x

[manxy]

So the topic opens up again and I thought it would drop off because of Chinahand's facts.

Nevertheless, this link seemed to be the best of the best towards a flat earth and people should at least listen to it before they can criticise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx1FMHM_wbU

I would like to say that this is the best 2 hour video I've seen on the subject although I'd preferably stick to CH's facts at the moment for now, although science is definitely not my strong point, regardless of my fascination towards it.

[Isaac]

Nevertheless, this link seemed to be the best of the best towards a flat earth and people should at least listen to it before they can criticise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx1FMHM_wbU

 

So we have to watch all 10,000+ youtube videos on the flat earth theory before we're allowed to criticise it?

 

I think anyone with a brain who lives on this sphere has every right to laugh at any half wit who claims it's flat.

[Isaac]

Also, a flat earth doesn't tie in with the laws of gravity or why the moon orbits the earth. If it was flat, it would lack the mass necessary to keep the moon in orbit, let alone a spherical one. If it was flat, where is gravity being pulled to? A flat earth would surely contract on itself? A flat earth only makes sense in the context of a creationist belief system where it is being continually held together by a supernatural entity. I don't think Gerry has yet commented on that.

[Albert Tatlock]

I don't think Gerry has yet commented on that.

I'm sure his personality will rise to the top again sometime in your sock puppety day.