It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Earth is FLAT.

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: BloatedSpheroid

explain that pic using any other model you wish




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: BloatedSpheroid

oh joy - the flat-tard cult troll has returned



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

How would you explain it? The supposed curvature fails here, completely. How do you explain this from the globe Earth model?

My views would require an atmospheric effect that is cutting things off from the bottom. Your worldview would require the same thing on top of your curvature in order to explain these specific views. A whole lot of atmospheric effect compared to a very small amount of curvature drop.

Once you go down that road you don't need teh curvature anymore at all to explain things........


And then you haven't even explained yet why the first row is not obscured.



edit on 6-6-2017 by BloatedSpheroid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
This is the post that we are discussing.



originally posted by: BloatedSpheroid
a reply to: wildespace






In this vid and pic the yellow bases of the first row of turbines are not obscured. The eye level seems to be pretty close to the surface. I would say it's about 2m.

With an eye height of 2m, the horizon should be at 5.5 km. This means that according to the spheroid Earth's curve formula.......this pic must then have been taken within this 5.5 km distance.

Now you present this as evidence of the curvature of the Earth by pointing out that the turbines that are further away, in the second row, are being "cut off" from the bottom because they are being obscured by the curvature horizon.

Ok, so what is the distance between these rows?



The turbines are 749m-958m apart and installed in rows.



www.power-technology.com...





So the second row must then be within 6.5 km at which point you would get a hidden height of.........0.07 meters, aka 7cm.

These second row shafts, of 137 or 150 m high turbines(from bottom to blade tip) are almost being cut in half by the curvature you say?

When it should only be 7 cm?

Oops.

Again the supposed curvature fails.

At 7.5 km the hidden height would be 0.28 m. for the third row.

At 8.5 km it would be 0.62 m. for the fourth row.

It doesn't really matter what exact eye height and distance you take, with the max distances involved here, there simply isn't a large enough amount of drop across 1 km of surface to cut off almost half of the shaft of such a turbine, while leaving another turbine, 1 km closer, "untouched". Not even close.

However, the shot is probably taken from a further distance but according to Globe Earth math, the shot must have been taken within in 5.5 km of that first row of turbines, since they are not, or not noticably obscured by the horizon. If it was taken from much further away then at least the stretch between the camera and the first row of turbines, must be flat........

I like that Youtuber's comment in the vid description.



Exceptional clarity to view the windfarm as it drops over the horizon 22 miles away.



The horizon seems to be exactly at the base of the first row of turbines. If that is 22 miles away, then let me help you, at 22 miles, and a 2 m eyeheight, there should be a hidden height of 60m or about 200 ft.

We don't see any drop there. Nothing is obscured. If anyone wants to argue that I have the eye height wrong, and that it is much higher, then you will have the problem that the second row should not, or hardly be obscured either, it is only a km further away, and the third row is only 2 km further.

If you want to argue that he meant that the second row is at 22 miles, then the first row is still at 21 plus miles and the first row should still be obscured for a large part, but it isn't at all.


www.metabunk.org...


Conclusion, whatever it is that causes those views in the vid and the pic, is not a result of the supposed Earth curvature, there is no drop at all where there should be quite a lot, or there is way too much of it where it shouldn't be.(that much)

Take your pick.



The stuff you presented here as proof for a Globe Earth with a circumference of 24,901 miles, along with the supposed Globe Earth curvature math, actually disproves this belief.













edit on 6-6-2017 by BloatedSpheroid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: BloatedSpheroid

show us where this alledged " atmospheric effect " is - draw a liine on the image



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
The issues have been made completely clear. You can't explain it with the supposed Earth curvature, and its formula.

I don't have to add anything here, and I sure don't expect anything of substance out of you. There are only 3 skeptical people I have encountered here on ATS who are capable of having a somewhat intellectually honest and science based discussion on these topics. The poster I responded to is one of them.

You are not.
edit on 6-6-2017 by BloatedSpheroid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: BloatedSpheroid

you want a :


intellectually honest and science based discussion


yet your capacity for science = ZER0 and your capacitrry to answer questions = ZERO

JAQing off just does not cut it on a forum



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Why don't you explain why the first row is not obscured at all and the second row is obscured by that much. You can't with the supposed Earth curvature.

If you want to debunk my post go right ahead. I am waiting.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: BloatedSpheroid

simple - contrary to your delusions - the rows you are looking at in the photo are NOT the distance apart you claim they are

i have sailed , boated and kayaked around that area - and t was not constructed n one homogenous block

it s blisteringly obvious that there the " row one " > " row 2 " distance iis far greater than " row 2 " > " row 3 " seperaton

simply use your eyes

look at the relative size of the blades - row 2 // 3 are near identical size - row one is much closer to the photographer



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Walney Wind Farm




At what point are these individual turbines more than 1 km apart?


The turbines are 749m-958m apart and installed in rows.



How far apart are they according to your fantasy?



edit on 6-6-2017 by BloatedSpheroid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: BloatedSpheroid

you are using a different picture - is this really how dishonest you are ?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: BloatedSpheroid

now answered - iits time for you to answer questions - thats how discussion works

where is the " atmospheric anomoly "



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Are you saying this is not a pic of Walney Wind Farm? Show me a pic of it that shows something different. This is how wind farms are setup typically.

Are you suggesting the first row is a "stand alone" row? If so back this up with evidence.


And that still doesn't explain why the first row is not obscured at 20 plus miles........
edit on 6-6-2017 by BloatedSpheroid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: BloatedSpheroid



thats equally spaced turbines

yours are not

as ii say - compare blade length in row 1 , 2 , 3 - row 1 > 2 is clearly seraration greater that row 2 > 3

now look at the pick above again

equal spacing



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: BloatedSpheroid

you clam that all 3 rows are equally spaced - you prove it



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape




look at the relative size of the blades - row 2 // 3 are near identical size - row one is much closer to the photographer





Look, the blades of row 3 and 4 are nearly identical in size, so 2 must be MUCH closer to the camera and not evenly spaced huh......

Debunking your own malarkey.



I already knew you don't understand perspective......




you clam that all 3 rows are equally spaced - you prove it


Show evidence that Walney Wind Farm is not setup in the way I have proven with pics and sources.
edit on 6-6-2017 by BloatedSpheroid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: BloatedSpheroid

done :



not equally spaced



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

What are you talking about? At what point are the individual turbines more than 1 km apart? Yes, the distance between rows is larger than the distance between the turbines in a row. I posted this info myself. Never claimed anything else. The point is that they are never more than 1 km apart.

Sheesh. This is what I mean.
edit on 6-6-2017 by BloatedSpheroid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: BloatedSpheroid

if the Earth is flat, then there are edges. They would be enormously long and go all around the Earth.
In the history of both Earth and Photography, not ONE picture has surfaced of the edge. Yet planes can fly all over, and ships can sail all over.

I care not for all the math involved in this, I just want to see the edge and I'll straight up believe you.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude




I care not for all the math involved in this,


Then don't interfere in a discussion that is based on this math.



I just want to see the edge and I'll straight up believe you.


I care not about your wishes. The discussion is about the Earth's curvature formula not applying to reallife observations.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join