Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You've been given many different views of the same thing that illustrate Earth's curvature. All that happens is you dismiss them, or ignore them, just like all oif the countless pieces of evidence that proves inconvenient to your delusions.

Slimy behaviour is where you cherry pick quotes, pretend you never said things that you did, ignore evidence you've been given and deny you were given it, make stupid and ridicxluous claims then pretend you never made them, demanding proof but never providing any.

Remember when you posted a picture of the Pontchartrain road bridge and insisted it proved there was no curve in it, but completely ignored the different perspective of it:

Your arguments have all been addressed, over and over again. Your failure to understand those arguments is not our problem.

I've repeatedly mentioned a PERPENDICULAR viewpoint, which looks at the same subject, going ACROSS your view, which is ALONG the horizon, and not OUT towards the horizon, as you only show images of, show it looking OUT to the horizon, not looking at it going ACROSS the horizon!

You could see how that's a problem, if you only show parallel objects going OUTWARD to the horizon, or maybe you have no clue about it, but it's not a GOOD idea, to show only images from that viewpoint. Nothing is worse than using only a single viewpoint, and ignoring the other viewpoints, specifically, to ignore a PERPENDICULAR viewpoint. Not when the issue is what is real, and what is an illusion, because you've tried nothing BUT a view which creates illusions, and why would you wonder what is wrong with that, when it is so blatantly obvious for anyone to see, it means you have another agenda, which has nothing to do with the truth - just the opposite, in fact.

a reply to: turbonium1

First… answer the question turbo.

Your trying to change the subject again? And your blabbering again incoherently.

Then why is the sun physically blocked from view in this photo?



Zooming in on the photo shows it’s still physically blocked from view by the earths curvature.

You do understand night is literally the shadow cast by the earths curvature? Blocking out the light from the sun, and physically blocking it from view.

If it was “prospective”, then zooming in would bring the sun back in to view. And there would be no curvature to create the shadow we call night.




You

How would the Sun be blocked out by this perfectly straight, flat line across Earth, wouldn't exactly support a 'curve', only support it as FLAT, as it's clearly a straight, flat line across Earth, nothing at all is curving here, so where would you ever get the idea it helps your 'curve' story?

What’s that you quote all the time? 8 inch drop per mile? And two miles to the horizon when viewed standing height?

for an observer with eye level above sea level by 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).[2

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So.. 3 mile. You can judge a change on a rolling sea of 16 inches at three miles? With the curvature of the earth blocking the sun behind it?


Now.

Look at the picture.


Based on the size of the boat, the distance showed side to side is less than 1000 feet. You can tell the difference in height of about 3 inches over a1000 feet

Anyway…





You

You're still confused about how large flat plains or surfaces ACTUALLY work, and how they create illusions that appear to us, as being real, but in fact, they are NOT at all real.

Again… all your concerns with “prospective” have been repeatedly addressed.


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Turbo. Your ranting again..

One. Your original statement.
“ The bottom part of the ship doesn't 'vanish' at all!”

Two. Zooming in for the flat earth argument should “reveal” the ship.



m.youtube.com...

Zooming only shows the curvature of the earth is literally blocking the ship from view. In the video, the very tall cargo ship finally steams out to sea to be completely blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.

Now. You.

How could 'curvature' leave a ship in full view, for the first 2 1/2 miles out, then suddenly come into existence, in the next 1/2 mile out, and 'block out' the entire ship, by reaching this 'curve' that didn't exist over the first 2 1/2 miles of Earth's surface?

Have no Idea what you are referring to. The video shows a steady rate of the ship gradually being blocked from view as the ship steams off into the distance.

Now. How does a object above a plane appear to go below the plane when viewed from above the same plane to be completely blocked physically from view. Well. It’s impossible for a flat plane.



Now. The other part you are ignoring is the sun. In the flat earth delusion. A single point light source always above the plane.



Again. No amount of zooming “reveals” the part physically blocked by the earth’s curvature.

Again. A flat plane earth would be dominated by right angle math / geometry. And the sun would never appear on the horizon with a zero viewing angle. The math isn’t there. Much less appear to go below the horizon.




Now. We know the setting sun is physically blocked by the earth’s curvature because night fall is literally the shadow from the earth’s curvature blocking the sun’s light which would be impossible on a flat earth with the sun always above the earth.

Now. Again…

And proven by experiments that take away the illusion of prospective.

The Rainy Lake Experiment
Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 00:50 | Author: wabis | Topics: FlatEarth, Knowlegde, Science, Experiment

walter.bislins.ch...

Backs the flat earth experiment on

Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

BY ANDREW WHALEN ON 2/25/19 AT 5:04 PM EST



www.newsweek.com...

Campanella devises an experiment involving three posts of the same height and a high-powered laser. The idea is to set up three measuring posts over a nearly 4 mile length of equal elevation. Once the laser is activated at the first post, its height can be measured at the other two. If the laser is at eight feet on the first post, then five feet at the second, then it indicates the measuring posts are set upon the Earth's curvature.

In his first attempt, Campanella's laser light spread out too much over the distance, making an accurate measurement impossible. But at the very end of Behind the Curve, Campanella comes up with a similar experiment, this time involving a light instead of a laser. With two holes cut into styrofoam sheets at the same height, Campanella hopes to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth.

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

a reply to: turbonium1

And again…

Poor turbo. Has to ignore arguments. Has to change the subject. And ignore basic facts. And just makes flat earth look stupid, and not able to explain certain things. Like…

Tides and tidal bores? What does high tide seek?

Throw this in too. Demonstrable proof the earth is spherical.

TONGA VOLCANO ERUPTION SHOCK WAVES DETECTED IN CHICAGO

abc7chicago.com...

"The eruption was so powerful that the waves actually propagated all the way around the globe and then back again," meteorologist Gino Izzi said.

The same subject viewed from a perpendicular viewpoint, is what your side will NEVER show, as all you ever WILL show, are images from that one viewpoint, outward to the horizon.

Show me images of something, from your exclusively selected viewpoint, OUT to the horizon, and images from a SECOND viewpoint, perpendicular to the first one, as it looks going ACROSS the horizon.

You won't, of course. That would require being honest

a reply to: turbonium1

What are you babbling about..


Again…

If it’s about “prospective”. Then for a single light source high above the earth.

Then why is the sun physically blocked from view in this photo?



Zooming in on the photo shows it’s still physically blocked from view by the earths curvature.

You do understand night is literally the shadow cast by the earths curvature? Blocking out the light from the sun, and physically blocking it from view.

If it was “prospective”, then zooming in would bring the sun back in to view. And there would be no curvature to create the shadow we call night.

Every horizon is perfectly straight and flat across Earth, proving no 'curvature' exists at all.

Claiming an image shows that objects cannot be seen because they 'curve downward', is proven false with a perpendicular viewpoint of it, going across the horizon, where nothing ever 'curves' at all. They cannot be seen due to perspective and vanishing point, from that ONE viewpoint, out to the horizon, and is proven by seeing the same subject, going across the horizon, and it always remains in full view, since nothing 'curves' at all. It doesn't ever 'curve' from THAT viewpoint, either. It appears to rise, along a FLAT surface, for over 2/3 of the distance outward. How you claim it supports 'curvature', when nothing EVER 'curves', is purely based on utter desperation.

a reply to: turbonium1

Do some reading on 'field of view'.

How wide a field of view do you think you would need to see an object side-on and see curvature?

Shall I give you a clue? It's so wide it would be over the horizon, thanks to curvature. The photo you demand is only possible on a flt Earth, so where is your photo? A good zoom lens is all you need right?

How about you show me some kind of explanation for that Pntchartrain road bridge photo? Or the fact that you can't see land from the middle of it? Address the images you;ve been given, not try and move the goalposts and demand evidence that is physically possible to acquire BECAUSE OF CURVATURE.

I'm not going to blindly believe your BS. Post me some evidence.

a reply to: turbonium1

Does it show curvature, yes or no?

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Every horizon is perfectly straight and flat across Earth, proving no 'curvature' exists at all.

One…. Again…


What’s that you quote all the time? 8 inch drop per mile? And two miles to the horizon when viewed standing height?

for an observer with eye level above sea level by 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).[2

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So.. 3 mile. You can judge a change on a rolling sea of 16 inches at three miles? With the curvature of the earth blocking the sun behind it?


Look at the picture.


Based on the size of the boat, the distance showed side to side is less than 1000 feet. You can tell the difference in height of about 3 inches over a1000 feet

Two.. not when you gain enough height to increase the view to see the curvature of the horizon.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Claiming an image shows that objects cannot be seen because they 'curve downward', is proven false with a perpendicular viewpoint of it,

One.
By changing the view from an overhead view where eight inches of drop per mile isn’t going to be noticed.

Two. Still doesn’t explain this…

If it’s about “prospective”. Then for a single light source high above the earth.

Then why is the sun physically blocked from view in this photo?



Zooming in on the photo shows it’s still physically blocked from view by the earths curvature.

You do understand night is literally the shadow cast by the earths curvature? Blocking out the light from the sun, and physically blocking it from view.

If it was “prospective”, then zooming in would bring the sun back in to view. And there would be no curvature to create the shadow we call night.


Three. Experiments were conducted that remove “prospective”.

The Rainy Lake Experiment
Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 00:50 | Author: wabis | Topics: FlatEarth, Knowlegde, Science, Experiment

walter.bislins.ch...

Backs the flat earth experiment on

Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

BY ANDREW WHALEN ON 2/25/19 AT 5:04 PM EST



www.newsweek.com...

Campanella devises an experiment involving three posts of the same height and a high-powered laser. The idea is to set up three measuring posts over a nearly 4 mile length of equal elevation. Once the laser is activated at the first post, its height can be measured at the other two. If the laser is at eight feet on the first post, then five feet at the second, then it indicates the measuring posts are set upon the Earth's curvature.

In his first attempt, Campanella's laser light spread out too much over the distance, making an accurate measurement impossible. But at the very end of Behind the Curve, Campanella comes up with a similar experiment, this time involving a light instead of a laser. With two holes cut into styrofoam sheets at the same height, Campanella hopes to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth.

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

a reply to: turbonium1

You doing the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, putting your head in the sand, and muttering prospective does nothing to explain why the curvature of the earth physically blocks the light of the sun to prevent it from being seen, and creates the shadow of the earth’s curvature that is literally night. Something that would be impossible on a flat earth.

The ball Earth simply cannot have perfectly straight, flat horizons across Earth, it must show CURVING horizons, at all times, all lengths of horizons, because a ball Earth, or ANY spheroid, is completely curved, and NEVER flat or straight across, at ANY length of it.

All you keep trying to claim, is that there really IS a curve there, but it is so very, very SLIGHT of a curve, along horizons over a thousand miles long, it cannot be seen, or not easily seen, all of which, is complete BS.

The longest visible horizons we can see from planes, are all perfectly flat, and straight across Earth.

There is NO 'slight curve' at all, either!

Not only that, but horizons rise up as we rise above Earth, and are seen directly across from us, same as they are on the ground.

That is yet another fact which proves Earth is flat, and not a ball. If it were a ball, the horizon would be the same, or lower, as we rise above Earth. As on the flat Earth, horizons would be more distant, with more altitude above it, but NOT rise up as we rise, and seen directly across from us, not on a ball Earth, not a chance.


Everything supports it being a flat Earth, while nothing at all supports a ball Earth.

It shouldn't even BE an argument of being a ball - it's nothing but a joke.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You doing the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, putting your head in the sand, and muttering prospective does nothing to explain why the curvature of the earth physically blocks the light of the sun to prevent it from being seen, and creates the shadow of the earth’s curvature that is literally night. Something that would be impossible on a flat earth.

Draw the angles of an ocean which appears to be rising upward in the distance, if it's actually about angles, which you still think it is....


That would show us the TRUE angle of the ocean, where WE 'actually' would see it, right? Math doesn't lie, but it isn't showing us the reality, of what we actually DO see, or actually do NOT see......that's for sure!


Your argument doesn't work, as I told you before. Angles are not what we see, or not see. It's far more than just angles. Angles don't show oceans appearing to rise up in the distance - it's time you dropped this BS argument.

It's also very ironic that you keep bringing up angles of objects, when you deliberately show one, specific angle of view for objects, which is an outward view, to the horizon, while ignoring any other angles, one of which, would destroy your entire argument!

Those aren't good angles, though! Just keep on ignoring them, as if they didn't even EXIST!

Your entire ball Earth claim, is based on their being 'curvature' of Earth's surface.

Vviewing objects which supposedly are out of sight, due to a 'curvature' of Earth, while hoping that nobody ever notices they always show the same, single viewpoint, while ignoring another viewpoint, perpendicular to it, which would smash their whole fairy tale to dust, if it were ever shown!

Sad.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Draw the angles of an ocean which appears to be rising upward in the distance,

Sigh…

“Looks” like is not mathematical reality.

Again. Sun is a single light source. Makes its own light. Seen by the viewer because it makes its own light. The sun is seen as long as it’s light makes it to the observe unblocked.

You

if it's actually about angles, which you still think it is....

No. It’s what actual physically blocks an object from view. This case the sun. Makes it own light. The only way an observer will not see the object like the sun is if it’s light is physically blocked from the viewer.

We know the sun is physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature from the observer by:

One, the light doesn’t make it to the observe.

Two, the use of a light “amplifying” device like a telescope or binoculars doesn’t bring it back into view. This, disproving “prospective” while affirming blocked physically by earth’s curvature.

Three, night fall is literally the shadow of the earth’s curvature blocking the sun from view. Blocking the sun’s light.

You

That would show us the TRUE angle of the ocean, where WE 'actually' would see it, right? Math doesn't lie, but it isn't showing us the reality, of what we actually DO see, or actually do NOT see......that's for sure!

Have no idea what your babbling about.

The shortest distance between the sun and person observation the sun is a straight line. The only way the light is not seen / the sun not seen is if the sun’s light is physically blocked from the viewer.


You

Your argument doesn't work

What do you mean it “doesn’t work”

For the flat earth delusion with the sun always above the earth, the observer will always have to angle their gaze above the horizon to view a sun always above the earth. In the flat earth delusion there is nothing to physically block the light from the observer, and the sun’s light will always reach the observer. In the flat earth delusion, there is no going “below” the horizon where the sun’s light is physically blocked from view to create the shadow of the earths curvature that is the phenomena called night.

In the flat earth delusion the sun would not be blocked from view in this manner.

a reply to: turbonium1

And again…

Experiments were conducted that remove “prospective”.

The Rainy Lake Experiment
Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 00:50 | Author: wabis | Topics: FlatEarth, Knowlegde, Science, Experiment

walter.bislins.ch...

Backs the flat earth experiment on

Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

BY ANDREW WHALEN ON 2/25/19 AT 5:04 PM EST



www.newsweek.com...

Campanella devises an experiment involving three posts of the same height and a high-powered laser. The idea is to set up three measuring posts over a nearly 4 mile length of equal elevation. Once the laser is activated at the first post, its height can be measured at the other two. If the laser is at eight feet on the first post, then five feet at the second, then it indicates the measuring posts are set upon the Earth's curvature.

In his first attempt, Campanella's laser light spread out too much over the distance, making an accurate measurement impossible. But at the very end of Behind the Curve, Campanella comes up with a similar experiment, this time involving a light instead of a laser. With two holes cut into styrofoam sheets at the same height, Campanella hopes to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth.

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

while ignoring another viewpoint, perpendicular to it,

Do you understand how photos work?



This picture as an example. Yes, the depth of the picture goes all the way to space.

Now. Count the tress that goes left to right at the bottom that would be a “perpendicular” view to anything long enough to show the curvature. I estimate about ten trees with an average width of 30 feet. That means the photo at the ground is only showing about 300 feet of the ground. (Note the tree to the right. Its not 150 feet tall. In reality the picture probably only shows about 150 feet of ground width despite the photo having the depth of going to space.) How is 300 feet going to show any curvature if there is an 8 drop for ever mile.

And this was already pointed out to you…

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

Every horizon is perfectly straight and flat across Earth, proving no 'curvature' exists at all.

One…. Again…


What’s that you quote all the time? 8 inch drop per mile? And two miles to the horizon when viewed standing height?

for an observer with eye level above sea level by 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).[2

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So.. 3 mile. You can judge a change on a rolling sea of 16 inches at three miles? With the curvature of the earth blocking the sun behind it?


Look at the picture.


Based on the size of the boat, the distance showed side to side is less than 1000 feet. You can tell the difference in height of about 3 inches over a1000 feet

Two.. not when you gain enough height to increase the view to see the curvature of the horizon.

It's impossible to make this simpler for your turbo, it really is.

This is a guitar.

See the curvy bits.

Hey look - when you change the viewing angle it looks flat across! Flat all the way from one side to the other, even though it's actually curved.

Hmm - wonder what would happen if something would appear from behind that 'flat' horizon?



Oh wow - it's exactly like what happens when ships appear and disappear over the horizon!

Now, if you'd like to just show me how you think that works on a flat, unending surface and how it's what we see in the real world we can all just pack this up and go home.

Oh, and I'll just remind you of this one, just in case you think you might have some wiggle room (you don't):

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Oh, I like this post, I really do.

Thanks for making the start of my 2022 so pleasant, Monkey Man!