You have a low standard of "thoroughly". I could regurgitate doctorate level astrophysics. Use your common sense, is it possible anyone is so stupid that they can't understand the basic ideas of heliocentric model. Most retards can draw the solor system.
Now, without putting much reasoning into this, on the surface, it seems anyone to claim the globe theory is wrong is somehow so dense that they can't even function in society, much less graduate. And there you stop, accepting that makes sense.
If anyone took time to listen and respect conversation, then you might learn that people like me (ex-glober) actually know much more than you do about heliocentrism. Try me, the education system is an institutionalized system developed and managed by the government. If you want to trust the government, I'm not gonna be able to help.
Just, before you think you're safely on the right side of this, at least study the flat earth model so you understand the arguments before lazily and gullibility believing flat earth's are stupid.
right, i have also learned that before, its why i didnt take eric dubay seriously and never actually tried to understand flat earth proofs.
but, then someone brought up a good point. What if THAT is the psy op? so people dont consider looking into flat earth. just to be safe, i went ahead and decided to entertain the flat earth proofs and be objective, i figured, it would be easy to prove it wrong and go back to choosing to beleiving the old CIA Psy op you just regurgitated.
Choose two points on earth, about 4000 miles, plus or minus, doesn't matter exactly.
At the same moment, measure the angle of the sun from the horizon at both locations.
From this, if you assume he plane is flat, you can use simple triangle math to calculate the distance to the sun. Depending on the day, it will be around 4000 miles up.
If you assume the earth is a globe, the you will quickly see that the sun could not be in the same place if the angles are what each person observed. Ie, no convergence is possible, thus, it's impossible for the earth to be a sphere and prove how far the sun is
Here is Samantha. She is actually smart af, she is in MENSA, her IQ is among highest in the world.
When you have been ex-glober as long as us, it's hard to take people who think they aren't programmed seriously.
streamable (dot.) com (forward Slash/) q0wbv
First of all, you have to rid yourself of the notion that 8"/mile² has ANYTHING to do with this view.
The observer is plainly NOT at "sea-level"
Do not forget the calculation for the curvature of earth. 8 inches per mile squared is just a algebraic approximation of the trigonometric formula that perfectly expresses the average curve of the earth over any distance. The 8 inch per mile squared approximation is accurate to 1% within 250 miles, which is much father than you can see anyway, so this author is a wrong.
The fact that it is NOT at sea level also is moot, as the curve of the earth doesn't care if their are mountains, lake, oceans. You understand, put a bunch of dirt of a ball, still curves about the same, right? Thing about the change in diameter of the ball caused by a few hills. It's negligible.
Do yourself a favour, and don't just believe people, even if they are the majority. Think for yourself.
If you can't walk me through a flat earth proof, you aren't ready for a real conversation. While I can easily run circles on any solor system, earth science institutionalized "scyence"
Also, if you are like most people, you will react with anger, and insult me. It's programming. Try to keep your wits even though you believe flat earth is too stupid for your time.
Refraction doesn't work as this author described. Refraction will artificially make the horizon to appear lower than it is. But it's not going to clearly reproduce an image of the tower by bouncing light photons off of the ionosphere. You really have to think through what they are expecting you to swollow
"as the curve of the earth doesn't care if their are mountains, lake, oceans"
The curve creates a "mountain" relative to a straight line plane. That's what you're seeing blocking the bottom of CN Tower.
"You understand, put a bunch of dirt of a ball, still curves about the same, right?"
You have a big eye ball compared to the ball. If your eyeball was the size of a grain of dirt, placing another grain of dirt beside it would block your view. You would be seeing a wall, i.e. 90% "curvature".
But your eyeball is nothing compared to the distances you're observing here, so your comparison is stupid.
The author is just explaining why his calculations are slightly off because he doesn't know the elevation height. Which does matter. You ever been on a mountain with telescope?
"Refraction will artificially make the horizon to appear lower than it is."
Yes, but that doesn't work in your favor. For in reducing the horizon, you elevate the object sitting behind it.
Refraction is literally the only thing that allows us to sneak past a "corner", so to speak. The "corner" is that mountain of water.
More refraction? Sun sets later.
Less refraction? Sun sets earlier.
Likewise, refraction would enable us to see the base of CN Tower better, not worse.
And if the CN tower was moving away from us, then we'd see it longer, thanks to refraction.
Alot of stuff you said, isnt worth response, like when you talk to me like a child who doesn't understand the size of the globe or how eyes work.
Please.
Refraction isn't really at play, and also, wouldn't work like you said.
This is what refraction looks like (do a google image search on "refraction boat")
Occam's razor. If it looks like it's flat, and behaves likes it's flat, it's probably flat. Keep that in mind because the CN tower base disappearing first the observation we expect, based on simple laws of linear perspective.
If I had to guess, I think you have to understand perspective better. How objects move in our vision (or a lens, same thing). It's all around us, but you may be surprised to realize how little thought you put into it. Linear perspective is so obvious it's hard to think about.
As things get father from you, they will collapse into the horizon. This has to be understood or you just won't be able to move forward.
So, the CN tower, or a boat at sea, will "disappear" bottom first, because the bottom is closest to the horizon. Just like if you are top of the tower, you can see all the way across the lake, but when you are at the base of the tower, you cannot. When you are higher, you have a longer optical range, because the horizon is lower in your view.
This is something you can visualise by laying on the a large flat area.
By moving your eyes to the ground, you are simulating a short optical range. Now, have a friend walk away from you, after about 100 feet, you will notice their feet aren't visible.
But when you stand up, you see the ground is flat.
But when you lay down, the principles of linear perspective are much more noticeable because your optical range is much shorter. Your friend isn't walking around the curve of earth, you just need to spend some time thinking about what you are observing.
If you ever took a debate class, you might remember that you don't always get to choose what side you have to argue. And that's where debate preparation matters. You aren't prepared to defend flat earth, so you aren't prepared to debunk it either
The curve creates a "mountain" relative to a straight line plane. That's what you're seeing blocking the bottom of CN Tower.
You have to try to understand that, it's a belief that you were taught. I was taught the same.
When I realised how dogmatic the things I "knew" about the earth and gravity and space, I began to consider the possibility that flat earth's were right.
And I took it seriously for like, 10 minutes, and I got my first A-ha moment. It took hours of research after that, as I had to completely reteach myself about what space is, what that means for evolution. I don't care about bible stuff, btw. Religions are psy ops, like a snowball thrown down a mountain, they started with mal intent, and now, these deceptions take lives of their own in the narrative.
But you can't see that point clearly unless you realise that most of the world is entirely fooled.
Good luck. Understand the basics and come back to me with questions. Ive already gotten out of the indoctrination you are pushing, so, you're wasting your time arguing with me. Science and math proves we can't be on sphere, that means none of the rest of the solor system is possible as everyone currently understands it.
This is bigger than your capacity to image at this stage in your knowledge. If you want to debate prep, you should be the one who confronts the globe theory and I'll defend it with exactly what you'd expect from a globie. I was one. A good one.
You have a low standard of "thoroughly". I could regurgitate doctorate level astrophysics. Use your common sense, is it possible anyone is so stupid that they can't understand the basic ideas of heliocentric model. Most retards can draw the solor system.
Now, without putting much reasoning into this, on the surface, it seems anyone to claim the globe theory is wrong is somehow so dense that they can't even function in society, much less graduate. And there you stop, accepting that makes sense.
If anyone took time to listen and respect conversation, then you might learn that people like me (ex-glober) actually know much more than you do about heliocentrism. Try me, the education system is an institutionalized system developed and managed by the government. If you want to trust the government, I'm not gonna be able to help.
Just, before you think you're safely on the right side of this, at least study the flat earth model so you understand the arguments before lazily and gullibility believing flat earth's are stupid.
Flat Earth was a psyop by the CIA put on 4xhan to capture idiots such as yourself, it's a mid wit net.
right, i have also learned that before, its why i didnt take eric dubay seriously and never actually tried to understand flat earth proofs.
but, then someone brought up a good point. What if THAT is the psy op? so people dont consider looking into flat earth. just to be safe, i went ahead and decided to entertain the flat earth proofs and be objective, i figured, it would be easy to prove it wrong and go back to choosing to beleiving the old CIA Psy op you just regurgitated.
whats a killer logical argument that debunks ball earth and proves flat earth?
Choose two points on earth, about 4000 miles, plus or minus, doesn't matter exactly.
At the same moment, measure the angle of the sun from the horizon at both locations.
From this, if you assume he plane is flat, you can use simple triangle math to calculate the distance to the sun. Depending on the day, it will be around 4000 miles up.
If you assume the earth is a globe, the you will quickly see that the sun could not be in the same place if the angles are what each person observed. Ie, no convergence is possible, thus, it's impossible for the earth to be a sphere and prove how far the sun is
Here is Samantha. She is actually smart af, she is in MENSA, her IQ is among highest in the world. When you have been ex-glober as long as us, it's hard to take people who think they aren't programmed seriously. streamable (dot.) com (forward Slash/) q0wbv
u/#crazy
Stop suffering.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/toronto-cn-tower-from-olcott-ny.html?m=1
You are a bit gullible i see. Meh Refraction.
Here, let me help.
Do not forget the calculation for the curvature of earth. 8 inches per mile squared is just a algebraic approximation of the trigonometric formula that perfectly expresses the average curve of the earth over any distance. The 8 inch per mile squared approximation is accurate to 1% within 250 miles, which is much father than you can see anyway, so this author is a wrong.
The fact that it is NOT at sea level also is moot, as the curve of the earth doesn't care if their are mountains, lake, oceans. You understand, put a bunch of dirt of a ball, still curves about the same, right? Thing about the change in diameter of the ball caused by a few hills. It's negligible.
Do yourself a favour, and don't just believe people, even if they are the majority. Think for yourself.
If you can't walk me through a flat earth proof, you aren't ready for a real conversation. While I can easily run circles on any solor system, earth science institutionalized "scyence"
Also, if you are like most people, you will react with anger, and insult me. It's programming. Try to keep your wits even though you believe flat earth is too stupid for your time.
Refraction doesn't work as this author described. Refraction will artificially make the horizon to appear lower than it is. But it's not going to clearly reproduce an image of the tower by bouncing light photons off of the ionosphere. You really have to think through what they are expecting you to swollow
"as the curve of the earth doesn't care if their are mountains, lake, oceans"
The curve creates a "mountain" relative to a straight line plane. That's what you're seeing blocking the bottom of CN Tower.
"You understand, put a bunch of dirt of a ball, still curves about the same, right?"
You have a big eye ball compared to the ball. If your eyeball was the size of a grain of dirt, placing another grain of dirt beside it would block your view. You would be seeing a wall, i.e. 90% "curvature".
But your eyeball is nothing compared to the distances you're observing here, so your comparison is stupid.
The author is just explaining why his calculations are slightly off because he doesn't know the elevation height. Which does matter. You ever been on a mountain with telescope?
"Refraction will artificially make the horizon to appear lower than it is."
Yes, but that doesn't work in your favor. For in reducing the horizon, you elevate the object sitting behind it.
Refraction is literally the only thing that allows us to sneak past a "corner", so to speak. The "corner" is that mountain of water.
More refraction? Sun sets later. Less refraction? Sun sets earlier.
Likewise, refraction would enable us to see the base of CN Tower better, not worse.
And if the CN tower was moving away from us, then we'd see it longer, thanks to refraction.
Alot of stuff you said, isnt worth response, like when you talk to me like a child who doesn't understand the size of the globe or how eyes work. Please.
Refraction isn't really at play, and also, wouldn't work like you said. This is what refraction looks like (do a google image search on "refraction boat")
Occam's razor. If it looks like it's flat, and behaves likes it's flat, it's probably flat. Keep that in mind because the CN tower base disappearing first the observation we expect, based on simple laws of linear perspective.
If I had to guess, I think you have to understand perspective better. How objects move in our vision (or a lens, same thing). It's all around us, but you may be surprised to realize how little thought you put into it. Linear perspective is so obvious it's hard to think about.
As things get father from you, they will collapse into the horizon. This has to be understood or you just won't be able to move forward.
So, the CN tower, or a boat at sea, will "disappear" bottom first, because the bottom is closest to the horizon. Just like if you are top of the tower, you can see all the way across the lake, but when you are at the base of the tower, you cannot. When you are higher, you have a longer optical range, because the horizon is lower in your view.
This is something you can visualise by laying on the a large flat area. By moving your eyes to the ground, you are simulating a short optical range. Now, have a friend walk away from you, after about 100 feet, you will notice their feet aren't visible.
But when you stand up, you see the ground is flat.
But when you lay down, the principles of linear perspective are much more noticeable because your optical range is much shorter. Your friend isn't walking around the curve of earth, you just need to spend some time thinking about what you are observing.
If you ever took a debate class, you might remember that you don't always get to choose what side you have to argue. And that's where debate preparation matters. You aren't prepared to defend flat earth, so you aren't prepared to debunk it either
This is a dogmatic statement.
You have to try to understand that, it's a belief that you were taught. I was taught the same.
When I realised how dogmatic the things I "knew" about the earth and gravity and space, I began to consider the possibility that flat earth's were right.
And I took it seriously for like, 10 minutes, and I got my first A-ha moment. It took hours of research after that, as I had to completely reteach myself about what space is, what that means for evolution. I don't care about bible stuff, btw. Religions are psy ops, like a snowball thrown down a mountain, they started with mal intent, and now, these deceptions take lives of their own in the narrative.
But you can't see that point clearly unless you realise that most of the world is entirely fooled.
Good luck. Understand the basics and come back to me with questions. Ive already gotten out of the indoctrination you are pushing, so, you're wasting your time arguing with me. Science and math proves we can't be on sphere, that means none of the rest of the solor system is possible as everyone currently understands it.
This is bigger than your capacity to image at this stage in your knowledge. If you want to debate prep, you should be the one who confronts the globe theory and I'll defend it with exactly what you'd expect from a globie. I was one. A good one.