Flat Earth & Alternative Space Models

[Andro]

I saw the curvature of the horizon myself on a flight from Guam to Japan.

According to leading autrollity Neil DeGrasse Tyson (stand-up comedian turned astrophysicist turned globe propaganda expert), it is impossible to see the curvature from 130,000 feet, let alone from 30,000 feet (typical flight altitude).

 

[Jimmy Rig]

I have been on a few commercial fights between 30-40,000 ft and never saw any curvature..

 

[Awani]

According to leading autrollity Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Even if we pretend everything he says is true it comes of off... kind of the type that would be banned around these parts.

 

[Andro]

Even if we pretend everything he says is true it comes of off... kind of the type that would be banned around these parts.

Indeed. Whether he is correct or not, he still acts like a troll

 

[Awani]

 

[Jahara]

Very interesting thread. I have a question for everyone here.

If we are in the beach and we see a ship going straight to the horizon we will see it "sinking" in the sea until it disappears. But if we use a telescope we will se it the whole ship again. Why this happens?

 

[Christophorus]

Very interesting thread. I have a question for everyone here.

If we are in the beach and we see a ship going straight to the horizon we will see it "sinking" in the sea until it disappears. But if we use a telescope we will se it the whole ship again. Why this happens?

If you use the telescope in the exact same place you saw it "sinking"... it will sink in about 6km, because you stand up... you need to triangulate the place you are standing with the height you are seeing, with the center of the planet and the object itself. If you climb to a huge stone you will see it going for the double or triple of space. And when your eyes can't see it anymore, a telescope will do the job, but after going to the limit, it will sink... A ship has a height too. The atmospheric refraction is not the same everywhere and it affects it.

see:

 

[Joseph Sekavec]

I don’t know if this is the right thread, but has anyone noticed how far mainstream science will go to get around ether? First “dark matter”, now “quantum foam” (pictured). It’s honestly kind of impressive how hard they try.

 

[Joseph Sekavec]

I don’t know if this is the right thread, but has anyone noticed how far mainstream science will go to get around ether? First “dark matter”, now “quantum foam” (pictured). It’s honestly kind of impressive how hard they try.

Well, I guess picture was too big…

 

[Andro]

Logistical Post

Well, I guess picture was too big…

Good idea to reduce the file size before embedding the image in a post.

Logistical posts will be removed in the near future, so as not to clutter threads.

Please see Posting Images & Videos.

Thanks.

 

[Jahara]

If you use the telescope in the exact same place you saw it "sinking"... it will sink in about 6km, because you stand up... you need to triangulate the place you are standing with the height you are seeing, with the center of the planet and the object itself. If you climb to a huge stone you will see it going for the double or triple of space. And when your eyes can't see it anymore, a telescope will do the job, but after going to the limit, it will sink... A ship has a height too. The atmospheric refraction is not the same everywhere and it affects it.

see:

Thanks for this, yeah this makes a lot of sense and is what I believe also.

I have made this question because I've seen a documentary where the researchers proposed the Earth is convex. They made a lot of experiments to proof this, all of them are very interesting but that one which I asked you got my attention.

And this experiment wasn't in a beach, they made it in a lagoon (Lagoa dos Patos, largest coastal lagoon in South America), and they didn't just sail 6km, they sailed 40km. They also made another experiment with telescope in Lake Titicaca, they could get images beyond 100km which would be impossible, as the curvature would have a height of 237 meters.

Yeah I know, this is very weird.

 

[Andro]

when your eyes can't see it any more, a telescope will do the job, but after going to the limit, it will sink...

Until we bring in a stronger telescope. Then it will magically reappear. Like Nikon p-1000, the globe killer.

So either there is no curvature at all, OR the globe/planet is MUCH bigger than "science" is saying. I'm open to both possibilities.

 

[Christophorus]

Until we bring in a stronger telescope. Then it will magically reappear. Like Nikon p-1000, the globe killer.

True! Until 1)reaching his limit again, 2)"clashing" into the curvature 3)going straight passing it (tangent).

Here are 2 links for the curve and the flat models.
The pic-gaspard experiment has also some interesting info.

The atmospheric refraction is not the same everywhere and it affects it.

Not only everywhere. It changes all the time too and affects drastically the horizon as we can see here

So either there is no curvature at all, OR the globe/planet is MUCH bigger than "science" is saying. I'm open to both possibilities.

True! Personally, I'm open to everything too. I tend to agree with you about the size of the planet. It can be wrong!

 

[Awani]

 

[Andro]

It's easy to resort to mockery and memology and statements such as "the math" or "the science" or "the relevant authority". It's much more challenging to go measure yourself or just get a powerful telescopic lens and see how disappeared objects that we're not supposed to see on the horizon anymore "magically" reappear.

And maybe the hardest of them all is to just admit that we simply don't know or can't know.

Either way, this is all a very realistic appearing dream, and what we perceive with our senses can also be determined by our own programing and preconceived notions.

What we perceive as "objectivity" is not something to fanatically live by, but something to be transcended altogether, IMO. And "reality" is just as fixed or as fluid as our methods of inquiry, which are, to a large extent, hardwired and programmed into all of us.

"If you immediately know the candle light is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago".