Flat Earth

[—]

The real question is : Does it really matter if it's a disc or a globe?

It is neither as it is a open-ended 4D torus. A horseshoe type magnet, poles not open-ended but facing each other.


4D probably the best explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4URVJ3D8e8k

[Astargath]

You guys are all full shit, totally, completely and utterly full of shit. Images of ships in the distance subject to multiple atmosphereic distortions doesn't prove the globe, it doesn't debunk empirical evidence of a flat earth like the sextant. You show me a picture of a mirage and tell me I need to believe your illusion, how about you go shoot youself in the head instead?

I've got proof, I've got a mountain of proof. The science, math and evidence is with me, the globe has nothing but  an impending violent death.

Your math is wrong, as previously shown, you are full of shit and can't accept basic proof because of your intellectual dishonesty, the ship is clearly hidden and there is no effect, you can see details of the ship and the horizon perfectly fine, no mirage and no distortion, you need glasses? I have a video of it as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw

Which atmospheric distortion is that? The curve?

[presduterte]

You guys are all full shit, totally, completely and utterly full of shit. Images of ships in the distance subject to multiple atmosphereic distortions doesn't prove the globe, it doesn't debunk empirical evidence of a flat earth like the sextant. You show me a picture of a mirage and tell me I need to believe your illusion, how about you go shoot youself in the head instead?

I've got proof, I've got a mountain of proof. The science, math and evidence is with me, the globe has nothing but  an impending violent death.

[notbatman]

^^^ you need to make that flicker a bit so it induces epileptic seizures.

[Astargath]

^^^ you need to make that flicker a bit so it induces epileptic seizures.

Also, if I measure something to be 32' does that mean its the same as the sun? Or how does it work?

[notbatman]

...
Also, if I measure something to be 32' does that mean its the same as the sun? Or how does it work?

Are you measuring "angular size" or "apparent size"?

Consider the following:

1. The horizon is an object.
2. The vanishing point is a point on the horizon line.
3. The vanishing point is the result of convergence on a plane.
4. A sextant measures angles between two (2) objects.
5. Angular size requires two (2) separate measurements.
6. Angular size is measured from the vanishing point. i.e. horizon<object
7. Angular size never changes as it is a measure of physical distance.
8. One (1) minute of arc equals one (1) nautical mile.
9. The sides of an object are objects in their own right.
10. Apparent size only requires one (1) measurement.
11. Apparent size is measured from the viewer. i.e. eye<object
12. Apparent size changes with distance to the viewer.

So lets measure "angular size" and measure the Moon; its angular size is 32'. Is it the same physical size as the Sun?

If your answer is that I claim the Sun & Moon are projected holograms and not physical objects then it's time to find some rope for yourself because, I am referring to the physical distance they occupy.

You have to be on plane, this is how it works. If you're on a globe (and it can only be a globe no matter what) then none of this works, angular size can't even be measured. The whole concept of measuring distance based on an angle is a ridiculous concept worthy mockery on a globe. Do you see, can you understand?

[Vod]

I've got proof, I've got a mountain of proof.

Any child looking at a pile of presents will say the same thing about Santa Claus.

Your parents obviously never told you he was just a fairy tale.

 

[Astargath]

...
Also, if I measure something to be 32' does that mean its the same as the sun? Or how does it work?

Are you measuring "angular size" or "apparent size"?

Consider the following:

1. The horizon is an object.
2. The vanishing point is a point on the horizon line.
3. The vanishing point is the result of convergence on a plane.
4. A sextant measures angles between two (2) objects.
5. Angular size requires two (2) separate measurements.
6. Angular size is measured from the vanishing point. i.e. horizon<object
7. Angular size never changes as it is a measure of physical distance.
8. One (1) minute of arc equals one (1) nautical mile.
9. The sides of an objects are objects in their own right.
10. Apparent size only requires one (1) measurement.
11. Apparent size is measured from the viewer. i.e. eye<object
12. Apparent size changes with distance to the viewer.

So lets measure "angular size" and measure the Moon; its angular size 32'. Is it the same physical size as the Sun?

If your answer is that I claim the Sun & Moon are projected holograms and not physical objects then it's time to find some rope for yourself because, I am referring to the physical distance they occupy.

You have to be on plane, this is how it works. If you're on a globe (and it can only be a globe no matter what) then none of this works, angular size can't even be measured. The whole concept of measuring distance based on an angle is a ridiculous concept worthy mockery on a globe. Do you see, can you understand?

And why can't you measure angular size on a globe? Do you even know how those concepts came to existance? They are used in astronomy

[notbatman]

@Astargath, see #3 and #6.




thesis


anti-thesis



http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39349326/snake-found-on-a-plane-yes-really-snake-on-a-plane

[lightlord]

Reality:



Childish fairy tale:

[Astargath]

@Astargath, see #3 and #6.

No.

[notbatman]

^^^ That image is wrong, even on a globe it's wrong. On the globe the angle is calculated (not measured) from its center, not from the viewer. What that image depicts is apparent size as an angle, that is wrong, that is not angular size or diameter.

[Astargath]

^^^ That image is wrong, even on a globe it's wrong. On the globe the angle is calculated (not measured) from its center, not from the viewer.

Which center and which angle, you can calculate the angle from wherever you want.



This is the formula. I don't really know what you are saying tbh. You can calculate it from wherever you want. You can even estimate this using your own hand. What's your point here really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ircLt-qvl3M

[notbatman]

The Earth is flat and motionless, this is how angular size measurement works:








@lightlord, more like this:



"outer space" isn't a real place, there's a mirrored dome above us.

[Vod]

The Earth is flat and motionless, this is how angular size measurement works:

"outer space" isn't a real place, there's a mirrored dome above us.

So everyone is posting facts you cannot refute, math that has served us for a thousand years, undoctored photographs, and all you can say is REEEEEEEEE?




 

[Astargath]

The Earth is flat and motionless, this is how angular size measurement works:








@lightlord, more like this:



"outer space" isn't a real place, there's a mirrored dome above us.

No it isn't, why would you need to measure from the vanishing point? What's the point of that and why would you think a vanishing point doesn't exist on a globe?

[BADecker]

The Earth is flat and motionless, this is how angular size measurement works:

No it isn't, why would you need to measure from the vanishing point? What's the point of that and why would you think a vanishing point doesn't exist on a globe?

There isn't really any vanishing point. The thing that determines the so-called vanishing point is the viewing device. When the distance is so great, that the device being looked through, views a distant object as a single point, that is the vanishing point. When a more powerful viewing device is used - such as a more powerful telescope - the vanishing point is extended to the limits that this new device can "see," which are beyone the limits of the less powerful viewing device.

The term vanishing-point is something that is used when you have limited distance viewing. Confusion is created when notbatman tries to use simple terms like vanishing point, to describe things that are not so simple. If we didn't have a telescope, and a stronger telescope, we might have a difficult time with terms like vanishing point. But all you need, to see that the vanishing point isn't a set thing, is a reasonable pair of binoculars.

[lightlord]

If the sun/moon are just projections on a dome around the earth. Then what about the distant galaxies powerful telescopes take picture of?

[Astargath]

If the sun/moon are just projections on a dome around the earth. Then what about the distant galaxies powerful telescopes take picture of?

Uh Oh, you don't want to get into that man, last time I asked something like that we went down a big hole. I think he also believes those are projections, the other stars aren't really stars because if you look at them through a shitty camera you only see a blur. That was literally his argument btw.

[Vod]

The term vanishing-point is something that is used when you have limited distance viewing. Confusion is created when notbatman tries to use simple terms like vanishing point, to describe things that are not so simple.

What a hypocrite.  

Your entire belief in fairy tales is using the simple term "proof" to describe things that cannot be proven.  Just like notaman.