RE: The sinking ship effect and the flat earth theory
Then, different constellations can be seen at different latitudes, and when the lunar eclipse occurs, the earth will also produce a round shadow that covers the moon.
Clever-eyed people living in seaside towns and part of maritime civilizations can observe that ships sailing near the harbor are only visible first of the mast, then the screen, and finally the ship's body. Conversely, sailors who sail near a city will see that they can only see the watchtower from a distance, but eventually can see the base of the tower and other buildings.
This is a sign that the Earth is curved and the distant ships (or buildings) are blocked by the curvature of the Earth. Conversely, sailors who sail near a city will see that they can only see the watchtower from a distance, but eventually can see the base of the tower and other buildings. This is all we know as a sign that the Earth is curved and the distant ships (or buildings) are blocked by the curvature of the Earth. By using telephoto or binoculars, in modern times it is not difficult for us to see for ourselves the ships that disappear or emerge from behind the horizon.
being able to see Chicago from Michigan is clearly proof that the earth is flat. (but the ball earthers chalk it up as a mirage... lol.)
polaris doesn't move... which is impossible given ball earth theory states we'd be moving 180 million miles from our current position six months from now....
@klevn i am from the Great Lakes and I assure you YOU CANNOT see Chicago from anywhere in Michigan. Even flying over the lake you are out of site of land for some time even at considerable altitude. The closest distance is 50 to 60 miles at the southern tip of Lake Michigan. Farther north it is double that and more.
There is such a thing as a reflected, upside-down image of the great city under special atmospheric conditions of temperature inversion layers.
This proves ... that Chicago is upside down!
Oh, now you're referring to the financial condition of the city.
quora agrees you can see chicago. it wasn't until the 60x zoom lenses that we could see the 500+ feet drop predicted by globe earth isn't happening.
here they are talking about it on the news (skip to 11:07)
and yes, they claim it is a mirage. what you have a picture of is a mirage. this clearly is not.
peace.
Polaris does move, but mostly due to precession. The speed our sun has around the galaxy is irrelevant - it actually takes some 250 million years to travel around the galaxy and that's what count. The position of polaris does indeed change over those 250 million years.
there is no situation in which this makes sense.
I'm talking about the fact that we move in the heliocentric model... not polaris.
we should see it move if we move 180 million miles from our current position every six months.
since we don't, we aren't moving.
If the earth is flat I do not understand how it happened day and night?
earth is big and the sun is closer than we've been led to believe.
Because the visible movement is measured in degrees or radians, not in kilometres. It's like a car moving in 120 km/hour on a highway in the far distance, the speed doesn't look that impressive. Now, stand at the shoulder of the highway and 120 km/h is really fast!
polaris stays centered above the north pole with very little variance.
so little in fact, that it just sits there and 'wobbles' a little. it NEVER moves beyond that wobble. (that is attributed to the wobble of the earth)
Right, I misunderstood, I thought of the sun travelling around the galaxy. Indeed, there is around 300000 km difference in the earths position within six months according to the heliosentric view, 3E5 km using the E-notation.
According to a quick google search, there is a staggering 4,104E15 km distance to polaris. arctan(3E5/4E15) is a good approximation on how much the polaris wobbles, measured in radians ... I get 7.5e-11 (arctan can as well be skipped, as arctan(x)- x for as x->0). That's around 10 mikroseconds of an angle on the sky.
The problem is not that the polaris isn't wobbling, the problem is that the wobbling is too small for you and me to see.
i actually find it pretty ridiculous you think you can see light from light years away when you can obviously see how quickly the light fades even within our own solar system. (using terms that are accessible)
i think it is far more likely they are closer than we've been led to believe.
one thing I found out early on, was that the big telescopes are difficult to get access to for the general public.
another thing, that blew my mind was seeing the moon zoomed in on a 60x camera. you could see the craters on the moon.
then he zoomed in a building about 7 miles away, and you could just make out the windows on the building...
and then the question was asked.. do you think you would be able to see the details of the moon so well if it was really as far away as they say? 250,000 miles is how they claim.. yet we can see the moon's details that clearly? i say we are fools for falling for it for so long.
@klevn Just as an aside, I have always been able to see the craters on the moon with an ordinary pair of binoculars. Just as you can see Andromeda galaxy: fuzzy with the naked eye and sharp with binoculars. These things amazed me as I grew up. And of course even a small rooftop telescope can reveal the rings of Saturn, even from within a city.
What I did not believe was that there was life only on this one planet. Was God so impoverished as to have only one world?
My understanding is that in surveying you do not have to allow for the curve of the Earth since it is a tiny rounding error.
What I don't believe is that people ever believed the Earth was flat. Greeks used to measure the size of the planet by measuring shadows at a given time and at known locations N & S.
I commend the effort to deconstruct appearances but I'm not yet convinced on the flat Earth. Though everything certainly is a projection in conscienceness either way.
There are two factors making details "fade" away in the distance, one is that there will be less light hitting the eye. That's why good binoculars and telescopes have big lenses - to catch more light. Again, the distance itself doesn't matter - to get better quality, it's just to increase the light-collecting area ... or eventually the time of exposure
The other factor is the air ... the air is really making things fade. Even with a huge telescope mounted in my mast, I probably wouldn't be able to identify a person on 7 nautic miles of a distance. This effect also plays a part when watching the moon ... but it only applies to the end of the atmosphere, and the craters you can see on the moon is very big indeed, many ordes of magnitude bigger than a person.
I think there are programs allowing regular persons to select targets for some of the huger telescopes, but there are only so many huge telescopes and so many astronomers and hobby-astronomers having wishes for them. Anyway, anyone can buy a telescope, it's only the wallet setting limits to the size of the telescope.
again, you need to bring us video proof. this just ain't proof to say you saw it with your binocaulers.
when Ships arrived in North America, they say the Native Americans could not see the ships. It wasn't until the shaman saw it that it became apparent to everyone else.
so perhaps you are simply blinded by your prejudice.
you see it as you think you should. but in bringing video proof, you may find you were in fact wrong and that you were lying to yourself.
I was actually surprised by this effect, I hadn't foreseen it, it didn't seem obvious to me that the eye height had that much impact on how much of the object was hidden.
Next time I'll try to back up my observations better. I should probably consider buying some photo equipment (not to do more experiments on the flat/round earth theory, but in general), my cellphone is kind of useless for capturing details in the distance.
I think my biggest point with this article was not to prove anything except that the round vs flat earth theory is something anyone can do observations on, without having to lean on second-hand information sources.
haha, "he wrote a flat earth post on steemit :)" Nice one!
Well it spread it seems because i just got reccomended on pootube a video to watch, i put the link in a reply before i realised there was conversation replys here lol!
@klven "Quora agrees." that's fine but their photo is not very convincing. It's just what we see when we are a couple of miles out in a boat. (and no telltale evidence you are standing on a shore, such as a shrub) From the air both shores drop out of site no matter which way you are flying. And I have taken numerous light planes as well as 727's and was always keen to observe the lake below.
there are plenty of long range photos being taken proving the problem with globe theory.
but i'm guessing you won't be convinced by any of them, because there is always a way to fake it.
Why then, do you believe the moon landing, the ISS feed... when literally we have tons of examples of fakery?
face in space!! at 3:24 ...
and that is just one... we have tons, upon tons of them. i included some of my favorites above, but i sense you did not watch them.