Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 5:04:31 GMT
I would like to make a YouTube video together with other members available. I saw that some members already made some videos, maybe they are interested in doing something collectively. Let us know please if we can participate in some common project. We could then add a link to our forum on the bottom of the movie. This would be an interesting and binding experience for all of us, and we should do it before the forum loses all its members out of boredom, and in order to get new members. I see these figures, but feel free to correct me: 1) a director, to direct the project as a whole (not me) 3) someone taking care of the musical soundtrack 4) someone providing the screenplay (and maybe another person: an actor reading it, or none if we just type the text) 4) someone providing the images/videos 2) editor who puts it all together (maybe matt, Lion, caesar, tetstruthtube...? who else makes videos?) Brainstorming on topic for the video (probably 5 minutes would be a good video duration): curvature formula vs. the horizon videos/images? other things people are confident about, in their demonstration of flat earth space travel fakery compilation? your suggestions --- I talked to tetstruthtube on Facebook and he said that if we have ideas, he can help us with the editing and the sound. I have ideas, but I would like other members to participate as well, so I will wait for some brainstorming from you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 17:07:07 GMT
OK, since no one else has answered yet, I will start working on the project, knowing that tetstruthtube will do the editing. Since I will be working with him, I will try to adapt to his style, and so I have watched his last flat earth video from here: www.youtube.com/channel/UCxjjbu4mA4lKUsNt_6v8Tzg/videosNO SPEAKING: OK, this simplifies matters, because he does not talk in his videos, so we don't need anyone to be reading a text. We just need to type it. Since it is mostly formulas and numbers, we will not need a lot of typing either. NO VIDEOS: He mostly puts pictures together. Another point to our advantage. Less work to do. I don't have to gather videos but pictures. But he can also edit videos together, because in some videos he does. MUSIC: He has his favorite music, and that is fine with me, because it is in line with the majority of people on the web, not too aggressive either... I would put music that people don't like, so another thing to not worry about. Essentially I have to provide: 1) text to be displayed (including formulas) 2) pictures and/or videos to display A timeline according to which he will display them. The duration I have in mind is like the shortest of his videos, about 3 minutes. An important part of this video will be to advertise this forum, so the link should be at the end of the video, and on the bottom of the video. Also, the title should be such that it will score as many hits as possible. I will keep editing this post, or add a new one with these materials. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 10, 2015 17:43:44 GMT
Do you think for the curvature idea we can find someone with a high-powered telescope? The reason I am asking is, although flat earth truth's curvature facts are very good, I have found other curvature "supports" to not be that good. One example is the notion that hot air balloons going straight up on a curved earth would show the curve by going away from us at an angle, but because they go "straight up" even quite a distance away from us, then the earth is flat. I have found that this is not so, according to the modeling I have done. Again, it is only modeling, but it gave me a better "perspective" on it.  It seems to me that you would not see that kind of movement (something going "up" but at an angle with the curvature) unless the object were at least 60 miles away, and even then the angle that it uses in ascending is so slight it is hard to see. I could not get something to show gross angular ascent (according to a curvature) until it was about 1200 miles away and it had to be so large that it was not realistic. My point, I guess, is that to say that "things going up" would rise at an angle is a very bad proof to show that the earth is flat. A curved earth looks flat for a great distance - even up to 100 miles in radius from the observer's location. That cannot be used, it seems to me. I think flat earth truth's formula is a great proof to start with. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 17:44:49 GMT
OK, text and images. Let's start from numbers. I think we need to use only CIA-controlled Wikipedia (no flat earth books), because to everyone that is more reliable than information coming from flat earthers. We are not even going to write many sentences at all. This is going to be a minimalistic video, based on this thread: serendipitous.boards.net/thread/11/curvature-formulaSoundtrack, up to the film editor. Timeline: 1) formula gets presented and explained (with links to an excel file at the bottom of the video) 2) a rapid succession of the values returned by formula and lighthouses data. No videos, just images of the lighthouses in the background. The formula gets explained for 30 seconds, with about 5 slides (which I will create), without any music in the background so people can focus on it. Then the lighthouses start showing one after the other, with the result from the formulas, next to their range, height and resulting drop, showing that lighthouse range value listed on Wikipedia is not possible on a spherical earth. 30 seconds for the formula and no music. Music starts and so start the lighthouses values and their pictures on the background. Every lighthouse should stay there for about 10 seconds. I could even provide the formula on excel edited together with the lighthouse. I hope no one will accuse me of stealing Eric's idea, since I've been talking about it a month before he wrote his post in early April: ifers.boards.net/post/103/threadYeah, great quote. I just found out a very remarkable thing that no one had yet remarked in their videos, as far as I can remember. Wikipedia itself (certainly not on our side, cf. 911 and JFK entries) cannot hide the "flat-earth" truth as far as (all) lighthouses. Take this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planier_Light ... Of course I also acknowledge that he knew about it before I even mentioned it. All I am saying is that I came up with that idea on my own, without reading any books (nor his post). I think 5 lighthouses will be enough. More would be boring for the viewer and useless work for us. 30 seconds of formula and 1 minute of lighthouses. The video should last less than 2 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 10, 2015 17:48:59 GMT
Sorry, one more... I also think the "rays of the sun" proof does not work either. To make it simpler, the sun is a circle in the sky with rays coming out. They will always come out in the same direction compared to where your eye is and where the sun is. Whether the sun is very close and much smaller, or whether it is very large and much farther away, your eye will perceive it the same way and the rays will radiate outward in the same way. The sun's rays will not be parallel to themselves if you are looking directly at it - whether it is very close or very very far away. They will always emanate from the sun in the same direction - outward from the center. I saw this in one of the first videos (the one with the artist) and I did not think it was a good proof. I also saw the video with the weather balloon and shooting film very high above the clouds, showing the sun and a "hotspot" below it on the clouds. That one I found interesting, because there is no easy explanation that can just explain it away like the above example. Anyway, if I am wrong, please let me know. I am still trying to poke holes... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 17:50:07 GMT
Do you think for the curvature idea we can find someone with a high-powered telescope? The reason I am asking is, although flat earth truth's curvature facts are very good, I have found other curvature "supports" to not be that good. One example is the notion that hot air balloons going straight up on a curved earth would show the curve by going away from us at an angle, but because they go "straight up" even quite a distance away from us, then the earth is flat. I have found that this is not so, according to the modeling I have done. Again, it is only modeling, but it gave me a better "perspective" on it. It seems to me that you would not see that kind of movement (something going "up" but at an angle with the curvature) unless the object were at least 60 miles away, and even then the angle that it uses in ascending is so slight it is hard to see. I could not get something to show gross angular ascent (according to a curvature) until it was about 1200 miles away and it had to be so large that it was not realistic. My point, I guess, is that to say that "things going up" would rise at an angle is a very bad proof to show that the earth is flat. A curved earth looks flat for a great distance - even up to 100 miles in radius. That cannot be used, it seems to me. I think flat earth truth's formula is a great proof to start with. Yes, thanks. Let me know what part of this you would like to do. My idea is exactly that we are no longer looking at whether it seems or not flat, but whether we should be seeing Corsica from Genoa at all: Now, the skeptics will tell you it is a mirage (earth's curvature would not allow us to see it). So the only way we can reply to them is lighthouses: would the lighthouse authorities give you values that only work with mirages? Nope, they will be on the safe side. And yet they are values do not match the curvature. At that point, the only thing scientists will argue is that the radius of the earth is wrong. So that is when I say: bingo! ... because at that point we have won. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 10, 2015 17:51:04 GMT
flat earth truth ! I also thought my picture of Corsica was a good one for the curvature proof. I cannot figure out all the curvature formulas yet, but I think Corsica was in my picture and it was about 60 miles away from where I was standing. I am not sure how high, though, the mountains of Corsica are, so that would have to be researched. EDIT: I posted too quickly. Your Corsica one is better. Mine was taken on the western coast of Italy so is not as far as Genoa.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 17:56:42 GMT
Oh, that's no problem, because we see the whole profile of Corsica. And yet no mountain should be seen even. Zero. I wrote about it here: ifers.boards.net/post/91/threadCorsica, as seen from Genoa, 227 km away from its highest peak Monte Cinto, which is 2706 meters high. This distance implicates a spherical earth drop of 4043 meters. At any rate, I will have to go through the formula in depth and explain it inside out, in order to produce the material for this video. Let me know which part we can go through together. Well, the formula would be a good start. I will start addressing it starting tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by honesttruthseeker on Apr 10, 2015 18:55:52 GMT
Hi Acenci, are you sure there should be a curvature of 4km in the above video? According to the tool I am using, there should be a drop of "only" 1007m, which means Corsica would still be visible. As a tool, I use this complete arc calculator for calculating the height of any arc of a circle www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/arc18.cgi?submit=Entry |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 19:04:49 GMT
Good point. Let's get right to the formula, thanks to your question. Look, I have used the "horizon calculator" here: members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htmAnd it matches exactly Wikipedia's formula, too... see my signature and my excel workbook: serendipitous.boards.net/attachment/download/11Thanks for your link. I will study it further. We will probably find a way to make the calculators agree with one another. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 19:59:28 GMT
Ok, before we start with anything, we have to thoroughly understand the Pythagorean theorem: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem The sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs (a and b) equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (c). Hypotenuse, defined as: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HypotenuseIn geometry, a hypotenuse (alternate spelling: hypothenuse[1]) is the longest side of a right-angled triangle, the side opposite of the right angle. The relationship represented by the drawing above, is also represented by the following formula: c^2 = a^2+b^2 and so: c = sqrt(a^2+b^2) Now, so far it is all clear, but how does this relate to flat earth? Well, imagine that the earth is a sphere as they say: How far away is the horizon? In this case, the "hypotenuse", the longest side of a right-angled triangle (the side opposite of the right angle) is equivalent to the radius of the earth, 6371 km (cf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius) plus our height, that is where our vantage point is. That is roughly 2 meters. How do we know that this side is opposite a right angle? Because our view is a tangent to the circle, and the definition is: www.mathopenref.com/tangent.html More here: www.mathopenref.com/tangentline.htmlSo, always according to their spherical-earth reasoning, now we can use the Pythagorean theorem, to find the length of one of the other two sides of the triangle: c^2 = a^2 + b^2 c = radius of the earth + our height a = radius of the earth b = distance to the horizon, which we don't know Let us work on that equation: c^2 = a^2 + b^2 a^2 + b^2 = c^2 b^2 = c^2 - a^2 We can now plug in the values we know, the radius "R" and our height "h": b^2 = (R+h)^2 - R^2 And keep solving the equation: b^2 = R^2 + h^2 + 2Rh - R^2 R^2 cancels out -R^2 and we get: b^2 = h^2 + 2Rh b = sqrt(h^2 + 2Rh) Now we take the square root of both sides, and get the distance to the horizon, in meters: b = sqrt(2^2 + 2 * 6,371,000 * 2) b = sqrt(4 + 25,484,000) b = sqrt(25,484,004) b = 5,048.17 meters is how far we will see if the earth were spherical This also matches the horizon calculator here, which returns a "visual horizon" value of 5.051 meters: members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htmAnd it also matches Phil Plait's calculations here, whose formula I have been following all along: How far away is the horizon?And it also matches Wikipedia's formula results: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizonPROBLEMI have a problem with the horizon calculator, regarding h1 and h2, which I cannot understand: members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htmIn its source code I found this, which might be useful, if someone can help me understand it: I had thought that if you plugged in different values for h1 and h2 (which is for how high is the observed object) in that "horizon calculator", h1 and h2 would be "interchangeable" but both from using the calculator and from looking at its code, they do not seem to be the same. They are only interchangeable in the sense that h1=2 h2=0 is equivalent to h1=0 h2=2, but we cannot expect h1=2 h2=2 to return the same result as h1=4 h2=0, so we could not sum the two heights in our simple formula above. So at the moment I can only use the simple formula with just h1, which also works on the calculator. But if I start adding a second height, things go wrong. But even with this "limited" formula, where does this take us regarding lighthouses and how do they prove there is no curvature? As explained here: serendipitous.boards.net/thread/11/curvature-formulaTake any of the lighthouses and look at the values they provide on Wikipedia. For example Planier Light: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planier_LightIf we plug in these values in our formula... b = sqrt(h^2 + 2Rh) b = sqrt(66^2 + 2 * 6,371,000 * 66) = 29 km The lighthouse can only be seen 29 km away, but they provide a value of 43 km. Now, would they risk being sued? Would they rely on Fata Morgana refraction mirages for their light to be seen? Not at all, so this alone proves there is no curvature. However I am not completely satisfied with the mentioned h1-h2 problem. Indeed, someone will now be able to object that the boat's vantage point is at least 2 meters, and I can always tell him to go and use the "horizo calculator", which proves me right on flat earth, but it uses a formula that I don't understand and that I don't even know. So let me know what you think. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 10, 2015 20:12:30 GMT
You might also want to use the following websites: Generate a panoramaPeak finderYou can enter your coordinates, height and so on, and you would see what is visible from your location 360 degrees around you. Usually it matches with reality 100%. At least, I wasn't able to prove it doesn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 20:13:36 GMT
Hmm, great job. It seems a well thought out a post and it seems to me that you know more geometry and math than I will ever learn. It's going to take me a while to understand your concepts, so for now I will suspend explaining my own formula, until I understand yours. Hey, honesttruthseeker and LIT, I am glad that there are people who know more than me, and I am glad that you are respectfully destroying what I thought was my watertight demonstration of flat earth. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 10, 2015 20:46:10 GMT
flat earth truth honesttruthseekerThe thing with long distance observations is that often you observe not just the top part of the mountain, the peaks, but also the foothills. I feel that there is something wrong with the curvature as well. It also appears that the effect where you see stuff sinking below the horizon is visible mostly over water surfaces and not over dry land. I have never seen that effect on land. It seems the only thing that prevents us from seeing objects which are very far away is the haze which varies from day to day. Often you don't see distant mountains, but it also happens that you can see them quite clearly. It matches the horizon calculator, but it seems to me you see much more than the calculator predicts. The best way to test the curvature is to do an experiment similar to the Bedford canal experiment. Does anyone live close to a big lake more than 10+ miles long?
|
|
|
|
Post by honesttruthseeker on Apr 10, 2015 20:46:15 GMT
Hmm, great job. It seems a well thought out a post and it seems to me that you know more geometry and math than I will ever learn. It's going to take me a while to understand your concepts, so for now I will suspend explaining my own formula, until I understand yours. Hey, honesttruthseeker and LIT, I am glad that there are people who know more than me, and I am glad that you are respectfully destroying what I thought was my watertight demonstration of flat earth. Hi acenci Sorry, I thought I was onto something but I think I was wrong. I will check more thoroughly at home. The is no need to be sarcastic. Sorry |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 20:52:50 GMT
I was serious. I appreciate that we can disagree and still respect each other. There are some people who are seriously nice, but it's so rare, that often it is mistaken for irony. In fact I was banned from IFERS because I was too nice, and suggested to everyone to "apologize to Mark Sargent at the end of every post in case he is not a shill": ifers.boards.net/post/1952/threadDespite the fact that the thesis that he is an agent is gaining consensus among many flat earthers, I still cannot see the damage that he is doing to the movement. I see more help from these interviews than harm, because he does not sound crazy at all. He sounds mentally healthy, appealing, sincere and he is explaining flat earth in a convincing way to the average listener. So, OK, let's assume he is an agent. Yet he does not sound like Alex Jones and is rather convincing. So why are the powers that be meaning to spread the theory about flat earth? You will answer that they are spreading it with the "dome builders" explanation, but they're still spreading it more than if these interviews and videos never existed. Why not just leave it as it was? Getting back to Mark Sargent's latest interview, despite the odd things mentioned about the radio hosts, I stress out that we still have to keep an open mind on whether he is a shill or not, because there are still things that rule it out. So, be open-minded, still listen to all his interviews, and do not label him as you label alex jones and mark dice, because the evidence of him being a "shill" is not as massive as for them. And, once again, my apologies do Mark in case I have been suspecting him unfairly. Ok Acenci, I've long given your seeming innocent naivety the benefit of the doubt, but I'm at a loss for words now. Please watch my recent interview starting at 1:06:30 again, watch through the Mark Sargent section and tell me again how you, "still cannot see the damage that he is doing to the movement," and how, "he does not sound crazy at all. He sounds mentally healthy, appealing, sincere and he is explaining flat earth in a convincing way to the average listener." You and these interviewers seem to be the only "average listener's he's convincing," everyone else with a smidgen of intuition and discernment can see through Sargent Non-Sense. Also you also were strangely already in contact with him when you joined this forum, how/why is that? You were the only one who has been able to get Mark to respond to my scores of criticisms too. Mark Sargent joined the forum on March 9th, then on March 10th Acenci pasted an email reply he apparently received from Mark saying "of course he has no evidence the Moon, stars and planets are holograms." Since then Mark hasn't even signed into the forum once, but Acenci has been here everyday paying lip-service to all my points exposing Mark, and then concluding after every post that even with all my legitimate criticisms, that Mark is "not doing damage to the movement," he does, "more help than harm," there are "still things that rule it out that he is a shill," and you're still saying "my apologies to Mark in case I have been suspecting him unfairly!" What!? Mark Sargent and the Flat Earth Society are currently the biggest enemies of the flat Earth truth and you're still half-defending and praising the FES too saying things like (can't find the exact quote) "they are some of the most knowledgeable people on the flat Earth if we could get them over here and on our side bla bla bla, and how you still don't think they're controlled opposition either!?" Why are you endlessly praising, defending and apologizing to the biggest enemies of the flat Earth truth? I made this forum to out/expose these shills and you're the most prolific user on here constantly praising, defending and apologizing to them, telling everyone they're NOT shills!? What do other people think about Acenci and this issue? I really like your personality (from what I can tell online) Acenci, but this issue needs to be discussed. Peace! Furthermore, I'd never be sarcastic, which is a form of aggression, with those same members that I have tried so hard to get to join the forum. It wouldn't make sense to first beg them to join us and then bother them in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by honesttruthseeker on Apr 10, 2015 21:14:37 GMT
I have checked again my previous explanation and I was wrong.
I hadn't taken in consideration the height of the observer.
In that picture, the observer seems to be about 10-20m above sea level.
Even in this case, his horizon would then be 200-210 km but he would only see the tips of the mountains, which is clearly not the case.
Acenci, please continue your demonstration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 21:20:27 GMT
Yes, I will continue. That's going to take a few hours too, because while I was explaining it out loud, I was also explaining it to myself. Unfortunately I have to go to sleep (it's late here in Rome), but I will continue tomorrow. I don't usually leave things unfinished and I am not lazy. I wouldn't have started it if I didn't think I was going to finish it. Also, the idea of the short video. I am counting on finishing it.
So, tomorrow I will keep editing that post above, until I get to the bottom of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 10, 2015 21:22:32 GMT
flat earth truthHonestly, your tactfulness is amazing. Don't you think you overdo it sometimes? Not everyone is so sensitive. I doubt people care so much. Even if sarcasm is a form of aggression we're not babies here. Eric is absolutely right about Mark. Mark lied outright about Eric in one of the interviews when he said that Eric believes the Earth accelerates upward and that causes gravity. I would get offended too. Even if Mark is not a shill, he never apologized to Eric either. This combined with the fantastic unsupported by evidence claims about Antarctica and the dome do suggest that Mark is either shilling or is just a playful pathological liar. Anyway, check out the panorama generators. If they are using the curvature formula and they always predict reality, the formula might be correct after all, and it is not in favor for flat Earth. That is why we should do our own Bedford canal experiment! That would be a major step in the right direction. Enough talking and hypothesizing(I don't mean we should stop discussing haha). Let's get down to actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 10, 2015 21:24:55 GMT
I have checked again my previous explanation and I was wrong. I hadn't taken in consideration the height of the observer. In that picture, the observer seems to be about 10-20m above sea level. Even in this case, his horizon would then be 200-210 km but he would only see the tips of the mountains, which is clearly not the case. Acenci, please continue your demonstration. Yes, exactly! That is the key. The horizon distance calculations roughly match with reality, but not exactly. Often you see the foothills when the calculators say you should only see the peaks. Generally, people buy that and never question it, but we're here to find inaccuracies. The panorama generators seem to work quite well though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 12:16:33 GMT
OK, I am done. Thanks to everyone for the inputs. I have edited the post above, and gave it everything I had got. I came to the conclusion that the data I present proves no curvature, but I still have not a complete mastery of the formulas used. But they certainly prove flat earth, so to disprove it, you either tell me that those formulas and calculators are wrong. I have in particular unsolved problems with the "Horizon Calculator" and its use of h2. So, let's recapitulate a bit. We are dealing with two types of formulas, both derived from the Pythagorean theorem: 1) the one from Wikipedia, which tells us the curvature given a distance, that is to say our height in order to see the horizon from that given distance 2) the ones from the " horizon calculator" and from Phil Plait, which tell us the distance to the horizon They all yield the same result, in that, according to spherical-earth: 1) for us to see 5 km away we need to be 2 meters tall (cf. Wikipedia formula) 2) and if we are 2 meters tall, we see 5 km away (cf. horizon calculator and Phil Plait's article) The only thing I cannot figure out is how to include in these calculations the second height used by the horizon calculator, but this does not mean that things still work out in favor of flat earth if we use it (cf. my previous post here). It is all summarized in this file excel and the picture below: _calc_flat_earth.xls (43 KB)  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 13:48:15 GMT
------------ NOTE WRITTEN AFTER UPLOADING VIDEO ON YOUTUBE: Answers to viewers' objections are on YouTube, below the video, and at this link: serendipitous.boards.net/post/2008/thread------------ OK, some more reasoning out loud. If I need text and images for a two-minute video to be edited by TET, I better focus on something I don't have any doubts on. So I could: 1) just use the calculator and the lighthouses pros: simple, complete (with h1 and h2) cons: people will object that we don't know what the calculator is doing, and that the formula is wrong 2) just use the Pythagorean theorem and explain how I derive my formula from it pros: it looks more scientific cons: it lacks one of the heights, h2 or h1 (the height of the observer, because we need to use the lighthouse height), it is more boring... I already know that #2 is the best solution, because if we use the curvature formula it is to have a scientific approach to flat earth, so we cannot then choose the less scientific way to go about it (that is, we cannot rely on a website using a calculator, for which it does not provide nor explain the formula used). So here's what I will have to do. 1) derive the formula from the Pythagorean theorem, just as I did in my post, step by step 2) explain that the height is not my height, but the height of the lighthouse 3) show how this formula tells me how far the lighthouse should reach 4) show that I plugged the values in the formula on an excel sheet (which I link at the bottom of the video) 5) show a series of lighthouses with their heights and ranges and display excel's results, and how they do not match the official lighthouse data. I only basically have to create a bunch of slides. TET will put the music in it and edit the slides together. But wait, if I use PowerPoint... I could do this thing by myself, but the point is to include others. Not just out of laziness. But now that I think of it, I am tired. Does anyone want to help me from here on? I would like to be the director and not do anything else? I have already written the script anyway. I think this can all be done in a matter of 20 slides, running for a total of 2 minutes, but I don't know if I should use PowerPoint or what program. I think we are ready to go. I have it all figured out, but now I wait for some collaboration (although I could do it by myself, too). ... ... all right, I'll start working on the slides. Let's start doing it here. So, as we said, it will be 20 slides, a part with the formulas and a part with the lighthouses. Temporary title: Where is the curvature of the earth? A case study: lighthouses and distance to the horizon1) A lighthouse on a spherical earthThe view from the lighthouse to the horizon is a tangent to the circle...  2) The right angle...and it forms a 90 degree angle... www.mathopenref.com/tangent.html"The radius to the point of tangency is always perpendicular to the tangent line."  3) The Hypotenuse...which makes the triangle a right-angled triangle, of which we know two sides, that is the radius of the earth and the Hypotenuse: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotenuse"In geometry, a hypotenuse (alternate spelling: hypothenuse) is the longest side of a right-angled triangle, the side opposite of the right angle." We have to find the other side, that is the "distance to the horizon".  4) The Pythagorean theoremWe can then use the Pythagorean Theorem: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem"The sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs (a and b) equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (c)." c^2 = a^2 + b^2  5) Solving the equationThis the formula: c^2 = a^2 + b^2 c = the hypotenuse, and it equals the earth's radius + our height a = radius of the earth b = distance to the horizon, which we don't know Let us solve the equation: c^2 = a^2 + b^2 a^2 + b^2 = c^2 b^2 = c^2 - a^2 We can now plug in the values for the two sides we know, using the symbols "R" for the radius of the earth, and "h" for the height of the lighthouse: b^2 = (R+h)^2 - R^2 b^2 = R^2 + h^2 + 2Rh - R^2 R^2 cancels out -R^2 and we get: b^2 = h^2 + 2Rh b = sqrt(h^2 + 2Rh) Now we put this formula on excel and we calculate the distance to the horizon for various lighthouses and see how these results compare to the values they list on Wikipedia. ---- The rest of the slides can be done according to my post from March 5th: ifers.boards.net/thread/20/curvature-on-flat-earth?page=1&scrollTo=103Yeah, great quote. I just found out a very remarkable thing that no one had yet remarked in their videos, as far as I can remember. Wikipedia itself (certainly not on our side, cf. 911 and JFK entries) cannot hide the "flat-earth" truth as far as (all) lighthouses. Take this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planier_Light... but if you put two and two together, you get: members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm![]() Let us imagine a boat where someone is standing 2 meters above the water, and looking at a lighthouse that is 66-meter tall. How far away will he be able to see it? Well, the calculator, and all Pythagorean formulas, say "34 kilometers". Yet Wikipedia asserts that sailors will be able to see it as far as 43 km. Now since no one wants to be sued, I am sure lighthouse authorities will provide safe values, rounded down by a whole lot. Well, even these values are telling us that the earth is flat. This value itself destroys the argument of refraction, because lighthouse authorities will certainly not be relying on "mirages" and "refraction" for their lighthouses to be seen by sailors! Imagine this: "If you are lucky and there's refraction, you will see a mirage of the lighthouse... otherwise you'll just have to crash against the rocks". But, as we know, people won't put two and two together. In my opinion, this is the simplest and best argument to date, because it totally uses their sources, the flat-earth deniers. In other words, Wikipedia pages on lighthouses all prove that the earth is flat. ---- Several days later, given that post editing is still possible, I will add here more lighthouses, from this list... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_lighthouses_in_the_world...to verify my theory that they do not match curvature calculations. My sources will be wikipedia and this calculator (which matches the official formula from wikipedia): members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htmI will always assume that the observer on the boat is standing 2 meters high. Then I will plug in the height of the lighthouse. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planier_Light66 meters, range 43 km calculator says max range is 34 km en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeddah_Light113 meters, range 46 km calculator says 43 km is the max range en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokohama_Marine_Tower106 meters, range 46 km calculator says 42 km en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Ele_Vierge#Lighthouses82.5 meters, 50 km calculator says 37 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_of_Genoa76 meters, 46 km calculator says 36 So, you get my point. These lighthouses list range values that are always higher than the values allowed by a spherical earth. Since in all cases the source is CIA's Wikipedia, this is the final and irrefutable proof that we are on a flat earth. It is not a mirage, because the lighthouses would not be relying on mirages to be visible at the ranges they provide (or they'd be sued). It is not a mistake in the formula, because these are the official Wikipedia formulas. And certainly the lighthouses are being cautious and giving conservative values. So there is really no doubt left whatsoever. Ok, tetstruthtube, let me know when you are ready to edit the video. I think we're ready. Also, if anyone else wants to proofread it or give me other advice, or participate in any other way, let us know. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 23:02:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 11, 2015 23:04:36 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 23:24:09 GMT
LIT, very interesting, thanks for the link. What can I say... I am not jealous: he did a good job. I hope we can add something to it with our own video, and I hope we don't get sued if we do a similar video. As Eric pointed out, this knowledge of lighthouses has been around for 100 years, so of course nobody has the copyright on the idea: ifers.boards.net/post/104/threadPublished in 1899: archive.org/details/zeteticcosmogon00recgoogSo, unless the heirs of Thomas Winship sue all of us, we can go ahead and make our own flat earth YouTube video, based on the concept that seems the strongest proof of flat earth to us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 3:44:59 GMT
OK, I have just spoken on Facebook to TET and he's busy with family matters, and also maybe he's more interested in other flat earth proofs. We agreed on working on other videos. So for this lighthouse video, is there anyone who is interested? For example, matt, are you interested, since you made a few videos that seemed to be very related to this subject (geometry)...? |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 15:22:14 GMT
OK, I have just spoken on Facebook to TET and he's busy with family matters, and also maybe he's more interested in other flat earth proofs. We agreed on working on other videos. So for this lighthouse video, is there anyone who is interested? For example, matt, are you interested, since you made a few videos that seemed to be very related to this subject (geometry)...? 1. no scholarly work can rely on Wiki. Wiki is a bit of a joke on many things as it is created by amateurs and vested interests. Lighthouse range calculations seem to be a pretty safe thing to rely upon if various methods agree. 2. The range for le Planier given in that PDF is interesting but you need to be sure what they mean by the range for that lighthouse. The PDF talks about luminous range and I think two other ranges? So you have luminous range at a height above water versus sea level range. The PDF gives as an example a height of 55 feet for a ships bridge when doing a range calculation. 3. The maximum range a lighthouse can be seen at is a real world range in a moving sea in a tall boat. Probably you get the maximum range after a storm in excellent visibility as the boat heaves up and sees further. 4. Light will be dispersed somewhat by an edge so there is then the question as to how much the horizon can disperse the light downwards. I would imagine that kind of thing is documented somewhere. 5. If a lighthouse shines onto mist or dust at the horizon that material is going to be lit up and seen much further. At the maximum range by definition do ships see the white light or are aware of the correctly timeable pulse of light? - from the navigators point of view it is the same thing and all he is interested in. Obviously i am a non-believer but if you have something interesting then for sure it will get my attention. One thing for sure if lighthouses are breaking the known laws of physics you will definately get the attention of for example university researchers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 15:40:03 GMT
Thanks for your usual detailed and yet concise feedback. Here's my reasoning on your feedback:
1. could they have wrong range data for all lighthouses and risk being sued...? What is the probability of that?
2. same point as above: why would they risk confusing sailors with false ranges and risk being sued? To the contrary, they're probably very conservative with the range values they provide and stay on the safe side.
3. same point as #1, they're not relying on extreme records for the range values they provide, because there will be shipwrecks otherwise
4. same point as #1, they will not be relying on refraction for the range values they provide, because they risk lawsuits when such conditions do not work and the desired "refraction" (which in my opinion is imaginary) cannot take place. Instead they will provide values for ranges that apply to all boats, in all conditions.
5. OK, once again, you're talking about a similar concept of sailors being OK with an unfavorable settings where the lighthouse cannot be seen clearly, but I don't believe that if I ran lighthouses I would be risking that. I would want to give a range value that is 100% reliable.
Oh... so, since university researchers are not paying attention to this, then it must mean that it is not a valid reasoning? I respectfully disagree. I also believe that 911 was an inside job, but are we supposed to believe that it was Bin Laden just because university researchers are not investigating it? And JFK's assassination? How many universities are teaching that it was done by elements within the US government rather than by Lee Harvey Oswald?
My belief is that Universities are more unreliable than CIA-controlled Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 15:42:39 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 15:45:27 GMT
Thanks for the further feedback. I respectfully keep my conviction that this proof is watertight, but I will not belittle your opinion. Let us agree to disagree, and appreciate each other for the evidence and reasoning we provided.
|
|
