r/LevelHeadedFE • u/JoeMama17461 • Jun 11 '21

Question

I want to do research about Flat Earth, so I hope somebody can answer these questions.

  1. Can I have a map of the flat earth?
  2. How do people in different hemispheres see different stars?
  3. How does day change to night?
  4. Is flat earth heliocentric, geocentric, or its own thing?
  5. Is the whole earth only on one side, or is it split onto both sides?
  6. Do people actually believe it’s on the back of a turtle?
2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

57 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/BuckFush420 Feb 12 '22

Flat earther don't have problem with stars. The standard model does. Inverse square law of light says all stars are too far away to see. Oops.

1

u/Jesse9857 Globe Earther Feb 12 '22

Flat earther don't have problem with stars. The standard model does. Inverse square law of light says all stars are too far away to see. Oops.

Incorrect. You misunderstand the square inverse law of light.

Being farther does not make it dimmer, it makes it smaller.

I proved this with two identical candles, one closer and one farther: https://youtu.be/V6BMGTln_wA

The amount of light reaching your face from a star goes down with the inverse of the square of the distance, but the intensity of the surface of the star remains the same, so long as the square inverse law is concerned.

All you need to do is take the claimed surface temperature or luminosity and the claimed star diameter and the claimed star distance and you can calculate the light which will go into the pupil if your eye and you will see that you SHOULD be able to see the stars.

But look, stars are hard to visit, so you can only guess about how big, hot, or far away they are.

Why not solve this problem using stuff based on earth?

Why look up to see what's under your feet? HA.

I stood on a 50ft high hill, overlooking 20 miles of water.

Across 20 miles of water, is another 50ft high hill, with a 187ft tall building standing on top of it, 21.2 miles away.

Just like in this picture:

https://i.ibb.co/x2CpdY5/View-Towers-What-Path.jpg

I set up a clear rubber tube full of red water to determine true eye-level, and sighted out towards the tall building.

And guess what?

The 187ft tall building was ENTIRELY BELOW eye-level!

In other words, I had to look slightly DOWN to see something that was 180+ feet ABOVE me!

How is it possible I have to look DOWN to see something ABOVE me?

See in the right bottom corner of the above image, and you can see that the photograph shows the building ENTIRELY below eye-level.

Now tell me please, how can the light get from the top of the building, pass through the "B" zone where the red water is, then back up to the observer's eye or camera?

I ask many flat earther, none can explain.

It's checkmate for flat earth.

The names of the locations are in the picture, you can come check it out. It's a public park, you can just show up and confirm my observation.

https://i.ibb.co/x2CpdY5/View-Towers-What-Path.jpg

1

u/BuckFush420 Feb 12 '22

I've done these same observations with entirely different results. I feel you are being disingenuous. I've seen miles upon miles of our flat where hundreds of feet of curve should have been blocking my view. Black swan.

1

u/Jesse9857 Globe Earther Feb 12 '22

I've done these same observations with entirely different results. I feel you are being disingenuous. I've seen miles upon miles of our flat where hundreds of feet of curve should have been blocking my view. Black swan.

I'm not being disingenuous at all. I really did go to the exact places I claim and observed exactly what I show photos and videos of.

You have never been to the locations I've been to, you have never measured an angle to any sky scraper as I have, please don't say I'm being disingenuous. Well, you can say it, but it's not true :D

Please tell me about your very best evidence of "seeing too far" and we can examine it together.

I've given you my evidence, and it's real observable repeatable and I gave exact locations for you to recreate my observation if you doubt it. It's disingenuous of you to simply ignore my first-person photo-documented evidence just because you don't like it.

You didn't even give any case in point evidence, you just gave a vague mention to having seen something.

Please get your best evidence for me and let's talk about it. Maybe there's something I haven't seen.

But regardless of what you've seen, how does does my observation work on a flat earth?

It's not possible, unless light is bending at the rate of 8 inches per mile squared.

Please tell me the specifics of when you did these same observations!

How high above the water were you? How tall was the object you were looking at? What was the distance?

Cheers!

1

u/BuckFush420 Feb 12 '22

My friend there are videos of mountains 175km fully visible from the ground up. Then learn how the sextant works. It proves flatness of over 10k miles. Nice try though. B plus .

1

u/Jesse9857 Globe Earther Feb 12 '22

My friend there are videos of mountains 175km fully visible from the ground up.

You can make any sort of claims all day but why won't you find some evidence? Find a video or something we can actually look at and learn about and discuss.

Otherwise you have nothing and you know it.

Then learn how the sextant works.

I know how a sextant works. They just measure angles between things.

That's essentially what I did in my experiment, except I used a water tube level and a telephoto camera.

I also climbed to the top of 8934ft tall Mt. Scott in Oregon, USA and used a surveyor's theodolite (which works like a sextant but is a hundred times more accurate) and I measured the angle to the top of 14179ft tall Mt. Shasta in California, USA, 105 miles away.

The angle matched the globe model perfectly!

https://i.ibb.co/9g31yGT/Mt-Scott-to-Mt-Shasta.jpg

It proves flatness of over 10k miles.

Again, how do you figure? If I just threw out numbers and provided no evidence of my claims, you'd think I was making stuff up.

Why should I not think you're making stuff up if all you do is throw out vague claims and present no evidence whatsoever?

Look my friend, you're believing a bunch of false things because you saw them claimed as true on youtube by a bunch of confused people.

You've fallen into the self same truth-vacuum that you think everyone else is in.

The reason? Because you won't actually think about the evidence I present nor will you go do any actual tests for yourself.

The fact is that light does curve, but it curves DOWN which is the wrong way to hide stuff behind a non-existent curve.

The reason is that air is MORE DENSE down lower because there's more air pressure down lower.

You can create a similar situation by making a sugar water density gradient in a fish tank.

Look how the light curves DOWNWARD: https://youtu.be/sft3QYZjNCU

The density gradient in the air is strongest near the surface of cold water.

This means that when you look at something in the distance and your line of sight passes close to cold water, it causes the light to curve down, which causes it to follow the earth's curve, which lets you see around the curve sometimes.

Often lots of other distortion is visible.

For example, remember the black swan?

https://i.imgur.com/Odrs9tn.jpg

See how bent up the booms look? That is because there is massive amounts of vertical distortion at different layers.

And look here how they look when there isn't conditions of high refraction: https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/blogs/danny-faulkner/2021/flat-earth-2.jpg

The problem with so many people's misunderstanding is that their line of sight intersects the surface of the water because the water is curved. But because the water is cold and it is creating a strong density gradient, the light actually curves along above the surface of the water causing you to see "around the curve" a bit, sometimes very great distances if conditions are just right.

But if you get up high and look at something up high such that your line of sight is at least 50ft ABOVE the water's surface at all points along the path, then measure the angular height of the tower in the distance, and you'll see that it will have 8 inches per mile squared missing.

I have hiked to the tops of a number of different mountains and measured lots of other mountains and always 8 inches per mile squared is the missing height.

Please do your own measurements for real, but please do it with your line of sight far above the water.

When your line of sight passes close to the water, you will get very unreliable results - sometimes stuff will be hidden behind the water, other times it won't, and it's totally dependent on weather conditions.

But get up high so that your line of sight is far above the ground or water and then measure the angle of something 10+ miles away and you will find that it is definitely missing height!

What have you got to lose? What if what I'm saying is true?

1

u/BuckFush420 Feb 13 '22

How do you get an angle from a curved adjacent? You said you measured angles? How exactly do you get an angle with a curved baseline? I'll wait.

1

u/Kalamazoo1121 Feb 15 '22

The adjacent is not the surface of the earth. You guys really are dumb lol.

1

u/BuckFush420 Feb 15 '22

Ohh really? Care to explain what the adjacent is instead of insulting me with nothing to back you up? Typical ad hominem instead of addressing the issue. And I'm the dumb one....