The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[JudgeRightly]

Thanks for a good reply.

I've been working on understanding the degree of angle.

I went to the arctan calculator as you pointed out.

6 feet (viewing height) divided by 15838 feet (distance to horizon) = 0.00037883571

I went to another calculator to enter the input value and get the result in radian and degree.

0.00037883571 = 0.0217 degrees

So why does the Metabunk site say the Horizon Dip = 0.043 degrees and not 0.0217?

The surface on earth (flat or curved) is not said to actually gradually rise but only appears to do so to our eye level because of perspective. I totally agree that if the angle of declination is only .02 degrees over 3 miles then no one can really notice that. A 1.5 foot drop is also not noticeable as the author of the video states.

In my next post I'll focus on "scale". I'll use the Metabunk site as the basis for my graph. If I have the figures and angles correct my graph to scale will be very interesting.

--Dave

See this post:

I know that the drop is six feet at three miles but I dispute the .04° figure because a right triangle with one side being 72 inches and the long side opposite the hypotenuse being 15800 feet yields and angle opposite the 72 inch side of .0261° not .04°.

As for the bulge, it is only relevant past the horizon and only then if you are trying to calculate how much of the object is hidden below the horizon.


Yes, that sounds correct.


I agree.


Quite so. You can see ships disappear behind the horizon. Under normal conditions the ship (or land mass or whatever) is seen to drop behind the horizon in a manner that is completely consistent with what one would intuitively expect. The object is hidden from the bottom up just as if it were going over a hill and disappearing down the opposite side. The times when this perception is altered is when there is some atmospheric effect on the path of the light on it's way to your eyes, which we've already discussed at length.

The important point here is that, because the Earth is so large, the small section of it that we can see with our eyes (a circle with a three mile radius) is practically flat and the horizon drop is too small at that distance to detect by the normal person under normal circumstances.

Just to give you an idea of how small something is that has an angular size of .04° (again using the larger figure for argument's sake), a tennis ball at 298 feet, (99.3 yards) away would have an angular size of .04°. A 1/4 inch ball bearing held at arm's length (3 feet away) is just over ten times that angular size!

Incidentally, if we use the real number, which is .0261° the tennis ball would need to be 548 feet (182.6 yards) away and the 1/4 inch ball bearing at three feet away would have an angular size 15 times that of the horizon drop.

Clete

P.S. I wanted to mention that my last post could have actually added to the confusion because I stated that the website was flipping the triangle over, which is not the case. They have the triangle situated just fine, they just have the terms flipped. The hypotenuse, it seems to me, should not be the "distance" figure because the calculation to determine the drop is not based on the length of the hypotenuse but rather the side opposite the hypotenuse and thus it is that side that would rightly be referred to as the "distance". Again, it doesn't really matter so long as one keeps it straight in their head because the real pertinent figure for this particular discussion has to do with the angle the two line make, which is the same regardless of what you call them or which way the triangle is situated.

View attachment 26537

P.S.S. The angle calculation of .0261° is approximate. Before I was getting .0217° and now I'm getting .0261°. I'm sure I've changed the inputs somehow but the point is that it's really really tiny and about half of the .04° that the other site is reporting probably because they are failing to realize that the horizon drop would only be 1/2 of the angular size of an object at that distance. (see above image)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Is the moon flat, like a cookie on its edge? Is that why Pink Floyd liked the dark side of the moon?
What about the sun. Is the sun flat as a pancake? These are important theological questions so I'm hoping y'all can help a brother out. [emoji281][emoji275][emoji274]

I don't think flat earthers has given a definitive answer on the shape of the sun or moon or what they are made of and what keeps them levitated in the sky and circling around us. I'm guessing they believe both the sun and moon to be spherical but dramatically smaller than we think of them to be and only about 3,000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Dave feel free to correct me if I am wrong about any of that.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am arguing on behalf of flat earth to see if it will hold up in a good debate.

In all honesty... how to do you think the theory is doing so far?

 

[DFT_Dave]

See this post:

But can you tell me why the Metabunk site says the Horizon Dip = 0.043 degrees and not 0.0217?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I don't think flat earthers has given a definitive answer on the shape of the sun or moon or what they are made of and what keeps them levitated in the sky and circling around us. I'm guessing they believe both the sun and moon to be spherical but dramatically smaller than we think of them to be and only about 3,000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Dave feel free to correct me if I am wrong about any of that.

I go over hours and hours of video on flat earth and there is not as yet a consensus that I can find on the exact size, shape, and distance from earth for the sun, moon, and stars.

Flat earth follows Tesla's electromagnetic universe and rejects Einstein's gravitational wave universe. The main belief is that electromagnetism holds everything up, holds everything together, keeps everything on in its path, and in motion, not gravity.

And everything is moving at the top of the dome.

View attachment 26538

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Those who believe in a spinning globe simply can't take these verses literally. The grammar is clear and the scripture throughout says the sun moves across the sky. God made the sun and moon stand still not the earth.

The Sun and Moon appear to move across the sky because the Earth is spinning. If you want to cause the Sun and Moon to stand still in the sky (there's be no point in making them stand still in any other context), the way to do that is to stop the Earth from spinning on it's axis. If you're writing a book about the event with an audience who knows nothing about the realities of the Solar system then it wouldn't make any sense to say you stopped the Earth from spinning nor would it contradict what you did to say that you made the Sun and Moon stand still because that's precisely what you did do. It is not necessary to add the phrase "in the sky" for the statement that you made the Sun and Moon stand still to be perfectly well understood and accurate.

Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

This verse describes a "circular" flat earth covered by a "tent" like dome that God sits above.

There is a different word in Hebrew for ball than the one used for circle in Isaiah.

Isaiah 22:17 Behold, the LORD is about to hurl you headlong, O man. And He is about to grasp you firmly 18 And roll you tightly like a ball, To be cast into a vast country;

--Dave

Spheres are circular, David. There is no contradiction.

THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH THAT THE EARTH IS A FLAT CIRCULAR DISK!!!

The Earth is not a flat circular disk, as has been PROVEN over and over and over again on this thread alone and in a million other ways. If the Bible taught that it was a flat circular disk then the Bible would be false.

That's it! No more! I'll flatly ignore any more discussion about flat Earth bible verses. It is beneath me.

Clete

 

[MennoSota]

I go over hours and hours of video on flat earth and there is not as yet a consensus that I can find on the exact size, shape, and distance from earth for the sun, moon, and stars.

Flat earth follows Tesla's electromagnetic universe and rejects Einstein's gravitational wave universe. The main belief is that electromagnetism holds everything up, holds everything together, keeps everything on in its path, and in motion, not gravity.

And everything is moving at the top of the dome.

View attachment 26538

--Dave

So what happens when Russia sets off an EMT bomb? Will everything fall in an everlasting drop or will we eventually hit the bottom of the universe?

 

[Clete]

But can you tell me why the Metabunk site says the Horizon Dip = 0.043 degrees and not 0.0217?

--Dave

I mentioned the likely answer to this already. To know for certain, you'd have to look at the code and see the actual formula they are using but I think it likely that they are using the wrong formula. I think they are using the formula for angular size rather than the formula for calculating the angles in a right triangle. They are very similar formulas and it would be an easy mistake to make.

Take a look at the following diagram...

View attachment 26539

When calculating the angular size of an object of a known size and distance, you draw a right triangle with one side going from the observer to center of the object and the hypotenuse going from the observer to the edge of the object. You then calculate the angle those to lines make and then double it. You end up with two back to back right triangles as seen in the diagram.

But for the horizon drop all you're interested in is the bottom triangle. You do the exact same calculation except that you do not double it.

I've confirmed it a couple of different ways now. Calculating to 9 decimal places, the correct figure for a six foot drop in the horizon is 0.0217029457°

(If you multiply that number by two you'll get their .043 number)

Another way to calculate the same thing is to calculate what the angular size would be of an object that was 6 foot in size (i.e. height, width, diameter or whatever) at a distance of three miles. It's essentially the same calculation just done a different way.

I should also say that depending on what that site is actually intending to calculate, they may be using the right formula and are simply answering a question other than what we are asking. You have to be able to picture the triangles you're making in your head to make sure which formula you ought to be using.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

But can you tell me why the Metabunk site says the Horizon Dip = 0.043 degrees and not 0.0217?

--Dave

Because of what Clete said. View the image he posted Dave, and read his explanation.

I know that the drop is six feet at three miles but I dispute the .04° figure because a right triangle with one side being 72 inches and the long side opposite the hypotenuse being 15800 feet yields and angle opposite the 72 inch side of .0261° not .04°.

As for the bulge, it is only relevant past the horizon and only then if you are trying to calculate how much of the object is hidden below the horizon.


Yes, that sounds correct.


I agree.


Quite so. You can see ships disappear behind the horizon. Under normal conditions the ship (or land mass or whatever) is seen to drop behind the horizon in a manner that is completely consistent with what one would intuitively expect. The object is hidden from the bottom up just as if it were going over a hill and disappearing down the opposite side. The times when this perception is altered is when there is some atmospheric effect on the path of the light on it's way to your eyes, which we've already discussed at length.

The important point here is that, because the Earth is so large, the small section of it that we can see with our eyes (a circle with a three mile radius) is practically flat and the horizon drop is too small at that distance to detect by the normal person under normal circumstances.

Just to give you an idea of how small something is that has an angular size of .04° (again using the larger figure for argument's sake), a tennis ball at 298 feet, (99.3 yards) away would have an angular size of .04°. A 1/4 inch ball bearing held at arm's length (3 feet away) is just over ten times that angular size!

Incidentally, if we use the real number, which is .0261° the tennis ball would need to be 548 feet (182.6 yards) away and the 1/4 inch ball bearing at three feet away would have an angular size 15 times that of the horizon drop.

Clete

P.S. I wanted to mention that my last post could have actually added to the confusion because I stated that the website was flipping the triangle over, which is not the case. They have the triangle situated just fine, they just have the terms flipped. The hypotenuse, it seems to me, should not be the "distance" figure because the calculation to determine the drop is not based on the length of the hypotenuse but rather the side opposite the hypotenuse and thus it is that side that would rightly be referred to as the "distance". Again, it doesn't really matter so long as one keeps it straight in their head because the real pertinent figure for this particular discussion has to do with the angle the two line make, which is the same regardless of what you call them or which way the triangle is situated.

View attachment 26537

P.S.S. The angle calculation of .0261° is approximate. Before I was getting .0217° and now I'm getting .0261°. I'm sure I've changed the inputs somehow but the point is that it's really really tiny and about half of the .04° that the other site is reporting probably because they are failing to realize that the horizon drop would only be 1/2 of the angular size of an object at that distance. (see above image)

 

[DFT_Dave]

In all honesty... how to do you think the theory is doing so far?

Flat earth is still gaining in popular appeal.

The initial lift off of this modern presentation of our most ancient cosmology was due to youtube and to the Nikon P900 83X camera in 2015. The quality of the video's were excellent and Mark Sargent started vlogging a weekly live show.

Everyone one was amazed at how far we could now see across the plane through the most powerful handheld affordable and easy to use camera ever made. Things we were not supposed to see beyond a curved earth were now visible and stars were seen in a whole new light.

The Empire struck back to debunk flat earth. And now the flat earthers are countering with more in depth research and even better presentations to answer the criticism.

Will flat earth fall flat? Not soon, that's for sure. FE commandos are now well equipped with the latest video creation and editing programs and the new Nikon P1000 125X (Fedi lightsaber) is on the way. This cosmological internet war is high tech and yet old school--David vs Goliath.

But seriously, FE's future depends on if it can counter GE's latest offensive to debunk it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I mentioned the likely answer to this already. To know for certain, you'd have to look at the code and see the actual formula they are using but I think it likely that they are using the wrong formula. I think they are using the formula for angular size rather than the formula for calculating the angles in a right triangle. They are very similar formulas and it would be an easy mistake to make.

Take a look at the following diagram...

View attachment 26539

When calculating the angular size of an object of a known size and distance, you draw a right triangle with one side going from the observer to center of the object and the hypotenuse going from the observer to the edge of the object. You then calculate the angle those to lines make and then double it. You end up with two back to back right triangles as seen in the diagram.

But for the horizon drop all you're interested in is the bottom triangle. You do the exact same calculation except that you do not double it.

I've confirmed it a couple of different ways now. Calculating to 9 decimal places, the correct figure for a six foot drop in the horizon is 0.0217029457°

(If you multiply that number by two you'll get their .043 number)

Another way to calculate the same thing is to calculate what the angular size would be of an object that was 6 foot in size (i.e. height, width, diameter or whatever) at a distance of three miles. It's essentially the same calculation just done a different way.

I should also say that depending on what that site is actually intending to calculate, they may be using the right formula and are simply answering a question other than what we are asking. You have to be able to picture the triangles you're making in your head to make sure which formula you ought to be using.

Clete

Thanks, I'm enjoying the study of triangulation.

The pic you placed did not show up, could you link it to the website you found it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Because of what Clete said. View the image he posted Dave, and read his explanation.

I know what Clete did to get .02, but I don't know what Metabunk did to arrive at .04.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Thanks, I'm enjoying the study of triangulation.

The pic you placed did not show up, could you link it to the website you found it.

--Dave

View attachment 26540

I reconfigured the image. Hopefully that one works. If not, here's the site...

Angular Size Calculator

An interesting thing for you to do at that site would be to find out the angular size of the Earth relative to an observer 6 feet away and then from 40,000 ft and see how small the difference is.

The Earth is 41804000 feet in diameter. Plug that number in and then see how far away from the Earth you have to get to have a easily noticeable decrease in it's angular size (which would be caused by horizon drop - by the way.)

183000 ft (36.6 miles) yields a 1° change in the angular size of the Earth.

1340000 ft (the average attitude of the International Space Station) yields an angular size of 172.66°

 

[oatmeal]

The earth is not flat.

It has hills and valleys and mountains.

There is no place on earth that is flat.

There bumps and holes everywhere

 

[Clete]

The earth is not flat.

It has hills and valleys and mountains.

There is no place on earth that is flat.

There bumps and holes everywhere

That's a pretty smooth argument you're making!



See what I did there?!

 

[DFT_Dave]

The earth is not flat.

It has hills and valleys and mountains.

There is no place on earth that is flat.

There bumps and holes everywhere

I'm sure you know the flat earth model does not mean there are no mountains or valleys etc.

I see your from Wisconsin. I'm from Superior.

I lived by Lake Superior, that huge flat body of water, since water seeks its own level.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

I'm sure you know the flat earth model does not mean there are no mountains or valleys etc.

I see your from Wisconsin. I'm from Superior.

I lived by Lake Superior, that huge flat body of water, since water seeks its own level.

--Dave

"Flat" based upon your misconception of reality.

Did you not see that video that showed that a large lake was NOT flat based on empirical evidence?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Flat earth is still gaining in popular appeal.

The initial lift off of this modern presentation of our most ancient cosmology was due to youtube and to the Nikon P900 83X camera in 2015. The quality of the video's were excellent and Mark Sargent started vlogging a weekly live show.

Everyone one was amazed at how far we could now see across the plane through the most powerful handheld affordable and easy to use camera ever made. Things we were not supposed to see beyond a curved earth were now visible and stars were seen in a whole new light.

The Empire struck back to debunk flat earth. And now the flat earthers are countering with more in depth research and even better presentations to answer the criticism.

Will flat earth fall flat? Not soon, that's for sure. FE commandos are now well equipped with the latest video creation and editing programs and the new Nikon P1000 125X (Fedi lightsaber) is on the way. This cosmological internet war is high tech and yet old school--David vs Goliath.

But seriously, FE's future depends on if it can counter GE's latest offensive to debunk it.

--Dave

Maybe you should just settle the debate once and for all... well at least for yourself...

 

[Right Divider]

Maybe you should just settle the debate once and for all... well at least for yourself...

Does it seem like Dave wants us to watch videos, but does not watch our videos?

If he had watched videos, we would have seen that a LEVEL LASER struck a boat on large lake HIGHER and HIGHER the FARTHER the boat was from the laser.

P.S. I've been gone a while, did Dave ever address the FE map of Australia being TOO BIG?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'm putting up a graph across my wall. It's going to be about 8 feet long and it will show the elevation to distance for a 35000 foot commercial flight and a 100000 foot balloon to the horizon and to scale. I found a very good video for the high altitude balloon, Starduster.

I'll take pictures with my iphone and post it to see what you all think of it.

This will take just a little while to finish. It won't be fancy but I want it to be accurate.

--Dave