North - South

[cikljamas]

Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?

A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

The rate of descent of two bodies at different altitudes is more constant because it take a lot longer for a high altitude body to reach the horizon than it does for a low altitude body. The higher a body is, the broader its perspective lines, the longer and more constantly it will appear to approach the horizon to the observer.

[cikljamas]

Those buildings that you can plainly see are supposed to be under hundreds of feet of water.

Horizon line and Eye level

Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.

You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level. It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.

The horizon does not drop as you ascend in height. The horizon line remains stationary with the eye as new and distant lands come into view.

(From Chapter 5 from the Perspective Drawing Handbook)

**********************************

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read:

AERONAUTICS.

If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us,
the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as
the highest part of the "surface of the globe" would be
directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall
away or "dip" down in every direction. The universal
testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the
globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The
London Journal 18th July, 1857, says: --

"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a con-
siderable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained
practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two
miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead
of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the
horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."

[aljhoa]

All my posts and the above picture prove that the Earth is a "sphere"
So what is your point?

JEBIGA, promaklo!

A šta reći? Koju posluku porati?

I will translate it later...

Al

[cikljamas]

My point is that you obviously do not read my posts or/and do not understand plain english or/and who knows what else...

Translation:

What to say...waste of time...what to say...

What to say...waste of time...what to say II

[aljhoa]

My point is that you obviously do not read my posts or/and do not understand plain english or/and who knows what else...

@cikljamas using the above picture, your ingenuity and math prove that the body of water is not a "sphere". Also stop using vulgar words leading to nowhere.

Al

[cikljamas]

@cikljamas using the above picture, your ingenuity and math prove that the body of water is not a "sphere". Also stop using vulgar words leading to nowhere.

Al

1. What vulgar words?

2. You should not have mentioned words "math" and "prove" because now you are gonna get some real math and proofs.

First of all you have to read this:



Now watch carefully (ALMOST IDENTICAL (regarding our problematic picture) SITUATION IS DESCRIBED HERE):



How mr Rowbotham had yielded these numbers (key number is 1472 ft)?

Well, my calculation gives a little bit different result (irrelevantly but anyway let see how it goes):

47 miles distance (in our picture we have 46 miles distance from those buildings to cameraman, it's almost the same distance, interesting isn't it?) raised to the second power gives 2209 * 8 = 17672 inches * 2,54 = 44,886 cm = 0,44 km = 1452 ft. (Mr Rowbotham says 1472 ft, irrelevantly as i said) edit: 886 cm makes the difference... - irrelevantly as i sad
Now let see again our picture:



Let's make the same calculation as above:

46 miles raised to the second power gives 2116 * 8 = 16928 inches * 2,54 = 42997 cm = 0,43 km = 1419 ft.

So, between our photographer and our buildings we have 430 m high hill of water (according you rotund guys) , am i right?

The tallest building (second from left) is Willis Tower 1451 ft (442 m) high, and the building number 10 from the left is John Hancock Center 1127 ft (344 m) tall skyscraper.

Conclusion: We could barely see (if the earth were a globe) the top of the Willis Tower (former name Sears Tower) but we could not see the top of the John Hancock center which would be 86 meters below the horizon.

Not to mention those other buildings - lilliputian dwarfs comparing with these two giant buildings - that we can plainly see too...

If you would like to ask "why don't we see entire building figures" than you have to remember this : http://www.energeticforum.com/255927-post20.html ... and bare in mind this too:

If it is argued that "there are times when the surface of the sea is perfectly calm, and that at such times at least, if the earth is a plane, the telescope ought to restore the hull of a ship, irrespective of distance, providing its power is great enough to magnify it," the reply is that practical experiments have proved that during what is called a "dead calm," the undulations or waves in the water amount to more than 20 inches, as will be seen from the following extracts:--



Cheers!

[aljhoa]

Let's make the same calculation as above:

46 miles raised to the second power gives 2116 * 8 = 16928 inches * 2,54 = 42997 cm = 0,43 km = 1419 ft.

So, between our photographer and our buildings we have 430 m high hill of water (according you rotund guys) , am i right?

So what is the column water height on the flat Earth?


Al

[cikljamas]

So what is the column water height on the flat Earth?


Al

Just read my posts (and everything that i link too), all informations are already there, they are waiting for you...

Al, we have another lesson for you: USS New Jersey guns firing Many interesting things in this video:

1. How far these bullets flew?

2. How high were those water blows induced by bullet's explosion?

3. How flat (even concave) is horizon in this video?

[cikljamas]

Just read my posts (and everything that i link too), all informations are already there, they are waiting for you...

Al, we have another lesson for you: USS New Jersey guns firing Many interesting things in this video:

1. How far these bullets flew?

2. How high were those water blows induced by bullet's explosion?

3. How flat (even concave) is horizon in this video?

Answers:

1. New Jersey's main battery consisted of nine 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns in three triple turrets, which could fire 2,700-pound (1,225 kg) armor-piercing shells some 23 miles (37 km).

2. Let's compare it with this:


Now see this: kamikazee water splash ww2

So, the most generous proposition of the water splashes height caused by New Jersey's 2,700 pound armor piercing shells explosion would be the top of the highest Iowa's mast (50 m above water line), but we could be even much more generous than that according to next calculation:

23 miles raised to second power gives 529 * 8 = 4232 * 2,54 = 10749 cm = 107,49 m

Conclusion: Water splashes that we can distinctly see (their entire figure) could not be seen (on rotund Earth) because they would be more than 50 m (107,49 - 50 m) below the horizon!

Since we watch it from the New Jersey's deck which height is probably about 11 m above water line, our horizon line allow us to see further but not so much further to reduce enough negative perspective effect induced by the obstacle of 107 m high water hill...

3. Very flat!

Case closed!

Cheers!

[aljhoa]

@cikljamas you keep ignoring my questions and there are no adverse consequences for answers,
the above table and equations in the below link my help providing them.
Horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What would you see if a rigid floating hoop is placed on a ball and ocean at the "horizon"?


Al

[cikljamas]

What would you see if a rigid floating hoop is placed on a ball and ocean at the "horizon"?

Al[/SIZE]

Thanks Al for confirming my theory!

So, first quote provided by your link says:

For an observer standing on the ground with h = 2 metres (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).

It is in accordance with this:



Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 1

Second quote provided by your link states:

For an observer standing on a hill or tower of 100 metres (330 ft) in height, the horizon is at a distance of 36 kilometres (22 mi).

Since we have in above quote (concerning milage (36 km)) almost exact concordance with our example described (and calculated (distances and perspective) using mr. Rowbotham's formula) in my last post ("New Jersey - Iowa" example (37 km - 23 miles)) we have to conclude that according above quote we could see 37 km - 23 miles remote water splashes only if we would stand on the hypothetic (not existing) New Jersey's deck which would have to be 100 meters high MINIMUM!!!

But in reality standing on the New Jersey's deck just 10-15 meters above water line we are able to see 37 km remote water splashes!!!

Now, you have to explain away how is this possible if we live on a Globe! And you have to explain away seeing Polaris from the tropic of capricorn and billion other similar examples which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the surface of the Earth is flat, not rotund!

Sorry for avoiding to answer your question again, but if you clarified it maybe i could answer it next time (after clarification)...

Cheers!

[Uncle Charlie]

Mind boggling. Have you got any good links showing satellite theory as it pertains to a motionless earth? One can plainly see the arc of the orbiting television satellites by following it with a 2.5 meter C-Band dish antenna and going from one satellite to another. You can see the signal degrade as you move even a minute amount along the arc in any direction. Also, what keeps these satellites in orbit using this model? I am trying to wrap my mind around this concept but it is hard to break old concepts even for the sake of argument.

[aljhoa]

Thanks Al for confirming my theory!

I did not!

And you have to explain away seeing Polaris from the tropic of capricorn

Polaris is not visible about 1+23.5degrees below the "edge" of the NH where the "son" points North (bin there done that).



fanaticism (fəˈnætɪˌsɪzəm)
1. wildly excessive or irrational devotion, dedication, or enthusiasm
fanaticism - definition of fanaticism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Hail Columbia! with Lyrics; First American National Anthem - United States of America - YouTube

Are the following photos taken from the one sided Earth?




Star trails create arches over the horizon in a long-exposure picture of the night sky taken from Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania.
Space Photos This Week: Gravity Waves, Chicken Nebula





These star trails are centered on the celestial north pole. They were recorded in a time-lapse photograph over the course of about eight hours.
Open Course : Astronomy : Introduction : Lecture 2 : North Pole Star Trails Photo



Milky Way Panorama Poster


Al

[cikljamas]

Next argument shown in this photo kills both: the sanity of heliocentism and the sanity of geocentrism which does not include flat earth hypothesis:



Let's make it more plausible by making this simple calculation:

150 000 000 millions km : 3200 km (distance from equator to north pole) = 46875...

Now, all you have to do is to imagine that the source of the heat is 46. 875 km which is 29mi 223.12yd remote from you and you enjoy benefits of summer season, and guy who is placed just 1 m behind you is freezing?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

Who is crazy here?

[cikljamas]

I deleted by accident my previous post, but i have copies of all my posts, so we are going to resurrect my post:

Originally Posted by Uncle Charlie
Mind boggling. Have you got any good links showing satellite theory as it pertains to a motionless earth? One can plainly see the arc of the orbiting television satellites by following it with a 2.5 meter C-Band dish antenna and going from one satellite to another. You can see the signal degrade as you move even a minute amount along the arc in any direction. Also, what keeps these satellites in orbit using this model? I am trying to wrap my mind around this concept but it is hard to break old concepts even for the sake of argument.

Mind boggling indeed! But, who is responsible for that? That is the right question we have to answer! And my whole thread is the answer to that particular question! What keeps these satellites in orbit? Isn't that practically the same question as this one: "how the earth is circumnavigated" (on a flat surface of the Earth)?

This is how:

In the following diagram, fig. 86, let N, represent the. northern centre, near to which lies the "magnetic pole." Then



the several arrows marked A, S, are all pointing northwards; and those marked E, W, are all due east and west. It is evident from the diagram, that A, S, are absolute directions--north and south; but that E, W, east and west, are only relative, that is they are directions at right angles to north and south. If it were not so then, taking the line N, A, S, as representing the meridian of Greenwich, and W, E, on that meridian as due east and west, on moving due west to the meridian 3, 4, N, it is evident that a vessel represented by the arrow 1, 2, would be at angle with the meridian 3, 4, N, much greater than 90 degrees, and if it continued to sail in the same straight line 2, 1, 5, it would get farther and farther away from the centre N, and therefore could never complete a path concentric with N. East and west, however, are directions relative to north and south. Hence, on a mariner arriving at the meridian 3, 4, N, he must of necessity turn the head of his vessel in the direction indicated by the arrow 6, 7, and thus continuing to keep the vessel's head square to the compass, or at right angles to north and south, he will at length arrive at 90 degrees of meridian from N, A, S, when the head of the vessel will be in the direction of E, W, 8. Continuing his course for 90 degrees more his path will be E, W, 9. The same course continued will in the next 90 degrees become E, W, 10, and on passing over another 90 degrees the ship will have arrived again at the meridian of Greenwich N, A, S, having then completed a circle.

Originally Posted by aljhoa
I did not!

How come you still haven't seen this video of mine? The Earth is immobile 2 Didn't i tell you, you do not read what i write and quote, you do not watch valuable videos, and then you again and again pose same old (already answered 1000 times) questions?

Well, correct your misbehaviour and see above video of mine. In first half of this video i even read the text for you, for watching and reading text presented in the second half of my video turn on the full screen and enjoy the music!!!

Do not skip this time these two valuable posts (quotes) of mine (they perfectly suit to above video of mine and complement it too):

http://www.energeticforum.com/253284-post137.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/253578-post196.html

I highly recommend these marvelleous videos of my friend Rory Cooper too:

The earth is flat Polaris says so

The earth is flat the 4 seasons say so.

The earth is flat the horizon says so.

Next argument shown in this photo kills both: the sanity of heliocentism and the sanity of geocentrism which does not include flat earth hypothesis:



So, we done it... you just have to read this post before previous one...