[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

According to ChatGPT, inclusive of refraction effects, someone standing 330ft above the ground should see the horizon at 24 miles. Your figure of 6.8in * miles^2 gives us almost bang on 24 miles, so I am happy to stipulate to it for normal atmospheric conditions.

I'd still find it much easier to follow if you used the exact formulas (and metric units) instead of these silly approximations. As it stands now, in order to verify what you're saying, I'd have to work out the exact value, your value, the error, and how the error varies with distance. If using approximations is supposed to make life easier, it's certainly not in this context.

Thousands of years ago some guy was able to determine the earth was round using just two sticks and the sun.

I wish he could see this…

Sounds like he was brainwashed by TV.

I was waiting for this one to be over so I could suggest doing that experiment over facetime or something. It would be trivial. And put it to rest permanently.

I feel like that's been tried here. If they are going to keep talking about flat Earth nonsense...I'm not going to participate in that. I just want to give my review of the book "The Looming Tower" and after that let this die.

I mean, apparently, no one wants to respond to the Epstein files revelations about 9/11 so what's the point of this? I was willing to participate when it was like the mob thought they were poking some small, defenseless creature with delusional thoughts on 9/11. And I was willing to participate because I've always known I'm on solid ground and so both sides thought they were winning. Now that a different picture of the world and of the ruling class is more visibly emergent to normies they are freaking out and trying to put their heads in the sand by bickering with a flat earther. It seems as though as much as I hypothesized about the psyche of the defenders of the official narrative, their psychological weakness is even more pronounced than I had imagined. They are just going to follow their leaders into the flat denial of what should be objective, shared reality. Like, yeah, the West is the pinnacle of virtue while it destroys a civilization for daring to resist Israel's ethnic cleansing project and, yeah, the references to fake pilots to Maxwell a week after 9/11 means nothing. At least I've learned a little about the limits of thought control - it is less bounded than I thought.

I don't know if the traffic is here to do a thread about political philosophy as it doesn't have the same potential to make fun of someone, especially now as the chains of capitalism are tightening around everyone and it becomes more obvious there is a deep problem with it. There is less conflict potential. People don't come here to bounce ideas of others and enlighten themselves in the process. This forum is more like the movie Dinner for Shmucks where a bunch of libs think they are the cool kids. And I've enjoyed being the Shmuck to them because I enjoy that kind of plot twist where it turns out everyone else were the shmucks. That is what is being revealed now. I don't think people are going to point and laugh at the commie or socialist like they would maybe just 20 years ago.

That said I would give it a shot.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/285/p...

Wrong. Eratosphenes measured the radius by assuming the Sun emits parallel rays, i.e. is big and far away, and that Earth has a centre for which an alternate angle can be produced. Without assuming the outcome, the measurement means nothing. Remember, the Indians "knew" the globe well before Egypt and Greece so why is this attributed to Greece.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Lol wot. There is no question the measurement works, nobody sane would deny such a measurement. But the measurement can be explained with a flat earth model also.

If only we had a sure fire way to prove this, say measuring the horizon and objects that should be concealed by earth curve... oh yeah we do have that.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

So you keep telling us. Now that we've all agreed how far away the horizon should be, isn't it time for the climax where you drop these horizon dip observations on our collective ass? Don't forget to account for observer and target height now.

You just said it was nearly exact.

The bigger issue is how to account for enough insane refraction that hand wave dismissal "refraction" is tenable.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I mean, the refraction effects are already pretty hand-wavy, you used 15%, various sources seem to quote numbers anywhere from 10% to about 18%. Presumably it depends on atmospheric conditions. You are within the range. I'd find it easier if we were just working with angles and sines/cosines.

I just meant that the way you are doing the calc I had to try and think quite hard whether the 15% figure translates to just taking 15% off the 8inch number (which it seems that it does) as we're squaring things etc. along the way. It'd be a bit easier and cleaner to follow along if we just had a general equation based on angles and sines/cosines on the unit circle, and then entering the parameters (earth radius, distance, observer height, % refraction effect etc.) when we wanted to do the actual calculation. This whole dip in inches per mile squared business kind of obscures things for me rather than clarifying them. Essentially it creates a function where if you wanted to plot it on the xy plane you're taking the inverse sine of the x co-ordinate, squaring that, then halving the result (and that's just for the unit circle, not taking actual earth radius into account). It's not a straightforward function to visualise or work with in your head.

The terrible website flatearth.ws is a source of much confusion for the sheeple. It is generally the first link in search engines.

This for instance. The green line is slightly curved to account for standard refraction. The predicted drop is both sides of this "tangent". So the 8 inches remains good.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I thought we agreed we were using 6.8 inches per mile squared?

Ever since the batteries in my ghetto-blaster died, I haven't listened to much urban music.

Worth noting it was a guy who figured it out. 😀

Yes.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Has billy ever explained why relative flight times among major world destinations are what they are if the world is not spherical? Is it just a big aviation conspiracy?

No, but he has told us that we can't trust pictures of Earth from space and astronauts' eyewitness accounts because the former are composites and the latter are "not reproducible". When I linked him to a section of the NASA site where they have been posting multiple non-composite pictures of a distinctly round looking Earth daily for the last 10 years, Billy identified that this was an irreconcilable discrepancy with horizon dip observations, which is how we ended up in this discussion.

I have never checked this. Perhaps you can show why a globe is necessary.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Knock yourself out.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/...

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?...

"Scientists" they claim.

Experiment report please.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Are you saying the flight logs and flight path is incorrect or are they making a mistake in taking that flight path?

I cited an academic paper. Download it and read it. What more do you want? Also, we do a natural experiment on this point 365 days a year by, you know, taking airplanes that have flight times that obviously are inconsistent with a flat earth.

This is third grade stuff. Use whatever map of a flat earth you believe is best. Plot the major cities of the world on that map. Look at the approximate distances between those cities according to your map. Then compare those distances to well-established flight times. Let us know how that works out. (And if you are using a map where the "North" pole is the center of the disk, pay special attention to Qantas's flight from Santiago to Sydney.)

The famous Qantas Flight 28, from Santiago to Sydney via coastal Antarctica, is in the air as we speak. It's been up for about 3 hours and covered 1,500 miles. It has about 5,500 miles and 11 hours to go. This wouldn't be possible on the flat-Earth model, not just because the time and distance would be far greater but because airliners can't refuel in flight, as they would have to do to make the required non-stop distance.