[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

No, "wording" means choice of words. "Spelling and grammar" means spelling and grammar.

Wow, you got all that from the abstract? Amazing. Let's just pretend that they didn't use such terribly incorrect terminology, review the paper and let us know what you think. I mean, you wouldn't want us to think that you were refusing to look at evidence refuting your theories for very tenuous made up reasons now, would you? That wouldn't be very scientific of you at all.

1. Yes. You could go to Primrose hill for instance.

2. It does not matter how far apart the parallel lines are. They converge to the same vanishing point on the horizon.

3. The horizon is not an object, there is no distance to it. It is the apparent line where the sky meets the surface. It depends on the resolving power of your eye/camera etc.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

So are you saying that if I had, say, a pair of binoculars, the horizon would be further away than just looking with the naked eye? So I would count more railroad ties with a pair of binoculars?

I think this is a pretty important point to focus on. You are saying that the magnification available to the observer can cause objects to come into view that are otherwise "beyond the horizon" with the naked eye. Correct?

The choice of words defining everything they say. Which is contradictory pseudo scientific trash.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Ok, so just to confirm, you are refusing to read the paper based on your objection to the wording of the abstract, so therefore you have no feedback at all on their methodology or calculations. Correct?

St Paul's is 3.2 miles from Primrose Hill as the crow flies, within our agreed horizon calculations. Why wouldn't you be able to see it?

Over and above that, St Paul's is 365ft high. Primrose Hill is 210ft high. How does this factor into your horizon drop calculations? It seems pretty obvious that the taller we are, the further away we can see (purely geometrically, hence we factor in observer height when calculating the drop), and by symmetry the taller the target is, the further away we can see it (if it can see us, we can see it - we are just drawing a straight line between two points). How does this factor into the drop per unit distance squared formula?

How does latitude and longitude work if the Earth is flat?

Here's some back of the envelope stuff.

We want to know how far away we can see a target that is 365ft high if we are 210ft high. R=earth radius.

We form a triangle. We know two of the sides, R+365 and R+210. We don't know the angle between them yet, call it A.

The shortest distance between a vertex of a triangle and the opposite side is the altitude dropped onto it. This distance cannot be less than R, otherwise we will no longer be able to see the target (i.e. the opposite side of the triangle will intersect the circle). Therefore we want to solve for angle A such that the altitude dropped onto the opposite side is exactly R.

A little bit of wrangling (I can provide a diagram if needed) gets us to A = arccos(R/(R+365)) + arccos(R/(R+210)). Substituting in the relevant value for R in feet, this gets us to an angle of 0.5954 degrees.

Multiplying back out by the radius, we see that this angle equates to a distance measured along the circumference of the Earth of 41.2 miles.

So, purely geometrically, if I am standing 210ft high I should be able to see a target 365ft high at a distance of about 41 miles or less, without any atmospheric refraction effects. St Paul's is 3.2 miles from Primrose Hill.

Let me know if I've gone wrong somewhere along the line here.

Now that the flight paths has completely debunked flat earth (lol) I hope we can move on to the Apollo progran or even covid vaccines. Conspiracy theorists are 0/2 so far (9/11 and flat earth clear losses). Let's see how they do on some more.

Please post a link to what you believe is the best map of the flat Earth. It's impossible to have a more specific discussion about flight times vs. map distances on a hypothetical flat Earth until you show us what you believe is an accurate map.

billy's not even trying anymore. He's just sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting, "nom, nom, nom, nom."

Correct.

billy,

On an unrelated note, what do you think accounts for the high levels of ignorance among PhD level physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, geologists, applied scientists, etc., about whether the Earth is spherical or disk-shaped?

Obviously if they want to keep their jobs they have to keep their mouths shut. Even a flat-earther can put money ahead of principle.

You're a typical conspiracy NUT: Bobbing, weaving, avoiding, dodging legit questions with irrelevancies.

I am probably by far your most likely potential 'convert' in this thread , but even I can see your intellectual dishonesty.

This task (which I'm almost certain he won't perform) would take him less than two minutes to locate and post here.

(I haven't scrolled ahead, so maybe this post is irrelevant already)

Sent from my tin-can with a string.

None of them even know what science is, dummy!

Why?

Another question. Do you believe that all or most stars and planets are disk-shaped, or is the Earth highly unusual (or perhaps unique) in this respect among celestial bodies in the observable universe? Is Earth the only disk-shaped planet in our solar system?

There are at least two well-known study Bibles that I own that claim that the Bible teaches flat-earth:

The Common Man's Reference Bible (edited my Pastor David Hoffman)

The Companion Bible (an oldie - published in 1922), by E. W. Bullinger

So, I'm open to the possiblity at least.

In cases where the Biblical decree is nonexistent or ambiguous, i would have hoped that you would outright reject interpretations that require a billy-level commitment to cosmological idiocy.

So far, at least, I have resisted Billy's cosmological 'idiocy.'

He certainly hasn't come close to making a case for flat-earthism.

For example, if there was a story in the Bible in which an angel told a man that "faith in God is the only sustenance that you need," and some nutter wrote a study Bible which argued that this line in the Bible proves that humans don't need to eat food in order to survive on Earth, you would reject that non-obligatory interpretation outright, if only because you are aware that millions of devout Christians have died in the last 2000 years because of starvation.

Correct.

If there is an apparent contradiction between Scripture and current Science, then either the current science (or my understanding of it) is wrong, or my interpretation of Scripture is wrong.