[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
3. Position of G, the horizon, the highest point of the sphere (apex) from the observer point of view. This is earth bulge, it is hard matter.
I really don't like this interpretation of "earth bulge obstructing your view" as I find the wording misleading. There is no "highest point of the sphere" relative to the observer. Or I guess the highest point would be the one he's standing on. In what way is point G the highest point in the diagram?
Image 5: total concealment of boat by horizon.Summary:1. Boat does not move.2. Refraction does not change.3. Observer height does not change.4. Horizon therefore moves forward as zoom is reduced.5. If horizon is a spherical object then it cannot move forward. Ball falsified.Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
All these images are taken at different magnifications while the guy is zooming in and out. I'm really not seeing what you're seeing here, much the same as I'm really not seeing buildings turning to dust in the WTC pictures. But anyway, pictures are not really my thing, I'm more interested in the calculations.
If it were possible to show what you're claiming this shows and falsify the ball model, I'm sure we'd have bulletproof evidence under controlled conditions, not some shaky home footage to rely on.
I really don't like this interpretation of "earth bulge obstructing your view" as I find the wording misleading. There is no "highest point of the sphere" relative to the observer. Or I guess the highest point would be the one he's standing on. In what way is point G the highest point in the diagram?
It is the highest point relative to observer and target. See attached. The bulging earth in between the 2. That is the thing that is said to conceal stuff like the bottom of buildings and what not.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Can someone else explain to me what this video is even supposed to be showing? I just see a guy zooming in and out on a boat, and Billy's explanations aren't helping.
It is the highest point relative to observer and target. See attached. The bulging earth in between the 2. That is the thing that is said to conceal stuff like the bottom of buildings and what not.Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, I guess I can see your point here, we can't see the bottom of the target because the circle is in the way.
So if the Earth is flat, can you walk through the (flat) planet's atmosphere when coming to the edge of the Earth? And meet the vacuum of space? What happens then, do you just get sucked out?
How you getting on with the flight time paper by the way, Billy? If you don't have any feedback on their calculations I'll have no choice but to believe them that it's impossible for the curvature of the earth to be 0.
All these images are taken at different magnifications while the guy is zooming in and out. I'm really not seeing what you're seeing here, inasmuch as I'm really not seeing buildings turning to dust in the WTC pictures. But anyway, pictures are not really my thing, I'm more interested in the calculations.If it were possible to show what you're claiming this shows and falsify th
Actually, can you draw me one of these circle diagrams with what the ball model tells us we should see with this boat fiasco and another showing what you claim the video shows (I assume that one won't be a circle). Hand drawn with your lovely green pen will be fine.
1. Boats disappearing hull first is the first globe proof told to kiddies. It was cited by Aristotle initially I think. It is not a flat v baller nerdfest thing.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
It's also something observed by sailors over many centuries. Ships' lookouts, even into the Second World War era, were always posted high up because that way you can see further round the curve of the Earth. If the visual limit were imposed only by aerial perspective (the thickness of the air obscuring the view), being a bit higher up wouldn't help, it would only increase the slant range to target and make the aerial-perspective problem worse.
What part of "I asked" and "if" are you not getting?
If the Earth is flat, then how come this doesn't happen with boats?
Christ, stop wasting oxygen on this troll!
How you getting on with the flight time paper by the way, Billy? If you don't have any feedback on their calculations I'll have no choice but to believe them that it's impossible for the curvature of the earth to be 0.
And we cannot possibly have that. Too much cognitive dissonance for you. I fear you may be disappointed - their dichotomy is between the azimuthal equidistant projection and the sphere it is derived from. If ever there was a pointless task it is theirs. If they inadvertently prove no curvature then ok but that is not their stated remit (laughably termed a hypothesis).
But then surely you have read it yourself yes?
I am on page 6 (I have other things to do). They are using polar coordinates, a logical choice given their comparison of sphere vs projected sphere.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
And we cannot possibly have that. Too much cognitive dissonance for you. I fear you may be disappointed - their dichotomy is between the azimuthal equidistant projection and the sphere it is derived from. If ever there was a pointless task it is theirs. If they inadvertently prove no curvature then ok but that is not their stated remit (laughably termed a hypothesis).But then s
