T1B

Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:17 pm That is because you are an idiot.

Now that's science.

smackaholic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2019 9:59 pm

Kierland wrote:Then we are back to A squared plus B squared equals C squared.
How can I see across Lake Tahoe to the buildings on the other side that are below 450 feet?

Are you saying that according to the accepted earf being a sphere idea, that there is 450 feet worth of curve over that distance? That doesnt sound right.

What is the distance and what is the eye height of the observer?

If you are viewing something 29 miles away and your eyes are at 6 ft, 450 ft of what you are viewing would be hidden under the curvature of the earth.

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial

But this does not factor in refraction (depending on what the weather conditions are), and that would likely allow for less of the object you are viewing to be hidden.


I don't doubt that Moving Sale is rightfully perplexed by what he observes, because the bottom line here is that what we see time-and-again is that things are seen at distances they would not be seen at if the dimensions of the globe are correct.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:06 am

If you are viewing something 29 miles away and your eyes are at 6 ft, 450 ft of what you are viewing would be hidden under the curvature of the earth.

Correct...if the object in question is mathematically flat.
So at 450ft, the first 32nd or so of an inch would be obscured by curvature.

The exact number to answer your question would be 14.74 feet.

You would lose sight of the first 14.74 feet of a tall object at 22 miles, given the tan of 1844/52800=0.0349.

...please don't tell teacher I helped you with your math homework...I already have two frowny face stickers on the board...and three stickers equals one "yuck" sticker (the face with the tongue sticking out) and I won't be allowed hallway privileges...

Wat?

This is not correct? -----> https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial

Jayne wrote:2. You are anything but polite.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:27 am Wat?

This is not correct? -----> https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial

Sorry...yes that is correct...didn't factor in height of the observer... :(

Jayne wrote:The surface of all water is curved. Even a small lake’s surface follows the curvature of the Earth. We just don’t notice it in such a small body.

You are out to lunch.


As posted by me...

poptart wrote:If you are viewing something 29 miles away and your eyes are at 6 ft, 450 ft of what you are viewing would be hidden under the curvature of the earth.

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial

Not noticeable?

450 ft hidden?

rotf...

Jayne wrote:If it is a windless day and weather conditions are right, then the surface will appear flat.

It appears flat because it is flat.

See page 22 of the Fecore report.

https://fecore.org/final-results-fecore ... e-surface/

The "tides" (or water movement) were effectively a total non-issue.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:39 am

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:27 am Wat?

This is not correct? -----> https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial

Sorry...yes that is correct...didn't factor in height of the observer... :(

Stay in your lane Dudley.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:06 am and that would likely allow for less of the object you are viewing to be hidden.

Oh, dear.

Laughing over here, Boss.

Jaw-dropping.

Dinsdale wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:00 am

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:06 am and that (refraction) would likely allow for less of the object you are viewing to be hidden.

Oh, dear.

Laughing over here, Boss.

Jaw-dropping.

Why?


Atmospheric refraction will usually bend light to follow the curvature of the Earth to a point, and causes
objects to appear higher above the horizon than they physically are.

https://flatearth.ws/curvature-calculation


Is this wrong?

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:20 am

Is this wrong?

No.

Just merely overlooks the myriad other things that affect light.

Including the one you only marginally believe in (which is hilarious).

If you want to drop the equation for light refraction at the horizon I would be happy to look at it.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:21 am If you want to drop the equation for light refraction at the horizon I would be happy to look at it.

I'm sure there is one -- that is incalculable.

Don't be a Pop. The very idea that atmospheric conditions are even over several feet, much less may miles is laughable.

But surveyors use approximations every day. And they line up quite well with what Softhead refutes. Yet somehow, those construction projects seem to work.

There isn’t one. The only ones they have only work away from the horizon. If you would like to drop a survey that shows the curve please do so.

Dinsdale wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:10 am

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:20 am

Is this wrong?

No.

lol

Pretty much par for every fl@t earth discussion we've had.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:27 am

Pretty much par for every fl@t earth discussion we've had.

Yes, it is.

If it creates a shred of doubt in support of your monumental stupidity, it is the Holy Grail of (non) Science.

If it cast doubt on your unfathomable ignorance, it's ignored ('re a fucking clown.better yet -- "I'll look into this").

Because you're a fucking clown.

Dinsdale wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:33 amI'm sure there is one -- that is incalculable.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:42 am There isn’t one.

Thanks.

The only ones they have only work away from the horizon.

No, they don't. But much more reliable than those at the surface, where atmospheric conditions change by the foot.

Since you're slow... surveyors use approximations. I can help you with the big words, if you like. That's why the perform them frequently on large projects.

This is where Dunce decides to talk, and talk, and talk, and talk...

And produce nothing of substance.
lol



We've seen this movie.

Then go ahead and drop one for the horizon.
As for surveying go ahead and show me how they approximate the joining together of two bridge spans. That is nonsense.

MS wrote:As for surveying go ahead and show me how they approximate the joining together of two bridge spans. That is nonsense.

rotf...

Don't worry, MS.

Dunce will be on this...

MS wrote:As for surveying go ahead and show me how they approximate the joining together of two bridge spans. That is nonsense.

[/quote]

Because spans aren't that long. And an approximation will marry them, after measuring under many different atmospheric conditions, through the duration of the project.

But wait -- you're under the impression that a suspension bridge doesn't have a highly flexible deck? And you think the surveyors show up for a couple of days, years before the span and approaches are built, and walk away?

#Retard
#EvenDumberThanIThought

Over a mile is pretty fucking long to be approximating. I don’t think that word means what you think it means it sounds like you mean some kind of averaging. Yes I know they take many readings and they know exactly where the fuck they are. Or maybe they just got lucky when connecting up the Chunnel and it’s flexible deck you fucking moron. You must have missed that day in ditch digging school.

the mishna... can't stop laughing.



the truth