The Rod of God -- (!) Pages 33 and 34 (!)

[poptart]

3,459 mi Distance from New York, NY to London


6,056 km (3763 miles) Distance from Rio de Janeiro - State of Rio de Janeiro to Cape Town

[poptart]

Can one get a guide to take them across any continent, much less the one with no food and water?

Ask Scott.
He's the one claiming you can -----> go anywhere in Antarctica, with a guide.

Still incredible that he clings to this.

But whatever...

[poptart]

US Navy Submarine Chief (along with U.S. Navy Missile Instructor): What Curve?



US Navy Missile Instructor confirms FLAT EARTH -----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJOB0vcZ4NI

30 Year Land Surveyor: No curve ever measured -----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BSKVE9pp60



Happy listening!

[Smackie Chan]

'tart - I'm here to help, so let me see if I can clear things up for you. You are fond of using the Toronto skyline shot from 31 miles away as evidence that the earth isn't curved. The circumference of the Earth is 24,901 miles. Dividing the circumference by 31 results in 803.26. Let's round it to 800. That means the distance from the camera to the skyline is 1/800th of the Earth's circumference, or .45 degrees, meaning a circle 31 miles in circumference on the earth's surface curves .45 degrees from its center to the edge of the circle, which is imperceptible. Essentially, to the naked eye, it is flat; what you'd see within and at the edge of that circle is what you'd see if the Earth were flat; there would be no appreciable curvature beyond the horizon behind which tall buildings would disappear. The clip 88 posted with the Scot doing the math stated that the Earth's curvature can't be seen until one gets about 10 miles above the Earth, at which point the curvature is about 4 degrees, so at roughly 1/9th of that curvature, all will appear quite flat.

Let's look at it another way. Order the largest round pizza you can buy. If you cut that pizza into 8 equal slices, the curvature at the crust end of each slice will be 45 degrees, and you'll see each slice has a pointy end and a curved end. Now cut the pizza into 800 slices. Each sliver will now be so thin that it will appear to have two pointy ends; the curvature of the crust end will be negligible and imperceptible since it will now be .45 degrees rather than 45 degrees. If you separate the slices then put them back together the same way they were after cutting it, you'll end up with the round pizza you started with. But if you put it back together in such a way that the crust (curved) end of every other slice is inward instead of outward, what you'll end up with is a square, and you'll detect no noticeable curvature of each component (sliver) of the square. Each edge of the square will look perfectly straight, even if you were to enlarge the pizza from its original size to one with a circumference of 31 miles.

Basically, what you see in the photo of the Toronto skyline is exactly what one would expect to see, and should see, on a sphere the size of the Earth.

Light coming on yet?

Glad I could help.

[poptart]

Basically, what you see in the photo of the Toronto skyline is exactly what one would expect to see, and should see, on a sphere the size of the Earth.

Bongs for breakfast?




The earth curves at 8" over 1 mile - http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/databa ... dyck2.html
The drop is not constant (mile-after-mile) because the earth drops as a circle, not a line.
Described by Greg London, down this page a bit - https://www.quora.com/How-many-feet-per ... -you-stand

On this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon we see what was already posted by at least 3 of us here.

-- To compute the greatest distance at which an observer can see the top of an object above the horizon, compute the distance to the horizon for a hypothetical observer on top of that object, and add it to the real observer's distance to the horizon. For example, for an observer with a height of 1.70 m standing on the ground, the horizon is 4.65 km away. For a tower with a height of 100 m, the horizon distance is 35.7 km. Thus an observer on a beach can see the top of the tower as long as it is not more than 40.35 km away. --

Summary of that: If someone is 5"5 and they are viewing a tower in the distance that is 328 ft tall, it will finally disappear completely from view once they move 25 miles away from it.





CN tower is 1,800 ft tall.
The observatory level starts at 1,100 ft.
Notice the height of the surrounding buildings.

At :32 of wire boy's video you can see that he has his camera set no more than a few feet above water level.
He is 31 miles away.
There should be a drop of well over 500 feet.
http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

What we see in wire boy's video (and many OTHER such pictures and videos) CAN NOT be seen if the earth curves as we're told it does.

[poptart]

You have denied mathematic fact to tell us what feels right to you -- so now just for kicks, I'm curious...

Hypothetically speaking, assuming you had no obstruction at all between you and the CN Tower, how many miles do you imagine you would have to move away from the tower before it disappeared completely under the horizon?

[smackaholic]

'tart - I'm here to help, so let me see if I can clear things up for you. You are fond of using the Toronto skyline shot from 31 miles away as evidence that the earth isn't curved. The circumference of the Earth is 24,901 miles. Dividing the circumference by 31 results in 803.26. Let's round it to 800. That means the distance from the camera to the skyline is 1/800th of the Earth's circumference, or .45 degrees, meaning a circle 31 miles in circumference on the earth's surface curves .45 degrees from its center to the edge of the circle, which is imperceptible. Essentially, to the naked eye, it is flat; what you'd see within and at the edge of that circle is what you'd see if the Earth were flat; there would be no appreciable curvature beyond the horizon behind which tall buildings would disappear. The clip 88 posted with the Scot doing the math stated that the Earth's curvature can't be seen until one gets about 10 miles above the Earth, at which point the curvature is about 4 degrees, so at roughly 1/9th of that curvature, all will appear quite flat.

Let's look at it another way. Order the largest round pizza you can buy. If you cut that pizza into 8 equal slices, the curvature at the crust end of each slice will be 45 degrees, and you'll see each slice has a pointy end and a curved end. Now cut the pizza into 800 slices. Each sliver will now be so thin that it will appear to have two pointy ends; the curvature of the crust end will be negligible and imperceptible since it will now be .45 degrees rather than 45 degrees. If you separate the slices then put them back together the same way they were after cutting it, you'll end up with the round pizza you started with. But if you put it back together in such a way that the crust (curved) end of every other slice is inward instead of outward, what you'll end up with is a square, and you'll detect no noticeable curvature of each component (sliver) of the square. Each edge of the square will look perfectly straight, even if you were to enlarge the pizza from its original size to one with a circumference of 31 miles.

Basically, what you see in the photo of the Toronto skyline is exactly what one would expect to see, and should see, on a sphere the size of the Earth.

Light coming on yet?

Glad I could help.

I tried this explanation a few miles back, smackie. You are wasting your breaf....errrr keystrokes.

[Goober McTuber]

Mammy and shutyomouth made a baby? The horror.

Goobs infatuated with me? Commonplace.

If by "infatuated" you mean "horrified", well, yes.

[Smackie Chan]

You have denied mathematic fact

I actually provided mathematic fact, but let's forget that for now and get to your question, and more...

assuming you had no obstruction at all between you and the CN Tower, how many miles do you imagine you would have to move away from the tower before it disappeared completely under the horizon?

I won't imagine anything; I'll simply do the math, which shows that the top of an 1800' tower will be obscured by the horizon at a distance of 52.23 miles. From 31 miles away, the lower 634.25' of the tower will be obscured, meaning the top 2/3 of it will still be visible. This was computed using your boy Greg London's formula and correcting his error - a mile is 5,280', not 5,028'. Using the Pythagorean Theorem, the results are computed from ground level rather than eye level. Using the Earth curve calculator and plugging in an eye height of 5.75' (I'm 6' tall, so that's a fair approximation for me), the lower 525.2' of the building would be obscured from 31 miles away, and the top of the tower would be obscured by the horizon at a distance of 54.89 miles.

Anything else you wanna know?

[Jay in Phoenix]

Yes, is a Firmament really firm? Or can it be soft and cushiony, like a down-filled comforter?

If it is soft and comfy, it would make for a splendid filling for a padded room.

[R-Jack]

All I'm saying is that if I married a Korean, I'd doubt anything on earth is round as well......

[mvscal]

[Jay in Phoenix]

All I'm saying is that if I married a Korean, I'd doubt anything on earth is round as well......

Well, that certainly places a curious slant on things.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Me so horizony

[Jay in Phoenix]

So not funny bro. Me'sa hate you rong time.

[Atomic Punk]

Poor poptart. He can't use "reason" that God Himself gave him to break through the selfish pride of a man He created. poptart is going to interpret what he thinks God told mankind about living a Godly life.... and as a bonus, ALSO what the shape of the Earth is when it serves no purpose in God's teachings.

Oh no, poptart is a self-appointed prophet to go beyond the basic teachings of how to live a Godly life. Eons later, an angel gave poptart a revelation... a vision if you will, to use Google's teachings to prove educated people that 100% of them are wrong about observable math, science and astronomy. poptart is bringing the teachings of Google to set us on the straight and narrow path to foolishness.

Thank you poptart. You can go back under a rock now.

[poptart]

I won't imagine anything; I'll simply do the math, which shows that the top of an 1800' tower will be obscured by the horizon at a distance of 52.23 miles. From 31 miles away, the lower 634.25' of the tower will be obscured, meaning the top 2/3 of it will still be visible. This was computed using your boy Greg London's formula and correcting his error - a mile is 5,280', not 5,028'. Using the Pythagorean Theorem, the results are computed from ground level rather than eye level. Using the Earth curve calculator and plugging in an eye height of 5.75' (I'm 6' tall, so that's a fair approximation for me), the lower 525.2' of the building would be obscured from 31 miles away, and the top of the tower would be obscured by the horizon at a distance of 54.89 miles.

Yes, thank you.

A person 31 miles away and standing 5'7" will find a 525 ft building completely gone from view.

The observatory level starts at 1,100 ft.

So how tall are these surrounding buildings?





Many of the surrounding buildings we see in wire boy's pic need to be GONE if the earth curves as we're told.
Yet they are there.

A much large portion of the lower part of the tower need to be GONE, yet it isn't.

It's not even close.

[poptart]

1. I don't know the shape of the earth for sure.
2. I don't know what shape the sun, moon and stars are. They appear as circles in our sky.


Good time to look at the lunar wave.

[Carson]

Obviously filmed with a wide angle lens.

[poptart]

Obviously filmed with a wide angle lens.

You know nothing.


Why do you try to kneel for 88, of all people?
He's already been busted for babbling and loud-mouthing without having the first clue what he's talking about.
Embarrassing idi0cy he tried to pass off -- while accusing others of being stupid.



Don't think I won't get around to addressing his latest pile of garbage.
It'll take some time.

The man has clearly chosen the right profession, I'll say that.

[poptart]

Of particular note, that list includes CN Tower, which stands 1,814' height. The math tells us that 1,349' of it should be visible to Wire Boy's camera. And that certainly appears to be the case from his video

No, it doesn't.
Get some glasses and get a brain.

I'm going to address your entire post/pile of garbage later, and will also have something more for Smackie, but let's just look at your -----> CONCLUSION.

465 ft need to be hidden below the horizon, you say.
And you think that's what we see.
lol



Rogers Centre is 282 ft.
The observatory starts at 1,100 ft.


Look at wire boy's pic again.




You're high.

[poptart]

ALSO what the shape of the Earth is when it serves no purpose in God's teachings.

I consider Genesis 1 to be vitally important, AP.

Suit yourself.

[poptart]

'tart - I'm here to help, so let me see if I can clear things up for you. You are fond of using the Toronto skyline shot from 31 miles away as evidence that the earth isn't curved. The circumference of the Earth is 24,901 miles. Dividing the circumference by 31 results in 803.26. Let's round it to 800. That means the distance from the camera to the skyline is 1/800th of the Earth's circumference, or .45 degrees, meaning a circle 31 miles in circumference on the earth's surface curves .45 degrees from its center to the edge of the circle, which is imperceptible. Essentially, to the naked eye, it is flat; what you'd see within and at the edge of that circle is what you'd see if the Earth were flat; there would be no appreciable curvature beyond the horizon behind which tall buildings would disappear. The clip 88 posted with the Scot doing the math stated that the Earth's curvature can't be seen until one gets about 10 miles above the Earth, at which point the curvature is about 4 degrees, so at roughly 1/9th of that curvature, all will appear quite flat.

Let's look at it another way. Order the largest round pizza you can buy. If you cut that pizza into 8 equal slices, the curvature at the crust end of each slice will be 45 degrees, and you'll see each slice has a pointy end and a curved end. Now cut the pizza into 800 slices. Each sliver will now be so thin that it will appear to have two pointy ends; the curvature of the crust end will be negligible and imperceptible since it will now be .45 degrees rather than 45 degrees. If you separate the slices then put them back together the same way they were after cutting it, you'll end up with the round pizza you started with. But if you put it back together in such a way that the crust (curved) end of every other slice is inward instead of outward, what you'll end up with is a square, and you'll detect no noticeable curvature of each component (sliver) of the square. Each edge of the square will look perfectly straight, even if you were to enlarge the pizza from its original size to one with a circumference of 31 miles.

Basically, what you see in the photo of the Toronto skyline is exactly what one would expect to see, and should see, on a sphere the size of the Earth.

Light coming on yet?

Glad I could help.

I tried this explanation a few miles back, smackie. You are wasting your breaf....errrr keystrokes.

You tried what?

You tried to engage in the thread and posted COMPLETE idi0cy.

You made an abject FOOL of yourself, yet here you are, chirping away.


Seriously, on what merit exactly should anyone value your judgment in this thread?

UNreal.


You're nothing but a 'tard, dude.
Let it sink in.

[poptart]

I actually provided mathematic fact

Did you provide truth?

Dubious at best.


This video...



Is wack.

He wasted way too much time sitting and writing/drawing/calculating on his little piece of paper.

I wasted 35 minutes and unfortunately got way more acquainted with this 'tard's hands than I would ever need.
I need a damn shower.


1. His premise is that the earth has a circumference of 25,000 ft.
Standing on earth, we are so small in comparison that it's not possible for us to see a curve.
Flat, no curve means -----> the earth is round.
lol

Just a thought here...
Well maybe we only see flat because -----> the earth is flat.

:idea:


A man goes to his front door every night and yells, "Tigers, GO AWAY!!"

After a few nights of this, his wife says, "Why are you yelling for tigers to go away? There are no tigers here."

"See? It works," says the man.


He validates his premise by the result he sees.
But it maybe that there is just simply no correlation between the result and the premise.
Maybe the result is caused by something other than his premise.



2. 12:34: Curves are locally straight, 'tard says.

I would counter with, flat is locally flat.




3. 27:14: There is no law of perspective, 'tard says.

He's lying.

There certainly IS perspective.





The clouds/lights will eventually reach a point where they are too low and small to be seen.
The same will happen to that road if we could extend it.
It would get small and disappear.




4. What would 'tard's answer be for wire boy's CN Tower pic (and many OTHER such pics) not matching his earth curvature calculations?
I assume he would say something absurd like this...

Of particular note, that list includes CN Tower, which stands 1,814' height. The math tells us that 1,349' of it should be visible to Wire Boy's camera.

And that certainly appears to be the case from his video:

the lower 525.2' of the building would be obscured from 31 miles away

while viewing this...



and still maintain that his theory is correct.


UNIMAGINABLY WACK!

[Smackie Chan]

you think that's what we see.



Rogers Centre is 282 ft.
The observatory starts at 1,100 ft.


Look at wire boy's pic again.

Yeah, eyeballing can be a bit deceiving, so I did some measuring and computing. Admittedly, there may be some flaws in in my methodology and precision, but given what I have to work with, here goes...

You state that the CN tower is 1814' tall and that the observation deck starts at 1100'. That makes the height of the upper portion of the tower from the base of the observation deck to the top of the spire 714'. The ratio, then, of the lower-to-upper portions of the tower is 1.54 (1100/714). We can't see the base of the tower in the clear pic taken from much closer in than the still shot from wire boy's clip, but I simply used a ruler to measure what I see on my MacBook and computed a few ratios. On my screen, the total height of the tower in the clear photo measured from the water's edge to the top of the spire is 1 5/16", with the upper portion measuring 17/32" and the lower portion 25/32". The ratio of what's observed in the pic is 1.47 (25/17), which is pretty close to 1.54 and is reasonable based on the proximity of the camera to the subject and the fact that we can't see the base of the tower.

I then measured the tower in wire boy's still shot. The total height of the tower on my screen is 27/32", with 13/32" being the upper portion and 14/32" being the lower portion. The ratio, then, of lower to upper is 14/13, or 1.07, which isn't very close to 1.47. The delta is .4. The ratio of the delta to the original lower-to-upper ratio from the clear photo is .4/1.47, or .27, meaning ~27% of the tower is below the horizon. We can quibble over the precision of the measurements, but one would expect the ratio to decrease as we move further away from the subject, and this appears to clearly be what's happening.

465 ft need to be hidden below the horizon, you say.

Well, let's see by taking what 88 points out the math says and comparing it to my measurements and computations. The ratio of what the math says should be obscured by the horizon to the total height of the tower is 465/1814 (.256), or 25.6%. I'd say 27% is pretty close to 25.6%.

But don't take my word for any of this. I'm already aware of some possible flaws in my methodology and that my measurements lack some precision. Measure and compute for yourself, point out my errors, and explain what you conclude.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Here's some K-Pop to help you all better understand where 'tart is coming from:



Definitely some spank material in there, although I find the singing to be a little...







...flat.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...flat-assed...

"Don't forget the sun-screen. Not much shade in hell, you sinner."

Sincerely, 'tart

[Jay in Phoenix]

Jesus fucking ass fucked Christ.

Smackie has given a veritable lesson in mathematics to poptard and he shifts gears midstream to go from the terms "fact" to "truth". Popturd, the "truth" here is that Smackie has done his mathematical homework, it contradicted your bent nonsensical numbers and he schooled you. The fact here is you have been repeatedly shown to be a liar, a manipulator of numerical nonsense and propagating myths as truth.

Just looking up at the sky to see a very round moon that is and has been spherically eclipsed by a very round Earth is enough visual evidence to support the FUCKING FACT that the Earth is a round, ballish shaped planet. Night and day via time zones easily and simply support this evidence. Your duplicitous bullshit, while engaging, is utter and complete idiotic foolishness. You've embarrassed yourself enough.

Bark bark woof woof drool drool or whatever the fuck your childish, rejoinder may be, just shut it down as a mercy to one and all and go squat in a slant hole, you senile turd.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Poptart, here is a question to take this topic in a different direction.

What is your view and opinion of Freemasons?

This plays into a very important stance of yours on Flat Earth opinion, so what is your take on this group?

[Diego in Seattle]

'Zactly.

I don't get what you guys see in continually beating your head against the wall with LTS Tart.:?

[mvscal]

Excuse me? Are there any photos of the edge of the earth? Surely there has to be at least one?

[Atomic Punk]

ALSO what the shape of the Earth is when it serves no purpose in God's teachings.

I consider Genesis 1 to be vitally important, AP.

Suit yourself.

Genesis 1 says the Earth is flat?

[Atomic Punk]

BTW, pops... when you think of the old term firmament, think of the term "matter" that was without shape or form.

[poptart]

But wait . . . I thought you said the old testament is not important. Or is it just the parts god says are important. Or the parts you think god thinks is important.

I've never said any such thing.

In fact, I recently said God Law is -----> eternal.

I said Christ is the complete fulfillment of the Law, and Christians are not bound to keep the Law.

Non-believers will be judged by the Law.

[poptart]

Smackie has given a veritable lesson in mathematics to poptard and he shifts gears midstream to go from the terms "fact" to "truth".

I wonder what it would be like to have a brain as simple as yours.


One can misapply mathematic fact and make a lot of things mean a lot of things.

Mathematic fact misapplied does not = truth.

[poptart]

BTW, pops... when you think of the old term firmament, think of the term "matter" that was without shape or form.

On what Scriptural basis should I do this?

[Atomic Punk]

BTW, pops... when you think of the old term firmament, think of the term "matter" that was without shape or form.

On what Scriptural basis should I do this?

The same one in Genesis 1 that says the Earth is flat. You're not very good at logic are you?

[poptart]

Due to time constraint, this is in response to Smackie and 88 -- regarding measurements and wire boy's antics.
88, I don't have time to go through your post from yesterday, so let's assume your conclusion is accurate -- and let's also subtract 50 ft for the Tower being up a bit from the water.
I've looked at many pics and that seems generous, honestly.
415 feet need to be hidden under the horizon in this case.



Rogers Center is 282 ft tall.
That building to the right of the tower, with the dark blue outline -- is about 400 ft tall then, right?
So in wire boy's pic, everything below that building needs to be... GONE.

So look at his pic again...




We're nowhere close to it, folks.

[poptart]

BTW, pops... when you think of the old term firmament, think of the term "matter" that was without shape or form.

On what Scriptural basis should I do this?

The same one in Genesis 1 that says the Earth is flat. You're not very good at logic are you?

I'm not going to waste time on this debate with you, AP.
It's already been done.

I've thoroughly detailed (with Scriptural basis) how the Bible tells us the firmament is a solid structure.

If you think otherwise, think away.

I don't care.

[Atomic Punk]

I'm not going to waste time on this debate with you, AP.
It's already been done.

I've thoroughly detailed (with Scriptural basis) how the Bible tells us the firmament is a solid structure.

If you think otherwise, think away.

I don't care.

Is "matter" firm and having substance or not?
Matter (noun):
1. the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed:
the matter of which the earth is made.

2. physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.

3. something that occupies space.

Isn't that describing "firmament?" However, God said it was without shape or form in Genesis 1.