Has anyone considered that the globetards built that tower specifically to fuck with flattards? It just sits there until some tard sets up a camera o the other side of the lake, then the tower adjusts itself to account for the height of the camera such that the tower always appears to be the same height from the horizon.
Nigger, show me the feet of that water tower from that camera 16 miles away. If the Earth was flat, the camera would be 3' above the feet of the tower and could see the tower touch the ground. It doesn't. It can't. Why? Because the light doesn't bend that much. Simple as.
I believe what the Bible says about the earth, that it is set in its foundations, that is not movable. The earth is not a ball 'flying through space'.
Even as Joshua said to the sun, stand still, not to the earth.
There is no proof it is a ball 'flying through space'. And our senses tell us that it is a relatively flat stationary plane/realm with topical features.
This video clearly shows that there is no curvature as the ball earthers' math would have you believe.
That's just a way to explain away the clear words of scripture and to deny the power of God.
I am thinking big; But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Matthew 17:20
I Believe his word. You show me where Joshua isn't literal.
[ - ] Inward 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 14:56:21 ago (+1/-0)*
Sure. I don't know the exact site but the author left it out likely on purpose. So here's the best proof I can provide:
The camera is on sand just off from the water, so it is 48" from sand plus a couple more or the legs would sit in water. The water tower is assumed to be at the same level. In the Google Earth picture (which uses round Earth) the are rocks and trees showing that there is an elevation on the side of an unknown quantity. Additionally, water is known to bend light allowing the camera to see "around the corner."
If you actually believe this trash, you are non-scientific simpleton, but more likely you are here to subvert.
Take a plane ride, from 10,000 feet you should be able to see the whole world if you are correct. You can't, fuckstick.
Take a plane ride, from 10,000 feet you should be able to see the whole world if you are correct. You can't, fuckstick.
You can't see curvature at that height without lensed windows or a wide angle go-pro style lens to fake it, even according to your hero negro 'scientist' Neil deGrasse Tyson.
You can't see it because it's not there.
Again, prove me wrong, go do the research and try to prove it yourself.
All you ba'al earthers get so mad, why? Because it's a cult and an indoctrination, not science.
That's a straw man and an argument from ignorance; You're ignoring the inverse square law and the law of perspective. And then you top it off with the same old ad hom.
You scientism believers aren't as smart as you think you are.
Keep being impervious to concepts like spatial reasoning, simple physics, and math, Love. Kookification is one of the most annoying kike subversion techniques.
I love how we always start from square one as if you've never interacted with me before on this topic. I'm just going to copy and paste this, a previous post of mine. Be warned though. There is math involved. I know that scares you lot.
"Here's some math on how to work out the required observation height to observe a given distance on a spherical surface or the distance to the horizon from a given observation height.
First, let's define a right triangle. r^2 + d^2 = (h + r)^2 where r is the radius of the Earth and d is the distance in a straight line from ground level extending tangentially to the surface of the earth (or what a flat-tard may call level from that perspective). h is the height above the ground that connects to the d line, the height that we're observing from in this case. Visually, this is what it looks like:
Let's say we have our observation height (h) and of course the radius of the earth (r), and we want to find d, the distance to the horizon. When we re-arrange the equation, we come up with this:
d = sqrt((radius of the earth in meters + 10000 meters)^2 - (radius of the earth in meters)^2) where the radius of the earth is (averaged out to) 6.371009×10^6 meters. That places the horizon at 357,100 meters at an observation height of 10,000 meters.
357,100 meters or 221.89 miles
Earth isn't a perfect sphere. So, accuracy will vary.
A lot of flat earth niggers like to claim that globe earth people think that the horizon drops by 8 inches per mile squared, math that I would expect from niggers if they could do anything resembling math. The observation deck would be have to be 881,260.88 inches or 22,384 meters high in order to be just at the horizon. It's 10,000 meters in reality.
For a visual representation, the nigger math would create a retarded parabola. Spheres don't look like this retarded parabola when viewed from the side.
This isn't an invite to debate flat earthers, as that's part of the psyop's goal, to waste your time and energy and to cause a brain drain from targeted forums by chasing away the people that can't stand such stupidity. They're retarded bioweapons designed to be irritating and to disrupt information networks. I can't stop any of them from making a fool of themselves in the comments though."
Again, the earth is easily proven to be a globe using cheap, easy to get, equipment and is verified, without anomaly, thousands of times every fucking day.
[ - ] Love240 [op] 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 17:11:42 ago (+1/-0)
Prove that it only does that through the air, not just in a short tank with super thick plastic walls, at the exact rate needed to 'counteract' the supposed 'curvature'.
Oh wait, you can't, because it doesn't 'refract' like that in the open, you have to contrive that controlled scenario in order to compensate for the lack of 'curvature'.
The video you posted clearly shows this has to be in a controlled environment through man-made materials and never is able to show the effect over distance.
If light refracted as much as in that tank you wouldn't ever see anything. The rate of 'refraction' far exceeds a supposed curvature.
I hope you know Jesus, because you sure don't have much of a mind for logic and reason.
So do you admit refraction exists in certain circumstances, such that objects lit beyond the horizon can be seen?
Yes or no.
Not sure if you watched the video with audio off because the objection about thickness of the tank demonstrates you are confused about it. Perhaps you did not stick around to watch the full 4 minutes.
In the case of the experiment, he used sugar water to make the bottom portion of the water more dense than the top. That's it. He was not attempting to mimick the atmosphere. He was merely demonstrating the peculiar properties of light behaving in different densities.
Speaking of logic, and not having a knack for it, I suppose you will now fail to understand how this might apply to your situation.
I'll spell it out for you since its obviously very difficult for you to grasp: the marble in the tank, peering from underneath the water tank, is akin to the water tower being in view from behind the horizon.
[ - ] Love240 [op] 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 23:17:36 ago (+1/-0)
So you are going to just ignore the fact there is no 'curving' of light from refraction?
Yes or no.
I watched the video which clearly show there is no curvature in the light that is refracted through that liquid.
I also am seeing how you are not understanding that is not a representation of the air, it is literally liquid (sugar water, as you said).
Not only does this not mimic the air, it does not show a curvature in the light, which it would have to supposedly do to compensate for the camera height changes. But that never happens, because the small amount of distortion in the air does not do that.
For all intents and purposes the density of the air along that entire path is more or less the same.
Again with how you scientism believers just trot out 'the next thing' once you've been defeated and say 'no no no, this is what's causing it' with no proof.
im confused why you would say you watched 4 minutes and you can still say "there was no curvature of light that is refracted through the liquid" proceeded by "no 'curving' of light."
[ - ] Love240 [op] 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 23:35:58 ago (+1/-0)
You're grasping at straws attempting to explain away the visual evidence in this video because you are entrenched in the scientism cult, indoctrinated since a small child, as we all were.
What you have displayed in that picture is not indicative of the real world. It's only indicative of a controlled environment of no relation to the real world.
If that video of the light bending was not taken from the real world, then what world did it come from? Second question, if you repeated the experiment in your house, would you also be transported to that new world?
Show me photos of the feet of that water tower from that camera. If the Earth were flat, the camera on a 3' tripod could easily zoom into and see the feet of the tower touching the ground.
Proving the earth is a globe doesn't require me to use your method to prove anything, but you trying to prove the earth is flat does require you to answer for the anomalies created by your model.
Light bends in a fluid and explains seeing "over the horizon" but in a flat earth model, you'd be able to see the feet of the tower, which you clearly cannot see.
I don't need to. Your video clearly makes my point. You cannot see the base of the tower.
Talk about moving the goalposts. lol. You are literally saying the very video that shows no curvature is proof that there is curvature. Listen to yourself, it's sad.
You very clearly DO need to go test this yourself.
Your video SHOWS earth's curvature despite what the headline of the video claims or how much data in the video you ignore.
Refraction shows some of the tower that is below the horizon. But half of that tower is obstructed by the horizon. If the Earth was flat, the camera on a 3' bipod would be higher than the base, so you could see it. But you can't, along with about half the tower, because it's below the horizon, and out of view of the camera.
The refraction shtick has been proven false a number of times. This video even does that by varying the camera height to show you that that is false.
What you see in the video is mainly atmospheric distortion and a tiny bit of refraction which is why there is basically no detail from the tree-line down.
The only thing 'simple as' is your ability to self-deceive because of your indoctrination.
No one who preformed the Michelson-Morley experiment has ever suggested that the anomalies were caused by the earth being flat. None of them. And, when the experiment was recreated using better equipment the anomalies went away.
The Michelson-Morley experiment is about the supposed 'motion' of the earth. Turns out, it's not moving; therefore, it is not a ball 'flying through space'.
Cry harder, maybe your tears will start orbiting your head. lol
I didn't say anything about rotating, tardo. I simply said 'not moving'. And it's not, therefore it's not rotating either, because that is a pattern of motion.
Is this your version of crying harder? Needs more work.
Nigger, you are using an experiment that produced anomalies because of the equipment being used. That's according to the scientists, themselves. Decades later, using better equipment, the experiment was recreated without anomalies.
Where's the 10 years later they were like 'uh oh, it's moving now!'. It's not in there. That's just a link to a wikipedia article about the failed experiment. 'failed' because it failed to produce any evidence that the earth is moving.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 weeksApr 7, 2024 19:42:34 ago (+0/-0)
It just sits there until some tard sets up a camera o the other side of the lake, then the tower adjusts itself to account for the height of the camera such that the tower always appears to be the same height from the horizon.
Checkmate, flatturds!
[ + ] Inward
[ - ] Inward 4 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 09:07:38 ago (+6/-2)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] -1 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:01:59 ago (+2/-3)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 3 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:46:38 ago (+5/-2)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:49:06 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:49:53 ago (+4/-2)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:53:16 ago (+2/-2)
I have personally witnessed the lack of curvature at over 30 miles (mountain heights).
Go try to prove it wrong.
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 3 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:44:18 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 20:33:10 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:54:16 ago (+4/-2)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:57:22 ago (+2/-2)
Again, go try to prove it wrong. Don't just type super angrily, lol, though it is somewhat entertaining.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:00:59 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:04:03 ago (+2/-2)
Here, I'll give you a website to do it, even.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature
Go do experiments, try to prove it. That's what I did. Turns out it's flat.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 12:11:42 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 16:57:58 ago (+1/-1)
Even as Joshua said to the sun, stand still, not to the earth.
There is no proof it is a ball 'flying through space'. And our senses tell us that it is a relatively flat stationary plane/realm with topical features.
This video clearly shows that there is no curvature as the ball earthers' math would have you believe.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 6 monthsOct 24, 2023 09:24:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 24, 2023 16:11:26 ago (+0/-0)*
I am thinking big; But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Matthew 17:20
I Believe his word. You show me where Joshua isn't literal.
[ + ] Inward
[ - ] Inward 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 14:56:21 ago (+1/-0)*
The camera is on sand just off from the water, so it is 48" from sand plus a couple more or the legs would sit in water. The water tower is assumed to be at the same level. In the Google Earth picture (which uses round Earth) the are rocks and trees showing that there is an elevation on the side of an unknown quantity. Additionally, water is known to bend light allowing the camera to see "around the corner."
If you actually believe this trash, you are non-scientific simpleton, but more likely you are here to subvert.
Take a plane ride, from 10,000 feet you should be able to see the whole world if you are correct. You can't, fuckstick.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 19:19:30 ago (+1/-1)
You can't see curvature at that height without lensed windows or a wide angle go-pro style lens to fake it, even according to your hero negro 'scientist' Neil deGrasse Tyson.
You can't see it because it's not there.
Again, prove me wrong, go do the research and try to prove it yourself.
All you ba'al earthers get so mad, why? Because it's a cult and an indoctrination, not science.
[ + ] Inward
[ - ] Inward 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 22:03:34 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 22:11:16 ago (+1/-1)
You scientism believers aren't as smart as you think you are.
[ + ] I_am_baal
[ - ] I_am_baal 2 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:44:12 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] -1 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:46:08 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] I_am_baal
[ - ] I_am_baal 4 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 12:04:06 ago (+5/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 12:06:00 ago (+2/-2)
Go test it out for yourself instead of believing everything you've been indoctrinated with.
[ + ] I_am_baal
[ - ] I_am_baal 2 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 12:10:29 ago (+4/-2)*
"Here's some math on how to work out the required observation height to observe a given distance on a spherical surface or the distance to the horizon from a given observation height.
First, let's define a right triangle. r^2 + d^2 = (h + r)^2 where r is the radius of the Earth and d is the distance in a straight line from ground level extending tangentially to the surface of the earth (or what a flat-tard may call level from that perspective). h is the height above the ground that connects to the d line, the height that we're observing from in this case. Visually, this is what it looks like:
https://files.catbox.moe/lrri6o.png
Let's say we have our observation height (h) and of course the radius of the earth (r), and we want to find d, the distance to the horizon. When we re-arrange the equation, we come up with this:
d = sqrt((radius of the earth in meters + 10000 meters)^2 - (radius of the earth in meters)^2) where the radius of the earth is (averaged out to) 6.371009×10^6 meters. That places the horizon at 357,100 meters at an observation height of 10,000 meters.
357,100 meters or 221.89 miles
Earth isn't a perfect sphere. So, accuracy will vary.
A lot of flat earth niggers like to claim that globe earth people think that the horizon drops by 8 inches per mile squared, math that I would expect from niggers if they could do anything resembling math. The observation deck would be have to be 881,260.88 inches or 22,384 meters high in order to be just at the horizon. It's 10,000 meters in reality.
For a visual representation, the nigger math would create a retarded parabola. Spheres don't look like this retarded parabola when viewed from the side.
Here's the retarded parabola for reference: https://files.catbox.moe/dqicp5.jpg
This isn't an invite to debate flat earthers, as that's part of the psyop's goal, to waste your time and energy and to cause a brain drain from targeted forums by chasing away the people that can't stand such stupidity. They're retarded bioweapons designed to be irritating and to disrupt information networks. I can't stop any of them from making a fool of themselves in the comments though."
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 17:03:01 ago (+1/-1)
Simply more indoctrinated regurgitation with 0 real world experimentation.
[ + ] I_am_baal
[ - ] I_am_baal 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 17:30:20 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 17:31:08 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:20:08 ago (+4/-2)*
https://files.catbox.moe/46nc11.png
Again, the earth is easily proven to be a globe using cheap, easy to get, equipment and is verified, without anomaly, thousands of times every fucking day.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:26:13 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 3 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:32:15 ago (+3/-0)
Fast forward 8 mins into this video and watch the next 4 mins.
https://youtu.be/watch?v=968gVUAY9Mg&t=8m5s
this is the proof you are pretending to seek.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 17:11:42 ago (+1/-0)
Oh wait, you can't, because it doesn't 'refract' like that in the open, you have to contrive that controlled scenario in order to compensate for the lack of 'curvature'.
The video you posted clearly shows this has to be in a controlled environment through man-made materials and never is able to show the effect over distance.
If light refracted as much as in that tank you wouldn't ever see anything. The rate of 'refraction' far exceeds a supposed curvature.
I hope you know Jesus, because you sure don't have much of a mind for logic and reason.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 23:07:20 ago (+0/-0)*
Yes or no.
Not sure if you watched the video with audio off because the objection about thickness of the tank demonstrates you are confused about it. Perhaps you did not stick around to watch the full 4 minutes.
In the case of the experiment, he used sugar water to make the bottom portion of the water more dense than the top. That's it. He was not attempting to mimick the atmosphere. He was merely demonstrating the peculiar properties of light behaving in different densities.
Speaking of logic, and not having a knack for it, I suppose you will now fail to understand how this might apply to your situation.
I'll spell it out for you since its obviously very difficult for you to grasp: the marble in the tank, peering from underneath the water tank, is akin to the water tower being in view from behind the horizon.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 23:17:36 ago (+1/-0)
Yes or no.
I watched the video which clearly show there is no curvature in the light that is refracted through that liquid.
I also am seeing how you are not understanding that is not a representation of the air, it is literally liquid (sugar water, as you said).
Not only does this not mimic the air, it does not show a curvature in the light, which it would have to supposedly do to compensate for the camera height changes. But that never happens, because the small amount of distortion in the air does not do that.
For all intents and purposes the density of the air along that entire path is more or less the same.
Again with how you scientism believers just trot out 'the next thing' once you've been defeated and say 'no no no, this is what's causing it' with no proof.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 23:31:14 ago (+0/-0)
Are you clicking on the right video?
Are you not understanding what this is?
https://pic8.co/sh/5SWNdD.jpg
If this is not exactly curving of the light from a laser pointer then what, pray tell, do you imagine you are witnessing here?
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 23:35:58 ago (+1/-0)
What you have displayed in that picture is not indicative of the real world. It's only indicative of a controlled environment of no relation to the real world.
Typical of scientism believers.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 -1 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 23:43:36 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 23:44:33 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:39:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:42:49 ago (+4/-2)
Proving the earth is a globe doesn't require me to use your method to prove anything, but you trying to prove the earth is flat does require you to answer for the anomalies created by your model.
Light bends in a fluid and explains seeing "over the horizon" but in a flat earth model, you'd be able to see the feet of the tower, which you clearly cannot see.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] -1 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:08:28 ago (+2/-3)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:10:40 ago (+4/-2)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:12:40 ago (+2/-2)
Talk about moving the goalposts. lol.
You are literally saying the very video that shows no curvature is proof that there is curvature.
Listen to yourself, it's sad.
You very clearly DO need to go test this yourself.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:16:06 ago (+4/-2)
Your video SHOWS earth's curvature despite what the headline of the video claims or how much data in the video you ignore.
Refraction shows some of the tower that is below the horizon. But half of that tower is obstructed by the horizon. If the Earth was flat, the camera on a 3' bipod would be higher than the base, so you could see it. But you can't, along with about half the tower, because it's below the horizon, and out of view of the camera.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:17:42 ago (+2/-2)
According to your ba'al earth math you should not be able to see the tower at all. But you see it at every single height.
Go test it for yourself instead of regurgitating stuff you've been indoctrinated with.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:20:04 ago (+4/-2)
Simple as, faggot.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:23:15 ago (+2/-2)
What you see in the video is mainly atmospheric distortion and a tiny bit of refraction which is why there is basically no detail from the tree-line down.
The only thing 'simple as' is your ability to self-deceive because of your indoctrination.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:45:42 ago (+2/-2)
You're a disingenuous fucking nigger.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:50:39 ago (+2/-2)
Cry harder, maybe your tears will start orbiting your head. lol
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:52:42 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:54:10 ago (+2/-2)
Is this your version of crying harder? Needs more work.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:56:45 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 1 point 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 10:58:36 ago (+2/-1)
No, you don't, because it never happened.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:02:19 ago (+2/-2)
See "subsequent experiments"
And again, none of those involved in that experiment ever suggested that the earth was flat or stationary.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 [op] 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 11:05:14 ago (+2/-2)