tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post1449230813160388675..comments2017-11-25T15:31:39.073-08:00Comments on The Earth Is Not Flat!: Eight Inches Per Mile SquaredGordon Brooksnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-67683813250019932792017-11-25T15:31:39.073-08:002017-11-25T15:31:39.073-08:00But how far can your eyes see? That's the prob...But how far can your eyes see? That's the problem with flat-Earthers: they never have verifiable numbers.Gordon Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10191419397699888760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-7364899153556629302017-11-25T14:50:21.800-08:002017-11-25T14:50:21.800-08:00Just flew back to CA from WA. Looked out the wind...Just flew back to CA from WA. Looked out the window as far as my eyes can see. Flat. Where is the 7.9" curve per sq miles? <br /><br />Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025939189073663694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-83646275952388462622017-11-25T14:20:08.478-08:002017-11-25T14:20:08.478-08:00The actual number is "7.98482347 (or somethin...The actual number is "7.98482347 (or something like that)"? Really? Are you missing the point altogether. I don't care if you can't believe that the hump between Los Angeles and New York is 195 miles high. It just is.<br /><br />The point of the post is first that, over distance, that formula is not a circle (which would be the section of a sphere used to calculate the drop); it's a parabola, and so will never curve back on itself. And second that flat-Earthers throw the formula around in entirely the wrong context.<br /><br />The reality that I find hard to accept is just how stupid people seem to be getting.Gordon Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10191419397699888760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-79324952581202390522017-11-25T01:17:12.628-08:002017-11-25T01:17:12.628-08:008 inches per mile squared is required by the radiu...8 inches per mile squared is required by the radius and circumference provided by governments and space agencies since 1547. It is simple geometry and required by the "official" measurements provided above. Attempting to refute simple geometry is akin to denying reality. Which, is precisely what this entire web page intends. The actual number is 7.98482347 (or something like that), but any reasonable researcher will accept eight for simplicity. To deny this is to deny the very geometry of "the earth." Ridiculous, to say the least.<br /><br />Now use this formula to calculate the height of the curve REQUIRED by the "official geometry" between Los Angeles, CA and NYC alone. Distance is 2773 but one can neck it down to 2700 for the simple math.<br /><br />Get ready for reality in impossibility.Independent Conservative Thinkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16711464971385406582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-77946950266196987812017-11-21T14:02:52.783-08:002017-11-21T14:02:52.783-08:00Unknown (Jason Knox): Yes, you are misunderstandin...Unknown (Jason Knox): Yes, you are misunderstanding everything. First, the only way that increased height can extend the true horizon is if the horizon is the result of a curved surface. Second, the notion that the horizon can be extended with a telescope is a flat-Earth myth. Any videos demonstrating this use unverified distances. For those where the object is zoomed in on, using a P900 or the like, you'll notice that the operator zooms right to the boat, because he or she can already see the boat before starting to zoom.Gordon Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10191419397699888760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-83987751370594383662017-11-21T02:08:30.610-08:002017-11-21T02:08:30.610-08:00The earth curve calculator, gunny thing about, whi...The earth curve calculator, gunny thing about, which only to me, further proves a flat plane because it gives you a distance to the horizon, such as at 6 ft eye lev e l it gives you the distance to the horizon, as of that is where the curve is and objects will undoubtedly be hidden from that point forward... but ofcourse we can extend that horizon far far out beyond the so called curve with telescopic technologies... am I misunderstanding something?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00157133196890314944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-9021918692469835222017-10-31T09:43:57.618-07:002017-10-31T09:43:57.618-07:00No where on Earth do you see electrons. And yet yo...No where on Earth do you see electrons. And yet you are using them to post this insipid meme. If you people are going to argue the point, can you at least try harder?Gordon Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10191419397699888760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-74016444227427972892017-10-29T22:33:09.742-07:002017-10-29T22:33:09.742-07:00No where on earth can we see the curve. Not even ...No where on earth can we see the curve. Not even at the beach or when I'm riding a plane. The only time we see it is thru camera distortion (fish eye).<br /><br />http://whotfetw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Flat-Earth-Memes-67-17.jpgAdminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025939189073663694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-50165225247682598502017-10-19T20:09:19.606-07:002017-10-19T20:09:19.606-07:00Not sure what you're looking for a PDF of. If ...Not sure what you're looking for a PDF of. If your mate has numbers I'd like to see them, along with verification, that is, how he knows them.Gordon Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10191419397699888760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-82242944636715818772017-10-19T14:47:09.469-07:002017-10-19T14:47:09.469-07:00Just wondering if there is a way to show a PDF? A ...Just wondering if there is a way to show a PDF? A mate of mine who is a flat earther has posed a question using the curvature calc. and provided the scenario with screen shots etc. I hold to the globe model but it is the one query I havnt found a proper answer to...Joel Marsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17323084845767862457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-29762952836197081102017-09-29T18:01:18.885-07:002017-09-29T18:01:18.885-07:00It is also not about line of sight. it is about h...It is also not about line of sight. it is about how much the earth curves away from a straight horizontal line from where the observer stands.William Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184127859708675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-78830994119139514672017-09-27T10:27:01.079-07:002017-09-27T10:27:01.079-07:00I should correct the last distance I gave there, i...I should correct the last distance I gave there, it should be 9.02 km, not 9.3 km. This is what happens when you write late at night and set R = 6730 km instead of the actual value of 6370 km.<br /><br />Also, I'd like to point out the difference of my formula with the calculator given in the original post. Mine calculates the distance on the curvature. That is, the distance you should measure as you walk over a perfectly round earth. The posted calculator gives the distance of the straight, tangent line.Corenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10519797900530952908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-72426070717605849802017-09-23T14:22:53.116-07:002017-09-23T14:22:53.116-07:00Have you gone out and tried to find it? Or are you...Have you gone out and tried to find it? Or are you just taking someone's word that it's not there? I'm astounded that people who are so quick to call photographs and data and experiments done by others fake will be so gullible when it comes to claims of flat-Earthers, as if the latter are somehow pure of heart and without an agenda.Gordon Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10191419397699888760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-29697323228296689062017-09-23T13:14:27.283-07:002017-09-23T13:14:27.283-07:00Lake Baikal in Russia is 395 miles long. Where is...Lake Baikal in Russia is 395 miles long. Where is the 8" curvature per mile? LOLjj@thelyingchannelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09042123678400262943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-47161514157674208922017-09-22T18:09:00.278-07:002017-09-22T18:09:00.278-07:00For all of you wondering about an exact formula wi...For all of you wondering about an exact formula without looking outside, there's a little calculation that can be done: Just trace a tangent line to the circle and look where it cuts. Looking from a height h, the exact distance at which the horizon stands (without accounting for refraction) is:<br /><br />d = R*asin(x/R) with x = sqrt(R^2 - R^4/(R + h)^2),<br />where R is the Earth radius.<br /><br />As a quick check, if h = 0 => x = 0 => d = 0. If h -> infinite => x = R => d = R*pi/2, which is a quarter of a circumference (and if you look to the other side you see the other quarter which is a total of half the Earth).<br /><br />Of course that formula is a bit difficult to use, and in most cases R >> h. In this case (and considering that R >> x as well), we have that:<br /><br />d = sqrt(2*R*h), which is an easy formula to remember and use.<br /><br />Now, that distance is the distance at which the horizon lies if you look at it from a height h. If you want to know when another object of height h2 is going to fall below the horizon, a neat trick is to use the same tangent, just on the other side of the horizon. That is, you can calculate its distance to the horizon you are looking at, and add that distance to yours.<br /><br />Total_distance = d + d2 = sqrt(2*R*h) + sqrt(2*R*h2)<br /><br />This means that a 1.70 m person can see a 1.50m person at a distance of 9.3 km, give or take. In this example the exact formula and the approximate, simplified formula, diverge in roughly a 0.0001%.Corenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10519797900530952908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-61759890836570404312017-08-25T01:36:22.436-07:002017-08-25T01:36:22.436-07:00Great answer in your blog.
Unfortunately it needs ...Great answer in your blog.<br />Unfortunately it needs to even more simplified for flat earthers to understand, going by some of the rebuttals.Colin Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360115457389560629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-2938826613955845082017-08-24T08:51:42.298-07:002017-08-24T08:51:42.298-07:00Thank you!!! I'm so tired of asking flat earth...Thank you!!! I'm so tired of asking flat earthers where they got that formula because I knew it couldn't be accurate. Jaymie Raehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05448166297680605744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-41596046949002317972017-08-15T20:37:34.945-07:002017-08-15T20:37:34.945-07:00Normally I wouldn't respond to someone who pos...Normally I wouldn't respond to someone who posts with a hidden profile, but "Admin" has made two claims that are easily testable. The first is that the feed from ISS shows all objects moving at the same speed. I have actually measured this in response to Dave Murphy making the same claim. My findings, copied from another blog post:<br /><br />A look at the footage he supplied shows that an easily-identifiable cloud feature moved eight pixels from one frame to the next when at the top of the globe, and 57 pixels from one frame to the next near the bottom. Case closed, Dave, you're just wrong.<br /><br />The other claim is that CGI would show objects moving all at the same speed. But any 3D program I've ever encountered takes perspective fully into account, so I've never seen this alleged lack of speed variation between near and far objects in computer-generated animation.<br /><br />Clearly this poster has been watching way too many flat-Earth videos, likely including Dave Murphy's sorry excuse, and should spend more time actually observing and measuring things.Gordon Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10191419397699888760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-26679172397445377892017-08-15T20:04:37.272-07:002017-08-15T20:04:37.272-07:00How about the fact that the NASA "Live feed&q...How about the fact that the NASA "Live feed" of Earth from the International Space Station is completely CGI.<br /><br />If you even driven in a car, or flew in a plane, you would know that objects from a distance "look" to move slower than objects that are closer. <br /><br />Yet, the CGI image of the ISS flying over earth shows all objects moving at the same speed. Which is how CGI video works. <br /><br />If you fly on a plane, objects from a distance move slow, but as you fly under it, it moves really fast. You don't see that in the fake CGI ISS flyover of the Earth. <br /><br />Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025939189073663694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-6840197750759622632017-08-15T16:32:59.367-07:002017-08-15T16:32:59.367-07:00What do you think the contradictions are? And why ...What do you think the contradictions are? And why do you think that space agency images (aside from the ones they clearly label as visualizations) are fabricated? Aside from flat-Earth and moon-hoax claims, what evidence have you really investigated? I'm genuinely curious.Gordon Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10191419397699888760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-63030675181325713162017-08-15T14:11:04.102-07:002017-08-15T14:11:04.102-07:00Thank you for this blog, I must admit Im not ready...Thank you for this blog, I must admit Im not ready to go full FE but they have brought forth some very disturbing theories, mainly about the many space agencies stealing our tax money with clearly fabricated images and numerous contradictory stances. Its given them more credibility than I would have normally given but Im not done searching. Thanks againAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256490237649972877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-66801199212815018952017-08-03T20:13:00.795-07:002017-08-03T20:13:00.795-07:00Oops! You're right. I stand corrected.Oops! You're right. I stand corrected.Gordon Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10191419397699888760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-59490357213885544252017-08-03T19:33:51.867-07:002017-08-03T19:33:51.867-07:001,250,000,000 inches is not 236,742 miles. You nee...1,250,000,000 inches is not 236,742 miles. You needed to convert inches to feet before you divide by 5280 or just divide by 63360 to give 19,729 miles. Flatards are too dumb to have seen this. We publish our ideas so they may be scrutinized, corrected/agreed with, so we all get a little smarter. There is no NASA cover up so the government can take your money (NASA only formed in 1958) Go look at how money is created, there is no need to steal it. <br /><br />Just because you flatards don't understand something it doesn't mean it's false. Either keep trying to understand, ask for help, or just agree that the people being paid to do their jobs are doing them and when they give an answer to your question...accept it.<br /><br />Nice post Gordon Brooks. I hope you have helped answer a question or 2 for those flatards that are trying to understand.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15799258771603538791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-39466163362753158652017-08-03T14:26:05.795-07:002017-08-03T14:26:05.795-07:00The Math is clear, unfortunately flat earthers are...The Math is clear, unfortunately flat earthers are using wrong math and claim it's right. http://earthisnotflat.com/Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16689356142424274696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6313463978985410822.post-44497987965343629882017-07-29T18:17:08.631-07:002017-07-29T18:17:08.631-07:00Well, once again a comment which is completely unr...Well, once again a comment which is completely unrelated to the post. Oh, well. Look, the one thing that makes itself most obvious to anyone who actually observes the sun and moon is that they are not close to the Earth. The fact that their apparent size stays nearly the same throughout the day and over the course of weeks is enough to cinch that fact.<br /><br />And that fact is enough to destroy the notion of a flat Earth. Case closed.<br /><br />And, excuse me, "God vs the devil"? Really? We're talking about simple facts here, not some great moral dichotomy. Get off the pulpit and get out into the world and see what's around you.<br /><br />And read the blog so that you make comments related to the topic of the post. Please.Gordon Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10191419397699888760noreply@blogger.com