POTWR 2019 Vol 11: Can We All Test For Ourselves That The Earth Is Round?

Status
Not open for further replies.
@RerouteToRemain

And had you watched the video with the mirror experiment, you would know they gave over double the height of both the camera and the mirror and accounted for the believed refraction as well.

But, you haven't watched it I guess.

Will you be watching on the 2nd?
 
@RerouteToRemain

And had you watched the video with the mirror experiment, you would know they gave over double the height of both the camera and the mirror and accounted for the believed refraction as well.

But, you haven't watched it I guess.

Will you be watching on the 2nd?

You posted a video that was ridden with heat mirage. Light refraction wasn't taken into account in that video. The car literally appeared 20 feet in the air at times.
And sorry, but I did not see that. I saw the vehicle on the road the entire way!
 
Btw, he will be doing this live on June 2nd, it would be great if everyone on this thread watches that.

Smarter people than me need to talk about this subject and examine this upcoming experiment but I know that air density, mirage, etc bends light. Water is also extremely reflective.

Picture from one of the links I posted above.
laserbend1.jpg


Look I'm all for finding proof either way but it needs to be done correctly with everything taken into account.

I'm just glad you haven't tried to use planes flying off the earth as an argument lol.
 
@RerouteToRemain

Please post the refraction formula you are using as well as empirical evidence if possible.
 
@RerouteToRemain

Please post the refraction formula you are using as well as empirical evidence if possible.

Maybe you should reread the part where I said smarter people than me would need to talk about and examine as I'm not an expert. I do know that water reflects and light can bend due to atmospheric factors. So for something like this I would think reflection and refraction needs to be taken into account.

The empirical evidence for my previous post is the screen shots of the vehicle doing it's best impression of a GTA floating car cheat code.
 
Maybe you should reread the part where I said smarter people than me would need to talk about and examine as I'm not an expert. I do know that water reflects and light can bend due to atmospheric factors. So for something like this I would think reflection and refraction needs to be taken into account.

The empirical evidence for my previous post is the screen shots of the vehicle doing it's best impression of a GTA floating car cheat code.
OK, you know, but don't know the formula which is easily obtainable and does not come close to accounting for many of the scenarios discussed.

And now, to be fair, include the screen shots of the vehicle clearly on the ground. No one denies that under certain conditions these "mirages" happen. But, when we can replicate the identical scenario multiple times under different conditions, refraction cannot be the excuse.

For example, the video with the mirror experiment, they gave over double the height of both the camera and the mirror and accounted for the believed refraction as well. You claim flat earthers lie about this, but there is video evidence of proof that they gave NASA believers all the extra help in the world - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND AS YOU CLAIMED.

But, you haven't watched it I guess.

Will you be watching on the 2nd?

I need timestamps for these screenshots, thanks.
 
@RerouteToRemain

Please, seriously now, give me an honest 39 seconds of your time and watch the video below. Watch it twice, three times, as many times as you like and tell us...

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVE CONFUSED THINGS MOVING BEHIND A CURVED HORIZON WITH A VANISHING POINT?

 
Not sure what I did, but OK.

It's a friendly reminder for all. :)


Did you read the above post, lol? I mentioned he will be doing the same experiment, but over a 30+ miles distance. This will be live on the 2nd. We all should watch the above video and then watch live on the 2nd.

I've been reading for tone, not content.
 
OK, you know, but don't know the formula which is easily obtainable and does not come close to accounting for many of the scenarios discussed.

And now, to be fair, include the screen shots of the vehicle clearly on the ground. No one denies that under certain conditions these "mirages" happen. But, when we can replicate the identical scenario multiple times under different conditions, refraction cannot be the excuse.

For example, the video with the mirror experiment, they gave over double the height of both the camera and the mirror and accounted for the believed refraction as well. You claim flat earthers lie about this, but there is video evidence of proof that they gave NASA believers all the extra help in the world - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND AS YOU CLAIMED.

But, you haven't watched it I guess.

Will you be watching on the 2nd?


I'm not watching a 53 minute video and probably not watching on sunday.

Since you watched it was reflection off water mentioned? They accurately accounted for the reflection, refraction, angles of camera & mirror, etc in combination with atmospheric conditions? What I mean by angles is for the perception of reflection. I can go look at a pool and change the reflections by changing my angle, height, distance. Those reflections can also change by angle of light and light conditions. A mirror reflecting light actoss a surface that reflects seems flawed from the start imo. Like for example if you watch a sunset on water you get a reflection from essentially horizon to shore line.

Reflection-of-Light.jpg


I did not claim anyone lies or call anyone a liar. One of your links I didn't see a factor added, maybe I missed it but if I did you could have pointed it out when I posted my link showing the formulas I thought to be correct. I pointed out what I perceived as flaws. I just think these things are extremely complicated to test and accurately account for all conditions if you want to prove one thing or the other. A reason why I wouldn't try to make one of these experiments as definitive proof.

And now, to be fair, include the screen shots of the vehicle clearly on the ground.

Sure

RecS5xw.jpg



Honestly though most of that video was pure mirage, if you pause on "stuck" at the end there is a clear horizon line and nothing but miraged salt, sky and car for idk 20+ feet.

G9cUp4e.jpg
 
@RerouteToRemain

Please, seriously now, give me an honest 39 seconds of your time and watch the video below. Watch it twice, three times, as many times as you like and tell us...

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVE CONFUSED THINGS MOVING BEHIND A CURVED HORIZON WITH A VANISHING POINT?



Well he is 164 feet high (50 meters) and the island is 12.4 miles ( 20 km) away. According to curvature calculator nothing would be hidden.
 
Well he is 164 feet high (50 meters) and the island is 12.4 miles ( 20 km) away. According to curvature calculator nothing would be hidden.
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know... now answer the question please.

And also, you must watch this animation:


I'd love your thoughts.
 
I'm not watching a 53 minute video and probably not watching on sunday.

Since you watched it was reflection off water mentioned? They accurately accounted for the reflection, refraction, angles of camera & mirror, etc in combination with atmospheric conditions? What I mean by angles is for the perception of reflection. I can go look at a pool and change the reflections by changing my angle, height, distance. Those reflections can also change by angle of light and light conditions. A mirror reflecting light actoss a surface that reflects seems flawed from the start imo. Like for example if you watch a sunset on water you get a reflection from essentially horizon to shore line.

Reflection-of-Light.jpg


I did not claim anyone lies or call anyone a liar. One of your links I didn't see a factor added, maybe I missed it but if I did you could have pointed it out when I posted my link showing the formulas I thought to be correct. I pointed out what I perceived as flaws. I just think these things are extremely complicated to test and accurately account for all conditions if you want to prove one thing or the other. A reason why I wouldn't try to make one of these experiments as definitive proof.



Sure

RecS5xw.jpg



Honestly though most of that video was pure mirage, if you pause on "stuck" at the end there is a clear horizon line and nothing but miraged salt, sky and car for idk 20+ feet.

G9cUp4e.jpg
That's fine, but please tell what time those screenshots are from.
 
That's fine, but please tell what time those screenshots are from.
^
^ maybe tomorrow.

"Stuck" is towards the end. If you use the scroll bar you should find it pretty quickly. It's the final position of the car then they cut to talk about it.
 
^
^ maybe tomorrow.

"Stuck" is towards the end. If you use the scroll bar you should find it pretty quickly. It's the final position of the car then they cut to talk about it.
No response to post 113? Interesting...
 
I'm not watching a 53 minute video and probably not watching on sunday.
It was timestamped and you need 5 minutes to see the math and heights was all giving you, not flat-earthers, the benefit of the doubt.

Check the math and see for yourself.

Night.
 
Did you read the above post, lol? I mentioned he will be doing the same experiment, but over a 30+ miles distance. This will be live on the 2nd. We all should watch the above video and then watch live on the 2nd.

Started watching video. Eyes rolled back in my head. I've no aptitude for science and don't care enough to overcome it. I believe that @RerouteToRemain can launch a projectile into a target at great distance with mathematically-enhanced accuracy. And that that math would take into account gravity and curvature equations. I believe that this contest is a stacked deck and that nobody here has been clever enough to expose the magician's trick. Lastly, I don't think this forum has the exposure to and confidence in our scientific members to extract any meaningful truths here.

Still don't know what I'm looking for on the 2nd, but if it's past 10pm Hawaii I'm out. :)
 
Started watching video. Eyes rolled back in my head. I've no aptitude for science and don't care enough to overcome it. I believe that @RerouteToRemain can launch a projectile into a target at great distance with mathematically-enhanced accuracy. And that that math would take into account gravity and curvature equations.
This isn't about launching anything. One guy goes to a shore with a mirror. Miles away, on the other side, someone starts shooting with a high-zoom camera. If he can see the mirror's reflection, there is no curvature unless you want to believe that it's possible to see through buildings that are several miles high.

I believe that this contest is a stacked deck and that nobody here has been clever enough to expose the magician's trick. Lastly, I don't think this forum has the exposure to and confidence in our scientific members to extract any meaningful truths here.
If replicable science based on our scientific method is stacking the deck unfairly against the globe believers, then they might wish to rethink their position, no?

Still don't know what I'm looking for on the 2nd, but if it's past 10pm Hawaii I'm out. :)
It is 39 seconds showing a lighthouse with a high-zoom. As the camera pulls back, it disappears along with the land that is clearly seen. The point is that we must never conflate a vanishing point with the belief that these objects are somehow over a curved horizon since we have PROVEN THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,869
Messages
55,313,311
Members
174,733
Latest member
Bob Gnuheart
Back
Top