Відео

Zooming in over one axis will only create visible obstruction in one axis. In this video of mine ua-cam.com/video/PkjYSHOuovo/v-deo.html I show how the nature of obstruction of a big sphere (r=42m) is the same as the obstruction we can observe on Earth.

🤡🤡

Except that we observe that same phenomenon in all directions. You’re almost there, kiddo. The surface is indeed curved. But not curved like a cylinder. It’s curved like a sphere!

@@rafaelmarangoni cool story without any measurements of curvature. But keep chanting it kiddo maybe one day your wish will come true.

@@flip_in_awe975 How many degrees should the ship tilt if the Earth is a globe?

Please be joking.

it's tilted .001 deges AWAY. if earth was flat, why would there NOT be ONE SINGLE PHOTO OF THE EDGE OF EARTH? obviously, because earth is NOT flat.

🤡🤡

@@jimmynobody8344 ?

🤡🤡

Not a swell. Don’t you know how ondulations work?

@rafaelmarangoni oh! It's the curve of the earth, is it??? 🤪🤪🤪

ua-cam.com/video/WCEbYJmSt-0/v-deo.html

One direction? If you stand in an island in the middle of the ocean, and do a whole 360 rotation, will the horizonte be always in front of you? How is this “one direction”?

Theodolites can be used as levelling devices no problem, so I don't see the fail beyond you being butthurt

@@tonyflatearther feeling speed is very relative to the surroundings. Sitting in a plane flying 500mph, you cant really feel it. But if you sit in a car driving just 200mph you would feel it very much, and probably be afraid of dying any moment.

@@MathiasKp you don't feel Earth moving because Earth is level & stationary, if Earth was orbiting the Sun at 67,000mph while chasing the Sun through the galaxy at the same time at 500,000mph, Don't you think we'd feel it? 🤣🤣🤣 Wtf is wrong with you people? the globe is Fkn ignorant bullshit

@@tonyflatearther LoL why would you feel it?

@@MathiasKp dude, that analogy sucks, 500 mph is different from 500,000mph & 67,000mph elliptical orbit 😂😂😂 How do rockets go up & come back down & land almost in the same spot if Earth is spinning tilting & wobbling orbiting the Sun at 67,000mph while chasing the Sun at the same time through the galaxy at 500,000mph shot off by a fkn magical Big Bang that supposedly happened when space & time didn't exist before the magical Big Bang happened 🤣🤣🤣🤣 c'mon buttercup, Wake your dumbass up, Watch this video debunk the mythical magical fairytale globe BS ua-cam.com/users/shorts88i6uXKudUk?si=bWNnvpq1wGE1yjEO

_"...For a tall building disappearing bottom first on the horizon, I can get the same results using a lens on a flat table. ..."_ A flat surface will not have obstruction. But there are many ways to fake or create an illusion of a horizon on a flat surface. In these two videos I show examples of how people are being tricked to believe this. How camera below tabletop can create a false horizon ua-cam.com/video/t7fGb9JU2BA/v-deo.html How to fake obstruction on a 'flat' surface ua-cam.com/video/ebY6Z3Nj6H0/v-deo.html Fresnel lens, function demonstrated using pen laser pointer ua-cam.com/video/xsdr4sxoaGI/v-deo.html

" they could theoretically work on either model. " There are many observations form reality, that can't be explained on a flat surface. "For a tall building disappearing bottom first on the horizon, I can get the same results using a lens on a flat table." Buildings are not disappearing at all, since they are static, but part of their bottom is missing, depending on the distance of observer. "I've done it for an orange to simulate a sunset" By placing a lens in front of orange?! What you forgot is the fact that orange in your example is still changing its size dramatically, during your experiment, while we can see the Sun of a fixer size during sunset in reality. "And yet globe earthers claim it is 100% impossible on a flat earth." Of course it is impossible. No matter how flatearthers try to simulate it, they cannot do it exactly the same as we can see with our own eyes in reality. "and just because they cannot fathom how it could work, it doesn't mean that it's impossible." Well, what are you waiting for?! Go try to simulate disappearing of a ship on a horizon, on a flat surface, exactly the same as we see it in reality. Or try simulating sunset on a flat surface exactly the same as we can see it in reality. ... and, good luck with that.

woops, found your video of you doing that, well done!

@@Realtor_Rion I think he died back in the covid time.

@@MathiasKp That is terrible. I remember when he called 3-m and Honeywell for masks for his business. He was shutdown because the healthcare workers need came first. Darn shame, I loved his passion.

Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

@@MathiasKp horizontal does not change elevation over distance

@@DrEMichaelJones Blue is not green.

@@MathiasKp I'm glad that we agree that horizontal doesn't change elevation over distance. RIP your video

@@DrEMichaelJones The statement "Horizontal is not banana" has just as much value. You need to write some more coherent statements if you want a meaningful dialogue. So what is your point?

Interesting "explanation". And what is your explanation for this observation ua-cam.com/video/AN22ScCILZI/v-deo.html where the bottom of a tower is missing around ~20m ?

Wow, desperation is a bitch huh?

🤡🤡

And funny how this "perspective" matches a globe Earth and not a flat Earth. Don't you think so?

@@MathiasKp looks like the horizon is the hight limit of your camera/eye 📸 view, everything above that line just changes perspective 🛤️. Our perspective can play tricks on our mind 😜 but in reality it just moves further from our angular viewing limit. When you look into the distance even when you zoom in, the only 90° ange should be on the ground at your feet, not on your viewing angle towards the horizon, therefore, eventually you just end up staring straight into the ground/ocean. Think of yourself as a L shaped ruler 📐looking into the distance 🛤️. Another explanation: if the boat 🚢 you are looking at came all the way to the shore, you wouldn't be able to see the deck. That deck, is exactly what you don't see over the horizon, everything on that deck is leveled to the ground, but the items on that deck appear to dip to you, and the further the items on that deck are to you, the lower they "appear" to dip. I'm going to try illustrating this phenomenon in a video.

@@Hfftgbfrschjm You have no idea what perspective even is, do you

🤡🤡

You seem a little delusional. Perhaps some strong medication might help your disability.

Hang on. Eye level dropping? But the horizon stays at eye level. Apparently. Flerf 101. Oops. Of course the boat's going over something to obstruct the bottom. Don't be silly.

You know if the water behind it curves, you wouldn't see it

If you want, I can also prove the Earth is a cube. Would you be interested in that proof?

It is not about proof for flat earth. It is about mindset that is stuck in flat earth box, and is too scared to look outside anymore.

@mikemental8285 you've just described every single ball earther

@@decipheringtruth3896 Ok. Let's try. I claim: you don't trust flat earth proofs. Solution: prove me wrong. How? Give me ONE proof you really trust to prove flat earth. ONE testable, repeatable and observable proof. ONE proof. Don't try to poke hole to globe. Don't copypaste list of claims. Give ONE flat earth proof, and we'll test it. Good luck

@@mikemental8285how’s decipheringtruthsomenumbers doing with the proof?

Hi. In terms of proof I would use some other of my observations. Like those I have made of Turning Torso. But you are welcome to use my ship and other images/videos. Just add a link to my image/video.

He he. Sadly you are right😄.

Lol, wut?

You don't have observer height in your calculation, so it is wrong. Here flic.kr/p/EseKVJ you can see some calculations I have done for these observations.

Hallo@@MathiasKp, thank you for your answer. I still don't understand. The height from which you filmed this is 3.7 m. So if the height difference is 49 - 3.7 m, then you shouldn't be able to see the other houses.

@@Armleuchter10 In your calculation, you get what is called "drop", while you need to calcultate the amount hidden. Here is a visualisation of these two flic.kr/p/2pSnggT On this page you can see the different values www.metabunk.org/curve/?d=25&h=3.7&r=6371&u=m&a=n&fd=60&fp=3264

@@Armleuchter10 "If I have understood correctly, then when looking over the earth at a distance of 25 km, the object being observed is obscured by 49 m by the sea. " You didn't understood it correctly. Objects on level surface of planet Earth, at the distance of 25 Km are 49 meters not below the see, but below an imaginary flat line, extending from the eyes of observer standing on a shore. "At 0:52 min you can see the tuning torso and the surrounding city. So if the earth were round, you wouldn't be able to see the city below at all. " Since Earth is a sphere, and cities are not drawn on a level surface of a ball, but they extend many meters up, there is no problem for us to see the ground and tall buildings around Turning torso from that distance, especially when we are observing it from certain altitude. "You can also see the waves from the coast hitting the beach. " No, you don't see any beach. All you see is sea line on a horizon. "In my interpretation, the image should be proof of a flat earth. " Your interpretation is wrong, since, on flat surface there would be no reason for bottom of this very tall building to get covered by the ground or sea- On a spherical surface, this has logic.

🤡🤡

Definitely real

Because the simple act of lowering the camera TOTALLY causes the ferry to sink below the water lmao

Pero si los terraplanistas afirman que la línea del horizonte permanece siempre a la altura de los ojos!!! A ver si aclaras...

Still crying huh

@@alexf962 No, because you can never approach the horizon while driving a boat at Sea so the phenomenon that you are observing is the boat moving away from your line of sight. The uploader of this video also didn't account for Atmospheric refraction , optical illusion and waves behind other waves etc. The video also shows a straight line horizon as well.

@@christianpulido8360 You think you can see the curve from ground level? Beyond hilarious. Yeah you are too smart

@@christianpulido8360 The whole boat would be visible in that case. Make up another excuse. Gotta lie to flerf.

​@@alexf962You have to account for Atmospheric refraction etc. You can see the whole small boat in the video. The horizon is also not curving .

These instruments are used for very precise measurements. If the lense would distort the observations. The instruments would obviously not be able to be used for the various tasks they were made for. And if the lense really distort the observation. It would also change from instrument to instrument but the 'distortion' rather is consistent would a globe Earth drop.

@@MathiasKp not if you use an arbitrary constant as a correction factor like lets say.. 8 inches per mile square. I just mentioned it because when reading the book instantly thought it'll be cool if someone actually could test it. Gleason also mentioned in his book distortion being consistent in different lensed instruments but different in each one of them.

​@@juanargento3978 _"... distortion being consistent in different lensed instruments but different in each one of them..."_ If a lense create distortion, them of course different lenses would create different amount of distortion. But like I mention, if the lenses create distortion as high as 8 in per mile squared, they wouldn't be able to use them for the precise measurements, they are build for.

@@MathiasKp Aren't observations fairly accurate for areas under 250km2 in geodetic surveying?. I get your point.. but it seems as if you simple change the name of curvature correction to ' distortion correction' everything should work as expected. Of course all modern theodolites won't show much of a difference in distortion. Maybe someday I could test it myself. cheers

@@juanargento3978 You can claim lens distortion is the same as curvature. But simple tests can prove this is wrong. Curvature is a function of observer height and lense distortion isn't. So a simple test lile mine here shows this lense distortion claim is wrong. By changing my observer height. The drop changes.

Did you know about the 10 meter tall flames that at random times come up from the centre of the sculpture? Sadly 3 people so far has died at the sculture, but a safety net has been installed over the iron bowl near the centre of the sculpture. So this should not happen anymore. flic.kr/p/2pK1mqA

@@MathiasKp Yeah I googled it. I share this vid with Flerfs. They hate it

@@larryscott3982 Are there still things going on in this flat Earth "discussion"? I haven't really been following the debate for the last years. Just checked up on it yesterday. DITRH, Jeranism and NathanOakley1980 still seem to be involved. Bob and Rob Skiba died I heard.

@@MathiasKp Bad as ever. Dumb as ever

Its almost like its curved water.

_"... it would have to dip its nose down and lift the rear..."_ and would this "dip" be more or less than the height of the waves? Since waves even in calm weather can be around 1 meter heigh in this area, the height of the waves is obviously much bigger than the tiny amount of "dip" we would have on a globe Earth.

By the way. How did you find my video/channel?

1 degree in 69 miles leaning away from the observer

Simple question for you: how much would a ship tilt let's say at a distance of 5 nautical miles? This specific unit is quite helpful here

Oh flat earthers, having the same sense of scale, and mathematical ability to that of a literal child. Hey, maybe if you took a break banging your cousins and picked up a calculator you'd actually understand something, not eating paint chips helps too.

It is only at 4:33 I observe from a height of 17m.

🤡🤡

I know from experience and experimenting that if I get 100 meters of level surface, with an bright orange lego brick, or a lit LED on the surface at the end, I can see that orange spot or light even with my eye-line / camera lens only 3 millimeters from the surface. I have seen that if I stand toes-in-the-sea on Kirkcaldy beach near me and look at the island of bass Rock, 100 meters tall and 30 km distant, its lower 50 meters are obscured by the horizon. I know that up to x 200 optical magnification none of that missing part comes back. But that if I climb up to the car park above the beach I can see almost all of Bass rock - just as if I were looking over a long shallow average curve to the water. I'll let you work out how that scales to a comparison with 100 meters of flat surface - spoiler: A lego brick or led shouldn't be visible if the effect scales _at_ _all_ on a flat surface. (continued below)

...... I've seen from experimenting that you can recreate the effect on a flat surface with optics and lenses - but you get distortions - things change shape, move in weird ways as you change your position, are the wrong size, and the illusion only works from a small spot a few small spots. And they'd need to be pretty big optics too. I can see, looking at the horizon at the beach, that when you do get definite air-refraction mirages they have even more distortions than effects caused by solid optics (wavy edges, upside down images, plus all the above distortions - there is in fact a small one in the video, though it's nowhere near wide enough to hide the missing part of the ship and mast behind), they only affect a fairly small area, and they change visibly and disappear over just minutes or hours. And that if you photograph such a mirage on the horizon and un-distort it you often find the 'hull-down' effect underneath it anyway. (continued below)

.....I know from doing various comparisons that Bass Rock appears the right size for a 100 meter object at that distance. I have been to the beach 4 days out of 7 for the last eight years and always seen the same thing. I have been up and down the coast of Scotland and England, and always seen the same thing. People who live thousands of km away and have no reason to lie to me all report they always see the same thing. And I know that I can easily and consistently re-create the effect, without any distortions, or needing any optics, by allowing the surface I look over to be very shallowly curved - a far lesser curve that what is known to occur between high tide points at sea and at shore, or between the edge and middle of a storm surge. I'm can't claim I can _independently_ show _why_ the water surface curves in this way. But from all the above observations and experiments I am content that the simplest model to use in predicting the effect, and predicting how high to stand to overcome it and get clear sight lines, is that of a gently curved water surface. And based on my observations and experiments, that's the model I have to recommend.

G’day John sounds like you do a lot of great work and are very knowledgeable. The curve that’s explained by the earth curvature calculator would be significant and noticeable all the time and in all directions. They have instruments that measure everything that’s possibly measurable and I find it hard to believe that someone hasn’t created an instrument that can detect and measure the curvature or drop of the earth. If it was detectable they would have engineered an instrument to do so, mass produced it and made millions off of it. Such a device would be very handy for surveyors/engineers if there was curvature they needed to factor in when planning for roads, tunnels bridges etc

All my own thoughts and opinions.

Why does he have to? All fe'rs use the globe map to find the location and get turn by turn directions to it. How bout you explain why optical angle of incidence is important to the shape of Earth instead of leaving empty irrelevant comments?

So why is the ferry getting lower in the water?

So, address why it can't be brought back with zoom?

*But you don't address optical angle of incidence. If you even know what that means...* I highly doubt, you know what that means.

@@tgstudio85I am surprised he spelled incidence correctly..

Mais quem acredita qur a terra e uma plana nao tem cérebro pra isso.

@@max5250 eu que me divirto com os globaloides, que acreditam que vive numa bola molhada voadora supersônica hipersonica viajando pelo infinito e além, 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 o melhor que os globi globi burros e ansiosinhos não sabem nem como funciona, o modelo da terra viajante e , vem aqui relinchar ahhhhh cavalo de globaloide

@@rafao7315 So, you cant see bottom of the coin at the end of the table due to perspective? With a camera.... Yet, I can see that small coin at the end of the room four times bigger than your table. Sun is setting due to perspective?! Getting smaller and smaller, until we can't see it anymore?! Oooooopps... reality check for Portuguese amoebas... nope, the Sun is not getting smaller and smaller when it sets, but sets below "flat" surface of the sea, in its full size.... After all, that's why we call that sun-set not sun-goes-away...

Please! Make the table experiment for us. You will see, the object will not be hidden...

There are many kind of atmospheric distortions. So it is easy to find something that shows different result. The important thing if you want to get a true idea of what is going on, is to only use observations with very little to no distortions. flic.kr/p/2cRqCM4

​@@MathiasKpGreat video. Thanks for sharing. @RayleighCriterion is what we affectionately call a flattard. Flattards are feckless clowns.

So..... Is that what's happening here too? ua-cam.com/video/i0ObTd7DLMw/v-deo.htmlsi=YVUMRfk7YWxv_M4Q Cuz one of your "laws", your "law of perspective", states that it will NOT cause objects to disappear halfway.

@@bretttrommler756 What??? _Perspective, method of graphically depicting three-dimensional objects and spatial relationships on a two-dimensional plane or on a plane that is shallower than the original (for example, in flat relief)._

@@RayleighCriterion my point is that flat Earths say that the ships disappear because of perspective. Ironically, they are correct but not in the way they think. Perspective is their go to that they use to explain away what they can’t explain. They want to believe that perspective is some mysterious optical phenomenon that cause stuff to halfway disappear and causes curves where there aren’t any. But their own law says this… To an observer, the law of perspective will cause objects moving away in a straight line to: appear to approach the vanishing point but never quite reach it, never appear to go across the vanishing point, appear to shrink in size, never appear to be cut in half unless when it is obstructed by another object. Read that last sentence again. But here’s the ironic part. Like I said before, they aren’t completely wrong. Perspective is nothing more than the way you look at something, whether literally or figuratively. If I look at a tall ship from the side, from that PERSPECTIVE it looks tall and wide. If I change my PERSPECTIVE, my way of looking at it, and look at it from the bow, then it looks tall and narrow. We can’t see the bottom half of those ships because from that perspective, there’s a big curve of water in the way. If we change our perspective and look at that same ship from a higher elevation, then we can see almost all of it. Simple, right?

YOUR MAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP lol