By - reficius1
Flat earth is a joke
Flat earthers are jokes, we may need to come up with a new word to describe their level of sheer stupidity
I get a kick out of making videos about these idiots
I like your videos :) if you want to make a new topic about them, feel free to do so :)
An inside joke. The joke is on anyone who believes in the globe.
Who owns the observatory? Oh yes, the catholic church. Lol. Sure love. Believe the church. I'm good. I learned how to replace my garage disposal on YouTube, I learned how to configure my juniper SRX 3600 on YouTube, I learned solidity on YouTube, I learned python on YouTube, I learned about bitcoin in 2014 on YouTube, and I found out the earth is not a ball in 2017 on YouTube.
They own some observatories but not all, there are more than one, and this isn't the Vatican one.
Which one is this?
I can't tell just from that photo (I don't fangirl over observatories so I don't know most of them); there's not enough information but the Vatican one has trees around it.
I tried a reverse image search and didn't get a hit.
Maybe u/Jesse9857 or someone knows.
The Vatican "one" ? Oh my sweet summer child
>Jesuits established a large number of astronomical, geophysical and meteorological observatories during the 17th and 18th centuries and again during the 19th and 20th centuries throughout the world. The history of these observatories has never been published in a complete form. Many early European astronomical observatories were established in Jesuit colleges. During the 17th and 18th centuries Jesuits were the first western scientists to enter into contact with China and India. It was through them that western astronomy was first introduced in these countries. They made early astronomical observations in India and China and they directed for 150 years the Imperial Observatory of Beijing. In the 19th and 20th centuries a new set of observatories were established. Besides astronomy these now included meteorology and geophysics. Jesuits established some of the earliest observatories in Africa, South America and the Far East. Jesuit observatories constitute an often forgotten chapter of the history of these sciences. This volume is aimed at all scientists and students who do not want to forget the Jesuit contributions to science. Link: http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/1-4020-1189-X
They run the show hommie. Either overtly or covertly.
To be fair, saying there was one was from your thread but I'm glad you are looking things up :) The Vatican one is a specific observatory:
However, like I said, they don't run them all.
Also yay summer the equinox just passed and the Sun is South enough to cast sun directly on the Southern side of buildings, it's not supposed to go further South than the Tropic of Capricorn, it should be overhead and East/West but not really South like that.
I'm -32 Latitude and the Sun isn't supposed to go South past -30
You might be interested in my research.
I'm not like people who talk about earth shape and don't go measure.
I go and measure. Check it out:
Nice Muppet vision. You didn't account for angular size reduction as a function of distance. Nice try.
>Nice Muppet vision. You didn't account for angular size reduction as a function of distance. Nice try.
Are you saying that if I stretch the picture to the right a lot somehow the building will be below the observer?
Didn't you know that angular size reduction shrinks everything towards eye level?
Yes, as a tall building moves away the top appears to move down towards eyelevel.
But the bottom also moves up toward eyelevel.
The building eventually shrinks to a single point at eye level.
The top doesn't move from above eye level to below, nor does the bottom move from below to above eyelevel.
If you really think light can start out 181ft above me, fly below the red water tube then swoop back up to my eyes, then please draw that light path on the diagram and tell or show me that path.
Otherwise you have no evidence for your claim.
> Are you saying that if I stretch the picture to the right a lot somehow the building will be below the observer?
No. I'm saying showing an orthographic view of something observed through someones perspective is just stupid. It means nothing. completely ignores angular size.
>No. I'm saying showing an orthographic view of something observed through someones perspective is just stupid. It means nothing. completely ignores angular size.
Please tell me then, if I had some magic zero sag string and I stretched it tight from my camera tripod to the top of the 187ft tall building, would the string be sloped up toward the building?
To clarify, the top of the building is 181 ft above my camera.
If I used a carpenter's level to measure the string, would it up sloping up towards the top of the building?
>Please tell me then, if I had some magic zero sag string
You don't need a magic zero sag string. Use a laser beam. It's been done ad nauseam over bodies of water. guess what? There IS NO CURVE. You can see the light when the light should be below eArF cURVe
>You don't need a magic zero sag string. Use a laser beam. It's been done ad nauseam over bodies of water. guess what? There IS NO CURVE. You can see the light when the light should be below eArF cURVe
You mean like this, where there is tons of distortion and the straight crane booms are all bent up? https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/blogs/danny-faulkner/2021/blackswan1.jpg
Or do you mean like this when half the far oil platform is hidden by the water and the booms are straight? https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/blogs/danny-faulkner/2021/blackswan2.jpg
Look, it's a fact that near the surface of the water, all kinds of distortion can happen due to something.
That's why I got my camera 58ft above the water.
But I noticed you are not answering my question.
If I had a straight string from my camera to the top of the building, would the string be sloped up towards the building?
Or if you prefer a straight laser beam instead, if I aimed the laser such that the laser spot was hitting the top of the building, would I be aiming the laser slightly up? Or slightly down?
Conversely, if my friend was on the top of the building aiming a laser at me, would that laser appear slightly above me or slightly below me?
Please stop beating around the bush and actually address the topic!
>You mean like this, where there is tons of distortion and the straight crane booms are all bent up? https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/blogs/danny-faulkner/2021/blackswan1.jpg
This picture demolishes your ball. Your horizon should be no more than 1.225 miles away on a ball with a radius of 3959 miles. It's clearly over 9 miles away. Your ball is over. Nothing else matters. I don't need your imaginary no sag line. If you still don't get it, then you don't get it.
>>You mean like this, where there is tons of distortion and the straight crane booms are all bent up? https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/blogs/danny-faulkner/2021/blackswan1.jpg
>This picture demolishes your ball. Your horizon should be no more than 1.225 miles away on a ball with a radius of 3959 miles. It's clearly over 9 miles away. Your ball is over. Nothing else matters. I don't need your imaginary no sag line. If you still don't get it, then you don't get it.
And how come the booms are all bent up? Don't you see that there is terrible distortion? What if air can bend light?
If that terribly distorted picture destroys my ball then this undistorted picture blows you flat earf right out of the level curved water:
Look. It is clear that stuff happens near the surface of the water. Got that?
And I see your are still avoiding my question.
Regarding the 187ft tall building 21.2 miles away, whether we use a straight string or a straight laser beam, will it be a slope up to the top of the tall building?
This is like the third time I've asked and you've always beat around the bush or ignored it.
Why won't you answer it? Are you beginning to see that erf ain't f flat?
Please, just answer the question.
Do you believe a straight string or straight laser beam would slope upwards to the top of the 187ft building?