@There's More to the Story -So Mark Twain must have been right, I mean just look at how easily all of the flat earthers fell for hoax that somehow the earth is flat LOL...
Hello, thank you for your time and work on this simulation. I have a question hoping you could help. - Given the considered curvature Earth seems to really have on this simulation if we extrapolate to the rest of the earth what kinda Earth do we have then? - Can it be extrapolated and consider the rest have the same curvature? - What would be the result? - Can your simulator do the totally? - How will Earth look like then if not round?
I'm a land survivor and have never figured in the Earths curvature on any job I've done. Neither has anyone else I've known. The benchmarks dovetail perfectly with a flat plane. Convince me I'm wrong.
@wmario666 "It's true also that railway tracks only work on a level plane." Let's ignore the fact that railway tracks sometimes go up and sometimes go down and go to the core of your misunderstanding: even if railway tracks only worked on a level surface, *level* is not the same as *planar.* "Level" means "always at a right angle to the direction in which things fall down," and on a giant planet, things fall towards the center of the planet, meaning that level surfaces are spherical shells, not planes.
@wmario666 You might not be aware of this, but there is a single continuous rail line that connects the east and west coasts of the US. Would you please explain how a "level" rail network manages to cross two major mountain ranges while ending at two oceans? Not that it's important, given what I said about the meaning of "level," but I thought you might find it curious.
@@ryanwaldrop90 pilots try to stay at a fixed altitude. This is most commonly measured by the ambient air pressure, which depends how far above the surface you are. This also works on a globe. Airplane gyroscopes assume the plane is flying level most of the time and adjust accordingly. Google vacuum driven attitude indicator. In moders laser based gyroscopes the adjustments are done digitally. So whether the pilot flies visually (bottom of the plane towards the ground) or on their instruments they wouldn't really notice.
it doesn't prove that the earth is round, or that the earth is flat, or anything else. We will never know! If we had been told from an early age that the earth was flat, that would be our reality today and we would laugh if someone said the earth was a sphere.. So... don't rack your brains and enjoy the time on this... planet
@@quatsch420 Ah yes, all the satellites, international space station, astronauts, moon landing are all fake? There will never be enough "proof" for flat earth. Only when humanity devolves back to strictly to a land and seas exploration, you don't have anything to lie to people about round earth. If you starting point is to say that all space pictures, videos and live feed from ISS is false or "CGI" then there is no hope for you. Also from early age, people were told that earth is flat but then people started to investigate and migrate all over the globe and after that all science just speaks for globe earth because it is a globe. There is absolutely nothing you have that proof otherwise, no matter how hard you try to come with impossible scenarios.
My only issue is you didn't do on the ground experimentation and testing...there are so many anomalys and variables using a computer simulation to re-create a real life observation!
yeah these computer models aren't exactly that trustworthy if there is indeed a conspiracy. I mean imagine trying to use a liars evidence to prove him wrong?
...a real-world experiment would show the same results - that is the point. This has been proven over and over in many different ways. The earth is spherical.
I can see how it could be flat but the best argument is sunsets. If it was flat, New Zealand sunset would happen approximately 5pm(17:00) every evening. However, like parts of Canada, for example, sunset happens later in the evening during the summer months(winter in NZ). Where I live the sunset will be approx 9pm(21:00) during Summer
I created the flat Earth model I show in the background during the video introduction. The light/dark parts as the Sun travels aren't just illustrations; they are a simulation and agree with real sunset/sunrise times throughout the year to about plus/minus one minute, checked against timeanddate.com . The secret, of course, is that I do the simulation on a globe Earth model and just map the results onto the flat Earth model. I have not yet found any explanation how this is supposed to work in the flat Earth model itself.
Sunsets are a good point to consider. In the flat earth model, the sun still travels the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer, so the sunrise and sunset in New Zealand does change with the seasons, right?
@@HealthFitnessNut sunsets in New Zealand are approximately the same as here in Canada. Summer dark at 9:00pm(21:00) & dark around 5:00pm(17:00) in the winter. This alone would prove the 🌎
Actually the best argument against a Flat Earth is a Lunar Eclipse. No matter where the observer is (that can see the eclipse) the shadow the Earth casts on the moon is ROUND. Only a SPHERE can do such a thing. Because if Earth was a flat disk, the shadow would be different shapes depending on where you are.
The sun travels above and around the earth in different positions facts are if we are hurling thru space at a half a billion miles per hour how could anything in the sky look clear it would all be a blur
the formula for measuring the curvature of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared , 10x10x8 equals 800 inches in ten miles you get 66.67 feet of curvature. if there's a curvature to be found in 10 miles I highly suggest that you go find it. and get back to me with that silly fucking bullshit about living on a spinning ball at 1000 miles per hour. and then you can please explain how the north star never moves. when you believe we are circling the sun at 186 million miles. lol when you figure this out, get back to me. because you're looking like the fucking moron right now for believing such silly nonsense. oh by the way how does water at 64.2 pound per cubic foot. get held in check, but birds and insects fly unaffected??? please einstein can you please show me that psuedo science fiction again lol you are pretty fucking stupid for believing in such false beliefs. day three of creation, God placed the sun and moon inside the firmament. with the stars. in 1957 to 1962 operation fish bowl and operation dominic were being carried out by the American and the Russian. where they tried to explode nuclear rocket into the firmament in the sky. research it before you open up your stupid mouth and sound even more ridiculous than you already so. lol not only the flat earth community is laughing at you, so are the elite for buying there deception. lol jokes on you my lad
@@michaelhaggerty2766 > *_"... and get back to me with that silly fucking bullshit about living on a spinning ball at 1000 miles per hour"_* What are you rambling on about? > *_"and then you can please explain how the north star never moves."_* It does- marginally. But it does. It used be a different star- I believe it was Thuban before it was Polaris. > *_"oh by the way how does water at 64.2 pound per cubic foot. get held in check, but birds and insects fly unaffected??? please einstein can you please show me that psuedo science fiction again lol you are pretty fucking stupid for believing in such false beliefs."_* Birds are not escaping gravity. They are counteracting it with an isolated more powerful force- lift. Care to elaborate why you believe in such fantasy?
@@SputnickSpooner-jg5gi Yes, you can see if the moon is a ball. If you have someone East, someone West, someone North and someone South of the moon's position then at least one of them should be viewing it from the side and would see that it isn't a sphere. That doesn't happen so it must be a sphere.
@@yellowlynx You act like there's no reason to question and doubt everything in the world. The world is so fucked I don't know why anyone even cares about this shit anymore it's not important the shape of the earth it's important so many people trust people who've clearly lied before. For example, they've admitted some moon landing pictures/videos were fake. I'm not saying the moon landing was fake but it's a fact that not all the videos and pictures of it are real. So why would anyone expect anyone to trust the rest? And these same people are who tell us about the sun, the earth, other planets, so no I've learned my lesson with liars, I once had a "friend" who lied alot, you can't trust a word that comes from a liars mouth because nothing that comes from them really proves anything. People simply believe them because of who they are, and that's ridiculous you shouldn't believe someone simply for who they are. And any lie discredits someone.
@@kevinmould6979 You are assuming the problem lay in just a few people - an anomaly. In reality the problem is with nearly every human, and especially ones who have something to gain or something to lose based on certain outcomes. It is healthy to question the world , to seek truth as best as we can, and to remain free from bias and dogma. Blind faith is just as unhealthy as blind belief in my opinion. Sadly I don't have a high IQ or great mathematical skills, so if I were to pick a side it would require faith, so I am content instead to answer 'I don't know, but I believe it is more likely a globe'. When we 100% believe something is one way we also shut the door on an infinite number of alternative possibilities. The problem is ego / pride tends to get in the way of curiosity and common sense.
Go to 4:11 the program is not matching the photo and the town is hiding some of the land mass, I'm sure the program could also concave as well, Old saying, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. There has been way too much deception in our lives, we were all too busy trying to make ends meet to be bothered with details of our reality, by design I might add. But now things have been surfacing that are making us question what we have been told from the ones we thought we could trust, Seek knowledge and wisdom as though they are the greatest of all treasures, pray for understanding, the understanding of all these lies. Let God be true and every man a liar.
@Melburys Brick Then the sun is 93,000,000 miles away from here right? And the moon I saw this morning is 238,000 miles away Right? In the video , was the sea calm, high tide or low tide? Oh! this shouldn't matter, in order for it to be what you want, it proves the curve right? Many thing fall in to play in the video. I tell you what, get me one day of nasa's income and i find the truth for you. The videos documentation and all! until then, I'm going my ass back to work tomorrow, thousands of video's like this one has been proven to be wrong in their research. go look
@@elmerfox6872 high tide lmao, yeah unless it floods the city with a tsunami there is a HUGE difference between the height of the mountain between flat and round earth. Classic flat brain, dismiss all evidence that doesnt suit your conclusion. you talk about seeking knowledge but you lot actively divert yourselves away from it
@@psionicinversion So, it's not possible that there are things in play here that we don't completely understand yet, that could obscure our vision. or play tricks on our minds, like mirages in the deserts that have fooled many in to thinking there was water just ahead and when you get there there wasn't any water at all, only to find ones self still thirsty. The whole flat earth thing doesn't seem to be a joke, thousands of things we thought to be truth, are now being proved to be false. plane flights, distances of the sun, moon and stars, moon landings, space travel , things said to exist, that never did, like gravity, dinosaurs. GPS being satellites when actually they are ground based towers. Slight of hand so to speak. the freakin list is tooo long! You probably thought you actually came from a monkey. See what I mean.
@@elmerfox6872 Oh, please...! You don't believe the sun and moon are far, far away? Don't tell me you're one of the morons thinking they could use pictures of crepuscular rays to triangulate the distance to the sun!
The sun distance formula country A= 3hours early to your country 9:00 am sun angle is 135° B= your location 12:00nn sun angle 90° 03:00pm sun angle 45°, A distance = your location to the country has 3 hours early or behind, B distance or sun distance = A , note possible only on equator country
you talk as if anyone has been in space. Well, we've got videos of hot air balloons, uncensored, from 10 years ago when youtube was not deleting certain videos, at 110k feet, and yeah it looks flat and also the sun is much closer than it should be. but that's just one thing. What made me start thinking that flat earth was not stupid is me finding out that ISS is fake. ANd yeah it is fake, watch the video of the actors making mistakes in live streams.
@@vanessaruiz4705 bro you seem to think the sun looks close in certain videos but you're neglecting the fact that the sun is also back. If it were on a graph you are only considering the x and y axis, but you fail to realise that we live in 3 dimensions so there is also a x axis in which it moves the object further away. Since the sun is very big it may seem close in some pictures but it still is millions of miles away
Why didn't he use the picture to compare on the flat rendering as he did on the round. I went back in the video and saw the difference that he mentioned was NOT there in the picture. It WAS MORE SO than in the round rendering...
A watchmen the fact that jtolan stated the mountain heights was compressed and funny how this guy managed to match the picture exactly without any atmospheric conditions on the model alongside not know what lens he used to match the optics... but hey I’m sure this guy know how to use those photorealistic software... he has done a good job a cooking people very honest
@@iamcaveli the photo was taken in infrared cameras which helps to negate some of the effect of atmospheric refraction, that is why he didn't really need to calculate for it.
@@uhuh.2232 no it’s a normal camera converted to see the infrared spectrum... I have the exact same thing done to my camera... infrared let’s you see through more of the atmosphere as it captures the spectrum of light not visible to human eyes. Is doesn’t stop or negate atmospheric refraction, with infrared you can see through haze... refraction is the bending of light
When you switched to the flat earth model, you didn't just uncover the bottom of the San Jacinto mountains, you also showed all of the other small ranges in between. Kind of shows that the earth isn't flat.
There are two problems or errors: First, as Clarence Nice pointed out 1 year ago, only the top 600 to 800 feet should be visible if earth is curved. Second, *it is always the case in real life flat earth that we can see everything in between,* that's a huge point, and it shows there is a huge problem with his program. Look at this short video of a 200 mile shot from Mount Brunswick to Mount Rainier, with everything visible in between th-cam.com/video/Uzpy0-tdBSU/w-d-xo.html
Completely incorrect, as I stated, the numerous mountain ranges in between the San Jacinto mountains aren't visible, at all. When you actually look at those mountains, nearly half of the bottom of the peaks just isn't visible. The earth isn't flat, and you're talking to someone who not only lives near these ranges, I can name them.
@@anthonytrujillo2535 Go to the spot and see for yourself. Nothing is hidden. My video shows this too. Every long distance photo shows this. 8 inches per mile means that a 6 foot person standing at the shore at sunset would not seethe light make a straight line reflection right to his feet at the shore. The reflection must stop 3 miles out at his horizon. The globe is just a religion based on dogmatic assumptions. No material can spin like a top over 1000 mph without exploding well before that speed. And, a broken cracked behemoth cannot spin at all, you need tensile strength (solidity) to spin. You need minimum 215,000 psi tensile strength to spin 1000 mph, titanium only has 63,000 psi tensile strength. Basalt, which is most of the fake globes cracked crust, has 1900 psi tensile strength. It's all here spin1.flat.wtf goes to a page on Blogger. That's engineering physics, that's reality. Earth is obviously flat and motionless. Open your eyes.
@@rocketspushoffair that's a lot of words for "I don't know what I think I do, by in too dense to understand it." As I said, I live near the San Jacinto mountains, and once again the curvature of the earth exists, and ever dumb flat earth video even demonstrates this.
@@anthonytrujillo2535 You are a biggot. All you proved, is that your beliefs are based on dogmatic assumptions: a massive broken ball can spin over 1000 mph. Even though no material can handle spinning 1000 mph and no broken object can spin in the first place.
any flat or round earth experiment should and must be performed only on sea or water surfaces for accurate results, otherwise there ll be a huge doubts and innacuracy.
@@levicross6431 being at sea without using something that flies proves your point is invalid. People have fast planes (not airplanes with "fish eye lens") that have no windows and just flew up and had it on video and images of the curve.
What happens when you start from the fe model matching the photograph, rather then matching it on the globe earth model ,surely you just have to zoom out to where it matches the fe model to photograph and then compare the 2?
The problem is that the flat Earth model doesn't match the photograph, no matter how you zoom or pan. There's a big chunk of the mountain missing in the photograph. Zooming doesn't change that.
@Airplay Yes moon goes in front of moon but there is something else to besides the moon and sun. There is some type of third celstial object to cause the eclipse. Not sure if you believe in flat earth or ball earth?
Great explanation showing the difference in a simulation model based on both calculations. When comparing both theories to the actual photo it does 100% prove the earth is round. This is how pilots navigate the globe and the only possible way to do it. Cheers.
Show me how a 6670 km long river will flow on the globe. It's just not possible. The globalist have heavily brainwashed you with their pseudoscience. The water in the rivers always flows only from the upland to the lowlands. The surface of the ball always has a rounded shape. In reality, the horizon is always let, it has no curvature, there is always an altitude above sea level, and this works correctly because all seas are flat and have no curvature. Your refraction creates the illusion of curvature. All the objects that you supposedly hide behind the curvature never tilt in the opposite direction from the observer. They look straight up because they are on the same level as the observer. Stop justifying and defending the pseudoscience created by globalists to brainwash and manipulate consciousness.
Here is how I will bring down all the arguments about a flat earth. In your theory of the flat earth, you said that the sun is turning around the earth, why then when you are at sea, and watching the sunset in the open sea, why it disappears behind the horizon, and does not go around earth?
Based on earths apparent diameter you could add a measurement of how much the arc plays on distance and how much of the viewed item / area should be below horizon line on a spherical shape in relation to a flat earth. It would lend some weight to either opinion. Great vid btw.
Good question. Nothing can ever prove a theory true (by definition), but an experiment can prove a theory wrong, by showing a result that contradicts the prediction made by a theory. In this case, Flat Earth Theory makes a prediction, namely, how a certain mountain should look like when photographed from a certain position. This computer model is based on the premises of Flat Earth Theory, and shows that that theory's prediction does not match observation. That falsifies the version of Flat Earth Theory that was used to construct the model. So, yes, a computer-generated model can prove a theory false.
@@okreylos no it can't, still a computer created by people, still a software created by people and still missing atmosphere in the computer and reality which we have no clue about.
@@okreylos It's disappointing how dense these people insist on being, in order to convince themselves that any evidence which contradicts their fantasy must be, by definition, false. This is a wonderful demonstration that shows very conclusive results. But predictably, the flat earthers throw nonsense excuses at it to try and hand-wave away the evidence that shows how wrong they are.
@@SirMildredPierce if you're suggesting I'm dense or indeed a flat earther you're very much mistaken. I merely pointed out a computer cannot prove either theory.
@@okreylos I never put forward a question to you... and I disagree... this cannot prove or disprove any theory. Unless we live in a simulation which I believe we do not.
There is a new video out by Professor Dave debating a flat-eather. At 12:12 you can see the picture of a mountain in the video and some math. Could you take a look into that?
That's about right, when ignoring atmospheric refraction. With standard refraction taken into account, the hidden height drops to 8,908 feet. Which leaves 3,700 feet of visible mountain. Without knowing that area or the conditions under which the photo was taken in detail, the picture looks consistent with the globe. Rule of thumb: When someone claims a certain observation would be impossible on a globe Earth, that claim ends up wrong every time it's checked.
@@okreylos How does standard refraction factor into that? I'm not too familiar with optical physics. Does that mean how light is refracted at the horizon or over water? So there is nothing to see there that is exactly the amount of mountain you would expect to see if the earth was a globe did I get that right?
Under normal conditions, the atmosphere is optically denser at lower altitudes than at higher altitudes. This causes light travelling through the atmosphere to refract towards the ground. In short and in general, light above Earth's surface doesn't travel in straight lines, but in slightly downward-curved arcs. This curvature cancels out some of Earth's geometric curvature, virtually lifting far-away objects above their actual geometric positions, and making it possible to see farther than it were possible if Earth had no atmosphere. Diagram: imgur.com/gallery/refraction-PBCvr3T
@@okreylos I knew that there light travels differently and some phenomena are explained by it. But thanks for the explanation. I will take a look at it.
Foreshortening only works forward, not from right to left. So no, you're wrong: you would NOT get "the same rate of curve", because the view forward covers a MUCH greater distance than what fits in the frame on the horizontal.
Here's a diagram of the field of view of the original photograph and my recreations of it, seen from above: imgur.com/mMOYjHG Notice the size difference from left to right vs bottom (observer) to top (mountain). Here's a diagram showing Earth's curvature at different scales, drawn to scale: imgur.com/uhuazn6
@@charlesheller3266 The curve is the same, yes. Try this. Find a huge badin ball, like 1-meter diameter plus if you can. You can see it as a sphere. If you move your eye closer to the surface of the ball keeping an eye on the horizon of the ball at all time, you will also notice this horizon is apparently flattening the closer you get. Then, when your jowl is at the surface, still looking at the horizon, put a finger on the surface in front of you, and move it away from you. Notice how quick it moves beyond the horizon. Compare this to the horizon you see. Now, imagine if the ball were the size of the Earth.
@@charlesheller3266 It's a bloody big planet mate. You can see a hell of a lot further in front of you than you can see from side to side. You would see one degree of curvature in something like 110 kilometres. And you wouldn't be able to discern that anyway. However looking in front of you, you can see much further than that and the horizon is the cutoff point on the ground. Anything beyond the horizon can't be seen because of curvature. Hence you can't see the bottom half of that mountain.
Telephoto lenses have a way of changing the aspect ratio of objects seen at a distance, this is well know in photography circles. The virtual computer model has no way to add in atmospheric and telephoto lens effects to your presentation. The atmosphere can also distort the size of objects. Both of these types of phenomenons can be seen on my channel in both buildings and with vessels sailing over Lake Ontario.
...perhaps, but, as seen in the video, there is no way the atmosphere would obscure that much of the mountain. The only reason so much of the mountain is obscured is due to the curvature of the earth.
you can ask any radio television cell, satellite engineer, land surveyor, city planner, architect, geologist, maritime captain or engineer, flight pilot or engineer and they’ll all explain line of sight and understanding the earths curvature in order to properly do their job! But nice try, flerfs are completely cognitively dissonant about their psyop that they want to believe so badly is true but have provided no legitimate evidence. Why hasn’t any flat Earther made a weather balloon GoPro vid that rises to 100k ft where the curvature could barely be noticed? Hobbyists have been doing and anyone can look up the vids right now, yet not ONE flerf has taken the challenge, or why hasn’t any flerf gone to Lake Michigan directly across from Chicago to prove it’s flat when in reality you can only see the top half of the tallest buildings in the skyline , proving that the horizon is CURVED! So why haven’t they taken these very easy challenges to prove their claims? because they don’t east to lose their social media followers and not be able to capitalize off their scam artist content! They’d lose status and their little flat earth earth community retreats would be no more! Then they wouldn’t have anything to offer society because they are uneducated.
Thanks for being absolutely honest, not getting emotional or dogmatic and not dismissing anything out of hand without further analysis. I would however be interested very much in further analysis. And you've got a very interesting tool there.
I am a Cad-operator by trade and have only one thing to say...."PERSPECTIVE!".....won't go into "ALL" the other "real-life" options not shown here. I remain a non-heliocentrist.
Since you're a CAD operator, I assume you can answer me this: do the laws of this PERSPECTIVE you speak of explain the workings of a pinhole camera / camera obscura? In other words. is a pinhole camera the embodiment of the laws of perspective, or is it not?
@@okreylos of-coarse...its relative to the "size" of the box ...can be proved by a 12 mile square box (I doubt you would make out the image at that distance relative to a "pin-hole")
@@TinyApe As a CAD operator, you might appreciate this: th-cam.com/video/_6IKBqjQp4o/w-d-xo.html 'AutoCAD, Flat Earth Sun Perspective' Made it myself a while ago.
I, too, watched the documentary. I especially liked the parts that proved earths rotation of 15 degrees per hour, and the curvature viewed through the glory holes!
Graham Rathbone earth isn’t moving go look at the micheal morelys experiment in Einstein’s own words he said ‘ I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."- Physicist, Albert Einstein "...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."- Physicist, Albert Einstein He really thought he couldn’t debunk it lol
naturalbornkillr ....nice to know that you are familiar with that sound. I’ve never heard that sound, but it’s nice to know that you’re so familiar with that sound, that you can pick it out by just hearing him talk. I guess that you’ve heard that sound often and quite clearly though, with your mouth only being a few inches from your ears.
Good video , yes atmospheric conditions play a HUGE part in long distance photography . I would love to see a timelapse of this observation because most timelapses I've seen of similar scenes shows the constantly fluctuating weather conditions creating all kinds of optical effects and the horizon line and the things you can and can't see jump all over the place. If you see a timelapse you would agree there is no way to take a still from it and use that as an accurate way to measure anything in the image to prove the shape of the earth . The globe earth has a specific claimed radius and to this date there is no scientific experiment conducted that proves R (radius) 3959 miles , in fact there are countless observations disproving the given radius
"to this date there is no scientific experiment conducted that proves R (radius) 3959 miles , in fact there are countless observations disproving the given radius" Well, that's true, but only if you ignore all the scientific experiments that show a radius of 3959, and misinterpret or flat out invent any "experiments" that don't. So I guess it isn't true after all. Huh, who would've thought.
@@okreylos Tx for your video. It would be interesting to know if the photograph matched you digital rendering setting of Earth being 39,590 radius? Yes 1,000 bigger then is known. Thank you.
@@isintitwonderfull346 You can see me change Earth's radius at 6:50, and how the simulated image changes in response. So if the image matches the photograph at 3959 mile radius, then it can not match the photograph at 39590 miles radius. Makes sense?
@@okreylos What are the experiments that prove the radius of 3959 that you know of? Precise data is the only way to shut these guys up. You literally have to be a round earth expert with all the data at your hands, or these guys figure your lack of knowldge is proof that the EARTH IS FLAT.
@@barneyrubble8255 This experiment right here, for one. The photograph is consistent with Earth having a radius of 3,959 miles, and obviously inconsistent with Earth being flat. In addition, every large-scale topographic survey ever done, including the very survey that created the 3D topographic model I'm using here (the National Elevation Dataset, which is a digitization of USGS topographic maps that were created in the pre-satellite era, i.e., by actual surveyors walking the Earth). Also every satellite observation ever made, every single GPS reading ever taken, etc. etc. etc.
i think you wrong, your software showed you a Level up of the elevation of your camera.! you can see that due to the mountain on the right, it can't suddenly disappears from the sight......first of all it is much higher than the camera!!! and second it is much closer than the mountain behind, if i'm not mistaking then this mountain is halfway between the camera and the big mountain, so due to prospective it have to look pretty big!!! you see after you supposedly flattened the software, the camera became higher then this mountain.....it seems like you have to do a better job......
Thank you. Great work. And you stayed neutral, like true scientist. Just reported your observations. Respect. First video of flat-and globe discussion, that explains results with respect without debunking/blaming/hating others.
At last, I knew I couldn't be the only one who understood that the scientific method requires that you start from a question not a conclusion... I find it ironic that all the people trying to defeat flat earth create flat earth content, titles, comments, and ratings that just add to the importance of the topic in terms of the algorithms... In turn that leads to more promotion of flat earth and onwardly more interest and more people looking into it... I thought they were scientific people who understand how things work... It no longer has anything to do with shape or science it has become a fight between people who seek a level of acceptance, control and fulfilment in life. They do that by fighting with virtual nobodies on a virtual platform full of virtual nobodies for the sake of views and monetisation... What is an anti flat earth channel without flat earth? I know what mint smells like, chicken tastes like, denim feels like and what my dog looks like because I have had sensory interactions with those things... I don't know what Kadapul flower smells like, or sloth tastes like, tiger fur feels like or what your pet looks like (but if you described and explained I could believe)... Some people can't divide the difference between knowing and believing, remove all conclusions and givens, and then work from nothing... I have never been so far from the earth to see for myself so to me it has no shape... Stating this to flat earthers leads to some really interesting conversation, debate and conceptual thinking... Stating it to a sphere leads to an all out assault with all their frends joining in to swear at and insult me... Which is the better person to talk to? Who is being more scientific? It's a strange world whatever shape it is.
@@dontaskme7004 Of course we are a bit rough towards flat earthers. Aren't you a bit impatient towards people who assert that reindeer fly? And unless you have no brain nor education, it should be obvious to you that the earth is a sphere. The ancient Greeks knew this already in the 4th century B.C.
Nikola Babic actually for the most part it does.... Dense weather, crepuscular/anti crepuscular rays, humidity, temperature variations, pollution, fog, mist, dust particles, dense fluid air, atmospheric refraction/lensing/looming/magnification, superior/inferior mirage effects, eye level horizontal rate of convergence, vanishing point, depth perception, ramped/linear perspective, angular resolution, pyramidal perspective, 3 point perspective and your eye visual perspective ramp. When you have an atmosphere that is so dense visually at long distances you have to resort to the laws of perspective AND atmospheric conditions to understand what we are actually looking at. Perspective causes the lower visual eye spectrum to rise the further you can view. It is the opposite with the sky. The sky lowers in the same fashion down to eye level creating a visual limit. This is part of what helps the eye calculate distance and when you add atmospheric conditions to the rising land/lowering sky a horizon appears blocking the view of the sun which is obviously further than the horizon in both models. On the flat model you rise in altitude and find the Sun after sunset proving this phenomenon in what world we truly live in.
If it's flat, WHAT'S IT SITTING ON??! What's it held in place by? And whatever tabletop this "flat earth" high school science project is sitting on, what ground is THAT on??! And if that ground is also "flat earth", what's THAT held in place by? Surely not the gravitational pull of other spherical objects, because that would make too much sense.
The video was very well made although we need to remember this is not reality, it’s a computer program. This still does not discount the countless real life experiments debunking the curvature calculation. I myself have performed the curvature calculation experiment on a lighthouse that was 10.71 miles away, and saw it in full from bottom to top. Not to mention seeing the wake of the boats passing in front of and behind said lighthouse. Telescope = Inspire 90 AZ. Lighthouse = Los Angeles Harbor Lighthouse next to Terminal Island. Viewing Point = Sunset Beach California Latitude 33.7115 Longitude -118.0659 to Los Angeles Harbor Lighthouse Latitude 33.7087 Longitude -118.2516. According to the curvature calculator I should not be able to see the bottom 31.17 feet of the 69 ft lighthouse. The telescope was situated at 3 ft above sea LEVEL. My telescope tripod would even occasionally get wet by waves. Once again, video was very well put together, but seeing proof on a computer program is still not define proof of the globe.
Your lat/log is not correct. The coordinates you gave for Sunset Beach are for the lighthouse, and the light house coordinates are off shore about 40 miles. I checked useing google maps (a computer model) .
Cassi O OK OK you got me on a transcription error big deal. You are probably one of those kids in the school are used to tell the teacher people were looking at your test paper huh. Regardless, the location was Sunset Beach to the Los Angeles Harbor Lighthouse. The point of the matter is that the video does not prove anything versus reality which many people have shown and debunked the curvature a calculator. Of course we are both going to use a computer to obtain this information, unless of course you have a den full of nautical maps that you can reference. Come on really. Anyway I’m not here to go back-and-forth like I’ve done many times to no avail because so many people will never consider reality. Peace
@@NarrowRoad4Jesus It was my attempt to do a great circle distance calculation using your lat/long numbers, which is where I found the mistake. The irony is your original post discounts okraylos video for using a computer program, yet we all use a computer program to find distance on google maps. It's also ironic that you used lat/long, which is a global coordinate system. There really is no debate, the figure of the Earth is more than a theoretical model, its a physical object that has been explored and surveyed.
Cassi O I was pondering your comment, and my questions to you would be as follows: 1. How would you propose that someone do research on this topic if not using a computer in this day and age? (Of course I could go to a library. But why do that when so many answers are at our fingertips.) 2. What other accepted form of distance measurement would you or anyone else accept other than Lat and Long? Globe skeptics would have to come up with a new form of measurement that would never be accepted by the mainstream. My last comment is that there absolutely is a debate about the matter. The entire video that we are commenting on is debating both models.
Appreciate the sentiment, but it's what I do for a living. That's why the photograph and the claim that it proves a flat Earth motivated me to step into the fray.
We've seen all the planets in our solar system... SO DO PEOPLE HAVE TO BE DUMB ENOUGH TO BE LIKE " hey the earth is flat" "why you see ( explaining nothing that makes any fricking sense)" "OK no scientific evidence I see" Seriously it doesn't take a genius to work it out... The planet formed from rocks billions of years ago and they formed a sphear not a flat pandcake, this is because of something called gravety now it didn't make the rocks line up to make a flat thing NO that's not how gravity works so they slowly over millions of years formed the earth but covered in lava and Volcanoes and suffered multiple astoroid attacks and after millions and millions of years the earth had water! that's all I'm going to say research it if you want but THE EARTH IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN FLAT
@@UnderQuotaGuy123 "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it".
No. Your Sun is orbiting around the perimeter, suggesting that those parts of the "South pole" are being lit in cycles, when RIGHT NOW, in the month of December ALL of it is under perpetual sunlight while your "North Pole" in the centre of your world is in perpetual darkness. Under those circumstances, around the Winter Solstice, your Flat Earth model should look like a vanilla glazed doughnut.
IT means they need to photograph something that would be totally invisible behind the curvature of the earth if it was a globe. But some photos have been taken for a high altitude showing much more than we would see with the naked eye with the use of infrared.
Depends. If it continuously flies east or west, it will forever travel in a circle around the north pole (same as on a globe). If it flies in a northerly direction, it will spiral towards the north pole, and then I don't know what the pilot will do, because there is no more north to go (same as on a globe). If the plane flies in a southerly direction, it will spiral towards Antarctica (same as on a globe), but -- unlike on a globe -- it will finally be intercepted and downed by the missile-equipped penguins of the ADF (Antarctic Defense Force).
@@okreylos good answer but why won't they let anyone go to either pole? If such things exist. Or are they protecting the inner earth entrances or the prison walls? 😉😎
@@mauimixer6040 Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Where did you get the idea that "they won't let anyone go to either pole?" That's nonsense on the face of it, because tons of people have gone to the geographic North Pole, and a smaller number of people have gone to the geographic South Pole, several coworkers of mine among the latter.
@@jamaldeep13 I think it’s different seeing celestial objects. It’s amazing on some days it appears the sun and the moon are the same size. Either it’s our perception or someone is snowing is on how far and how big each object is
Question to the creator of this video. 1. Whats the difference between your CGI models and NASA’s? Are they both not equally unreal? 2. Please demonstrate practically how the surface of standing water can be any thing other than dead level as reality shows it to be. 3. Please give a practical example of how a gaseous pressurized environment and a vacuum can exist in the same space without a barrier or some form of containment? 4. Please show me a real photograph of the earth.
You forgot to mention we are flying through that vacuum at 66.6000 miles/hour around the sun... It's fucking ridiculous and sheeple refuse to wake up to it!
1. The thing is he matched his CGI model with a real picture taken in reality...and then tested that photo against a Flat Earth and a Globe Earth, using real topography data taken in the real world...the photo matched the Globe simulation not a Flat simulation...but had it matched a flat simulation, you'd probably accept this information as fact without question. CGI can be used to simulate reality, it is a geometrically accurate tool that renders 3D shapes that can be scaled up beyond what we're capable of doing with a physical model and therefore it's very useful for rendering things to scale and performing TO SCALE experiments. So it's VERY useful to render models in 3D and then test them...and you'd have to be in pure denial to say otherwise. Had it matched with Flat Earth, you'd likely be praising this video...so please, don't give me that excuse "CGI isn't real, so you can't use CGI"...cause I aint buying it. 2. Level perpendicular to Earths center...due to gravity. It's not hard to work out and it does work. But the only way to demonstrate this effect to you, is to observe curvature over water. So here's a great blog that does just that. walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth&demo=Soundly#App You'll probably complain that these are again 3D renderings...but again, they MATCH these 3D models with ACTUAL photos taken in reality. The model they have mocked up, is using ACTUAL Globe Earth topography and curvature data...REAL measurements taken out in the field by REAL people. Point is, the water is curving here...the Pontchartrain bridge is not just sinking into the lake, it's going over a curve...a curve of water. This is possible thanks to gravity, which pulls all things to center of mass...which makes water level off perpendicular to Earths center....which causes it to curve. 3. Ok, have you ever seen what smoke or gas does in a vacuum chamber? It falls to the bottom and forms a layer. The top of that layer of gas...is residing right next to a vacuum. How is this possible? Again, gravity...gravity is the container...space does not suck on things, it physically can't do that. But gravity sure can and it easily captures anything caught in its gravity well...pulling it down and keeping it down on the surface. In the case of gases, it pulls them to the surface, stacking them much like anything else, creating a pressure gradient...that gets thinner and thinner the higher you go in elevation...what happens when you have no more gas left to stack? You have space...zero pressure...that's all space is, the absence of matter. 4. How about 200 real photos of Earth, these were taken in the 60's and 70's long before CGI. th-cam.com/video/xz5DTCQlGwE/w-d-xo.html In the description of this video you can even find a link to an archive where you can find many more photos of Earth.
@@ronaldwagner8163 I think you meant 67,000 mph...one to many units there and why the decibel? Anyway, sure, I bet that sounds impressive to you...but maybe you should learn about the physics of Relative Motion and the Laws of Motion. Basically what this science has learned about motion, is that we do not feel speed...what we feel is acceleration, deceleration and rapid change in forward/angular velocity, aka Centrifugal Force. Those are what we are designed to notice...and it's quite easy to demonstrate. If you were to hit the gas on a car you'd start to accelerate immediately and you would likely feel yourself sucked to the back of the seat a little, depending on how fast your car could accelerate of course. Let's say from 0 - 100 mph, you'd probably feel that acceleration if you were to punch on the gas (rapid acceleration) and reach that speed in a few seconds. But now, do it again, only this time, instead of accelerating rapidly, gradually increase your speed so that it takes you one full hour to reach 100 mph...would you be sucked to the seat then? No, you wouldn't...because the acceleration is far less. And furthermore, once your speed has leveled off at 100 mph, you're still not sucked to your seat and if the road were smooth enough, no bumps, and no windows...you'd barely be able to tell you were moving at all. So why is that? Relative Motion. Another good example is on an airplane, at cruising altitude, the plane travels at a constant 500 mph...that's 5x's faster than the car example. Yet, once the plane has leveled off its speed and maintained that 500 mph velocity, you are free to get up and walk around the cabin, get a beverage, throw a ball around, do some jumping jacks...never once are you flung to your seat and never once do you notice this intense speed you are flying at...in fact, every plane ride I've ever been on, I could barely even tell I was moving at all. This is due to Relative Motion. What this demonstrates is that your preconceived notion of speed and how it affects you is incorrect. We do not feel speed, unless the change in speed is drastic and sudden...then an inertia force is generated...that is what you feel when you accelerate, inertia. But once every atom, molecule and cell in your body is moving at the same constant rate relative to another object, you will no longer feel any motion. This is what is happening with our Earth around the Sun. Yes, we are travelling at a pretty impressive speed, but we have been moving at that same exact rate of motion our entire lives, relative to the Earth, which maintains that constant rate of speed...because there is ZERO friction in space to slow it down. Newtons 1st Law of motion, anything in motion stays in motion at the exact same rate of motion until acted upon by an opposing force of greater or equal mass. The Earth fly's through empty space...a void of nothingness, it's not going to stop moving anytime soon and so we will never notice this motion. So it's fine if you disagree, but just know that there are some concepts in physics you are likely not aware of, that have demonstrated how these speeds are possible. THIS is why we don't bat an eye at claims like this...because we have come to understand the physics of our world a little better and we have discovered that it is actually completely possible for us to be traveling at these speeds, due to relative motion and conservation of momentum. Maybe YOU are the one who should wake up...pick up a physics book and stop listening to con men on TH-cam.
@@MrSirhcsellor I don't know if you brain dead or brainwashed, probably both....Maybe you should get an EEG? You clearly can't think for yourself....It's not 67, 000 m/h it's 66,627 m/h ...The decimal was a typo...You don't even have you info correct and spouting off to me...We are supposedly in an elliptical orbit therefore the earth has to decelerate and accelerate at speeds of 66.6 k m/h... Do you have any idea what G forces that would generate? It's gradual we so don't feel it? lol Here is a basic fact of physics nature abhors a vacuum regardless of whether we are moving are not , our atmosphere would be sucked away! You have been conned ..wake up!!!! I guess you can't if your EEG is flat like the earth
@@shnootch Right, the knowledge that the Earth is spherical is new: Erasthenes, Copernicus, Galaleo, and every other great mind since the year 126BC worked for NASA and was part of the Illuminati agenda. I suppose Davinci's glider was intended to spread contrails.
Very nice video. It's amazing when people say "Hey look you can see the top of this mountain 100 miles away, the Earth must be flat!" when the obvious rebuttal is "OK so why can't you see the rest of this massive mountain, what is hiding it?"
2hat you need to see is the bottom and that's why the earth is flat Because there's a world calculation of curvature and when you measure the sphere measurements don't work
@@tomasjina6174 The base of the mountain. All you can see is the top part of it, what happened to the majority of the height of the mountain? (Hint, it is hidden behind the curve of the Earth)
@@Secret-ion "light things rise and heavy things fall" - So you accept that mass is the important factor. therefore you actually acknowledge the attraction between masses, therefore your acknowledge gravity, therefore the earth isnt flat. tada.
With an App?... Ok, Seems par for the course... I mean Math and measurements of physical objects just don’t jive with the Model...That’s the issue... Fake and staged pictures, phony nasa videos with guys in Harnesses and stubborn pseudo intellectuals pushing lies....
@@shadowbanned-9577 Those claims you make have to be proven by you. All I see are empty claims about measurements and people in harnasses. You have to be speciffic. So we can point you to your mistakes and incredullity.
I think you misunderstand what "oblate" means. It does *not* mean that Earth is flat at the top or bottom. It means that Earth is elliptical in a north-south cross-section, not perfectly spherical. And the eccentricity of that ellipse is very small, so small that to the naked eye, or if drawn to scale in a picture, the globe looks exactly like a sphere. Edit: I uploaded an image comparing a sphere and an oblate spheroid, both approximating the shape of Earth: imgur.com/hkUtjwI
@@Sasoon2006 It does not takes lots of imagination to know about the flat earth, just belief in your senses and disbelief in textbooks and NASA caricatures. The fact is that even Albert Einstein confirmed that no scientific experiment can detect any of Earth's "movements". th-cam.com/video/Bi59h5rM8T8/w-d-xo.html You may want to see parts 2 and 3 also, with links provided on the video's description.
Because this video is about a photograph that was taken in Malibu and shows Mt. San Jacinto west of Palm Springs, not about a photograph that was taken in Greenland and shows Tasmania. If you have a photo that was taken in Greenland and shows Tasmania, I'd love to see it.
@@okreylos iam asking you, why then you ask me back? , you are the one who's presenting that false idea, so why don't you go out there and measure it then. So you can proved your claims. Not only a kind of story from a certain picture.
@@goddycarino6747 Wow...you're not the quickest cat are you. What would be the point of measuring from Greenland to Tasmania and then rendering it in this software...if there is no physical picture that exists of this, that can then be used to compare both models against? You did watch the video above right? You do realize he was matching topography data to an actual picture that was taken...so he could see which model fit the picture, Globe or Flat...you do understand what he was doing here right? I'm guessing not...cause your comment is just nonsensical.
@@MisfitRecords yep true. But funny how when you rise higher Abive the ground you can see further and further. I wonder how our eyes know how far we can see
@@bertiecharlie yes ,is mount Everest hundreds of miles from location?? or THOUSANDS OF MILES from your location .. We shouldn't be able to see for hundreds of miles either because of the curve
I NEED MY OPIOIDS BRO I’m yet to see definitive scientific evidence of limit of visual sight in the atmosphere. The fact we can see stars millions of light years away makes me think the horizon is the primary reason we can’t see for thousands of miles. Providing you’re at the right altitude, seeing for hundreds of miles is entirely consistent with the globe model.
A "globe defender" called Rory linked this on his channel, and I'm glad he did. Excellent video, and I love that piece of software. Wish I had access to something like that, (and the ability to use it). The main problem with flat earth believers is that they are full of excuses, and they have an answer for everything. They will say your software doesn't include atmospheric conditions, or perspective. They will call it a reification fallacy, because they heard those words somewhere and think they know what it means. They'll basically go so far as to tell you that the earth is flat, but looks curved no matter how you view or measure it. Then in the next breath they'll show you a video where atmospheric refraction *does* make the earth look almost flat, and they'll offer it as proof of no curvature. They are quite literally the most closed-minded, ignorant, stubborn people I've ever come across.
As Adrena 1in mentioned, Rory also checked this out and found problems with J Tolans image, J Tolan has a habit of guessing at what he is seeing and incorrectly defines them as fact in many of his images, Several other debunks have been done, but I do like this one, as this shows what should be seen on the flat earth, which I have never seen before. Great work, and I suspect the amount of thumbs down will grow as more globe deniers view this content. They really do hate it when their narrative is falisified by this kind of evidence.
@Graham Rathbone How about the city in front of the mountain. It blocks the view of the bottom of the mountain. The photo was taken below the top of the city so your eye site angle will still rise until you hit the mountain.
@Graham Rathbone The video does not prove one way or the other. It is definitely leaning towards a curve. The problem is we don't know where he took the photo from. Was he standing at sea level or higher up. Ten to twenty feet can make a significant difference. How much of photographers view of sight was blocked from seeing over buildings and land mass? What percentage of the mountain do you feel you see in the photograph and his example?
That's a really good question. What I'm drawing in this video is a sphere. So if there's no left-to-right curve of the horizon in this video, but we do know that the video is showing a sphere, then we need to ask: *Should* there be a left-to-right curve on a sphere? And the answer is no. There should not be a left-to-right curve, given the radius of the sphere (6,371km) and the elevation of the viewer (46m). The reason for that is geometry. I'm explaining it in more detail in this video: th-cam.com/video/3zSHZkHCAaQ/w-d-xo.html
The globe is not a theory. It is an observable and measurable fact. The FE theory does not have a consistent model. Some things the flat-earth proponents cannot explain: a) consistently, b) in the same model, and c) at the same time. (and there are many more) 1. Day and night 2. Eclipses (both Solar and Lunar) 3. Seasons (Earth tilt) that are reversed in the southern hemisphere 4. 15 degrees per hour gyroscopic drift 5. Different stars visible in different hemispheres (North star, Southern cross etc.) 6. Stars appear to rotate around the poles (Earth rotating) 7. Space travel, space walks 8. Why things fall towards the centre of the earth (gravity) or other nearby large masses 9. The GPS system works 10. Photos from space 11. Great circle routes for aircraft travel, i.e. distance of flights only makes sense on a globe 12. Australia exists (I live here) 13. People have travelled to both poles, Antarctica is real and you can visit 14. The horizon (i.e. things disappear below the horizon) 15. Tides 16. Moon position relative to the Sun (also phases of the moon) 17. Celestial navigation (latitude/longitude from the Sun and stars etc.) works based on the globe 18. Moon landings, manned and unmanned 19. Buoyancy has g (acceleration due to gravity) as part of its definition 20. Planetary exploration, including Voyager I and II 21. Why the moon looks the same size, shape, and it appears to tilt based on viewing location 22. Transit of Venus (across the Sun) 23. The sun sets in the northwest in summer and the southwest in winter in the northern hemisphere? (reversed in the Southern hemisphere) 24. The fact that the Sun appears to rise and set, ditto moon 25. Equatorial Mounts (telescope mounts) only work on a Spherical Earth 26. The atmosphere has a pressure gradient as you go higher (which makes no sense if there is a hard shell firmament container) 27. South towards a convergent pole and not radially to the 'ice wall'? 28. South of the equator tropical storms are called cyclones and rotate in a clockwise direction, while north of the equator cyclones are called hurricanes or typhoons and rotate in an anti-clockwise direction. 29. A given mass has a slightly different weight at different latitudes due to varying gravity and centrifugal force. Explain all of these in the FE model AT THE SAME TIME !!
Gravity is a theory can prove it that is why they are starting to say dark matter is the reason everything is the way it is way to much gravity in all the objects in space it just doesn't ad up. Neil Degrasse Tyson said something to that effect.
Wow, that’s all it takes? No questions of the elevation of the two heights and the distance between them and running the math? You would be surprised at the results if you simply run the math. The top of the mountain will be thousands of feet below the curvature. You should not see the top of mountain at all based on the math, but we do see the mountain.
@@rswow Okay: Observer is standing on a cliff with eye level roughly 40 metres up. The summit of Mt San Jacinto is 197 km away from the observer This leads to a drop of 2387 metres Mt San Jacinto itself is 3302 metres tall So not only was the guy I was talking to dead wrong, either through an accidental conversion or being full of crap, but the amount of mountain hidden below the horizon matches the photo
@samuel moore Excuse me, you said "the moon is over the ocean"? Uhm yeah like 238,000 miles over it, so it's like over everything else too and all at once. I love how you say people should become smarter and better thinkers, I really do appreciate that more than you know LOL.. With all of your waking up & thinking and everything, have you ever thought about how people scattered all over the world all see the exact same phase of the moon at the same time yet? I challenge you to think for yourself about that and with no flat earth video research. Have you ever even looked at timeanddate.com and thought how well it matches reality and how it matches up with a globe, but how it never matches up with a flat disc map from the floor of the CIA building. Let me know. I'm really curious to see what a deep thinker has to say about that. Thanks.
from my simple mind the easiest way to discover for your self that the earth is spherical (round-ish) is in order to see other objects in space as round (spherical) is back to the theory that the earth is the center of the universe and every object that is round (spherical) is flat and tilted towards earth in order to be seen as round (spherical) . therefore, with it being proven that the earth in not the center of the solar system and definitely not the universe the only logical conclusion is the the earth is not flat .
Pool table has round balls therefore it must be round. Plate by the same logic must be a sphere coz its round... Why people so eager to want to believe in non existent space
Sorry this does prove that the earth is curved. Like he had said in the video that it was shown for the globe model to predict almost exactly what it would look like.
@Amused "In order to "prove" something you need multiple data sets." But in order to disprove something, you only need one dataset. If a model can't explain EVERYTHING, it isn't right.
You don't really need to bother with proving earth round no more than you need to prove grass green. But, if you talk a bit more general, then the philosophy of science has a peculiar bone to pick with proving things. No hypothesis or even a theory can be ever be proven true and final, best you can do is find more and more supporting evidence. But no matter how much supporting evidence you find, the theoretical possibility remains that someday, someone finds evidence that proves it wrong. On the other hand, a hypothesis can certainly be proven wrong in a very final way if evidence simply does not match the predictions of a hypothesis. The coffin of flat earth was nailed shut by the ancient Greeks by the very latest, possibly even earlier but no records have survived.
Optical viewing utilizes angular resolution. Does your computer model take that into account? We do not see forever. Things get smaller in the distance due to the diffraction limit. Your perspective.
Yes, but perspective or the vanishing point as you're describing above, effects an object from ALL angles. It doesn't just pick and choose what parts to make vanish first....that's not how perspective works, nor the vanishing point. The fact is that thousands of feet are missing from the bottom of these mountains at long distance photos and they just so happen to be missing exactly the amount as our curvature calculations predict they should be if the Earth is a Globe with a radius of roughly 6000 km.
I like how he said the curvature that it really is? Lol you don't know the curvature that it really is because the NASA cgi pictures show a sphere. Neil Tyson says pear shaped. Other scientists say flat up too and round on the sides. The bible describes it flat. Every time I fly its flat.
You are misunderstanding what scientists actually say. When they say "sphere" or "oblate spheroid" or "pear," they are quibbling over miniscule variations to the basic shape. From afar, Earth is a sphere. If you look more closely, it is a very slightly squished ellipsoid (that's what an "oblate spheroid" is). The difference between the sphere and the oblate spheroid is about 0.3%. If you look extremely closely with high-precision instruments, you notice it's slightly wider on the southern hemisphere, by a few dozen meters(!). Hence "pear-shaped." No one says "flat up top and round on the sides." You might have been confused by map projections like this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid#/media/File:Geoid_height_red_blue_averagebw.png That is a map, meaning an unrolling of the Earth's surface onto a piece of paper, not a picture. A rectangular world map like a Mercator map does not mean that the Earth is a rectangle. Let me say it again: Pictures from space show a sphere because, at those pictures' resolutions, Earth looks like a sphere. Here's a diagram overlaying the sphere and the oblate spheroid: imgur.com/hkUtjwI You are welcome to try and find the difference.
As a new idiocy in the form of a concave earth arises, can you show what that mountain would look like if the earth's surface were concave with similar radius?
Its easy to base your answers on something that is believed to be true. When you create a measuring system based on a thought, you figure out every way to make it right. But what if your thoughts were wrong in the first place? Our measuring system was made based on the thought that it was round, so of course their calculations would work.
You didnt line up the photo again with the flat earth view...it matched with the globe view but you should have done a comparison again with the photo and flat earth view....something just doesnt look right with the photo and the google graphics
Are you serious? How can you fail basic logic so completely? Let's say you have three pictures, A, B, and C. A and B look identical, and B and C look completely different. Do you *really* have to compare A and C to determine that they look completely different?
That's a curious logic you are proposing there. Would you like to give an example of three entities A, B, and C, and some equivalence relation "=", where A = B and not(A = C), but for some reason still B = C? That sounds very exciting! Or are you implying that "the mountain in this image looks exactly like the mountain in that other image" is not a transitive relation in the limited context of these three images?
Angular resolution is not present in the program he is using, as a result you see the mountain in its entirety when flipping it to "flat". This is not possible in real life. In reality, how much we can see of a tall object such as a mountain depends on angular resolution. The round earth setting I assume takes into consideration the diffraction limit and angular resolution according to the height of the viewer. That's why it matches the *real* photograph.
The most honest explanation I have ever found concerning the Two view points. I admire when people say I dont have enough evidence to lean on one side or the other. Rather you go by evidence by evidence scenario until you get enough data to come to a conclusion.
But there isn't two sides. There is one answer, it's easily understandable, observable, and testable. The Earth is a globe. There isn't any excuse for that level of ignorance anymore
@@wooonerf3195 its absolutely impossible for it to be a globe. The sun is not 93m miles away. Globe is easily disproven by daylight and how the sun moves away and doesn't set ,its also disproven by being able to see for miles and miles with zero curvature
Ask yourself this question. How is it possible in the late afternoon to see the sun on one side of the sky while observing the moon on the other side if the earth is round. One more question. Why has youtube taken down almost ALL of the flat earth videos if it's just entertaining junk?
Are you kidding me? It takes less than 30 seconds to draw a simple diagram that explains how one can see the Moon on the other side of the sky from the Sun in the morning / in the afternoon on a globe Earth: i.imgur.com/h0iyi4U.png Why didn't you do that before asking that question?
@@okreylos we have been taught in school that half the earth is ql and in sunlight and the other half is in darkness. There used to be a video about 3 friends one in Australia, in in the state of Washington and the third in England. They set a time to observe the sun. It was rising am Australia time.Setting in England and up in the US. Since half of the earth is always in darkness. How is this possible? Also how can I see the moon at 9 am and 4 pm. In broad daylight while someone else on the EXACT opposite side of the earth is in darkness.Remember the curve of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared. Your view point would only allow this if the earth wasn't flat.
@@georgemichaels2325 "Also how can I see the moon at 9 am and 4 pm. In broad daylight while someone else on the EXACT opposite side of the earth is in darkness." Look at the diagram I linked in my previous comment. It will explain how you are wrong.
@@okreylos you missed the point. Because of the claimed curve . It would be impossible for 2 people on opposite sides of the earth to see the Moon or Sun at the same time.The curve of the earth would stop your line of sight. Visualize yourself on the ground and then you'll figure it out. There are only cgi pictures from outer space of earth's surface.One video shows 8 different years of the globe. How come the American continent is a different shape and size on each picture? It proves they are fake. People are catching onn that's why most of the flat earth videos are taken down and only the bull shit troll videos are still up.
No, I think I got your point just fine. My point is that your point is completely wrong. You seem to have a problem thinking in three dimensions, something that is quite common to flat Earthers (if you could think in three dimensions, you probably wouldn't be one). "How come the American continent is a different shape and size on each picture?" Because those pictures were taken from different distances. The farther away you go from a sphere, the more of its surface you can see. Therefore, the relative size of features such as continents relative to the entirety of the sphere's visible surface changes; features appear to get smaller the farther you move away. You can try this at home using a globe.
This is great and I really appreciate what you did here. Very well presented and unbiased and simply stating facts. Well done and I hope more of the flat earth community sees this to wrap their head around. It would be neat to see you recreate the photo from sea level in the same direction as well. So many flat earth arguments saying the earth is flat are usually taken from one high point looking towards another high point. Either way great job on this!
Jay tolan is an engineer at Lockheed Martin. He's got many videos of him doing his experiments from the ground. He's literally out there doing these experiments not sitting on his a$$ at home on a computer. Don't listen to clowns like this that don't go out and actually perform real life experiments.
In 122 miles distance, the earth curve drops 9303 ft, so not only no foothills should be visible, but only about an upper quarter of the mountain, since from over 11 thousand hight should nine thousand be hidden behind the curve. So, contrary to what you think, this is clear proof of Earth's flatness.
@@tomasjina6174 the shot in the footage is not from sea level though? It is from a raised point also which throws off that calculation doesn't it? The fact also is that you do not see everything in between should be a good indication that on a perfectly flat earth there should be far more of the mountain visible I would think.
@@tomasjina6174 Contrary to watch you think, you have to see the ENTIRE MOUNTAIN for it to be proof of flatness. At best, this could be taken as proof that Earth is bigger than expected, and that's only if you ignore the fact that the picture was taken 40 metres up
Yeah the documentary is really fascinating, having that amount of flat earth stupidity in one documentary, having FE:s proving the curvature and the spinning globe them self.
A single data point is not a proof. ...But the countless data points to show the roundness of the Earth certainly are. Terrestrial examples and experiments abound. Photographs from space exist. Combine with the absolute lack of valid data points that show the Earth is flat, the contradictions within their own theories and the lack of a model that works even slightly with a flat Earth, and even the bastard son of Hellen Keller and Stevie fucking Wonder could see it's round.
And if you go up in elevation, you can eventually see the bottom of the mountain which was blocked by the horizon. But that will just go over flattards tiny brains.
@Jim Merrilees only Youre on a Spinning meteor in a complete vacuum of Space and nothingsness.. , accelerating constantly. Yeah!! Right....i read it in my books at schools. And they say its like that in the media. The things you will see on a globe was only 500 meteres and the top of thje mountain. Now woth both these pictures you see much much more. dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=197&h0=25&unit=metric
@Jim Merrilees You're literally insulting people simply for having a different opinion than you. You realize some of the worst people in history did that right? Including the brown coats in Germany.
Both are in the foreground and the picture was taken from a significant elevation (under 100m iirc) so there's no reason for the buildings to be hidden.
No, you’re not honest at all. You didn’t mention the observer height at all. What about perspective and compression? This is very deceptive people but it’s wrong.
I watched this documentary just yesterday, was unsure where it would go, but in the end displayed people sucked in by the conspiracy machine. I sure hope they can get out, paranoia is not a healthy thing. Also, it was amazing seeing the mountain appear when you flattened the Earth, fairly spectacular, and made it clear just how massive the mountain range really is. Now I want to travel there in Earth VR...
I thought the documentary was really good for the same reason, that it focused on the people that believe in a flat Earth, and the stated (and subconscious) reasons why they are doing so. I kinda feel the urge to make another couple of videos -- I created the 3D flat Earth model I'm showing in the introduction, and it's a beautiful visualization on how the Sun is supposed to work in a flat Earth model and how it doesn't match observations that can be made by anyone without fancy equipment -- but my better instincts tell me to let it go.
@@okreylos Just watching the documentary I felt like going outside and doing experiments of my own. I almost fell into conspiracy theories in my early twenties but quickly flipped over to the debunking side of things instead, but I can see how people who get fed more and more conspiracy content on this very platform would just fall deeper into the rabbit hole 😭
I was wondering if your tweet inspired the watching for this video or vice versa. I watched it because of the tweet and now having watched this I'm wondering if the whole theory is just meant to distract the curious from working on more important things.
Do the math, and you'll figure it out. First, an island 100 miles away would not be "miles" below the horizon: assuming an observer height of 2m, i.e. a regular person standing on a beach, and ignoring atmospheric effects, an island 100 miles away would be 1900 meters or less than 1.2 miles below the horizon. If the observer gains altitude, that number drops. If the observer is standing on a hill or mountain, now we're talking.
Yes." It's easier to fool people then convince them they are being fooled." Mark Twain
Faaaaxxxxx
@There's More to the Story -So Mark Twain must have been right, I mean just look at how easily all of the flat earthers fell for hoax that somehow the earth is flat LOL...
Hello, thank you for your time and work on this simulation.
I have a question hoping you could help.
- Given the considered curvature Earth seems to really have on this simulation if we extrapolate to the rest of the earth what kinda Earth do we have then?
- Can it be extrapolated and consider the rest have the same curvature?
- What would be the result?
- Can your simulator do the totally?
- How will Earth look like then if not round?
just look at to the north stars and position... ...till now people still using it.. imagene if that things changed...
How true it is.
I'm a land survivor and have never figured in the Earths curvature on any job I've done. Neither has anyone else I've known. The benchmarks dovetail perfectly with a flat plane.
Convince me I'm wrong.
"I'm a land survivor"
Allow me a tiny bit of skepticism right here.
Of course you haven't.. pilots don't even account for curvature! That tells you theres no curvature right there
@wmario666 "It's true also that railway tracks only work on a level plane."
Let's ignore the fact that railway tracks sometimes go up and sometimes go down and go to the core of your misunderstanding: even if railway tracks only worked on a level surface, *level* is not the same as *planar.* "Level" means "always at a right angle to the direction in which things fall down," and on a giant planet, things fall towards the center of the planet, meaning that level surfaces are spherical shells, not planes.
@wmario666 You might not be aware of this, but there is a single continuous rail line that connects the east and west coasts of the US.
Would you please explain how a "level" rail network manages to cross two major mountain ranges while ending at two oceans?
Not that it's important, given what I said about the meaning of "level," but I thought you might find it curious.
@@ryanwaldrop90 pilots try to stay at a fixed altitude. This is most commonly measured by the ambient air pressure, which depends how far above the surface you are. This also works on a globe.
Airplane gyroscopes assume the plane is flying level most of the time and adjust accordingly. Google vacuum driven attitude indicator.
In moders laser based gyroscopes the adjustments are done digitally.
So whether the pilot flies visually (bottom of the plane towards the ground) or on their instruments they wouldn't really notice.
What's so crazy is you can show all the proof in the world, but people refuse to see it
The investigation ends with the water. The waters settle flat, so the earth cannot be a globe. That's the end of it.
it doesn't prove that the earth is round, or that the earth is flat, or anything else. We will never know! If we had been told from an early age that the earth was flat, that would be our reality today and we would laugh if someone said the earth was a sphere.. So... don't rack your brains and enjoy the time on this... planet
Please show us some of these proofs
@@quatsch420 Ah yes, all the satellites, international space station, astronauts, moon landing are all fake? There will never be enough "proof" for flat earth. Only when humanity devolves back to strictly to a land and seas exploration, you don't have anything to lie to people about round earth. If you starting point is to say that all space pictures, videos and live feed from ISS is false or "CGI" then there is no hope for you. Also from early age, people were told that earth is flat but then people started to investigate and migrate all over the globe and after that all science just speaks for globe earth because it is a globe. There is absolutely nothing you have that proof otherwise, no matter how hard you try to come with impossible scenarios.
@@quatsch420we’ve known for thousands of years the earth is round. No one even brought up a flat earth until 1840.
My only issue is you didn't do on the ground experimentation and testing...there are so many anomalys and variables using a computer simulation to re-create a real life observation!
Exactly
At least Jay tolan is out there actually doing real life experiments! Lol wow this guy is a clown
yeah these computer models aren't exactly that trustworthy if there is indeed a conspiracy. I mean imagine trying to use a liars evidence to prove him wrong?
...a real-world experiment would show the same results - that is the point. This has been proven over and over in many different ways. The earth is spherical.
Great work with the 3D mapping
Born and raised 10mins from Mt. San Jacinto, so I find this very interesting!! Thank you
I can see how it could be flat but the best argument is sunsets. If it was flat, New Zealand sunset would happen approximately 5pm(17:00) every evening. However, like parts of Canada, for example, sunset happens later in the evening during the summer months(winter in NZ). Where I live the sunset will be approx 9pm(21:00) during Summer
I created the flat Earth model I show in the background during the video introduction. The light/dark parts as the Sun travels aren't just illustrations; they are a simulation and agree with real sunset/sunrise times throughout the year to about plus/minus one minute, checked against timeanddate.com .
The secret, of course, is that I do the simulation on a globe Earth model and just map the results onto the flat Earth model. I have not yet found any explanation how this is supposed to work in the flat Earth model itself.
Sunsets are a good point to consider. In the flat earth model, the sun still travels the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer, so the sunrise and sunset in New Zealand does change with the seasons, right?
@@HealthFitnessNut sunsets in New Zealand are approximately the same as here in Canada. Summer dark at 9:00pm(21:00) & dark around 5:00pm(17:00) in the winter. This alone would prove the 🌎
Actually the best argument against a Flat Earth is a Lunar Eclipse. No matter where the observer is (that can see the eclipse) the shadow the Earth casts on the moon is ROUND. Only a SPHERE can do such a thing. Because if Earth was a flat disk, the shadow would be different shapes depending on where you are.
The sun travels above and around the earth in different positions facts are if we are hurling thru space at a half a billion miles per hour how could anything in the sky look clear it would all be a blur
"please do not block the ads, daddy needs a new graphics card
What was the elevation for each point?
If earth was flat, cats would have pushed all off it. This is absokute proof the earth is round
This is a stupid and childish reasoning bro
Is earth the only flat planet? All i see are round planets through my telescope
the formula for measuring the curvature of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared , 10x10x8 equals 800 inches in ten miles you get 66.67 feet of curvature. if there's a curvature to be found in 10 miles I highly suggest that you go find it. and get back to me with that silly fucking bullshit about living on a spinning ball at 1000 miles per hour. and then you can please explain how the north star never moves. when you believe we are circling the sun at 186 million miles. lol when you figure this out, get back to me. because you're looking like the fucking moron right now for believing such silly nonsense. oh by the way how does water at 64.2 pound per cubic foot. get held in check, but birds and insects fly unaffected??? please einstein can you please show me that psuedo science fiction again lol you are pretty fucking stupid for believing in such false beliefs. day three of creation, God placed the sun and moon inside the firmament. with the stars. in 1957 to 1962 operation fish bowl and operation dominic were being carried out by the American and the Russian. where they tried to explode nuclear rocket into the firmament in the sky. research it before you open up your stupid mouth and sound even more ridiculous than you already so. lol not only the flat earth community is laughing at you, so are the elite for buying there deception. lol jokes on you my lad
@@michaelhaggerty2766
> *_"... and get back to me with that silly fucking bullshit about living on a spinning ball at 1000 miles per hour"_*
What are you rambling on about?
> *_"and then you can please explain how the north star never moves."_*
It does- marginally. But it does. It used be a different star- I believe it was Thuban before it was Polaris.
> *_"oh by the way how does water at 64.2 pound per cubic foot. get held in check, but birds and insects fly unaffected??? please einstein can you please show me that psuedo science fiction again lol you are pretty fucking stupid for believing in such false beliefs."_*
Birds are not escaping gravity. They are counteracting it with an isolated more powerful force- lift. Care to elaborate why you believe in such fantasy?
You are not observing spheres. You are simply viewing discs. Can you see if the moon is a ball? No, you can only see the face of it.
@@SputnickSpooner-jg5gi Yes, you can see if the moon is a ball. If you have someone East, someone West, someone North and someone South of the moon's position then at least one of them should be viewing it from the side and would see that it isn't a sphere. That doesn't happen so it must be a sphere.
@@johnmathews2030 Whether it is a disc or a sphere, it is obviously apparent that it gives off it's own light.
6:20 I clapped.
Yay 3D visualization!
The Flat Earthers will scream "CGI !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
@@yellowlynx You act like there's no reason to question and doubt everything in the world. The world is so fucked I don't know why anyone even cares about this shit anymore it's not important the shape of the earth it's important so many people trust people who've clearly lied before. For example, they've admitted some moon landing pictures/videos were fake. I'm not saying the moon landing was fake but it's a fact that not all the videos and pictures of it are real. So why would anyone expect anyone to trust the rest? And these same people are who tell us about the sun, the earth, other planets, so no I've learned my lesson with liars, I once had a "friend" who lied alot, you can't trust a word that comes from a liars mouth because nothing that comes from them really proves anything. People simply believe them because of who they are, and that's ridiculous you shouldn't believe someone simply for who they are. And any lie discredits someone.
@@volatilemerican6746 Globe Earth was demonstrated centuries ago, how are those people involved in lies about moon landing pictures etc?
@@kevinmould6979 You are assuming the problem lay in just a few people - an anomaly. In reality the problem is with nearly every human, and especially ones who have something to gain or something to lose based on certain outcomes. It is healthy to question the world , to seek truth as best as we can, and to remain free from bias and dogma. Blind faith is just as unhealthy as blind belief in my opinion. Sadly I don't have a high IQ or great mathematical skills, so if I were to pick a side it would require faith, so I am content instead to answer 'I don't know, but I believe it is more likely a globe'.
When we 100% believe something is one way we also shut the door on an infinite number of alternative possibilities. The problem is ego / pride tends to get in the way of curiosity and common sense.
horizont is always in midle . thats how far can you see with naked eye . you can use strong zoom on camera to see much further
"horizont is always in midle"
No, it's not.
I would like to thank you for your objectivity in presenting this material. Peace.
Short answer: No
Long answer: Noooooooooo........
HumptyDumptyOakland Providing no reasoning
@@noahdevane3761
Here you go
th-cam.com/video/E7v_kePVanE/w-d-xo.html
@Gianni Flash Would you like to try that again in English?
@@noahdevane3761 Actually, providing a LOT of reasoning. Stop being so fucking ignorant you numbnut.
Go to 4:11 the program is not matching the photo and the town is hiding some of the land mass, I'm sure the program could also concave as well, Old saying, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. There has been way too much deception in our lives, we were all too busy trying to make ends meet to be bothered with details of our reality, by design I might add. But now things have been surfacing that are making us question what we have been told from the ones we thought we could trust, Seek knowledge and wisdom as though they are the greatest of all treasures, pray for understanding, the understanding of all these lies. Let God be true and every man a liar.
The town is NOT hiding the mountain. You can't account for the missing 6000 feet bu citing LA.
@Melburys Brick Then the sun is 93,000,000 miles away from here right? And the moon I saw this morning is 238,000 miles away Right? In the video , was the sea calm, high tide or low tide? Oh! this shouldn't matter, in order for it to be what you want, it proves the curve right? Many thing fall in to play in the video. I tell you what, get me one day of nasa's income and i find the truth for you. The videos documentation and all! until then, I'm going my ass back to work tomorrow, thousands of video's like this one has been proven to be wrong in their research. go look
@@elmerfox6872 high tide lmao, yeah unless it floods the city with a tsunami there is a HUGE difference between the height of the mountain between flat and round earth. Classic flat brain, dismiss all evidence that doesnt suit your conclusion. you talk about seeking knowledge but you lot actively divert yourselves away from it
@@psionicinversion So, it's not possible that there are things in play here that we don't completely understand yet, that could obscure our vision. or play tricks on our minds, like mirages in the deserts that have fooled many in to thinking there was water just ahead and when you get there there wasn't any water at all, only to find ones self still thirsty. The whole flat earth thing doesn't seem to be a joke, thousands of things we thought to be truth, are now being proved to be false. plane flights, distances of the sun, moon and stars, moon landings, space travel , things said to exist, that never did, like gravity, dinosaurs. GPS being satellites when actually they are ground based towers. Slight of hand so to speak. the freakin list is tooo long! You probably thought you actually came from a monkey. See what I mean.
@@elmerfox6872
Oh, please...!
You don't believe the sun and moon are far, far away?
Don't tell me you're one of the morons thinking they could use pictures of crepuscular rays to triangulate the distance to the sun!
The sun distance formula country A= 3hours early to your country 9:00 am sun angle is 135° B= your location 12:00nn sun angle 90° 03:00pm sun angle 45°, A distance = your location to the country has 3 hours early or behind, B distance or sun distance = A , note possible only on equator country
What?
0:00 so how can I see the sun setting and rising every day again instead of just going further away ?
"Sun sets" not setting 😂. Your witness is actually right👍
@@folkdom_1236 English is my second language my bad. Lol
@@FTR1960 its ok
@Noell Jones thats right bro.
@Noell Jones It's the spin of the earth that gives us sunrise and sunset, not the orbit around the sun.
Go to space and see for yourself. If that doesn’t work, maybe the impact when you hit the ground will knock some sense into you.
Don’t need to just pay for a flight on a U2 or a Mig plane. They fly high enough for you to see the curvature of the earth.
How bout you go to space n let me no what you see
you talk as if anyone has been in space. Well, we've got videos of hot air balloons, uncensored, from 10 years ago when youtube was not deleting certain videos, at 110k feet, and yeah it looks flat and also the sun is much closer than it should be. but that's just one thing. What made me start thinking that flat earth was not stupid is me finding out that ISS is fake. ANd yeah it is fake, watch the video of the actors making mistakes in live streams.
@@vanessaruiz4705 bro you seem to think the sun looks close in certain videos but you're neglecting the fact that the sun is also back. If it were on a graph you are only considering the x and y axis, but you fail to realise that we live in 3 dimensions so there is also a x axis in which it moves the object further away. Since the sun is very big it may seem close in some pictures but it still is millions of miles away
"Space" 😂🤣
Why didn't he use the picture to compare on the flat rendering as he did on the round. I went back in the video and saw the difference that he mentioned was NOT there in the picture. It WAS MORE SO than in the round rendering...
You noticed that to right...
@@iamcaveli Disinformation...
A watchmen the fact that jtolan stated the mountain heights was compressed and funny how this guy managed to match the picture exactly without any atmospheric conditions on the model alongside not know what lens he used to match the optics... but hey I’m sure this guy know how to use those photorealistic software... he has done a good job a cooking people very honest
@@iamcaveli the photo was taken in infrared cameras which helps to negate some of the effect of atmospheric refraction, that is why he didn't really need to calculate for it.
@@uhuh.2232 no it’s a normal camera converted to see the infrared spectrum... I have the exact same thing done to my camera... infrared let’s you see through more of the atmosphere as it captures the spectrum of light not visible to human eyes. Is doesn’t stop or negate atmospheric refraction, with infrared you can see through haze... refraction is the bending of light
Flat earth heresy defeated by basic geometry.
When you absolutely, positively have to refute flat earth lies, accept no substitute.
Would you mind if I used part of this (with a link of course) in a video I am doing?
Sure, go ahead.
@@okreylos thanks man, it is part of a video I am doing on JTolan. Excellent presentation by the way.
@@okreylos Bob the Science Guy just sent me over and I have subscribed.
When you switched to the flat earth model, you didn't just uncover the bottom of the San Jacinto mountains, you also showed all of the other small ranges in between. Kind of shows that the earth isn't flat.
There are two problems or errors: First, as Clarence Nice pointed out 1 year ago, only the top 600 to 800 feet should be visible if earth is curved. Second, *it is always the case in real life flat earth that we can see everything in between,* that's a huge point, and it shows there is a huge problem with his program. Look at this short video of a 200 mile shot from Mount Brunswick to Mount Rainier, with everything visible in between th-cam.com/video/Uzpy0-tdBSU/w-d-xo.html
Completely incorrect, as I stated, the numerous mountain ranges in between the San Jacinto mountains aren't visible, at all. When you actually look at those mountains, nearly half of the bottom of the peaks just isn't visible. The earth isn't flat, and you're talking to someone who not only lives near these ranges, I can name them.
@@anthonytrujillo2535 Go to the spot and see for yourself. Nothing is hidden. My video shows this too. Every long distance photo shows this. 8 inches per mile means that a 6 foot person standing at the shore at sunset would not seethe light make a straight line reflection right to his feet at the shore. The reflection must stop 3 miles out at his horizon. The globe is just a religion based on dogmatic assumptions. No material can spin like a top over 1000 mph without exploding well before that speed. And, a broken cracked behemoth cannot spin at all, you need tensile strength (solidity) to spin. You need minimum 215,000 psi tensile strength to spin 1000 mph, titanium only has 63,000 psi tensile strength. Basalt, which is most of the fake globes cracked crust, has 1900 psi tensile strength.
It's all here spin1.flat.wtf goes to a page on Blogger. That's engineering physics, that's reality. Earth is obviously flat and motionless. Open your eyes.
@@rocketspushoffair that's a lot of words for "I don't know what I think I do, by in too dense to understand it."
As I said, I live near the San Jacinto mountains, and once again the curvature of the earth exists, and ever dumb flat earth video even demonstrates this.
@@anthonytrujillo2535 You are a biggot. All you proved, is that your beliefs are based on dogmatic assumptions: a massive broken ball can spin over 1000 mph. Even though no material can handle spinning 1000 mph and no broken object can spin in the first place.
any flat or round earth experiment should and must be performed only on sea or water surfaces for accurate results, otherwise there ll be a huge doubts and innacuracy.
I took a boat out to the ocean and flashed a laser and hit a ship 100 miles away. What doea that mean?
@@beavinator420 it means you have a high powered laser 😁
People need to wake up QUICKLY.
Yeshua Hamashiach will be back very soon!
@@levicross6431 being at sea without using something that flies proves your point is invalid. People have fast planes (not airplanes with "fish eye lens") that have no windows and just flew up and had it on video and images of the curve.
@@beavinator420 Impressive... how do you know it was 100 miles away?
What happens when you start from the fe model matching the photograph, rather then matching it on the globe earth model ,surely you just have to zoom out to where it matches the fe model to photograph and then compare the 2?
The problem is that the flat Earth model doesn't match the photograph, no matter how you zoom or pan. There's a big chunk of the mountain missing in the photograph. Zooming doesn't change that.
This has to be one of the most brilliant vids ive eva seen on youtube.
Dude, you need to get out more
Who hurt you so bad that this is brilliant to you?
Calm down
@Airplay Solar system is what causes eclipses.
@Airplay Yes moon goes in front of moon but there is something else to besides the moon and sun. There is some type of third celstial object to cause the eclipse. Not sure if you believe in flat earth or ball earth?
Great explanation showing the difference in a simulation model based on both calculations. When comparing both theories to the actual photo it does 100% prove the earth is round. This is how pilots navigate the globe and the only possible way to do it. Cheers.
Show me how a 6670 km long river will flow on the globe. It's just not possible. The globalist have heavily brainwashed you with their pseudoscience. The water in the rivers always flows only from the upland to the lowlands. The surface of the ball always has a rounded shape. In reality, the horizon is always let, it has no curvature, there is always an altitude above sea level, and this works correctly because all seas are flat and have no curvature. Your refraction creates the illusion of curvature. All the objects that you supposedly hide behind the curvature never tilt in the opposite direction from the observer. They look straight up because they are on the same level as the observer. Stop justifying and defending the pseudoscience created by globalists to brainwash and manipulate consciousness.
Looks like the Flat Earth argument needs a lot more proof in order to prove valid. This analysis does a great job to prove against a flat earth.
Dude your recording volume is inadequate for your presentation
Here is how I will bring down all the arguments about a flat earth. In your theory of the flat earth, you said that the sun is turning around the earth, why then when you are at sea, and watching the sunset in the open sea, why it disappears behind the horizon, and does not go around earth?
because of its enormous size
If you can't answer that yourself, there is no hope for you!
Based on earths apparent diameter you could add a measurement of how much the arc plays on distance and how much of the viewed item / area should be below horizon line on a spherical shape in relation to a flat earth. It would lend some weight to either opinion. Great vid btw.
water cannot sit on a globe.
Not really sure a computer generated model can prove either theories.
Therefore this video is inconclusive. Interesting though.
Good question. Nothing can ever prove a theory true (by definition), but an experiment can prove a theory wrong, by showing a result that contradicts the prediction made by a theory.
In this case, Flat Earth Theory makes a prediction, namely, how a certain mountain should look like when photographed from a certain position. This computer model is based on the premises of Flat Earth Theory, and shows that that theory's prediction does not match observation. That falsifies the version of Flat Earth Theory that was used to construct the model.
So, yes, a computer-generated model can prove a theory false.
@@okreylos no it can't, still a computer created by people, still a software created by people and still missing atmosphere in the computer and reality which we have no clue about.
@@okreylos It's disappointing how dense these people insist on being, in order to convince themselves that any evidence which contradicts their fantasy must be, by definition, false. This is a wonderful demonstration that shows very conclusive results. But predictably, the flat earthers throw nonsense excuses at it to try and hand-wave away the evidence that shows how wrong they are.
@@SirMildredPierce if you're suggesting I'm dense or indeed a flat earther you're very much mistaken.
I merely pointed out a computer cannot prove either theory.
@@okreylos I never put forward a question to you... and I disagree... this cannot prove or disprove any theory. Unless we live in a simulation which I believe we do not.
There is a new video out by Professor Dave debating a flat-eather. At 12:12 you can see the picture of a mountain in the video and some math. Could you take a look into that?
That's about right, when ignoring atmospheric refraction. With standard refraction taken into account, the hidden height drops to 8,908 feet. Which leaves 3,700 feet of visible mountain. Without knowing that area or the conditions under which the photo was taken in detail, the picture looks consistent with the globe.
Rule of thumb: When someone claims a certain observation would be impossible on a globe Earth, that claim ends up wrong every time it's checked.
@@okreylos How does standard refraction factor into that? I'm not too familiar with optical physics. Does that mean how light is refracted at the horizon or over water? So there is nothing to see there that is exactly the amount of mountain you would expect to see if the earth was a globe did I get that right?
Under normal conditions, the atmosphere is optically denser at lower altitudes than at higher altitudes. This causes light travelling through the atmosphere to refract towards the ground. In short and in general, light above Earth's surface doesn't travel in straight lines, but in slightly downward-curved arcs.
This curvature cancels out some of Earth's geometric curvature, virtually lifting far-away objects above their actual geometric positions, and making it possible to see farther than it were possible if Earth had no atmosphere.
Diagram: imgur.com/gallery/refraction-PBCvr3T
@@okreylos I knew that there light travels differently and some phenomena are explained by it. But thanks for the explanation. I will take a look at it.
The same rate of curve would be seen from right to left as forward? And you don’t get that heh
Foreshortening only works forward, not from right to left. So no, you're wrong: you would NOT get "the same rate of curve", because the view forward covers a MUCH greater distance than what fits in the frame on the horizontal.
Here's a diagram of the field of view of the original photograph and my recreations of it, seen from above: imgur.com/mMOYjHG
Notice the size difference from left to right vs bottom (observer) to top (mountain).
Here's a diagram showing Earth's curvature at different scales, drawn to scale: imgur.com/uhuazn6
I didn’t see any is all I’m saying wouldn’t you see at least some it’s the same curve ima directions right
@@charlesheller3266 The curve is the same, yes. Try this. Find a huge badin ball, like 1-meter diameter plus if you can. You can see it as a sphere. If you move your eye closer to the surface of the ball keeping an eye on the horizon of the ball at all time, you will also notice this horizon is apparently flattening the closer you get. Then, when your jowl is at the surface, still looking at the horizon, put a finger on the surface in front of you, and move it away from you. Notice how quick it moves beyond the horizon. Compare this to the horizon you see. Now, imagine if the ball were the size of the Earth.
@@charlesheller3266
It's a bloody big planet mate.
You can see a hell of a lot further in front of you than you can see from side to side.
You would see one degree of curvature in something like 110 kilometres. And you wouldn't be able to discern that anyway.
However looking in front of you, you can see much further than that and the horizon is the cutoff point on the ground. Anything beyond the horizon can't be seen because of curvature. Hence you can't see the bottom half of that mountain.
Obviously a lot of downvoters (Read : Flatters) were click-baited by your title.
Telephoto lenses have a way of changing the aspect ratio of objects seen at a distance, this is well know in photography circles. The virtual computer model has no way to add in atmospheric and telephoto lens effects to your presentation.
The atmosphere can also distort the size of objects. Both of these types of phenomenons can be seen on my channel in both buildings and with vessels sailing over Lake Ontario.
...perhaps, but, as seen in the video, there is no way the atmosphere would obscure that much of the mountain. The only reason so much of the mountain is obscured is due to the curvature of the earth.
you can ask any radio television cell, satellite engineer, land surveyor, city planner, architect, geologist, maritime captain or engineer, flight pilot or engineer and they’ll all explain line of sight and understanding the earths curvature in order to properly do their job! But nice try, flerfs are completely cognitively dissonant about their psyop that they want to believe so badly is true but have provided no legitimate evidence. Why hasn’t any flat Earther made a weather balloon GoPro vid that rises to 100k ft where the curvature could barely be noticed? Hobbyists have been doing and anyone can look up the vids right now, yet not ONE flerf has taken the challenge, or why hasn’t any flerf gone to Lake Michigan directly across from Chicago to prove it’s flat when in reality you can only see the top half of the tallest buildings in the skyline , proving that the horizon is CURVED! So why haven’t they taken these very easy challenges to prove their claims? because they don’t east to lose their social media followers and not be able to capitalize off their scam artist content! They’d lose status and their little flat earth earth community retreats would be no more! Then they wouldn’t have anything to offer society because they are uneducated.
Wait a sec, are you insinuating that Earth might not be flat?
Thanks for being absolutely honest, not getting emotional or dogmatic and not dismissing anything out of hand without further analysis. I would however be interested very much in further analysis. And you've got a very interesting tool there.
Here's further analysis
th-cam.com/video/E7v_kePVanE/w-d-xo.html
I came from Bob's channel and I just subscribed to yours too. This video is great, thank you.
I am a Cad-operator by trade and have only one thing to say...."PERSPECTIVE!".....won't go into "ALL" the other "real-life" options not shown here. I remain a non-heliocentrist.
Since you're a CAD operator, I assume you can answer me this: do the laws of this PERSPECTIVE you speak of explain the workings of a pinhole camera / camera obscura? In other words. is a pinhole camera the embodiment of the laws of perspective, or is it not?
@@okreylos of-coarse...its relative to the "size" of the box ...can be proved by a 12 mile square box (I doubt you would make out the image at that distance relative to a "pin-hole")
@@TinyApe As a CAD operator, you might appreciate this: th-cam.com/video/_6IKBqjQp4o/w-d-xo.html 'AutoCAD, Flat Earth Sun Perspective' Made it myself a while ago.
You should show us the photo
Very interesting to see how tall the ridges really are. I never thought the round earth would make those look lower, but it makes total sense.
Hengxu Liu
You are clueless.
ALL WRONG, WAKE UP MAN >>>>>th-cam.com/video/39hEuGLP5qw/w-d-xo.html&feature=em-uploademail
Hengxu Liu ....first you might want to learn what the speed of light is.
@Hengxu Liu lol the speed of light is 300k km/s and the earth spins at 1000 mph
@Define.derivinguncertainity_comm weve taken videos of it ... Legit
I, too, watched the documentary. I especially liked the parts that proved earths rotation of 15 degrees per hour, and the curvature viewed through the glory holes!
Globe earth proofs on netflix and thats the best we got? 2 crappy experiments performed badly by shills.... should be globe proofs galore
Graham Rathbone earth isn’t moving go look at the micheal morelys experiment in Einstein’s own words he said ‘ I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."- Physicist, Albert Einstein
"...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."- Physicist, Albert Einstein
He really thought he couldn’t debunk it lol
@@nunyabusiness4800 Really? - Did you just say that?
Sure you did Matt, sure....
@Odleift the Globulist but yes
I don't feel too bizarre now... the only cult I've followed is the blue oyster one
Guess you are sleepy, go to sleep, sleep , sleep, sleep, everything will be ok just sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep x
naturalbornkillr ....nice to know that you are familiar with that sound. I’ve never heard that sound, but it’s nice to know that you’re so familiar with that sound, that you can pick it out by just hearing him talk. I guess that you’ve heard that sound often and quite clearly though, with your mouth only being a few inches from your ears.
"More cowbell!"
See, that's the deal we made. Just to join the Öyster Cult... The Blue Öyster Cult.
Just saw this. I'm about to Google blue oyster cult...
I knoticed you did not include original link for video where all the mathematics are shown.
I like mathematics. Link to original video please?
Good video , yes atmospheric conditions play a HUGE part in long distance photography . I would love to see a timelapse of this observation because most timelapses I've seen of similar scenes shows the constantly fluctuating weather conditions creating all kinds of optical effects and the horizon line and the things you can and can't see jump all over the place. If you see a timelapse you would agree there is no way to take a still from it and use that as an accurate way to measure anything in the image to prove the shape of the earth . The globe earth has a specific claimed radius and to this date there is no scientific experiment conducted that proves R (radius) 3959 miles , in fact there are countless observations disproving the given radius
"to this date there is no scientific experiment conducted that proves R (radius) 3959 miles , in fact there are countless observations disproving the given radius"
Well, that's true, but only if you ignore all the scientific experiments that show a radius of 3959, and misinterpret or flat out invent any "experiments" that don't. So I guess it isn't true after all. Huh, who would've thought.
@@okreylos Tx for your video. It would be interesting to know if the photograph matched you digital rendering setting of Earth being 39,590 radius? Yes 1,000 bigger then is known. Thank you.
@@isintitwonderfull346 You can see me change Earth's radius at 6:50, and how the simulated image changes in response. So if the image matches the photograph at 3959 mile radius, then it can not match the photograph at 39590 miles radius. Makes sense?
@@okreylos What are the experiments that prove the radius of 3959 that you know of? Precise data is the only way to shut these guys up. You literally have to be a round earth expert with all the data at your hands, or these guys figure your lack of knowldge is proof that the EARTH IS FLAT.
@@barneyrubble8255 This experiment right here, for one. The photograph is consistent with Earth having a radius of 3,959 miles, and obviously inconsistent with Earth being flat. In addition, every large-scale topographic survey ever done, including the very survey that created the 3D topographic model I'm using here (the National Elevation Dataset, which is a digitization of USGS topographic maps that were created in the pre-satellite era, i.e., by actual surveyors walking the Earth). Also every satellite observation ever made, every single GPS reading ever taken, etc. etc. etc.
i think you wrong, your software showed you a Level up of the elevation of your camera.! you can see that due to the mountain on the right, it can't suddenly disappears from the sight......first of all it is much higher than the camera!!! and second it is much closer than the mountain behind, if i'm not mistaking then this mountain is halfway between the camera and the big mountain, so due to prospective it have to look pretty big!!! you see after you supposedly flattened the software, the camera became higher then this mountain.....it seems like you have to do a better job......
Thank you. Great work. And you stayed neutral, like true scientist. Just reported your observations. Respect. First video of flat-and globe discussion, that explains results with respect without debunking/blaming/hating others.
At last, I knew I couldn't be the only one who understood that the scientific method requires that you start from a question not a conclusion... I find it ironic that all the people trying to defeat flat earth create flat earth content, titles, comments, and ratings that just add to the importance of the topic in terms of the algorithms... In turn that leads to more promotion of flat earth and onwardly more interest and more people looking into it... I thought they were scientific people who understand how things work... It no longer has anything to do with shape or science it has become a fight between people who seek a level of acceptance, control and fulfilment in life. They do that by fighting with virtual nobodies on a virtual platform full of virtual nobodies for the sake of views and monetisation... What is an anti flat earth channel without flat earth?
I know what mint smells like, chicken tastes like, denim feels like and what my dog looks like because I have had sensory interactions with those things... I don't know what Kadapul flower smells like, or sloth tastes like, tiger fur feels like or what your pet looks like (but if you described and explained I could believe)... Some people can't divide the difference between knowing and believing, remove all conclusions and givens, and then work from nothing... I have never been so far from the earth to see for myself so to me it has no shape... Stating this to flat earthers leads to some really interesting conversation, debate and conceptual thinking... Stating it to a sphere leads to an all out assault with all their frends joining in to swear at and insult me... Which is the better person to talk to? Who is being more scientific? It's a strange world whatever shape it is.
@@dontaskme7004 Of course we are a bit rough towards flat earthers. Aren't you a bit impatient towards people who assert that reindeer fly? And unless you have no brain nor education, it should be obvious to you that the earth is a sphere. The ancient Greeks knew this already in the 4th century B.C.
If you add atmospheric conditions to the geocentric model it works correctly
@@RealNyeTheScienceGuy still doesn'tt explain how seasons work, or lunar eclipse or everything else
Nikola Babic actually for the most part it does.... Dense weather, crepuscular/anti crepuscular rays, humidity, temperature variations, pollution, fog, mist, dust particles, dense fluid air, atmospheric refraction/lensing/looming/magnification, superior/inferior mirage effects, eye level horizontal rate of convergence, vanishing point, depth perception, ramped/linear perspective, angular resolution, pyramidal perspective, 3 point perspective and your eye visual perspective ramp. When you have an atmosphere that is so dense visually at long distances you have to resort to the laws of perspective AND atmospheric conditions to understand what we are actually looking at. Perspective causes the lower visual eye spectrum to rise the further you can view. It is the opposite with the sky. The sky lowers in the same fashion down to eye level creating a visual limit. This is part of what helps the eye calculate distance and when you add atmospheric conditions to the rising land/lowering sky a horizon appears blocking the view of the sun which is obviously further than the horizon in both models. On the flat model you rise in altitude and find the Sun after sunset proving this phenomenon in what world we truly live in.
If it's flat, WHAT'S IT SITTING ON??! What's it held in place by? And whatever tabletop this "flat earth" high school science project is sitting on, what ground is THAT on??! And if that ground is also "flat earth", what's THAT held in place by? Surely not the gravitational pull of other spherical objects, because that would make too much sense.
NASA should take a picture from outerspace and end this discussion once and for all!
Like this one? www.nasa.gov/image-article/blue-marble-image-of-earth-from-apollo-17/
@@okreylos That is not an actual photo, they do tell you that.
Earth is set between the waters above the firmament and the waters below the foundations of earth.
@@liftingtheveil8361 Please show me where "they" tell us that that is not an actual photo.
The video was very well made although we need to remember this is not reality, it’s a computer program. This still does not discount the countless real life experiments debunking the curvature calculation. I myself have performed the curvature calculation experiment on a lighthouse that was 10.71 miles away, and saw it in full from bottom to top. Not to mention seeing the wake of the boats passing in front of and behind said lighthouse.
Telescope = Inspire 90 AZ.
Lighthouse = Los Angeles Harbor Lighthouse next to Terminal Island. Viewing Point = Sunset Beach California Latitude 33.7115 Longitude -118.0659 to Los Angeles Harbor Lighthouse Latitude 33.7087 Longitude -118.2516.
According to the curvature calculator I should not be able to see the bottom 31.17 feet of the 69 ft lighthouse.
The telescope was situated at 3 ft above sea LEVEL. My telescope tripod would even occasionally get wet by waves.
Once again, video was very well put together, but seeing proof on a computer program is still not define proof of the globe.
Your lat/log is not correct. The coordinates you gave for Sunset Beach are for the lighthouse, and the light house coordinates are off shore about 40 miles. I checked useing google maps (a computer model) .
Cassi O OK OK you got me on a transcription error big deal. You are probably one of those kids in the school are used to tell the teacher people were looking at your test paper huh. Regardless, the location was Sunset Beach to the Los Angeles Harbor Lighthouse. The point of the matter is that the video does not prove anything versus reality which many people have shown and debunked the curvature a calculator. Of course we are both going to use a computer to obtain this information, unless of course you have a den full of nautical maps that you can reference. Come on really. Anyway I’m not here to go back-and-forth like I’ve done many times to no avail because so many people will never consider reality. Peace
@@NarrowRoad4Jesus It was my attempt to do a great circle distance calculation using your lat/long numbers, which is where I found the mistake. The irony is your original post discounts okraylos video for using a computer program, yet we all use a computer program to find distance on google maps. It's also ironic that you used lat/long, which is a global coordinate system. There really is no debate, the figure of the Earth is more than a theoretical model, its a physical object that has been explored and surveyed.
Cassi O point taken.
Cassi O I was pondering your comment, and my questions to you would be as follows:
1. How would you propose that someone do research on this topic if not using a computer in this day and age? (Of course I could go to a library. But why do that when so many answers are at our fingertips.)
2. What other accepted form of distance measurement would you or anyone else accept other than Lat and Long?
Globe skeptics would have to come up with a new form of measurement that would never be accepted by the mainstream.
My last comment is that there absolutely is a debate about the matter. The entire video that we are commenting on is debating both models.
Awesome video! Thank you!
Glad you liked it!
Fabulous software and a great demonstration of it. I have massive envy going on for your skills, that's you and Joe Leys both.
Appreciate the sentiment, but it's what I do for a living. That's why the photograph and the claim that it proves a flat Earth motivated me to step into the fray.
@@okreylos It's great to have professionals joining the debate with the skills to demonstrate accurate observation, we all learn something from it.
We've seen all the planets in our solar system... SO DO PEOPLE HAVE TO BE DUMB ENOUGH TO BE LIKE " hey the earth is flat" "why you see ( explaining nothing that makes any fricking sense)" "OK no scientific evidence I see"
Seriously it doesn't take a genius to work it out... The planet formed from rocks billions of years ago and they formed a sphear not a flat pandcake, this is because of something called gravety now it didn't make the rocks line up to make a flat thing NO that's not how gravity works so they slowly over millions of years formed the earth but covered in lava and Volcanoes and suffered multiple astoroid attacks and after millions and millions of years the earth had water! that's all I'm going to say research it if you want but THE EARTH IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN FLAT
@@UnderQuotaGuy123 "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy.
But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see?
Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save.
But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy.
You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged.
And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it".
@@Beast-mf7br That's a movie isn't it? How does that have anything to do with what I said?
No. Your Sun is orbiting around the perimeter, suggesting that those parts of the "South pole" are being lit in cycles, when RIGHT NOW, in the month of December ALL of it is under perpetual sunlight while your "North Pole" in the centre of your world is in perpetual darkness.
Under those circumstances, around the Winter Solstice, your Flat Earth model should look like a vanilla glazed doughnut.
Correct, but maybe you should watch the full video first
one of many observations that FE's have to ignore to keep their belief intact.
LOL- that must literally be crushing to a flat earther.
Blazing Saddle I put myself in the emotional shoes of a flat earthier at 4:47 and boy that world crushing indeed.
But...but...it's CGI!
@@brayhill lol that's what a flat Earth Karen would say
@@brayhill ah yes,the CGI excuses to make yourself right always.
IT means they need to photograph something that would be totally invisible behind the curvature of the earth if it was a globe. But some photos have been taken for a high altitude showing much more than we would see with the naked eye with the use of infrared.
There are many that zoom in to ships on flat water.
@@tikvahspagepage8760 what’s your point? Zooming into a boat?
Like the Chicago skyline over lake Michigan many miles away.
So what happens if a plane was to fly continously above the skies of a flat earth. Would it eventually fly into space???
Depends. If it continuously flies east or west, it will forever travel in a circle around the north pole (same as on a globe). If it flies in a northerly direction, it will spiral towards the north pole, and then I don't know what the pilot will do, because there is no more north to go (same as on a globe). If the plane flies in a southerly direction, it will spiral towards Antarctica (same as on a globe), but -- unlike on a globe -- it will finally be intercepted and downed by the missile-equipped penguins of the ADF (Antarctic Defense Force).
@@okreylos I like how you ended that
@@okreylos good answer but why won't they let anyone go to either pole? If such things exist. Or are they protecting the inner earth entrances or the prison walls? 😉😎
@@mauimixer6040 Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Where did you get the idea that "they won't let anyone go to either pole?" That's nonsense on the face of it, because tons of people have gone to the geographic North Pole, and a smaller number of people have gone to the geographic South Pole, several coworkers of mine among the latter.
Ok cool so we have proved we can see comfortably 124 miles. Yes or am I missing something? Should we be able to see farther or closer?
If you live on a sphere, you can see farther the higher up you are.
If the Earth were flat, you could see comfortably _forever_
@@jamaldeep13 you mean if it were a crystal clear day everywhere on the planet? You do realize the way our eyes are shaped we see in a cone shape?
@@blackswanrevelations You know how we can see the Moon?
@@jamaldeep13 I think it’s different seeing celestial objects. It’s amazing on some days it appears the sun and the moon are the same size. Either it’s our perception or someone is snowing is on how far and how big each object is
Question to the creator of this video.
1. Whats the difference between your CGI models and NASA’s? Are they both not equally unreal?
2. Please demonstrate practically how the surface of standing water can be any thing other than dead level as reality shows it to be.
3. Please give a practical example of how a gaseous pressurized environment and a vacuum can exist in the same space without a barrier or some form of containment?
4. Please show me a real photograph of the earth.
bruh.... if you believe NASA you dumb.
You forgot to mention we are flying through that vacuum at 66.6000 miles/hour around the sun...
It's fucking ridiculous and sheeple refuse to wake up to it!
1. The thing is he matched his CGI model with a real picture taken in reality...and then tested that photo against a Flat Earth and a Globe Earth, using real topography data taken in the real world...the photo matched the Globe simulation not a Flat simulation...but had it matched a flat simulation, you'd probably accept this information as fact without question. CGI can be used to simulate reality, it is a geometrically accurate tool that renders 3D shapes that can be scaled up beyond what we're capable of doing with a physical model and therefore it's very useful for rendering things to scale and performing TO SCALE experiments. So it's VERY useful to render models in 3D and then test them...and you'd have to be in pure denial to say otherwise. Had it matched with Flat Earth, you'd likely be praising this video...so please, don't give me that excuse "CGI isn't real, so you can't use CGI"...cause I aint buying it.
2. Level perpendicular to Earths center...due to gravity. It's not hard to work out and it does work. But the only way to demonstrate this effect to you, is to observe curvature over water. So here's a great blog that does just that. walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth&demo=Soundly#App You'll probably complain that these are again 3D renderings...but again, they MATCH these 3D models with ACTUAL photos taken in reality. The model they have mocked up, is using ACTUAL Globe Earth topography and curvature data...REAL measurements taken out in the field by REAL people. Point is, the water is curving here...the Pontchartrain bridge is not just sinking into the lake, it's going over a curve...a curve of water. This is possible thanks to gravity, which pulls all things to center of mass...which makes water level off perpendicular to Earths center....which causes it to curve.
3. Ok, have you ever seen what smoke or gas does in a vacuum chamber? It falls to the bottom and forms a layer. The top of that layer of gas...is residing right next to a vacuum. How is this possible? Again, gravity...gravity is the container...space does not suck on things, it physically can't do that. But gravity sure can and it easily captures anything caught in its gravity well...pulling it down and keeping it down on the surface. In the case of gases, it pulls them to the surface, stacking them much like anything else, creating a pressure gradient...that gets thinner and thinner the higher you go in elevation...what happens when you have no more gas left to stack? You have space...zero pressure...that's all space is, the absence of matter.
4. How about 200 real photos of Earth, these were taken in the 60's and 70's long before CGI. th-cam.com/video/xz5DTCQlGwE/w-d-xo.html In the description of this video you can even find a link to an archive where you can find many more photos of Earth.
@@ronaldwagner8163 I think you meant 67,000 mph...one to many units there and why the decibel? Anyway, sure, I bet that sounds impressive to you...but maybe you should learn about the physics of Relative Motion and the Laws of Motion. Basically what this science has learned about motion, is that we do not feel speed...what we feel is acceleration, deceleration and rapid change in forward/angular velocity, aka Centrifugal Force. Those are what we are designed to notice...and it's quite easy to demonstrate. If you were to hit the gas on a car you'd start to accelerate immediately and you would likely feel yourself sucked to the back of the seat a little, depending on how fast your car could accelerate of course. Let's say from 0 - 100 mph, you'd probably feel that acceleration if you were to punch on the gas (rapid acceleration) and reach that speed in a few seconds. But now, do it again, only this time, instead of accelerating rapidly, gradually increase your speed so that it takes you one full hour to reach 100 mph...would you be sucked to the seat then? No, you wouldn't...because the acceleration is far less. And furthermore, once your speed has leveled off at 100 mph, you're still not sucked to your seat and if the road were smooth enough, no bumps, and no windows...you'd barely be able to tell you were moving at all. So why is that? Relative Motion.
Another good example is on an airplane, at cruising altitude, the plane travels at a constant 500 mph...that's 5x's faster than the car example. Yet, once the plane has leveled off its speed and maintained that 500 mph velocity, you are free to get up and walk around the cabin, get a beverage, throw a ball around, do some jumping jacks...never once are you flung to your seat and never once do you notice this intense speed you are flying at...in fact, every plane ride I've ever been on, I could barely even tell I was moving at all.
This is due to Relative Motion. What this demonstrates is that your preconceived notion of speed and how it affects you is incorrect. We do not feel speed, unless the change in speed is drastic and sudden...then an inertia force is generated...that is what you feel when you accelerate, inertia. But once every atom, molecule and cell in your body is moving at the same constant rate relative to another object, you will no longer feel any motion. This is what is happening with our Earth around the Sun. Yes, we are travelling at a pretty impressive speed, but we have been moving at that same exact rate of motion our entire lives, relative to the Earth, which maintains that constant rate of speed...because there is ZERO friction in space to slow it down. Newtons 1st Law of motion, anything in motion stays in motion at the exact same rate of motion until acted upon by an opposing force of greater or equal mass. The Earth fly's through empty space...a void of nothingness, it's not going to stop moving anytime soon and so we will never notice this motion.
So it's fine if you disagree, but just know that there are some concepts in physics you are likely not aware of, that have demonstrated how these speeds are possible. THIS is why we don't bat an eye at claims like this...because we have come to understand the physics of our world a little better and we have discovered that it is actually completely possible for us to be traveling at these speeds, due to relative motion and conservation of momentum. Maybe YOU are the one who should wake up...pick up a physics book and stop listening to con men on TH-cam.
@@MrSirhcsellor I don't know if you brain dead or brainwashed, probably both....Maybe you should get an EEG? You clearly can't think for yourself....It's not 67, 000 m/h it's 66,627 m/h ...The decimal was a typo...You don't even have you info correct
and spouting off to me...We are supposedly in an elliptical orbit therefore the earth has to decelerate and accelerate at speeds of 66.6 k m/h...
Do you have any idea what G forces that would generate? It's gradual we so don't feel it? lol
Here is a basic fact of physics nature abhors a vacuum regardless of whether we are moving are not , our atmosphere would be sucked away! You have been conned ..wake up!!!! I guess you can't if your EEG is flat like the earth
Your imaging program doesn't use a flat earth model, it uses a reality based model.
So reality failed. Good lord. Blinded by newfound dogma
@@shnootch Right, the knowledge that the Earth is spherical is new: Erasthenes, Copernicus, Galaleo, and every other great mind since the year 126BC worked for NASA and was part of the Illuminati agenda. I suppose Davinci's glider was intended to spread contrails.
Reality based is 2 dimensional.. based off of a plane service
Very nice video. It's amazing when people say "Hey look you can see the top of this mountain 100 miles away, the Earth must be flat!" when the obvious rebuttal is "OK so why can't you see the rest of this massive mountain, what is hiding it?"
2hat you need to see is the bottom and that's why the earth is flat
Because there's a world calculation of curvature and when you measure the sphere measurements don't work
@@renatopereira1121 bro what? Are u saying the earth is flat?
What rest of the mountain you are talking about?
@@tomasjina6174 The base of the mountain. All you can see is the top part of it, what happened to the majority of the height of the mountain? (Hint, it is hidden behind the curve of the Earth)
@@Secret-ion "light things rise and heavy things fall" - So you accept that mass is the important factor. therefore you actually acknowledge the attraction between masses, therefore your acknowledge gravity, therefore the earth isnt flat. tada.
Thank you for being entirely respectful. There are so many people that are very harsh on other peoples confusion.
Jtolan did a good job proving the globe with this shot.
@Gra Ra5 Can you send me link to a video in which you can see object form 1000 miles?
@@nazalostizsrbije How about using your own eyes...
Can you see the sun??
How about the moon?
Polaris, sirius, betelgeuse, rigel etc.....?
@@boterlettersukkel Yes.Thry are millions of miles away
With an App?... Ok, Seems par for the course... I mean Math and measurements of physical objects just don’t jive with the Model...That’s the issue... Fake and staged pictures, phony nasa videos with guys in Harnesses and stubborn pseudo intellectuals pushing lies....
@@shadowbanned-9577 Those claims you make have to be proven by you.
All I see are empty claims about measurements and people in harnasses.
You have to be speciffic.
So we can point you to your mistakes and incredullity.
Impressive software. See this is why models are important. They help us test theories
I think you misunderstand what "oblate" means. It does *not* mean that Earth is flat at the top or bottom. It means that Earth is elliptical in a north-south cross-section, not perfectly spherical. And the eccentricity of that ellipse is very small, so small that to the naked eye, or if drawn to scale in a picture, the globe looks exactly like a sphere.
Edit: I uploaded an image comparing a sphere and an oblate spheroid, both approximating the shape of Earth: imgur.com/hkUtjwI
For 4 minutes and 40 seconds the flat earthers were loving this.
THIS VIDEO DEBUNKED....th-cam.com/video/39hEuGLP5qw/w-d-xo.html&feature=em-uploademail
Why so smug, either you are a shill or you have no imagination
What are you afraid of ?.
@@jacksync8713 Well, flat earthers have lots of imagination, they imagine many things that have nothing to do with reality.
@@Sasoon2006 It does not takes lots of imagination to know about the flat earth, just belief in your senses and disbelief in textbooks and NASA caricatures. The fact is that even Albert Einstein confirmed that no scientific experiment can detect any of Earth's "movements". th-cam.com/video/Bi59h5rM8T8/w-d-xo.html You may want to see parts 2 and 3 also, with links provided on the video's description.
@@magneticking4339 this test is wrong. it proofs nothing. use logic can solve this easily.
Why don't you try measuring from Greenland to Tasmania, and not only that small piece of land?
Because this video is about a photograph that was taken in Malibu and shows Mt. San Jacinto west of Palm Springs, not about a photograph that was taken in Greenland and shows Tasmania.
If you have a photo that was taken in Greenland and shows Tasmania, I'd love to see it.
@@okreylos iam asking you, why then you ask me back? , you are the one who's presenting that false idea, so why don't you go out there and measure it then. So you can proved your claims. Not only a kind of story from a certain picture.
@@goddycarino6747 Wow...you're not the quickest cat are you. What would be the point of measuring from Greenland to Tasmania and then rendering it in this software...if there is no physical picture that exists of this, that can then be used to compare both models against? You did watch the video above right? You do realize he was matching topography data to an actual picture that was taken...so he could see which model fit the picture, Globe or Flat...you do understand what he was doing here right? I'm guessing not...cause your comment is just nonsensical.
If the earth is flat, just have them point at mount everest
We can only see so far
@@MisfitRecords yep true. But funny how when you rise higher Abive the ground you can see further and further. I wonder how our eyes know how far we can see
I NEED MY OPIOIDS BRO
We can see many hundreds of miles.
@@bertiecharlie yes ,is mount Everest hundreds of miles from location?? or THOUSANDS OF MILES from your location .. We shouldn't be able to see for hundreds of miles either because of the curve
I NEED MY OPIOIDS BRO
I’m yet to see definitive scientific evidence of limit of visual sight in the atmosphere. The fact we can see stars millions of light years away makes me think the horizon is the primary reason we can’t see for thousands of miles.
Providing you’re at the right altitude, seeing for hundreds of miles is entirely consistent with the globe model.
A "globe defender" called Rory linked this on his channel, and I'm glad he did. Excellent video, and I love that piece of software. Wish I had access to something like that, (and the ability to use it).
The main problem with flat earth believers is that they are full of excuses, and they have an answer for everything. They will say your software doesn't include atmospheric conditions, or perspective. They will call it a reification fallacy, because they heard those words somewhere and think they know what it means. They'll basically go so far as to tell you that the earth is flat, but looks curved no matter how you view or measure it. Then in the next breath they'll show you a video where atmospheric refraction *does* make the earth look almost flat, and they'll offer it as proof of no curvature.
They are quite literally the most closed-minded, ignorant, stubborn people I've ever come across.
Do you happen to have a link to that channel? I'm curious.
@@okreylos - sure.
th-cam.com/users/rubsley
He posted a link to you video in his Community section.
Thx!
@@Adrena1in
Come on, chief. Don't make fun of the mentally disabled.
but it shows the stuff is flat..😂😂😂
As Adrena 1in mentioned, Rory also checked this out and found problems with J Tolans image, J Tolan has a habit of guessing at what he is seeing and incorrectly defines them as fact in many of his images, Several other debunks have been done, but I do like this one, as this shows what should be seen on the flat earth, which I have never seen before. Great work, and I suspect the amount of thumbs down will grow as more globe deniers view this content. They really do hate it when their narrative is falisified by this kind of evidence.
For one he fudged the numbers
This video is also trickery
@Graham Rathbone How about the city in front of the mountain. It blocks the view of the bottom of the mountain. The photo was taken below the top of the city so your eye site angle will still rise until you hit the mountain.
@Graham Rathbone The video does not prove one way or the other. It is definitely leaning towards a curve. The problem is we don't know where he took the photo from. Was he standing at sea level or higher up. Ten to twenty feet can make a significant difference. How much of photographers view of sight was blocked from seeing over buildings and land mass? What percentage of the mountain do you feel you see in the photograph and his example?
Where's the left and right curvature on this that equals 8" per mile also? Why is the horizon still level?
That's a really good question. What I'm drawing in this video is a sphere. So if there's no left-to-right curve of the horizon in this video, but we do know that the video is showing a sphere, then we need to ask: *Should* there be a left-to-right curve on a sphere?
And the answer is no. There should not be a left-to-right curve, given the radius of the sphere (6,371km) and the elevation of the viewer (46m). The reason for that is geometry. I'm explaining it in more detail in this video: th-cam.com/video/3zSHZkHCAaQ/w-d-xo.html
The globe is not a theory. It is an observable and measurable fact. The FE theory does not have a consistent model.
Some things the flat-earth proponents cannot explain:
a) consistently,
b) in the same model, and
c) at the same time.
(and there are many more)
1. Day and night
2. Eclipses (both Solar and Lunar)
3. Seasons (Earth tilt) that are reversed in the southern hemisphere
4. 15 degrees per hour gyroscopic drift
5. Different stars visible in different hemispheres (North star, Southern cross etc.)
6. Stars appear to rotate around the poles (Earth rotating)
7. Space travel, space walks
8. Why things fall towards the centre of the earth (gravity) or other nearby large masses
9. The GPS system works
10. Photos from space
11. Great circle routes for aircraft travel, i.e. distance of flights only makes sense on a globe
12. Australia exists (I live here)
13. People have travelled to both poles, Antarctica is real and you can visit
14. The horizon (i.e. things disappear below the horizon)
15. Tides
16. Moon position relative to the Sun (also phases of the moon)
17. Celestial navigation (latitude/longitude from the Sun and stars etc.) works based on the globe
18. Moon landings, manned and unmanned
19. Buoyancy has g (acceleration due to gravity) as part of its definition
20. Planetary exploration, including Voyager I and II
21. Why the moon looks the same size, shape, and it appears to tilt based on viewing location
22. Transit of Venus (across the Sun)
23. The sun sets in the northwest in summer and the southwest in winter in the northern hemisphere? (reversed in the Southern hemisphere)
24. The fact that the Sun appears to rise and set, ditto moon
25. Equatorial Mounts (telescope mounts) only work on a Spherical Earth
26. The atmosphere has a pressure gradient as you go higher (which makes no sense if there is a hard shell firmament container)
27. South towards a convergent pole and not radially to the 'ice wall'?
28. South of the equator tropical storms are called cyclones and rotate in a clockwise direction, while north of the equator cyclones are called hurricanes or typhoons and rotate in an anti-clockwise direction.
29. A given mass has a slightly different weight at different latitudes due to varying gravity and centrifugal force.
Explain all of these in the FE model AT THE SAME TIME !!
Gravity is a theory
Gravity is a theory can prove it that is why they are starting to say dark matter is the reason everything is the way it is way to much gravity in all the objects in space it just doesn't ad up. Neil Degrasse Tyson said something to that effect.
@@tonyramirez4160 Gravity is also a law. Explain that.
Really great, the best experiment I have seen without bias or arrogance
People calling people stupid for not seeing obvious things rubs me wrong we cant learn calling namea
Wow, that’s all it takes? No questions of the elevation of the two heights and the distance between them and running the math? You would be surprised at the results if you simply run the math. The top of the mountain will be thousands of feet below the curvature. You should not see the top of mountain at all based on the math, but we do see the mountain.
@@usmdressage I did the maths and it actually fits the photo perfectly. You probably messed up somewhere
@@jamaldeep13 Show us the math here.
@@rswow Okay:
Observer is standing on a cliff with eye level roughly 40 metres up.
The summit of Mt San Jacinto is 197 km away from the observer
This leads to a drop of 2387 metres
Mt San Jacinto itself is 3302 metres tall
So not only was the guy I was talking to dead wrong, either through an accidental conversion or being full of crap, but the amount of mountain hidden below the horizon matches the photo
Say to all, Earth is flat, only if something extremely wired has happened to it.
The only thing that is weird are all of the flat earthers LOL
@@barryweaver8833 In any case nuclear is dangerous
@samuel moore Excuse me, you said "the moon is over the ocean"? Uhm yeah like 238,000 miles over it, so it's like over everything else too and all at once.
I love how you say people should become smarter and better thinkers, I really do appreciate that more than you know LOL..
With all of your waking up & thinking and everything, have you ever thought about how people scattered all over the world all see the exact same phase of the moon at the same time yet? I challenge you to think for yourself about that and with no flat earth video research. Have you ever even looked at timeanddate.com and thought how well it matches reality and how it matches up with a globe, but how it never matches up with a flat disc map from the floor of the CIA building.
Let me know. I'm really curious to see what a deep thinker has to say about that. Thanks.
i admire this video a lot and for me particularly believing the earth is round id say this is really well illustrated
U need help if u think the earth is flat 😂🤣😂
from my simple mind the easiest way to discover for your self that the earth is spherical (round-ish) is in order to see other objects in space as round (spherical) is back to the theory that the earth is the center of the universe and every object that is round (spherical) is flat and tilted towards earth in order to be seen as round (spherical) . therefore, with it being proven that the earth in not the center of the solar system and definitely not the universe the only logical conclusion is the the earth is not flat .
Pool table has round balls therefore it must be round. Plate by the same logic must be a sphere coz its round... Why people so eager to want to believe in non existent space
This is beautiful. Great video!
Sorry this does prove that the earth is curved. Like he had said in the video that it was shown for the globe model to predict almost exactly what it would look like.
Yeah and it matched perfectly to the photograph.
@Amused So, please then let us see some of the points on Earth where it is supposed to end. The picture of end part only.
@Amused
"In order to "prove" something you need multiple data sets."
But in order to disprove something, you only need one dataset. If a model can't explain EVERYTHING, it isn't right.
You don't really need to bother with proving earth round no more than you need to prove grass green. But, if you talk a bit more general, then the philosophy of science has a peculiar bone to pick with proving things. No hypothesis or even a theory can be ever be proven true and final, best you can do is find more and more supporting evidence. But no matter how much supporting evidence you find, the theoretical possibility remains that someday, someone finds evidence that proves it wrong. On the other hand, a hypothesis can certainly be proven wrong in a very final way if evidence simply does not match the predictions of a hypothesis.
The coffin of flat earth was nailed shut by the ancient Greeks by the very latest, possibly even earlier but no records have survived.
@Amused It seems so.
Optical viewing utilizes angular resolution. Does your computer model take that into account? We do not see forever. Things get smaller in the distance due to the diffraction limit. Your perspective.
Yes, but perspective or the vanishing point as you're describing above, effects an object from ALL angles. It doesn't just pick and choose what parts to make vanish first....that's not how perspective works, nor the vanishing point. The fact is that thousands of feet are missing from the bottom of these mountains at long distance photos and they just so happen to be missing exactly the amount as our curvature calculations predict they should be if the Earth is a Globe with a radius of roughly 6000 km.
@Michael Dilworth how do you know they're trillions of light years away?
@Michael Dilworth oh haha got ya.
I like how he said the curvature that it really is? Lol you don't know the curvature that it really is because the NASA cgi pictures show a sphere. Neil Tyson says pear shaped. Other scientists say flat up too and round on the sides.
The bible describes it flat. Every time I fly its flat.
You are misunderstanding what scientists actually say. When they say "sphere" or "oblate spheroid" or "pear," they are quibbling over miniscule variations to the basic shape. From afar, Earth is a sphere. If you look more closely, it is a very slightly squished ellipsoid (that's what an "oblate spheroid" is). The difference between the sphere and the oblate spheroid is about 0.3%. If you look extremely closely with high-precision instruments, you notice it's slightly wider on the southern hemisphere, by a few dozen meters(!). Hence "pear-shaped."
No one says "flat up top and round on the sides." You might have been confused by map projections like this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid#/media/File:Geoid_height_red_blue_averagebw.png That is a map, meaning an unrolling of the Earth's surface onto a piece of paper, not a picture. A rectangular world map like a Mercator map does not mean that the Earth is a rectangle.
Let me say it again: Pictures from space show a sphere because, at those pictures' resolutions, Earth looks like a sphere. Here's a diagram overlaying the sphere and the oblate spheroid: imgur.com/hkUtjwI You are welcome to try and find the difference.
ASMR voice
Thank you sir
As a new idiocy in the form of a concave earth arises, can you show what that mountain would look like if the earth's surface were concave with similar radius?
'Arguing with a fool, only proves that there are two'.
So don't waste your time & energy arguing with a flat earther.
I’m pretty sure he also gets payed for this video so yeah. I’d argue with idiots if I got payed for it too.
Well played. WOW, u nailed it!
Its easy to base your answers on something that is believed to be true. When you create a measuring system based on a thought, you figure out every way to make it right. But what if your thoughts were wrong in the first place? Our measuring system was made based on the thought that it was round, so of course their calculations would work.
Nope.
You didnt line up the photo again with the flat earth view...it matched with the globe view but you should have done a comparison again with the photo and flat earth view....something just doesnt look right with the photo and the google graphics
Are you serious? How can you fail basic logic so completely?
Let's say you have three pictures, A, B, and C. A and B look identical, and B and C look completely different. Do you *really* have to compare A and C to determine that they look completely different?
@@okreylos Yes
That's a curious logic you are proposing there. Would you like to give an example of three entities A, B, and C, and some equivalence relation "=", where A = B and not(A = C), but for some reason still B = C? That sounds very exciting!
Or are you implying that "the mountain in this image looks exactly like the mountain in that other image" is not a transitive relation in the limited context of these three images?
*Points at mountain. "There you go. It's not flat."
haha
Hahaha. Just what I thought
Angular resolution is not present in the program he is using, as a result you see the mountain in its entirety when flipping it to "flat". This is not possible in real life. In reality, how much we can see of a tall object such as a mountain depends on angular resolution. The round earth setting I assume takes into consideration the diffraction limit and angular resolution according to the height of the viewer. That's why it matches the *real* photograph.
The angular resolution determines the level of detail, not the total size and position of the object in view.
The most honest explanation I have ever found concerning the Two view points. I admire when people say I dont have enough evidence to lean on one side or the other. Rather you go by evidence by evidence scenario until you get enough data to come to a conclusion.
The earth is a ball lol. You don't need to prove it because most of the things you do ptove that it is.
But there isn't two sides. There is one answer, it's easily understandable, observable, and testable. The Earth is a globe. There isn't any excuse for that level of ignorance anymore
@@wooonerf3195 its absolutely impossible for it to be a globe. The sun is not 93m miles away. Globe is easily disproven by daylight and how the sun moves away and doesn't set ,its also disproven by being able to see for miles and miles with zero curvature
@@wooonerf3195 so were is hell?
It is under the earth.
The sun and the 🌕 moon are both on the east coast of the US right now.....hmmmm
@@federalinvestigation9962 Actually, on the Flat Earth, the Sun would be wholly incapable of setting
Ask yourself this question. How is it possible in the late afternoon to see the sun on one side of the sky while observing the moon on the other side if the earth is round. One more question. Why has youtube taken down almost ALL of the flat earth videos if it's just entertaining junk?
Are you kidding me? It takes less than 30 seconds to draw a simple diagram that explains how one can see the Moon on the other side of the sky from the Sun in the morning / in the afternoon on a globe Earth: i.imgur.com/h0iyi4U.png Why didn't you do that before asking that question?
@@okreylos we have been taught in school that half the earth is ql and in sunlight and the other half is in darkness. There used to be a video about 3 friends one in Australia, in in the state of Washington and the third in England. They set a time to observe the sun. It was rising am Australia time.Setting in England and up in the US. Since half of the earth is always in darkness. How is this possible? Also how can I see the moon at 9 am and 4 pm. In broad daylight while someone else on the EXACT opposite side of the earth is in darkness.Remember the curve of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared. Your view point would only allow this if the earth wasn't flat.
@@georgemichaels2325 "Also how can I see the moon at 9 am and 4 pm. In broad daylight while someone else on the EXACT opposite side of the earth is in darkness."
Look at the diagram I linked in my previous comment. It will explain how you are wrong.
@@okreylos you missed the point. Because of the claimed curve . It would be impossible for 2 people on opposite sides of the earth to see the Moon or Sun at the same time.The curve of the earth would stop your line of sight. Visualize yourself on the ground and then you'll figure it out. There are only cgi pictures from outer space of earth's surface.One video shows 8 different years of the globe. How come the American continent is a different shape and size on each picture? It proves they are fake. People are catching onn that's why most of the flat earth videos are taken down and only the bull shit troll videos are still up.
No, I think I got your point just fine. My point is that your point is completely wrong. You seem to have a problem thinking in three dimensions, something that is quite common to flat Earthers (if you could think in three dimensions, you probably wouldn't be one).
"How come the American continent is a different shape and size on each picture?"
Because those pictures were taken from different distances. The farther away you go from a sphere, the more of its surface you can see. Therefore, the relative size of features such as continents relative to the entirety of the sphere's visible surface changes; features appear to get smaller the farther you move away. You can try this at home using a globe.
Yes it does
This is great and I really appreciate what you did here. Very well presented and unbiased and simply stating facts. Well done and I hope more of the flat earth community sees this to wrap their head around. It would be neat to see you recreate the photo from sea level in the same direction as well. So many flat earth arguments saying the earth is flat are usually taken from one high point looking towards another high point. Either way great job on this!
Jay tolan is an engineer at Lockheed Martin. He's got many videos of him doing his experiments from the ground. He's literally out there doing these experiments not sitting on his a$$ at home on a computer. Don't listen to clowns like this that don't go out and actually perform real life experiments.
They don't wrap their heads around anything. They only repeat flat-out lies. It's a brainwashing technique they use to get more flat earth believers.
In 122 miles distance, the earth curve drops 9303 ft, so not only no foothills should be visible, but only about an upper quarter of the mountain, since from over 11 thousand hight should nine thousand be hidden behind the curve. So, contrary to what you think, this is clear proof of Earth's flatness.
@@tomasjina6174 the shot in the footage is not from sea level though? It is from a raised point also which throws off that calculation doesn't it? The fact also is that you do not see everything in between should be a good indication that on a perfectly flat earth there should be far more of the mountain visible I would think.
@@tomasjina6174 Contrary to watch you think, you have to see the ENTIRE MOUNTAIN for it to be proof of flatness. At best, this could be taken as proof that Earth is bigger than expected, and that's only if you ignore the fact that the picture was taken 40 metres up
Yeah the documentary is really fascinating, having that amount of flat earth stupidity in one documentary, having FE:s proving the curvature and the spinning globe them self.
ikr lol
This is a grown up conversation. You children go play with your toys.
It's oval and flat it's hills and mountains make it seems round. And explain the pillars of earth ? Why would pillars be on a round earth?
Why don't you explain the unicorns in my backyard? Why would unicorns be in my backyard?
Doesnt mean the earth is round but it sure does point to it.
A single data point is not a proof. ...But the countless data points to show the roundness of the Earth certainly are. Terrestrial examples and experiments abound. Photographs from space exist. Combine with the absolute lack of valid data points that show the Earth is flat, the contradictions within their own theories and the lack of a model that works even slightly with a flat Earth, and even the bastard son of Hellen Keller and Stevie fucking Wonder could see it's round.
No, because there's still many hundreds meters of the bottom of that mountain blocked by the horizon.
And if you go up in elevation, you can eventually see the bottom of the mountain which was blocked by the horizon. But that will just go over flattards tiny brains.
@Jim Merrilees Stupid is forever, you can’t fix stupid (~Ron White)
@Jim Merrilees only Youre on a Spinning meteor in a complete vacuum of Space and nothingsness.. , accelerating constantly. Yeah!! Right....i read it in my books at schools. And they say its like that in the media. The things you will see on a globe was only 500 meteres and the top of thje mountain. Now woth both these pictures you see much much more. dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=197&h0=25&unit=metric
@Jim Merrilees You sound like a 13 year old lol.
@Jim Merrilees You're literally insulting people simply for having a different opinion than you. You realize some of the worst people in history did that right? Including the brown coats in Germany.
It's an interesting clickbait game you played there. All I know is that the water surfaces are flat 4 LIFE!
How can the buildings be visible on the picture if they must be on the coast? Or are they on the hillside?
Both are in the foreground and the picture was taken from a significant elevation (under 100m iirc) so there's no reason for the buildings to be hidden.
No, you’re not honest at all. You didn’t mention the observer height at all. What about perspective and compression? This is very deceptive people but it’s wrong.
Nope. It doesn't. There's 6000 feet of mountain hidden...... behind the curve.
I watched this documentary just yesterday, was unsure where it would go, but in the end displayed people sucked in by the conspiracy machine. I sure hope they can get out, paranoia is not a healthy thing.
Also, it was amazing seeing the mountain appear when you flattened the Earth, fairly spectacular, and made it clear just how massive the mountain range really is. Now I want to travel there in Earth VR...
I thought the documentary was really good for the same reason, that it focused on the people that believe in a flat Earth, and the stated (and subconscious) reasons why they are doing so.
I kinda feel the urge to make another couple of videos -- I created the 3D flat Earth model I'm showing in the introduction, and it's a beautiful visualization on how the Sun is supposed to work in a flat Earth model and how it doesn't match observations that can be made by anyone without fancy equipment -- but my better instincts tell me to let it go.
@@okreylos Just watching the documentary I felt like going outside and doing experiments of my own. I almost fell into conspiracy theories in my early twenties but quickly flipped over to the debunking side of things instead, but I can see how people who get fed more and more conspiracy content on this very platform would just fall deeper into the rabbit hole 😭
Essentially, they were making fun of flerfs. The undertones were slight, but they were there nonetheless. I found it hilarious.
Get Google earth VR. Look it up on TH-cam.
I was wondering if your tweet inspired the watching for this video or vice versa. I watched it because of the tweet and now having watched this I'm wondering if the whole theory is just meant to distract the curious from working on more important things.
How can you see islands near Italy when they are 100 miles away? They should be miles below the horizon.
Do the math, and you'll figure it out. First, an island 100 miles away would not be "miles" below the horizon: assuming an observer height of 2m, i.e. a regular person standing on a beach, and ignoring atmospheric effects, an island 100 miles away would be 1900 meters or less than 1.2 miles below the horizon. If the observer gains altitude, that number drops. If the observer is standing on a hill or mountain, now we're talking.