PBS has been caught red-handed faking an experiment to falsely portray the earth as a sphere. Then, when their scam was exposed, they attempted a coverup, which just made things worse for them.
Great work Edward. I ponder to recall, that there was a time when I used to revere Hawking the now unveiled charlatan and enemy of truth. Black holes my eye. NASA’s gluttony for U.S. tax dollars more likely.
If we were discussing a flat slope as though the earth were a giant triangle then the equation would be 8 inches per mile for each successive mile. But so-called science does not claim that the earth is a triangle; we are not talking about a flat slope. The earth is alleged to be a sphere that is 24,901 miles in circumference. The expected (but absent) drop accelerates as the square of the distance due to the arc of the alleged sphere.
The formula for the expected drop per mile is M2 × 8 = D, where “M” is the number of miles from the observer at ground level, “8” is the number of inches dropped per mile squared, and “D” is the distance of the drop over the horizon. The above equation assumes an earth with a circumference of 24,901 miles. J. Clendenning, the former British Surveyor General of the Gold Coast (Ghana), in his book, The Principles of Surveying, confirmed that “as regards curvature, a level line parallel to the earth's surface ... falls away from a plane tangential to the earth at any point by about 8 in. in a distance of a mile, and this difference increases with the square of the distance.” The validity of the formula M2 × 8 = D can be verified by using the Pythagorean theorem. I explain the concept in detail in my book, The Greatest Lie on Earth.
Ok. I needed a diagram to grok it. Your description here got me closer to picturing it. Makes sense. On a globe, the surface drops away from the horizontal plane faster with greater distance. Squaring it seems too steep but ok. Makes sense.
Read my article "Dr. Danny Faulkner Caught Speaking Lies" wherein I explain the concepts of perspective and light refraction as the reason that bottoms of ships appear to be cut off as the ships get further from the observer. As objects get further from the observer, light refraction causes a vanishing line to develop. The observer cannot see the area below that vanishing line. Georgia State University’s Department of Physics and Astronomy explains that “[p]oints below that ‘vanishing line’ on the object will not be seen by the observer.” This gives the effect of cutting off the bottom of distant objects. I explain this concept, with examples, in my book, The Sphere of Influence.
You are going to have to do a lot more studying. It is not that simple. You do not understand perspective and atmospheric magnification and their affect on distant objects.
As the distance increases, the lensing effect of the atmosphere becomes more dramatic, with not only the horizon and height of objects dropping, but also the bottom of distant objects disappearing. In the pictures below we see those effects manifested with three oil platforms off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. Light refraction causes the apparent location of the platforms to drop below the actual location of the platforms.
Notice in the article at the link below that The principal cause of the disappearance of the bottom of the National Geographic banner was light refraction. That can be confirmed by the fact that the horizon can be seen behind the banner. So we know that the horizon is NOT the cause of the bottom of the banner disappearing from view.
By crouching down closer to the water, the cameraman enhanced the effect of light refraction. Crouching down also caused his perspective to draw closer to the bottom of the banner, which further augmented the bottom-up vanishing effect. Areas that are equidistant in elevation from the eye-level converge at a point at eye level. But when a person lowers his perspective, that causes objects that move away from the observer to become cut-off from view beginning from the bottom-up.
The maximum angular resolution of a person who has 20/20 Snellen acuity is .98 arcminutes. That is roughly one arcminute, which is 1/60th of one degree (.017̊). When the angular resolution reaches its limit, the object cannot be seen beyond that point. That vanishing point takes place at eye level. For example, in the case of a U.S. penny, which is 3/4 (.75) of an inch in diameter, the penny will disappear from a person’s vision when it gets to approximately 214 feet away from the observer. That is because at 214 feet away, the penny’s diameter will have reached one arcminute (.017̊). Of course, a large object, like the banner in the National Geographic experiment, can be seen at a longer distance before it disappears from sight.
But not all objects that travel away from an observer on a flat plane will be seen to vanish uniformly from top-to-bottom. That is because if the observer is closer to the bottom of the viewed object, he will see the bottom of the object become cut off from view before seeing the top of the object disappear. The disappearance of a distant object from the bottom-up occurs because the person’s eyes are closer to the elevation of the object’s bottom. This is caused by the maximum angular resolution of the person’s eyes being reached first by the object’s bottom. Once that happens, the object begins to disappear from the bottom-up.
The effect of visual disappearance due to angular resolution is much reduced when a telephoto lens is used, as was the case in the National Geographic experiment. A telephoto lens acts to bring the object closer and thus allow a vanished object to reappear because it is brought back within the limits of the angular resolution of the viewer. But the effect on angular resolution by the use of a telephoto lens can be countered regarding the bottom of the observed object by bringing the telephoto lens closer to the surface of the water or ground, as the cameraman did in the National Geographic video. When the cameraman crouched down to within one foot of the surface of the water, the lowered view from the camera enhanced the bottom-up disappearance of the banner.
Thank you, Edward Hendrie, for your articles on The Flat Earth. Not enough people are speaking out about it.
The Flat Earth reality is a beautiful concept. Brings us closer to our Creator.
Great work Edward. I ponder to recall, that there was a time when I used to revere Hawking the now unveiled charlatan and enemy of truth. Black holes my eye. NASA’s gluttony for U.S. tax dollars more likely.
Why would the distance drop be higher than 8" per mile for more miles? Let alone squared?
If we were discussing a flat slope as though the earth were a giant triangle then the equation would be 8 inches per mile for each successive mile. But so-called science does not claim that the earth is a triangle; we are not talking about a flat slope. The earth is alleged to be a sphere that is 24,901 miles in circumference. The expected (but absent) drop accelerates as the square of the distance due to the arc of the alleged sphere.
The formula for the expected drop per mile is M2 × 8 = D, where “M” is the number of miles from the observer at ground level, “8” is the number of inches dropped per mile squared, and “D” is the distance of the drop over the horizon. The above equation assumes an earth with a circumference of 24,901 miles. J. Clendenning, the former British Surveyor General of the Gold Coast (Ghana), in his book, The Principles of Surveying, confirmed that “as regards curvature, a level line parallel to the earth's surface ... falls away from a plane tangential to the earth at any point by about 8 in. in a distance of a mile, and this difference increases with the square of the distance.” The validity of the formula M2 × 8 = D can be verified by using the Pythagorean theorem. I explain the concept in detail in my book, The Greatest Lie on Earth.
Ok. I needed a diagram to grok it. Your description here got me closer to picturing it. Makes sense. On a globe, the surface drops away from the horizontal plane faster with greater distance. Squaring it seems too steep but ok. Makes sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUwvu0WPq8U
Read my article "Dr. Danny Faulkner Caught Speaking Lies" wherein I explain the concepts of perspective and light refraction as the reason that bottoms of ships appear to be cut off as the ships get further from the observer. As objects get further from the observer, light refraction causes a vanishing line to develop. The observer cannot see the area below that vanishing line. Georgia State University’s Department of Physics and Astronomy explains that “[p]oints below that ‘vanishing line’ on the object will not be seen by the observer.” This gives the effect of cutting off the bottom of distant objects. I explain this concept, with examples, in my book, The Sphere of Influence.
https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/07/01/dr-danny-faulkner-caught-speaking-lies/
watch the entire video of ships sailing away.
You are going to have to do a lot more studying. It is not that simple. You do not understand perspective and atmospheric magnification and their affect on distant objects.
As the distance increases, the lensing effect of the atmosphere becomes more dramatic, with not only the horizon and height of objects dropping, but also the bottom of distant objects disappearing. In the pictures below we see those effects manifested with three oil platforms off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. Light refraction causes the apparent location of the platforms to drop below the actual location of the platforms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zRNhLnaLZg
Notice in the article at the link below that The principal cause of the disappearance of the bottom of the National Geographic banner was light refraction. That can be confirmed by the fact that the horizon can be seen behind the banner. So we know that the horizon is NOT the cause of the bottom of the banner disappearing from view.
By crouching down closer to the water, the cameraman enhanced the effect of light refraction. Crouching down also caused his perspective to draw closer to the bottom of the banner, which further augmented the bottom-up vanishing effect. Areas that are equidistant in elevation from the eye-level converge at a point at eye level. But when a person lowers his perspective, that causes objects that move away from the observer to become cut-off from view beginning from the bottom-up.
The maximum angular resolution of a person who has 20/20 Snellen acuity is .98 arcminutes. That is roughly one arcminute, which is 1/60th of one degree (.017̊). When the angular resolution reaches its limit, the object cannot be seen beyond that point. That vanishing point takes place at eye level. For example, in the case of a U.S. penny, which is 3/4 (.75) of an inch in diameter, the penny will disappear from a person’s vision when it gets to approximately 214 feet away from the observer. That is because at 214 feet away, the penny’s diameter will have reached one arcminute (.017̊). Of course, a large object, like the banner in the National Geographic experiment, can be seen at a longer distance before it disappears from sight.
But not all objects that travel away from an observer on a flat plane will be seen to vanish uniformly from top-to-bottom. That is because if the observer is closer to the bottom of the viewed object, he will see the bottom of the object become cut off from view before seeing the top of the object disappear. The disappearance of a distant object from the bottom-up occurs because the person’s eyes are closer to the elevation of the object’s bottom. This is caused by the maximum angular resolution of the person’s eyes being reached first by the object’s bottom. Once that happens, the object begins to disappear from the bottom-up.
The effect of visual disappearance due to angular resolution is much reduced when a telephoto lens is used, as was the case in the National Geographic experiment. A telephoto lens acts to bring the object closer and thus allow a vanished object to reappear because it is brought back within the limits of the angular resolution of the viewer. But the effect on angular resolution by the use of a telephoto lens can be countered regarding the bottom of the observed object by bringing the telephoto lens closer to the surface of the water or ground, as the cameraman did in the National Geographic video. When the cameraman crouched down to within one foot of the surface of the water, the lowered view from the camera enhanced the bottom-up disappearance of the banner.
https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/10/11/propaganda-misfire-by-national-geographic/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nUFLLUahSI