New in cosmology and fundamental physics

Too late sorry

That looks like a maniac

Looks like someone who is begging to be blocked.

Red Soldier..... I block people who don't behave in other people's threads. Its a bad habit I picked up from NATO. 

Elroch - So, if you were standing on a level plane 1000 miles long and there was an Elroch double standing directly opposite the other end 1000 miles away you are telling me both would be completely visible to each other? 

Astronomical Violations of Perspective - YouTube  10 minutes

This explains why heliocentrism must ignore the law of perspective in order to be believed. 

I stated that Rayleigh scattering would prevent visibility over 300 km in air at standard temperature and pressure. However, otherwise:

The line between any two points on one side of a plane does not pass through that plane.

Large text to help you read it properly, as it was not already clear.

There is just one thing that @noodles2112 needs to understand,

For every point in the Northern hemisphere, the latitude is the angle of the North Pole of the sky (close to the North Star, within 1 degree) above the horizon.

This is inconsistent with the Flat Earth model for EVERY set of 3 points at different latitudes (for simplicity on a single line of longitude).
The inconsistency is due to the blatantly false assumption that the Earth is flat between the points.

So where TF is the North star in the Flat Earth model? There is no point even close to being on all three lines.

Only the most extreme lack of comprehension of geometry can avoid seeing this is a refutation.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The reality is that the lines of sight to the North Star on the real Earth all point at a very distant point (close to) above the North Pole. This is consistent with the facts and causes no contradiction like the above. It works for EVERY point in the Northern hemisphere, not just three.

Elroch - I am not concerned with atmospheric conditions etc. I am simply asking a hypothetical question. Could the human eye see 1000 miles away on a flat/level plane. A person 6 feet tall at one end being able to see another person 6 feet tall at the other end? 

If you believe the answer is yes then I would suggest going to a 100-yard football field and placing a 2-foot orange cone at one end and then work your way back from 20 yards, 50 yards, 75 yards to 100 yards sitting on the ground at these intervals. By the time you get to 100 yards the top of the cone will either be barely visible or not at all. The bottom will not be visible. 

Do you think this is due to curvature of the earth? 

Hypothetically speaking, forget Polaris assumed to be 434 light years away. If Polaris were 5000 miles above the north pole, then how far south would it be visible on a globular earth? 

I have just done the geometry and it would not be visible anywhere South of the 36 degree North line of latitude.  The truth is that it is visible right on the equator, which is over 1800 miles further South.

By contrast, if the North Star were 5000 miles above the North Pole of a pancake shaped Earth it would certainly be visible over the entire pancake. The reason is simple - it would only be slightly further from any point that those from which it is clearly visible.

More crucially, the North Star would be at entirely different angles in the sky to reality at all values of latititude except one. See my post which makes no assumption about the height of the North Star and proves observations are inconsistent with ANY POSSIBLE POSITION.

Okay. I think I would agree with you about the telescope because that is what people worldwide have been doing to bring back into view objects that "disappear" due to perspective. 

But just as the vid on astronomical violations of perspective demonstrated in various ways, objects appear to converge over distances. Whether they be clouds in the distance that appear to be at ground level, the setting sun, moon or stars. So, the assumption that a 5000-mile-high Polaris would be visible anywhere on the face of the earth is erroneous. 

How do you explain clouds in the distance that appear to be at ground level i.e., level with the horizon? 2 photos have already been provided for you to examine. 

The main characteristic of perspective is very, very simple. If something is X times further away it looks X times smaller. This included a vertical dimension relating to a cloud. But it can never make any dimension look like it is zero (merely small).  So if you see a cloud right at the horizon (not just near it) without hills big enough to explain it, this is because it lies above a distant point on the CURVED Earth.

Where is the North Star? If you assume the Earth is flat, I have shown there is no location that explains the observations of it.

I have also explained specifically that the observations imply it is not located 6000 miles above the North Pole.

Therefore it is a firm conclusion that the Earth is not flat.

This sort of simple reasoning is why it has been known the Earth is not flat for over 2000 years.

All advanced civilizations knew the earth was not a ball in space. They rejected it for 1000's of years. It was not until the Pope and his Catholic priest Copernicus came along to influence a change with great help from the Jesuits and very wealthy families. Just look at all the astronomical societies/organizations and who is at the helm? Heliocentrism was simply a first necessary step for other agendas to follow. It did not come about by accident. Certainly if a globular earth was so obvious it would have been known by all advanced civilizations 1000's of years ago. 

The history of how heliocentrism became the accepted theory is quite interesting!

So, clouds in the distance appear close to the horizon due to curvature of the earth according to you. 

I would have to strongly disagree and counter with the reason is due to perspective. 

Furthermore, the PTB are going to great lengths to battle this "flat earth figment of imagination." I think you would agree with me on that one

   How advanced could civilizations be.........thousands of yrs ago?

Where is the North Star?

If you assume the Earth is flat, I have shown there is NO LOCATION that explains observations of it.

Real scientists have answers to all questions like this that are CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS. The reason the flat Earth hypothesis was refuted over 2000 years ago and has never been a valid hypothesis since that time is that it is INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

My first sentence is not a rhetorical question. It is an absolutely essential question. Are you too weak to accept that there is simply not an answer of the type you desire?