Skycentrism: We live inside the Earth! Geodesy.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
truth1

truth1

Banned
#41
Aug 22, 2013
93
0
0
#41
kenisyes said:
Let's see if we can get it right: The camera is at the shore of the island looking toward Perth, and is 3-4 meters above sea level? In post#7, the topographical guide underneath the picture shows parts of Perth 20-40m. The picture in post #4 seems to show only the buildings abouve 2 stories. I cannot see any less. That adds about 5 meters. The vivsible part of Perth in the picture is thus at least 25-50 meters above sea level. The formulas are 3.57(2+5)=25 km for the lower parts of Perth, 3.57(2+7)=33km for the parts on the higher hills. That exactly agrees with what we see. (Light refraction can make it 3.86, not 3.57, adding an extra km or so). The picture at 28km shows the top of the first storety buildings, because the horizon blocks anything under that. If you care to spot a particular landmard on the outside of a particular skyscraper, and get me the height above sea level and the height of the mark on the building, we can prove the formula even more exactly.

If the earth were concave, not only the first storey of all buildings would be visible, but you could see all the land from the shore up to the front door of those buildings in the photograph also.
Click to expand...
What ? 3,57* the square root of 2 = ?

Horizon calculator - radar and visual

here, add 2 or 3m first where h1 is.

You can see the other side of Perth, the hill from almost its base. See diagram in post 7.
 
Last edited:
truth1

truth1

Banned
#43
Aug 22, 2013
93
0
0
#43
Horizon calculator - radar and visual

h1 = 3m
h2 = let's say 20m, but that's a lot too much because we can see much lower than that !

You get 22 km. So you would only see the top of the hill which is 20m above sea level and nothing..lower. But we do !
You get it ?

Again, post 7.

Ok, you're counting right, sorry for confusion, but your data is wrong !

There're much more examples like this !
 
Last edited:
truth1

truth1

Banned
#44
Aug 22, 2013
93
0
0
#44
HorizonDistance.jpg

You see ?
h1 =3m
h2 =10m

Distance is..17,5 km. But h2 is still to high ! Compare this to the graph from post 7 please. See on which km the shore begins.
 
Last edited:
truth1

truth1

Banned
#45
Aug 22, 2013
93
0
0
#45
Below another example. This is the view of Sleza mountain from Praded. See horizon ?
There's a long distance observation of Tatra mountains from Sandomierz (200 km) a picture with all the coordinates to be checked and..it doesn't count, you wouldn't see them on convex Earth.

sleza.jpg
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#46
#46
truth1 said:
View attachment 56830

You see ?
h1 =3m
h2 =10m

Distance is..17,5 km. But h2 is still to high ! Compare this to the graph from post 7 please. See on which km the shore begins.
Click to expand...
I did the best I could with the data in post 7. The topographical graph does not seem to match the camera line of sight exactly. Please provide more accurate data. You may need to take a pocket altimeter up in a specific building in Perth and stand by a specific window visible from the camera to settle the issue.

You do realize that if, as stated in the earlier thread, light is really bending up, this whole method is useless?
 
truth1

truth1

Banned
#47
Aug 22, 2013
93
0
0
#47
kenisyes said:
I did the best I could with the data in post 7. The topographical graph does not seem to match the camera line of sight exactly. Please provide more accurate data. You may need to take a pocket altimeter up in a specific building in Perth and stand by a specific window visible from the camera to settle the issue.

You do realize that if, as stated in the earlier thread, light is really bending up, this whole method is useless?
Click to expand...
What ? Do you realize that the calculations are for straight light rays ? And they don't match with what we see for a so called convex Earth ? Do you want to know the Tatra mountains example I mentioned ?
 
truth1

truth1

Banned
#48
Aug 22, 2013
93
0
0
#48
kenisyes said:
I did the best I could with the data in post 7. The topographical graph does not seem to match the camera line of sight exactly.
Click to expand...
You deny what you can clearly see ? Doesn't seem to match ?! Don't be ridiculous :)
 
truth1

truth1

Banned
#49
Aug 22, 2013
93
0
0
#49
The example of Rottnest is interesting, but there are much more than that.
A question for everyone, seems to be obvious.
We have a flat terrain between point B and point L. It is almost perfectly level and its height above sea level is let's say 500m.
The observer stands in point B and he's 1,7m tall. How far is the horizon between point B and L ? In other words how far can we see ?

HorizonDistance.jpg
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#50
#50
The topographical graph is almost 60% longer than the line of sight in the drawing above it. I cannot match the picture of the skyscrapers with the graph, since the picture is at right angles to the line of sight.
 
truth1

truth1

Banned
#51
Aug 22, 2013
93
0
0
#51
kenisyes said:
The topographical graph is almost 60% longer than the line of sight in the drawing above it. I cannot match the picture of the skyscrapers with the graph, since the picture is at right angles to the line of sight.
Click to expand...
60% longer ? where ? can you explain again what you mean ? The distance between the place of taking picture and skyscrapers matches with the lenght of the topographical graph. Where is your problem ? :)

edit: ok I understand. It has nothing to do with this. The line is in smaller scale but it represents the topography km by km as in the graph. It's a google software. You match two points and it show the topography between them, ok ?
 
Last edited:
K

kenisyes

Guest
#52
#52
After we've exchanged half a dozen pm's in the last couple of days, I'm sorry I just don't have the time to exchange anymore. I've gone back and forth with you over azimuths, camera heights, whether down is down or at an angle, and the underlying topography of Poland for a couple of hours now, and I have real math students asking about their final exams, and people from several continents asking for opinions about life in Christ and the Bible. I was not going to get involved in this thread, as I did in the last, and I did this largely because of psychomom's post, as I have great respect for her, as do most of the people in the CC site.

It is worthless to try to prove or disprove the convexity of earth with photos taken over land, as a hill is a convex projection in any kind of space. I posted over a week ago in the other thread, that one can rework all the formulas of natural laws into matching ones for convex or concave earth, via Inversive geometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The reworked formulas require the bending of light and gravity. Everything changes over, but becomes counterintuitive, which can then be argued to be the product of indoctrination, as you are doing.

I have also stated that the only thing that cannot be so reworked is the sum of angles of geometric figures on the surface of the earth. I have proposed twice in these threads, and to you yesterday by pm that simply comparing the itinerary generated for any ocean voyage made of straight lines and carefully measure angles by both the convex and concave theories will yield a testable experiment. Merely making such a voyage will prove which side of the earth we are living on. I also pointed out that thousands of such voyages are made each day by ships and airlines, and invited you to do the same to check for yourself.

I'm sorry, I just don't have the time to give to keep explaining this to you. From the looks of the posts of the last two days to this thread, no none else does either. You are just going to have to conclude as did your colleague in the other thread, that we are all simply too stupid to see the truth.

Your bio indicates that you have posted to nothing else except this thread. As long as you are here, why not take advantage of the site to get closer to God, instead of engaging in such useless trivialites?
 
D

directline2iam

Banned
#53
Jul 25, 2013
1,329
19
0
#53
kenisyes said:
No math. Just look up the city of Perth and the island online. One is 32 m above sea level, one 46 m above sea level. These guys spent several days ignoring the rise in the land and claiming this proves we live on the inside of the earth. They also spent several days refusing to do the simple experiments I gave them to prove we live on the outside of the ball. The other one left claiming: "It's unchristian and unfriendly atmosphere here, unfortunately. so I will not waste my time any more. You can't handle the truth."

Just read the quoted post.
Click to expand...
You can't handle the truth/QUOTE

Someone likes Jack Nicholson maybe?
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#54
#54
Wow. This is really interesting, Truth1. In recent months, I read a book (about 100 years old) by a guy called Samuel Birley Rowbotham, who claimed the Earth was flat. I definitely believe it is stationary because of bible passages in Joshua where the sun and moon stood still. I would love for the Earth to be flat, because I think it would explain a lot of what the bible says a lot more easily.

If you have any links to more information on phenomena such as this, I would be very interested. I don't fully understand your claim though? Are you saying we live inside the Earth or something? Have you got any explanations for the sunset and sunrise, as these haven't been explained properly under a flat earth model. Please tell me more.
 
truth1

truth1

Banned
#55
Aug 22, 2013
93
0
0
#55
Married_Richenbrachen said:
Wow. This is really interesting, Truth1. In recent months, I read a book (about 100 years old) by a guy called Samuel Birley Rowbotham, who claimed the Earth was flat. I definitely believe it is stationary because of bible passages in Joshua where the sun and moon stood still. I would love for the Earth to be flat, because I think it would explain a lot of what the bible says a lot more easily.

If you have any links to more information on phenomena such as this, I would be very interested. I don't fully understand your claim though? Are you saying we live inside the Earth or something? Have you got any explanations for the sunset and sunrise, as these haven't been explained properly under a flat earth model. Please tell me more.
Click to expand...
Yes, we do live inside the Earth. There are a lot of biblical proofs as well. Did you watch the whole movie on Geodesy ? As for sunset and sunrise: the sun we perveive on the sky is..not the actual one. The real sun circulates around the core of the universe, as it hides behind it we get..sunset. It's not the sun that we see on the sky but..the refracted sunrays. It will be explained in next parts of Skycentrism.
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#56
#56
Okay! I finally watched the videos - a bit tortuous - I would much prefer the translation to be available in text - the video didn't add much. I would like to see more information on that rectilineator, or whatever it was called, but I couldn't find much about it online. I do find it hard to believe that if they truly reached water after so many miles, it wasn't due to inaccuracies in determining the perpendicular. Also, I don't approve of that blasphemer guy in these posts, and stopped watching what he said after I saw him claiming to be a "reincarnated Jesus". The devil is probably willing to give us a few truths of less importance in order to deceive us with much more important lies.

Your photos however, as I said the other day, are really interesting. Why do they prove we live on a concave earth, moreso than they might show that we live on a flat earth? I agree we see more of the skyscraper and hill than should be possible, if your measurements are true, if Google Earth dimensions are reasonably accurate, and the Earth is spherical (and if light travels in mostly straight lines!). However, at this stage, I'm treating the photos as more evidence that the Earth might be flat after all (which in my view, would be even more proof to unbelievers that the scriptures are inspired, as I think many of its phrases imply a flat earth, even if they don't say so outright).
 
Nautilus

Nautilus

Senior Member
#57
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
#57
so this must be the throw science out the window thread? geocentrism and the concave earth...please. No wonder there are studies saying us christians are less intelligent. this is proof.
 
truth1

truth1

Banned
#58
Aug 22, 2013
93
0
0
#58
Married_Richenbrachen said:
Okay! I finally watched the videos - a bit tortuous - I would much prefer the translation to be available in text - the video didn't add much. I would like to see more information on that rectilineator, or whatever it was called, but I couldn't find much about it online. I do find it hard to believe that if they truly reached water after so many miles, it wasn't due to inaccuracies in determining the perpendicular. Also, I don't approve of that blasphemer guy in these posts, and stopped watching what he said after I saw him claiming to be a "reincarnated Jesus". The devil is probably willing to give us a few truths of less importance in order to deceive us with much more important lies.

Your photos however, as I said the other day, are really interesting. Why do they prove we live on a concave earth, moreso than they might show that we live on a flat earth? I agree we see more of the skyscraper and hill than should be possible, if your measurements are true, if Google Earth dimensions are reasonably accurate, and the Earth is spherical (and if light travels in mostly straight lines!). However, at this stage, I'm treating the photos as more evidence that the Earth might be flat after all (which in my view, would be even more proof to unbelievers that the scriptures are inspired, as I think many of its phrases imply a flat earth, even if they don't say so outright).
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't due to inaccuracies. They checked it thorougly. You mean leveler ?

Check this, for example. The author is puzzled because we shouldn't see Canigou and claims it's just an optical illusion. But it's not.

Le Canigou vu depuis Allauch et Marseille

There are more pictures that prove hat we could not see some distant objects if the Earth was convex. But it's not FLAT either. It's all about light bending up. I will post you something in PM later.

See this for explanation on sunsets and sunrises. Explaining the Optical Illusion of the Heavens in Our Inverted Universe. - YouTube

Now important thing. This guy above from the link, he hides the truth behind his attitude and that's why people reject the idea before even trying to understand it. The truth is like a Pearl often lying in mug, covered with layers of lies and hypocrisy. You have to find the pearl and make it CLEAN.
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#60
#60
Nautilus said:
so this must be the throw science out the window thread? geocentrism and the concave earth...please. No wonder there are studies saying us christians are less intelligent. this is proof.
Click to expand...
True science isn't about believing what the majority believe - it is about finding the truth. Geocentrism was proved long ago. Do a search for Airy's experiment, often called "Airy's failure". It was called his failure because it proved the earth didn't move (as the bible suggests in numerous passages), when those performing the experiment were clearly hoping it would prove the earth did move.

If you know anything about evolution and creation, you will understand that the majority can easily be totally wrong about one thing. If you do more research, you find the majority believe wrongly about almost everything!

When I cared about proving my intelligence with others, God blessed me and enabled me to come out the best, so I don't fit into your Christian intelligence study statistics! ;) Now I don't care as much for perceptions, but I do know God's word is 100% accurate. Wouldn't the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth be able to describe its dimensions?

With a concave earth, I can't see the evidence for it scientifically (as yet), and I haven't seen any bible passages that support it biblically. However, the evidence presented does seem to support the possibility of a flat (i.e. non-spherical) earth, as many bible passages seem to imply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.