Proof the Horizon is Curving Up? Using oceanfront high-rise buildings to prove earth is concave

[TRUEMODELOFTHEWORLD]

One can easily confirm earth is concave using this method.

The idea is this : Using simple observation and a few extra key factors, one can for sure logically be forced to deny that the earth is curving downwards, and rather actually curving upwards.

The few key variables here include

• An observer in a high rise building
• There are other high rise buildings in the field of view to be used as reference and markers for how high up things actually are. For example, we can use as reference levels of a building for an approximation of altitude.
• Preferably oceanfront or near oceanfront view. This is very important because we will be utilizing water to help eliminate topographical errors knowing the behavior of water.

Any observer, standing on any floor of a high rise building and looking out, will be seeing a horizon that appears to be roughly at the same altitude as the observer’s line of sight. In these examples, we can simply use the altitude/level in which the horizon intersects the buildings, and using the building’s floors as a marker for how high the horizon is. (…more below)

The horizon in the picture below (…continued below)

The horizon can clearly be observered to be at around the same level as the observer. THe observer can be seen to be in a high rise building. Using the other buildings infront of the observer, we can see they are atleast 20+ floors up. The horizon appears to rise this high and is directly infront of the observer. If the observer were to point at it, they would be pointing ABOVE many buildings infront of them. This is a major issue for Convex/Globe earth, because this is NOT in accordance to what is required for a convex/globe earth.

In a theoretical convex earth, the observer/reference from would be at the HIGHEST POINT on the earth, and have the earth curving DOWN AND AWAY from them in all directions.

In a theoretical concave earth, the observer/reference frame would be at the LOWEST POINT in the earth, and have the earth curving UP and AWAY from them in all directions.

We ask the reader to please now, having the above in consideration, to look at the rest of these observations incorporating some of the variables and explanations shared above.

Another helpful tip.

In a Convex/Globe earth, buildings further away from the observer should be AT A LOWER ALTITUDE and FOUNDATIONALLY (Base of Building) lower than the Base level of the building that the observer is in, relative to their reference frame.

In a Concave earth, buildings further away from you are actually RISING UP / at a higher elevation of foundation/base (relative to the reference frame/observer)

Using the above two situations and the pictures we observer, we can actually confirm EARTH IS CONCAVE because : The observer’s direct line of sight to buildings far away, they are looking at a lower floor of the building than the building they are in. If earth was convex, they should be pointing to (line of site) at a HIGHER FLOOR of the building than that which they themselves are in.

It remains clear –
The buildings used as markers and reference points PROVE the horizon is curving up and not down

It remains clear – THE HORIZON IS TOO HIGH

One can easily find more pictures. Simply search “High Rise Ocean Front View Florida” or something similar.

(to be continued…)

[EarthSphere]

I don’t understand. If light is bending up we will never see concave surface with visible spectrum. Light is like renderer for the eyes.

“In a theoretical convex earth, the observer/reference from would be at the HIGHEST POINT on the earth, and have the earth curving DOWN AND AWAY from them in all directions.”

“DOWN AND AWAY” . Here is a point because in concave earth that LIGHT travels AWAY from the surface. This makes illusion like it surface goes DOWN. That’s why obserwations based on light cannot proove anything, because you can fit them the same as to convex and concave earth.

One thing you can measure with towers is make impulse wave and detector on roofs and ground floors. But its almost impossible because of range needed and incredible precision of detector measurment.

[concave.earth]

That’s an interesting take on the subject. I have a couple of things to offer here for your consideration.

As a photographer for over 50 years, I understand that the format and lens make all the difference in the world when it comes to perspective. In a full frame slr or dslr camera (35mm format on film), 57mm is almost exactly what the eye sees. Longer than that flattens the image (pincusion distortion), shorter lens lengths do the opposite (barrel distortion). This is why portraits are usually taken with 80mm-135mm lenses, as it makes noses look less pronounced and flattens the face somewhat. Wide angle lenses make things rounder, think fish-eye lens.

So without knowing these two parameters, lens length and the size of the sensor, it’s difficult to know if the proportions are the same as what we would see in real life. Wide angle lenses are often used to capture large areas, but the proportions will be off, thus affecting the perspective. It’s how one would make a curve appear. Think Go Pro cameras on balloons. As they move up, a concave curve appears on the horizon, and when moved down, a convex curve appears. Neither represents reality. Using a long lens will also affect the proportions. That’s how photographers make the sun and moon look extra large in cityscapes.

Also, perspective is often altered using tilt-shift lenses or in processing engines like photoshop through perspective manipulation. Your first image appears to have been perspective corrected in photoshop or another processing program.

The image with the two chairs on the balcony is clearly a very wide lens. You can tell this by looking at how the high rise buildings near the sides of the image tilt away compared to the ones in the center of the image. Can you see the difference? Because of this, there is no way to see the proper perspective.

I find it impossible to see any curvature with a normal lens. It’s simply too big of a curve to see with such a narrow view (only about 35 degrees). Either with a camera or our eyes. But, we can tell sometimes by looking front to back if we have markers or lines to follow in the foreground.

Also, many people fail to realize that the horizon is not a line, this is a misnomer. The horizon is an arc. Your two eyes focus together at the furthest visible point, and as you pan left or right without moving your eye focus, the sides of your vision will be physically closer. Simply turning in a circle should confirm this in you mind. You end up drawing a circle!

When it comes to our vision, the eyes can deceive us as well, even if we have perfect 20/20 vision. Cones and rods don’t see the same. And we also have a blind spot near the center of our vision where the optic nerves connect. Our brains fill in this spot, much like photoshop does. This is why we can’t really trust our eyes. What we see is always partially made up in our brains.

As far as where the horizon sits in the image, this is a factor of the pitch angle of the camera and how high it is set above the ground in addition to the lens parameters mentioned before.

My point is, using photographs to try to see curvature is very difficult, maybe not possible at all. That is unless you know all the parameters in the image. If you can control all of these parameters by using the right lens and perfectly stitching multiple images into a panorama, perhaps you can see a real difference. But I think front to back rather than side to side is the only way possible.

This was not intended to discourage you in any way, rather just to let you know what you are up against both in photography and natural human vision when determining perspective.

I’ve run into many brick walls trying to find proof for this theory, but it is out there. There is no doubt in my mind that we live inside. Trying to prove it to others can be very challenging. It’s easier to falsify the other theories than to prove this one, and that has been done through experiment and observation. So just by the process of falsification, the concave earth theory stands alone. There have been two observational and one mathematical experiment that I find 100% convincing on showing the world is a concave sphere. But that doesn’t mean others will agree. So I’m always searching for more.

[wesley]

I believe earth is concave. Mainly because the mirror image of the sun on the horizon in still water is stretched.

But I believe there’s a way to prove it too. I played around with my Nikon P1000 and the angular resolution is small enough to perform the following experiment:

Put 3 tranparant containers (for example cola bottles) 600 meters apart and fill them with water and connect them with hoses. You now have communicating vessels. Put a pingpong ball on the water surface of each container. Now bring a telescope or the P1000 in line with the balls at a distance of 600 meter from the first container. The whole setup is now 2400 meter long. The distance is important because to close, and the curvature is so small that you cannot see. Too far and the view in the telescope is too blurry. What you will see in the telescope is 3 circles (the pingpong balls) (the farthest is the smallest due to perspective off course). Now if you saw the centers of the balls lay on a straight line, the earth was flat. If you saw the middle ball sticking out above or the farthest ball sticking out below, the earth was convex (s ball). But you’ll see the opposite. Either the middle ball sticks out below, or the furthest ball sticks out above (this depends on how you aligned the telescope with the balls). also, you’ll see the ball sticks out approximately 1/10th the size of the ball itself. Since the ball is 40mm, you know this is about 4mm. Now you can use this to roughly estimate the radius of our concave world.

Afbeelding van Wesley🚴🏻‍♂️🛸

[EarthSphere]

It will not work. If you connect 3 bottles it would be acting like normal sea surface. All these balls will be at same height. And you will see them like convex because of light bending up. All observations based on visible light will show convex earth not concave. To proof concavity you need use device like rectilineator or make measurement like in one of mines i don’t remember name. People mounted 2 lines in 2 mine shafts and they measured that on top they were closer than on bottom so that prooved concavity. Or… use camera which not using EM spectrum if it’s exist.

[wesley]

But the bending of light due to the atmospheric refraction is a known and well measured phenomena which can be accounted for.

The Tamarack mines is good example but don’t forget that you must be able to measure 1200 meter with centimeter precision. How do you want to do that?

The rectilineator (in my humble opinion) is nonsense because it’s impossible to do away with human bias. Even if the angles of the rectilinear are 90.000000000±1e-9 degrees accurate, the rectilineators have to be placed exactly parallel to eachother. If the error between top and bottom is 8 nanometer, then this is already more than the supposed earth curvature (a rectilineator being 4 meter long). That is simply not possible.

even worse, the rectilineator is not allowed to rotate because it would send the next segment into the wrong direction, but due to a limited floor stifness (1e9 for concrete, a beach is just a joke) a 1 gram fly sitting on one side of the rectilineator would already screw up the measurement. And how are you going to place the next rectilineator if you are not allowed to put even the slightest amount of force on the previous segment?

[EarthSphere]

A beam of light does not bend because of the atmosphere, but because of the “ether vortex”. So even if you remove the atmosphere, the light beam will still bend upwards.

Yes, I don’t know how they set the beams perfectly, but I’m surprised that they offered a prize of $10,000 for refuting the results, which no one has ever done before. Why? Maybe official science is afraid of the results. Even if the rectilineator was not an ideal tool, it would not pose a major challenge with today’s measurement accuracy.

Likewise, measuring in Tamarack would not pose any problem and it would be much more reliable than the rectilineator.

[concave.earth]

I applaud your attempt at a useful experiment. More people need to look for useful experiments. Science won’t do it for us. There must be a good one no one has yet to think of.
Here are the difficulties I see with the one you presented. First, how do you make the three bottles level to each other? Second, atmosphere affects the bending of light rays, so this experiment would need to be performed in all conditions, numerous times. Third, 600 meters is nowhere near enough distance to visualize a curve, regardless of the camera.
The rectilineator was a brilliant idea, but not performed in a useful manner. They simply didn’t manufacture enough units to span the distance they wanted to measure.
The use of right angles to make a long straight line is the only way to make a straight line over a long distance. Why? because to determine the flatness of a line, you need a line that is longer to measure it up against. And that longer unit would need to be calibrated with an even longer one. On and on we go. An endless impossibility. But using shorter lengths and connecting them using right angles seems possible. Also, the moving sea floor is a problem. Perhaps permanently mounted into a rock or coral base might function, but environmentalists would never allow for such a thing.

The Tamrack mine survey was absolute proof, but it has since been buried along with the mines. And no one will ever repeat that experiment. I did the math and it came out to the radius of the earth. Exactly as it should. There is a very good reason they buried it. Knowledge is power, but only if held in secret. This is why the concave earth theory is being silenced. They know it’s true, and want to manipulate it. Look into petroleum fracking and you’ll see one way they manipulate the earth shape.

Technology can prove the shape of the earth. AM/FM radio could not possibly work as they do on a convex or a flat earth model. Impossible. It can only work inside of a sphere. I’m doing a write up on that right now and will be happy to share it with you when finished, if you are interested.

Other than radio, the best proof I have come up with is using the declination angle of the sun at various locations in the northern and southern hemispheres. But, both flat earthers and convex earthers have used this experiment incorrectly to try and prove their position. So, they’ll just look and say, “that proves my position.” It needs to be performed as an actual scientific experiment, with a sound hypothesis, and accurate data. Only then it can be considered evidence.

Personally, I don’t think proving the theory is really necessary at all. All flat earthers believe their notion without any verifiable evidence. Zero evidence, yet they all believe.

Convex model believers also believe without any real evidence, simply because that is what they were taught in school. And if they did question it, all their friends would think they are nuts. “Who do you think you are, a rocket scientist?” or “so, you’re smarter than Einstein?” There is no way to win these arguments. You just lose respect of your friends and family.

To me, the best path is just to show how it works along with how the other models fail. So we need a good model, which no one has yet to provide. They are all very seriously flawed and easy to shoot down. Plus, all the models seen on the internet seem to come from lunatics who think they are the Christ resurrected. Thus, killing the notion before it’s even heard, and muddying the waters for the rest of us.

[concave.earth]

It was actually $100,000. Imagine how much that would be worth today!

[wesley]

@concave.earth

ng with how the other models fail. So we need a good model, which no one has yet to provide. They are all very seriously flawed and easy to shoot down. Plus, all the models seen on the internet seem

" I’m doing a write up on that right now and will be happy to share it with you when finished, if you are interested."

Yes, I’m very much interested. Please let me know when you have something to share.

[concave.earth]

I just put the article up.

[wesley]

Thanks for the writeup. I found this, which is pretty comparable to what I had in mind. But the guy never gets to the point and seems very preoccupied to me. In the end he did a sloppy job with leaking tubes.

[concave.earth]

Looks like someone is looking to make some $$ on the idea. It’s a mini rectilineator! But this version is flawed and one that could easily be manipulated. Whenever someone asks for money, that throws up a big red flag for me.