Their math is wrong.
The Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference so modern science claims, which figures out to a curvature of a horizon drop of 8 inches every mile squared (spherical geometry ; trigonometry -- it's not a linear graph is what I'm getting at; not a straight line).
If we look at it simplistically, that every mile has an 8 inch drop, then we can perform a linear calculation. The acceleration curve is determined as radials at right angles to the circumference, not from a fixed point of observation along the circumference. From a fixed point along the circumference looking out straight, it's a "linear curve." Essentially though, since the Earth's surface is curved, then there is distortion that appears, for example the constellations of stars appearing distorted in shape. It can be an 8 inch drop every mile, but when you get out 50 miles, then that drop is going to be steeper.
If the surface of the Earth is geometrically accelerating (curved) at a drop of 8 inches per mile, then the statue of liberty (standing 326 feet above sea level) should be seen 489 miles away (326 x 12 / 8) ... But, it's only visible from 150 miles away. Yet, the astronomers claim it should only be visible for 60 miles according to the video.
The Isle of Write lighthouse is 180 feet high, it can be seen up to 42 miles away, yet modern astronomers say the curvature of the Earth should place it 996 feet below the surface. Yet, it should be visible for 270 miles on a "linear curve." A "linear curve" is not the same as an accelerating curve which changes its curvature steeper or shallower, is what I mean by "linear curve." Also an acceleration curve can be an unchanging curved graph, so there have to be distinctions to be made in a realistic action-based and purpose-based sense, just as the equation of a circle, a triangle, and a square can be interchangeable. The distinction has to be made in the shape.
Now you bring Einstein in, who says acceleration field is a gravity field, then curvature is the creation of gravity. So the Earth is a relative frame, and won't be seen as the surface curved until in the range of another predominant gravity field, in another frame of spacetime, such as the sun's gravity field, or the moon's gravity field.
From a fixed point of reference along the circumference, we would not see any leaning of any objects left or right (Earth as a sphere), but only a distortion of shape as objects elongate due to geometrical curvature at a lean of 8 inches away as well as 8 inches lower, a mile away from a point of observation along the circumference.
. . .
I don't think anyone is taking Gravitation into consideration, though, and simple relativity, to consider the "flat earth" reality. Simply put, if gravity bends light, and if light is "traveling" at the speed of time (but is otherwise infinite; timeless), then it could very easily appear that Earth is flat, even out in space, again until in the frame of reality affected by another gravitational source, such as the sun or moon.
However the time traveled and distances traveled by expeditions around Antarctica are mysterious.
As far as seeing other planets through my telescope, well I've seen the polar ice caps of Mars and some impressive features looking at other planets.
The only worthwhile argument that supports a flat earth would be a horizon perspective due to gravitation.
Crux, the constellation in the Southern Hemisphere is near the south-polar axis just as Polaris is toward the north hemisphere of the planet.
If there is an anomaly about Earth however, it appears to be a temporal distortion (taking longer to travel distances assumed on a sphere shape) at the magnetic south pole. It could be that gravitational anomaly that makes it seem that our planet is misshaped.
I personally think that Gravitation is the reason for Earth's horizon shifts. And, it's possible that we are undergoing gravitational changes upon Earth and throughout the solar system and galaxy.
Gravity Lensing, but on the smaller scale of Earth. But, if there is indeed a gravity well coming out of the south pole, well .. there are different types of gravitation. There are some types which don't change space and don't have a gravitational pull, but uses those forces to increase the flow of time, or decrease the flow of time relatively at distances from a point of origin.
Something is happening at Anti-arctica ... If there is a source of gravitation at the south pole, there is a faster flow of time immediately around it, but a much slower flow of time farther away from it. That would throw off distance traveled. We now have to consider these types of paradoxes of spacetime curvature.
That would throw off GPS and everything.
No wonder Earth has a wobble. It's like a big ball of mass at the south pole that distorts the spacetime curvature of Earth space.
That could change the entire planetary model of the interior of Earth.
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8184341213287166342#editor/target=post;postID=5707351510612626915
