a simple study one day over 100 years ago in London and at the beach 50 miles away revealed two angles to the sun; 61 and 64 degrees which calculates to a distance to the sun of 1000 miles. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1605064173/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
duplicate the studies and share your math supporting ballers or flatters. use math, leave emotions out. i have not yet verified this myself, but will when i get someone else to measure at the same time, perhaps farther away than 50 miles.
prove it using in empirical evidence that you, personally create.
I plan to duplicate the michigan to chicago pictures in another location. this really is quite simple!
analyzing a triangle and a circle does not take a Ph.D. joshua nowicki's pictures of chicago should not be possible! simple math:
(h squared = a squared + b squared, h being the distance from the center of the earth to chicago):
1. the reported radius of the earth (a) is 4000 miles and the distance to chicago (b) is 60 miles
2. square both, add and take the square root to get 4000.450 (h) miles
3. therefore, chicago on the ball earth would be .450 miles below the line of sight which is greater than the tallest buildings in chicago!
anyone with any math skill can prove this.
anyone with a telephoto lens can easily take pictures of things a few miles away. even 4 miles would show a drop of over 10 feet, so find yourself a lake, canal or river and shoot. prove it to yourself and the ballers!
The distance between Michigan and Chicago (according to Google) is 199 miles...but that's to the geographical center of Michigan to the official center of Chicago. Gary Michigan is only 24.5 miles from the center of Chicago - and that building appears to be right on the edge of the lake - so it's probably a lot closer.
I'm not saying this math is wrong - just that it cannot be reproduced without additional information.
The problem with all of these experiments (both pro- and anti-FE) is that temperature inversions and other atmospheric phenomena close to the surface of the water really screw up ALL of the measurements and conclusions.
So good data needs to come from higher altitudes.
Personally - I think the whole argument about ships vanishing (or not) over the horizon is too embroiled in refractions and mirages and such to allow anyone to draw any conclusions whatever from the results.
IMHO, the fact that in the age of sail - it was always the guy who climbed to that precarious location at the top of the tallest mast who always yells "LAND HO!" before anyone else...that suggests that you can indeed see further from higher up...which suggests RE is true.
But I don't rely on that tricky evidence.
* Tell me why the stars rotate in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere.
* Tell me why the mountains of the moon clearly cast shadows onto the lunar surface.
* Tell me why there are two high tides and two low tides every day.
* Explain to me how a subsonic airplane can fly from Australia to South America at 2.5 times the speed of sound - and over twice it's regular range without refuelling...and if you're going to say "Jet Stream!" - stop and think that there are also aircraft flying from South America TO Australia over the same route.
There are lots more besides.