*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #80 on: April 09, 2017, 12:30:34 AM »
An assertion made many times by Flat Earth Theorists trying to explain the discrepancy of map projections with observed facts. The encouragement to leave the country was more a general one to get you to see that your assertions do not apply to the part of the world ignored by most Flat Earth theorists: the Southern Hemisphere.

Does this look like a Southern Hemisphere thread?

Quote
Quote
And while we are at it, yes the curvature of bodies of water is different at different latitudes - and geophysicist will tell you that the curvature of the earth is different at the equator than nearer the poles. The fact remains that you need a larger sample size and a larger scale experiment to verify your claims.

It doesn't matter what shape the land is. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.

Quote
That doesn't answer the fact that the distance of the horizon doesn't fade out like it would if its disappearance were attributable to the atmosphere's opacity. You haven't answered the questions - just restated your original assertion with more words.

And before you start saying this isn't relevant, it very much is because for your experiment to be true, it should be able to be scaled up to any size and you will receive the exact same result.

Does the atmosphere have molecules in it or not?

Quote
One walked away with definitive proof of the earth's curvature which was presented to scholars at Cambridge and subsequently used as a model for explaining the Earth's curvature for nearly a century, adhering to mathematical and empirical proof, and the other walked away with a sore ego and battered reputation which motivated him to threaten the successful scientist with murder.

As has been demonstrated by any real scientist who has ever deigned to address this topic, the sacred text of the Flat Earth Society stands on an incredibly shaky ground of flawed mathematics and physical theories that do not stand up to the rigours of scientific experimentation. Any argument made in said book is performed from a preconception that the Earth must be flat and a blatant disregard for objectivity.

It was not a legitimate experiment. It was a WAGER for a year's worth of pay. Don't you see the issue with that? Yet despite it being clearly a totally invalid experiment on grounds that significant sums of money was involved, and that both men claimed that they had won, it somehow supports your side.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 01:40:06 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #81 on: April 09, 2017, 07:46:36 AM »
An assertion made many times by Flat Earth Theorists trying to explain the discrepancy of map projections with observed facts. The encouragement to leave the country was more a general one to get you to see that your assertions do not apply to the part of the world ignored by most Flat Earth theorists: the Southern Hemisphere.

Does this look like a Southern Hemisphere thread?

No, what it looks like is a sorry attempt to pass off a few jaunts down to the same minuscule area of the world to use an instrument that doesn't measure curvature to measure the curvature of a planet that is far, far vaster than you are capable of understanding. If you repeated your experiments in more locations on a larger scale - something that would be so very simple if the Earth were flat - then we might take you seriously. So far, though, you have attempted to summarize the entirety of a mountain by examining a grain of sand.

Quote
Quote
Quote
And while we are at it, yes the curvature of bodies of water is different at different latitudes - and geophysicist will tell you that the curvature of the earth is different at the equator than nearer the poles. The fact remains that you need a larger sample size and a larger scale experiment to verify your claims.

It doesn't matter what shape the land is underneath the water. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.

This has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand - the shape of the land under the water is not the issue, it is the curvature of the body being examined in its entirety - i. e. the Earth. The equatorial bulge is an integral part of the geophysical model of the Earth as accepted by the spherical model - if you don't understand it then trying to disprove it is like trying to correct an essay in a language you don't speak.

Quote
Quote
That doesn't answer the fact that the distance of the horizon doesn't fade out like it would if its disappearance were attributable to the atmosphere's opacity. You haven't answered the questions - just restated your original assertion with more words.

And before you start saying this isn't relevant, it very much is because for your experiment to be true, it should be able to be scaled up to any size and you will receive the exact same result.

Does the atmosphere have molecules in it or not?

Yes it does - but the gradual thickening of the atmosphere towards the horizon does not account for what we actually observe - once again, if that were the case then we would see the land/ocean fade out slowly like a gradient towards its vanishing point at the 'horizon' even in the clearest of conditions - this is clearly not the case. What we do see is the earth curves away at an appreciable point, causing the hard line of the horizon that any observer can see.
Your experiment should be able to scale up indefinitely, returning exactly the same result at every distance, but it simply doesn't. If you want to prove that it does, go conduct it in a space that is twice the size - then five times the size - then ten times the size. This is called scientific rigour and, as it stands, your experiment just doesn't have it. Defend your claim with more hard evidence than "I did a thing and that means I'm right and I never have to do it again."

Quote
One walked away with definitive proof of the earth's curvature which was presented to scholars at Cambridge and subsequently used as a model for explaining the Earth's curvature for nearly a century, adhering to mathematical and empirical proof, and the other walked away with a sore ego and battered reputation which motivated him to threaten the successful scientist with murder.

As has been demonstrated by any real scientist who has ever deigned to address this topic, the sacred text of the Flat Earth Society stands on an incredibly shaky ground of flawed mathematics and physical theories that do not stand up to the rigours of scientific experimentation. Any argument made in said book is performed from a preconception that the Earth must be flat and a blatant disregard for objectivity.

It was not a legitimate experiment. It was a WAGER for a year's worth of pay. Don't you see the issue with that? Yet despite it being clearly a totally invalid experiment on grounds that significant sums of money was involved, and that both men claimed that they had won, it somehow supports your side.
[/quote]

Now address the hundreds of other geophysicists who had replicated the experiment as part of their basic curriculum at Cambridge. The original may not have been particularly savoury to your sensibilities, but nevertheless it began a trend that didn't involve money or vindication, one that had the experiment repeated time and time again but different people at different times with different instruments all returning the same result.

That, my dear Tom, is what scientific experimentation actually is.

Now, if you wouldn't mind popping back down to the beach and trying again with the proper equipment, proper documentation and the proper motivation to observe the Earth rather than your own personal satisfaction, then maybe you can talk about objectivity. Otherwise, I'd suggest you stop making a fool of yourself and your society - it's really rather unbecoming.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #82 on: April 09, 2017, 07:19:26 PM »
I claimed nothing about what is possible on a round earth.
Do you agree that none of the factors you've listed would magically allow for Tom's results to be repeatedly observed on a hypothetical round Earth?

What we actually see is a sharp cut-off where the sky meats the land/ocean with objects "sinking" behind it
This is simply incorrect. The gradient varies (unsurprisingly), but it's always there.

This, by the way, is true regardless of the shape of the Earth.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 07:24:46 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #83 on: April 09, 2017, 08:42:51 PM »
I claimed nothing about what is possible on a round earth.
Do you agree that none of the factors you've listed would magically allow for Tom's results to be repeatedly observed on a hypothetical round Earth?

What we actually see is a sharp cut-off where the sky meats the land/ocean with objects "sinking" behind it
This is simply incorrect. The gradient varies (unsurprisingly), but it's always there.

This, by the way, is true regardless of the shape of the Earth.

If the horizon were due to atmospheric opacity, there would be no definite line - it would fade like a gradient. That's how a build up of obscurity would work.
It also precludes the "sinking" of ships behind the horizon as well as the sun and the moon not fading and shrinking into the distance behind this supposed atmospheric haze.
The gradient does vary, yes, but it varies from not being able to see the line of the horizon at all behind fog and rain and, in clear conditions, being able to appreciably detect a line between the land/sea and sky.
This is relevant because , with the correct equipment and in the right conditions, Tom should be able scale up his experiment and to see the west coast of Africa from the east coast of Brazil on a flat Earth. Either that or you should see a hazy blending of horizon and sky at the limit of perception which should be appreciably measurable from a distance and be directly related to the density of the atmosphere.

If you want to make the atmospheric opacity argument, get some numbers to back it up. How far away does the horizon become invisible? How slowly does the atmosphere block it out? How is this related to the refractive qualities of the atmosphere?
And why hasn't Tom Bishop done this to defend his claim already?

The main issue of the experiment not being repeatable on a round earth is that his experiment should be able to be scaled up indefinitely. You could achieve the same result over one mile or ten miles or a hundred or a thousand on a Flag Earth. This is the rigorous proof that needs to be shown if the assertions made by Tom Bishop are true.

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #84 on: April 09, 2017, 09:48:59 PM »
I claimed nothing about what is possible on a round earth.
Do you agree that none of the factors you've listed would magically allow for Tom's results to be repeatedly observed on a hypothetical round Earth?

I do not agree with that statement at all. Especially air temperature affects the refractive qualities of the air, which is why the Chicago skyline sometimes appears across Lake Michigan in the winter....and also probably why in his original report of the experiment, Tom Bishop says that it is especially easy to see the far shore on a clear cool day, when the air would have the greatest degree of refraction.

In addition, without knowing for certain where his telescope was located, how high exactly it was above the water and exactly what direction the telescope was pointed, we cannot even be sure that he was looking at the correct beach, or that his calculations regarding the curve of the earth are the correct ones.

Several other factors mentioned would still affect how far you can see regardless of the shape of the earth, and so they could mess with the results no matter what the documented results showed. But since we have no documented or independently verified results of this particular experiment, we cannot make any conclusions based on the rather incomplete report of his observations.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #85 on: April 10, 2017, 01:49:59 AM »
Quote
Quote
It doesn't matter what shape the land is underneath the water. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.

This has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand - the shape of the land under the water is not the issue, it is the curvature of the body being examined in its entirety - i. e. the Earth. The equatorial bulge is an integral part of the geophysical model of the Earth as accepted by the spherical model - if you don't understand it then trying to disprove it is like trying to correct an essay in a language you don't speak.

Do you disagree that if we sliced 1/5th of the Round Earth earth away like a tomato, that the water, if there were enough of it, would fill in the gap and create the rest of the sphere?

That is a huge flat area on the earth, much flatter than what is said to be at the pole, and the water just recreated the sphere.

It doesn't matter if the earth is not perfectly round. The water will be.

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #86 on: April 10, 2017, 01:50:11 AM »
Quote
Quote
It doesn't matter what shape the land is underneath the water. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.

This has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand - the shape of the land under the water is not the issue, it is the curvature of the body being examined in its entirety - i. e. the Earth. The equatorial bulge is an integral part of the geophysical model of the Earth as accepted by the spherical model - if you don't understand it then trying to disprove it is like trying to correct an essay in a language you don't speak.

Do you disagree that if we sliced 1/5th of the Round Earth earth away like a tomato, that the water, if there were enough of it, would fill in the gap and create the rest of the sphere?

There is a huge flat area, much flatter than what is said to be at the pole, and unless you disagree with this, the water just recreated the sphere.

It doesn't matter if the earth is not perfectly round. The water will be.

On a static sphere, sure - on a spinning one it will bulge at the equator.
This was the single defensible part of your argument and you leapt on it - what about where the rest of it disintegrates entirely under the force of scientific reason and applied physics?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #87 on: April 10, 2017, 02:03:37 AM »
Quote
Quote
It doesn't matter what shape the land is underneath the water. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.

This has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand - the shape of the land under the water is not the issue, it is the curvature of the body being examined in its entirety - i. e. the Earth. The equatorial bulge is an integral part of the geophysical model of the Earth as accepted by the spherical model - if you don't understand it then trying to disprove it is like trying to correct an essay in a language you don't speak.

Do you disagree that if we sliced 1/5th of the Round Earth earth away like a tomato, that the water, if there were enough of it, would fill in the gap and create the rest of the sphere?

There is a huge flat area, much flatter than what is said to be at the pole, and unless you disagree with this, the water just recreated the sphere.

It doesn't matter if the earth is not perfectly round. The water will be.

On a static sphere, sure - on a spinning one it will bulge at the equator.
This was the single defensible part of your argument and you leapt on it - what about where the rest of it disintegrates entirely under the force of scientific reason and applied physics?

On a globe earth spinning about its axis, a point on the equator experience would a centripetal acceleration of 0.0337 m/s2 (extremely small), whereas a point at the poles experiences no centripetal acceleration.

So tell me, how is a water world experiencing no centripetal acceleration at the poles supposed to have flattened poles?

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #88 on: April 10, 2017, 02:07:09 AM »
Quote
Quote
It doesn't matter what shape the land is underneath the water. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.

This has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand - the shape of the land under the water is not the issue, it is the curvature of the body being examined in its entirety - i. e. the Earth. The equatorial bulge is an integral part of the geophysical model of the Earth as accepted by the spherical model - if you don't understand it then trying to disprove it is like trying to correct an essay in a language you don't speak.

Do you disagree that if we sliced 1/5th of the Round Earth earth away like a tomato, that the water, if there were enough of it, would fill in the gap and create the rest of the sphere?

There is a huge flat area, much flatter than what is said to be at the pole, and unless you disagree with this, the water just recreated the sphere.

It doesn't matter if the earth is not perfectly round. The water will be.

On a static sphere, sure - on a spinning one it will bulge at the equator.
This was the single defensible part of your argument and you leapt on it - what about where the rest of it disintegrates entirely under the force of scientific reason and applied physics?

On a globe earth spinning about its axis, a point on the equator experience would a centripetal acceleration of 0.0337 m/s2 (extremely small), whereas a point at the poles experiences no centripetal acceleration.

So tell me, how is a water world experiencing no centripetal acceleration at the poles supposed to have flattened poles?

The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z

Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #89 on: April 10, 2017, 02:20:01 AM »
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z

Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.

So because there is no extra force pulling the water at the north pole upwards like there is at the equator, the curvature of the water at the north pole would go flat?  ??? Why not just stay round?

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #90 on: April 10, 2017, 02:24:32 AM »
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z

Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.

So because there is no extra force pulling the water at the north pole upwards like there is at the equator, the curvature of the water at the north pole would go flat?  ??? Why not just stay round?

This is not a logical conclusion to draw - remember the scale of the problem you are trying to tackle, and that the direction of rotation is in line with the equator. The poles are also curved, but to a lesser degree - hence the use "flattened" in relative sense.
"Relative" is not a word that enters flat earth theorists' vocabulary much.

Your parochial perspective means nothing - think big, Bishop.

Now, can we please return to your justification of why your experiment won't work on a larger scale?
Or, if it does, your results and documentation from said scaled-up experiment?
We are still waiting.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #91 on: April 10, 2017, 03:06:08 AM »
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z

Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.

So because there is no extra force pulling the water at the north pole upwards like there is at the equator, the curvature of the water at the north pole would go flat?  ??? Why not just stay round?

This is not a logical conclusion to draw - remember the scale of the problem you are trying to tackle, and that the direction of rotation is in line with the equator. The poles are also curved, but to a lesser degree - hence the use "flattened" in relative sense.
"Relative" is not a word that enters flat earth theorists' vocabulary much.

The logical conclusion is that the North Pole is regular round and the water at the equator is pulled by the tiny amount of force to be a little extra rounder than what regular Round Earth Theory normally states.

Quote
Now, can we please return to your justification of why your experiment won't work on a larger scale?
Or, if it does, your results and documentation from said scaled-up experiment?
We are still waiting.

As previously discussed, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 03:09:28 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #92 on: April 10, 2017, 03:15:31 AM »
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z

Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.

So because there is no extra force pulling the water at the north pole upwards like there is at the equator, the curvature of the water at the north pole would go flat?  ??? Why not just stay round?

This is not a logical conclusion to draw - remember the scale of the problem you are trying to tackle, and that the direction of rotation is in line with the equator. The poles are also curved, but to a lesser degree - hence the use "flattened" in relative sense.
"Relative" is not a word that enters flat earth theorists' vocabulary much.

The logical conclusion is that the North Pole is regular round and the water at the equator is pulled by the tiny amount of force to be a little extra rounder than what regular Round Earth Theory normally states.

Yes. That doesn't help you.

Quote
Quote
Now, can we please return to your justification of why your experiment won't work on a larger scale?
Or, if it does, your results and documentation from said scaled-up experiment?
We are still waiting.

As previously discussed, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

 
Plenty of room for you to work, though.
Even on smaller scales than that you can prove your point. And even at the edge of visibility you could use equipment that can get around that.

Excuses - you coild at least try to sound like you are willing to scale up your experiment to meet the requirements of scientific rigour.

If you're going to keep posting, you should concentrate on refuting arguments that you still have no explanation for.

Step up, Bishop - you have work to do.

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #93 on: April 10, 2017, 08:10:33 PM »
So was that beach with the concrete stairway sand or gravel/rocky?

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #94 on: April 11, 2017, 02:30:58 PM »
I tried this in a previous thread, Tom, but I'll reiterate over this piece of evidence as it fits this particular topic. This experiment is done by an acquaintance of mine. It clearly shows the position of testing throughout the video.

Explain, please.


Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

geckothegeek

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #95 on: April 11, 2017, 06:51:17 PM »
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z

Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.

So because there is no extra force pulling the water at the north pole upwards like there is at the equator, the curvature of the water at the north pole would go flat?  ??? Why not just stay round?

This is not a logical conclusion to draw - remember the scale of the problem you are trying to tackle, and that the direction of rotation is in line with the equator. The poles are also curved, but to a lesser degree - hence the use "flattened" in relative sense.
"Relative" is not a word that enters flat earth theorists' vocabulary much.

The logical conclusion is that the North Pole is regular round and the water at tjhe equator is pulled by the tiny amount of force to be a little extra rounder than what regular Round Earth Theory normally states.

Yes. That doesn't help you.

Quote
Quote
Now, can we please return to your justification of why your experiment won't work on a larger scale?
Or, if it does, your results and documentation from said scaled-up experiment?
We are still waiting.

As previously discussed, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

 
Plenty of room for you to work, though.
Even on smaller scales than that you can prove your point. And even at the edge of visibility you could use equipment that can get around that.

Excuses - you coild at least try to sound like you are willing to scale up your experiment to meet the requirements of scientific rigour.

If you're going to keep posting, you should concentrate on refuting arguments that you still have no explanation for.

Step up, Bishop - you have work to do.

Not naming names, but IMHO it seems certain persons (plural that is and not singular) are a constant source of embarrassment to TFES. They seem to just dig a deeper and deeper hole that they get into.

geckothegeek

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #96 on: April 11, 2017, 10:15:42 PM »
The question of horizon as some sort of vanishing point seems to be one of the most glaring fallacies of flat earth.
This is most evident when on board a ship in the middle of the ocean. The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days. The horizon appears to be only about  3 miles from the water line of the ship and about 12 miles from a person in the crow's nest 100 feet above the water line. Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.

It is a moot point anyway. The earth is not a flat disc. The earth is the globe that it is.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 10:18:16 PM by geckothegeek »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #97 on: April 11, 2017, 10:30:34 PM »
The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days.
It doesn't matter how many times you'll state this - it will continue to be a lie, and one that's trivially tested. All you need to do is look at the horizon.

Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.
I've been to the sea. The atmoplane's effects are clear even to the naked eye. Again, your lie is laughably easy to verify.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 10:33:05 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

geckothegeek

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #98 on: April 12, 2017, 12:16:09 AM »
The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days.
It doesn't matter how many times you'll state this - it will continue to be a lie, and one that's trivially tested. All you need to do is look at the horizon.

Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.
I've been to the sea. The atmoplane's effects are clear even to the naked eye. Again, your lie is laughably easy to verify.

I was speaking of the relatively  short distances to the horizon as viewed from the decks or crow's nest on the ship.
There are very little atmospheric effects. The horizon is usually seen very clearly .

I took some pictures from the beach at Santa Monica, California, USA. Standing on the beach, the distance at which the horizon appears is about 3 miles. There was a very distinct line where the dark blue of the ocean  appeared to meet the lighter blue of the sky. This was about Noon on a clear, sunny, calm, cloudless day.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2017, 12:33:36 AM by geckothegeek »

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #99 on: April 12, 2017, 01:36:47 AM »
The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days.
It doesn't matter how many times you'll state this - it will continue to be a lie, and one that's trivially tested. All you need to do is look at the horizon.

Of the horizon is a vanishing point at which the atmosphere becomes too dense to see through, we should never be able to see anything recede behind it. We would never see buildings or ships disappear from the bottom up, like the sun as it sun is below it at sunset.
It's not a lie - it is a fact observed by billions of people every day.

Quote
Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.
I've been to the sea. The atmoplane's effects are clear even to the naked eye. Again, your lie is laughably easy to verify.

Then verify it.

The horizon is a sharp line between earth/sea and sky obscuring the lower halves of objects that recede behind it, down the curve of the Earth.
If atmospheric density were the cause for it, it would fade out in a measurable way, eventually blurring indistinctly at the limits of perception. Objects approaching this limit would fade like it were moving into a fog bank even in the clearest of conditions.
This is not the case.

If you'd like, I can show you how the phenomenon we are referring to is observable from any point on the ocean looking towards a city with skyscrapers.

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html?m=1

In fact, even a cursory Google search will bring up plenty of examples of this - plus the testimony of anyone who has ever stood on a ship watching a city or even another ship.
Yknow, the kind of people you would have met if you'd actually been to sea.

Or maybe you'd like to do this experiment for yourself in a larger scale. Show us all how it's done, Warrior. Bring us some pictures of a city skyline in its entirety, from the top of its tallest tower to the waves lapping at it's lowest docks, from a distance greater than, say, the width of Lake Michigan?
Especially if you can get a series of them showing the city at exactly the same height but fading slowly being the increasing density of the atmosphere.
I think that will suffice to prove your point.


It's either that or admit that the Bishop experiment isn't able to be replicated on sufficiently large scales to prove anything and its results are effectively meaningless.