1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 20, 2023, 12:37:29 AM »

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

It seems that you are taking this out of context. You folks were talking about the curvature observed of the horizon behind the Concorde at a cruising altitude some 70k' feet above the earth.



AATW's comment was in regard to whether one can see the horizon line curve at ground level as you claimed REr's say they can see curvature at ground level. Even the OP opened up this thread with, "Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth."

Curvature is curvature.

Just stop with the equivocation.

There is no curvature.

Compelling argument. I guess if you simply say so, then it must be true. I can't think of anyone who would know better considering the level of thought and intellect you've poured into the discussion. Clearly the curve shown in the Concorde image is not a curve as you have just commanded that it isn't. My fault for not running the image by you first so that you could determine what is seen by the rest of us and what isn't. Thanks for applying your acute observation skills to an otherwise indeterminate and murky situation.

Even the fusilage of Concorde has a slight curve to it in this pic.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 09, 2023, 09:44:25 AM »

Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable.  The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day. 

If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.

Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.

That's the point.

We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.

You couldn't plot with any accuracy the exact line of the horizon from 3 miles away. Even if you did manage to wade thogh the swell, waves, freak waves, refraction, haze, reflections.

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not. I spent the first 18 years of my life looking at the horizon out to sea literally hundreds of times every day.

Do you live near the coast, SimonC?

Just because someone has done something for a number of years does not mean they have been doing it right. Practice doesnt make perfect. Practice makes permanent. My heating engineer had been using an old saw to cut coper pipe since he was an apprentice. He had no idea that modern day pipe cutters had been invented and carried on blissfully with his 'rough' and time-consuming jointing method.
Many people think/believe they can see a definite line of the horizon. But thats c.3 miles away. And is so fine that it isnt even the thickness of a piece of paper - and you couldnt see something that thin at 3 miles.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 09, 2023, 09:39:34 AM »

So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.

Why does it have to be a flat line at that scale? We don't live on a perfect sphere.
The real question is why do you only see the first few miles of sea beyond which there's an abrupt end? It's not visibility, in that zoomed in view you can clearly see the ship beyond the horizon. But you can't see the bottom of it. Why not?

'You can clearly see the ship beyond the horizon' You as in 'I'?

I can't. I have seen images of ships allegedly half over the horizon which have been fabricated. I have seen video footage of ships at what appears to be a great distance but there is nothing to suggest they are over the curve.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 07, 2023, 10:02:46 AM »

Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable.  The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day. 

If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.

Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.

That's the point.

Luckily, you don’t have to use the naked eye. I posted a picture above which was zoomed in. The division between sea and sky is very clear and at that scale you can see the bumps of the waves.

So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 07, 2023, 10:01:07 AM »

Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable.  The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day. 

If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.

Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.

That's the point.

We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.

You couldn't plot with any accuracy the exact line of the horizon from 3 miles away. Even if you did manage to wade thogh the swell, waves, freak waves, refraction, haze, reflections.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 07, 2023, 09:57:11 AM »

You suggest that on a RE you would be able to see a horizon line - but on a globe that line is the curve of a 'ball'.  And a curve is a continuous 'thing' on a ball. It cannot be seen as an absolutely definite line. Its almost like the horizon line is being viewed tangentially. Therefore there will always be blur as the curve appears to form and curve away. Is this not correct?

Yes, its like the horizontal line is being viewed tangentially.  That's because you are viewing it tangentially. 

No, that is not correct.  Why would it be a blur?  As far as the horizon, it is visible.  Beyond the horizon it is not visible.  Look at a pool ball.  Look over the hood of your car.  I'm not going to draw a diagram or show you a photo, because that introduces the idea that the line has thickness, or a row of pixels; it doesn't.  Its a line.  Or a demarcation, if you will. 

Above it; atmosphere and space. 

Below it: pool ball, car hood, Earth, or whatever.

If you agree its a tangent then you will accept tangents are infinite. there is no definite point of contact from the line of sight of the curve. Try drawing a line at a tangent to a circle on a piece of paper. the point of contact cannot technically be located as it is only so much as the minutest 'touch'. This is why there can be no definite line for the horizon. What you see is an amalgamation of the pre-curve-the curve and with light refraction the post-curve.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 04, 2023, 12:23:56 PM »

Yes, you used a completely irrelevant tool, applied it to a photograph in which the horizon can't be seen, and are strutting around like a pigeon declaring victory.

You claimed that the horizon line is "blurry and gradual". I'd suggest an edge detection tool is a pretty good test of that assertion.
What's a colour picker going to do other than tell me that the line isn't mathematically perfect? Of course it isn't. But it's not a gradual fade either. Those aren't the only two possibilities. The line between sea and sky is very clear. That line IS the horizon, which I'm defining the way the dictionary does "the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet".

You were consistently comparing 2 images throughout the discussion, but then you suddenly switcheroo'd them

No. The contrast between the two images is obvious and stands. The 3rd image is in addition, not instead of the original comparison. There's no switcheroo, it's additional evidence. It's a further response to the claim that the horizon line is "blurry and gradual". The 3rd image shows that even if you zoom in you still see a very clear distinction between sea and sky, there's no gradual fade between the two. Now, at that scale you see the details of the waves, you see the line isn't perfectly straight. Yes of course there's a difference between reality and a mathematically perfect model. But when visibility allows you see a clear distinction between sea and sky. And the reason for that, according to RE, is because the rest of the sea is hidden by the curve of the earth.

Your perception contradicts RET.

You keep saying that. Can you explain why?

On the contrary, it's the only possibility that maintains internal consistency. You rejected it

I rejected it because in the two models the geometry of the sea is different. That surely means there will be different observations.
Now, having thought about it a bit, I don't think the difference would be as pronounced as I initially imagined, but I don't believe on a FE you'd get the clear line when you zoom in on a horizon which you do in reality.

You know what the RE reason is

Indeed. And you don't. There's the rub.

OK, well I've told you what I think. You tell me what you think. Then maybe we can make some progress.

Well, yes, you do struggle to believe that. In the end of the day, that's what it comes down to - you've decided that your argument is good, and you'll keep repeating it forevermore, citing nothing more than personal incredulity. You lack the self-critical approach needed to break out of this cycle.

I'm citing pictures which show a clear line between sea and sky. All you're doing is looking at 4 fingers and repeatedly saying you see 5. I don't know how to help you with that, the rest of us are all seeing 4. And you keep repeating it too without citing anything at all.

In the foggy day scenario the visibility prevents you from seeing as far as the physical horizon, that's why there is no clear line between sea and sky.

This is what happens in both scenarios. You conceded this multiple times when you remarked on the difference between mathematically perfect theory and reality.

No. There are 3 scenarios.
A foggy day, a mathematically perfect horizon and reality:



There IS a difference between a mathematically perfect horizon and reality, but that's not the same difference as between the reality on a clear day and the reality on a foggy day.
The first difference does change the observation from a perfectly sharp line to an imperfect one, but the line is still very clear.
The second difference is between a horizon you can see and one you can't.
The horizon line you see on a clear day is a physical thing. More sea is out there but it's hidden by the curve of the earth, that's why there's a limit in how much sea you can...see. Ugh. Sorry, terrible English. On a clear day you can see the horizon, that's why there's a clear line. On a foggy day you can't see as far as the horizon, that's why the sea just fades out. Here's a picture of a line of trees I took on a foggy day and again on a clear one. Let's say that left most tree is the horizon where I've drawn the line.
Even on a clear day you might not be able to see the tree perfectly, that's the difference between mathematical model and reality. But on a foggy day you can't even see the tree. That's the difference:



Now, on a FE you're right, you'd never be able to see a clear horizon because there's thousands of miles of sea in front of you. On a RE you would be able to see one. And you can.

you're so busy ignoring everything that's been said to you.

I'm not ignoring you, I'm responding to you. I just happen to believe you are incorrect.

I can't force you to learn RET. Only you can choose to do it.

Well, you can tell me what you think I'm getting wrong about it and correct me.

You suggest that on a RE you would be able to see a horizon line - but on a globe that line is the curve of a 'ball'.  And a curve is a continuous 'thing' on a ball. It cannot be seen as an absolutely definite line. Its almost like the horizon line is being viewed tangentially. Therefore there will always be blur as the curve appears to form and curve away. Is this not correct?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 27, 2023, 08:16:56 PM »

Right. Yeah, that's roughly the level of hand-waving I was expecting here. "Well, y'know, it isn't sharp, but it's sharp."

As secretagent says, when someone says a knife is sharp no-one is going to get an electron microscope out, note the bumps at that level and say "well akchooalley...".
Put any of the pictures I've posted through an edge detection algorithm and it's going to show you a clear horizon line unless you make it so sensitive then it literally only detects a line if the two adjacent pixels are completely different. Compare and contrast with the foggy day image where you're not going to get an edge. You've already conceded there's a difference and that's the point I have been making.

AATW claims, in no uncertain terms (despite your attempt at muddying the subject) that the absence of one would disprove FET. He backs this up with diagrams, which clearly show that, in his view, the horizon in RET would be a mathematically perfect divide. His side-view illustrates a point intersection.

This is all accurate. But I do also recognise that we live in reality, not a mathematically perfect world. My diagram shows the situation, but of course in reality the sea isn't perfectly flat, there are some atmospheric effects. I'm using the word sharp to contrast the horizon on a clear day with a foggy day where the sea just fades out.

He is correct - this would disprove FET. What he misses is that the absence of one would also disprove RET, and reality itself. This is not the time to say "Well, okay, but what if we make the word mean something else? Something less restrictive, maybe?".

What you're doing is like responding to FE people who say "the horizon is flat, checkmate globetards!" with this image


And saying "Aha! Look! That's not perfectly flat, there are bumps". That doesn't "help facilitate meaningful conversation". We all know what they mean by flat. Come on dude, this is just pointless pedantry. The contrast I am making is the horizon one sees on a clear day with the lack of one on a misty day. The issue with the latter is visibility. And on a FE where you've got thousands of miles of flat sea stretching in front of you visibility would always be an issue. You wouldn't have a horizon a few miles away beyond which you only see the sky. I think we agree it isn't visibility, you claimed it was "waves, usually" and ignored the part of my previous post where I explained why that can't be true if you're at any altitude more than a few meters.

Am guessing you didnt take that pic but you are accepting it as face value. Its one of the most faked images I have seen - cant you see that? Or does your indoctrinated mind not allow you to? In fact the more I look at it the more my sides split.
Its too close up to be real. If the photographer was that close there wouldnt be a curve. Its a joke. Theres plenty others like this but ask anyone who has tried to film 'over the horizon' how difficult it is.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking for curvature is a fool's errand.

« on: February 27, 2023, 08:14:04 PM »

I presumed such as was the clarity of the image that we were going to see the boat in the first video 'disappear' over the horizon. What happened?

What happened is as the first ship was mostly sunken he started to follow another ship which was coming towards him.
This is that second ship when he first starts to follow it and right near the end of the video:



If that isn't "evidence to go on" then I don't know what is. Where's the rest of it in that first image? Obviously you are free to do your own tests and satisfy yourself that the ships do completely disappear when they go far enough. I'd suggest the difference between those two frames needs some explanation on a FE.

Mostly sunken? Where did that come from? Are you watching a different video - obviously not one that you took or could be bothered to watch. Please go back and show me this 'mostly sunken' ship - I am dying to see it.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking for curvature is a fool's errand.

« on: February 27, 2023, 09:54:14 AM »

Only if the earth was a globe yes. But it isn't and they don't. And anyone who thinks they have seen an object disappear below the horizon due to curvature is having a bad day at the office. And their optician will tell them the same.

It's not difficult to find images and timelapses of this happening:



And this video is good, observations of a building taken across a strait from different distances showing more and more of the building hidden. What is it hidden by?

I presumed such as was the clarity of the image that we were going to see the boat in the first video 'disappear' over the horizon. What happened? That would have at least provided some evidence to go on. Or did it not disappear after all?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking for curvature is a fool's errand.

« on: February 26, 2023, 11:43:35 PM »

If you were on a raft in the middle of a perfectly calm ocean, and spun around to view all 360 degrees, it would all look exactly the same. It would be like being in the middle of a large hoop that arcs around you at a constant distance and then attaches back to itself after describing a perfect circle. There would be exactly zero appearance of curvature in the dimension that would prove sphericalness. You can't see the 3rd dimension you're looking for because you can't see past a horizon that is equidistant from you at all times.

I hate to bring up the boring sinking ship effect, but that would show the difference between being on a flat plane or circle, and being on a globe.  It wouldn't sink on a flat Earth.

The other effect is altitude letting you see further.  On a flat Earth, climbing up and down the mast of a ship wouldn't cause other ships to sink hull first into the water, but would on a flat earth.

There are a large number of visual effects you get on a sphere that you would not on a disk, and those allow you to indeed see the difference.

Correct. My point is that looking for curvature is one of the go-to methods, but it shouldn't be.

I'm not sure I know anyone who thinks standing at sea level and looking for curvature is a go-to method for showing the Earth is round.   

Looking for it at 30,000 feet, sure.  Or 400 miles up on the ISS, of course.  Or from a million miles out it's pretty clear.  I just don't see many people arguing you can see an actual curve from the ground, so I wouldn't call it a go-to method at all.

If you visit Quora that's all REs talk about - curvature; especially of the ocean or of large flat areas. There's even pics of pylons and wind farms out at sea that they claim are curving but on close inspection its just an optical illusion. They even claim to see curvature from mountain tops and will not accept that you would need to be 100,000 feet up at a very minimum to have the slightest chance of seeing something remotely like curvature. Most of the time its a circle of the rim of the earth (like those seen allegedly out of thick glass plane windows with fish eye lenses). It could quite easily be the rim of a flat round earth...who knows. But seeing an almost 2D image of something - take the blue marble for example - that could be a disc as there's no depth to it. And all of this proves nothing. But curvature is the goto for most REs - they can se it in their sleep I guess. Oh and they see ships clearly disappearing over the horizon with their bare eyes. That's some going but that's what they say. Probably wind up merchants all the same.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking for curvature is a fool's errand.

« on: February 26, 2023, 11:33:41 PM »

I guess you didn't read my post carefully enough.

I did.  From a high enough altitude you can certainly tell the difference between a disk and a sphere.  Disks don't cause things (boats, buildings, continents) to vanish below the horizon when you or they move.  Spheres do.

Only if the earth was a globe yes. But it isn't and they don't. And anyone who thinks they have seen an object disappear below the horizon due to curvature is having a bad day at the office. And their optician will tell them the same.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 26, 2023, 11:14:32 PM »

So the distinct line you see is the beginning, the top, or the falling away of the curve? Do you not consider that if the earth was a continuous curve there would be no distinct line? Curves dont have distinct lines. Even curves 'fade away'. And if there was a distinct line it would be a different (further or nearer line) for every person of differing heights and stood on different heights above sea level. You cant have an infinite number of 'distinct lines'.

As the others have said, the line you see is merely the tangent of your sight line and the globe. Yes, that does mean that the horizon appears in a different place for different observer heights. If the distance to the horizon is less than the meteorological visibility, then you will see a distinct horizon line. If it’s not, then you won’t see one - it will be blurry or completely indistinct, which is what you would see every day on a flat earth. The fact that you don’t see this should be a major clue that the earth isn’t flat.

And moving on to your second point if you know of such a person who lay in a boat staring towards the sky at every single star for 24 non-stop hours and mentally noting their continuous shift in positions exactly then I should like to meet this person. And you say that this gives an indication that the surface we are on is rotating - had you not given any consideration to the fact that it could be the stars that are rotating and not the earth?

Well, you don’t need to do this - simple photography lets you do it very clearly, or you can just note the azimuth and elevation of a few obvious stars and see the pattern. Either way, they rotate in a neat circular pattern, every 24 hours.

So then you might reasonably ask ‘couldn’t the stars be moving around the earth?’ - a perfectly valid line of enquiry. But there are several ways we know this is not the case:

- if the stars are rotating around the earth, why does the neutral point at the centre of rotation vary linearly with our latitude, and why do the stars disappear below the horizon during part of the their rotation? If I’m in Scotland and you’re in Africa, why can I see stars that are below the horizon for you? The wiki invoked ‘bendy light’ at this point. Aside from being an incomplete explanation, if it were the case that light was bending in the vertical plane, as asserted, then the neat circular pattern that we observe would not happen, as the paths would be distorted by the EA.

- why the exact 24 hour period of rotation, precisely the same as the apparent periodicity of the sun, when the sun is clearly ‘moving’ in a different manner and at a closer range than the stars?

A rotating spherical earth explains all of these things perfectly. We can even measure the rotation using gyroscopes, both mechanical and laser. It all lines up.

If you have ever seen a time lapse photo of the stars with the resultant image showing them as if they are circling the earth then that would suggest they are moving and not the earth otherwise they would not look like complete circles as the earth would be turning away or toward then not circling beneath them. The only way to replicate that effect is at one of the poles.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 26, 2023, 11:10:25 PM »

So the distinct line you see is the beginning, the top, or the falling away of the curve? Do you not consider that if the earth was a continuous curve there would be no distinct line? Curves dont have distinct lines. Even curves 'fade away'.

What are you talking about? "Curves don't have distinct lines" is a meaningless sentence. And in what sense do curves "fade away"?
Look at any spherical object. You can see the edge of it, can't you? A clear line. The edge isn't all fuzzy. I happen to have a globe in the house so I took this photo:



Is that a clear enough line for you? And if you zoom in to a portion of this image then even at this scale the horizon starts to flatten out:



That's what the horizon is. Why would that happen on a FE? What presents you seeing further than the distinct horizon on a FE? It isn't visibility, you can see distant landmasses beyond the horizon, you just can't see the bottom of them. The only exception to that is on a foggy day when visibility is poor, in that case you don't see a clear horizon line, the sea just fades out. But what would cause the clear horizon line on a FE? What is hiding the rest of the sea?

And if there was a distinct line it would be a different (further or nearer line) for every person of differing heights and stood on different heights above sea level.

Correct. Which is exactly what we observe. The higher you ascend the further you can see. You ever looked out a airplane window? You can see a horizon much further away than when you're on the beach. I took these photos with the same globe as above, raising the camera to simulate going up in altitude.



Note how the label "Russia" can be clearly seen in the bottom of the 3 photos but is hidden behind the curve in the top photo from a "lower" altitude.
Note out the word "Mountains" (upside down) is further from the horizon as you ascend.

You cant have an infinite number of 'distinct lines'.

The distinct line isn't a physical thing, it's simply the limit of how far you can see on the globe earth, and the reason for it is the earth curves away from you. That's why the distance to the horizon increases with altitude, because you can see further over the curve. This diagram illustrates the principle:

Sorry to spoil the show but they look fuzzy to me. As for the one that looks like its been created with a thick black highlighter well...
And as for these lines. Are they a given depth/size? If there's a definite physical line it must have some dimensions to represent its 'boldness' for example.
The fact they look fuzzy as they obviously do to most people suggests that there's more beyond them. Only the bias of a global earth theorist will see a solid back line that could even represent a 'boom' across the horizon.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 26, 2023, 11:06:45 PM »

So the distinct line you see is the beginning, the top, or the falling away of the curve? Do you not consider that if the earth was a continuous curve there would be no distinct line? Curves dont have distinct lines. Even curves 'fade away'. And if there was a distinct line it would be a different (further or nearer line) for every person of differing heights and stood on different heights above sea level. You cant have an infinite number of 'distinct lines'.

Of course curves have a distinct line.  Look at a snooker/pool ball; it curves away to the "horizon", which is a distinct line.  Sit in your car and look over the hood.  Distinct line. 

And of course there are an infinite number of distinct lines, that's the point.  The visible horizon is unique to the observer.  If I am standing 1 metre behind you on a boat, your horizon is one metre further away than mine.

Exactly - these are almost imaginary lines they are not physical ones that are there all the time - they are ther when we appear a certain distance and angle from them.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: February 22, 2023, 09:13:03 PM »

You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.

Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.

I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?

Here's how it works on a Globe Earth:

So you go 'down' to the centre?

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 22, 2023, 08:51:58 PM »

In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.

Very good observation Simon.  It's not supposed to.

The question is actually quite simple.  Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem.  You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right?  The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"

The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature.  Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat?  What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter?  If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet.  Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?

I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?

Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:

- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.

- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.

Not to mention that if you're out in the middle of the ocean and wish to navigate to a desired land location, you bust out your sextant and start observing. Then using your declination and sightings, making sure there are no collimation errors, log the sighting time, then using the Hilaire method, calculate via triangulation including the sphericity of earth and derive your position relative to your map. And on your way you go.

What exactly is it that you 'start observing'...presumably with your sextant?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 22, 2023, 08:50:18 PM »

In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.

Very good observation Simon.  It's not supposed to.

The question is actually quite simple.  Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem.  You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right?  The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"

The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature.  Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat?  What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter?  If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet.  Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?

I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?

Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:

- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.

- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.

So the distinct line you see is the beginning, the top, or the falling away of the curve? Do you not consider that if the earth was a continuous curve there would be no distinct line? Curves dont have distinct lines. Even curves 'fade away'. And if there was a distinct line it would be a different (further or nearer line) for every person of differing heights and stood on different heights above sea level. You cant have an infinite number of 'distinct lines'.
And moving on to your second point if you know of such a person who lay in a boat staring towards the sky at every single star for 24 non-stop hours and mentally noting their continuous shift in positions exactly then I should like to meet this person. And you say that this gives an indication that the surface we are on is rotating - had you not given any consideration to the fact that it could be the stars that are rotating and not the earth?

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 22, 2023, 08:42:13 PM »

In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.

Very good observation Simon.  It's not supposed to.

The question is actually quite simple.  Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem.  You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right?  The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"

The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature.  Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat?  What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter?  If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet.  Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?

I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?

Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:

- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.

- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.

Not to mention that if you're out in the middle of the ocean and wish to navigate to a desired land location, you bust out your sextant and start observing. Then using your declination and sightings, making sure there are no collimation errors, log the sighting time, then using the Hilaire method, calculate via triangulation including the sphericity of earth and derive your position relative to your map. And on your way you go.

And the reason this couldnt be done on a flat earth?

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Flat Earth Scientific Proof

« on: February 22, 2023, 09:56:39 AM »

didnt watch the video, but in reading the page, the entire thing feels merely like an opening statement at trial - it just summarizes what the evidence (supposedly) WILL SHOW. But without a single actual piece of evidence yet provided. Super weak.

Based on what stack says sounds like the video includes nothing substantive either.

So you are qualified to comment/critique something you didnt watch? That sums up a lot of RE theories. If only they looked at things from another's perspective; but a RE is the one they learned first so it must be true.