1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 20, 2023, 10:41:13 PM »

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-tells-farmers-he-got-rid-of-the-death-tax-even-for-those-who-hate-their-children-have-fun/amp/

The bit at the end where he rambled about some people not loving their children. Oh for a really world class psychiatrist

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 20, 2023, 06:25:23 PM »

if there is something you don't understand, you can try the radical approach of asking questions.

Well alright then. Why would RE make a sharp horizon impossible? I mean, it wouldn't be perfectly sharp because of the atmosphere and it wouldn't be completely straight because of waves and that, but the line between sea and sky is, on a clear day, very distinct. At a viewer height of 10 feet the horizon is just under 4 miles away. I'd suggest that's high enough to be looking over waves on a calm day, why can't you see any more sea after that?

Now, I reckon you forgot what we're talking about by now, so let me offer a quick reminder. It was your position that a sharp edge would be proof of RE, and that a gradient horizon would be indicative of FE. My position is that this is not the case - you should be expecting a gradient in both models, and therefore your argument is a waste of time. We are now stuck on you simultaneously rejecting that there is a gradient to the horizon, while repeatedly stating "well, okay, it's not mathematically perfect, but duuuuuh". In reality, there are no ifs or buts about it. Take your favourite photo of the horizon (n.b., not a wave that's less than a mile away from the photographer) and inspect the colours. They will gradually fade away, as is expected of RE and FE alike.

I think the word "gradually" is where we are stuck. The foggy day picture is a gradual fade. The other horizon pictures are not.
Now, having thought about this some more I'm not sure there would be as much difference between a FE horizon and a RE one. My gut feeling is a FE horizon would be less distinct than the RE one, but I must concede it wouldn't be like the foggy day image on a FE.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuurgh. Are you sure you took a course on image processing? I'm getting suspcious here.

Well alright, I'll admit it was ages ago as I'm very old. I remember we did stuff around JPG compression - there was a collective gasp when the professor put the equation for a Fourier Transform on the OHP (yes, I am that old), before he said we didn't need to know that, he was just showing us. And we did code a rudimentary edge detection algorithm. But from your explanation I'll consider myself schooled. I did say I wasn't an expert.

Tbh, I don't think we are a million miles away from agreeing now. I think there are other horizon based discriminators between FE and RE, I dipped my toes in those waters and you didn't want to talk about those.

One comment on the horizon dip thing - when I first came here the claim that the horizon always rises to eye level was vigorously defended by TB and on the Wiki. When Bobby Shafto spent an inordinate amount of time doing experiments to demonstrate that where is a dip to the horizon which increases with altitude Tom bent over backwards calling black is white to deny his results. Now it seems that Wiki page has been quietly deprecated. Which is good, I guess. It does show some progress, a lack of which I have criticised you guys for. But I didn't know that had happened, so I can understand other people not realising it either.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 12, 2023, 11:07:58 PM »

You keep claiming this, but haven't explained why you believe it to be false

Of course I did.

OK, well I did find a post which wasn't a reply to me so I guess that's why I missed it.
Basically your claim is that the horizon can't be sharp because we have an atmosphere. You also said something about in RET the earth not having an edge but I don't really understand that bit. If we were on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere then the horizon would be a line - actually a circle around you - which would be the limit you could see. The radius of that circle would be determined by your viewer height. You wouldn't be able to see further than that because of the ground curving away from you. Now obviously we don't live on this mathematically perfect world, but that's still what the horizon is.

Another example of you showing you don't know what you're talking about. For your algorithm of choice, a thicker line would imply less confidence in edge detection.

Can you explain that? It's the "Strength" slider I adjusted. The higher I set that the more and thicker lines it shows as edges. As I turn it lower those lines get fewer and thinner. If you turn it all the way down then you don't get any edges at all. So how would thicker lines imply less confidence?

That's because you are, fundamentally, anti-scientific. You want to find an edge.

I don't "want" anything. In all the pictures I've posted the horizon simply looks very clear to me. An edge detection tool is a reasonable way of verifying that. You dispute that of course, but that dispute seems to revolve around the line being a perfect edge. That isn't the RE claim.

I didn't tell you to look for an edge - I told you to look for a gradient. And measuring colours of adjacent pixels is a very reliable way of identifying a colour gradient - they either do smoothly change from one colour to another, or they don't.

And what would that demonstrate? That there is no mathematical perfect edge? OK. Granted. And nor would I expect there to be. I took this photo, its of the edge of a wall as it turns a corner, beyond it looks through a window into a dark hallway, so there's a clear distinction between the wall and the view beyond it. The top below is part of the picture, the lower part is a portion of the top, zoomed in:



So...I guess my wall doesn't have an edge then. Except of course it bloody does. Whether it's JPEG compression or lack of sharpness in the image or whatever, the picture doesn't show a perfect edge. That doesn't mean the wall doesn't have an edge which an edge detection algorithm would find.

Having thought about this some more, I have come to the conclusion that the observation of the horizon wouldn't be as different as I supposed if we did live on a FE. I think that the line would be a little less clear on a FE but it's an impossible experiment to run to find out. There are of course other clues about the horizon and in particular the observations of objects beyond it which are better differentiators between the two models.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 11, 2023, 10:12:53 PM »

If your methodology demonstrates something that's false

You keep claiming this, but haven't explained why you believe it to be false.

Using "an edge detection tool" (you didn't clarify what tool, how you set it up, or what it actually did - because you don't know any of these things) can produce the following results on a familiar image

Yes. Of course you can produce different results by setting the sensitivity to different levels. I used the one in Paint.NET. I can't remember exactly what sensitivity level I set it to, I can find out if you really care.

I did an image processing course as part of my degree by the way and while that was some time ago I do remember writing a simple edge detection algorithm. I wouldn't claim to be an expert in this, but I know the basics of how they work. I'm not as ignorant about all this as you suppose. And yes, of course if you set the tool too sensitive then it won't detect the horizon line. And OK, I did set it at a level which detects the line. You got me. BUT, I don't believe that was fudging the results. In the image which shows the results of the edge detection tool the edges of the sails show as weaker lines than the horizon line. I mean...sails have edges, right? Obviously in real life objects don't have thick black outlines around them. No edge is going to be mathematically perfect. And therefore no edge detection algorithm set to detect only perfect edges is going to detect them. And that's the reason your suggestion of a colour picker makes no sense. That would work in showing the difference between two pixels which delineate a perfectly clear edge, but those don't exist in the real world.

A clear line between sea and sky, or sail and sky, or any two objects, can exist without it being mathematically perfect or being a gradual fade between one and the other. Those aren't the only two options.

the distinction is that your "foggy day" and "reality" (oh, why did you have to name it so...) sections show a gradient, and the "mathematical model" one does not.
Oh, wait, that's not the "clear distinction" you wanted. Huh.

It's not about what I want, it's about reality. There's a difference between mathematical perfection and reality.
But there is also a difference (a different difference, if you will) between observations on a foggy day when you can't see as far as the horizon, and observations on a clear day when you can.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 10, 2023, 01:59:45 PM »

Many people think/believe they can see a definite line of the horizon.

But I've shown examples and I've used an edge detection tool which demonstrates that the distinction between sea and sky is clear.
Pete has claimed that it's the wrong tool, his suggestion of a colour picker makes no sense. No-one is claiming we live in a mathematically perfect world where the line would be perfect, but the distinction is clear enough.

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.

I showed a zoomed in picture which shows a detail of the horizon. At that scale you can see there are bumps of the waves, as you would expect. And you can see the top of a distant ship which is beyond and below the horizon. But the distinction between sea and sky is perfectly clear. You called the picture fake without providing any evidence. I also showed a video of ship disappearing below the horizon and emerging from it. Your quibble there was the timelapse stopped following one ship, which was almost completely sunken and started following another which was also mostly sunken and followed it as it came towards the camera and emerged from below the horizon. Your complaint was that the video didn't follow it as it sunk all the way, which is spurious. Why did it sink at all in your opinion?

You're free to make your own observations of course and present them.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 07, 2023, 04:51:27 PM »

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?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 07, 2023, 04:48:57 PM »

at that scale you can see the bumps of the waves.

Which is how you know you're not looking at the horizon. You already know this - you were explicitly told it

Well, you claimed it but I don't really understand that claim. The horizon is the line between sea and sky. And the reason for that line in RE is that the sea curves away for you. That's what stops you seeing more sea. But why would that line be perfectly straight? We've already talked about the mathematical perfection and the real world.
I don't understand why you think this distinction matters.

Stop trying to recycle arguments you already know are critically flawed

How about your start explaining why you believe the arguments to be flawed. Then maybe we can have a more sensible conversation.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 07, 2023, 07:27:53 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.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 04, 2023, 08:53:50 PM »

The line between sea and sky is very clear.

This is just not true at all.

Are you suggesting that in the photos I've posted, or just looking out to sea on a clear day, you wouldn't know where the line between sea and sky is?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 01, 2023, 01:54:47 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.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 28, 2023, 11:30:03 AM »

Under RE assumptions you will never, in your lived experience, end up in a scenario where the true horizon is clearly visible as a distinct line.

This is simultaneously true and irrelevant.
In RE when looking out to sea you can only see the first few miles of the sea and the reason for that is because it curves away from you. At some point it's that curve which prevents you from seeing more sea, as per my diagram.

Now, the things we've talked about do change the observation from the one you'd get on a perfectly spherical earth with no atmosphere. Of course they do.
Refraction means you can often see a bit further over the curve than you would be able to if we had no atmosphere.
The sea isn't perfectly flat, so waves mean the line isn't perfectly straight.
Atmospheric haze makes the line not perfectly sharp.
All these things are true, but they're all irrelevant. You are generally not looking at the true or geometric horizon, but that is irrelevant.
You are still looking at a physical line, these effects simply change the distance, straightness and clarity of that line.

Even in that zoomed in view above, you can see the waves but it's very clear where the horizon is, there's no gradual fade between sea and sky.

This incorrect. The limits of your perception are none of my concern - you can assist yourself with tooling if you need to.

I have. Your response was, and I quote, "lmao". But my tooling is pretty clear where the horizon line is in that picture just like it's clear where the edges of the sails are:



If you have ideas for other tooling I could use then I'm open to suggestions.

You have yet to post a single photo in which there is no gradual fade between the sea and the sky

My perception and edge detection tool beg to differ on the word "gradual".
Again, the observations aren't going to match the mathematically perfectly model because we don't live in one.

With FE why would there even be a horizon line?

For the same reason as RE

This cannot possibly be true. You know what the RE reason is, the FE reason can't be the same because in FE you have a thousand miles of sea stretching out in front of you.
But you can only see the first few miles, then suddenly it's just sky. I'm struggling to believe that you wouldn't know where to draw a line between sea and sky in any of those images except in the foggy day image. Because in that one you can't see as far as the physical horizon.

My argument is that on a FE the observation would surely always be more like the foggy day image.

This is misguided. You seem to think that these are two different scenarios. They aren't - they're two manifestations of the same phenomenon, to two different extents.

This is simply incorrect. 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.
In all the other pictures the line is clear because you're looking at a physical thing. I mean, it's clear to my perception and my tooling. I don't know how to resolve that disagreement other than maybe for you to use some other tooling and show the results. Otherwise we're going to spend all week going "nuh uh", "is too" ad nauseum.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 27, 2023, 05:58:36 PM »

There is a difference - it's just not the difference you need for your argument to work.

My argument is that there is a difference between the observation of a horizon when visibility is less than the distance to said horizon and when visibility is greater than that distance.

When visibility is greater than the distance to the horizon you see a distinct horizon line. And yes, yes, it's not a perfect straight line. When you zoom in you can see waves and ripples. And it's not perfectly clear as it would be if we didn't have an atmosphere, there's a bit of atmospheric haze. Refraction is also a thing and that can make the apparent horizon different from the geometric one. So yes, all those things exist. But none of that changes the basic argument or observation. Even in that zoomed in view above, you can see the waves but it's very clear where the horizon is, there's no gradual fade between sea and sky.

On a foggy day when visibility is less than the distance to the horizon it's completely different. You can't see the horizon, the sea just fades out. There's no clear line between the sea and sky.

And the reason for all this, according to RET, is that the horizon is a physical thing. The earth is a globe, so the sea curves away from the observer. The horizon line is the furthest you can see over that curve as per my diagram. With FE why would there even be a horizon line? There's a thousand miles of flat sea in front of you, why can you only see the first few miles? You could invoke waves if you're close to sea level, if you're up a hill as I was when I took that other photo above, then that explanation doesn't work. You're higher than the level of the waves and thus able to see over them, yet there's still a clear horizon line - visibility permitting.

My argument is that on a FE the observation would surely always be more like the foggy day image. The visibility would always be lower than the amount of sea which should be visible, so the sea would fade out gradually. The whole reason for the clear distinction between sea and sky on a RE is that the sea curves away from you, preventing you from seeing more sea. On a FE that reason doesn't exist.

13

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

« on: February 27, 2023, 12:47:53 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.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 27, 2023, 12:40:09 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.

15

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

« on: February 27, 2023, 08:51:56 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?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 24, 2023, 04:26:17 PM »

However, the counterargument is not "pedantic" - you are asserting, as fact, something that would be impossible on RET, and which does not occur in reality.

Are you claiming that this does not show a clear, sharp horizon line?



I'd suggest the line between sea and sky is pretty clear. As for sharp, it's certainly not a gradual fade between sea and sky like in the foggy day image.

This is strictly incorrect. That's the whole issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I was being a little poetic, but if the earth is a globe then the horizon is simply a line along its surface, isn't that an edge?
What would you call it?

Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon"

I would claim that the picture above shows a sharp horizon. There's a clear line between the sea and sky.
I took that photo, and I did so when going down a hill on my way to the beach. Point being, I was reasonably high up, way above the level of any waves.
If you're looking down on the waves then you're looking over the top of them. That means on a flat plane the waves can't be blocking the sea further away than them.
Another diagram I did when I was explaining why waves can't produce the sinking ship effect IF your viewer height is higher than the waves:



As you're looking downwards over the top of the waves you'll always have a clear line of sight to the sea even if the sea continues perfectly flat after that last wave rather than stopping at the building. Your hypothesis could makes sense if you're very close to sea level and there are waves higher than your viewer height. Once you're up a few meters I don't see how that would work.

Less often, in particularly good conditions, atmospheric conditions result in a very blurry vanishing point - this is much closer to the true horizon.

I'm interested by what you mean by vanishing point and true horizon. The first is a theoretical thing. I mean, obviously there are limits of optical resolution but that doesn't apply when there are thousands of miles of sea. And because of refraction there's a difference between geometric horizon and the apparent horizon. I'm not clear what you mean by the "true" horizon.

Your problem is that you're not testing hypotheses - that would be science, which may be a slightly flawed prototype of Zeteticism, but it's largely servicable. What you're doing is deciding your conclusion and then tilting at windmills until you find something that you think confirms it.

I'm claiming that these observations:
1) A sharp horizon line on a clear day
2) The distance to the horizon and angle of dip to the horizon increasing with altitude.
Can be explained well on a globe earth. I'm not suggesting they're the only explanations, but unless these observations are in dispute they need some FE explanation.
You seem to dispute the first of those observations. I don't know how to resolve that.

And, again, in Zeteticism you say you "devise an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth". What's the experiment?
I mean, there's the Bedford Level Experiment I guess, but the results of that are hotly disputed and it makes assumptions about how light moves.
Any experiment relies on certain assumptions of course, but that means the results are only as good as those assumptions.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 24, 2023, 10:34:52 AM »

All of your explanation assumes facts, such as consistency of atmoplanar conditions are consistent through the entirety of the viewing area.

Any conclusion has to be built on certain underlying assumptions. My assumptions are that visibility on a clear day is greater than the distance to the horizon - I believe that can be easily justified, as I've said you can see distant landmarks beyond the horizon. And I've assumed light travels in roughly straight lines, refraction is a thing and does affect results somewhat, but it doesn't allow you to see indefinitely.

Me on the other hand look out and know that's what I am looking at every day of my life.

OK. So what observations have you made and what conclusions have you drawn.
Why do you believe there is a clear horizon line on a FE when you look out to sea (on a clear day)

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 24, 2023, 10:19:13 AM »

I contest your assertion that the horizon would be "sharp" in either model. In fact, you already submitted your own photographs of how blurry a sphere's "horizon" really is.

Sigh...
Tbh, when I posted the pictures I did notice they weren't that well focussed. I think my stupid phone focused on the foreground.
I just hoped no-one would notice, I should have known better...

And OK, in real life you're right, there are atmospheric effects and waves which mean it might not be 100% sharp. But the point is according to the RE model you're looking at the edge of something. And the edges of somethings are generally pretty well defined. I mean, I can see houses out the window. I can see where the rooves ends and beyond that I just see the sky, a roof doesn't just fade gradually into the sky. The sea is, famously, not solid, but a body of liquid on a calm day has a flat enough surface to approximate a solid. I would urge you not to be pedantic about the word "flat" here, I'm talking on a scale of a few miles square where any curvature is negligible.

There's no issue with visibility on a clear day. You can see distant landmarks beyond the horizon. I think you're being a bit pedantic about the word sharp. OK, the horizon might not be 100% sharp but can we agree that there's a pretty obvious difference between these two images:





In the first it's a clear day, you can see a fairly clear, sharp horizon line. In the second it's a foggy day, the visibility is less than the distance to the horizon and the result is there is no sharp horizon line, it's more of a fading out. The latter is what I would imagine one would see on a FE. My reasoning being that on a RE it makes sense that as the sea curves away from you, you're not able to see any more sea, that's why you get the well defined boundary between sea and sky. Some other explanation is required on a FE. I'll repost this diagram:



In the bottom image I've drawn an arbitrary horizon to match the one at the top RE diagram. But what is stopping you seeing further? If you're looking out on, say, the Atlantic, there's thousands more miles of sea, why can you only see the first few miles? This does all presuppose light travels in roughly straight lines of course (and yes, I know refraction is a thing, but that generally allows one to see further than expected). You may invoke EA I guess, but there has to be some explanation. A RE model quite neatly explains why you only see a few miles out to sea before observing a clear horizon line, and it explains why that horizon distance increases with altitude as does the angle dip to the horizon.

Nonetheless, this is the closest you've come to Zeteticism, and that effort ought to be noted. The next step would be not presupposing your outcome - if you follow a similar approach, but without declaring that it must support your favourite shape, you'll start making some real progress.

I'd suggest the method of starting with a hypothesis and devising an experiment to test it has served humanity pretty well. You may disagree, but most of our advances in technology and engineering over the past couple of centuries have been based on us having good working models of reality. The thing I don't understand about Zeteticism is on your Wiki it says:

For example, in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed to testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment.

Well ok...but what's the experiment? Let's say we make an observation of the horizon without presupposing the shape of the earth. OK, so what's the conclusion?
It could be that the earth curves away from us, that would explain that observation.
It could be that the sea actually just ends after a few miles.
It could be that the earth is flat but some effect like EA bends the light and that prevents us seeing further.
Any of these interpretations are possible, so how does that experiment help us?

You might fairly reasonably say that's not the right experiement, in which case what is? Any experiment has some underlying assumptions and could be interpreted multiple ways.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 23, 2023, 06:09:36 PM »

Explain the thought process leading to this momentous conclusion!

OK.
The distance to the horizon, from an average height standing on the sea shore, is less than 3 miles.
As you look out to sea you can observe about 3 miles of sea then there's a sharp line, on a clear day, and above that line you can see the sky.

Why can't you see any more sea? If the earth is flat then what's stopping you? It isn't visibility. We know that because if there are distant land-masses or ships which are further than the horizon then you can see them, you just can't see the top of them.
On a globe this makes sense, the earth curves away from you. That's why you can't see any more sea. It's why you can't see the bottom of distant ships of land-masses, they're hidden by the earth's curve. And it's why the distance to the horizon increases with increasing altitude, that allows you to see further over the curve:



But the bottom of those two diagrams shows the FE claim, that the sea is flat. If that's so then why is there a horizon? The person has a clear line of sight to the rest of the sea, why can't they see it? What causes a sharp horizon line on a FE?

Is this only on the water? Is the water perfectly flat?

Water is the clearest way to see this as it's unusual for 3 or more miles of land to be flat. And by flat I mean "following the contour of the earth". The sea is flat in as much as while there are waves and swells, on a calm day these are relatively small. The sea doesn't have hills and valleys. But the sea does follow the contour of the earth, and the horizon observations I mentioned above are evidence of that.

You deny something exists, but presume to have a clue about what it could possibly be like.

Well, it's more that we know the something doesn't exist because observations of the horizon indicate that it can't.
We know that on a beach we can only see about 3 miles of sea. The only reasons I can think of why we wouldn't be able to see more are:
a) Visibility prevents you seeing further
b) The rest of the sea is occluded by something.

We know that option A isn't true - you can see part of objects further than the horizon. That leaves option B.  So what's occluding the rest of the sea on a FE? On a RE it's the curve of the earth itself, what's your explanation? Unless there's another reason I haven't considered?

Note that on a foggy day when visibility IS less than the distance to the horizon then you don't see a sharp horizon line



That's what I'd expect to see were the earth flat. At some point visibility would stop you seeing more sea, but that wouldn't be a clear sharp line, more of a fading out as gradually you can see things less clearly. If you have an explanation for a sharp horizon line on a FE then feel free to present it.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 23, 2023, 10:04:33 AM »

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: