[FLATGLOBE]

Hi Flatters,

This is how I perceive it:-

We can see the horizon on a flat surface if we stand on the plane itself due to perspective nature of vision. Fine.

Now, I am not sure what the Flatters are really saying, but there can be 2 possibilities.

1) That the earth is in a dome - which some have suggested.
2) There is no definite edge.. and it goes on forever, but the edge boundary is the Antarctic. I am not sure if this is what Flatters are saying. Here, this may suggest that the surface goes on indefinitely beyond the dome barrier.

Well, if the earth is under a dome, have some people fly over to the edge near the dome wall? Then there must be some photographs taken to show the icy edge (Antarctica), showing the curvature (in two dimension on a flat surface) of the edge. I have not seen this. So there should be no horizon towards the edge, but the edge itself, i.e. as one goes higher up from the flat surface. This must be proven.

Here we also assume that there is no South Pole. Well this is fine with me.

But if the surface is indefinite and goes on forever (), then there should be NO HORIZON as one goes further up. One will only see wider view of the indefinitely wide surface without any horizon. The furthest point from view may blur up due to infinite distance, but there should not a horizon.

Cheers.

FlatGlobe

[geckothegeek]

But if the surface is indefinite and goes on forever (), then there should be NO HORIZON as one goes further up. One will only see wider view of the indefinitely wide surface without any horizon. The furthest point from view may blur up due to infinite distance, but there should not a horizon.

Exactly, that's the point of this thread. So far, all attempts to defend the flat Earth on this matter has been a pitiful fail. Special mention for Pongo, with the wave.

Exactly. I have seen some other  fe posts which explain that the horizon is just a blur that fades away in the distance. That is clearly (pun intended) so false that it is so stupid it's funny. The distance to the horizon is best demonstrated on a clear day on a calm sea in the middle of the ocean.

Experiment for a flat earth. However !  Warning ! You will have to go outside your window to perform this. Go down to the seashore. Do this on a calm day with sunny skies.
Look out from the shore. See if you can see a distinct line where the sea and the sky meet. This would prove the round earth definition of the horizon. Or if all you see is an indefinite blur in the distance this would prove the flat earth definition of the horizon.

Edited. 3 Sept 2015. Also you can prove that the distance to the horizon that you see increases with your height. See how far you can see just standing on the shore and then go to the top floor or an observation deck at the top of a tall building to see how far you can see.

[huh?]

HHHzzz is actually correct.

While it is possible that a person who was lower than a wave could see a sharp edge, anyone standing well above the surface of the water would see water slowly fading out of sight in the FE model.

This can be verified by looking at any distant object for example if you drive toward a mountain it is not invisible one moment and then sharply in view the next. You start by seeing a very obscure indication that there is something there and the closer you get the better you can see it.

In a flat earth model I suppose the only time you would be able to see the horizon as a distinct line is if you are standing in the imaginary Antarctic and looking at the imaginary edge of the world.

[geckothegeek]

One example is traveling west on Interstate Highway 40 in Arizona. You can see the peaks of the mountains in Flagstaff and then the rest of them as you continue west.

[huh?]

Another big factor in how far one can see is the amount of contrast.
For example in the daytime there is a lot of contrast between earth and sky. Particularly at sun set or rise on the sun side you will see high contrast and on the opposite side you will see low contrast. In that case you can see land that is otherwise obscured by atmosphere.

The primary reason that the horizon is a sharp line is that it tends to be fairly close 4-10 miles whereas the horizon on the flat earth model tends to be thousands of miles away so that it would be obscured by the atmosphere even on the clearest day.

In the flat earth model a ship which is viewed in front and below the FE horizon will remain in front and below that horizon no matter what distance it is viewed from it will never appear to sit on the horizon and never appear behind the horizon

This SketchUp model shows a ship sized rectangle -100 ft long and 25 ft high spaced one mile apart

 

[geckothegeek]

Another big factor in how far one can see is the amount of contrast.
For example in the daytime there is a lot of contrast between earth and sky. Particularly at sun set or rise on the sun side you will see high contrast and on the opposite side you will see low contrast. In that case you can see land that is otherwise obscured by atmosphere.

The primary reason that the horizon is a sharp line is that it tends to be fairly close 4-10 miles whereas the horizon on the flat earth model tends to be thousands of miles away so that it would be obscured by the atmosphere even on the clearest day.

In the flat earth model a ship which is viewed in front and below the FE horizon will remain in front and below that horizon no matter what distance it is viewed from it will never appear to sit on the horizon and never appear behind the horizon

This SketchUp model shows a ship sized rectangle -100 ft long and 25 ft high spaced one mile apart

 

Another thing is the distance to the horizon. On a flat earth it wouldn't make any difference how high you were as to how far the horizon would appear to be. But for some reason they put crow's nests and radar antennas on the highest points on ships in the round earth idea that the higher the observer is makes the horizon appear farther away from the observer.

Edited. 15 September 2015. Let's say that one of the ancient peoples lived in a village that was only a few miles distant from the next village  and just over or beyond the horizon. If the earth was flat why couldn't he see the next village and beyond ? Wouldn't he have recognized that as he walked toward that village only a few miles he could see that village ? Did those ancient peoples believe that the horizon was the little circle of where they lived and the horizon was the edge of the earth ? It would seem that the view from where they were walking changed as they went in different directions would cause them to wonder if the earth was really flat ? Of course it all looks so very simple today that we don't give it a thought. But maybe it didn't look so simple to them that they never gave it a thought ?

[GiantsO]

Under the Microscope: Deceived Much?

Let’s take a closer look at things.  Let’s not worry about math equations and keep the science and math to an absolute minimum.  Let’s just look at facts and examples and extrapolate to form a basis for logical conclusions.  Let's get some perspective on things.

First, let’s quickly address the Mountain of Water.  This was already debunked because the information was incredibly faulty and completely devoid of reliable facts.  Regardless of math, too many other variables were entirely overlooked or ignored in the shoddy research.  Failures became fatal flaws due to lack of thorough understanding.  I shouldn’t need to address it again here.  The Mountain of Water fallacy doesn't apply to anything here because it fails to address ocean topography, geology, geography, and any other ology and ography that deserves consideration (and other factors figure in as well if we want to get real scientific).  Using numbers to create illusions has no place here.

Now, not to argue round earth or disprove flat earth, lets get into the subject of gathering useful information, checking (and double/triple-checking) our facts, and doing all our homework.  This is not about what we're looking at with the naked eye, but rather about using photographic evidence and recognizing what we're seeing when we look at photos.  It's about processing and interpreting the information correctly and not just trusting our eyes (illusions exist because our own eyes fool us all the time) and our reasoning (our brains also fool us and are in need of constant recalibration to work correctly, and are often biased by emotions).  This is about thinking holistically and seeing the big picture and not compartmentalizing information and guessing at the big picture.

Photo #1

http://www.mlewallpapers.com/image/16x9-Widescreen-1/view/St-Lucia-Horizon-I-321.jpg

Let’s examine photo #1 using facts and observations to draw reasonable conclusions, such as we can.  Again, this doesn’t prove or disprove a round or flat earth.  It serves to illustrate how we can’t trust our own judgments, observations and conclusions simply by looking at a picture and making declarative statements, especially if we don’t understand the distances we’re usually looking over.  Furthermore, if we’re not asking the correct questions, doing correct research and gathering reliable facts, we’re unable to back our claims under close scrutiny, which undermines our credibility . . . especially when we try to speak with authority.

So in Photo #1, what are we looking at?  Well, apparently we’re looking at the Caribbean island of Saint Lucia.  Certainly, that’s a piece of information.  But we need context.  We need more information.  We need to ask more questions.

Where are we?  Are we on land?  If so, are we on a beach, hill, cliff, building?  Are we laying down, sitting, or standing?  Are we on the water?  If so, are we in a sea kayak, aboard a leisure boat, yacht, barge, cruise ship, ocean freighter, military vessel?  Are we over the water?  If so, are we in a helicopter or plane?  So, over what distance are we actually looking?  Are we approaching the island from the east or west?  What exactly are we looking at? 

We know we’re looking at the island of Saint Lucia, but we’re still lacking crucial information to complete our picture.  Too many details are missing.  We have to establish a more well-defined point A and point B. 

How Far Are We Looking?

When we look at photos, what kinds of distances are we usually looking over or across?  Logically, that varies, but we can ascertain that those distances are not as great as we frequently feel impelled to assume.  By gathering some basic facts, we can get a picture at the range of distances we're dealing with in many of these photos over open water.  To begin with—and to tie in with my other posts in order to develop a growing theme about our perceptions—let’s return to the Pontchartrain Causeway.

Facts about Lake Pontchartrain and Causeway Bridge:
• Lake Pontchartrain is roughly oval in shape; about 40 miles east-west, and 24 miles north-south.
• Lake Pontchartrain is about 630 square miles, with average depth of 12 to 14 feet.
• The Causeway Bridge is only 24 miles long (rounding up) over open water.
• The bascule drawbridge is located at the 16 mile marker.
• While crossing the Causeway Bridge, the driver can lose sight of land in every direction.
• The Pontchartrain Causeway features seven crossovers that function as pullover areas for automobile emergencies.

When on the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Bridge, you are looking out over a portion of 630 square miles, but linearly you are only looking across a portion of 24 miles across the bridge and lake moving forward, and seeing a portion of 40 miles to your sides.  Why a portion?  Because you are on the bridge and on the lake.  Considering the water surface area around you, you are only looking forward or backward, to left or right, and seeing—not over 24 miles or 40 miles of water—but the portion of that distance in front of you, behind you, or to your left or right.  You're not looking as far as you think you're looking, although you might feel like you're looking out over infinity.  The surface area you're looking out over is not remarkably far, all things considered especially when dealing with water. 

So looking out over the bridge and across the water at some point on the bridge (or at bridge level), we're only looking out over some portion of 24 miles.  We can conclude with reasonable confidence that this photo was likely taken from one of the seven crossovers and is thus not the complete 24 mile length of bridge, but just portion of 24 miles of bridge heading toward land.  We don't see the bascule drawbridge rising in front of us, and we're not on the incline leading from the bridge.  We're on a portion of level bridge.  We're looking out over somewhere less than between 8 and 16 miles.   



How about less than 24 miles from the air?  Here we're apparently looking at the 24 mile long Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Bridge from the air.  We can see the bascule drawbridge, which is 16 miles from one shoreline, and 8 miles from the opposite shoreline (16+8=24 or 24=16-8).  The nearby shoreline is not in the picture, and we don't see the bridge actually connecting to the opposite shoreline in the distance.  This is what a photo looking out over approximately 24 miles of open water from the air is like (not even from standing on the beach or the deck of a boat).  Looks incredibly far, doesn't it?  And notice the motorboat.  Their perspective over the water will likely be a little below that of someone on the bridge itself (see above photo for reference). 



Here's our Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Bridge from a higher altitude (looks like we can see some shoreline now).  Looking in one direction, we're not even covering the full 40 miles east-west or 24 miles north-south.  (In an interesting sidenote, it's funny how nothing out the airplane window—wing, bridge, land—is curved; must be that in airplane windows the glass is designed to have horizon bias, because the clouds are never curved either, just like the lenses for many cameras.)



Using a ruler, the bridge in the following picture is exactly one inch.  With that information alone, you can ascertain that you're looking at about 60 miles (I guestimated and didn't go for exact precision) along the line the bridge follows in this picture.  This photo would likely be from a drone or a (non-existent) satellite looking more or less straight down.  Are we beginning to get the picture of the distances we're actually seeing in photos?   



Ahh, we're putting things in proper perspective and calibrating our perception.  All we need are simple comparisons and observations; no complex math or science here!  These facts are simple statistics that help us to calibrate our perception to generally understand what we’re seeing when we look at various photos online, whether they’re taken from ground level or air, or from various points on the bridge itself.  These give us . . . the big picture.

Now, how about Saint Lucia?

Saint Lucia facts:
• Sovereign island country in eastern Caribbean Sea on the boundary with the Atlantic Ocean.
• Island is approximately 24.2 miles in length by 9 miles in width.
• Covers a land area of 238.23 square miles.
• Volcanic island.
• More mountainous than most Caribbean islands.
• Highest mountain is Mount Gimie at 3,116 feet (frequently rounded to 3,120 ft.)
• Two other mountains, the Pitons, form the island’s most famous landmark.  The Gros Piton is 2,619 feet high, while Petit Piton is 2,461 feet high. 
• Bordered by Dominica to the north, St. Vincent and the Grenadines to the south; Barbados lies just southeast. 
• The distance from Barbados to Saint Lucia is approximately 108 miles.

Let's calibrate our perspective at this point.  Here's a beautiful photo of Saint Lucia.  In the foreground are the Pitons (Gros and Petit).  That's the taller Mt. Gimie in the background.  See how far we're looking into the distance in this aerial photo?  This photo doesn't even encompass the complete 24.2 mile length or 9 mile width, although it feels like we're looking out over vast distances. 



Now, returning to Photo #1, we're pretty much seeing the 24.2 miles of the island of Saint Lucia (not counting for curve of the island or low points that might not be apparently visible in the photo), and we're seeing a considerably smaller portion of another island.  Which island is it?

Saint Vincent and Grenadine Islands facts:
• The island of Saint Vincent is about 16 miles long and 9.3 miles in width.
• This main island is about 133 square miles.
• From the most northern to the most southern points, the Grenadine islands belonging to Saint Vincent span about 37.5 miles, with a combined area of about 17 square miles.
• The island of Saint Vincent is volcanic and includes very little level ground.
• Saint Vincent’s highest peak is La Soufrière volcano at approximately 4,049 feet.

Dominica facts:
• Approximately 29.2 miles long and 18 miles wide.
• About 290 square miles.
• Highest point is Morne Diablotins at 4,747 feet.

Well, it must be one of the two.  We might be looking at a good 50 to 60 miles of horizon across the length of this photo.  Now, how far out are we looking?  How far out is the trickier one, because that's more linear outwards (not across), and we've already proven that we're not seeing as far as we often believe. 

To gain some perspective, let's look at another photo in this region to get some relative idea of distances to help us calibrate our perception and perspective.  I've chosen the tiny resort island of Petit Saint Vincent, which you can rent if you're filthy rich.  The nearer island on the center left in the photo looks like Carriacou, and the farthest island pictured—center right—in the photo appears to be Grenada.  My research tells me I'm roughly looking southward over Petit Saint Vincent. 

Now let's get together some facts, starting with Carriacou:
• 7 miles long and 3 miles wide
• Highest elevation is 956 feet at High North Peak
• The distance from Petit Saint Vincent island to Carriacou island is 5.9 miles

And for Grenada:
• 21 miles length and 12 miles width
• Mount St. Catherine is it's highest elevation at 2,760 feet
• The distance from Petit Saint Vincent to Grenada is 56.7 miles 



Now, considering all of our accumulated information and facts, we can look back at Photo #1 and begin to get an idea of the distances we're actually looking over.  We can also return to the paragraph of questions about our point A.

What we can rule out:
• It’s highly unlikely that we’re on land.  Looking at reliable photos and judging distances, we find we’re often looking over less surface area of the earth in a linear fashion than we think we are, and Barbados is 108 miles away.  Take it off the table.
• Are we in the air?  Judging from the angle we’re looking out over the water, it’s highly improbable we’re in an airplane or helicopter.  Even so, we've considered distances over water from the air and discovered we're not looking as far as we often feel like we are.  This is unlikely an aerial photo
• Considering how far out to sea from Saint Lucia the photo is taken from, it’s not likely being taken from a sea kayak, which would be much, much closer to the surface of the water.

What can we conclude with reasonable confidence:
• We’re most likely on the water.
• The photo is probably being taken from the deck of a boat somewhere between the size of a leisure boat and a military vessel; anything in between.  A cruise ship seems most likely, but we can’t state that definitively (we don’t have enough information).
• We’re likely seeing the greater portion of Saint Lucia’s 24 mile length.
• We’re seeing a considerably small portion of another island; either Dominica or Saint Vincent.

Also notice that we're seeing a sail boat and possibly a motorboat.  These leisure boats tell us we're probably not too incredibly far off the coast of Saint Vincent. 

If you do thorough research, gather a body valid information and facts, make healthy comparisons, you can calibrate (or re-calibrate) your perception and perspective to get a more accurate overview and make a more accurate assessment of what you're considering.  Accuracy is important.

This is just considering Photo #1, although it gets easier from here because I've laid the groundwork.  With careful planning, I've built a strong foundation, starting with the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge and related bridges in China and America, the topography and geography of lakes and salt flats, the distances we're considering regarding looking over and across open water in photos (with bridges, shores, and islands; lakes and ocean).  And the over-riding theme I'm developing is about correcting our incompetencies by calibrating our perceptions and perspective with readily available facts.       

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Thanks Giants Orbiting, for that remarkably long winded journey to a non conclusion.

Whether or not you believe the Earth to be round or flat, the things Orbisect-64 say about perspective are true. The horizon on the open sea is not the edge of the earth, over the bend. It is merely what your eyes can resolve according to the laws of perspective.

The photos of the horizon becoming hazy as you increase altitude are, as far as I'm concerned, a very strong argument supporting what he had to say.

[GiantsO]

The conclusions are:
• the data and facts used to create the flat earth conclusions are faulty, even fatally flawed. 
• that distances aren't as great as flat earthers prone to believe, whether it's haze, edge of light, or any other pseudo-scientific assumption is used to explain what we're seeing in photos. 
• that there are a lot of major problems with perception, perspective, scale, accuracy, interpretations, observations, objectivity; it takes a lot of data to adjust. 
• that most all of the pseudo-science and pseudo-intellectual ideas are overly simplistic and vastly dumbed down; lots of data and facts give greater detail (painting with oils or acrylics vs coloring with crayons). 
• that cognitive dissonance and confirmation biases create distortions that accumulate and lead to huge errors. 
• the people who advocate flat earth overlook, ignore, or dismiss important information at the simple data/fact level, completely discrediting their attempts at more complex things like science and math. 

Additionally:
• There's a lot of wordplay/word games, philosophy, and mental måsturbåtiøn going on.  That's just fine, but I've been pulled into this, so I'm addressing it. 
• Most of the "tests" and "experiments" proposed here are bogus and laughable, even simpler than pseudo-science level; more juvenile.  Hence the need to expose faults rather than post counterpoint (see "Is so! Is not!) 
• I see numerous attempts to perform non-objective (biased) tests where distinct handicaps are set up to lead people to desired conclusions, arguments that are dismissive of important details designed to lead people to conclusions rather than letting them draw their own (e.g., videos presenting the flat earth argument frequently use strategic pauses where the narrator inserts sarcasm and insults combined with unfounded declarative statements and annotated with false premises to influence the viewer's judgments; essentially propaganda). 

What I'm doing in my posts is looking for enough simple data to give context so that more accurate consideration can be given rather than just looking at a photo and drawing conclusions (all willy nilly like) without really fully understanding what I'm looking at.  Each of my posts successfully does that, hence their length (large body of evidence to calibrate and correct).  Rather than going for the shallow "What am I looking at and how do I explain it and use it to fit my preconceptions?" approach, I'm going for the "Using readily available information, what can I learn about the subject (e.g. salt flats, Salar de Uyuni, Lake Pontchartrain, bridges over open water in China, etc.) so that I can better understand what I'm seeing?" approach.  It makes a massive difference in interpretation than just making remarks on a picture or using a simple computer graphic of perspective and attempting to conclusively address a much larger and more complex subject with broad, sweeping statements.             

Furthermore, you can't trust "merely what your eyes can resolve."  That works for literalists, but reality is a bit more complex.  Our eyes are subject to all sorts of tricks, and our brain is constantly working to interpret what those receptors are feeding it.  When we look at a rainbow from the surface of the earth we see an arc, but reliable evidence shows that, viewed from an elevation, the rainbow can also be full or partial circle, depending on conditions.  Everyone loves to YouTube, so go there and watch various videos on optical illusions and notice just how easy it is to trick our eyes and our brain.   You can't trust your eyes alone because they don't always tell you the truth.  Hence the need for constant re-calibration and self-correction (my secondary theme). 

An important thing to address here as well at this point (although you're not guilty of it in your response, Orbisect-64 does this exhaustively):
• Typing something in capital letters does not automatically constitute a truth or a fact.  Caps are not trump cards in a debate.  Please, don’t abuse the CAPS LOCK key. 
• Yelling WRONG (even 3 times) or saying period at the end of a sentence does not end an argument, nor does it make the argument irrefutable.  It’s a game of words that kids play at the breakfast table and in the schoolyard.
• Calling people shills, trolls, or idiots just because they don't agree with you makes you look like the little boy who cried wolf, and betrays a singular narrow-mindedness that's not open to reason or serious logic.  The same goes for other derogatory names and terms prevalent in the FE/RE arena.  Also, it's a thought-blocking strategy purposed to discredit a person's validity rather than using facts, data, and information.
• The flat/round earth debate is little more than an elaborate game of “Is so! Is not! Is so!!  Is not!!  Is SO!!!  Is NOT!!!”  (I will question the validity of research and information rather than shape; the rest is faith-based.)
 
In conclusion, my thesis is that viewing things holistically with a reliable body of evidence, facts, and data reveals huge flaws in flat earth science, philosophy, and intellect, which is based on incomplete information.  That undermines everything else.  The flat earth meme is something that, if I saw it YouTube, I'd give a little chuckle and move on, probably not even giving it a glance out of morbid curiosity.  It's not very interesting actually (maybe slightly amusing), and I don't really care what any of you believe.  I'm not trying to reason or debate with any of you: have a blast with your flat earth faith.  I'm targeting Orbisect-64 because he unknowingly directed me here over coffee recently by referencing his work with the bridge in China and the mathematical conclusions of "his engineer" (man, could I ever address that with interesting behind-the-scenes information).  He has fallen prey to this fallacy and has asserted it very intensely with me so here I am, addressing it.  I questioned his research, which will affect his conclusions, and now I'm demonstrating that, hoping that he'll re-calibrate and self-correct, then eventually realize this is nonsense and move on.  Otherwise, this isn't really worth my time and I wouldn't be here.

You can't trust "merely what your eyes can resolve" (you need more information and understanding).



Perspective isn't a hard and fast rule.



"Oh! what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." —Sir Walter Scott

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

The conclusions are:
• drivel drivel, more drivel drenched in self-importance

Can we get a tl;dr version of that?

Based on what I glossed over:

Haze is pseudoscience.

The well studied and understood subject of perspective has problems for whatever reason.

Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias only affect flat earthers apparently (eventhough its ludicrous to infer that someone who has only known about flat earth for a few months has a higher level of bias than someone who was taught about spherical earth since kindergarten).

Additionally: blah blah blah, statements with nothing to back them up.

Did I miss anything worth mentioning? I doubt it.

[GiantsO]

You start right off by misquoting me with sarcasm, which is a thought-blocking technique meant to ridicule and discredit me and halt the progress of conversation by kicking it to the curb without actually presenting a clear and logical counterpoint argument.  It's a very common diversion tactic.  Well-played, if being unimaginative counts.  You haven't actually engaged me in any intelligent discourse, just some criticism, sarcasm, and insults.  That's okay, I have a thick skin. 

Self-importance?  I would disagree.  I'm actually advocating the necessity that every one of us should continuously self-examine and re-calibrate our knowledge on an ongoing basis rather than being dogmatic about our ideas and concepts.  There has been nothing but a presentation of facts to expose faulty research and misinterpretations of the subject in question, along with honest critique of the trends I observe as a result.  I haven't stooped to name-calling and insulting.  I've kept my critique dignified but straight-forward.  If my posts have been lengthy, it's because there are a lot of facts to consider (and still I haven't considered them all).   

You summed it up perfectly: you gloss over information. 

You misquote me and take things out of context in an attempt to discredit your perceived opponent ("Haze is pseudoscience."  Correction: FE application of haze is pseudo-science.)  Don't misrepresent me: I know what I said.  Poor debating technique.  Play dirty pool often?  Besides, haze, fog, and smoke all affect how far you see on both a flat or round earth model, failing to prove either.  It's irrelevant.  You also can't see very far if your head's in the clouds or buried in the dirt.   

Ditto the subject of perspective: misapplication with bias.  Overly simplified idea applied to a much more complex problem.  I should tackle that one next, but the response would be epic compared to my other posts, and involves graphics I'd probably have to create myself.  Also, math starts becoming involved, as well as a more decisive argument for a spherical earth to counter the very linear 2D approach presented.  Discussing 3D concepts might just be too much for a FE forum.  I have better things to do with my time than enter the debate at that level.

I've been establishing the proof of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias by exposing the ill-gotten conclusions being drawn without sufficiently doing proper research or considering all the facts and data.  I shouldn't have to explain that further (but it takes a lot of words, i.e. long posts).

The statements made are backed up by the subjects I've addressed in this forum thus far.  My thesis, body of evidence about the research done by Orbisect-64, and the resulting conclusions are completely consistent and harmonious.  I've addressed topics carefully and deliberately, even tying them together wherever possible.  I'm not jumping all over the map, but you probably glossed over all that.

Of course you've missed something; you gloss over information that you don't agree with rather than carefully considering it.  I imagine that carries over into all your observations, and the result is it skews your comprehension. 

All you've succeeded doing in two posts is to make a poor attempt at insulting me without resorting to any intelligent discourse.  That in itself is an insult.  This has just been a pointless, circular "Is so! Is not!  Doodyhead!" exercise, so I'm done.  I'm not interested in your opinions anyway, so I'll agree to disagree and move on.  You believe the earth is flat.  Great; throw a party.  I don't know you.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

All I'm saying is that you can express yourself with a lot less verbiage and still be concise.

So far I see a lot of filler designed to look like a coherent, original thought.

Explain why perspective is flawed.

Explain why you think atmospheric conditions aren't a reasonable explanation for viewing distance.

Also tell me why you think cognitive dissonance only affects flat earthers and not round earthers.

Not trying to just be rude, but I think it's rude to assume someone has 30 minutes to carefully read a post that should be at least half as long and twice as easy to follow.

And to call me a flat earther is you're attempt at discrediting me, even though nowhere in my post did I even make an inclination of my stance.

[nametaken]

Thanks Giants Orbiting, for that remarkably long winded journey to a non conclusion.

Just posting to say this is as far as I've read in this topic, trying to catch up here but I got a lot of work to do.

Also, I see GO has changed his avatar so I am trying to keep track of his posts as his 1st three are great; there may be no conclusion, but his 'calibration' technique may prove invaluable to me later. That's all I got for now.

[rabinoz]

And to call me a flat earther is you're attempt at discrediting me, even though nowhere in my post did I even make an inclination of my stance.

I know you weren't talking to me, but you seem to "not a flat earther" and "not a globe supporter" (since all you arguments seem to be against the very idea of a rotating globe.)
So, what are we to think?

Are you an "earth model agnostic"? It can be a bit painful sitting in the centre of the road and being hit by the traffic from both directions.

[geckothegeek]

IMHO one of the greatest flat earth fallacies is the subject of the horizon.
Of course the greatest flat earth fallacy is simply "The earth is flat."

And also "of course" if you had never been to sea and observed the horizon , how far you could see to it.....etc......You might have some doubts that the flat earth  idea  of the horizon might be right.But anyone who has ever been to sea  can see where the flat earth idea of the horizon is flawed.

There is an excerpt from a Navy manual for lookouts showing how far you can see to the horizon dedepending on your height. It's on another thread.
The sailor in the crow's nest can see farther to the horizon than the sailor on the bridge and certainly much farther than the sailor in the liberty boat at sea level.)

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

There is an excerpt from a Navy manual for lookouts showing how far you can see to the horizon dedepending on your height. It's on another thread.

Please explain to me how that same effect wouldn't be observed on a flat earth? I'll wait.

[geckothegeek]

There is an excerpt from a Navy manual for lookouts showing how far you can see to the horizon dedepending on your height. It's on another thread.

Please explain to me how that same effect wouldn't be observed on a flat earth? I'll wait.

Quote- "Just look it up in the flat earth wiliki." See if it really makes any sense. If you don't understand  this maybe someone better than I can explain it to
 you.
Have  you ever tested what the horizon looks like and the distance you can see to it by your own personal observation ?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

You're letting the real geeks down gecko. I've seen nothing from you tip indicate you have any geek like qualities such as intelligence or thoroughness.

You look like what I'd call a regurgitator. You bring nothing to the table in terms of genuine insight or original thought.

Now to your reply: are you insinuating that I've never been on a hill, or on top of a tall building? Are you also insinuating I've never been to a beach nor ever been on a boat?

You can see further the higher up you go, until eventually your vision fails or the atmospheric conditions inhibit your viewing distance. This would be true on a flat or a round earth. Except on a round earth, if the horizon is the curvature itself, going up you shouldn't be able to see as far as you would on a flat earth. The horizon would technically be traveling exponentially away from you.

In a plane the horizon appears faded, and not the sharp line you guys are saying it is. Why is that the case?

[rabinoz]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You can see further the higher up you go, until eventually your vision fails or the atmospheric conditions inhibit your viewing distance. This would be true on a flat or a round earth. Except on a round earth, if the horizon is the curvature itself, going up you shouldn't be able to see as far as you would on a flat earth. The horizon would technically be traveling exponentially away from you.

In a plane the horizon appears faded, and not the sharp line you guys are saying it is. Why is that the case?

Yes, most of your first bit is essentially correct, but then you say " The horizon would technically be traveling exponentially away from you."
The distance to the horizon does increase with altitude, but certainly not "exponentially" as you claim. It increases as the square root of distance, much, much different.

^{An approximate expression is:}

Where h is in metres and d is in km.
You do take everything to extremes! Who said that the horizon is sharp from a plane at high altitude? Surely if someone says that the horizon is sharp looking out over the ocean on a clear day, it is a bit rich criticising them if it not sharp from a plane.

Now, as you know very well the horizon is blurred from a plane because we looking through so much atmosphere. The expression above would put the horizon at 357 km for a plane at 10,000 m altitude. Even in the clearest air this is about the "Rayleigh limit" and the horizon would always look a bluish haze.

For a "not Flat Earther" you certainly do a lot of arguing against the idea of a Globe!

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You can see further the higher up you go, until eventually your vision fails or the atmospheric conditions inhibit your viewing distance. This would be true on a flat or a round earth. Except on a round earth, if the horizon is the curvature itself, going up you shouldn't be able to see as far as you would on a flat earth. The horizon would technically be traveling exponentially away from you.

In a plane the horizon appears faded, and not the sharp line you guys are saying it is. Why is that the case?

Yes, most of your first bit is essentially correct, but then you say " The horizon would technically be traveling exponentially away from you."
The distance to the horizon does increase with altitude, but certainly not "exponentially" as you claim. It increases as the square root of distance, much, much different.

^{An approximate expression is:}

Where h is in metres and d is in km.
You do take everything to extremes! Who said that the horizon is sharp from a plane at high altitude? Surely if someone says that the horizon is sharp looking out over the ocean on a clear day, it is a bit rich criticising them if it not sharp from a plane.

Now, as you know very well the horizon is blurred from a plane because we looking through so much atmosphere. The expression above would put the horizon at 357 km for a plane at 10,000 m altitude. Even in the clearest air this is about the "Rayleigh limit" and the horizon would always look a bluish haze.

For a "not Flat Earther" you certainly do a lot of arguing against the idea of a Globe!

The Earth does technically "move away" from the observer exponentially... if it is round. The "curve" isn't linear, as in, a flat slope.

If you square the whole equation you provided you end up with something very similar to the 8" of curvature per distance squared formula you've undoubtedly seen used numerous times here.

On a flat earth, viewing distance is a lot simpler, using only a triangle and Pythagoras theorem you can calculate how far per height rather easily. This would be a good way to test both theories if some interested parties would like to partake in an experiment to test these variables.

And don't forget, the magical wild card we call refraction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Effect_of_atmospheric_refraction

What's more interesting to me is the section immediately following the one above.

Curvature of the horizon
   
This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This section does not cite any sources. (June 2013)
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (June 2013)
This section requires expansion with: examples and additional citations. (June 2013)

Seems even Wikipedia takes issue with facts being presented without sources, even one something as mundane as the curvature of the earth in relation to the horizon.

Then the vanishing point section directly beneath that has some interesting information. Indicating that the horizon is treated as any other plane, without curvature being a factor in regards to perspective whatsoever.