#### markjo

• 2882
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #100 on: March 06, 2015, 05:52:44 PM »
It doesn't look like the Earth is flat. You can't see the bottom of the building.

According to Markjo, "The image is following the curvature of the earth."  So the image both follows the curvature of the earth AND cuts off at the bottom.  Round-Earth theory does all the things at all the times! DO NOT QUESTION IT!
No.  The refractive phenomena that I'm referring to only happens under certain conditions.  In fact, the 100 mile visibility claim from the CN Tower is admittedly under "ideal" conditions.  I'm just proposing that those "ideal" conditions could include some degree of atmospheric refraction that could extend the visibility beyond what might be normally expected on a round earth.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

#### model 29

• 381
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #101 on: March 15, 2015, 05:41:05 PM »
So are there any land-based objects that can actually be seen from the CN tower that are 100 miles away?

If not, then I guess Earth isn't flat.  I wonder if the writer of the 'facts' on that linked site had miles and kilometers confused, or simply wrote something they heard.

Using a couple different calculators, from a height of 1400 feet, an object 100 miles away would need to be 2000 feet tall to be seen on a round Earth over the horizon (based on sea-level elevations).

Here are some mountains viewed from about 100 miles away.  The peaks are 10,000 to 12,000ft. high.  With the camera 10-15ft high there should be about 6,000 feet hidden by the curvature.

#### Tau

• Zetetic Council Member
• 913
• Magistrum Fallaciae
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #102 on: March 15, 2015, 06:01:09 PM »
It doesn't look like the Earth is flat. You can't see the bottom of the building.

According to Markjo, "The image is following the curvature of the earth."  So the image both follows the curvature of the earth AND cuts off at the bottom.  Round-Earth theory does all the things at all the times! DO NOT QUESTION IT!
No.  The refractive phenomena that I'm referring to only happens under certain conditions.  In fact, the 100 mile visibility claim from the CN Tower is admittedly under "ideal" conditions.  I'm just proposing that those "ideal" conditions could include some degree of atmospheric refraction that could extend the visibility beyond what might be normally expected on a round earth.

And of course, those certain conditions are "when it's convenient"
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

#### markjo

• 2882
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #103 on: March 16, 2015, 01:39:59 AM »
It doesn't look like the Earth is flat. You can't see the bottom of the building.

According to Markjo, "The image is following the curvature of the earth."  So the image both follows the curvature of the earth AND cuts off at the bottom.  Round-Earth theory does all the things at all the times! DO NOT QUESTION IT!
No.  The refractive phenomena that I'm referring to only happens under certain conditions.  In fact, the 100 mile visibility claim from the CN Tower is admittedly under "ideal" conditions.  I'm just proposing that those "ideal" conditions could include some degree of atmospheric refraction that could extend the visibility beyond what might be normally expected on a round earth.

And of course, those certain conditions are "when it's convenient"
Convenient for whom?  I've been to the top of the CN Tower several times and the Toronto smog alone makes the conditions far from ideal.

Then again, refraction can be quite convenient for FE'ers when it makes a round earth appear flat.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2015, 01:26:22 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

#### Pongo

• Planar Moderator
• 586
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #104 on: March 16, 2015, 01:57:50 PM »
So are there any land-based objects that can actually be seen from the CN tower that are 100 miles away?

CN Tower's webpage says there are.

#### mister bickles

• 202
• while there's life, there's hope!
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #105 on: March 18, 2015, 03:18:07 AM »

Then again, refraction can be quite convenient for FE'ers when it makes a round earth appear flat.

i get the feeling that "refraction" is one of those convenient, throw-a-way "explanations" that TPTB trot out to try and dodge "the hard balls";

although "refraction" is a relatively simple concept/explanation, TPTB and their innumerable shills are quite content to spew out a barrage of meaningless scientific gobbly-de-gook to baffle and confuse the average punter...

most people haven't got the qualifications, the time or the inclination to penetrate these "smoke screens";

that's the way TPTB like it......keep every-one distracted with mindless entertainments and too busy working to earn a living to have any spare time to consider the fact that they're trapped in "the Matrix";

(the word "amuse", for instance,  actually means "don't think" or "anti-think"....'muse' being the Græco-Roman term for "thinking" or "pondering"/"reflecting on some-thing"....an "a" prefix is its opposite!)

as for refraction making a RE appear flat....well....where is the evidence for this?
where are the laboratory experiments (that have been double/triple checked and, then, peer-reviewed) to demonstrate this?

what are the refractive indices of air and water.....how do they compare and how can they distort an object's appearance....

most people know that water has a certain refractive index that can distort objects under-water......
does air have the same sort of effect?

quite frankly, i doubt it!

if any-thing, it would be only of a minimal, marginal kind that would make no appreciable difference

nisi Dominus frustra

#### model 29

• 381
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #106 on: March 19, 2015, 02:32:27 AM »
as for refraction making a RE appear flat....well....where is the evidence for this?
[/color][/font]
A scope and a 20foot change in elevation will provide you with a nice example if the conditions are favorable.

The right half was taken from between 15-20 feet above the water.  The left half from about 6 inches.  I aligned the two shots using one of the taller trees (the hillside is 12 miles away).  The hillside and buildings have 'sunk' below the horizon/waterline in the left half, but refraction allows them to be visible, yet with compressed appearance.  The angled features on the hillside are mudslides, also noticeable compressed by the refraction.  The bridge is 9 miles away.

#### mister bickles

• 202
• while there's life, there's hope!
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #107 on: March 19, 2015, 03:04:29 AM »
less than convincing.....
all it looks like to me is distortion because of the close distance to the photographed object/small elevation above the water surface;

as per my previous post, i would want hard, objective scientific proof via laboratory experiments that have been double/triple (blind) checked and peer-reviewed before i'm convinced that 'refraction' (in the air) is playing any significant part at all in these distant "flat horizons";

for now and AFAIMC, its perfectly compatible with an FE model
« Last Edit: March 19, 2015, 03:07:56 AM by mister bickles »
nisi Dominus frustra

#### model 29

• 381
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #108 on: March 19, 2015, 03:53:24 AM »
less than convincing.....
all it looks like to me is distortion because of the close distance to the photographed object/small elevation above the water surface;

Can you explain how that distortion would result in what is seen in the pictures if it's something other than refraction and distant objects disappearing below Earth's curvature?

#### mister bickles

• 202
• while there's life, there's hope!
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #109 on: March 19, 2015, 04:01:07 AM »
less than convincing.....
all it looks like to me is distortion because of the close distance to the photographed object/small elevation above the water surface;

Can you explain how that distortion would result in what is seen in the pictures if it's something other than refraction and distant objects disappearing below Earth's curvature?

there are too many instances of these flat, distant horizons in photographs and every-day experience for 'refraction' to play any significant part.....many of the pix i'v seen are in perfect weather conditions, too!.....
(actually...i failed to mention that....the weather conditions in the bridge 'photo look less than ideal, too....the humidity may have played a factor in the refraction);

again: this needs to be proven by controlled, laboratory experiments!
nisi Dominus frustra

#### markjo

• 2882
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #110 on: March 19, 2015, 04:27:12 AM »
most people know that water has a certain refractive index that can distort objects under-water......
does air have the same sort of effect?

quite frankly, i doubt it!

if any-thing, it would be only of a minimal, marginal kind that would make no appreciable difference
Have you never heard of a mirage?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

#### mister bickles

• 202
• while there's life, there's hope!
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #111 on: March 19, 2015, 08:23:38 AM »

Have you never heard of a mirage?

hardly the same thing;
"mirages" only happen under special atmospheric conditions and only in certain, peculiar geographical locations;
i'm struggling to believe that (air) "refraction" plays any significant part in these distant flat Earth horizon(s)/perspectives;
i can't entertain "mirages" for a micro-second!
sorry!
nisi Dominus frustra

#### Pongo

• Planar Moderator
• 586
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #112 on: March 19, 2015, 01:38:10 PM »

Then again, refraction can be quite convenient for FE'ers when it makes a round earth appear flat.

i get the feeling that "refraction" is one of those convenient, throw-a-way "explanations" that TPTB trot out to try and dodge "the hard balls";

although "refraction" is a relatively simple concept/explanation, TPTB and their innumerable shills are quite content to spew out a barrage of meaningless scientific gobbly-de-gook to baffle and confuse the average punter...

most people haven't got the qualifications, the time or the inclination to penetrate these "smoke screens";

that's the way TPTB like it......keep every-one distracted with mindless entertainments and too busy working to earn a living to have any spare time to consider the fact that they're trapped in "the Matrix";

(the word "amuse", for instance,  actually means "don't think" or "anti-think"....'muse' being the Græco-Roman term for "thinking" or "pondering"/"reflecting on some-thing"....an "a" prefix is its opposite!)

as for refraction making a RE appear flat....well....where is the evidence for this?
where are the laboratory experiments (that have been double/triple checked and, then, peer-reviewed) to demonstrate this?

what are the refractive indices of air and water.....how do they compare and how can they distort an object's appearance....

most people know that water has a certain refractive index that can distort objects under-water......
does air have the same sort of effect?

quite frankly, i doubt it!

if any-thing, it would be only of a minimal, marginal kind that would make no appreciable difference

What does TPTB stand for?

#### Rama Set

• 4904
• Round and round...
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #113 on: March 19, 2015, 02:32:16 PM »

Then again, refraction can be quite convenient for FE'ers when it makes a round earth appear flat.

i get the feeling that "refraction" is one of those convenient, throw-a-way "explanations" that TPTB trot out to try and dodge "the hard balls";

although "refraction" is a relatively simple concept/explanation, TPTB and their innumerable shills are quite content to spew out a barrage of meaningless scientific gobbly-de-gook to baffle and confuse the average punter...

most people haven't got the qualifications, the time or the inclination to penetrate these "smoke screens";

that's the way TPTB like it......keep every-one distracted with mindless entertainments and too busy working to earn a living to have any spare time to consider the fact that they're trapped in "the Matrix";

(the word "amuse", for instance,  actually means "don't think" or "anti-think"....'muse' being the Græco-Roman term for "thinking" or "pondering"/"reflecting on some-thing"....an "a" prefix is its opposite!)

as for refraction making a RE appear flat....well....where is the evidence for this?
where are the laboratory experiments (that have been double/triple checked and, then, peer-reviewed) to demonstrate this?

what are the refractive indices of air and water.....how do they compare and how can they distort an object's appearance....

most people know that water has a certain refractive index that can distort objects under-water......
does air have the same sort of effect?

quite frankly, i doubt it!

if any-thing, it would be only of a minimal, marginal kind that would make no appreciable difference

What does TPTB stand for?

The Powers That Be
Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot.

#### Pongo

• Planar Moderator
• 586
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #114 on: March 19, 2015, 02:33:13 PM »
Thanks!

#### Rama Set

• 4904
• Round and round...
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #115 on: March 19, 2015, 05:35:15 PM »
Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot.

#### markjo

• 2882
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #116 on: March 20, 2015, 01:49:44 AM »

Have you never heard of a mirage?

hardly the same thing;
Are you saying that mirages are not caused by refraction?

"mirages" only happen under special atmospheric conditions and only in certain, peculiar geographical locations;
i'm struggling to believe that (air) "refraction" plays any significant part in these distant flat Earth horizon(s)/perspectives;
i can't entertain "mirages" for a micro-second!
sorry!
Perhaps you should look into air temperature gradients near the surface of water before you dismiss refraction so completely.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

#### model 29

• 381
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #117 on: March 21, 2015, 05:44:23 PM »

Have you never heard of a mirage?

hardly the same thing;
"mirages" only happen under special atmospheric conditions and only in certain, peculiar geographical locations;
i'm struggling to believe that (air) "refraction" plays any significant part in these distant flat Earth horizon(s)/perspectives;
i can't entertain "mirages" for a micro-second!
sorry!

Mirages occur quite often.  I guess you've never been on a road in hot weather.  There are several types of mirages though.  The shoreline buildings in my pictures are actually a type of superior mirage from what I remember, due to a layer of warmer air on top of the cooler air against the water's surface.

there are too many instances of these flat, distant horizons in photographs and every-day experience for 'refraction' to play any significant part...
Yes, sometimes there is little or no refraction or mirage.  Then we get to see a better example of objects disappearing from the bottom up beyond the curvature.

Quote
..many of the pix i'v seen are in perfect weather conditions, too!.....
And the temperature of the water and different air layers were...?

Quote
(actually...i failed to mention that....the weather conditions in the bridge 'photo look less than ideal, too....the humidity may have played a factor in the refraction);
A little hazy.  Not too bad though.

Temperature has more to do with it, but are you now admitting that it does in fact happen?

Quote
again: this needs to be proven by controlled, laboratory experiments!  [/color][/font]
And what would be the best way to go about simulating both both flat and slightly curved surfaces, consisting of distances of several miles, in a laboratory setting?

#### mister bickles

• 202
• while there's life, there's hope!
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #118 on: March 24, 2015, 02:01:07 AM »

Quote
again: this needs to be proven by controlled, laboratory experiments!  [/color][/font]
And what would be the best way to go about simulating both both flat and slightly curved surfaces, consisting of distances of several miles, in a laboratory setting?

doesn't necessarily have to be in a laboratory....but, rather, just controlled, laboratory-type conditions.....there are plenty of reliable, scientific experiments done out-side of an actual laboratory.....

that said: there are, also, plenty of laboratory experiments that successfully simulate real-world conditions...."wave tanks" and "wind tunnels", for instance......

again:
i'm not convinced that 'refraction' plays any significant part in this "flat Earth horizon" phenomenon....there are simply too many instances of it in too many different geographical locations with different weather conditions....
nisi Dominus frustra

#### Wes

• 6
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #119 on: May 18, 2015, 06:46:29 PM »

Then again, refraction can be quite convenient for FE'ers when it makes a round earth appear flat.

i get the feeling that "refraction" is one of those convenient, throw-a-way "explanations" that TPTB trot out to try and dodge "the hard balls";

although "refraction" is a relatively simple concept/explanation, TPTB and their innumerable shills are quite content to spew out a barrage of meaningless scientific gobbly-de-gook to baffle and confuse the average punter...

most people haven't got the qualifications, the time or the inclination to penetrate these "smoke screens";

that's the way TPTB like it......keep every-one distracted with mindless entertainments and too busy working to earn a living to have any spare time to consider the fact that they're trapped in "the Matrix";

(the word "amuse", for instance,  actually means "don't think" or "anti-think"....'muse' being the Græco-Roman term for "thinking" or "pondering"/"reflecting on some-thing"....an "a" prefix is its opposite!)

as for refraction making a RE appear flat....well....where is the evidence for this?
where are the laboratory experiments (that have been double/triple checked and, then, peer-reviewed) to demonstrate this?

what are the refractive indices of air and water.....how do they compare and how can they distort an object's appearance....

most people know that water has a certain refractive index that can distort objects under-water......
does air have the same sort of effect?

quite frankly, i doubt it!

if any-thing, it would be only of a minimal, marginal kind that would make no appreciable difference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

In fact, not only does light refraction occur in laboratory settings, it is used by radio communications teams, from military applications, to commercial, to send high frequency radio signals greater distances than line of sight. The use of atmospheric refraction allows the signals to be sent at high angles as high as into the ionosphere, allowing the signal to refract back to the surface of the Earth beyond the horizon.

http://fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/U3.htm

Light refraction is a very real phenomenon. So to determine the distance one can see from a horizon, one necessarily must use control, as you suggest right? Wouldn't that mean controlling the test to eliminate for any possible variables that could interfere with accurately measuring the distances seen, such as the refraction of light, or at least factoring in a margin of error due to it?

*****************

Also, as Mr. Bickles raises the point of repeated controlled testing and peer-review, wouldn't such mathematical models serving as proof have to match replicable and observable tests?

Pongo, can you please explain if your model accounts for why we cannot see the lower portion of mountains in the photos, or the bottom sections of towers, if the Earth were flat? Wouldn't a linear line of sight produce the entire image that we are looking at? Also, if your model is to be used to demonstrate that a spherical Earth were not possible, then wouldn't the sight seen from the top of the CN tower also have to be visible from the base of the tower? Or are you suggesting that atmospheric conditions prevent us from seeing visible light beyond a set distance from the surface? If so, then why doesn't this match observation? Light waves have varying frequencies, and atmospheric distortion would fade out the shorter wavelengths first. Thus, if this were to be what caused our vision to perceive a horizon, then objects should appear more red the further out they are, just as the Sun does due to the angle as it sets. Another method of falsifying this claim could be tested with radiowaves, as they can travel further than visible light. If we were to set up radio signals, and monitor them, would the distance of line of sight be further for them?