[AATW]

Your diagrams are comparing the arclength distance to the value of the midpoint curvature.

They're not comparing anything. You seem to be asserting that there is a big hill of water rising up in front of you.
Actually, you're looking slightly down (horizon dip) over the hill of water.
The line of sight is the red line (I did this for the boat/laser experiment)



But note that the curve is massively exaggerated in this diagram, you wouldn't be able to perceive it. It would block the view of anything beyond the curve but the amount blocked would depend on viewer height and distance of the object.
Bobby gave a more accurate "to scale" diagram above, you can see how slight the curve is in real life.

You need attractive gravity to explain the supposed curved line of the body of water.
How does it work?

Why do I need to understand how it works in order to observe that it exists? Every time I see something fall I observe it exists.
The Cavendish experiment demonstrates it is attraction between objects, not the earth pushing upwards.
Do I have to understand how magnetism works to notice that magnets attract (or repel)
All I need to do is observe that it occurs. I believe the latest model is to do with curved space-time, gravitons are theoretical, but the mechanism is irrelevant.

If you cannot explain this, you are going to have to admit you are relying on pure magic as an explanation.

Says the man who talks about "ether whirlpools" a lot...

[Humble B]

Even if one ascends to 45 meters in altitude (Cap Gris Nez cliffs), you still are going to have to deal with a 22.4 meter midpoint bulge, an ascending slope, and a descending slope.

That midpoint curvature is totally missing from the photographs taken in France, Grimsby, Gibraltar.

You still cling to your straw man as if losing your straw man would be losing your life.

[sandokhan]

The Cavendish experiment demonstrates it is attraction between objects, not the earth pushing upwards.

You must be dreaming: the Cavendish experiment was DEBUNKED and proven to be false by Dr. Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University) in one of the most famous experiments of the past few decades.

LAMOREAUX EXPERIMENT

Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University): proof of the existence of negative energy (zero point vacuum energy - that is, subquark strings/telluric currents/magnetic monopoles double torsion strings):



(starts at 7:50 - Dr. Lamoreaux explains the pushing gravity experiment)


Steve reasoned that if he created a narrow-enough region of empty space like the area between the two ships, then some of the shimmering zero-point energy would not fit inside it.
The energy of empty space outside the narrow region would be stronger and force it to shrink.
That force would be the signature of negative energy, and Steve set out to create it in his lab.
It was an idea that would consume him for more than a decade.


Inside this vacuum chamber are two small metal plates sitting less than the width of a human hair apart from one another.
To get them that close and not touch, the metal has to be perfectly flat, down almost to the atomic level.
The zero-point fluctuations of free space won't fit between those plates, as well, so when you bring these two plates together, there are fewer fluctuations between the plates than there are outside the plates.

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.

Or think of it another way.
The negative energy between the plates expands space around it.
Steve's years of meticulous labor have made him the first person on Earth to have measured a force produced by negative energy.


THE PLATES ARE PUSHED BY THE OUTSIDE PRESSURE OF THE TELLURIC WAVES: NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


EXPERIMENT PERFORMED IN VACUUM BY DR. STEVE LAMOREAUX.


The catastrophic, delirious, unimaginable, stupendous, monstruous errors committed by Cavendish:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751


NIPHER EXPERIMENT

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Do I have to understand how magnetism works to notice that magnets attract (or repel)

You better understand how ether magnetism works.

Here are the REAL TIME experiments and photographs performed by SPINTRONICS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332

I believe the latest model is to do with curved space-time, gravitons are theoretical, but the mechanism is irrelevant.

What?

You must be very uninformed.

TOTAL DEBUNKING OF TGR/TSR:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750


Your diagrams/pseudo-explanations amount to nothing at all.

You are still comparing a midpoint curvature figure with the total distance.

You need to learn basic geometry.

You are standing right on the Cap Gris Nez. Distance to the Dover cliffs, 34 km. Spherical earth hypothesis.

Unite the two beaches (Cap Gris Nez and Dover) by a straight line. The midpoint curvature/basic visual obstacle will measure 22.4 meters (greatest distance from the arclength to the straight line).

You compare the midpoint curvature to the visual target (which I always include, be it the Toronto skyline, or the rock of Gibraltar, or the Dover cliffs), AND NOT to the length of the distance.

Even if one ascends to 45 meters in altitude (Cap Gris Nez cliffs), you still are going to have to deal with a 22.4 meter midpoint bulge, an ascending slope, and a descending slope.

That midpoint curvature is totally missing from the photographs taken in France, Grimsby, Gibraltar.

You do not compare the 55,000 meters with the 59 meter curvature: you must compare the 59 meter curvature with the height of the SkyDome, 86 meters.

[Humble B]

You are standing right on the Cap Gris Nez. Distance to the Dover cliffs, 34 km. Spherical earth hypothesis.

The spherical earth theory includes a gravitational force curving water around the centre of the globe, and causes the observer to realize that "down" is always in the direction of the centre of the globe.

In this frame of reference from the point of view of the observer, the surface of the earth is always curving downwards, from the place he is standing towards his horizon and beyond.

If there would be an ascending slope of curvature between the observer and the horizon on a spherical earth, the horizon would be above eye level, which on a sphere is utter nonsense.

If you really believe that on a globe there would be ascending slopes of curvature, than you seriously confuse Globe earth theory with Concave earth theory.

[sandokhan]

The spherical earth theory includes a gravitational force curving water around the centre of the globe

How can it be a "theory" if you cannot as much as explain how two gravitons attract each other?

What you have is a mere hypothesis, being ripped into shreds by the Biefeld-Brown effect, experiments carried out in full vacuum: no such thing as attractive gravity.

The gravitational field consists of gravitons.

Please explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other.

I have provided both the theoretical proof of ether waves (Whittaker's 1903 and 1904 papers) and the experimental proofs (Galaev ether drift experiments) of their existence.

[Bobby Shafto]

Your diagrams/pseudo-explanations amount to nothing at all.

You are still comparing a midpoint curvature figure with the total distance.

You need to learn basic geometry.

You are standing right on the Cap Gris Nez. Distance to the Dover cliffs, 34 km. Spherical earth hypothesis.

Unite the two beaches (Cap Gris Nez and Dover) by a straight line. The midpoint curvature/basic visual obstacle will measure 22.4 meters (greatest distance from the arclength to the straight line).

Using your diagram from earlier, I've added (in red) what you believe is important: the chord AB from the French coast line to the English cliffs. Point F is the midpoint, and there is a distance between that and the midpoint of the arc between those same two points - labeled G.

That distance, commonly referred to as the "bulge" is, as you say, about 22m across an arc distance of 34,000m in the case of Cap Gris Nez to Dover Cliffs.
In the Beamer Conservation Area to Toronto scenario, it's about 45m across an arc distance of  over 52,000m.

The graphic above is great for explaining the geometry, but it's misleading in illustrating the reality of the height of the bulge in relation to the distance across the arc.

Work out the geometry and the difference between the arc distance and the chord distance is half a foot over Lake Ontario; less than that across the English Channel.



This is as close to a scale image as I can get of what that arc/chord looks like relative to the distance. That "bulge" barely registers. More importantly, that "bulge" doesn't present as a visual obstacle to anything. It's not an obstacle. Horizon is the obstacle. And the scenario of Grimbsy-Toronto, the horizon is at or beyond the target. In the scenario of France-Dover, the horizon is beyond the midpoint and it, not "bulge" is what's causing any visual obscuring (which is to little to resolve in the photo provided).

You compare the midpoint curvature to the visual target (which I always include, be it the Toronto skyline, or the rock of Gibraltar, or the Dover cliffs), AND NOT to the length of the distance.

Even if one ascends to 45 meters in altitude (Cap Gris Nez cliffs), you still are going to have to deal with a 22.4 meter midpoint bulge, an ascending slope, and a descending slope.

That midpoint curvature is totally missing from the photographs taken in France, Grimsby, Gibraltar.

You do not compare the 55,000 meters with the 59 meter curvature: you must compare the 59 meter curvature with the height of the SkyDome, 86 meters.

You NEVER have to "deal with" the midpoint bulge. It's immaterial. Your view cannot ever be obstructed by the bulge (except when the horizon happens to coincide with it). You are trying to see something that you can't see and that doesn't matter anyway.

Point C on the line tangent to arc AB is what matters. That's the visual obstruction. Not G.

[sandokhan]

In the Beamer Conservation Area to Toronto scenario, it's about 45m across an arc distance of  over 52,000m.

What?

It is 59 meters, not one meter less.

Work out the geometry and the difference between the arc distance and the chord distance is half a foot over Lake Ontario; less than that across the English Channel.

We are not comparing ANYTHING to either the arc distance or the chord distance.

We are comparing the midpoint curvature with the visual target.

That "bulge" barely registers. More importantly, that "bulge" doesn't present as a visual obstacle to anything. It's not an obstacle. Horizon is the obstacle.

We are NOT dealing with the horizon. Each photograph has a definite visual target. That is what you have to deal with.

It's immaterial.

What?

Then we are done here: you have admitted that the midpoint bulge does not exist, it is "immaterial".

[Bobby Shafto]

Also, as AllAroundtheWorld has pointed out, you and your objective are not leaning toward parallel with the midpoint. They are tilted away from each other by the degree of arc. So, if you are at point A but viewing from a height above A (point E), your level is perpendicular to the gravity vector, and a "dip" angle is formed between it and the line tangent at point H.



You're interpreting the scenario like the thick red lines added to the graphic originating from points A and B, expecting that "hill" of curvature to ascend and descend between the viewer and the objective. But it's not a "hill". It's a slope away from horizontal. The highpoint of the bulge matters not at all to the line of sight from E. The horizon at point C is what matters, and that can be before, at or after the midpoint bulge of G.

Horizon is what manifests curvature. Not "bulge." Proclaiming bulge height numbers that are tiny fractions of the distance across which they rise and descend is meaningless. You can't perceive it, and it doesn't obstruct visually. Horizon does.

[Humble B]

The spherical earth theory includes a gravitational force curving water around the centre of the globe

How can it be a "theory" if you cannot as much as explain how two gravitons attract each other?

What you have is a mere hypothesis, being ripped into shreds by the Biefeld-Brown effect, experiments carried out in full vacuum: no such thing as attractive gravity.

The gravitational field consists of gravitons.

Please explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other.

I have provided both the theoretical proof of ether waves (Whittaker's 1903 and 1904 papers) and the experimental proofs (Galaev ether drift experiments) of their existence.

This topic is about observing the Dover cliffs from the French coast, not about explaining gravity. You are now replacing your indefensible straw man with a red herring:

[Bobby Shafto]

In the Beamer Conservation Area to Toronto scenario, it's about 45m across an arc distance of  over 52,000m.

What?

It is 59 meters, not one meter less.

It doesn't matter, but you're right. Physically, it's 59m. If accounting for standard atmospheric refraction which has the visual effect of increasing the radius of the earth, IF you could actually perceive this "hill" of water, it would appear to be 45m and not 59m.

But, if you want to be pedantic about it, yes. You are right. It is physically 59m between chord and arc length on the globe earth. Not that it matters since you can't see it either way.

[Bobby Shafto]

In the Beamer Conservation Area to Toronto scenario, it's about 45m across an arc distance of  over 52,000m.

What?

It is 59 meters, not one meter less.

Work out the geometry and the difference between the arc distance and the chord distance is half a foot over Lake Ontario; less than that across the English Channel.

We are not comparing ANYTHING to either the arc distance or the chord distance.

We are comparing the midpoint curvature with the visual target.

We are not. You are, for some odd reason. There is no material reason to compare "midpoint curvature" to visual target. The 59m you avidly corrected me about is the height difference between chord and arc. It is tiny compared to their distances. You can't see it. It doesn't get in the visual way of the target. You're wrong to think it should be detectable as evidence of curvature.

[sandokhan]

not about explaining gravity.

Unless you can explain how two gravitons attract each other, you are believing a fairy tale.

Certainly you want the level of lake Ontario to be curved: if you cannot as much as explain how that takes place, it means the globe earth hypothesis is totally wrong.

Proclaiming bulge height numbers that are tiny fractions of the distance across which they rise and descend is meaningless.

Not me: YOU.

YOU have compared the midpoing curvature to the distance across which they rise, NOT ME.

I have done no such thing.

I am comparing the midpoint curvature to the visual target.

Join points A and B on the respective beaches: point C is the midpoint curvature.

That is what you have to deal with: even if you ascend to a point higher than C (let's say 45 meters in Cap Gris Nez), and you have a visual target, the ascending slope, the midpoint curvature (22.4 meters) and the desdending slope are still there on a globe earth.

It is just that they are totally missing in the photographs: the ship is not part of any slopes, just a perfectly straight surface of the English Channel.

If accounting for standard atmospheric refraction

What?

My photographs include no refraction effects, I always take care of this aspect.

You can't see it.

If "you can't see it" and if it's "immaterial" then the earth is flat.

[Bobby Shafto]

That "bulge" barely registers. More importantly, that "bulge" doesn't present as a visual obstacle to anything. It's not an obstacle. Horizon is the obstacle.

We are NOT dealing with the horizon. Each photograph has a definite visual target. That is what you have to deal with.

We are not dealing with horizon in the Toronto image. That's why you can see everything. Bulge isn't an obstacle. Horizon is. The horizon point in the Toronto picture is at the distance of the Toronto skyline. Thus, no surprise that you can see all of Toronto skyline.

In the Dover Cliffs scenario, you ARE dealing with horizon. But the image you provided does not offer the resolution necessary to affirm its impact on visuals. Whatever is hidden (or not hidden) of the cliffs (like the Samphire Hoe), it's due to horizon, and not bulge.

It's immaterial.

What?

Then we are done here: you have admitted that the midpoint bulge does not exist, it is "immaterial".

We are done here. Me saying it is immaterial doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I (we) provided you with sincere critique of your reasoning. You're playing games to preserve a long-held assertion that is flawed. You delve into more difficult, deep and arcane concepts than this, but this simply geometric difference between "bulge" and "horizon" eludes you and you insist that this "midpoint curvature" must be detectable as an obstruction. Sorry, but if you can't see how that is in error, then I have to wonder about the rest of your FAQ.

Frankly, I admire that you have a passionate and individualistic approach to the flat earth. You are critical of TFES FAQ and some of its "FET" statements. I like that. (Just as I appreciate JRowe's individual and unique Dual Earth Theory, even though I also disagree with it.) However, your salesmanship leaves a lot to be desired. Given your seeming grasp on more complex concepts, I didn't expect such resistance (and belligerence) to criticism of your analysis of photos and curvature.

If we're at loggerheads on this simple concept, good luck to you. I'm going to keep preaching how flat earthers get the globe wrong. You keep doing your thing.

[Pete Svarrior]

You are now replacing your indefensible straw man with a red herring

Hi Humble. While I'm sure your remarks on logical fallacies are nothing short of exquisite, they absolutely do not belong to this thread. If you want to talk about how much you hate sandokhan's logic, do so in AR.

I would also point out that you were the one to revive the discussion of gravitational forces - it's in poor form for you to then complain that your statements are being discussed.

[Bobby Shafto]

I'm going to keep preaching how flat earthers get the globe wrong.

Case in point:

If accounting for standard atmospheric refraction

What?

My photographs include no refraction effects, I always take care of this aspect.

If it's a photograph taken through an atmoSPHERE, there are refraction effects.

The effect of an atmoSPHERE isn't only distortions like mirage, or stooping, Fata Morgana, shimmering, chromatic prism artifacts or any number of other phenomena. In a perfectly stable atmosphere with a standard temperature/density lapse rate, light will still bend without creating distortion, altering the apparent vertical position of distant objects compared to a no-atmosphere sighting. It can't be helped. Only if there was absolutely no gradient, or the angle of incidence is steep enough, does atmospheric refraction have no (or little) effect.

"Globebusters" are always discarding atmospheric refraction. On a flat earth, with an atmoPLANE, you could do that (I suppose.) On a globe earth with a conforming atmoSPHERE, you can't. The lack of apparent distortion does not mean there is no effect due to atmospheric refraction.   

A month or so ago I started up a topic on atmospheric refraction, hoping to address this very common misconception. When looking across any expanse and trying to ascertain curve or flat based on what you can or can't see vs what one should or shouldn't be able to see if the earth surface is convex, you can't just toss out the effect of atmospheric refraction because you can't see any distortion.  Refraction will alter light paths and sight lines without distortion. 

[Humble B]

Join points A and B on the respective beaches: point C is the midpoint curvature.

That is what you have to deal with: even if you ascend to a point higher than C (let's say 45 meters in Cap Gris Nez), and you have a visual target, the ascending slope, the midpoint curvature (22.4 meters) and the desdending slope are still there on a globe earth.

That is what we deal with, but what you completely overlook is that on a globe that the line that joins points A and B on the respective beaches is not a horizontal line parallel to the observers eye level. Due to the curvature the other beach is always on a lower position (from the point of view of the observer) than the position of the observer, and therefore that line connecting those beaches is a line going down from the point of view of the observer. And because of that, on a globe the observer is always on a higher point than C, even if he/she is standing at sea level ->



That's why on a globe there is no such thing as an "ascending slope" between the observer and his horizon, only a descending slope.

It is just that they are totally missing in the photographs: the ship is not part of any slopes, just a perfectly straight surface of the English Channel.

There is a descending slope between you and the ship. The reason this slope is not visible with the naked eye or on a photograph is the result of perspective, as I pointed out earlier in tis thread:

Let's say the boat in your picture is somewhere in the middle between France and England, 10 miles away from the observer. then the drop of curvature will be 800 inch, or 67 feet. Over a distance of 10 miles 67 feet is still only 0.86 degrees of an arc. Now the problem is that with the naked eye it is hard to tell if a horizontal line 10 miles away is exactly on our eye level or just 0.86 degrees of an arc below eye level. Therefore with the naked eye we can not see the curvature of the globe as a descending slope, because perspective is hiding that slope for us. For our natural observation it is impossible to tell if we're watching a flat surface, or a surface that's curving down from our point of view with only 8 inch/miles².

To tell if a body of water is flat or curving down with 8 inch/miles² we need the help of precision instruments like theodolites........

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS:

If you want to talk about how much you hate sandokhan's logic....

I do not hate sandokhan's logic, in contrary, I love it because he is willing to put time and effort in substantiating his point of view. That's why he is my favorite flat earther.
What I do not love is people making all kinds of bold claims and wild accusations without any substantiation.

[AATW]

Unless you can explain how two gravitons attract each other, you are believing a fairy tale.

Again, I don't need to understand the mechanism behind how something works to observe that it does.
Did rainbows only start appearing in the sky after people understood how the light travelled through raindrops to cause the effect?
I'll ignore your word soup about the Cavendish Experiment, suffice to say that when I Googled "Cavendish Experiment Debunked" most of the results came, predictably, with flat earth websites. In the real world it is a well accepted and repeatable experiment.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Cavendish-experiment-a-pseudoscience-hoax

That is what you have to deal with: even if you ascend to a point higher than C (let's say 45 meters in Cap Gris Nez), and you have a visual target, the ascending slope, the midpoint curvature (22.4 meters) and the desending slope are still there on a globe earth.

Why do you keep on talking about ascending slopes? There is no ascending slope, just a descending one. The actual situation is this:



Your line of sight is the red line. The horizon is where you see the edge of the earth, H. Any object nearer to you than that, such as a boat at A, should be fully visible - waves or other obstacles permitting. Any object further away than that such as the cliffs at B would be partly occluded by the curve of the earth. How much depends on your viewer height and refraction would be a factor. It just isn't clear from the picture of the channel whether the cliffs are occluded or by how much.
You have been shown plenty of photos in this thread of distant shorelines clearly occluded.

If you believe my diagram to be flawed somehow then please produce your own explaining why.