1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence for round earth: position of sunrise/sunset on Equinox Day

« on: May 17, 2016, 07:08:04 PM »

Considering the Equinox Day path of the sun over a flat earth, which we are told will be a flat circle directly above the equator.  In the FE model the sun never actually goes below the horizon, only appearing to do so because of distance and perspective, in much the same way that birds and airplanes appear to drop toward the horizon as they fly away from us.  (You have no doubt guessed or remembered that I disagree with that assessment, but that isn’t my point today.)  Suppose we accept the premise for the moment, and consider specifically the position of sunrise on Equinox Day. 

It is common knowledge, which you can directly observe for yourself on Sept 22, that the sun rises exactly due east on Equinox Day, for everyone on earth.  Let’s choose a spot on the equator from which to conduct a thought experiment: I’ve chosen Pedernales, Ecuador as an example, located on the equator at 80° West.  At sunrise in Pedernales, it is high noon 90° east of there, at 10° East.  That puts the sun at a spot over the African town of Oyan, in Gabon.  Oyan is due east of Pedernales from a circumpolar, magnetic compass, navigational view of things in the round earth view.  But we’re not talking about a round earth now; we’re talking about a flat earth, above which the sun is a quarter way around a curved path above the equator.  This puts the line-of-sight to Oyan (and therefore, to any spot above it) at quite a few degrees to the left of due east.   From the equator, the sun above a flat earth is not exactly due east on Equinox Day, nor indeed on any day.  In fact, drawing lines due east from the meridian at 80° West, one finds that none of those lines point at Oyan, meaning there isn’t a single spot on earth that will see the sun rising directly due east until you get far enough north for “east” to become meaningless.

In order for the flat earth explanations for sunrise and sunset to match the real world observations, a mechanism must be proposed to explain the apparent sideways shift in the sun's observed position as it gets further away from the observer.  On Equinox Day, the sun should be to the left of due east at sunrise; it appears to be exactly due east.  The sun should be to the right of due west at sunset; it appears to be exactly due west.

Related to your point, here's a link to a video which shows how anybody can test for the shape of the earth by observing the sun's motion.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shadows on clouds

« on: April 27, 2016, 11:30:10 PM »

Shadows on the clouds are the waters that falling down from heavens. The places that have heavy water seems as shadows.

Water doesn't make shadows. Light makes shadows. How does direct sunlight cast shadows on the underside of clouds? It's impossible on a flat earth.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shadows on clouds

« on: April 25, 2016, 12:53:40 AM »

It's an absolute debunk of the flat earth. They have no reasonable explanation.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 16, 2016, 09:50:34 PM »

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations.  Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun:

If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.

Rowbotham states, "The foregoing remarks and illustrations are, of course, not necessary to the mathematician; but may be useful to the general reader, showing him that plane trigonometry, carried out on the earth's plane or horizontal surface, permits of operations which are simple and perfect in principle, and in practice fully reliable and satisfactory."

Why do you think Rowbotham would be endorsing "that Ancient Greek nonsense math where things are continuous and divide or stretch into infinities?" Was he not "assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world."?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 15, 2016, 05:52:30 AM »

You see, you're assuming that greek trigonometry is valid. You think that it works. But on a flat earth, it doesn't. Geometry is false on the flat earth.

Why then did Rowbotham use the same technique?

That's a good question. I assume it's because geometry is valid when it supports the flat earth, but when it doesn't, then it's conveniently rendered "unverified".

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 15, 2016, 04:41:18 AM »

The Wiki gives the sun height as the same as the distance from the equator to latitude 45° North at "approximately 3,000 miles" in

Sun's Distance - Zetetic Cosmogony
Thomas Winship, author of Zetetic Cosmogony, provides a calculation demonstrating that the sun can be computed to be relatively close to the earth's surface if one assumes that the earth is flat --

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

This is illustrated in this diagram from Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931:

Voliva's Flat Earth Sun Distance.

This is also shown in the Wiki under Distance to the Sun under the section Sun's Distance - Modern Mechanics.

But this calculates the height from only ONE location, Latitude 45°. In would seem that we would get a more accurate result by taking measurements from a number of different latitudes and averaging the result.

In Finding your Latitude and Longitude the Wiki says:

Latitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.

So this quote from the Wiki tells how far we would be from the equator and what the sun's angle would be at any latitude.

This enables us calculate the sun's height from
h = d x tan(Θ), where "d" is the distance from the equator, d = 69.5 x Θ,
and the sun's elevation Θ = (90° - Latitude),  as illustrated in:

The sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:

Latitude	Sun Elevation, Θ	Distance from Equator, d	Sun Height, h
7.2° N	82.8°	500 miles	3,961 miles
15° N	75°	1,043 miles	3,891 miles
45° N	45°	3,128 miles	3,128 miles
75° N	15°	5,213 miles	1,397 miles
85° N	5°	5,908 miles	517 miles

Here we see that at a latitude of 45° N (3,128 miles from the equator) the sun's height comes out to be 3,128 miles, more or less as expected.
But, at all other latitudes we get quite different results ranging from 3,961 miles at 7.2° N from the equator to only 517 miles at 85° N.

All of the figures used have come from the Wiki, and the calculation is based on the method from the Wiki.

So can someone explain why these calculations (using the method from the Wiki) give such different figures for the sun's height?

I know the same point has been raise numerous times, but has never been given a reasonable answer.

The only answer I got on this forum on a similar question was:

Why are you trying to use unverified ancient geometry/trigonometry as a proof of anything?

The Ancient Greeks did not verify that circles actually exist, and they did not verify that perspective lines actually stretch into infinity as they theorized.

You see, you're assuming that greek trigonometry is valid. You think that it works. But on a flat earth, it doesn't. Geometry is false on the flat earth.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A refutation of RE that RE-ers will accept - experiment at home on 20th March

« on: March 31, 2016, 05:18:44 AM »

Hey all. If you'd like to disprove, easily, in a way that RE-ers will accept, the premise of a round earth, then tomorrow's the day to do it.

On March 20th, 2016 (it's even a weekend, so most people should have the day available) - when the sun is due south of you (or north, for those few in the southern hemisphere), measure the angle to the sun from the vertical.

If the angle is NOT your latitude, then post here (a photo of your setup would probably help), and no Round Earther will be able to refute the proof. Obviously, some indication of your latitude and proof that the sun was due south/north (i.e. probably not exactly at 12:00 noon, depending on your location) when the measurement was taken would be required.

If you miss the day, you can plan ahead and try again on September 22nd.

I look forward to seeing the simple, irrefutable proof that the round-earth model is wrong. Of course, if your measurements do show that the angle is equal to your latitude, then I'd be fascinated to hear about a non-RE model that accounts for the geometry. I'm guessing some sort of atmospheric lensing, distorting the position of the sun?

I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination.  This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N.  If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all.

The OP is misleading. The experiment proposed will debunk a flat earth, not a round one. Notice it says "measure the angle to the sun from the vertical". That's the sun's zenith angle, not its altitude angle. So in the case of the stellarium's angle of 51.7°, to get the zentih angle subtract it from 90°.
90 - 51.7 = 38.3° ≈ 38.53. 
Measuring the sun's zenith angle to find latitude is a common practice with celestial navigation. It proves that the earth is a sphere. It doesn't work at all with a flat earth model. It would be impossible. The geometry simple doesn't work.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory

« on: March 30, 2016, 11:55:04 PM »

Have you ever seen rays of light shining down through the clouds?  Something like this?





If you trace the rays back to an origin, you'll find that the sun must be very, very close to the earth which is consistent with flat-earth theory.  The sun is certainly not ~8.5 light minutes away like round-earth theory states. 

To prove flat-earth theory, sometimes it really is as simple as looking out your window.

It's perspective. You may have heard that parallel appear to converge in the distance. That's what you're seeing.

But clouds are actually a big problem for flat earth theory. At sunset you will often see the underside of clouds being illuminated by direct sunlight. This is impossible with a flat earth model. There's no possible explanation.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality

« on: March 08, 2016, 07:16:32 AM »

That poor surveyor, spent his whole career futily measuring angles. He has no idea that the Honorable Samuel Rowbotham teaches us that geometry and trigonometry don't really work. 

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: March 05, 2016, 12:55:20 AM »

The flat earth and heliocentric models are opposites in almost every way. Is it really that hard to tell which is correct?
The answer is NO. The earth is a sphere. It's obvious by the apparent positions of the celestial objects in the sky as observed from earth. By simple observation you can determine conclusively that the earth is round and that a flat earth is impossible.

One of the simplest examples illustrating this is Polaris. See why here:

http://debunkingflatearth.blogspot.com/2016/02/debunking-flat-earth-how-polaris-proves.html

Your entire post was an unsupported opinion. The link you provided has the following requirements that the information conveyed requires to be valid.

1) The Earth revolves around the Sun.
2) The Sun moves throughout the galaxy.
3) The sphere earth rotates on an axis.
4) The stars also move relative to the galaxy.

Any observer in the moon given these 4 requirements would not be able to produce a photograph with star trails as they are rotating away from the Stars while the planet they are on is moving through the galaxy. The trails presented on these images do not comport with these given requirements. As a natural result one would have to being eliminating the points representing the source of the conflict until the results can be reconciled. This wouldn't leave any points on the list above remaining.

The example you provided is void as the fact that star trail photos have been reproduced numerous times indicates that the star trails form in a singular direction, predictably, and persistently through the ages.

You are mistaken. The information provided requires none of those. What it shows is that the shape of the earth can only be round and the celestial objects can only be very far away, according to the angles at which we observe those celestial objects.  It also shows that a flat earth is impossible because it cannot produce those observed angles. This includes the sun which would never set, nor even get close to the horizon. The only way around these facts is to subscribe to the ridiculous argument (already expressed in this thread) that applied geometry and trigonometry somehow, despite all empirical evidence, don't really work in the real world, and that triangles which are very large somehow magically cease to adhere to the physical laws to which other triangles are subject, e.g., they can have irrational properties like 0° angles.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 18, 2016, 03:44:51 PM »

In which world are Zeno's paradoxes an "article of faith"? It must be an interesting place.

How do you feel about other elementary mathematical concepts? Are real numbers an "article of faith", too? Do you accept any other aspects of mathematics than "I like triangles"?

Zeno's paradox is a red herring. I'm talking about simple trigonometry. It's a statement of faith to claim that it is invalid. Actually, it's a statement of buffoonery. Trigonometric relationships are not theory in any way. They are fact. Again test it yourself.
If you're unclear how triangles relate to the topic of this thread, try this: see if you can identify any triangles in the illustration below:

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 18, 2016, 03:20:12 PM »

Do you know how long the base of the triangle will have to be for angle "A" to shrink to zero?
Answer: infinity.
It's simple mathematics.

There you go, using that Ancient Greek nonsense math where things are continuous and divide or stretch into infinities. You are assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world. Zeno put the theory of a continuous universe to bed.

No. I'm using basic trigonometry to show you how perspective works. Like I said, anybody can test it for themselves at anytime in the real world using the information I posted above. You will always lose this debate against observable reality. Trigonometry is simply a way to quantify what we observe. It always works.

The math you are using is continuous and, therefore, wrong. We don't live in a continuous universe.

If you can disprove Zeno's Paradoxes which act as a disproof of that sort of math, you may use it as a rebuttal.

The math I am using is easily verifiable. I put it right there in front of you. It's triangles, the most basic trigonometry. Trigonometry has been tried, tested, verified, and validated for thousands of years. Instead of repeating your articles of faith over and over, I suggest you get a pen and paper or go out into the real world and test it yourself with some measurements and observations.
Avoid ignorance when it's easily avoidable.
Good luck.

13

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: I made some new pictures for the wiki.

« on: February 18, 2016, 06:28:44 AM »

The spotlight of the sun shouldn't be a blunt half-circle. It would be oval in shape.

It would have to be a blunt half circle on either equinox. It has to be.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 18, 2016, 05:44:57 AM »

Do you know how long the base of the triangle will have to be for angle "A" to shrink to zero?
Answer: infinity.
It's simple mathematics.

There you go, using that Ancient Greek nonsense math where things are continuous and divide or stretch into infinities. You are assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world. Zeno put the theory of a continuous universe to bed.

No. I'm using basic trigonometry to show you how perspective works. Like I said, anybody can test it for themselves at anytime in the real world using the information I posted above. You will always lose this debate against observable reality. Trigonometry is simply a way to quantify what we observe. It always works.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 18, 2016, 05:24:55 AM »

The Ancient Greek theory that perspective lines stretch infinitely into the distance and that the Vanishing Point is infinitely away from the observer isn't proven by measuring the height of a tree.

Here's what is proven by greek geometry and how it relates to trees and your comment:
We know the relationships between angles and sides of a triangle:


The longer the base of the triangle, the smaller the angle "A" will get:


Angle "A" is the angle of elevation of the top of the tree as perceived by the viewer. The farther away, the smaller the tree will look and the closer to the horizon the top of the tree will appear. Imagine a star at the top of the tree. In order for that star to meet the horizon, angle "A" will have to equal 0 degrees. Do you know how long the base of the triangle will have to be for angle "A" to shrink to zero?
Answer: infinity.
It's simple mathematics.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 18, 2016, 04:31:17 AM »

... so the 'real' circumference in nature will be longer than the perfect circle, and sometimes much longer than a perfect circle, because of all the imperfections made by nature, right? But then 'pi' would never be a constant (e.g. = 4) - it would just be bigger than 3,1415.

The most perfect circle possible in a quantized universe would have a pi of 4. Most other circles may have slightly different values for pi, as they are less perfect, but that is mostly irrelevant to the discussion since the continuous universe of the Ancient Greeks also ignores imperfect circles. Any opposing model to the standard ancient one would assume the most perfect circle as well.

I'm sorry, but this is just lame. We're talking about angles here, not "string theory ". Angles, like distances, are simply a way to quantify and/or describe the relationship physical objects have with one another in 3D space.
You say, "Samuel Birley Rowbotham teaches us in Earth Not a Globe that we must adopt our concept of perspective from real world experience and observations". It's terrific that you have such faith in the authority of your teacher, but he apparently has never really done much observing. You would do better to ask an architect, a navigator, a surveyor, or a cartographer, people who successfully use geometry everyday in real world observations. Applied mathematics like trigonometry were derived from pure observation and have been tried and tested for literally thousands of years. Trigonometry is not a theory. It works because it's true. Trigonometric relationships in the physical world are as certain as 2+2=4. They are as certain as any physical law. So if your flat earth sun does not obey physical laws then it cannot be physical and so you need to stop pretending that Flat Earth Theory is not a religion, because that's exactly what you are saying.

Why are you trying to use unverified ancient geometry/trigonometry as a proof of anything?

The Ancient Greeks did not verify that circles actually exist, and they did not verify that perspective actually stretches into infinity as theorized.

It's at this point that I would normally assume that I'm being trolled. What a joke.
So not only is the earth flat, geometry and trigonometry, as have been used successfully for thousands of years for countless real world applications, are also wrong? Yes, you would have to believe that in order to defend your impossible flat earth, so it actually makes sense that you would claim such a thing. Is arithmetic also wrong? The ridiculous thing, though, is that you can test the accuracy of geometry yourself, any time, any where, on paper, or in three dimensions.

The well-known relationship between apparent height and distance, for example, is used all the time for measuring large or distant objects like trees and mountains.  You can try it with your house, your spouse, your basketball hoop, sasquatch, anything you can physically measure. For anyone interested, here's how to do it: http://www.instructables.com/id/Using-a-clinometer-to-measure-height/



Here's how to make a climometer: http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Clinometer
Here's a right triangle calculator: http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm
Here's an online size calculator: http://sizecalc.com

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are round earth scientists incompetent or malevolent?

« on: February 18, 2016, 02:05:33 AM »

You know who I think would probably notice? Geodetic Surveyors.
http://civilengineersforum.com/geodetic-surveying/

Those poor people. They did all that studying and training in school and don't even realize their entire professional field is a hoax. Think of all the money spent on their educations, all the fake text books they had to buy, and all the learning of bogus information they had to do. I wonder how many of them have come to terms yet with the flat earth reality?   

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 17, 2016, 07:57:49 PM »

This is pure nonsense. The illustration I posted is to scale. The angles and distances are right there in front of you. I'll post it again below. Notice that the distance needed to see a change in altitude from 20° to 10° (9,040 miles) is greater than the distance needed for polaris to drop from 90° to 20° (8,557 miles). If the diagram were to continue, the distance needed for Polaris to drop from 10° to 5° is more than the distance needed for it to drop from 90° to 10°, about 17,835 miles (a total of 35,433 miles from 90° to 5°). To see Polaris at 0°, the distance needed is infinity.

It would therefore be impossible to see the apparent altitude of any celestial object drop at a constant rate due to perspective if it was moving away at a constant speed. You can draw it out and measure the angles for yourself if you like, or just use an online right triangle calculator.
Triangles don't lie.

Under traditional perspective it is also impossible for the sun to ever set. However, Samuel Birley Rowbotham teaches us in Earth Not a Globe that we must adopt our concept of perspective from real world experience and observations, not some mathematical concept.

I'm sorry, but this is just lame. We're talking about angles here, not "string theory ". Angles, like distances, are simply a way to quantify and/or describe the relationship physical objects have with one another in 3D space.
You say, "Samuel Birley Rowbotham teaches us in Earth Not a Globe that we must adopt our concept of perspective from real world experience and observations". It's terrific that you have such faith in the authority of your teacher, but he apparently has never really done much observing. You would do better to ask an architect, a navigator, a surveyor, or a cartographer, people who successfully use geometry everyday in real world observations. Applied mathematics like trigonometry were derived from pure observation and have been tried and tested for literally thousands of years. Trigonometry is not a theory. It works because it's true. Trigonometric relationships in the physical world are as certain as 2+2=4. They are as certain as any physical law. So if the celestial objects in your FE model do not obey physical laws then they must not be physical and so you need to stop pretending that Flat Earth Theory is not a religion, because that's exactly what you are saying.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 11, 2016, 10:05:59 AM »

This is actually the same question as "If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?" question, for which the answer is here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?

A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.



The rate of descent of two bodies at different altitudes is more constant because it take a lot longer for a high altitude body to reach the horizon than it does for a low altitude body. The higher a body is, the broader its perspective lines, the longer and more constantly it will appear to approach the horizon to the observer.

I plan on rewriting this article at some point, but you get the idea.

This is pure nonsense. The illustration I posted is to scale. The angles and distances are right there in front of you. I'll post it again below. Notice that the distance needed to see a change in altitude from 20° to 10° (9,040 miles) is greater than the distance needed for polaris to drop from 90° to 20° (8,557 miles). If the diagram were to continue, the distance needed for Polaris to drop from 10° to 5° is more than the distance needed for it to drop from 90° to 10°, about 17,835 miles (a total of 35,433 miles from 90° to 5°). To see Polaris at 0°, the distance needed is infinity.

It would therefore be impossible to see the apparent altitude of any celestial object drop at a constant rate due to perspective if it was moving away at a constant speed. You can draw it out and measure the angles for yourself if you like, or just use an online right triangle calculator.
Triangles don't lie.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 11, 2016, 03:07:59 AM »

The flat earth and heliocentric models are opposites in almost every way. Is it really that hard to tell which is correct?
The answer is NO. The earth is a sphere. It's obvious by the apparent positions of the celestial objects in the sky as observed from earth. By simple observation you can determine conclusively that the earth is round and that a flat earth is impossible.
One of the simplest examples illustrating this is Polaris. See why here:
http://debunkingflatearth.blogspot.com/2016/02/debunking-flat-earth-how-polaris-proves.html

Yes, but did you look up the wiki?
You must realise how much information can be gained there, but please don't try to swallow it all or you might choke!
For example:

from:  http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za37.htm
DECLINATION OF THE POLE STAR
Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star sinks to the horizon as the traveler approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible. What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.
This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth.
Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars.

A bit wordy!
So, it's all "perspective"! Mind you it does seem strange the each 111.1 km we move south from the North Pole the elevation of Polaris decreases by (almost) exactly 1°, finally reaching 0° (+ a bit due to refraction) at the equator. So close is this that it has been used for navigation for many centuries!

Perspective simply cannot make an object at least 5,000 km high disappear below the horizon when we move only about 10,000 km away!

This is not possible unless the light bends in some peculiar way. More than about 0.5° is not likely under normal conditions!

One big problem with quoting "Earth not a Globe" is the sheer volume of material to wade through! Rowbotham states categorically, though takes lots of words to say it, that the "South Pole Star" (Sigma Octantis) and the Southern Cross (Crux) cannot be seen from all longitudes in the southern hemisphere!

Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south–pole star included–sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is strangely not the case; Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8° south of the equator, and in longitude 30° W.

Saying "Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8°" (it being the Southern Cross) means nothing as we all (including Rowbotham) know full well that the Southern Cross is not at the South Celestial Pole, but some 30° away. In other words while the South Celestial Pole is visible every night everywhere (baring obstructions) over the whole of the Southern Hemisphere, the Southern Cross is only visible at all times south of 30° Latitude!

Yes, Rowbotham can never be accused of using one word when he can get away with 10!

Thanks for the response, yes, "perspective" is an inadequate explanation and was actually addressed in the blog post I linked to.  You quoted, "It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it".
The question is how much lower and at what rate will the object appear to descend? Can this be determined?
Yes. It can. "Perspective" can be worked out using trigonometry. It's done all the time in real world applications. FEers don't seem to understand this.

The illustration below, which was shown in the blog, shows precisely the effect of perspective on the apparent position of Polaris above a flat plane.


As you can see, the effect of flat earth "perspective" cannot account for what is observed in reality.