The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Peejay on November 10, 2022, 07:44:43 AM

Title: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Peejay on November 10, 2022, 07:44:43 AM
New guy here!…. I am certain of nothing and am inquisitive to know how or if celestial bodies play a role in our existence.  Also if the idea of an ever expanding universe coinciding with FET is a possibility. I currently lean towards the Earth being either both spherical and flat or neither. So many questions arise contemplating the shape of the Earth. How do spirals fit in to the whole picture. Whether observing nature and the Golden ratio’s role in creation of  plant life harnessing spiraling pathways to seeing them at a microcosmic level viewing microscopically or at a macrocosmic level telescopically whirling at a possible galactic level. Being the most often depictions left carved by ancient cultures spirals seem to play an important role in existence for all life. Whether the Earth is round, flat, both or neither I keep an open mind, find peace and freedom in having certainty of nothing, and power in that truly making anything possible… any idea's or information related to the info I shared would be welcome. Thank you!
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Roundy on November 10, 2022, 04:17:09 PM
I believe that if you twist the evidence around enough you can probably view the Earth as being spherical. But when it comes to everyday experience it is clearly and definitely flat.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: AATW on November 10, 2022, 04:26:03 PM
I believe that if you twist the evidence around enough you can probably view the Earth as being spherical. But when it comes to everyday experience it is clearly and definitely flat.
What every day experience would lead you to the conclusion that the earth must be flat rather than spherical?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tron on November 10, 2022, 04:54:11 PM
Spirals do seem important in creation.  Galaxies spiral and so do weather phenomena like hurricanes, tornados, etc.   Often matter in the sky is compressed into more solid structures like rain and snow.  Perhaps galaxies and world's are created or maintained in a similar way.

I don't know if the universe is expanding.  I have a hunch it's like a big bubble.  But that's all I know. 
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Roundy on November 10, 2022, 06:26:26 PM
I believe that if you twist the evidence around enough you can probably view the Earth as being spherical. But when it comes to everyday experience it is clearly and definitely flat.
What every day experience would lead you to the conclusion that the earth must be flat rather than spherical?

Observation of the world around me.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: AATW on November 10, 2022, 06:43:55 PM
Observation of the world around me.
Can you give some examples of observations and explain why they indicate the world is flat rather than a sphere.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: secretagent10 on November 11, 2022, 05:47:01 AM

Observation of the world around me.

My observations would lead me to believe that it is round.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Roundy on November 11, 2022, 08:16:50 AM
Observation of the world around me.
Can you give some examples of observations and explain why they indicate the world is flat rather than a sphere.

On any wide expanse of water (the best test, since random land formations won't skew the results), I can look down and see that the surface is flat. This is something I've observed many times. The most immediate and direct evidence points to a flat Earth. It shows no evidence of sphericity.

Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: AATW on November 11, 2022, 09:10:21 AM
Observation of the world around me.
Can you give some examples of observations and explain why they indicate the world is flat rather than a sphere.

On any wide expanse of water (the best test, since random land formations won't skew the results), I can look down and see that the surface is flat. This is something I've observed many times. The most immediate and direct evidence points to a flat Earth. It shows no evidence of sphericity.
OK. Well firstly, thanks for a straight answer to a straight question.
Secondly, I'm sure you've seen the "basketballs are flat" meme. There's a difference between what we can perceive and what we can measure.
On a sphere of sufficient size, being unable to perceive any curvature is the observation you would expect.
But there are observations we can make which imply that the earth isn't flat.

1) Ships, buildings and other distant landmarks disappear behind the horizon and do so increasingly with distance. They cannot be "restored" with optical resolution as Rowbotham claimed - I mean, they can if they're this side of the horizon, but not once they're beyond it. You can find zoomed in pictures of the tops of ships and other landmarks where some of them is clearly missing. What is hiding it?
2) The distance to the horizon increases with altitude, as does the angle dip to the horizon. The latter of these can be measured, if not perceived. Also with altitude, as you can see further, you can see more of distant landmarks. All this is what one would expect to observe if we are living on a sphere. If we were on a flat plane we should be able to see all of distant objects, subject to visibility:

(https://i.ibb.co/jbX19Xs/Horizon2.jpg)

Finally, the very existence of a sharp, clearly defined horizon implies the earth isn't flat. A sharp line like that generally denotes the edge of something. What would it be the edge of on a flat earth? Why can't you see more sea past the horizon? On a flat earth the sea would surely fade out as visibility prevents you from seeing further, as it does on a foggy day where visibility is less than the distance to the horizon.

FE does have some thoughts on how to explain the above, but I'd suggest that these observations are not what would be expected on a flat earth and other mechanisms have to be hypothesised to explain them.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2022, 09:50:15 PM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
1) Ships, buildings and other distant landmarks disappear behind the horizon and do so increasingly with distance. They cannot be "restored" with optical resolution as Rowbotham claimed - I mean, they can if they're this side of the horizon, but not once they're beyond it.

Instead of continuously repeating this misunderstanding of optics, there is an experiment you can perform to demonstrate the matter. We provide a home printout experiment for school children at the end of this link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: WTF_Seriously on November 16, 2022, 10:06:34 PM
The WIKI explanation is utter nonsense.

Here's a video clearly illustrating that it is not any perspective related issue which hides the lower part of a vessel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF7D7XsyTA

If what is in the WIKI were accurate, as a magnifying device was used to bring the vessel into view, the interface between the ship's deck and it's cargo would become visible as the entire object shrinks and grows.  This is due to the fact that the height of the ship itself is nearly as large as the height of the stack of cargo above the deck. For this video, this can be seen as the ship's tower passes.  The cargo is much lower than the tower which puts the height of the cargo reasonably close to the height of the ship.  As the video clearly shows, the entire ship has disappeared below the horizon leaving only the cargo visible.  If Rowbotham's explanation were correct this is not what we would witness.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2022, 10:09:22 PM
There are multiple phenomena that can cause a sinking ship effect - swells, refraction, etc - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

We were talking about the specific claim that the hull of a ship can be hidden with distance due to lack of optical resolution and then restored with optical zoom. There is a simple experiment that you can perform to demonstrate this:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/6/69/Sinking_Optical-Resolution.png)
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: WTF_Seriously on November 16, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
There are multiple phenomena that can cause a sinking ship effect - swells, refraction, etc - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

We were talking about the specific claim that the hull of a ship can be hidden with distance due to lack of optical resolution and then restored with optical zoom. There is a simple experiment that you can perform to demonstrate this:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/6/69/Sinking_Optical-Resolution.png)


Now take this experiment and make the height of the hull of the ship equal to the height of the sails and see what happens.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: markjo on November 16, 2022, 10:32:00 PM
There are multiple phenomena that can cause a sinking ship effect - swells, refraction, etc
The curvature of the earth is a phenomenon that should also be considered, especially if you put any stock in Occam's Razor.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SteelyBob on November 16, 2022, 11:01:34 PM
There are multiple phenomena that can cause a sinking ship effect - swells, refraction, etc - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

We were talking about the specific claim that the hull of a ship can be hidden with distance due to lack of optical resolution and then restored with optical zoom. There is a simple experiment that you can perform to demonstrate this:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/6/69/Sinking_Optical-Resolution.png)

The experiment is ludicrous. You are merely presenting a very thin hull, and showing that, of course, your eyes will struggle to resolve the thin line first as distance increases. That is not surprising. But, as other posters have pointed out, that doesn't match up with what we actually observe, where ships with hulls comparable in height in to their superstructures still have the same thing happen, with the obscured part remaining constant regardless of magnification.

The page on the wiki displays a complete misunderstanding of optics as well. It says:

Quote
However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer

This suggests that the angular relationship of light rays arriving at an observer changes with varying eyesight or magnification. This is nonsensical. A ray of light does not deviate according to the eye of the beholder, as it were.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: AATW on November 17, 2022, 11:30:19 AM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
1) Ships, buildings and other distant landmarks disappear behind the horizon and do so increasingly with distance. They cannot be "restored" with optical resolution as Rowbotham claimed - I mean, they can if they're this side of the horizon, but not once they're beyond it.

Instead of continuously repeating this misunderstanding of optics, there is an experiment you can perform to demonstrate the matter. We provide a home printout experiment for school children at the end of this link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution
I'm not sure I need a lesson in optics from someone who has repeatedly in the past claimed on here that sunset is caused by "perspective" and failed to understand that crepuscular rays are caused by perspective.

But in any case, your "experiment" simply demonstrates the part I already wrote in bold above. The very thin hull in your picture will become hard to resolve at a certain distance. And yes, in that case optical magnification could "restore" it. But the reason it can be "restored" is that it isn't hidden in the first place. It isn't behind anything, it just becomes difficult to discern at a certain distance. While we are here, there's nothing magic about the hull being at the bottom. If it was at the top then at a certain distance it would still be hard to discern because the the issue here, as the title of that Wiki page suggests, is the limit of optical resolution. It's the same reason that the ISS is just a bright dot in the sky and you need some optics to discern the shape of it.
I drew a triangle to represent a sail and a thin line to represent a hull and took two photos of it from across the room. The first photo I took with no magnification, the second I zoomed in:

(https://i.ibb.co/Lr4FgpF/Optical-Resolution.jpg)

Oh look, the hull is "restored" in the bottom photo...even though I've put it at the top. Because it isn't "restored" at all, it's just the resolution of my camera (or my eye) isn't good enough to see that thin line from across the room. Zoom in with the camera and there it is.

TL;DR, with distance smaller things are harder to see than bigger things. If you zoom in then you'll see them, if the zoom is good enough and if visibility allows.

The problem you have is that ships DO sink below the horizon, as do distant landmarks and buildings, if they're beyond the horizon. And no amount of optical zoom will restore them. What are they behind? Where's the rest of that ship on the right?

(https://i.ibb.co/j4CQq7H/Sinking-Ship.jpg)

You are simultaneously claiming that observations better match a flat earth than a globe and invoking mechanisms like swells or refraction (which typically makes more of an object visible than you would expect if we didn't have an atmosphere) to explain why observations don't match a flat earth.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on November 17, 2022, 12:42:13 PM
On any wide expanse of water, I can look down and see that the surface is flat. This is something I've observed many times. The most immediate and direct evidence points to a flat Earth. It shows no evidence of sphericity.

All I can suggest is, once again -

Find a vantage point to look out on the sea and note its height above sea level
Observe something out on the water which is of lower height, above its waterline or coastal line, than your observation position.
Let's say you're at 100m elevation, looking at a ship of 52m.
You must be looking downward at the topmost point of the ship.
You must be looking downward at any and every point on the water's surface.

If the water is truly flat, there can be no instance where you look downward at the topmost point of the ship and fail to see water behind and beyond it.

A descending line from 100 to 0 must pass through 52
A descending line from 100 to 52 must, if continued beyond the 52 point, reach 0. It cannot miss it.

If there is ANY instance where you see clear sky behind and beyond the ship which is lower than you, the sea CANNOT be flat.

100m observation point, 52m ship with twin yellow cranes at approx. 17km. Nothing but clear sky behind and beyond the topmost point. The sea cannot be flat.

(https://i.imgur.com/XwrQpgh.jpg)

Nothing to do with Tom's "sinking ship", no need to show ships "going over the horizon".

Proof found in near-field objects, well within clear viewing distance. Can show the same with observations of islands, lighthouses, other fixtures. Loads of examples.

Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: J-Man on November 17, 2022, 04:21:46 PM
It was soo brief, appears to be a swell covering the hull with perspective issues also.

FLAT EARTH
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: WTF_Seriously on November 17, 2022, 05:50:10 PM
It was soo brief, appears to be a swell covering the hull with perspective issues also.

FLAT EARTH

Interesting.  A "soo brief" 30 second swell that is covering the distant ship yet there are no swells around the ship in the foreground.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on November 17, 2022, 06:07:39 PM
It was soo brief, appears to be a swell covering the hull with perspective issues also.

It's a still photo. Of course it's "brief"

Here's a crop centred on the ship under discussion. What swell?

(https://i.imgur.com/fG5MK18.jpg?1)


I was at 100m elevation (height a below), with the ship of height a1 at distance b1 from me. If the sea is genuinely flat, then the surface of that, along with the vertical below my feet, yields a right angle below me; join the observation point to the top of the ship, forming a hypotenuse for a right-angle triangle and we must, by definition, have a line which descends toward the sea; since the ship is 52m, and I'm 48m above it.

That downward line must meet the sea, IF the sea is flat. Parallel lines never meet, but non-parallel lines must. The downward sightline is not parallel to the sea, so must meet it. With the observation height, ship height, and distance of ship all known, we can calculate, with school-level geometry, where the sightline should meet the water. But the sightline does not meet it. We see clear sky behind and beyond the top of the ship.

What are the "perspective issues"?

(https://i.imgur.com/Q8I7i54.jpg)
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2022, 12:15:55 AM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
But in any case, your "experiment" simply demonstrates the part I already wrote in bold above. The very thin hull in your picture will become hard to resolve at a certain distance. And yes, in that case optical magnification could "restore" it. But the reason it can be "restored" is that it isn't hidden in the first place. It isn't behind anything, it just becomes difficult to discern at a certain distance.

Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: secretagent10 on November 18, 2022, 12:26:03 AM
This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.

Telescopes on earth can resolve images a tiny fraction of the ship’s apparent size.
There are plenty of amateur images resolving Jupiter’s bands swirling, even its moons. This is extraordinarily smaller than making out a ship. With Jupiter, there is no geometric obstacle while with a ship there clearly is. That geometric obstacle would be the curvature of the earth. No amount of optical zoom will reverse a geometric obstruction.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: WTF_Seriously on November 18, 2022, 12:28:41 AM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
But in any case, your "experiment" simply demonstrates the part I already wrote in bold above. The very thin hull in your picture will become hard to resolve at a certain distance. And yes, in that case optical magnification could "restore" it. But the reason it can be "restored" is that it isn't hidden in the first place. It isn't behind anything, it just becomes difficult to discern at a certain distance.

Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.

It's not a matter of whether it exists, it's a matter of whether or not it explains what we see with objects going beyond the horizon.  You know, that zetetic observation thingy.
 As has been clearly illustrated, Rowbotham's effect in no way illustrates what we actually observe.  No amount of optical zoom can bring back the hidden parts of the objects.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: AATW on November 18, 2022, 09:27:54 AM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
But in any case, your "experiment" simply demonstrates the part I already wrote in bold above. The very thin hull in your picture will become hard to resolve at a certain distance. And yes, in that case optical magnification could "restore" it. But the reason it can be "restored" is that it isn't hidden in the first place. It isn't behind anything, it just becomes difficult to discern at a certain distance.

Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.
So Rowbotham's hot take is that as you get further away from things they get smaller and then at some point you can no longer see them?
I mean...yeah, but that's not some breakthrough discovery. What was I wrong about? I said:

1) Ships, buildings and other distant landmarks disappear behind the horizon and do so increasingly with distance. They cannot be "restored" with optical resolution as Rowbotham claimed

Note the word "behind". If an object is partially behind the horizon you can zoom in as much as you like, you're not going to restore the missing part. In my previous post I showed an image demonstrating that. But I went on to say, and this is the part you keep ignoring, even after I bolded it in my previous post:

I mean, they can if they're this side of the horizon, but not once they're beyond it.

So yeah, if things are NOT behind the horizon, but are so far away that they are just an indistinct dot then yes, optical zoom will "restore" them.
But as I have demonstrated with my experiment - which is basically the same as the one on your Wiki - that cannot explain the sinking ship effect.
That's where Rowbotham was wrong. Because even if the thin "hull" is at the top it still becomes impossible to see at a certain distance and can be "restored" with optical zoom. Nothing to do with sinking.

TL;DR - the limits of optical resolution do not explain the sinking ship effect. Rowbotham was wrong about that.
And you know that's true, you have a whole other Wiki page which tries to explain the sinking ship effect using other mechanisms like swells or refraction. As I've noted, that second one is strange as refraction generally means you can see more of an object than you would be able to on a globe with no atmosphere.

And I like Tumeni's argument a lot. It's a better one than mine. If you're at a high vantage point looking out to sea and looking down at a lower vessel then your line of sight from you to the top of the vessel must continue downwards to intersect the sea IF the sea is flat. It has to, that's just basic geometry. So that photo is impossible on a FE. I'd suggest a sharp horizon line is impossible on a FE. Why is there a distinct distance at which you can't see the sea any more, what stops you seeing further? It can't be visibility, on a foggy day you can't see the horizon but the sea just fades out, there's no distinct line.

Now, you can invoke EA to explain this I guess, but in doing so you are admitting that the observation is not one would expect on a FE and you have to hypothesise a mechanism to explain that. And that's your fundamental problem. You simultaneously claim the earth is flat because of observations, and then have to invoke mechanisms to explain why observations don't match a FE. So which is it?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tron on November 18, 2022, 11:44:59 AM
As a quick aside, Globers believe refraction generally makes objects rise and Levelers believe refraction makes objects sink?  MCToon used this as his main argument about why refraction cannot explain things on a flat Earth.

There is no consensous here?  Is there an experiment we can do?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on November 18, 2022, 04:42:08 PM
Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.

Rowbottom describes his flags at Bedford Level;

(https://i.imgur.com/MA0XINO.jpg)

He indicates an upward sightline to the higher flag, and a level sightline across the tops of those of equal height. I've added the black flag, which is lower than those around it, and lower than the observer's eye level. The sightline to this must be a downward one. Upward to the higher flag, level to the others, downward to the black one.

Any instance of the observer above the object, looking out at the object on the water, given sufficient water, MUST have the observer seeing water behind and beyond the top of the object. If he sees clear sky, with water below the top of the object in his field of view, the water cannot be flat. 

So, with sufficient water, and no landfall beyond, the downward sightline from observer to lower object/flag MUST meet the water. It cannot miss it. Parallel lines never meet, non-parallel must meet.

 
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on November 18, 2022, 05:02:47 PM
I like Tumeni's argument a lot. It's a better one than mine. If you're at a high vantage point looking out to sea and looking down at a lower vessel then your line of sight from you to the top of the vessel must continue downwards to intersect the sea IF the sea is flat. It has to, that's just basic geometry. So that photo is impossible on a FE.

Thank You.

Here's another, taken from YouTube channel 'Flatsa'. You can see my original critique comments in the video below reflecting the same argument that I present here.

(https://i.imgur.com/iHxcgX0.jpg)

Observer height was 210m, and there are four objects/elements in play here; from left to right, there's the lighthouse on the Isle of May - 73m optical height; there's the ship on or near the horizon; height unknown, distance unknown, but we can certainly state it to be less than 210m in height, and in the video we see it pass in front of the third element, the Inch Cape Met Mast (you might need to watch the video below to see it). The large hill to the right is Berwick Law, on the mainland, but with a peak of 187m, still lower than the observation point. There's plenty of water beyond all of them. No landfall until Norway, some 700km+ away.

So, all of the sightlines from 210m down to the 73m lighthouse, the far smaller ship, the met mast, and Berwick Law, should meet the water. But they do not. We can work out the geometry of it all, and from that, we find that the sightline through the top of the lighthouse, for instance, should meet the water between the observation point and the met mast, IF the water is flat. But it does not. If it did, the met mast would be above the lighthouse in the observer's field of view.  All we see behind and beyond the lighthouse is clear sky. And the topmost point of the lighthouse is above the topmost point of the met mast. The seas CANNOT be flat.

This diagram shows the principle that applies to this observation, and to that of the Jumbo Kinetic that I posted earlier;

(https://i.imgur.com/SItAUB1.jpg)



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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMkL_bMfIMs

 
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2022, 08:29:30 PM
Quote from: AllArountTheWorld
So yeah, if things are NOT behind the horizon, but are so far away that they are just an indistinct dot then yes, optical zoom will "restore" them.
But as I have demonstrated with my experiment - which is basically the same as the one on your Wiki - that cannot explain the sinking ship effect.
That's where Rowbotham was wrong. Because even if the thin "hull" is at the top it still becomes impossible to see at a certain distance and can be "restored" with optical zoom. Nothing to do with sinking.

Rowbotham was not wrong. You were just lazy and didn't bother to read the book. He also studied the cases where the hull could not be restored with a telescope. He said that in the cases where the hull could not be restored it was clearly due to a special cause, due to inconsistency, inaccuracy, or weather correlation of such observations.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Quote
Inconsistency

It has been found that the Sinking Ship effect is inconsistent. At times it occurs and at other times it does not occur.

In The Plane Truth: The History of the Flat Earth Movement by Robert Schadewald we find:

  “ Let Richard A. Proctor, science writer, astronomer, and good-humored arch-enemy of Parallax, describe another experiment:

' Mr. Rowbotham did a very bold thing … at Plymouth. He undertook to prove, by observations made with a telescope upon the Eddystone Lighthouse from the Hoe and from the beach, that the surface of the water is flat. From the beach, usually only the lantern can be seen. From the Hoe, the whole of the lighthouse is visible under favourable conditions. Duly on the morning appointed, Mr. Rowbotham appeared. From the Hoe a telescope was directed towards the lighthouse, which was well seen, the morning being calm and still and tolerably clear. On descending to the beach it was found that, instead of the whole lantern being visible as usual, only half could be seen—a circumstance doubtless due to the fact that the Air’s refractive power, which usually diminishes the dip due to the earth’s curvature by about one-sixth part, was less efficient that morning than usual. The effect of the peculiarity was manifestly unfavourable to Mr. Rowbotham’s theory. The curvature of the earth produced a greater difference than usual between the appearance of a distant object as seen from a certain low station (though still the difference fell short of that of which would be shown if there were no error). But Parallax claimed the peculiarity observable that morning as an argument in favour of his flat earth. It is manifest, he said, “that there is something wrong about the accepted theory; for it tells us that some much less of the lighthouse should be seen from the beach than from the Hoe, whereas still less was seen.” And many of the Plymouth folk went away from the Hoe that morning, and from the second lecture, in which Parallax triumphantly quoted the results of the observation, with the feeling which had been expressed seven years before in the Leicester Advertiser, that "some of the most important conclusions of modern astronomy had been seriously invalidated." [ref. 1.20] ' ”

From p.223 in Earth Not a Globe we read:

  “ It is well known that even on lakes of small dimensions and also on canals, when high winds prevail for some time in the same direction, the ordinary ripple is converted into comparatively large waves. On the "Bedford Canal," during the windy season, the water is raised into undulations so high, that through a powerful telescope at an elevation of 8 inches, a boat two or three miles away will be invisible; but at other times, through the same telescope the same kind of boat may be seen at a distance of six or eight miles.

During very fine weather when the water has been calm for some days and become as it were settled down, persons are often able to see with the naked eye from Dover the coast of France, and a steamer has been traced all the way across the channel. At other times when the winds are very high, and a heavy swell prevails, the coast is invisible, and the steamers cannot be traced the whole distance from the same altitude, even with a good telescope.

Instances could be greatly multiplied, but already more evidence has been given than the subject really requires, to prove that when a telescope does not restore the hull of a distant vessel it is owing to a purely special and local cause. ”

On p.217 we read additional accounts of inconsistency:

  “ In May, 1864, the author, with several gentlemen who had attended his lectures at Gosport, made a number of observations on the "Nab" light-ship, from the landing stairs of the Victoria Pier, at Portsmouth. From an elevation of thirty-two inches above the water, when it was very calm, the greater part of the hull of the light vessel was, through a good telescope, plainly visible. But on other occasions, when the water was much disturbed, no portion of the hull could be seen from the same elevation, and with the same or even a more powerful telescope. At other times, when the water was more or less calm, only a small portion of the hull, and sometimes the upper part of the bulwarks only, could be seen. These observations not only prove that the distance at which objects at sea can be seen by a powerful telescope depends greatly on the state of the water, but they furnish a strong argument against rotundity. The "Nab" light-ship is eight statute miles from the Victoria pier, and allowing thirty-two inches for the altitude of the observers, and ten feet for the height of the bulwarks above the water line, we find that even if the water were perfectly smooth and stationary, the top of the hull should at all times be fourteen feet below the horizon. Many observations similar to the above have been made on the north-west light-ship, in Liverpool Bay and on light-vessels in various parts of the sea round; Great Britain and Ireland.

It is a well known fact that the light of Eddystone lighthouse is often plainly visible from the beach in Plymouth Sound, and sometimes, when the sea is very calm, persons sitting in ordinary rowing boats can see the light distinctly from that part of the Sound which will allow the line of sight to pass between "Drake's Island" and the. western end of the Breakwater. The distance is fourteen statute miles. In the tables published by the Admiralty, and also by calculation according to the supposed rotundity of the earth, the light is stated to be visible thirteen nautical or over fifteen statute miles, yet often at the same distance, and in rough weather, not only is the light not visible but in the day time the top of the vane which surmounts the lantern, and which is nearly twenty feet higher than the centre of the reflectors or the focus of the light, is out of sight.

A remarkable instance of this is given in the Western Daily Mercury, of October 25th, 1864. After lectures by the author at the Plymouth Athenæum and the Devonport Mechanics' Institute, a committee was formed for the purpose of making experiments on this subject, and on the general question of the earth's form. A report and the names of the committee were published in the Journal above referred to; from which the following extract is made.

"OBSERVATION 6TH.--On the beach, at five feet from the water level, the Eddystone was entirely out of sight."
At any time when the sea is calm and the weather clear, the light of the Eddystone may be seen from an elevation of five feet above the water level; and according to the Admiralty directions, it "maybe seen thirteen nautical (or fifteen statute), miles," 1 or one mile further away than the position of the observers on the above-named occasion; yet, on that occasion, and at a distance of only fourteen statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn day, and a clear background existed, not only was the lantern, which is 80 feet high, not visible, but the top of the vane, which is 100 feet above the foundation, was, as stated in the report "entirely out of sight." There was, however, a considerable "swell" in the sea beyond the breakwater.

That vessels, lighthouses, light-ships, buoys, signals, and other known and fixed objects are sometimes more distinctly seen than at other times, and are often, from the same common elevation, entirely out of sight when the sea is rough, cannot be denied or doubted by any one of experience in nautical matters. ”
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: markjo on November 19, 2022, 10:20:36 PM
Rowbotham was not wrong. You were just lazy and didn't bother to read the book. He also studied the cases where the hull could not be restored with a telescope. He said that in the cases where the hull could not be restored it was clearly due to a special cause, due to inconsistency, inaccuracy, or weather correlation of such observations.
Thank you for explaining exactly why such observations should not be used as evidence of anything.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: AATW on November 21, 2022, 10:21:48 AM
He also studied the cases where the hull could not be restored with a telescope. He said that in the cases where the hull could not be restored it was clearly due to a special cause, due to inconsistency, inaccuracy, or weather correlation of such observations.
OK, so he's doing the same thing you are.
Simultaneously claiming that hulls can be restored and they don't really sink behind the horizon...and then in cases when that isn't true, invoking other mechanisms to try and explain it. As I said, this is your problem. You simultaneously claim that observations better match a FE, and then invoke mechanisms to explain why they don't.
I note you haven't commented on Tumeni's point. If you're at a high vantage point and looking down at the top of a lower vessel then your line of sight has to continue on and intersect the sea. It has to, if the earth is flat. Why can you see the sky behind the top of the ship in that picture and not the sea? Why is there a horizon at all on a FE? It isn't visibility as you can see distant ships and land beyond the horizon, you just can't see all of them because they are hidden behind the horizon. You can hypothesise mechanisms to explain that, but in doing so you are acknowledging that observations do not match a FE.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on November 21, 2022, 01:38:26 PM
I note you haven't commented on Tumeni's point. If you're at a high vantage point and looking down at the top of a lower vessel then your line of sight has to continue on and intersect the sea. It has to, if the earth is flat. Why can you see the sky behind the top of the ship in that picture and not the sea? Why is there a horizon at all on a FE? It isn't visibility as you can see distant ships ....

Exactly. There are four ships/boats in the photo with the Jumbo Kinetic (that plus three others).

To the left, a container ship and some kind of fishing vessel beyond it. The JK to the right of centre, and, pretty much in the centre, a ship or boat on or near the horizon.

The original full-frame shot;

(https://i.imgur.com/YKSPqMa.jpg)

The area where the fourth craft is (along with the smaller craft beyond the container ship), both highlighted in red;

(https://i.imgur.com/421VY7z.jpg)

And a crop showing the fourth craft;

(https://i.imgur.com/k4SnceA.jpg)


Again; I, the observer, was at 100m above sea level. The manufacturer's data sheet for the JK states it is 52m air draft (height above the waterline), so 52m above sea level. It is roughly half the height that I was observing from. There's no landfall beyond the JK until Norway, some 700km or so beyond, so why do I see clear sky beyond the tops of the cranes, if my sightline should lead directly to the water if the seas are flat?

It's simple geometry of right-angle triangles. Drop a vertical from the observation point, continue the presumed flat plane of the sea to meet that vertical below the observer, and we have a right-angle. Join observer to top of ship with a straight line, a descending hypotenuse, and that line MUST, if continued beyond the top of the ship, meet the sea, as described and illustrated above.

It's not lack of visibility. We can see wave crests beyond the JK, all the way to the horizon, and to the fourth ship on or near it. We can see way beyond the JK.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 08, 2022, 03:43:40 PM

Now, you can invoke EA to explain this I guess,


Didn't want to copy your whole post.  Recap, you could invoke EA as to why a ship's hull appears to go behind the horizon.

Over my morning coffee, I happened to think about the Bishop's experiment for some reason.  https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence  That led me to thinking about this thread and your statement.

Assuming that everything in the WIKI is truthful and accurate,  the Bishop experiment would empirically verify that EA bends light less than 20 inches at the water's surface over some 23 miles.  That being the case, EA would bend light significantly less than that at the distance of roughly 3 miles that a ship begins to sink below the horizon.  This leads to the fact, should empirical evidence be believed, the majority of the 20+ feet of cargo ship hull should be visible at distances in excess of 23 miles to sea.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 08, 2022, 11:16:44 PM
How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ? i.e. a boat cruising along parallel to the coastline just beyond the horizon. If anyone saw this they would think it was sinking and call the coastguard. This one has to be a fake so how come there are no real ones? Or are there?

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fqph.cf2.quoracdn.net%2Fmain-qimg-a04c6df7269268394ce2348d6476bf22.webp&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.quora.com%2FCan-anyone-shatter-the-argument-Ships-disappear-over-the-horizon-because-of-the-limits-of-human-vision-not-a-spherical-world-I-found-it-online&tbnid=RP1SeUCdRJsTgM&vet=12ahUKEwiFncKpk-v7AhXVhHMKHdEkAKAQMygAegQIARBZ..i&docid=J20kGyaxtSGR5M&w=602&h=337&q=why%20is%20there%20no%20sea%20beyond%20a%20ship%20on%20the%20horizon&ved=2ahUKEwiFncKpk-v7AhXVhHMKHdEkAKAQMygAegQIARBZ
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: stack on December 09, 2022, 12:08:58 AM
How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ?

What makes you say it "has never been seen"? And why does it have to be fake? How do you know that no one called the coast guard?

Seeing this would probably prompt to call the coast guard, not the other one...

(https://i.imgur.com/mum6UKE.png)
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 09, 2022, 02:17:58 AM
How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ? i.e. a boat cruising along parallel to the coastline just beyond the horizon. If anyone saw this they would think it was sinking and call the coastguard.

WTF......Seriously.

The majority of the people in the world would simply say, "Oh, look at that ship beyond the horizon."
It's an everyday occurrence.  Why would it warrant a call to the coastguard?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 09, 2022, 10:44:11 AM
How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ? i.e. a boat cruising along parallel to the coastline just beyond the horizon.

What makes you think this has "never been seen"? How many people have you asked? Have you asked ANYONE if they have seen this? Or is your "never" just based on your own, limited, experience?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 09, 2022, 03:04:37 PM
How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ?

What makes you say it "has never been seen"? And why does it have to be fake? How do you know that no one called the coast guard?

Seeing this would probably prompt to call the coast guard, not the other one...

(https://i.imgur.com/mum6UKE.png)

If you have some thatearent processed/photoshopped I would like to see them but I have never seen an authentic one of a boat sailing parallel to the shore with its bottom half seemingly below the water level.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 09, 2022, 03:05:41 PM
How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ? i.e. a boat cruising along parallel to the coastline just beyond the horizon. If anyone saw this they would think it was sinking and call the coastguard.

WTF......Seriously.

The majority of the people in the world would simply say, "Oh, look at that ship beyond the horizon."
It's an everyday occurrence.  Why would it warrant a call to the coastguard?

How do you know what they would say? do you have any authentic pics of the same occurrence?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 09, 2022, 03:07:02 PM
How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ? i.e. a boat cruising along parallel to the coastline just beyond the horizon.

What makes you think this has "never been seen"? How many people have you asked? Have you asked ANYONE if they have seen this? Or is your "never" just based on your own, limited, experience?

it would aid the round earth theorists if it was a regular occurrence but for some reason i think not.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 09, 2022, 03:29:15 PM
How come an image such as this one has never been seen (the top image in the below link) ? i.e. a boat cruising along parallel to the coastline just beyond the horizon.

What makes you think this has "never been seen"? How many people have you asked? Have you asked ANYONE if they have seen this? Or is your "never" just based on your own, limited, experience?

it would aid the round earth theorists if it was a regular occurrence but for some reason i think not.

Why would you "think" that, without some meaningful statistics to back it up?

Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 09, 2022, 04:14:15 PM
How do you know what they would say?

Well, based on the totally unscientific and meaningless sample size of the posts since yours it appears that I'm on the right track.

do you have any authentic pics of the same occurrence?

Evidently reading the thread you're posting in is not your thing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF7D7XsyTA

Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 09, 2022, 11:01:53 PM
How do you know what they would say?

Well, based on the totally unscientific and meaningless sample size of the posts since yours it appears that I'm on the right track.

That explanation also sounds unscientific.

do you have any authentic pics of the same occurrence?

Evidently reading the thread you're posting in is not your thing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF7D7XsyTA


Call the coastguard, quick:-)
It might be credible if this video had been an 'official' and authentic recording. It could quite easily be CGI. The word 'debunked' usually means someone has deliberately set out to prove something wrong rather than just to stumble upon something.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: markjo on December 09, 2022, 11:57:43 PM
It might be credible if this video had been an 'official' and authentic recording.
What "official" agency do you suppose would be recording such videos and why would you believe them?  We all know how "official" agencies lie all the time.

It could quite easily be CGI.
It can also be independently recreated by anyone with the appropriate consumer grade equipment.

The word 'debunked' usually means someone has deliberately set out to prove something wrong rather than just to stumble upon something.
What makes you think that whoever recorded that video didn't deliberately set out to prove that the FE claims about ships and the horizon are wrong?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 10, 2022, 12:13:26 AM
It could quite easily be CGI.

"could"

You have no evidence that it is, right? None at all.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 10, 2022, 09:36:33 AM
If the earth is a globe then any image of a ship beyond the horizon would not be sitting at right angles to the horizon. It would be at right angles to the relevant curvature. The ships in the image are both upright which clearly shows the pic is a fake.
If an infinite number of ships on the sea beyond the horizon (one after the other) could be viewed to an infinite distance they would not be sitting like little ducks in a row.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 10, 2022, 09:41:30 AM
It might be credible if this video had been an 'official' and authentic recording.
What "official" agency do you suppose would be recording such videos and why would you believe them?  We all know how "official" agencies lie all the time.

It could quite easily be CGI.
It can also be independently recreated by anyone with the appropriate consumer grade equipment.



The word 'debunked' usually means someone has deliberately set out to prove something wrong rather than just to stumble upon something.
What makes you think that whoever recorded that video didn't deliberately set out to prove that the FE claims about ships and the horizon are wrong?

This sort of thing would be ideal for David Attenboroughs 'Planet' series - we are forever being shown whats on the planet but not what the planet actually is. Film crews spend months and months waiting to catch a glimpse of a snow leopard. If they sat for 20 minutes at a busy port they could surely replicate these images. But they don't.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 10, 2022, 10:57:11 AM
If the earth is a globe then any image of a ship beyond the horizon would not be sitting at right angles to the horizon. It would be at right angles to the relevant curvature. The ships in the image are both upright which clearly shows the pic is a fake.

...but the curvature is directly away from the observer, along his line of sight. Not left to right across his field of view. Besides which, using textbook sizes and angles, a ship would have to be 69 miles to either the left or right to exhibit only one degree of deviation from the vertical.

In the example shown, if the farther ship was 69 miles from the observer, it would only exhibit an inclination of only one degree away from the observer, which would be totally invisible to him
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on December 10, 2022, 11:45:02 AM
If the earth is a globe then any image of a ship beyond the horizon would not be sitting at right angles to the horizon. It would be at right angles to the relevant curvature. The ships in the image are both upright which clearly shows the pic is a fake.
If an infinite number of ships on the sea beyond the horizon (one after the other) could be viewed to an infinite distance they would not be sitting like little ducks in a row.

As Tumeni said (while I was writing); Correct.  If the ship were 60 nautical miles from the observer it would appear to be tilting away by 1 degree.  As the ship appears to be less than 60 nautical miles, the angle of tilt will be less that 1 degree.  Please demonstrate that the ship shown is not leaning away by less that 1 degree. 
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 10, 2022, 11:59:51 AM
If they sat for 20 minutes at a busy port they could surely replicate these images. But they don't.

... because they don't need to, when the general public can see them for themselves.

Even when someone DOES produce a photo or a video of this, all you do is deride it on the basis that it COULD be CGI or Photoshop. Never any actual proof that it is, just "could be" ....
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: AATW on December 10, 2022, 04:27:58 PM
Film crews spend months and months waiting to catch a glimpse of a snow leopard. If they sat for 20 minutes at a busy port they could surely replicate these images. But they don't.
Why would they? Discovering more about the snow leopard is something interesting and useful to science. Demonstrating that the earth is a sphere, when we have an ISS orbiting it and have technologies like GPS and Satellite TV which relies on that fact, is not. But if you are sincere about wanting to understand more about reality then you could do some of these tests yourself. The equipment required to do so is not prohibitively expensive these days. If you’re going to call any pictures of video which don’t confirm your beliefs CGI then why not do your own tests? Part of your confusion seems to be not understanding how big the earth is. The fact you think that distant ships or buildings should be angled steeply away from the observer demonstrates you’re not understanding the scale of things. As other have posted, the ships would be angled away from the viewer at a fraction of a degree. Not something which would be noticeable to the naked eye.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: markjo on December 10, 2022, 05:18:17 PM
This sort of thing would be ideal for David Attenboroughs 'Planet' series...

Right, because David Attenborough would never do anything to deceive us.

Quote from: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-david-attenborough-nature-documentaries-fake-a8291961.html
It’s about time we recognised that nature documentary makers regularly deceive us – and we’re partly to blame

Over and over we hear revelations that scenes are staged and mischaracterised, yet David Attenborough seems to remain beyond reproach in the eyes of the British public

Why take anyone else's word for it when you can  just go to the beach and look for yourself?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 10, 2022, 05:25:36 PM
This sort of thing would be ideal for David Attenboroughs 'Planet' series - we are forever being shown whats on the planet but not what the planet actually is. Film crews spend months and months waiting to catch a glimpse of a snow leopard. If they sat for 20 minutes at a busy port they could surely replicate these images. But they don't.

Do you live in a coastal region? Can you reach the coast easily?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 11, 2022, 01:50:24 PM
So at what point i.e. distance from the shore, would a ship become impossible to see (assuming it has an unlimited height) due to the curvature of the earth? I presume the 90 degree mark i.e. 6,000 miles away?
And if such a ship had a mast lets say of 4,000 feet tall - assuming curvature of 8 inches per mile then using a telescope capable of seeing such a distance what would that ship look like in the water? According to the figures mentioned above it would appear to be lying on its side i.e. at 90 degrees but we know that isnt how it would be. I rather fancy it would still be sailing at right angles to the water surface.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SteelyBob on December 11, 2022, 03:33:30 PM
So at what point i.e. distance from the shore, would a ship become impossible to see (assuming it has an unlimited height) due to the curvature of the earth? I presume the 90 degree mark i.e. 6,000 miles away?
And if such a ship had a mast lets say of 4,000 feet tall - assuming curvature of 8 inches per mile then using a telescope capable of seeing such a distance what would that ship look like in the water? According to the figures mentioned above it would appear to be lying on its side i.e. at 90 degrees but we know that isnt how it would be. I rather fancy it would still be sailing at right angles to the water surface.

Using this calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature (https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature)

...and an observer height of 1.7m (ie a man standing at sea level) then a 4000ft object would be completely obscured at 80 statute miles, so still pretty much 1 degree of tilt territory. Note that this ignores refraction, which will, depending on the conditions, increase the distance that distant objects can be seen, as well as meteorological visibility, which generally prevents anything further than 10-20 miles or so being seen clearly. And that tilt is with respect to the observer, not the local see. Anywhere on earth the surface appears to be level. It is earth's massive size, compared to us as humans, that causes the confusion. There are many ways to demonstrate or test for the shape - gyroscopes, stellar observations, distant objects disappearing below the horizon - but as you are demonstrating, if you aren't willing to be open-minded, it's a somewhat futile task to change peoples' opinions.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 11, 2022, 05:43:20 PM
So at what point i.e. distance from the shore, would a ship become impossible to see (assuming it has an unlimited height) due to the curvature of the earth? I presume the 90 degree mark i.e. 6,000 miles away?

One can only compute this if the height of the ship is known. Not with an unspecified "unlimited" height
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SteelyBob on December 11, 2022, 06:04:15 PM
So at what point i.e. distance from the shore, would a ship become impossible to see (assuming it has an unlimited height) due to the curvature of the earth? I presume the 90 degree mark i.e. 6,000 miles away?

One can only compute this if the height of the ship is known. Not with an unspecified "unlimited" height

I guess if the height was unlimited (ie infinite) then you would be able to see some part of it on all locations on the globe apart from the point directly opposite the observer - ie if the observer was at the North Pole and the infinite tall thing was at the South Pole, then you wouldn't be able to see it. Deviate from that position, however, and the infinite vertical protrusion would also have some infinite horizontal component part as well, meaning you'd see it sticking out.

A somewhat odd thought experiment.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 11, 2022, 06:52:20 PM
Let us take the Earth as a perfect sphere.

Place a human on the surface, and let's say he is 1.7m tall. He will be able to see to the horizon, and whatever is nearer than the horizon, but nothing of the Earth's surface beyond it. If we draw a plumbline, a vertical at his location, his sightline to and beyond the horizon will be the green angle H. (EDIT - No, it will not BE the green angle - the sightline and vertical will FORM the angle H)

If there's a ship out there of infinite height, and we also draw a plumb vertical at its location, the angle between that plumb and the vertical we formed at the human's location will be the red angle S

These two lines can only meet (i.e. the human's sightline will meet the ship's infinite height) if angle S is greater than H. If they are equal, the sightline will be parallel to the ship, and can never meet it. If S is less than H, the sightline will diverge away from the ship. The lines can only meet if they converge. If S is greater than H. I could work out the maths to the Nth degree to determine exactly how far, but really ...

(https://i.imgur.com/2iLN7gz.jpg)
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SteelyBob on December 11, 2022, 08:56:46 PM
Let us take the Earth as a perfect sphere.

Place a human on the surface, and let's say he is 1.7m tall. He will be able to see to the horizon, and whatever is nearer than the horizon, but nothing of the Earth's surface beyond it. If we draw a plumbline, a vertical at his location, his sightline to and beyond the horizon will be the green angle H.

If there's a ship out there of infinite height, and we also draw a plumb vertical at its location, the angle between that plumb and the vertical we formed at the human's location will be the red angle S

These two lines can only meet (i.e. the human's sightline will meet the ship's infinite height) if angle S is greater than H. If they are equal, the sightline will be parallel to the ship, and can never meet it. If S is less than H, the sightline will diverge away from the ship. The lines can only meet if they converge. If S is greater than H. I could work out the maths to the Nth degree to determine exactly how far, but really ...

(https://i.imgur.com/2iLN7gz.jpg)

My bad - you are absolutely correct. Nicely explained.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 11, 2022, 09:43:40 PM
Some interesting diagrams and explanations. Thank you.
It seems that the further away from the shoreline the ship travels that the more it tilts away from the observer standing on the shore. To the extent that if it could be zoomed in enough and with an unlimited height it would eventually lean so far away from the observer that it was not visible. Would that not be the case?
 
I have a further question and would be grateful for comments.
In the attached diagram (I hope it attaches) it shows the earth (blue circle) and astronaut (at position 'A', and the astronauts line of vision to the earth (the red arrow). The stick person is what I would presume the astronaut would see if they zoomed in on a person at or near to the equator. They would appear to be sticking out at right angles to the earth. Can anyone explain why this would not be the case? I understand the global earth has no top or bottom or sides. But the astronaut surely wouldn't see the person standing vertically - could they? Would they?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 11, 2022, 10:37:51 PM
Some interesting diagrams and explanations. Thank you. It seems that the further away from the shoreline the ship travels that the more it tilts away from the observer standing on the shore. To the extent that if it could be zoomed in enough and with an unlimited height it would eventually lean so far away from the observer that it was not visible. Would that not be the case?

Isn't that basically what I said and diagrammed, just phrased slightly differently?

If S is less than H, the non-parallel lines must meet at some point, no matter how far away. In theory, the observer has a direct sight line to, and can see the ship of infinite height.

If S is equal to H, the lines are parallel and cannot meet
If S is greater than H, the lines are divergent away from each other and cannot meet

In both of the latter cases, the observer cannot see the ship of infinite height
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 11, 2022, 11:00:15 PM
In the attached diagram (I hope it attaches) it shows the earth (blue circle) and astronaut (at position 'A', and the astronauts line of vision to the earth (the red arrow). The stick person is what I would presume the astronaut would see if they zoomed in on a person at or near to the equator. They would appear to be sticking out at right angles to the earth. Can anyone explain why this would not be the case? I understand the global earth has no top or bottom or sides. But the astronaut surely wouldn't see the person standing vertically - could they? Would they?

If the astronaut were vertically aligned with the letter, on a theoretically vertical N-S axis, then this WOULD be the case. I can't fathom why you're asking anyone to explain why it would not be.

In theory, if the astronaut had a zoom capability to this extent, the guy on Earth WOULD be aligned that way.

If you place an analogue clock on your wall, and orient it in the standard manner - 12 at the top, 3 to the right, 6 at bottom, 9 to the left. then 3 and 9 will ONLY be in their correct place if you remain upright, won't they? If you stand on your head, 3 will be left and 9 right. If you lie on the floor with your head to left or right, then 3 and 9 will be top/bottom in your field of view. 
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 12, 2022, 04:49:40 PM
I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.
But why does such a picture not exist. Why not take a zoomed in photo from a craft in space (from or near to the astronaut location/angle on above diagram) of a mountain range close to the equator. Surely the technology exists. Would it really show the peaks of the mountains sticking out at right angles to the earth?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2022, 05:08:01 PM
I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth. But why does such a picture not exist. Why not take a zoomed in photo from a craft in space (from or near to the astronaut location/angle on above diagram) of a mountain range close to the equator. Surely the technology exists. Would it really show the peaks of the mountains sticking out at right angles to the earth?

You've answered your own question already;

To the extent that if it could be zoomed in enough

Merely saying "Surely the technology exists." does not actually make it so.

The person on the outer rim of the Earth, when viewed from a point in space, would not only be farther away from the camera than any other point on the surface, but the amount of atmosphere that the camera would need to find its way through would at its greatest. Besides which, why, having actually launched a craft into space, having presumably placed it in a stable orbit around Earth, for which the base requirement is to know the shape of the Earth, would anyone operating the space craft want to indulge you on this? What reason would you give to justify it as a worthwhile use of time and payload?

That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

Already done by other means. Hundreds of years of cartography and mapmaking. 60+ years of orbital space flight. One cannot have an orbit without an orb, globe or sphere to orbit around. etc. etc.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2022, 05:14:44 PM
I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

We have numerous photographs of the Earth from multiple space missions. One can identify the land masses of the various continents in most all of them. If you accept that everybody in (say) Africa is standing upright in their onw geographic position, and you can see that the land mass of Africa wraps around the edge of the globe when viewed from the camera location, why would you doubt that the vertical person in Africa would have a different orientation when viewed by the camera?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 12, 2022, 05:15:52 PM
So if there was a person standing on top of the mountain peak they could be seen at right angles to the planet? Why does no such picture exist? Ever thought of that? The lack of such, what one can only consider as, simple evidence speaks volumes. It would be the mother of all photographs - forget the 'marble earth' pic. This would surpass it. It would look so 'unreal'. But it isnt ever going to exist.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 12, 2022, 05:17:53 PM
I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

We have numerous photographs of the Earth from multiple space missions. One can identify the land masses of the various continents in most all of them. If you accept that everybody in (say) Africa is standing upright in their onw geographic position, and you can see that the land mass of Africa wraps around the edge of the globe when viewed from the camera location, why would you doubt that the vertical person in Africa would have a different orientation when viewed by the camera?

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example? Imagine how folk would marvel at such images. They would be priceless.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2022, 05:25:03 PM
Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example?

You answered that yourself. Read my first reply from the last 15 mins or so.

So if there was a person standing on top of the mountain peak they could be seen at right angles to the planet?

A right angle is 90 degrees. The person, if standing vertically, would be aligned with a plumb line, which if continued downward, would pass through the Earth's centre. Any 90 degree angle formed by another line in relation to this would be totally arbitrary

Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SteelyBob on December 12, 2022, 05:33:17 PM
I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

We have numerous photographs of the Earth from multiple space missions. One can identify the land masses of the various continents in most all of them. If you accept that everybody in (say) Africa is standing upright in their onw geographic position, and you can see that the land mass of Africa wraps around the edge of the globe when viewed from the camera location, why would you doubt that the vertical person in Africa would have a different orientation when viewed by the camera?

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example? Imagine how folk would marvel at such images. They would be priceless.

Not really clear where you’re going with this one. There are loads of photos available - the key word you need is ‘oblique’, meaning side on, as opposed to the normal plan form shots. A quick google will reveal loads of shots. Here’s a couple:

 https://www.newsweek.com/can-you-spot-mt-everest-space-this-photo-astronaut-took-iss-1654811?amp=1 (https://www.newsweek.com/can-you-spot-mt-everest-space-this-photo-astronaut-took-iss-1654811?amp=1)

 https://www.universetoday.com/147074/mount-everest-seen-from-space/amp/ (https://www.universetoday.com/147074/mount-everest-seen-from-space/amp/)

The issue is that you are just going to cry ‘fake’ at anything that refutes your views. The orientation thing seems a bit of a red herring - you can rotate any photo, any which way you choose. Most of the oblique shots that I’ve seen have been orientated gravity-down, but even if they weren’t, you would presumably just say they were faked, right?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 12, 2022, 05:38:19 PM
Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example?

You answered that yourself. Read my first reply from the last 15 mins or so.

So if there was a person standing on top of the mountain peak they could be seen at right angles to the planet?

A right angle is 90 degrees. The person, if standing vertically, would be aligned with a plumb line, which if continued downward, would pass through the Earth's centre. Any 90 degree angle formed by another line in relation to this would be totally arbitrary

I dont think you understood fully what i was getting at. Probably my fault. Yes the person on the equator will be standing upright with their feet pointing to the centre of the earth. But when viewed from a point in space above or directly above the globe (above the north pole for example) they will look, to the observer like they are sticking out from the earth at right angles to it as in my diagram.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 12, 2022, 05:39:52 PM
I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

We have numerous photographs of the Earth from multiple space missions. One can identify the land masses of the various continents in most all of them. If you accept that everybody in (say) Africa is standing upright in their onw geographic position, and you can see that the land mass of Africa wraps around the edge of the globe when viewed from the camera location, why would you doubt that the vertical person in Africa would have a different orientation when viewed by the camera?

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example? Imagine how folk would marvel at such images. They would be priceless.

Not really clear where you’re going with this one. There are loads of photos available - the key word you need is ‘oblique’, meaning side on, as opposed to the normal plan form shots. A quick google will reveal loads of shots. Here’s a couple:

 https://www.newsweek.com/can-you-spot-mt-everest-space-this-photo-astronaut-took-iss-1654811?amp=1 (https://www.newsweek.com/can-you-spot-mt-everest-space-this-photo-astronaut-took-iss-1654811?amp=1)

 https://www.universetoday.com/147074/mount-everest-seen-from-space/amp/ (https://www.universetoday.com/147074/mount-everest-seen-from-space/amp/)

The issue is that you are just going to cry ‘fake’ at anything that refutes your views. The orientation thing seems a bit of a red herring - you can rotate any photo, any which way you choose. Most of the oblique shots that I’ve seen have been orientated gravity-down, but even if they weren’t, you would presumably just say they were faked, right?

Nice pics but they are taken side on - not from the location i suggested.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2022, 05:43:22 PM
Yes the person on the equator will be standing upright with their feet pointing to the centre of the earth. But when viewed from a point in space above or directly above the globe (above the north pole for example) they will look, to the observer like they are sticking out from the earth at right angles to it as in my diagram.

Yup, like the example I gave above in text. You can see the land masses, why would you think anyone on those land masses is not vertically aligned? Here's the picture to show it

(https://i.imgur.com/ulb7bqf.jpg)
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2022, 05:44:27 PM
Nice pics but they are taken side on - not from the location i suggested.

....and as I said, you have already stated in your own words why that is either impossible or at least extraordinarily difficult.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 12, 2022, 05:45:47 PM
Change the 'stick' person in my diagram for a mountain range near the equator and take a pic of it from a point many many miles directly 'above it'. I use the word 'above' to illustrate where I mean (as i know most people think the earth does not have a top or bottom). Looking 'down' on the mountain range the peaks will stick out of the globe as the stick person does. Will they not? And if they did wouldnt it make a fantastic picture? Especially with a mountaineer standing on the peak looking like they are floating.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 12, 2022, 05:47:40 PM
Yes the person on the equator will be standing upright with their feet pointing to the centre of the earth. But when viewed from a point in space above or directly above the globe (above the north pole for example) they will look, to the observer like they are sticking out from the earth at right angles to it as in my diagram.

Yup, like the example I gave above in text. You can see the land masses, why would you think anyone on those land masses is not vertically aligned? Here's the picture to show it

(https://i.imgur.com/ulb7bqf.jpg)

I didnt say they would be vertically alighned but if those people you had drawn on that globe were real and a real photo was taken of them from that same side view would they appear to lean/tilt as in your image?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2022, 07:01:15 PM
Change the 'stick' person in my diagram for a mountain range near the equator and take a pic of it from a point many many miles directly 'above it'. I use the word 'above' to illustrate where I mean (as i know most people think the earth does not have a top or bottom). Looking 'down' on the mountain range the peaks will stick out of the globe as the stick person does. Will they not? And if they did wouldnt it make a fantastic picture? Especially with a mountaineer standing on the peak looking like they are floating.

I'm coming to the conclusion that you're not really sure what you're asking for. If the photographer was directly above the stick person in both your diagram and my photo, he would not appear as shown. You would see the top of his head. He's shown from head to foot because what you're asking for IS the side view of him, not the view from above.

In my illustration with the two stick men, the camera is above mountains in the upper half of South America, but the mountains in Alaska/Canada and/or Africa are being viewed from the side, not from above


I didnt say they would be vertically aligned but if those people you had drawn on that globe were real and a real photo was taken of them from that same side view would they appear to lean/tilt as in your image?

Yes. Why do you think they would not (if, indeed, that's what you think - it's a struggle to tease that out of you)?

If someone stands upright, they are vertically aligned with respect to the land mass below them, are they not?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: AATW on December 12, 2022, 07:37:42 PM
I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 12, 2022, 08:08:46 PM
I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SteelyBob on December 12, 2022, 08:16:47 PM
I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2022, 09:34:31 PM
We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

Is there such a thing as a 3-dimensional photo?

The issue is not whether or not the blue marbles have been assembled from subsidiary photos, or whatever. We're proceeding on the explicit presumption/assumption that that the Earth is a perfect sphere. From reply #56, as I recall.

Yes, reply #56

Let us take the Earth as a perfect sphere. ...

The blue marbles are being used to illustrate the mechanics, the geometry of what we're talking about, following your questions, and on the explicit presumption/assumption quoted above. It does not matter, for the purposes of such, what they have been derived from. They're merely being used to illustrate.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 12, 2022, 10:05:32 PM
I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.

'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: stack on December 12, 2022, 10:38:42 PM
I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.

'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

I'm not sure I'm following "No formulas, equations, theories or experiments.". There are plenty.

For instance, in this FE/RE comparison calculator we have a 3000' mountain, 25 miles away with an observer height of about 6.5'.

In the RE model, the mountain bottom is obscured by the earth by about 319'. More importantly is the tilt, which I think is what you have been referencing - The tilt of the object away from the observer. As you can see, given the large size of the earth the "tilt", given all the parameters, is approximately 0.36°. Which is imperceptible to the human eye.

(https://i.imgur.com/sUZT0Ul.png)
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2022, 11:07:47 PM
'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away.

Yes. None of which requires leaving our planet. And we can only see the big craters on the Moon. The craters the size of Everest are invisible.


But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe.  That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

It requires leaving the planet. That is an expensive undertaking. Nobody is going to do that to satisfy you, not on the basis of around 60 posts here, not on the basis of what you've said, and certainly not on the basis of the forum you've asked in.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

You can dress this up as a big failing of "globe earth proof" if you want.... you can hint at this being the only globe proof that would be acceptable, but neither of those really cut it.

Plenty of globe proofs gathered since the time of Copernicus, possibly earlier.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2022, 11:09:53 PM
Again the question from a couple of hours ago;

"What would it take to persuade you that you are wrong?"

4 October 1957, Russia launched humankind's first orbital satellite. The Americans, primarily, wanted to know where it was at any one time, so their boffins used doppler techniques to track it, and narrowed down the orbital time and path using them. They found it had a regular 90min interval between appearances. What a coincidence, that's pretty much the same as the ISS. How would that happen, other than by them both being orbital objects?

Since then, there have been thousands of craft launched from Earth into orbit and into other trajectories. You don't REALLY think all the people involved are ... pretending? in the dark?  do you? Really?

Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: markjo on December 13, 2022, 03:48:31 AM
'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.
Just out of curiosity, have you tried doing a Google search for commercial satellite imagery?  It's a multi-billion dollar industry and I'm thinking that their customers would be more than just a bit irate if all of that imagery turned out to be fake.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SteelyBob on December 13, 2022, 08:43:45 AM
[
'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

Something like this?

 https://www.businessinsider.com/mount-everest-himalayas-astronaut-photos-2016-6 (https://www.businessinsider.com/mount-everest-himalayas-astronaut-photos-2016-6)

I’m not really clear why the ‘projection’ aspect of this gives you the proof. You’ve already dismissed other photos as fake, so wouldn’t you just say it was fake as well?

Moreover, I’m not sure if the kind of photo you’re after is even possible - Everest is a big mountain (elevation approx 5.5 statute miles), but it’s tiny in comparison to the earth, so any picture that shows an appreciable component of the globe (radius approx 4000 statute miles) isn’t going to really show Everest itself very much. You also have the problem that the more oblique the photo, the more haze layer you have to photograph through, and the fuzzier the image.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 10:24:29 AM
I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.

'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

I'm not sure I'm following "No formulas, equations, theories or experiments.". There are plenty.

For instance, in this FE/RE comparison calculator we have a 3000' mountain, 25 miles away with an observer height of about 6.5'.

In the RE model, the mountain bottom is obscured by the earth by about 319'. More importantly is the tilt, which I think is what you have been referencing - The tilt of the object away from the observer. As you can see, given the large size of the earth the "tilt", given all the parameters, is approximately 0.36°. Which is imperceptible to the human eye.

(https://i.imgur.com/sUZT0Ul.png)

That is simply a model though based an a RE theory? It doesnt prove anything it shows what things would look like if the earth was round.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 10:32:39 AM
'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away.

Yes. None of which requires leaving our planet. And we can only see the big craters on the Moon. The craters the size of Everest are invisible.


But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe.  That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

It requires leaving the planet. That is an expensive undertaking. Nobody is going to do that to satisfy you, not on the basis of around 60 posts here, not on the basis of what you've said, and certainly not on the basis of the forum you've asked in.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

You can dress this up as a big failing of "globe earth proof" if you want.... you can hint at this being the only globe proof that would be acceptable, but neither of those really cut it.

Plenty of globe proofs gathered since the time of Copernicus, possibly earlier.

There are however plenty of things leaving the planet and or floating around it. I wasnt simply asking someone to go take a pic. The lack of close up shots of the earth is a bit like someone taking the 5th amendment or saying 'no comment' in a police interview. There is ample opportunity to 'hover' level with the equator from a decent enough distance and the zoom in with a decent camera (not one of Armstrongs instamatics) photograph what is there sticking out from the edge of the earth. Its not rocket science :-)
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 10:34:49 AM
Again the question from a couple of hours ago;

"What would it take to persuade you that you are wrong?"

4 October 1957, Russia launched humankind's first orbital satellite. The Americans, primarily, wanted to know where it was at any one time, so their boffins used doppler techniques to track it, and narrowed down the orbital time and path using them. They found it had a regular 90min interval between appearances. What a coincidence, that's pretty much the same as the ISS. How would that happen, other than by them both being orbital objects?

Since then, there have been thousands of craft launched from Earth into orbit and into other trajectories. You don't REALLY think all the people involved are ... pretending? in the dark?  do you? Really?

Are you saying its not possible to orbit around a flat disk? Are you? Really?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 10:35:34 AM
'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.
Just out of curiosity, have you tried doing a Google search for commercial satellite imagery?  It's a multi-billion dollar industry and I'm thinking that their customers would be more than just a bit irate if all of that imagery turned out to be fake.

Just their customers? Wouldnt you be irate too?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 10:40:12 AM
[
'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

Something like this?

 https://www.businessinsider.com/mount-everest-himalayas-astronaut-photos-2016-6 (https://www.businessinsider.com/mount-everest-himalayas-astronaut-photos-2016-6)

I’m not really clear why the ‘projection’ aspect of this gives you the proof. You’ve already dismissed other photos as fake, so wouldn’t you just say it was fake as well?

Moreover, I’m not sure if the kind of photo you’re after is even possible - Everest is a big mountain (elevation approx 5.5 statute miles), but it’s tiny in comparison to the earth, so any picture that shows an appreciable component of the globe (radius approx 4000 statute miles) isn’t going to really show Everest itself very much. You also have the problem that the more oblique the photo, the more haze layer you have to photograph through, and the fuzzier the image.

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 13, 2022, 10:51:55 AM
The lack of close up shots of the earth is a bit like someone taking the 5th amendment or saying 'no comment' in a police interview.

There is no lack of them. There are thousands upon thousands.  They just might not fit EXACTLY the criteria that you want to impose, post-flight, on the photographer(s). The lack of those which fit exactly the criteria you've outlined in the last few days is not, of itself, any sort of disproof of globe earth, nor a proof of flat.

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/



Are you saying its not possible to orbit around a flat disk? Are you? Really?

It's in the etymology and the definitions. Orb-it. Round an orb.

Definitions; the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution; one complete circuit round an orbited body; the state of moving in an orbit.

If you can find the flat star, planet or moon, then I might accept that there could be an orbit around it, but for the time being, science says they're all broadly spherical.


That is simply a model though based an a RE theory? It doesnt prove anything it shows what things would look like if the earth was round.

So, in order to show the Earth is not round, it's down to you to indicate instances where the model is incorrect, and does not match real-world observation.

Again; What would it take to persuade you that you are wrong?

 
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SteelyBob on December 13, 2022, 12:23:59 PM

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 01:20:02 PM
The lack of close up shots of the earth is a bit like someone taking the 5th amendment or saying 'no comment' in a police interview.

There is no lack of them. There are thousands upon thousands.  They just might not fit EXACTLY the criteria that you want to impose, post-flight, on the photographer(s). The lack of those which fit exactly the criteria you've outlined in the last few days is not, of itself, any sort of disproof of globe earth, nor a proof of flat.

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/

Good link that - a great help. The first thing I found was a set of photos of a flat earth with the title 'EarthDisc' and not Earth Orb.
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/ShowQueryResults-Lightcycle.pl?results=EarthDisc





Are you saying its not possible to orbit around a flat disk? Are you? Really?

It's in the etymology and the definitions. Orb-it. Round an orb.
Definitions; the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution; one complete circuit round an orbited body; the state of moving in an orbit.
If you can find the flat star, planet or moon, then I might accept that there could be an orbit around it, but for the time being, science says they're all broadly spherical.

Oh dear thats a tad pedantic surely. Its only called orbit because scientists think the earths an orb.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: AATW on December 13, 2022, 01:24:44 PM
'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth.
It really wouldn't.

From ancient times we knew the true shape of the earth. We might not have been able to observe it directly, but it can be inferred from observations.
The Wiki pages here on things like EA are an admission that observations do not match what you would expect to see on a FE. The very existence of a horizon is good evidence. Why is there a sharp line between the sea and sky? Why is that line only a few miles away? Why can't you see more sea? It can't be visibility, you can see ships and distant landmarks further away, you just can't see the bottom of them. Why not? What's hiding the bottom of them? And why does increasing in altitude increase the distance to the horizon? All these observations make sense on a sphere, on a FE you have to invoke mechanisms to explain them.
You can make observations of the sun and moon too - they maintain a constant angular size through the day and night, that implies a constant distance. Objects get smaller as they get further away. Again, this makes sense on a rotating globe with a distant sun and moon. On a FE other mechanisms have to be hypothesised to explain it.

But then since the 60s we've had the ability to observe the shape of the earth  directly via both manned and space exploration.
We had Earthrise in 1968 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise )
And The Blue Marble in 1972 ( https://www.nasa.gov/content/blue-marble-image-of-the-earth-from-apollo-17 )
Actual photos taken by humans who observed the earth as it really is.

There's also this timelapse made from images taken from the DSCOVR satellite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g

If you don't trust NASA you can find similar things from the Japanese Himawari8 satellite.

Right now we have people orbiting the globe in the ISS - an object you can see from the ground. We have technologies like GPS and satellite TV which people use every day and relies on satellites orbiting a globe earth. FE exists despite the evidence, not because of it. So with all that, you think the images you're requesting are the things which will tip the balance and end all debate on the matter? It would be just as easy to dismiss them as fake as any other images from space.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 01:30:13 PM

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile. That is 8/63360ths of a mile. Yet we won't see a mountain peak which is a 727th of the 4000 unit radius?
You can do anything with statistics.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 13, 2022, 01:46:20 PM
The first thing I found was a set of photos of a flat earth with the title 'EarthDisc' and not Earth Orb.

Yes, that's their term for a view in which you can see the full circumference, as opposed to detail shots which pick out small portions of the surface

You did notice that none of those full shots show all the countries of the world, didn't you?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SteelyBob on December 13, 2022, 01:52:57 PM

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile. That is 8/63360ths of a mile. Yet we won't see a mountain peak which is a 727th of the 4000 unit radius?
You can do anything with statistics.

I don’t claim that, no. I believe that is a rule of thumb, which you have slightly misquoted - it’s per mile squared.

Emphasis on rule of thumb though - it’s not accurate, and it gets less accurate the further away you go.

Let’s try this again. Draw a circle of 8 inches diameter on a piece of paper. That is earth. You can write N and S to indicate the poles, and a line across the middle to show the equator.

Now let’s try to draw the situation you describe. Get a protractor and measure 28 degrees around from the equator towards the North Pole - mark it off on the edge of circle. That’s Everest’s latitude. Now draw a mountain sticking out from the earth by 5.5 thousandths of an inch. Let me know how you get on, bearing in mind that your pen or pencil is probably making lines substantially thicker than Everest is high.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 13, 2022, 01:59:03 PM
So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile.

Back to reply #16 in this thread.

The water pictured CANNOT be flat, for the reasons I stated in reply #16 and those which follow. It cannot be concave, as that would exacerbate those reasons. So it must be convex. Curved.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on December 13, 2022, 02:40:10 PM
And Simon, you understand that although Sagarmatha (Everest) is the highest mountain, it doesn't just rise up to 8848 metres directly from sea level, like the Eiffel Tower.  Its in a mountain range, its surrounded by other mountains; its like the tallest man standing in a crowd of very tall men.   

Also, its not symmetrical.  When you find such a photo how will you define whether it is perpendicular to the horizon?   
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 09:13:05 PM
The first thing I found was a set of photos of a flat earth with the title 'EarthDisc' and not Earth Orb.

Yes, that's their term for a view in which you can see the full circumference, as opposed to detail shots which pick out small portions of the surface

You did notice that none of those full shots show all the countries of the world, didn't you?

So its ok to say that anything you think is orbitting the round earth is going full circumference round a flat earth (whether you believe FE or not is it ok to describe it as such thereby leaving the key word 'orbit' out of the description)?

And those full shots - how do you know what the countries of the world look like after having only seen them on a rectangular drawing on the school room walls?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 09:14:10 PM
The first thing I found was a set of photos of a flat earth with the title 'EarthDisc' and not Earth Orb.

Yes, that's their term for a view in which you can see the full circumference, as opposed to detail shots which pick out small portions of the surface

You did notice that none of those full shots show all the countries of the world, didn't you?

Its ok for NASA to term it a disc. But not anyone else? Is that what you are saying?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 09:16:42 PM

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile. That is 8/63360ths of a mile. Yet we won't see a mountain peak which is a 727th of the 4000 unit radius?
You can do anything with statistics.

I don’t claim that, no. I believe that is a rule of thumb, which you have slightly misquoted - it’s per mile squared.

Emphasis on rule of thumb though - it’s not accurate, and it gets less accurate the further away you go.

Let’s try this again. Draw a circle of 8 inches diameter on a piece of paper. That is earth. You can write N and S to indicate the poles, and a line across the middle to show the equator.

Now let’s try to draw the situation you describe. Get a protractor and measure 28 degrees around from the equator towards the North Pole - mark it off on the edge of circle. That’s Everest’s latitude. Now draw a mountain sticking out from the earth by 5.5 thousandths of an inch. Let me know how you get on, bearing in mind that your pen or pencil is probably making lines substantially thicker than Everest is high.

Yes but science is not based on miniscule scale models its based on fact. Of course I wont see anything at that scale. But on the total scale of the earth I expect to see something projecting from 'ground level'. Dont you?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 09:18:02 PM

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile. That is 8/63360ths of a mile. Yet we won't see a mountain peak which is a 727th of the 4000 unit radius?
You can do anything with statistics.

I don’t claim that, no. I believe that is a rule of thumb, which you have slightly misquoted - it’s per mile squared.

Emphasis on rule of thumb though - it’s not accurate, and it gets less accurate the further away you go.

Let’s try this again. Draw a circle of 8 inches diameter on a piece of paper. That is earth. You can write N and S to indicate the poles, and a line across the middle to show the equator.

Now let’s try to draw the situation you describe. Get a protractor and measure 28 degrees around from the equator towards the North Pole - mark it off on the edge of circle. That’s Everest’s latitude. Now draw a mountain sticking out from the earth by 5.5 thousandths of an inch. Let me know how you get on, bearing in mind that your pen or pencil is probably making lines substantially thicker than Everest is high.

Its ok for you to tell me its a rule of thumb that I am using when you are using a rule of thumb for the diameter of the earth?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 09:19:08 PM
So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile.

Back to reply #16 in this thread.

The water pictured CANNOT be flat, for the reasons I stated in reply #16 and those which follow. It cannot be concave, as that would exacerbate those reasons. So it must be convex. Curved.

Must be? Or is?
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 09:20:25 PM
And Simon, you understand that although Sagarmatha (Everest) is the highest mountain, it doesn't just rise up to 8848 metres directly from sea level, like the Eiffel Tower.  Its in a mountain range, its surrounded by other mountains; its like the tallest man standing in a crowd of very tall men.   

Also, its not symmetrical.  When you find such a photo how will you define whether it is perpendicular to the horizon?   

Everest is 8848 metres above sea level. It doesnt matter how high it is relative to the ground it rises from.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: stack on December 13, 2022, 09:39:45 PM
I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.

'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

I'm not sure I'm following "No formulas, equations, theories or experiments.". There are plenty.

For instance, in this FE/RE comparison calculator we have a 3000' mountain, 25 miles away with an observer height of about 6.5'.

In the RE model, the mountain bottom is obscured by the earth by about 319'. More importantly is the tilt, which I think is what you have been referencing - The tilt of the object away from the observer. As you can see, given the large size of the earth the "tilt", given all the parameters, is approximately 0.36°. Which is imperceptible to the human eye.

(https://i.imgur.com/sUZT0Ul.png)

That is simply a model though based an a RE theory? It doesnt prove anything it shows what things would look like if the earth was round.

It's a model based upon both FE and RE. You seemed to have failed in seeing the entire left side of the image. And I never said it proved anything. The point being, for RE, it demonstrates how the "tilt" you've been referencing is essentially imperceptible. Why you think otherwise is simply manufactured by you due to your lack of understanding of what you are debating against.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SteelyBob on December 13, 2022, 10:01:31 PM
[
Yes but science is based on miniscule scale models its based on fact. Of course I wont see anything at that scale. But on the total scale of the earth I expect to see something projecting from 'ground level'. Dont you?

But you’ve asked for a picture of the mountain with the whole earth shown. That is what you asked for. I’m demonstrating to you that it won’t work, due to the relative size of the earth and the mountain. If I’ve misunderstood you, please sketch what you want the photo to look like.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SteelyBob on December 13, 2022, 10:07:18 PM
[
Its ok for you to tell me its a rule of thumb that I am using when you are using a rule of thumb for the diameter of the earth?

I’m using an approximation - the earth isn’t a perfect sphere, it’s an oblate spheroid - fat in the middle. 4000 miles is close enough.

I told you the other one is a rule of thumb because it is a rule of thumb. You then mangled it, misunderstood it and then produced some maths that was so wrong it’s hard to know where to start.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: stack on December 13, 2022, 10:09:21 PM
And those full shots - how do you know what the countries of the world look like after having only seen them on a rectangular drawing on the school room walls?

They seem to look awfully similar...

(https://i.imgur.com/85JsqOR.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Act2YvY.png)
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 13, 2022, 11:01:05 PM
And those full shots - how do you know what the countries of the world look like after having only seen them on a rectangular drawing on the school room walls?

They seem to look awfully similar...
Yes one is copied from the other.


(https://i.imgur.com/85JsqOR.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Act2YvY.png)
And those full shots - how do you know what the countries of the world look like after having only seen them on a rectangular drawing on the school room walls?

They seem to look awfully similar...

(https://i.imgur.com/85JsqOR.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Act2YvY.png)
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 13, 2022, 11:19:29 PM
Its ok for NASA to term it a disc. But not anyone else? Is that what you are saying?

Since they only use the term for a small subset of the photos, they clearly don't mean to say it's a disc in actuality
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: markjo on December 13, 2022, 11:26:46 PM
Just out of curiosity, have you tried doing a Google search for commercial satellite imagery?  It's a multi-billion dollar industry and I'm thinking that their customers would be more than just a bit irate if all of that imagery turned out to be fake.

Just their customers? Wouldnt you be irate too?
Me irate?  Why?  I don't need satellite imagery in my day to day job or life.  However, there are any number of different industries that do rely on satellite imagery being accurate and informative.

Quote from: https://www.geolandproject.eu/2022/04/14/the-importance-of-satellite-images/
Satellite images are one of the most powerful and important tools we have for monitoring the earth. They track the physical environment (water, air, land, vegetation) and the changing human footprint across the globe. Satellite imagery is used to measure, identify and track human activity.

Satellite images have many applications for instance in meteorology and weather forecasting,  fishing, oceanography, agriculture, conservation, forestry, landscape analysis, geology, mapping, regional planning, environmental assessment, intelligence, warfare and education.  In education, satellite images are present in textbooks and online as support for maps, graphs and text.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: SimonC on December 14, 2022, 09:53:03 AM
It was soo brief, appears to be a swell covering the hull with perspective issues also.

FLAT EARTH

Interesting.  A "soo brief" 30 second swell that is covering the distant ship yet there are no swells around the ship in the foreground.

The rear of the foreground ship is covered too.
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on December 14, 2022, 10:20:02 AM


Everest is 8848 metres above sea level. It doesnt matter how high it is relative to the ground it rises from.

Of course it matters.  It only stands out in human consciousness because it is an absolute; humans are obsessed with "highest", "fastest", "biggest", and we use sea level as a universal datum.  Its only "the highest mountain in the world" because it sticks out a tiny bit more from a range of generally high terrain.  Its only 200 metres taller than its best mate, K2.  I live at sea level and I can see a 900 metre mountain (Skiddaw) from my living room window, 30 km away, and its really not that impressive (though pretty to look at). 

Everest is 8 km high and 700 km from the sea.  Why would you notice it from space?  Your seeming obsession with something that small demonstrates that human brains simply can't relate these tiny dimension to the sheer awesomeness of the size of Earth. 

And can I comment on the "map of Africa" thing?  Yes, one is a direct dopy of the other; the map is directly copied from the actual shape of Africa.  People have been sailing around it for millennia, trekking across it for centuries, and flying over it for decades, so I think we had a pretty good idea what shape it was before we ever saw it from space.  And most of the correspondents on this site don't just base their idea of the shape of Earth on "rectangular drawings on school room walls"; we've travelled enough to see them in reality and found that, yes, this map works. 
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 14, 2022, 12:57:42 PM
those full shots - how do you know what the countries of the world look like after having only seen them on a rectangular drawing on the school room walls?

The photos taken from other angles, such as from Himawari;

(https://i.imgur.com/V1nndpF.jpg)

What reason do you have to doubt those who made the maps for the school wall, anyway?


on the total scale of the earth I expect to see something projecting from 'ground level'.

As long as you realise the ground level immediately adjacent to Everest is not the same as sea level. The ground level has, in the main, been climbing from the nearest coastal point, and when you reach the typical base camp for climbing Everest, you're already at over 5000 metres - with Everest topping out at 8848m, the base camps are already 5/8ths of the way there. So the peak of Everest will only be 3/8ths of the whole mountain, peeking up above the surroundings which have already taken up 5/8ths of the height.



Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: Tumeni on December 14, 2022, 01:09:05 PM
The rear of the foreground ship is covered too.

No it isn't

(https://i.imgur.com/UrguUOP.jpg)

Again, here's the full-frame photo

(https://i.imgur.com/YKSPqMa.jpg)

If the seas were flat, my sightline from 100 to 52m (the top of the yellow cranes) must meet the water beyond. The sightline is descending toward the water, so is non-parallel to the presumed flat surface. Non-parallel lines MUST meet. The picture has the sightline missing the water altogether. Connect the camera to the top of a crane with a straight line, continue it beyond the crane, and it meets the sky, not the water. So the water cannot be flat. If it were, we would see water behind and beyond the tops of the cranes

(https://i.imgur.com/fG5MK18.jpg?1)
Title: Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
Post by: existoid on February 10, 2023, 03:58:50 AM

All I can suggest is, once again -

Find a vantage point to look out on the sea and note its height above sea level
Observe something out on the water which is of lower height, above its waterline or coastal line, than your observation position.
Let's say you're at 100m elevation, looking at a ship of 52m.
You must be looking downward at the topmost point of the ship.
You must be looking downward at any and every point on the water's surface.

If the water is truly flat, there can be no instance where you look downward at the topmost point of the ship and fail to see water behind and beyond it.

A descending line from 100 to 0 must pass through 52
A descending line from 100 to 52 must, if continued beyond the 52 point, reach 0. It cannot miss it.

If there is ANY instance where you see clear sky behind and beyond the ship which is lower than you, the sea CANNOT be flat.

100m observation point, 52m ship with twin yellow cranes at approx. 17km. Nothing but clear sky behind and beyond the topmost point. The sea cannot be flat.

(https://i.imgur.com/XwrQpgh.jpg)

Nothing to do with Tom's "sinking ship", no need to show ships "going over the horizon".

Proof found in near-field objects, well within clear viewing distance. Can show the same with observations of islands, lighthouses, other fixtures. Loads of examples.

In a thread filled with great explanations and answers regarding various phenomena, this is, in my humble opinion, the simplest and most succinct one.

I do suggest one modification to make it even stronger and more obvious that this image (and the accompanying explanation) proves an earth that cannot be flat:

Can you make a second image based on the first, of what we would expect to see, were the earth completely flat.  That is, color water "above" the horizon, as if the earth were flat and you were looking out on an expanse down TO that water.  The top of the two cranes on the ship thus still showing water above them.

I am terrible at math and geometry, but my instinct is that the sea, which stretches for hundreds (thousands?) of miles from this point, would intersect with the sky at exactly the height of the vision of the observer. Is that correct?  I.e., rather than a horizon line, a convergence of sea and sky always relative to your eyes.

Yes?