The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Tr1ggsy on July 30, 2019, 10:06:45 AM
-
Hi,
Please let me make 2 statements, 1) I'm not a flat earther 2) I'm not here to Troll, just curious to find out if anyone has answers to a few questions.
1) In FE theory what is on the bottom of the disk?
2) Hypothetically if I dug straight down using the sun's location at specific times of the day to ensure its straight, lasers etc what would happen? Would I fall out of the bottom eventually?
3) if models that use a dome are true couldn't someone leave Truman style?
4) if FE is true, scrap looking at a 6 mile canal why can't I stand on the shore of England and see Ireland (specifically Stand on the beach at Blackpool and look at Dublin 135 miles approximately) or Lisbon looking towards New York with a large telescope and see them?
-
Hi,
Please let me make 2 statements, 1) I'm not a flat earther 2) I'm not here to Troll, just curious to find out if anyone has answers to a few questions.
1) In FE theory what is on the bottom of the disk?
2) Hypothetically if I dug straight down using the sun's location at specific times of the day to ensure its straight, lasers etc what would happen? Would I fall out of the bottom eventually?
3) if models that use a dome are true couldn't someone leave Truman style?
4) if FE is true, scrap looking at a 6 mile canal why can't I stand on the shore of England and see Ireland (specifically Stand on the beach at Blackpool and look at Dublin 135 miles approximately) or Lisbon looking towards New York with a large telescope and see them?
In regard to #4, the absolute limit on range of vision, regardless of shape of the Earth, is approximately 350 kilometers.
This does not take into account the dust, debris, and other atmoplanic obstructions one could expectfor ground level sightings.
-
Hi,
Please let me make 2 statements, 1) I'm not a flat earther 2) I'm not here to Troll, just curious to find out if anyone has answers to a few questions.
1) In FE theory what is on the bottom of the disk?
2) Hypothetically if I dug straight down using the sun's location at specific times of the day to ensure its straight, lasers etc what would happen? Would I fall out of the bottom eventually?
3) if models that use a dome are true couldn't someone leave Truman style?
4) if FE is true, scrap looking at a 6 mile canal why can't I stand on the shore of England and see Ireland (specifically Stand on the beach at Blackpool and look at Dublin 135 miles approximately) or Lisbon looking towards New York with a large telescope and see them?
In regard to #4, the absolute limit on range of vision, regardless of shape of the Earth, is approximately 350 kilometers.
This does not take into account the dust, debris, and other atmoplanic obstructions one could expectfor ground level sightings.
1: Telescopes increase that range greatly
2: Lights at night can be seen from a considerably further distance
3: Surely, at some place on earth at some point in time, the atmospheric conditions will be ideal.
NYC puts out a hell of a lot of light. Imagine the fame and fortune that awaits one who patiently seeks the lighted NYC skyline from far away across the ocean and hits on the perfect night to strike gold.
Hell, it doesn't have to be NYC from Europe. How about Miami from Bimini in the Bahamas? That's only 50 miles away. Miami at night is lit up like a Christmas tree. I've been to Bimini. At night, looking west, you can just make out a dull glow coming from below the horizon. For less than $1,000, you could go to Bimini, set up a telescope, and record the nighttime Miami skyline in great detail, and the (flat) world will be yours.
I wonder why no one has ever done that yet?
-
A couple of other questions just came to mind:
5) how do FE models work with regards to what I will call "naturally spinning objects". These are toilet flushes, cyclones and tornadoes and trees. I am aware trees do not spin or pirouette but if you look closely at most large trees they all tend to have a twist in them. These twists, spins or whatever you want to call them in relation to what they are differ depending on what hemisphere you are in (I'm a not a flat earther so I will call it hemisphere due to ignorance in not knowing the FE terminology)
6) long range projectiles. I am ex-military and I know a few guys who completed their sniper course, these guys could hit targets way in excess of a mile and had to take into account the rotation of the earth. I know some FE models say this doesn't happen so how can the shooters adjustments due to many factors including the rotation of the earth be dismissed?
350km is a lot further than Blackpool to Ireland but even the Isle of Man isn't visible from land which is much closer still. If you can see planets (wether you believe these are planets in the traditional sense or part of a dome projection) vast distances using a telescope then dust particles etc shouldn't make too much of a difference if you choose a clear day, by clear I mean clear all the way from point a to point B and beyond.
Like I said originally I'm not trolling I just really like to find out other people's views on things and pride myself on being very open to new ideas etc. I know what I believe and I've yet to find anything that proves to me the earth is flat. I have seen planes fly south and tracked them on tracking websites etc that usually get thrown about. I know engineers who have worked on structures needing to take into account the earth rotation and curvature so I see this as enough evidence for me without building my own rocket and firing off into space
-
1) In FE theory what is on the bottom of the disk?
There are literally a dozen or more flat earth models with many different answers so i'll just give you some:
1. No one knows.
2. Space
3. Firmament (whatever that is)
4. Whatever material the dome is made of
5. Heaven
6. The earth is infinite you can't dig through the bottom.
7. The earth has a molten core that you can't dig through
2) Hypothetically if I dug straight down using the sun's location at specific times of the day to ensure its straight, lasers etc what would happen? Would I fall out of the bottom eventually?
1. No one knows.
2. You would dig through the bottom of the earth and you would hit Space
3. You would dig through the bottom of the earth and you would hit the Firmament (whatever that is)
4. You would dig through the bottom of the earth and you would hit whatever material the dome is made of
5. You would dig through the bottom of the earth and you would hit Heaven
6. The earth is infinite you can't dig through the bottom.
7. The earth has a molten core that you can't dig through
3) if models that use a dome are true couldn't someone leave Truman style?
1. yes
2. No because there is a firmament
3. no because humans can't survive in space
4. no because the earth is infinite
5. no because you can't walk into heaven
4) if FE is true, scrap looking at a 6 mile canal why can't I stand on the shore of England and see Ireland (specifically Stand on the beach at Blackpool and look at Dublin 135 miles approximately) or Lisbon looking towards New York with a large telescope and see them?
There is a limit to how far light can travel in the atmosphere.
-
There is a limit to how far light can travel in the atmosphere.
a: There really isn't. Not at the distances we are talking about anyway.
b: When I was a military pilot flying at night at 39,000 feet, I could see city lights from hundreds of miles away. Lights that no one on the ground below me could see. Over Omaha, I could clearly see Kansas City, Wichita, KS, Oklahoma City, and even a large glowing haze from below the horizon that was Dallas-Ft. Worth.
c: Any response to my post above? One does not need to be in a military jet at 39,000 feet. Go to Bimini and look west at night. You can see the lights from Miami lighting up the sky at and above the horizon. Clearly that light can travel 50 miles, because you can see it. What you can't see, even with the most powerful telescope, are the individual buildings generating that light. All you will see is a closeup of what you see with the naked eye: an indistinct orange glow at the horizon.
edit: You don't even have to go to such an exotic location as the Bahamas. Go to the shore of Lake Ontario in western NY and look to the Northwest towards Toronto. Or look across Lake Michigan from southern Michigan towards Chicago. You will get the same effect.
-
Q. For iampc: Why is heaven below the earth?
-
So given all the variety of these different flat Earth models (it might be this, it might be that or it could be the other), it seems the only consistent aspect of FET then it that it is full of speculation (to put it politely) and totally devoid of any substance. As someone (AATW I think it was) put it in another thread, where is the evidence for all this speculation?
-
Q. For iampc: Why is heaven below the earth?
well there are a lot of images showing visualizations of this and no two are the same
Source:
https://blog.logos.com/2017/03/visualize-bible-whole-new-way/
(https://blog.logoscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/visualize-bible.jpg)
This makes it appear that the foundations of the heavens is below the earth. I don't know how that differs from "the heavens" or if "the heavens" represents actual heaven or something like the sky or space.
Source:
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/flat-earth-theory-fact-or-fiction.htm
(http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/files/fet2.png)
This one suggest that an abyss is below the earth. Is that space? Is that some part of heaven? I'm not sure.
Source:
https://sharedveracity.net/2018/11/17/the-flat-footed-failure-of-flat-earth-christianity/
(https://sharedveracity.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/flatearth.png?w=490&h=488)
This one has "The great deep" under the earth. Again i'm not sure exactly what this is.
When I try to look at the scripture it's really open for personal intepretation
Philippians 2 Talks about how everyone will kneel for Jesus: In heaven, On earth, and under the earth. This implies that there is not an abyss under the earth but instead people or souls under the earth. Some people believe this is more of a metaphor. These verses don't specifically name the area under the earth but instead imply there are people there.
Even then is this area under the earth physical or spiritual like heaven is. The biblical flat earth models, more than any others, are based on faith and personal interpretation. If you ever go to a bible study group and, among 10 people, there are 6 different opinions about a specific verse each person can have their own personal takeaway.
"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth"
This is mentioned again in Revelation 5:3:
"But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it."
There are several verses which imply that the earth is set on some sort of foundation too.
-
For 2000 years ago all this is entirely plausible and based on how people of that time could well have interpreted the world and the heavens. It is fascinating but I'm sure (I hope) that people know better now that such models or visions are no longer considered a representation of reality.
-
So given all the variety of these different flat Earth models (it might be this, it might be that or it could be the other), it seems the only consistent aspect of FET then it that it is full of speculation (to put it politely) and totally devoid of any substance. As someone (AATW I think it was) put it in another thread, where is the evidence for all this speculation?
The evidence is all over these forums. Certain FE models have certain evidence and can explain most things very well while struggling to explain other things. This is why i'm of the impression that, if the Earth truly is flat, the model that it would be is not anyone that I've seen before. The FE model that makes the most sense to me is not very popular here.
-
Hi,
Please let me make 2 statements, 1) I'm not a flat earther 2) I'm not here to Troll, just curious to find out if anyone has answers to a few questions.
1) In FE theory what is on the bottom of the disk?
2) Hypothetically if I dug straight down using the sun's location at specific times of the day to ensure its straight, lasers etc what would happen? Would I fall out of the bottom eventually?
3) if models that use a dome are true couldn't someone leave Truman style?
4) if FE is true, scrap looking at a 6 mile canal why can't I stand on the shore of England and see Ireland (specifically Stand on the beach at Blackpool and look at Dublin 135 miles approximately) or Lisbon looking towards New York with a large telescope and see them?
In regard to #4, the absolute limit on range of vision, regardless of shape of the Earth, is approximately 350 kilometers.
This does not take into account the dust, debris, and other atmoplanic obstructions one could expect for ground level sightings.
1: Telescopes increase that range greatly
I agree.
I also point out instances of things being viewed at much greater distances than mathematically possible on a sphere the size of the earth.
2: Lights at night can be seen from a considerably further distance
Like lighthouses.
3: Surely, at some place on earth at some point in time, the atmospheric conditions will be ideal.
For the entire distance between observer and object?
I doubt it, but perhaps you have such an unlikely instance to offer.
NYC puts out a hell of a lot of light. Imagine the fame and fortune that awaits one who patiently seeks the lighted NYC skyline from far away across the ocean and hits on the perfect night to strike gold.
As stated earlier, that would require a nearly 3000 mile line of unabated sight.
Hell, it doesn't have to be NYC from Europe. How about Miami from Bimini in the Bahamas? That's only 50 miles away. Miami at night is lit up like a Christmas tree. I've been to Bimini. At night, looking west, you can just make out a dull glow coming from below the horizon. For less than $1,000, you could go to Bimini, set up a telescope, and record the nighttime Miami skyline in great detail, and the (flat) world will be yours.
Chicago has been videotaped from St. Joseph, Michigan, at a distance of over 60 miles. I believe the man's name was Jason Nowicki. I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles.
I wonder why no one has ever done that yet?
You will need to ask them.
-
A couple of other questions just came to mind:
5) how do FE models work with regards to what I will call "naturally spinning objects". These are toilet flushes, cyclones and tornadoes and trees. I am aware trees do not spin or pirouette but if you look closely at most large trees they all tend to have a twist in them. These twists, spins or whatever you want to call them in relation to what they are differ depending on what hemisphere you are in (I'm a not a flat earther so I will call it hemisphere due to ignorance in not knowing the FE terminology)
No, they don't.
6) long range projectiles. I am ex-military and I know a few guys who completed their sniper course, these guys could hit targets way in excess of a mile and had to take into account the rotation of the earth. I know some FE models say this doesn't happen so how can the shooters adjustments due to many factors including the rotation of the earth be dismissed?
No, they didn't.
350km is a lot further than Blackpool to Ireland but even the Isle of Man isn't visible from land which is much closer still. If you can see planets (wether you believe these are planets in the traditional sense or part of a dome projection) vast distances using a telescope then dust particles etc shouldn't make too much of a difference if you choose a clear day, by clear I mean clear all the way from point a to point B and beyond.
Please explore the subject of visual acuity in more detail.
Like I said originally I'm not trolling I just really like to find out other people's views on things and pride myself on being very open to new ideas etc. I know what I believe and I've yet to find anything that proves to me the earth is flat. I have seen planes fly south and tracked them on tracking websites etc that usually get thrown about. I know engineers who have worked on structures needing to take into account the earth rotation and curvature so I see this as enough evidence for me without building my own rocket and firing off into space
Many people like to bandy about the claim that engineers build things, taking into account the supposed curvature of the earth; when in fact, none of it is supported by the actual math. It is just a statement.
-
Chicago has been videotaped from St. Joseph, Michigan, at a distance of over 60 miles. I believe the man's name was Jason Nowicki. I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles.
Quote from: Zonk on July 30, 2019, 01:53:47 PM
Mirage
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
As for seeing Chicago from Michigan City, of course you can see a few of the tallest towers, the tops of them anyway. Similarly, you can see the front range of the Rockies well before you can see Denver. Doesn't mean the earth is flat. In fact, it's strong evidence of curvature.
-
Chicago has been videotaped from St. Joseph, Michigan, at a distance of over 60 miles. I believe the man's name was Jason Nowicki. I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles.
Quote from: Zonk on July 30, 2019, 01:53:47 PM
Mirage
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
As for seeing Chicago from Michigan City, of course you can see a few of the tallest towers, the tops of them anyway. Similarly, you can see the front range of the Rockies well before you can see Denver. Doesn't mean the earth is flat. In fact, it's strong evidence of curvature.
Ah yes, the good ole mirage explanation.
The fall back position when conditions such as you propose (clarity when possible) allow for the sightings.
Actually, the sightings are strong evidence of flatness, as is Kansas.
-
Chicago has been videotaped from St. Joseph, Michigan, at a distance of over 60 miles. I believe the man's name was Jason Nowicki. I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles.
Quote from: Zonk on July 30, 2019, 01:53:47 PM
Mirage
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
As for seeing Chicago from Michigan City, of course you can see a few of the tallest towers, the tops of them anyway. Similarly, you can see the front range of the Rockies well before you can see Denver. Doesn't mean the earth is flat. In fact, it's strong evidence of curvature.
Ah yes, the good ole mirage explanation.
The fall back position when conditions such as you propose (clarity when possible) allow for the sightings.
Actually, the sightings are strong evidence of flatness, as is Kansas.
Flat earth also requires some oddly bendly light to explain direction of the sunlight and the positions of the stars in the sky on the northern and southern hemisphere.
flat earther or not you know full well mirages exist so you can't simply dismiss explanations based on this then expect anyone to take it seriously when the claim is made for flat earth too, this is hugely double standards.
Flat earther: how do you explain how I saw city X from X miles away if the earth is curved?
Other guy: bendy light.
Other guy: how do you explain the position of the sun in the south during summer on a flat earth?
Flat earther: bendy light.
Yea... that you can see a city from a bit further away isn't proof of a flat earth just like the claim that ships sinking bottom first isn't proof of a round earth according to flat earthers. Mirages happen and the dispute is what is a mirage, what isn't and why. Saying it's not a mirage 'cause urf flt!' is a waste of your time. Explain to us how seeing a city from a bit further away than normal isn't a mirage and how you worked it out.
While you're at it can you also explain why the Antarctica has a 24 hour sun during summer on a flat earth or why ships sink bottom first into the distance without any kind of mirage or bendy light of any kind? If not, then you cannot dismiss it for round earth explanations either IMO. Both flat earth and spheroid earth explanations require it.
-
Chicago has been videotaped from St. Joseph, Michigan, at a distance of over 60 miles. I believe the man's name was Jason Nowicki. I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles.
Quote from: Zonk on July 30, 2019, 01:53:47 PM
Mirage
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
As for seeing Chicago from Michigan City, of course you can see a few of the tallest towers, the tops of them anyway. Similarly, you can see the front range of the Rockies well before you can see Denver. Doesn't mean the earth is flat. In fact, it's strong evidence of curvature.
Ah yes, the good ole mirage explanation.
The fall back position when conditions such as you propose (clarity when possible) allow for the sightings.
Actually, the sightings are strong evidence of flatness, as is Kansas.
Flat earth also requires some oddly bendly light to explain direction of the sunlight and the positions of the stars in the sky on the northern and southern hemisphere.
Actually, this another statement made by RE adherents that is demonstrably false.
People who cannot mentally accept the premise of FE purporting the ability to describe in great detail how things would appear in just such an environment.
flat earther or not you know full well mirages exist so you can't simply dismiss explanations based on this then expect anyone to take it seriously when the claim is made for flat earth too, this is hugely double standards.
It is not a double standard.
I do know mirages exist.
The reason they are called mirages is simple.
It is an appearance of an image of something that does not exist at the location perceived.
Here, the image of Chicago appeared exactly where it is located, so no...not a mirage.
Flat earther: how do you explain how I saw city X from X miles away if the earth is curved?
Other guy: bendy light.
Other guy: how do you explain the position of the sun in the south during summer on a flat earth?
Flat earther: bendy light.
Yea... that you can see a city from a bit further away isn't proof of a flat earth just like the claim that ships sinking bottom first isn't proof of a round earth according to flat earthers. Mirages happen and the dispute is what is a mirage, what isn't and why. Saying it's not a mirage 'cause urf flt!' is a waste of your time. Explain to us how seeing a city from a bit further away than normal isn't a mirage and how you worked it out.
While you're at it can you also explain why the Antarctica has a 24 hour sun during summer on a flat earth or why ships sink bottom first into the distance without any kind of mirage or bendy light of any kind? If not, then you cannot dismiss it for round earth explanations either IMO. Both flat earth and spheroid earth explanations require it.
I would explain why Antarctica has a 24 hour sun, except you have yet to explain that it does in fact have a 24 hour sun, or that such a place even exists on the flat earth plain.
-
Actually, the sightings are strong evidence of flatness, as is Kansas.
But you can only see the top of those buildings in that picture of Chicago. If the earth is flat, where's the rest?
There are atmospheric conditions which make predicting exactly how much of objects one can see from a certain distance complicated.
In a model of a spherical earth with no atmosphere we can calculate what we should see from certain distances. But we don't live on a perfectly spherical earth and we do have an atmosphere which can cause complicated optical effects. But on a flat earth looking over water so long as you're above the height of the waves, this is what you should see
(https://image.ibb.co/iL8rC7/waves.jpg)
Less than the wave height should be obscured. In the Bishop experiment he claims to be able to see the distant beach "all the way down to the shoreline". Now that WOULD be evidence of flatness although no evidence of that result has been produced aside from Tom just saying that's what he saw - evidence he does not accept from someone like an astronaut who talks about what they saw from space.
If the earth is flat why can't you see the rest of the buildings? What are they hidden behind if it's not the curve of the earth?
-
Actually, the sightings are strong evidence of flatness, as is Kansas.
But you can only see the top of those buildings in that picture of Chicago. If the earth is flat, where's the rest?
There are atmospheric conditions which make predicting exactly how much of objects one can see from a certain distance complicated.
In a model of a spherical earth with no atmosphere we can calculate what we should see from certain distances. But we don't live on a perfectly spherical earth and we do have an atmosphere which can cause complicated optical effects. But on a flat earth looking over water so long as you're above the height of the waves, this is what you should see
(https://image.ibb.co/iL8rC7/waves.jpg)
Less than the wave height should be obscured. In the Bishop experiment he claims to be able to see the distant beach "all the way down to the shoreline". Now that WOULD be evidence of flatness although no evidence of that result has been produced aside from Tom just saying that's what he saw - evidence he does not accept from someone like an astronaut who talks about what they saw from space.
If the earth is flat why can't you see the rest of the buildings? What are they hidden behind if it's not the curve of the earth?
I think you need to take another look at the picture from Jason Nowicki.
Much more than just the tops are present...in fact, buildings (tops or otherwise) are visible when they should they not be at all visible.
I am absolutely not familiar with the Bishop experiment so I will not address it.
I am familiar with my own experiences and what I see.
I am also familiar with a thread presented by (I believe) user Bobby Shafto, a RE adherent, having difficulty with experiments performed at what I recall was Monterrey involving a laser (certainly incapable of being described as bendy).
-
I think you need to take another look at the picture from Jason Nowicki.
OK, here are a few:
(https://i.ibb.co/pXLjsSy/Chicago.jpg)
Much more than just the tops are present...in fact, buildings (tops or otherwise) are visible when they should they not be at all visible.
Well, it's not just the very top and different photos show different amounts of the buildings, either taken from different locations or, more likely, different atmospheric conditions.
But here's the point. In none of those photos can you see the whole buildings. Why not? What is the rest occluded by if it isn't the curve of the earth?
I am familiar with my own experiences and what I see.
If you have any evidence of your own to present then that's good, I'd be interested to see it.
EDIT: Just to add, the problem I have with your line of reasoning - and you see this a lot from FE people on YouTube - is the argument goes:
"Aha! You shouldn't be able to see any of <mountain/building/etc>, but LOOK! You can see it!"
And, sure enough, they produce a picture of it. And said picture is claimed to be proof that the globe model is bunk. The issue is always the same though. Let's say it's a 1000 foot building which, given the curve calculator, should be completely hidden by the curve of the earth. But you can see the top 200 feet of it. Well yes, there are sometimes atmospheric effects which allow you to see further than a simplified model suggests you should. But...why can you only see 200 feet? Where's the other 800? And why is it that you can only see the 200 feet sometimes. Why is it that sometimes the entire building is hidden, other times you can see 100 feet, sometimes you can see 200. To me this is evidence of atmospheric effects, not flatness. Were the earth flat you should be able to see the whole building. Or, at least, if we're going to allow for the same atmospheric effects you should be able to see it sometimes. Why can you never see all of it? What is the rest hidden behind if it's not the curve of the earth?
-
People who cannot mentally accept the premise of FE
I cannot accept it because the only evidence I have seen is the childish "Well, it looks flat from the ground. " As an engineer, I know that conclusions drawn solely from child like observations are frequently incorrect. As an engineer, I know that round earth explanations for what we observe make far more sense than fantastical explanations required for flat earth theory. And as a pilot, I cannot accept a flat earth because I have seen the round earth myself. I have been at 45,000 feet. At 45,000 feet one can see the curvature of the horizon. At 45,000 feet at night, one can see cities hundreds of miles away. Can you see cities hundreds of miles away from the ground?
-
I think you need to take another look at the picture from Jason Nowicki.
OK, here are a few:
(https://i.ibb.co/pXLjsSy/Chicago.jpg)
Much more than just the tops are present...in fact, buildings (tops or otherwise) are visible when they should they not be at all visible.
Well, it's not just the very top and different photos show different amounts of the buildings, either taken from different locations or, more likely, different atmospheric conditions.
But here's the point. In none of those photos can you see the whole buildings. Why not? What is the rest occluded by if it isn't the curve of the earth?
I am familiar with my own experiences and what I see.
If you have any evidence of your own to present then that's good, I'd be interested to see it.
EDIT: Just to add, the problem I have with your line of reasoning - and you see this a lot from FE people on YouTube - is the argument goes:
"Aha! You shouldn't be able to see any of <mountain/building/etc>, but LOOK! You can see it!"
And, sure enough, they produce a picture of it. And said picture is claimed to be proof that the globe model is bunk. The issue is always the same though. Let's say it's a 1000 foot building which, given the curve calculator, should be completely hidden by the curve of the earth. But you can see the top 200 feet of it. Well yes, there are sometimes atmospheric effects which allow you to see further than a simplified model suggests you should. But...why can you only see 200 feet? Where's the other 800? And why is it that you can only see the 200 feet sometimes. Why is it that sometimes the entire building is hidden, other times you can see 100 feet, sometimes you can see 200. To me this is evidence of atmospheric effects, not flatness. Were the earth flat you should be able to see the whole building. Or, at least, if we're going to allow for the same atmospheric effects you should be able to see it sometimes. Why can you never see all of it? What is the rest hidden behind if it's not the curve of the earth?
Not only that, but watch the video I linked above. They showed one photo in which the buildings are inverted like a true mirage.
-
People who cannot mentally accept the premise of FE
I cannot accept it because the only evidence I have seen is the childish "Well, it looks flat from the ground. " As an engineer, I know that conclusions drawn solely from child like observations are frequently incorrect. As an engineer, I know that round earth explanations for what we observe make far more sense than fantastical explanations required for flat earth theory. And as a pilot, I cannot accept a flat earth because I have seen the round earth myself. I have been at 45,000 feet. At 45,000 feet one can see the curvature of the horizon. At 45,000 feet at night, one can see cities hundreds of miles away. Can you see cities hundreds of miles away from the ground?
Air clarity is the reason you can see more as you rise above the surface of the earth.
At 45,000 feet, according to RE math, you would not be able to see any curvature.
-
Air clarity is the reason you can see more as you rise above the surface of the earth.
False. I have seen Oklahoma City from 40,000 feet above Omaha. That's about 400 miles. 40,000 feet is about 8 miles. So a triangle with a height of 8 miles and a base of 400 miles will describe an angle of a little over 1 degree. using a little trig, from my vantage point, the last 50 miles to OKC is through air that is 5,000 feet and below. Denver is at 5,000 feet. Standing on the ground at Denver looking east, one cannot see a light source 50 miles away. Air clarity has very little to do with this.
-
At 45,000 feet, according to RE math, you would not be able to see any curvature.
False. As I said above, I could see a city 400 miles away. That implies I can see an 800 mile horizon at 45,000 feet. The circumference of the earth is about 24,000 miles. Thus, 800 miles has 12 degrees of arc (800/24,000 X 360 = 12), which is easily discernible by the naked eye.
-
At 45,000 feet, according to RE math, you would not be able to see any curvature.
False. As I said above, I could see a city 400 miles away. That implies I can see an 800 mile horizon at 45,000 feet. The circumference of the earth is about 24,000 miles. Thus, 800 miles has 12 degrees of arc (800/24,000 X 360 = 12), which is easily discernible by the naked eye.
It absolutely is not easily discernible unless you have a rather large field of view, according to RE maths. You would have to provide more information than just saying you were at 45,000 feet (like where you were and what you were looking out of) What is more likely, is that your bias let you perceive that you saw something that you did not. Or, you are just making things up. As an engineer, you should be more thoughtful about these things. So far, it seems you are just posting arbitrary math problems that you think support your position, when in fact you likely did not take any time to validate any of the maths or measurements.
-
At 45,000 feet, according to RE math, you would not be able to see any curvature.
False. As I said above, I could see a city 400 miles away. That implies I can see an 800 mile horizon at 45,000 feet. The circumference of the earth is about 24,000 miles. Thus, 800 miles has 12 degrees of arc (800/24,000 X 360 = 12), which is easily discernible by the naked eye.
You cannot perceive any curvature at 45,000 feet, period, end of sentence.
"Earth's surface disk visible from FL350 is about 1446 nautical miles. To claim you can see "the curvature of the earth" from low altitude, like a hundred thousand feet or so, is like putting your eye a couple of thousandths of an inch from a large beachball and believing that you can see its curvature."
https://www.quora.com/At-what-altitude-do-you-see-the-curvature-of-the-Earth
-
At 45,000 feet, according to RE math, you would not be able to see any curvature.
False. As I said above, I could see a city 400 miles away. That implies I can see an 800 mile horizon at 45,000 feet. The circumference of the earth is about 24,000 miles. Thus, 800 miles has 12 degrees of arc (800/24,000 X 360 = 12), which is easily discernible by the naked eye.
You cannot perceive any curvature at 45,000 feet, period, end of sentence.
"Earth's surface disk visible from FL350 is about 1446 nautical miles. To claim you can see "the curvature of the earth" from low altitude, like a hundred thousand feet or so, is like putting your eye a couple of thousandths of an inch from a large beachball and believing that you can see its curvature."
https://www.quora.com/At-what-altitude-do-you-see-the-curvature-of-the-Earth
Which means at FL 450 is should be even more, which means I underestimated by a factor of nearly 2. Which means the amount of curvature visible is about 22.5 degrees.
From the link you so kindly provided:
"The threshold elevation for detecting curvature would seem to be somewhat less than 35,000 ft (10.6 km) but not as low as 14,000 ft (4.2 km). Photographically, curvature may be measurable as low as 20,000 ft (6 km)."
-
At 45,000 feet, according to RE math, you would not be able to see any curvature.
False. As I said above, I could see a city 400 miles away. That implies I can see an 800 mile horizon at 45,000 feet. The circumference of the earth is about 24,000 miles. Thus, 800 miles has 12 degrees of arc (800/24,000 X 360 = 12), which is easily discernible by the naked eye.
It absolutely is not easily discernible unless you have a rather large field of view, according to RE maths. You would have to provide more information than just saying you were at 45,000 feet (like where you were and what you were looking out of) What is more likely, is that your bias let you perceive that you saw something that you did not. Or, you are just making things up. As an engineer, you should be more thoughtful about these things. So far, it seems you are just posting arbitrary math problems that you think support your position, when in fact you likely did not take any time to validate any of the maths or measurements.
First of all, why is "I saw such and such" a perfectly acceptable piece of information from your side, while "I saw such and such" is not from the other? Rather convenient, wouldn't you say. Secondly, I did provide detail. I have seen the lights of Oklahoma City from Omaha while flying in a USAF T-38 at night. That is just one example of many. Check the distance between those 2 cities. If one can see that far straight ahead, it stands to reason that one can see twice that distance from left to right.
-
First of all, why is "I saw such and such" a perfectly acceptable piece of information from your side, while "I saw such and such" is not from the other? Rather convenient, wouldn't you say.
Please keep your strawmen arguments out of the upper fora, as all it does is derail the topic and makes it look like you are avoiding the discussion. If you can't can't answer, just say so. Trying to deflect by arguing against a claim no one is making gets us nowhere.
Secondly, I did provide detail. I have seen the lights of Oklahoma City from Omaha while flying in a USAF T-38 at night. That is just one example of many. Check the distance between those 2 cities. If one can see that far straight ahead, it stands to reason that one can see twice that distance from left to right.
How is that remotely relevant to personally seeing the curvature of earth's horizon at 45K feet. That is what I am asking about, not what cities you claim to have seen while flying. I am also very interested in understanding how you saw curvature on the horizon while flying at night.
-
How is that remotely relevant to personally seeing the curvature of earth's horizon at 45K feet. That is what I am asking about, not what cities you claim to have seen while flying. I am also very interested in understanding how you saw curvature on the horizon while flying at night.
I provided that information as a baseline for how far on can see at that altitude. If the horizon is that far away at night, that means it is that far away during the day.
-
Please keep your strawmen arguments out of the upper fora, as all it does is derail the topic and makes it look like you are avoiding the discussion. If you can't can't answer, just say so. Trying to deflect by arguing against a claim no one is making gets us nowhere.
Right here in this thread:
" I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles."
Seems to be a perfectly accepted argument. But an "I have seen X which shows or implies curvature" is summarily dismissed.
-
I provided that information as a baseline for how far on can see at that altitude. If the horizon is that far away at night, that means it is that far away during the day.
So you didn't actually see curvature on the horizon, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Right here in this thread:
" I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles."
Seems to be a perfectly accepted argument. But an "I have seen X which shows or implies curvature" is summarily dismissed.
I would suggest you address issues you have with things people say with the people who said those things, instead of deflecting to strawmen when your made up stories fall apart.
-
I provided that information as a baseline for how far on can see at that altitude. If the horizon is that far away at night, that means it is that far away during the day.
So you didn't actually see curvature on the horizon, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.
I would suggest you address issues you have with things people say with the people who said those things, instead of deflecting to strawmen when your made up stories fall apart.
Why the insult? You are free to not believe me, but you are not free to insult me and call me a liar. The link provided by totallackey clearly states that one can discern curvature at 35,000 feet. Do you doubt I flew military jets at 35,000 and above?
-
The link provided by totallackey clearly states that one can discern curvature at 35,000 feet.
Try reading the actual source which was even listed in the article. It has been gone over on this forum repeatedly:
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf
So, again, what field of view did you personally have when you observed the earth's curvature on the horizon (at night...), and at what altitude?
Do you doubt I flew military jets at 35,000 and above?
I have no way of knowing if you did or not.
-
So, again, what field of view did you personally have when you observed the earth's curvature on the horizon (at night...), and at what altitude?
Not at night. Again, the night example was to provide two pieces of information, only one of which is relevant here. It was to establish how far the line of sight was at a particular altitude, in this case, about 400 miles (about 350 NM). As to the question, about 300 degrees, give or take, and altitudes up to 45,000 feet. Here is what a T-38 looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_T-38_Talon
From the front cockpit, the only blind spot is directly behind, about 60 degrees or so. One can see the horizon from about 7 O'clock around to 5 O'clock.
-
I have no way of knowing if you did or not.
And yet your default response was that I am lying and making it all up.
-
At 45,000 feet one can see the curvature of the horizon.
Looking curved and being curved are two totally different things.
If I was going to form beliefs based entirely on my visual cortex's limited ability to interpret clouds of electrons then, when looking in this mirror I would honestly believe my legs were suddenly grossly deformed and rush to the hospital
(https://carnivaldepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/RMC_4721-1-510x466.jpg)
Just because the girl's legs look long and deformed does not make them long and deformed.
At 45,000 feet at night, one can see cities hundreds of miles away. Can you see cities hundreds of miles away from the ground?
NO. The FE explanation that is most plausible is that at sea level the atmosphere is much more dense than at 45,000 feet above sea level.
In the thinner, much less dense high altitude atmosphere, light is less hindered by refraction and other chaotic atmospheric conditions and can travel further.
This is why when you go just a few hundred yards below the water you can no longer see any sunlight. Light can't travel as far in water. If I was going to make my mind up based entirely on what I see I would say the sun stops existing once you go deep enough in the water then comes back when you surface.
False. I have seen Oklahoma City from 40,000 feet above Omaha. That's about 400 miles. 40,000 feet is about 8 miles. So a triangle with a height of 8 miles and a base of 400 miles will describe an angle of a little over 1 degree. using a little trig, from my vantage point, the last 50 miles to OKC is through air that is 5,000 feet and below. Denver is at 5,000 feet. Standing on the ground at Denver looking east, one cannot see a light source 50 miles away. Air clarity has very little to do with this.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim that atmospheric conditions have very little to do with that?
What if it's foggy? What if it's misting? What if the pollen count is much higher than normal? Based on my own personal observations things like that have a very significant impact on what you can, and can't see. I'm not even considering things like atmospheric pressure, humidity, temperature, wind speed etc.
Let me present you with some evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj9rXJPpuUw
1:32 PM at 64.7 degrees the opposite shore is visible.
1:41 PM at 64.9 degrees the opposite shore has set behind the horizon again.
Same day, same time, same place, same cloud cover, same weather, same wind, almost the exact same temperature and an entire town goes from being visible to not being visible.
Based on the logic of things being visible meaning the earth is round and forming an opinion based entirely on your brain's ability to form an image out of a cloud of electrons: do you believe, based on the evidence above that the earth alternates between being round and flat?
-
At 45,000 feet at night, one can see cities hundreds of miles away. Can you see cities hundreds of miles away from the ground?
NO. The FE explanation that is most plausible is that at sea level the atmosphere is much more dense than at 45,000 feet above sea level.
In the thinner, much less dense high altitude atmosphere, light is less hindered by refraction and other chaotic atmospheric conditions and can travel further.
I addressed that in the same post. Because of the extremely shallow angle, 50 of those 400 miles the light was traveling were at 5,000 feet or below. If I were to ask you how come you cannot see a light source 50 miles east of Denver from the ground, the answer would surely be "because of the atmosphere.", yet one can clearly see a light source from hundreds of miles away if one is high enough, despite that light traveling for the first 50 miles at 5,000 feet and below.
-
I addressed that in the same post. Because of the extremely shallow angle, 50 of those 400 miles the light was traveling were at 5,000 feet or below. If I were to ask you how come you cannot see a light source 50 miles east of Denver from the ground, the answer would surely be "because of the atmosphere.", yet one can clearly see a light source from hundreds of miles away if one is high enough, despite that light traveling for the first 50 miles at 5,000 feet and below.
They are still different. In one situation the light is reflecting off of it's distant object and spending it's entire time traveling beginning to end in the thick dense low altitude air.
In the other situation the light is originating in the dense low altitude atmosphere and going through different layers of atmosphere and refracting much differently thus leading to a different observation.
You can't compare apples to oranges.
In addition, as demonstrated in my previous post, it's dangerous to make up your mind so solidly based on what you see alone when your eyes can be easily fooled
-
They are still different. In one situation the light is reflecting off of it's distant object and spending it's entire time traveling beginning to end in the thick dense low altitude air.
In the other situation the light is originating in the dense low altitude atmosphere and going through different layers of atmosphere and refracting much differently thus leading to a different observation.
They are not exactly the same, bit they are close enough for the principle to hold. First of all, why did you introduce the irrelevancy of one being a reflected light source when I clearly stated it to a generated light source? Second, if the 5,000 foot air is dense enough to block one light source, how come it can't block another? Optics doesn't work that way. "I can't see it 50 miles away, but I can see it if I'm farther." doesn't make sense. 50 miles is 50 miles, whether that is the end of the journey or merely the first part. If it's blocked for one it is blocked for all. And third, in my example, the light doesn't reach 5,000 feet until 50 miles. Everything before that is actually lower. And last, if you have a light source at sea level, and look at it from 50 miles away in an airplane at 5,000 feet, I guarantee you will be able to see it.
-
I missed this from before.
Quote from: Zonk on Today at 03:00:12 PM
False. I have seen Oklahoma City from 40,000 feet above Omaha. That's about 400 miles. 40,000 feet is about 8 miles. So a triangle with a height of 8 miles and a base of 400 miles will describe an angle of a little over 1 degree. using a little trig, from my vantage point, the last 50 miles to OKC is through air that is 5,000 feet and below. Denver is at 5,000 feet. Standing on the ground at Denver looking east, one cannot see a light source 50 miles away. Air clarity has very little to do with this.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim that atmospheric conditions have very little to do with that?
What if it's foggy? What if it's misting? What if the pollen count is much higher than normal? Based on my own personal observations things like that have a very significant impact on what you can, and can't see. I'm not even considering things like atmospheric pressure, humidity, temperature, wind speed etc.
Based on context, what I clearly meant by "Air clarity has very little to do with this" was it has very little to do with the general principle that one will never see the light source 50 miles away from the ground, but barring adverse atmospheric interference, one will always see it from a high enough altitude, even though the light is traveling through the same average altitude. Which is to say, most of the time.
-
IOW, atmospheric conditions cannot explain why one cannot see a light source while standing on the ground at 5,000 feet from 50 miles away, while one can see the light source from 400 miles away at altitude, even though the light spent the first 50 miles of its journey at an average altitude of 2,500 feet. That's not how optics works.
And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage. That is what scientific evidence is. predictable, repeatable, verifiable. "Am I over Omaha looking south?" "yes". "Am I at 45,000 feet?" "Yes" "is there cloud cover?" "No". Do I see the lights of Oklahoma City?" "Yes. Every time"
-
And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage. That is what scientific evidence is. predictable, repeatable, verifiable.
And the evidence has been shown, over and over and over again, that observations are heavily affected by chaotic atmospheric conditions. It's repeatable. It's verifiable.
The mirage over the lake is not a one time thing it happens over and over again.
-
One last one and then I think my point is made. Lake Titicaca sits at an altitude of 12,500 feet in the Andes. The lake is 50 miles wide at its widest. If you stand on one shore, you will not be able to see a powerful light source on the other. Now go to St. Joseph, MI where that photo from Chicago was taken. You won't be able to see Chicago from the ground, but go up to 12,500 feet in a helicopter, and you will have a beautiful view, even though the light is traveling at a much lower average altitude than the first example. "Atmospheric interference blocks the light at lower altitudes" cannot explain this.
-
And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage. That is what scientific evidence is. predictable, repeatable, verifiable.
And the evidence has been shown, over and over and over again, that observations are heavily affected by chaotic atmospheric conditions. It's repeatable. It's verifiable.
The mirage over the lake is not a one time thing it happens over and over again.
You are conflating 2 very different principles and assigning them an equivalency which is not warranted. You will see the Chicago mirage only under a very narrow band of conditions. Go up in altitude merely 5,000 feet, and you will see Chicago every time except under a very narrow band of conditions. Those are not equivalent.
-
you will see Chicago every time except under a very narrow band of conditions. Those are not equivalent.
That really depends on your definition of "very narrow"
-Fog
-Snow
-Rain
-smoke
-emissions
-blowing dust
-hygroscopic particles
-high dew point
-temperature
-humidity
-pollen
Just off the top of my head I have listed many conditions which will have a significant impact on observations like this. In Chicago it rains/snows quite frequently. I would hardly consider rain a "narrow band of conditions" It rains quite frequently over a vast majority of the world.
-
you will see Chicago every time except under a very narrow band of conditions. Those are not equivalent.
That really depends on your definition of "very narrow"
-Fog
-Snow
-Rain
-smoke
-emissions
-blowing dust
-hygroscopic particles
-high dew point
-temperature
-humidity
-pollen
Just off the top of my head I have listed many conditions which will have a significant impact on observations like this. In Chicago it rains/snows quite frequently. I would hardly consider rain a "narrow band of conditions" It rains quite frequently over a vast majority of the world.
Only the first 3, which are pretty much the same thing, precipitation, would PREVENT you from seeing it, and light rain or snow wouldn't do the trick. Smoke too I suppose, but how often is Lake Michigan on fire?
Point being, it is very rare to see an image from the ground, while it is very common to see it from a few thousand feet up. Those 2 situations are not equivalent. Every time you see it from the ground, you will also see it from the air. most of the time your don't see it from the ground, you will still see it from the air. Air quality or clarity does not explain that.
-
Only the first 3, which are pretty much the same thing, precipitation, would PREVENT you from seeing it, and light rain or snow wouldn't do the trick. Smoke too I suppose, but how often is Lake Michigan on fire?
How do you know? Did you ever go up there when the pollen count was over 1000 PPM?
Did you ever go up there when the pollen count was over 800 PPM and the humidity was over 70%
If so do you have any pictures to show us? How did the images change between <50 PPM pollen count and 0% humidity?
Without any evidence or sources how can we really know if you're not just making things up?
-
Only the first 3, which are pretty much the same thing, precipitation, would PREVENT you from seeing it, and light rain or snow wouldn't do the trick. Smoke too I suppose, but how often is Lake Michigan on fire?
How do you know? Did you ever go up there when the pollen count was over 1000 PPM?
Did you ever go up there when the pollen count was over 800 PPM and the humidity was over 70%
If so do you have any pictures to show us? How did the images change between <50 PPM pollen count and 0% humidity?
Without any evidence or sources how can we really know if you're not just making things up?
Um, aren't you the one who said "don't trust what you can see because you could be fooled?
Why yes, yes it was:
In addition, as demonstrated in my previous post, it's dangerous to make up your mind so solidly based on what you see alone when your eyes can be easily fooled
So, make up your mind. Is what you can see with your eyes evidence, or is it not evidence. Because you can't have it both ways.
-
And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage. That is what scientific evidence is. predictable, repeatable, verifiable.
And the evidence has been shown, over and over and over again, that observations are heavily affected by chaotic atmospheric conditions. It's repeatable. It's verifiable.
The mirage over the lake is not a one time thing it happens over and over again.
Correct. Atmospheric conditions do affect observations, I posted some photos above which show that.
But what do you never see in any of those photos? You never see the bottom of the buildings. Ever.
Yes, different amounts may be hidden - sometimes maybe you don't see the buildings at all, other times you see the top.
But there is always some amount occluded. Always. If that isn't because of the curve of the earth then what is it? What is stopping me seeing the bottom of the buildings, on a flat earth you should have clear line of sight. If the air is clear enough to see the top of the building then why not the bottom?
-
And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage. That is what scientific evidence is. predictable, repeatable, verifiable.
And the evidence has been shown, over and over and over again, that observations are heavily affected by chaotic atmospheric conditions. It's repeatable. It's verifiable.
The mirage over the lake is not a one time thing it happens over and over again.
Correct. Atmospheric conditions do affect observations, I posted some photos above which show that.
But what do you never see in any of those photos? You never see the bottom of the buildings. Ever.
Yes, different amounts may be hidden - sometimes maybe you don't see the buildings at all, other times you see the top.
But there is always some amount occluded. Always. If that isn't because of the curve of the earth then what is it? What is stopping me seeing the bottom of the buildings, on a flat earth you should have clear line of sight. If the air is clear enough to see the top of the building then why not the bottom?
Not one of us disagrees that air is more dense and has a higher level of suspended particulates near ground level.
Not one of us disagrees that air changes level of clarity in different locations.
I have stood in rain on the left and sunshine on the right at the very same time.
-
Not one of us disagrees that air is more dense and has a higher level of suspended particulates near ground level.
Not one of us disagrees that air changes level of clarity in different locations.
I have stood in rain on the left and sunshine on the right at the very same time.
OK, so your answer is that it's an atmospheric effect?
A fair enough answer actually but it's strange that you reject that as an explanation for the fact that more of a tall building than a model predicts can be seen but use it as an explanation for why any of the building is occluded.
-
Not one of us disagrees that air is more dense and has a higher level of suspended particulates near ground level.
Not one of us disagrees that air changes level of clarity in different locations.
I have stood in rain on the left and sunshine on the right at the very same time.
OK, so your answer is that it's an atmospheric effect?
A fair enough answer actually but it's strange that you reject that as an explanation for the fact that more of a tall building than a model predicts can be seen but use it as an explanation for why any of the building is occluded.
I fail to see how that is strange, frankly...
There is also more in play than the simple atmoplanic interference.
Water is not at a consistent level across Lake Michigan, with many swells, bulges, and waves.
Do you the opposite?
Do you reject it as an explanation for why any part of a building is occluded and accept it as an explanation for the fact more of a tall building is seen than is mathematically possible given the dimensions of the supposed spherical earth?
-
Water is not at a consistent level across Lake Michigan, with many swells, bulges, and waves.
Granted, but in your world the lake is flat, right? Yes, there are waves and bulges but the base level is flat. Unless there's a storm the waves and bulges aren't going to be that big
If your eye level is higher than the highest wave then less of the building than the wave height will be occluded, you're looking over the top of the waves.
Even if the wave height is at your eye level only the height of the wave will be occluded:
(https://image.ibb.co/f804X7/waves-b.jpg)
It's only if your eye height is lower than the wave height that more of the building than the wave height will be occluded. So unless your eye level is very low or there are very big waves or swells, that is not a valid explanation.
Do you reject it as an explanation for why any part of a building is occluded and accept it as an explanation for the fact more of a tall building is seen than is mathematically possible given the dimensions of the supposed spherical earth?
I reject waves for the reason I've given above. Atmospheric effects are more plausible and the photos show different results which does imply differing conditions which can cause different observations.
But I've yet to see any examples of the whole building being seen. You'd think if the earth were flat then sometimes you'd see all of it on a particularly clear day. From that distance the angle the light from the top and bottom of the building is so similar that I'm sceptical that the top of the building would be so clear and the bottom completely hidden.
There's a pretty sharp horizon line below the tops of the buildings. That tells me that something is blocking the rest of the building. In the globe earth model the something is the curve of the earth.
-
Not one of us disagrees that air is more dense and has a higher level of suspended particulates near ground level.
Not nearly enough to matter, not at those height differences. In that first picture in post 19, you can see about 75% of the tallest buildings clear as a bell, and then absolutely nothing below. You want to explain that away with suspended particulates? The 20th floor is perfectly clear but the 19th is completely occluded? That explanation makes sense to you?
While I'm on the subject, compare the first 2 pictures in #19. In the second one, the buildings are about 50% shorter, and most are below the water level. Not obscured by suspended particulates, physically shorter, as in the tops of the visible ones are closer to the water than in the first picture. That's not suspended particulates.
-
Um, aren't you the one who said "don't trust what you can see because you could be fooled?
Why yes, yes it was:
In addition, as demonstrated in my previous post, it's dangerous to make up your mind so solidly based on what you see alone when your eyes can be easily fooled
So, make up your mind. Is what you can see with your eyes evidence, or is it not evidence. Because you can't have it both ways.
You have solidly made up your mind based on what your eyes have seen when your eyes can easily be fooled.
I have not solidly made up my mind based off of easily fooled eyes.
Asking for evidence <> making up mind. They are two totally different things.
Granted, but in your world the lake is flat, right? Yes, there are waves and bulges but the base level is flat. Unless there's a storm the waves and bulges aren't going to be that big
If your eye level is higher than the highest wave then less of the building than the wave height will be occluded, you're looking over the top of the waves.
Even if the wave height is at your eye level only the height of the wave will be occluded:
(https://image.ibb.co/f804X7/waves-b.jpg)
That image is a wonderful demonstration of predicted observations in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in one. How would that look over a mile at sea level, with a a high barometric pressure, 80 degreess, medium pollen count, low air quality, in Florida in September?
-
That image is a wonderful demonstration of predicted observations in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in one. How would that look over a mile at sea level, with a a high barometric pressure, 80 degreess, medium pollen count, low air quality, in Florida in September?
I have no idea. But pollen and humidity don't make buildings shorter, as they clearly are in image 2. And pollen and humidity cannot explain why there is a clear demarcation between the tops and bottoms of the buildings as in image 1. If the 19th floor (or whatever it is) in image 1 is completely obscured and the 20th is crystal clear, that cannot be explained by air quality.
-
I have no idea. But pollen and humidity don't make buildings shorter, as they clearly are in image 2. And pollen and humidity cannot explain why there is a clear demarcation between the tops and bottoms of the buildings as in image 1. If the 19th floor (or whatever it is) in image 1 is completely obscured and the 20th is crystal clear, that cannot be explained by air quality.
I notice that you have this habit of saying things and the providing no evidence to back them up. Have you taken precise measurements with high pollen and humidity and then, all other factors staying the same taken the EXACT same measurements with low pollen and 0% humidity? If so can we please see them? If not can you please do that to provide evidence to support your claims?
-
I have no idea. But pollen and humidity don't make buildings shorter, as they clearly are in image 2. And pollen and humidity cannot explain why there is a clear demarcation between the tops and bottoms of the buildings as in image 1. If the 19th floor (or whatever it is) in image 1 is completely obscured and the 20th is crystal clear, that cannot be explained by air quality.
I notice that you have this habit of saying things and the providing no evidence to back them up. Have you taken precise measurements with high pollen and humidity and then, all other factors staying the same taken the EXACT same measurements with low pollen and 0% humidity? If so can we please see them? If not can you please do that to provide evidence to support your claims?
No, I have not and I will not, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is if I or someone else were to do that, you would just come up with another cockamamie explanation and demand that one be disproved also. Also, I know that atmospheric optics do not work the way you claim. Atmospheric conditions, particulate count, humidity, whatever, cannot make buildings shorter. The gradient from ground up cannot be so steep so as to totally obscure one floor while the one above is perfectly clear. To say that it can is a ridiculous argument and you know it.
-
No, I have not and I will not
Forming an opinion without doing any research whatsoever. I hope that works out for you.
Atmospheric conditions, particulate count, humidity, whatever, cannot make buildings shorter. The gradient from ground up cannot be so steep so as to totally obscure one floor while the one above is perfectly clear. To say that it can is a ridiculous argument and you know it.
Hmm if atmospheric conditions can't do those things then this video is just showing a magical floating ship? I don't think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Lacu0VG3Y
According to this something as simple as temperature can trick you brain into making an image of a floating ship! So Atmospheric conditions can make ships fly but not possibly stretch something? Unlike you I present evidence.
https://www.metabunk.org/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.t7881/
Here's a video in which someone has attempted to simulate refraction and I notice that things do appear to be stretching, warping, and reflecting
https://youtu.be/8zzEWy5SGKg
This is a very basic simulator which I don't believe counts for the dozens, if not hundreds, of variables which can be present and affect the path light takes when traveling through the atmosphere.
-
That image is a wonderful demonstration of predicted observations in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in one. How would that look over a mile at sea level, with a a high barometric pressure, 80 degreess, medium pollen count, low air quality, in Florida in September?
I have no idea. But pollen and humidity don't make buildings shorter, as they clearly are in image 2. And pollen and humidity cannot explain why there is a clear demarcation between the tops and bottoms of the buildings as in image 1. If the 19th floor (or whatever it is) in image 1 is completely obscured and the 20th is crystal clear, that cannot be explained by air quality.
I would also say that pollen and humidity do not account for a setting sun that slowly glides below the horizon, disappears for 12 hours or so, then rises up somewhere behind you. Perspective doesn't account for this, as the sun doesn't get smaller as it sets. Some sort of odd atmospheric magnification doesn't account for it not becoming smaller due to 'perspective' as evidenced by solar filtering and clear skies. You would have to have the exact same atmospheric magic miraging occur everywhere a sunset can be viewed on the planet. So yeah, atmospheric refraction/miraging accounts for some things we observe. But not each and every sunset, each and every day, all around the world.
-
No, I have not and I will not
Forming an opinion without doing any research whatsoever. I hope that works out for you.
Atmospheric conditions, particulate count, humidity, whatever, cannot make buildings shorter. The gradient from ground up cannot be so steep so as to totally obscure one floor while the one above is perfectly clear. To say that it can is a ridiculous argument and you know it.
Hmm if atmospheric conditions can't do those things then this video is just showing a magical floating ship? I don't think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Lacu0VG3Y
According to this something as simple as temperature can trick you brain into making an image of a floating ship! So Atmospheric conditions can make ships fly but not possibly stretch something? Unlike you I present evidence.
https://www.metabunk.org/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.t7881/
Here's a video in which someone has attempted to simulate refraction and I notice that things do appear to be stretching, warping, and reflecting
https://youtu.be/8zzEWy5SGKg
This is a very basic simulator which I don't believe counts for the dozens, if not hundreds, of variables which can be present and affect the path light takes when traveling through the atmosphere.
Well now you've lost me. Are you saying that weird atmospheric conditions are responsible for those images in #19? Because that's what several of us have been arguing all along. Of course it's a false image. But if you are saying that it is a real actual image and it's only distorted by atmospherics, then no sale. Picking and choosing facts based on the argument is not a good look. "Don't trust your eyes, they can play tricks on you" one moment, "Of course you can see Chicago from across the lake. This image proves it." the next.
-
Well now you've lost me. Are you saying that weird atmospheric conditions are responsible for those images in #19?
what is #19?
Because that's what several of us have been arguing all along. Of course it's a false image. But if you are saying that it is a real actual image and it's only distorted by atmospherics, then no sale.
What image are you talking about? I linked two videos.
Picking and choosing facts based on the argument is not a good look. "Don't trust your eyes, they can play tricks on you" one moment, "Of course you can see Chicago from across the lake. This image proves it." the next.
I've already explained this to you. I'm saying don't 100% form an opinion based entirely on a small set of visual observations. Visual observations can be incorrect and her are examples why:
I'm only presenting evidence. Which you have failed to do throughout this entire discussion.
-
what is #19?
Post #19
-
what is #19?
Post #19
Ahh ok then I can respond.
Of course it's a false image.
Well since you love making things up and backing it up with no evidence I can do the same.
The image of post #19 was verified to be correct and accurate by the Harvard Optics department as well as the MIT optics department.
When you make things up it really does not help your case at all.
-
I've already explained this to you. I'm saying don't 100% form an opinion based entirely on a small set of visual observations.
I see the sun set below the horizon every day. that's not a small set. I have thousands of hours of flight time. Unless I'm in the clouds, I can always see further than I can on the ground. And the higher up, the further I can see. That's not a small set. It happens every single time. Take off in an airplane shortly after sunset heading west. Soon the sun will rise above the horizon, and keep rising until you level off. If you go fast enough, it will set very slowly even though it is completely dark below. Every time.
-
And the higher up, the further I can see. That's not a small set. It happens every single time.
Every single time you go to higher altitude you are experience the earth from a very different atmosphere than the one you experience at sea level. Very different atmospheric composition, different density, different temperature etc.
I've already provided evidence which suggests something as simple as temperature layers can make our brains think a ship is flying in the air. We are talking about temperature layers now and atmosphere layers, and whole plethora of chaotic variables that you simply REFUSE to acknowledge could possibly have an impact on the observations you make.
Atmospheric refraction is real. You should at least make an attempt to factor it into your observations before you become so adamant about believing what you see. You are outright ignoring it. Just like, when I make a flying ship observation, I (and the rest of the scientific community) try to understand what's really going on before standing up and saying "LOOK!!! A FLYING SHIP!!!"
-
Every single time you go to higher altitude you are experience the earth from a very different atmosphere than the one you experience at sea level. Very different atmospheric composition, different density, different temperature etc.
Yes. We have been through this. And the math doesn't work to support your assertions. It simply doesn't. I shown the calculations earlier in this thread. I'm not going to do them again.
-
Yes. We have been through this. And the math doesn't work to support your assertions. It simply doesn't. I shown the calculations earlier in this thread. I'm not going to do them again.
The math that I saw was a triangle and you made no attempt whatsoever to even ATTEMPT to account for chaotic atmospheric viewing conditions.
You should at least make an attempt to factor it into your observations before you become so adamant about believing what you see. You are outright ignoring it. Just like, when I make a flying ship observation, I (and the rest of the scientific community) try to understand what's really going on before standing up and saying "LOOK!!! A FLYING SHIP!!!"
You, on the other hand, Ignore any sort of optical anomalies and have proudly proclaimed the ship to be flying while also presenting no evidence whatsoever that the ship is flying.
-
The math that I saw was a triangle and you made no attempt whatsoever to even ATTEMPT to account for chaotic atmospheric viewing conditions.
Because it doesn't matter. It makes no logical sense that a light ray parallel to the surface gets blocked by chaotic atmospheric viewing conditions at ~ 7 miles, but one with a degree or 2 rise can be viewed from hundreds of miles away. If it were a little further, I could concede your point. But we are talking more than an order of magnitude further. And not just once in a while, every single time there is not cloud interference, which is to say, most of the time.
-
Because it doesn't matter.
Another claim presented with no evidence which I will put in the made up pile.
It makes no logical sense that a light ray parallel to the surface gets blocked by chaotic atmospheric viewing conditions at ~ 7 miles, but one with a degree or 2 rise can be viewed from hundreds of miles away. If it were a little further, I could concede your point. But we are talking more than an order of magnitude further. And not just once in a while, every single time there is not cloud interference, which is to say, most of the time.
To me it make no sense that warm air above cold air makes ships fly in the air but that's what science and our modern understanding of optics says happens.
Also keep in mind that our current understanding of optics changes as technology improves and allows for
-
To me it make no sense that warm air above cold air makes ships fly in the air but that's what science and our modern understanding of optics says happens.
No. That makes perfect sense. One that can be explained by science. Light that travels parallel to the ground is blocked at about 7 miles or less every time, but light with a 1.5 degree angle of incidence can travel for hundreds of miles unimpeded cannot.
-
And the higher up, the further I can see. That's not a small set. It happens every single time.
Every single time you go to higher altitude you are experience the earth from a very different atmosphere than the one you experience at sea level. Very different atmospheric composition, different density, different temperature etc.
I've already provided evidence which suggests something as simple as temperature layers can make our brains think a ship is flying in the air. We are talking about temperature layers now and atmosphere layers, and whole plethora of chaotic variables that you simply REFUSE to acknowledge could possibly have an impact on the observations you make.
Atmospheric refraction is real. You should at least make an attempt to factor it into your observations before you become so adamant about believing what you see. You are outright ignoring it. Just like, when I make a flying ship observation, I (and the rest of the scientific community) try to understand what's really going on before standing up and saying "LOOK!!! A FLYING SHIP!!!"
I don't think anyone is saying atmospheric effects account for nothing. Sometimes they are massively in play, sometimes not at all and everywhere inbetween. But to make the sun disappear, literally like clockwork, every day for everyone on earth, for 12 hours or so, can't be chalked up to the same atmospheric effects. To do so would be to say at every sunset, ""LOOK!!! A FLYING SHIP!!!"
-
And the higher up, the further I can see. That's not a small set. It happens every single time.
Every single time you go to higher altitude you are experience the earth from a very different atmosphere than the one you experience at sea level. Very different atmospheric composition, different density, different temperature etc.
I've already provided evidence which suggests something as simple as temperature layers can make our brains think a ship is flying in the air. We are talking about temperature layers now and atmosphere layers, and whole plethora of chaotic variables that you simply REFUSE to acknowledge could possibly have an impact on the observations you make.
Atmospheric refraction is real. You should at least make an attempt to factor it into your observations before you become so adamant about believing what you see. You are outright ignoring it. Just like, when I make a flying ship observation, I (and the rest of the scientific community) try to understand what's really going on before standing up and saying "LOOK!!! A FLYING SHIP!!!"
I don't think anyone is saying atmospheric effects account for nothing. Sometimes they are massively in play, sometimes not at all and everywhere inbetween. But to make the sun disappear, literally like clockwork, every day for everyone on earth, for 12 hours or so, can't be chalked up to the same atmospheric effects. To do so would be to say at every sunset, ""LOOK!!! A FLYING SHIP!!!"
The time of the sunset is predictable, every day, without fail. It does not depend on atmospheric effects. Even if there is cloud cover, the position of the sun can be inferred with exact precision. It never varies.
I have no idea what the temperature, humidity, pollen count, etc, will be for Chicago next Friday. But I know the sun will set at 8:09 PM. And it will.
-
The time of the sunset is predictable, every day, without fail. It does not depend on atmospheric effects. Even if there is cloud cover, the position of the sun can be inferred with exact precision. It never varies.
I have no idea what the temperature, humidity, pollen count, etc, will be for Chicago next Friday. But I know the sun will set at 8:09 PM. And it will.
According to the article below you are wrong.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/refraction.html
"So, if you watch the Sun set in an area of high pressure on a cold day, you may have to wait several seconds for the upper edge of the Sun to disappear behind the horizon, compared to a day with average pressure and temperature."
So the difference between high pressure and low temperature and average pressure and average temperature is several seconds.
What about humidity? What about air quality? What about pollen and smog? What about cloud cover/fog? What about wind speed?
What is the difference between high pressure and low temperature and low pressure and high temperature? Several minutes?
Furthermore just because you see the sun rise or set does not mean that the sun really has rise or set.
This article provides evidence that when you see the sun "setting" it has, in reality, already set.
https://www.hko.gov.hk/m/article_e.htm?title=ele_00493
-
Ok, firstly thanks for the replies! Made some interesting reading. A few things I will point out, it's already been stated but there are many instances where either side says "my proof is I've seen it with my own eyes" or similar and the other debunks it because they haven't seen it. That's childish view points in my opinion.
One thing I would like to point out is in post #12 in reply to my second lot of questions/statements about "spinning objects" so to do exactly what I just said was childish in the previous paragraph, I have literally seen toilets spin the opposite way round in Australia to what it does here in the UK. Every time I went to the toilet in the 12 days I was in Australia and New Zealand (I traveled to 10 cities across both countries) and each time they spun the opposite direction to here. Every time. That was using different toilets in different buildings in different cities. Simply saying no they don't isn't a helpful way to have this discussion. What would it take? Me to stay by your side and repeat the trip to Australia (to ensure I'm not using setup toilets you could choose the city and toilet in this hypothetical experiment) and compare and record them using your own tested to be accurate camera? Trees are the same, I've always been fascinated by twists in trees and these again differ, I could provide photos but someone would just say I doctored the image or something.
Here is a question then. If you had the means to do so, and you flew 300,000metres above the surface of the Earth using something you built yourself would that be evidence enough for you to see for yourself whether it was or wasn't flat?
Another question. If the sun and the moon rotate around the disk, how come I can't see the sun (a burning ball of fire or whatever it is in FE models) from any point of the land? I don't understand how it can go from directly above my head to below the horizon in a FE model? Surely it would just get smaller and less visible the same height in the sky until it faded away? Or move across in a straight line until it started curving through its rotation?
For the posts quoting the Bible, you are talking to the wrong person here. I am not in the slightest interested in what the Bible says. Or any religious book for that matter. The religious books became a means for the weak to control the strong but that's a separate discussion.
EDIT: are there any links to articles where a FE believer became a RE believer?
-
The time of the sunset is predictable, every day, without fail. It does not depend on atmospheric effects. Even if there is cloud cover, the position of the sun can be inferred with exact precision. It never varies.
I have no idea what the temperature, humidity, pollen count, etc, will be for Chicago next Friday. But I know the sun will set at 8:09 PM. And it will.
According to the article below you are wrong.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/refraction.html
"So, if you watch the Sun set in an area of high pressure on a cold day, you may have to wait several seconds for the upper edge of the Sun to disappear behind the horizon, compared to a day with average pressure and temperature."
So the difference between high pressure and low temperature and average pressure and average temperature is several seconds.
What about humidity? What about air quality? What about pollen and smog? What about cloud cover/fog? What about wind speed?
What is the difference between high pressure and low temperature and low pressure and high temperature? Several minutes?
Furthermore just because you see the sun rise or set does not mean that the sun really has rise or set.
This article provides evidence that when you see the sun "setting" it has, in reality, already set.
https://www.hko.gov.hk/m/article_e.htm?title=ele_00493
From your article:
"For example in Hong Kong, the atmospheric refraction causes the sunrise and sunset to appear about 2 minutes early and late respectively when compared to the situation without the atmospheric refraction."
Two points here. There are places on earth that at a various times experience refraction effects and some that don't. For example, if next Friday in Chicago there happens to be a lot of refraction elements mucking about, Zonk's observed sunset will be at 8:11. If it's clear as a bell, his observed sunset will be at 8:09 as stated/predicted. 2 minutes difference.
We are not talking about 2 minutes. We're talking about 12 hours +/-. Zonk can set his watch to the sunset and worst case scenario, be off by 2 minutes or so. A sunset/sunrise is just that predictable. What's not in the mix is atmospheric conditions causing the sun to set, slip behind the horizon, turn day to night, completely disappear only to reappear behind you some 12 hours later. That's what we're talking about.
-
Ok, firstly thanks for the replies! Made some interesting reading. A few things I will point out, it's already been stated but there are many instances where either side says "my proof is I've seen it with my own eyes" or similar and the other debunks it because they haven't seen it. That's childish view points in my opinion.
One thing I would like to point out is in post #12 in reply to my second lot of questions/statements about "spinning objects" so to do exactly what I just said was childish in the previous paragraph, I have literally seen toilets spin the opposite way round in Australia to what it does here in the UK. Every time I went to the toilet in the 12 days I was in Australia and New Zealand (I traveled to 10 cities across both countries) and each time they spun the opposite direction to here. Every time. That was using different toilets in different buildings in different cities. Simply saying no they don't isn't a helpful way to have this discussion. What would it take? Me to stay by your side and repeat the trip to Australia (to ensure I'm not using setup toilets you could choose the city and toilet in this hypothetical experiment) and compare and record them using your own tested to be accurate camera? Trees are the same, I've always been fascinated by twists in trees and these again differ, I could provide photos but someone would just say I doctored the image or something.
Water going down a toilet or sink has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Please perform more research.
This topic has been adequately debunked.
-
I have literally seen toilets spin the opposite way round in Australia to what it does here in the UK.
Regardless of your views on the shape of the Earth, what you have "literally seen" is an urban myth, peddled primarily by con artists living around the equator. There are many factors at play here, but Coriolis is not one of them - in the Round Earth model, the force would simply be too weak to be of any significance.
Some aids:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Draining_in_bathtubs_and_toilets
- https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/coriolis.html
- https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coriolis-effect/
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/06/03/videos-synced-up-across-the-globe-prove-once-and-for-all-which-way-water-swirls/?noredirect=on
This is a recurring question, one almost as good as "I have literally seen the curvature of the Earth on my overnight flight to Atlanta!" - you literally haven't. Humans are excitable and biased creatures. Your senses are the best way of learning about the world around you, and you should absolutely trust them. But you should also know their limitations, and account for them when necessary.
And, frankly, I doubt you actually paid as much attention to your toilets as you claim - don't you thing it sounds a bit strange to claim that you carefully observed every toilet you've used in Australia and New Zealand, noting the direction of the spin, and comparing it to every toilet you've witnessed in the UK? Surely you weren't that bored when you needed to pee?
-
Ok, firstly thanks for the replies! Made some interesting reading. A few things I will point out, it's already been stated but there are many instances where either side says "my proof is I've seen it with my own eyes" or similar and the other debunks it because they haven't seen it. That's childish view points in my opinion.
One thing I would like to point out is in post #12 in reply to my second lot of questions/statements about "spinning objects" so to do exactly what I just said was childish in the previous paragraph, I have literally seen toilets spin the opposite way round in Australia to what it does here in the UK. Every time I went to the toilet in the 12 days I was in Australia and New Zealand (I traveled to 10 cities across both countries) and each time they spun the opposite direction to here. Every time. That was using different toilets in different buildings in different cities. Simply saying no they don't isn't a helpful way to have this discussion. What would it take? Me to stay by your side and repeat the trip to Australia (to ensure I'm not using setup toilets you could choose the city and toilet in this hypothetical experiment) and compare and record them using your own tested to be accurate camera? Trees are the same, I've always been fascinated by twists in trees and these again differ, I could provide photos but someone would just say I doctored the image or something.
Water going down a toilet or sink has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Please perform more research.
This topic has been adequately debunked.
Yes, this is just a myth because sinks and toilets does not hold sufficient enough water! However if you create a drain big enough it will spin in opposite directions north/south. It is the same with cyclones, which are counterclockwise-rotating storms in the Northern Hemisphere, but rotate clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. The circulation directions result from interactions between moving masses of air and air masses moving with the rotating earth.
-
Ok, firstly thanks for the replies! Made some interesting reading. A few things I will point out, it's already been stated but there are many instances where either side says "my proof is I've seen it with my own eyes" or similar and the other debunks it because they haven't seen it. That's childish view points in my opinion.
One thing I would like to point out is in post #12 in reply to my second lot of questions/statements about "spinning objects" so to do exactly what I just said was childish in the previous paragraph, I have literally seen toilets spin the opposite way round in Australia to what it does here in the UK. Every time I went to the toilet in the 12 days I was in Australia and New Zealand (I traveled to 10 cities across both countries) and each time they spun the opposite direction to here. Every time. That was using different toilets in different buildings in different cities. Simply saying no they don't isn't a helpful way to have this discussion. What would it take? Me to stay by your side and repeat the trip to Australia (to ensure I'm not using setup toilets you could choose the city and toilet in this hypothetical experiment) and compare and record them using your own tested to be accurate camera? Trees are the same, I've always been fascinated by twists in trees and these again differ, I could provide photos but someone would just say I doctored the image or something.
Water going down a toilet or sink has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Please perform more research.
This topic has been adequately debunked.
Yes, this is just a myth because sinks and toilets does not hold sufficient enough water! However if you create a drain big enough it will spin in opposite directions north/south. It is the same with cyclones, which are counterclockwise-rotating storms in the Northern Hemisphere, but rotate clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. The circulation directions result from interactions between moving masses of air and air masses moving with the rotating earth.
Though I do agree that weather is affected but this, a pool of water or even a swimming pool I don't think is so easy to test for the effect. Even the slightest disturbance can shift the water in one direction or the other. On such a small scale I personally don't believe water spins based on hemisphere.
You'll see videos online of famous tourist attractions where people pour a load of water into a sink and then release the water and it spins in a direction, then going to the other side of the equator a few feet away and doing the same and the water pours in the other direction, this is just a simple trick where they pour the bucket of water in at the angle they want the water to spin. I have yet to look up full sized whirlpools in the oceans though.
-
Ok, firstly thanks for the replies! Made some interesting reading. A few things I will point out, it's already been stated but there are many instances where either side says "my proof is I've seen it with my own eyes" or similar and the other debunks it because they haven't seen it. That's childish view points in my opinion.
One thing I would like to point out is in post #12 in reply to my second lot of questions/statements about "spinning objects" so to do exactly what I just said was childish in the previous paragraph, I have literally seen toilets spin the opposite way round in Australia to what it does here in the UK. Every time I went to the toilet in the 12 days I was in Australia and New Zealand (I traveled to 10 cities across both countries) and each time they spun the opposite direction to here. Every time. That was using different toilets in different buildings in different cities. Simply saying no they don't isn't a helpful way to have this discussion. What would it take? Me to stay by your side and repeat the trip to Australia (to ensure I'm not using setup toilets you could choose the city and toilet in this hypothetical experiment) and compare and record them using your own tested to be accurate camera? Trees are the same, I've always been fascinated by twists in trees and these again differ, I could provide photos but someone would just say I doctored the image or something.
Water going down a toilet or sink has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Please perform more research.
This topic has been adequately debunked.
Yes, this is just a myth because sinks and toilets does not hold sufficient enough water! However if you create a drain big enough it will spin in opposite directions north/south. It is the same with cyclones, which are counterclockwise-rotating storms in the Northern Hemisphere, but rotate clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. The circulation directions result from interactions between moving masses of air and air masses moving with the rotating earth.
Though I do agree that weather is affected but this, a pool of water or even a swimming pool I don't think is so easy to test for the effect. Even the slightest disturbance can shift the water in one direction or the other. On such a small scale I personally don't believe water spins based on hemisphere.
You'll see videos online of famous tourist attractions where people pour a load of water into a sink and then release the water and it spins in a direction, then going to the other side of the equator a few feet away and doing the same and the water pours in the other direction, this is just a simple trick where they pour the bucket of water in at the angle they want the water to spin. I have yet to look up full sized whirlpools in the oceans though.
I agree! It would have to be one large sink!! But the physics behind it is solid. The effect itself can be tested on a merry-go-round and two good friends.
-
Posted this before but these guys did a pretty good experiment which shows the effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38
-
Ok, firstly thanks for the replies! Made some interesting reading. A few things I will point out, it's already been stated but there are many instances where either side says "my proof is I've seen it with my own eyes" or similar and the other debunks it because they haven't seen it. That's childish view points in my opinion.
One thing I would like to point out is in post #12 in reply to my second lot of questions/statements about "spinning objects" so to do exactly what I just said was childish in the previous paragraph, I have literally seen toilets spin the opposite way round in Australia to what it does here in the UK. Every time I went to the toilet in the 12 days I was in Australia and New Zealand (I traveled to 10 cities across both countries) and each time they spun the opposite direction to here. Every time. That was using different toilets in different buildings in different cities. Simply saying no they don't isn't a helpful way to have this discussion. What would it take? Me to stay by your side and repeat the trip to Australia (to ensure I'm not using setup toilets you could choose the city and toilet in this hypothetical experiment) and compare and record them using your own tested to be accurate camera? Trees are the same, I've always been fascinated by twists in trees and these again differ, I could provide photos but someone would just say I doctored the image or something.
Water going down a toilet or sink has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Please perform more research.
This topic has been adequately debunked.
Yes, this is just a myth because sinks and toilets does not hold sufficient enough water! However if you create a drain big enough it will spin in opposite directions north/south. It is the same with cyclones, which are counterclockwise-rotating storms in the Northern Hemisphere, but rotate clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. The circulation directions result from interactions between moving masses of air and air masses moving with the rotating earth.
Though I do agree that weather is affected but this, a pool of water or even a swimming pool I don't think is so easy to test for the effect. Even the slightest disturbance can shift the water in one direction or the other. On such a small scale I personally don't believe water spins based on hemisphere.
You'll see videos online of famous tourist attractions where people pour a load of water into a sink and then release the water and it spins in a direction, then going to the other side of the equator a few feet away and doing the same and the water pours in the other direction, this is just a simple trick where they pour the bucket of water in at the angle they want the water to spin. I have yet to look up full sized whirlpools in the oceans though.
I agree! It would have to be one large sink!! But the physics behind it is solid. The effect itself can be tested on a merry-go-round and two good friends.
The merry go round does not test anything.
Even according to RE adherents, it simply serves as a demonstration.
In this case, it serves that one moving object can have an effect on another.
-
Ok, firstly thanks for the replies! Made some interesting reading. A few things I will point out, it's already been stated but there are many instances where either side says "my proof is I've seen it with my own eyes" or similar and the other debunks it because they haven't seen it. That's childish view points in my opinion.
One thing I would like to point out is in post #12 in reply to my second lot of questions/statements about "spinning objects" so to do exactly what I just said was childish in the previous paragraph, I have literally seen toilets spin the opposite way round in Australia to what it does here in the UK. Every time I went to the toilet in the 12 days I was in Australia and New Zealand (I traveled to 10 cities across both countries) and each time they spun the opposite direction to here. Every time. That was using different toilets in different buildings in different cities. Simply saying no they don't isn't a helpful way to have this discussion. What would it take? Me to stay by your side and repeat the trip to Australia (to ensure I'm not using setup toilets you could choose the city and toilet in this hypothetical experiment) and compare and record them using your own tested to be accurate camera? Trees are the same, I've always been fascinated by twists in trees and these again differ, I could provide photos but someone would just say I doctored the image or something.
Water going down a toilet or sink has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Please perform more research.
This topic has been adequately debunked.
Yes, this is just a myth because sinks and toilets does not hold sufficient enough water! However if you create a drain big enough it will spin in opposite directions north/south. It is the same with cyclones, which are counterclockwise-rotating storms in the Northern Hemisphere, but rotate clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. The circulation directions result from interactions between moving masses of air and air masses moving with the rotating earth.
Though I do agree that weather is affected but this, a pool of water or even a swimming pool I don't think is so easy to test for the effect. Even the slightest disturbance can shift the water in one direction or the other. On such a small scale I personally don't believe water spins based on hemisphere.
You'll see videos online of famous tourist attractions where people pour a load of water into a sink and then release the water and it spins in a direction, then going to the other side of the equator a few feet away and doing the same and the water pours in the other direction, this is just a simple trick where they pour the bucket of water in at the angle they want the water to spin. I have yet to look up full sized whirlpools in the oceans though.
I agree! It would have to be one large sink!! But the physics behind it is solid. The effect itself can be tested on a merry-go-round and two good friends.
The merry go round does not test anything.
Even according to RE adherents, it simply serves as a demonstration.
In this case, it serves that one moving object can have an effect on another.
Yes, you are right! It demonstrates the effect. I apologize for the poor choice of words. But still cyclones, hurricanes etc. spins in different directions depending on which hemisphere it is located in.
-
Posted this before but these guys did a pretty good experiment which shows the effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38
American Scientist doesn't think that this experiment shows anything.
https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/science-culture/the-coriolis-and-the-commode
All things being equal, if you make sure that the water is motionless and no other forces are introduced during the process, Coriolis would be the big winner in the battle royal of forces acting on the liquid draining from that kiddie pool. And for Muller and Sandlin, it worked! They tried their experiment three times in each hemisphere. In each case the water rotated clockwise in the southern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere. Proof! Right?
Well, not so fast. The YouTube experiments were actually based on previous ones done in a laboratory setting. In those highly controlled settings, scientists at MIT in the 1960s were able to show that Coriolis could work on a draining tub. In fact, I have been told that graduate students at MIT still do this experiment today in one of their classes. The major difference between the past examples and the current YouTube version is that one was done in a lab with a fine control over outside forces and the other uses a kiddie pool set up on a plywood platform in a garage or sheltered patio. In the video experiments any number of things may have introduced an outside force that could swamp the comparatively tiny influence from the Earth’s rotation. Temperature differences in the water could create currents; tiny bumps in the texture of the kiddie pool or plywood could guide the flow; the way the valve released the water could steer the movement; and, especially for the outdoor experiment, a slight breeze could push the water along. A systematic error could have led to the same consistent results seen in the videos.
This is not to say these YouTube experiments did not work. It’s just that a lot of other things could have affected the results besides the Earth’s rotation. Of course, regular folks do not have access to the type of laboratories and equipment needed to control for all other factors and allow the Earth’s rotation to determine the outcome. And part of the purpose of these videos is to show viewers an experiment they can recreate on their own.
Maintaining that degree of accessibility while satisfying skeptics like me would involve putting together a larger sample size of experiments similar to the ones made by Muller and Sandlin, done in different locations across both hemispheres. Then we could get a better idea of whether the setup shown in “The Truth about Toilet Swirl” did in fact allow the Coriolis effect to shine. Until then, I’ll remain unconvinced that what we saw truly resulted from the Coriolis effect.
Ultimately, of course, this is nitpicking. The videos were educational, and the explanation of what the Coriolis effect means for air or water moving on Earth was on the money, regardless of whether I completely accept the experiment’s setup.
Therefore, I guess the only thing left to do is to assemble an army of kiddie-pool Coriolis experimenters to figure this out once and for all. If you bring the pool, I’ll supply the water (void in California). The Earth will provide the spin.
The laboratory tests of the Coriolis Effect have been long controversial:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Coriolis_Effect#Laboratory_Water_Vortex_Experiments
In the 1960s a researcher named Ascher Shapiro claimed that water vortex direction was due to the "Coriolis Effect". The experiments started with bathtubs and then escalated to six foot wide tanks of water:
http://classic.scopeweb.mit.edu/articles/shapiros-bathtub-experiment/ (Archive)
“ Shapiro’s Bathtub Experiment
by Conor Myhrvold
posted November 1, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Over forty years ago, in the 1960s, the world briefly became captivated with how a bathtub drains. Did something called the Coriolis effect influence the twirling water?
The Earth’s rotation influences how fluids swirl on the planet’s surface. It’s why low-pressure systems in the northern hemisphere twist counterclockwise. This phenomenon, known as the Coriolis effect, is the appearance of an object to deflect to one side in a rotating reference frame. Since it is such a tiny effect on small scales, no one had yet proven that this inertial force actually affects how water leaves a bathtub, despite many previous efforts.
In 1962, the same year that Watson and Crick received their Nobel Prize for the discovery of the double helix, MIT professor Ascher Shapiro, an expert in fluid mechanics, set up an elaborate test to try to change that. Shapiro’s elementary experiment, which started with a bathtub, quickly turned into a complicated and ambitious undertaking that involved a tank six feet wide and six inches deep.
The Coriolis effect at MIT’s latitude, 42°, was just “thirty-millionths that of gravity, which is so small that it will be overcome by filling and even temperature differences and water impurities,” reported one of many newspapers and periodicals that covered the results of Shapiro’s experiment. After much tinkering to cancel out these interferences, and presumably a hefty water bill, Shapiro found the answer: the Coriolis effect does indeed cause a bathtub vortex in the northern hemisphere to swirl counterclockwise.
But even after his results were published in a letter to Nature, Shapiro’s confirmation drew the skepticism of readers. In correspondence with one reader, Shapiro noted: “Many results contradictory to this have been reported in the literature but all of them have involved faulty experiments due to a lack of realization of how sensitive the experiment is.” He was supported, however, by colleagues in the Northern hemisphere who confirmed the counterclockwise bathtub drainage, while those in the Southern hemisphere demonstrated the same effect in the opposite direction—a clockwise flow—just as anticipated.
In a world without electronic communication, where author correspondence was a more prolonged affair, a sort of chivalry existed between a scientist and a popular audience who took an interest in academics. Scrawled with a pencil on back-and-forth correspondences between Shapiro and his fans and housed today within a dusty and faded folder in the MIT archives are the records of reprints being sent, of questions being answered, and of careful and nuanced responses that understated Shapiro’s high standing at MIT. A Ford Professor at the time, and later elevated to Institute professor, Shapiro took time to send article reprints for those who asked for it and to answer mail from inquisitive readers, some of whom promoted dubious questions and claims.
...Who would have thought the swirl of a bathtub would have been a matter of great interest? For a seemingly insignificant problem, the bathtub controversy loomed large in Shapiro’s career until his death in 2004. The first line of his obituary in the Boston Globe read: “Dr. Ascher Shapiro wanted to get a handle on how fluids move whether they were swirling down the bathtub drain, or flowing through the human body.” ”
Controversy because other researchers were getting different and inconsistent results. Shapiro claimed that he could perform the experiment and that all other researchers were wrong.
The below shows that even with extreme care the direction of the vortex can be influenced by very small perturbations such as how the lid is lifted.
http://web.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/history-chapters/C3%20ThermoFluids.pdf (Archive)
“ At Tom Fink’s invitation, Professor Lloyd M. Trefethen of Tufts University, USA, spent a short sabbatical in Mechanical Engineering in 1964/65. Already famous for his work on surface tension phenomena, he led us into a repeat of the experiments on the bathtub vortex that had recently been conducted by Ascher Shapiro at MIT. After much careful design, a circular tank of some 2.4m in diameter and 0.4m depth was constructed and installed in one of the subterranean dungeons of the old Peter Nicol Russell building. Carefully designed procedures and their diligent execution resulted in absolutely conclusive results that were published in Nature (Trefethen, et al, 1965). A re-enactment for the local media was a disaster: Bilger and Tanner muffed the removal of the covering baffles creating a great vortex in the water that then went out the wrong way. ‘Scientists baffled’ cried the media. We even made Time magazine! ”
In Flow, Nature's Patterns, a Tapestry in Three Parts (Archive) by Dr. Phillip Ball (Archive) the author gives an overview on p. 47:
“ A popular notion says that the rotation of the earth starts the bathtub vortex spinning. But while it is certainly true that this rotation controls the direction of the giant atmospheric vortices of cyclones, which rotate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern, the influence of the Earth’s rotation on a micro-cyclone in the bath should be extremely weak. Biesel claimed that it cannot be responsible for the bathtub vortex because, contrary to popular belief, they may rotate in either direction at any place on the planet. But is that really so? In 1962 the American engineer Ascher Shapiro at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claimed that he had consistently produced counter-clockwise vortices in his lab by first allowing the water to settle for 24 hours, dissipating any residual rotational motion, before pulling the plug. The claim sparked controversy: later researchers said that the experiment was extremely sensitive to the precise conditions in which it was conducted. The dispute has never quite been resolved. We do know, however, why a small initial rotation of the liquid develops into a robust vortex. This is due to the movement of the water as it converges on the outlet. In theory this convergence can be completely symmetrical: water moves inwards to the plughole from all directions. But the slightest departure from that symmetrical situation, which could happen at random, may be amplified because of the way fluidflow operates. ”
An abstract at the Physical Society of Japan states:
“ It has long been controversial whether the Coriolis force due to the rotation of the earth plays a significant role in the generation of the bathtub vortex in small vessels such as bathtubs. ”
-
Thanks. Two useful articles which back up the macroscopic effects of the Coriolis effect which, as those articles agree, is caused by the globe earth’s rotation while acknowledging how difficult the effect is to detect in smaller settings.
Interesting you apply so much scrutiny to experiments which show you to be wrong while taking those which imply you may be correct at face value.
-
It's not my scrutiny. I don't run the American Scientist website. You should take it up with the scientist if your feelings have been hurt.
-
It's not my scrutiny. I don't run the American Scientist website. You should take it up with the scientist if your feelings have been hurt.
Feelings hurt by 2 articles which back up the globe earth model? What a strange thing to say :D
Some quotes from the above:
All things being equal, if you make sure that the water is motionless and no other forces are introduced during the process, Coriolis would be the big winner in the battle royal of forces acting on the liquid draining from that kiddie pool.
In those highly controlled settings, scientists at MIT in the 1960s were able to show that Coriolis could work on a draining tub.
the explanation of what the Coriolis effect means for air or water moving on Earth was on the money
If you bring the pool, I’ll supply the water (void in California). The Earth will provide the spin.
The Earth’s rotation influences how fluids swirl on the planet’s surface. It’s why low-pressure systems in the northern hemisphere twist counterclockwise. This phenomenon, known as the Coriolis effect, is the appearance of an object to deflect to one side in a rotating reference frame.
He was supported, however, by colleagues in the Northern hemisphere who confirmed the counterclockwise bathtub drainage, while those in the Southern hemisphere demonstrated the same effect in the opposite direction—a clockwise flow—just as anticipated.
After much careful design, a circular tank of some 2.4m in diameter and 0.4m depth was constructed and installed in one of the subterranean dungeons of the old Peter Nicol Russell building. Carefully designed procedures and their diligent execution resulted in absolutely conclusive results that were published in Nature
In 1962 the American engineer Ascher Shapiro at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claimed that he had consistently produced counter-clockwise vortices in his lab by first allowing the water to settle for 24 hours, dissipating any residual rotational motion, before pulling the plug.
it is certainly true that [the Earth's] rotation controls the direction of the giant atmospheric vortices of cyclones, which rotate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern,
Thanks for presenting those articles as further evidence for the globe earth, not quite clear why you did that but it’s all useful.
-
Interesting, so we should assume then that you have given up on your youtube experiment and are instead hinging on statements like "the earth will provide the spin"? Sounds pretty convincing to me.
Dr. Phillip Ball says that Shapiro's claim was controversial: (https://www.slideshare.net/augustodefranco/flow-natures-patterns)
In 1962 the American engineer Ascher Shapiro at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claimed that he had consistently produced counter-clockwise vortices in his lab by first allowing the water to settle for 24 hours, dissipating any residual rotational motion, before pulling the plug. The claim sparked controversy: later researchers said that the experiment was extremely sensitive to the precise conditions in which it was conducted. The dispute has never quite been resolved.
Dr. Parasnis of the University of Lulea wrote to New Scientist to inform them of the following:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13918906-400-letters-in-a-spin/
Letters: In a spin
By D. S. PARASNIS
It is indeed surprising that the myth of a discernible Coriolis force
effect on the water in a bath tub persists. Apart from the weakness of the
force pointed out in the editorial, the myth was experimentally examined
in 1965 by L. M. Trefethen et al in an extremely careful experiment and
found to have no basis (‘The bath-tub vortex in the southern hemisphere’,
Nature, vol 207, p 1085.
D. S. Parasnis University of Lulea, Sweden
-
Interesting, so we should assume then that you have given up on your youtube experiment
The experiment looks pretty good to me. They've explained how they did it, what they did to mitigate the possibility of the movement being caused by the way the water was put into the pool and they even mitigated the risk of a vortex being introduced when the water was drained by using a valve rather then a plug. They got results consistent with a globe earth so, of course, you have to desperately try to discredit what they found. As I said, strange how you take experiment results which appear to back up your ideas at face value.
There is no dispute that the Coriolis effect is weak and hard to detect on the small scale, there's also no dispute that the science behind the Coriolis effect which causes storm systems to rotate in different directions in the different hemispheres is well understood and caused by the fact we live on a spinning ball. Both of the articles you posted back that up as does the new link you've provided:
But while it is certainly true that this rotation controls the direction of the giant atmospheric vortices of cyclones, which rotate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern, the influence of the Earth’s rotation on a micro-cyclone in the bath should be extremely weak
Why do you keep providing links to articles which back up the globe earth? ???
But yes, the effect on the small scale is hard to detect. The experiment these guys did looks like a pretty good attempt to do so.
As an empiricist and a zetetic I'm sure you are working on repeating these experiments to investigate this matter for yourself.
I look forward to seeing your results.