TheTruthIsOnHere, I think it's easy to say that you need no formulas because you don't have to directly deal with the shape of the earth or the horizon to solve any real problems.  For those who have to communicate,  take measurements, or estimate distances of things on or beyond the horizon then solution formulas are needed.   It has nothing to do with indoctrination.  It has to do with real world scenarios where decisions need to be made, money will be spent, and solutions need to exist.  The value of a model is based it's ability to explain, predict, and solve problems.

But here's the thing... 99% of problems in the world are solved without regard for the curvature of the Earth. Engineers don't have to account for it. And when they do it is some kind of micro-measurement that wouldn't cause a bridge to fail if the Earth was flat. For all intents and purposes, things are generally designed with the simplification of a flat Earth.

I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.

Estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth. Understanding where the vanishing point is and your approximate altitude you could easily use Pythagorean theorem to determine. On the flat earth, the ground and your height create a right triangle, even though it is perceived as an equilateral triangle. Please explain to me what kind of real world application requires a rough estimate of the distance to the horizon anyway. I know that technology has come a long way since Geeko was a pirate, but I'm pretty sure they aren't using that guide he always references for anything important.


I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.





Quote
Estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth. Understanding where the vanishing point is and your approximate altitude you could easily use Pythagorean theorem to determine. On the flat earth, the ground and your height create a right triangle, even though it is perceived as an equilateral triangle.

Where is the vanishing point, exactly? Could you give an example of how to work this out?

I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.





Quote
Estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth. Understanding where the vanishing point is and your approximate altitude you could easily use Pythagorean theorem to determine. On the flat earth, the ground and your height create a right triangle, even though it is perceived as an equilateral triangle.

Where is the vanishing point, exactly? Could you give an example of how to work this out?

A drop of water isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to waters propensity to find its own level. You can supposedly "see" the water curving away from you at the horizon, but if you ventured towards the horizon you would never find anywhere where the water is a hill. It is an optical illusion.

The vanishing point is the place where level horizontal lines converge.

Since the horizon is a fluid thing it isn't easy to estimate, I'm pretty sure that the method used is based on someone literally testing how far they can see objects with a known distance from higher altitudes, and recording that, and so on and so forth. No one knew the "circumference of the earth" when Sailors were guessing the distance to an object on the horizon or the horizon itself, so any formula deduced from that is contemporary patch work.


A drop of water isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to waters propensity to find its own level.

The water droplets show that the shape is determined by the forces acting on it. For a small drop of water, surface tension causes it to form into a small sphere. On the large scale, water is pulled towards the spherical surface of the earth due to gravity. There is no "finds its own level law" that would prevent water from naturally forming into a spherical shape.

Quote
The vanishing point is the place where level horizontal lines converge.

Equations please. You just said that "estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth". An example would be nice, with actual numbers and equations.

A drop of water isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to waters propensity to find its own level.

The water droplets show that the shape is determined by the forces acting on it. For a small drop of water, surface tension causes it to form into a small sphere. On the large scale, water is pulled towards the spherical surface of the earth due to gravity. There is no "finds its own level law" that would prevent water from naturally forming into a spherical shape.
Water is pulled toward the spherical surface towards what? The center of the Earth? Does most of the mass on Earth exist in the exact diametric center of it?

Is it just the perfect amount of mass to counter the centripetal force of our spinning planet to keep the water and atmosphere from flying into outer space?

If you're only explanation is Gravity, which is not without its detractors in main stream science, then it's not enough. It's convenient, but can not be measured, for many of the same reasons the movement of the Earth can't be measured. This is the high burden of proof I was talking about before.


Quote
The vanishing point is the place where level horizontal lines converge.

Equations please. You just said that "estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth". An example would be nice, with actual numbers and equations.
[/quote]

You could use the same equation they use now, except instead of explaining the coefficients with curvature, it could easily be attributed to the perceived rise of the ground to meet the sky due to the laws of perspective.

A drop of water isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to waters propensity to find its own level.

The water droplets show that the shape is determined by the forces acting on it. For a small drop of water, surface tension causes it to form into a small sphere. On the large scale, water is pulled towards the spherical surface of the earth due to gravity. There is no "finds its own level law" that would prevent water from naturally forming into a spherical shape.
Water is pulled toward the spherical surface towards what? The center of the Earth?

Approximately, yes.

Quote
Does most of the mass on Earth exist in the exact diametric center of it?

No. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/sphshell.html#wtls
Edit: Or from wikipedia, if you prefer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

Quote
Is it just the perfect amount of mass to counter the centripetal force of our spinning planet to keep the water and atmosphere from flying into outer space?

No. Gravity is much stronger than centripetal acceleration. It isn't balanced at all. This is why we fall down towards the earth, and aren't thrown off.

Quote
If you're only explanation is Gravity, which is not without its detractors in main stream science, then it's not enough. It's convenient, but can not be measured, for many of the same reasons the movement of the Earth can't be measured. This is the high burden of proof I was talking about before.

You have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Quote
Quote
Quote
The vanishing point is the place where level horizontal lines converge.

Equations please. You just said that "estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth". An example would be nice, with actual numbers and equations.

You could use the same equation they use now, except instead of explaining the coefficients with curvature, it could easily be attributed to the perceived rise of the ground to meet the sky due to the laws of perspective.

Please show how those equations correspond with your theory about the vanishing point. Those equations were derived directly from the geometry of a spherical earth. They are not general purpose, best-fit equations. I have derived them from scratch myself on this very forum.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2017, 11:28:06 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

I have derived them from scratch myself on this very forum.

Please show me your peer reviewed paper and accompanying experimentation proving the validity of your "from scratch" equation.

As far as special relativity proving gravity, you are just citing an even more obscure, harder to prove theory to try to prove the other unproven theory. Good job lol.

We don't know what the core of the Earth is, or why it should attract objects to it.

I have derived them from scratch myself on this very forum.

Please show me your peer reviewed paper and accompanying experimentation proving the validity of your "from scratch" equation.

It's simple highschool level math. No one is going to peer review it. Since when do you require peer reviewed sources anyway? If you actually want to see it, I'll search for it. If you are just being intentionally obtuse, I won't bother.

Quote
As far as special relativity proving gravity, you are just citing an even more obscure, harder to prove theory to try to prove the other unproven theory. Good job lol.

I did not even mention special relativity. Again, you have no earthly idea what you are talking about. You claim flatearthers require a higher burden of proof. Perhaps you should at the very least require a vague knowledge of the topic you are talking about before drawing sweeping conclusions about the validity of all scientific knowledge of said topic.

Quote
We don't know what the core of the Earth is, or why it should attract objects to it.

I think you are confusing "we" with "I". Go do some research for yourself. Here is a fun worksheet to direct your research:

1. What do scientists *think* the center of the earth is made out of?
2. Why do they think this?
3. How certain of this conclusion are they?
4. Do you agree with their conclusion, and their certainty? If not, why? What did they do wrong in their calculations/experiment that led them to the wrong conclusions? (Be specific)

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
If you're only explanation is Gravity, which is not without its detractors in main stream science, then it's not enough. It's convenient, but can not be measured, for many of the same reasons the movement of the Earth can't be measured. This is the high burden of proof I was talking about before.

There are measurements that show the movement of the earth.
1)  Michelson, from the famously flat earth touted Michelson-Morley experiment, predicted and proved that the earth rotated using a Sagnac interferometer in 1925.  Michelson never could measure any movement of the aether.  He most certainly did measure the rotation of the earth.  Laser Ring Gyros do it today.
2)  The gyrocompass works because the rotational of the earth causes the gyro to process and point north.  The earths movement is what makes them work.
3)  We can measure the annual parallax of stars.  While it could be supposed that the stars are moving, the parallax measurements fit with what we know about our orbital circumference.
4)  We measure red shift and blue shift when we look with and in opposition to our motion in orbit.

Here is a link for all the ongoing measurements that the IERS publishes on the rotation of the earth and its effects.
https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/DataProducts/EarthOrientationData/eop.html

« Last Edit: March 11, 2017, 03:40:23 AM by Flatout »

geckothegeek

If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.
But – you say – ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round.



Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon”, because of the curvature of the Orange. If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed: The ant would have slowly ‘materialized’ into view, depending on how sharp your vision is.

If you are caught up on your Navigation history, old ship capitals used to navigate the seas by the stars. They relied on different constellations depending on where they were around the world. This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.



After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and…Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface. Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)
The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:



One of my biggest problems about flat earth is the horizon. I have trouble envisioning it.

Disclaimer:
I am assuming that we all ("round earthers", that is) know that earth is a globe, what the horizon is, and how far from us it appears, according to our height.

But what would  the horizon look like if the earth was flat ?
My guess (and I'm just guessing) is that since there would be no curvature if the earth was flat, there would be no horizon as we know it ?
My guess is that if the earth was flat, the horizon would be the line where the bottom of the ice dome meets the top of the ice wall ?
My guess is that the distance to the horizon, if the earth was flat, would be the distance from the observer to the point, or line, where the bottom of the ice dome appears to meet the top of the ice wall ?
It could be several thousand miles or maybe just 150 feet ?
I did read something about a "An indistinct blur which fades away at an indefinite distance" ?

Hopefully, someone from the FES has a better explanation. We "round earthers" are a bit short on flat earth theory.
I suppose it is a little too early to expect an answer ?


I have asked this before, but never got a satisfactory answer. Don't say "just look it up in the flat earth wiki."
Just give us a detailed description in your own words. I checked the flat earth wiki but couldn't find much information.

I have done the same for the "round earth" horizon description several times on this forum.Of course you could just look up "horizon" on the Internet wiki. I can post the "round earth" description again for comparison with the "flat earth" version if anyone is interested. No problem.

I won't make any claims as to being a genius like sceptimatic or intikam. Nor even an expert. But I have had quite a bit of experience where the horizon is involved. I can attest to the fact that what I have posted is true, both from "round earth" theory and practice.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 07:02:05 PM by geckothegeek »

geckothegeek

TruthIsOne
Just do it one more time.
If the earth was flat , tell us what the horizon would be, where the horizon would be, and  how you could estimate the distance to the horizon ?

The horizon is not "the vanishing point" . Ships can be seen on the horizon and parts of them after they have passed beyond the horizon.

Is it too early to expect an answer ?

This subject of the "horizon" and "recovering the ship" are just two of the most obvious of the flat earth fallacies.
But I just wanted to see how they would try to explain weasel word their way out of it.
Maybe just the usual way of ignoring the question ?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 06:57:07 PM by geckothegeek »

geckothegeek

I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.





Quote
Estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth. Understanding where the vanishing point is and your approximate altitude you could easily use Pythagorean theorem to determine. On the flat earth, the ground and your height create a right triangle, even though it is perceived as an equilateral triangle.

Where is the vanishing point, exactly? Could you give an example of how to work this out?

A drop of water isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to waters propensity to find its own level. You can supposedly "see" the water curving away from you at the horizon, but if you ventured towards the horizon you would never find anywhere where the water is a hill. It is an optical illusion.

The vanishing point is the place where level horizontal lines converge.

Since the horizon is a fluid thing it isn't easy to estimate, I'm pretty sure that the method used is based on someone literally testing how far they can see objects with a known distance from higher altitudes, and recording that, and so on and so forth. No one knew the "circumference of the earth" when Sailors were guessing the distance to an object on the horizon or the horizon itself, so any formula deduced from that is contemporary patch work.

Estimating the distance to the horizon is one of the easiest things to. The United States Navy has a Training Manual for Lookouts with a chart for estimating the distance you can see to the horizon, depending on high you are above the earth. No guess work.

Simple formula: d=1.22 x square root of h. Where d is the distance (in miles) to horizon ; 1.22 is a constant ; h is the height (in feet) above sea level of the observer.
That "constant" of "1.22" isn't just some number picked up out of the air. It was probably derived by some complicated mathematics which involved the curvature of the earth.
Pi=3.14159.......ad infinitum....is just another "constant". (I don't have the Greek Letter alphabet for "Pi" on my keyboard.)

Examples:
At sea level, for a 6 feet tall person standing up in a rowboat, the distance to the horizon is about 3 miles.
For a person in the crow's nest , 100 feet above the sea, the distance is about 12.2 miles.

The lookouts use this to check their estimates with the distances on the ship's radar.

Estimating the distance to the horizon is needed in many other applications in the real world.
If the earth was flat, this wouldn't be needed.
But the earth isn't flat.
It's curved.
It's a globe.

Examples:
Just 2 examples are.:
The maximum range of some (not all, of course) shipboard surface  search radars is limited by the distance to the horizon (there are many other factors of design and operation, of course).
The spacing between some ( most, but not all ) types of microwave repeater stations.

But don't let that discourage you. "Flat Earth Ideas" always make for interesting reading !  :-)
« Last Edit: March 16, 2017, 12:42:39 AM by geckothegeek »

TruthIsOne
Just do it one more time.
If the earth was flat , tell us what the horizon would be, where the horizon would be, and  how you could estimate the distance to the horizon ?

The horizon is not "the vanishing point" . Ships can be seen on the horizon and parts of them after they have passed beyond the horizon.

Is it too early to expect an answer ?

This subject of the "horizon" and "recovering the ship" are just two of the most obvious of the flat earth fallacies.
But I just wanted to see how they would try to explain weasel word their way out of it.
Maybe just the usual way of ignoring the question ?

On a flat earth the horizon doesn't exist. It is an optical illusion, unless you believe the sea really meets the sky at some preordained distance away from you. I don't know what's so hard for you to envision. The horizon is the place that the flat level ground appears to meet the sky.

geckothegeek

TruthIsOne
Just do it one more time.
If the earth was flat , tell us what the horizon would be, where the horizon would be, and  how you could estimate the distance to the horizon ?

The horizon is not "the vanishing point" . Ships can be seen on the horizon and parts of them after they have passed beyond the horizon.

Is it too early to expect an answer ?

This subject of the "horizon" and "recovering the ship" are just two of the most obvious of the flat earth fallacies.
But I just wanted to see how they would try to explain weasel word their way out of it.
Maybe just the usual way of ignoring the question ?

On a flat earth the horizon doesn't exist. It is an optical illusion, unless you believe the sea really meets the sky at some preordained distance away from you. I don't know what's so hard for you to envision. The horizon is the place that the flat level ground appears to meet the sky.

Exactly !

 What I have been saying. But you may have missed the point. The horizon is the distinct line where sea and sky APPEAR to meet. And the distance can be easily estimated. And sailors have done this for years. The horizon does exist !

You say "On a flat earth the horizon does not exist" and then you say "The horizon is the place where the flat level ground appears to meet the sky." That is simply the definition of the horizon. Please explain why you say it doesn't exist but then you give its definition correctly ? Seems to be a contradiction ? If the earth was flat, would the horizon be the line where the bottom of the so-called "ice dome" ACTUALLY meets the top of the so-called "ice wall" ? This would seem to be the case in the old painting of the person kneeling on a flat earth, at the edge of a flat earth, peering through a hole in the dome where it meets the flat earth ?

If the horizon does not exist on a flat earth, what is the flat earth explanation ? What is your opinion of the facts, in particular the Manual For Lookouts ? It clearly lists distances for various heights.

Have you ever been to sea or down to the shore ? What DID you see when you looked out on the sea if it wasn't the horizon ?
« Last Edit: March 16, 2017, 04:53:26 PM by geckothegeek »

Are you really this dense?

DO. YOU. BELIEVE. THAT. THE. OCEAN. TOUCHES. THE. SKY, SOMEWHERE?

I hope not, because it doesn't. It only appears to. Where it appears to do so is the horizon.

I have absolutely no idea what you are getting on about ice domes and ice walls. You are so hung up on this same paragraph you've posted for 4 years that you can't even comprehend anything beyond it. Not me problem. Have a good day.

geckothegeek

Are you really this dense?

DO. YOU. BELIEVE. THAT. THE. OCEAN. TOUCHES. THE. SKY, SOMEWHERE?

I hope not, because it doesn't. It only appears to. Where it appears to do so is the horizon.

I have absolutely no idea what you are getting on about ice domes and ice walls. You are so hung up on this same paragraph you've posted for 4 years that you can't even comprehend anything beyond it. Not me problem. Have a good day.

I keep repeating that the horizon is the line where the sea and the sky APPEAR to meet. That is what the horizon is.
What IS your problem ? I also keep asking how you could see the horizon if it isn't there on a flat earth ?


The ice dome and the ice wall are what I have read from some flat earthers.
Some say there is a dome above a flat earth and some say it is made of ice.
I suppose I'm like Will Rogers - "All I know is what I read in the papers (substitute "flat earth website" for "papers") and that's my excuse for ignorance."....Ignorance about the flat earth, that is.


geckothegeek

I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.





Quote
Estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth. Understanding where the vanishing point is and your approximate altitude you could easily use Pythagorean theorem to determine. On the flat earth, the ground and your height create a right triangle, even though it is perceived as an equilateral triangle.

Where is the vanishing point, exactly? Could you give an example of how to work this out?
And give an example of how to work out the distance to the horizon ?

geckothegeek

TheTruthIsOnHere, I think it's easy to say that you need no formulas because you don't have to directly deal with the shape of the earth or the horizon to solve any real problems.  For those who have to communicate,  take measurements, or estimate distances of things on or beyond the horizon then solution formulas are needed.   It has nothing to do with indoctrination.  It has to do with real world scenarios where decisions need to be made, money will be spent, and solutions need to exist.  The value of a model is based it's ability to explain, predict, and solve problems.

But here's the thing... 99% of problems in the world are solved without regard for the curvature of the Earth. Engineers don't have to account for it. And when they do it is some kind of micro-measurement that wouldn't cause a bridge to fail if the Earth was flat. For all intents and purposes, things are generally designed with the simplification of a flat Earth.

I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.

 Please explain to me what kind of real world application requires a rough estimation of the distance to the horizon anyway .

Several examples were given : Ship's lookouts, radar, microwave repeaters.......

Are you really this dense?

DO. YOU. BELIEVE. THAT. THE. OCEAN. TOUCHES. THE. SKY, SOMEWHERE?

I hope not, because it doesn't. It only appears to. Where it appears to do so is the horizon.

I have absolutely no idea what you are getting on about ice domes and ice walls. You are so hung up on this same paragraph you've posted for 4 years that you can't even comprehend anything beyond it. Not me problem. Have a good day.

I keep repeating that the horizon is the line where the sea and the sky APPEAR to meet. That is what the horizon is.
What IS your problem ? I also keep asking how you could see the horizon if it isn't there on a flat earth ?

I am going to be blunt.

Are you fucking retarded?

The horizon is the place where the sea and sky APPEAR to meet. Something having an appearance implies that it is vision related, and that you can SEE it.

Jesus christ you must be fun at parties.




Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
TheTruthIsOnHere, what is your mechanism for determining the distance to the horizon?  In the global model there is a distinct distance at which the horizon occurs according to the geometry of a sphere.   How does the flat earth community do it?  How do you justify your position?  Is your position that is just can't be known?

I own  a theodolite and I can accurately measure drop angles that predictably match the spherical model.  Have you come up with some way to take  measurements?  Have you measured to see whether the horizon actually rises to eye level?  I personally have and it never does over large expanses and the drop below horizontal can be measured and fits with spherical predictions.