#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Seeing France from the UK.
« on: July 05, 2017, 06:25:41 PM »
In a flat earth, far distant objects would only disappear due to mist and other atmospheric effects - and because perspective would eventually hide distant mountains behind relatively small bumps in the ground that were closer to you.

On a calm day at sea - if the world (and therefore, the ocean) is flat - you should be able to see as far as the atmospheric clarity allows…which is usually at least 25 to 30 miles on a clear day.

So on a flat earth, the distance at which objects would become impossible to see would only be limited by atmospheric clarity - and the distance you could see wouldn’t vary with how high you are above the ground.

Let’s take a concrete example:

As a kid, I lived near the town of Dover, on the south east coast of England - at a point on the English Channel that is closest to France.

Dover is the site of the famous “White Cliffs of Dover” - and equally famously, from the top of the cliffs, on a clear day, you can see all the way across the English Channel to the coast of France - which is 20.7 miles away. This is well known to be the only place in mainland UK from which you can see “Foreign Soil” - and the White Cliffs are famous for that exact reason.

However, if you stand at the base of the cliffs - you can’t see France, no matter how clear the air is - and no matter whether you employ binoculars or even a telescope.  If you could, then you'd be able to see France from St.Margret's bay - which is a little closer to France and has a broad sandy beach.  But you can't.

If the world was flat, then on a clear day, it wouldn’t matter whether you were standing at the base of the cliffs or on top of them - you’d be able to see just as far either way. So this is a good demonstration that the Earth is indeed curved.

We can even crunch the math (or cheat and use the online: Distance to the Horizon Calculator) to verify the plausibility of this claim.

If you’re standing at sea level (on a beach, at the bottom of a cliff, for example) - then with your eyes being about 5 to 6 feet above sea level - the horizon is a mere 2.7 to 3.0 miles away. The white cliffs are around 350 feet tall. If you stand on top of a 350 foot cliff (and assuming you’re 5 to 6′ tall), then the horizon calculates out to be is 23.1 miles away…which explains why you can see the 20.7 miles across the channel to France…when the air is clear enough…but ONLY from the tops of the cliffs.

QED.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### neutrino

• 45
##### Re: Seeing France from the UK.
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2017, 08:03:10 AM »
Well, maybe it is because the Earth is spherical? It explains this quite well, isn't it?
Flat Earth is one of the following:
- nonsense
- bullshit
- garbage
- trash
- junk
- crap

Choose to your liking.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: Seeing France from the UK.
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2017, 01:00:42 PM »
See PDF page 20, and the fact that the FE community believes it's on us to prove roundness (for some reason which I still think is a load of cockamamie so they can dismiss RE claims without photographic evidence). So you'll either need to go down to said cliff and document a series of images from the top of the cliff, the bottom of the cliff, and the nearby beach you mentioned, along with zoomed images of each. Or redo Rowbotham's experiments and prove he was lying (actually if you have the ability to do the first, I at least would love for you to attempt the second instead) in order to discredit his work. (Note I'm not saying for a fact Rowbotham's lying about his results, but rather redoing his experiments must prove his notes to be a lie in order to discredit him, but if they produce the same results we're back to square one of trying to explain them.) But without pictures this is about the reply you're likely to get based on my own observations so far. Prove me wrong FE community.

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Seeing France from the UK.
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2017, 01:37:29 PM »
See PDF page 20, and the fact that the FE community believes it's on us to prove roundness (for some reason which I still think is a load of cockamamie so they can dismiss RE claims without photographic evidence). So you'll either need to go down to said cliff and document a series of images from the top of the cliff, the bottom of the cliff, and the nearby beach you mentioned, along with zoomed images of each. Or redo Rowbotham's experiments and prove he was lying (actually if you have the ability to do the first, I at least would love for you to attempt the second instead) in order to discredit his work. (Note I'm not saying for a fact Rowbotham's lying about his results, but rather redoing his experiments must prove his notes to be a lie in order to discredit him, but if they produce the same results we're back to square one of trying to explain them.) But without pictures this is about the reply you're likely to get based on my own observations so far. Prove me wrong FE community.

Sadly, I don't live in the UK anymore...but for someone who lives in the S.E of England, it would indeed be a useful thing to demonstrate.

As for the "who has to prove what" thing...yeah - that's just stupid.  There are endless mountains of evidence for RET - and having provided it, the ball is in the other court.  Now FE'ers have to explain why it's wrong, providing proof of their own.  Merely SAYING that NASA is hiding the fact that the world is flat is meaningless without some sort of evidence...if provided with that evidence, then RE'ers should be prepared to debunk that.

Debate is a back-and-forth matter.

This is not like a criminal trial - where there is a presumption of innocence.   There is no rule of "presumption of flat earth" just as there is no rule of "presumption of round earth".   In honest debate, you present evidence - and evidence is either debunked or it's not.

I'm not sure whether Rowbotham was lying or simply mislead.   The evidence of the observations from that long/flat canal have long been debunked because his experiment can only be repeated when the viewpoint is very close to the surface of the water and under a very particular set of air and water temperature situations.  The effect of refraction under those very unusual situations would certainly have mislead him.

To me - that puts his experiments into the "Neither proven nor disproven" pile - but other, more compelling evidence such as the rotations of the stars and the nature of the appearance of the moon - or the way that gravity is observed to vary across the Earth have not been debunked by FE'ers using EVIDENCE of their own.   A few assertions (which don't work BTW) are not enough.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: Seeing France from the UK.
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2017, 01:55:37 PM »
See PDF page 20, and the fact that the FE community believes it's on us to prove roundness (for some reason which I still think is a load of cockamamie so they can dismiss RE claims without photographic evidence). So you'll either need to go down to said cliff and document a series of images from the top of the cliff, the bottom of the cliff, and the nearby beach you mentioned, along with zoomed images of each. Or redo Rowbotham's experiments and prove he was lying (actually if you have the ability to do the first, I at least would love for you to attempt the second instead) in order to discredit his work. (Note I'm not saying for a fact Rowbotham's lying about his results, but rather redoing his experiments must prove his notes to be a lie in order to discredit him, but if they produce the same results we're back to square one of trying to explain them.) But without pictures this is about the reply you're likely to get based on my own observations so far. Prove me wrong FE community.

Sadly, I don't live in the UK anymore...but for someone who lives in the S.E of England, it would indeed be a useful thing to demonstrate.

As for the "who has to prove what" thing...yeah - that's just stupid.  There are endless mountains of evidence for RET - and having provided it, the ball is in the other court.  Now FE'ers have to explain why it's wrong, providing proof of their own.  Merely SAYING that NASA is hiding the fact that the world is flat is meaningless without some sort of evidence...if provided with that evidence, then RE'ers should be prepared to debunk that.

Debate is a back-and-forth matter.

This is not like a criminal trial - where there is a presumption of innocence.   There is no rule of "presumption of flat earth" just as there is no rule of "presumption of round earth".   In honest debate, you present evidence - and evidence is either debunked or it's not.

I'm not sure whether Rowbotham was lying or simply mislead.   The evidence of the observations from that long/flat canal have long been debunked because his experiment can only be repeated when the viewpoint is very close to the surface of the water and under a very particular set of air and water temperature situations.  The effect of refraction under those very unusual situations would certainly have mislead him.

To me - that puts his experiments into the "Neither proven nor disproven" pile - but other, more compelling evidence such as the rotations of the stars and the nature of the appearance of the moon - or the way that gravity is observed to vary across the Earth have not been debunked by FE'ers using EVIDENCE of their own.   A few assertions (which don't work BTW) are not enough.
I agree wholeheartedly, reporting what I've seen happen in threads like these while I've been here though. Their wiki has this page which I feel is very disingenuous to the fact that most of the claims being put forth have nothing to do with NASA. I sincerely hope to see an honest reply from a FE'er to this post, but I have my doubts at this point. The most important 'point' I have seen brought up, is asking to be shown how one experiment can point to *only* a RE for it's explanation. Remember, their idea of Zeteticism is that you should look for every answer to an observable phenomenon. I think they also misrepresent Occam's Razor in their wiki, but that's another matter.