An assertion made many times by Flat Earth Theorists trying to explain the discrepancy of map projections with observed facts. The encouragement to leave the country was more a general one to get you to see that your assertions do not apply to the part of the world ignored by most Flat Earth theorists: the Southern Hemisphere.
Does this look like a Southern Hemisphere thread?
No, what it looks like is a sorry attempt to pass off a few jaunts down to the same minuscule area of the world to use an instrument that doesn't measure curvature to measure the curvature of a planet that is far, far vaster than you are capable of understanding. If you repeated your experiments in more locations on a larger scale - something that would be so very simple if the Earth were flat - then we might take you seriously. So far, though, you have attempted to summarize the entirety of a mountain by examining a grain of sand.
And while we are at it, yes the curvature of bodies of water is different at different latitudes - and geophysicist will tell you that the curvature of the earth is different at the equator than nearer the poles. The fact remains that you need a larger sample size and a larger scale experiment to verify your claims.
It doesn't matter what shape the land is underneath the water. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.
This has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand - the shape of the land under the water is not the issue, it is the curvature of the body being examined in its entirety - i. e. the Earth. The equatorial bulge is an integral part of the geophysical model of the Earth as accepted by the spherical model - if you don't understand it then trying to disprove it is like trying to correct an essay in a language you don't speak.
That doesn't answer the fact that the distance of the horizon doesn't fade out like it would if its disappearance were attributable to the atmosphere's opacity. You haven't answered the questions - just restated your original assertion with more words.
And before you start saying this isn't relevant, it very much is because for your experiment to be true, it should be able to be scaled up to any size and you will receive the exact same result.
Does the atmosphere have molecules in it or not?
Yes it does - but the gradual thickening of the atmosphere towards the horizon does not account for what we actually observe - once again, if that were the case then we would see the land/ocean fade out slowly like a gradient towards its vanishing point at the 'horizon' even in the clearest of conditions - this is clearly not the case. What we do see is the earth curves away at an appreciable point, causing the hard line of the horizon that any observer can see.
Your experiment should be able to scale up indefinitely, returning exactly the same result at every distance, but it simply doesn't. If you want to prove that it does, go conduct it in a space that is twice the size - then five times the size - then ten times the size. This is called scientific rigour and, as it stands, your experiment just doesn't have it. Defend your claim with more hard evidence than "I did a thing and that means I'm right and I never have to do it again."
One walked away with definitive proof of the earth's curvature which was presented to scholars at Cambridge and subsequently used as a model for explaining the Earth's curvature for nearly a century, adhering to mathematical and empirical proof, and the other walked away with a sore ego and battered reputation which motivated him to threaten the successful scientist with murder.
As has been demonstrated by any real scientist who has ever deigned to address this topic, the sacred text of the Flat Earth Society stands on an incredibly shaky ground of flawed mathematics and physical theories that do not stand up to the rigours of scientific experimentation. Any argument made in said book is performed from a preconception that the Earth must be flat and a blatant disregard for objectivity.
It was not a legitimate experiment. It was a WAGER for a year's worth of pay. Don't you see the issue with that? Yet despite it being clearly a totally invalid experiment on grounds that significant sums of money was involved, and that both men claimed that they had won, it somehow supports your side.
[/quote]
Now address the hundreds of other geophysicists who had replicated the experiment as part of their basic curriculum at Cambridge. The original may not have been particularly savoury to your sensibilities, but nevertheless it began a trend that didn't involve money or vindication, one that had the experiment repeated time and time again but different people at different times with different instruments all returning the same result.
That, my dear Tom, is what scientific experimentation actually is.
Now, if you wouldn't mind popping back down to the beach and trying again with the proper equipment, proper documentation and the proper motivation to observe the Earth rather than your own personal satisfaction, then maybe you can talk about objectivity. Otherwise, I'd suggest you stop making a fool of yourself and your society - it's really rather unbecoming.