The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: FE-Experiments on August 04, 2015, 01:42:13 PM
-
I decided to delete all my videos.
-
Please find three videos about Flat Earth Experiments on my youtube channel. More experiment-videos will follow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaRZ2r-MxtI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfnnn0ImfQM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icmuwe-UXl4
FE-Experiments
I watched your videos, they were very good. I've seen other videos like this before. It is very strange to me that the round earth theory doesn't seem to work over water, yet they still claim it does. I don't understand it. I've lived near the ocean all my life and was also in the navy. I can watch a ship disappear and with binoculars it comes back in focus. Where on Earth is the curvature they talk about?
-
I watched your videos, they were very good. I've seen other videos like this before. It is very strange to me that the round earth theory doesn't seem to work over water, yet they still claim it does.
Superior mirage/refraction. I've posted pictures of objects that should have been hidden beyond the horizon, but were still visible, while taller objects were still sinking toward the horizon.
I don't understand it. I've lived near the ocean all my life and was also in the navy. I can watch a ship disappear and with binoculars it comes back in focus. Where on Earth is the curvature they talk about?
If the ship is visible with binoculars, then it wasn't hidden below any curvature yet. It was just too small to see.
-
The curvature exists or does not. Did you ever see one, at sea or on land?
I've seen hills and ships sink below the waterline/horizon as I changed my viewing elevation or they got farther away. From 2,500 feet elevation I observed a major city 60 miles away located at sea-level, and only the top portion of the tallest buildings were visible above the horizon.
-
The sinking ships, suns, clouds, buildings are due to the real light refraction phenomena.
The horizon(the most far the eye can see)breaks the lights of our light sources(every light source including stars) and then you get the phenomena.
This is the real phenomena the scientist just distorted and lie to you.
-
So I noticed at about 14:10 that the funnel is much smaller horizontally, when you state the ship should have dropped 49.2 feet, and compare a full-shot of the ship to how it looks in the distance. There is some superior mirage(atmospheric refraction) that is stretching things vertically, so I matched up the horizontal size of the funnel between the two and put the tops of the funnel about even.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/red%20ship_zpsreaosmex.png)
-
Good evening. I hope I am not interfering by breaking in on you but just came across this . Very interesting, so please continue.
This was way back in the dark ages when I was in the Navy. The ship on which I was stationed made a "cruise" to Japan and back each year. This was also back before the Internet and The Flat Earth Society. It was such a common occurrence that we didn't think anything about it.
When we sailed west from San Diego, you could notice the shoreline disappeared and finally the peak of Point Loma disappeared. Then when we neared Honolulu the top of Diamond Head first came in view and as we got nearer the shoreline at Waikiki Beach could be seen.
Also ships disappeared hull first and finally the tops of their masts. And once those ships or land disappeared from view over the horizon there was no way you could "Restore them to view with a telescope." I'm sure the guys on the bridge would have been glad to know they could have done this. LOL. When I first saw that on the FES I wondered who, why and how that came from. LOL.
There wasn't any discussion about the flat earth at that time. We just knew it to be a fact that this was due to the globular shape of the earth. Both from this and radar theory.
Pardon the interruption but thought I would put in my two cents worth from my own experiences. I was a radar technician and I also liked to checked the radar with the visual observations of ships and land.
So you really have to chalk off all this flat earth stuff as pure fiction and not even science fiction. I really don't understand why anyone would believe in it. I think it's all an act. It does provide some entertainment at least.
-
Good evening. I hope I am not interfering by breaking in on you but just came across this . Very interesting, so please continue.
This was way back in the dark ages when I was in the Navy. The ship on which I was stationed made a "cruise" to Japan and back each year. This was also back before the Internet and The Flat Earth Society. It was such a common occurrence that we didn't think anything about it.
When we sailed west from San Diego, you could notice the shoreline disappeared and finally the peak of Point Loma disappeared. Then we neared Honolulu the top of Diamond Head first came in view and as we got nearer the shoreline at Waikiki Beach could be seen.
Also ships disappeared hull first and finally the tops of their masts. And once those ships or land disappeared over the horizon there was no way you could "Restore them to view with a telescope." I'm sure the guys on the bridge would have been glad to know they could have done this. LOL. When I first saw that on the FES I wondered who, why and how that came from. LOL.
There wasn't any discussion about the flat earth at that time. We just knew it to be a fact that this was due to the globular shape of the earth. Both from this and radar theory.
Pardon the interruption but thought I would put in my two cents worth from my own experiences. I was a radar technician and I also liked to checked the radar with the visual observations of ships and land.
So you really have to chalk off all this flat earth stuff as pure fiction and not even science fiction. I really don't understand why anyone would believe in it. I think it's all an act. It does provide some entertainment at least.
Nice story, but I want proof.
In many observations, I saw that the objects at a far distance are not sinking as much as the Round Earth formula dictates.
see, for example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-crIDAM5Cg
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ESG7MY3qJ4
Most RE-believers claim that this is caused by refraction. This claim is not backed up with evidence.
So, please enlighten us with proof!
Well, if you don't believe me, just ask anyone in any navy or anyone who has ever taken an ocean cruise. In the navy, just ask anyone who has ever stood a watch on the bridge. Or even those such as myself who have just observed this many times.
As I mentioned, it is such a common thing that there is no doubt of what you are observing. Common knowledge. You just can't deny that things that are just as they are.
The distance to the horizon computations can be verified by radar theory. The radar on this particular ship used a frequency which operated on line-of-sight and the maximum range was limited by the distance to the horizon computed by the well known formula of the distance to the horizon determined by the height of the radar antenna. If you doubt the distance to the horizon then you would have to disprove radar theory. And of course all radars act according to radar theory if they are properly designed and properly maintained .
Of course I am sure someone is going to post about over the horizon radars. But that is a different story. There are all types of radars designed for different purposes which operate on different frequencies and different design criteria to give different results.
Once again if you are a so-called "flat earth believer" or even if you are just one of the many suspected "flat earth actors" just denying the fact won't change the fact that the earth is a globe and not some sort of a so-called flat disc with a so-called ice rim around the edge. Or deny the fact that there is no flat earth map of the entire earth.
-
Most RE-believers claim that this is caused by refraction. This claim is not backed up with evidence.
Are you saying that atmospheric refraction is not a real phenomenon?
-
Most RE-believers claim that this is caused by refraction. This claim is not backed up with evidence.
Are you saying that atmospheric refraction is not a real phenomenon?
Refraction does exist and causes distortions. But what kind of distortions?
Well, among other things, refraction causes some objects to appear higher than they really are.
RE-believers are claiming that refraction is the cause of the difference between what is seen and what should (not) be seen., but they don't back it up with evidence. So, please if you can, post your evidence.
What sort of evidence are you looking for?
-
Good evening. I hope I am not interfering by breaking in on you but just came across this . Very interesting, so please continue.
This was way back in the dark ages when I was in the Navy. The ship on which I was stationed made a "cruise" to Japan and back each year. This was also back before the Internet and The Flat Earth Society. It was such a common occurrence that we didn't think anything about it.
When we sailed west from San Diego, you could notice the shoreline disappeared and finally the peak of Point Loma disappeared. Then we neared Honolulu the top of Diamond Head first came in view and as we got nearer the shoreline at Waikiki Beach could be seen.
Also ships disappeared hull first and finally the tops of their masts. And once those ships or land disappeared over the horizon there was no way you could "Restore them to view with a telescope." I'm sure the guys on the bridge would have been glad to know they could have done this. LOL. When I first saw that on the FES I wondered who, why and how that came from. LOL.
There wasn't any discussion about the flat earth at that time. We just knew it to be a fact that this was due to the globular shape of the earth. Both from this and radar theory.
Pardon the interruption but thought I would put in my two cents worth from my own experiences. I was a radar technician and I also liked to checked the radar with the visual observations of ships and land.
So you really have to chalk off all this flat earth stuff as pure fiction and not even science fiction. I really don't understand why anyone would believe in it. I think it's all an act. It does provide some entertainment at least.
Nice story, but I want proof.
In many observations, I saw that the objects at a far distance are not sinking as much as the Round Earth formula dictates.
see, for example
Most RE-believers claim that this is caused by refraction. This claim is not backed up with evidence.
So, please enlighten us with proof!
Well, if you don't believe me, just ask anyone in any navy or anyone who has ever taken an ocean cruise. In the navy, just ask anyone who has ever stood a watch on the bridge. Or even those such as myself who have just observed this many times.
As I mentioned, it is such a common thing that there is no doubt of what you are observing. Common knowledge. You just can't deny that things that are just as they are.
The distance to the horizon computations can be verified by radar theory. The radar on this particular ship used a frequency which operated on line-of-sight and the maximum range was limited by the distance to the horizon computed by the well known formula of the distance to the horizon determined by the height of the radar antenna. If you doubt the distance to the horizon then you would have to disprove radar theory. And of course all radars act according to radar theory if they are properly designed and properly maintained .
Of course I am sure someone is going to post about over the horizon radars. But that is a different story. There are all types of radars designed for different purposes which operate on different frequencies and different design criteria to give different results.
Once again if you are a so-called "flat earth believer" or even if you are just one of the many suspected "flat earth actors" just denying the fact won't change the fact that the earth is a globe and not some sort of a so-called flat disc with a so-called ice rim around the edge. Or deny the fact that there is no flat earth map of the entire earth.
I am asking for proof and you come up with new stories and opinions.
[/quote
Those weren't just "new stories and opinions." They were really old stories and not opinions. Just statements of facts of every day observances by countless persons at countless times . And if you want evidence there are many sources to confirm these observances.
If you attended a school in radar and the instructor told you about the range of a certain radar, how the range was limited by line-of-sight and how you could compute this distance if you knew the height of the antenna, would you believe him and take this as evidence ? And if the school included practice in the operation of the radar would you believe the radar ? And if you actually operated a radar on a ship would you believe the radar ? And take all of this as evidence ?
If you attended a school in geodesy or geography and the instructor gave you the instructions on computing the distance to the horizon (as previously explained) would you believe him and take this as evidence ?
-
Good evening. I hope I am not interfering by breaking in on you but just came across this . Very interesting, so please continue.
This was way back in the dark ages when I was in the Navy. The ship on which I was stationed made a "cruise" to Japan and back each year. This was also back before the Internet and The Flat Earth Society. It was such a common occurrence that we didn't think anything about it.
When we sailed west from San Diego, you could notice the shoreline disappeared and finally the peak of Point Loma disappeared. Then we neared Honolulu the top of Diamond Head first came in view and as we got nearer the shoreline at Waikiki Beach could be seen.
Also ships disappeared hull first and finally the tops of their masts. And once those ships or land disappeared over the horizon there was no way you could "Restore them to view with a telescope." I'm sure the guys on the bridge would have been glad to know they could have done this. LOL. When I first saw that on the FES I wondered who, why and how that came from. LOL.
There wasn't any discussion about the flat earth at that time. We just knew it to be a fact that this was due to the globular shape of the earth. Both from this and radar theory.
Pardon the interruption but thought I would put in my two cents worth from my own experiences. I was a radar technician and I also liked to checked the radar with the visual observations of ships and land.
So you really have to chalk off all this flat earth stuff as pure fiction and not even science fiction. I really don't understand why anyone would believe in it. I think it's all an act. It does provide some entertainment at least.
Nice story, but I want proof.
In many observations, I saw that the objects at a far distance are not sinking as much as the Round Earth formula dictates.
see, for example
Most RE-believers claim that this is caused by refraction. This claim is not backed up with evidence.
So, please enlighten us with proof!
Well, if you don't believe me, just ask anyone in any navy or anyone who has ever taken an ocean cruise. In the navy, just ask anyone who has ever stood a watch on the bridge. Or even those such as myself who have just observed this many times.
As I mentioned, it is such a common thing that there is no doubt of what you are observing. Common knowledge. You just can't deny that things that are just as they are.
The distance to the horizon computations can be verified by radar theory. The radar on this particular ship used a frequency which operated on line-of-sight and the maximum range was limited by the distance to the horizon computed by the well known formula of the distance to the horizon determined by the height of the radar antenna. If you doubt the distance to the horizon then you would have to disprove radar theory. And of course all radars act according to radar theory if they are properly designed and properly maintained .
Of course I am sure someone is going to post about over the horizon radars. But that is a different story. There are all types of radars designed for different purposes which operate on different frequencies and different design criteria to give different results.
Once again if you are a so-called "flat earth believer" or even if you are just one of the many suspected "flat earth actors" just denying the fact won't change the fact that the earth is a globe and not some sort of a so-called flat disc with a so-called ice rim around the edge. Or deny the fact that there is no flat earth map of the entire earth.
I am asking for proof and you come up with new stories and opinions.
[/quote
Those weren't just "new stories and opinions." They were really old stories and not opinions. Just statements of facts of every day observances by countless persons at countless times . And if you want evidence there are many sources to confirm these observances.
If you attended a school in radar and the instructor told you about the range of a certain radar, how the range was limited by line-of-sight and how you could compute this distance if you knew the height of the antenna, would you believe him and take this as evidence ? And if the school included practice in the operation of the radar would you believe the radar ? And if you actually operated a radar on a ship would you believe the radar ? And take all of this as evidence ?
If you attended a school in geodesy or geography and the instructor gave you the instructions on computing the distance to the horizon (as previously explained) would you believe him and take this as evidence ?
Did you understand my question or are you only interested in telling your stories?
Maybe you don't understand that these were just reports of facts and not just stories. If you do not want to believe the obvious facts and evidence that is your problem. You could research all of this to check if my "stories" were true, you know. LOL.
Again. Would you believe anything about the radar, etc. from the sources I have mentioned ?
-
Most RE-believers claim that this is caused by refraction. This claim is not backed up with evidence.
Are you saying that atmospheric refraction is not a real phenomenon?
Refraction does exist and causes distortions. But what kind of distortions?
Well, among other things, refraction causes some objects to appear higher than they really are.
RE-believers are claiming that refraction is the cause of the difference between what is seen and what should (not) be seen., but they don't back it up with evidence. So, please if you can, post your evidence.
What sort of evidence are you looking for?
What sort of evidence ARE you looking for ? Or is it that you just don't trust anyone ?
I'm no expert on the subjects but I have had some experience in regard to the horizon , photography and radar and I do know where to go to find answers. So if you don't believe what Mr. markjo and I have presented, why don't you just do some research and see if what we have presented is true or not ?
-
Most RE-believers claim that this is caused by refraction. This claim is not backed up with evidence.
Are you saying that atmospheric refraction is not a real phenomenon?
Refraction does exist and causes distortions. But what kind of distortions?
Well, among other things, refraction causes some objects to appear higher than they really are.
some???
Proof please for this statement
If you understand how refraction works and you accept that the index of refraction of the atmosphere varies with temperature, humidity and pressure, then you already have all the proof that you need. If you don't, then it would be a waste of time and effort for me to try and explain it to you.
RE-believers are claiming that refraction is the cause of the difference between what is seen and what should (not) be seen., but they don't back it up with evidence. So, please if you can, post your evidence.
What sort of evidence are you looking for?
You don't know what evidence is?
Of course I know what evidence is. I'm just trying to find out if your definition of evidence is compatible with mine. FE'ers tend to have an unreasonable definition of evidence for RET.
-
IMHO a lot of the so-called "true flat earth believers" are no more "believers" than you and I are and are just putting on the dumb act and posting the dumbest things that they can think of to start a debate. It may be that they are RE's just trying to make this website look worse than it already is.
Interesting to see what he (Mr. "FE-Experiments") calls "Evidence." Or what it would take for him to consider anything as "Evidence."
Anyway, FWIW, this website is interesting to see what the FE's are going to come up with next or what RE fact they are going to deny next. I don't think I am alone in enjoying this website for the fun of that and not taking any of the FE's seriously.
So, "From viewers like US. Thank You." and "From all of us to all of you (FE's). Have a good week." (Borrowed from two of my favorites.)
-
Good evening. I hope I am not interfering by breaking in on you but just came across this . Very interesting, so please continue.
This was way back in the dark ages when I was in the Navy. The ship on which I was stationed made a "cruise" to Japan and back each year. This was also back before the Internet and The Flat Earth Society. It was such a common occurrence that we didn't think anything about it.
When we sailed west from San Diego, you could notice the shoreline disappeared and finally the peak of Point Loma disappeared. Then we neared Honolulu the top of Diamond Head first came in view and as we got nearer the shoreline at Waikiki Beach could be seen.
Also ships disappeared hull first and finally the tops of their masts. And once those ships or land disappeared over the horizon there was no way you could "Restore them to view with a telescope." I'm sure the guys on the bridge would have been glad to know they could have done this. LOL. When I first saw that on the FES I wondered who, why and how that came from. LOL.
There wasn't any discussion about the flat earth at that time. We just knew it to be a fact that this was due to the globular shape of the earth. Both from this and radar theory.
Pardon the interruption but thought I would put in my two cents worth from my own experiences. I was a radar technician and I also liked to checked the radar with the visual observations of ships and land.
So you really have to chalk off all this flat earth stuff as pure fiction and not even science fiction. I really don't understand why anyone would believe in it. I think it's all an act. It does provide some entertainment at least.
Nice story, but I want proof.
In many observations, I saw that the objects at a far distance are not sinking as much as the Round Earth formula dictates.
see, for example
Most RE-believers claim that this is caused by refraction. This claim is not backed up with evidence.
So, please enlighten us with proof!
Well, if you don't believe me, just ask anyone in any navy or anyone who has ever taken an ocean cruise. In the navy, just ask anyone who has ever stood a watch on the bridge. Or even those such as myself who have just observed this many times.
As I mentioned, it is such a common thing that there is no doubt of what you are observing. Common knowledge. You just can't deny that things that are just as they are.
The distance to the horizon computations can be verified by radar theory. The radar on this particular ship used a frequency which operated on line-of-sight and the maximum range was limited by the distance to the horizon computed by the well known formula of the distance to the horizon determined by the height of the radar antenna. If you doubt the distance to the horizon then you would have to disprove radar theory. And of course all radars act according to radar theory if they are properly designed and properly maintained .
Of course I am sure someone is going to post about over the horizon radars. But that is a different story. There are all types of radars designed for different purposes which operate on different frequencies and different design criteria to give different results.
Once again if you are a so-called "flat earth believer" or even if you are just one of the many suspected "flat earth actors" just denying the fact won't change the fact that the earth is a globe and not some sort of a so-called flat disc with a so-called ice rim around the edge. Or deny the fact that there is no flat earth map of the entire earth.
I am asking for proof and you come up with new stories and opinions.
Here is an experiment that "FE Experiments" can perform.:
Go to any Naval Station or Cruise Ship or Ship Line office and ask them if they can - Quote - "With a telescope you can recover or bring back into sight a ship which has passed over the horizon and out of sight. Of course this proves that the earth is flat and is not a globe." Please report back with your results. Even a telephone call would suffice. These people would be experts and well experienced on this subject so I would assume any evidence they have would be sufficient for you.
While you are it ask them if their oceanic charts are made from the flat earth map of the entire earth.You might have to explain to them that the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection Map Of The Globe Map is the true map of the world of which you are referring and not something that Round Earthers erroneously call a "projection" of a thing they call "globe."
-
Good evening. I hope I am not interfering by breaking in on you but just came across this . Very interesting, so please continue.
This was way back in the dark ages when I was in the Navy. The ship on which I was stationed made a "cruise" to Japan and back each year. This was also back before the Internet and The Flat Earth Society. It was such a common occurrence that we didn't think anything about it.
When we sailed west from San Diego, you could notice the shoreline disappeared and finally the peak of Point Loma disappeared. Then we neared Honolulu the top of Diamond Head first came in view and as we got nearer the shoreline at Waikiki Beach could be seen.
Also ships disappeared hull first and finally the tops of their masts. And once those ships or land disappeared over the horizon there was no way you could "Restore them to view with a telescope." I'm sure the guys on the bridge would have been glad to know they could have done this. LOL. When I first saw that on the FES I wondered who, why and how that came from. LOL.
There wasn't any discussion about the flat earth at that time. We just knew it to be a fact that this was due to the globular shape of the earth. Both from this and radar theory.
Pardon the interruption but thought I would put in my two cents worth from my own experiences. I was a radar technician and I also liked to checked the radar with the visual observations of ships and land.
So you really have to chalk off all this flat earth stuff as pure fiction and not even science fiction. I really don't understand why anyone would believe in it. I think it's all an act. It does provide some entertainment at least.
Nice story, but I want proof.
In many observations, I saw that the objects at a far distance are not sinking as much as the Round Earth formula dictates.
see, for example
Most RE-believers claim that this is caused by refraction. This claim is not backed up with evidence.
So, please enlighten us with proof!
Well, if you don't believe me, just ask anyone in any navy or anyone who has ever taken an ocean cruise. In the navy, just ask anyone who has ever stood a watch on the bridge. Or even those such as myself who have just observed this many times.
As I mentioned, it is such a common thing that there is no doubt of what you are observing. Common knowledge. You just can't deny that things that are just as they are.
The distance to the horizon computations can be verified by radar theory. The radar on this particular ship used a frequency which operated on line-of-sight and the maximum range was limited by the distance to the horizon computed by the well known formula of the distance to the horizon determined by the height of the radar antenna. If you doubt the distance to the horizon then you would have to disprove radar theory. And of course all radars act according to radar theory if they are properly designed and properly maintained .
Of course I am sure someone is going to post about over the horizon radars. But that is a different story. There are all types of radars designed for different purposes which operate on different frequencies and different design criteria to give different results.
Once again if you are a so-called "flat earth believer" or even if you are just one of the many suspected "flat earth actors" just denying the fact won't change the fact that the earth is a globe and not some sort of a so-called flat disc with a so-called ice rim around the edge. Or deny the fact that there is no flat earth map of the entire earth.
I am asking for proof and you come up with new stories and opinions.
Here is an experiment that "FE Experiments" can perform.:
Go to any Naval Station or Cruise Ship or Ship Line office and ask them if they can - Quote - "With a telescope you can recover or bring back into sight a ship which has passed over the horizon and out of sight. Of course this proves that the earth is flat and is not a globe." Please report back with your results. Even a telephone call would suffice. These people would be experts and well experienced on this subject so I would assume any evidence they have would be sufficient for you.
While you are it ask them if their oceanic charts are made from the flat earth map of the entire earth.You might have to explain to them that the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection Map Of The Globe Map is the true map of the world of which you are referring and not something that Round Earthers erroneously call a "projection" of a thing they call "globe."
You call FE-ers stupid, but you find it very hard to read and understand the question.
You have your own personal horizon (in a circle around you) and yes, at a far distance a part of objects is obscured, but not as much as a RE-horizon would do (according to the RE-formula).
All I'm asking for is to provide any evidence that it is refraction that causes the difference between the horizon that is observed and the calculated RE-horizon (RE-curvature formula).
And I am just listing some sources where you can go for answers to your questions about the horizon. You're not stupid if you have a question and either do some research or go to some authority on the subject as suggested. Quote : "The only dumb question is the one you don't ask." Science classes in local Community Colleges are also good sources for information.
The actual calculated distance to the horizon doesn't change. The apparent distance to the horizon to the observer may be affected by refraction or other atmospheric conditions.
Main points to keep in mind.:
1. Under normal conditions (no effects due to atmospheric conditions) the horizon is a definite line where earth and sky or ocean and sky meet.
2. The actual distance to the horizon may be determined by a simple formula taking into account the height of the observer.
3. Charts and maps used in oceanic navigation are made from projections of the globe.
4. The earth is a globe.
5. There is no flat earth map of the entire earth.
6. The earth is not flat.
-
I like to have as much fun as anyone else on this forum, but I do try to stick to facts on subjects of which I am more certain. If I don't know the answer I try to research it and find sources for an answer.
That is the reason I suggested you contact some sources for your questions about the effect of atmospheric conditions affected what you would see in relation to the horizon. Those sources listed would be from experts and experienced personnel who would give you more precise answers. My experience along these lines were mostly in perfect conditions when there was no interference from any adverse conditions.
-
I like to have as much fun as anyone else on this forum, but I do try to stick to facts on subjects of which I am more certain. If I don't know the answer I try to research it and find sources for an answer.
That is the reason I suggested you contact some sources for your questions about the effect of atmospheric conditions affected what you would see in relation to the horizon. Those sources listed would be from experts and experienced personnel who would give you more precise answers. My experience along these lines were mostly in perfect conditions when there was no interference from any adverse conditions.
So, you are making statements, but you are not sure they are correct. You don't have any evidence that backs it up.
Thank you for admitting it.
I am sure any statements I made in regard to the horizon and radar are correct. Outside of that I would have to do more research. What statements do you question ?
I will make another statement.:
The earth is round. A globe. An oblate spheroid.
I know this is correct and there is ample evidence to support it.
Why don't you just go to some reliable source for information and find out for yourself in regards to your questions ?
-
I like to have as much fun as anyone else on this forum, but I do try to stick to facts on subjects of which I am more certain. If I don't know the answer I try to research it and find sources for an answer.
That is the reason I suggested you contact some sources for your questions about the effect of atmospheric conditions affected what you would see in relation to the horizon. Those sources listed would be from experts and experienced personnel who would give you more precise answers. My experience along these lines were mostly in perfect conditions when there was no interference from any adverse conditions.
So, you are making statements, but you are not sure they are correct. You don't have any evidence that backs it up.
Thank you for admitting it.
I am sure any statements I made in regard to the horizon and radar are correct. Outside of that I would have to do more research. What statements do you question ?
I will make another statement.:
The earth is round. A globe. An oblate spheroid.
I know this is correct and there is ample evidence to support it.
The apparent distance to the horizon to the observer may be affected by refraction or other atmospheric conditions.
[/quote]
Please provide proof for this statement!!!
Any evidence that it is refraction that causes the difference between the horizon that is observed (small part of the bottom obscured) and the calculated RE-horizon (RE-curvature formula that says that a much bigger part should be obscured).
[/quote]
Once more . Why don't you do some research on the subject if you have any doubts.
-
Here's a height difference of approximately 20 feet looking at a hillside 12 miles away. The left shot was taken from 6-8 inches. The higher objects have sunken toward the waterline while the lower structures (which would be below the waterline under other atmospheric conditions) still appear above the waterline, but compressed due to refraction/superior mirage.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/bridge2_zps38b17185.jpg)
-
Please give proof regarding the two heights of the camera,
I'll take a picture of the location next time I'm there.
the distance and the heights of the bridge and trees (as is and the difference).
Taken from approximately lat 47.138682 lon -122.632160 (47.08'19.43"N 122.37'55.64"W)
Looking at approximately lat 47.300028 lon -122.533325 (47.18'00.37"N 122.32'00.18"W)
Bridge is Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Washington state. Shooting location is Solo Point. The hillside is Point Defiance and the elevation ranges from 200-300feet, which is hard to define as it's covered in trees of varied heights. About 9.7 miles to the bridge, and 12 to the shore. 20 feet is an estimate for camera height difference. Could be 18-25. The tide was low and it was a gentle slope from the parking lot down to the water's edge. Possibly about 150 feet, not an easily measurable straight down drop.
Then, if there is a difference between what is seen and what should (not) be seen, please explain why,
Higher picture extends horizon, reducing amount of drop between horizon and hill, allowing for more of the hill to be visible above the horizon.
Lower picture means the horizon is much closer, increasing amount of drop between horizon and hill, resulting in more of hill being further below horizon.
Refraction due to warmer air over cooler air results in light curving downward slightly, resulting in compressed appearance of shoreline objects while allowing them to remain visible.
backed up with evidence.
See picture I posted.
-
I think that your ship video is fairly good evidence that the Earth is not flat.
Your distance estimates (particularly after the red buoy) are just guesses and your optics are not very good.
Refraction can vary with atmospheric conditions but you could certainly set up some experiments to get a reasonable indication of how it effects objects.
But the ship clearly sinks and when it is way out there you are just looking at the top of it and calling it the whole ship
and then another ship passes by with a high part on both ends so it looks like one part is following the other because you can not see the main body of the ship.
With a better lens you would be able to observe this easier.
-
I like to have as much fun as anyone else on this forum, but I do try to stick to facts on subjects of which I am more certain. If I don't know the answer I try to research it and find sources for an answer.
That is the reason I suggested you contact some sources for your questions about the effect of atmospheric conditions affected what you would see in relation to the horizon. Those sources listed would be from experts and experienced personnel who would give you more precise answers. My experience along these lines were mostly in perfect conditions when there was no interference from any adverse conditions.
So, you are making statements, but you are not sure they are correct. You don't have any evidence that backs it up.
Thank you for admitting it.
My evidence was what that my statements were correct - based on normal conditions. A clear day on a calm sea. One of my off- duty things to do while at sea was to watch ships, land, etc. I noticed that they disappeared bottom first and appeared top first. I noticed that once they disappeared over the horizon they could not be restored by looking at them with a telescope. I do know that you can estimate the distance to the horizon. On some of those times if I saw a ship on the horizon I would check the range on the radar and it would coincide with the estimate according to the height of the radar antenna. These were just common every day occurrences.
I would really suggest that you just check this question about the ship going over the horizon with some one who is on active duty in the Navy. Or if you can afford it take a cruise on a ship to prove it for your self. From experience in the Navy we just took this as a normal thing and didn't give it much thought .
And if you really get down to the nitty-gritty, there is really no question about the shape of the earth. The earth has been explored, charted and mapped and recent aerial and satellite views prove the shape of the earth is a globe. That is why most people wonder why anyone would still think the earth was a flat disc.
As to the videos of the windmills it was very apparent that you were seeing only the tops of the windmills in the distance and the entire heights of the windmills close up which proved the curvature of the earth.
I don't see what more evidence would convince you of the curvature of the earth or more proof that the earth is a globe.
Also if you won't take a round earther's word for it, why don't you just go and do it for your self if you want to prove that the round earther is wrong ? Why not just do it your self instead of always asking for some one else to do it for you if you really want to prove your point ?
-
I like to have as much fun as anyone else on this forum, but I do try to stick to facts on subjects of which I am more certain. If I don't know the answer I try to research it and find sources for an answer.
That is the reason I suggested you contact some sources for your questions about the effect of atmospheric conditions affected what you would see in relation to the horizon. Those sources listed would be from experts and experienced personnel who would give you more precise answers. My experience along these lines were mostly in perfect conditions when there was no interference from any adverse conditions.
So, you are making statements, but you are not sure they are correct. You don't have any evidence that backs it up.
Thank you for admitting it.
My evidence was what that my statements were correct - based on normal conditions. A clear day on a calm sea. One of my off- duty things to do while at sea was to watch ships, land, etc. I noticed that they disappeared bottom first and appeared top first. I noticed that once they disappeared over the horizon they could not be restored by looking at them with a telescope. I do know that you can estimate the distance to the horizon. On some of those times if I saw a ship on the horizon I would check the range on the radar and it would coincide with the estimate according to the height of the radar antenna. These were just common every day occurrences.
I would really suggest that you just check this question about the ship going over the horizon with some one who is on active duty in the Navy. Or if you can afford it take a cruise on a ship to prove it for your self. From experience in the Navy we just took this as a normal thing and didn't give it much thought .
And if you really get down to the nitty-gritty, there is really no question about the shape of the earth. The earth has been explored, charted and mapped and recent aerial and satellite views prove the shape of the earth is a globe. That is why most people wonder why anyone would still think the earth was a flat disc.
As to the videos of the windmills it was very apparent that you were seeing only the tops of the windmills in the distance and the entire heights of the windmills close up which proved the curvature of the earth.
I don't see what more evidence would convince you of the curvature of the earth or more proof that the earth is a globe.
Also if you won't take a round earther's word for it, why don't you just go and do it for your self if you want to prove that the round earther is wrong ? Why not just do it your self instead of always asking for some one else to do it for you if you really want to prove your point ?
Why are you interested in my experiments? You made up your mind already.
I am not interested in talking to you.
I find this website interesting and found your experiments interesting.
If you are trying to prove the earth is flat, forget it. It is impossible. There are those of us in the real world who work in a globular shaped earth all the time. We don't need to prove it since it simple a well known fact that the earth is a globe and it has worked for many centuries.
For a start if you can supply an accurate flat earth map of the entire earth, we would be interested in seeing it.
-
Just trying to be of help. Good luck on your proving the earth is flat.
-
Just trying to be of help. Good luck on your proving the earth is flat.
What a joke. You want to be right, that's all you are interested in.
And I'm sure you want to have to last word.
No ! No ! No !
I am leaving you with the option of having the last word. I want YOU to have the last word !
For a start when you produce an accurate flat earth map of the entire earth.
For a last word when you prove that the earth is flat.