41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Horizon

« on: September 12, 2015, 08:14:31 PM »

Another big factor in how far one can see is the amount of contrast.
For example in the daytime there is a lot of contrast between earth and sky. Particularly at sun set or rise on the sun side you will see high contrast and on the opposite side you will see low contrast. In that case you can see land that is otherwise obscured by atmosphere.

The primary reason that the horizon is a sharp line is that it tends to be fairly close 4-10 miles whereas the horizon on the flat earth model tends to be thousands of miles away so that it would be obscured by the atmosphere even on the clearest day.

In the flat earth model a ship which is viewed in front and below the FE horizon will remain in front and below that horizon no matter what distance it is viewed from it will never appear to sit on the horizon and never appear behind the horizon

This SketchUp model shows a ship sized rectangle -100 ft long and 25 ft high spaced one mile apart

 

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 11, 2015, 01:29:35 PM »

The best answer I can come up with so far as that refraction is very dependent on air humidity, temperature, pressure, wind speed, temperature gradient, etc..

Therefore the same object looked at from the same distance should sometimes appear higher or lower depending on the conditions.

For example the "Flat Earth Experiment Windmills" proves that the Earth is round by observing the power building which is 23meters high and 16 meters above the water and in the video depending on the height of the observer the entire base is behind the horizon when the observer is close to sea level.

The only real question left is exactly what that curvature is.
Is the radius about 3959 miles like we often read? ..or perhaps it is actually 6000?

So at some observer height sometimes the base of the building should be visible and sometimes not.

While this would not tell us exactly how much of the object is actually below the horizon it would confirm that how much an object appears below the horizon depends on the level of refraction. And so it would confirm that refraction is bending light around the surface of the Earth.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 10:04:54 PM »

It seems to me that in order to get a good handle on using low earth observation to measure curvature we would need to have a very good understanding of refraction.

In particular we need empirical evidence that some object that can be seen at a great distance is actually either over or under the horizon.

Of course in the flat earth model nothing can ever be obscured by the horizon and waves shrink proportionally with the ship so a small wave would never obscure a large ship.

Fe-experiments already showed that an object can be stretched 3-4 times its height at 12 miles distance so the question is: Can an object actually be behind the horizon but still be seen?

I suppose a survey could be made to establish the curve as in the Bedford Level experiment but I wonder if there is any other way to solve that.



 

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 08:28:59 PM »

The red ship video is a very good example of refraction

It has a nice high contrast paint job on the smoke stack with white below then a red band that is close to square, then a white band, then a black top.

Here is a frame from about 14:03 with a frame from earlier inserted at the top.

You can see that the red square is roughly 3-4 times longer than it is wide while the white and black bands have not stretched nearly so much.

Another interesting effect that you begin to see toward the end is the ship actually look like it is hovering off the water so we actually see a bit of sky underneath the stack. I would have to guess that this is very similar to what is happening with a mirage.

Throughout the video you can see that the part immediately above the horizon gets stretched the most and the part farthest from the horizon gets stretched the least.

Also the further away the more stretching occurs.

at 14:27 you see the red stripe disappear and the white strip suddenly becomes very tall
at 14:37 the white stripe disappears and the black top becomes very tall and looks like it is floating way above the water till it disappears at 15:14

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 06:45:54 PM »

I can not say you did as good a job on that "Flat Earth Experiment the horizon" video though

I did not really see any experiment that would either confirm nor deny a flat Earth.

Mostly it seemed to consist on a pan view of a bay with an horizon and a few questions.

But I can tell you how to set the experiment up if you still need some help with it. 

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 06:27:23 PM »

 I don't care what will convince you or not.

Do your own observations and you will find out. Good luck!

I am done here.

Actually you did a very good job of documenting a ship sinking on the horizon and I am now 100% convinced that the Earth is round.
I also have a much better understanding of the effects of refraction so thank you for the time and effort to post these.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 06:18:14 PM »

There is no reason for me to believe that doing my own ship sinking on the horizon video would convince you

when in fact you did your own video that clearly shows a ship sinking after passing the horizon and you still do not believe it.

I have no doubt that we could find dozens of videos that document the fact.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 06:07:49 PM »

The point is that there is no real RE-horizon, as the ship does not sink below you imaginary RE-horizon.

What are you talking about?
You actually have it documented on your video.

at 13:46
I could see that after several ships had crossed the same path you had trouble identifying the ship you where following because all that is left in view is the red white and black top of the chimney stack

at 14:58 just the black top of the chimney is left

by 15:20 the ship is completely below the horizon.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 05:41:33 PM »

If you believe that the ship was not behind the CALCULATED RE-horizon, that's fine with me.
Believe what you want.

Huh?
The point is the ship  IS  behind the calculated horizon  just as it should be in the RE model

My criticism is that you ignored the fact and then when on to describe the ship as "keeping shape"

here is another obvious flaw in the red ship video:

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 05:09:07 PM »

Flat Earth Experiment the red ship


This does document the refraction effect pretty well

at 4:00 Notice the white lettering on the back of the ship.
   AUTUMN
   MAJURO
 imo9416795

then look at around 9:36 and you will see them turning into a white vertical strip

At 11:26 all we see is the people standing on the deck and the back hull is completely below the horizon
when it is again improperly compared to the full ship

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 04:39:58 PM »

"The sun would also appear as a bright dot at "sunrise" on a flat earth, gradually increase in size as it passed overhead and then gradually decrease in size at "sunset" until it disappeared as a bright dot."

I partially disagree, I think the sun would appear as a gradual lightening of the sky in a radius around a point 40 degrees above the horizon.
It would steadily increase in size and brightness till noon and steadily decrease in size and brightness after noon.

Theoretically in the FE model light can only pass through so much atmosphere before it fades to dark. 

I do think that using a light meter we could show that measurements to not support the current FE model.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 04:26:08 PM »

"A flat earth would have a horizon as well."

Yes, -that is why I said: "in the FE model there is no Horizon except at the edge of Earth."

To say something is too far away to see is very different than something sinking below the horizon.

The ship most definitely was no where near too far away to see when it past the horizon. 

"This video indicates that the ship is keeping its shape (height and width) when it should disappear completely below the calculated RE-horizon."

The bottom half of the ship disappeared how can you interpret that as "keeping shape" ?

"Many observations indicate that there is no curvature."

This is simply b.s. and this video pretty much sums up all FE "observation" ability

A world where one minute a ship is sinking half way below the horizon and 10 seconds later it is "keeping shape"
A world where the horizon is filmed and then completely ignored.
A world where refraction is witnessed and then ignored

And by the way, at the end of your musings on the horizon video you ask:

"if anyone has some ideas on how to learn more about the horizon and refraction, please let us know."

Well I did, and all I got for it is this:

"What is wrong with you RE-guys/girls on this forum and on youtube?
You all think that you are so clever and that people who actually do outdoor experiments and question your theories are stupid.
And then you offer to give them information and help to understand your theories.
No thanks. Goodbye, mr or mrs huh."


What is wrong with you?
I do not think you are stupid because it obviously takes some intelligence to create the videos. But on the other hand you make observations and behave in a way that does not seem rational.



 

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 01:17:54 PM »

I did a model of what the sun would look like in a day from the FE model
This is from the point of view of a person at the tropic of Capricorn looking north in winter in the Southern (side?)

The size and perspective would cause the sun to appear like it is traveling out then making a big loop across the sky and then traveling inward at the end of the day. It would not go down below the horizon it would just simply fade out as it became to far away to see.

It would never be lower than 40 degrees (in the FE model that is as far as sun shines) and 3000 miles is way too high to ever appear close to the horizon from perspective unless one is actually standing many hundreds of thousands of miles away. 

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 10, 2015, 12:44:52 PM »

I have horizon listed as a con already.

I will add distance to sun and moon because with fairly crude triangulation it would be easy to show that it is over 3000 miles which may not prove that the Earth is round but that the FE model is flawed. The parallax method could get a closer estimate.

Good point on distance to horizon, I added it as well.
In the FE model the distance changes depending on "how clear the air is" (or something)
In the real world as long as the air is clear enough to see that far it will always be at the same place.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 09, 2015, 09:50:57 PM »

Nonsense.
At the end the ship did not sink enough if you take the Round Earth Formula seriously. It kept its shape.
But I'm not saying in my videos that I found proof for a flat earth.
There is no theory here, just showing the viewer what I filmed. You can interpret it as you wish.

Yes except at the middle to end you began misidentifying what was visible and you did not mention the obvious refraction or attempt to account for it in any way.

At the top edge of the back hull is a white band maybe 10-11 ft above the water.
and there is a white number on the side just above the water

at 7:46 you say the ship should be sinking and it is.
8:26 you say it should be obscured 3.3 ft  I think it looks like more but that is probably waves
8:46 you say the bottom is sinking -yes it is and the white strip along the rear hull is growing
at 9:11 you say should be 13.1 ft obscured at the same time most everything under the white strip is obscured
9:34 you say the back stern should not be visible -I would suspect that it is not but I can no longer see the white strip and at that moment it passes another further out object which for a moment makes it look like it has a back end.
10:06 you say 23 ft should be obscured and I can not see the front half of the ship

then the real amazing thing:

at 11:00 you say It seems the ship is keeping its shape!
at this point we can not see the front and only half of the tower on back -how exactly do you figure it is keeping it's shape?

11:03 only the top should be visible -only the top is visible

at 11:36 I like this part because another even larger ship passes in front and only the top is visible so looks like a little square chasing a big square

then at 12:10 it concludes with why is it keeping it's shape?

by this time we see only the top of the tower which has been very elongated by refraction and the hull disappeared at about 9:35

I can not say if any should have been visible or not or exactly how much was visible or exactly what speed it was going after the last buoy so it becomes rather hard to conclude anything at the end.


And then there is the whole problem with the horizon line that you do not mention. At 7:46 you observe it noticeably sinking on the horizon in the FE model there is no Horizon except at the edge of Earth.

What is the purpose of ignoring an easily observable fact? 



This video thoroughly disproves the FE model yet you act like there is some "Paradox"

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 09, 2015, 08:45:32 PM »

Somebody who acknowledged that he is too lazy to do any experiments himself is saying this. What a joke.

The information in my videos is correct. You are fooling yourself.

Hmm, I do not know why you would say that when I said that I have done one outside and others inside.
Perhaps you do not consider geometry studies as being valid?

No you made some incorrect assessments of the images in the "Flat Earth Experiment ship at sea" video

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 09, 2015, 08:21:49 PM »

What is wrong with you RE-guys/girls on this forum and on youtube?

You all think that you are so clever and that people who actually do outdoor experiments and question your theories are stupid.

And then you offer to give them information and help to understand your theories.

No thanks. Goodbye, mr or mrs huh.

I never said you where stupid but I saw some of your videos and it is pretty obvious that you are lacking in knowledge.
I only recommended you buy a book on surveying because you seemed to be interested in observing objects to find evidence of the shape of Earth.
But anyway whatever.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 09, 2015, 07:31:10 PM »

I am not sure if your experiments are doing much good either for that matter.

I think that you need to investigate the existing knowledge and then if you find a discrepancy it would be a good time to question the knowledgebase.

A book on surveying would be extremely useful for your apparent interests and I am sure that you could find much information on the net.

here is something I just found:
http://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html

I used to hold the pole for my dad when he surveyed and think it is an interesting subject and useful skill.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 09, 2015, 07:15:46 PM »

If you are not interested in doing outdoor tests and experiments regarding the earth, you will always remain a theorist and get stuck with your round earth belief system. Good luck with that.

I see no point in continuing your theoritical discussions with you or anyone else who are not doing the experiments.

Well that is not actually the definition of theorist.
A person who believes what they are taught are just called people. We all have to take for granted most of the knowledge we have otherwise we would not be able to function. Imagine before you open a door you have to experiment to see if the door is real, how it operates, why it is there, what is on the other side, etc..

Round Earth is not a belief system. It is a quantifiable property of the Earth and used everyday by nearly every person in the technologically advanced civilizations.

On the other hand a belief system is something which can not be quantified or explained.

Though as I stated earlier I did perform an experiment outside looking at a spherical shape in sunlight and I have done experimental modeling in Sketchup which demonstrates some of the problems with the proposed Flat Earth model. 

I am not convinced one more verification that a ship sinks as it travels away will help anything.
 

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 09, 2015, 06:27:58 PM »

"Google it.  Did you miss the part about me not wanting to educate round-earthers on the theories they champion?"

I did.

I typed in: "The Theory of Gravity"

I was really expecting something grand but nope.