21

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?

« on: December 03, 2018, 11:34:33 AM »

All you have done is to make baseless claims that to me seemed quite incorrect then refused to answer my requests for elucidation.
So either you back up your claims or we're done.

Is gravity a force? Newton - yes, Einstein - no.

I'm waiting for your answers to my questions!

But as to: "Is gravity a force? Newton - yes, Einstein - no."
Not quite there is no real difference in the end result under low velocity (<< c) and low mass (even near the sun the deviation is almost immeasurably small).
And the reason for that is because Einstein, having noted that "Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system", designed GR that way.

In Einstein's GR, mass (and energy) cause spacetime to curve. Objects in "free fall" (subject to no forces) follow what are known as geodesics in spacetime.
Objects prevented from following a geodesic in spacetime, such as resting on a table or supported by a rope, experience an inertial force comparable to, say, centripetal force.

So in Einstein's GR gravitation can still be looked on as "being a force".
But instead of simply being mass attracts mass, GR asserts that mass causes spacetime to curve and the force results from preventing an object from following this curvature.

There's a lot more that could be said but it should be pointed out that spacetime can be broken up into spacelike and timelike components.
The curvature in our region of space is extremely small (parts in 10⁹) but that is enough to explain gravity.

Forces that result from being in a non-inertial frame of reference, such as centrifugal force or the force felt when in an accelerating vehicle, are commonly known as pseudo-forces because they are due to the FOR we are in. But they are certainly real forces to the object or person experiencing them.

But there is no reason to use GR in any calculations you or I are likely to do - within the Solar System it is only needed when extreme accuracy is needed.

<< Add explanation re non-inertial frame of reference. >>

22

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?

« on: December 03, 2018, 09:55:34 AM »

As pointed out above, there is absolutely no need for any "Dark Matter" or "Dark Force" to turn "the axis of the Earth towards the North Star."

All that is needed to keep the axis of the earth's pointing in the same direction is conservation of angular momentum.
Any applied torque will cause a precession of that direction and that slow precession is the cause of the "precession of the equinoxes".
"Hipparchus is credited with discovering precession of the equinoxes".

I can not add to mine arguments. You have your opinion, and I - mine. Mine opinion is sent to EPJC for peer-review. We will see the result.

You really have made no arguments.
All you have done is to make baseless claims that to me seemed quite incorrect then refused to answer my requests for elucidation.
So either you back up your claims or we're done.

23

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?

« on: December 03, 2018, 08:50:12 AM »

Popper's idea is that the theories of science have to be "falsifiable".
They will, however, remain "theories of science" until they are falsified and will then have their range of applicability limited and/or be replaced by a better theory.

One hundred percent sure, comrade. :-) Officials cirtainly clean the mess they are creating. LOL:
John P.A. Ioannidis, ``Why Most Published Research Findings Are False''. PLoS Medicine.  2: e124, 2005.

There is nothing in that video about any "theories" in the strict scientific sense being debunked though it does show a recognized defect in the "publish or perish" philosophy.
But I hope you noted that steps are being taken rectify that situation.

But one thing you have done is helped demonstrate that "science" does not censor publications that disagree with "mainstream science" in the way many claim.

But laugh all you like but that video is quite irrelevant to your attempt to disprove the heliocentric solar system.
Now would you please answer the points that I raised in my reply to your OP.  Remember these points that you have totally ignored?

According to Newton the inertial frame is such reference system, where free objects (our bullets A and B, and even C) hold the constant position (or velocity vectors, and angular momentum vector (of C)).

No, there is nothing to say that "according to Newton" "free objects (our bullets A and B, and even C) hold the constant position" because they are subject to very slightly different forces.

Note, that the axis of rotation of the Earth (the bullet C is the model of Earth) is not perpendicular to the plane of the orbit around the Sun.
If the Celestial Pole has 23 degree angle from the perpendicular to solar system, then the annual motion of Celestial Pole would have 23 degree radius unless the "Dark Force'' is present.

<< addition: What do you even mean by "would have 23 degree radius"? >>
No, there is absolutely no need for any "Dark Force''.
Conservation of angular momentum (a vector, so it's in magnitude and direction) will keep the direction of the rotational axis of the earth always in a direction very close to that Polaris as in this very out-of-scale diagram:

Remember that Polaris has a declination of +89° 15′ 50.8″ so is about 0.74° from the North Celestial Pole.

It turns out, that in Newton's theory, in addition to Dark Matter, there is also a Dark Force turning the axis of the Earth towards the North Star.

As pointed out above, there is absolutely no need for any "Dark Matter" or "Dark Force" to turn "the axis of the Earth towards the North Star."

All that is needed to keep the axis of the earth's pointing in the same direction is conservation of angular momentum.
Any applied torque will cause a precession of that direction and that slow precession is the cause of the "precession of the equinoxes".
"Hipparchus is credited with discovering precession of the equinoxes".

24

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?

« on: December 03, 2018, 01:08:36 AM »

Consider in your imagination three bullets, which fly on a ring orbit around the Sun. The distance between the bullets is just couple decimeters. The bullets A and B are non-rotating bullets, but bullet C rotates around own axis of symmetry W. The segment AB has same direction as the axis W.

Let's ignore you "bullets A and B" as they are they would orbit on their own or if close to the earth would just fall to earth.

According to Newton the inertial frame is such reference system, where free objects (our bullets A and B, and even C) hold the constant position (or velocity vectors, and angular momentum vector (of C)).

No, there is nothing to say that "according to Newton" "free objects (our bullets A and B, and even C) hold the constant position" because they are subject to very slightly different forces.

Thus, there is no global huge inertial frame. Why? Because in addition to Newton's contribution, the Einstein has found out, that Gravity is not a force, thus, free falling objects (and free orbiting Sun bullets) are truly free. Therefore, the needed inertial frame is small and local, it co-moves with bullets.

No that is not correct, Einstein's GR would give exactly the same result as Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation to a precision better than you could dream of measuring.
From

One condition the new equations must satisfy is that they must return Newtonian results for ordinary conditions. For Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system. The sentence highlighted in red says:
"However it turns out that this tensor does not reduce to the [Newtonian expression] Δφ in the case of infinitely weak, static gravitational fields."

From: Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity, Assembling the Pieces: The "Entwurf" Paper of 1913

Therefore, while the motion of these group A,B,C around the Sun, the segment AB (and W) changes its direction, it is not fixed on North Star. Hereby we are not talking about slow hypothetical precession of W axis (over 10 000 year period), but we are considering large changes of direction during one year period.

Note, that the axis of rotation of the Earth (the bullet C is the model of Earth) is not perpendicular to the plane of
the orbit around the Sun. If the Celestial Pole has 23 degree angle from the perpendicular to solar system, then the annual motion of Celestial Pole would have 23 degree radius unless the "Dark Force'' is present.

No, there is absolutely no need for any "Dark Force''.
Conservation of angular momentum (a vector, so it's in magnitude and direction) will keep the direction of the rotational axis of the earth always in a direction very close to that Polaris as in this very out-of-scale diagram:

Remember that Polaris has a declination of +89° 15′ 50.8″ so is about 0.74° from the North Celestial Pole.

It turns out, that in Newton's theory, in addition to Dark Matter, there is also a Dark Force turning the axis of the Earth towards the North Star.
However, the Dark Force might not be introduced, if the Flat Earth model is used. But even if it is necessary for FE, then it accounts for visible effects in FE model,
which otherwise would point to Globe Earth model.

As pointed out above, there is absolutely no need for any "Dark Matter" or "Dark Force" to turn "the axis of the Earth towards the North Star."

Alternative proof:
Imagine, that the angular velocity of bullet C is zero: w=0. Then segment ABC with axis of symmetry W is changing its direction in described way.
Then we let C rotate very very slowly: w=0.0000000000001 rad/sec. Then, because the system is physical, the ABC and W will continue the same action in described way. That means Newton's First law as conservation of direction of segment between two small free objects (not only the conservation of angular momentum we see in inertial laboratory!).

So your "Alternative proof" is quite unnecessary and meaningless.

The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Same thing: "Science is possible to refute." Why then not to take opportunity? It is just like possibility of opening the can of fish. It is possible to open can, why then not?! "The theory is Scientific, if it can be shown, that theory is wrong."

The possibility that a can is able to be opened is quite diferent to someone being able to do it.

But no, "Science" is not what is 'falsifiable" because that statement is quite meaningless.
It is the individual theories of science that are falsifiable but sure If it is possible to open can, why then not? But real science is attempting to do that all the time.

Why nobody is laughing at this Popper's idea?
Perhaps theory is Science, if it can be rather proven or at least confirmed several times? The Popper's idea is not the same as saying "Possibly, the Science is refutable." Latter rejects the Popper as established, unshakable method of Science.

No a hypothesis might be taken as a theory when is has been confirmed by sufficient observations and is shown to have predictive value.
Newton's Laws Theories of Motion and Gravitation certainly had predictive value as they not only showed the reason for Kepler's hypothesised elliptical orbits but the oblateness of the earth.
Newton's value for that oblateness, approximate though it was, agreed quite closely with measurements taken soon after and to this day.

Popper's idea is that the theories of science have to be "falsifiable".
They will, however, remain "theories of science" until they are falsified and will then have their range of applicability limited and/or be replaced by a better theory.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eratosthenes according to FE Wiki

« on: December 03, 2018, 12:05:38 AM »

You can't conclude either from this single measurement. If you presume a round Earth, you get an idea for circumference. If you presume flat, you have height of the sun. If you add a second or more measurements, preferably from different latitudes, you can start to get an idea on round vs flat. But one measurement won't answer that question.

Even Eratosthenes angle of 7.2° and the 45° angle of Voliva's method give height differences to raise questions.

If we use the modern distance between Alexandria and Syene (Aswan) of 800 km and the reported angle of ¹/₅₀ part of a circle
the height of the sun comes out as 800/tan(7.2°) = 6333km or 3935 miles above the earth.

But when a comparable experiment is done, as in Voliva's method, with a 45° angle and a distance of 3113 miles (for a FE diameter of 24,900 miles) the sun's height comes out to 3113 miles (very close to 5000 km).

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eratosthenes according to FE Wiki

« on: December 02, 2018, 12:18:47 PM »

The wiki says

It's a common misconception that Eratosthenes was measuring the circumference of the round earth in his shadow experiment. Eratosthenes had simply assumed that the earth was a sphere in his experiment, based on the work of Aristotle.

This is completely false, as is shown by going back to the original Greek, as explained by Cleomedes. See below for the text. Cleomedes says that Eratosthenes made five assumptions

1. Syene and Alexandria lie under the same meridian circle (μεσημβρινῷ - literally belonging to noon, noontide)
2. the distance between the two cities is 5,000 stades
3. rays from different parts of the sun on different parts of the earth are parallel
4. straight lines falling on parallel straight lines make the alternate angles equal (this is Euclid’s fifth postulate)
5. arcs subtended by equal angles are similar

Nowhere is Eratosthenes (on this account) assuming the earth is a sphere, or basing his work on that of Aristotle. He is appealing to the work of geometers such as Euclid, the maps of his day, and the assumption of parallel light rays.

http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/b/b7/Cleomedes_greek-lat.jpg

[edit]
To avoid confusion, the image above is from the 19C Latin-Greek parallel edition. The original would have been much harder to read, and would have looked something like this

https://content.wdl.org/14757/service/thumbnail/1430184731/1024x1024/1/15.jpg

And even that manuscript dates from the 14th century. We have very few manuscripts of any sort surviving from before the 9th century. Everything we know about the ancient world is based on copies of the originals (or copies of copies of copies).

The Library, or part of its collection, was accidentally burned by Julius Caesar during his civil war in 48 BC, but it is unclear how much was actually destroyed and it seems to have either survived or been rebuilt shortly thereafter; the geographer Strabo mentions having visited the Mouseion in around 20 BC and the prodigious scholarly output of Didymus Chalcenterus in Alexandria from this period indicates that he had access to at least some of the Library's resources.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Monopole Model Perspective Explanation for Southern Star Rotation

« on: December 02, 2018, 12:11:34 PM »

The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.

It can very easily be night for people on opposite meridians if they are at a sufficient latitude. Anywhere that you have more than 12 hours of darkness in winter can have observers at opposite sides of the earth observing sigma octantis at the same time.

Santiago, Chile and Perth, Australia are nearly 180 degrees of longitude apart, and both around 30 degrees south, so both could be expected to see sigma octantis at the same time every night for months during winter. Given the lack of people objecting to star charts being inaccurate, I think it is likely that this is the case.

This is a highly questionable claim (their time zones are 13 hours apart).  Evidence?

Santiago, Chile: 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W
Perth, Australia: 31.9505° S, 115.8605° E

About 5° off being 180° opposite one another. Time zones aren't exact straight lines either. Not by a long shot.

I doubt that Santiago, Chile and Perth, Australia can be in darkness at the same time but try:
Santiago, Chile: 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W
Sydney, Australia: 33.8688° S, 151.2093° E
UTC time = Thursday, 21 June 2018 at 09:10:00.
And it will be much the same in 2019.

Mind you it's full moon and Sigma Octantis and nearby stars are barely visible to the unaided eye at the best of times.
The Southern Cross (Crux) and its "pointers" (Alpha and Beta Centauri) are far brighter but about 30° from the South Celestial Pole.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the flat earth theory explain modern technology?

« on: December 02, 2018, 02:08:17 AM »

https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html

If you really want to blow your mind just study what gravity does to space-time.  A satellite orbiting the earth really thinks it's just going thru space in a straight line.  Normally if you want to change your direction in space-time it would require a force.  If space-time itself is what is changing direction then no force is necessary to maintain an orbit.

But a rock just sitting there peacefully on the earth is going through a curved path in spacetime, ain't GR wonderful.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eratosthenes according to FE Wiki

« on: December 02, 2018, 01:32:51 AM »

There was no reliable time system. It is believed that there was not yet a reliable systems of clocks or calendars. No telephones. Here is an article from the esteemed cracked.com. The calendars in the ancient greek empire was local, "freestyling," different in different locations. It is not clear at all how this was coordinated.

It's possible that this was a very coordinated effort that took a long time to complete; but that is why some think it's a myth.

Myth or not, time-keeping is not needed.

Solar noon is when the sun is at its zenith.
In Syene, solar noon was when the sun was directly over the well and completely illuminating the water.
In Alexandria, solar noon was when the shadow was shortest but the time when it was shortest is quite immaterial. All that mattered was the shortest length of the shadow.

If we use the modern distance between Alexandria and Syene (Aswan) of 800 km and the reported angle of ¹/₅₀ part of a circle
the height of the sun comes out as 800/tan(7.2°) = 6333km or 3935 miles above the earth.

But when a comparable experiment is done, as in Voliva's method, with a 45° angle and a distance of 3113 miles (for a FE diameter of 24,900 miles) the sun's height comes out to 3113 miles (very close to 5000 km).

Alexandria had a nice library where Eratosthenes could check out books.

Eratosthenes didn't need to "check out books". he was chief librarian. APS News: This Month in Physics History June, ca. 240 B.C. Eratosthenes Measures the Earth

30

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 08, 2018, 09:22:18 PM »

Are there others here who would like to chime in with actually proof Australia’s landmass does indeed match the established curvature charts for a Earth with a 3959 mile radius?

You show how you derived your "curvature" first thank you!

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia & Chile FET how far apart?

« on: November 08, 2018, 12:43:30 PM »

On the "usual FE map" I believe simple map scaling indicates that Sydney to Santiago is over 25,000 km.

Your belief is wrong.

There are exactly the same amount of lines of longitude depicted on the AE map as there are on the Mercator.

True, but that is not the main issue. The spacing between those longitude lines is also extremely important:

• on the Globe, starts at zero (km/degree) at the North Pole, reaches a maximum (of 111 km/deg) on the Equator and drops to zero again at the South Pole,
  
  
• on the Mercator Projection, stays constant at all latitudes (but the scale of that projection is known to be correct only at the equator) and
• on the AE map starts from zero (km/deg) at the North Pole increases to about 175 km/deg at the Equator and finally to 349 km/deg around the "rim".[/li
  

If you want to check on my "Sydney to Santiago is over 25,000 km" just scale it off an AEP map, such as Gleason's.

.
The Wiki states that:

Erathostenes on Diameter
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Therefore we can take the distance of 500 nautical miles, multiply by 25, and find that the radius of the flat earth is about 12,250 nautical miles. Doubling that figure for the diameter we get a figure of 25,000 miles.

The Wiki's 500 nautical miles" should be 500 statute miles - check it yourself if you like.
This 25,000 miles is almost the same as 40,000 km and this can be easily used to scale that map.

No great accuracy is needed because the difference the quote airline route distance and the AEP map distance is so great.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia & Chile FET how far apart?

« on: November 08, 2018, 04:04:42 AM »

Ask any round-the-world sailor and they will quickly tell you the stormiest seas, stirred by the strongest winds, are found in the Southern Ocean. These infamously rough latitudes are labelled the "roaring 40s", "furious 50s" and "screaming 60s". ”

The Southern Ocean not the Southern Hemisphere
Main reason: This region has the longest stretches of open water. The longer the stretches on open water are, the greater surface wind force can build up, the longer is the fetch, the higher the waves.
Surface Winds (measured in 10m hight) have no direct connection to high altitude wind systems or Jet Streams. Ok, an influence on the general weather cannot be denied.

.

Jeran took us through several levels of altitude in his video

On the "usual FE map" I believe simple map scaling indicates that Sydney to Santiago is over 25,000 km.
A typical QANTAS flight QF27 takes roughly 12 hours (sometimes less). That would make the plane's average ground-speed about 2080 km/hr. Since the cruising speed of a B747-400 is 933 km/h that would require a tail-wind of about 1150 km/hr.

That seems way above any wind speed observed anywhere. Any comments?

33

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".

« on: November 07, 2018, 10:12:39 PM »

Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.
What the frell is this?
The Nikon P900 video was debunked a long time ago:

Rubbish!

(())

You haven't done your homework, as usual: read the COMMENTS.

What makes you think that I haven't? Those comments are meaningless twaddle.

Two youtube users, uriadelar and daniel purifoy simply destroy mctheemcee1's useless video.

So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!
DEBUNKED!


Another user writes:

This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom.'

"This debunks nothing! It doesn't show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesn't show the actual zooming in, says everything!

So what?

Because I was travelling I missed this but you need to get one thing straight!

"Zooming in" does not change the perspective in the slightest an I've seen no evidence to disprove that.
All "zooming in" or using a telescope can do is to magnify the image.

Look at these two screenshots:

There is no possible way that making the image larger will make the container ship become visible unless you can show how a zoom lens or telesope can bend distant light.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Math Evidence (calcs and data) corroborating turning torso and radius 6371km

« on: November 07, 2018, 09:25:42 PM »

Did you notice the horizontal horizon line from left to right as you search for the curve?

Why would anyone be searching for a curve on a globe as big as the earth is?
You can certainly see the earth going away from you in the turning torso video, it's clear how the amount of the building occluded by the curve increases with distance, exactly as predicted.

I have tried to discussing with Earthman the reason for the horizon viewed from low altitude on the Globe appearing almost precisely straight, horizontal and at eye-level.

The end result is that he is more convinced than ever that a straight, horizontal horizon proves the earth to be flat, end of story.

And he has "invented" this proof that the earth is flat:

At random the idea of Flat Earth passed in front of my computer screen a few months back. I am an inventor and I love a challenge, so this intrigued me. I thought, “I can debunk this.”

I started with the Blueprint of the Globe Earth theory, the curvature chart. If anything will prove Earth is a Ball, this will. If it doesn't, I will find I have been deceived.

I picked the (width) landmass of Florida to see if the surface curvature matched the Earth curvature chart of a 3959 mile radius.

Florida is 360 miles wide.

The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'  The Globies’ curvature chart dictates there should be a high surface point of 21,586' at center, which is short 21,246' of surface curvature. 

I then applied the curvature chart to many other larger landmasses using two bodies of water as references points and found them to be a part of a plane Earth too. 

I now understand why Globies will not use their own Blueprint to prove Earth has curvature; it’s because it proves the opposite. It's quite ironic that the Globe Earth theory is destroyed by their own curvature chart. Hahahahaha

If you want to know how flat Earth is, use a curvature chart as a reference along with widths and elevations of land masses between two bodies of water.  If you do this you will see that even intelligent people are deceived with this fake Globe Earth crap.

He seems to have it all sewn up.

35

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video

« on: November 07, 2018, 06:13:40 AM »

Oh, but I am providing a lot of evidence of NASA's fake crap. You little negative remark means nothing. There are many readers here who have not seen this evidence and they see you guys are up a creek without a paddle.

No you are not. If NASA were trying to make fake videos you would never detect the glitches, artefacts and apparent anomalies.
The fact that happen and NASA releases them to the public is far more evidence of NASA's openness than their covering anything up.

36

Flat Earth Community / Re: What made you believe in the Flat Earth?

« on: November 07, 2018, 06:02:10 AM »

I picked the (width) landmass of Florida to see if the surface curvature matched the Earth curvature chart of a 3959 mile radius.

Florida is 360 miles wide.

The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'  The Globies’ curvature chart dictates there should be a high surface point of 21,586' at center, which is short 21,246' of surface curvature. 

Now please describe how you determined that "The highest surface point (of Florida) above the coast line of the gulf and ocean is 340'".

37

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".

« on: November 07, 2018, 05:46:35 AM »

It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe.

Not quite. The "Sinking Ship Effect" was just one of the pieces of evidence.

Pythagoras' pupils, if not the great man himself, knew that the Earth is round. Traveller's tales of ships disappearing over the horizon and the Pole Star shifting to a higher position in the sky as one journeyed north suggested a curved Earth.

sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.

Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator).

And during the Greek period there were measure of the:
      distance to the moon (not vastly different from the modern value),
      distance to the sun (vastly less than the modern value, but still some 9 million kilometers away) and
      the circumference of the earth (probably close to the modern value but doubts remain.
This was just the work of the early Greeks but that was extended and more accurate measurements done by the early Arabs, Persians and Indians in the latter half of the first millennium till around 1200 AD.

Some might think it strange that the observation that the sun (moon and stars) appear to rise from behind the horizon and to set behind the horizon was not one of these pieces of evidence.
But that was never an issue. The earlier flat-earth "models" of the Babylonians and earlier Greeks already included that as something quite obvious.

However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent.

I totally disagree. The variability of atmospheric conditions has been known and investigated for a long time.
A light path just skimming the water (or land) surface often produces anomalous propagation when the water (or land) surface temperature differs greatly from the air temperature.

More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

As noted above, such variability is to be expected. To be meaningful these observations must be repeated under different conditions and in different seasons.

In the experiment in the OP the flash of light appears exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower.

As I said above, "exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower" is precisely where the temperature gradient is highest.
If the water differs greatly from the air temperature some sort of anomalous propagation.

Bit so often flat-earthers quibble about the hidden height not matching the Globe expectations when if the earth were flat none should be hidden.

38

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".

« on: November 06, 2018, 08:07:32 PM »

Laser tests prove Earth is flat:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71768.0

You cannot "prove Earth is flat" from a few short distance laser tests especially when conducted close to a water or ice surface.

If they "prove Earth is flat" what do these prove

Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1

Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.

Look at these two screenshots:

[/quote]

The camera height is not given but one comment (by a flat-earther) is that it's about 33 ft (or 10 m).
This would make the (refracted) horizon about 12 km away with the nearer ship a little closer.

The Discovery Channel video was debunked a long time ago...
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67101.msg1791747#msg1791747

Am I missing something? I see no reference to the "Discovery Channel video" in that post?

39

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Washington Monument to the Gateway Arch what can you see?

« on: November 06, 2018, 12:37:16 PM »

So why can we see the moon through haze and smog etc. on the horizon from one end of the earth to the other plus it's 3,000 mile flat earth distance

Don't ask me about what might happen on a flat earth - that's not my problem.

or 239k miles RE?

On the Globe, when the moon is overhead the effective thickness of the atmosphere is only about 9 km and
when on the horizon (if my memory serves me correctly) the effective thickness of the atmosphere is roughly 200 km.

If the air is "very dirty" the moon cannot be seen when close to the horizon but when the atmosphere is clear the moon can be quite sharp though less bright and redder than when overhead.

But all this evades the point/the question, which is, and we'll get right to the point without playing anymore circle jerk games.

What obstructs your vision from seeing an object more than 10 miles away on a clear calm day on the ocean from say 6 feet above see level, with or without a telescope?

Now that is also my question - the $64,000 one !

40

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".

« on: November 06, 2018, 12:25:43 PM »

Do not even attempt your usual BS tactics on this forum.

I'll ignore your attempt at demeaning but your usual mode of attack seems to attack the messenger.

Ducting is the most pronounced form of looming, an extremely rare phenomenon, which requires very special atmospheric conditions.

Ducting requires the value for the ray curvature, k, to be greater than or equal to 1.

This amounts to at least a five degree difference in temperature.

DIfference between where and where?

For the very same geographical/hydrographical conditions, for the same latitude in question, for two observers located on the opposite shores, it is absolutely impossible to have a five degree difference, at the very same instant of time - moreover, looming/ducting do not apply to the case presented here.

It is not the temperature difference between the observers that matters but the vertical temperature gradient in the atmosphere.

So a temperature inversion (i.e., increasing upward, instead of the usual decrease) of about 0.11°/m will produce a circulating beam or ray.

[/quote]
So a shallow duct only needs a small temperature difference and with cold water and warm than can and does happen.

Please explain why "ducting does not apply to the case presented here."

The use of the mirror is a brilliant idea.

Who suggested a mirror? A mirage requires mirroring but not looming or ducting - different animals.