[huh?]

You don't know anything about life. You only have concepts.
The word' to exist' has no meaning. You can only come up with a definition, a concept.

And what about 'God'. You don't know what it is and if it 'exists'. You only have an illusionary idea in your mind.
I question even the concept of a mind. Does a 'mind' or 'thought' exist? Does an image of a building on your computer screen 'exist'?

I think that all words have meaning -otherwise they would just be sounds.
I do not see why it matters whether or not God is only my idea.

Does a 'mind' or 'thought' exist?   -I enjoy thought experiments.

Well what does it mean to exist? we are here having a conversation so obviously something exists
If nothing existed than the universe would be empty and there would not be anything to have a conversation

So for the sake of discussion say we are both being imagined by God. Do we really exist or does just God exist? If we are in fact just Gods thoughts than would not that make us in reality, God?

That is a funny notion that God would imagine us not knowing that we are actually just imagination but anyway...

But the fact that we do not know what in reality we are is not important. If I think that I have freewill it makes no real difference whether I actually do or not.

If I believe I have a white shirt on than that is useful knowledge. The fact that there may be some one who comes along and says my shirt is actually black is irrelevant unless there is some relevant use. If I offer to pay $100 to everyone who comes to my door wearing a white shirt I will get a lot of people wearing white shirts. So in that case knowing is a mutual understanding of what white is.

[huh?]

"Only if you do tests and experiments yourself, you will find out if it is reasonable to question the concepts and information other people give you."

No there would not be enough time to test all possible information if I lived one million years. It simply is not a practical proposition.

Rationally, the only time I need to question knowledge is when the knowledge I have is giving me a problem.

For example, if I need to call someone in Australia and I look at Google Earth to determine an appropriate time and then when I make the call I find out that Google Earth is wrong then that would give me cause to question it's veracity.   

 

[Pongo]

[Christ, come back after you've had high school physics. I don't have much interest in teaching people the round-earth model. It never ceases to amaze me how people can defend something so completely that they clearly know almost nothing about.

Oh, now I really want to know -what is "the theory of gravity"?

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

[huh?]

"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.

[huh?]

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.
 

[huh?]

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.

[huh?]

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.

[huh?]

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

[Pongo]

"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.

I can't help your disappointment. It's not my theory.

[huh?]

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"

[geckothegeek]

Getting back to the old "ship going beyond the horizon" subject.

But when I first discovered this website there were three "flat earth" things that struck me as being so absolutely erroneous that I couldn't believe them.:
(1) The distance from the earth to the moon.
(2) The horizon.
(3) The distance to the horizon.

All of these can be proven for a round, or globular shape word and none of the flat earth make sense when compared with the facts and evidence. I could go into detail on all of these but they have been gone over in detail several times on this website.

I still think it's just an act and it is useless to present any thing other that flat earth except on the debate section. But that is just the rules of the website and you have to abide with them.-

[huh?]

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.

[huh?]

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. 

[geckothegeek]

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.

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.
But there is also the question of the shape as viewed . The sun would appear if it "acted like a spotlight". It would appear as an ellipse at "sunrise" and "sunset" and circular only when it passed overhead at "noon" on the flat earth.

And the question of the horizon and the distance to the horizon is one of the simplest fallacies of flat earth. So many others.

I have visited another website. They believe that the book of Isaiah (40:22) proves that the earth is flat. Biblical scholars explain that this was written in the time with what was known at that time . Sort of the mind-set of the "If I look out my window it looks flat."

But after visiting these websites I have come to the conclusion that  no amount of explanation is going to change the mind set of a flat earther , so it's just a waste of time as far as posting any true facts and evidence any way. But they are interesting if you like to look at things from a realistic point of view to explain how things really work.

[huh?]

"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.



 

[geckothegeek]

I've really given up on trying to explain obvious explanations and just visit these websites mostly for the fun and entertainment. You do get some valuable information but it is always from "round earthers."

Read my signature line. (On the other FES forum website.) LOL.

[huh?]

"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.

[geckothegeek]

"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.

Right. Correction to my post. The brightness of the sun would also gradually increase and decrease as it passed from "sunrise" to "sunset."

There is also the question of seeing things through the atmosphere. There were reports from the Titanic survivors in life boats that they observed stars rising and setting on the horizon for example.
Of course the horizon would appear much closer to them  since they were only a few feet above sea level .The horizon would appear to be much farther away to some one in the crow's nest. That is another fact that can not be disputed.

If the earth was flat why didn't Frederick Fleet ever report seeing the ice ring from the crow's nest on the Titanic ? If the air was so clear that night  why didn't the people in the life boats report seeing the stars rising and setting above the ice ring ? LOL

[huh?]

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

[huh?]

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: