[huh?]

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.

[huh?]

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.

[huh?]

 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.

[huh?]

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. 

[huh?]

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

[huh?]

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.



 

[huh?]

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.

[huh?]

Well at least it turns out that the solar system is kinda flat in this desert model:

'This is a scale model of the solar system like you've never seen before'
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-scale-solar-youve.html

[Rayzor]

Well at least it turns out that the solar system is kinda flat in this desert model:

'This is a scale model of the solar system like you've never seen before'
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-scale-solar-youve.html

Thanks for that link,  very impressive.
Here is another attempt at a scale model of the solar system..   

http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

[huh?]

Fun, I did not actually scroll all the way (gave up after Saturn and clicked the links instead)
Lots of emptiness out there.

[geckothegeek]

Fun, I did not actually scroll all the way (gave up after Saturn and clicked the links instead)
Lots of emptiness out there.

More than 3,000 miles ?

[andruszkow]

We don't know anything. The matter-wave controversy in atomic theory is but one controversy of many.

Science cannot be relied on as an arbiter of truth. There are so many questions, so many inconsistencies, one is left to fend for themselves in a sea of uncertainty. The Flat Earth Theory is our interpretation of physical phenomena, and we have gathered supporting evidence to demonstrate it.

No, you actually haven't.

[huh?]

I have developed my own theory.

Current string theory suggests that there are many more dimensions than we see and it is possible that more than one "reality" can exist at any point and time.

My theory is that the web has created an interdimensional bridge between alternate realities. Some people here live on a ho hum round world but others live on a flat world where physics works by seemingly arbitrary rules and 99.999 percent of the population is either, too ignorant to figure out they live on a flat earth, or are involved in a conspiracy to conceal that fact.

Or perhaps my alternate theory is that every persons reality is slightly different from anyone else's because of small differences in genetics and environment. 

Personally I prefer the simpler round world so that makes me a simpleton. 

[Tom Bishop]

Personally I prefer the simpler round world so that makes me a simpleton.

Actually, the simplest explanation is that the earth is flat.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor

Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which accelerates my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, black holes, quasars and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky exactly they appear to be?

[Rayzor]

Actually, the simplest explanation is that the earth is flat.

<snipped wiki>

Occam's Razor can be used to choose between two otherwise equivalent views,   the flat earth view is not equivalent to the round earth view.

The flat earth view fails to explain many aspects of the world as we observe it.  So, while it is simpler in some sense,  it is certainly not equivalent.

Taking another example,  of applying Occam's Razor ...

The geocentric view of the solar system is vastly more complex than the heliocentric view,  and in that case they are in fact  equivalent,  the Ptolemaic solar system is mathematically equivalent to the Copernican solar system,  but the heliocentric Copernican system is vastly simpler. 

[Tom Bishop]

What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and they could predict cosmic events to precision.

In fact, Round Earthers are notorious for using Ancient Babylonian methods to predict stellar events, calling those equations as a part of the accepted model, when none of it is true and the equations have nothing to do with a round earth.

[Rayzor]

What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and could predict cosmic events to precision.

I'm not sure that's a relevant connection.   After all you can make predictions of eclipses and other cosmic events without referring to the shape of the earth. 

The Babylonians didn't have GPS, Satellite TV,  weather satellites.  Scientific Research Stations at the South Pole.  They hadn't even seen the southern skies,  and, If they did,  I'm pretty sure the Babylonians would have concluded the earth was a globe,  as the Greeks did.

[Tom Bishop]

What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and could predict cosmic events to precision.

I'm not sure that's a relevant connection.   After all you can make predictions of eclipses and other cosmic events without referring to the shape of the earth. 

The Babylonians didn't have GPS, Satellite TV,  weather satellites.  Scientific Research Stations at the South Pole.  They hadn't even seen the southern skies,  and, If they did,  I'm pretty sure the Babylonians would have concluded the earth was a globe,  as the Greeks did.

Many modern FE'ers support the bi-polar model, so criticisms about stars in the south and Antarctic bases are moot.

NASA's fraudulence is well documented. If the Babylonians had access to all of the sketchy and questionable errors in NASA's media, they would conclude that NASA is a fake, too.

Round Earth astronomy is hokey and appalling. Today if you go onto NASA's Lunar Eclipse website, the method given for finding when the next eclipse will occur involves looking at the Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle, a method created by Flat Earthers. Pathetic.

[Rayzor]

What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and could predict cosmic events to precision.

I'm not sure that's a relevant connection.   After all you can make predictions of eclipses and other cosmic events without referring to the shape of the earth. 

The Babylonians didn't have GPS, Satellite TV,  weather satellites.  Scientific Research Stations at the South Pole.  They hadn't even seen the southern skies,  and, If they did,  I'm pretty sure the Babylonians would have concluded the earth was a globe,  as the Greeks did.

Many modern FE'ers support the bi-polar model, so criticisms about stars in the south and Antarctic bases are moot.

NASA's fraudulence is well documented. If the Babylonians had access to all of the sketchy and questionable errors in NASA's media, they would conclude that NASA is a fake, too.

Round Earth astronomy is hokey and appalling. Today if you go onto NASA's Lunar Eclipse website, the method given for finding when the next eclipse will occur involves looking at the Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle, a method created by Flat Earthers. Pathetic.

I was hoping you'd bring the bi-polar model into the discussion,  I've yet to hear how a flat earth can have two poles of rotation.   Geometrically it makes no sense to me. 

The other unanswered question for the bipolar model, is where is the edge?   I did read Sandokhan's post with pictures of solar eclipses in Antarctica,  but that's not the edge.    The edge must surround the flat earth, and therefore be reachable by sailing in just about any direction,  yet no-one has ever found it?

We can discuss NASA another day. 

[andruszkow]

Tom, I see you use the words "well documented" every freaking time you enter a debate here, and yet, there's no documentation. Never, ever are you able to provide any hard evidence, other than the same stupid explanations and "excuses" for your fragile theories which are basically just a projection of your fragile mind.

Provide SOMETHING, please! Words just don't cut it in 2015.