[edby]

Not mythbusters, but metabunk https://www.metabunk.org/stand-up-to-detect-the-curve-of-the-earth.t8364/

Not disputing the claim that simply standing up can reveal parts of distant objects hidden by the horizon, but failing to understand the geometry. It seems implausible that changing your height by 5-6 feet can reveal say 20-30 feet of the distant object.

My only explanation is that it's like a 5' wall that is close to you. Sitting down, you can't see any of a 5,000 foot mountain. Stand up, so you can see over the top of the wall, and you can see the whole mountain. But the question is what is the analogue of 'top of the wall' in the case of the horizon? Must be much closer to you than the distant object is to it.

[edby]

And here is a wonderful demonstration of it https://www.metabunk.org/curve

[Tom Bishop]

Those are called waves and swells.

See Thork's post here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=7s0qnveehrqo13t22vhqplekq7&topic=56962.msg1430186#msg1430186

[edby]

Those are called waves and swells.

See Thork's post here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=7s0qnveehrqo13t22vhqplekq7&topic=56962.msg1430186#msg1430186

Two replies: why does the swell always occur when sitting down, but never standing up? Logically swells would be random. Or we could use two cameras to take pictures at the same time, one at ground level, the other standing up.

And Tom, do you agree there would be no swell effect if the experiment were repeated in the desert, or salt flats?

[Tontogary]

Those are called waves and swells.

See Thork's post here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=7s0qnveehrqo13t22vhqplekq7&topic=56962.msg1430186#msg1430186

I would be careful in showing that link as proof.

Right at the start he makes a pretty wild claim, which puts the rest of the thread in doubt.

Thork states that 60M or more swells are seen in the ocean. Really??? Do a bit of googling for highest wave (swell) recorded, and see what you come up with. It ain’t 200 feet that is for sure.

Oh, and before your get all excited about the Alaskan tsunami, i suggest you read up on how swells and waves are affected by shallow water, and read his remark, which clearly says Ocean Swell.

Therefore what says is pretty much busted.

[Tom Bishop]

Those are called waves and swells.

See Thork's post here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=7s0qnveehrqo13t22vhqplekq7&topic=56962.msg1430186#msg1430186

I would be careful in showing that link as proof.

Right at the start he makes a pretty wild claim, which puts the rest of the thread in doubt.

Thork states that 60M or more swells are seen in the ocean. Really??? Do a bit of googling for highest wave (swell) recorded, and see what you come up with. It ain’t 200 feet that is for sure.

Oh, and before your get all excited about the Alaskan tsunami, i suggest you read up on how swells and waves are affected by shallow water, and read his remark, which clearly says Ocean Swell.

Therefore what says is pretty much busted.

The proof in the OP is based on the concept of sitting down and standing up at the shoreline. Hardly conclusive.

[Tontogary]

And your rebuttal was pretty much a thread, and you quoted Thork as the reason it was debunked.

I have shown Thork was unreliable as a witness, and has given misleading, and inaccurate statements.

[edby]

The proof in the OP is based on the concept of sitting down and standing up at the shoreline. Hardly conclusive.

It's very conclusive. It shows a simple observation that requires very little equipment or background assumptions, can show an awful lot. The geometry is fascinating. Please show why that isn't conclusive.

As I noted in another comment, your interest, and the interest of the society, should be in persuading people like me of the evidence for your claims. Haven't seen any. Everything I have seen so far consists in immediately dismissing any contrary evidence whatever, however persuasive.

[Tom Bishop]

The proof in the OP is based on the concept of sitting down and standing up at the shoreline. Hardly conclusive.

It's very conclusive. It shows a simple observation that requires very little equipment or background assumptions, can show an awful lot. The geometry is fascinating. Please show why that isn't conclusive.

As I noted in another comment, your interest, and the interest of the society, should be in persuading people like me of the evidence for your claims. Haven't seen any. Everything I have seen so far consists in immediately dismissing any contrary evidence whatever, however persuasive.

If your evidence is so easily dismissed, then maybe you should come up with better evidence.

[edby]

The proof in the OP is based on the concept of sitting down and standing up at the shoreline. Hardly conclusive.

It's very conclusive. It shows a simple observation that requires very little equipment or background assumptions, can show an awful lot. The geometry is fascinating. Please show why that isn't conclusive.

As I noted in another comment, your interest, and the interest of the society, should be in persuading people like me of the evidence for your claims. Haven't seen any. Everything I have seen so far consists in immediately dismissing any contrary evidence whatever, however persuasive.

If your evidence is so easily dismissed, then maybe you should come up with better evidence.

You ignored my first point. It is for you to persuade me. And you haven't shown me why the evidence is so easily dismissed. Please explain

[edit] Also, it is a logical fallacy that if you immediately dismisses p, then p is easily dismissed. Suppose I show you a proof of 7+5=12, and you immediately dismiss it. Does it follow that the mathematical proof is 'easily dismissed'?

[AATW]

As I've said in other threads, all evidence is easily dismissed.

"Pete shot Tom, 10 witnesses saw him do it"
"Could they all be mistaken? Maybe it was just someone who looked like Tom"
"Pete's fingerprints were on the gun..."
"How do you know Pete didn't handle the gun earlier in the day, dropped it and then someone else with gloves on picked it up and shot Tom?"

The dismissals can get increasingly ridiculous and desperate, but they are easy to do. It's not an indication that the evidence is not strong.

[edby]

As I've said in other threads, all evidence is easily dismissed.

"Pete shot Tom, 10 witnesses saw him do it"
"Could they all be mistaken? Maybe it was just someone who looked like Tom"
"Pete's fingerprints were on the gun..."
"How do you know Pete didn't handle the gun earlier in the day, dropped it and then someone else with gloves on picked it up and shot Tom?"

The dismissals can get increasingly ridiculous and desperate, but they are easy to do. It's not an indication that the evidence is not strong.

I am wondering about the 'troll' theory, although not wanting to be rude to Tom, of course. Some of the replies are preposterous in a cleverly funny sort of way. OTOH Tom is a member of the board of the FE organisation, surely he would not be risking his reputation with other members. The video of the recent conference suggested the members were entirely serious.

[AATW]

I am wondering about the 'troll' theory, although not wanting to be rude to Tom, of course. Some of the replies are preposterous in a cleverly funny sort of way. OTOH Tom is a member of the board of the FE organisation, surely he would not be risking his reputation with other members. The video of the recent conference suggested the members were entirely serious.

The possibilities with Tom are:

1) Troll
2) Not a flat earth believer but just enjoys debate, likes debating from an impossible to defend standpoint.
3) A true believer who is a mess of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

Can't quite decide which.

And just to add the strength of evidence should not be assessed by how easy it is to dismiss - any evidence can be dismissed - but how probable or valid those dismissals are. So in my example is it possible that all 10 witnesses mistook the shooter for Pete? Yes, it's possible. And is it possible that he just happened to handle the gun before the shooting. Again yes, it's possible. But are these things probable, especially in combination? As I've said elsewhere, there's a reason courts convict if something is proven beyond reasonable doubt. There will always be some doubt.

[Tumeni]

If your evidence is so easily dismissed, then maybe you should come up with better evidence.

I don't see anyone agreeing with you that it has been 'easily dismissed'. You haven't given any explanation of why it has been dismissed, other than "Tom says so" ...

[edby]

It's probably of little use to try and prove that my argument is persuasive. For this could easily dismissed: I need to prove that my argument for persuasiveness is itself persuasive, and so on ad infinitum.

But here is some reasoning about why the argument is good scientific methodology:

(1) The demonstration can be performed by absolutely anyone who is able to sit up then stand. Tom saw that is a weakness, but scientifically it is a strength. The easier an experiment can be replicated - and this is key to science - the more powerful it is.

(2) the results conform exactly to the modelled prediction. Although it seemed odd to me at first, elementary trig proves it.

Of course Tom and others can object that he is not here to do science or empirical methodology. That's a classic rebuttal you get in religious arguments and the paranormal. You can't replicate a revelation from God, e.g.

But as I understand, that is not Tom's position. Elsewhere he has commented on the importance of a scientific methodological approach etc.

So looking forward to Tom's comment. Tom?

[edby]

Also, here is the maths.

Are you dismissing mathematics, Tom?

[AATW]

Those are called waves and swells.

That doesn't explain this picture:

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170313-094520-f0g0s-jpg.25848/

As I showed elsewhere, waves can only block more than their own height if they are higher than your eye level:


And given that in the picture on metabunk the middle part of the image is 40 foot high, unless you're suggesting the waves are that high, that explanation doesn't work.

EDIT: Also, how come waves and swells don't get in the way when you're doing your (strangely undocumented) Bishop Experiment where over a 20 mile expanse of water you claim to be able to see the distant beach all the way down to the shoreline.

[Tom Bishop]

40 foot high waves? The Metabunk author is just standing up and sitting down at the shore of the beach.

[edby]

40 foot high waves? The Metabunk author is just standing up and sitting down at the shore of the beach.

You are disputing the maths, then?

[AATW]

40 foot high waves? The Metabunk author is just standing up and sitting down at the shore of the beach.

Look at the picture I linked to. In that example he takes 3 photos from 6 feet, 40 feet and 80 feet.
So even if we accept that 6 feet waves are occluding the distant hills in the first photo, that cannot be the explanation for the second and 3rd.
And how come waves and swells aren't an issue in your Bishop experiment when your eye level is allegedly 20 inches.

Your claim is that in the photo I linked to waves are the explanation for occlusion with a viewer height of 6 feet, but in the Bishop Experiment you claim:

With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

You don't see any problem here?