[YukiTheGlobeEarther]

For as long as I can remember I have always known the Earth is round, when I was a kid I went on a boat and saw the coastline disappear bottom first, as you would expect from a round object. I've always wondered since knowing about the FES how people could believe the Earth is flat, but that's my personal experience. How did you come to believe that the Earth was flat? I really want to know.

[Cypher9]

 Boats at the horizon disappearing bottom up They're not really disappearing over the curve as you might think. Even if the earth was a globe and the size we're told it is, the curve wouldn't be noticeable only a few miles out to sea which is more or less the furthest our eyes can see looking across a large body of water. What is happening is the atmosphere is acting like a lens. This short video explains it:



Watch the whole thing if you've got the time, it's quite interesting. If you haven't the time the demonstration begins at around the 1:45 mark.

[stack]

...only a few miles out to sea which is more or less the furthest our eyes can see looking across a large body of water.

Here's a non-zoomed in shot taken from the shoreline at Niagara-on-the-Lake looking across to the Toronto skyline way, way off in the distance, about 30 miles away. So what's this about only being able to see a few miles?

[Cypher9]

Standing by the water's edge in front of the ocean not from a height looking down is what I should have said.

[stack]

Standing by the water's edge in front of the ocean not from a height looking down is what I should have said.

The shot is pretty close to the waters edge. Maybe 10' higher than standing right where the water laps at your feet. So still 10' feet or so doesn't jive with a 3 mile limitation when you can see 30. The difference in height doesn't warrant that sort of spread.

[Cypher9]

If you were standing on the beach watching boats disappearing over the horizon they're really not that far away at all. That's all I'm saying.

[stack]

If you were standing on the beach watching boats disappearing over the horizon they're really not that far away at all. That's all I'm saying.

Fair enough.
However there are a couple of problems with that guy's video. For one in both examples his eyeline is subterranean. He is literally below the surface of the table in the first and deep in the grass in the second. So that's weirdly inaccurate and not depicting reality. For two, sometimes atmospheric lensing/refraction is severe, sometimes moderate, and sometimes non-existent. Yet we see the hull disappearing first effect consistently across the spectrum of those environments.

[Pete Svarrior]

Here's a non-zoomed in shot taken from the shoreline at Niagara-on-the-Lake looking across to the Toronto skyline way, way off in the distance, about 30 miles away. So what's this about only being able to see a few miles?

An impressive approximation of the Bishop Experiment. Thanks for sharing!

[Longtitube]

Boats at the horizon disappearing bottom up They're not really disappearing over the curve as you might think. Even if the earth was a globe and the size we're told it is, the curve wouldn't be noticeable only a few miles out to sea which is more or less the furthest our eyes can see looking across a large body of water. What is happening is the atmosphere is acting like a lens. This short video explains it:



Watch the whole thing if you've got the time, it's quite interesting. If you haven't the time the demonstration begins at around the 1:45 mark.

Okay, I watched the whole thing. So, if I dig a hole in the beach to get my eye below beach level, I won't be able to see the shoreline of the opposite coast. Did I get that right? And the unzoomed photo of Toronto, if I use a magnifying glass it should be possible to see kids playing on the Toronto shore and people sunbathing? Possibly there's something missing in the instructions, 'cos I'm not seeing them like in the Bishop experiment.

[stack]

Here's a non-zoomed in shot taken from the shoreline at Niagara-on-the-Lake looking across to the Toronto skyline way, way off in the distance, about 30 miles away. So what's this about only being able to see a few miles?

An impressive approximation of the Bishop Experiment. Thanks for sharing!

Your welcome!

However, when zoomed in, unlike the Bishop experiment, one would not be able to "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."

All of those children, sun bathers, joggers, and dogs would be drowned according to the zoomed in image from the same view of Toronto from Niagra-on-the-Lake:

[Pete Svarrior]

However, when zoomed in, unlike the Bishop experiment, one would not be able to "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."

Perhaps I misread your tone, but you seem to be claiming that this helps your case, almost with a little bit of snark? Surely it's obvious that an experiment performed over a much larger distance will yield vastly different results?

Nonetheless, by your own account, this is a fantastic example of being able to see much farther than RET should allow, with (seemingly) just over 50m of the tower having disappeared when the expected number for RET would have been more in the ballpark of 150.

[Tom Bishop]

The sinking almost never reflects what is predicted for a Round Earth. They think that just because this effect exists that it proves that the earth is round.

They have to bring in other effects like refraction to account for the difference, which nullifies the original claim that Sinking = RE.

[stack]

However, when zoomed in, unlike the Bishop experiment, one would not be able to "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."

Perhaps I misread your tone, but you seem to be claiming that this helps your case, almost with a little bit of snark? Surely it's obvious that an experiment performed over a much larger distance will yield vastly different results?

Nonetheless, by your own account, this is a fantastic example of being able to see much farther than RET should allow, with (seemingly) just over 50m of the tower having disappeared when the expected number for RET would have been more in the ballpark of 150.

Equally, if not not more so, a fantastic example of why on a flat earth nothing should be hidden. Much like in all of these other ones:



And here:

[Tom Bishop]

In each of your images you put forward for RE it is unknown what the observer height is. So this evidence which supposedly matches a globe earth is invalid.

[Pete Svarrior]

Equally, if not not more so, a fantastic example of why on a flat earth nothing should be hidden.

This is incorrect, and you know better than this. Please don't return to your old ways.

[stack]

In each of your images you put forward for RE it is unknown what the observer height is. So this evidence which supposedly matches a globe earth is invalid.

I happen to not agree. There's no calculation presented as to how much should be hidden or not for just that reason - The observer height is unknown. Just a visual representation of some hidden amount and it's unclear on a flat earth why anything should be hidden at all.

In the wiki regarding "Sinking Ship" effect it states one of the reasons for the phenomenon may be:

"Refraction
At other times the sinking ship cannot be reversed with optical magnification. In these cases the cause of the sinking effect is seen to be related to the common inferior mirage which regularly occurs for long periods of time over the surface of water. Over a period of time this sinking effect will disappear, revealing distant bodies."

But you say here that RE uses refraction which nullifies the claim:

They have to bring in other effects like refraction to account for the difference, which nullifies the original claim that Sinking = RE.

So is refraction a cause for why the bottoms of distant objects are obscured? I've always been a little confused as to what actually causes the "hidden" area to exist on a flat earth. And if refraction is solely a flat earth phenomenon.

[RhesusVX]

So is refraction a cause for why the bottoms of distant objects are obscured? I've always been a little confused as to what actually causes the "hidden" area to exist on a flat earth. And if refraction is solely a flat earth phenomenon.

For me, I just can't help referring back to the Rainy Lake experiment which is pretty rigorous in terms of eliminating, or accounting for as many variables as possible to give flat Earth a fair chance:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment

Refraction, if we are to all agree is a phenomenon we observe, happens in both RET and FET to largely the same extent for the same reasons.  The refractive index of air at different densities and the refraction coefficient on average is pretty well known.  Over water especially, and where there are higher temperature differences between the surface and the air, you tend to get more refraction that (typically) causes light to bend down towards the Earth, and in some cases follow the curvature (i.e. causes you to see things much further away than you would do normally, making it appear that the Earth could be flat).

In a flat Earth model, you could reasonably argue that light from the bottom of a tall tower could get refracted down towards the surface of the Earth before it reaches your eyes, making it appear as though the bottom of the tower is indeed below the horizon.  This effect would be compounded on a round Earth due to curvature and refraction.  Without knowing what the atmospheric conditions were, pressure, temperature etc., and not knowing the refraction coefficient, it is hard to say in those images how much is refraction and how much is curvature. 

This is why I return to the Rainy Lake experiment, because there they are on a frozen lake, known conditions, measured refraction coefficient to account for it, with targets of accurately known heights and shapes that are set where refraction should be minimised.

[Cypher9]

For as long as I can remember I have always known the Earth is round, when I was a kid I went on a boat and saw the coastline disappear bottom first, as you would expect from a round object. I've always wondered since knowing about the FES how people could believe the Earth is flat, but that's my personal experience. How did you come to believe that the Earth was flat? I really want to know.

This video shows what happens when refraction is added to a scene in Cinema 4D. It might be of use to you perhaps.

[RhesusVX]

This video shows what happens when refraction is added to a scene in Cinema 4D. It might be of use to you perhaps.

https://youtu.be/1XoFnXX4UOI

What use is the video meant to be?  All it does is show that refraction can, depending on extent (which is unknown in that video) make it appear as though something in the distance is shorter than you'd expect, or even not visible at all.  In of itself it shows nothing about the shape of the Earth, only the possible effect of atmospheric refraction which is basically the same process in both models.  Maybe a curved surface alone would not be enough to create the pronounced effect as shown in some of the images earlier, but it would certainly compound the effect of refraction.

Another problem with that video is the likelihood that it is designed using round Earth physics, as in light travels in a straight line unless it bends due to refraction, which it presumably accurately models.  In flat Earth theory light doesn't travel in a straight line, it curves away from the surface of the Earth due to Electromagnetic Acceleration.  This unknown force is not modelled in Cinema 4D out of the box, so unless they somehow accounted for that, the rendering is not showing what you'd expect to see on a flat Earth.

I know that the curve due to EA increases with distance, but if you look at the wiki the effect is used to illuminate clouds from underneath.  Given that the highest clouds are still only a few miles high, this gives you an idea of the kinds of distances you can expect to see significant curvature away from the surface of the Earth.  Looking out miles to sea, the effect of EA on distant objects would be pronounced.

[Cypher9]

This video shows what happens when refraction is added to a scene in Cinema 4D. It might be of use to you perhaps.

https://youtu.be/1XoFnXX4UOI

What use is the video meant to be?  All it does is show that refraction can, depending on extent (which is unknown in that video) make it appear as though something in the distance is shorter than you'd expect, or even not visible at all.  In of itself it shows nothing about the shape of the Earth, only the possible effect of atmospheric refraction which is basically the same process in both models.  Maybe a curved surface alone would not be enough to create the pronounced effect as shown in some of the images earlier, but it would certainly compound the effect of refraction.

It shows how refraction can fool people into thinking the horizon curves downwards thus making them believe the world is a globe.